Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

IGNORED

Question for Jeff Fletcher re: Richards


Chuck

Recommended Posts

Hi @Jeff Fletcher, I read the latest report that there is no timetable for Richards' return and that JC Ramirez would be taking over as his replacement.

Is this stained bicep something else that the Angels are hiding? We've seen them say one thing initially that seems mild, then change their diagnosis later on to something major. 

Or is this just the Angels being overly cautious with their ace so that they do not risk further injury, so they can count on having him for a full season this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not Jeff but Scioscia said this today:

 

Quote

The Halos are uncertain how long Richards will be out, meaning they don't know how much recovery time he will need or how many starts they would like to get from Ramirez.

"I don't know," Scioscia said. "We don't have a crystal ball, but I think the opportunity for JC to pitch is there, and hopefully he'll take advantage of it. Right now there is no time frame on how long he'll be in our rotation. It could be the whole year."

http://m.angels.mlb.com/news/article/224072472/angels-jc-ramirez-to-make-first-career-start/

Doesn't sound very encouraging to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had the last 2 days off so I don't know. 

I assume they are naturally being extra cautious though. 

And if it turns out to be more serious, it would be because the diagnosis changes, not because they're lying about it. There's no benefit to lying about something if they know they're going to have to admit the truth later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I've had the last 2 days off so I don't know. 

I assume they are naturally being extra cautious though. 

And if it turns out to be more serious, it would be because the diagnosis changes, not because they're lying about it. There's no benefit to lying about something if they know they're going to have to admit the truth later. 

Cute, but lets be real. Angels lie ALL THE TIME about medical conditions. See: literally, Richards last year, going down for "dehydration". I mean, its fine; its because they don't respect their fan base at all. I guess we've all made the choice that we're okay with that, but it kinda sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Cute, but lets be real. Angels lie ALL THE TIME about medical conditions. See: literally, Richards last year, going down for "dehydration". I mean, its fine; its because they don't respect their fan base at all. I guess we've all made the choice that we're okay with that, but it kinda sucks.

One of the funniest things I ever read here was that the Angels do that because they don't want to get into any HIPPA violations.

Yet in every other sport - NFL, college basketball, etc. - in-game injuries are sliced/diced/dissected, discussed by the coach in sideline interviews, discussed by the sideline reporters via discussions with trainers.

Angels management, proud members of Pravda, never ever give accurate information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, yk9001 said:

One of the funniest things I ever read here was that the Angels do that because they don't want to get into any HIPPA violations.

Yet in every other sport - NFL, college basketball, etc. - in-game injuries are sliced/diced/dissected, discussed by the coach in sideline interviews, discussed by the sideline reporters via discussions with trainers.

Angels management, proud members of Pravda, never ever give accurate information.

Well and thats the thing. If it were a legal issue, they would say "we are looking into it," not "oh, its nothing, he just had to pee so we pulled him out of the game." The information they give is just boldface lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ScottT said:

What was the benefit of saying he was dehydrated last year?

Exactly. So the conspiracy theorists are suggesting the Angels knew he had damaged his UCL but just said he was dehydrated so they could make their fans feel better for 5 days? Or maybe they thought the UCL would miraculously heal in 5 days and no one would have to know? Or they thought they could just say he's dehydrated for the rest of the season?

This is what I think happened: he came out of the game and described his symptoms. They made a diagnosis immediately (without an MRI) based on his description. 

After a few days, in which he actually played catch, which he wouldn't have done if they had known his UCL was damaged, it still didn't feel right. So they had an MRI. The MRI showed the extent of the damage. 

End of story. 

Thats why he had an MRI this time before throwing at all. If the MRI showed structural damage, what would be the benefit of them saying it didn't? If he can't pitch, there needs to be a reason. So the MRI showed nothing wrong with his UCL but clearly he or the team or both don't feel he's ready to throw yet. If this continues much longer - and it's still only been 9 days - he will probably have another MRI that will or will not show something. 

Certainly there is no reason for them to give alarming possible diagnoses before they know what's happening, but after they do there's no reason to lie about it.

I suppose the only upside might be if you're trying to make a trade for a starter and don't want to seem desperate, but I suspect any other GM would figure that out. If the Angels suddenly are asking about starters, they would assume it's because Richards is seriously hurt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jay said:

Did anybody really think that Richards would be healthy?

 

When I first heard that Richards was going to forgo TJ surgery I posted here that it would likely be a miracle if he makes it out of ST.  Well he made it out of ST, so maybe he'll be able to make it back again this year but I really think the odds are not in his favor. Hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...