Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Whats up with Baker

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 travistwinstalk

travistwinstalk

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:41 AM

I read Joe C's blog yesterday and something caught me off guard. the comment was, "Altchek is the doctor who performed Tommy John surgery on former Twins closer Joe Nathan and prospect Kyle Gibson, among others. But the good news is that, according to the Twins, there doesn't appear to be enough structural damage to keep Baker out for a long time" My question is what is meant by "there doesnt appear to be enough structural damage" does that mean there is some structural damage, but not enough to have surgery or what does it mean. If someone has some insight on this I would appreciate it. Seems very cryptic to me cause to me he either has structural damage or he doesn't. There should not be a gray area as either there is something wrong or there isn't so I am curious what is going on.

#2 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,068 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:46 AM

Obviously there is something wrong. Baker's in a walk year, he's not going to be sitting out unless he's really being bothered by that arm. No one seems to be able to figure out what the problem is and that seems to be causing a lot of frustration.

#3 travistwinstalk

travistwinstalk

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 102 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:02 PM

Twins have a 9.5 option on Baker and if he could pitch like he did last year when healthy there is no reason why he wouldnt have his option picked up so its not necessarily a walk year, but it is appearing to be one. If the Twins had to decide today it is more than likely that they wouldn't pick up his option. My question of the 5 starters projected to start this year in Pavano, Liriano, Baker, Blackburn, and Marquis how many do you predict will come back in 2013. My prediction is Blackburn and Pavano who I expect them to give him a 1 year deal to come back.

#4 Teflon

Teflon

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 241 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:13 PM

No one seems to be able to figure out what the problem is and that seems to be causing a lot of frustration.


This seems to be the tagline of the Twins training staff.

#5 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,292 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:18 PM

My question is what is meant by "there doesnt appear to be enough structural damage" does that mean there is some structural damage, but not enough to have surgery or what does it mean. If someone has some insight on this I would appreciate it. Seems very cryptic to me cause to me he either has structural damage or he doesn't. There should not be a gray area as either there is something wrong or there isn't so I am curious what is going on.


I think that picking the mind of the Twins' staff and trainers is a futile exercise.

That said, reading between the lines and knowing enough of that crap, "not enough" damage means some damage. And since we are talking about an MRI that can tell things like tears, fractures, punctures, foreign objects and tumors but not things like "tentonitis", "strain" or "inflammation" (at least orthopedic & tissue inflammation), we are talking for either bone, tendon, ligament or muscle damage. What is "enough" to do "what", is up in the Twins' medical and front office staff heads.

Truth of the matter is that there is something wrong with Baker's elbow area. Hope we hear more about that. And another truth is that (as the Twins' said) this something wrong has been there since July of 2011 and they practically have been sitting on their collective rear ends.

Enough about accountability.
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98