Should We Allow Teams to Do What the Red Sox Did with Brusdar Graterol?

[SomeGuy]

I do appreciate the irony that we went from saying the Giants sent us damaged goods in Sam Dyson to complaining that the Red Sox wouldn't accept what we insist is a healthy player.

[Mike Sixel]

I couldn't disagree more. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars here, and roster spots.....no way you can say a team can't see medicals. No way.

[wallyrichards]

I like the fact that we've picked up a solid starter but I hate giving up Graterol a possible major league closer who can throw it 100 mph for strikes. That being said we had to pick up a starter not knowing what's going to happen with Hill and Pineda. Personally I think the Sox's made a mistake and they're making baseball decisions based on what there fans want not whats best for the team. 

[wallyrichards]

 

I do appreciate the irony that we went from saying the Giants sent us damaged goods in Sam Dyson to complaining that the Red Sox wouldn't accept what we insist is a healthy player.

Yea, the Twins should've checked Dyson out before they agreed to make the trade just like the Red Sox's should've checked out Grateral. Don't wait until after the trade is announced.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Yea, the Twins should've checked Dyson out before they agreed to make the trade just like the Red Sox's should've checked out Grateral. Don't wait until after the trade is announced.

The trade wasn't announced. It was agreed to, in principle, pending a medical review, like all other trades are before they are announced. And before that agreement, the Red Sox weren't allowed to "check out" Graterol any more than you or I could check him out (meaning, read what is publicly available about him).

 

Some folks are claiming that what was known publicly should have been enough for the Red Sox to make their value determination, but that seems to ignore the complexity of a player's private medical record and how modern MLB teams try to analyze it the best they can.

 

As for Dyson, the Twins did the same as the Red Sox -- after agreeing in principle, we reviewed his medicals before the trade was finalized. But there was nothing about his most recent discomfort in his medical records because he didn't report it to anyone (and his performance leading up the deadline gave no one any reason to be suspicious either).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I read this already. Speier doesn't seem to be aware that the Twins publicly declared they intended to use him as a reliever. If you combine that with the NL evaluator saying he's a reliever, that should give you pause that there's a big uncertainty for his future. If you choose to believe the AL evaluator mentioned, shrug. That should have been part of the Red Sox due diligence prior to the agreement. If you second guess your due diligence prior, you shouldn't make it the problem of the other parties involved to make it up to you later. That goes for this case and basically any case in life. Bloom blew it and clinging to the medicals was a garbage tactic. 

You just made me read this article a second time. And I did a CTRL+F search to be sure Speier missed this crucial piece of the puzzle (that the Twins publicly revealed their plans for Graterol as a reliever) and he did miss it in this piece. Can I go now? Go ahead and take the last word. Just don't make me do anything else, please. 

First of all, I appreciate your participation in this discussion, but if you don't want to, just don't. You're not forced to.

 

Secondly, I referenced that article for its description of how detailed the medical review process is in modern MLB, and how that process seems much more likely to change the Red Sox valuation of Graterol than "bad faith" / "bad day" explanations.

 

But if I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying because Wes Johnson's comments at a Twins Caravan stop aren't specifically mentioned by the reporter in that article, that's evidence that the Red Sox acted in bad faith?

 

If so, I can see why we disagree.