Skip to content

The Red Sox medical staff comes under fire

Sep 1, 2010, 3:30 PM EDT

Today ESPN Boston’s Gordon Edes has a long and engaging look at the mounting criticism of the Red Sox medical staff that’s worth a read.

It’s hard to really get a handle on this kind of thing. Most of us aren’t doctors and even those of you who are haven’t seen a player’s medical chart or X-rays, let alone examined the guy. As a result, when someone says team docs should have done x, y, z for a player, they’re engaging in blind armchair quarterbacking at best. If, like me, you’re no doctor, you’re engaging in highly ignorant, blind armchair quarterbacking.

But as was the case with the Mets last year, there are a lot of anonymous whispers coming out about the lack of satisfaction with team medical decisions and diagnosis and stuff.  Some of these complaints may be legitimate — I don’t quite understand the Jacoby Ellsbury odyssey, for example. Some of them may be comments from people with axes to grind.  A lot of it may be — indeed, a lot of it probably is — a function of poor communication. Stuff like this:

Cameron’s case is illustrative. The Sox had maintained that Cameron
would be able to play with his injury this season and that surgery could
be postponed until after the season. Instead, Cameron was limited to 48
games, was never healthy and finally had the operation Friday.

The
team believed Cameron would be able to contribute more than he did and
conveyed as much publicly. But according to a club source, the Red Sox
were fully informed that Cameron would not be able to play on a daily
basis, that his availability would be symptom-based, and that
essentially, as with other athletes who have had a similar injury, like
NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb, you play until you can’t.

This is not primarily a medical issue, it seems. This is a communications issue.  And while it may reflect poorly on information flow between Red Sox doctors, trainers and front office personnel, it doesn’t suggest quackery or anything.  If anything it suggests that it was the non-medical people (i.e. team spokesmen) who screwed up, for whatever reason.

So the “Red Sox medical problems” are out there. They will probably continue to be out there as the season comes to a close and especially over the winter, assuming the Sox continue their attempts to shift medical risk to players. I mean, if you were new to the Red Sox and they asked you to place some of your future earnings on the line based in part on the medical treatment you were going to get, wouldn’t articles’ like Edes’ give you at least a moment’s pause?  Probably would me. At the very least it would make me have to a lot more research before I’d feel comfortable signing with them.

But beyond that, I guess my only intelligent thought about it now is that we should be careful how we characterize this stuff and appreciate that most of us don’t really know what we’re talking about when we talk about athletic injuries.

  1. El Bravo - Sep 1, 2010 at 3:56 PM

    diagnoses (plural). booyah!

  2. BC - Sep 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM

    Did any of the Mets medical staff switch to Boston before the year?

  3. Evan - Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 PM

    Craig,
    I think this is more a product of the team’s disappointing season rather than anything tangible. If the Sox were in first place (or even ahead in the Wild Card standings) would anyone be questioning decisions by their medical staff and/or communication from their front office? No.
    When a season doesn’t go your way, everyone from the bat boy to the owner is an accessory. I bet someone writes an article about the rude parking lot attendants that send disillusioned fans into the stadium. Instead of cheering, the fans spend the game complaining about the bad service and the home field advantage is jeopardized.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Why is Wren out and Gonzalez is not?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2577)
  2. J. Hamilton (2035)
  3. J. Heyward (1965)
  4. M. Trout (1942)
  5. D. Ortiz (1889)
  1. J. Ellsbury (1840)
  2. S. Pearce (1826)
  3. D. Jeter (1819)
  4. C. Kershaw (1813)
  5. A. Pagan (1751)