A Pronk Sighting
by Chuck H on Nov 3, 2008 1:54 PM EST
Email
PrintSo I was sitting through the Browns ga...errr....debacle yesterday when I noticed that Travis Hafner was sitting about 5 rows in front of me. The couple of guys I was there with went down to say hello and get a picture.
Normally, this wouldn't be worth posting about. However, we noticed he had his shoulder totally immobilized. He said that when they went to see Dr. Andrews they thought there was no structural damage. When they cut open the shoulder they realized that there was some significant structural damage they didnt know about. He told us that he will be able to swing in about 3-4 months.
Just relaying the info...
141 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not swing for 3-4 months? (counting on hand – november, december, january, february…). So he’s not going to swing until Spring Training? Hmm….
someone needs to start writing pronk mystery novels
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 3, 2008 2:15 PM EST reply actions
Can’t help but wonder why this information didn’t come out sooner. If true, no way he’s at full strength by spring training as they previously said he would be following the surgery, and they must know that. Was it more hiding behind HIPAA laws to (allegedly) gain competitive advantage in the offseason when negotiating with other power hitters?
If that was the intent, I think that has got to be one of the most deviously awesome front office moves in recent history. You know, if Chuck H hadn’t BLOWN THE WHOLE THING. Chuck, you might need to lay low for a few, man, maybe go to an aunt’s house or something… Shap’s comin’, and he ain’t baking cookies.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
Honestly though, if it’s true they discovered significant structural damage, I think there is hope that he did have somethign wrong in his shoulder. If they were able to surgically repair it, it would be major for the team even if he missed the first part of the season
I agree. Maybe this also helps clarify all those bizarre, “Hafner’s hurt so now we can’t trade Kelly Shoppach” stories (although that line of thinking still makes no sense to me).
by APV on Nov 3, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
just in the difference between the front office definitively knowing Hafner won’t be available at all the first month of the season and them not being sure how well he will perform
by APV on Nov 3, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Au contraire, it’s the soulnd of $54M not going up in smoke. Let’s say he misses all of 2009, but he’s completely healed and ready to go in 2010. If the damage in his shoulder explains the power meltdown and overcompensations in his approach, he may become 90% of what Pronk used to be. This shows some hope of salvaging part of the investment.
Tell you what Sandy, I’ll bet you a steak dinner that Hafner doesn’t hit more than 10 HRs for the rest of his Cleveland career. You in?
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
That sounds like the words of a man too afraid to ask another man out on a date.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Nov 3, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
Oh God, I’ll take that bet. And any other free money you wanna throw my way, Chuck.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
what restaurant
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 3, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
Throw Westy in, and you’ve got $21.5 mil on the shelf for the start of the 2009 season.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 3, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions
Chuck believes that since his contract is guaranteed, Hafner is now intentionally injuring himself, just because he thinks it’s funny.
No Jay that’s not what I think is going on. Here’s what I told our mutual friend Pat Tabler: Hafner knew he had a major problem at the time he signed the contract. Pat called it unsubstantiated character assassination. He had a good argument for that accusation at the time. However, now it looks more and more like I was right.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
There was not and still is not a single shred of evidence that Hafner knew he had any problem, let alone a major problem. It’s not even entirely clear that he had any physical problem at all at that point.
Of course you’re right – just like there’s no scientific evidence that smoking causes lung cancer. As fans we have no idea what is going on inside the Indians organization – witness the shifting explanations for Hafner’s problems. I believe that whatever is wrong with Hafner now was wrong with him 2 years ago. Do you think that his problems stem from more than one cause? I don’t.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
Don’t take this the wrong way, Chuck, but I’m starting to realize more and more that it makes no good sense to assume that, just because we don’t know what’s going on, the worst possible things are happening. It’s unnecessarily negative and kind of silly.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
I’m still stuck on that fact that he was playing major league baseball while, according to Amy, he was unable to lift a fork to his mouth.
Your comments are ridiculous.
It seems likely that his physical problems began in 2007, but it’s far from certain. He vastly underperformed that season, but then again, he had vastly overperformed in 2006, and he had a lot of BABIP luck in 2005. Take his 2004-2005 numbers, normalize the luck, and the resulting numbers are only 10-15% better than 2007. Likely? No, but plausible and certainly not freakish. It would just be one part he’s not as good as we thought, one part he got lucky in earlier seasons, and one part he had a down year.
But I’d give you a mulligan on all that — I’ll concede all those points. There still is zero evidence that back in mid-2007, he knew that there was a physical problem, let alone a significant problem, let alone a problem that would last or get worse. Consider for a moment that the Indians and the best available doctors didn’t know what was wrong with Hafner just five months ago — there is a 100% chance they didn’t know. Why, then, should anyone believe that Hafner knew himself a full year before that?
When you write about Hafner defrauding the club — knowing that he had a serious, long-term injury when he signed his deal — it is simply libelous. I’m not saying he could sue you successfully, but as a matter of fact (rather than law), it is a slander. I find it ugly and embarrassing to see it posted here, especially by such an established person in this community.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You said earlier that there was not one shred of evidence that Hafner’s proported injury is long standing. This, of course is what’s truly preposterous. I’m sure that his post-op report(s), MRI, nerve conduction studies, arthrograms etc. would supply all the evidence one needs to evaluate his condition and allow knowledgable professionals to evaluate the history of his injury. However, we do not and will not have access to this data, given the HIPPA regulations. All we can do is infer his condition and motivations from what is available – which I’ll admit is far from scientific evidence. But given the arc of this story it sure smells fishy to me. Now if he somehow reverts to anything resembling his previous form, I will appologize profusely and slink back into the woodwork. I just don’t see it happening is all.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
You said earlier that there was not one shred of evidence that Hafner’s proported injury is long standing. This, of course is what’s truly preposterous.
Yes, that is truly preposterous. It’s also not what I said. I said:
There was not and still is not a single shred of evidence that Hafner knew he had any problem
Hopefully you can acknowledge that these statements are not remotely the same. There also is zero reason to think that Hafner had any medical knowledge that the Indians didn’t have.
Hafner’s future performance has nothing to do with whether he knowingly defrauded the club. You are simply conflating two things, I can only assume because you simply enjoy harboring more outrage than is actually warranted.
I believe that Hafner’s physical problem was already hurting him in 2007, and some evidence supports that, but it’s not a certainty. I also believe that Hafner did not believe that he had a significant or long-term physical issue, and that he did not conceal any information of any kind from the Indians. While there is no direct evidence of this — no mind-reading device — there is certainly no evidence to contradict it.
Are you getting the difference?
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions
I also believe that Hafner did not believe that he had a significant or long-term physical issue, and that he did not conceal any information of any kind from the Indians.
That’s the crux of our differences. And, no, you don’t hafta be clairvoyant to determine how long a player/patient’s been injured – especially if you have a complete set of images and have viewed the injured area in the OR. Scarring – inflammation – the accumulation of debris all give hints as to the length and etiology of the injury.
Here’s what I believe: Hafner was experiencing pain and weakness beginning either in late ’06 or early ’07 and downplayed it both to himself and the FO. I think he did this for two reasons: one, the athlete’s natural competitive drive and willingness to "work through the pain" and two, his chance to hit the lottery in the form of a FA contract would be jeopardized if there was any hint that he was injured.
Now is there any evidence as to when and to what extent Hafner was injured? Yes, there is. Is it unequivocal? No, it is not unambiguous and subject to interpretation. Will we ever see this evidence? Most certainly not. All we’ve got to go on is what we see on the field, read in the media and occasionally bits of information we get third-hand by unknown parties in sports blogs such as this. All I know is this: the more I know about Hafner the more I believe that my initial impression was correct.
My real beef isn’t with Hafner, since you’er right, we can’t determine Hafner’s mens rea, it’s with the FO. How in the hell could they be so stupid as to sign Hafner to the biggest contract in club history when they weren’t even sure why he was in a prolonged “slump”? Idocy, just plain idiocy.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
Here’s a more plausible take on his mens rea: He was in denial as to the extent of his physical disability. He did not want to admit to himself that his injury was potentially serious, so he tried to play through it. People walk into the emergency room with fatal injuries (burn victims, say) and refuse to accept they won’t be walking out of the hospital the next morning. Denial is powerful.
He did not sign the contract with malice & forethought, but with hope and a prayer.
You’re right, though, the Indians were stupid.
“malice & forethough” ???
/bites tongue
There’s nothing that tells us what was in Pronk’s head when he signed the deal. We don’t know if he knew he was facing a serious injury that would make him more of a useless piece of dead wood than David Dellucci or if he thought it was something he could play though and return to form. Based on what little I know of Travis, I prefer to presume the later.
Even so, he was subject to a physical before the deal was final, wasn’t he? If the doctors for the organization didn’t pick up on this, how can we assume Travis knew there was something more there?
If the injury wasn’t there, or if it was there and wasn’t found, at the time the contract was signed, that’s a risk the organization took. Knowing how Shapiro likes to manage risk, I’m sure he took that into consideration when the deal was made.
End of story.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
Hafner’s been watching too much Fight club. The Indians would have disclosed the truth about Hafner’s injuries but they didn’t want to break the first rule of fight club.
by world dictator on Nov 4, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not that joeee – it’s the whole arc of the Hafner career. First he’s in a slump, then he may have sequalae from his HBP injury, then it’s his swing, then he’s on the DL, then there’s nothing really wrong with him and now this. I dunno, this whole thing has the stench of bullshit to me, that’s all.
Resident LGT beer kinda sewer
why not
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 3, 2008 5:46 PM EST up reply actions
I believe that chickpea tacos are delicious!
Thanks GFP!
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 3, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
i swear that was like 2 months ago i mentioned those
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 3, 2008 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, it was during an NLDS thread, so almost. My wife loved them, although she was skeptical when I told her that I got the recipe via a baseball forum.
Those chickpeas are a great way to stretch out guacamole without drastically altering the flavor!
What better place to thank you than a thread where some random guy talked to Travis Hafner at a Browns game about his potential season-threatening surgery?
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 3, 2008 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
the person joined today. it could literally be anyone.
also, does anyone think that pronk would talk about the specifics of his surgery with dr. andrews with a random fan at a browns game? if he would do it in that scenario, wouldn’t he have done it about 100 times by now?
yeah, but it was a good ride while it lasted (no pun intended), and one he never deserved in the first place.
glass half full, jimmy.
huh?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 4, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
Sarah Silverman is too good for Jimmy Kimmel. Thus, when it ends, he should not be upset, but thankful for the time he had. So he should see the glass as half full, not half empty.
I don’t think we’re exactly in a position to determine whether or not she is good enough for someone.
Steel Nick
the premise of my why not comment was, what the hell else do we have to hope for re: pronk?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 3, 2008 8:37 PM EST up reply actions
For what it’s worth, I know Chuck H and work with him. He told me the story yesterday, and I encouraged him to join the forum and tell just the facts of what he saw and heard because I thought it would be of interest to this audience and that it would be discussed seriously, unlike in other blogs. I know him to be a good Cleveland sports fan and an honest person.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Nov 4, 2008 8:47 AM EST up reply actions
Fair question. I work for a PR firm in Cleveland, am a father of two kids, am a lifelong Tribe fan and visit LGT almost every day to learn more about baseball and the Indians. I really enjoy reading the commentary, but I don’t engage much because I am a novice in the blogosphere and rarely feel qualified to comment on things because I love baseball but don’t understand it in depth the way many of you do. This information I felt was important to share, but because it didn’t happen to me directly, I felt it inappropriate to share it myself.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Nov 4, 2008 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
For the record, I think both you and Chuck H are being given too much of a hard time. I’m glad somebody posted this little anecdote-it’s vaguely interesting.
Anyone who’s claiming it’s fabricated or whatever needs to take a step back. The problem is with people taking this supposed sound bite from Pronk so seriously, not with someone relaying it.
by afh4 on Nov 4, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Screw you guys. I’m gonna stick it to the man and treat everybody with equal dignity and respect.
by fleerdon on Nov 4, 2008 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
You can’t have been reading all that much, given your 100% use of the subject line.
by Jay on Nov 5, 2008 3:01 AM EST up reply actions
Welcome to the sandbox. It’s only appropriate that Jay is the first to kick sand in your eye.
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 5, 2008 9:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Hey, he said it was a fair question. I give him the benefit of the doubt, I just asked because he was vouching for someone else, which is of questionable value when we don’t know him much better than the other guy.
By the way, you’ll notice we’ve held back on the usual first-post-FanPost treatment for Chuck H.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 1:32 PM EST up reply actions
Though it goes against our standard request, I think you did the right thing by encouraging him to register and post it himself. If it’s third-hand rather than second-hand, it’s just that much more dubious.
I hope you both stick around and join in the mix more. Commenting is not blogging, and even blogging isn’t exactly something that requires experience or qualification. Even Murray Chass has a blog, though apparently his friends are too scared to tell him.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Sadly, I had to look up what an avatar is. That’s what I mean by novice. Next, I’ll try to figure out how to do one.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Nov 4, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks Brick. At least it’s something until I can come up with something of my own.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Nov 4, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Aw, you should keep it for a while, it’s a classic.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
Hmmm. I sense sarcasm. Probably should find my own quickly.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Nov 4, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
me neither
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Nov 4, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Sarcasm? Why?
It’s a mat! A mat of a Tribe fan! Tribe fan mat! This is good stuff!
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
I really need to get with it. Thanks for clarity.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Nov 4, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Just want to check if I missed something. Wasn’t the last official word that the exploratory surgery had not turned up much and Andrews just did a general “cleanout”?
That’s what they said. So you’ve got a few options from here.
a) Chuck H is lying: Can’t be disproved, but this is would be awfully mild fiction.
b) Hafner was lying: Again, it’s possible, but what’s in it for him, other than ending conversations with potentially insane fans a few sentences earlier? He’ll get paid the same, one way or the other.
c) Hafner and Dr. Andrews were both right, and Hafner simply misspoke a bit: Travis isn’t an MD. The tissue that was removed from his shoulder wouldn’t be called “structural” in medical fields. But I seem to recall mauichuck mentioning at the time of the announcement that there was some possibility that the dead tissue could have a more deleterious effect than normal depending on how much of it there was, and where. Hafner might just be conflating the two concepts.
d) The Indians lied in the press release, and Hafner’s coming clean: So everybody’s lying. Including me. /rolls up tinted glass window, drives away in long black American car
by fleerdon on Nov 4, 2008 8:14 AM EST up reply actions
Point of clarification…this seems more like a “Travis Hafner sighting” and less like a “Pronk sighting”. Unless Hafner picked up some Ravens fan (with his good arm) and threw him across the stadium….
Chuck should be happy not angry. Hafner was supporting the Browns unlike his other arch nemesis Lebron James
Guys...
It was just a random conversation. I can upload the photo of him if you dont believe me. He didnt get into specifics on what structurally was wrong with his shoulder, only that there was something in there they didnt like. It wasnt cloak and dagger stuff.
Don’t mind Chuck, he’s gotten all flummoxed by our the Major League styled nom d’ plumes.
By the way, I doubt Chuck H was even at the Browns game, but that’s just an occupational hazard.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
My general rule of thumb is that if a person is going to lie or make up a story, it’s going to be something that is pretty out of the ordinary if true. In this case, I just can’t envision someone lying about talking to Hafner at the Browns game
You’ve been holding out with the photographic evidence?
by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 5, 2008 5:02 PM EST up reply actions
I’ll accept nothing less than twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against Lonnie Soloff.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
Sure, Harry, you can get anything you want
by Logodaedalus on Nov 10, 2008 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
Arlo said one person singing the song might be thought of as sick and not taken in the draft, that three would be thought of an organization, and that 50 a day would be a movement.
Based on how he said two people singing the song in harmony would be perceived, and it just being you and me playing on this joke …. I’m stopping now.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on Nov 11, 2008 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
