It was a mistake from the start by all parties concerned to publically downplay the seriousness of the injury to Carlos Beltran. The “bone bruise” angle was intentionally misleading and masked the injury’s true nature. It was probably known by all that Beltran had a microfracture somewhere along the boney surface of the knee joint and that they chose to take a conservative approach. With the results of current microfracture surgery still iffy, it wasn’t really a bad idea to see what would have happen with rest. We don’t really know.
They’ve tried that and a half measure sugery seems to have been attempted by Dr. Richard Steadman in Colorado earlier this past offseason. It’s not clear what faith that Steadman has in his own technique for microfracture surgery, but current management of Beltran’s injury leads one to speculate that there isn’t a concensus between Steadman and David Altchek. Or perhaps it is Steadman whom doesn’t have enough faith yet in potential results to have recommended attempted microfracture surgery last year when it first happened.
The Mets are at fault only in their attempt to spin the story as it to deterioating their relationship with Beltran. The club’s public stance that downplayed the injury cuased miscomunication among all parties. Honesty and candor would have been a far better policy.
The narrative for all from the beginning should have been that Beltran’s injury was serious and that yes, his career is at stake. The current surgical options are not necessarily good. The potential results are not known. Rest will be attempted first and after a period of time further decisions will be made that are in the best interests of Beltran.
I agree with Bob Klapish’s assessment today of where we are with Beltran’s injury.
If they’d have been candid from the beginning, this wouldn’t have been the soap opera drama it became.
Posted under METS
This post was written by bobsikes on April 25, 2010
