Injury Report: Dennis Seidenberg

[A Healthy Kelly*]

I think he'll be back toward the beginning of a potential CF. I base this on nothing. I don't think this series will end up being as close as Game 1 indicated, and so I don't think they'll rush him, I guess.

 

[KuralySnipes]

C'mon guys. That's just confusing.

 

[KnightofBoston]

C'mon guys. That's just confusing.

 

[paree87]

McQuaid gets ruled out for the rest of the season. Interesting. For those people who think Seids isn't being ruled out for "gamesmanship" reasons.... well.... I don't think you're right. I think there's a sliver of a chance he returns for the CF if we get that far.

I'll take 80% of #44 over 100% healthy Bartkowski or Meszaros.

 

[Minny Shinny]

McQuaid gets ruled out for the rest of the season. Interesting. For those people who think Seids isn't being ruled out for "gamesmanship" reasons.... well.... I don't think you're right. I think there's a sliver of a chance he returns for the CF if we get that far.

I'll take 80% of #44 over 100% healthy Bartkowski or Meszaros.

So an 80% healthy Seidenberg (by the very definition not fully healthy) should be worked back into the lineup, where it's possible that playing not fully healthy (especially if there's an issue about not being yet fully conditioned to playing in game scenarios) could cause inflammation to still unstable tendons, ligaments and muscles in the knee that still need to heal and therefore cause further injury that could curtail him for longer....when there are completely healthy options already in the lineup?

That's quite...shortsighted. I'm quite thankful the Bruins organization doesn't see things the same way.

 

[member 96824]

So an 80% healthy Seidenberg (by the very definition not fully healthy) should be worked back into the lineup, where it's possible that playing not fully healthy (especially if there's an issue about not being yet fully conditioned to playing in game scenarios) could cause inflammation to still unstable tendons, ligaments and muscles in the knee that still need to heal and therefore cause further injury that could curtail him for longer....when there are completely healthy options already in the lineup?

That's quite...shortsighted. I'm quite thankful the Bruins organization doesn't see things the same way.

I know you won't see this...but they have rushed players back in the past before they were fully ready for playoffs

 

[paree87]

So an 80% healthy Seidenberg (by the very definition not fully healthy) should be worked back into the lineup, where it's possible that playing not fully healthy (especially if there's an issue about not being yet fully conditioned to playing in game scenarios) could cause inflammation to still unstable tendons, ligaments and muscles in the knee that still need to heal and therefore cause further injury that could curtail him for longer....when there are completely healthy options already in the lineup?

That's quite...shortsighted. I'm quite thankful the Bruins organization doesn't see things the same way.

Sorry let me be more clear. I would only want Seids to play if he wasn't at major risk for re-injury. My point was that 80% of #44 is better than 100% of Bartkowski or Meszaros.

 

[bp13]

So an 80% healthy Seidenberg (by the very definition not fully healthy) should be worked back into the lineup, where it's possible that playing not fully healthy (especially if there's an issue about not being yet fully conditioned to playing in game scenarios) could cause inflammation to still unstable tendons, ligaments and muscles in the knee that still need to heal and therefore cause further injury that could curtail him for longer....when there are completely healthy options already in the lineup?

That's quite...shortsighted. I'm quite thankful the Bruins organization doesn't see things the same way.

Teams, including the Bruins, bring back players before they are 100% all the time. All the time. I don't think this argument works.

Like it or not players are assets of your company. You're looking for return on assets. If you think an 80% Seidenberg gives you a greater chance to win a Cup, and you value that over what he might bring you in future seasons vs. other options, then you have your answer. Obviously you have other considerations like insurance, affect on other players, etc., but ultimately it's a business decision as much as a medical one. Once he's cleared, you calculate your ROA and go from there.

More than one organization in every sport has put a player at real risk for long-term ineffectiveness in the name of a championship. Look no further than the Red Sox with Curt Schilling to see that.

 

[RR10*]

If Seidenberg is ready - let him play. He will have 5 months to heal if he re-injures so there is no need to rest him now if he can play and contribute.

 

[ReggieMoto]

Teams, including the Bruins, bring back players before they are 100% all the time. All the time. I don't think this argument works.

Like it or not players are assets of your company. You're looking for return on assets.

I think, however, in this case you can't put an 80% Seidenmoose out to play. The risk of re-injury -- devastating re-injury -- is too great. And that would not be good asset management. His leg muscles have to be very well conditioned in order to stabilize his knee to prevent re-injury to the ACL, or even the MCL and LCL.

I don't think it would be smart to put him out there at 80% and I'm guessing the front office and coach would feel the same way.

 

[Minny Shinny]

Sorry let me be more clear. I would only want Seids to play if he wasn't at major risk for re-injury. My point was that 80% of #44 is better than 100% of Bartkowski or Meszaros.

Ok. With that pretty significant caveat, I'm sure pretty much everyone would agree with that.

Teams, including the Bruins, bring back players before they are 100% all the time. All the time. I don't think this argument works.

Like it or not players are assets of your company. You're looking for return on assets. If you think an 80% Seidenberg gives you a greater chance to win a Cup, and you value that over what he might bring you in future seasons vs. other options, then you have your answer. Obviously you have other considerations like insurance, affect on other players, etc., but ultimately it's a business decision as much as a medical one. Once he's cleared, you calculate your ROA and go from there.

More than one organization in every sport has put a player at real risk for long-term ineffectiveness in the name of a championship. Look no further than the Red Sox with Curt Schilling to see that.

Your 2004 example stems from a terribly outdated business model. Consider the recent concussion lawsuit in the NHL as well as two lawsuits (against University of Iowa and MLS's Portland Timber filed just this year) where athletes claim they were asked to return to action too quickly after injury, as well failing to provide improper supervision in regards to training, rehabbing and medical care.

That liability is the much, much bigger business decision, both in a PR standpoint plus what a team stands to lose in a prolonged legal proceeding....much less should the team be found at-fault.

 

[bp13]

Ok. With that pretty significant caveat, I'm sure pretty much everyone would agree with that.



Your 2004 example stems from a terribly outdated business model. Consider the recent concussion lawsuit in the NHL as well as two lawsuits (against University of Iowa and MLS's Portland Timber filed just this year) where athletes claim they were asked to return to action too quickly after injury, as well failing to provide improper supervision in regards to training, rehabbing and medical care.

That liability is the much, much bigger business decision, both in a PR standpoint plus what a team stands to lose in a prolonged legal proceeding....much less should the team be found at-fault.

Didn't we see Bergeron play with injuries requiring a hospital stay just last spring? Are you suggesting the landscape has changed dramatically since then? And what about Zetterberg's rushed return from back surgery, obviously not at full strength? That was a week ago.

I contend if the doctors clear him and the Bruins see him as an upgrade over anyone, regardless of what % he's at, he'll play. Truth is we'll never really know.

 

[Patrice37]

If Seidenberg is ready - let him play. He will have 5 months to heal if he re-injures so there is no need to rest him now if he can play and contribute.

Terrible rationalization, no offense.

 

[Ten Thousand Hours]

Terrible rationalization, no offense.

So the start of next year is more important than this year's playoffs? Who's the last NHL player to have his career affected long term by a knee? Neely? With today's treatment, I'm not that worried about his long term health. The doctors will clear him when he's ready. That's not a coach's decision. But if that happens this year, he should play.

 

[trenton1]

The players often rush themselves back. Why wouldn't they? This game is in their blood. I would assume that Seidenberg understands the risks. He already has his last big contract in pocket and this isn't a head injury. If he wants to take a risk with a knee ligament for what he may think is his last great shot at the Cup, I say more power to him. He's not going to have to sit in a dark room if this goes wrong.

 

[member 96824]

So the start of next year is more important than this year's playoffs? Who's the last NHL player to have his career affected long term by a knee? Neely? With today's treatment, I'm not that worried about his long term health. The doctors will clear him when he's ready. That's not a coach's decision. But if that happens this year, he should play.

Ryan Whitney

 

[qc]

Didn't we see Bergeron play with injuries requiring a hospital stay just last spring? Are you suggesting the landscape has changed dramatically since then? And what about Zetterberg's rushed return from back surgery, obviously not at full strength? That was a week ago.

I contend if the doctors clear him and the Bruins see him as an upgrade over anyone, regardless of what % he's at, he'll play. Truth is we'll never really know.

Backes is another good recent example (got a concussion, though it was ruled as an "upper body injury" ..returned a couple of games later).

The league can feign concern over head injuries all they want, but they still leave many loopholes open for organizations to jump through.

Wait a tick.. where am I?

 

[Mainehockey33]

I'd rather put Seids in this playoffs if it gives us a better shot at the cup, he's better than Bart and Mez so we could definitely use him against Chicago or LA.

I don't see how people think giving Seids more rest is a better option than playing him to better our odds at a cup. What if he does injure his knee again? Winning the cup this year means more to me and probably Seids himself than his longterm career, he's not getting any younger. With all this talk about our window closing I would think most people would feel the same way, ice the best team possible.

 

[Ten Thousand Hours]

Ryan Whitney

That wasn't a knee and he was also born with high arches that led to multiple foot surgeries. This is a one time injury for Seidenberg. Unlikely to be a long-term issue.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

So the start of next year is more important than this year's playoffs? Who's the last NHL player to have his career affected long term by a knee? Neely? With today's treatment, I'm not that worried about his long term health. The doctors will clear him when he's ready. That's not a coach's decision. But if that happens this year, he should play.

Um...Marco Sturm for starters. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

 

[Ten Thousand Hours]

Um...Marco Sturm for starters. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Not sure about that one. I don't think his health was the reason he struggled in Washington, Vancouver, LA or Florida. He's certainly not the first 37 point forward to fall off the map after the age of 32. He actually had almost the same PPG the year after his second knee surgery while splitting time with LA and Washington as he had his last year with us (.49 with us; .46 the next year).

 

[member 96824]

That wasn't a knee and he was also born with high arches that led to multiple foot surgeries. This is a one time injury for Seidenberg. Unlikely to be a long-term issue.

Damn you're right, don't know why I was thinking knee.

 

[CDJ]

Ryan Whitney

Thought that was his foot mostly

EDIT: yup, should've kept reading.

 

[Ten Thousand Hours]

And for the record, I don't want to make it sound like I'm all for destroying Seidenberg's knees just because it usually isn't a long-term issue anymore. It would suck if he re-injures that knee this postseason. But I do think that as soon as the doctors (who know more about his knee that you, me, Claude or Chia) clear him, he should play. Even if he's a little out of shape.

 

[Mainehockey33]

And for the record, I don't want to make it sound like I'm all for destroying Seidenberg's knees just because it usually isn't a long-term issue anymore. It would suck if he re-injures that knee this postseason. But I do think that as soon as the doctors (who know more about his knee that you, me, Claude or Chia) clear him, he should play. Even if he's a little out of shape.

I agree, shelter him at first and see how he does. We have nothing to lose and possibly a #2-4 defenseman to gain.