Brooks adds the MRI exam revealed no structural damage, but if the shoulder does not respond to treatment, Avery might require a cortisone injection that would further delay the start to his Connecticut Whale career.
Because Avery played through the issue during camp, it would be impossible for him to win a grievance against the Rangers for waiving him with prior knowledge of his injury, an act that is prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement.
Brooks feels the earliest Avery could return would be the weekend of October 21-23.
...i guess we know why Avery didn't play in the final two preseason games. I wonder if this injury was a large factor in the Rangers decision to waive Avery, and if so, does it make it more likely Sather was telling the truth that the "Grate One" could be re-called by the Blueshirts if he is healthy and the team is struggling to find a spark.
...the rumors of Sean Avery's demise may have in fact been greatly exagerated.
Scott I think you're probably closer to the truth than me. But I'm trying to hold on to any glimmer of hope that Avery could be back at some point.
Kevin, love the blog, it's become my first-thing-to-read every day. I'm with you re Avery, I'd love for him to find his way back here too. I only see it happening in the case of mounting injuries where the Rangers are really pressed. Or if like I said Rupp or Prust gets hurt and either the PHI, PIT, or the NYI kick sand in our face. Avery isn't everyone's cup of tea, and there are good reasons for that, but he was liked by the Ranger's most expensive players and for good reason.
if that's the case, then why did Torts go so far out of his way to shovel dirt on him (while simultaneously disclaiming that he was doing exactly that?). If this was about an injury there'd be no reason for Torts to editorialize so viciously. I think a more likely scenario is that Avery doesn't want to play in Hartford, realizes that's his best option for the moment, and is playing up an existing injury that he'd have otherwise played through. If, say, Rupp went down tomorrow with an injury that would keep him out a few months, Avery's shoulder would be as good as new. (FWIW, I'm pro-Avery over Christensen myself, but I just don't think this shoulder injury sheds any light on why Avery was scratched the last two preseason games or sent down).
If this team is relying on Sean Avery's contributions to win a Cup, then it will be a long time before we see it down the Canyon of Heroes again. The coach and/or GM made a decision that he was not the right player for the team at this time. Happens every day. All this garbage about Torts holding a grudge is just that....GARBAGE. Does everyone really think he gives a crap about Avery's past comments....really? Is Dion Phaneuf his long lost son, or Elisha Cuthbert his new girlfriend, I don't think so. So this "theory" that Torts somehow has it in for Avery because Torts didn't like his comments is horse hockey!! If Torts thought Avery could help this team win, he would ABSOLUTELY be on the team. It's much more believable that Torts is more concerned about the penalties Avery takes. Deserved or not, they still put the Rangers at a disadvantage and perhaps Torts feels the team is better off without him. I'm sure the injury didn't help Avery's cause either.
Anisimov's comments yesterday are pretty damning:
- What was your reaction to the fact that Sean Avery was released from the roster?
- I was surprised.
- Has the time passed for the agitator?
- That’s not the issue. Sean is a very good person. A highly skilled, fast player. This decision was made by the coach. I’m just a hockey player.
I don't think his shoulder had anything to do with it. The comments by Sather completely contradicted what Brooks had heard from Torts and was noted as such in that column. But this is an interesting twist...