The principal theory behind the Lawson-sits outcome appears to rest less on a precise medical assessment of his injury than on the calculation that the shrewd thing to do, even if physically Lawson could play, would be to rest him so that we’re in better shape in our quest for The Big Prize. This theory is not without its appeal. But it is a hard one to sit side-by-side with the put-everything-on-the-line-and-the-future-will-take-care-of-itself theory that the players have heard from Roy, and succeeded with, all year.

Rath, I don’t mean to beat this to death but I was having interpretive problems also figuring exactly what this means in relation to our team. Could you explain the team scenario, you know, who does what, that would make this statment applicable. Thanks.

I would be real surprised if Ginyard were pressed into service, however. He’s barely played at all this year, and PG is not his natural position.

As a general matter — and I emphasize that this is GENERAL — I do not believe in sacrificing the present for the future, because the future cannot be known and life just isn’t that predictable. This is especially true in matters of health, even writ much larger than what we are dealing with here. It happens all the time that people get well when they’re thought to be on the way to the next world, and that people croak when they seemed perfectly healthy the day before.

We can make educated guesses about what is going to happen with seeding and so forth, and to be honest I have made my share. But it’s a dicier proposition to make guesses about the prognosis of a toe. That I leave to the doctors.