srbin84

Yesterday was the first time I've ever seen Barrett block the plate, and Cubs outfielders always have bad arms: whether it is weakness, inaccuracy or both. That's why plays at the plate seem rare.

That's what I and almost everybody thought when he was called up.

So could Stevie Wonder.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. Oh, you never said that? That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit. My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read. Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting. So you've just gone from denying that you even said it to admitting you said it and standing by it in the space of about two minutes? That's a really nice turnaround. Meanwhile, see if you can do a similar turnaround on some proper definitions of "fact" and so on, maybe "injury prone" too. I'm not denying that I said the current probability of Prior going on the DL in a given year is 100% because I did and it is. I am denying saying that when something happens 5 times in a row, it will happen forever or that Prior will get hurt in every season he plays in. Show me the quotes where I said that. Don't try and be semantic. You said it, and I'm twisting nothing. Let's make the given year 2007. 100% probability of Prior going on the DL. Let's do that again, only with the given year as 2008. Same probability. Given year is now 2009. 100%. 2010. Guaranteed. 2011... If you're going to write something, and then stand by it, at least try and be aware of what is that you wrote in the first place. Until something changes, is the probability not 100%? What else do you have to go on to make it less? If Adam Morrison starts his NBA career 100 for 100 in free throws, how is the probability of him making No. 101 not 100% until he actually misses one. It seems like you are saying probability, percentages and trends are meaningless. I know you certainly wouldn't say anything so crazy, but I just don't understand why you think Prior will not go on the DL next year. What are the facts that show he won't?

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. Oh, you never said that? That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit. My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read. Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting. So you've just gone from denying that you even said it to admitting you said it and standing by it in the space of about two minutes? That's a really nice turnaround. Meanwhile, see if you can do a similar turnaround on some proper definitions of "fact" and so on, maybe "injury prone" too. I'm not denying that I said the current probability of Prior going on the DL in a given year is 100% because I did and it is. I am denying saying that when something happens 5 times in a row, it will happen forever or that Prior will get hurt in every season he plays in. Show me the quotes where I said that. You're twisting something I said into something else.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. Oh, you never said that? That was the ninth post in this thread, on the first page. You can even find it directly quoted above, in bold, for your benefit. My mistake, I guess. I just still haven't figured out how to read. Until something changes, that's a fact. I didn't say it can't or won't change, but given the current probability and sample size, it's enough to make the determination he is injury prone and IMO, needs to be shipped out because his stock is plummeting.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. It's comparable because you said that if something happens five times in a row, there's a 100% chance of it happening a sixth, seventh, eighth time. Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade. And that's the easiest thing in the world to say -- I don't use hindsight and I never will. But it's pretty clear from what you've said earlier in this thread that you do, for there's absolutely no way you could possibly in 2004 have reasonably concluded that Mark Prior would get injured every year. There's not even grounds for concluding that now, even with the benefit of the last two years. So even if it wasn't you yourself, your type, the type that after the fact sees everything as having been inevitable and therefore completely avoidable if only someone had done this, or that, would be completely up in arms about Hendry stupidly trading away Mark Prior. I absolutely 100% guarantee that. I never said if something happens five times in a row, it's going to keep happening forever. I said Prior has played 5 years in the big leagues and went on the DL in all 5. Given the average career is about 15 years, there's a great chance he will go on the DL in most of the next 10. I'm the type that when I make strong predictions/opinions about something, I do them earlier than others and am usually right. Obviously, I could have been and could be wrong, but it is rare that I have such a strong opinion on something because I don't make one unless I am very confident things will play out as I predict. I'll be around here, and so will you. We can continue this conversation in a few years.

What are they gonna do, set up a fight in the alley after today's game? AJ does nothing after getting clocked, but then he calls out Barrett? A.J. will probably just use Contreras' fastball to get payback.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade. You're missing the biggest flaw in your logic. Who would be pitching in Prior's place if you traded him? Hill, Rusch, Williams or Guzman. True, but you could have Abreu playing right or an above average pitcher or two in his place. You'd be getting something for Prior instead of DLing and getting no production from the asset.

I toss a coin in the air five times, and it comes down heads five times. Therefore, whenever I toss the coin in the air again, there is a 100% chance that it will come down heads. You are one seriously illogical person. I think we can agree that 15 years is about the length of the average major league star player career. He's already about a third done with his. I don't see how that is comparable to flipping a coin. Maybe you or other people on this board use 20/20 hindsight, but I don't. As long as we get a player I like in return for Prior, I'd support the trade no matter what Prior does, just as I have done with the Patterson trade.

Agreed. 2004 had Kent "Motorola" Mercker, Sammy, etc.

Showing it didn't hurt after fighting the guy and doing something to him is one thing, but yeah, that was so lame. What a wimp. I also don't see anything admirable about his teamates coming to his defense and tackling Barrett. If you are a man, you fight one on one or not at all. Can't blame the teammates. That's what they're supposed to do. But if you watch the replays you'll see AJ get clocked and then he just backs out of the situation while his teammates go after Barrett. Yeah, at least the Cubs players were out there too. I just have strong feelings about it because I was involved in a fight where one guy started a fight with me for pretty much no reason by coming up from behind me and punching me in the head. I responded by turning around and landing about 10 unanswered alternating hooks to the left and right temple. He responded by calling out for one of his friends to help him restrain me and the other to kick and punch me. I went from starting to pulverize one guy to getting the crap beat out of me by three. AJ's actions showed he is a female sex organ, and I despise men with that quality.

Showing it didn't hurt after fighting the guy and doing something to him is one thing, but yeah, that was so lame. What a wimp. I also don't see anything admirable about his teamates coming to his defense and tackling Barrett. If you are a man, you fight one on one or not at all.

I'm sorry, what? It escapes me how colliding with a baserunner, or being hit by a line drive while on the pitching mound, how any of this contributes to one of your "injury prone" tags. What do you suggest, that Mark Prior should have been born capable of dodging 120mph projectiles while simultaneously finishing off his pitching delivery? That he should have sprayed more Marcus Giles-repellent on him that morning? Those two injuries could have happened to anybody, of course. However, when you add the other injuries of 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2006, there is just way too much evidence to ignore. You can't just write it all off as bad luck. So what's that got to do with Mark Prior then? Is that Mark Prior's fault too? Is Mark Prior responsible for front office incompetence? So trading him would, with one fell swoop, have cured the front office of an inability to see beyond the end of their nose? And, lo and behold, a really really good pitcher incapable of ever getting injured would somehow have been conjured out of thin air, been inserted into the rotation, and gone on to ensure that Glendon Rusch, Jerome Williams, Rich Hill and Angel Guzman at no stage were ever allowed within 150 miles of Wrigley? In my first post, I said I can't blame Prior since I don't know the facts about all of his injuries. I've viewed him as an injury prone player since 2004. I've accepted he will likely get hurt every year. I can't blame him for that because it could just be that he has a brittle body. If that is the reason, it isn't his fault. That's why I blame Hendry for not trading him. It hasn't. So far you haven't even established what the "all of this" refers to, if anything substantial at all. See above. So either you have X-ray vision into the future, or it's hindsight. Hey, if you want to tell me how Mark Prior's rehab start tonight goes around about, say, now, go right ahead. Or at least come up with a much more well grounded and uncontentious version of events as to what exactly the deal with Mark Prior actually is. "all of this" is that Prior is injury prone and the Cubs will not sign and extra good and healthy pitcher just to sub in for him when he goes on the DL. The reason it is established and fact is because it has happned ever since Prior has been called up: Mitre, Koronka, Hill, Guzman, etc. Where's the flaw? The flaw is that when a player gets injured, the unavoidable default setting is not necessarily "insert bad player". With the Cubs, when a pitcher gets hurt, the unavoidable default setting is "insert prospect or Glendon Rusch" and 9 times of 10 that's a very bad thing. Maybe, if that's even true, that has more to do with the organisation than it does Mark Prior. It has to do with Prior getting hurt too much. That may not be one person's fault, but it still keeps happening year after year.

So get back to me when you've perfected that formula that predicts exactly who will be able to play and when, which days they'll miss, which they won't, and so on. Until then, really, just how useful is that kind of a statement? It's a tautology. Come on, he has missed significant time on the DL in 5 out of 5 major league seasons. That means going into every year, there is a 100% chance of him going on the DL, with a pretty decent sample size at that.

That's quite a theory you've got there. Problematically just about everything about it is flawed. It assumes an easy definition of injury prone, whereas none such exists. The very fact that you have no idea, and never will, as to the facts behind Prior's injury is exactly the problem. If it was that easy to categorise a player as such and such an injury risk, then valuation would be significantly easier. As a result, the relevance of the theory is extremely limited, working on stupidly hypothetical levels. Or not working, as the case may be. Because the only thing that "forces" bad players to play when someone's injured is bad players being adjudged the next most viable option. But there is no default setting there, and if it just so happens that the next most viable option is a bad player, that is very much at best an indirect consequence, if anything at all. In Mark Prior's case, it's nearer the if anything at all, seeing as Prior's earning a meagre $3.65m and taking up just one roster spot, so his effect on the team's resources isn't anywhere near great enough to justify not having a next most viable option no better than a "bad player". When there was a half price sale on logic, did you miss out? One of the best pitchers in all of baseball gets injured. So you, with your perfect hindsight, think the best option would have been to have traded one of the best pitchers in all of baseball, as opposed to simply somehow avoiding having a bunch of crappy pitchers lined up to replace him in case anything happened to him? I wanted to trade him in the offseason. He still had some value and IMO, 4 out of 4 years of missing a lot of time on the DL was enough to give him the injury prone tag. The Cubs are not going to sign a good pitcher just to replace Prior when he gets hurt. I just don't see that happening at all. I don't get the hindsight stuff; all of this has been clear for quite some time. Where's the flaw in the theory? I think it's been proven law, at least with respect to Prior and the Cubs. He's not a good fit with this organization.

Hill's a bigger tool. When he was called up, the score interviewed him the same day. They asked him what pitcher is most similar to him and his stuff, and he said Sandy Koufax.

We really should just trade all of our top prospects, even if just for other prospects. We've tried holding onto them too long, calling them up and finding out they suck and have no value. I'm really sick of that. Hill and Guzman alone could have brought us a very good young major league player at one point.

Huh? In what way is Prior responsible for his injury? It looks like CubfaninCA may agree with my theory that injury prone players are of little value no matter how good they are because they force bad players to play when they are hurt. Until we discover the facts about Prior's injuries, I can't blame him. I blame Hendry for not trading him and putting us in the position where we have to put a bunch of crappy pitchers out there to replace Prior.

Just looking at the standings, the Cubs are still in it. The problem is they don't have the players to make a run or even get a nice 8 or 9 game winning streak. This team reminds me a lot of the 99 and 00 teams as far as just being flat out bad and lacking talent all over the diamond.

If Hendry doesn't want to deal with Prior's injuries, he can trade him. As long as he keeps him, I'm not going to sympathize. As far as the team currently on the field because of Lee's injury, I blame him 100% for that. He NEVER makes a big trade when it is needed. He just waits and waits until he gets a great deal, even if the team is out of it because of it. This is actually far worse than overpaying right when you need to make a trade because you are trading prospects for nothing of value to your team. Hendry is a worse GM than Baker is a manager. IMO, he's been the main problem with this team since opening day 2004.

This was the highlight of the season. I am so glad Barrett punched that a-hole. I don't care about the suspension because......NEWS FLASH-this team was done at least a week ago.

Good points. I take pride in knowing Cubs fans are generally civilized people whereas Sox fans obviously have a faction of human scum. I guess we are closer to them than I thought.

This is why now is the perfect time to try and trade for Cabrera. They love our prospects.

IMO, this is not a funny incident at all. I play hockey, and I got hit in the face with a slap shot about 6 months ago. It's probably worse than what Jones would have got, but it's a very messy, terrible injury to have.