17 Seconds

Sean Gallagher is a table scrap? Considering what you usually have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher via trade, yes. You mean considering what you have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher who is constantly hurt. It's notl ike we traded for Sabathia. Anyways, it doesn't matter. The player you're trading for doesn't change what a player is. Gallagher is a not a "table scrap" in any situation. Just to be clea,r I liked the trade. I'm just saying Gallagher is not a table scrap. So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I like Gallagher, too, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't have a future with the Cubs so by giving him up we didn't give up any value. He was, for all intents and purposes, one of three spare parts we gave up for an outstanding young pitcher. With all due respect to his Dad or whatever, I reiterate, table scraps. You shouldn't worry. Everyone with a IQ higher than a argumentative 6th grader looking for attention understood what you meant. Either that or you're just trying t start problems again. So let me get this strait, I'm taking things out of context and just trying to start a fight based on semantics? Gere is what he said How can you even say that's an accurate statement? Obviously he is saying Hendry got Harden without giving uo anything of value. Is that not what "table scraps" means? Hendry got a good deal, but he also gave up a good starting pitching prospect. To imply that he got him for "table scraps" when Gallagher was a well above average pospect just doesn't make sense. Yet I'm doing it to start a fight? okay.

I don't think we can expect him to put up the numbers he did as a Ranger. I'd be really happy if he could put up like a high .800's OPS. I think the best case scenario owuld be a low to mid .900's, but I'd be really surprised if that happened.

So if "people get hurt by twisting (their) legs up all the time," then what the heck is the problem here? That proves what happened to Bradley could've happened to any athlete: fragile, normal, durable, or Ripkenesque. The problem is that there is a pattern of injuries with Bradley. This is just one of many.

Yes but who has ever heard of somebody hurting themself be sneezing? People get hurt by twisting your legs up all the time. If you want to get technical about it, you're right, maybe it wasn't a freak injury when Sosa hurt himself sneezing (and I think I mentioned that it could go either way) that's kind of borderline, depending on which way you interpret it. What did he actually hurt? A ribcage muscle? If it's something that could have been hurting lifting weights or something like that, maybe not. He I think in the context of this discussion, which is talking about a player being fragile, you're right. I shouldn't have said said that was a freak injury, because that injury could have happened while doing something else, and ultimately, his body made that happen. he could suffer that same injury doing something normal like lifting weights, just like Bradley could easily have twisted his legs doing something normal/ We're talking about whether or not a certain injury should go against a player in his "is he fragile or not" debate. Bradley's torn ACL could easily be because he's fragile, just like all his other injuries. Same could be said for Sosa at the time. Prior getting hit by a line drive had nothing to do with his fragile body. It was a freak occurance that will never happen again.

so he destroyed him? i wasn't watching but I'll check hockeyfights.com for it later

If payroll is really "frozen", they simply don't have the $$$ for that kind of signing Based on everything I've heard from Bruce Miles and other people, it sounds like we'll be able add a little more payroll if necessary once the new owner is chosen.

The sneeze analogy perfectly illustrates what I've been trying to explain. People sneeze all the darn time, and nothing comes of it. Just like as dextermorgan has explained, professional baseball players step awkwardly on their leg all the darn time, and nothing comes of it. So if throwing your back out sneezing is a freak injury (since you've sneezed countless times with no injury occurring), then by the same logic, tearing your ACL stepping awkwardly is also a freak injury (since you've stepped awkwardly countless times with no injury occurring). Except people almost never get hurt sneezing. That's why it's a freak injury. People get hurt by twisting their legs. You're leaving out that very huge difference. Also, I'd say that there's a pretty big difference between a sneeze and a twisting of your leg. One is a natural thing that the body does by itself. The other is something that your body is put through due to a mistake. Your definition of a freak injury is: something people almost never get hurt doing (reference the bolded statement above). You've told us over and over and over again how baseball players step awkwardly on their leg all the time without getting hurt. Therefore by your own definition of the term, when a baseball player gets hurt stepping awkwardly, it's a freak injury. That's not my definiton at all. I don't know where you're getting that. My definition of a freak injury is: an injury sustained in a freak situation that you can not reasonably expect to occur/happen again. You can reasonably expect that an athlete might eventually twist his leg or step on it funny. You can't reasonably expect a player to get hit with a line drive in the elbow again You could slip and twist your legs (enough to force some kind of injury) mutiple times in a season and it wouldn't really be a surprise. It wouldn't be expected, but it wouldn't be shocking that it happened. If someone broke their elbow by getting hit with a baseball going over 100 MPH twice in the same lifetime, it would be shocking... or a "freak" occurrence.

Sean Gallagher is a table scrap? Considering what you usually have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher via trade, yes. You mean considering what you have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher who is constantly hurt. It's notl ike we traded for Sabathia. Anyways, it doesn't matter. The player you're trading for doesn't change what a player is. Gallagher is a not a "table scrap" in any situation. Just to be clea,r I liked the trade. I'm just saying Gallagher is not a table scrap.

Sean Gallagher is a table scrap?

i didn't realize he had flipped out this recently http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200809133469162&c_id=tex i like when he starts giving the finger to the fans

Just to be fair, Fukudome went .241/.340/.355 after April. From May 15th on, he went .231/.334/.344, etc. Of course these are arbitrary starting points, but the point is that he was bad for more than the last 3 months. His OBP just hung around for the first 3 months because it took pitchers awhile to realize they could just attack him and he wouldn't really hurt them

Huh? That makes no sense. Rick Wilkins was never going to be the Mike Piazza and was never even close being the prospect that Prior was. Stop comparing Prior as a prospect to Rick Wilkins. That's just dumb. Wilkins just had a good season. Nobody expected him to have it. People expected things from Prior. Is Evan Longoria just like Rick Wilkins too? Last offseason did you say Cole Hamels was just like Rick Wilkins? Ryan Braun? I don't care about who is likeable. That gets you nowhere. I care about who is good. Mark Prior was very very good. His monster 2003 wasn't a fluke. Not only was it not a fluke, but he did it at an extremely young age. I like that. I don't care if he is mean to old people or kicks dogs. I want to win. We're supposed to be okay watching a young superstar starting pitcher uinder our control fall apart because he might not have seemed nice sometimes? Give me a break. This isn't the Disney Channel, these are athletes. If you don't like athletes with attitudes then you probably shouldn't be watching sports. Oh, and bringing up steroids is pretty ridiculous, and is an example of maybe the most tragic result of the steroid era. Now we have to conastantly deal with baseless accusations because maybe one or two signs point to a guy possible having juiced. Every out of nowhere season is "oh...steroids". Every time a player starts getting hurt... "he was a juice". Everytime a guy develops power... "he's a roider". Let me ask you, are you a Geovany Soto fan? If you're saying you didn't like Prior because he might have juiced, then you can't really like Soto. I'm not saying Soto is juicing(because I don't think he is), but there are just as many signs that Soto roided up if you want to go there. Really you don't have any remotely legit evidence to even suggest that Prior was ons teroids. What do yuou have? He started getting injured, and that he had big calves? You'd better be careful for condemning people for tony thingsl ike that. It's a slippery slope. Really neither of us have any idea if Prior was on steroids and there is certainly no evidence whatsoever. To suggest that we should be okay with the way he turned out because you THINK he MIGHT have POSSIBLY taken steroids is crazy.

yeah it's not like he would have been a perennial cy young candidate or anything if he stayed healthy. dude only had one good season! it's not like he was a high draft pick who dominated everywhere and had a monster season at an extremely young age. who cares though. he was surly to the media

same reaction here. fangraphs has burrell's last two seasons valued at $20.4M just 5 million more than willie harris

The sneeze analogy perfectly illustrates what I've been trying to explain. People sneeze all the darn time, and nothing comes of it. Just like as dextermorgan has explained, professional baseball players step awkwardly on their leg all the darn time, and nothing comes of it. So if throwing your back out sneezing is a freak injury (since you've sneezed countless times with no injury occurring), then by the same logic, tearing your ACL stepping awkwardly is also a freak injury (since you've stepped awkwardly countless times with no injury occurring). Except people almost never get hurt sneezing. That's why it's a freak injury. People get hurt by twisting their legs. You're leaving out that very huge difference. Also, I'd say that there's a pretty big difference between a sneeze and a twisting of your leg. One is a natural thing that the body does by itself. The other is something that your body is put through due to a mistake. By your logic, every time a guy suffers a new injury (while doing something he's done hundreds of times before) that he hasn't suffered before, it's a freak injury. I don't see how you find the logic in that. Basically you're saying that freak injuries happen all the time, which pretty much goes against what the definition of what a freak injury is. "Oh Bradley just sprained his MCL while running the bases. He's never done that before. Just a freak injury!" "Oh Bradley just tore his quad while running after a ball in the outfield. He's never done that before. Just a freak injury!" "Oh Bradley just aggravated a muscle in his wrist while taking batting practice. He's never done that before. Just a freak injury!" I think you get the idea.

You guys really should never listen to what Kaplan says. The guy knows nothing and I'm pretty sure he just makes things up.

Hendry and Towers did nothing but talk for weeks about this deal. Hendry knows what Towers wants. Hendry generally keeps trade talks close to the vest. This time around there gonna be quite about it. Makes sense the good Bruce hasn't heard anything. Once Marquis is officially gone , and the new owner is in place. I am a firm believer that Peavy will be a Cub and those three pitchers we got for Derosa will play a role one way or another. Bruce never said he hasn't heard anything. He said they haven't been talking Peavy. If he hadn't heard anything, he'd say he didn't know. Of course one or more of those pitchers could end up being involved in a Peavy trade, but even if they are, I highly doubt that that had anything to do with the trade. He would have made that trade whether he was after Peavy or not. If one or more end up being useful in that trade, great. I highlly doubt Hendry made the trade in planning for a Peavy trade.

There is no way that 100 games of Bradley is worth 10 million.

I should have specified those 3 pitchers as pieces to the Peavy trade. But those were the pieces that might have been missing the first time around. But there was nothing missing. Towers set a package of ewhat he would trade Peavy for, and hendry declined it. Why are we acting like 3 mediocre-to-below-average pitching prospects were what's missing, when he could have gotten just as much, if not more, than that for DeRosa in the first place? The reason we didn't get Peavy is not because hendry didn't have the pieces, it's because Towers was asking too much, even WITH DeRosa involing a 3rd or even 4th team. Nothing has changed there. I think people really want the DeRosa trade to be part of it ansd they're trying to talk themsleves into it. When you put all the pieces together, it just doesn't sound very likely at all.

Lol. I believe it. I can see it happening actually. Why else trade DeRo for 3 scrub pitchers we have no use for? I think it was more than just a salary dump. Those three alone for Peavy? Really? Those three plus something. Otherwise you're inferring that Peavy is equal to DeRosa's value. I think those three pitchers fit the "young pitching" requirement set by Towers, but you'd still need Pie and Cedeno and/or Marshall at the very least. Pie and Cedeno? More like Vitters, Pie, and Cedeno. Why are we forgetting that the reason Jim walked away in the first place was because Towers demands were so high? The 3 prospects we got for DeRosa are mediocre. Were any of them even top 15 prospects in their system? Towers wants good pithcing prospects. Not mediocre relief pitching prospects. If it was true that the trade would have been something like Vitters, Pie (to somebody else), Marshall, Guzman, and DeRosa (to somebody else), then how is a package of Pie/Cedeno/Stevens/Gaub/Archer is uddenly going to be a good starting point?

Lol. I believe it. I can see it happening actually. Why else trade DeRo for 3 scrub pitchers we have no use for? I think it was more than just a salary dump. You pretty much answered your own question. If anything, the DeRosa trade probably makes a Peavy trade less likely, since we now can't deal him for something the Padres would actually want. Bruce Miles said they haven't been having conversations about Peavy, and if that's true then it's pretty obvious the DeRosa trade had nothing to do with it. Well, it was already obvious, not it's just more obvious.

When are we going to get some good news this off season? I hope by using the word "obtain" you mean acquire by trade because I really don't see any affordable starting pitchers that would be an upgrade over Marshall. It's not necessarily about being an upgrade over Marshall, it's about allowing him to be in the bullpen and back up Harden. Plus I think there are a couple options through FA that are better than Marshall. Besides Sheets and Lowe? The way that Hendry had to dump Marquis and DeRosa in order to afford Bradley, I don't think the Cubs will have enough money to sign either one. How do we know he didn't dump payroll so he could ass Bradley and a starting pitcher? Oliver Perez could come cheap and I don't think he would be a terrible option at a reasonable price. I know he's doesn't sound exciting, but if he comes cheap he'd allow us to use Marshall in the pen and as backup for Harden. Perez is not great, but he's been above average the past 2 season and would provide more depth that is needed. Again though, I'd only consider him if he was really cheap, which I think he will be.

He said his buying of the team would have no affect on Peavy

The things is, even is you think his defense makes him worth that much, that doesn't mean what his actual monetary value is, since nobody pays that much for defense. It's not really okay to spend 15.3 million for defense when you can get it for much cheaper. That's why i think those numbers are kind of nonsense. Value is dictated by the market. Nobody pays 15 mil for defense. You don't have to.

When are we going to get some good news this off season? I hope by using the word "obtain" you mean acquire by trade because I really don't see any affordable starting pitchers that would be an upgrade over Marshall. It's not necessarily about being an upgrade over Marshall, it's about allowing him to be in the bullpen and back up Harden. Plus I think there are a couple options through FA that are better than Marshall.