PDA

View Full Version : Take your pick - Prior vs. Garland


TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 12:53 PM
Yesterday I watched the Cubs game because I love the Nationals. During the game, the moron Flub announcers brought up the thing between Guillen and Prior, where Guillen said Garland is a better pitcher this year. They whined about it for a while, but then said Ozzie believes Prior can be a hall of famer if he is healthy. Fair enough. Then that tool Kasper had to add this:

"Well, Garland is pitching good this year, but there is no doubt who is better. If you asked people who they would build a franchise around, everyone would say Mark Prior"

Really? I wouldn't. I realize how talented Prior is. I also realize he is a china doll, and he breaks very easily. He is the perfect compliment for Balsa Wood. For a pitcher as young as him, we shouldn't be talking about him having been on the DL 4 or 5 times already. I would take Garland over Prior based solely on Prior's inability to even put together even a half a season. If he is injured this much at such a young age, who knows how long he will last. He might improve once you get Dusty's claws off him, but he likely has already done irrepairable damage.

I don't think there would be much of a debate if both were healthy, although Garland is quickly becoming an ace. If you take Garland, it is likely because he is healthy and durable. If you take Prior, it would be solely on the hope that he can stay healthy from here on out. Have at it.

RallyBowl
07-02-2005, 01:07 PM
Wiping his ass. That's funny. injury prone- ness aside, I wouldn't want to build around him because it doesn't seem to me that he is all that great of a person, (See Just ducky, last year) which I believe you have to take into account if your talking about building around 1 person. for that matter, I wouldn't want wood (injuries, also doesn't seem like a great guy) Shambrano (head case) or maddux (the only thing you should build around him is a retirement home). IMO, the record shows that Jon, MB, and Freddy G are all stud pitchers, with no history of injury, and by all accounts pretty good human beings. I'll build aruond any of those guys over any flub any day of the week. EDIT- will the two morons who voted for Prior show your faces, please?

fquaye149
07-02-2005, 01:11 PM
Wiping his ass. That's funny. injury prone- ness aside, I wouldn't want to build around him because it doesn't seem to me that he is all that great of a person, (See Just ducky, last year) which I believe you have to take into account if your talking about building around 1 person. for that matter, I wouldn't want wood (injuries, also doesn't seem like a great guy) Shambrano (head case) or maddux (the only thing you should build around him is a retirement home). IMO, the record shows that Jon, MB, and Freddy G are all stud pitchers, with no history of injury, and by all accounts pretty good human beings. I'll build aruond any of those guys over any flub any day of the week. EDIT- will the two morons who voted for Prior show your faces, please?

You're going to get a few posters here who will pick Prior just because when he actually is on the mound he's got the potential to be the best pitcher in baseball.

What these people forget is that potential, a quarter, and Jon Rauch will get you half a cup of coffee

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 01:12 PM
EDIT- will the two morons who voted for Prior show your faces, please?
Yeah, seriously. Whoever voted for Prior should explain why.

RallyBowl
07-02-2005, 01:15 PM
Yeah, seriously. Whoever voted for Prior should explain why.there is only one explanation-:troll

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 01:16 PM
there is only one explanation-:troll
As the number of Prior voters who are scared to come forward increases to three, it appears you are right, sir.

samram
07-02-2005, 01:17 PM
EDIT- will the two morons who voted for Prior show your faces, please?

Yeah, I guess I'm one of the "morons" who can actually take the blinders off and realize that Prior is one of the best pitchers in the game. I have no problems with Jon Garland. He's becoming a very nice pticher and I'm happy the Sox have him. However, if the Cubs called up and said they wanted to trade Prior to the Sox for Garland, KW would crap himself with excitement, and if you don't think that, well, then we all just found out who the moron is.

samram
07-02-2005, 01:18 PM
there is only one explanation-:troll

Yeah, we're all trolls. They let me post 2350 times as a troll.:rolleyes:

Podzilla_40
07-02-2005, 01:20 PM
Yeah, I guess I'm one of the "morons" who can actually take the blinders off and realize that Prior is one of the best pitchers in the game. I have no problems with Jon Garland. He's becoming a very nice pticher and I'm happy the Sox have him. However, if the Cubs called up and said they wanted to trade Prior to the Sox for Garland, KW would crap himself with excitement, and if you don't think that, well, then we all just found out who the moron is.

What he said. Jon's a good pitcher, Prior's a great pitcher, the best if he can stay healthy. I think he looks a lot less fragile considering he came back real quick after taking that bullet.

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 01:21 PM
Yeah, I guess I'm one of the "morons" who can actually take the blinders off and realize that Prior is one of the best pitchers in the game. I have no problems with Jon Garland. He's becoming a very nice pticher and I'm happy the Sox have him. However, if the Cubs called up and said they wanted to trade Prior to the Sox for Garland, KW would crap himself with excitement, and if you don't think that, well, then we all just found out who the moron is.
:?:
And who would pitch in his spot the other 2/3 of a year when Prior is on the DL? I would do that trade, but only if they threw in Todd Wellemeyer to back him up.

White Sox Josh
07-02-2005, 01:21 PM
Mark Buehrle. I would take Garland though. The problem with Prior is he throws a ton of pitches in the 1st 2 or 3 innings and is basically a 6 inning pitcher. When he is on though he is dominant.

JermaineDye05
07-02-2005, 01:22 PM
"Well, Garland is pitching good this year, but there is no doubt who is better. If you asked people who they would build a franchise around, everyone would say Mark Prior"

if garland was a cub and prior was with the sox, everyone would say garland

doublem23
07-02-2005, 01:26 PM
there is only one explanation-:troll

I guess I'm a troll, too. Both have their downsides; Jon has only pitched to his potential for half a season at this level and Mark has been ravaged by injuries, but going into this season there was no question about it. Just because Jon has gotten his head on straight so far in '05 doesn't mean I don't remember all the frustration he caused and doesn't mean I forgot watching Mark Prior at his absolute best.

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 01:28 PM
I guess I'm a troll, too.
Great! Now we have moderators who are trolls?
I was given instructions to destroy this site if it ever came to this. Good bye, everybody. :cool:

Chicago83
07-02-2005, 01:30 PM
Did you hear when Brenly said, "Mark Prior may have a couple dozen cy young awards before he is done." A couple dozen, are you drinking??

There's no question Prior is an ace and a better pitcher than Jon, when healthy. But it would be hard to pick Prior over Jon with all the time Prior has missed and the lack of any injury from Jon. In a game 7 you would love to have Prior but in 162 games season I would have to take Jon.

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 01:33 PM
Did you hear what Brenly said, "Mark Prior may have a couple dozen cy young awards before he is done." A couple dozen, are you drinking??
I don't see any reason Mark Prior can't not only pitch 24 more years, but be the best pitcher in baseball continuously until he is 49. This is the messiah we are talking about!

White Sox Josh
07-02-2005, 01:39 PM
Did you hear when Brenly said, "Mark Prior may have a couple dozen cy young awards before he is done." A couple dozen, are you drinking??

There's no question Prior is an ace and a better pitcher than Jon, when healthy. But it would be hard to pick Prior over Jon with all the time Prior has missed and the lack of any injury from Jon. In a game 7 you would love to have Prior but in 162 games season I would have to take Jon.Just some more genius insight from Bob Brenly.

RallyBowl
07-02-2005, 04:20 PM
Yeah, I guess I'm one of the "morons" who can actually take the blinders off and realize that Prior is one of the best pitchers in the game. I have no problems with Jon Garland. He's becoming a very nice pticher and I'm happy the Sox have him. However, if the Cubs called up and said they wanted to trade Prior to the Sox for Garland, KW would crap himself with excitement, and if you don't think that, well, then we all just found out who the moron is.:KW "I don't think so."

RallyBowl
07-02-2005, 04:26 PM
:?:
And who would pitch in his spot the other 2/3 of a year when Prior is on the DL? I would do that trade, but only if they threw in Todd Wellemeyer to back him up.Thanks for backin' me up, brutha man.

Jerome
07-02-2005, 04:46 PM
I voted for Prior. Nothing against Jon.

When he is healthy, Prior is almost unhittable. I'm not going to hold the freak elbow injury against him. I'm worried about the achilies but I think his mechanics are such that arm problems shouldn't be too much of a worry. (not a baseball expert, just what i hear.) And it doesn't help to have dumbass Dusty throwing you way too many pitches in your first big league season.

Also, Jon's career numbers suggest that this season is a fluke. I know he is young but Prior is a little younger. Hopefully this year is the real Jon, and he has learned from his earlier years.

Prior was good his first season. Imagine how good he will be with 4, 5 years experience like Jon, when he really becomes a pitcher and not just a thrower.

Don't call me a :dtroll:, that's just what i believe.

Joosh
07-02-2005, 04:52 PM
I would've selected Prior based on Ability and Potential, and by the fact that he is one of the best pitchers in the game. A true Phenom. He's even a nice guy, as he signed auto's for Cubs and Sox fans alike at Sat. Cub/Sox game, and was genuinely very nice.

However, I think Garland has a lot of potential as well, and isn't Injury Prone like Prior. Because of this, if I were building a team around one of them, it would be Garland.

eastchicagosoxfan
07-02-2005, 05:19 PM
I voted for Prior. When he's on, he's virtually unhittable, and he's on frequently. Will Garland be a one year wonder? Prior is injury-prone, but he has tremendous potential. Garland could be very good, but Prior can be great. Prior has flashed it annually, while Garland is just now showing how good he can be. It's very close, as Garland is only 25(?) I think, and isn't Prior the same?

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 05:46 PM
I voted for Prior. When he's on, he's virtually unhittable, and he's on frequently. Will Garland be a one year wonder? Prior is injury-prone, but he has tremendous potential. Garland could be very good, but Prior can be great. Prior has flashed it annually, while Garland is just now showing how good he can be. It's very close, as Garland is only 25(?) I think, and isn't Prior the same?
Actually, Garland has "flashed it annually". Garland isn't a fluke because he has always shown greatness. He has shown just enough greatness in the past to frustrate the hell out of us. Garland has been great this year, not very good. You may say Prior is "on frequently", but that is not true. He is never going to be "on" for more than 1/4 of the season. He will miss a half to two thirds of the season, so he couldn't be pitching great for any more than 1/4 of the season. If you would throw your money at Prior for him to have 10 great games a season, that is your right. I would put my money on Garland to have 20-25 very good starts and 5-10 great starts.

Either way, I have proven my point. Kasper is full of it. The majority of people know actually know baseball wouldn't take Prior over Garland. Nobody on here has said that Prior sucks or Garland is hands down better. With Prior being so fragile, it would be really dumb to take him over another great young pitcher who is getting better, is healthy, and has shown to be a workhorse.

SOXSINCE'70
07-02-2005, 06:03 PM
I'll take Garland for 3 main reasons:


1.He'll give you 180-200 IP a year.
2.Thus far,his career has been injury free.
3.Sox fans have yet to see Garland's best season
(it might be 2005).:cool:

JB98
07-02-2005, 07:24 PM
Actually, Garland has "flashed it annually". Garland isn't a fluke because he has always shown greatness. He has shown just enough greatness in the past to frustrate the hell out of us. Garland has been great this year, not very good. You may say Prior is "on frequently", but that is not true. He is never going to be "on" for more than 1/4 of the season. He will miss a half to two thirds of the season, so he couldn't be pitching great for any more than 1/4 of the season. If you would throw your money at Prior for him to have 10 great games a season, that is your right. I would put my money on Garland to have 20-25 very good starts and 5-10 great starts.

Either way, I have proven my point. Kasper is full of it. The majority of people know actually know baseball wouldn't take Prior over Garland. Nobody on here has said that Prior sucks or Garland is hands down better. With Prior being so fragile, it would be really dumb to take him over another great young pitcher who is getting better, is healthy, and has shown to be a workhorse.

Ummmm....I actually think the majority of the people around baseball would rate Prior ahead of Garland.

That being said, I voted for Jon is this poll because I am a biased, utterly petty Sox fan.


:cool:

samram
07-02-2005, 07:59 PM
The majority of people know actually know baseball wouldn't take Prior over Garland.


:rolling:

Ok, you should stop now. Look, just admit you have the Garland blinders on (and for good reason, he's having a great season) and you choose him because he's on the Sox.

samram
07-02-2005, 08:00 PM
:KW "I don't think so."

Ok, then, you're fired Kenny.

White Sox Josh
07-02-2005, 08:02 PM
Ok, then, you're fired Kenny.:KW
Your talking to Executive of the year BIATCH!

fquaye149
07-02-2005, 08:04 PM
:rolling:

Ok, you should stop now. Look, just admit you have the Garland blinders on (and for good reason, he's having a great season) and you choose him because he's on the Sox.

I'd like to see him pitch a full year before we decide why people are choosing garland over prior, k?

there's a reason wade miller signed for peanuts, bucky

samram
07-02-2005, 08:08 PM
I'd like to see him pitch a full year before we decide why people are choosing garland over prior, k?

there's a reason wade miller signed for peanuts, bucky

He did, in 2003, and he was 18-6 with a 2.5 ERA at the age of 22 or so, and his team damn near went to the WS (thank god they didn't).

And please, don't compare Wade Miller to Prior.

Palehose13
07-02-2005, 08:20 PM
Prior was good his first season. Imagine how good he will be with 4, 5 years experience like Jon, when he really becomes a pitcher and not just a thrower.


1. I'm not so sure Prior will be in MLB in 5 seasons, and if he is...he may just be a shell of what he once was.

2. Prior is only a year younger than Garland. One went to college, one didn't. Maybe they aren't very far apart on their learning curves at this moment.

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 08:30 PM
Ummmm....I actually think the majority of the people around baseball would rate Prior ahead of Garland.

That being said, I voted for Jon is this poll because I am a biased, utterly petty Sox fan.


:cool:
I didn't say they would RATE Garland higher. I said they would TAKE Garland over Prior considering Prior's history of injuries. There is a big differnce. No matter how much brilliance Prior has shown, he cannot be counted on to make every start, or even half of them. Garland can.

TheOldRoman
07-02-2005, 08:39 PM
:rolling:

Ok, you should stop now. Look, just admit you have the Garland blinders on (and for good reason, he's having a great season) and you choose him because he's on the Sox.
Once again, I choose him because he has proven he is a workhorse, and he can stay healthy for an entire season. Prior has pitched over 119 innings ONCE in his career. What good does Prior's ability do the team when he is on the DL or pitching simulated games?
He did, in 2003, and he was 18-6 with a 2.5 ERA at the age of 22 or so, and his team damn near went to the WS (thank god they didn't).

And please, don't compare Wade Miller to Prior.
He didn't even put together a full season then. He went on the DL after a collision with Marcus Giles. You can argue that he just has bad luck - two freak injuries, and two genuine arm problems. However, he has a history of injuries and going on the DL. It doesn't matter if the injuries are flukes or not, but injuries follow him around. Also, someone on this board, Daver l think, posted an article several months ago written by a sports doctor saying Prior's mechanics are actually poor, and he is putting his arm at risk. We are not comparing the two on raw talent, we are comparing the two in terms of who is going to give your team a better chance of winning more games.

White Sox Josh
07-02-2005, 08:52 PM
Once again, I choose him because he has proven he is a workhorse, and he can stay healthy for an entire season. Prior has pitched over 119 innings ONCE in his career. What good does Prior's ability do the team when he is on the DL or pitching simulated games?

He didn't even put together a full season then. He went on the DL after a collision with Marcus Giles. You can argue that he just has bad luck - two freak injuries, and two genuine arm problems. However, he has a history of injuries and going on the DL. It doesn't matter if the injuries are flukes or not, but injuries follow him around. Also, someone on this board, Daver l think, posted an article several months ago written by a sports doctor saying Prior's mechanics are actually poor, and he is putting his arm at risk. We are not comparing the two on raw talent, we are comparing the two in terms of who is going to give your team a better chance of winning more games.but the team could win the Simulated World Series.

Jjav829
07-02-2005, 09:02 PM
Once again, I choose him because he has proven he is a workhorse, and he can stay healthy for an entire season. Prior has pitched over 119 innings ONCE in his career. What good does Prior's ability do the team when he is on the DL or pitching simulated games?

He didn't even put together a full season then. He went on the DL after a collision with Marcus Giles. You can argue that he just has bad luck - two freak injuries, and two genuine arm problems. However, he has a history of injuries and going on the DL. It doesn't matter if the injuries are flukes or not, but injuries follow him around. Also, someone on this board, Daver l think, posted an article several months ago written by a sports doctor saying Prior's mechanics are actually poor, and he is putting his arm at risk. We are not comparing the two on raw talent, we are comparing the two in terms of who is going to give your team a better chance of winning more games.

First off, the answer is obvious to me. Prior is by far the better pitcher. You can argue that Prior needs to stay healthy for multiple years. That's fine. But then you also have to admit that Garland has to do what he's doing this year for a few more years. Before this year, the answers would have been overwhelmingly Prior. Now Garland has one great half and everyone assumes he'll continue to pitch like this for the rest of his career. Maybe he will. Hopefully he will. But just like there is no guarantee Prior will stay healthy, there is no guarantee Garland will continue to perform at this level.

Second, you messed up the question. If the part in bold is what you really are asking, then your question wasn't asked properly. You asked, "Who would build around today, Prior or Garland." Who gives you the chance to win more games, and who would you build around are two entirely different questions. The guy who will take the mound every 5 days is a better bet to give you more chances to win. But when you are talking about building a staff around a pitcher, you are looking for the guy who can lead your staff.

fquaye149
07-02-2005, 09:09 PM
He did, in 2003, and he was 18-6 with a 2.5 ERA at the age of 22 or so, and his team damn near went to the WS (thank god they didn't).

And please, don't compare Wade Miller to Prior.

I meant before the injury, as most people are not an injury risk until they have had an injury to their throwing arm. He's missed a considerable amount of time in the last two seasons.

I really wasn't comparing Miller to Prior as pitchers

What I was saying is that there is a reason Wade Miller signed for peanuts. Being a threat for injury lowers one's value to his team. The reason I know this is because teams are willing to pay less for an injury threat like Miller. If Mark Prior is an injury threat, as these past two seasons seem to prove, then he is worth less to his team than the platonic form of Mark Prior, which would be an injuryless Prior.

Does that seem reasonable? Therefore another talented pitcher, like Garland, might be more desirable to people who value consistency rather than Woodesque talent sans performance. Therefore they might not just have their Garland-blinders on. It might be because they value performance over "potential" or raw ability.

fquaye149
07-02-2005, 09:12 PM
First off, the answer is obvious to me. Prior is by far the better pitcher. You can argue that Prior needs to stay healthy for multiple years. That's fine. But then you also have to admit that Garland has to do what he's doing this year for a few more years. Before this year, the answers would have been overwhelmingly Prior. Now Garland has one great half and everyone assumes he'll continue to pitch like this for the rest of his career. Maybe he will. Hopefully he will. But just like there is no guarantee Prior will stay healthy, there is no guarantee Garland will continue to perform at this level.

Second, you messed up the question. If the part in bold is what you really are asking, then your question wasn't asked properly. You asked, "Who would build around today, Prior or Garland." Who gives you the chance to win more games, and who would you build around are two entirely different questions. The guy who will take the mound every 5 days is a better bet to give you more chances to win. But when you are talking about building a staff around a pitcher, you are looking for the guy who can lead your staff.

So you're in the camp saying we should trade for Jason Schmidt? It's the same situation - an injury risk who is potentially cy young caliber. Potentially is the key word.

Do you bet the numbers in Roulette?

Jjav829
07-02-2005, 09:20 PM
...

So here's an idea. How about you try to make a post without insulting the person who has a differing opinion? You know, just because they have a different opinion than you doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Jjav829
07-02-2005, 09:24 PM
So you're in the camp saying we should trade for Jason Schmidt? It's the same situation - an injury risk who is potentially cy young caliber. Potentially is the key word.

Do you bet the numbers in Roulette?

Yes, I would trade for Schmidt if I knew he was healthy. You're comparing two different cases though. Schmidt is a 32-year-old who is past the typical peak years of his career and has lost velocity from his injuries. Prior is a 24-year-old with the sky as his limit. He has shown no loss of velocity or become any less of a pitcher from his injuries. One is on the upside of his career. One is on the downside. They are not comparable.

fquaye149
07-02-2005, 09:31 PM
Yes, I would trade for Schmidt if I knew he was healthy. You're comparing two different cases though. Schmidt is a 32-year-old who is past the typical peak years of his career and has lost velocity from his injuries. Prior is a 24-year-old with the sky as his limit. He has shown no loss of velocity or become any less of a pitcher from his injuries. One is on the upside of his career. One is on the downside. They are not comparable.

The point is that you don't know Prior is healthy. While Schmidt may be a poor example (though 32 is not exactly pushing the limits of retirement), the point remains: It'd be an incredible payoff if Prior could stay healthy the rest of his career, or heck, even a full year, but the fact is, even if this year is an aberration for Garland, he has contributed more to the team in his 12 win seasons than Prior has to the Cubs in the last 2 years.

That means that Garland is a much much safer bet, and while his upside is not quite so high, a team that is successful and looks to continue to be successful would probably rather have Garland.

Of course, a team like the Cubs would much rather have Prior, because even if Garland cranks on all cylinders, he still isn't going to put them over the top, whereas if Prior flounders, they won't notice, as they're a mediocre team. However, on the off chance Prior can stay healthy, they'll be a contender.

You may say you're never so good that you can't benefit from having a Mark Prior on the team, and if he stays healthy you're right. But a team like the Sox who are right in the mix wouldn't gain much by having Prior come in and pitch 15 lights out games and being injured in a stretch run or for postseason play.

Like I said, it's like betting the numbers on Roulette: the odds aren't horribly stacked against you, but a smart gambler never bets them because in the end you're going to lose. I guess if you're in desperate straits though, like the Cubs are, you can't even really afford to be the odds and WIN, so you might as well go whole hog.

samram
07-02-2005, 09:32 PM
I meant before the injury, as most people are not an injury risk until they have had an injury to their throwing arm. He's missed a considerable amount of time in the last two seasons.

I really wasn't comparing Miller to Prior as pitchers

What I was saying is that there is a reason Wade Miller signed for peanuts. Being a threat for injury lowers one's value to his team. The reason I know this is because teams are willing to pay less for an injury threat like Miller. If Mark Prior is an injury threat, as these past two seasons seem to prove, then he is worth less to his team than the platonic form of Mark Prior, which would be an injuryless Prior.

Does that seem reasonable? Therefore another talented pitcher, like Garland, might be more desirable to people who value consistency rather than Woodesque talent sans performance. Therefore they might not just have their Garland-blinders on. It might be because they value performance over "potential" or raw ability.

Ok, but Garland's performance has only been better than average this half-season. Obviously, I hope he does this for ten years. However, given Prior's track record and ability to be the best pitcher in baseball, baseball people would take him over Garland right now because, IMO, most would still believe Prior's talent and potential is a better bet than Garland's continuing his performance of this year.

Jjav829
07-02-2005, 09:39 PM
The point is that you don't know Prior is healthy. While Schmidt may be a poor example (though 32 is not exactly pushing the limits of retirement), the point remains: It'd be an incredible payoff if Prior could stay healthy the rest of his career, or heck, even a full year, but the fact is, even if this year is an aberration for Garland, he has contributed more to the team in his 12 win seasons than Prior has to the Cubs in the last 2 years.

That means that Garland is a much much safer bet, and while his upside is not quite so high, a team that is successful and looks to continue to be successful would probably rather have Garland.

Of course, a team like the Cubs would much rather have Prior, because even if Garland cranks on all cylinders, he still isn't going to put them over the top, whereas if Prior flounders, they won't notice, as they're a mediocre team. However, on the off chance Prior can stay healthy, they'll be a contender.

You may say you're never so good that you can't benefit from having a Mark Prior on the team, and if he stays healthy you're right. But a team like the Sox who are right in the mix wouldn't gain much by having Prior come in and pitch 15 lights out games and being injured in a stretch run or for postseason play.

Like I said, it's like betting the numbers on Roulette: the odds aren't horribly stacked against you, but a smart gambler never bets them because in the end you're going to lose. I guess if you're in desperate straits though, like the Cubs are, you can't even really afford to be the odds and WIN, so you might as well go whole hog.

That's a fair point. Still, the question was who would you build your team around. I'm assuming that means you are starting your team from scratch and are looking for the best pitcher possible. From that perspective, I'd much rather have the guy who has established himself as an ace when healthy and can lead the team to the playoffs than the guy who is going to be more durable though not as effective. If we are looking at it from the Sox situation, having a couple front line starters like Buehrle and Garcia in place, then there's a better case to be made for going with Garland. But if we take a team like the Devil Rays, or just assume the scenario of all major leaguers being placed into one pool for a draft, then I think it has to be Prior.

samram
07-02-2005, 09:42 PM
That's a fair point. Still, the question was who would you build your team around. I'm assuming that means you are starting your team from scratch and are looking for the best pitcher possible. From that perspective, I'd much rather have the guy who has established himself as an ace when healthy and can lead the team to the playoffs than the guy who is going to be more durable though not as effective. If we are looking at it from the Sox situation, having a couple front line starters like Buehrle and Garcia in place, then there's a better case to be made for going with Garland. But if we take a team like the Devil Rays, or just assume the scenario of all major leaguers being placed into one pool for a draft, then I think it has to be Prior.

Well, damn, you just said in six lines what I've been attempting to say for seven hours. I bow down to you.:D:

White Sox Josh
07-02-2005, 09:48 PM
I wonder if Ozzie had said that Buehrle was a better pitcher than Prior. I wonder what the geniuses that are Len & Bob would say because it is a clear cut anwser for me and his last name doesn't begin with a P.

wsbaseball9
07-02-2005, 09:55 PM
i voted prior...if u guarentee me both are healthy.
but it hasnt been proven yet that garland has totally turned it around, i think Jon is pitching fantastic, but at least wait until the season is over to start saying he's completely turned it around

remember
jon could still pull a dontrelle willis and fall apart in the second half :redface:

it wont happen jon's the man

prior is dominating when healthy, when he threw that 1 hit-through 6 on us he wasnt even throwing his usual 94-95, he was throwing 90-91, he can be crafty when he needs to be

fquaye149
07-02-2005, 09:59 PM
That's a fair point. Still, the question was who would you build your team around. I'm assuming that means you are starting your team from scratch and are looking for the best pitcher possible. From that perspective, I'd much rather have the guy who has established himself as an ace when healthy and can lead the team to the playoffs than the guy who is going to be more durable though not as effective. If we are looking at it from the Sox situation, having a couple front line starters like Buehrle and Garcia in place, then there's a better case to be made for going with Garland. But if we take a team like the Devil Rays, or just assume the scenario of all major leaguers being placed into one pool for a draft, then I think it has to be Prior.

that's true. Then the question becomes are most teams building from scratch, or do most teams have a solid foundation?

Because the question ultimately is who would most teams rather have?

Since most teams are solid...and teams like the Devil Rays, the Rockies, the Pirates, and the Reds are outliers, wouldn't MOST teams already have a decent top of the rotation and therefore rather have a consistent producer than someone who could possibly be a great but is just as likely to sit out half the season?


Hell even on the Sox I'd take Prior in a heartbeat. I'd trade El Duque OR Contreras for him without batting an eye.

It's just the people who say that Kenny'd be a moron not to trade Garland for Prior straight up if the situation came up who get me:

The fact is, I'm comfortable with Garland in my rotation, if not blown away.

I wouldn't be comfortable with Prior any more than a lot of you were with El Duque at the beginning of the year (perhaps rightly so).

Cowhead418
07-02-2005, 10:47 PM
I didn't vote because it's too hard of a question to answer. If it were Buehrle vs. Prior however I'd take Buehrle in a heartbeat. But Garland vs. Prior has just too many questions surrounding it. How 'bout we take both and call it a day?:cool:

PAPChiSox729
07-02-2005, 11:28 PM
This was kind of tough for me to decide. Just going by stuff and potential, everyone would agree Prior is superior. Garland is more durable and will hopefully be a cheaper option as compared to Prior. For those two latter reasons (yeah, I'm cheap), I think it would be better to build a team around Jon.

FarWestChicago
07-03-2005, 03:28 AM
:crossdresser

I can just feel the Flubbie love in this thread. Prior is so dreamy!!

RallyBowl
07-03-2005, 12:27 PM
:crossdresser

I can just feel the Flubbie love in this thread. Prior is so dreamy!!How about it!