PDA

View Full Version : Could a trade for "Messiah" make sense if...


Frater Perdurabo
03-09-2007, 04:19 PM
Would it make sense for the Sox to inquire about Mark Prior?

Some say he may be superfluous in the Cubs' rotation, as Wade Miller may earn the 5th starter spot. Would he fit in the Cubs' pen? Do they need six starters? Wouldn't he have to approve being sent to AAA (besides rehab)?

If Floyd continues to struggle, does anyone think if the price is right, the Sox could consider trading for Prior? After all, Don Cooper had had success making pitchers with far less talent into healthy, reliable pitchers.

Would anyone here be interested for the right price? If so, what would the "right price" be? (Mack and Tracey?)

Discuss...

soxinem1
03-09-2007, 04:20 PM
Would it make sense for the Sox to inquire about Mark Prior?

Some say he may be superfluous in the Cubs' rotation, as Wade Miller may earn the 5th starter spot. Would he fit in the Cubs' pen? Do they need six starters? Wouldn't he have to approve being sent to AAA (besides rehab)?

If Floyd continues to struggle, does anyone think if the price is right, the Sox could consider trading for Prior? After all, Don Cooper had had success making pitchers with far less talent into healthy, reliable pitchers.

Would anyone here be interested for the right price? If so, what would the "right price" be? (Mack and Tracey?)

Discuss...

I would, esp. if Mack and Tracey were the cost.....

mccoydp
03-09-2007, 04:25 PM
Prior is worth a bag of balls, more or less.

balke
03-09-2007, 04:26 PM
seems like a pretty risky move for anyone. The guy pitched 87 MPH. He should get into a different system for sure, and the Sox would be a great candidate for that. I don't know if the Sox would want to take on that kind of project though with so many tasks already at hand. How much does the guy make now?

TheOldRoman
03-09-2007, 04:32 PM
I don't think anyone would turn down a trade for Prior "for the right price". I think he would become great if he were to ever get away from the Cubs. However, what is the right price? I don't think the Cubs would EVER trade him to the Sox. They probably realize that ones he gets away from a horrible coaching and training staff he will take off again. No matter how much the Cubs get in return (and it wouldn'e be much at all to make it happen), there would be a huge risk that Prior stays healthy, wins a cy young or three, and leads the Sox to multiple championships while the Cubs go on 110 years without a championship.

Uncle_Patrick
03-09-2007, 05:03 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing Prior in a Sox uniform if they could get a good deal for him. I agree with the Old Roman, though, I don't think the Cubs would ever trade Prior to the White Sox unless they were absolutely certain that the guy was physically and/or mentally incapable of ever reaching his potential. I don't think they've reached that point yet.

WizardsofOzzie
03-09-2007, 05:49 PM
I would actually be all for this for selfish reasons. The girlfriend told me that if Prior ever went to the Sox, she'd convert from the Cubs to the Good Guys :cool:

bigfoot
03-09-2007, 06:18 PM
Prior is exhibit "A" in KW's 'don't sign a pitcher for more than three years' mantra!

If he hadn't been signed for a LT contract + hype from Hell, would he still be a blip on the Blue Ursine horizon?

DumpJerry
03-09-2007, 06:43 PM
I would actually be all for this for selfish reasons. The girlfriend told me that if Prior ever went to the Sox, she'd convert from the Cubs to the Good Guys :cool:
You really need to re-evaluate your girlfriend selection process.


Prior's trade value is about the same as mine. Zilch. Nobody's gonna touch him. Well, almost nobody. The Giants and A's seem like fools for some of their signings.

LongLiveFisk
03-09-2007, 07:16 PM
Prior is definitely risky, but I'd be interested in seeing him pitch for just about any other team for the sole purpose of determining whether the Cubs' pitching staff is really what's preventing him from becoming the pitcher everyone seems to think he can.

oeo
03-09-2007, 08:36 PM
Would it make sense for the Sox to inquire about Mark Prior?

Some say he may be superfluous in the Cubs' rotation, as Wade Miller may earn the 5th starter spot. Would he fit in the Cubs' pen? Do they need six starters? Wouldn't he have to approve being sent to AAA (besides rehab)?

If Floyd continues to struggle, does anyone think if the price is right, the Sox could consider trading for Prior? After all, Don Cooper had had success making pitchers with far less talent into healthy, reliable pitchers.

Would anyone here be interested for the right price? If so, what would the "right price" be? (Mack and Tracey?)

Discuss...

I think Prior is toast. They had him throwing in the low-80s his last outing.

veeter
03-09-2007, 08:46 PM
I'm not sure how much his teammates like him. He seems like the anti-Sox type. I'll take Zambrano.

FedEx227
03-09-2007, 08:50 PM
I really don't want a complete frail headcase who can't throw above 84 mph. Sorry but he's very damaged goods at this point.

roylestillman
03-09-2007, 09:44 PM
I think Prior is toast. They had him throwing in the low-80s his last outing.

...and even I could hit a towel coming at me in the low 80's

voodoochile
03-09-2007, 10:38 PM
McDougal and the rights to Shingo. What the heck, it's more than they got for Garland...

getonbckthr
03-09-2007, 10:43 PM
I think the reason why Prior's speed is low is because he is somewhat afraid because of the past? You touch a hot stove what happens you burn your hand, chances are you won't touch a hot stove again. How many times can one get hurt before you start thinking about how to change your motion or if its even worth it anymore.

jabrch
03-09-2007, 10:44 PM
They wouldn't think about sending Prior to us. The risk is just too high.

FedEx227
03-09-2007, 11:20 PM
I think the reason why Prior's speed is low is because he is somewhat afraid because of the past? You touch a hot stove what happens you burn your hand, chances are you won't touch a hot stove again. How many times can one get hurt before you start thinking about how to change your motion or if its even worth it anymore.

Oh yeah, you hit it right on the head. Personally I think Prior's injuries from last year to present has all been mental.

Not only is he afraid of getting hurt, but he's afraid of being a failure. He's been brought up as the "Messiah" and the "next big thing" his entire life that he doesn't know anything beside that.

TomBradley72
03-09-2007, 11:36 PM
No interest in Prior. Not only because he seems on the edge of being washed up. But mainly because the guy comes across as a total dick. He gone 18-17 over the past three years and he still acts like his **** doesn't stink and like somebody owes him something.

At least Kerry Wood has some guts. Ever since Prior through his tantrum and melted down during the Bartman game....he's just not a champion.

oeo
03-10-2007, 12:47 AM
I think the reason why Prior's speed is low is because he is somewhat afraid because of the past? You touch a hot stove what happens you burn your hand, chances are you won't touch a hot stove again. How many times can one get hurt before you start thinking about how to change your motion or if its even worth it anymore.

This may be true, but I don't think so. I don't think he would be nearly 15 MPH off his norm because he's afraid of being hurt. If it was the upper-80s, I think it may hold true, but nearly 15 MPH, and I don't think it's not throwing the ball, it's that he can't. Maybe it's a combination of both...either way, I don't think he'll ever have the career he could have had.

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-10-2007, 09:40 AM
I think the reason why Prior's speed is low is because he is somewhat afraid because of the past? You touch a hot stove what happens you burn your hand, chances are you won't touch a hot stove again. How many times can one get hurt before you start thinking about how to change your motion or if its even worth it anymore.

Good point - but how much also lies in the responsibility of the PITCHING COACH to teach him through that? Rothschild is as much to blame for that mess as anyone; and, if the pitcher doesn't respond to your coaching and conditioning, because he refuses to listen or can't, you release or trade him.

The Cubs got themselves into that mess - I wouldn't send Charlie Hough at this point.

dickallen15
03-10-2007, 09:55 AM
I think the reason why Prior's speed is low is because he is somewhat afraid because of the past? You touch a hot stove what happens you burn your hand, chances are you won't touch a hot stove again. How many times can one get hurt before you start thinking about how to change your motion or if its even worth it anymore.

Or perhaps it may be that he has just made his first outing in spring training and he hasn't opened it up yet. I don't see too many White Sox pitchers pitching all that well either. These games don't count and they have to get ready not for March 10 but for April and beyond. If Prior is still throwing 84 in a month, I'll agree with you, but the Cubs aren't going to trade him for mediocrity, especially to the White Sox.

oeo
03-10-2007, 10:02 AM
Or perhaps it may be that he has just made his first outing in spring training and he hasn't opened it up yet. I don't see too many White Sox pitchers pitching all that well either. These games don't count and they have to get ready not for March 10 but for April and beyond. If Prior is still throwing 84 in a month, I'll agree with you, but the Cubs aren't going to trade him for mediocrity, especially to the White Sox.

Prior was throwing 81, I believe. He throws in the mid-90s...name one Sox pitcher that is nearly 15 MPH off their average.

dickallen15
03-10-2007, 10:04 AM
Prior was throwing 81, I believe. He throws in the mid-90s...name one Sox pitcher that is nearly 15 MPH off their average.

Like I said, wait until its time to play for real and see if he's still throwing 81.

Gregory Pratt
03-10-2007, 10:27 AM
He's a disabled Brandon McCarthy.
Next!

vegyrex
03-10-2007, 12:33 PM
In the unlikely event Prior did come to the Sox, he'd have to be de-cubbed. He'll have to be constantly reminded that losing is not cool, that losing is not ok. He'll have to be taught that towels are meant for drying your hands after you wash them, not a substitute for actual rehab.

tick53
03-10-2007, 12:38 PM
Prior is worth a bag of balls, more or less.

Amen! :kukoo: I think he's a headcase that Coop couldn't even help.

WhiteSox5187
03-10-2007, 02:42 PM
Interesting question, but I would say no. The guy would probably hurt himself brushing his teeth. I think he had a good year in 2003 and hasn't shown me a whole lot outside of that year. Now, a guy I would be interested in taking is Kerry Wood. I think he'd be a great guy out of the bullpen and a good spot starter too. But no, I'm going to pass on Prior. And the Cubs wouldn't trade him. It would kill them to see their messiah winning twenty games on the southside.

SABRSox
03-10-2007, 03:50 PM
Wow. What a shame his career was completely ruined by Dusty Baker and the Cubs organization. He had all the talent in the world, and the ineptitude over there completely destroyed all of that.

WhiteSox5187
03-11-2007, 05:13 AM
Prior was throwing 81, I believe. He throws in the mid-90s...name one Sox pitcher that is nearly 15 MPH off their average.
He was throwing around 86-88 today. If I was Prior, I wouldn't be worried about velocity. That'll come back. I'd be worried about some sorta freak catcus injury that is going to happen any day now....

Gregory Pratt
03-11-2007, 11:13 AM
Wow. What a shame his career was completely ruined by Dusty Baker and the Cubs organization. He had all the talent in the world, and the ineptitude over there completely destroyed all of that.

Yes and no. He's double jointed in the shoulders. That's not good for pitching.

Baker has a part, to be sure.

mwc44
03-11-2007, 10:09 PM
Would it make sense for the Sox to inquire about Mark Prior? ...

...Discuss...

In a word.... NO!

IndianWhiteSox
03-15-2007, 12:31 PM
Amen! :kukoo: I think he's a headcase that Coop couldn't even help.

What are you talking about, Coop can create a diamond out of thin air.

AuroraSoxFan
03-15-2007, 12:35 PM
I will jst answer the thread ?...... NO! Sure he has shown some flashes of talent (though none recently). But the Sox are about guys that can eat innings and do not need to have their hands every step of the way.

soxfan13
03-15-2007, 02:13 PM
I am seeing all these no replies and it bothers me. Would I trade a top notch prospect or 2.....No. But if you can get him for a couple of mid tier prospects why not. Prior has a huge upside which he showed when the Cubs made the playoffs. He was one of the best in baseball that year and probably would have won 20 easily if he didnt have that collision with Giles. I think any GM in baseball would make the trade for the right package and no questions asked.

IndianWhiteSox
03-15-2007, 02:19 PM
I am seeing all these no replies and it bothers me. Would I trade a top notch prospect or 2.....No. But if you can get him for a couple of mid tier prospects why not. Prior has a huge upside which he showed when the Cubs made the playoffs. He was one of the best in baseball that year and probably would have won 20 easily if he didnt have that collision with Giles. I think any GM in baseball would make the trade for the right package and no questions asked.

I'm not sure about that. Unless you have a good psychiatrist on your staff, your team's pitching coach(in our case Don Cooper) probably can't fix him. At this rate, you might as well try to get Zack Grienke from the Royals for a career minor leaguer like Tim Redding.

soxfan13
03-15-2007, 02:21 PM
I'm not sure about that. Unless you have a good psychiatrist on your staff, your team's pitching coach(in our case Don Cooper) probably can't fix him. At this rate, you midas well try to get Zack Grienke from the Royals for a career minor leaguer like Tim Redding.

Yes he would be good also but I would still take Prior over him. IMO Prior will be huge once he gets away from the Cubs. Like I said for a few mid level prospects whose chances of making it in the Majors are slim. Why not take a chance on him. PS check your facts on Redding he is not a career minor leaguer.

IndianWhiteSox
03-15-2007, 02:26 PM
Yes he would be good also but I would still take Prior over him. IMO Prior will be huge once he gets away from the Cubs. Like I said for a few mid level prospects whose chances of making it in the Majors are slim. Why not take a chance on him. PS check your facts on Redding he is not a career minor leaguer.

My bad on the Redding part, but I'm still not sure if Prior can ever come back to form again after what Baker and Rothschild did to him. However, I do see your reasoning and I wouldn't mind if the SOX got Prior or Grienke for absolutely nothing.

SBSoxFan
03-15-2007, 02:40 PM
I'm not sure about that. Unless you have a good psychiatrist on your staff, your team's pitching coach(in our case Don Cooper) probably can't fix him. At this rate, you midas well try to get Zack Grienke from the Royals for a career minor leaguer like Tim Redding.


That's funny, although probably unintended.

IndianWhiteSox
03-15-2007, 02:45 PM
That's funny, although probably unintended.

Thanks, although bad grammar is funny I guess?
:?:

soxfan13
03-15-2007, 02:50 PM
My bad on the Redding part, but I'm still not sure if Prior can ever come back to form again after what Baker and Rothschild did to him. However, I do see your reasoning and I wouldn't mind if the SOX got Prior or Grienke for absolutely nothing.


Whoa stop the presses we almost agreed on things:wink:

PKalltheway
03-15-2007, 03:40 PM
Hmm...sounds interesting, but I'm not too sure. If the Sox were to try getting him, hopefully they'll be smart and not give up too much. That being said, I don't think the Cubs would want to trade him to the Sox, considering the repercussions of the move if he does resurrect his career on the South Side.

Since Prior is losing his velocity, he's going to have to become better at locating his pitches and fooling the hitters (I know this is a no **** type of statement, but that's what he's gonna have to do if he wants to hang around).

soxfan13
03-15-2007, 03:48 PM
Hmm...sounds interesting, but I'm not too sure. If the Sox were to try getting him, hopefully they'll be smart and not give up too much. That being said, I don't think the Cubs would want to trade him to the Sox, considering the repercussions of the move if he does resurrect his career on the South Side.

Since Prior is losing his velocity, he's going to have to become better at locating his pitches and fooling the hitters (I know this is a no **** type of statement, but that's what he's gonna have to do if he wants to hang around).

No **** :tongue:

jabrch
03-15-2007, 04:09 PM
Since Prior is losing his velocity, he's going to have to become better at locating his pitches and fooling the hitters (I know this is a no **** type of statement, but that's what he's gonna have to do if he wants to hang around).

If Prior doesn't get healthy and get back into the mid 90s, he's got no chance as a MLB SP. He's not going to be a finesse pitcher.

PaulDrake
03-15-2007, 04:16 PM
Wow. What a shame his career was completely ruined by Dusty Baker and the Cubs organization. He had all the talent in the world, and the ineptitude over there completely destroyed all of that. 30 starts, 3 (wow) whole complete games and grand total of 211 1/3 innings in 2003 ruined him? Oh wait, it must have been the 23 2/3 innings he had to pitch in the playoffs that was the straw that broke poor Mark's arm or heart or something. The guy is 6'5" and built like an Adonis and he couldn't take that for one year? If today's pitchers are so brittle then give them a 3 inning limit like in some Little Leagues. I just think it's totally ridiculous to blame Dusty Baker or any one else in the Cubs organization for the demise of Mark Prior. If he was half the stud they thought he was, he'd of laughed off the Bartman play, shut the Marlins down and celebrated in the clubhouse. OMG, then he would have had to pitch in the WS too.

White Sox Randy
03-15-2007, 08:15 PM
Prior's trade value is still fairly high since every major league team knows that he's been mishandled by the flubs. Also, he's only 26 and if he gets it back together he'll be about as good as anyone.

The flubs are so fearful of having more egg on their faces after trading Dontrelle Willis and Jon Garland that will not let him go cheap.

You can also be sure that whatever any team offers them, they would demand double from the Sox so as not to have any chance of being embarassed by the White Sox.

IndianWhiteSox
03-16-2007, 04:24 AM
30 starts, 3 (wow) whole complete games and grand total of 211 1/3 innings in 2003 ruined him? Oh wait, it must have been the 23 2/3 innings he had to pitch in the playoffs that was the straw that broke poor Mark's arm or heart or something. The guy is 6'5" and built like an Adonis and he couldn't take that for one year? If today's pitchers are so brittle then give them a 3 inning limit like in some Little Leagues. I just think it's totally ridiculous to blame Dusty Baker or any one else in the Cubs organization for the demise of Mark Prior. If he was half the stud they thought he was, he'd of laughed off the Bartman play, shut the Marlins down and celebrated in the clubhouse. OMG, then he would have had to pitch in the WS too.

You do realize that throwing 120 pitches before getting to the sixth inning every game, will ruin your career.

IndianWhiteSox
03-16-2007, 04:31 AM
Prior's trade value is still fairly high since every major league team knows that he's been mishandled by the flubs. Also, he's only 26 and if he gets it back together he'll be about as good as anyone.

The flubs are so fearful of having more egg on their faces after trading Dontrelle Willis and Jon Garland that will not let him go cheap.

You can also be sure that whatever any team offers them, they would demand double from the Sox so as not to have any chance of being embarassed by the White Sox.

That may be true, but I really don't see anyone giving up that much for Mark Prior.

Mohoney
03-16-2007, 05:57 AM
Prior for Boone Logan, straight-up.

soxfan13
03-16-2007, 09:25 AM
You do realize that throwing 120 pitches before getting to the sixth inning every game, will ruin your career.

its all bull****. These pitchers now-a-days are babied beyond belief. Its hard to believe that pitchers 40 to 50 years ago(crap even 20 years ago) would pitch until there arms fell off and never complained. They consistently pitched and had great long careers. Now a pitcher gets a little stiff and it is immediately blamed on over use.:rolleyes:

SBSoxFan
03-16-2007, 09:56 AM
Thanks, although bad grammar is funny I guess?
:?:

No, I didn't mean it that way. I meant "midas" as in Coop having the midas touch to fix all these wayward pitchers such as Prior and Grienke.

rdivaldi
03-16-2007, 11:23 AM
Its hard to believe that pitchers 40 to 50 years ago(crap even 20 years ago) would pitch until there arms fell off and never complained. They consistently pitched and had great long careers. Now a pitcher gets a little stiff and it is immediately blamed on over use.

I've never seen any evidence to show that pitchers had longer careers in the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's for that matter. I also doubt that athletes back then "never complained", it's just that you didn't have 24 hour sports programs and tabloids reporting it.

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-16-2007, 12:21 PM
You do realize that throwing 120 pitches before getting to the sixth inning every game, will ruin your career.

So will 120 towels by the 3rd inning of a simulated game, that you end up winning.

PaulDrake
03-16-2007, 12:55 PM
I've never seen any evidence to show that pitchers had longer careers in the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's for that matter. I also doubt that athletes back then "never complained", it's just that you didn't have 24 hour sports programs and tabloids reporting it. You can't be serious. Check out this. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/IP_leagues.shtml

And this. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/CG_leagues.shtml

I don't know definitively about "longer careers", but it's evident that yearly leaders in innings pitched and complete games have been on a long term downward spiral. You can spend some time at http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/ and check out the stats of any number of good and great pitchers from the past and see how much more productive they were than today's pitchers. It's time to junk the radar gun and the pitch count and start developing strong durable arms. I remain baffled and perplexed by the overly fragile present day Major League pitchers.

soxfan13
03-16-2007, 12:56 PM
I've never seen any evidence to show that pitchers had longer careers in the 60's, 70's, 80's, or 90's for that matter. I also doubt that athletes back then "never complained", it's just that you didn't have 24 hour sports programs and tabloids reporting it.

I was exagerating the never complain. I am just anti pitch count. All I am saying is that pitchers consistently threw alot of pitches back in the day and pitchers now-a-days will sit for 2 weeks with something that can easily be pitched thru.

IndianWhiteSox
03-16-2007, 01:04 PM
its all bull****. These pitchers now-a-days are babied beyond belief. Its hard to believe that pitchers 40 to 50 years ago(crap even 20 years ago) would pitch until there arms fell off and never complained. They consistently pitched and had great long careers. Now a pitcher gets a little stiff and it is immediately blamed on over use.:rolleyes:

So will 120 towels by the 3rd inning of a simulated game, that you end up winning.

Listen I agree with you guys, but I think the real reasoning is that pitchers today aren't conditioned to go as long as in they were in the past. I mean, think about it, pitchers don't long toss as they used. These pitchers also have much worse mechanics than back in the day and not to mention, steroid use has also caused this. Yes I know they help in re-cooperation time, but they also lead to worse injuries.

PaulDrake
03-16-2007, 01:07 PM
Listen I agree with you guys, but I think the real reasoning is that pitchers today aren't conditioned to go as long as in they were in the past. I mean, think about it, pitchers don't long toss as they used. These pitchers also have much worse mechanics than back in the day and not to mention, steroid use has also caused this. Yes I know they help in re-cooperation time, but they also lead to worse injuries. Very good points. Especially about long toss.

rdivaldi
03-16-2007, 01:10 PM
You can't be serious. Check out this. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/IP_leagues.shtml

And this. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/CG_leagues.shtml

I don't know definitively about "longer careers", but it's evident that yearly leaders in innings pitched and complete games have been on a long term downward spiral. You can spend some time at http://http://www.baseball-reference.com/ and check out the stats of any number of good and great pitchers from the past and see how much more productive they were than today's pitchers. It's time to junk the radar gun and the pitch count and start developing strong durable arms. I remain baffled and perplexed by the overly fragile present day Major League pitchers.

Maybe I didn't word that correctly, but I never meant to argue the point that pitchers threw a lot more innings in the old days. But, I still have never seen any conclusive evidence to suggest that pitchers in the old days were less brittle or more productive. For every Nolan Ryan there are 50 Mark Fidryches. Let's not forget that their numbers are skewed due to higher mounds, bigger ballparks, no HGH, etc.

IndianWhiteSox
03-16-2007, 01:10 PM
I was exagerating the never complain. I am just anti pitch count. All I am saying is that pitchers consistently threw alot of pitches back in the day and pitchers now-a-days will sit for 2 weeks with something that can easily be pitched thru.

I think the thing is, most of these pitchers now days are worried about what could happen to their arms as opposed to what is happening in the game right now. I mean most of these guys are too conscious of their health to the extent where they no longer want to leave it all out on the field like how Bruce Sutter did as a pitcher.

rdivaldi
03-16-2007, 01:12 PM
All I am saying is that pitchers consistently threw alot of pitches back in the day and pitchers now-a-days will sit for 2 weeks with something that can easily be pitched thru.

A lot of those pitchers that threw through pain instead of taking care of themselves ended up like Jason Bere.

PatK
03-16-2007, 01:16 PM
These pitchers also have much worse mechanics than back in the day and not to mention, steroid use has also caused this. Yes I know they help in re-cooperation time, but they also lead to worse injuries.

I'm one of those that think that Mark may have been on the juice. His perfomance has fallen off so fast, not to mention how withered he looks since he first broke into the bigs.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but note that his real decline started about the time testing came about. Not to mention claims by one of his old coaches.

IndianWhiteSox
03-16-2007, 01:17 PM
Maybe I didn't word that correctly, but I never meant to argue the point that pitchers threw a lot more innings in the old days. But, I still have never seen any conclusive evidence to suggest that pitchers in the old days were less brittle or more productive. For every Nolan Ryan there are 50 Mark Fidryches. Let's not forget that their numbers are skewed due to higher mounds, bigger ballparks, no HGH, etc.

Most of what you said maybe true, but come on these pitchers were also cheating as well during the "steroid era". I'm also not sure about the 50 mark fidryches considering the fact that more pitchers have gotten injured now more than ever. I mean just ask Ed Farmer:

:farmer
"John, that's all Bull****! More pitchers have had arm problems now in the past 10-15 years than ever before."

*During a broadcast a few years ago*

IndianWhiteSox
03-16-2007, 01:18 PM
I'm one of those that think that Mark may have been on the juice. His perfomance has fallen off so fast, not to mention how withered he looks since he first broke into the bigs.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but note that his real decline started about the time testing came about. Not to mention claims by one of his old coaches.

That wouldn't surprise me one bit, if that was the case.

WhiteSoxFan84
03-17-2007, 04:35 AM
This is just a thought, but seeing as how Prior is from the University of Spoiled Children (on the West Coast), was considered the best college pitcher ever by some, had 2-3 good years, then the steriods issue comes up and he starts to decline..... do you think that's just a coincidence or that he may end up being a name mentioned in one of the investigations? I always had my doubts about this guy and it continues to make more and more sense.

Some reasons I really am beginning to believe he was on something:
- He lost some weight because of an "illness" that no one knew about last year.
- This past offseason his health was uncertain and still is, yet there hasn't been an injury cited.
- He's not even throwing 90 MPH anymore when he was easily hitting 97-98 a few years ago.

soxfan13
03-17-2007, 08:09 AM
Listen I agree with you guys, but I think the real reasoning is that pitchers today aren't conditioned to go as long as in they were in the past. I mean, think about it, pitchers don't long toss as they used. These pitchers also have much worse mechanics than back in the day and not to mention, steroid use has also caused this. Yes I know they help in re-cooperation time, but they also lead to worse injuries.


Agree on most of this except that these pitchers now-a-days are in much much better condition then the pitchers from the past.

PaulDrake
03-17-2007, 12:48 PM
Agree on most of this except that these pitchers now-a-days are in much much better condition then the pitchers from the past. Then why can't they pitch complete games? Then why are fans ready to tar and feather a manager that lets his ace pitch 211 1/3 innings in a season, or more than 110 pitches in a game?

Frater Perdurabo
03-17-2007, 02:01 PM
Then why can't they pitch complete games? Then why are fans ready to tar and feather a manager that lets his ace pitch 211 1/3 innings in a season, or more than 110 pitches in a game?

Smaller called strike zone

Lower mound

Designated hitters

Increased emphasis on hitting; decreased emphasis on defense

Smaller park dimensions

soxfan13
03-17-2007, 06:56 PM
Then why can't they pitch complete games? Then why are fans ready to tar and feather a manager that lets his ace pitch 211 1/3 innings in a season, or more than 110 pitches in a game?

Back in the day a player never picked a ball or bat up until spring training started. Most of the players actually had to work a second job. Now these players are training year round taking about a month off. Fans are part of the problem in falling into this pitch count, inning criteria. They get this from the media!!! Thats why i am saying these pitchers today are in better condition.

IndianWhiteSox
03-18-2007, 01:52 AM
Smaller called strike zone

Lower mound

Designated hitters

Increased emphasis on hitting; decreased emphasis on defense

Smaller park dimensions

I remember about 15 years ago or so, there was still so much emphasis on speed and defense and now that no longer exists. I remember the steroid era and that was just messed up at how many sluggers would take the field and look pathetic in fielding and running the bases.

Back in the day a player never picked a ball or bat up until spring training started. Most of the players actually had to work a second job. Now these players are training year round taking about a month off. Fans are part of the problem in falling into this pitch count, inning criteria. They get this from the media!!! Thats why i am saying these pitchers today are in better condition.

Yes because its the media that works with the pitchers during spring training and the off-season. The media also sets the rotation and manipulates every pitching coach into getting their pitchers injured.
:rolleyes:

soxfan13
03-18-2007, 08:19 AM
I remember about 15 years ago or so, there was still so much emphasis on speed and defense and now that no longer exists. I remember the steroid era and that was just messed up at how many sluggers would take the field and look pathetic in fielding and running the bases.



Yes because its the media that works with the pitchers during spring training and the off-season. The media also sets the rotation and manipulates every pitching coach into getting their pitchers injured.
:rolleyes:


No its media that makes such a big deal about pitch count and innings pitched. :rolleyes: What I keep saying is 20 years ago you never heard a peep about innings pitched or number of pitches a game

IndianWhiteSox
03-18-2007, 08:45 AM
No its media that makes such a big deal about pitch count and innings pitched. :rolleyes: What I keep saying is 20 years ago you never heard a peep about innings pitched or number of pitches a game

That maybe true in what you're saying, but if your team is worried about what the media thinks, than your team needs to join Zack Grienke in the shrink to solve their inferiority complex. The bottom line is that maybe, they lift too much or they're not properly trained.

PaulDrake
03-18-2007, 11:48 AM
Smaller called strike zone

Lower mound

Designated hitters

Increased emphasis on hitting; decreased emphasis on defense

Smaller park dimensions Yes you're correct, conditions are much tougher for pitchers. Still I never get an answer as to why pitchers can't pitch as much? Why they break down with strained triceps, tendonitis, torn rotator cuffs, torn labrums, and maybe broken hearts too. Teams have to carry 11 and 12 pitchers on a staff, whereas a long time ago when I started following the game most teams carried 10. Some only 9! It really makes it difficult for managers in the late innings, particularly American League managers. I remain both perplexed and unimpressed with the today's weaker, more fragile Major League pitchers. Fans are still going to blame Dusty and the Cubs for the demise of Mark Prior, and be enraged with any manager who lets his pitcher stay in the game after 100-110 pitches.

slavko
03-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Smaller called strike zone

Lower mound

Designated hitters

Increased emphasis on hitting; decreased emphasis on defense

Smaller park dimensions

Batting helmets

Body armor

Protective umpires

Warnings to both benches

IndianWhiteSox
03-18-2007, 02:34 PM
Batting helmets

Body armor

Protective umpires

Warnings to both benches

Advanced Scouting

In game adjustments in the clubhouse

Frater Perdurabo
03-18-2007, 03:41 PM
Yes you're correct, conditions are much tougher for pitchers. Still I never get an answer as to why pitchers can't pitch as much? Why they break down with strained triceps, tendonitis, torn rotator cuffs, torn labrums, and maybe broken hearts too. Teams have to carry 11 and 12 pitchers on a staff, whereas a long time ago when I started following the game most teams carried 10. Some only 9! It really makes it difficult for managers in the late innings, particularly American League managers. I remain both perplexed and unimpressed with the today's weaker, more fragile Major League pitchers. Fans are still going to blame Dusty and the Cubs for the demise of Mark Prior, and be enraged with any manager who lets his pitcher stay in the game after 100-110 pitches.

Daver has said it before; pitchers are not trained/coached to throw (to keep the muscles strong and loose and the joints flexible) on the days they don't pitch.

But years ago the pitch above the belt and over the plate would be called a strike, and when thrown from the higher mound came in at an angle and therefore was harder to hit. Those additional called and swinging strikes added up to quicker outs and therefore fewer pitches per inning and therefore the ability (and expectation) to go deeper into games. The lack of the DH also helped pitchers.

So, 100 or even 90 well-located pitches often would get a pitcher through nine innings. It's so much harder to do today with the circumstances and rules stacked against pitchers, combined with the pitchers themselves throwing less on the side.

PaulDrake
03-19-2007, 09:26 AM
Daver has said it before; pitchers are not trained/coached to throw (to keep the muscles strong and loose and the joints flexible) on the days they don't pitch.

But years ago the pitch above the belt and over the plate would be called a strike, and when thrown from the higher mound came in at an angle and therefore was harder to hit. Those additional called and swinging strikes added up to quicker outs and therefore fewer pitches per inning and therefore the ability (and expectation) to go deeper into games. The lack of the DH also helped pitchers.

So, 100 or even 90 well-located pitches often would get a pitcher through nine innings. It's so much harder to do today with the circumstances and rules stacked against pitchers, combined with the pitchers themselves throwing less on the side. Game times were definitely shorter back in that era, but I'm not so sure that many less pitches were thrown. In fact, I remember a lot of patient hitters, trying to coax a walk, or as in the case of Ron Hunt, try to find the right pitch to get hit with. Anyway, I bow out now. I think Daver's reasons are the closest to the truth that I'll get at this time.