Is Rich Hill that good?

[CubinNY]

Baseball American has him ranked in the top 5 in the Cubs org. He lead the minors in Ks last year and had a respectable ERA, but is he an "untouchable".

 

Hendry seems to think so.

 

What do you think?

[CuseCubFan69]

As I said in another thread I think Hendry is saving Hill for the last part or the closing chip in a deal for an impact player. I like the fact that he is holding out like that.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I wouldn't label him untoucahble.

[Tim]

Hill's stuff will play in the majors. Whether he's going to be a middle reliever or a frontline starter comes down to two things:

 

1) Can he bring the command he found in the minors last year to the majors? He wasn't able to do so in 2005, but that was his debut. If he can avoid the walks, that's a real big first step.

 

2) Can he avoid the home runs? Last year he gave up taters at a somewhat frightening pace in the minors, but wasn't impacted that much on ERA because he wasn't allowing baserunners. If he's going to become an impact guy, this problem as got to go away.

 

If the Cubs scouts feel he's going to get past these two things, he could become one of those rare starters who blossoms at a later age. If so, he has dominating stuff. But the chances of anybody making such a transition at that stage of his career is pretty low. He made great progress on the first one last year in the minors. But he has to carry it forward and add in control of the home runs.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

the first names people ask for when making a deal with JH are Pie and Hill. that should tell you something about his value. it's not just our organization that covets him.

[goonys evil twin]

From 94-2001 the Cubs had a legit reason to have a "do not trade" list, they weren't any good and were far from getting better. At the time, holding onto any and all prospects was the only smart thing to do. Now however, they are not far from being among the best teams, and should be willing to package any of their prospects in a deal that nets an impact player.

[Mizzou]

He's got two pitches - I don't care how good that curveball is, any pitcher with only two pitches should NOT be untouchable.

[goonys evil twin]

He's got two pitches - I don't care how good that curveball is, any pitcher with only two pitches should NOT be untouchable.

 

Mariano Rivera has 1 pitch, and he was untouchable his entire career.

 

I don't care how many pitches a guy has, performance is performance. Hill has not performed, to date, like a guy who should hold up a trade for an impact player.

[B]

He's got two pitches - I don't care how good that curveball is, any pitcher with only two pitches should NOT be untouchable.

 

Roy Oswalt only throws 2 pitches, and occasionally mixes in a change-up.

[mg420]

He's got two pitches - I don't care how good that curveball is, any pitcher with only two pitches should NOT be untouchable.

 

dwight gooden did pretty well in his prime throwing just a fb & a curve. if a pitcher has good control & changes speeds on the 2 pitches it can work. hill doesnt have the control or the speed changes to this point.

[Tim]

He's got two pitches - I don't care how good that curveball is, any pitcher with only two pitches should NOT be untouchable.

 

Roy Oswalt only throws 2 pitches, and occasionally mixes in a change-up.

Roy really has four pitches as he'll mix in a slider, too.

 

Burnett, OTOH, really has only two pitches. Apparently, there are a lot of GM's out there that think pretty highly of him.

[Proven Veteran]

I think he's too old to be untouchable. I wouldn't just toss him away in any trade though.

[USSoccer]

I just find it odd, Cuse, that Hendry would be so careful as to talk up Hill's potential value, while he's done little to increase the value of other trading chips in the past and present.

 

As far as Hill goes, I move him if it nets us an impact bat. Our window of opportunity isn't going to be open for more than the next 2-3 years, so we might as well go for it.

[Mizzou]

He's got two pitches - I don't care how good that curveball is, any pitcher with only two pitches should NOT be untouchable.

 

Mariano Rivera has 1 pitch, and he was untouchable his entire career.

 

I don't care how many pitches a guy has, performance is performance. Hill has not performed, to date, like a guy who should hold up a trade for an impact player.

 

Rivera throws a fastball, a cutter, and I think (not sure though) a pretty good slider too. I do agree with your second point though.

[abuck1220]

i've probably seen hill the most here (at least in the past year, when it suddenly turned on for him), and he's got great stuff. it's really not fair to say that he has one pitch...his fb is pretty good too, especially when it's paired w/ that curve. that being said, there's no way i consider him to be untouchable...and i'd guess that i'm his biggest fan here.

 

however...the way this offseason's going, i'm not getting too excited for next year. and i'm concerned about the cubs' ability to afford a staff full of high priced arms a few years from now, and it'd be nice to have a good, cheap option like hill around.

[MPrior]

It's also worth noting that Hill has TWO different curves, both of which are pretty nasty. They're not different enough to really make a staggering difference, but I do seem to remember reading something about how each is appropriate to different specific situations.

 

And what most people have said here is that if he can develop a reliable third pitch that would help deal with righties (most people think a change or cutter would be good), he could be REALLY sick.

[CuseCubFan69]

I just find it odd, Cuse, that Hendry would be so careful as to talk up Hill's potential value, while he's done little to increase the value of other trading chips in the past and present.

 

As far as Hill goes, I move him if it nets us an impact bat. Our window of opportunity isn't going to be open for more than the next 2-3 years, so we might as well go for it.

 

Who can explain the man that is Jim Hendry?

[craig]

I strongly hope the Cubs can put the team together without trading Hill. Maddux will leave, I hope Rusch doesn't start forever. There will be at least one and possibly more than one rotation opening between now and April 2007. With Nolasco and Pinto gone, Guzman and Hill are head and shoulders ahead. Ryu/Marmol/Marshall are not even close, and who knows if they'll ever be good enough much less as soon as April 2005 to be quality starters on a championship team. If Hill goes, that's too many eggs in the Guzman basket for my tastes. As we see, rotation pitchers are overpriced like nobody's business. I do *not* want to be going outside to replace Maddux, when guys like Loiaza get $20+/3, or Matt Clement gets what he got. Keep Hill and Guzman, so that you can hope at least one of the two is ready.

 

On pitches:

1. Hill has fastball/curve, but there was talk of having cutter as well as 4-seamer. Mixing in the cutter with the 4-seamer could give him 3 pitches?

 

2. Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind. If that becomes a useful pitch for him, that could help a lot.

 

3. Hill pitched 154 innings, after previously only once reaching as much as 109. I'm not sure that his fastball had as much life late, when we saw him with Cubs, as it did early. In Cub games, his fastball seemed pretty ordinary upper 80's. Seemed the spring reports from wTenn often talked about low-90's. I'm hoping when he comes to camp with a fresh arm, he'll be a little faster than we remember? And having gone through a full season now, that he'll be able to hold his velocity a little better?

 

abuck what do you think about that? Did he seem slower at the end than when you saw him earlier?

 

Also, Hendry is very cautious about planning prosepcts into the Cubs. Contenders don't take risks with kids, etc.. But he likes Hill a lot. If a kid is going to get a shot, it should be one of Hendry's favorites. Some guys won't get a shot, even if board advocates think they should. But if Hendry takes a shine and believes in a kid, he might actually. May as well hold on to guys like that who do have a real shot to get a chance.

 

I don't want to trade Hill now for an outfielder, only to reach next winter and then need to trade the world and spend the world for some mediocre Esteban Loiaza type cat.

[CubinNY]

I strongly hope the Cubs can put the team together without trading Hill. Maddux will leave, I hope Rusch doesn't start forever. There will be at least one and possibly more than one rotation opening between now and April 2007. With Nolasco and Pinto gone, Guzman and Hill are head and shoulders ahead. Ryu/Marmol/Marshall are not even close, and who knows if they'll ever be good enough much less as soon as April 2005 to be quality starters on a championship team. If Hill goes, that's too many eggs in the Guzman basket for my tastes. As we see, rotation pitchers are overpriced like nobody's business. I do *not* want to be going outside to replace Maddux, when guys like Loiaza get $20+/3, or Matt Clement gets what he got. Keep Hill and Guzman, so that you can hope at least one of the two is ready.

 

On pitches:

1. Hill has fastball/curve, but there was talk of having cutter as well as 4-seamer. Mixing in the cutter with the 4-seamer could give him 3 pitches?

 

2. Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind. If that becomes a useful pitch for him, that could help a lot.

 

3. Hill pitched 154 innings, after previously only once reaching as much as 109. I'm not sure that his fastball had as much life late, when we saw him with Cubs, as it did early. In Cub games, his fastball seemed pretty ordinary upper 80's. Seemed the spring reports from wTenn often talked about low-90's. I'm hoping when he comes to camp with a fresh arm, he'll be a little faster than we remember? And having gone through a full season now, that he'll be able to hold his velocity a little better?

 

abuck what do you think about that? Did he seem slower at the end than when you saw him earlier?

 

Also, Hendry is very cautious about planning prosepcts into the Cubs. Contenders don't take risks with kids, etc.. But he likes Hill a lot. If a kid is going to get a shot, it should be one of Hendry's favorites. Some guys won't get a shot, even if board advocates think they should. But if Hendry takes a shine and believes in a kid, he might actually. May as well hold on to guys like that who do have a real shot to get a chance.

 

I don't want to trade Hill now for an outfielder, only to reach next winter and then need to trade the world and spend the world for some mediocre Esteban Loiaza type cat.

 

Thanks craig.

 

I always learn something when I read your opinions.

[CuseCubFan69]

I strongly hope the Cubs can put the team together without trading Hill. Maddux will leave, I hope Rusch doesn't start forever. There will be at least one and possibly more than one rotation opening between now and April 2007. With Nolasco and Pinto gone, Guzman and Hill are head and shoulders ahead. Ryu/Marmol/Marshall are not even close, and who knows if they'll ever be good enough much less as soon as April 2005 to be quality starters on a championship team. If Hill goes, that's too many eggs in the Guzman basket for my tastes. As we see, rotation pitchers are overpriced like nobody's business. I do *not* want to be going outside to replace Maddux, when guys like Loiaza get $20+/3, or Matt Clement gets what he got. Keep Hill and Guzman, so that you can hope at least one of the two is ready.

 

On pitches:

1. Hill has fastball/curve, but there was talk of having cutter as well as 4-seamer. Mixing in the cutter with the 4-seamer could give him 3 pitches?

 

2. Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind. If that becomes a useful pitch for him, that could help a lot.

 

3. Hill pitched 154 innings, after previously only once reaching as much as 109. I'm not sure that his fastball had as much life late, when we saw him with Cubs, as it did early. In Cub games, his fastball seemed pretty ordinary upper 80's. Seemed the spring reports from wTenn often talked about low-90's. I'm hoping when he comes to camp with a fresh arm, he'll be a little faster than we remember? And having gone through a full season now, that he'll be able to hold his velocity a little better?

 

abuck what do you think about that? Did he seem slower at the end than when you saw him earlier?

 

Also, Hendry is very cautious about planning prosepcts into the Cubs. Contenders don't take risks with kids, etc.. But he likes Hill a lot. If a kid is going to get a shot, it should be one of Hendry's favorites. Some guys won't get a shot, even if board advocates think they should. But if Hendry takes a shine and believes in a kid, he might actually. May as well hold on to guys like that who do have a real shot to get a chance.

 

I don't want to trade Hill now for an outfielder, only to reach next winter and then need to trade the world and spend the world for some mediocre Esteban Loiaza type cat.

 

Good post craig but everytime I see a player is learning to throw a change I just see him having it hit 450 feet and saying the heck with that If I'm going to get beat it's going to be with my good stuff not this.

[abuck1220]

good points, craig. especially so when you consider that the cubs are going to have to pay, BIG, BIG money to prior and zambrano soon. they're gonna need some cheap pitching (if they want to keep those two) or they're gonna need to raise payroll substantially.

 

hill was 91-92ish when i saw him in iowa. problem is, the gun in des moines is pretty iffy, so i based those readings on the scoreboard reading and some over the shoulder peeking at the guys in the stands charting. i'm anxious to see where he's at in the spring.

[craig]

2. Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind. If that becomes a useful pitch for him, that could help a lot. .

 

Good post craig but everytime I see a player is learning to throw a change I just see him having it hit 450 feet and saying the heck with that If I'm going to get beat it's going to be with my good stuff not this.

 

True. There are very few pitchers who throw a good change, and it's not easy to learn or control or throw with the same motion as your fastball and curve. For every prospect that BA writes up as "needs to develop a changeup to act as a 3rd pitch...", there is only a tiny fraction that ever do. The odds that Hill is going to show up this spring or in August with a plus-plus change is pretty poor.

 

Still, the reports on his change in spring were pretty favorable at the time. There were days when it was working pretty well. So I don't think it's a total reach for that to become a usable pitch.

 

And I don't think he's all-or-nothing dependent on it. If he can throw his fastball for strikes without giving up a million HR's, I don't think he has to have a functional change to be an effective pitcher.

 

He needs the change to be good, and for his normal fastball to be both faster and better controlled than his last two Cub starts before getting sent down, if he wants to become an all-star. Likely, no. But that's the kind of improbable thing that happens for guys who end up becoming all-stars.

 

Seems to me the view is that if he's strictly a curveball/fastball guy, teams will just sit on fastball. Hard to throw three curveballs for strikes, so the hitter can sit and wait for fastball, then knock it. It's exactly in that sort of hitter strategy where a changeup might be pretty effective even if it isn't all that special. If hitter is thinking whack fastball, take curve, and he sees a pitch coming from hand that doesn't look like curveball, he may go into hit-fastball mode. But if it's a change, he may not be able to hold up. So I'm hoping that with Hill's particular repertoire, it won't take an especially high-quality change to have a useful effect.

[CuseCubFan69]

2. Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind. If that becomes a useful pitch for him, that could help a lot. .

 

Good post craig but everytime I see a player is learning to throw a change I just see him having it hit 450 feet and saying the heck with that If I'm going to get beat it's going to be with my good stuff not this.

 

True. There are very few pitchers who throw a good change, and it's not easy to learn or control or throw with the same motion as your fastball and curve. For every prospect that BA writes up as "needs to develop a changeup to act as a 3rd pitch...", there is only a tiny fraction that ever do. The odds that Hill is going to show up this spring or in August with a plus-plus change is pretty poor.

 

Still, the reports on his change in spring were pretty favorable at the time. There were days when it was working pretty well. So I don't think it's a total reach for that to become a usable pitch.

 

And I don't think he's all-or-nothing dependent on it. If he can throw his fastball for strikes without giving up a million HR's, I don't think he has to have a functional change to be an effective pitcher.

 

He needs the change to be good, and for his normal fastball to be both faster and better controlled than his last two Cub starts before getting sent down, if he wants to become an all-star. Likely, no. But that's the kind of improbable thing that happens for guys who end up becoming all-stars.

 

Seems to me the view is that if he's strictly a curveball/fastball guy, teams will just sit on fastball. Hard to throw three curveballs for strikes, so the hitter can sit and wait for fastball, then knock it. It's exactly in that sort of hitter strategy where a changeup might be pretty effective even if it isn't all that special. If hitter is thinking whack fastball, take curve, and he sees a pitch coming from hand that doesn't look like curveball, he may go into hit-fastball mode. But if it's a change, he may not be able to hold up. So I'm hoping that with Hill's particular repertoire, it won't take an especially high-quality change to have a useful effect.

 

Craig....nobody loves a good changeup more than I do. I agree with you 100 percent that adding the changeup and throwing it for strikes would help Hill go to the next level. I just wish he learned how to do it when he was dominating hitters instead of learning it against more accomplished hitters.

[Quakers]

Hill's stuff will play in the majors. Whether he's going to be a middle reliever or a frontline starter comes down to two things:

 

1) Can he bring the command he found in the minors last year to the majors? He wasn't able to do so in 2005, but that was his debut. If he can avoid the walks, that's a real big first step.

 

2) Can he avoid the home runs? Last year he gave up taters at a somewhat frightening pace in the minors, but wasn't impacted that much on ERA because he wasn't allowing baserunners. If he's going to become an impact guy, this problem as got to go away.

 

If the Cubs scouts feel he's going to get past these two things, he could become one of those rare starters who blossoms at a later age. If so, he has dominating stuff. But the chances of anybody making such a transition at that stage of his career is pretty low. He made great progress on the first one last year in the minors. But he has to carry it forward and add in control of the home runs.

 

My take on Hill is that he is always going to give up a large number of homeruns. Maybe someone who knows more about this can correct me, but pitchers who rely on a fantastic curve are vulnerable to the long ball (Bert Blyleven is my example). When that breaking pitch doesn't break, it goes a long way. So for me the key is control. Those inevitable homeruns must be solo shots.

[Diffusion]

BTW, Burnett can throw a really good changeup. His feel for the pitch comes and goes though, and he only uses it when he's really confident about it. Which isn't that often.

 

Hill has said working on his change is his top developmental priority. There was some report early that it looked pretty promising in spring, but then he was doing so well without it that it got left behind.

 

Oh there's that always a few steps ahead thinking that's got the Cubs where they are today.

 

The minor leagues do not exist so that pitchers can do well. They exist so that pitchers can learn how to do well in the major leagues. And if Hill wants to do well in the major leagues, he needs a third pitch as far as I'm concerned. Why on earth then did the Cubs allow the pitch to just drop by the wayside mid-season?