It's time to start Rich Hill

[Magnetic Curses]

Well, it looks like he won't be traded, so it's time to throw him into the rotation and watch him sink or swim. he'll be 26 by the end of spring training, so he's losing value in terms of age, and why even hang onto him if you plan on starting rusch?

 

he strung together 3 very successful outings in late june and july last season and then pitched poorly and was sent down. let's put him out there and see if he can handle it. give him at least 10 starts to begin the season, then re-assess his place in the organization.

[CuseCubFan69]

Well, it looks like he won't be traded, so it's time to throw him into the rotation and watch him sink or swim. he'll be 26 by the end of spring training, so he's losing value in terms of age, and why even hang onto him if you plan on starting rusch?

 

he strung together 3 very successful outings in late june and july last season and then pitched poorly and was sent down. let's put him out there and see if he can handle it. give him at least 10 starts to begin the season, then re-assess his place in the organization.

 

I'd like to see him start at AAA and see if he pitches well and it gives the Cubs a chance to see if Wood is coming back and if Rusch can handle being a 5. I'd love to see him pitch without the Baker effect hanging over his head.

[Magnetic Curses]

Well, it looks like he won't be traded, so it's time to throw him into the rotation and watch him sink or swim. he'll be 26 by the end of spring training, so he's losing value in terms of age, and why even hang onto him if you plan on starting rusch?

 

he strung together 3 very successful outings in late june and july last season and then pitched poorly and was sent down. let's put him out there and see if he can handle it. give him at least 10 starts to begin the season, then re-assess his place in the organization.

 

I'd like to see him start at AAA and see if he pitches well and it gives the Cubs a chance to see if Wood is coming back and if Rusch can handle being a 5. I'd love to see him pitch without the Baker effect hanging over his head.

 

i'd rather see hill in rusch's spot and rusch fill in as spot starter and long reliever.

 

i doubt they're paying rusch so much to do that, which makes it all the more ridiculous a signing.

[MustangMike]

Well, it looks like he won't be traded, so it's time to throw him into the rotation and watch him sink or swim. he'll be 26 by the end of spring training, so he's losing value in terms of age, and why even hang onto him if you plan on starting rusch?

 

he strung together 3 very successful outings in late june and july last season and then pitched poorly and was sent down. let's put him out there and see if he can handle it. give him at least 10 starts to begin the season, then re-assess his place in the organization.

 

I'd like to see him start at AAA and see if he pitches well and it gives the Cubs a chance to see if Wood is coming back and if Rusch can handle being a 5. I'd love to see him pitch without the Baker effect hanging over his head.

 

 

i'd rather see hill in rusch's spot and rusch fill in as spot starter and long reliever.

 

i doubt they're paying rusch so much to do that, which makes it all the more ridiculous a signing.

 

 

Agreed, lets see what he's got, I'm sick of all the wondering about our "prospects"...let em play.

[Balsa]

You know what, I agree.

 

I think it's high time to determine if he can keep up the SOs in the big leagues. I was wondering about that the other day, why he did so well in the minors, and then it came to me. Curveball. Why do some batters never make it past the Minors and get stuck there for years? Because they can't hit curveballs, and I must say Hill has quite the curveball. But he needs more than that pitch to succeed in the majors.

 

So it is sink or swim time. I would like him to have about 4 starts by the all-star break.

[UK1679666180]

I'd rather see him get the 3-4 starts as the #5 starter and out Rusch in the pen, while Kerry build up endurance.

 

Let it be known I am strictly against skipping the #5 starter, despite the many days off early on in the season. Marathon, not a sprint. the way they're treated early on impacts the season down the road.

[goonys evil twin]

and it gives the Cubs a chance to see if Wood is coming back and if Rusch can handle being a 5.

 

We know Rusch sucks, makes no sense to keep trotting out the guy when somebody can be better.

[USSoccer]

and it gives the Cubs a chance to see if Wood is coming back and if Rusch can handle being a 5.

 

We know Rusch sucks, makes no sense to keep trotting out the guy when somebody can be better.

 

But do "they" know?

 

Just thinking about the Cubs makes me irritated that they brought back Perez and Rusch, when we had players at least at replacement level for a fraction of the cost. I'm sick of having to provide Baker with a security blanket for every tendency he has.

[wastra]

Given that I have serious doubts as to this team's ability to compete for the division anyway, I can't imagine why they'd want Perez OR Rusch taking up spots.

 

It's painfully obvious that unless Hendry is nuts, he's not expecting this to be a pennant winning team either, so I don't know why he doesn't give Hill a shot either.

[goonys evil twin]

It's painfully obvious that unless Hendry is nuts, he's not expecting this to be a pennant winning team either, so I don't know why he doesn't give Hill a shot either.

 

I think he actually likes the look of the team and thinks people like Rusch and Neifi are great assets and that Jones, Pierre, Howry and Eyre will make a huge difference.

 

Remember, the vast majority of opinion among the conventional wisdom crowd was that Neifi saved the Cubs last year, had a great season and proved worthy of the investment Hendry made in him. Likewise, Rusch was another reclamation project of Jim's who showed glimpses from time to time. Jim thinks he found diamonds, probably got praise from the scouting community for "seeing something there" and may just feel obligated to reward those players for coming through for him. This is a team that values left handedness over ability, and versatility over production. They don't look at guys in the lower to mid 30's as in decline. They're seasoned pros who now "know what it takes".

Edited December 29, 2005 by goony's evil twin

[USSoccer]

Given that I have serious doubts as to this team's ability to compete for the division anyway, I can't imagine why they'd want Perez OR Rusch taking up spots.

 

It's painfully obvious that unless Hendry is nuts, he's not expecting this to be a pennant winning team either, so I don't know why he doesn't give Hill a shot either.

 

Whether or not Hendry expected the team to contend, resigning Perez and Rusch-especially to 2 year contracts-was a stupid move.

 

If you don't think you can contend, give Cedeno, Hill and Murton starting roles. Let them develop so you can see which direction to go in the 2006 offseason. If you think you can contend, Perez and Rusch are barely replacement level players, so the salary you gave them prohibits you some flexibility for a real impact player, either via trade or FA.

 

The only reason they were brought back was Baker, and Hendry's over-loyalty to average veterans. It's disappointing to see an ex farm director mismanage his farm system the way Hendry has, since now we have to rely on Baker to play Cedeno and Murton everyday and let them develop for good or bad, and we all know how that will turn out.

[CuseCubFan69]

and it gives the Cubs a chance to see if Wood is coming back and if Rusch can handle being a 5.

 

We know Rusch sucks, makes no sense to keep trotting out the guy when somebody can be better.

 

I don't think Rusch sucks. Also, Hendry promised him a chance to start so IMO it's going to happen so having Hill sitting around in the pen pitching every 10 days just doesn't make sense to me.

[wastra]

Given that I have serious doubts as to this team's ability to compete for the division anyway, I can't imagine why they'd want Perez OR Rusch taking up spots.

 

It's painfully obvious that unless Hendry is nuts, he's not expecting this to be a pennant winning team either, so I don't know why he doesn't give Hill a shot either.

 

Whether or not Hendry expected the team to contend, resigning Perez and Rusch-especially to 2 year contracts-was a stupid move.

 

If you don't think you can contend, give Cedeno, Hill and Murton starting roles. Let them develop so you can see which direction to go in the 2006 offseason. If you think you can contend, Perez and Rusch are barely replacement level players, so the salary you gave them prohibits you some flexibility for a real impact player, either via trade or FA.

 

The only reason they were brought back was Baker, and Hendry's over-loyalty to average veterans. It's disappointing to see an ex farm director mismanage his farm system the way Hendry has, since now we have to rely on Baker to play Cedeno and Murton everyday and let them develop for good or bad, and we all know how that will turn out.

 

I agree totally. that's one reason I have so little faith in this roster or management team.

[Magnetic Curses]

Given that I have serious doubts as to this team's ability to compete for the division anyway, I can't imagine why they'd want Perez OR Rusch taking up spots.

 

It's painfully obvious that unless Hendry is nuts, he's not expecting this to be a pennant winning team either, so I don't know why he doesn't give Hill a shot either.

 

Whether or not Hendry expected the team to contend, resigning Perez and Rusch-especially to 2 year contracts-was a stupid move.

 

If you don't think you can contend, give Cedeno, Hill and Murton starting roles. Let them develop so you can see which direction to go in the 2006 offseason. If you think you can contend, Perez and Rusch are barely replacement level players, so the salary you gave them prohibits you some flexibility for a real impact player, either via trade or FA.

 

The only reason they were brought back was Baker, and Hendry's over-loyalty to average veterans. It's disappointing to see an ex farm director mismanage his farm system the way Hendry has, since now we have to rely on Baker to play Cedeno and Murton everyday and let them develop for good or bad, and we all know how that will turn out.

 

I agree totally. that's one reason I have so little faith in this roster or management team.

 

i'm just afraid that the cubs as an organization, would bite off it's nose to spite it's face on this one, so to speak. in a concerted effort to prove that conventional wisdom has any relevance whatsoever, they're unwilling to admit any kind of mistake in organizational philosophy.

 

what's worse is that if the cubs have any kind of success with this patchwork team born of conventional wisdom, be it lucky, or be it with pitching--hendry will go on to cripple the cubs offensively in the future by pointing to 2006 as a reason why team-OBP means nothing, and continue to acquire players with OBPs in the .310-.320 range.

 

this will have an overall negative effect on the franchise, and likely launch us into the proverbial doldrums of the major leagues to spend another 97 years with players that suck.

[jiml60]

i'm just afraid that the cubs as an organization, would bite off it's nose to spite it's face on this one, so to speak. in a concerted effort to prove that conventional wisdom has any relevance whatsoever, they're unwilling to admit any kind of mistake in organizational philosophy.

 

what's worse is that if the cubs have any kind of success with this patchwork team born of conventional wisdom, be it lucky, or be it with pitching--hendry will go on to cripple the cubs offensively in the future by pointing to 2006 as a reason why team-OBP means nothing, and continue to acquire players with OBPs in the .310-.320 range.

 

this will have an overall negative effect on the franchise, and likely launch us into the proverbial doldrums of the major leagues to spend another 97 years with players that suck.

 

I agree. That's why I'm prepared (and hoping) for a disastrous 2006 which should end with the firing of Hendry and Baker.

 

I've been a Cub fan for 35+ years now and I've never been as dissapointed in them as I have the last two seasons. They were bad in the mid 70's and early 80's but you knew they didn't have a chance. The talent and opportunity in the last two seasons and the inability to cash in on it makes me sick.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

If Guzman is healthy and pitching as well as he is capable, as some have said, I'd rather see him in that #5 spot even if that means Hill spends the entire season in Des Moines. Guzman > Hill.

[SeldomSeen]

i'm just afraid that the cubs as an organization, would bite off it's nose to spite it's face on this one, so to speak. in a concerted effort to prove that conventional wisdom has any relevance whatsoever, they're unwilling to admit any kind of mistake in organizational philosophy.

 

what's worse is that if the cubs have any kind of success with this patchwork team born of conventional wisdom, be it lucky, or be it with pitching--hendry will go on to cripple the cubs offensively in the future by pointing to 2006 as a reason why team-OBP means nothing, and continue to acquire players with OBPs in the .310-.320 range.

 

this will have an overall negative effect on the franchise, and likely launch us into the proverbial doldrums of the major leagues to spend another 97 years with players that suck.

I don't want to make this a contentious argument, because I, too value the sabermetric organizational philosophy, but do you really believe this stuff? To be clear, you're saying that Hendry intentionally avoids players based on high OBP? Even if deep down he thought they were better players? Could it not be that he believes that what he is doing is making the team better on its own merit (as misguided as that may be)? I doubt that he is trying to prove a point, rather, just trying to win. I don't understand why his moves are taken as a personal affront to those with different philosophies.

 

If you have examples where he has stated the above (OBP means nothing, etc.), I apologize fully. I'm just not aware of any such quotes. I don't think he's fighting any holy war, I just think he's inept.

[Magnetic Curses]

i'm just afraid that the cubs as an organization, would bite off it's nose to spite it's face on this one, so to speak. in a concerted effort to prove that conventional wisdom has any relevance whatsoever, they're unwilling to admit any kind of mistake in organizational philosophy.

 

what's worse is that if the cubs have any kind of success with this patchwork team born of conventional wisdom, be it lucky, or be it with pitching--hendry will go on to cripple the cubs offensively in the future by pointing to 2006 as a reason why team-OBP means nothing, and continue to acquire players with OBPs in the .310-.320 range.

 

this will have an overall negative effect on the franchise, and likely launch us into the proverbial doldrums of the major leagues to spend another 97 years with players that suck.

I don't want to make this a contentious argument, because I, too value the sabermetric organizational philosophy, but do you really believe this stuff? To be clear, you're saying that Hendry intentionally avoids players based on high OBP? Even if deep down he thought they were better players? Could it not be that he believes that what he is doing is making the team better on its own merit (as misguided as that may be)? I doubt that he is trying to prove a point, rather, just trying to win. I don't understand why his moves are taken as a personal affront to those with different philosophies.

 

If you have examples where he has stated the above (OBP means nothing, etc.), I apologize fully. I'm just not aware of any such quotes. I don't think he's fighting any holy war, I just think he's inept.

 

he's made statements in the past regarding OBP that cause me to believe that he's just not concerned with it. i can't recall any specific quotes, but they are there.

 

granted, i'm being a bit hyperbolic when it comes to his anti-OBP position, but i'm frustrated. he's continually spurned players with superior OBPs (and don't get it wrong, OBP is not a sabermetric, it's a very orthodox stat that is easy to see, understand, and value) for players with inferior OBPs. case in point, he doesn't even look or sniff at giles but signs jones to 3 years and 15 mil.

 

furthermore, he has the anti-stathead, assistant GM gary hughes whispering in his ear--and hughes appears to be a much bigger influence than anyone else in hendry's life.

 

he also makes up phrases like "i like players who can catch the ball". who does he think he is?

[abuck1220]

ah, this takes me back to the time when the cubs sent hill down to absolutely dominate in AAA while rusch completely flopped in the #5 spot over the last month of the season. most of the time, i was watching rusch get rocked on tv and listening to hill post 10 k games on the radio. memories...

[Fred Hornkohl]

ah, this takes me back to the time when the cubs sent hill down to absolutely dominate in AAA while rusch completely flopped in the #5 spot over the last month of the season. most of the time, i was watching rusch get rocked on tv and listening to hill post 10 k games on the radio. memories...

 

09/02 - 10/02            IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR    PC  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
Rusch                  31.7   34   13   12    6   19    3   511  1.71  5.40  0.85  1.26  3.41

[CuseCubFan69]

Should we call what the Cubs have done the "Miseducation of Rich Hill"? Edited December 30, 2005 by CuseCubFan69

[wastra]

i'm just afraid that the cubs as an organization, would bite off it's nose to spite it's face on this one, so to speak. in a concerted effort to prove that conventional wisdom has any relevance whatsoever, they're unwilling to admit any kind of mistake in organizational philosophy.

 

what's worse is that if the cubs have any kind of success with this patchwork team born of conventional wisdom, be it lucky, or be it with pitching--hendry will go on to cripple the cubs offensively in the future by pointing to 2006 as a reason why team-OBP means nothing, and continue to acquire players with OBPs in the .310-.320 range.

 

this will have an overall negative effect on the franchise, and likely launch us into the proverbial doldrums of the major leagues to spend another 97 years with players that suck.

I don't want to make this a contentious argument, because I, too value the sabermetric organizational philosophy, but do you really believe this stuff? To be clear, you're saying that Hendry intentionally avoids players based on high OBP? Even if deep down he thought they were better players? Could it not be that he believes that what he is doing is making the team better on its own merit (as misguided as that may be)? I doubt that he is trying to prove a point, rather, just trying to win. I don't understand why his moves are taken as a personal affront to those with different philosophies.

 

If you have examples where he has stated the above (OBP means nothing, etc.), I apologize fully. I'm just not aware of any such quotes. I don't think he's fighting any holy war, I just think he's inept.

 

he's made statements in the past regarding OBP that cause me to believe that he's just not concerned with it. i can't recall any specific quotes, but they are there.

 

granted, i'm being a bit hyperbolic when it comes to his anti-OBP position, but i'm frustrated. he's continually spurned players with superior OBPs (and don't get it wrong, OBP is not a sabermetric, it's a very orthodox stat that is easy to see, understand, and value) for players with inferior OBPs. case in point, he doesn't even look or sniff at giles but signs jones to 3 years and 15 mil.

 

furthermore, he has the anti-stathead, assistant GM gary hughes whispering in his ear--and hughes appears to be a much bigger influence than anyone else in hendry's life.

 

he also makes up phrases like "i like players who can catch the ball". who does he think he is?

 

 

Simply put, if you value OBP, you don't praise hte performance of guys with sub or near .300 OBP like Perez and bring them back, declaring you're happy if they start.

 

You don't routinely sign guys like burnitz and Jones for right field.

 

You don't consider trading one of your few decent OBP guys (Walker) to make room for your worst OBP guy (Perez).

 

 

 

The bottom line is that Hendry is an old-school "toolsy" GM. He cares more about natural abilities than performance- always has. That's not bad when drafting and signing pitchers, because control is really a "learned" skill while "toolsy" guys iwth live arms can't be just "created."

 

But at the major league level is leads to constant signings of guys like PErez, Macias, Jones, Burnitz, Hollandsworth, and Baker. It leads to imbalanced rosters with nothing but free swingers with lively bats but no clue how to use them.

 

 

It is painfully obvious that while Hendry might recognize OBP, he clearly doesn't give it the value that statistics say it should get. And that's why, IMO, Hendry can never get us over the top as GM.

[SeldomSeen]

i'm just afraid that the cubs as an organization, would bite off it's nose to spite it's face on this one, so to speak. in a concerted effort to prove that conventional wisdom has any relevance whatsoever, they're unwilling to admit any kind of mistake in organizational philosophy.

 

what's worse is that if the cubs have any kind of success with this patchwork team born of conventional wisdom, be it lucky, or be it with pitching--hendry will go on to cripple the cubs offensively in the future by pointing to 2006 as a reason why team-OBP means nothing, and continue to acquire players with OBPs in the .310-.320 range.

 

this will have an overall negative effect on the franchise, and likely launch us into the proverbial doldrums of the major leagues to spend another 97 years with players that suck.

I don't want to make this a contentious argument, because I, too value the sabermetric organizational philosophy, but do you really believe this stuff? To be clear, you're saying that Hendry intentionally avoids players based on high OBP? Even if deep down he thought they were better players? Could it not be that he believes that what he is doing is making the team better on its own merit (as misguided as that may be)? I doubt that he is trying to prove a point, rather, just trying to win. I don't understand why his moves are taken as a personal affront to those with different philosophies.

 

If you have examples where he has stated the above (OBP means nothing, etc.), I apologize fully. I'm just not aware of any such quotes. I don't think he's fighting any holy war, I just think he's inept.

 

he's made statements in the past regarding OBP that cause me to believe that he's just not concerned with it. i can't recall any specific quotes, but they are there.

 

granted, i'm being a bit hyperbolic when it comes to his anti-OBP position, but i'm frustrated. he's continually spurned players with superior OBPs (and don't get it wrong, OBP is not a sabermetric, it's a very orthodox stat that is easy to see, understand, and value) for players with inferior OBPs. case in point, he doesn't even look or sniff at giles but signs jones to 3 years and 15 mil.

 

furthermore, he has the anti-stathead, assistant GM gary hughes whispering in his ear--and hughes appears to be a much bigger influence than anyone else in hendry's life.

 

he also makes up phrases like "i like players who can catch the ball". who does he think he is?

 

 

Simply put, if you value OBP, you don't praise hte performance of guys with sub or near .300 OBP like Perez and bring them back, declaring you're happy if they start.

 

You don't routinely sign guys like burnitz and Jones for right field.

 

You don't consider trading one of your few decent OBP guys (Walker) to make room for your worst OBP guy (Perez).

 

 

 

The bottom line is that Hendry is an old-school "toolsy" GM. He cares more about natural abilities than performance- always has. That's not bad when drafting and signing pitchers, because control is really a "learned" skill while "toolsy" guys iwth live arms can't be just "created."

 

But at the major league level is leads to constant signings of guys like PErez, Macias, Jones, Burnitz, Hollandsworth, and Baker. It leads to imbalanced rosters with nothing but free swingers with lively bats but no clue how to use them.

 

 

It is painfully obvious that while Hendry might recognize OBP, he clearly doesn't give it the value that statistics say it should get. And that's why, IMO, Hendry can never get us over the top as GM.

 

I agree 100% with these last two posts. The issue I had was with the contention that Hendry spitefully ignores OBP to aggravate the "stat heads." I think he makes ridiculous signings, but that it has nothing to do with showing anyone up. Again, I just think he's not real good at what he does.

[abuck1220]

ah, this takes me back to the time when the cubs sent hill down to absolutely dominate in AAA while rusch completely flopped in the #5 spot over the last month of the season. most of the time, i was watching rusch get rocked on tv and listening to hill post 10 k games on the radio. memories...

 

09/02 - 10/02            IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR    PC  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
Rusch                  31.7   34   13   12    6   19    3   511  1.71  5.40  0.85  1.26  3.41

 

i had my dates wrong. looks like rusch was acceptable once the cubs were comfortably out of it. this is the run i was referring to (8/15-8/31)...

 

vs. hou 3 2/3 ip, 10 h, 5 er

vs. col 6 ip, 7 h, 3 r (2 er)

vs. fla 4 2/3, 8 h, 5 r (4 er)

vs. la 2 ip, 7 h, 7 er

 

his era went up nearly a run during that four game stretch. i guess that gets you a shiny new 2 year deal and likely a spot in the rotation.

[Fred Hornkohl]

i had my dates wrong. looks like rusch was acceptable once the cubs were comfortably out of it. this is the run i was referring to (8/15-8/31)...

 

vs. hou 3 2/3 ip, 10 h, 5 er

vs. col 6 ip, 7 h, 3 r (2 er)

vs. fla 4 2/3, 8 h, 5 r (4 er)

vs. la 2 ip, 7 h, 7 er

 

his era went up nearly a run during that four game stretch. i guess that gets you a shiny new 2 year deal and likely a spot in the rotation.

 

Rusch's season bears some closer scrutiny. The first line below covers 15 IP in relief in April and 5 starts in May where Rusch was pretty effective while posting a 4-1 record. During those 5 starts, Rusch put up pitch counts of 81, 90, 99, 108, and 113.

 

Then came his 6th and best start of the year on 02 June (2nd line below). Take note of the pitch count... 122 !!

 

The next section, line 3, covers four very bad starts followed by 7 weeks in the bullpen, followed by four more starts in late August (the ones you referenced above).

 

All of that is followed by the five September starts I mentioned earlier and repeated on the 4th line below.

 

Rusch                IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR    PC  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
04/04 - 06/01      46.0   45   12   12   23   33    1   787  4.50  6.46  0.20  1.48  2.35
06/02               9.0    4    0    0    1    7    0   122  1.00  7.00  0.00  0.56  0.00
06/03 - 08/31      58.3   92   54   49   23   52   10  1142  3.55  8.02  1.54  1.97  7.56
09/02 - 10/02      31.7   34   13   12    6   19    3   511  1.71  5.40  0.85  1.26  3.41

 

Seems to me, that Dusty pushed him until he broke, and it took him fully 3 months to recover from the resulting "tired arm".

 

So the question is, in my mind, how will we use him this year ???

Edited December 30, 2005 by Fred Hornkohl