Marshall Now Ahead of Hill

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

According to the Sun Times, the organization now values Marshall over Hill.

 

Link.

 

When spring training ends, left-handed starter Rich Hill will go to Class AAA Iowa and left-handed starter Sean Marshall will be assigned to Class AA West Tenn. But Marshall, 23, has moved ahead of Hill, 26, in the estimation of some in the organization.

 

That means if the Cubs find a need to call up a starter during the season, Marshall could have the edge on Hill. Marshall has allowed no hits and no runs in 2-1/3 innings, while Hill was roughed up for four runs on four hits and a walk in Friday's start against the Los Angeles Angels.

 

I've been impressed with Marshall as well. If he stays healthy, he could be very, very good.

 

Maybe it's time to see what value we could get for Hill in a trade... :-k

[Bull]

Or how 'bout before he got roughed up in spring training, or before he turned his 2+ era in the minors into a 9+ era with the big club last year.

 

We will always sell low. *sigh*

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So we've gone from not being willing to give up Hill for Dunn, to being passed by Marshall several months later. Methinks the Cubs were a little short-sighted with their evaluation of Hill, and if they were really that high on him they should have let him start last September.

[Jon]

Especially considering Hill never really had a place on the 25-man roster.

[Bull]

Plugging Hill was just the front office trying to make us forget about Sisco. But we won't forget...

 

 

WE'LL NEVER FORGET

 

[stitchface]

hopefully this isn't based on 2.1 spring training innings as the article seems to imply.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

hopefully this isn't based on 2.1 spring training innings as the article seems to imply.

 

That would be bad on the Cubs part if that's what they based it on. I do hope and expect these opinions are based on their opinion on Hill's ability to improve his change and/or cutter.

 

For what it's worth, I thought Marshall was ahead of Hill last summer before Sean got hurt.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm with you, Raisin. I always thought Marshall had better stuff and was more projectible. I like Hill and think he still can be a good major league pitcher. (I would've sent him packing for Dunn without thinking twice however.)

 

Hopefully, this is more Marshall being healthy than a de-evaluation of Hill.

[CubsWin]

I'm with you, Raisin. I always thought Marshall had better stuff and was more projectible. I like Hill and think he still can be a good major league pitcher. (I would've sent him packing for Dunn without thinking twice however.)

 

Hopefully, this is more Marshall being healthy than a de-evaluation of Hill.

I agree. I always thought that Marshall was higher on the prospect list than Hill when he was healthy. Its good to see him healthy again.

 

Did anyone ever confirm that ridiculous rumor that Hendry wouldn't have traded Hill for Dunn? The way it was reported on this sight seemed pretty thin at the time. Did it somehow gain legitimacy over time?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm with you, Raisin. I always thought Marshall had better stuff and was more projectible. I like Hill and think he still can be a good major league pitcher. (I would've sent him packing for Dunn without thinking twice however.)

 

Hopefully, this is more Marshall being healthy than a de-evaluation of Hill.

I agree. I always thought that Marshall was higher on the prospect list than Hill when he was healthy. Its good to see him healthy again.

 

Did anyone ever confirm that ridiculous rumor that Hendry wouldn't have traded Hill for Dunn? The way it was reported on this sight seemed pretty thin at the time. Did it somehow gain legitimacy over time?

 

I don't think it was ever an actual deal, Bruce Miles used it as an example of how the Cubs valued Hill(or devalued Dunn, probably a little of both). That was the context I intended when I used it earlier in the thread.

[CubsWin]

I'm with you, Raisin. I always thought Marshall had better stuff and was more projectible. I like Hill and think he still can be a good major league pitcher. (I would've sent him packing for Dunn without thinking twice however.)

 

Hopefully, this is more Marshall being healthy than a de-evaluation of Hill.

I agree. I always thought that Marshall was higher on the prospect list than Hill when he was healthy. Its good to see him healthy again.

 

Did anyone ever confirm that ridiculous rumor that Hendry wouldn't have traded Hill for Dunn? The way it was reported on this sight seemed pretty thin at the time. Did it somehow gain legitimacy over time?

 

I don't think it was ever an actual deal, Bruce Miles used it as an example of how the Cubs valued Hill(or devalued Dunn, probably a little of both). That was the context I intended when I used it earlier in the thread.

So Miles wasn't reporting an actual decline of a trade by Hendry, he was simply trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

[Neuby]

I think the Cubs think Marshall might be ready to suceed at a higher level in the majors sooner than Hill will reach his. Right now Hill with that Curve and a fastball in the low 90's could be very effective out of then pen even if he doesn't add a third pitch his control will play a lot more important to his sucess.

[Geech]

So Miles wasn't reporting an actual decline of a trade by Hendry, he was simply trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

 

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It could be Hendry's actual valuation of Hill compared to Dunn even if the trade offer was not discussed.

[CubsWin]

So Miles wasn't reporting an actual decline of a trade by Hendry, he was simply trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

 

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It could be Hendry's actual valuation of Hill compared to Dunn even if the trade offer was not discussed.

So what you are saying is that no one really knows for sure?

 

I'm just trying to find out what the hard evidence on this report is because some people seem to be saying that it is a fact that Hendry would not have traded Hill for Dunn and others are treating it like its an off handed comment made by Miles that has no basis in fact.

[Geech]

No, I was actually pointing out your false dichotomy.

 

If you believe the issue is nebulous, then you are certainly welcome to try and obtain some clarification from Bruce. Given how often he visits the board, this is almost certainly within the realm of possiblity. However, for me personally, the fact that Bruce would post that at all -- regardless of whether it was a proposal, whether he knew for a fact that it was Hendry's actual value judgment, or whether it was merely an inference -- is pretty powerful evidence that it's reasonably indicative of Hendry's true feelings at the time.

[MPrior]

So Miles wasn't reporting an actual decline of a trade by Hendry, he was simply trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

 

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It could be Hendry's actual valuation of Hill compared to Dunn even if the trade offer was not discussed.

So what you are saying is that no one really knows for sure?

 

I'm just trying to find out what the hard evidence on this report is because some people seem to be saying that it is a fact that Hendry would not have traded Hill for Dunn and others are treating it like its an off handed comment made by Miles that has no basis in fact.

 

This was based on an actual quote, from Jim Hendry, sometime in the middle of the season - I could maybe find a link, but I'm lazy. It was some interview, and they were talking about the possibility of trading with the Reds. I believe they were specifically talking about Rich Hill as a trading chip, and if he would be traded for Austin Kearns or something, to which Hendry replied, "I wouldn't trade Hill for Dunn straight up." There was never an actual trade proposed, but it was still something Hendry actually said.

[CubsWin]

So Miles wasn't reporting an actual decline of a trade by Hendry, he was simply trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

 

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It could be Hendry's actual valuation of Hill compared to Dunn even if the trade offer was not discussed.

So what you are saying is that no one really knows for sure?

 

I'm just trying to find out what the hard evidence on this report is because some people seem to be saying that it is a fact that Hendry would not have traded Hill for Dunn and others are treating it like its an off handed comment made by Miles that has no basis in fact.

 

This was based on an actual quote, from Jim Hendry, sometime in the middle of the season - I could maybe find a link, but I'm lazy. It was some interview, and they were talking about the possibility of trading with the Reds. I believe they were specifically talking about Rich Hill as a trading chip, and if he would be traded for Austin Kearns or something, to which Hendry replied, "I wouldn't trade Hill for Dunn straight up." There was never an actual trade proposed, but it was still something Hendry actually said.

That's strange because that is completely different from the memory I had. Granted, my memory was a little fuzzy, thus all the questions I've been asking, but what I remember was that this rumor came from a thread on this site in which someone reported, perhaps Miles himself, that they had overheard conversations in the Wrigley press box. Perhaps that was in addition to this article you mentioned.

 

Its still mysterious to me, but maybe a little less so thanks to you, MPrior.

[Mark Priors Calves]

So Miles wasn't reporting an actual decline of a trade by Hendry, he was simply trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

 

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It could be Hendry's actual valuation of Hill compared to Dunn even if the trade offer was not discussed.

So what you are saying is that no one really knows for sure?

 

I'm just trying to find out what the hard evidence on this report is because some people seem to be saying that it is a fact that Hendry would not have traded Hill for Dunn and others are treating it like its an off handed comment made by Miles that has no basis in fact.

 

This was based on an actual quote, from Jim Hendry, sometime in the middle of the season - I could maybe find a link, but I'm lazy. It was some interview, and they were talking about the possibility of trading with the Reds. I believe they were specifically talking about Rich Hill as a trading chip, and if he would be traded for Austin Kearns or something, to which Hendry replied, "I wouldn't trade Hill for Dunn straight up." There was never an actual trade proposed, but it was still something Hendry actually said.

 

IIRC, it was in the middle of a broadcast nearing the trading deadline and Len and Bob were asking him about upcoming moves, etc.

[Balsa]

Well good. Hopefully this means Hill will get more AAA starts, which he obviously needs to develop that 3rd effective pitch.

 

In the meantime, Marshall did look really in command that one game I watched him. I think it's still to early in ST to tell yet though.

[cubweiser03]

To me this doesnt speak well for the Cubs organization. Hendy was saying Pie and Hill are untradable. Not saying Marshall hasnt made a huge leap but is he in that class now or has hill fallen? If the Cubs were walking around all throuhgout the winter valuing Hill so much or giving the illusion they did so if they did trade him the other side would say 'hey good deal we got an untradeable' that illusion is now blown.

 

Im thinking too that if the scouts do like marshall more, its not because of the 2.1 innings its because of all the sessions he is throwing in spring training.

 

A 26 year old in AAA who has MLB potential needs to be traded sooner than later if they think others like marshall are ahead of him. Lots teams would still be happy with a Hill in their rotation. At 27 or 28 its less enticing. Hill is probably also behind Guzman.

[CubsWin]

To me this doesnt speak well for the Cubs organization. Hendy was saying Pie and Hill are untradable. Not saying Marshall hasnt made a huge leap but is he in that class now or has hill fallen? If the Cubs were walking around all throuhgout the winter valuing Hill so much or giving the illusion they did so if they did trade him the other side would say 'hey good deal we got an untradeable' that illusion is now blown.

 

Im thinking too that if the scouts do like marshall more, its not because of the 2.1 innings its because of all the sessions he is throwing in spring training.

 

A 26 year old in AAA who has MLB potential needs to be traded sooner than later if they think others like marshall are ahead of him. Lots teams would still be happy with a Hill in their rotation. At 27 or 28 its less enticing. Hill is probably also behind Guzman.

This is what happens so often on boards like these. To my recollection, Hendry never said nor was quoted as saying that Hill or Pie were "untradeable" as you are now claiming.

 

What did happen was that he was consistently turning down offers that were including them. There is a huge difference. We don't know who was included in those offers. If the trades that Hendry was turning down were for people like Pierre, Huff, Lugo, etc., then I have no problem with Hendry not trading away Hill and Pie for guys like that.

 

If someone can find me the quote where Hendry said he wouldn't trade Pie or Hill for anyone, then I will happily take it all back and eat my helping of crow. It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken. But I seriously doubt he ever said that.

[biittner77]

According to the Sun Times, the organization now values Marshall over Hill.

 

Link.

 

When spring training ends, left-handed starter Rich Hill will go to Class AAA Iowa and left-handed starter Sean Marshall will be assigned to Class AA West Tenn. But Marshall, 23, has moved ahead of Hill, 26, in the estimation of some in the organization.

That means if the Cubs find a need to call up a starter during the season, Marshall could have the edge on Hill. Marshall has allowed no hits and no runs in 2-1/3 innings, while Hill was roughed up for four runs on four hits and a walk in Friday's start against the Los Angeles Angels.

 

I've been impressed with Marshall as well. If he stays healthy, he could be very, very good.

 

Maybe it's time to see what value we could get for Hill in a trade... :-k

 

I'm curious about the bolded part. Baker seems like he's been impressed with Marshall. He could be the source of this story.

[goonys evil twin]

I'm curious about the bolded part. Baker seems like he's been impressed with Marshall. He could be the source of this story.

 

It's hard to tell. It could be there is no source, and the writer is just going off his impression of how others feel about players. Or it could be that somebody in the organization is talking up Marshall over Hill, which would be really stupid if the team was thinking about trading Hill, as it would lower his value. The time to deal him was early in the offseason, when he looked like the favorite of many on the team. You don't start downplaying a guy's worth after a couple shaky spring outings, which are meaningless.

[jaxxradio]

Both Marshall and Hill take a backseat to Guzman. Honestly, I don't think that this is a slap in the face of Hill, rather it's Marshall stepping up and showing the front office what he is capable of when he is healthy.

 

Hopefully Marshall gets off to a great start and stays healthy all season long. As for Hill, He's a good looking player who should start the year in Iowa with Guzman. Both of these guys should get time in the show this season.

[cubweiser03]

To me this doesnt speak well for the Cubs organization. Hendy was saying Pie and Hill are untradable. Not saying Marshall hasnt made a huge leap but is he in that class now or has hill fallen? If the Cubs were walking around all throuhgout the winter valuing Hill so much or giving the illusion they did so if they did trade him the other side would say 'hey good deal we got an untradeable' that illusion is now blown.

 

Im thinking too that if the scouts do like marshall more, its not because of the 2.1 innings its because of all the sessions he is throwing in spring training.

 

A 26 year old in AAA who has MLB potential needs to be traded sooner than later if they think others like marshall are ahead of him. Lots teams would still be happy with a Hill in their rotation. At 27 or 28 its less enticing. Hill is probably also behind Guzman.

This is what happens so often on boards like these. To my recollection, Hendry never said nor was quoted as saying that Hill or Pie were "untradeable" as you are now claiming.

 

What did happen was that he was consistently turning down offers that were including them. There is a huge difference. We don't know who was included in those offers. If the trades that Hendry was turning down were for people like Pierre, Huff, Lugo, etc., then I have no problem with Hendry not trading away Hill and Pie for guys like that.

 

If someone can find me the quote where Hendry said he wouldn't trade Pie or Hill for anyone, then I will happily take it all back and eat my helping of crow. It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken. But I seriously doubt he ever said that.

 

I dont think i would be the first to claim this. I remember hearing Hendry on the radio tallking about the winter meetings a while back and he said something to the effect of 'every deal starts with hill and pie and those dont go much further'. Now my recollection to that radio interview awhile back could be a bit shady and he probably never used the word 'untradeable' but the dude clearly made the perception they wouldnt be traded unless the deal was really good. To me when you say names publicly and express difficulty doing those deals involving players your are putting up a barrier to get deals done whether you use the word untradeable or not. If im the only one dreaming this happened, ill take it all back.