Hill recalled (7/24) / Aardsma to AAA (7/27)

[E.J.]

I don't know what the answer is. Just come here and do it. It's simple. No more whys, no more how-comes, no more explanations ... no nothing.

 

I find this quote amazing coming from the same guy that has made sure to point out time after time that he has had rookies playing as well as players on the DL.

 

It's amazing to me since Dusty trots out players like Neifi and Rusch who have been terrible for years. They seemingly get chance after chance to produce, which they don't, but a rookie who's dominated AAA but has struggled while at the Major League Level doesn't get a fair chance to show he can produce at this level.

 

A rookie has to come up and dominate or worry about losing his spot on the team to crappy veterans.

[Outshined_One]

Why is it so obvious that you think that Dusty and Larry have something against Hill? Don't you think that a ERA over 9 has something to do with him not being on the big club?

 

In regards to Larry, he may not have something against Hill, but Larry's coaching could very well be part of the problem.

 

Bingo.

 

When Greg Maddux is your best coach with the major league team, there's something inherently wrong with your organization.

[Andy]

as i said in another thread, baker's comments about how hill has to just "do it" when he gets here cracks me up. he acts like his patience with hill, after all of four starts, is just at the end of the line, and he's so fed up with hill ruining his season.

 

meanwhile, he seems pretty content with the failure of pierre, maddux, rusch, neifi, etc to "do it" over the course of an entire season and at 20 times the salary.

 

While I agree with your thought process, I find it hard to lump Maddux (a hall of fame 300+ winning pitcher) in with the rest of those scrubs.

Because Maddux has been pretty awful since the end of April, that's why.

[A New Era]

I have made it clear that I am not a fan of Hill. I don't think he's nearly as good as a lot of people do, and I think his perceived trade value is his only redeeming quality.

 

Having said that, this club is [expletive] for not allowing him to showcase his talents in a consistent fashion to see if he can figure it out at this level. He has been roughed up and yanked. Sent to the bullpen then sent down. Called up a 2nd time, got roughed up, and deported once again. I would love to see Hill prove me wrong. Meanwhile, Marshall has been looked upon as though he's some sort of savior and is quite frankly putting up some bad numbers. (and yes, I understand the age, experience level, rookie bound to progress stuff, etc.) Hill is more deserving of a spot on this roster than Rusch, and he should be given that spot for the remainder of this season.

 

Marshall has shown the ability to get people out at the ML level and has made numerous quality starts this year. Obviously not every young pitcher is going to pitch like Jered Weaver or Liriano, but I want to see some progress which is what Marshall has shown at points this year. Has he had his setbacks? Of course. Most young pitchers do. But Hill hasn't shown any progress.

 

Again, how could you possibly percieve "progress" or "regression" in only FOUR CONSECUTIVE STARTS!?

[C.C.]

I have made it clear that I am not a fan of Hill. I don't think he's nearly as good as a lot of people do, and I think his perceived trade value is his only redeeming quality.

 

Having said that, this club is [expletive] for not allowing him to showcase his talents in a consistent fashion to see if he can figure it out at this level. He has been roughed up and yanked. Sent to the bullpen then sent down. Called up a 2nd time, got roughed up, and deported once again. I would love to see Hill prove me wrong. Meanwhile, Marshall has been looked upon as though he's some sort of savior and is quite frankly putting up some bad numbers. (and yes, I understand the age, experience level, rookie bound to progress stuff, etc.) Hill is more deserving of a spot on this roster than Rusch, and he should be given that spot for the remainder of this season.

 

Marshall has shown the ability to get people out at the ML level and has made numerous quality starts this year. Obviously not every young pitcher is going to pitch like Jered Weaver or Liriano, but I want to see some progress which is what Marshall has shown at points this year. Has he had his setbacks? Of course. Most young pitchers do. But Hill hasn't shown any progress.

 

Again, how could you possibly percieve "progress" or "regression" in only FOUR CONSECUTIVE STARTS!?

 

Why couldn't you? If you are making the same mistakes for 4 straight startsl then you aren't exactly making progress right?

[goonys evil twin]

I have made it clear that I am not a fan of Hill. I don't think he's nearly as good as a lot of people do, and I think his perceived trade value is his only redeeming quality.

 

Having said that, this club is [expletive] for not allowing him to showcase his talents in a consistent fashion to see if he can figure it out at this level. He has been roughed up and yanked. Sent to the bullpen then sent down. Called up a 2nd time, got roughed up, and deported once again. I would love to see Hill prove me wrong. Meanwhile, Marshall has been looked upon as though he's some sort of savior and is quite frankly putting up some bad numbers. (and yes, I understand the age, experience level, rookie bound to progress stuff, etc.) Hill is more deserving of a spot on this roster than Rusch, and he should be given that spot for the remainder of this season.

 

Marshall has shown the ability to get people out at the ML level and has made numerous quality starts this year. Obviously not every young pitcher is going to pitch like Jered Weaver or Liriano, but I want to see some progress which is what Marshall has shown at points this year. Has he had his setbacks? Of course. Most young pitchers do. But Hill hasn't shown any progress.

 

Again, how could you possibly percieve "progress" or "regression" in only FOUR CONSECUTIVE STARTS!?

 

Why couldn't you? If you are making the same mistakes for 4 straight startsl then you aren't exactly making progress right?

 

You could perceive progress or regression, but you couldn't confirm it. Bottom line is you have to give him more than 4 starts.

[beowulf28]

Yeah Rich, we've given you so many consistent chances as a starter. What's wrong with you??

 

Wait a sec. now? The job was his to win in ST and both Guzman and Marshall out pitched him. So lets not here the Cubs don't give Rich Hill many chances. It's not how many chances you are given. It's how you take advantage of those chances when you are given them..

 

So that's why I haven't won the lottery.

 

Hill hasn't been given a chance. The worst thing is, I believe he still won't be given a chance. He'll get 3 maybe 4 starts and that's if he is good in his first one. Then when Marshall comes back he'll be moved to the bullpen or sent back to AAA.

 

Remember Marshall's not a veteran, either. The difference is Marshall has outperformed Hill.

[C.C.]

Pretty good article about Hill on baseballamerica.com

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/news/261992.html

[A New Era]

I have made it clear that I am not a fan of Hill. I don't think he's nearly as good as a lot of people do, and I think his perceived trade value is his only redeeming quality.

 

Having said that, this club is [expletive] for not allowing him to showcase his talents in a consistent fashion to see if he can figure it out at this level. He has been roughed up and yanked. Sent to the bullpen then sent down. Called up a 2nd time, got roughed up, and deported once again. I would love to see Hill prove me wrong. Meanwhile, Marshall has been looked upon as though he's some sort of savior and is quite frankly putting up some bad numbers. (and yes, I understand the age, experience level, rookie bound to progress stuff, etc.) Hill is more deserving of a spot on this roster than Rusch, and he should be given that spot for the remainder of this season.

 

Marshall has shown the ability to get people out at the ML level and has made numerous quality starts this year. Obviously not every young pitcher is going to pitch like Jered Weaver or Liriano, but I want to see some progress which is what Marshall has shown at points this year. Has he had his setbacks? Of course. Most young pitchers do. But Hill hasn't shown any progress.

 

Again, how could you possibly percieve "progress" or "regression" in only FOUR CONSECUTIVE STARTS!?

 

Why couldn't you? If you are making the same mistakes for 4 straight startsl then you aren't exactly making progress right?

 

"sample size". Heard of it? Give him more than "you there! Succeed at the major league level in 4 starts or you're GONE!!". . "BTW be more like Marshall, he's good" (when he's not THAT good). .

 

Hill has dominated AAA. He is ready to be a major leaguer. Now is the time to let him get over his lumps. It would be incredibly stupid if the Cubs only gave him 1 or 2 starts before they start pressuring him to do better. In a better organization, Rich Hill might be pictching with a 3.00 ERA by now. I have no doubt.

 

If Hill has a 9.00 ERA after 10 starts, I might start to lean your way. But not after 4. BTW if this (your position on Hill) is what Hill has to deal with in Dusty and Rothy then I can understand why he has mental problems pitching on the Cubs.

[C.C.]

Hill has dominated AAA. He is ready to be a major leaguer. Now is the time to let him get over his lumps. It would be incredibly stupid if the Cubs only gave him 1 or 2 starts before they start pressuring him to do better. In a better organization, Rich Hill might be pictching with a 3.00 ERA by now. I have no doubt.

 

Can we stop with the AAA stats? They are meaningless until he proves otherwise in the ML. AAA is no where near the majors! If that was the case he wouldn't have a 9 era in 8 starts in the bigs...Save all the Rich Hill love until he actually impresses in the majors.

[A New Era]

Hill has dominated AAA. He is ready to be a major leaguer. Now is the time to let him get over his lumps. It would be incredibly stupid if the Cubs only gave him 1 or 2 starts before they start pressuring him to do better. In a better organization, Rich Hill might be pictching with a 3.00 ERA by now. I have no doubt.

 

Can we stop with the AAA stats? They are meaningless until he proves otherwise in the ML. AAA is no where near the majors! If that was the case he wouldn't have a 9 era in 8 starts in the bigs...Save all the Rich Hill love until he actually impresses in the majors.

 

Nothing like the Majors? Hmm that's funny. I thought that's where most of the Major leagers came from? Most of the good pitchers have good #'s in AAA. So far everything seems to match up for Hill's major league success. Problem is we have coaches like you who want to give him 1-2 starts, and if he fails. He's gone. It's no wonder the Cubs have no talent to trade. They have no idea how to nurture that talent.

[Chris]

Maybe Hill's success in AAA is due to the fact that Alan Dunn is a better pitching coach that Larry Rothschild?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Maybe Hill's success in AAA is due to the fact that Alan Dunn is a better pitching coach that Larry Rothschild?

 

 

:-$

[mg420]

Maybe Hill's success in AAA is due to the fact that Alan Dunn is a better pitching coach that Larry Rothschild?

 

judging by larry's tenure with the cubs, so is adam dunn.

[C.C.]

They have no idea how to nurture that talent

 

Don't tell that to Z

[Illini Iceman]

They have no idea how to nurture that talent

 

Don't tell that to Z

 

I respectfully ask that you review the NSBB official posting guideline:

 

All success is DESPITE the Cubs coaching staff, all failure is BECAUSE of the Cubs coaching staff.

 

Please govern yourself accordingly.

[NCCubFan]

So who was sent down?

I don't think he's been officially called up yet; rather, I think what was actually said is that he WILL BE called up in time to start on Thursday. That means nobody needs to be sent down until then. My guess is that Aardsma might go back down.

[A New Era]

They have no idea how to nurture that talent

 

Don't tell that to Z

 

Z is God, what else ya got? Even a messed up family has a kid or two that turns out alright.

[soccer10k]

I have made it clear that I am not a fan of Hill. I don't think he's nearly as good as a lot of people do, and I think his perceived trade value is his only redeeming quality.

 

Having said that, this club is [expletive] for not allowing him to showcase his talents in a consistent fashion to see if he can figure it out at this level. He has been roughed up and yanked. Sent to the bullpen then sent down. Called up a 2nd time, got roughed up, and deported once again. I would love to see Hill prove me wrong. Meanwhile, Marshall has been looked upon as though he's some sort of savior and is quite frankly putting up some bad numbers. (and yes, I understand the age, experience level, rookie bound to progress stuff, etc.) Hill is more deserving of a spot on this roster than Rusch, and he should be given that spot for the remainder of this season.

 

Marshall has shown the ability to get people out at the ML level and has made numerous quality starts this year. Obviously not every young pitcher is going to pitch like Jered Weaver or Liriano, but I want to see some progress which is what Marshall has shown at points this year. Has he had his setbacks? Of course. Most young pitchers do. But Hill hasn't shown any progress.

 

Again, how could you possibly percieve "progress" or "regression" in only FOUR CONSECUTIVE STARTS!?

 

Why couldn't you? If you are making the same mistakes for 4 straight startsl then you aren't exactly making progress right?

 

"sample size". Heard of it? Give him more than "you there! Succeed at the major league level in 4 starts or you're GONE!!". . "BTW be more like Marshall, he's good" (when he's not THAT good). .

 

Hill has dominated AAA. He is ready to be a major leaguer. Now is the time to let him get over his lumps. It would be incredibly stupid if the Cubs only gave him 1 or 2 starts before they start pressuring him to do better. In a better organization, Rich Hill might be pictching with a 3.00 ERA by now. I have no doubt.

 

If Hill has a 9.00 ERA after 10 starts, I might start to lean your way. But not after 4. BTW if this (your position on Hill) is what Hill has to deal with in Dusty and Rothy then I can understand why he has mental problems pitching on the Cubs.

 

What about after 8 starts - which is how many he has at the ML level?

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

Since Rich Hill is the topic of conversation in this thread, here's a portion of a Q&A that was on Baseball America's website. The first Q&A has nothing to do with Rich Hill, but rather about drafting economically and whether or not it is worth it. Check out the link. It is worth reading if you haven't already.

 

What's your take on Cubs lefthander Rich Hill? The guy dominates in Triple-A but hasn't gotten it done in Chicago. Is he just the next in a long line of Quadruple-A players (Roosevelt Brown, Gary Scott, etc.) for the Cubs? Or is there a chance the kid is going to get it figured out and be a productive pitcher? Is he really doing anything different or approaching things differently between the two levels?

 

Dusty Wilson

Bloomington, Ill.

 

It would be hard to find a pitcher with more divergent Triple-A and major league performances over the last two years than Hill. He has been two entirely different pitchers in Iowa and Chicago.

 

Triple-A: 12-2, 2.61, 158 IP, 213 K, 34 BB, .201, 14 HR

Majors: 0-6, 9.21, 43 IP, 32 K, 32 BB, .284, 8 HR

 

Obviously, the biggest difference has been command and control. Hill's K-BB ratio shrinks from 6.3 to Triple-A to 1.0 in the majors, while his walks per nine innings rise from 1.9 to 6.7.

 

Hill was plagued by an inability to locate his pitches for the first three years of his pro career after he signed as a fourth-round pick out of Michigan in 2002. He always has had a plus-plus curveball to go with a 90-91 mph fastball, but he averaged 6.3 walks per nine innings from 2002-04 before suddenly turning the corner in 2005. Hill pointed to improved mental focus, and he also improved his delivery.

 

There aren't many 6-foot-5 lefthanders with two quality pitches. Perhaps Hill falls into the trap that claims a lot of young pitchers, where they don't trust their stuff when they reach the majors and think they have to throw harder or paint the corners more in order to succeed against better competition. Hill can overmatch hitters with his curveball, but he has to get ahead in the count to set them up.

 

Can he do it? Hill's inconsistent track record and the depth of his struggles in the majors give me pause. He has the pure stuff to be a good starter in the major leagues, but it won't surprise me if he becomes a lefty specialist who relies on his curveball.

[soccer10k]

as i said in another thread, baker's comments about how hill has to just "do it" when he gets here cracks me up. he acts like his patience with hill, after all of four starts, is just at the end of the line, and he's so fed up with hill ruining his season.

 

meanwhile, he seems pretty content with the failure of pierre, maddux, rusch, neifi, etc to "do it" over the course of an entire season and at 20 times the salary.

 

While I agree with your thought process, I find it hard to lump Maddux (a hall of fame 300+ winning pitcher) in with the rest of those scrubs.

 

Pierre has been playing really well as of late and Maddux numbers aren't bad for a projected 5th starter.

 

pierre was absolutely worthless the first three months or whatever of the season. it's so nice of him to turn it on now that the cubs are 25 games under .500 so he can salvage a nice contract out of the whole ordeal.

 

maddux is not being paid like a 5th starter, and his performance over the past three months has fallen below what you'd want out of a fifth starter.

 

no matter how you slice it, those two have hurt the cubs this year much more than rich hill has. yet baker is acting as though he's at the end of his rope w/ hill.

 

Even if Pierre played well I highly doubt it would have had much of an effect on the Cubs record this year.

 

Maddux has the 29th best ERA in the NL this year which would put him in at a low #2/ high #3 and the 16th best WHIP in the NL. I would hardly consider that to be numbers "below what you'd want out of a fifth starter."

[A New Era]

I have made it clear that I am not a fan of Hill. I don't think he's nearly as good as a lot of people do, and I think his perceived trade value is his only redeeming quality.

 

Having said that, this club is [expletive] for not allowing him to showcase his talents in a consistent fashion to see if he can figure it out at this level. He has been roughed up and yanked. Sent to the bullpen then sent down. Called up a 2nd time, got roughed up, and deported once again. I would love to see Hill prove me wrong. Meanwhile, Marshall has been looked upon as though he's some sort of savior and is quite frankly putting up some bad numbers. (and yes, I understand the age, experience level, rookie bound to progress stuff, etc.) Hill is more deserving of a spot on this roster than Rusch, and he should be given that spot for the remainder of this season.

 

Marshall has shown the ability to get people out at the ML level and has made numerous quality starts this year. Obviously not every young pitcher is going to pitch like Jered Weaver or Liriano, but I want to see some progress which is what Marshall has shown at points this year. Has he had his setbacks? Of course. Most young pitchers do. But Hill hasn't shown any progress.

 

Again, how could you possibly percieve "progress" or "regression" in only FOUR CONSECUTIVE STARTS!?

 

Why couldn't you? If you are making the same mistakes for 4 straight startsl then you aren't exactly making progress right?

 

"sample size". Heard of it? Give him more than "you there! Succeed at the major league level in 4 starts or you're GONE!!". . "BTW be more like Marshall, he's good" (when he's not THAT good). .

 

Hill has dominated AAA. He is ready to be a major leaguer. Now is the time to let him get over his lumps. It would be incredibly stupid if the Cubs only gave him 1 or 2 starts before they start pressuring him to do better. In a better organization, Rich Hill might be pictching with a 3.00 ERA by now. I have no doubt.

 

If Hill has a 9.00 ERA after 10 starts, I might start to lean your way. But not after 4. BTW if this (your position on Hill) is what Hill has to deal with in Dusty and Rothy then I can understand why he has mental problems pitching on the Cubs.

 

What about after 8 starts - which is how many he has at the ML level?

 

8 consecutive starts? NO. 8 starts spattered around 2 years of being tossed in the rotation and yanked back out, brought up, sent down. Talk to me when Hill gets a "fair" shot.

[C.C.]

Can he do it? Hill's inconsistent track record and the depth of his struggles in the majors give me pause. He has the pure stuff to be a good starter in the major leagues, but it won't surprise me if he becomes a lefty specialist who relies on his curveball.

 

Haven't I been saying this for the past year? And I think he can become a very good specialist!

[abuck1220]

as i said in another thread, baker's comments about how hill has to just "do it" when he gets here cracks me up. he acts like his patience with hill, after all of four starts, is just at the end of the line, and he's so fed up with hill ruining his season.

 

meanwhile, he seems pretty content with the failure of pierre, maddux, rusch, neifi, etc to "do it" over the course of an entire season and at 20 times the salary.

 

While I agree with your thought process, I find it hard to lump Maddux (a hall of fame 300+ winning pitcher) in with the rest of those scrubs.

 

Pierre has been playing really well as of late and Maddux numbers aren't bad for a projected 5th starter.

 

pierre was absolutely worthless the first three months or whatever of the season. it's so nice of him to turn it on now that the cubs are 25 games under .500 so he can salvage a nice contract out of the whole ordeal.

 

maddux is not being paid like a 5th starter, and his performance over the past three months has fallen below what you'd want out of a fifth starter.

 

no matter how you slice it, those two have hurt the cubs this year much more than rich hill has. yet baker is acting as though he's at the end of his rope w/ hill.

 

Even if Pierre played well I highly doubt it would have had much of an effect on the Cubs record this year.

 

Maddux has the 29th best ERA in the NL this year which would put him in at a low #2/ high #3 and the 16th best WHIP in the NL. I would hardly consider that to be numbers "below what you'd want out of a fifth starter."

[CoolHandLuke]

Can he do it? Hill's inconsistent track record and the depth of his struggles in the majors give me pause. He has the pure stuff to be a good starter in the major leagues, but it won't surprise me if he becomes a lefty specialist who relies on his curveball.

 

Haven't I been saying this for the past year? And I think he can become a very good specialist!

 

While the team stinks though, he needs to be given every possible chance to start because that is the role where he would give the team the most value. You can't just throw him into a role as unimportant as loogy after 8 sporadic major league starts. Especially when there are no playoff implications.