Assesment on Hill, so far?

[mg420]

after opening day, whoever is pitching is the #1 starter imo. other than maybe skipping a guy in april due to the off day's scheduled, i dont see much point in labeling starters 1-5 (except to order who follows whom in the rotation).

 

The point is to get 4 guys better than him, not to actually label him with a number. If we're calling Hill the 3, that means the team will have only 2 pitchers who will project to have better seasons than Hill. And that would be a terrible mistake.

 

there is no reason hill cant win 15 games next year if he gets 30+ starts. i wouldnt call having a so called #3 win 15 games a "terrible mistake". prior is once again the key imo. if they knew he was going to be healthy (HA HA), a rotation of z, prior, hill, marshall & mateo would be a very good one imo. not being able to count on prior, the cubs probably should try to get a free agent like schmidt. it's not like hill hasnt shown what he can do in the minors already (ie his recent success is most likely not a fluke). now that he has seemingly put it together in the big leauges, i dont think there should be much doubt about his future potential as a major leauge starter.

[goonys evil twin]

there is no reason hill cant win 15 games next year if he gets 30+ starts.

 

Actually there are plenty of reasons. First and foremost would be his team could be so bad that it would be nearly impossible to win 15 games. He can't do it all on his own. But you kind of make my point for me. It would be a big mistake to simply say, well, he was good in the minors, and he was good for a nice stretch here in 2006, therefore he's going to win 15 games and be our number 3. A more reasonable approach, and one that would greatly improve the Cubs chances of winning, would be to set-up the rotation so that you aren't counting on Hill to be your 5th starter. He's not going to be great for 30+ starts. Like most young pitchers, he's going to have his ups and downs. In the end he might be great, he might be terrible, or he might be a prototypical number 3 starter. He's not a lock for anything, however, and it would be a major mistake to build your team on the assumption that he is a lock to be good enough to justify having him as your #3 starter going into the season.

[mg420]

there is no reason hill cant win 15 games next year if he gets 30+ starts.

 

Actually there are plenty of reasons. First and foremost would be his team could be so bad that it would be nearly impossible to win 15 games. He can't do it all on his own. But you kind of make my point for me. It would be a big mistake to simply say, well, he was good in the minors, and he was good for a nice stretch here in 2006, therefore he's going to win 15 games and be our number 3. A more reasonable approach, and one that would greatly improve the Cubs chances of winning, would be to set-up the rotation so that you aren't counting on Hill to be your 5th starter. He's not going to be great for 30+ starts. Like most young pitchers, he's going to have his ups and downs. In the end he might be great, he might be terrible, or he might be a prototypical number 3 starter. He's not a lock for anything, however, and it would be a major mistake to build your team on the assumption that he is a lock to be good enough to justify having him as your #3 starter going into the season.

 

aside for hill, there are several young pitcher ready to contribute in 2007-marshall, mateo, marmol (although i think marmol should switch to closer) to go along with z & prior/good free agent. gahallager & veal might no be too far behind either. my point is that i would rather see the cubs go young and stay within their system instead of getting a bunch of expensive free agents. the talent is there, they only need an opportunity & some good coaching imo. this avenue has worked for teams like the marlins, oakland & the angels so it is not out of the realm of possibilty.

[goonys evil twin]

aside for hill, there are several young pitcher ready to contribute in 2007-marshall, mateo, marmol (although i think marmol should switch to closer) to go along with z & prior/good free agent. gahallager & veal might no be too far behind either. my point is that i would rather see the cubs go young and stay within their system instead of getting a bunch of expensive free agents. the talent is there, they only need an opportunity & some good coaching imo. this avenue has worked for teams like the marlins, oakland & the angels so it is not out of the realm of possibilty.

 

Not sure how the Angels fit as an example. But the Marlins and A's go with youth out of necessity, they can't afford anything else. And they are much better at developing their youth. The question is whether or not you want to contend next year. If you're building for the future, by all means stay away from veteran arms and let the youth develop. But if you are trying to increase your odds of conteding next season, it would be a terrible mistake to go into 2007 with Hill projected as the 3rd best pitcher. That is unless, of course, you are pouring a ton of money into a lineup that will vault to the top of the runs scored list, which I wouldn't object to.

[mg420]

aside for hill, there are several young pitcher ready to contribute in 2007-marshall, mateo, marmol (although i think marmol should switch to closer) to go along with z & prior/good free agent. gahallager & veal might no be too far behind either. my point is that i would rather see the cubs go young and stay within their system instead of getting a bunch of expensive free agents. the talent is there, they only need an opportunity & some good coaching imo. this avenue has worked for teams like the marlins, oakland & the angels so it is not out of the realm of possibilty.

 

Not sure how the Angels fit as an example. But the Marlins and A's go with youth out of necessity, they can't afford anything else. And they are much better at developing their youth. The question is whether or not you want to contend next year. If you're building for the future, by all means stay away from veteran arms and let the youth develop. But if you are trying to increase your odds of conteding next season, it would be a terrible mistake to go into 2007 with Hill projected as the 3rd best pitcher. That is unless, of course, you are pouring a ton of money into a lineup that will vault to the top of the runs scored list, which I wouldn't object to.

they won the series in 2002 with guys like donnelly, lackey, washburn & frod. i dont know how many of these guys they developed but they were all young pitchers from their system.

[jmajew]

aside for hill, there are several young pitcher ready to contribute in 2007-marshall, mateo, marmol (although i think marmol should switch to closer) to go along with z & prior/good free agent. gahallager & veal might no be too far behind either. my point is that i would rather see the cubs go young and stay within their system instead of getting a bunch of expensive free agents. the talent is there, they only need an opportunity & some good coaching imo. this avenue has worked for teams like the marlins, oakland & the angels so it is not out of the realm of possibilty.

 

Not sure how the Angels fit as an example. But the Marlins and A's go with youth out of necessity, they can't afford anything else. And they are much better at developing their youth. The question is whether or not you want to contend next year. If you're building for the future, by all means stay away from veteran arms and let the youth develop. But if you are trying to increase your odds of conteding next season, it would be a terrible mistake to go into 2007 with Hill projected as the 3rd best pitcher. That is unless, of course, you are pouring a ton of money into a lineup that will vault to the top of the runs scored list, which I wouldn't object to.

 

I completely agree with Goony on this one. If you want to contend next year you cannot count on Hill being anything more than a 4th or 5th starter. If we can get 4 guys better than him you have to feel very good about our rotation. Hill has the potential to be a 2 and if he turns out that way great. As of now he hasn't proved enough.

[goonys evil twin]

they won the series in 2002 with guys like donnelly, lackey, washburn & frod. i dont know how many of these guys they developed but they were all young pitchers from their system.

 

Well I never said I didn't like young pitchers. Far from it. I love young pitching, largely because it's cheap pitching, which is an efficient use of resources. But Washburn was in his fifth season of major league action in 2002, while Lackey only started 18 games. Donnoly was a 30 year old rookie reliever. And FRod got called up late. They did not go into that season with the equivalent of a Rich Hill as their 3rd starter. They had several big money veteran arms, guys they were able to expect solid, if not spectaculiar seasons from. As a team, they had the 5th best ERA in the league the year before.

 

The Cubs are cellar dwellers with bad pitching. They need a lot of help.

[dalgreen]

there is no reason hill cant win 15 games next year if he gets 30+ starts.

 

Actually there are plenty of reasons. First and foremost would be his team could be so bad that it would be nearly impossible to win 15 games. He can't do it all on his own. But you kind of make my point for me. It would be a big mistake to simply say, well, he was good in the minors, and he was good for a nice stretch here in 2006, therefore he's going to win 15 games and be our number 3. A more reasonable approach, and one that would greatly improve the Cubs chances of winning, would be to set-up the rotation so that you aren't counting on Hill to be your 5th starter. He's not going to be great for 30+ starts. Like most young pitchers, he's going to have his ups and downs. In the end he might be great, he might be terrible, or he might be a prototypical number 3 starter. He's not a lock for anything, however, and it would be a major mistake to build your team on the assumption that he is a lock to be good enough to justify having him as your #3 starter going into the season.

 

aside for hill, there are several young pitcher ready to contribute in 2007-marshall, mateo, marmol (although i think marmol should switch to closer) to go along with z & prior/good free agent. gahallager & veal might no be too far behind either. my point is that i would rather see the cubs go young and stay within their system instead of getting a bunch of expensive free agents. the talent is there, they only need an opportunity & some good coaching imo. this avenue has worked for teams like the marlins, oakland & the angels so it is not out of the realm of possibilty.

 

With all due respect, this sounds like a typical Hendry bad move. Hill has looked good for six weeks and all of a sudden you're guaranteeing him 15 wins next season. What happens if the league figures him out once every team has seen him on multiple outings? I have no problem with Hill being in the rotation, but he's got to be a #5 starter, definitely not higher than #4. I'm all for the Cubs winning the division, even if it means achieving it by signing veteran free-agent starters. Plus, I will continue to be extremely skeptical of any progress from our young pitchers as long as Rothschild is the pitching coach.

[Guest]

who cares what number hill is - go get talented pitchers. you can't have too many.

[goonys evil twin]

who cares what number hill is - go get talented pitchers. you can't have too many.

 

Yes you can. Talented doesn't guarantee success. And a boatload of talented pitchers hasn't done much good for the Cubs. Plus, if money spent on pitchers takes away from the hitters, then you can't dedicate it all to the arms. They need to go get effective pitchers, enough so that they don't need to rely on Rich Hill to be the equivalent of a 15 game winning number 3 starter.

[Guest]

talented pitchers get hitters out. if you throw hard and can't get anybody out, you are talented, you just throw hard.

 

numbering the pitchers is akin to searching for a leadoff hitter instead of just getting a good hitter.

[goonys evil twin]

talented pitchers get hitters out. if you throw hard and can't get anybody out, you are talented, you just throw hard.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

The Cubs need good pitchers.

 

numbering the pitchers is akin to searching for a leadoff hitter instead of just getting a good hitter.

 

No it's not, not even close. Maybe if you are haphazardly assigning numbers it is. Rich Hill is going to have a certain level of expected production next year. Whether they sign Jason Schmidt or Steve Trachsel, that level won't change. If they get Zito and Padilla to add to Zambrano, there's no way you can label Hill the 3 starter. If Prior proves healthy all spring, there's no way you can label Hill the 4 starter. That would be because you have 4 pitchers who one would expect to be better than Hill. That would be a good thing. If you go into 2007 with only 2 pitchers expected to be better than Hill that would be bad.

 

Rich Hill in 2007 is not going to be Rich Hill the crappy AAAA loogy with one pitch. Nor is he going to be the great pitcher of the past couple months. What you will get is a mix of both, hopefully a little closer to the latter. But it would be a fatal mistake to expect 15 wins out of him (for several reasons), and stupid to set up your rotation with only 2 pitchers you would expect to be better than him.

[SouthSideRyan]

talented pitchers get hitters out. if you throw hard and can't get anybody out, you are talented, you just throw hard.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

The Cubs need good pitchers.

 

numbering the pitchers is akin to searching for a leadoff hitter instead of just getting a good hitter.

 

No it's not, not even close. Maybe if you are haphazardly assigning numbers it is. Rich Hill is going to have a certain level of expected production next year. Whether they sign Jason Schmidt or Steve Trachsel, that level won't change. If they get Zito and Padilla to add to Zambrano, there's no way you can label Hill the 3 starter. If Prior proves healthy all spring, there's no way you can label Hill the 4 starter. That would be because you have 4 pitchers who one would expect to be better than Hill. That would be a good thing. If you go into 2007 with only 2 pitchers expected to be better than Hill that would be bad.

 

You don't see Hill as at least equal to Padilla for next year. I'm trying not to get too overzealous on Hill, but I think expecting him to be worse than Padilla is a little too underzealous which isn't even a word.

[mg420]

talented pitchers get hitters out. if you throw hard and can't get anybody out, you are talented, you just throw hard.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

The Cubs need good pitchers.

 

numbering the pitchers is akin to searching for a leadoff hitter instead of just getting a good hitter.

 

No it's not, not even close. Maybe if you are haphazardly assigning numbers it is. Rich Hill is going to have a certain level of expected production next year. Whether they sign Jason Schmidt or Steve Trachsel, that level won't change. If they get Zito and Padilla to add to Zambrano, there's no way you can label Hill the 3 starter. If Prior proves healthy all spring, there's no way you can label Hill the 4 starter. That would be because you have 4 pitchers who one would expect to be better than Hill. That would be a good thing. If you go into 2007 with only 2 pitchers expected to be better than Hill that would be bad.

 

Rich Hill in 2007 is not going to be Rich Hill the crappy AAAA loogy with one pitch. Nor is he going to be the great pitcher of the past couple months. What you will get is a mix of both, hopefully a little closer to the latter. But it would be a fatal mistake to expect 15 wins out of him (for several reasons), and stupid to set up your rotation with only 2 pitchers you would expect to be better than him.

 

hill has a better chance to be more productive than padilla in 2007 imo. i would rather see mateo than padilla starting for the cubs any day.

[goonys evil twin]

You don't see Hill as at least equal to Padilla for next year. I'm trying not to get too overzealous on Hill, but I think expecting him to be worse than Padilla is a little too underzealous which isn't even a word.

 

I'm just throwing out names, as I haven't been paying too much attention to baseball recently, oddly enough, except for some Hill starts. I just know Padilla was a relatively consistent 100+ OPS+ guy for a few years, then suffered a downturn, which I believe was due to going straight from bullpen work to 200 inning as a starter in back to back seasons. And I thought he was having a nice bounce back season with a low 4 ERA (good in Texas) 7+ k/9 and low 700 OPS against. I see him as sort of like that prototypical innings eater who is also relatively effective, as opposed to Traschsel, who can give you 200 innings, but suck in the process. It doesn't have to be Padilla. But there a quite a few pitchers who the Cubs could get, that they could rely on to give them many solid innings. Hill could give them many solid innings as well, but his range of expectation is going to be quite wide, and the Cubs can't afford to expect too much out of him. They've got to build with him as frosting, not part of the cake.

[A New Era]

You don't see Hill as at least equal to Padilla for next year. I'm trying not to get too overzealous on Hill, but I think expecting him to be worse than Padilla is a little too underzealous which isn't even a word.

 

I'm just throwing out names, as I haven't been paying too much attention to baseball recently, oddly enough, except for some Hill starts. I just know Padilla was a relatively consistent 100+ OPS+ guy for a few years, then suffered a downturn, which I believe was due to going straight from bullpen work to 200 inning as a starter in back to back seasons. And I thought he was having a nice bounce back season with a low 4 ERA (good in Texas) 7+ k/9 and low 700 OPS against. I see him as sort of like that prototypical innings eater who is also relatively effective, as opposed to Traschsel, who can give you 200 innings, but suck in the process. It doesn't have to be Padilla. But there a quite a few pitchers who the Cubs could get, that they could rely on to give them many solid innings. Hill could give them many solid innings as well, but his range of expectation is going to be quite wide, and the Cubs can't afford to expect too much out of him. They've got to build with him as frosting, not part of the cake.

 

As opposed to how JH used highly injury prone Wood and Prior as icing instead of part of the cake?

 

No matter how you feel, JH will use Hill as part of the cake. And my arguement here would be, atleast he is likely to not be injured. And I'd rather rely on Hill as a #3 than Prior even being IN the rotation for atleast half a year.

 

Another point is, the Cubs do not have enough money to consider Hill "icing". They will be going into 07 with no Wood, and as Prior as a "bonus". I'd rather consider Prior your #5, because he is likely to go down and when he does, atleast a #5 is easier to replace. If HILL is a #5 then what the heck are Marshall and Mateo? #7s!?!?

[goonys evil twin]

As opposed to how JH used highly injury prone Wood and Prior as icing instead of part of the cake?

 

No matter how you feel, JH will use Hill as part of the cake. And my arguement here would be, atleast he is likely to not be injured. And I'd rather rely on Hill as a #3 than Prior even being IN the rotation for atleast half a year.

 

Another point is, the Cubs do not have enough money to consider Hill "icing". They will be going into 07 with no Wood, and as Prior as a "bonus". I'd rather consider Prior your #5, because he is likely to go down and when he does, atleast a #5 is easier to replace. If HILL is a #5 then what the heck are Marshall and Mateo? #7s!?!?

 

I got lost somewhere along the way here.

 

Anyway, the Cubs do have enough money to get a couple of good starting pitchers this offseason. What they must do is cut bait on expensive, but unproductive players, elsewhere, and stay away from wasting a million here and there on roster filler, when $350,000 guys can do the same job. Whether or not Hill pitches the third game of the season is irrelevent to me. I just feel like a lot of people are going overboard in what they think he's likely to do next season, along the lines of those who thought Murton was a shoe-in 850 OPS guy and Cedeno was going to be great. You have to build contigencies into your team, and plan for setbacks. You can't build teams with too high of expectations for individual players, otherwise you are setting your team up for failure, in terms of meeting your expectations.

[Guest]

you said you can have too much talent - an absurd statement. your point seemed to be that talent does not equal production - a semantic argument that really made little sense.

 

I really don't see how that's any different. you can't get a #2 pitcher - you get a good pitcher. its exactly the same. whether or not hill wins 15 or not, he should be part of the rotation next year. do you change who you target based on that? I don't think so. hill is cheap so he doesn't add a financial constraint. the only argument I see is that you might not want hill and zito starting back to back.

[goonys evil twin]

you said you can have too much talent - an absurd statement. your point seemed to be that talent does not equal production - a semantic argument that really made little sense.

 

Talent does not equal production. Semantics has nothing to do with that, and the Cubs are perfect examples (whether it's the tools over production practice, or specific players likes Wood and Prior). I think it's a mistake to say you can't have enough talented pitching. I think you can focus too heavily on pitching, and, if you create a logjam, you can detract from the pitching itself, and the team as a whole, assuming the pitching budget and hitting budget come from the same budget.

 

The leadoff hitter argument is very different. A "leadoff hitter" is just a fast guy who doesn't have power, in the eyes of many. A number 3 pitcher, or number 1, or whatever example you use, is a pitcher who can be expected to provide a certain level of performance. By simply going after a leadoff hitter, you are opening yourself up to a wide range of production. By focusing on getting a number 3 starter, you are saying you want a guy who will give you 200 innings, maybe an ERA around 4.00 and a WHIP around 1.35. The leadoff hitter could be a .300 OBP guy with 60 steals and 40 caught stealings (and maybe a noodle arm to go with it). Or it could be a .400 OBP guy with 20 homer ability. A more appropriate comparison may be an innings eater and a leadoff hitter. A leadoff hitter doesn't necessarily have to be good to be considered a leadoff hitter, likewise, an innings eater doesn't have to be good to give you lots of innings. A number 3 starter, at least in my mind, would actually have to be a guy who stands a good chance of having a solid season. The innings eater, or leadoff hitter, would not.

[C.C.]

As opposed to how JH used highly injury prone Wood and Prior as icing instead of part of the cake?

 

No matter how you feel, JH will use Hill as part of the cake. And my arguement here would be, atleast he is likely to not be injured. And I'd rather rely on Hill as a #3 than Prior even being IN the rotation for atleast half a year.

 

Another point is, the Cubs do not have enough money to consider Hill "icing". They will be going into 07 with no Wood, and as Prior as a "bonus". I'd rather consider Prior your #5, because he is likely to go down and when he does, atleast a #5 is easier to replace. If HILL is a #5 then what the heck are Marshall and Mateo? #7s!?!?

 

I got lost somewhere along the way here.

 

Anyway, the Cubs do have enough money to get a couple of good starting pitchers this offseason. What they must do is cut bait on expensive, but unproductive players, elsewhere, and stay away from wasting a million here and there on roster filler, when $350,000 guys can do the same job. Whether or not Hill pitches the third game of the season is irrelevent to me. I just feel like a lot of people are going overboard in what they think he's likely to do next season, along the lines of those who thought Murton was a shoe-in 850 OPS guy and Cedeno was going to be great. You have to build contigencies into your team, and plan for setbacks. You can't build teams with too high of expectations for individual players, otherwise you are setting your team up for failure, in terms of meeting your expectations.

 

A perfect example of this is Zach Duke. He was 8-2 with a 1.81 ERA last year. He was counted on to be their number 3 starter this year, and so far he's 9-13 with a 4.68 ERA. There's a lesson to be learned here. Hill should be counted on nothing more but a 5th starter.

[baseball7897]

As opposed to how JH used highly injury prone Wood and Prior as icing instead of part of the cake?

 

No matter how you feel, JH will use Hill as part of the cake. And my arguement here would be, atleast he is likely to not be injured. And I'd rather rely on Hill as a #3 than Prior even being IN the rotation for atleast half a year.

 

Another point is, the Cubs do not have enough money to consider Hill "icing". They will be going into 07 with no Wood, and as Prior as a "bonus". I'd rather consider Prior your #5, because he is likely to go down and when he does, atleast a #5 is easier to replace. If HILL is a #5 then what the heck are Marshall and Mateo? #7s!?!?

 

I got lost somewhere along the way here.

 

Anyway, the Cubs do have enough money to get a couple of good starting pitchers this offseason. What they must do is cut bait on expensive, but unproductive players, elsewhere, and stay away from wasting a million here and there on roster filler, when $350,000 guys can do the same job. Whether or not Hill pitches the third game of the season is irrelevent to me. I just feel like a lot of people are going overboard in what they think he's likely to do next season, along the lines of those who thought Murton was a shoe-in 850 OPS guy and Cedeno was going to be great. You have to build contigencies into your team, and plan for setbacks. You can't build teams with too high of expectations for individual players, otherwise you are setting your team up for failure, in terms of meeting your expectations.

 

A perfect example of this is Zach Duke. He was 8-2 with a 1.81 ERA last year. He was counted on to be their number 3 starter this year, and so far he's 9-13 with a 4.68 ERA. There's a lesson to be learned here. Hill should be counted on nothing more but a 5th starter.

 

People always talk about how hitter's need to make adjustments, well pitchers need to make adustments also. You brought up a good example in Zach Duke.

[A New Era]

As opposed to how JH used highly injury prone Wood and Prior as icing instead of part of the cake?

 

No matter how you feel, JH will use Hill as part of the cake. And my arguement here would be, atleast he is likely to not be injured. And I'd rather rely on Hill as a #3 than Prior even being IN the rotation for atleast half a year.

 

Another point is, the Cubs do not have enough money to consider Hill "icing". They will be going into 07 with no Wood, and as Prior as a "bonus". I'd rather consider Prior your #5, because he is likely to go down and when he does, atleast a #5 is easier to replace. If HILL is a #5 then what the heck are Marshall and Mateo? #7s!?!?

 

 

I got lost somewhere along the way here.

 

Anyway, the Cubs do have enough money to get a couple of good starting pitchers this offseason. What they must do is cut bait on expensive, but unproductive players, elsewhere, and stay away from wasting a million here and there on roster filler, when $350,000 guys can do the same job. Whether or not Hill pitches the third game of the season is irrelevent to me. I just feel like a lot of people are going overboard in what they think he's likely to do next season, along the lines of those who thought Murton was a shoe-in 850 OPS guy and Cedeno was going to be great. You have to build contigencies into your team, and plan for setbacks. You can't build teams with too high of expectations for individual players, otherwise you are setting your team up for failure, in terms of meeting your expectations.

 

I agree here. My arguement is mainly that I feel safer relying on Hill then I EVER did Wood and Prior. (after 2004) We must get rid of and stop signing guys like Rusch, Pierre for $7 million, ect. . And go with a guy like Murton who will likely put up above .350 OBP and possibly hit 15-20 homers next year for less than $400k.

 

If we consider Hill "icing" as you say though. Then you have to go out and sign a #2 like Zito, a #3, and a #4, as well as 1 big bat. We simply do not have the money for that. Hill should be projected to be a #3 or #4 and anything else he gives us would be a bonus. Z is your #1, you sign a great #2, have hill as the most promising of the #3,4, and 5 guys. Then either sign one innings eater, or just use the rest of the most promising rookies for #4 and #5.

[mg420]

As opposed to how JH used highly injury prone Wood and Prior as icing instead of part of the cake?

 

No matter how you feel, JH will use Hill as part of the cake. And my arguement here would be, atleast he is likely to not be injured. And I'd rather rely on Hill as a #3 than Prior even being IN the rotation for atleast half a year.

 

Another point is, the Cubs do not have enough money to consider Hill "icing". They will be going into 07 with no Wood, and as Prior as a "bonus". I'd rather consider Prior your #5, because he is likely to go down and when he does, atleast a #5 is easier to replace. If HILL is a #5 then what the heck are Marshall and Mateo? #7s!?!?

 

I got lost somewhere along the way here.

 

Anyway, the Cubs do have enough money to get a couple of good starting pitchers this offseason. What they must do is cut bait on expensive, but unproductive players, elsewhere, and stay away from wasting a million here and there on roster filler, when $350,000 guys can do the same job. Whether or not Hill pitches the third game of the season is irrelevent to me. I just feel like a lot of people are going overboard in what they think he's likely to do next season, along the lines of those who thought Murton was a shoe-in 850 OPS guy and Cedeno was going to be great. You have to build contigencies into your team, and plan for setbacks. You can't build teams with too high of expectations for individual players, otherwise you are setting your team up for failure, in terms of meeting your expectations.

 

A perfect example of this is Zach Duke. He was 8-2 with a 1.81 ERA last year. He was counted on to be their number 3 starter this year, and so far he's 9-13 with a 4.68 ERA. There's a lesson to be learned here. Hill should be counted on nothing more but a 5th starter.

duke & hill are totally different types of pitchers. look at duke's minor leauge k's compared to hill's. perhaps two of the twins pitchers would be a better comparision-santana & liriano. not to say that hill is going to be one of the best lefties in baseball but he certainly has the stuff to do so.

[C.C.]

As opposed to how JH used highly injury prone Wood and Prior as icing instead of part of the cake?

 

No matter how you feel, JH will use Hill as part of the cake. And my arguement here would be, atleast he is likely to not be injured. And I'd rather rely on Hill as a #3 than Prior even being IN the rotation for atleast half a year.

 

Another point is, the Cubs do not have enough money to consider Hill "icing". They will be going into 07 with no Wood, and as Prior as a "bonus". I'd rather consider Prior your #5, because he is likely to go down and when he does, atleast a #5 is easier to replace. If HILL is a #5 then what the heck are Marshall and Mateo? #7s!?!?

 

I got lost somewhere along the way here.

 

Anyway, the Cubs do have enough money to get a couple of good starting pitchers this offseason. What they must do is cut bait on expensive, but unproductive players, elsewhere, and stay away from wasting a million here and there on roster filler, when $350,000 guys can do the same job. Whether or not Hill pitches the third game of the season is irrelevent to me. I just feel like a lot of people are going overboard in what they think he's likely to do next season, along the lines of those who thought Murton was a shoe-in 850 OPS guy and Cedeno was going to be great. You have to build contigencies into your team, and plan for setbacks. You can't build teams with too high of expectations for individual players, otherwise you are setting your team up for failure, in terms of meeting your expectations.

 

A perfect example of this is Zach Duke. He was 8-2 with a 1.81 ERA last year. He was counted on to be their number 3 starter this year, and so far he's 9-13 with a 4.68 ERA. There's a lesson to be learned here. Hill should be counted on nothing more but a 5th starter.

duke & hill are totally different types of pitchers. look at duke's minor leauge k's compared to hill's. perhaps two of the twins pitchers would be a better comparision-santana & liriano. not to say that hill is going to be one of the best lefties in baseball but he certainly has the stuff to do so.

 

Sure...Duke was 43-17 with a 2.38ERA and Rich Hill was 19-19 3.90ERA. Why can't you compare the two again?

Edited September 12, 2006 by C.C.

[Guest]

Hill doesn't have the changeup to dominate right handers that Lirano & Santana have. But very few do.

 

I think Hill's significantly stronger than Duke, though.