Hill a long reliever?

[Outshined_One]

 

Rich should be in the starting rotation. Even if Prior is healthy and pitching well, he's the 3rd best starter on the club IMHO.

 

I have to disagree.

 

Prior healthy and pitching well (by his stardards) is the best starter on this team.

 

I think he meant Hill was the third best starter on the team in that case.

[Danny82]

USSoccer: Which one of those "unknowns" outperformed anybody, anywhere (save Murton)?

[abuck1220]

I don't care about his minor league numbers.

 

well, then i don't think we have anything else to discuss.

 

What did he do in the majors early in the season?

 

you're right, he'll never amount to anything. oh wait, he was one of the best pitchers in baseball post-ASB in '06. guess judging a guy based on a few scattered innings may not be the best way to go.

 

The king of hyperbole speaks again.

 

so you weren't just judging hill on a few scattered innings?

No. I'm saying that you can't say that he should have been up more than he was when he put up a 9.31 ERA in four starts in May. Something had to change, so he went down and worked on some things that helped him out. He is quoted as saying such. I know you are a big fan of his. So am I. But, I don't see the reason for all of this clamoring that he has been so mistreated by this organization. He still had to demonstrate that he could perform at the major league level. He didn't do that in May.

 

listen, we're not going to agree on this. i think he should have been pitching with the cubs through his struggles, you don't. you think the only way he should have been pitching with the cubs was if he came up and pitched great in the bigs. i say he should have gotten the chance because of what he did in AAA.

 

you keep saying he had to demonstrate that he could perform at the big league level. yet the entire time he was dominating in AAA, rusch and others were absolutely not demonstrating that they could perform at the big league level.

 

the cubs have favored other players over hill. i don't know how there can be any doubt about that.

[rocket]

USSoccer: Which one of those "unknowns" outperformed anybody, anywhere (save Murton)?

 

that wasn't his point. his point is that the cubs organization chose the "proven" whose best-case-scenario statistics are mediocre, over the younger player who could potentially give you great play at a fraction of the cost.

 

proven mediocrity is still mediocrity. the cubs have a history of giving mediocre players a chance over someone who could be good.

[David]

I don't care about his minor league numbers.

 

well, then i don't think we have anything else to discuss.

 

What did he do in the majors early in the season?

 

you're right, he'll never amount to anything. oh wait, he was one of the best pitchers in baseball post-ASB in '06. guess judging a guy based on a few scattered innings may not be the best way to go.

 

The king of hyperbole speaks again.

 

so you weren't just judging hill on a few scattered innings?

No. I'm saying that you can't say that he should have been up more than he was when he put up a 9.31 ERA in four starts in May. Something had to change, so he went down and worked on some things that helped him out. He is quoted as saying such. I know you are a big fan of his. So am I. But, I don't see the reason for all of this clamoring that he has been so mistreated by this organization. He still had to demonstrate that he could perform at the major league level. He didn't do that in May.

 

Exactly. Like it or not, the Cubs were trying to salvage the season which was pretty much lost without DLee at that point. They were calling people up and sending them down left and right, IIRC.

 

It's hard to use the Major Leagues to develop players and let them work out the kinks as early as May, on a team with a $90+ million payroll playing in a major market.

 

In hindsight, it definitely would've made more sense to let Hill work out the kinks with the big club, but the Cubs were trying desperately to salvage the season, or at least tread water until Lee (and Wood and Prior) came back. Hill was struggling badly and he got sent back down.

[CubColtPacer]

nothing (barring injury) will keep Marquis and Lilly out of the rotation.

 

And yes, there is plenty of precedent with the organization benching/demoting a promising youngster for a useless veteran (Choi/McGriff ring any bells?)

 

Nope-McGriff was never useless for the Cubs, so that doesn't ring any bells for me.

 

false.

 

A useless veteran would be one that plays badly, right? When did McGriff play badly for us?

 

when he absolutely crapped the bed for the first 1 3/4 months of 2002.

 

So he had 1 terrible month-in 2001 for us, he had a .921 OPS-even with that terrible month, in 2002 he had an .858 OPS-I wouldn't exactly call that "useless".

 

While I do agree with some who said that McGriff may have blocked Choi a little bit in a pointless season, I think they had to do that if they weren't going to trade him. The best thing they could have done was trade him before the deadline. When they didn't do that, it would be bad public relations to completely bench a productive veteran who had agreed to waive his no-trade clause for you just the year before-it might have led to other players not wanting to come to the Cubs. As it was though, they split the at-bats between McGriff and Choi 50/50 in September, which again is still pretty good for taking at-bats away from a productive veteran.

 

Let's put it this way-some of you were saying after the Izturis trade last year that they would have rather kept Maddux. If you had kept Maddux, would you have benched him the last two months to allow the young pitchers to play because he would be pointless for this season?

[Danny82]

USSoccer: Which one of those "unknowns" outperformed anybody, anywhere (save Murton)?

 

that wasn't his point. his point is that the cubs organization chose the "proven" whose best-case-scenario statistics are mediocre, over the younger player who could potentially give you great play at a fraction of the cost.

 

proven mediocrity is still mediocrity. the cubs have a history of giving mediocre players a chance over someone who could be good.

 

But, how many of those younger players that potentially could give great play actually did? Ever? If you are going to make the argument that their policy is so obviously wrong, there should at least be some example where the younger player actually did something, somewhere.

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

[Soul]

 

Rich should be in the starting rotation. Even if Prior is healthy and pitching well, he's the 3rd best starter on the club IMHO.

 

I have to disagree.

 

Prior healthy and pitching well (by his stardards) is the best starter on this team.

 

I think he meant Hill was the third best starter on the team in that case.

 

Yea, I was trying to make the point that Hill's one of our top 3 in any event.

[David]

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

[Danny82]

[ you think the only way he should have been pitching with the cubs was if he came up and pitched great in the bigs.

 

Again, you are putting words in my mouth.

[UK1679666180]

Part of the reasoning was based on getting McGriff 30HRs for a consecutive years streak, after he reached that I believe Choi had a solid increase of ABs, not until he reached it. That's what upset me, putting individual goals over possible long-term benefits.

[Danny82]

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

Didn't Grudz get a vote or two for the NL MVP that year?

[David]

 

Rich should be in the starting rotation. Even if Prior is healthy and pitching well, he's the 3rd best starter on the club IMHO.

 

I have to disagree.

 

Prior healthy and pitching well (by his stardards) is the best starter on this team.

 

I think he meant Hill was the third best starter on the team in that case.

 

Yea, I was trying to make the point that Hill's one of our top 3 in any event.

 

Sorry. My bad. Too much arguing in this thread. :)

 

I agree that Prior, Z, and Hill would make up the top 3.

[Outshined_One]

This argument reminds me of an article I saw on Hardball Times not too long ago.

 

n general, pitcher projections are less reliable than hitter projections. Young players are tougher to forecast than those in their late 20s and early 30s. Players who have missed substantial time to injury, as well as players who may be at the tail end of their careers, are more difficult to project, as well.

 

As you might imagine, statheads don't always agree with general managers on some of these points. There are plenty of active executives (though their ranks are slimming) who would consider a 39-year-old pitcher a safe bet, while they would hesitate before giving a 24-year-old first baseman a starting job regardless of his minor league track record. In some cases, that pitcher may in fact be a sure thing (think John Smoltz) and the first baseman may be undeserving (think Graham Koonce, a few years back).

 

While it may sometimes be rational to lean on veterans or ignore prospects, what prompted me to write this article was the seemingly irrational degree to which general managers love veteran pitching. In particular, it was Terry Ryan's decision to sign Ramon Ortiz to a $3 million deal, essentially locking Ortiz into a rotation spot and making it much more likely that Matt Garza or Kevin Slowey would not have one.

[Jon]

Hill definitely earned his time last year. He consistently put up ridiculous numbers at AAA when the Cubs flatout sucked and desperately needed help in the rotation. There was no excuse for Hendry keeping Rich in the minors for that long. Big league success at that point shouldn't even be in the picture when making that decision. The whole point was working for the future and giving him the chance to turn his minor league dominance into big league consistency.

 

Hendry decided it wasn't worth the team's time.

[David]

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

Didn't Grudz get a vote or two for the NL MVP that year?

 

If he did, the voter was on drugs.

[USSoccer]

USSoccer: Which one of those "unknowns" outperformed anybody, anywhere (save Murton)?

 

that wasn't his point. his point is that the cubs organization chose the "proven" whose best-case-scenario statistics are mediocre, over the younger player who could potentially give you great play at a fraction of the cost.

 

proven mediocrity is still mediocrity. the cubs have a history of giving mediocre players a chance over someone who could be good.

 

But, how many of those younger players that potentially could give great play actually did? Ever? If you are going to make the argument that their policy is so obviously wrong, there should at least be some example where the younger player actually did something, somewhere.

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

 

If you would have bothered to read what I wrote carefully instead of skimming it for the general point, you would see that I wrote:

 

Some worked out short term, others not so much. In several cases they went with the mediocre known over the potential unknown, despite the unknown outperforming the mediocre known.

 

There's a trend there. To ignore it is to disrespect the conversation.

 

I acknowledged the fact that some of these decisions were somewhat succesful, in that certain players never panned out, but in all of these cases the Cubs refused to give the immediate chance to the younger player with more potential. That's the point that's immediatel;y relevant. You state your disbelief that the Cubs could ever choose to demote Hill over a lousy veteran. I and others are pointing out that there's ample precedent.

[Outshined_One]

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

Didn't Grudz get a vote or two for the NL MVP that year?

 

So did Russ Ortiz (complete with 3.81 ERA), what's your point?

[CoolHandLuke]

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

Didn't Grudz get a vote or two for the NL MVP that year?

 

If he did, the voter was on drugs.

 

wow

[Danny82]

You state your disbelief that the Cubs could ever choose to demote Hill over a lousy veteran. I and others are pointing out that there's ample precedent.

 

Had you taken the time to read MY posts, you would see that I never said that. I've only said that I am not going to get all worried about the possibility forwarded by some uninformed writer that Hill won't be in the rotation until some quote or action by the Cubs organization itself leads me to believe that will be the case.

[CubColtPacer]

 

And I think in the case of Grudz over Hill, the decision was most obviously the right one.

 

I'm not so sure of that.

Didn't Grudz get a vote or two for the NL MVP that year?

 

So did Russ Ortiz (complete with 3.81 ERA), what's your point?

 

I think he's just saying that if he got a vote for the MVP, he at least must have played well enough to justify the team playing him over a prospect who is waiting also, even if he didn't really completely deserve that MVP vote (I don't think anybody would really argue that he did. :D)

[Outshined_One]

I think he's just saying that if he got a vote for the MVP, he at least must have played well enough to justify the team playing him over a prospect who is waiting also, even if he didn't really completely deserve that MVP vote (I don't think anybody would really argue that he did. :D)

 

While it is an honor to receive MVP votes, it is not the best item to use when justifying that side of the Grudz/Bobby Hill argument. Much like the Gold Glove isn't exactly a great hallmark of defensive prowess, MVP votes are not indicative of a player's worth.

[CubinNY]

You state your disbelief that the Cubs could ever choose to demote Hill over a lousy veteran. I and others are pointing out that there's ample precedent.

 

Had you taken the time to read MY posts, you would see that I never said that. I've only said that I am not going to get all worried about the possibility forwarded by some uninformed writer that Hill won't be in the rotation until some quote or action by the Cubs organization itself leads me to believe that will be the case.

 

Unfounded? I've read nothing that says that Hill will be in the rotation for the Chicago Cubs.

 

All I've read is that he will be competing for a job.

 

It speaks volumes about Jim Hendry and the Cubs. Volumes. Hill has been the best pitching propspect in the Cubs organization for going on three years now. Instead he's been brought up, used sparingly, demoted to the bullpen, sent down, brought up, used sparingly, sent down, brought up, in trouble with Dusty and Larry, sent down, and brought up again.

 

In my opinion Marquis is supposed to be an insurance policy on Prior. Instad it seems as if he has an inside track in the rotation.

 

Z

Lilly

Marquis

Prior

 

That leaves Miller, Guzman, and Hill fighting it out for the last spot, when perhaps all three of them will be better than Marquis.

[CubColtPacer]

I think he's just saying that if he got a vote for the MVP, he at least must have played well enough to justify the team playing him over a prospect who is waiting also, even if he didn't really completely deserve that MVP vote (I don't think anybody would really argue that he did. :D)

 

While it is an honor to receive MVP votes, it is not the best item to use when justifying that side of the Grudz/Bobby Hill argument. Much like the Gold Glove isn't exactly a great hallmark of defensive prowess, MVP votes are not indicative of a player's worth.

 

That's certainly true and a valid point.

 

Now for the part that is directed at somebody else (I can't remember who-it's the person who still is not sure that Grudz over Hill was the correct choice)-Grudz put up a better OBP and a better SLG in 2003 than Hill has done in his best year of each of his 3 years in the majors. I cannot see how with the benefit of hindsight that this move could not be seen as a good one.

[Danny82]

I think he's just saying that if he got a vote for the MVP, he at least must have played well enough to justify the team playing him over a prospect who is waiting also, even if he didn't really completely deserve that MVP vote (I don't think anybody would really argue that he did. :D)

 

While it is an honor to receive MVP votes, it is not the best item to use when justifying that side of the Grudz/Bobby Hill argument. Much like the Gold Glove isn't exactly a great hallmark of defensive prowess, MVP votes are not indicative of a player's worth.

Listen, my only point was that he must have had a pretty decent offensive year if he got a vote or two. That's it. I never said that MVP votes were some end all be all determination of a player's worth. That year, Grudz had better numbers than Hill has ever put up. I don't seriously think that Grudz deserved any MVP votes though.