Rich Hill traded to Baltimore for PTBNL

[17 Seconds]

Nobody is arguing that Hill hasn't lost it or the fact that he was out of options. The discussion was about the fact that people always try to discredit what Hill did from 05-07.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This thread would have died a couple pages ago if people hadn't invented points to argue against and attributed them to other people.

[Rob]

This thread would have died a couple pages ago if people hadn't invented points to argue against and attributed them to other people.

 

You leave my mother out of this, you anti-semite!

[abuck1220]

Rich Hill had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2008.

 

Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average?

 

Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season.

 

Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008

 

If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela.

 

Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day.

 

So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective.

 

hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill.

 

also, learn math.

[Illini Iceman]

Rich Hill had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2008.

 

Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average?

 

Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season.

 

Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008

 

If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela.

 

Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day.

 

So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective.

 

hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill.

 

also, learn math.

 

Wow, I am shocked it took you this long to swoop in and defend your boy.

[Sammy Sofa]

Rich Hill had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2008.

 

Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average?

 

Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season.

 

Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008

 

If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela.

 

Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day.

 

So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective.

 

hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill.

 

also, learn math.

 

Wow, I am shocked it took you this long to swoop in and defend your boy.

 

He's not "defending his boy." He's pointing out, as others also have, how this most recent tangent seemingly arguing that people were against trading Hill when he was traded was created out of nowhere is actually against nobody.

 

That i's being propped up by the oh-so-brilliant "take out their best performances..." argument is just cake.

[17 Seconds]

Rich Hill had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2008.

 

Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average?

 

Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season.

 

Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008

 

If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela.

 

Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day.

 

So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective.

 

hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill.

 

also, learn math.

 

Wow, I am shocked it took you this long to swoop in and defend your boy.

 

I don't think I've ever even conversed with abuck on here, so I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

[Illini Iceman]

Rich Hill had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2008.

 

Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average?

 

Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season.

 

Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008

 

If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela.

 

Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day.

 

So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective.

 

hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill.

 

also, learn math.

 

Wow, I am shocked it took you this long to swoop in and defend your boy.

 

I don't think I've ever even conversed with abuck on here, so I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

 

Believe it or not, every single post on this board is not directed at you.

[Illini Iceman]

Rich Hill had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2008.

 

Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average?

 

Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season.

 

Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008

 

If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela.

 

Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day.

 

So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective.

 

hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill.

 

also, learn math.

 

Wow, I am shocked it took you this long to swoop in and defend your boy.

 

He's not "defending his boy." He's pointing out, as others also have, how this most recent tangent seemingly arguing that people were against trading Hill when he was traded was created out of nowhere is actually against nobody.

 

That i's being propped up by the oh-so-brilliant "take out their best performances..." argument is just cake.

 

I can't speak for everyone else but this is where I started:

 

he should grow a moustache and punch his teammates and get ejected from games and make a huge production when teammates make an error and break bats over his knee. then people would like him.

 

The implication was that somehow Z and Hill were equals and people like Z because of his antics and don't give Hill the same benefit of the doubt.

 

I don't agree in the whole just throwing out months thing, but overall it is fair to say that Hill had a pretty good run of sucssess then suddenly lost it. Making it seem like somehow he should get the same overall respect and benefit of the doubt as a pitcher as Z does not make sense to me.

[Illini Iceman]

Rich Hill had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.40 ERA when removing his best month in 2008.

 

Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that.

 

Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007.

 

Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average?

 

Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season.

 

Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008

 

If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela.

 

Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day.

 

So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective.

 

hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill.

 

also, learn math.

 

Wow, I am shocked it took you this long to swoop in and defend your boy.

 

He's not "defending his boy." He's pointing out, as others also have, how this most recent tangent seemingly arguing that people were against trading Hill when he was traded was created out of nowhere is actually against nobody.

 

That i's being propped up by the oh-so-brilliant "take out their best performances..." argument is just cake.

 

 

I can't speak for everyone else but this is where I started:

 

he should grow a moustache and punch his teammates and get ejected from games and make a huge production when teammates make an error and break bats over his knee. then people would like him.

 

The implication was that somehow Z and Hill were equals and people like Z because of his antics and don't give Hill the same treatment.

 

I don't agree in the whole just throwing out months thing, but overall it is fair to say that Hill had a pretty good run of sucssess then suddenly lost it. Making it seem like somehow he should get the same overall respect and benefit of the doubt as a pitcher as Z does not make sense to me.

[Schwarber Fan]

VIERA, Fla. - Left-hander Rich Hill, a front-runner for one of three vacant spots in the Orioles' Opening Day rotation, was scratched from making today's start against the Washington Nationals due to forearm and elbow stiffness.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-osnotes301,0,6782494.story

[Sammy Sofa]

The implication was that somehow Z and Hill were equals and people like Z because of his antics and don't give Hill the same treatment.

 

I don't see that as saying they were equals at all. That was a response to all the people saying they had "never liked Hill" for nebulous reasons pertaining more to assumptions about his mentality and personality than his actual performance.

[cubbinalltheway]

The implication was that somehow Z and Hill were equals and people like Z because of his antics and don't give Hill the same treatment.

 

I don't see that as saying they were equals at all. That was a response to all the people saying they had "never liked Hill" for nebulous reasons pertaining more to assumptions about his mentality and personality than his actual performance.

where did anyone say anything remotely near that?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The implication was that somehow Z and Hill were equals and people like Z because of his antics and don't give Hill the same treatment.

 

I don't see that as saying they were equals at all. That was a response to all the people saying they had "never liked Hill" for nebulous reasons pertaining more to assumptions about his mentality and personality than his actual performance.

where did anyone say anything remotely near that?

 

I never liked rich hill as a pitcher but I will feel bad for him after the beating the AL East will give him this year. Even at his best he doesnt have the pitches, location, or tenacity to compete in that division.

 

Rich has poor control, a sub par fast ball, and doesnt even have a third pitch. It makes him predictable and inefficient. Not to mention he is easy to rattle

 

Additionally, everybody and their mother that watched Hill pitch all these games could tell he lacked mental toughness.

 

But if you can't even throw a strike in the minors or in the winter league. You have issues

[Wheelimus]

It's weird, all of my emotions with Hill are incredibly conflicting.

 

On one hand, I want to feel happy that his troubles continue in Baltimore. It eases the pain of losing the guy we had in 06 and 07.

 

But then like most former Cubs, in the end I want to root for Hill and feel bad that his life continues to spiral into oblivion.

 

And then, looking at it another way, I want to see him fail to not have to go through the whole "what if" thing if he puts it back together and wins a Cy Young or something.

 

And yet, I want him to succeed so that my Cubbies get the best possible player in return.

 

Ah, life is full of contradictions. :shock:

[questionmarkgrace]

I never liked rich hill as a pitcher but I will feel bad for him ...

 

I think its pretty clear from this quote that I wasnt happy with his performance hence the qualifier "as a pitcher." I dont see how that is remotely about his personality. However, I do think that he does wilt when the pressure is on stats can support that. See the Arizona playoff game for a prime example and batting avg against in certain counts. Either way because I think he is mentally weak has nothing to do with a personal attack on him. There is obvious reason to think so and I am clearly not the only one

 

You must have one heck of a man-crush on Rich Hill or you are a relative because this is ridiculous.

[Rob]

I never liked rich hill as a pitcher but I will feel bad for him ...

 

I think its pretty clear from this quote that I wasnt happy with his performance hence the qualifier "as a pitcher." I dont see how that is remotely about his personality. However, I do think that he does wilt when the pressure is on stats can support that. See the Arizona playoff game for a prime example and batting avg against in certain counts. Either way because I think he is mentally weak has nothing to do with a personal attack on him. There is obvious reason to think so and I am clearly not the only one

 

You must have one heck of a man-crush on Rich Hill or you are a relative because this is ridiculous.

 

And Rich Hill must have slept with your sister. You're going out of your way to come up with ridiculous (read: worthless) arguments about his mental state. BAA in certain counts? Are you serious? That's half a step above attacking him for HBPs on Wednesdays.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I never liked rich hill as a pitcher but I will feel bad for him ...

 

I think its pretty clear from this quote that I wasnt happy with his performance hence the qualifier "as a pitcher."

 

Your opinion about his pitching in 2007 is ridiculous and based on awful logic. The only reasonable explanation is that there must be something else driving it.

[abuck1220]

I never liked rich hill as a pitcher but I will feel bad for him ...

 

I think its pretty clear from this quote that I wasnt happy with his performance hence the qualifier "as a pitcher." I dont see how that is remotely about his personality.

 

well, then that's just dumb. over the course of 06-07 he was the best pitcher the cubs had and he was making like $300,000. it would have been better if you had said you didn't like his personality. i guess.

 

However, I do think that he does wilt when the pressure is on stats can support that. See the Arizona playoff game for a prime example and batting avg against in certain counts.

 

i'm curious...what counts exactly are indicative of wilting under pressure? talk about an idiotic, cherry picked statistic.

[bukie]

I never liked rich hill as a pitcher but I will feel bad for him ...

 

I think its pretty clear from this quote that I wasnt happy with his performance hence the qualifier "as a pitcher." I dont see how that is remotely about his personality.

 

well, then that's just dumb. over the course of 06-07 he was the best pitcher the cubs had and he was making like $300,000. it would have been better if you had said you didn't like his personality. i guess.

 

However, I do think that he does wilt when the pressure is on stats can support that. See the Arizona playoff game for a prime example and batting avg against in certain counts.

 

i'm curious...what counts exactly are indicative of wilting under pressure? talk about an idiotic, cherry picked statistic.

Hill has issued walks in 100% of 4-ball counts. Can't handle that kind of pressure.

[abuck1220]

isn't a full count the most pressure-packed count? career .200 BAA in that count. he's nails.

 

uh oh, nevermind, a .350 BAA in 1-1 counts (let's face it, that's when the pressure is greatest). choker.

[questionmarkgrace]

You guys are nuts. Why dont I like him? I dont think he has proven much of anything.

 

over the course of 06-07 he was the best pitcher

 

Ted Lilly was/ is much better. What I dont understand is why so much love for a guy with a 4 + era? Are you guys enamored by the strikeout? Do you know how many guys have shown a flash of brilliance and then fizzled out? If he was a great pitcher for 3/4 of a season or even a couple of seasons I would be on your side. The fact is he has so much going against him that this is pretty much his last chance. I trust that the cubs have made the right decision here because he wasn't good enough to even make this team. Ill take sean marshall over him anyday at least I know what pitcher is going to show up. There is no room for inconsistency in the mlb.

 

What I want to know is why all the love for a mediocre pitcher with control problems?

[cubbinalltheway]

the amount of love/support/whatever that rich hill gets on here is truly amazing. the guy couldn't throw strikes all year, couldn't throw strikes in winter ball, and as a result he rightly so gets shipped out of town. then he claims that an injury was why he couldn't throw strikes last year (of course with no explanation for his continued lack of control in winter ball). then he gets to o's camp and STILL CAN'T THROW STRIKES. yet people are still sticking up for him like he's the greatest cub ever. i don't get it.

 

i know, i know... the rich hill "hate" is truly amazing too. spare me that weak counter.

[abuck1220]

You guys are nuts. Why dont I like him? I dont think he has proven much of anything.

 

over the course of 06-07 he was the best pitcher

 

Ted Lilly was/ is much better. What I dont understand is why so much love for a guy with a 4 + era? Are you guys enamored by the strikeout? Do you know how many guys have shown a flash of brilliance and then fizzled out? If he was a great pitcher for 3/4 of a season or even a couple of seasons I would be on your side. The fact is he has so much going against him that this is pretty much his last chance. I trust that the cubs have made the right decision here because he wasn't good enough to even make this team. Ill take sean marshall over him anyday at least I know what pitcher is going to show up. There is no room for inconsistency in the mlb.

 

What I want to know is why all the love for a mediocre pitcher with control problems?

 

what pitch counts are indicative of his failure to perform under pressure please.

[Derwood]

ha ha, nice edit