Re: Jeff Samardzija is (or was) pretty awesome

[KingCubsFan]

They handled Samardzija pretty poorly, but they didn't really yank Cashner back and forth. He was a starter in the minors, came up in the bullpen in the majors (so he only increased his innings by about 11 from the previous year), and then 2011 happened. They definitely should have kept him as a starter longer in 2010 though. Although I don't think this was really a reflection of changed thinking on Hendry's part due to the past. If you read his comments on Wood retiring, it's pretty clear he still doesn't think highly of Prior.

 

He was a college reliever who needed to be stretched out cautiously if they had hope of turning him into a major league starter, and 30-something starts into that process (when they were typically 3.5-5 inning starts) they abandoned it for a bunch of 1-inning relief innings. Then tried to make him a major league starter right after that. It was reckless.

So you consider Theo/Hoyer's plan for Samardzija reckless too? Because they've done the exact same thing (except Samardzija threw a lot less innings last year).

 

Finish year in bullpen--->Train in the offseason as a starter----> Transition to starting rotation the following year.

 

This isn't a full defense of Hendry, but Cashner was one of the few things they didn't screw up.

[jersey cubs fan]

So you consider Theo/Hoyer's plan for Samardzija reckless too? Because they've done the exact same thing (except Samardzija threw a lot less innings last year).

 

Finish year in bullpen--->Train in the offseason as a starter----> Transition to starting rotation the following year.

 

This isn't a full defense of Hendry, but Cashner was one of the few things they didn't screw up.

 

That is hardly "exactly the same". Samardzija has twice as many professional starts as Cashner. Samardzija had three times as many professional innings as Cashner going into this season.

 

Going from a reliever to a starter is not necessarily wrong. They way they did it with Cashner was much more reckless than the way it is being done with Shark right now.

[Clem Fandango]

Wouldn't it make more sense to limit pitch counts instead of innings?

[CubColtPacer]

They handled Samardzija pretty poorly, but they didn't really yank Cashner back and forth. He was a starter in the minors, came up in the bullpen in the majors (so he only increased his innings by about 11 from the previous year), and then 2011 happened. They definitely should have kept him as a starter longer in 2010 though. Although I don't think this was really a reflection of changed thinking on Hendry's part due to the past. If you read his comments on Wood retiring, it's pretty clear he still doesn't think highly of Prior.

 

He was a college reliever who needed to be stretched out cautiously if they had hope of turning him into a major league starter, and 30-something starts into that process (when they were typically 3.5-5 inning starts) they abandoned it for a bunch of 1-inning relief innings. Then tried to make him a major league starter right after that. It was reckless.

 

It should be noted that the big question on Cashner coming out of college was not can he handle the workload of a starter, but whether he could be effective as a starter. It was obvious he could handle the workload because he had been a starter for all but one year of his amateur career. Even the questions now are more about whether the time needed to build him back up to a starter is worth it since the injuries in 2009 and 2011 set him back. But by the end of the year in 2009 and the start of 2010 before he came to the majors, Cashner was handling a full starters workload. And the main reason he wasn't at the start of 2009 was the oblique injury, not the 1 year he spent relieving.

[jersey cubs fan]

It should be noted that the big question on Cashner coming out of college was not can he handle the workload of a starter, but whether he could be effective as a starter. It was obvious he could handle the workload because he had been a starter for all but one year of his amateur career. Even the questions now are more about whether the time needed to build him back up to a starter is worth it since the injuries in 2009 and 2011 set him back. But by the end of the year in 2009 and the start of 2010 before he came to the majors, Cashner was handling a full starters workload. And the main reason he wasn't at the start of 2009 was the oblique injury, not the 1 year he spent relieving.

 

You are making completely unsubstantiated assumptions here. Since when does a guy making it through a college season as a starter make it obvious he can do it in a major league season? There was nothing obvious about his ability to handle the workload. In 2009 he made 24 starts, but he only averaged less than 4 and a third in those starts, so he was hardly anywhere close to actually handling a full starters workload. You can rack up 100 innings before the all star break in the majors. There were questions both about his ability to be effective in 6+ inning stints, and whether he could actually last for 6 innings every 5 days for 6 months.

[CubColtPacer]

It should be noted that the big question on Cashner coming out of college was not can he handle the workload of a starter, but whether he could be effective as a starter. It was obvious he could handle the workload because he had been a starter for all but one year of his amateur career. Even the questions now are more about whether the time needed to build him back up to a starter is worth it since the injuries in 2009 and 2011 set him back. But by the end of the year in 2009 and the start of 2010 before he came to the majors, Cashner was handling a full starters workload. And the main reason he wasn't at the start of 2009 was the oblique injury, not the 1 year he spent relieving.

 

You are making completely unsubstantiated assumptions here. Since when does a guy making it through a college season as a starter make it obvious he can do it in a major league season? There was nothing obvious about his ability to handle the workload. In 2009 he made 24 starts, but he only averaged less than 4 and a third in those starts, so he was hardly anywhere close to actually handling a full starters workload. You can rack up 100 innings before the all star break in the majors. There were questions both about his ability to be effective in 6+ inning stints, and whether he could actually last for 6 innings every 5 days for 6 months.

 

Let's rephrase that. There was no reason to believe that Cashner couldn't handle the workload. Spending 1 college season as a reliever doesn't automatically bring up durability questions that aren't present with other pitchers. I do agree with you on one thing though. They made a mistake on bringing him up to relieve. But the mistake wasn't that they yo-yo'd him, but rather that they did it so early. They should have timed it where he could have finished the season in the bullpen, but still got his inning progression in from the previous year. Instead, the oblique injury caused him to not get enough innings in 2009. In 2010, he went into the bullpen too early and didn't get enough innings. And 2011 of course had the major injury. But the problem with going to the bullpen in 2010 wasn't that he was more risky as a result, but instead that they would have to shut him down so early in 2011, and that's always trickier to do in a major league rotation.

[Old Style]

How many innings would everyone let Samardzija work in the year he's transitioning from the pen?

No more than 500. [/Dusty Baker]

[jersey cubs fan]

Let's rephrase that. There was no reason to believe that Cashner couldn't handle the workload.

 

No. No, no, no. You can't make that statement. Pitchers have to prove they can handle a workload before you can pretend there is no reason to believe they cannot. Cashner had very little workload under his belt when he was drafted. He had very little workload as a professional before being moved to reliever on the big league club. He'd done very little as a pro when they handed him a starting job.

 

 

If spending 1 year as a college reliever doesn't bring up durability concerns, spending 2 years as a juco starter hardly makes the case that you can do. Being a starting pitcher at the major league level is hard. You have to start quite a bit before anybody can have any reasonable faith in your ability to do it over a substantial amount of time. You don't start at a baseline of "the guy can handle it", you have to wait until he does a lot more than Cashner did in the minors before that becomes the assumption.

[KingCubsFan]

It should be noted that the big question on Cashner coming out of college was not can he handle the workload of a starter, but whether he could be effective as a starter. It was obvious he could handle the workload because he had been a starter for all but one year of his amateur career. Even the questions now are more about whether the time needed to build him back up to a starter is worth it since the injuries in 2009 and 2011 set him back. But by the end of the year in 2009 and the start of 2010 before he came to the majors, Cashner was handling a full starters workload. And the main reason he wasn't at the start of 2009 was the oblique injury, not the 1 year he spent relieving.

 

You are making completely unsubstantiated assumptions here. Since when does a guy making it through a college season as a starter make it obvious he can do it in a major league season? There was nothing obvious about his ability to handle the workload. In 2009 he made 24 starts, but he only averaged less than 4 and a third in those starts, so he was hardly anywhere close to actually handling a full starters workload. You can rack up 100 innings before the all star break in the majors. There were questions both about his ability to be effective in 6+ inning stints, and whether he could actually last for 6 innings every 5 days for 6 months.

There were questions about his effectiveness, but there weren't questions in the Cubs' minds about his ability to throw 200 innings. Seriously, why would the Cubs waste 2 years of their first round pick's career trying to build up his inning count if they didn't think he could someday throw 200 innings? If you want to say they were overly cautious, that's fine, but you still haven't shown why they were "reckless" by methodically building up his innings.

[CubColtPacer]

Let's rephrase that. There was no reason to believe that Cashner couldn't handle the workload.

 

No. No, no, no. You can't make that statement. Pitchers have to prove they can handle a workload before you can pretend there is no reason to believe they cannot. Cashner had very little workload under his belt when he was drafted. He had very little workload as a professional before being moved to reliever on the big league club. He'd done very little as a pro when they handed him a starting job.

 

 

If spending 1 year as a college reliever doesn't bring up durability concerns, spending 2 years as a juco starter hardly makes the case that you can do. Being a starting pitcher at the major league level is hard. You have to start quite a bit before anybody can have any reasonable faith in your ability to do it over a substantial amount of time. You don't start at a baseline of "the guy can handle it", you have to wait until he does a lot more than Cashner did in the minors before that becomes the assumption.

 

Hmm, that's a more fundamental question you brought up. You're basically saying that you believe pitchers should have a minimum amount of innings in the minors before being handed a major league job. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I can see your position.

 

Anyway, this thread is about Samardzija. And I would say as most have 150-170 innings. And to how he suddenly figured out his control, I have no idea. But it's been about 1 calendar year since he did it, so it certainly looks like he can keep it together at this point.

[jersey cubs fan]

There were questions about his effectiveness, but there weren't questions in the Cubs' minds about his ability to throw 200 innings. Seriously, why would the Cubs waste 2 years of their first round pick's career trying to build up his inning count if they didn't think he could someday throw 200 innings? If you want to say they were overly cautious, that's fine, but you still haven't shown why they were "reckless" by methodically building up his innings.

 

A) They didn't methodically build up his innings.

B) The Cubs minds? Seriously? The fact that it may not have cross the minds of the reckless, foolish, overmatched dolts that ran the Cubs makes me wrong?

 

 

The consensus on Cashner at draft time was he was a reliever. The Cubs thought they could make him a starter and they did a piss poor job of trying to convert, or reconvert him back into one, let alone one who a reasonably smart person would think could make 30+ starts with 200+ innings in a season.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hmm, that's a more fundamental question you brought up. You're basically saying that you believe pitchers should have a minimum amount of innings in the minors before being handed a major league job. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I can see your position.

 

I'm hardly breaking any new ground there. At the very least they should come in with a clear track record of starting, which Cashner did not do.

[SouthSideRyan]

There were questions about his effectiveness, but there weren't questions in the Cubs' minds about his ability to throw 200 innings. Seriously, why would the Cubs waste 2 years of their first round pick's career trying to build up his inning count if they didn't think he could someday throw 200 innings? If you want to say they were overly cautious, that's fine, but you still haven't shown why they were "reckless" by methodically building up his innings.

 

A) They didn't methodically build up his innings.

B) The Cubs minds? Seriously? The fact that it may not have cross the minds of the reckless, foolish, overmatched dolts that ran the Cubs makes me wrong?

 

 

The consensus on Cashner at draft time was he was a reliever. The Cubs thought they could make him a starter and they did a piss poor job of trying to convert, or reconvert him back into one, let alone one who a reasonably smart person would think could make 30+ starts with 200+ innings in a season.

 

The Cubs were doing a fine job converting him until they freaked the [expletive] out in 2010.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Cubs were doing a fine job converting him until they freaked the [expletive] out in 2010.

 

I agree. Like many things Cubs they had one idea what they wanted to do and changed on the fly. My point on Cashner is that by the time he was slated to start in 2011, his conversion/treatment was screwed up. They almost had to go back to the drawing board on him. It wasn't like the Samardzija situation. Jeff had a lot more work under his belt before this season started.

[CubColtPacer]

There were questions about his effectiveness, but there weren't questions in the Cubs' minds about his ability to throw 200 innings. Seriously, why would the Cubs waste 2 years of their first round pick's career trying to build up his inning count if they didn't think he could someday throw 200 innings? If you want to say they were overly cautious, that's fine, but you still haven't shown why they were "reckless" by methodically building up his innings.

 

A) They didn't methodically build up his innings.

B) The Cubs minds? Seriously? The fact that it may not have cross the minds of the reckless, foolish, overmatched dolts that ran the Cubs makes me wrong?

 

 

The consensus on Cashner at draft time was he was a reliever. The Cubs thought they could make him a starter and they did a piss poor job of trying to convert, or reconvert him back into one, let alone one who a reasonably smart person would think could make 30+ starts with 200+ innings in a season.

 

What would you have done differently? He had the oblique injury to start 2009 and then the Cubs built him up slowly. Then in 2010 he was averaging 6 innings a start before moving to the bullpen. Would you have kept him in AAA until they had to shut him down because of innings in 2010? (which probably would have been about a month before the minor league season ended) Would you have given him any chance at the major league roster in 2011 even though he still wouldn't have been able to throw more than 165-175 that year?

[jersey cubs fan]

What would you have done differently? ?

 

I've been under the assumption from day 1 that he was destined to be a reliever. But if I was going to try and make him a starter I would have tried to make him a starter and not turn him back into a reliever, then quickly change back to starting. What they did was reckless. Basically, start the way they did and then stick with that program for a couple more years until he's actually making 6+ inning starts every 5 days for prolonged stretches of time.

[SouthSideRyan]

There were questions about his effectiveness, but there weren't questions in the Cubs' minds about his ability to throw 200 innings. Seriously, why would the Cubs waste 2 years of their first round pick's career trying to build up his inning count if they didn't think he could someday throw 200 innings? If you want to say they were overly cautious, that's fine, but you still haven't shown why they were "reckless" by methodically building up his innings.

 

A) They didn't methodically build up his innings.

B) The Cubs minds? Seriously? The fact that it may not have cross the minds of the reckless, foolish, overmatched dolts that ran the Cubs makes me wrong?

 

 

The consensus on Cashner at draft time was he was a reliever. The Cubs thought they could make him a starter and they did a piss poor job of trying to convert, or reconvert him back into one, let alone one who a reasonably smart person would think could make 30+ starts with 200+ innings in a season.

 

What would you have done differently? He had the oblique injury to start 2009 and then the Cubs built him up slowly. Then in 2010 he was averaging 6 innings a start before moving to the bullpen. Would you have kept him in AAA until they had to shut him down because of innings in 2010? (which probably would have been about a month before the minor league season ended) Would you have given him any chance at the major league roster in 2011 even though he still wouldn't have been able to throw more than 165-175 that year?

 

You're acting like his move to the big league pen was a way to limit his innings rather than them wanting a setup man.

 

Cashner wound up throwing 10 more innings that year because of it. The goal of 2010 should've been to have him ready to take a near-full slate in 2011. You stretch him to 140-150 in 2010(if he kept pitching like a freak in AAA, you give him a taste of the big leagues, 5 starts or so, and shut him down. But as typical with the Hendry era he was a reactionary, saw a hole, and thought hey this guy used to relieve let's do that, future be damned.

[illiniguy]

In Hendry's defense we had to finish strong in '10 or we would have ended up not making the playoffs. Cashier needed to fill that pen hole.

[CubColtPacer]

There were questions about his effectiveness, but there weren't questions in the Cubs' minds about his ability to throw 200 innings. Seriously, why would the Cubs waste 2 years of their first round pick's career trying to build up his inning count if they didn't think he could someday throw 200 innings? If you want to say they were overly cautious, that's fine, but you still haven't shown why they were "reckless" by methodically building up his innings.

 

A) They didn't methodically build up his innings.

B) The Cubs minds? Seriously? The fact that it may not have cross the minds of the reckless, foolish, overmatched dolts that ran the Cubs makes me wrong?

 

 

The consensus on Cashner at draft time was he was a reliever. The Cubs thought they could make him a starter and they did a piss poor job of trying to convert, or reconvert him back into one, let alone one who a reasonably smart person would think could make 30+ starts with 200+ innings in a season.

 

What would you have done differently? He had the oblique injury to start 2009 and then the Cubs built him up slowly. Then in 2010 he was averaging 6 innings a start before moving to the bullpen. Would you have kept him in AAA until they had to shut him down because of innings in 2010? (which probably would have been about a month before the minor league season ended) Would you have given him any chance at the major league roster in 2011 even though he still wouldn't have been able to throw more than 165-175 that year?

 

You're acting like his move to the big league pen was a way to limit his innings rather than them wanting a setup man.

 

Cashner wound up throwing 10 more innings that year because of it. The goal of 2010 should've been to have him ready to take a near-full slate in 2011. You stretch him to 140-150 in 2010(if he kept pitching like a freak in AAA, you give him a taste of the big leagues, 5 starts or so, and shut him down. But as typical with the Hendry era he was a reactionary, saw a hole, and thought hey this guy used to relieve let's do that, future be damned.

 

No, I said earlier that they moved him to the bullpen too early in 2010. I would have had no problem him throwing the last part of the year in the bullpen in 2010. If they had gotten to mid-July and had either 4 starts with him left before shutting him down or 20-25 innings out of the major league bullpen, I think there are advantages with either choice. The way they did it though put him another year behind in getting to a full workload because he just didn't get enough innings in 2010. I just disagree with the assertion that moving him to relief for a while and then putting him back as a starter is reckless. There's nothing inherently reckless with that choice, but they would have had to shut him down way early in 2011 because of how early they did it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I just disagree with the assertion that moving him to relief for a while and then putting him back as a starter is reckless. There's nothing inherently reckless with that choice, but they would have had to shut him down way early in 2011 because of how early they did it.

 

Nice job throwing in "for a while" for no good reason. They had him go back to starting for 4 months before he ever got to the point where he was regularly throwing 6+ innings. He had 24 starts for an average less than 4 1/3 in 2009, then just 9 starts for 6 innings each before abandoning the development ship and making him a reliever for four months. He wasn't some september call-up who threw in the bullpen for a little while to get his feet wet. He was the GD set-up man pitching every other day for the majority of the season. It was a complete setback from the development path he was on. If they wanted him to be a major league reliever, it wasn't reckless, but if there was any thought of him starting every day in the majors in 2011 it was completely reckless and foolish.

[17 Seconds]

hamels/Garza/Samardzija/Wood/Maholm in 2013.

 

that's potentially a fantastic rotation, right?

[jersey cubs fan]

hamels/Garza/Samardzija/Wood/Maholm in 2013.

 

that's potentially a fantastic rotation, right?

 

It would be, but getting Hamels is a huge longshot.

[Guest]

hamels/Garza/Samardzija/Wood/Maholm in 2013.

 

that's potentially a fantastic rotation, right?

 

The sobering thought is that Dempster has been about as good as Hamels could be expected to be.

[SouthSideRyan]

hamels/Garza/Samardzija/Wood/Maholm in 2013.

 

that's potentially a fantastic rotation, right?

 

It would be, but getting Hamels is a huge longshot.

 

I HEARD HE'S FROM SOCAL

[Cubswin11]

hamels/Garza/Samardzija/Wood/Maholm in 2013.

 

that's potentially a fantastic rotation, right?

 

The sobering thought is that Dempster has been about as good as Hamels could be expected to be.

True, but our starting pitching has been good enough this year to be be (at least statistically) considered a playoff teams starting rotation adding Hamels and losing Dempster keeps us at that level at least next year. But that only goes so far if we don't improve offensively or in the bullpen.