Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Random Cubs Musings

Banedon

By Banedon,
in Chicago Cubs Talk

 Share
burnt out cubbie fan ACL Cubs

burnt out cubbie fan

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Marshall a top of the rotation starter eh?

 

No, that's what he and Hill projected out be as prospects before showing they were not capable of that.

Hill was a 3 pitch pitcher with an average to below average fastball and a below average change. He was never viewed as a top of the rotation guy as a ceiling, more like 3-4 if everything worked out. Marshall was similar with a slightly better fastball and ceiling.

Really, because people(media not fans) were picking him to win the Cy Young his rookie year and having that type of talent.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2007/3/5/11735/47786

 

sounds like a 5 to me....

So other than that one blog in the preseason who else in the "media" we're calling him a Cy Young type pitcher? That guy sounds like he was thinking ohh a lefty with a crazy curve and no other pitches, oh I know he is going to be Barry Zito!

  • Replies 6.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

UK1679666180 Knoxville Smokies

UK1679666180

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Marshall a top of the rotation starter eh?

 

No, that's what he and Hill projected out be as prospects before showing they were not capable of that.

Hill was a 3 pitch pitcher with an average to below average fastball and a below average change. He was never viewed as a top of the rotation guy as a ceiling, more like 3-4 if everything worked out. Marshall was similar with a slightly better fastball and ceiling.

Really, because people(media not fans) were picking him to win the Cy Young his rookie year and having that type of talent.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2007/3/5/11735/47786

 

sounds like a 5 to me....

 

So other than that one blog in the preseason who else in the "media" we're calling him a Cy Young type pitcher? That guy sounds like he was thinking ohh a lefty with a crazy curve and no other pitches, oh I know he is going to be Barry Zito!

 

Agreed.

 

The writer didn't even predict him to win the Cy Young award, he called him a sleeper candidate.

 

As mentioned, he had an avg. FB and no 3rd pitch. That main thing was his mechanics, he was never able to repeat his delivery because of his shoulder tilt. While it probably gave him the arm action to have that much break, it also could not repeated enough to where he had the same release point on his FB.

biittner77 South Bend Cubs

biittner77

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

From what I remember, the knock on Hill was could he throw that curve for strikes. For Marshall, the question was durability.

 

I think every LH SP from that era got compared to Zito. I think the consensus here was that Hill could be a mainstay of the rotation (so long as he threw strikes which was never a given) but I don't remember anyone saying CY Young winner.

 

in re Zambrano, people forget that the Cubs had him as the closer at Iowa because they didn't believe his stuff would play as a SP. Thus the infamous "If Zambrano starts, your in trouble" thread. Evereyone thought Juan Cruz and Angel Guzman would be the real stars.

KingCubsFan ACL Cubs

KingCubsFan

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
From what I remember, the knock on Hill was could he throw that curve for strikes. For Marshall, the question was durability.

 

I think every LH SP from that era got compared to Zito. I think the consensus here was that Hill could be a mainstay of the rotation (so long as he threw strikes which was never a given) but I don't remember anyone saying CY Young winner.

 

in re Zambrano, people forget that the Cubs had him as the closer at Iowa because they didn't believe his stuff would play as a SP. Thus the infamous "If Zambrano starts, your in trouble" thread. Evereyone thought Juan Cruz and Angel Guzman would be the real stars.

Zambrano was in the bullpen because Hendry panicked about the major league bullpen, similar to when Cashner got thrown into the bullpen. While Cruz was rated higher, Zambrano was always rated highly.

Guest

Guest

Guests
Posted
Posted
From what I remember, the knock on Hill was could he throw that curve for strikes. For Marshall, the question was durability.

 

I think every LH SP from that era got compared to Zito. I think the consensus here was that Hill could be a mainstay of the rotation (so long as he threw strikes which was never a given) but I don't remember anyone saying CY Young winner.

 

in re Zambrano, people forget that the Cubs had him as the closer at Iowa because they didn't believe his stuff would play as a SP. Thus the infamous "If Zambrano starts, your in trouble" thread. Evereyone thought Juan Cruz and Angel Guzman would be the real stars.

Zambrano was in the bullpen because Hendry panicked about the major league bullpen, similar to when Cashner got thrown into the bullpen. While Cruz was rated higher, Zambrano was always rated highly.

 

Yes, this is correct. Z hit 98 in the 9th inning of a complete game while in high-A - his stuff playing as a starter wasn't the reason why he closed at AAA. It would be interesting to see how BA would have ranked Cruz if they knew his actual age when he was a prospect.

UMFan83 GOAT

UMFan83

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
Watching Cashner, Archer and Donaldson excel this year while Rizzo and Olt (by way of Garza) struggle is depressing. Thank God for CJ Edwards.
UMFan83 GOAT

UMFan83

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted
I imagine Cruz still would have been in the top 50 overall. I'm trying to remember the Cubs in the Top 100 in 02. Patterson, Prior, Cruz, Z, Choi, Hill, Montanez?

 

Kelton? Pretty sure he was in the top 50 at one point, probably 2002

UK1679666180 Knoxville Smokies

UK1679666180

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
I imagine Cruz still would have been in the top 50 overall. I'm trying to remember the Cubs in the Top 100 in 02. Patterson, Prior, Cruz, Z, Choi, Hill, Montanez?

 

Kelton? Pretty sure he was in the top 50 at one point, probably 2002

 

I cheated, Patterson was ineligible Kelton was on there as was Nic Jackson.

neely crenshaw Draft Eligible

neely crenshaw

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Actually I remember the talk about it at the time, I just quickly looked up one source. The point wasn't that he would win the CY, it was that generally guys who are considered candidates for it, aren't thought to be number 5 pitchers for a team.Whether you want to admit it Hill was very highly thought of, and a comparison to Zito at that time (a cy young winner and huge free agent signing) would be like comparing him to glavine in the 90's- pretty high praise.
UK1679666180 Knoxville Smokies

UK1679666180

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Actually I remember the talk about it at the time, I just quickly looked up one source. The point wasn't that he would win the CY, it was that generally guys who are considered candidates for it, aren't thought to be number 5 pitchers for a team.Whether you want to admit it Hill was very highly thought of, and a comparison to Zito at that time (a cy young winner and huge free agent signing) would be like comparing him to glavine in the 90's- pretty high praise.

 

It is based on stuff rather than actual projections...

 

Juan Cruz got compared to Pedro as has Ramon Ortiz, small RH'ed Dominican pitchers with high velos, + change-ups, and flashes of a + breaking pitch are going to do that. Little white pitchers with higher velos and a good breaking ball are going to get compared to Oswalt. It's the nature of the beast.

 

Hill had a similar arsenal as Zito, Hill should not have been a considered a top of the rotation guy nor a btm of the rotation guy. He never had the control/command of a star and he had too good of stuff for a marginal pitcher.

 

Comparing Zito to Glavine is a far worse comparison than comparing the stuff of Hill to Zito.

neely crenshaw Draft Eligible

neely crenshaw

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

Ok so is the argument about whether Hill was any good or whether Hendry had talent in the system but failed to use it to it's max?

My point was simply that we seemed to overvalue our prospects and failed to deal them for proven talent, AND never seemed to develop any of them either.

I have more faith in the current administration in handling this, but my original comment was simply-it's good to have a stacked farm system but you have to use them correctly for them to help you.

UK1679666180 Knoxville Smokies

UK1679666180

Verified Member
Posted
Posted
Ok so is the argument about whether Hill was any good or whether Hendry had talent in the system but failed to use it to it's max?

My point was simply that we seemed to overvalue our prospects and failed to deal them for proven talent, AND never seemed to develop any of them either.

I have more faith in the current administration in handling this, but my original comment was simply-it's good to have a stacked farm system but you have to use them correctly for them to help you.

 

All prospects with ceilings tend to get overvalued b/c of the financial ease they can provide as well as they haven't sank yet.

 

The Cubs philosophy changed once they hired Baker and the emergence of young talent producing, created the perfect storm as far as winning in '03 and '04, rather than trying to win long-term by building from within.

 

After that rush in '02, the talent in the farm dropped off the map.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

Become a Caretaker

  • Member Statistics

    6,793
    Total Members
    13,056
    Most Online
    Kevin OBrien
    Newest Member
    Kevin OBrien
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...