Dayton Daily News suggests Kearns for Hill

[tate2hollowaytd]

IMO, This deal isnt the one to put us where we want to be. If they did call offering Kearns for hill, counter Kearns for JoBo..after all it is the last day to deal him. Besides the newspaper article assumed the cubs were fading fast, I just dont see giving up a younger pitching prospect for A.K. at the break.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

IIRC, Hill was a pitching convert, so his age isn't as much of a problem, although it definitely has an impact. Hill's K rate stayed the same at AAA(a hitter friendly league) after being promoted.

 

Actually Hill has been pitching since his Freshman year at the University of Michigan in 2000.

 

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/rich_hill.shtml

 

My apologies, I must've been thinking of someone else.

[ThePenguin11]

Again, I'm not trying to totally trash Hill. I'm just not convinced he's destined to be above average. He's 25 and played above A ball for the first time in 2005. Granted he made it to the majors, but is anyone convinced that the league won't figure him out and that he can pitch 200 innings against professional hitters?

I agree there are questions about Hill, but there are also many, many questions about the potential of Kearns. The Reds aren't sure about him, it isn't like he is a lock to be a star. I'd rather keep Hill.

 

I just want to restate that my argument against Hill's future has nothing to do with Austin Kearns. I think that if the right deal came along, and it doesn't have to be an All-Star, then the Cubs would have to think seriously about pulling the trigger.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm not sure I'd do Kearns for Hill. Kearns has a lot of talent, but he's yet to consistently put it together.

 

I might consider this deal in the offseason depending on what else falls into place.

[Outshined_One]

IIRC, Hill was a pitching convert, so his age isn't as much of a problem, although it definitely has an impact. Hill's K rate stayed the same at AAA(a hitter friendly league) after being promoted.

 

Actually Hill has been pitching since his Freshman year at the University of Michigan in 2000.

 

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/rich_hill.shtml

 

My apologies, I must've been thinking of someone else.

 

Carlos Marmol, imo.

[ZZ Thorn]

What's wrong with Hill being a great lefty in the pen? I sure liked Kearns back in the day, but those days were a long time ago.

[NorthsideAvenger]

We may want to read the whole thread before making such assumtions as these:

 

So I do believe that thePenguin is OFF with his "scouting" of Rich Hill, maybe because he has delusions of trying to get the megaoverrated Austin Kearns.

 

Maybe I was a bit harsh, thus I apologize. BUT, I don't agree that Kearns is worth a lefty with his kind of stuff. That doesn't MEAN I wouldn't trade Hill, just that I wouldn't trade him for Kearns. Edwin Encarnacion? Yes. Adam Dunn? Yes. Austin Kearns? No. And I do believe that Hill can add veloicty, if his mechanics are TWEAKED a little bit. But unless he adds a solid changeup, I could definately see Rich Hill as the Cubs version of BJ Ryan.

 

This is a fair assessment and I agree with it:

 

BUT, Rich Hill, IMO, does need a third pitch if he wants to become a starter, otherwise his stuff maybe that of a lefty setup.

 

And we may want to refrain from trashing someones's ability to scout before all the facts are there. I've laid out some pretty good ones.

 

Unless your affilated with the team as a scout, any "fans" scouting has to be questioned, as it tends to have a bit of homerism as part of his "scouting." Rather it is on purpose, or not, everybody tends to believe certain players are better or worse then what they really are. Scouting is ALSO loosely based, because different games have different variables, with different outcomes. Just because one game you saw Rich Hill thrown a 87-91 FB, doesn't mean his next game will follow suit. Scouting is just a dressed up way of "speculating."

 

I apologize again, if I was a bit harsh. But I do stand by what I said.

[ThePenguin11]

What's wrong with Hill being a great lefty in the pen? I sure liked Kearns back in the day, but those days were a long time ago.

 

There's nothing wrong with that. Unless someone out there has hopes for him to be a great starter and is willing to give up a good hitter. Then I say you take the money and run. Make no mistake he's got good stuff. But he's nowhere near the same level of a Huston Street. Street would demand a lot in return for a trade and it would take more than Kearns. In fact Oakland would probably not trade him for Kearns and Hill. Relief prospects have to be absolute lights out closer prospects to have large trade value. If that's all Hill is (an above average relief prospect), then I think he ought to be bait for the GM's with the bats.

Edited July 11, 2005 by ThePenguin11

[ThePenguin11]

Unless your affilated with the team as a scout, any "fans" scouting has to be questioned, as it tends to have a bit of homerism as part of his "scouting." Rather it is on purpose, or not, everybody tends to believe certain players are better or worse then what they really are. Scouting is ALSO loosely based, because different games have different variables, with different outcomes. Just because one game you saw Rich Hill thrown a 87-91 FB, doesn't mean his next game will follow suit. Scouting is just a dressed up way of "speculating."

 

I apologize again, if I was a bit harsh. But I do stand by what I said.

 

I didn't originally refer to it as scouting. Someone else did, maybe you. I saw his other games to and remember low velocity. Either way, this is not a curveball league anymore. The pitch looks good but hitters can hit it now. That pitch will be most effective if he can keep it down and bounce it off the plate area. If he leaves it in the zone its going to get hit by righties more than it will freeze them. Hill's curve is going to be great against lefties. He needs a cutter or fork/split to really keep hitters off-balance.

[frostwyrm]

Hill has a good chance to be in the rotation for opening day 2006 and actually be reasonably effective too. Kearns doesn't look like he'll provide any value comparable to that.

[rocket]

I'm not sure I'd do Hill for Kearns either.

 

But, I think Jim Hendry is absolutely in love with Kearns, and WOULD do a Hill for Kearns swap if the opportunity came along.

[ThePenguin11]

Hill has a good chance to be in the rotation for opening day 2006 and actually be reasonably effective too. Kearns doesn't look like he'll provide any value comparable to that.

 

I'm still not advocating Kearns for Hill, but you have to consider that Rich Hill has never pitched more than 109 innings in any given season since he was a freshman at Michigan. If you want to pencil him into your 2006 rotation, you might want to see him pitch 150 in a year. He's had some arm problems in the past so I think it might be a little presumptuous to think he can last as a starter for a complete MLB season throwing curveballs with every other pitch. Does anyone else understand what I'm talking about?

[ryno-mvp23]

Hill has a good chance to be in the rotation for opening day 2006 and actually be reasonably effective too. Kearns doesn't look like he'll provide any value comparable to that.

 

who do you think they are going to take out of the rotation to put hill in it?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

What am I missing when it comes to Rich Hill? Is it because he was rated as having the best curve in the organization, or the fact that he led the minors in K's? Either way, he has yet to do anything to show that he will be anything more than an average, at best, major leaguer. That curve and a bunch of K's do not add up to much when you give up a run or two every other inning. Prior to this season, he had a minor league record of 8-15 and was 7-16 at Michigan (extremely weak baseball conference) before that.

[chicubs]

 

I'm still not advocating Kearns for Hill, but you have to consider that Rich Hill has never pitched more than 109 innings in any given season since he was a freshman at Michigan. If you want to pencil him into your 2006 rotation, you might want to see him pitch 150 in a year. He's had some arm problems in the past so I think it might be a little presumptuous to think he can last as a starter for a complete MLB season throwing curveballs with every other pitch. Does anyone else understand what I'm talking about?

 

Great post! (seen a number of good posts lately!:) ).

 

I would have to strongly think about Kearns for Hill straight up. The guys seem to be going in opposite directions. Kearns has hit a wall while Hill has developed into a legitimate stud prospect.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What am I missing when it comes to Rich Hill? Is it because he was rated as having the best curve in the organization, or the fact that he led the minors in K's? Either way, he has yet to do anything to show that he will be anything more than an average, at best, major leaguer. That curve and a bunch of K's do not add up to much when you give up a run or two every other inning. Prior to this season, he had a minor league record of 8-15 and was 7-16 at Michigan (extremely weak baseball conference) before that.

 

I really don't care what his record was, it's basically meaningless. In the past, the thing holding back Hill was his control. This season, he's found a way to spot his pitches while maintaining his ridiculous K rate. Other than 5 innings as a reliever, which he hadn't done all year, what's to say he won't be at least an average major leaguer?

[frostwyrm]

Kearns has regressed, and being a righty batter he very likely could get stuck in a crappy platoon situation. Dusty is more open-minded about young pitchers, and he has stated that he likes to have lefties in the rotation, so Hill is likely be more useful to us than Kearns.

[katway]

Rich Hill reminds me of Bert Blyleven with that great curve, a solid (though not spectacular fastball), and other decent pitches. A little more movement on his fastball would help, but the mastery of one breaking pitch can take you a long way. At this point, I wouldn't trade him for Kearns.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Rich Hill reminds me of Shawn Estes with slightly better control.

[Tim]

Rich Hill reminds me of Shawn Estes with slightly better control.

Shawn's stuff was never nearly as good as Rich Hill's if you look at his strikeout rates in the minors or majors.

[Guest]

Rich Hill reminds me of Shawn Estes with slightly better control.

At what point in his career has Estes ever had a strikeout rate that even approaches Hill's?

[frostwyrm]

My only theory to explain the Hill-doubting is that people might be skeptical of high minor league strikeout totals from a pitcher without overpowering velocity.

[biittner77]

Didn't Andy Pratt lead the minor leagues in Ks right before the Cubs got him? Perhaps that has crossed some minds even if it is a completely unfair comparison.

 

Kearns is the type of guy Hendry loves: young, talented, needing a change of scenary. The only question is the price. Hendry doesn't overpay.

 

Hill would seem to have the inside track to the 5th starter spot simply by being LH. Baker and Hendry seem to think that's important. Of course this season they did go with Dempster over Rusch.

[Tim]

Didn't Andy Pratt lead the minor leagues in Ks right before the Cubs got him? Perhaps that has crossed some minds even if it is a completely unfair comparison.

 

Kearns is the type of guy Hendry loves: young, talented, needing a change of scenary. The only question is the price. Hendry doesn't overpay.

 

Hill would seem to have the inside track to the 5th starter spot simply by being LH. Baker and Hendry seem to think that's important. Of course this season they did go with Dempster over Rusch.

Pratt led the IL in K's and walks the year before the Cubs acquired him. But it was mainly a function of IP instead of any astonishing strikeout rate.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Strikeout rates are one thing. An inflated ERA and sub-.500 record are others. Because Estes got more flyouts or groundouts instead of the crazy K rates Hill has put up doesn't make him any less of a pitcher. Compare the W-L record, ERA, WHIP, etc. of the two and tell me there are no similarities.