Is Hill one of those that the Cubs saw as too good?

[LuvChicagoSports]

The Cubs could have gotten a ton at the trade deadline for Rich Hill. I am not putting my thoughts on tonight's perfomance. Obviously this is not his best nor his usual pitching or the Cubs would have dealt him at any offer. All GM's talk about the fear of thinking that their own prospects are better than they are. The Cubs may have already seen this in C-Pat, although if he honestly embraces what he is working on in AAA right now he still has a chance to get it all together. My point is, if you look at the minor league numbers from Hill they are not impressive. Sure the strikeouts are, but you don't win games by striking people out. Kerry Wood has never even sniffed winning 20 games in a season even when he was healthy, because you have to be a complete pitcher not just a strikeout guy. Hill was a hot commodity and many clubs probably would have given up a good amount to take a chance on him especially given his first two starts for us. I hope for one, that Hendry made the right decision in not dealing him, although I can't say either way because I don't know what we could have gotten in return. Point being, as we all know the minor league farm system really has two ways of helping the major league affiliate. First is the obvious develop the players that eventually get to make your big league roster and hopefully blossom into great player. The other is to trade the prospects for the betterment of your team. Not only just you major league present, but also the future. Sometimes one prospect doesn't fit the mold of what you are building to, so he needs to be traded for other prospects that do.

 

As of late, the Cubs have done an average job at best with the trading part of their minor league system. A GREAT trade that stands out for me was the dealing of Bobby Hill for Aramis which is essentially what that deal was. Obvious bad moves were dealing Dontrelle Willis and John Garland. Willis isn't too bad though because we did get Clement who more than accomplished his job for us. Garland is an obvious disaster. Some players that we elected to keep that have not worked out are Juan Cruz, C-Pat (thus far), Hee Sop Choi (great trade later, but that was ML player for ML player) and Kerry Wood. Kerry is the most arguable, but if you look at what he has done as a Cub, it is very unimpressive. Besides the 20k game and the 2003 postseason, Kerry has been a very overpaid player. I hope the Cubs make good decisions regaurding the future of this ballclub. Obiously that is way easier said than done, because in all honesty we do not know what any of the prospects will develop into. Our best future pitcher could be a no namer in the system right now. Our best hitter could be Eric Patterson who we all know, but he is not the highly touted prospect as guys like Pie and Harvey are. David Kelton was a big name prospect that probably could have landed some decent help if traded when he was a hot commodity, but now he is just sitting at our AAA level and is basically worthless.

 

What prospects do you feel should be dealt because they are over rated or you simply don't think they are going to pan out? What prospects would you demand be kept if you were put in a position to do so? What do you see as the future of the Cubs?

[AAApittsburgh]

How can anyone complain about the Garland trade? You do know that he sucked before this year? If he was put in the Cubs rotation, nobody would have been nearly as patient with him as the White Sox were. I also didn't really see Rich Hill as a hot commodity. Any smart GM or scout should know that he is nothing special. He's maybe a throw-in.

[Elrhino]

I don't think the Cubs overvalued him, because he's never really been seen as a top prospect by anyone other than stary-eyed Cub fans. Besides, the overall lack of trades around the league suggest that it was just a poor market for trades overall. Its not like everyone else was getting what they wanted, and stingy Hendry missed out.

[treebird]

How can anyone complain about the Garland trade? You do know that he sucked before this year? If he was put in the Cubs rotation, nobody would have been nearly as patient with him as the White Sox were.

 

You can complain about it only in that is was dumb to be trading actual decent young pitchers for Matt Karchner. The fact that Garland happened to turn out to be good is irrellevant.

[LuvChicagoSports]

How can anyone complain about the Garland trade? You do know that he sucked before this year? If he was put in the Cubs rotation, nobody would have been nearly as patient with him as the White Sox were. I also didn't really see Rich Hill as a hot commodity. Any smart GM or scout should know that he is nothing special. He's maybe a throw-in.

 

I don't mean it in that sense. I just mean every time you see a prospect that you once had in your system turn out to be an all-star even if just for one season you can look back and see what you got out of it. Did it turn out to be a good trade. NO WAY. And I am basing that off the fact that I didn't want Karchner to being with and he was garbage from the start. I just mean look at the prospects you dealt and the ones that you have kept. Have you done a good job of projecting which players have careers pan out as something of value and then those that turn out to be very good?

[neely crenshaw]

the garland trade was awful not because graland is now lights out but because at the time he was a prospect and the cubs traded him for a terrible left handed reliever. surely we didn't need to do this. this would be like someone giviong us any pitching prospect at all for remingler...that would be robbery!

 

the cubs have been terrible at judging their great farm system. they could have gotten huge talent for cruz 4 years ago but let him prove that he wasn't a stud. same with choi,cpatt,dubois. let's look at the stud pitchers we had...brownlie-probably done-worth zip, christenson-released, sisco-got zip, mitre-worth zip-headed for a career in middle relief, as is wuertz,ohman and maybe wellmeyer(i still have hope). guzman a year ago could have landed us anyone we wanted...now he is damaged goods.

with our outfielders we could have moved dubois,kelton,pie,cpatt and virtually filled any hole...know we hope pie is for real.

the trades that have been good are just simply that the other team needed to dump salary and took the best the could get. aramis was overpaid and underperforming, they were happy just to be done with the contract same for choi-lee. we got gerut for dubois which was basically even, we upgraded for lawton so dubois for lawton is good but again pittsburgh was going to lose lawton anyway so they were happy to get gerut, who is cheaper and under contract.

really the best move they made was willis. he may end up being special but at the time we needed a closer badly and we got a closer and a solid starter. the closer part didn't work out but i will never fault them for trying. when your closer goes down right before the start of the season you don't have many options. we have all seen how well teams do without a closer!

[UMFan83]

I read an article (I forget where) where they called Hill "arguably minor leagues best prospect" not in the Cubs system, but in baseball. Obviously thats not true, but the fact that he was mentioned in that breath leads me to believe he was a hot commodity and pitching rich teams like the Reds would have dealt good players for him

[Ding Dong Johnson]

the garland trade was awful not because graland is now lights out but because at the time he was a prospect and the cubs traded him for a terrible left handed reliever.

 

Garland was traded for a crappy righty, but anyway...

 

I agree that we seem to over-evaluate our own system, but all organizations do to a certain extent. What chaps my hind area more than anything is how pitching-rich the farm system was said to be, but we have been waiting a few years to start seeing that talent pan out (Zambrano and Prior the exceptions). Rich Hill is not the savior some are making him out to be (I got yelled at by comparing him to Shawn Estes), Brownlie is basically a bust, Sisco is gone, Guzman is hurt, Cruz lost it, and so on.

 

To finish an earlier point, all teams do the same things. They hold out hope for guys they feel are going to tear it up and don't pan out. Some teams happen to catch lightning in a bottle with their "prospects", but more often than not, they are making the same mistakes we are.

[CubfaninCA]

The Cubs are like any other smart organization. They overhype their prospects in order to raise their trade value. Unfortunately, some fans buy the hype hook, line and sinker. I'm kinda glad Hill got shelled. Hopefully, they send him to Iowa and give Rusch the #5 spot. Hill isn't ready yet. What he did against weak hitting teams like AZ and SF was nothing to get fired up over.

 

As for Garland, bad trade cause the Cubs got so little in return.

[gus_dog]

I read an article (I forget where) where they called Hill "arguably minor leagues best prospect" not in the Cubs system, but in baseball. Obviously thats not true, but the fact that he was mentioned in that breath leads me to believe he was a hot commodity and pitching rich teams like the Reds would have dealt good players for him

 

I gotta ask, why is that so obvious? He still looks like a damn good prospect to me.

 

He had a bad day. He's still really green. He's got a great, and I mean great curve, a good fastball, and a decent cutter. When he has trouble locating his curve, they sit on his fastball. How is that different than most ML pitchers?

 

IMO, the jury is still out on Hill. Too soon to make a call.

 

Not so obvious to me. I recommend you give him a little more development.

 

I like that Hendry decided to keep him.

[SouthSideRyan]

neely you make it sound like every prospect shoudl have been traded at their peak for sure things. Besides the fact that we woudn up with with Choi for Lee, Hill and trash for Ramirez, and Harris, Beltran, Jones for Nomar, you mention a heap of guys that were either never much of prospects or only real prospects in the year after we drafted in them in which they couldn't be traded.

 

The only guys that it seems like the Cubs made a big mistake in holding on to too long are Kelton and Cruz. Guzman's injuries are not something you can count on happening. If you can find a team in the majors that hasn't held on to a couple of prospects too long, I'd love to see them.

[LuvChicagoSports]

I'm not saying that the Cubs are alone in this mess at all. This is a very common problem among major league teams. If the Cubs were just hyping their prospects for trade purposes, then any decent trade possibility that came along would have been made. Obviously we don't know what was offered for Hill, but from a lot of publications he is pretty highly touted and still will be even after his mess tonight. I mean Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens have had some terrible games too. You can't base everything off of one performance both on the good side and bad.

 

Hill is too overhyped though in my estimation. Especially for a guy with his career numbers. It's not like he is a can't miss thing like Prior was. I mean Steve Stone went as far as saying he wouldn't trade Hill and Pie for Manny, but he would have been willing to deal Aramis. To me that is absurd, but that is for another thread. The point is teams were obviously interested in Hill, but the Cubs feel his value is greater within the organization. Or at least they felt that way at the deadline which isn't to mean it can't happen in the offseason.

 

I'm looking forward to how things pan out with him. Maybe Hill would have been dealt at the deadline if everyone still felt the way about Angel Guzman that they did two years ago. It's all just speculation, and at this point in our season speculation is the best thing that is happening on a daily basis. If we continue to spiral downward, I'd like to see an outfield of Pie, Murton, Patterson and Greenberg to finish off the season. Use all four in whatever rotation is necessary. Here's to hoping that isn't the case, but if the past week is any sign Bears season can't be upon us soon enough.

[Marco4]

He had a bad day. He's still really green. He's got a great, and I mean great curve, a good fastball, and a decent cutter. When he has trouble locating his curve, they sit on his fastball. How is that different than most ML pitchers?

 

I missed Hill's participation last night, but that's what I've seen so far. On his day - and he's had one or two (literally) in the bigs so far - his curve is demonic, but when he can't find it, equally prevalent so far, he's easy enough to sit on because his heat isn't top quality. As he develops, as I've no doubt he will, that's what he'll have to work on and will be already, I'm sure.

[Outshined_One]

You know, I've come to realize a lot of people around here are more than happy to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

 

For cripes sake, these guys are just prospects. Do you remember the numbers Barry Bonds posted in his rookie year? How about Greg Maddux? Did they post numbers that made people think, "Future Hall of Famer!"?

 

What about some former rookies of the year like Ben Grieve and Todd Hollandsworth (both current cubs, oddly enough)? What did they ever accomplish in their careers?

 

Don't go around cutting these kids off at the knees because they go out and have a bad outing or a bad month or whatever. They are prospects and should not be lauded as the second coming, I agree. But the moment one of them shows any signs of weakness, I notice that certain factions on this board have a spaz attack talking about how overhyped and useless the Cubs' farm system is and how it has churned out nothing but trash.

 

Give it a rest already. None of us can claim for sure that Rich Hill, Chris Walker, Sam Fuld, Jonathan Mota, or any number of guys who can be considered "prospects" will flourish or flop in the majors. But to jump down their throats because of something similar to what happened to Hill today is just excessive, and in my opinion, rubbish.

 

This team is toast as it is. The Cubs might as well see what they have in guys like Hill, Murton, and Cedeno while they can.

[CubfaninCA]

You know, I've come to realize a lot of people around here are more than happy to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

 

For cripes sake, these guys are just prospects. Do you remember the numbers Barry Bonds posted in his rookie year? How about Greg Maddux? Did they post numbers that made people think, "Future Hall of Famer!"?

 

What about some former rookies of the year like Ben Grieve and Todd Hollandsworth (both current cubs, oddly enough)? What did they ever accomplish in their careers?

 

Don't go around cutting these kids off at the knees because they go out and have a bad outing or a bad month or whatever. They are prospects and should not be lauded as the second coming, I agree. But the moment one of them shows any signs of weakness, I notice that certain factions on this board have a spaz attack talking about how overhyped and useless the Cubs' farm system is and how it has churned out nothing but trash.

 

Give it a rest already. None of us can claim for sure that Rich Hill, Chris Walker, Sam Fuld, Jonathan Mota, or any number of guys who can be considered "prospects" will flourish or flop in the majors. But to jump down their throats because of something similar to what happened to Hill today is just excessive, and in my opinion, rubbish.

 

This team is toast as it is. The Cubs might as well see what they have in guys like Hill, Murton, and Cedeno while they can.

 

The team's not toast. Houston's nothing special. Put the best players out there and try to win. Sorry but Murton, Cedeno and Hill are not the best players at their positions.

[LuvChicagoSports]

Hey outshined I hope that wasn't meant for me. I tried to make sure that I wasn't basing any of my opinion off of tonight's performance and in several of my posts said that his outing tonight is just something that happens and even said that Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux had bad outings. It is just part of how things go. He could turn out to be a total star and that would be a wonderful thing for the Cubs. My feelings for Hill are based off of his numbers in the minors and not with anything he has done at the ML level. I mean too much can be made of a guys career based off of what he does early and that isn't fair. my starting of this thread was more of a question about the Cubs being able to make good projections of players in their system or not. Rich Hill just happens to be the easiest to talk about today. Some teams like the Braves are constantly bringing good players up from within their system. Also teams like Montreal and Oakland do the same thing, but that is more because of a lack of money than properly projecting which players will be good.

[mhuber92211]

I don't think that you can call Hill "Overhyped". Honestly, besides O_O, Raisin, Serena, Raw, DJaxx, Tinkers & Brian and the rest of the minor league game thread bunch know about Hill Before this season? For pete's sake, He pitched in high A ball last season. This is an example of rushing a prospect with a hot hand. Hill has the stuff, he just needs to master it. He mastered his stuf in the minors this year, given time he might be able to harness in MLB.

 

But to the point of this thread, if we overvalued him by NOT trading him at the deadline then who would we have traded him for? Who would we have replaced him with? If anything, it probably would have been smarter to trade Rusch who would have had more value because the majority of "contenders" who want to add a player at the deadline are looking for "impact" veterans. Not many in the playoff race would want to add a 25 year old starter with (at the time) 1 start under their belt. If we traded him for our benefit of an impact player then who would you have gotten? Who was out there and available for Hill? Seeing as how we landed the highest impact player that was traded at the deadline, i wouldn't complain too hard. Now if I were an Angel fan and seeing the A's coming hard and seeing my 4th & 5th starters being rookies, then I would be mildy upset.

[LuvChicagoSports]

mhuber.....that is part of the things I have said. For one, nobody knows what we COULD have gotten. I'm not saying they should have traded him, because I don't know what they could have dealt him for. As for not landing an impact player, he could have been dealt to a bad team for a good player. I'm more or less trying to use this as a outside way of looking at how well the Cubs have done at projecting their prospects.

[Outshined_One]

I understand completely what the two of you are saying. Unfortunately, at the moment, I disagree with the two of you. My comments were not directed at anyone in specific, but was more of a general observation regarding this board, especially as of late.

 

Hill to me is an important commodity to close out the season. Of the most advanced minor league pitchers who could be called up now, Hill arguably had the highest ceiling of any of them and the best prospect of all of them. Guys like Nolasco, Pinto, Brownlie, Pignatiello, and so on are all guys who have talent and the upside to make something of themselves some day. But, Hill was the most advanced, had the best stuff, and has established himself as a starter.

 

People often call Hill a one year wonder based on his numbers in the minors. I don't find this statement to be true. If you go back and read scouting reports on him, he has always been an advanced and mature prospect. What has mattered the most to him since the day he set foot in the Cubs' organization was whether or not he could throw his curveball for strikes. As many are well aware, his curveball at one point was the most unpredictable pitch in his arsenal. Sickening movement to the point of it causing batters and coaches to jump out of the way in some cases, and in others causing the backstop to quiver for fear of its existence. If he could ever throw his curveball for strikes, he'd move quickly. He was a strikeout/flyball pitcher from day one; no one ever denied that.

 

Last season, he started to do that. Problem is, exhaustion first set in and relegated him to irregular bullpen duty. When he was starting to get his stuff back, hurricane season set in and ended the Florida State League's season. This season was merely a continuation of it.

 

And when it comes to the Cubs' system, you have to look at a lot of important factors regarding the development of prospects. Top prospects don't always pan out. Heck, look at these BA Top 5 prospects in 1990, 1991, and 1992:

 

1990:

1. Steve Avery, lhp, Braves

2. Ben McDonald, rhp, Orioles

3. John Olerud, 1b/lhp, Blue Jays

4. Juan Gonzalez, of, Rangers

5. Sandy Alomar Jr., c, Indians

 

1991:

1. Todd Van Poppel, rhp, Athletics

2. Andujar Cedeno, ss, Astros

3. Ryan Klesko, 1b, Braves

4. Jose Offerman, ss, Dodgers

5. Roger Salkeld, rhp, Mariners

 

1992:

1. Brien Taylor, lhp, Yankees

2. Todd Van Poppel, rhp, Athletics

3. Roger Salkeld, rhp, Mariners

4. Chipper Jones, ss, Braves

5. Arthur Rhodes, lhp, Orioles

 

Those lists don't exactly blow you away, do they?

 

Things happen to prospects. Scouts are not always right in their assessments and a myriad of things can happen to guys. Bobby Hill has floudered in his major league career with Chicago and Pittsburgh. Who's to say he wouldn't be an All Star by now if he had come up through another system? Look at the top prospects who went down because of injury. Or personal issues. So many things can derail a prospect's road to success in the majors, much less the majors itself.

 

Now, I do remember the article which called Hill the best pitching prospect in the minors. It was written by some one who had absolutely no knowledge of the Cubs' farm system or the minor leagues in general. Odds are he saw that Hill led the minors in strikeouts at some point in the majors and consulted his Jump to Conclusions Mat. I want to say it was Marty Brennaman, but I could be wrong. I do know it was some one who had ties to the Reds.

 

Yes, teams overhype their prospects for the purposes of trade value, but independent publications also do their own work. You could say they're buying into the hype, but considering the number of analysts and consultants they employ and consult, I'd have to think that the hype is in most cases tempered.

 

If you want success stories with the Cubs' farm system, look no further than some of the guys mentioned in this thread. Jon Garland. Dontrelle Willis. These guys are doing pretty well this year, no? How about guys like Mark Prior and Carlos Zambrano? Both are products of the Cubs' farm system.

 

The Cubs, like any other system have had their successes and busts. There are also a ton of guys in that farm system who I wouldn't close the book on yet, either, despite injuries or anything else.

 

Also, after watching enough of today's game to make me sick, I'm convinced that this team is no better than any other team in the WC hunt. Houston and company might seemingly be pretenders, but I just can't see this team making a run. I think this team would be best served by just packing it in, getting rid of this abomination of a coaching staff, and gearing up for next season by seeing who could be ready to step in.

[LuvChicagoSports]

excellent post outshined. I totally hear you about some guys panning out and others not. It's good to hear that some guys out there are as passionate as I am about my teams. You obviously know more than I do about Hill though as I was unaware of his travels last season on his path here. I absolutely agree with you that the kids should be getting a chance to play from here on out so we at least know what we have as we move on from this season. I also agree with you that our coaching staff it pathetic. I'm not by any means saying I don't want Hill on our team and especially at this point in time. and many times the best players are not the ones who are highly touted, but guys like Pujols who came out of nowhere, because they don't feel the same pressure that the hyped players feel. I agree with you that Bobby Hill may have turned out to be a good player if brought up in a different system and part of that reason is why I think teams should study what the Braves have done over the past 15 years, because they have consistently won even though the team has transformed many times over the years. Even the integral parts of the team has change. It was Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine before and now it is only Smoltz that remains. They have won without a bunch of big names and have developed their own talent. That being said that isn't the only way to do it and it shows because of all the post season apperances they have only won one title. I guess with the raised expectations for the Cubs I do not want them to turn into the Yankees and just do everything with trades and free agents. I want the Cubs to be able to develop their team as well. I think with the budget they have, if you can mix that well with your own young talent, then you have the potential of putting together a great team that can be consistently good.

[neely crenshaw]

all teams have successes and busts but it seems like ours hangs on to all of them until they are no longer worth anything. one of the main positives about having a greta fram system is that you can trade some of them for proven talent. never more true than now, with today's financial situation you hav e 10 teams that are more than willling to regularly sell their high priced talent for promising prospects.

a great example, the phils traded brandon duckworth for billy wagner. duckworth has not sniffed the rotation depite all the injuries to the staff last year. how many pitching prospects did we have that were of equal value to duckworth?

[chicubs]

 

Hill to me is an important commodity to close out the season. Of the most advanced minor league pitchers who could be called up now, Hill arguably had the highest ceiling of any of them and the best prospect of all of them. Guys like Nolasco, Pinto, Brownlie, Pignatiello, and so on are all guys who have talent and the upside to make something of themselves some day. But, Hill was the most advanced, had the best stuff, and has established himself as a starter.

 

Yes, teams overhype their prospects for the purposes of trade value, but independent publications also do their own work. You could say they're buying into the hype, but considering the number of analysts and consultants they employ and consult, I'd have to think that the hype is in most cases tempered.

 

 

 

The man is 25, hes not going to magically add 2-3 mph to his fastball. Hill isnt that great, hes a nice solid pitcher. His ceiling, imo, is a #4 starter.....Somehow I think hell eventually end up like someone such as Scott Downs. Probably a little bit better, but, meh.

 

His value was absolutely enormous at the all-star break. He was rumored to be one of the key guys in a Dunn or Kearns deal but Jimbo held off cause he liked Hill to much. Obviously, a little to early to tell, but that will probably be a very large mistake in hindsight.

[SpanishFortCub]

Hill is very average. Nice curve, average FB, everything up in the zone, etc. He's not going to help a winning team. Neither is Murton. The truth is that the Cubs' organization just isn't very good right now.

[Backtobanks]

Prospects have to uses: to play for your team or to bring players in a trade to help your team. With Dusty as manager, we can eliminate option #1. The problem is that everyone considers the Cubs to be contenders and the Trib has given them $100 million payroll, so there is the pressure to win right now. Hendry has been very vocal this year about wanting the kids to play, but has had to work with Baker's desire to have a veteran team. I didn't think the Tribune would fire Baker and eat part of his contract, but I'm starting to believe that Baker might be fired after the season because of the club's poor showing and his reluctance to allow some of the kids playing time.

[Derwood]

Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to rail on trades many years later.

 

Yes, the Cubs traded Jon Garland (a 1st round pick) for Matt Karchner. Garland was a .500 pitcher or worse for 6 years before his breakout season. Still a bad trade, though I think had Garland stayed, he would have been traded already because the club would have been impatient with him (like Cruz, etc.)

 

Also traded that year, Todd Noel (a 1st round pick) for Felix Heredia. Noel disappeared after not panning out. How quickly we forget that one.

 

I don't claim to follow the minor leagues too closely, but I have to say that I had no idea who Dontrelle Willis was until his rookie season. I thought getting Alf and Clement for some prospects was a steal at the time.