REMEMBER WHEN MILES IMPLIED THAT HENDRY THOUGHT THIS

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

The thing is, Dunn is a whole 5 months older than Hill.

 

I certainly haven't given up on Hill yet, but anyone that wouldn't trade him straight-up for Dunn is either crazy or a fool, whether anyone actually said or implied that or not.

 

I agree. What is Dunn, 25 years old? And he's already one of the premier sluggers in the game (and strikeout artists). Anyone that wouldn't trade an unproven rookie pitcher for him straight up is either blind, or they simply enjoy losing too much.

[Chris]

I think it's important to point out we are very fortunate to have Bruce posting here at NSBB.

[katway]

Rookie pitchers usually do poorly their first couple of years....I am not worried about Hill yet.

=D>

 

At 25, he and the organization may not be able to afford a couple of bad years in the majors until he gets it.

 

In reality, with his curve all he needs is one more pitch to make a quick jump in the majors. The Cubs organization will need to focus on getting him to develop that pitch because almost everyone in the majors can hit a fastball and a curveball if all they have to do is sit on that pitch.

[biittner77]

The thing is, Dunn is a whole 5 months older than Hill.

 

I certainly haven't given up on Hill yet, but anyone that wouldn't trade him straight-up for Dunn is either crazy or a fool, whether anyone actually said or implied that or not.

 

THis reminds me of 2001 when everyone thought Juan Cruz was the next Pedro Martinez and Carlos Zambrano should be selling used cars.

 

The point is that when you have a starting pitcher that you think could be great its better to hold on to him even if he struggles early on. How many of the fans that were screaming for Zambrano to be traded "while he still had value" (in other words before he had much value) wisj the Cubs had traded Zambrano?

 

I'm sure someone will bring up Guzman as someone the Cubs held onto for too long but we'll forget about holding on to Guzman too long a lot earlier than we'll stop regretting the Dontrelle Willis trade.

[sonofsamiam]

The thing is, Dunn is a whole 5 months older than Hill.

 

I certainly haven't given up on Hill yet, but anyone that wouldn't trade him straight-up for Dunn is either crazy or a fool, whether anyone actually said or implied that or not.

 

THis reminds me of 2001 when everyone thought Juan Cruz was the next Pedro Martinez and Carlos Zambrano should be selling used cars.

 

The point is that when you have a starting pitcher that you think could be great its better to hold on to him even if he struggles early on. How many of the fans that were screaming for Zambrano to be traded "while he still had value" (in other words before he had much value) wisj the Cubs had traded Zambrano?

 

I'm sure someone will bring up Guzman as someone the Cubs held onto for too long but we'll forget about holding on to Guzman too long a lot earlier than we'll stop regretting the Dontrelle Willis trade.

 

The important difference between Hill and Zambrano (and Willis, too) is age. Zambrano is currently younger than Hill.

[biittner77]

The thing is, Dunn is a whole 5 months older than Hill.

 

I certainly haven't given up on Hill yet, but anyone that wouldn't trade him straight-up for Dunn is either crazy or a fool, whether anyone actually said or implied that or not.

 

THis reminds me of 2001 when everyone thought Juan Cruz was the next Pedro Martinez and Carlos Zambrano should be selling used cars.

 

The point is that when you have a starting pitcher that you think could be great its better to hold on to him even if he struggles early on. How many of the fans that were screaming for Zambrano to be traded "while he still had value" (in other words before he had much value) wisj the Cubs had traded Zambrano?

 

I'm sure someone will bring up Guzman as someone the Cubs held onto for too long but we'll forget about holding on to Guzman too long a lot earlier than we'll stop regretting the Dontrelle Willis trade.

 

The important difference between Hill and Zambrano (and Willis, too) is age. Zambrano is currently younger than Hill.

 

Certainly that is a factor. But Hill is 25 not 35. Randy Johonson didn't figure it out until his late 20s. Also, since Hill is LH he will retain value for his potential longer as MLB teams are seemingly always desparate for LH pitching.

[sonofsamiam]

The thing is, Dunn is a whole 5 months older than Hill.

 

I certainly haven't given up on Hill yet, but anyone that wouldn't trade him straight-up for Dunn is either crazy or a fool, whether anyone actually said or implied that or not.

 

THis reminds me of 2001 when everyone thought Juan Cruz was the next Pedro Martinez and Carlos Zambrano should be selling used cars.

 

The point is that when you have a starting pitcher that you think could be great its better to hold on to him even if he struggles early on. How many of the fans that were screaming for Zambrano to be traded "while he still had value" (in other words before he had much value) wisj the Cubs had traded Zambrano?

 

I'm sure someone will bring up Guzman as someone the Cubs held onto for too long but we'll forget about holding on to Guzman too long a lot earlier than we'll stop regretting the Dontrelle Willis trade.

 

The important difference between Hill and Zambrano (and Willis, too) is age. Zambrano is currently younger than Hill.

 

Certainly that is a factor. But Hill is 25 not 35. Randy Johonson didn't figure it out until his late 20s. Also, since Hill is LH he will retain value for his potential longer as MLB teams are seemingly always desparate for LH pitching.

 

First, to clarify, I have not given up on Hill. I think he has definite potential to be a fine starter. However, I would trade him straight-up for Dunn, any day of the week, without thinking about it. That's the point I was trying to make.

[neely crenshaw]

there is a difference between trading hill for dunn and a garland for a loogie- and a poor one at that.

dunn is a young, proven power hitter that we are sorely in need of. he is not expensive-yet. he is not over the hill. he has some drawbacks but he certainly fills a huge hole.

i am one that never complains about willis. he would look nice as a lefty in our rotation but we lost our closer in spring traning and we needed one badly. we got the bets that we could...it did not work out but we also had clement. i will never complain about moves that make sense...whether they work or not. i will complain when you gamble and lose- like nomar.

if we had gone after benetiz and he got hurt, no complaint. he does not have a history of this, he had been consistent. that would be bad luck. if got dunn and he faltered and hill was a 20 game winner it still make sense.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Just wondering, does anyone remember Zambrano's first few stints in the majors? Would go down in flames all of a sudden in one inning just like Hill now. Just thought I'd mention that.

[rocket]

I never said Hill couldn't make it in the majors and be an effective pitcher. I do think it's ridiculous that Hendry most likely would not trade Hill for Dunn straight up, though.

[MustangMike]

When I got home from work today, I saw that the game was tied, and I was actually dissapointed that we weren't losing horribly. The next time I looked, it was 8-1, so good job Reds.

 

I mean, if its going to be bad, I want to go down in flames.

 

You know that's an interesting point. Cubs lost 3-1 with 1 homers and 2 total hits, I want to jump out a window. the cubs get creamed 10-2, it doesn't bother me as bad...why is that?

[burnt out cubbie fan]

STOP COMPARNG HILL TO CARLOS!! Carlos was 20 when he was first called up. He had much better stuff than Hill. That is not a fair comparison and it really doesn't even come close to showing what Rich can do with his career.

[Elrhino]

Ugh, correct me if I'm wrong, but Hill wasn't included in BA's Top 100 2005 prospects. And he barely cracked the Top 10 in the Cubs organization on Callis' list in February, earning a #10 ranking. He had a nice first half of the season on the farm (old for his level of competition), and now people want to act like he's a top of the rotation prospect. Since when? Comparing Hill to Carlos Zambrano and Randy Johnson is ridiculous. Both Zambrano and Randy Johnson were considered to be super blue chip prospects. Hill has never been considered a super blue chipper by anyone other than starry eyed homers.

[CUBZ99]

STOP COMPARNG HILL TO CARLOS!! Carlos was 20 when he was first called up. He had much better stuff than Hill. That is not a fair comparison and it really doesn't even come close to showing what Rich can do with his career.

 

I think Oscar Acosta would disagree with you on the age. It seems a little premature to say that Rich Hill is not capable of putting up Zambrano like numbers. Whether he will or not is another question. Hill does have some filthy stuff.

[imb]

Zambrano was called up in September 2001, he turned 20 on June 1st, 2001.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

STOP COMPARNG HILL TO CARLOS!! Carlos was 20 when he was first called up. He had much better stuff than Hill. That is not a fair comparison and it really doesn't even come close to showing what Rich can do with his career.

 

I think Oscar Acosta would disagree with you on the age. It seems a little premature to say that Rich Hill is not capable of putting up Zambrano like numbers. Whether he will or not is another question. Hill does have some filthy stuff.

Well, Hill is never going to put up the numbers that Carlos put up at the ages of 22 and 23 because he was in college and then short season and low A ball. Carlos still does have to ability to improve, which I believe he will, and put up even better numbers. I don't think that Rich will put up the numbers that Carlos put up last year any time in his career, let alone what Z has the ability to put up if he improves.

 

Outside of his curve, Hill's stuff is rather sub-par. He doesn't have all that great of a fastball and he isn't confident enough in his change to use it in the majors. He may have even scrapped the pitch. His curve is a plus plus pitch but he needs something else besides that to keep hitters honest. His stuff doesn't come close to what Z has.

 

 

 

And as IMB mentioned, Acosta was probably on something if he were to disagree with me on his age.

[Cubfanintheknow]

I never said Hill couldn't make it in the majors and be an effective pitcher. I do think it's ridiculous that Hendry most likely would not trade Hill for Dunn straight up, though.

 

Unless there is a direct quote by Jim Hendry saying, "I wouldn't trade Rich Hill for Adam Dunn straight up," there's really no point to this thread.

[Electron Blue]

I never said Hill couldn't make it in the majors and be an effective pitcher. I do think it's ridiculous that Hendry most likely would not trade Hill for Dunn straight up, though.

 

Unless there is a direct quote by Jim Hendry saying, "I wouldn't trade Rich Hill for Adam Dunn straight up," there's really no point to this thread.

 

I wouldn't say that. Why not have an interesting debate stemming from speculation? That's what 90% of the Transactions forum is, anyway.

 

EDIT: I would agree though, that we shouldn't blame Hendry for not doing the deal, since we don't know if it was ever out there.

[Cubfanintheknow]

I never said Hill couldn't make it in the majors and be an effective pitcher. I do think it's ridiculous that Hendry most likely would not trade Hill for Dunn straight up, though.

 

Unless there is a direct quote by Jim Hendry saying, "I wouldn't trade Rich Hill for Adam Dunn straight up," there's really no point to this thread.

 

I wouldn't say that. Why not have an interesting debate stemming from speculation? That's what 90% of the Transactions forum is, anyway.

 

EDIT: I would agree though, that we shouldn't blame Hendry for not doing the deal, since we don't know if it was ever out there.

 

That's fine to speculate on trades. But personally, I'd shy away from what Jim Hendry was purported to have said until he actually says it.

[biittner77]

Just to clarify as there seems to be a lot of confusion:

 

Hill is not anything like Randy Johnson in terms of talent. The comparison to Randy Johnson was his age. I think we've become spoiled as Cub fans that we've broken in some young pitchers who made there debut in their early 20s. Many many pitchers don't figure it out that early or their bodies haven't matured enough to make that jump. The fatc that Hill is 25 does not mean that he's all that old for a pitching prospect.

 

Hill is not anything like Carlos Zambrano in terms of talent. I used Zambrano as an example of the general impatience of fans. In 2001 Zambrano couldn't get people out very consistently and many fans wanted to dump him. MacPhail and Hendry were smart enough not to do that. Hendry sees a lot of potential in Hill. If he thinks Hill is going to be very good then I trust his judgement on the matter. Hendry is usually pretty good about evaluating his own minor league talent.

 

Back to the original aspect of this thread, Dunn is not a Hendry type player. Hendry seems to place a lot of emphasis on BA, favoring it to OBP. He probably should value OBP more highly but he doesn't and has said so (to Hoops at the convention "I don't pay much attention to OBP" or words to that effect) Dunn would also be expensive in terms of prospects and Hendry doesn't like to overpay.

[TXCubsFan]

Back to the original aspect of this thread, Dunn is not a Hendry type player. Hendry seems to place a lot of emphasis on BA, favoring it to OBP. He probably should value OBP more highly but he doesn't and has said so (to Hoops at the convention "I don't pay much attention to OBP" or words to that effect) Dunn would also be expensive in terms of prospects and Hendry doesn't like to overpay.

 

I think that Hendry's coming around to the concept of having a high OBP at the top of the lineup. I would bet the biggest problem with Dunn is the Reds' GM. :D