Marte?

[Backtobanks]

With Marte in the Southside doghouse big time, how about Mitre or Welly for Marte. I wouldn't break the bank for him, but he is a pretty good lefty and he might come cheap since he's in the doghouse.

[CuseCubFan69]

How about Welly and Mitre? I think Mr. Hendry has to start moving some of these young pitchers or get a manager that knows how to use them.

[Bear Cub]

With the Rule V problems of protecting some of the Cubs better prospects, it might be time to unload some of the borderline pitchers to create some roster space. Marte is a talent if his head is screwed on right.

[BigbadB]

Mitre for Marte?

 

Hmm.

[JC]

Mitre for Marte?

 

Hmm.

 

If you could acquire both, would having Mitre/Marte be akin to having a pity party?

[don_kessinger_was_good]

I would trade Mitre or Welly for Marte--I'd trade BOTH Mitre and Welly for Marte. Neither of our two are worth a hoot, and they'll only block spots for promising prospects on the protected 40-man list. Marte is at least a lefty with good stuff. He's a better (thankfully) Felix Heredia, if you will.

 

If you snag Marte, you can safely let Rusch go walking, as you'd still have two lefties in the pen in Marte and Ohman. Three if the Cubs hopefully sign BJ Ryan. This bullpen gets me excited:

 

Ryan, Dempster, Novoa, Wuertz, Van Buren, Ohman, Marte. I am assuming the Cubs stick with a 12-man staff next year, obviously.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

I would trade Mitre or Welly for Marte--I'd trade BOTH Mitre and Welly for Marte. Neither of our two are worth a hoot, and they'll only block spots for promising prospects on the protected 40-man list. Marte is at least a lefty with good stuff. He's a better (thankfully) Felix Heredia, if you will.

 

If you snag Marte, you can safely let Rusch go walking, as you'd still have two lefties in the pen in Marte and Ohman. Three if the Cubs hopefully sign BJ Ryan. This bullpen gets me excited:

 

Ryan, Dempster, Novoa, Wuertz, Van Buren, Ohman, Marte. I am assuming the Cubs stick with a 12-man staff next year, obviously.

 

I like your pen, but only if Marte is the '02 or '03 version. What's his problem lately anyway?

 

Mitre and Welly aren't exactly solid contributors at the ML level. I wouldn't miss seeing them go for a chance at straightening Marte out. I doubt we'd be the only club in the running for him if he was to hit the market though.

[Diffusion]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Not me. If Hill can't beat out Jerome or Guzman for the #5 starter spot in the spring, I'd prefer the Cubs include him in a trade elsewhere.

 

Frankly, I'm not sold on Hill long-term anyways. He has one trick pitch, and it's good--but until this year, he's NEVER been able to throw strikes consistently. The evidence suggests he's more likely to revert to past control problems than he is to ever be a steady control pitcher. Which unfortunately for him, is exactly what's needed for a relief pitcher--especially a loogy.

[otis89]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job?

[UK1679666180]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job?

 

They could and should have 2 lefties out of the pen, while the NL Central is mostly RH dominated with the exception of Dunn and an aging Edmonds/Griffey, there's enough there to create a need for two LOOGYs. Especially with Ohman, he'll have off nights with his control as we recently witnessed. Personally, I want Sauerbeck via FA.

Edited September 15, 2005 by UK

[abuck1220]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Not me. If Hill can't beat out Jerome or Guzman for the #5 starter spot in the spring, I'd prefer the Cubs include him in a trade elsewhere.

 

Frankly, I'm not sold on Hill long-term anyways. He has one trick pitch, and it's good--but until this year, he's NEVER been able to throw strikes consistently. The evidence suggests he's more likely to revert to past control problems than he is to ever be a steady control pitcher. Which unfortunately for him, is exactly what's needed for a relief pitcher--especially a loogy.

 

what evidence suggests that he'll go back to being wild? are there other pitchers you are thinking of that have had a one year wonder of control only to go back to not being able to throw strikes?

 

i don't like hill that much as a loogy. personally, i feel like his curve is just as good, if not better against righties. but i do hope the cubs trade him if he's not in their future plans...he deserves a chance to start somewhere.

[YearofDaCubs]

What fifth starter spot? The way I have the lineup is:

 

Z,Prior,Wood,Maddux, Williams. I don't see that changing unless there is an injury which is highly likely.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job?

 

They could and should have 2 lefties out of the pen, while the NL Central is mostly RH dominated with the exception of Dunn and an aging Edmonds/Griffey, there's enough there to create a need for two LOOGYs. Especially with Ohman, he'll have off nights with his control as we recently witnessed. Personally, I want Sauerbeck via FA.

 

What are your thoughts on Scott Eyre, who's also a free agent?

[Diffusion]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job?

 

I think Hill should be a LOOGY because he's shown absolutely no desire to throw either his changeup or cutter at the major league level. As a result, he's working with two pitches, a very average fastball and a superb curveball. Righties mash him and he can't go through a major league order three times.

[Diffusion]

I'm not opposed to trading Hill either. Frankly I wish Hendry had done it at the trade deadline, Mitre too (if not earlier with Mitre). Hendry doesn't seem to get it when it comes to cashing in on perceived value. I still really like Mitre as a fourth or fifth starter long term, but he's never going to fill that position with the Cubs, and as I've said a million times the guy is not a reliever, so it's always been a case of exploiting the best time to trade him. With Mitre out of options next spring, and the memory of his great starts against the BlueJays and Marlins fading as Dusty screws him around with irregular bullpen work, that time has gone. Wellemeyer should have gone at the deadline too if possible.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm not opposed to trading Hill either. Frankly I wish Hendry had done it at the trade deadline, Mitre too (if not earlier with Mitre). Hendry doesn't seem to get it when it comes to cashing in on perceived value. I still really like Mitre as a fourth or fifth starter long term, but he's never going to fill that position with the Cubs, and as I've said a million times the guy is not a reliever, so it's always been a case of exploiting the best time to trade him. With Mitre out of options next spring, and the memory of his great starts against the BlueJays and Marlins fading as Dusty screws him around with irregular bullpen work, that time has gone. Wellemeyer should have gone at the deadline too if possible.

 

I agree. I have no idea what Hendry is waiting for unless there is no interest in these guys.

[UK1679666180]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job?

 

They could and should have 2 lefties out of the pen, while the NL Central is mostly RH dominated with the exception of Dunn and an aging Edmonds/Griffey, there's enough there to create a need for two LOOGYs. Especially with Ohman, he'll have off nights with his control as we recently witnessed. Personally, I want Sauerbeck via FA.

 

What are your thoughts on Scott Eyre, who's also a free agent?

 

Eyre would work just as well, overall he's better against RH'ers than Sauerbeck.

[abuck1220]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job?

 

I think Hill should be a LOOGY because he's shown absolutely no desire to throw either his changeup or cutter at the major league level. As a result, he's working with two pitches, a very average fastball and a superb curveball. Righties mash him and he can't go through a major league order three times.

 

righties don't mash him...at least they didn't in the minors.

 

i don't think it's fair to say that he can't get through a major league order three times, as he's had very few chances to do so.

 

geez, hill has a rough start to his big league career and he's a loogy at best. murton has a good start to his career and he's tony gwynn.

[Diffusion]

Rather give Rich Hill a chance as a LOOGY.

 

Why does everyone think we should have so-and-so as a LOOGY? Hasn't Ohman done a dang good job?

 

I think Hill should be a LOOGY because he's shown absolutely no desire to throw either his changeup or cutter at the major league level. As a result, he's working with two pitches, a very average fastball and a superb curveball. Righties mash him and he can't go through a major league order three times.

 

righties don't mash him...at least they didn't in the minors.

 

1) Most minor leaguers can't hit breaking stuff to save their lives.

 

2) He gave up 20 home runs in 130.2 innings in the minor leagues this year. That's an awful lot. There's some mashing going on somewhere.

 

3) In the majors he had the following split -- .250/.400/.300 vs lefties in 25 PA, .286/.375/.486 vs righties in 80 PA. Of the 9 extra base hits he allowed, 8 were to right-handers.

 

If you have any way of finding out his minor league splits, I'd love to read that. But right now the small sample size major league numbers tally with what I saw.

 

i don't think it's fair to say that he can't get through a major league order three times, as he's had very few chances to do so.

 

How many pitchers can you name that have just two pitches and go through major league orders with regularity? That's the issue here, the absence of the changeup and cutter, a pitch that'll stop hitters being able to sit on his stuff.

 

geez, hill has a rough start to his big league career and he's a loogy at best.

 

It's not like that at all. I just don't see a pitcher with the stuff to be a major league starter. Great curveball, average fastball, and a cutter and changeup that he hasn't been willing to throw yet in his major league career. Why is that?

[goonys evil twin]

3) In the majors he had the following split -- .250/.400/.300 vs lefties in 25 PA, .286/.375/.486 vs righties in 80 PA. Of the 9 extra base hits he allowed, 8 were to right-handers.

 

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now.

[Diffusion]

3) In the majors he had the following split -- .250/.400/.300 vs lefties in 25 PA, .286/.375/.486 vs righties in 80 PA. Of the 9 extra base hits he allowed, 8 were to right-handers.

 

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now.

 

No, because it tallies entirely with what he threw, fastball, curveball, no third pitch. I know there are some here that think entirely in terms of numbers, so why don't you make a nice long list for me of effective major league starters with just two pitches. Then multiply the number of pitchers on that list by Adam Dunn's VORP and divide by the square root of Derrek Lee's BABIP in the first half of 2005 and tell me what you get.

 

Numbers are great, and I love using them too, but they're the end result of processes. If the processes are bad, and you can often see that with your eyes, then the numbers will be too.

[goonys evil twin]

3) In the majors he had the following split -- .250/.400/.300 vs lefties in 25 PA, .286/.375/.486 vs righties in 80 PA. Of the 9 extra base hits he allowed, 8 were to right-handers.

 

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now.

 

No, because it tallies entirely with what he threw, fastball, curveball, no third pitch. I know there are some here that think entirely in terms of numbers, so why don't you make a nice long list for me of effective major league starters with just two pitches. Then multiply the number of pitchers on that list by Adam Dunn's VORP and divide by the square root of Derrek Lee's BABIP in the first half of 2005 and tell me what you get.

 

Numbers are great, and I love using them too, but they're the end result of processes. If the processes are bad, and you can often see that with your eyes, then the numbers will be too.

 

 

What about another list of pitchers who took time to develop a third pitch. Zito is curveball, mediocre fastball, changeup and he's won Cy Youngs. Why is it impossible to think Hill could develop a decent changeup, thus making him a credible 4th/5th starter.

[Diffusion]

3) In the majors he had the following split -- .250/.400/.300 vs lefties in 25 PA, .286/.375/.486 vs righties in 80 PA. Of the 9 extra base hits he allowed, 8 were to right-handers.

 

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now.

 

No, because it tallies entirely with what he threw, fastball, curveball, no third pitch. I know there are some here that think entirely in terms of numbers, so why don't you make a nice long list for me of effective major league starters with just two pitches. Then multiply the number of pitchers on that list by Adam Dunn's VORP and divide by the square root of Derrek Lee's BABIP in the first half of 2005 and tell me what you get.

 

Numbers are great, and I love using them too, but they're the end result of processes. If the processes are bad, and you can often see that with your eyes, then the numbers will be too.

 

What about another list of pitchers who took time to develop a third pitch. Zito is curveball, mediocre fastball, changeup and he's won Cy Youngs. Why is it impossible to think Hill could develop a decent changeup, thus making him a credible 4th/5th starter.

 

Because Hill's already 25 years old, and he’ll be 26 by next Spring Training. Time simply isn't on Hill's side. He’s gone through high school and college, he’s spent ages in A-ball, plus this year too. Chances are that if was going to ever develop a third pitch that he’s comfortable throwing in the major leagues, he’d have done it by now. It doesn’t need to be a great pitch, just something that he can throw to any hitter in any count, something to keep them off balance and better setup both his other pitches. In the minors he reportedly threw both a cutter and a changeup. What does their disappearance at the major level suggest to you? Because it suggests to me they’re not good enough, and aren’t even close to being so either.

[BigbadB]

he’s spent ages in A-ball, plus this year too.

 

Ages? He was drafted in June of 2002. He is getting up there in age, but I don't think he should consider hanging up the cleats quite yet.