CubinNY

Wait a sec. now? The job was his to win in ST and both Guzman and Marshall out pitched him. So lets not here the Cubs don't give Rich Hill many chances. It's not how many chances you are given. It's how you take advantage of those chances when you are given them.. So that's why I haven't won the lottery. Hill hasn't been given a chance. The worst thing is, I believe he still won't be given a chance. He'll get 3 maybe 4 starts and that's if he is good in his first one. Then when Marshall comes back he'll be moved to the bullpen or sent back to AAA. He's been given a decent chance and hasn't shown the ability to pitch at the ML level. Marshall has definately outpitched Hill this year and has earned his spot in the rotation. In Hill's four starts this year he has given up 5, 5, 3, 7 ER respectively. In Marshall's first four starts this year he gave up 4, 4, 2, 0 ER respectively. Marshall showed progress. Hill didn't. He shouldn't get more than 3 or 4 starts to show he can pitch at the ML level. If he has four outings like he did earlier in the year, he shouldn't be given many more. Now, on the other hand, if Hill shows progress, then keep him in the rotation. Marshall has been terrible since then, so I guess he hasn't really shown that much prorgress overall. http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=5905&position=P&page=0&type=full Just goes to show one, that four starts don't a career make. You should see a doctor for your myopia.

Wait a sec. now? The job was his to win in ST and both Guzman and Marshall out pitched him. So lets not here the Cubs don't give Rich Hill many chances. It's not how many chances you are given. It's how you take advantage of those chances when you are given them.. So that's why I haven't won the lottery. Hill hasn't been given a chance. The worst thing is, I believe he still won't be given a chance. He'll get 3 maybe 4 starts and that's if he is good in his first one. Then when Marshall comes back he'll be moved to the bullpen or sent back to AAA.

I was going to post something similar but I figured why waste my time. TT, everthing you've posted in this thread is dead on accurate. The only quibble I have is that I don't think most people in baseball think Willamson was worth much more than the Cubs got. these two probably won't amount to much, but then again neither did Willamson.

Neifi's swing a strike three was a thing of beauity.

This is a joke. How can a band that produced one good album even be in this group. Guns N Roses were basically a one album band while Springsteen has been relavent for three decades.

Bruce, is Walker done in Chicago? Chances are better than even that he is. Thanks. Why does every divorce have to be messy? I hope they can get someone decent for him, but that might be asking for a lot.

I've been in the camp since UK posted his weekly columns last year. I wonder why he hasn't been given another shot.

Bruce, is Walker done in Chicago?

yes

Serves Hill right for walking a batter last night. Unacceptable. I guess Hill's comments after the Barrett fiasco really must have Rubbed Hendry the wrong way. It makes little sense to me. I guess they are showcasing the talents of Rusch hoping to get a taker. As if.

The dude just hit three HRs in two days (in games in which the Cubs lost) and somehow he is a problem.

Ditto, every word is true. Let's not go down the chemistry road again, shall we.

I love the old, "you haven't seen him pitch argument". It is lovely. I haven't seen Fransico Larino pitch ever, but judging by his numbers I'd say he's pretty good. Judging by these two stiff's numbers, I'd say they are pretty bad. However, they are young and can get better. Overall, I'm not unhappy with what the Cubs got.

The Cubs will wait until the September callups to bring up any prospects. Then Dusty will insist on giving them limited playing time to protect the integrity of the playoff race. Then going into next year we'll all be wondering and arguing about which young players are good enough to make the team or to take a starting position. Different year, same old Cubs with exatly the same philosophy exhibited by whichever re-tread Baseball man is managing the team. I am in a dark, dark place concerning the Cubs immediate and midterm future.

Matt Nokes

The problem I have with it is not the fact that people would boo Dusty, it's the fact that the producers of the show were recruiting for people to boo Dusty.

I saw the Greenstein article. Well done Kurt. BTW I wish Teddy was still the Cubs beatwriter for the Trib. But I guess he was too goood at his job. In 2003 in an ask Paul Column I asked Paul if he could trade himself for Teddy and ALF. At the time Teddy was the beatwriter for the Sox. It didn't get printed.

I don't think he is "overrated" per sey, he started off miserable this year and has rebounded. He is a very good athlete and a very good pitcher. All the same, giving up that much talent would worry me if I were a Cardinal fan. I don't know why the Cards or the Marlins would do this deal. Maybe the Jockerty thinks the Cards window of opportunity is about to close, I don't know.

Neifi hates the walk.

Heh...a statistic stating how statisticians can't account for everything... No real point...just gave me a chuckle... :wink: Actually you made a good point. To qoute D. Rumsfeld There are the unknowables that are knowable in the sense that we know that we don't know and the unknowables that are unknown. It makes about as much sense as saying that statisticians say they can only account for 60% of the game.

Does she have a sweet pornstache and a penchant for the nose candy too?

The problem as "saber" people phrase it is that they don't have a good way to measure defense, not that it is unimportant. But some stat companies have now started to employ scores of young people to pour through video and plot a multitude of information. I think in a few years people who are interested in such things will come up with a usefull metric. Whether baseball men who played the game will see value in them remains to be seen.

Whether the offense is good or bad, I would expect a minimum of 360 from the leadoff spot. A quick glance shows 60 guys doing that right now. There are 119 players over 335. How many of those guys bat leadoff consistently? 2? 3? The position that the manager bats a hitter in is irrelevent to the discussion. See, that's the problem with the Cubs and the problem with your argument. There is no such thing as a leadoff batter. There are only position players. That is what pissed me off so much this off-season. Hendry went looking for a "lead-off" man when he should have been looking for the best player available to play CF after he gave away Patterson. No, because a large problem with his OBP is that he is a leadoff hitter. Although that may be a problem for Slappy, it's the manager and GM's fault for signing a guy to bat leadoff and keeping him in that spot when he wasn't getting on base simply because he has historically batted lead-off. Pierre is a one tool player, his entire game is dependent on his BABIP. I don't want a guy like that on the Cubs unless his name is Vlad or Ichiro.

Whether the offense is good or bad, I would expect a minimum of 360 from the leadoff spot. A quick glance shows 60 guys doing that right now. There are 119 players over 335. How many of those guys bat leadoff consistently? 2? 3? The position that the manager bats a hitter in is irrelevent to the discussion. See, that's the problem with the Cubs and the problem with your argument. There is no such thing as a leadoff batter. There are only position players. That is what pissed me off so much this off-season. Hendry went looking for a "lead-off" man when he should have been looking for the best player available to play CF after he gave away Patterson.

That is exactly right. That is the organization's philosophy right there. Agreesivness is great and if you are agressive and get lots of hits you'll get walked more by the pitcher because the hitter has nothing to do with getting a walk. Hendry and Co. don't believe in the concept of drawing a walk by being selective. They have the direction of causality exactly backwords. They are killing my love of the Cubs.