ThePenguin11

According to Chris Boden on ESPN 1000 sportscenter, the Cubs offered the best package to the A's for Kotsay, but he obviously re-signed. This gives me a renewed faith that Hendry is willing to go out and spend what it takes to get a real player for the outfield. Is Dunn a possibility? Yes. Are they going to counter by offering Kearns first? Yes. Then we'll offer Patterson, and they'll say no. They'll say we want Pie, then we say no. We'll say we can package a group of prospects and name a few for them to chose from. Then they'll talk cash. (All small market teams do.) What I'm getting at is that if Dunn is to be dealt, the process will be long. As mentioned before, a number of teams will be interested. Since we're interdivision rivals we'll have to overpay. That won't be a problem if they can get over the fact that Felix Pie won't be going in any deal.

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?

Very nice. He'll bat behind Lee and Edmonds in the 6th spot.

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.

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.

Exactly, his relationship with his manager, GM and fans reached the point of no return.

At least we're not paying him to be bad for the Cubs.

I'm two.

I don't mind having 12 pitchers, the problem is that Dusty lets them all pitch in major league baseball games. Okay, maybe 12 is a bit much. Maybe we can go back to having 3 catchers that was productive and effective, er, um...

122 pitches, 84 for strikes. http://cnnsi.at/features/1998/weekly/980518/flame.html

I can honestly say I was ecstatic when Sammy was traded. I can also say that I was one of the few who didn't think Burnitz was a bad move.

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.

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? Also - he's never pitched more than 110 innings in one season. Can he do it for 200 and throw a curveball with every third pitch? A lot of questions...

Yeah, because ARod and Kearns are at all comparable. Who the hell is comparing them? I have to keep restating that I commented earlier that Kearns may not be enough. My point has been that we have to look seriously at any deal for a quality major league need if someone came along asking for Richard Hill. I was being sarcastic by saying that ARod would get trashed here if we brought up a trade for one of our prospects, namely Hill. We need to wake up here, all minor leaguers are not prospects, Hill is one, but not one of our best. His value is as high as it's going to be, unless he becomes an all star, which I would bet my life on. Many people have suggested trading Hill for different players, and many people wouldn't trade Hill for Kearns. Hill is a prospect, and may or may not pan out, but someone who leads Minor League baseball in K's is not someone that I'd quickly trade away, and certainly not for someone like Kearns. I just think we should be careful to not delude ourselves over a 25 year old with two pitches who led AA (a pitcher friendly league) in strikeouts. 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

Yeah, because ARod and Kearns are at all comparable. Who the hell is comparing them? I have to keep restating that I commented earlier that Kearns may not be enough. My point has been that we have to look seriously at any deal for a quality major league need if someone came along asking for Richard Hill. I was being sarcastic by saying that ARod would get trashed here if we brought up a trade for one of our prospects, namely Hill. We need to wake up here, all minor leaguers are not prospects, Hill is one, but not one of our best. His value is as high as it's going to be, unless he becomes an all star, which I would bet my life on. Many people have suggested trading Hill for different players, and many people wouldn't trade Hill for Kearns. Hill is a prospect, and may or may not pan out, but someone who leads Minor League baseball in K's is not someone that I'd quickly trade away, and certainly not for someone like Kearns. I just think we should be careful to not delude ourselves over a 25 year old with two pitches who led AA (a pitcher friendly league) in strikeouts.

Yes, the Brewers, a team that is 1 1/2 games behind us right now in the division. I don't think you can use that as a reason to diminish Hill's potential. Don't get me wrong, I like Hill, I hope I'm wrong. But the fact is a lot of people here over-value our farm players and never want to give up any of them. If good deals (transactions for quality MLB talent) get done, good farm prospects have to be moved. The BREWERS are 29th out of 30 in MLB for batting average .255. .002 from being the WORST hitting team in the majors. Exactly. Sure it sucks to give up someone like Hill but this team needs some offense now. Kearns will hopefully do better. The Cubs have to do something and this would not be that bad IMO. As much as everyone would like to give up nothing for something it usually does not happen that way. I believe that strategy is called buy low / sell high. i.e. Aramis Ramirez trade.

Yeah, because ARod and Kearns are at all comparable. Who the heck is comparing them? I have to keep restating that I commented earlier that Kearns may not be enough. My point has been that we have to look seriously at any deal for a quality major league need if someone came along asking for Richard Hill. I was being sarcastic by saying that ARod would get trashed here if we brought up a trade for one of our prospects, namely Hill. We need to wake up here, all minor leaguers are not prospects, Hill is one, but not one of our best. His value is as high as it's going to be, unless he becomes an all star, which I would bet my life against.

I believe they meant there was a correlation between the two occurances. Like: Hendry sent a message to his team; thus they responded.

Geez, if I said let's trade Hill for ARod I'm sure someone here would tell me I'm crazy. That he's too old or too expensive to be worth as much as Richard Hill. *Keep in mind I said that we could do better than Kearns.*

Yes, the Brewers, a team that is 1 1/2 games behind us right now in the division. I don't think you can use that as a reason to diminish Hill's potential. Don't get me wrong, I like Hill, I hope I'm wrong. But the fact is a lot of people here over-value our farm players and never want to give up any of them. If good deals (transactions for quality MLB talent) get done, good farm prospects have to be moved. The BREWERS are 29th out of 30 in MLB for batting average .255. .002 from being the WORST hitting team in the majors.

Well, thePenguin isn't off-base with Hill's fastball as JJ Cooper of BA.com said about Rich Hill: 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. 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. Before I get killed for the Kearns thing it should be pointed out that I said that Kearns may not be the right match for a deal: And while everyone can sit here and mock my ability to scout, I'll point out that I just watched Hill's complete 4 1/3 outing vs. the Brewers (again). This is what I found: He throws a pretty straight fastball from 89-92 (one reached 93 and most were between 89-91) His Curveball was between 69-74 and pretty decent against the righties. Keep in mind that we're talking about the Brewers here. He threw threw three pitches (84 85 87) that could be characterized as off-spead, but were probably fastballs with a bit taken off. So he has exactly two pitches. No changeup, no slider no two seamer. The Curveball is slow and breaks a ton, but the fastball is too slow to keep batters honest. We may want to read the whole thread before making such assumtions as these: This is a fair assessment and I agree with it: 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.

Don't get me wrong. If Hill had a heater, a real heater, that rode in on the hands of righties, they couldn't touch his curve. But since his fastball is straight and slow, he's going to have trouble at the major league level as a starting pitcher.

Have you read this somewhere or is this your opinion? I've seen every major league pitch he's thrown. It's my opinion. That's what I thought. Every scouting report I've read classify Hill's curve as well above average (plus), and his K rate suggests he's fooling plenty of batters with something. He's fooling plenty of minor leaguers who can't hit curveballs. That's why most of them are in the minor leagues and never get a cup of coffee. That's what I thought.

Hill's future is destined for the bullpen. That is my opinion. Especially if he remains with the Cubs. He won't leapfron Prior, Zambrano, Wood, Maddux or Williams. We've got Pinto, Mitre and Guzman supposedly waiting a future spot in that rotation. I just don't him doing it here. I think if we do keep him we ought to bring him up now and get Remlinger out of here.

Have you read this somewhere or is this your opinion? I've seen every major league pitch he's thrown. It's my opinion. His fastball is weak and he has trouble locating it. His curveball is easy to sit on from the right side of the plate. In order for a fastball to be considered a plus pitch it doesn't have to be hard. Hill's never reaches more than 91 on the gun, but it doesn't move and he can't jam major league righties with it.