Zambrano sucked for a lot of last season and 2007 was Hill's best year. So what's your point? Zambrano at his worst matches Hill at his best. I guess I can agree with that. Carlos Zambrano had a 4.52 ERA when removing his best month in 2007. Fine. You win. Rich Hill and Zambrano are equal pitchers. Next can we compare Ryan Theriot to Aramis Ramirez as hitters based on batting average? Almost everyone liked Rich Hill. Then he flamed out. I don't see why some people expect undying love and loyalty from all fans for a guy that had one pretty good season. Rich Hill was better in 2007 than Zambrano was in 2007 or 2008 If 2007 Rich Hill would like to come back I would love to see him in the rotation. I will also fill out that rotation with 1976 Mark Fidrych, 2003 Mark Prior and 1981 Fernando Valenzuela. Unfortunately, I want the 2009 versions of none of those pitchers taking the mound for the Cubs every 5th day. So again, I don't see what the point is. People liked Hill when he was good. Now that he can't throw strikes and has no options remaining, time to move on. Sean Marshall seems to have a chance to be a pretty comparable pitcher to the "good" Rich Hill. I would rather take my chances with him instead of having to sweat out every start with Hill and wonder if he is going to be effective. hey einstein, no one is arguing the cubs shouldn't have traded hill. also, learn math. Wow, I am shocked it took you this long to swoop in and defend your boy. He's not "defending his boy." He's pointing out, as others also have, how this most recent tangent seemingly arguing that people were against trading Hill when he was traded was created out of nowhere is actually against nobody. That i's being propped up by the oh-so-brilliant "take out their best performances..." argument is just cake.