abuck1220

fine. but none of that indicates that hill is hendry's pet or that he favors him or that he has a "thing" for him. t also doesn't indicate he's out to get him or in the doghouse or Lord knows what other conspiracy theory of the week is being tossed out in the great "Cubs vs. Rich Hill" battle. i never said the cubs hate him or are out to get him. nothing like that at all. someone said that hendry has a "thing" for hill, and i said i didn't think he did. that's all i've said about it. my original contention was that if everybody was healthy, hill could get pushed out of the rotation.

fine. but none of that indicates that hill is hendry's pet or that he favors him or that he has a "thing" for him.

yeah, that was the cubs' problem last year...not enough stolen bases.

You keep saying that and you keep failing to provide anything other than your opinion. Do you have anything concrete or even anecdotal to back that up? If not, fire away, be my guest, but don't expect anyone with even half a head on their shoulders to agree with you. umm...my argument that hendry doesn't have a thing for hill is based on a lack of him saying or doing things to indicate support of hill. therefore, it's kinda hard for me to point to his non-existent quotes of support. since your claim is that he does support/like hill, you should be able to point to quotes or actions indicating such. but as you said, you're not a librarian. I have provided examples of Hendry valuing Hill but all you saw was Hendry taking credit for Hill's success. Your mind appears closed on the subject. Whatever evidence gets provided to you, since you seem unwilling to find any of it yourself, you will probably justify it away as something that makes Hendry look even worse to you. As I've said several times already in this thread, be my guest. Have at it. But it doesn't mean that your opinion on this issue is based on anything factual. you're essentially saying that i can't prove the non-existence of something. it's like me saying santa clause doesn't exist, and you saying that since i can't come up with evidence that he doesn't, he must exist. but anyway... 1) hendry let hill stay in AAA while rusch was getting pounded and the cubs were out of it. 2) the whole organization bad mouthed hill on his way out after the white sox game 3) after a fantastic relief outing against the brewers in '05, hill was virtually unheard from for a month 4) despite posting great AAA numbers in '05 hill was passed over for the '06 rotation by marshall based on 10 spring training innings. there, i offered four items that would lead one to believe that hendry isn't huge on hill. and before you try to justify any of those decisions/moves, remember my argument isn't that hill got treated unfairly, it's simply that hendry doesn't have a "thing" for hill. no, you haven't. please point me to those examples.

pie and izturis creates the potential to have two offensive black holes in your lineup. i don't know if the cubs can afford that if they want to win in '07. you'd be one injury away from being as bad offensively as they wre in '06. i could live w/ pie's production in cf if they got someone who could actually hit to play ss.

unless they've got someone else on their radar, they might as well give them marshall AND marmol. if you get church, pretty much every position + every spot in the rotation is taken care of for the next three years...what's the point of holding on to those guys?

i disagree. if hendry really wouldn't trade hill for dunn, i think it speaks more of hendry's dislike of dunn than it does his like for hill. remember, this was during hendry's, i've decided i like guys who catch the ball phase (during which he also, of course, didn't like strikeouts and didn't see the value of a walk). hendry has never said anything to indicate support of hill. the most the organization has spoke about hill was when they trashed him after the white sox game. that, coupled with the reluctance to give him a prolonged shot in the rotation, lead me to believe that hendry does not have a "thing" for hill.

with rotation spots virtually guaranteed for lilly and marquis over the next 3-4 years, hill staking a solid claim to another, and the cubs hopefully working to extend zambrano, it's time to trade marshall, mateo, marmol, etc. if you just hold onto them to let them rot in AAA or in long relief, they're going to lose any value they have. i mean, like seven guys are going to have to get hurt for someone like mateo to get starts.

You keep saying that and you keep failing to provide anything other than your opinion. Do you have anything concrete or even anecdotal to back that up? If not, fire away, be my guest, but don't expect anyone with even half a head on their shoulders to agree with you. umm...my argument that hendry doesn't have a thing for hill is based on a lack of him saying or doing things to indicate support of hill. therefore, it's kinda hard for me to point to his non-existent quotes of support. since your claim is that he does support/like hill, you should be able to point to quotes or actions indicating such. but as you said, you're not a librarian. Didn't Hendry state last year that he wouldn't trade Hill for Dunn straight up? Nope. Who was it then that he said he wouldn't trade Hill for straight up? It was someone of that caliber. no it wasn't. hendry never publicly said that he wouldn't trade hill for anybody. really, the most talking the organization has done about hill was when they publicly trashed him after the white sox game. Didn't Hendry refuse some kind of Hill for Adam Dunn offer?

You keep saying that and you keep failing to provide anything other than your opinion. Do you have anything concrete or even anecdotal to back that up? If not, fire away, be my guest, but don't expect anyone with even half a head on their shoulders to agree with you. umm...my argument that hendry doesn't have a thing for hill is based on a lack of him saying or doing things to indicate support of hill. therefore, it's kinda hard for me to point to his non-existent quotes of support. since your claim is that he does support/like hill, you should be able to point to quotes or actions indicating such. but as you said, you're not a librarian. Didn't Hendry state last year that he wouldn't trade Hill for Dunn straight up? Nope. Who was it then that he said he wouldn't trade Hill for straight up? It was someone of that caliber. no it wasn't. hendry never publicly said that he wouldn't trade hill for anybody. really, the most talking the organization has done about hill was when they publicly trashed him after the white sox game.

You keep saying that and you keep failing to provide anything other than your opinion. Do you have anything concrete or even anecdotal to back that up? If not, fire away, be my guest, but don't expect anyone with even half a head on their shoulders to agree with you. umm...my argument that hendry doesn't have a thing for hill is based on a lack of him saying or doing things to indicate support of hill. therefore, it's kinda hard for me to point to his non-existent quotes of support. since your claim is that he does support/like hill, you should be able to point to quotes or actions indicating such. but as you said, you're not a librarian.

i concede. you're the bestest rich hill guy ever of all time. you knew he was a future hall of famer the moment he was conceived. so anyway...where did i say that he absolutely wouldn't pitch like he did in the second half?

i don't really think hendry has had a thing for hill.

the problem is, there's probably no way hill pitches like he did in the 2nd half. BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! dude, i've been pimping rich hill since you were in diapers. but even i'm slightly less optimistic about his 07 than some of projections i've seen for him. So there's absolutely no way he pitches like he did in the second half, huh? No way? could you please show me where i said that? and i don't need you to tell me how good hill is or can be...i was pushing for hill long before you strolled into town. so save your lectures regarding hill's awesomeness for two years ago.

they did compete for a spot...last season when hill not only outpitched them all soundly, he outpitched most of baseball for a few months. or would you prefer to have them "compete" for the spot by virtue of 10 spring training innings? that being said, i don't think hill has a rotation spot locked up at all. as i said in the one of the other threads that are seemingly devoted to this topic, if z, lilly, marquis, miller and prior are all healthy, hill is in AAA. of course, this is completely idiotic, but it's what i think the cubs will do. they love miller and they aren't paying marquis big money to be a swing man (see glendon rusch, who had to be the worst starter in baseball and get hurt before he got bumped).

the problem is, there's probably no way hill pitches like he did in the 2nd half. BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! dude, i've been pimping rich hill since you were in diapers. but even i'm slightly less optimistic about his 07 than some of projections i've seen for him.

Totally agree. People on this board hate everything. They hate the sun. They hate air. If you ask 4000 people for their opinions on anything, there will be people that don't like it. So any subject that gets discussed on the boards will have people in violent objection to it. I could just as easily say that this board likes everything, too. That was a valiant attempt at spin. :P There has been a predominantly negative tone here lately. is that surprising? a team with a $95 mil payroll nearly lost 100 games last year. now they've thrown $20-28 mil at a guy who had a 6+ era. what else would you expect?

the problem is, there's probably no way hill pitches like he did in the 2nd half.

If Hill is pitching better, yes. To think otherwise would be to think that Hendry and Piniella are idiots who don't know that going with your best 5 pitchers in your starting rotation is the best way to win baseball games. You don't think that, do you? yes, i do. hendry has done it before. estes and rusch were both worse than several other options, and it didn't stop him from keeping them on the roster. it's like you haven't watched the cubs the past few seasons...have you not seen clearly inferior players get priority? neifi, estes, rusch, lenny harris, ordonez, bynum, etc.

i'd love to read more. please point to a quote from a gm saying hendry wouldn't part with hill for player X. keep in mind, however, that hendry refusing to trade hill for player X may just as easily be hendry's lack of interest in player X, as it would be his love for hill.

yet, that's exactly what they did when the cubs were 500 games out of first place, hill was striking out 15 a night in AAA and rusch was giving up eight runs per start. That's exactly what DUSTY did. Who overrode many of LR descisions. That is NOT what Piniella and Rothschild will do. And they wouldn't have done that last year either. hendry's the guy that decides who to bring up, send down, cut, etc. hill was in AAA b/c hendry, at least to some extent, wanted him there.

yet, that's exactly what they did when the cubs were 500 games out of first place, hill was striking out 15 a night in AAA and rusch was giving up eight runs per start. Perhaps you missed it, but I remember an article about the work they were doing with Hill down at AAA. Hill failed pretty miserably in his first stint up with the Cubs last season, certainly worse than what Rusch was expected to do at the time. Remember, Rusch hadn't sucked that way the previous two seasons, so the expectation was that even if he struggled, he wouldn't struggle all year, and he would likely be better than what Hill did his first time up. When Rusch continued to suck and when Hill accomplished what his pitching coach wanted him to accomplish, I think it was spotting the fastball with consistency or something like that, then he was brought up. It is a perfectly logical time line. When you know the facts and have a fair view of what was reasonable to expect Rusch to do, what Hendry did makes perfect sense. yeah, if you buy the whole 'see, hill just needed to work on _____, which we knew all along, which is why we sent him to AAA, and now he's good, excuse me while i pat myself on the back' routine that baker/hendry/rothschild were selling. i don't but that. the reason hill improved last year was b/c he got more experience, not b/c he learned a secret magic trick in AAA. he was doing the same thing in AAA after his demotion as he was before. it was just a matter of getting more work in at the big league level. do you really think they'll send a healthy miller to the pen at hill's expense?

yet, that's exactly what they did when the cubs were 500 games out of first place, hill was striking out 15 a night in AAA and rusch was giving up eight runs per start.

This analysis defies any and all logic, abuck. Hendry stakes his reputation on Hill long before he makes good at the major league level refusing to include him in deals that would have brought back much better players than Jay Gibbons, but now that Hill has shown he can be dominate in the bigs, he'll give up on him, drop him out of the rotation for someone with a low base contract like Wade Miller and give him up for a "turd". If you really believe that, be my guest, but don't expect anyone else to take your comments seriously. first of all, i've never heard from hendry himself that hill was off limits (ie refusing to trade hill for dunn)...that was all speculation, as far as i know. i don't think i've ever read a quote from hendry giving a strong endorsement of hill. second of all, his refusal to put him in the rotation last year while rusch was throwing scored batting practice tells me that he doesn't think the highest of hill. it took a complete roster collapse and hill pitching like johan santana for the second half of the season to even bring hill's name into consideration for '07. i flat out don't think the cubs value hill that much. and the way they treated him last season tells me more about how they value him than what hendry allegedly refused to trade him for. also, hendry knows his job is on the line this season. and if you think he'd rather stake his job on rich hill than wade miller or jason marquis, then i guess we disagree. if z, lilly, marquis, miller and prior are all healthy, i don't think there's any way hill makes the rotation.

by the way, i'm glad to see that someone took rusch's spot as the guy who can't be taken out of the rotation no matter how much he blows because the cubs paid him big money. except marquis is paid more and is signed for longer. good stuff.