abuck1220

did the idea that hendry has "man love" for murton come from the same source that said hendry has "a thing" for hill? because i don't think either is true.

i'm not completely writing him off either, but the two things being counted on are 1) a pitcher who was horrendous last year turning it around 2) a pitching coach who has more bum arms and disappointments on his resume than success stories being the guy to help him do it.

The Cubs organization hates Rich Hill. Here's proof. I may be missing the point here, or maybe I'm not getting the possible sarcasm, but I don't see any hate for Rich Hill in this article. This was posted July 18, 2006 and at that time this is would be a positive thing to say about a struggling young pitcher. Somebody said the Cubs don't "have a thing" for Rich Hill, and somebody still thinks that person said the Cubs hate him. It's really become quite annoying. seriously.

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about. and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless. And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot. no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is. oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball. Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me? since the day the season ended? he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more. One bad (and it was, yes, REALLY bad) season after two solid ones should not qualify Marquis as the worst pitcher in baseball. It's not like he doesn't have decent stuff, and hes 28. With all the people on the boards who go on and on about "past preformance", I think I will use it in this case. Who cares what Marquis did last year? His combined ERA in the previous two seasons before 2006 was under 4. If Rothschild really found somthing he can fix, Marquis could be a huge bargian and pitch well. who cares what he did last year? are you kidding me?

If that were remotely true, I'd agree with you. But fortunately for the Cubs, he has been above average in 2 of the last 3 seasons, one of them well above average. he was right at average (era+ of 103 in '05) and above average in '04 (113 era+). even in his best season of late ('04) he allowed a fair number of baserunners (1.42 whip)...he was really fortunate to have such a low era given how many guys got on base against him. I thought 100 was average making 103 slightly above and 113 safely above. Again, I'm no great fan. Just trying to keep things accurate. ok

If that were remotely true, I'd agree with you. But fortunately for the Cubs, he has been above average in 2 of the last 3 seasons, one of them well above average. he was right at average (era+ of 103 in '05) and above average in '04 (113 era+). even in his best season of late ('04) he allowed a fair number of baserunners (1.42 whip)...he was really fortunate to have such a low era given how many guys got on base against him.

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about. and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless. And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot. no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is. oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball. Since when is he the worst pitcher in baseball? Are you kidding me? since the day the season ended? he had the worst era of any pitcher with more than 190 innings. he had the lowest vorp among pitchers with that many innings. carlos silva and joel pineiro gave him a run for his money, but they pitched less than him so what he "added" to the team hurt more.

yeah, that really doesn't do much for me as far as being a positive. tree, i like your sig a lot...don't let anyone tell you different.

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes. Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior. These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics! i know, the cubs have been totally awesome since hendry took over! 5 outs from the WS. Hendry hasn't done jack. FIRE HIM NOW! Oh, and viva la revolution! you know what, if you're satisfied with an 88 win team that almost went to the world series four years ago followed by three non-playoff seasons that have gotten progressively worse (capped off by a 96 loss season), all built with one of the highest payrolls in the game, then i guess we just have to agree to disagree.

They might argue over which toolsy gold glover hits the best with RISP, but the end result is the same. They keep making the same mistakes. Yeah, mistakes like acquiring DLee, Ramirez, Murton, Barrett, and Howry. Mistakes like developing Zambrano, Hill, Wuertz, Ohman, Wood, and Prior. These guys are so incompetent. Why do they even have jobs? I could do better with my elementary knowledge of statistics! i know, the cubs have been totally awesome since hendry took over!

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about. and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless. And I can ask you what's so proven about Gooz and Marshall? Again, nothing is a sure thing and I'd rather have too much pitching then not enough. If Gooz and Marshall are so much better they'll get their shot. no they won't. they're not going to bump marquis out of the rotation no matter how bad he is. oh, and guzman and marshall have proven that their paychecks are a lot smaller than marquis'. i'd agree with you that i'd rather have too much pitching than not enough, but not if you're paying 7 mil a year to the worst pitcher in baseball.

what's so "proven" about marquis? that he's put up one slightly better than average year in the past five? wow, that's something to get excited about. and if marquis pitches anything like he did last year, i'd prefer that he not handle the work load of a full season. putting up a 5.50 era for 175 innings is pretty worthless.

your first two batters walk on 8 pitches total, and you force the next hitter, who has been struggling, to swing at the first pitch? it worked, so it must have been the right call.

You should try arguing with yourself then. :) zing! now check your pm's before i have to drive to california and talk to you in person.

come on...cut me some slack. i haven't argued with an idiot in a long time, and i just got done with school...lots of pent up rage.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine. I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster. so hill was treated unfairly. glad we got to the bottom of this. :lol: :lol: Hardly, it may turn out that Cubs actually handled Hill correctly and we can only hope that he continues to pitch the way he was pitching toward the end of season. if he continues to have success, it doesn't mean that the cubs handled him correctly. if the cubs sent soriano to AAA for the first two weeks of the season and he came up to hit 40 homers, it wouldn't mean that it was the right decision to send him to AAA.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine. I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster. so hill was treated unfairly. glad we got to the bottom of this.

which of these is an opinion? none.

When did I say that I liked Glendon Rusch? I don't even want him on the team. I simply stated a fact about him. An irrefutable fact that you refuse to believe. When did I say that I didn't like Rich Hill? I've been defending him for years on this board. What are you doing, abuck? Is this what you do when you don't have much of a factual argument? Is that the best you can put forward? Its stuff like that that makes your argument look desperate and weak. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. listen, dude...i don't care if you agree with me or not (in fact, if you did agree with me, i'd be worried), but can you stop resorting to the "boy, abuck must be crazy because he doesn't even have an argument" defense? i listed my argument and its support in friggin outline form with big ass capital letters and underlining. do you want me to send it to you certified mail or what?

i'm kinda afraid hendry's going to trade barrett for a defensive-minded cf...meaning that they'll still have an offensive black hole in cf, and they'll add one at catcher.

because young pitchers need more than 30 big league innings to get used to pitching in the bigs. i think a few dozen more big league innings made the difference. you seem to think that a few dozen more minor league innings of exactly the same quality as his previous 400 AAA innings made the difference. agree to disagree.

No, it doesn't. I was done with that one a week ago. This one stems from the claims you made in this thread, namely, that Hendry's decision to send Hill down after his horrible performance in May had nothing to do with his subsequent improvement. That's the issue we have been discussing in this thread. One has nothing to do with the other. ok, fine. i disagree with you on this issue too. and i showed you why.

and i gave you evidence that it didn't. stats. and i gave you (more) evidence that he wasn't/isn't. no evidence needed to be given to refute this ridiculous claim, but i gave it to you. listen dude, we just disagree. you like glendon rusch, i like rich hill. one of us is wrong, the other is right...i guess time will tell which was which.

by the way, this whole argument originates from my claim that if z, lilly, marquis, miller and prior are all healthy hill will start in AAA or the pen. and i still believe that. if hill is as lights out in the spring as he was last year, then he'll probably stick. but if he has a mediocre spring, i still say he gets bumped. hendry has said too many glowing things about those other guys (and not enough about hill) to make me think otherwise. and i don't buy the argument that hendry will not put the five best pitchers out there. the last three years are littered with examples of him putting lesser players on the 25 man roster.

you're right...speaking his mind after the white sox game had absolutely no adverse consequences. he definitely didn't have a motive to give the most organization-friendly answer he could. regardless of what hill said, the numbers speak for themselves (pretty sure they don't have a motive)...he was the same pitcher at each of his AAA stops. you want evidence, look at the numbers.