abuck1220

why? because i'm tired of hearing the "drew's going to fail in boston because he's not their kinda guy" stuff. it's weird how people somehow think they know players. not sure how you're not doing the same thing in this case. but I think the gist of the argument is people knowing a fanbase, not a player. while generalizations tend to be dangerous, there's a history here and general sentiments do develop. I personally would love to see Drew on the Cubs. but he's not, nor is he on a rival of the Cubs. thus, I don't give a rats ass how he does. not sure why that would be a badge of honor for you. how am i doing the same thing? and i didn't say it would be a badge of honor for me. well apparently you purport to know he will handle the pressures in Boston just fine, so apparently you know the player. of course you didn't say it would be a "badge of honor." but what would you call having some irrational hope that some player on a team you presumably don't care about does well simply to show you were right on a message board? sure Drew is a fine player, but do you really have this affinity for him or do you want this odd couple of Drew and Boston to work out just for the 'badge of honor' of saying I told you so? fine...you got me. i was going to get t-shirts printed up that say "i was right about jd drew, idiots!" haven't you ever just wanted people who say stupid things to be proven wrong? that's all i'm saying. hope that's good enough for you.

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument? I don't think there is any, dew. abuck is saying that Hill didn't get anything out of his time in AAA and that the decision Hendry made to send him down for those 7 weeks in June and July had nothing to do with him performing better when he returned. abuck has accused me of lots of stuff that is completely untrue in this thread. One accusation was that I didn't provide any evidence to back up my opinion that Hill did benefit from his time in AAA. I did, in another thread, but somehow abuck didn't believe it. I'll be happy to provide more here. Perhaps abuck will believe Rich Hill's own words written September 18th, 2006... seriously, what else do you expect him to say? "i didn't learn squat in AAA, as evidenced by the fact that my numbers in june and july are absolutely identical to my AAA numbers from april, and for that matter, all of 2005. what a waste these last two months have been."

I don't understand why you feel the need to degrade everyone that disagrees with one of your statements? I'm not illiterate just because I don't take your word as the gospel. !) Hill was not ready the first few times he was up and he showed it by his performances early on. You seem to feel that Hill had an entitlement to innings when he was first called up. There is nothing wrong with making him earn his playing time. 2) You have absolutely nothing to back that up. Hill played poorly so he got sent down. He kept doing well in the minors, he got called back up. There is nothing conspiracy theory about that. When Hill finally showed what he was capable of they gave him extended playing time and even included him in their plans for 2007. sorry, but i have to question your reading ability because you still seem to have a problem grasping what i'm saying. i never said baker/hendry wanted hill to fail, i never said there was a conspiracy theory, and i never said hill was treated unfairly. here is my argument, please look at it closely...maybe read it aloud to yourself: HENDRY DOES NOT HAVE A "THING" FOR HILL. HE IS NOT HIS PET, HE IS NOT HIS FAVORITE PLAYER. HE DOES NOT TREAT HIM WITH ANY EXTRA FAVORITISM. NOTE: MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HILL HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. REPEAT: MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HILL HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. AGAIN, MY ARGUMENT IS THAT HENDRY DOES NOT HAVE A "THING" FOR HILL. HE DOES NOT VALUE HIM AT AN UNREALISTICALLY HIGH LEVEL. THE EVIDENCE FOR MY ARGUMENT IS AS FOLLOWS (available in powerpoint format upon request): 1. HILL WAS NOT USED/DEMOTED AFTER A GREAT RELIEF OUTING IN 2005. NOTE: AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS WAS UNFAIR OR THAT HILL SHOULD BE INDUCTED INTO THE HALL OF FAME AFTER THIS OUTING. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY TRULY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEMOTED. 2. HILL WAS PASSED OVER FOR STARTS AT THE EXPENSE OF GLENDON RUSCH. HILL WAS THE BEST PITCHER IN THE MINORS AT THIS TIME, AND GLENDON RUSCH WAS, WELL, GLENDON RUSCH. NOTE: AGAIN, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS WAS UNFAIR OR THAT HILL SHOULD HAVE REPLACED RUSCH (though i do believe that). MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY REALLY DID HAVE A BOY CRUSH ON HILL, HE WOULD HAVE KICKED RUSCH TO THE CURB AND CALLED UP HILL. 3. HILL DID NOT MAKE THE ROTATION OUT OF SPRING TRAINING. RUSCH AND MARSHALL DID. NOTE: I AM NOT ARGUING THAT HILL DESERVED A SPOT, SO DON'T THROW HIS SPRING NUMBERS AT ME. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY REALLY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD HAVE PUT HIM IN THE ROTATION. 4. HILL WAS TRASHED ON HIS WAY OUT THE DOOR AFTER THE WHITE SOX GAME. NOTE: PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, DON'T TELL ME THAT HILL SHOULDN'T HAVE OPENED HIS MOUTH OR THAT HE DESERVED WHAT HE GOT. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF HENDRY HAD A THING FOR HILL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TRASHED HIM LIKE HE DID. HE WOULD HAVE MADE EXCUSES FOR HIM AND TALKED HIM UP ANYWAY. the only argument i've seen supporting the idea that hendry is head over heels for hill is rumored trades that hendry has turned down involving hill. of course, none of those have any kind of confirmation.

I'm curious about how you know for a fact Hendry and/or Baker had nothing whatsoever in any way shape or form to do with Hill improving. What others are asking, it seems, is what hard, factual evidence do you have to support your argument? what hard, factual evidence do you have to support yours? my evidence is hill was awesome in AAA in 2005. he was equally awesome in 2006. he was equally awesome his second stint in 2006. he was the same AAA pitcher each time he went down there. the reason he got better was because he got more innings under his belt, got more run support and became more comfortable pitching in the bigs. it's not like he went down to AAA and added 2 more k's per 9 innings or added a screwball.

why? because i'm tired of hearing the "drew's going to fail in boston because he's not their kinda guy" stuff. it's weird how people somehow think they know players. not sure how you're not doing the same thing in this case. but I think the gist of the argument is people knowing a fanbase, not a player. while generalizations tend to be dangerous, there's a history here and general sentiments do develop. I personally would love to see Drew on the Cubs. but he's not, nor is he on a rival of the Cubs. thus, I don't give a rats ass how he does. not sure why that would be a badge of honor for you. how am i doing the same thing? and i didn't say it would be a badge of honor for me.

why? because i'm tired of hearing the "drew's going to fail in boston because he's not their kinda guy" stuff. it's weird how people somehow think they know players.

can you read? my two arguments regarding hill were 1) he succeeded in the bigs last year because he's good and he got some innings under his belt. i don't give any credit to hendry or baker 2) hill is not a pet/favorite of hendry's or the cubs'. nothing you said has anything to do with this discussion.

yeah, because several times in this thread i've said that dusty and hendry were rooting against hill and trying to make him fail. that's definitely what i said.

lemme guess...you're chalking this one up as a "dismantling" too.

let me see if i understand your thought process. hill dominates in iowa. he's called up and sucks. he goes back down again and dominates. he comes back up and sucks. he goes back down again and dominates. he comes back up again and this time he's really good. third time's a charm, and hendry had it planned like that all along! great job everybody! does that pretty much sum up what you're saying? that's the problem...you don't have any evidence...for any of your arguments. ever. excuse me, you're saying you "dismantled" an argument i made that hendry favored rusch over hill? first of all, i don't ever remember making that argument, let alone having you dismantle me on it. second of all, i think it's pretty clear to anyone who watched cub baseball in 2005 and 2006 that hendry and co absolutely did favor rusch over hill. rusch had to literally nearly die before hill bumped him out of the rotation. the last discussion you and i had about hill started when someone said that hendry had "a thing" for hill. i said he didn't. those he said that he did pointed to rumors that hendry turned down a hill for dunn trade...rumors that have never been backed up by anything. that's pretty much all you had. in support of my argument that hendry was not, in fact, hot for hill, i pointed to 1) his demotion and non-use after 4 no-hit relief innings in '05, 2) the cubs continued use of an awful rusch in the rotation instead of letting hill have starts 3) marshall and rusch getting spots in the rotation over hill coming out of spring training 4) hill's demotion after the white sox game, which was coupled by some of the worst trash-talking i've heard the cubs use about their own guy since sosa 5) the absence of any quotes anywhere indicating that hendry was high on hill. and before anyone says "hill didn't deserve a spot coming out of spring training" or "hill deserved to be demoted after the white sox game" i'm not arguing that hill was treated unfairly any of those times (even though i think he probably was)...i'm merely arguing that hendry didn't favor hill or treat him as though he was his pet or something. if either one of us had an argument dismantled it was your doozy a while back about how rusch had been pretty good 75% of the time. that one went down in flames. hard.

the braves would be getting really screwed.

navin, check your pms/email so we can get in on this trading!

We would have a lot fewer question marks right now if it weren't for Dusty's perpetual veterosexuality. I feel pretty good about Hill, but I still feel a slight twinge of doubt that wouldn't be there if they had just played the kid from jump. Did you see how he pitched in spring training last year? There were at least 5 others who were better. When Rusch absolutely sucked in April, they brought Hill up to pitch on May 4th and he sucked even worse. They ran him out there for 4 consecutive starts and each time, Hill did not pitch well. If Dusty had continued to run him out there and Hill continued to put up an ERA over 9, not only would fans say that Dusty isn't trying to win, but they would attack him for ruining a very promising pitching prospect with a somewhat fragile psyche by continuing to let him fail over and over again thus proving to Rich that he doesn't have what it takes to perform in the big leagues. No, Dusty and Jim did the right thing. They protected their prized prospect and sent him down to AAA where he had been redefining the word domination for the past year to get his confidence back and work on what was apparently having him fail at the big league level which was spotting the fastball. Apparently, once he improved his control with his fastball and was consistent with it, he was called back up. That took about 7 weeks in AAA to do. In his first start after being called back up, Hill failed. Did Dusty sit him? No. Just like in May, he gave him another shot. This time Hill did not fail. And Rich never looked back. In Hill's case, the results speak for themselves. He was handled right. that's such crap. just because he ended up doing well, it was because he got sent down? he was the same pitcher in AAA in '05, early '06 and his second stint there in '06. the reason he pitched better in the second half of the year was because he got some innings under his belt -- not because jim hendry handled the situation with a skilled hand. people need to quit giving hendry/baker credit for hill's success. he succeeded in spite of those fools, not because of them.

Other than the money, which the Tribune seems to have, I don't see a downside to signing Marquis. If he rebounds, great. If not, by that time one of the Cubs pitching prospects or Prior likely will have earned a spot in the starting rotation. Marquis is both a hedge and a bet for Hendry. you really think they're just going to cast him aside when he signed a 3 year, 21 mil contract? it took rusch becoming the worst pitcher in baseball before they took him out of the rotation, and they had a lot less committed to him.

i hope drew wins the mvp next year.

finally! good times are about to roll in denver!

you're sooo negative...yikes!

he's got moxie, heart, grit. he chews tobacco and slides headfirst into home plate. he doesn't use daggum computers. he can pick the next sammy sosa out of a group of 100 lanky 13 year-old dominicans just by shaking their hands and staring in their eyes. he doesn't write books about himself.

Because they would rather have Jacque Jones in CF than Taveras. and so should the cubs.

ops+, eqa, vorp, qdlzor3;40}|2, whatever...he sucks.

It didn't really impact me that much. I have a philosophy against spending too many of my keeper points on pitchers. I much prefer to see who is healthy and looking good in the spring. Hitters are simply more reliable bets. guys like gary matthews jr. outscored brandon webb last year, so not only are pitchers more likely to get injured, they weren't really worth all that much even if they were healthy AND awesome.

i'm not going to be happy if the cubs sign floyd and start pie in cf. because if they do that, there's going to be a lot of days where murton sits while pie plays, and that just doesn't make sense.

why is hendry doing this again?

this actually helps me quite a bit. sheets only went up a little and hill and papelbon are exempt.

pfft. You're going to have like three guys on your team! they'll just have to be three really good guys, i guess. :D