CubsWin

Yuck.

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. Yeah, I agree whole-heartedly. Good thing the Cubs didn't do that. That would have really been stupid.

The title of this thread says Marquis signed for 3/20 and attributes that to Cubs.com. As far as I can tell, the only article on Cubs.com about the Marquis signing has him at 3/21. Not a big difference, but...

Its there. If you click on "Cubs" in the left-hand margin, its the 2nd article down.

Are you responding to my post? If you are, you sure putting a lot of words in my mouth. I asked you a question. I didn't make any of the statements you are responding to. I'm just looking to understand your position on Marquis. You made the comment that Marquis should concentrate on being a relief pitcher among quoting various other sabermetrics that you interpreted to mean that even in '04 and '05 he still was a bad starting pitcher, IIRC. So, I'm asking if this means he will definitely fail next season and, (being replacement level and someone who should focus on being a reliever) won't even be above league average for a 5th starter. I never mentioned that it was acceptable to shoot for average starters at every position. What are you reading?

prepare to be jumped all over Why? I'm asking a question. Oh, that's right, its a message board. Never mind. I'm prepared. :wink: Looks like the preparation was all for naught. Yeah, I thought the warning was unnecessary. I was just asking a question, after all. And I appreciated your answer. Thank you. The message board line was just a joke, goony.

prepare to be jumped all over Why? I'm asking a question. Oh, that's right, its a message board. Never mind. I'm prepared. :wink:

I keep hearing the Cubs brass mention how Lilly and Marquis are reliable innings eaters, that they are each likely to pitch over 175 innings and be around 200. I understand that the Cubs didn't have that in their rotation last season and that not having guys that "can give you innings" will cause undo stress on a team's bullpen, but outside of that, can anyone think of any other benefit for being able to pitch close to 200 innings in a season?

After reading your take on Marquis over the last several pages, I'm getting that based on several different sabermetrics you think he sucks and that you are certain he will perform worse than almost every other 5th starter in major league baseball. Am I misreading your comments?

Well, I guess we can finally change the title of this thread. It's funny that neither of the options listed in this thread's title for weeks now turned out to be accurate.

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. I know that when I say "how in the hell can you pretend that saying that Glendon Rusch was good in 75 percent of his outings is an irrefutable fact" you will just say "Im not going into it again", but. How in the hell can you pretend that saying that Glendon Rusch was good in 75 percent of his outings is an irrefutable fact? I'm more than happy to explain how Glendon Rusch was good about 75% of the time he was a Cub in '04 and '05 is clearly an irrefutable fact. But not in this thread. I'll PM you instead.

I said this few days ago and I couldn't agree more. If anyone really wants to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me, but enough of the hi-jacking of this thread please.

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.

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.

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. I am looking at the numbers, abuck. The major league numbers. And they are quite different from every other time up in '05 and '06 than they were in August and September. Why? Rich Hill just told you why. As far as his AAA numbers, he was dominant before the May call up and dominant after. He couldn't get much better. How was he supposed to show improvement upon his April numbers of .149/.221/.230 with 33 Ks in 25 IP? Answer, he wasn't. He can't. No human can. He could fool the AAA level hitter, clearly. But the numbers also show that he wasn't fooling the major league hitter. Apparently, if you choose to believe the words coming out of Rich Hill's mouth, someone identified some adjustments he needed to make and he made them. And, presto change-o, (showing my GN watching heritage with that one) he comes up in the 2nd half and does what he wasn't able to do in May or any time before that. You wanted evidence that his time in the minors made a difference, I gave it to you. You wanted evidence that Rich Hill was highly valued by the Cubs front office, I gave it to you in another thread. You wanted evidence as to how Rusch had been good for about 3/4 of his time with the Cubs prior to this season and I gave it to you. You believe none of it. That's your choice. You're mind is made up. That's totally cool with me. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just stating my well-supported and thought out opinions and providing the evidence for them. Just open your mind enough to allow other people's arguments that are backed up with hard evidence to exist also. There should be no need for threads to be hi-jacked like this.

telling the higher-ups they made the right decision and fixed him is almost certainly the smartest possible answer, regardless of what he feels is true. Sure, there is a very slight possibility that Rich is a hopeless kiss ass who needs to take every opportunity to smooch the behind of those above him, but what evidence do you have that he actually is that low of a human being? Do you really go so far as to accuse Rich Hill of being such a smarmy human being just to try to support a claim that Hendry's move to send him down had nothing to do with his success in August and September? That's low, dude. Did you even read the article? He doesn't mention Hendry once. He doesn't even name his pitching coach. He talks about the changes he made. I don't think your theory that Hill is trying to get in good with the "higher-ups" is going to hold much water in this case. If he intended to do that with this article, he sure did a poor job of it.

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." You ask for evidence. I give you the horse's mouth. But you still don't believe. Okay. Well, there are tons of things he could have said besides "I made some improvements" and all of them would have been politically correct. He could have said basically what you are saying, that he understands why he was sent back to Iowa but that it was just a matter of time and simply a confidence thing. But he didn't. Why not? What would have been so bad with saying that? Nothing, except for, according to Hill, it wasn't the truth. Claiming that he had to say what he said in order to keep up appearances doesn't wash, abuck. There is no logic to it, no motive. You got anything else to try to explain away Rich Hill's own words?

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. Rich Hill disagrees with you. He credits his time in the minors in June and July with giving him the necessary improvement to succeed like he did when he came up at the end of July. I think that says it all.

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...

Don't think I have to, abuck. I don't think there is anything to dismantle.

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. I'll only respond to say you are making a whole lot of stuff up out of thin air. The facts disagree with you. I've listed them several times. I'm not going to waste my time proving to you again how good or not good Glendon Rusch was during his first two years as a Cub or disproving the statement you did make about Rusch and Hill in the thread in transactions. I'm getting back to my wife and two kids now. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

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. So let me see if I understand your thought process here, when Cubs fail to perform well its Baker's and Hendry's fault which proves that they are fools thus when some Cubs succeed they couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Thats a pretty hollow argument. And the incivility with which you presented your response gives me a clue as to how open you are to seeing evidence that flys in the face of your position. I've already dismantled your position on how obviously Hendry favored Rusch over Hill and you never responded to that, so I won't bother presenting a counter argument here.

Well, its a dangerous game waiting to fill your holes with possible FAs in next year's class. What if they get extended like Vernon Wells? What if they get traded and then extended like Andruw Jones might? You can only take action in the now and I agree fully with those that say the Cubs should have overspent for Beltran. I was calling for it. I also felt they should have gotten Brian Giles. Of course, now I'll happily take Alphonso Soriano in RF with his arm, his speed and his bat over an aging Giles. So its a give and take kind of thing. Calling this year's FA market in baseball the worst in history is a difficult position to defend, but more importantly completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're talking about next year in comparison to this year. Next year's FA market isn't a part of history yet, obviously, so that comment is pointless. What makes anyone think that next year's will be any better than this one? Baseball has experienced a resurgence in revenues lately and the agents know it. That's not likely to change in one season. So given that there isn't a lot of reason for the prices to be drastically different next season, and there is no way of really knowing who will be available next year, I think it is a poor strategy to leave your team's holes unfilled for an entire season when you've got the revenue just sitting there waiting to be spent. Now we can debate whether Hendry spent the Trib's money wisely, but that is for a different thread.

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.

Yes, his stuff is that good. And thus, I'm not petrified to predict that he'll have a really good year in '07. I could be wrong, but I think there is a strong fact-based argument for Hill have a year along the lines of 14-8, 3.50. I think there is a really good chance for him finishing with around 200 innings pitched and an ERA under 4 which would make him a legitimate #2 starter in the NL.