CubsWin

Rowand isn't an FA. Fine, trade for him then. He's on the block according to a lot of reports. Rowand's career numbers against LHers is .289/.351/.494/.845. Its not a bad back-up idea to getting Church. I don't think it would impact the decision to get Floyd in that Rowand is a righty and Hendry feels he needs a lefty bat with power who can give the Cubs some added punch on days against those tough right-handed pitchers. Floyd would make a much better DH than either Ward or Rowand. So, if you got Rowand, Floyd would still be an almost necessary upgrade. But acquiring Ryan Church kills all those birds with one stone.

Yes. But it is not the only predictor. Some of the posts on how much Marquis sucks are getting rather absolute. Plus, Marquis has had some success in his fairly recent past. That doesn't mean I'm a fan of this signing. I'm not. I'm weary. I feel that going a different direction, I'm not sure which direction exactly at the moment, but not Marquis would have been wiser, certainly for the money involved. I'll feel a lot better about it if all the years aren't guaranteed.

Seriously, if we can't get Church, I don't want Jones leaving town. If he could put up a plus .800 OPS again, I think we'd all be more than happy. 06 was only the 2nd time he's put up a +.800 OPS in his career. I know that, but maybe he's found his groove playing in the NL. I'd rather keep him with his contract than get any of these other names being thrown out there (besides Church). The whole "Jones has only put up a +.800 OPS twice in his career" is a little misleading. He's had 3 years with an OPS just below .800 (.789, .782 and .797), so if the gold standard is having a CFer with an OPS around .800 (Pierre's was .719 last season), Jones has a pretty good shot. He would definitely consistute an improvement over Pierre. That said, I'll take Ryan Church.

Not exactly true... In those two quotes, you are saying that the Cubs would trade Hill for a turd like OFer and that Hendry doesn't really like Hill. that doesn't really prove any point, but ok... It doesn't? You denied saying anything like that the Cubs hated Rich Hill. But in the quotes above you say that they would trade him for a turd and that Hendry liked Rusch better than Hill. If you don't see it, that's fine with me.

Not exactly true... In those two quotes, you are saying that the Cubs would trade Hill for a turd like OFer and that Hendry doesn't really like Hill.

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. But it does successfully disprove your whole "Hendry refused to bring up Hill and favored Rusch over Hill" thing. As far as Hendry liking Hill enough to not want to trade him for just anybody, you don't have to look far.

I'm not a big fan of this signing at least for the money. I understand the reasons behind it. The Cubs don't want to go into next season having to rely on Prior being healthy to fill one of the spots and Marquis has recently performed fairly well and seems healthy as a horse. But 7 mil for a guy who's periferals aren't good seems to defy logic. I know the pickings are slim out there and that Marquis may have been the only arm left, but he is a pretty big gamble considering the price being paid. Rothschild is supposed to be a really good pitching coach. Well, we are all going to find out because he just put his reputation on the line. I hope there are option years on this thing because if Larry can't turn this guy around, that's a lot of wasted money, and the Cubs have a decent group of pitching prospects not too far away from being ready (Veal, Gallagher, Guzman, etc.), not to mention the possibility of Prior and Miller being healthy and performing better than Marquis will. I don't like it. Smells desperate. Maybe the news on Prior and Miller isn't very good at the moment...

I don't even agree with him on that one. I've already posted earlier in this thread an explanation for why Hill was kept in the minors as long as he was last season and he just ignored it. The threads only 5 pages long. I just skimmed the thread and didn't see anything resembling that. Oops, you're right. abuck and I were having this discussion in another thread. Its on page 3 of the "A Look at our Current Rotation" thread. Here are the facts of the matter. Rusch started the season in the rotation along with Marshall because Hill was not inspiring a lot of confidence in spring training and Rusch was coming off of two pretty solid years of service for the Cubs. Rusch was terrible to start the season going 1-4, 8.46 in 5 April starts. Hill was doing great in AAA so he was called up and replaced Rusch in the rotation on May 4th. He went 0-4 with a 9.31 ERA in 4 starts in May while Rusch was moved to the pen where he settles down a bit. He still gets hit, giving up 16 safties in 14 innings but he strikes out 17 while walking only 6 and has an ERA of 4.91 for the month in 7 relief appearances. Rusch is tried three more times in the rotation in June and sucks. He spends the rest of the season in the bullpen except for one spot start due to injury before basically being shut down for the rest of the year. Hill is brought back up about a month later presumably because he was still working on overcoming the things that had him fail so miserably in May. The rest is history. There was an article somewhere about what Hill was working on with his pitching coach while in the minors which I referenced in the quote from the other thread. I'm not certain if this is the same one I remember reading, but this one from Cubs.com is written by Hill himself and talks a lot about him working on attacking hitters, staying aggressive and the key to his recent success being his ability to spot his fastball with consistency. We all wondered what it was that had him succeed so greatly in AAA but not translate that over to the bigs. It sounds like, according to Hill, those were the reasons.

1) agree with you there 2) The whole organization didn't badmouth him. Maybe Dusty and some of his cronies. Hill was in the wrong, but definitely didn't deserve to be thrown under the bus like that. 3) Hill went from A ball to the bigs that year. Maybe '05 isn't the best example of how much Hendry and the org don't love him. So what if he didn't get more PT after one decent relief outting. 4) That rotation spot was there for Hill to lose and he lost it by bouncing curveballs into the dirt consistently in ST. Hendry and company have been pretty consistent on rewarding ST performances. You have to earn your spot when the chance comes. Pagan and Marshall did. Hill picked the wrong time to struggle. I don't even agree with him on that one. I've already posted earlier in this thread an explanation for why Hill was kept in the minors as long as he was last season and he just ignored it. The threads only 5 pages long.

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.

I agree that Pie should ideally start the season in Iowa, but if you look at what he did in the 2nd half of last year, he did match or slightly improve his power numbers and plate discipline from the year before and did so against a higher level of competition. According to reports, he spent much of the first half of the season struggling to hit the breaking ball. He made progress with that in the 2nd half and his numbers rebounded. Regardless, I think he should still at least start the season in AAA unless he completely blows people away in ST.

Well, Jones is still the CFer and Hendry has been quoted as saying he will only trade him if the right offer comes along. I don't know what IvyWalls is reading into Piniella's comments, but Lou comes flat out and says that the consensus among Cubs brass is to give Pie some more time in AAA. Speculate away, but I don't see any factual basis for it besides the mere existence of Felix Pie in the Cubs organization. I mean, why would Lofton even be rumored to be pursued by the Cubs if he had done something unforgiveable while here in '03?

Marmol had 59 walks and 59 K's last season. What is it about that that makes you think he's the most ready? I don't think he said that Marmol was most ready, just that he was most likely to reach his ceiling. Guzman's injury history can't be ignored. It does impact the likelihood with which he will reach his ceiling. Marmol has never had an arm injury and has much less wear and tear. Plus he seems to be progressing quickly as a pitcher. Guzman is the better prospect because of what he has already accomplished and the sense that he can do it again. But he has yet to show us that he can. His numbers last season weren't terribly inspiring. Here's hoping that he can figure it out. What does the bolded statement imply to you? Oops, sorry. Must have missed that one. I was juggling two kids while reading. :oops:

Marmol had 59 walks and 59 K's last season. What is it about that that makes you think he's the most ready? I don't think he said that Marmol was most ready, just that he was most likely to reach his ceiling. Guzman's injury history can't be ignored. It does impact the likelihood with which he will reach his ceiling. Marmol has never had an arm injury and has much less wear and tear. Plus he seems to be progressing quickly as a pitcher. Guzman is the better prospect because of what he has already accomplished and the sense that he can do it again. But he has yet to show us that he can. His numbers last season weren't terribly inspiring. Here's hoping that he can figure it out.

Is Negron still in the Cubs organization? I thought I read he was released or signed elsewhere as a FA. Maybe I was thinking of someone else...

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.

Couldn't have said it better.

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? I disagree. He's done nothing but dominate at every level above low A, including the majors. He's fully capable of putting up a sub 3.00 ERA. He did it in A ball. Almost did it in AA. Did it in AAA. Did it in 1/2 a season in the bigs. I don't think it's a reach at all to think Hill can put up those type of numbers in 2007. Given the type of absolute domination he laid down in AAA the last two seasons and how he brought it with him to the bigs in August and September, it is completely legitimate to say that he can keep it up. I think it would be risky to expect him to, however. It is much safer to expect some regression, but the question no one seems to be answering is just how much regression should be expected. No team in the NL last season was able to claim 2 pitchers who had an ERA under 4 and pitched around 200 innings. Z is practically a lock to do so. If Hill can do that as well, he could legitamately be called a #2 starter. Is an ERA under 4 and around 200 innings a reasonable expectation for Rich Hill given the numbers he has put up with consistency over the last two seasons?

If 3/21 can be confirmed as the actual deal #'s , I'll stop bitching. You can stop your bitching. There are other reports out there. This is just a sampling I choose because they seem to be coming from their own independent sources.

True that. He will likely regress, but how far? Will he have an ERA over 4.50? The zips and pecota projections are a lot better than that, in the mid-3s IIRC, so yes, of course, he likely won't maintain an under 3 ERA all season long, but he likely won't be worse than Lilly's or Marquis's career averages either.

the problem is, there's probably no way hill pitches like he did in the 2nd half. No way? He just did it a couple of months ago.

If you want to read the articles, google them. I've already read them. It's not important enough to me to be your librarian. And regardless, it is a gauge of his value of Hill over and against the other player involved.

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. Okay, you think they are all slimy, self-congratulatory liars. Got it. Clearly that will give you a certain bias when reading articles about them. Let's see if we can find that article and see if there were any quotes from Rich Hill in there. Maybe he went along with their lies because he lacks any self-respect, too. 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?

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. Hendry doesn't comment directly on possible trade talks, but there were several reports from other GMs that Hendry was not willing to part with Hill for the player they were trying trade to the Cubs. Perhaps you just need to read more. Yep, we do. I think Hendry would rather "stake his job" on the 5 best pitchers, whoever that may be. Healthy? Just healthy? Okay... Hill pitched better in August and September than Wade Miller ever has, even when he was fully healthy. Miller was "healthy" enough to pitch at the end of last season and performed much worse than Hill did who has never had health concerns as long as he has been with the Cubs. ...not Kerry...So, I'm not certain why you are so convinced that Hendry would go with Miller and Prior if they are just healthy enough to pitch. But if that's the position you want to take, be my guest.

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.