CubsWin

I was/am a Rich Hill believer and always have been. I just wanted to stop in to say how much respect I have for those who step up and eat their fair share of crow. I try to do it when I'm wrong and it heartens me to see threads such as this one fill up with posts from people strong enough to admit when they were mistaken.

My bad, I was just excited about Hill's start. The kid is looking really good and his recent performances have me feeling much better about our potential rotation next year. If we could land a top of the rotation FA pitcher, I think the staff could be quite good. Z FA -- Zito, Schmidt, The kid from Japan Prior Hill Miller However, I'm not sure any of those acquisitions is realistic. Schmidt is probably headed to Seattle, Zito is going to cost a ton, and the kid from Japan has other more likely suitors. It may be worth it to pay for Zito and I would be in favor of keeping Miller at the back of the rotation to make it work since he would probably come cheap. I really hope we don't go into next season with both Prior and Miller planned in the rotation. One should be the #5 starter the other is the backup plan. If Prior or Miller could pitch 180 innings next season in the #5 slot the Cubs should be in good shape. Like I said earlier, what spot Prior should be put in is pretty meaningless. If Prior can pitch, the rotation could look like: Zambrano Prior FA Hill Miller/Marshall/AAA pitcher That would mean we'd need a good #2 pitcher from FA. If you don't count on Prior for anything, you'd need a good #2, and a good #3. The problem is, what two FA pitchers are out there whose salaries we could pay, and would be better enough compared to the kids to justify getting them instead of spending money elsewhere? Unless you think the Cubs are going to get Zito and Schmidt or completely rebuild, I don't see how the team's offseason plans would be any different with Prior in as the #2 or on the DL. I guess what I'm saying is, how do you think the Cubs should act differently than they would if they assumed Prior would be back? Kind of off topic, but Wade Miller isn't signed past this season. Is he?

:lol: =D>

I believe it is safe to say now, that the "number 2" you are looking for is already on the roster. Rich Hill is the sh**. Pun intended. But seriously, the way Hill is throwing, he is the ace of the staff. And all the crap Hendry took for not trading him away needs to be taken back. Hendry was right to keep him. Hill and Zambrano are a very good top of the rotation. Prior, if healthy and effective, a BIG if, would make that an incredible front three. I believe Mateo is the closest to being ready to succeed at the major league level of the remaining Cubs pitchers, but I'm not willing to pencil him in anywhere just yet. That is why signing two veteran starters would be a good idea. I just don't know if they can afford it. Iowa should be interesting next season with a potential rotation including Mateo, Guzman, Marshall, Marmol and Gallagher, not to mention Ryu. Depending on which FAs get signed and how players perform next spring, one or more of those names could/should be with the big club, but its risky to count on that happening, thus signing 2 FAs would be ideal. Realistic? Probably not, but ideal.

Cedeno hasn't played well this season, that is for sure. But it is important to keep in mind, he is still just 23 and has had three good offensive seasons in the minors. One really good one was just last season and another okay one was the year before that. He has failed to make the necessary adjustments this season despite being given plenty of opportunity by Dusty, (imagine that, Dusty gave plenty of playing time to a non-vet who was underperforming, hunh). It puts doubt in my mind as to whether he will ever make those adjustments, but I am far from willing to give up on him. I think the very Eckstein-esque Ryan Theriot can provide a solid offensive and defensive 2B next season with Cedeno coming off the bench at both middle infield positions. In fact, Theriot's OBP has been so consistently good over the last three seasons, that IF Soriano can play CF effectively, I believe the best use of the Cubs money would be to sign him and put him in center and have Theriot lead off. If Soriano can't pull off CF, then I would try him in RF and see if Jones can play CF. Judging by the number of assists Soriano has this season, he certainly seems to have enough arm to play RF. And I would definitely sign a platoon partner for Jones no matter where he plays. Pie isn't too far away from taking over CF anyway and Murton is too good of a bat and too inexpensive to trade away. Clearly Matt is best suited defensively to play LF and doesn't have the arm or range that Soriano does. An infield of Izturis and Theriot would be solid defensively, and the line-up would be a vast improvement over the injury-riddled one this year though heavily right-handed. Theriot Murton Lee Ramirez Soriano Jones Barrett Izturis Keeping Cedeno gives him some more time to put things together at the plate. He can be electric. We've seen that. If he can figure things out, the Cubs wouldn't have to resign Izturis which would be ideal.

=D> I took this comment as a joke, too. And a funny one. If it wasn't meant to be funny but actually make a point, then I think it failed. For the record, I think there are many reasons to not want Dusty as your team's manager. I'm not a big fan of his. But the way his quotes are twisted sometimes just goes too far, and I believe that quote was one of them. I wish I could find it and the context in which it was said, but I'm probably just going to have to go on memory which I hate to do. I could be wrong but, I recall him actually praising walks in the same quote. It seemed to me that in context what he was saying is that walks aren't always a good thing. That in certain situations, you would prefer to get a hit rather than a walk and that the walk actually will help the other team get out of the inning easier by "clogging the bases". Again, as joke, I thought it was funny, but it doesn't carry any water in the argument why Baker wouldn't be a credible witness as to whether Hill was suffering from a mental block about pitching in the bigs. If I were quoting Baker about something to do with sabermetrics or pitcher abuse, then it would be valid, and I probably should be taken out and shot.

I agree, generally, but that's not the issue I was addressing. The issue was can confidence, or the lack thereof, affect success. And, judging by your words, it sounds like you think it does too. I couldn't agree more and said as much a few posts back. Yep, again, I agree. None of my examples regarding confidence were about Guzman. They were all about Hill. Interesting, I would love to read something from one of these psychologists. Seriously, I have a professional curiosity in this matter. Can you provide a name of book or a link? As to the relevence of Baker's quote, he has first hand knowledge and experience that none of us have. He is an intelligent human being with good insight and a track record of getting the most out of his players. He is not a good sabermetrician or X's & O's manager, IMO, and he still views the game from a 1970s POV, but what the heck would that have to do with being able to tell if someone is throwing their pitches with confidence or is dealing with a mental block about being in the big leagues? Answer: nothing. All you'd have to do is talk to the guy. How many times have any of us been able to chat candidly with Rich Hill in the locker room?

I think his main problem is confidence, not unlike Rich Hill earlier this year. Guzman has nasty stuff. Let's hope he can put it together next season. Confidence is not a problem, throwing strikes is the problem; or rather not throwing them. Confidence is an outcome, not a cause. Guzman has struggled not becuase of what is between his ears, same with Hill. If you talk to any coach, they will tell you that a player's performance is directly impacted by how confident they are in what they are doing. Can confidence be impacted by good execution and good performance? Of course. But confidence can also be created, generated in a player's mind and it can enable a player to perform at their peak. Michael Jordan was a supremely confident performer at the end of a game. He wanted the ball. Yet he still had several failures at converting a game winning shot. The thing that he did was mentally relive the times when he was successful during the timeout before taking the court to hit the game winning shot. He believes, and I agree with him, that he was more successful because of his mental preparation. I agree that Guzman's struggles are probably mostly due to the fact that it takes an extended period of pitching without interruption to have the control necessary to succeed at the higher levels and he hasn't had that because of recent injuries. But the same is not true for Hill. Hill has had extended periods of healthy and success and the higher levels. But he wasn't performing well at the major league level. The mere fact that he went from sucking to performing at a Cy Young level is evidence that his problem was mental in origin. According to everyone who has first hand knowledge of Hill success, the origin of his major league struggles was completely mental. His lack of confidence in the majors affected his ability to execute pitches. He simply had to give himself the freedom to be himself and do what he was doing with such regularity at the AAA level. His extended period of success there made it easy for his muscles to remember what they were doing at Iowa and do the same thing with Chicago. It also made it easier for Rich to generate the confidence necessary to go from a terrible first outing in July against the Cardinals to a great one his next time out. And any coach that said that would be full of rah, rah, BS. No, they wouldn't. Is Jordan full of BS when he talks about his envisioning making the shot and remembering all of his previous successes helping him generate the confidence necessary to make the next game-winning shot? Was Jack Nicklaus just full of it when he admitted envisioning his putt going in the cup before he stroked it? Positive visualizations are down for one reason and one reason only. So that you can perform with confidence during a pressure situation. Are you one of the many Cubs fans that believe they have rushed prospects to the majors in the past and ruined them in the process? If so, ask yourself what that is all about. I work in a performance field. I am also a coach. I coach others how to succeed in a competitive situation in which they must perform to succeed. From my own life's experiences, from the experiences of every coach I have ever talked to and from numerous books, like Jordan's, that I have read on the subject, confidence can be generated and most definitely impacts a player's performance. It also can work the other way around where a player has a physical breakthrough, starts performing better and then gains confidence. But don't listen to or believe someone like me, just read Rich Hill's own comments... In other words, confidence was the issue when he first came up, but on September 1st, the day of that article, he had worked through his lack of confidence. Then there's his pitching coach at AAA, Alan Dunn. Apparently, Alan Dunn thinks it can be both also. Sometimes success comes first, sometimes its the confidence. And finally, Dusty Baker... You're off on this one, CubinNY.

I think his main problem is confidence, not unlike Rich Hill earlier this year. Guzman has nasty stuff. Let's hope he can put it together next season. Confidence is not a problem, throwing strikes is the problem; or rather not throwing them. Confidence is an outcome, not a cause. Guzman has struggled not becuase of what is between his ears, same with Hill. If you talk to any coach, they will tell you that a player's performance is directly impacted by how confident they are in what they are doing. Can confidence be impacted by good execution and good performance? Of course. But confidence can also be created, generated in a player's mind and it can enable a player to perform at their peak. Michael Jordan was a supremely confident performer at the end of a game. He wanted the ball. Yet he still had several failures at converting a game winning shot. The thing that he did was mentally relive the times when he was successful during the timeout before taking the court to hit the game winning shot. He believes, and I agree with him, that he was more successful because of his mental preparation. I agree that Guzman's struggles are probably mostly due to the fact that it takes an extended period of pitching without interruption to have the control necessary to succeed at the higher levels and he hasn't had that because of recent injuries. But the same is not true for Hill. Hill has had extended periods of healthy and success and the higher levels. But he wasn't performing well at the major league level. The mere fact that he went from sucking to performing at a Cy Young level is evidence that his problem was mental in origin. According to everyone who has first hand knowledge of Hill success, the origin of his major league struggles was completely mental. His lack of confidence in the majors affected his ability to execute pitches. He simply had to give himself the freedom to be himself and do what he was doing with such regularity at the AAA level. His extended period of success there made it easy for his muscles to remember what they were doing at Iowa and do the same thing with Chicago. It also made it easier for Rich to generate the confidence necessary to go from a terrible first outing in July against the Cardinals to a great one his next time out.

Awesome I concur.

Is it any wonder why this organization is so incompetent? Middle of the order impact hitters walk. And the Cubs have never shown the slightest bit of ability (nor willingness) to "chisel down" an aggressive hitter. Freaking idiots. I find this a gross misinterpretation of what Zisk is saying. I agree that it only works if the player does get "chiseled down" and that the Cubs have failed in the past with some, not all, players in doing that. But clearly if Zisk is saying the words, then he is aware of the need to "chisel down" the already agressive hitter and is attempting and intending to do so. I've also heard Von Joshua hail the need for plate discipline for Felix Pie. It is prevelent in the Cubs minor league instructors words, so to think that it is not apart of the organization's philosophy is to ignore half of the evidence. The instructors may fail, the prospects may resist. Some certainly have succeeded. But to take Zisk's comment that "Ryan Harvey isn't going to be paid to walk" and turn that into a blanket statement that means the Cubs as an organization don't believe in plate discipline or taking a walk is a good thing is very difficult to support logically.

I've preferred Von and would love for him to be the Cubs' next hitting instructor. But Zisk is pretty good. Despite the Dark-Age idea that middle-of-the-order hitters need to be aggressive at all costs? Where did he say that? He said he'd prefer teaching patience to an aggressive hitter than vice versa. He also said the Cubs weren't going to pay Harvey to walk (duh). You know that's exactly what this organization thinks. I don't see the point in giving him the benefit of the doubt when they've been doing the same thing and getting the same results for so many years. They have no interest in teaching patience. They want aggressive hitters and they'll never take it out of him. If they were forced to choose, he'd choose patience and chisel down, but that doesn't mean he would willingly chisel down. They never have, and never will. They never will? Clearly you don't mean that, right? How could you possibly know? The organization's philosophy certainly seems to have changed this year with how they drafted hitters. Many of them have shown an ability to draw a walk before they can make good contact (Rundle, Andersen, etc.). So if the philosophy can change there, and if Ryan Harvey of all people can show the improvement that he has in drawing a walk late this season, they why can't the organization's philosophy change as a whole? Much of goony's response I find quite accurate. But the bolded statement above seems nearly impossible to support logically. Of course, pure pessimism usually is.

He's penciled in as my backup catcher for 2007. It would be stupid to spend money on a veteran cacther, unless Barrett is traded or moved to a new position. I agree. His offense should be comparable to Blanco's. I always heard that he is good defensively. Is this still accurate? I think it is important to be strong defensively up the middle. Barrett is only okay, so having a strong defensive back-up is ideal.

He came to camp out of shape. I see. Thanks Raisin. :) To be fair, he's come on strong at Boise and has worked well with the pitching coach there (David Rosario) to the adjustments he has needed to. I'm sure the Cubs wish he was at Peoria instead but he's had a solid season. Well, if its not too late, maybe its time to give him one start at the Low-A level ala Gallagher in Daytona last year. Pawelek's out-of-shapeness led to him having an ineffective June going 0-3, 5.06 with 7 Ks and 6 BBs in 10.1 innings. But since the calender turned to July, it has been a different story. In 9 starts (and 11 appearances) Mark is 3-2 with a 1.79 ERA. In 45.1 IP, he has given up just 34 hits while striking out 40 and walking 17. He's been fairly consistent over the last two months. What harm would there be in that?

I agree. It would be pretty unlikely that someone takes Harvey or Petrick. Harvey has a high enough upside that the Royals, and only the Royals might take him. But is it worth starting his option clock to protect against the slight chance that the Royals try to stash him on their bench for a year? Andy Sisco says hi. Yeah, I remember Andy Sisco. But seriously, do you really think the Royals would take Harvey?

Does the league being finalized mean it is closed? I noticed only 8 teams being listed.

I agree. It would be pretty unlikely that someone takes Harvey or Petrick. Harvey has a high enough upside that the Royals, and only the Royals might take him. But is it worth starting his option clock to protect against the slight chance that the Royals try to stash him on their bench for a year?

Pretty good night for the top prospects thus far. Veal with another solid outing. Pie with a double and walk. Moore with another HR. EPatt draws a walk at least while his AAA hitting streak ends. Heck, even Ryan Harvey drew a walk, his 8th this month.

Yes, but it's staticy. :| What site? Is it free? http://www.diamondjaxx.com/ On the right-hand side of the page there's a link for 101.5 FM which broadcasts all the DJaxx games online. Thanks!

i would MUCH rather keep hill as a starter than have the cubs get lilly. Agreed. Hill has been really good so far in August. He is 3-2, 3.38 through 34.2 IP with 28 Ks and 11 BBs. Since being recalled in June and then again in August, Angel Guzman has posted a 4.09 ERA in 22 IP with 24 Ks and 11 BBs. When you consider that, not coincidentally, both Guzman and Hill had poor outings in the thin air of Colorado, their recent performances become even more impressive. When we remove their Coors Field inflated numbers, Hill's August is 3-1, 2.10. In 30 non-Coors IPs, he has allowed just 21 hits while striking out 26 and walking only 6. Thats a Coors-free WHIP of 0.90. Since June 13th, the Gooz has thrown 19 1/3 non-Coors innings, allowing just 12 hits, striking out 23 and walking 9 with an ERA of 1.40 and a WHIP of 1.09. If Hill and Guzman can keep performing at that level, I am very comfortable with both of them in the rotation next season. Guzman's injury history coupled with Prior's recent injury problems means that the Cubs should still sign two FA pitchers, one top of the rotation and one veteran innings eater. I think Zito will be highly sought after by teams like the Yank-mes and Red Sox. So he won't come cheap. Even though he is getting past his prime, I would still overspend to get him. He is a better option than either Schmidt, Mulder or Lilly performance wise. And with Wood and Maddux no longer on the payroll, the money should be there. Someone like Padilla would be good as the innings eater if he comes cheaply enough. If Prior and the young guns are healthy and pitching well, then Padilla or whoever the veteran 5th starter innings eater would be could be moved to the bullpen or traded after June 15th.

I am a big fan of Girardi and wanted the Cubs to bring him last off season and fire Baker. I would be happy if they could do it this off season, thats for sure. Either Girardi or Gonzalez sound good to me. Dierker sounds good. I wanted Leyland, too, but that boat has already sailed.

Yes, but it's staticy. :| What site? Is it free?

I root for them to lose, but I root for most players, so I'm usually conflicted. I don't mind seeing Novoa blow a game, though. There are pitchers in Iowa and/or West Tennessee who should get a shot in the bullpen ahead of Novoa, including those who are currently starters. Agreed.

Howry is the Cubs worst reliever? Howry pitched the 8th, not a "give up a run and lose" situation. Time and time again Dusty has gone to the back of the bullpen for the 9th, 10th, etc. innings when tied on the road. Frankly, I'm glad the Cubs lost. Better draft position and better chance that Dusty is outta here at season's end.

Not only that, but check out Guzman's numbers since being called up in June. When you factor in that his one bad outing was in Denver and his inexperience with pitching in that climate, they look pretty good as well. Since June 13th, Guzman has pitched 22 innings, allowing 21 hits, striking out 24 while walking 11 with a 4.09 ERA. Not great, but improving. When you remove just one bad outing in Colorado, he has pitched 19 1/3 innings, allowing just 12 hits, striking out 23 and walking 9 with an ERA of 1.40 and a WHIP of 1.09. If Hill and Guzman keep this up, I would be comfortable with both of them in the rotation next season.