CubsWin

If Walker can help the Cubs land an OFer like Wilkerson, I say go hard after Vidro, put Cedeno at SS and go hard after Wilkerson. Then, if money allows, sign the best FA starter you can. Walker & Williams/Hill for Wilkerson. Patterson/Hairston & pitching prospect for Vidro. Pierre Vidro Lee Wilkerson Ramirez Murton Barrett Cedeno Prior Zambrano Maddux FA signee Wood/Rusch Dempster Howry Eyre Ohman Williamson Wuertz/Novoa Blanco Mabry Perez Hairston/Patterson FA/minor leaguer

Do you have a link to the information about Hill losing his change-up before coming to the bigs? How did you come to this understanding? I'm not doubting you at all, I just like to compile evidence. So lets go on the premise that he did "lose" his change-up before joining the Cubs, what is to say that he will never get it back? He apparently had it once and it is apparently a more recent addition to his repetoire than his fastball or curve, so losing it momentarily would be more understandable than losing his curve or fastball, right? And if it did leave him right before he came up, then the real question is, what will he be able to accomplish in the bigs when he gets it back? The split you provided doesn't help explain the idea that Hill can't cut it in the bigs. Now, instead of a 24-inning sample, it is only 7 innings in which he pitched poorly. I'm glad that the anecdotal evidence and the split above don't support the theory of Hill being intimidated by coming to the show. I want him to be a fighter and mentally tough. But if what your rebuttal laid out is true, then I'm even more convinced that he is near major league ready. He put up pretty darn good numbers for the first 17 innings and then struggled for 7. And apparently he did that without the use of his change-up. And, from what I've been reading in this thread, some of the negative opinions of Hill came from watching just one game of his in which he didn't use his change-up and struggled to spot his fastball. Again, sample size? For those of you who are down on Hill, the numbers show a different story. I believe it is time to revise your opinion to include the bigger picture. You're putting words in his mouth because he never said he "lost" his changeup. By saying it "went by the wayside", I'm pretty sure he's implying that he simply stopped using it. Its possible that I misinterpreted what Diffusion wrote, but I'd like to hear it from him, if I did. You claim that when Diffusion wrote that Hill's change-up "went by the wayside" that he meant Hill simply stopped using it. Why would a pitcher do that unless he had lost confidence in it. According to BA, his change up is a useable pitch that he should use more often, so why would he "simply stop using it" if he wasn't losing confidence in it by "losing" some of his ability to use it effectively. I don't think I am misunderstanding Diffusion here. But it is possible. We'll have to wait and see. Regardless, the evidence still shows Hill's value as being higher than some posters on here are seeing it.

You want one? Okay, Carlos Zambrano. Two? Will Ohman. Three? Wuertz? Four? Dempster. Five? Rusch. If you're not seeing any positive results, its either because you are not looking very hard or you don't want to see them because they don't match up with your current opinion of Rothschild. Am I saying he is a great pitching coach? No. I don't know enough to have a truely informed opinion. Am I saying that all of the success that those pitchers have had is due to his teaching? I don't know. All I know is that they weren't that good before. The evidence you asked for is there. None of those pitchers improved under Rothschild. Wuertz was wildly inconsistent. Dempster awful until transitioned to relief and then very lucky. Ohman was about the same as he was in the minors as was Zambrano. Anyway, I have nothing against Rothschild, I just don't see him as much of a positive. Uh, you can't have it both ways. If you think he is ineffective, you have something against him. Ohman was about the same as he was in the minors? Really? Ohman had one really good season at AA in 2000. At every other level (low and high A combined) in every other year, he has had an ERA over 4. Dempster was lucky? Sorry, but you set the rules of this debate. You asked for one pitcher who had improved under Rothschild. When you get one handed to you, you don't get to claim that he was lucky. Especially if the pitcher performed excellently on a consistent basis over several months like Dempster did. Zambrano hasn't improved since joining the Cubs? He has allowed less hits per inning every year under Rothschild. His ERA went from 3.66 the year before Rothschild to 3.11 and 2.75 in the first two years with him. You may consider Wuertz inconsistent, but that doesn't mean that he isn't improved. What does being consistent have to do with being improved from the year before? You keep coming back with arguments like "he was inconsistent" and I'm going to accuse you of grasping at straws. 4.34 in '04. 3.84 in '05. 30 Ks in 29 IP in '04. 89 Ks in 70 IP in '05. Those are the numbers. And what about Rusch? Perhaps Rothschild's biggest success. I noticed you didn't even respond to his mention. I'd go back and look at the numbers again. They don't support the assertion that Rothschild hasn't helped to improve any of the pitchers under his watch.

I didn't take this as backpedaling. If you read what he is saying, he is demanding a trade. He is simply clarifying under what conditions he is demanding it. He wants the O's to get pitching and otherwise improve the team or he wants out. Thats still a trade demand. It just means that we will have to wait to see if the O's can acquire some pitching before we can expect any movement of Tejada.

You want one? Okay, Carlos Zambrano. Two? Will Ohman. Three? Wuertz? Four? Dempster. Five? Rusch. If you're not seeing any positive results, its either because you are not looking very hard or you don't want to see them because they don't match up with your current opinion of Rothschild. Am I saying he is a great pitching coach? No. I don't know enough to have a truely informed opinion. Am I saying that all of the success that those pitchers have had is due to his teaching? I don't know. All I know is that they weren't that good before. The evidence you asked for is there.

Well, yes, but there was very little evidence, certainly no hard evidence, that suggested that Hill was an "untouchable" even last season. Regardless, I believe the evidence that we do have shows us that Hill has more value than some have been seeing. And, the evidence also shows that Hendry does not consider him untouchable now.

You can also add that Scott Eyre was given big $$ to be the lefty relief ace for the next 3 years, so Hill won't be filling that role either. Given Hendry's moves I just can't believe that Hill can't be had for the right price. At this point, is there anyone who is claiming that he is an "untouchable"? One of the points I tried to make in my original post that started this thread is that there is little to no evidence to suggest that Hill is an untouchable, and thus the comments criticizing Hendry for being unwilling to trade him are unwarranted. It sounds like everybody agrees...so far. :wink:

Do you have a link to the information about Hill losing his change-up before coming to the bigs? How did you come to this understanding? I'm not doubting you at all, I just like to compile evidence. So lets go on the premise that he did "lose" his change-up before joining the Cubs, what is to say that he will never get it back? He apparently had it once and it is apparently a more recent addition to his repetoire than his fastball or curve, so losing it momentarily would be more understandable than losing his curve or fastball, right? And if it did leave him right before he came up, then the real question is, what will he be able to accomplish in the bigs when he gets it back? The split you provided doesn't help explain the idea that Hill can't cut it in the bigs. Now, instead of a 24-inning sample, it is only 7 innings in which he pitched poorly. I'm glad that the anecdotal evidence and the split above don't support the theory of Hill being intimidated by coming to the show. I want him to be a fighter and mentally tough. But if what your rebuttal laid out is true, then I'm even more convinced that he is near major league ready. He put up pretty darn good numbers for the first 17 innings and then struggled for 7. And apparently he did that without the use of his change-up. And, from what I've been reading in this thread, some of the negative opinions of Hill came from watching just one game of his in which he didn't use his change-up and struggled to spot his fastball. Again, sample size? For those of you who are down on Hill, the numbers show a different story. I believe it is time to revise your opinion to include the bigger picture.

Ouch for the Cardinals. One internet report had said that if the Cards could lure Morris to return, that would free up Jason Marquis to be included in a trade for an impact outfielder. I'm guessing Wilkerson.

[...] Hill is basically major league ready. If the guy can just trust his stuff and battle the same way he did in the minors, he will succeed. How common is it to have a player be a little in awe of the show his first time up? I think Hill deserves the benefit of the doubt given his consistent performance throughout all of last season in the minors. What most disturbed most people about Hill's performance in his short time with the Cubs last year is that he set about making a mockery of Baseball America's scouting report. Certainly, he showcased the often unhittable curveball, but the fastball was nowhere as good as advertised: his velocity was down on earlier in the season, there was very little movement on it, and he had absolutely no control of it for the most part. By this stage in the season he'd also completely laid aside the changeup, he wasn't throwing it any more. A bleh fastball and one other pitch, no matter how good, is not a recipe for success as a major league starting pitcher. People are worried about what kind of a future he has not because of the numbers that he put up, but the way that he went about putting those numbers up. An excellent explanation of what may have turned off some people to Hill. Clearly written. Thank you, Diffusion. However, my original question still stands. How common is it to have a guy be in awe of the show his first time up? If you are in awe, you will begin to doubt your secondary pitches. You may begin to muscle up on your fastball which will cause it to loose some velocity and straighten out a bit. According to BA (in a scouting report written after his time with the Cubs by the way), Hill has a decent change up that he should throw more often and which he apparently abandoned altogether when he came up last season. Confidence is a huge part of performing well. Anyone who has been in any sort of performance situation knows this. How can 130 innings of AA/AAA ball be so completely negated by 24 innings of major league ball? Whatever happened to sample size? Again, I'm not saying he should be untouchable. I would gladly trade him for the right player. But I believe some posters here are grossly undervaluing him. And some, not saying you, Diffusion, are doing so in a very cynical and disrespectful way, not giving Hill any benefit of the doubt based on a very small sample. How does one do that in the face of all the hard facts and numbers?

Pavano is rather hittable and somewhat of an injury concern. He is expensive and has a few years left on a terrible contract. I wouldn't trade Williams straight up for him, much less the package you suggested. If you look closer at his numbers, Pavano can be seen as the paper tiger he is.

Well, we are in agreement when it comes to whether Hill should be traded if the right player comes along. I certainly would include him in a package for Tejada, Abreu and probably even Wilkerson. As far as his stuff, I'm no scouting expert either, so here is what BA has to say... When you put that scouting report together with his numbers in the minors last season (11-4, 3.31, 130.2 IP, 105 hits, 194 Ks, 35 BBs), Hill's value starts to come into a clearer focus. At least for me...

Some believe that Rich Hill is considered an untouchable by Cubs management and criticize Hendry for not giving him up more easily. I don't know if there is much credible evidence showing that Rich Hill absolutely won't be traded by Jim Hendry, but I do have all the evidence I need to understand why Hendry would be unwilling to trade him away without getting the right player in return. I think some posters were left with a bad taste in their mouths by Hill's poor performance with the Cubs briefly last season. Thus, I think it is important to remind ourselves what Hill did in the minors last season (10 starts in AAA, 10 starts in AA and 1 in Low A). 21 starts, 11-4, 3.31, 130 2/3 innings, 105 hits, 194 Ks, 35 BBs, 1.07 WHIP, with an AVG. against around .210. If the guy can strikeout 182 AA/AAA batters while walking only 35 in just 122.2 innings, what can he do against major leaguers? That is 13.4 Ks per 9 against only 2.6 BBs. If he could strikeout 9 and walk 3 per 9 innings in the majors next season, would you take it? Hill is basically major league ready. If the guy can just trust his stuff and battle the same way he did in the minors, he will succeed. How common is it to have a player be a little in awe of the show his first time up? I think Hill deserves the benefit of the doubt given his consistent performance throughout all of last season in the minors. I'm not advocating that he be untouchable. In a package for Abreu, Tejada or probably even Wilkerson, I'd be very willing to give him up. But to base your opinion of him on his brief call up last season would be a big mistake. He will be better than that. A lot better.

Well, thats one Cardinals fan's opinion. Opinions amongst GMs and scouts obviously will differ, but Mark Pawelek, Rich Hill and Angel Guzman are pitchers who have been and can be called "top" prospects.

Hill, Williams and Patterson for Green or Tracy? That seems high even for JH. To be honest, I was on the "yeah, just throw Williams in" bandwagon, but the more I think about trading him, the more nervous I get. The last thing I want is relying on minor-leaguers and/or to start games. With Wood not ready for Opening Day you'd have to think Williams or Rusch or an unproven Hill would fill in. But then who takes over long relief? Welly? Will Welly be traded? I'm just nervous about being in a tight spot as far as SP is concerned. I guess that's why I'm not really against having Bradley in RF... he probably won't cost us a SP. EDIT: I'm not a copycat.. Salazar beat me to it :) Same with me. But the Cubs wouldn't necessarily have to be relying on minor leaguers to fill out the rotation if they traded Williams. They still have the ability to spend the money they were going to spend on Furcal, right? So why not spend it on Kevin Millwood? What difference does it make if the free agent signee is an OFer, SS or P? If the Cubs can upgrade their OF (Wilkerson, Abreu, etc.) by trading Jerome Williams and others, and then turn around and upgrade their rotation by signing Kevin Millwood, would anyone be upset?

Apparently, there were some early reports that had the Cubs receiving Pierre and a Double-A pitching prospect in exchange for Nolasco & Pinto. The reports now have the trade has just being Pierre for Nolasco, Pinto and Mitre. I guess we will find out officially later today. Does anyone have anything further on this discrepancy? Either way, I think this deal will help the Cubs this season. It may have repercussions in years down the road if one of those guys hits, it may not. Pierre can steal some bases. Lets hope he can get on base enough to make his base stealing ability really make a difference in the Cubs offense.

Man, I read the article and then some of the reaction to it, and I had to go back and re-read the article to see if I missed where they said that Wilkerson had actually been traded to Toronto. Its just an article. There are a lot of them floating around out there with teams being mentioned as persuing a certain player. Case in point, this article also from the Washington Post... Anybody out there willing to react to that article as if Wilkerson is practically a Cub? So why when we read an article that says Toronto wants Wilkerson, we react as if he is as good as gone? If the Cubs wind up with Preston Wilson and Juan Encarnacion and fail miserably, I'll be as upset with Hendry as the next guy. But I'm not going to be down on him before he does that.

I'm in this camp. How many people looked at trading Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik and Esteban Loaiza for Jose Contreras and thought, "Wow, that makes the White Sox a lock for the playoffs!" Baseball is a funny game. Teams get momentum and start believing in themselves and then, for some reason, the ball starts bouncing their way on a consistent basis. Players get healthy, have career years, fulfill potential, etc. Even after a team starts slowly in the first couple of months, things can turn around. I will never give up on a baseball season before July, much less January. Abreu is on the block. Zito, Vasquez, Wilkerson, Lugo and others can all be had. Millwood and Weaver are free agents. A lot can still happen.

Were you planning on including a link to the article you are referencing but forgot? Go to http://www.dailyherald.com, it's not that tough to figure out.... Cool. Snideness. Gotta love it.

Were you planning on including a link to the article you are referencing but forgot?

I have to agree with Don here. Wilkerson and Bradley could be a fallback but the Cubs ought to try and do better than that. Wilkerson and Pierre would be very disappointing. Definitely. I'm just saying that trying for Abreu shouldn't preclude you from continuing to upgrade the OF. Ideally we'd use Murton in an Abreu trade in place of Pie after trading for both Wilkerson and Bradley. The Phillies have stated that they want a "top of the rotation starter" in exchange for Abreu. They have little need for more major league ready OFers. Unless they are willing to accept Wood, who are the Cubs going to trade to Philly to get Abreu? Vasquez would have to waive his no trade clause to Philly which isn't likely. And Wood has a limited no trade clause as well. I have no idea if Philly is on it. On top of that, Michaels is now the OFer the Phillies would rather trade instead of Abreu. I agree that Hendry shouldn't quit on trying to get him, but we should also keep in mind that since Wagner didn't resign and they traded Thome, Philly is less likely to trade Abreu than they were before.

Where does Hendry throw away all that money if he gets Wilkerson and Bradley? You know he has to spend it or people will riot. Kevin Millwood.

Both teams endured some injuries and some unexpectedly bad performances, but looking at the top of the rotations of the two teams, its not even close. And looking at the top end talent in the line-up its not even close. The Cubs finished with a better record for a reason. And, please, could you do all of us a favor and change your avatar. Willie McGee is one ugly dude. :wink:

I have to say that it is true. We still haven't improved our offense one bit. Yes, that is accurate. The Cubs have yet to improve their offense over last season. Though, the order in which they acquire players is completely unimportant to me. I couldn't care less if the Cubs sign a starter next and then go get their OFers. What matters to me is how well those players are likely to perform and how much they cost to acquire. Agreed. but it worries me that a move hasn't been made, especially now that we lost out on the Furcal sweepstakes. The report of Furcal's intentions to sign with LA came out less than 24 hours ago, and you are already worried that Hendry hasn't made a signing or a trade yet? Yes, I am worried. I get worried throughout the entire offseason. Is there a problem with that? Oh, you are worried throughout the offseason. Okay. I thought you were saying that you were worried that Hendry hadn't made a move since losing out on Furcal. In that case, enjoy.

I have to say that it is true. We still haven't improved our offense one bit. Yes, that is accurate. The Cubs have yet to improve their offense over last season. Though, the order in which they acquire players is completely unimportant to me. I couldn't care less if the Cubs sign a starter next and then go get their OFers. What matters to me is how well those players are likely to perform and how much they cost to acquire. Agreed. but it worries me that a move hasn't been made, especially now that we lost out on the Furcal sweepstakes. The report of Furcal's intentions to sign with LA came out less than 24 hours ago, and you are already worried that Hendry hasn't made a signing or a trade yet?