CUBZ99

Agreed. That was a bad, desperate trade. Not only Nolasco, but Pinto will more than likely end up being every bit as big a blunder. We have a ton of question marks at the #5 starter slot with Prior, Miller, Cotts or Marshall. For all I know Guzman will all of a sudden snap out of it and realize his potential. But I can guarantee we'd have had no problems worrying about the 5 hole or maybe even wouldn't have signed Marquis if not for they horrific lose/lose trade. I can rattle off a lot of Hendry moves that i liked and until that Pierre mess i always thought protecting Macias insrtead of Sisco was his worst move, but nope. Losing those 3 young arms for NOTHING was simply awful. I am actually quite pleased that we spent money rather than leveraged away any more siginificant farm pieces, but I still await with baited breath to see what is done about an impact CF. I don't think some unfilled potential, claimed off the scrap heap type gets it done. There are few options out there, but someone out of perhaps the Dodger or Brewer orgs may be helpful. Both seem to have a surplus of OF's with good upside. Repko or Corey Hart would be awesome--i'd even be happy with Brady Clark for a short term--he's 33--but very serviceable. Maybe a 3-way with another team could land him...the Brewers look loaded in the OF with T Gwynn Jr, Laynce Nix, Mench, Hart, Clark, Jenkins, Anderson and Gross. Even Nix would work for me--saw him in AAA for a couple games right after TX traded him and he flat killed the ball. Bill Hall will more than likely land in the OF as well... Pie needs a lightning bolt miracle to be ready before 2008...he doesn't seem to be even close right now. Lets wait to see who the Cubs get in the Supplemental Draft for Pierre before we bash Hendry for failing to trade him before the deadline. I would rather have a first round pick than a C level prospect.

My first reaction was that whoever stated Z would make more than Zito was crazy, until I looked up the stats. Zambrano has put up some really impressive numbers over the last four years. His ERA has been better than Zito, he is pitching a consistent 200+ innings, and his WHIP is lower. No question Zambrano could break the bank in FA if he stays healthy and has another good season. Not that I am advocating it, but the Yankees and Mets both lost out their targeted FA starter. Zambrano could bring a nice return if Hendry put him on the block, and if the Cubs lose him anyways it would be nice to have something in return. Does anyone think the Yankees, Mets or Dodgers would offer their top 2 or 3 pitching prospects for Z? And is it worth the gamble.

Well it'll make sense when it comes to you. You know, usually when someone discredits a statistic for some reason you're supposed to change the argument. All you did was take the same statistic and show it to me in a different form. It's like you saying that Carlos Lee hits 50 homers per 800 ABs. And then I say that there are other ways to grade a hitter's performance than home runs, then refute my argument with, Carlos Lee hits homers at a rate 25% better than league average. It's the exact same argument and my previous point remains. ERA has little to do with ERA. I wouldn't say a guy with an ERA that's probably going to be five has much if any "production." And yes, Guzman and Marshall can certainly produce the same. Did you miss the entire 2006 season? The one in which Cedeno could easily outproduce Neifi's career numbers and any of the minor leaguers could certainly outproduce the 2005 version of Glendon Rusch? There is no guarantee that Marshall or Guzman could even produce at a semi-acceptable level. The 2006 Marquis was definitely not a great pitcher, however, the Cubs must have seen something in him that makes them truly believe that he can get back on track and outproduce any of the younger pitchers. You can discount ERA all you like, but many of us would be ecstatic if the Cubs #4 pitcher won 15 games with a 3.87 ERA.

Ceiling (you can teach delivery, movement, and command but not a fastball that touches 97 mph) and the fact that our system thins out so quickly after Pie, Veal, and EPatt. :( It's pretty sad when two of your draft picks (a 1st and 5th rounder) easily make your top 10 prospects list. what about sean g? I love the guy. He exceeds expectations and comes to camp ready to beat some hiney (unlike Pawelek). His ceiling just isn't that high, but he has a great chance of reaching it if last season is any indication of things to come. All those walks at AA scare me, but he managed to get himself out of a lot of trouble by pitching instead of throwing. A very good sign, IMO. His BB rates will return to normal. I just don't see his ceiling as being that high, even if it did take a jump this past season. i especially like his attitude. he is a bulldog type pitcher similar to the way hershiser was. i have seen him compared to peavy which is high praise indeed. if he can get his control back, i dont see why he wouldnt have an excellent year in aa. Any chance that his velocity continues to increase? It is documented that the guy works his tail off in the off season, maybe his ceiling is higher than people are giving him credit for? Also, isn't he fairly young for his level?

Blow up as in have a huge year ---- or ---- Blow up as in completely fall apart?

It's very important when you have a ton of near ML ready, but not quite options. Guys that give you 200 innings at a league average ERA become quite valuable when you're looking at Marmol, Marshall, Mateo, and Guzman. One of those guys in a decent rotation is not a problem. 2+ of those guys (like last year) is a recipe for bad things. Lilly and Marquis are not world burners. No one is claiming that. They do prevent the severe swings of rookie pitchers, who don't (generally speaking of course) know how to keep their teams in ballgames. Marquis won a ton of games w/o his best stuff last season. Some of that was run support and some of that was knowing how to pitch. Same with Lilly, who somehow managed to get away with being a flyball pitcher in a bandbox for years. If you tell me I can have an up and down rookie with a high ceiling or a guy who's going to give you 200 mediocre to bad innings (like Marquis), I'll take the rookie every time. I see no benefit to overpaying some veteran just because he doesn't get hurt, when a pitcher like Guzman or Marshall could give you a similar ERA at a fraction of the cost. The problem with that analysis, is that you completely discount the veterans ability in the past to put together an entire season of pretty good numbers. I don't like the signing of Marquis, but as with every signing there is no telling what the Cubs are going to get until he gets out on the mound next year and pitches. Also, nobody has a clue what Marshall or Guzman are capable of at the major league level. When the Cubs traded for Grudz, there was talk about how he was never going to be a decent player again. For some reason he thrived at Wrigley and turned his career around. Jones was a similar situation and now looks like a bargain in this market. Rothschild is sticking his neck on the line by recommending Marquis and claiming to have fixed his mechanics. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until the season starts. If Rothschild is indeed one of the best pitching coaches that some claim he is, it is not impossible to see Marquis revert back to 2004 form and put up an ERA in the high 3's.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine. I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster. so hill was treated unfairly. glad we got to the bottom of this. :lol: :lol: Hardly, it may turn out that Cubs actually handled Hill correctly and we can only hope that he continues to pitch the way he was pitching toward the end of season.

Disagree I agree with the Disagree! NO ONE should wear #21 in a Cub uniform again. Plain and simple. quote] Sorry, but IT'S A NUMBER.....A NUMBER....For goodness sake. All this fuss about a FRIGGIN' number. If Marquis wants to wear #21, fine, if he doesn't fine. I don't really see anyone fussing. They are discussing, and it's actually a pretty good discussion. And it's not like retiring numbers is something new. Most teams do it in honor of a local sports hero. Besides the many Cub records he owns, the fans absolutely loved him for most of his career in Chicago, and many still do and always will. The front office really should block that number from use, at least temporarily. I agree. The Cubs should be a classy enough organization to realize that Sosa was one of the all time greats to put on a Cubs uniform. Whether you like him as a person or not, he was a great ballplayer and gave everything he had for many years. One of the greatest memories I have of Sammy was the first night game the Cubs played after 911, when Sammy hit the home run and ran around the bases with the American Flag. They should put their egos aside and reserve his number for when he is inducted into the hall.

I have no problem saying that Hendry and Baker did not to help in his development. The way they utilized him was asinine. I'd go so far as to say that they treated him unfairly. Maybe they were trying to teach him a lesson or something. Rookies should be seen and not heard. It's in the Joe Morgan edition of Baseball for Dummies Is that on the shelf next to CubinNY's Entitlements for Rookies? There is nothing at all wrong with making a person earn his spot on the team. Its just unfortunate the Cub's don't apply it to every player on the roster.

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. If your argument is truely limited to the above, maybe you shouldn't vastly over dramatize your argument to include statements that expand on it. Claiming that Hendry doesn't treat Hill with "extra favoritism" is entirely different from trying to imply that Hendry and Baker did nothing to help in his development or that somehow they stunted his development.

Is the Drew signing official as the title suggests? It seems from all reports that Drew was going to get a second opinion.

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? He doesn't. Its simple he just makes a statement and expects everyone to believe it as the truth. If he keeps saying it enough, maybe someone will believe him and he won't have to back up the statement with facts.

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.

What are you saying that you can back up with any type of factual support? Your argument seems to be just sour grapes at this point. Hill was horrible during his first couple of call ups with the Cubs. I don't see why you seem to believe that Hill had an entitlement to be on the Cubs. There are many pitchers that have done well in AAA and could not carry those numbers over to the Majors. I see nothing wrong with the Cubs making him prove himself and earn playing time. It happens all the time in sports. If Hendry left Hill up all year and Hill was horrible you would be moaning and complaining about how Hendry ruined Hill and destroyed his trade value. Hendry sent him down and Hill seemed to be doing just fine at the end of the year, IMO that is the important part.

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. Your last statement is ridiculous. I think you make some valid points otherwise, but Dusty and Hendry weren't rooting against Hill or trying to make him fail. When they first called him up in 2005, I dont' remember anything but glowing comments from them. I dont' see what the problem is with the Cubs actually making one of their players earn a spot on the team. Hill simply didnt' take advantage of his opportunities until late last year. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that I would give Dusty any credit for helping Hill along. It seemed that Dusty didn't really know how to coach or use Hill. Because we don't have any idea on what happens in the club house or behind closed doors, all we can do is speculate as to the reasons Hendry did this or that. I just find it interesting that when Hendry started taking Dusty's toys away from him and actually started forcing Dusty to play some of the younger guys, Hill was called back up and was successful.

Its exactly that type of mentality that kept the Cubs from competing last year. You can't keep sitting on your hands and blaming it on this or that. This year may not have had the best free agent class, but with the nature of sports there is no telling what may be available next year. Hendry had some big holes and did exactly what a team that wants to win does. He went out started filling them. It was unfortunate that the Cubs didn't take this approach prior to this year when there may have been some better options, but it is better now than never. For once, it appears that the Cubs "so called" commitment to winning is more than just hyperbole.

Has he been on yet?

With the recent reported signings of Marquis and Ward, and the possible signing of Floyd, who is headed off of the 40 Man roster? Last time I checked the 40 man was full after the addition of Lilly. Is there a big trade coming?

Chicagosports has edited the story to show the original reported 3/28MM deal. :x

Again, the link: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/chi-061209cubs-story,1,5103592.story?coll=cs-home-headlines I dont' have a huge problem with this signing, especially since it is $20MM instead of $28MM. However, Rothschild is going to have alot of work to do next year to make this a good rotation. We keep hearing how good he is with pitchers, this year its time to display it. If he gets Marquis back to 2004 form, you got four starters that could post ERA's in the 3's. Of course that is a big IF.

Nice read and interesting debate.

I would rather the Cubs sign Meche than Lilly.

There goes one option. he's who I wanted of the not-Schmidt set. second time around the scroll didn't say anything, but I am 100% positive it said it a few minutes ago. Rosenthal is reporting that Maddux is very close to signing with the Padres. So maybe the pitchers are going to go fast.

There goes one option.

Looks like you hit the nail on the head. Found this in the Daily Southtown, from Jeff Vorva: Hendry is pretty clear that he isn't looking at Murton as a full time player next year. http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/159193,041spt3.article