papabear58

Here is my stance (for what it's worth): 1) Miller needs more the one start to be labled "stick a fork in him" 2) Guzman needs to be developed further 3) If Miller isn't the answer then "polish a turd" and package him with a B+ prospect and see if you can get a team with a small budget to move someone who they know that they can't resign who might be looking to catch lightning in a bottle. I really don't think I'm too far out there. Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't.

Is that opinion or is there something tangible that you can point to? im pretty sure three above average to plus pitches are pretty tangible. But so far those "tangibles" have not produced results. I'd be the first person to eat serious crow on this and smile the entire time I'm doing so, but my entire point is that I don't believe the Guzman should just be thrown out there. We've tried that and it didn't work. Now it's time to bring him along slower. Get him more innings out of the pen, hell it's not like anyone else out of it can seem to do any better then he would. I just want a better approch to what we're doing in pitcher development.

Wow, and I thought I might be pissing people off. Sheesh!

Is that opinion or is there something tangible that you can point to?

Yes, but we're never going to get a pen of mostly homegrown kids as long as we keep drafting people with "teh awesome stuff" and hoping they develop control. Why? You can teach mechanics, increased control, etc. You can't teach 98 mph fastballs and unhittable breaking balls The Cubs have been working on this theory for a long time, to no avail. They need more guys who throw 93 with control. Quit leading the league in walks allowed. Jersey is right on this one. We've done a great job of drafting starting pitchers and developing them (see Zambrano, Hill, and before injury, Kerry Wood, and Mark Prior). What I've seen our team fall flat on it our ability to draft and develop relief pitching and I think it's because of our outlook on pitchers in general. Just because someone is a good starting pitcher doesn't mean that they can make a successful change to relief and excel out of the pen.

Should they have simply handed this pitcher the fifth starter spot after a spotty spring and didn't show then that he had improved considerably from the above stats? --Edited We can assume that Johnson impressed the next spring to make the squad. To only give those stats is to make only half of the compairason. Miller gave up more hits, walks, home runs, had a higher WHIP, gave up an equal number of runs, and only one fewer earned run in 1.2 more innings. Or, the boiled down version goes like he gave up one fewer runs while pitching 1.2 more innings. That is a better end result. Tell me something, why are you so interested in seeing Guzman in the starting rotation? What have you seens (aside from minor league stats that have not yet materialized into the major leagues) that shows you that he's going to be successful. It didn't happen last season and it didn't happen this spring. So everytime he's faced major league hitters he's struggled. What is it that you've seen that tells you that now it will suddenly be different?

Should they have simply handed this pitcher the fifth starter spot after a spotty spring and didn't show then that he had improved considerably from the above stats? --Edited We can assume that Johnson impressed the next spring to make the squad. To only give those stats is to make only half of the compairason.

The problem with giving him a couple more starts is that people will be focused on the outcome and not the process. If he gets lucky with BABIP and wins a game despite having lousy stuff again, he'll get more rope with which to hang himself, and that will cost the team more in the long run. [hypothetical] Guzman comes in as the fifth starter and Miller gets released. Roberto Novoa comes up to fill the long relief role. Guzman puts up a 7.50+ ERA and racks up a 1-4 record. He's getting shelled.[/hypothetical] Now what do you do? You've released Miller and now you have to cut deeper into the farm to make a trade to bring in someone you should have brought in when you determined Miller wasn't going to cut it.

IMO, Guzman's K/BB ratio and WHIP seem indicate Guzman pitched about as well as Miller, but didn't get the same results ERA wise. Guzman also has (again, IMO) the better upside. He has a far better chance for improvement than Miller. But he also raised a good point that i hadn't though about. Guzman pitched later in games that were against more of the AAAA or AAA talent.

So they should stick to a bad decision because they don't have the guts to admit a mistake sooner rather than later? They shouldn't let one start change the conclusion they drew after having 8 weeks of performance to consider. If Miller was their guy out of ST, he's still got to be their guy one week/one start into the season. I would agree with that. If they actually think Miller is better than Guzman by all means, they shouldn't pull the plug based on one start. I just do not agree with the Cubs that he should be their guy. I also don't understand why they would start skipping him if they think he can handle it. Maybe they don't think Miller is the guy, but they think that he's better then Guzman. Who's to say what goes on their minds.

how is he going to earn it if there's no open spot in the rotation? small sample size for guzman aside, miller is a pitcher on the downside of his career without any effective pitches. lou, despite professing his love for the 5-man roattion recently, is skipping miller at every opportunity. what does that say about his faith in the man's ability to get people out? miller's just not good unless his fastball suddenly makes a reappearance. why not try a guy who has had past success at the minor league level, still has effective pitches, and will probably only improve as oppsed to a crafty veteran that isn't crafty? What does it say abou this faith in Guzman that he won't start him over Miller. This is the manager who won 115 games with Seattle let's not forget (I lived there in that season.... wow) so did i. i moved there in april and went to a ton of games. it was sad to see interest in the mariners wane in the successive seasons. Yes, it was after that season that I moved.... hmmmm, maybe I need to move to Chicago.... :lol:

So they should stick to a bad decision because they don't have the guts to admit a mistake sooner rather than later? No. They should instead skip said fifth starter because that...er...doesn't reek of panic? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hmmmmm, sounds like a circular arguement to me as far as which one is more paicky (is that even a word :)). The fact is that we have no backup plan if Guzman continues his same old in the majors. If Miller isn't the guy then it's time to go get someone who is.

how is he going to earn it if there's no open spot in the rotation? small sample size for guzman aside, miller is a pitcher on the downside of his career without any effective pitches. lou, despite professing his love for the 5-man roattion recently, is skipping miller at every opportunity. what does that say about his faith in the man's ability to get people out? miller's just not good unless his fastball suddenly makes a reappearance. why not try a guy who has had past success at the minor league level, still has effective pitches, and will probably only improve as oppsed to a crafty veteran that isn't crafty? What does it say abou this faith in Guzman that he won't start him over Miller. This is the manager who won 115 games with Seattle let's not forget (I lived there in that season.... wow)

Guzman is lacking - consistancy - translation of talent - ability to get major league hitters out Both can improve, but Miller won the spot and should be given his chance. There is no gaurantee that Guzman will do better or win games. Can you prove Miller "won" the spot? It seems as if it was given and not earned. Meanwhile, Guzman has: Velocity Movement Control The thing he lacks is experience. There's seriously no risk in having him start over Miller. The bottom line is that Lou and co. threw the 5th starter slot wide open to competition this spring, and invited to compete were Guzman, Cotts, Miller, and Prior. At the conclusion of that 6-8 week process, Miller was deemed the "winner", based on the coaching staff's perception that Miller was pitching better than the other three, and consequently was the guy that gave the team the best chance to win. Guzman had the chance to prove that he's that guy (as you're assuring us here that he is), but the fact is that he didn't do so when given the opportunity (and by all indications, Lou really likes the kid and wanted to see him step up and grab the job). Now ultimately Miller may pitch his way out of that 5th starter job, or one of the other guys might pitch their way into it, but we have certainly not reached that point yet... not after only one start from Miller, two forgettable relief appearances from Guzman, and nothing from Prior. Making a change now would reek of panic, and would cast doubt on the conviction of the coaching staff and the confidence they have in their decisionmaking process. Thank you for stating it well.

That made sense, however it is my opinion that if the collective feeling is that Miller is not going to get better, then it's time to package him to a team who needs reclamation projects, low budget teams who are looking for lightning in a bottle, with a decent but not outstanding prospect and try to get a slightly overpaid decent MLB known commodity for him. That's just my opinion, but I'll stand by it.

And what makes you so sure that Prior or Guzman won't cost us games? There's a difference between someone with no ceiling beyond replacement player costing you games, and someone taking a lump here and there with a ceiling as high as Angel's. Wade Miller isn't good, and likely won't be better in the future. Angel Guzman is at worst level with Miller now, and with a few starts might be a very good starter. Speculation and opinion. I have no problem with either, but they should be identified as such. Here is the definition of earning it: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=chc&section1=1&section2=1&section3=1&statSet1=null&statSet2=null&statSet3=null&statType=2&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=23&baseballScope=CH2&prevPage2=1&readBoxes=true&sitSplit=&venueID=&teamPosCode=all&box4=XXXX150063chnX&box5=XXXX425768chnX&compare.x=25&compare.y=10 spring training stats are nonsensical tools to judge players on Guzman's stats in the regular season are not that good either. ](*,)

And what makes you so sure that Prior or Guzman won't cost us games? There's a difference between someone with no ceiling beyond replacement player costing you games, and someone taking a lump here and there with a ceiling as high as Angel's. Wade Miller isn't good, and likely won't be better in the future. Angel Guzman is at worst level with Miller now, and with a few starts might be a very good starter. Speculation and opinion. I have no problem with either, but they should be identified as such. Here is the definition of earning it: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?c_id=chc&section1=1&section2=1&section3=1&statSet1=null&statSet2=null&statSet3=null&statType=2&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=23&baseballScope=CH2&prevPage2=1&readBoxes=true&sitSplit=&venueID=&teamPosCode=all&box4=XXXX150063chnX&box5=XXXX425768chnX&compare.x=25&compare.y=10

Guzman is lacking - consistancy - translation of talent - ability to get major league hitters out Both can improve, but Miller won the spot and should be given his chance. There is no gaurantee that Guzman will do better or win games.

Look at his minor league numbers and then get back to me about how he isn't waiting to destroy opposing hitters. And why is it that the pitcher with the wrecked shoulder who needs to relearn how to pitch doesn't have to earn it, but the talented guy does? Ok, let me get this straight, spring training stats against major league hitters don't count, but minor league stats against hitters who aren't major league quality do? Dude, come on, you are far more logical then that I hope. As far as earning it, that's what happened in open four way competition in spring training between Neal Cotts, Mark Prior, Wade Miller, and Angel Guzman. He won the spot and deserves the chance to do his job. Why aren't we talking about Howry who has now blown two games or hitters who are not preforming well, because it's way early in the season and they haven't had enough games to judge. Neither has Miller. Be consistant across the board. Judge everyone early, or no one early. Don't just arbitrarily judge people at different points because you might think they may or may not have "the stuff". I don't see how you're comparing Miller to Howry. Howry has pitched great (or at least well) the last two years, oh, and he hasn't had any kind of major surgery and lost 8 mph off his fastball in the process. I'm not comparing Miller to Howry. I'm comparing the rush to judge one guy and the non rush to judge the other. The sample size is too small. I understand you point about surgery and lost velocity, but if he gets out and Guzman doesn't, then he should pitch. That being said, if he's not making outs and Guzman is then Guzman should pitch. The fact is that it's to early to tell as he's had time to work on his pitching since last seasons results.

Look at his minor league numbers and then get back to me about how he isn't waiting to destroy opposing hitters. And why is it that the pitcher with the wrecked shoulder who needs to relearn how to pitch doesn't have to earn it, but the talented guy does? Ok, let me get this straight, spring training stats against major league hitters don't count, but minor league stats against hitters who aren't major league quality do? Dude, come on, you are far more logical then that I hope. As far as earning it, that's what happened in open four way competition in spring training between Neal Cotts, Mark Prior, Wade Miller, and Angel Guzman. He won the spot and deserves the chance to do his job. Why aren't we talking about Howry who has now blown two games or hitters who are not preforming well, because it's way early in the season and they haven't had enough games to judge. Neither has Miller. Be consistant across the board. Judge everyone early, or no one early. Don't just arbitrarily judge people at different points because you might think they may or may not have "the stuff".

Guzman Career Stats: Career W:0 L:6 ERA:7.41 G:17 GS:10 CG:0 SO:0 S:0 SO:0 IP:58.1 H:72 R:50 ER:48 HR:9 BB:37 K:62 So, what about these non-spring training stats make you believe that he is this phenomonal pitcher waiting to destroy oposing hitters at the plate? Hell this year he's pitched two innings and given up two earned runs and his numbers are looking right along those averages (since we're making comparasons on short data volumes anyway). Miller might not be the guy, but Guzman hasn't show that he's it yet either. Make him earn it.

Yes, but no one said it can't be after a month or so of pitching out of the pen and then some spot starts to stretch out. This would allow a pitcher to adjust to the hitting at this level while working closely with the pitching coach. Then when it looks like he's got it, you begin to spot start him to see where he is and stretch out his arm. It's not like I'm suggesting leaving him in the pen for two or three seasons, but he's struggled on this level before and if he's going to develop, in my opinion, it's because someone is working with him and the best way to do that is out of the pen for now. As far as the fifth starter, I'm not in love with Miller. I'd like him to get 4-5 starts to see where he is, but if he's not there then release him or package him in a trade for what you can get. As long as we can get a decent fifth starter in return for him + not to high prospect, it would be good for the rotation, and it would allow for Guzman to be coached.

#-o ouch, that had to hurt

I have someone I consider a good board friend who went by Goonygoogoo as I recall on the ESPN board. He was always about developing minor leaguers, and I agreed with him 99.9% of the time. I don't know why, but this time it's striking a nerve in me. This is just one of those .1% times where I can't agree. Maybe I've just been soured on the way the Cubs develop pitchers. I CAN'T STAND the throw every pitcher we can to the wolves and see who can fight them off mentality that the Cubs seem to have, and have had from Baylor and Baker. I'd like to see us develop more pitchers, and other organizations have been successful bringing up prospects and allowing them to pitch in the pen for a year to get aclimated. It seems to me to be a better idea then shredding through good kids who get shelled, lose confidence, and then suffer setbacks over and over again. Maybe it's just sour grapes, but I'd like to see something different, anything different, a higher success rate then I've seen and I'm at about wits end with it.

who pitched like crap last year. If we don't sign Miller, then we're going into the season with our fifth starter being: a) Mark Prior, who can't stay healthy and when he was healthy last year, he got hammered... or... (b) Angel Guzman, who can't stay healthy and was really, really bad for the Cubs last year. I'd rather have more options, even if it turns out that Miller doesn't have what it takes to get big league hitters out. Agreed, if we don't want Miller in there, then like I said yesterday, it's best to go and find a trade for someone who can fill the spot well and let Guzman develop.