papabear58

If I had been the GM, he wouldn't have been on the team in this capacity. well okay, except he is on the team. Now, the Cubs didn't hand him the job - they had an open competition between Prior, Miller and Guzman. Miller pitched better than Prior and Guzman. Which begs the question, why have a competition for the 5th spot in the rotation if you're not going to give the winner a fair shot in the regular season? Eh? Guzman looked to have better stuff in ST than Miller & Prior. But good stuff is not the only measurement of a pitcher. Miller produced better results in the eyes of the Cubs. That's why he won the job. Relying on results in spring training games is a stupid and ignorant way of constructing a baseball team. No, open competition is the best way to hand out jobs. Everyone has an equal chance and you see who can step up and deliver. It was a simple competition facing the same type of competition. One person produced better results. And again, basing your roster on spring training outcomes and not talent and ability is a stupid way of constructing your baseball team. Even if Miller had pitched 6 innings of 3 run baseball Sunday, it wouldn't change the fact that he's not going to have sustained success locating his pitches like he still throws hard, and having no movement. It's not the outcome, but the actual act that's concerning. I'd rather have the guy who can miss bats and throw hard and deal with the growing pains knowing he's got much more ability and long term value, that middle about with the veteran security blanket pitching who's never going to be able to come close to his former ability, and who's unlikely to be better than league average. And you are assuming that Guzman will improve and stay healthy.

If I had been the GM, he wouldn't have been on the team in this capacity. well okay, except he is on the team. Now, the Cubs didn't hand him the job - they had an open competition between Prior, Miller and Guzman. Miller pitched better than Prior and Guzman. Which begs the question, why have a competition for the 5th spot in the rotation if you're not going to give the winner a fair shot in the regular season? Eh? Guzman looked to have better stuff in ST than Miller & Prior. Miller: 3.64 ERA, 17.1 IP, 22 H, 4 BB, 16 K Guzman: 5.79 ERA, 13.2 IP, 18 H, 1 BB, 7 K They were both hittable, but Miller struck guys out at a better rate. "Stuff" is great but isn't worth a whole lot if you don't know how to locate it. It's misguided to allow ST results to guide the endgame though. Stuff counts for more in ST than it should in the regular season. I'd have preferred Guzman because I believe he's the future......and Miller isn't. Regardless of Miller's results in ST it was clear to me he would struggle in the regular season based on the fact that he's a former power pitcher who now struggles to hit 88 on the gun. Prior's not ready, period. That leaves Guzman. Who based on a deliverd comparason, would do just as good, if not worse then Miller. That might not be the case, but if it is, well, see yesterdays string on rotating pitchers from the minors

Again, Guzman hasn't proven he can do this either. And all the stuff in the world doesn't get guys out... go ask Juan Cruz if you don't believe me. =D>

If I had been the GM, he wouldn't have been on the team in this capacity. well okay, except he is on the team. Now, the Cubs didn't hand him the job - they had an open competition between Prior, Miller and Guzman. Miller pitched better than Prior and Guzman. Which begs the question, why have a competition for the 5th spot in the rotation if you're not going to give the winner a fair shot in the regular season? Eh? Guzman looked to have better stuff in ST than Miller & Prior. But good stuff is not the only measurement of a pitcher. Miller produced better results in the eyes of the Cubs. That's why he won the job. Relying on results in spring training games is a stupid and ignorant way of constructing a baseball team. No, open competition is the best way to hand out jobs. Everyone has an equal chance and you see who can step up and deliver. It was a simple competition facing the same type of competition. One person produced better results.

If I had been the GM, he wouldn't have been on the team in this capacity. well okay, except he is on the team. Now, the Cubs didn't hand him the job - they had an open competition between Prior, Miller and Guzman. Miller pitched better than Prior and Guzman. Which begs the question, why have a competition for the 5th spot in the rotation if you're not going to give the winner a fair shot in the regular season? Eh? Guzman looked to have better stuff in ST than Miller & Prior. But good stuff is not the only measurement of a pitcher. Miller produced better results in the eyes of the Cubs. That's why he won the job.

If I had been the GM, he wouldn't have been on the team in this capacity. Then you'd have had your way and he wouldn't have been on the team. Do you remember that he stated clearly that if he didn't win the fifth starters spot that he didn't want to be here? Hendry also said that it would be "unfair" to Miller if he didn't start and would seek to trade or release him. The long relief spot is not an option for Miller. Then that's an irresponsible way to put together a winning team. You don't make promises like that you can't keep. If he's not good enough to start when his turn comes up, you put him in the pen and tell him to get over it. Or you release him. But the post directly above yours says it beautifully. Miller beat both Prior and Guzman in spring training and should be given a fair shot. I guess we differ on what is a fair shot.

If I had been the GM, he wouldn't have been on the team in this capacity. Then you'd have had your way and he wouldn't have been on the team. Do you remember that he stated clearly that if he didn't win the fifth starters spot that he didn't want to be here? Hendry also said that it would be "unfair" to Miller if he didn't start and would seek to trade or release him. The long relief spot is not an option for Miller.

Stupid living in N.Y...... ::grumble grumble:: ::Mumble incoherantly:: ::kicks the dirt::

Which teams, aside from the small market teams that have no other choice, do that? St. Louis & Anaheim, two teams that perpetually have top 5 bullpens in baseball. Other than Izzy, I can't think of a single FA those guys have gone on the market for and signed to big money contracts. Now, Anaheim extended Shields with pretty big money, but they found him for minimum dollars initially. Minnesota's bullpen last year was about as good as it gets. Nathan was the only guy making more than $1m, IIRC, and most were making around league minimum. Rincon and Crain were both strong minor league prospects who have been successful at the big league level. Pat Neshek was also a product of their system who had great numbers in the minors. They got incredibly lucky with Dennys Reyes, who had an ERA over 4.5 and a WHIP over 1.5, and then managed to have an ERA and a WHIP of under one last season. If the Cubs could produce three relievers like Rincon, Crain and Neshek, hell I'd be all for that. But Wuertz is probably pretty close to Crain in terms of ability, and then who's next? Will Ohman? He's easily worse than any of the Twins' three. Novoa sucked. Guzman has sucked in every attempt in the big leagues. Leicester, Wellemeyer, Bartosh, Mitre, none of those guys have been good enough. That's why the Cubs sign people like Howry and Eyre, because none of their minor league options are passable options. Your plan is great in theory abuck, but it doesn't work in real life because this organization has not produced enough quality pitchers. They seem to do ok with starters (Z and Hill and, until injury that you can't blame entirely on the organization, Wood/Prior). It's just the relievers that they seem to suck with. I wonder why that is :?

He looked pretty bad in Milw., but I'll allow more than one start before passing judgment. Agreed.... Here Here! =D>

It could just be my faulty memory, but didn't the Cubs try to sign him before he went to Colorado and shredded his elbow too? I know they tried to sign him after, but I thought that they had put in a bid before that too. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure :)

It wouldn't have been a new development 3 years ago. But it would be today. no, not it's not. Okay, we'll just pretend like Floyd isn't a hobbled old man playing on his last legs coming off a terrible season in which he couldn't hold Murton's jock. I like the way you work. you can also pretend that matt murton doesnt have below average power at the position. Wow that string is un-nerving. I like Matt Murton, and would definatly perfer if he were getting the majority of the starts, but "he couldn't hold Murton's jock."?! Come on and get real. Murton is a great kid and a good talent. I think that in a year or two he could be an All-Star (just person opinion, please no crucifixion), but right now the truth is that Floyd is going to hit just as well, if not better then Murton and is a viable player given days off. I don't like Murton being platooned, but hey, if he's going to be, we could do A LOT WORSE then Cliff Floyd.

Sorry, didn't know there was a seperate board for that.

And now a hit batter to load the bases. Yikes, lets hope for an out to minimize the damage.

It's time for the offense to show up today. Lilly is begining to struggle and is going to need some help. LETS GO CUBBIES!!!

That is where we differ. I'm not saying he won't, but I'm saying I want to see more from him before we risk his development. I don't think that it would be bad if he got more then "two innings a week" from the pen. I agree he should work more, but I don't think it should be in the rotation yet. And you don't seem to realize that in our bullpen, he's not going to work more than a couple innings a week. Meanwhile, we have a reclamation project throwing grapefruits down the heart of the plate. Guzman can't do worse, and can potentially do much better. He should be starting somewhere. I don't know what else to say, we seem to be going in circles and neither one is convincing the other that they are correct. I must simply, and respectfully, agree to disagree with you because I can see no value in continuing to argue a dead point. In the end I suppose we will have to wait and see what happens because as much as we argue here, it won't change what happens on the club :) ::Salude::

That is where we differ. I'm not saying he won't, but I'm saying I want to see more from him before we risk his development. I don't think that it would be bad if he got more then "two innings a week" from the pen. I agree he should work more, but I don't think it should be in the rotation yet.

The only thing ridiculous about this is that you seem to think working irregular innings once a week or so out of the pen is going to somehow help Angel Guzman's development. He should be starting. If he's not starting here, he should be starting at AAA when it becomes apparent to everyone that Miller or Marquis shouldn't be starting. So you find no value in letting him adjust to major league pitching and seeing what he can do against them in the regular season before throwing him into the starting rotation? Or is it just that you want Miller out of here? If we are as much of a good ballclub that we can afford to send Miller packing on a whim, then we should also be a good enough ballclub to adjust for him being gone. When Guzman struggles, you send him down to AAA, then you have to call someone else up because Miller is gone (he's already hinted strongly and Hendry has almost said that he won't go into the pen). Then when they struggle you send them down and bring up someone else.... cont. cont. cont. Let the kid pitch for a little bit and adjust. He's much more likely to stick. Guzman might be very good, but he can also use some more MLB experience without the pressure yet.

The whole point of this is that Wade Miller isn't going to help us win now, and Angel Guzman isn't going to develop pitching once a week in mopup duty. You're arguing a point that's not being made. And he isn't going to develop if he gets shelled back into the minors ethier. You are assuming that he will be successful. Can you take a step back and see it if he's not? He might learn more working with Rothschild on his pitching while working in the majors for a seaon then by going back and dominating AAA and not learning what it takes at the big league level. As far as pitching once a week, that comes back to a manager being able to find innings for him as I said earlier and also using him for spot starts as needed (we don't need any yet). I saw his struggles in spring, and I'm not ready to say that he's going to go into the rotation and be an instant success. I don't mind them bringing him along slowly. As far as Miller, you are speculating (though stretching a bit for one start) that he will be unsuccessful. All I'm saying as far as that goes is that one start is hard to judge. He might come out next time and really do well. Hey, lets kick Murton off the team because he's been successful in the past, but has looked like a total hack at times this year. Or how about Soriano, I mean just over .200, sheesh, there's a guy who needs to be shown the door. Even three starts isn't enough in my opinion. But you are already judge, jury, and ready to be exicutioner on Miller with only one start and are saying that three starts is some magic number for judging him. Miller suffered a fairly serious shoulder injury and lost 10 mph on his fastball. I'm not stretching anything when I say he's not going to be successful if his pitches aren't going to move. He's never been a location/movement guy. He's been a power pitcher. He no longer has any power. All of your other examples are irrelevant. Murton and Soriano aren't recovering from serious injuries and trying to change their entire approach. As far as Miller coming out an performing well, I don't care if he throws a quality start; if he's still throwing in the mid 80's and not getting any movement, he shouldn't be in the rotation. I simply do not agree with you that Guzman is the person who should have that spot. If I were to agree with you on Miller, which I am 50/50 on to be honest, then I'd say make a trade or sign someone else because I don't want to risk Guzman when he could be good for a long time to come. so when are we susposed to use him? when he is 30? You are being quite ridiculous. Give him a month or two out of the pen to show what he can do at this level and to be successful and if he's playing well and pushing for more then you spot start him and look at making a move at that point. Don't just throw him in there. Let him work his way in and it will have a better effect on his career IMHO.

The whole point of this is that Wade Miller isn't going to help us win now, and Angel Guzman isn't going to develop pitching once a week in mopup duty. You're arguing a point that's not being made. And he isn't going to develop if he gets shelled back into the minors ethier. You are assuming that he will be successful. Can you take a step back and see it if he's not? He might learn more working with Rothschild on his pitching while working in the majors for a seaon then by going back and dominating AAA and not learning what it takes at the big league level. As far as pitching once a week, that comes back to a manager being able to find innings for him as I said earlier and also using him for spot starts as needed (we don't need any yet). I saw his struggles in spring, and I'm not ready to say that he's going to go into the rotation and be an instant success. I don't mind them bringing him along slowly. As far as Miller, you are speculating (though stretching a bit for one start) that he will be unsuccessful. All I'm saying as far as that goes is that one start is hard to judge. He might come out next time and really do well. Hey, lets kick Murton off the team because he's been successful in the past, but has looked like a total hack at times this year. Or how about Soriano, I mean just over .200, sheesh, there's a guy who needs to be shown the door. Even three starts isn't enough in my opinion. But you are already judge, jury, and ready to be exicutioner on Miller with only one start and are saying that three starts is some magic number for judging him. Miller suffered a fairly serious shoulder injury and lost 10 mph on his fastball. I'm not stretching anything when I say he's not going to be successful if his pitches aren't going to move. He's never been a location/movement guy. He's been a power pitcher. He no longer has any power. All of your other examples are irrelevant. Murton and Soriano aren't recovering from serious injuries and trying to change their entire approach. As far as Miller coming out an performing well, I don't care if he throws a quality start; if he's still throwing in the mid 80's and not getting any movement, he shouldn't be in the rotation. I simply do not agree with you that Guzman is the person who should have that spot. If I were to agree with you on Miller, which I am 50/50 on to be honest, then I'd say make a trade or sign someone else because I don't want to risk Guzman when he could be good for a long time to come.

Want to see him developed and not thrown to the wolves. I suppose I might be the only person who thinks that way.

The whole point of this is that Wade Miller isn't going to help us win now, and Angel Guzman isn't going to develop pitching once a week in mopup duty. You're arguing a point that's not being made. You're basing this on the assumption that we are condemning Miller for just this one start, when really many haven't wanted him in the rotation since spring training. I'm also basing this on the assumption that I don't want Guzman to be thrown directly into the rotation where he might be successful and might get shelled and can't be protected. As long relief you can put him in starting against 7,8,9 hitters to work into games and then leave him in and pull him if he's getting shelled. As a starter he's going to face everyone, and you are much more likely to leave him in because you don't want to abuse the bullpen. Add to that the fact that getting hit hard could cause him to get sent to AAA where he will just continue to see subpar hitting comparativly and I don't see a lot of sense in risking him just to see if he can be successful or not. I guess I'd rather him grow into it and be successful.

The whole point of this is that Wade Miller isn't going to help us win now, and Angel Guzman isn't going to develop pitching once a week in mopup duty. You're arguing a point that's not being made. And he isn't going to develop if he gets shelled back into the minors ethier. You are assuming that he will be successful. Can you take a step back and see it if he's not? He might learn more working with Rothschild on his pitching while working in the majors for a seaon then by going back and dominating AAA and not learning what it takes at the big league level. As far as pitching once a week, that comes back to a manager being able to find innings for him as I said earlier and also using him for spot starts as needed (we don't need any yet). I saw his struggles in spring, and I'm not ready to say that he's going to go into the rotation and be an instant success. I don't mind them bringing him along slowly. As far as Miller, you are speculating (though stretching a bit for one start) that he will be unsuccessful. All I'm saying as far as that goes is that one start is hard to judge. He might come out next time and really do well. Hey, lets kick Murton off the team because he's been successful in the past, but has looked like a total hack at times this year. Or how about Soriano, I mean just over .200, sheesh, there's a guy who needs to be shown the door. Even three starts isn't enough in my opinion. But you are already judge, jury, and ready to be exicutioner on Miller with only one start and are saying that three starts is some magic number for judging him.

This has nothing to do with Prior. If you'll read what's being written, people are stating the obvious fact that if Wade Miller is going to throw 85-88 pmh with no movement, he shouldn't be on the roster. That's the point of depth-we shouldn't have to put up with crap in any role. So you put Guzman in the five spot, then call up an arm from AAA to fill the long reliever spot (fill in name of picked prospect here). Then Guzman struggles and/or his pitch counts go too high in order to win ballgames. Then we start hearing cries of overuse and ruining his career ala Dusty Baker. What do you do? Do you send him back to the minors? Do you promote the person you brought up as the long reliever? No continutiy or otherwise. That's not to say that he might not be great too. But I prefer him where he can pitch in more manageable roles and let him play his way into the starting lineup rather then letting Miller play his way out. If you do the latter we could very well end up with a rotating fifth spot for the rest of the year (thankfully it's better then a rotating rotation). I for one think you leave him where he is and let him show you that he's ready to be in the rotation. I guess I just see it differently. What? For one thing you're painting a fairly unrealistic scenario. Guzman having a high pitch count isn't going to have anything to do with the team's success. Second, you're assuming high pitch counts will have a correlation with Guzman not winning ballgames, which it won't. Finally, you're assuming high pitch counts will lead to cries of overuse. I'm assuming Lou isn't going to be Dustyesque when it comes to pitch counts. Your argument makes no sense. Miller isn't going to keep us in many ballgames pitching like he did yesterday. I could care less about continuity. I don't care about "playing his way into the rotation". I care about putting the team in a position to win. Guzman is a better pitcher than Miller. Velocity, movement, control-Guzman is better in every respect. I'd rather see the better pitcher in a starting role. He's not going to be able to show you much pitching in mop up duty. Mop up duty is for the pitcher who isn't any good, and that's Wade Miller. You are also assuming that he won't struggle, or at least not enough that the Cubs will have to replace him. I am open to that possibility. I'm sick and tired of seeing good young pitchers overused or thrown in (see last season for obvious reasons) to see if they stick. We brought in veteran pitchers not only to win now, but to allow us to develop talent. As far as "show you something", I'm not nearly as concerned with that as I am allowing him to adjust to major league hitters and work with the pitching coach for a while in order to become a better pitcher who won't struggle the way he did at times during spring training.

This has nothing to do with Prior. If you'll read what's being written, people are stating the obvious fact that if Wade Miller is going to throw 85-88 pmh with no movement, he shouldn't be on the roster. That's the point of depth-we shouldn't have to put up with crap in any role. So you put Guzman in the five spot, then call up an arm from AAA to fill the long reliever spot (fill in name of picked prospect here). Then Guzman struggles and/or his pitch counts go too high in order to win ballgames. Then we start hearing cries of overuse and ruining his career ala Dusty Baker. What do you do? Do you send him back to the minors? Do you promote the person you brought up as the long reliever? No continutiy or otherwise. That's not to say that he might not be great too. But I prefer him where he can pitch in more manageable roles and let him play his way into the starting lineup rather then letting Miller play his way out. If you do the latter we could very well end up with a rotating fifth spot for the rest of the year (thankfully it's better then a rotating rotation). I for one think you leave him where he is and let him show you that he's ready to be in the rotation. I guess I just see it differently.