Wow. Hill's walked a lot of guys but his ERA is quite serviceable and he was really good last year. I figured he'd have a little more room for error than this.

Gallagher has done pretty well is AAA, but there's no guarantee he'll be better than Hill.

Gallagher isn't as funny as Benny Hill. But does Piniella have roster control?

I've got no problem with this move. Hill's clearly got some big issues to deal with, and he'll be able to do that working in AAA. With good luck, he'll be back in a few weeks. With bad luck, he'll be consigned to Hades for eternity.

Seriously, it's far too early for Baker-hate, isn't it? I mean, with Dusty it was a prolonged, continual reign of stupidity. At-bat after at-bat of Neifi. Not reining in the clubhouse. Stupid racial comments. Stupid comments in general. I personally went from "Yay! Not Baylor!" to "Cautiously optimistic", to "I wish Dusty wouldn't do that", to "Wow, I don't like Dusty Baker as he manager," to "I hate Baker! Fire Baker!" Right now, I'm still in "Yay! Not Baker!" mode, and I haven't even begun to fall to "Cautiously optimistic..."

If Hill's era was in the high 4s or in the low 5s following a couple bad outings, yeah, I'd hate this move. But I'm with 3Com Park: Hill needs some time to get his act together.

Why can't you guys bat Fukudome lead-off? I've been hearing about your lead-off problems for a couple weeks now and he seems like a very natural fit.

I agree. It's one thing to have loyalty and favorites, but let's face it -- Hill hasn't been sharp at any point this season or even in training camp.

Something's just not right and it's not going to do either him, Lou, or the team any good to give him more chances to right the ship in the big leagues.

I will say, however, that I was pretty surprised to see him pulled so early in last night's game though. Yeah, ho couldn't find the plate but it was only the 1st inning.

Why can't you guys bat Fukudome lead-off? I've been hearing about your lead-off problems for a couple weeks now and he seems like a very natural fit.

I think DeRosa or Theriot would be a better fit leading off, since they have less power than Fukudome, but still have pretty good OBPs.

1) Theriot/DeRosa
2) Fukudome
3) Lee
4) Ramirez
5) Soriano
6) Soto
7) Pie
8) DeRosa/Theriot
9) Pitcher

Nah.

1. Fukudome
2. Lee
3. Soto
4. Ramírez
5. Soriano
6. Pie
7. Theriot
8. Pitcher
9. DeRosa

I could definitely go for that if they're batting the pitcher 8th.

Nah.

Lee
Fukudome
Soriano
Ramirez
Soto/DeRosa
do what you want from there

By The Book, the #3 spot has the most PA with 2 outs and nobody on. You want a guy who can generate his own offense there. Soriano basically does 4 things -- makes outs, hits HRs, hits doubles, hits singles (and steals 2nd). So a "big" chunk of those 2-out nobody on PAs will result in a run or a man on 2nd for ARam.

Lee #1, Fukudome #2 is an attempt to break up the RH batters at least a little bit. If it's a day when Fontenot is starting, I would probably put him in the #2 spot and Fukudome #5. If Pie ever starts hitting (would be nice if he started getting playing time) then we can really start having some fun.

I think DeRosa or Theriot would be a better fit leading off, since they have less power than Fukudome, but still have pretty good OBPs.


Yeah, that's definitely wrong. You know who Ryan Theriot is, right? You're not confusing him with like...Gambit, are you?

I left "Yay! Not Baker!" mode when Lou pinch-ran for D-Lee in Colorado, and have been in "I wish Lou wouldn't do that" since then. But I'd rather see Hill sent down than demoted to the pen; hopefully he can figure things out after a couple starts.

Yeah, that's definitely wrong. You know who Ryan Theriot is, right? You're not confusing him with like...Gambit, are you?

A .348 OBP (Theriot's career mark) ain't bad.

By The Book, the #3 spot has the most PA with 2 outs and nobody on.

Sure, but that's because teams rarely put their top two OBP guys in the first two slots in the order. With Lee and Fukudome batting first and second, I doubt the third hitter would see a typical number of PA with 2 outs and nobody on.

If you bat the pitcher lead-off you minimize the chances he comes up to the plate with runners on, right off the bat.

Hill's walked a lot of guys but his ERA is quite serviceable

He has 18 walks in 19 IP, 15 Ks, over 6 starts. That serviceable ERA is deceptive.

Piniella’s apparently trying to see if he can get me to dislike him more than I dislike Dusty Baker.

Really? Why is anyone complaining about this, much less comparing Lou to Dusty? Get some f'in perspective people. There's no harm in Hill working out his problems in AAA, like I said in the other thread. It's early, better to fix him now.

My guess is that Retro got another jersey in the off-season.

7-24, 5 runs, 6 RBI, 5 BB, 2 K, 3 doubles, 1 home run today for Team Dreck.

There's no harm in Hill working out his problems in AAA

I don't get the hatred of this either. Hill has clearly struggled, and looked really ugly last night. We have a ton of depth at starting pitcher, so I don't see why we shouldn't use it now. Sure, Hill is a much better bet to be well above average than Lieber, but he just doesn't have his stuff.

My guess is that Retro got another jersey in the off-season.

Hardy friggin' har. Yes, you've got my method of player analysis pegged.

I'm not going to dispute that Hill's screwed up at the moment; his walk rate speaks for itself. But it's not simply the move that aggravates me, but the move combined with Piniella's comments preceding it (not just last night, but in recent weeks), which date back at least to spring training. This might be a chicken/egg thing, but it seems to me Piniella's gotten into Hill's head. Given that, perhaps it's better that Hill work out his issues in AAA away from Piniella, but I still don't think it speaks well of Lou that it's gotten to this point.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and Hill's just fragile.

My hatred is based on the fact that this team and its coaches have done this to Hill by skipping his starts, pushing him back, putting him to the pen for a few days, screwing with the mechanics, and pulling him at the first sign of trouble.

I think yesterday had to be a record for fewest runs allowed by a pitcher pulled in the 1st for non-injury purposes.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and Hill's just fragile.

If Hill's just fragile, then you'd think the organization would tend to that rather than treat him like somebody who's never shown the ability to pitch at the major league level. They have their infinite ####### patience with Jason Marquis, but Hill is treated like crap.

Or, what Ryan said. We were co-angsting over this in the game chat last night.

Marquis makes about 7 times as much as Hill, of course . . .

Marquis makes about 7 times as much as Hill, of course . . .

I wish.

If Hill's just fragile, then you'd think the organization would tend to that rather than treat him like somebody who's never shown the ability to pitch at the major league level. They have their infinite ####### patience with Jason Marquis, but Hill is treated like crap.

My problem is that the organization has given us little reason to suspect that they think that they know what they're doing - and if that's the case, why should we think they know what they're doing?

Countless times since spring training started, they've acted like they have no long-term plan for success. Soriano is our leadoff hitter, until he isn't, until he is again after, what, two games?

They have a guy in Matt Murton they're obviously looking to trade - and apparently for a rather high price in prospects - and they tell the press that he's a guy they really like, and he's a guy they think could start in left field for a lot of clubs. And then Soriano gets hurt, and they do what seems like everything possible to avoid playing Murton. Ignore for a moment whether or not Murton should be playing from a baseball standpoint - they absolutely killed whatever trade value he had left, and they looked like absolute liars for saying that they thought Murton was a starter for ANY ballclub.

Eric Patterson got a one-game audition and was sent down again. Pignatiello got, what, half a week?

The organization is so incredibly shortsighted, and so unwilling to stick to their guns when it comes to anyone that didn't either come via free agency or LSU. Smart baseball organizations like the Red Sox are able to develop prospects and deal with their growing pains while contending at the same time. The Cubs not only don't look like a smart baseball organization these days, they don't look like they even aspire to be one.

I still think the Cubs are the favorites in a soft NL Central, but what I don't have any confidence in right now is their ability to translate that into long-term competativeness.

Can we stop this? It's starting to feel too much like 2004.

This might be a chicken/egg thing, but it seems to me Piniella's gotten into Hill's head.

Or vice-versa.


Given that, perhaps it's better that Hill work out his issues in AAA away from Piniella, but I still don't think it speaks well of Lou that it's gotten to this point.

I don't think it speaks well of anyone.

Can we stop this? It's starting to feel too much like 2004.

No kidding.

the central isnt as week as people seem to think it is, im guessing that 90 wins will be what it takes to win it, and probly more.

You should ask Mike Hampton and Derek Lowe what they think of Piniella's ability to nurture young starters in hitter's parks.

Really? Why is anyone complaining about this, much less comparing Lou to Dusty? Get some f'in perspective people. There's no harm in Hill working out his problems in AAA, like I said in the other thread. It's early, better to fix him now.

Plus, it puts Lieber in the rotation, which everyone seems to want. (I'm kinda meh about that, but think he's a much better option right now than Hill)

What I'm not too thrilled about is 1) Gallagher sitting atrophying at the distal end of the bullpen and 2) Marquis getting a free pass. What I'd like to see is Lieber take Hill's spot temporarily, and Gallagher horn in on Marquis' spot.

If Hill's just fragile, then you'd think the organization would tend to that rather than treat him like somebody who's never shown the ability to pitch at the major league level. They have their infinite ####### patience with Jason Marquis, but Hill is treated like crap.

Come on. Hill, despite a track record that was pretty iffy, was given a fair opportunity to succeed in the majors, which he eventually cashed in on. While he had a fine season in 2007, wisdom dictates that you don't just ignore the significant part of his pro career where he kind of sucked. He's given up 18 walks in 19 IP, following a spring where he was just as bad. He's being sent down to iron out his command, and his major league job will be waiting for him if he does.

I've been criticizing the Cubs for things like this for a long, long time. Rich Hill is not an example of their typical bad tactics.

While he had a fine season in 2007, wisdom dictates that you don't just ignore the significant part of his pro career where he kind of sucked.

On the whole, he has a good minor league record, 626 Ks, 210 walks, 3.43 ERA, he was sensational at AA and AAA. He did struggle mightily in 2002, but that was in 14 IP. His season in A+ in 2004 was mediocre 136 Ks, 72 walks, in 109 IP.

In the majors in 23.7 IP in 2005, 21 Ks 17 walks, 48 ERA+. In 2006, 90Ks, 39 walks, in 99 IP, 111 ERA+. That's a significant part of his pro career where he kinda sucked?

When you suck from ages 22-24 in various levels of Rookie and A ball, yeah, that's a significant part of your pro career.

When you suck from ages 22-24 in various levels of Rookie and A ball, yeah, that's a significant part of your pro career.

So, rookie and A ball should be weighted more heavily than the more recent AA, AAA and MLB ball?

Yeah this seems crazy to me, putting much of any value on his age 22-24 record when he has his age 25-27 record right in front of you. When you have to go back 4 years and to such a low level to find a guy sucking, it shouldn't really affect your current evaluation of him.

I have a hard time saying he was given a fair oppurtunity to succeed in the majors until he actually did succeed. Until the 2nd half of '06 when he did put it together he was treated as a LOOGY and given the standard Dusty treatment of perform in your first 3 starts or you're out of here.

Coming into this season, Hill had 1 year and 142 days of service time. If he had stayed on the roster for the entire season, he very likely would have been a Super Two. If he spends a few weeks in Iowa, he won't be. Since he is struggling, at least from a control standpoint, he will spend a few weeks in Iowa and be much cheaper next year.

Coming into this season, Hill had 1 year and 142 days of service time. If he had stayed on the roster for the entire season, he very likely would have been a Super Two. If he spends a few weeks in Iowa, he won't be. Since he is struggling, at least from a control standpoint, he will spend a few weeks in Iowa and be much cheaper next year.

This move seems very reasonable and indicative of some long(er) term thinking, if this is the case.

It seems to me there's an underlying assumption in this discussion -- whether the demotion is intended to be somewhat permanent or only temporary. Has the organization given up?

I don't think that Piniella for a moment thinks that Hill won't return in a few weeks. Now perhaps it may take longer or Hill may never return to form. Still, I don't think this is a case like with, say, Sean Gallagher, with whom the organization does not yet believe is MLB established.

I suppose we'll know if/when Hill starts to regain his form in Iowa, but my impression is that they definitely view him as a vital cog in the rotation and they want him back ASAP.

I suppose we'll know if/when Hill starts to regain his form in Iowa, but my impression is that they definitely view him as a vital cog in the rotation and they want him back ASAP.

You may well be right, and I hope so.