PDA

View Full Version : Trade for Rich Hill?


sunofgold
01-28-2009, 07:46 PM
C's apparently aren't interested in keeping Rich Hill. If he is healthy, what do you think about taking a chance with him? Don't believe he has an expensive contract. What would the C's want?

Oh, yeah, Ozzie Guillen pretty much chewed him out after he said something about the AJ/Barrett incident. Forgot what Hill said but it didn't sound too mature if I remember right.

Chrisaway
01-28-2009, 07:50 PM
Ozzie said something along the lines of, "Tell that AAA **** to shut his mouth before he gets Dusty fired.". Oh and thanks but no thanks on Hill.

whitesox901
01-28-2009, 07:51 PM
pass

turners56
01-28-2009, 07:58 PM
No way.

TheCommander
01-28-2009, 08:08 PM
C's apparently aren't interested in keeping Rich Hill. If he is healthy, what do you think about taking a chance with him? Don't believe he has an expensive contract. What would the C's want?

Oh, yeah, Ozzie Guillen pretty much chewed him out after he said something about the AJ/Barrett incident. Forgot what Hill said but it didn't sound too mature if I remember right.

http://www.moviestore.com/library/photos/249/249801.jpg

Marqhead
01-28-2009, 08:08 PM
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg

Daver
01-28-2009, 08:21 PM
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg

Great post.

35th and Shields
01-28-2009, 08:23 PM
Looking at him purely from a talent point of view absolutely but, I don't see a scenario where he ends up here. When we have Broadway and Marquez in the conversation for the fifth spot, we shouldn't look past any pitcher that can help this team.

SoxGirl4Life
01-28-2009, 08:30 PM
Trade for Rich Hill? :screwloose:!!!!!

Rich Hill had his one season in the sun. His problem isn't talent, its his head.

Domeshot17
01-28-2009, 08:31 PM
Looking at him purely from a talent point of view absolutely but, I don't see a scenario where he ends up here. When we have Broadway and Marquez in the conversation for the fifth spot, we shouldn't look past any pitcher that can help this team.

Did you not hear KW, Marquez is going to be a clone of Jon Garland!

oeo
01-28-2009, 08:33 PM
When I first saw this thread, I thought Kenny was looking into bringing that AAA piece of **** over here...phew.

FedEx227
01-28-2009, 08:41 PM
You meant Single A piece of ****, right?

EMachine10
01-28-2009, 08:49 PM
I wouldn't want him on the Sox if he personally handed me 20 billion dollars.

MUsoxfan
01-28-2009, 08:51 PM
I wouldn't want him on the Sox if he personally handed me 20 billion dollars.

Yes you would.

FedEx227
01-28-2009, 08:52 PM
I wouldn't want him on the Sox if he personally handed me 20 billion dollars.

Well... you do that. I'll take the 20 billion.

DumpJerry
01-28-2009, 09:13 PM
C's apparently aren't interested in keeping Rich Hill. If he is healthy, what do you think about taking a chance with him? Don't believe he has an expensive contract. What would the C's want?

Oh, yeah, Ozzie Guillen pretty much chewed him out after he said something about the AJ/Barrett incident. Forgot what Hill said but it didn't sound too mature if I remember right.
I don't want to discourage you from starting or participating in the free-flow of ideas here, but:
:bundy
You want to do what?!?!?!?

soxinem1
01-28-2009, 09:28 PM
I wouldn't want him on the Sox if he personally handed me 20 billion dollars.

Who are you, Sam Zell??

I would not even be that expensive. I'd take the league minimum.:smile::smile:

sunofgold
01-28-2009, 09:31 PM
I know it is crazy, but I am being serious.

Forget what you know about him. If I presented you with Pitcher A and showed his stats , what would you say? 2008 numbers are incomplete b/c he had an injury. He must be healthy now otherwise why would other teams be interested?

Look at this stats and they aren't that bad. Look at his Ks to innings ratio. How about the possibility of converting him to a reliever?

What is his market value anyways? Even if he isn't for us, what would it cost another team to get him. Thx.

getonbckthr
01-28-2009, 09:40 PM
I know it is crazy, but I am being serious.

Forget what you know about him. If I presented you with Pitcher A and showed his stats , what would you say? 2008 numbers are incomplete b/c he had an injury. He must be healthy now otherwise why would other teams be interested?

Look at this stats and they aren't that bad. Look at his Ks to innings ratio. How about the possibility of converting him to a reliever?

What is his market value anyways? Even if he isn't for us, what would it cost another team to get him. Thx.
That has nothing to do with it. His mental instability is the problem. Not to mention AJ or Anderson might knock him out upon arrival.

sunofgold
01-28-2009, 10:50 PM
Is he crazy? I don't remember him doing anything too crazy on the field. I was more concerned about his injury and if he is healthy. The guy did say some dumb things three years ago but maybe he has grown up.

You have to look at stats. 309K in 337 innings is a pretty good stat. WHIP 1.27, BAA .232. If he is healthy, we should inquire about him. He has a good curve and changeup.

He is out of options with the Cubs and apparently they don't have a spot for him.

champagne030
01-28-2009, 11:19 PM
I wouldn't want him on the Sox if he personally handed me 20 billion dollars.

Sure you would. You then buyout Jerry, release Hill and get whoever floats your boat.

Tragg
01-28-2009, 11:47 PM
C's apparently aren't interested in keeping Rich Hill. If he is healthy, what do you think about taking a chance with him? Don't believe he has an expensive contract. What would the C's want?
.
MacDougal

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2009, 11:47 PM
I see nothing wrong with acquiring him.

doublem23
01-28-2009, 11:56 PM
I see nothing wrong with acquiring him.

While we're at it, let's get an inanimate carbon rod. Just as effective.

http://aggregatemadbox.com/bloggregate/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/inrodwetrust.jpg

guillensdisciple
01-28-2009, 11:59 PM
There is nothing wrong with acquiring him, he still has upside and always has been a highly touted pitcher in triple A and the majors. I understand he is getting older, but it's not like he can't duplicate the year he had two years ago, unless he had a serious arm issue that wasn't disclosed to the public.
One thing I do know is the kid is a mental case, so that might be a deterrent, and I think it is a good idea to stay away from troubled players.

It would be an alright acquisition, but there is no chance of this happening. People are just bored this off season, and I am starting to fall into the trap of finding things to pick on with the Sox.

munchman33
01-29-2009, 12:13 AM
Coop'll fix 'em.

thomas35forever
01-29-2009, 12:48 AM
While we're at it, let's get an inanimate carbon rod. Just as effective.

http://aggregatemadbox.com/bloggregate/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/inrodwetrust.jpg
Hey, that episode was on at 6 tonight. As far as Hill goes, thanks but no thanks.

oeo
01-29-2009, 08:07 AM
There is nothing wrong with acquiring him, he still has upside and always has been a highly touted pitcher in triple A and the majors. I understand he is getting older, but it's not like he can't duplicate the year he had two years ago, unless he had a serious arm issue that wasn't disclosed to the public.

The guy will be 29 on Opening Day (even though he looks like he's about 15). What possible upside could he have?

munchman33
01-29-2009, 08:15 AM
The guy will be 29 on Opening Day (even though he looks like he's about 15). What possible upside could he have?

That is a very poor and very deceiving argument. His talent didn't suddenly disappear because he turned 29. He has more talent than a lot of guys on our club. It's mental with him. And mental problems aren't related to a players age.

oeo
01-29-2009, 08:16 AM
That is a very poor and very deceiving argument. His talent didn't suddenly disappear because he turned 29. He has more talent than a lot of guys on our club. It's mental with him. And mental problems aren't related to a players age.

I never said anything about "talent." Whether he has much of that is debatable. What I said is he didn't have upside.

What's with your love affair with this guy anyway? Any relation to him, or what? I think he could be a viable back of the rotation guy, but that's about it. I'm not giving up anything for that.

guillensdisciple
01-29-2009, 08:18 AM
The guy will be 29 on Opening Day (even though he looks like he's about 15). What possible upside could he have?

I don't mean upside in tremendous room to impove in terms of talent, rather, he still has the room to do what he did two years ago, unless there is something wrong with him that was undisclosed to the public. Then again, mental issues can be more threatening then actual injuries.

munchman33
01-29-2009, 09:07 AM
I never said anything about "talent." Whether he has much of that is debatable. What I said is he didn't have upside.

What's with your love affair with this guy anyway? Any relation to him, or what? I think he could be a viable back of the rotation guy, but that's about it. I'm not giving up anything for that.

He's already proven himself effective at a near star level in the major leagues. So I don't know why you don't believe him to have "upside."

If you don't think he has much "talent," or even that it's debatable, then you either haven't watched him pitch a lot or don't understand what the word means. He has very good stuff, and a ton of movement that he's been able to control at one point in his career.

EMachine10
01-29-2009, 09:37 AM
Well... you do that. I'll take the 20 billion.
Yikes, loosen the ties guys. Just a little exaggeration to show my disdain.

dickallen15
01-29-2009, 09:53 AM
The guy will be 29 on Opening Day (even though he looks like he's about 15). What possible upside could he have?

In 2007 he was 11-7 with an ERA under 4.00 and pitched 195 innings. The guy is pretty good if he could avoid walks. He doesn't have Matt Thornton's stuff, but Thornton was crap until he learned not to walk people at a pretty late age. If Hill didn't cost anything and you could identify a correctable flaw, he could be a steal. If a 27 year old White Sox pitcher had his season in 2007, you wouldn't say he has no upside. I've read in a few places where this guy could be Cliff Lee if he could get over his wildness.

SoxfaninLA
01-29-2009, 10:08 AM
I know it is crazy, but I am being serious.

Forget what you know about him. If I presented you with Pitcher A and showed his stats , what would you say? 2008 numbers are incomplete b/c he had an injury. He must be healthy now otherwise why would other teams be interested?

Look at this stats and they aren't that bad. Look at his Ks to innings ratio. How about the possibility of converting him to a reliever?

What is his market value anyways? Even if he isn't for us, what would it cost another team to get him. Thx.

He wasn't injured last year, he just sucked because he couldn't throw the ball over the plate. There is no denying that Hill has talent and he has performed at the major league level, but last I checked he was getting lit up in the Venezuelan league. He has some major mental issues and its highly probable that he never comes back from them. It is going to take a lot of time to get him back to being a major league caliber pitcher if it can be done. That being said I would certainly take him in our system, but I wouldn't give up anything close to valuable for him.

Jim Shorts
01-29-2009, 10:21 AM
If we were going to take any of the Cubs players that were out of options, it should have been Pie. Kenny has been getting the nut-jobs out of the clubhouse for about 4 years now, so I don't see him bringing in Hill.

OTOH, just bring him in to let AJ and BA whoop his ass.

oeo
01-29-2009, 10:27 AM
He's already proven himself effective at a near star level in the major leagues. So I don't know why you don't believe him to have "upside."

Upside usually means your room for improvement. How much is he going to improve at the age of 29?

Proving yourself is having one good year at the age of 27? He hasn't proven jack ****. He's proven as much as Danks and Floyd have in their careers: nada. Until they back themselves up, they're not proven. Hill is an old man compared to them...how the hell is he a proven commodity?

If you don't think he has much "talent," or even that it's debatable, then you either haven't watched him pitch a lot or don't understand what the word means. He has very good stuff, and a ton of movement that he's been able to control at one point in his career.Talent != stuff.

In 2007 he was 11-7 with an ERA under 4.00 and pitched 195 innings. The guy is pretty good if he could avoid walks. He doesn't have Matt Thornton's stuff, but Thornton was crap until he learned not to walk people at a pretty late age. If Hill didn't cost anything and you could identify a correctable flaw, he could be a steal. If a 27 year old White Sox pitcher had his season in 2007, you wouldn't say he has no upside. I've read in a few places where this guy could be Cliff Lee if he could get over his wildness.

Yes I would. There's a point that you reach where you're not going to get better. 'If' he could avoid walks? Don't you think that should have been fixed already?

And you mean Cliff "Career Year" Lee? I'm not saying the guy is a bad pitcher, but he's not the one that showed up in 2008.

BTW, aren't you the same guy that says Josh Fields is what you see is what you get? Rich Hill is going to suddenly become one of the better pitchers in the league at the age of 29, but Fields is crap at the age of 26?

seventyseven
01-29-2009, 10:33 AM
I know the team is larger than any player, but I would be tempted to boo Rich ****ing Hill if he was on the Sox.

dickallen15
01-29-2009, 10:41 AM
Upside usually means your room for improvement. How much is he going to improve at the age of 29?

Proving yourself is having one good year at the age of 27? He hasn't proven jack ****. He's proven as much as Danks and Floyd have in their careers: nada. Until they back themselves up, they're not proven. Hill is an old man compared to them...how the hell is he a proven commodity?

Talent != stuff.



Yes I would. There's a point that you reach where you're not going to get better. 'If' he could avoid walks? Don't you think that should have been fixed already?

And you mean Cliff "Career Year" Lee? I'm not saying the guy is a bad pitcher, but he's not the one that showed up in 2008.

BTW, aren't you the same guy that says Josh Fields is what you see is what you get? Rich Hill is going to suddenly going to become one of the better pitchers in the league at the age of 29, but Fields is crap at the age of 26?

You must not be too high on Floyd if one year means jack****. Cliff "career year" Lee as you call him was 14-8 in 2004, 18-5 in 2005 and 14-11 in 2006. He's been a pretty good pitcher, but facts are something you don't like to deal with.
I don't know how many times you have to see Josh Fields swing as hard as he can and miss by 5 feet to strikeout again to realize what he is. As I said, Hill was a pretty decent pitcher in 2007 not being able to throw strikes. Since, he's had an even harder time throwing strikes. The upside is if he could learn to throw strikes, like Matt Thornton finally did at the age of 29. He would be a better pitcher.

cws05champ
01-29-2009, 10:44 AM
If we were going to take any of the Cubs players that were out of options, it should have been Pie. Kenny has been getting the nut-jobs out of the clubhouse for about 4 years now, so I don't see him bringing in Hill.

OTOH, just bring him in to let AJ and BA whoop his ass.
LOL!!

I just got the Office Space printer beatdown scene in my head when I thought about this...:rolling:

Craig Grebeck
01-29-2009, 10:45 AM
I know the team is larger than any player, but I would be tempted to boo Rich ****ing Hill if he was on the Sox.
I seriously have no idea what Rich Hill did to deserve such disdain. Was it because he backed his teammate in the aftermath of an altercation? The horror!

doublem23
01-29-2009, 11:01 AM
I seriously have no idea what Rich Hill did to deserve such disdain. Was it because he backed his teammate in the aftermath of an altercation? The horror!

That doesn't mean we have to like him. I'd be willing to put my personal dislike of a superstar athlete, like A-Rod, aside if he were to come to the Sox. But Rich Hill deserves no such treatment.

Oh, I should mention he royally blows.

illini81887
01-29-2009, 11:45 AM
The guy lost his control. He is Rick Ankiel and has no bat

CashMan
01-29-2009, 11:49 AM
You must not be too high on Floyd if one year means jack****. Cliff "career year" Lee as you call him was 14-8 in 2004, 18-5 in 2005 and 14-11 in 2006. He's been a pretty good pitcher, but facts are something you don't like to deal with.
I don't know how many times you have to see Josh Fields swing as hard as he can and miss by 5 feet to strikeout again to realize what he is. As I said, Hill was a pretty decent pitcher in 2007 not being able to throw strikes. Since, he's had an even harder time throwing strikes. The upside is if he could learn to throw strikes, like Matt Thornton finally did at the age of 29. He would be a better pitcher.



Wasn't a certain Cardinal OFer a decent pitcher for about a year?

oeo
01-29-2009, 11:51 AM
You must not be too high on Floyd if one year means jack****.

No, I'm probably higher on him than most. I was one of the few last year that thought his final month of 2007 wasn't a fluke. That doesn't mean he's proven anything. He will only be 26, however, so his future is bright. Hill had a good season at the age of 27, went missing at the age of 28, and is suddenly going to become a Cy Young pitcher?

Cliff "career year" Lee as you call him was 14-8 in 2004, 18-5 in 2005 and 14-11 in 2006. He's been a pretty good pitcher, but facts are something you don't like to deal with.Here's a fact: win-loss is the worst way to evaluate a pitcher.

I seriously have no idea what Rich Hill did to deserve such disdain. Was it because he backed his teammate in the aftermath of an altercation? The horror!

I just don't think he's very good. I never have.

CashMan
01-29-2009, 11:54 AM
No, I'm probably higher on him than most. I was one of the few last year that thought his final month of 2007 wasn't a fluke. That doesn't mean he's proven anything. He will only be 26, however, so his future is bright. Hill had a good season at the age of 27, went missing at the age of 28, and is suddenly going to become a Cy Young pitcher?

Here's a fact: win-loss is the worst way to evaluate a pitcher.


I think you are right about Floyd, didn't he take a few games into no-hitters?

I think you can look at wins and losses, just not as the #1 thing. I would look at ERA, WHIP, and IP before I would look at W-L.

kittle42
01-29-2009, 11:55 AM
Here's a fact: win-loss is the worst way to evaluate a pitcher.

Seriously. His 2004 was garbage, and his 2006 was merely OK.

dickallen15
01-29-2009, 12:02 PM
No, I'm probably higher on him than most. I was one of the few last year that thought his final month of 2007 wasn't a fluke. That doesn't mean he's proven anything. He will only be 26, however, so his future is bright. Hill had a good season at the age of 27, went missing at the age of 28, and is suddenly going to become a Cy Young pitcher?

Here's a fact: win-loss is the worst way to evaluate a pitcher.



I just don't think he's very good. I never have.

18-5 3.79 ERA 2005
14-11 4.40 ERA 2006
If a White Sox pitcher does this, he's a bargain at $11-12 million a year. As I said, but obviously comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, IF you could get him for almost nothing, and IF there was a flaw that has been identified, he could be a steal. I'm not saying he'll be an All Star, I just mentioned, I read at least 2 articles comparing him to Cliff Lee, a guy after 2007 was thought to be awful. You say he has no upside. I say he has plenty, IF he can throw strikes.

goon
01-29-2009, 12:30 PM
I wouldn't want him on the Sox if he personally handed me 20 billion dollars.

I'll take 20 dollars.

I don't think Rich Hill is that bad though, I never really heard if his problems were mechanical or just mental. I know he struggled with his command last season in the Minors, but if the problem was with his delivery, I'd take him.

thedudeabides
01-29-2009, 12:40 PM
18-5 3.79 ERA 2005
14-11 4.40 ERA 2006
If a White Sox pitcher does this, he's a bargain at $11-12 million a year. As I said, but obviously comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, IF you could get him for almost nothing, and IF there was a flaw that has been identified, he could be a steal. I'm not saying he'll be an All Star, I just mentioned, I read at least 2 articles comparing him to Cliff Lee, a guy after 2007 was thought to be awful. You say he has no upside. I say he has plenty, IF he can throw strikes.

I think the Cliff Lee comparison is pretty far off. Lee struggled through injuries in 2007, but had three pretty successfull seasons prior to that. Hill had one very good season and then the league adjusted to him and started laying off the curveball out of the zone. And then he pretty much lost it. From what it sounds like in the Venezuelan league, it's just getting worse.

I have no more faith in Rich Hill coming back than I do Dontrelle Willis.

I wouldn't give up anything for him. I guess I wouldn't see any harm in a minor league contract, if he were released.

areilly
01-29-2009, 01:22 PM
http://www.moviestore.com/library/photos/249/249801.jpg

Lookin' good, Mrs. Cunningham.

Damn.

EndemicSox
01-30-2009, 11:24 AM
If last year was simply a fluke, and I think it was, sure...sign him up. Guy has put up solid numbers for the past 5 years at every level. Then again, when a pitcher loses his bullets, it's over, so it is a risk. But I don't think it's an arm issue with Hill, which is a very good thing for the Cubs, or any team that trades for him. Trading him now wouldn't be a smart move on the Cubs part, however...

seventyseven
01-30-2009, 12:36 PM
I seriously have no idea what Rich Hill did to deserve such disdain. Was it because he backed his teammate in the aftermath of an altercation? The horror!

He was the only guy on the Cubs who called AJ's play "gutless." Every other Cub interviewed, including Barrett, called AJ's play hard and clean. Which shows Hill has no idea how to play this game. Which he showed in his pitching stats last year as well.

Banix12
01-30-2009, 12:46 PM
He's out of options so if I'm not mistaken if we traded for him he would have to make the club out of spring training for us to keep him. The white sox obviously can't afford to put a reclaimation project like Hill in the rotation so I don't see any reason to trade for him.

Now let's say he gets released at some point this spring training. Then sure, bring him in on a minor league deal and see if he can work out his problems.

munchman33
01-30-2009, 01:29 PM
He's out of options so if I'm not mistaken if we traded for him he would have to make the club out of spring training for us to keep him. The white sox obviously can't afford to put a reclaimation project like Hill in the rotation so I don't see any reason to trade for him.

Now let's say he gets released at some point this spring training. Then sure, bring him in on a minor league deal and see if he can work out his problems.

Even after 2005, I can't remember people being so delusional.

Our fifth starter is Clayton Richard or Jeff Marquez. You can't tell me a guy like Rich Hill, more talented than those two with previous success at the major league level, wouldn't at least be the favorite going in. The only way your comment makes sense is if you expect us to sign Ben Sheets. And...news flash...that isn't happening. If Rich Hill was on our squad, he could conceivably wind up as our fourth starter.

thedudeabides
01-30-2009, 01:36 PM
Even after 2005, I can't remember people being so delusional.

Our fifth starter is Clayton Richard or Jeff Marquez. You can't tell me a guy like Rich Hill, more talented than those two with previous success at the major league level, wouldn't at least be the favorite going in. The only way your comment makes sense is if you expect us to sign Ben Sheets. And...news flash...that isn't happening. If Rich Hill was on our squad, he could conceivably wind up as our fourth starter.

You call people delusional, but don't except the fact that Hill can't find the plate and got shelled out of the Venezuelan league with 23 walks in 21 innings. As mentioned by a previous poster, he is out of options and would have to take up a spot on the 25 man roster.

Your man crush on Rich Hill is impressive. Not my favorite insane stance you've taken with a player, but it's climbing the charts.

dickallen15
01-30-2009, 01:53 PM
You call people delusional, but don't except the fact that Hill can't find the plate and got shelled out of the Venezuelan league with 23 walks in 21 innings. As mentioned by a previous poster, he is out of options and would have to take up a spot on the 25 man roster.

Your man crush on Rich Hill is impressive. Not my favorite insane stance you've taken with a player, but it's climbing the charts.

Matt Thornton was about the same. Couldn't throw strikes, was out of options. Baltimore may actually give the Cubs something for him so its not going to happen, but the guy has skills. If somehow, someway, someone can get him some sort of control, he could be very good.

goon
01-30-2009, 02:16 PM
If somehow, someway, someone can get him some sort of control, he could be very good.

Exactly. He has good numbers in the Minors and College... well, he can strike guys out, that much we know. If he can find some command, he's a middle/back of the rotation type pitcher.

munchman33
01-30-2009, 03:55 PM
You call people delusional, but don't except the fact that Hill can't find the plate and got shelled out of the Venezuelan league with 23 walks in 21 innings. As mentioned by a previous poster, he is out of options and would have to take up a spot on the 25 man roster.

Your man crush on Rich Hill is impressive. Not my favorite insane stance you've taken with a player, but it's climbing the charts.

Rich Hill is likely to be ineffective this season. But his upside is higher than that of our other options. You confuse my realism of our current players for delusion of outside options.

thedudeabides
01-30-2009, 04:00 PM
Rich Hill is likely to be ineffective this season. But his upside is higher than that of our other options. You confuse my realism of our current players for delusion of outside options.

But he would have to stay on the 25 man all season, and even you say he will be ineffective this year. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

thedudeabides
01-30-2009, 04:01 PM
Matt Thornton was about the same. Couldn't throw strikes, was out of options. Baltimore may actually give the Cubs something for him so its not going to happen, but the guy has skills. If somehow, someway, someone can get him some sort of control, he could be very good.

The Sox said they saw a mechanical flaw in him that they thought was correctable. Hill seems to have completely lost it mentally. Not unlike Dontrelle and Ankiel, just to name a pair.

munchman33
01-30-2009, 04:07 PM
But he would have to stay on the 25 man all season, and even you say he will be ineffective this year. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

No, he'd only have to stay on the 25 man until we decide to get rid of him. Why do you ignore that fact? If it's obvious he's not improving, move on. He's still a better option than Clayton. At his best, Clayton's a career #5. At his best, Rich Hill could be a #2.

munchman33
01-30-2009, 04:08 PM
The Sox said they saw a mechanical flaw in him that they thought was correctable. Hill seems to have completely lost it mentally. Not unlike Dontrelle and Ankiel, just to name a pair.

Gavin would be a better comparison than Thornton. They have very similar stuff (Hill gets a little better movement, but it's a different kind of curve).

Banix12
01-30-2009, 04:25 PM
No, he'd only have to stay on the 25 man until we decide to get rid of him. Why do you ignore that fact? If it's obvious he's not improving, move on. He's still a better option than Clayton. At his best, Clayton's a career #5. At his best, Rich Hill could be a #2.

Isn't it a bit early to be declaring Clayton a career #5? If you looked at Rich Hill's development when he was was the same age as Clayton (24-25) you would honestly be hard pressed to say he would be an effective major league pitcher. As I recall when Hill was that age he was just getting out of High A ball. He wasn't even considered a Cubs top prospect until 2006 when he was 26 years old after he had an unexpected breakout 2005 season in the minors.

doublem23
01-30-2009, 04:36 PM
Isn't it a bit early to be declaring Clayton a career #5? If you looked at Rich Hill's development when he was was the same age as Clayton (24-25) you would honestly be hard pressed to say he would be an effective major league pitcher. As I recall when Hill was that age he was just getting out of High A ball. He wasn't even considered a Cubs top prospect until 2006 when he was 26 years old after he had an unexpected breakout 2005 season in the minors.

Do you really see Clayton Richard being anything more than a back-of-the-rotation kind of guy? I mean, he could be a #1/#2 pitcher somewhere, but that rotation would be terrible. Richard, IIRC, wasn't really on anyone's radar at this time last year, either, until he had an unexpected breakout year.

Banix12
01-30-2009, 04:39 PM
Do you really see Clayton Richard being anything more than a back-of-the-rotation kind of guy? I mean, he could be a #1/#2 pitcher somewhere, but that rotation would be terrible. Richard, IIRC, wasn't really on anyone's radar at this time last year, either, until he had an unexpected breakout year.

I'm just saying that it's probably a little presumtuous to be declaring what his career is going to be before his career really even gets started. To say that it would be impossible for him to develop into a solid major league pitcher feels wrong to me. After only a handful of starts in the major league I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Right now, yes, i would say he is no better than a back end starter but things can change.

doublem23
01-30-2009, 04:51 PM
I'm just saying that it's probably a little presumtuous to be declaring what his career is going to be before his career really even gets started. To say that it would be impossible for him to develop into a solid major league pitcher feels wrong to me. After only a handful of starts in the major league I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Right now, yes, i would say he is no better than a back end starter but things can change.

Fair enough, I'll admit that most of my feeling on Richard is just gut instinct and projecting others' success and failure on him. I just don't get a great feeling from a guy that just out of nowhere had a fantastic year in the minor leagues. I don't know, we're talking about him in a thread in the Clubhouse, and I really feel that he'd be better suited to be a mop-up bullpen guy/spot starter/2nd lefty in the bullpen.

The limited stuff he showed last year really wasn't that impressive. I just don't see him as a guy you can rely on every 5th day to give you 6 innings minimum. Hope I'm wrong.

munchman33
01-30-2009, 05:23 PM
I'm just saying that it's probably a little presumtuous to be declaring what his career is going to be before his career really even gets started. To say that it would be impossible for him to develop into a solid major league pitcher feels wrong to me. After only a handful of starts in the major league I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Right now, yes, i would say he is no better than a back end starter but things can change.

It isn't presumptuous to expect him to be at best a back end starter. He doesn't have great pitches, and he doesn't have great control. He has one good pitch, a few average/below average pitches, and better than average control. If his control improves to, say, Tom Glavine control...then yes, he can be better than a back end guy. But you can't tell me that's more likely than a guy like Rich Hill returning to form he's already shown.

Banix12
01-30-2009, 09:30 PM
It isn't presumptuous to expect him to be at best a back end starter. He doesn't have great pitches, and he doesn't have great control. He has one good pitch, a few average/below average pitches, and better than average control. If his control improves to, say, Tom Glavine control...then yes, he can be better than a back end guy. But you can't tell me that's more likely than a guy like Rich Hill returning to form he's already shown.

Richard only walked 20 men in over 120 innings last year in the minor leagues. That seems like better than average control. Certainly as he gets adjusted to the major leagues it follows that he could start showing that control in the majors.

You are so fast to write Clayton Richard's tombstone after only 13 major league appearances. You sound like a cubs fan after the 2005 season talking about Rich Hill after he made 10 appearances and had an ERA of 9.17.

Last year Clayton Richard walked 13 men at the major league level in 47+ innings. Rich Hill walked 17 in just over 19 innings.

munchman33
01-30-2009, 11:43 PM
Richard only walked 20 men in over 120 innings last year in the minor leagues. That seems like better than average control. Certainly as he gets adjusted to the major leagues it follows that he could start showing that control in the majors.

You are so fast to write Clayton Richard's tombstone after only 13 major league appearances. You sound like a cubs fan after the 2005 season talking about Rich Hill after he made 10 appearances and had an ERA of 9.17.

Last year Clayton Richard walked 13 men at the major league level in 47+ innings. Rich Hill walked 17 in just over 19 innings.

Not walking people is a sign of better than average control. Not excellent or even great control. He isn't throwing darts to every part of the strike zone at will. And given the pitches he throws, he'd have to do that to be anything but a number 5.

RadioheadRocks
01-31-2009, 01:08 AM
"I'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs..." :nuts:

cws05champ
01-31-2009, 01:37 PM
It isn't presumptuous to expect him to be at best a back end starter. He doesn't have great pitches, and he doesn't have great control. He has one good pitch, a few average/below average pitches, and better than average control. If his control improves to, say, Tom Glavine control...then yes, he can be better than a back end guy. But you can't tell me that's more likely than a guy like Rich Hill returning to form he's already shown.
So which is it munch? Does he have good control or not? In the first sentence he doesn't have good control, in the 2nd sentence he has better than average control.

He's showed flashes of plus stuff and has good deception on his delivery with good control. He throws stikes which Ozzie loves, and he battles. He had common rookie problems with high pitch counts and getting touched up 2nd and 3rd time through the lineup(2.84 ERA 1-9, 6.89 ERA 2nd time through). That just shows that hitters adjusted to him and he needs to make adjustments again the 2nd time through. Not to mention PFP needs to be done quite a bit.

His ERA 1st time through the lineup show that he has the stuff to compete, he just needs to make adjustments. His slider and change location need to improve and if he learned the cutter to get in on RH batters it would make him better. IMO, I think you'll see a similar year to John Danks 2007(ERA hovering around 5) where he shows flashes of good stuff but rookie inconsistency.

munchman33
01-31-2009, 02:52 PM
So which is it munch? Does he have good control or not? In the first sentence he doesn't have good control, in the 2nd sentence he has better than average control.

He's showed flashes of plus stuff and has good deception on his delivery with good control. He throws stikes which Ozzie loves, and he battles. He had common rookie problems with high pitch counts and getting touched up 2nd and 3rd time through the lineup(2.84 ERA 1-9, 6.89 ERA 2nd time through). That just shows that hitters adjusted to him and he needs to make adjustments again the 2nd time through. Not to mention PFP needs to be done quite a bit.

His ERA 1st time through the lineup show that he has the stuff to compete, he just needs to make adjustments. His slider and change location need to improve and if he learned the cutter to get in on RH batters it would make him better. IMO, I think you'll see a similar year to John Danks 2007(ERA hovering around 5) where he shows flashes of good stuff but rookie inconsistency.

I'm confused...I said he doesn't have great control, and then I said he had better than average control. Do you think those two are the same thing? There's a world of difference between the two.

Your first time through vs. second time through argument is faulty. You're actually proving my point. Once lineups see what he offers, he gets torched. The stuff isn't there. Now, that said, with improved control he could certainly succeed enough to post 180 innings and an era in the mid 4's regularly. But if you're expecting more than that, his control needs to improve to superstar proportions, because his pitches aren't that great.

cws05champ
02-01-2009, 10:03 AM
I'm confused...I said he doesn't have great control, and then I said he had better than average control. Do you think those two are the same thing? There's a world of difference between the two.

Your first time through vs. second time through argument is faulty. You're actually proving my point. Once lineups see what he offers, he gets torched. The stuff isn't there. Now, that said, with improved control he could certainly succeed enough to post 180 innings and an era in the mid 4's regularly. But if you're expecting more than that, his control needs to improve to superstar proportions, because his pitches aren't that great.
No it's not...pitching is not just about the stuff you are throwing but making adjustments. During a game or over a season hitters have to adjust to the pitchers and the umpires. Pitchers have to make adjustment to the hitters adjustments.

I think John Danks is a comp for Richard, now we'll see if Richard can refine control of his off speed pitches and take a step forward in a full season. Richard could be slow to adjust and be sent down or if he could be similar to Danks in his rookie season like I said.

munchman33
02-01-2009, 12:48 PM
No it's not...pitching is not just about the stuff you are throwing but making adjustments. During a game or over a season hitters have to adjust to the pitchers and the umpires. Pitchers have to make adjustment to the hitters adjustments.

I think John Danks is a comp for Richard, now we'll see if Richard can refine control of his off speed pitches and take a step forward in a full season. Richard could be slow to adjust and be sent down or if he could be similar to Danks in his rookie season like I said.

You really can't be serious about that, can you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you've never seen Clayton pitch. Because Danks' cutter is a ++, his change is +, and his curve is borderline +. Clayton has average or worse stuff across the board.

SoxNation05
02-01-2009, 02:09 PM
I am not saying Clayton Richard is going to be better than a #4 in his career. I don't know much about his make up but when you look at a guy like Mark Buerhle or a couple years ago Jamie Moyer, you do not need to have dominating stuff to be a number 1. I am not saying Buerhle's stuff isn't special but it's simply not top of the line stuff.

cards press box
02-01-2009, 02:10 PM
It isn't presumptuous to expect him to be at best a back end starter. He doesn't have great pitches, and he doesn't have great control. He has one good pitch, a few average/below average pitches, and better than average control. If his control improves to, say, Tom Glavine control...then yes, he can be better than a back end guy. But you can't tell me that's more likely than a guy like Rich Hill returning to form he's already shown.

Yep, the annual winter bashing of young players (particularly pitchers) adjusting to the major leagues -- the true favorite pastime of some WSI posters. Look, young players go through growing pains. That doesn't mean that they won't mature and play well. Last year, some posters could not write Gavin Floyd off fast enough. Tell me that doesn't that look ridiculously premature now.

Clayton Richard showed a lot of positives last year. As the season progressed, he pitched better. His start against New York at Yankee Stadium and his relief stint against Tampa Bay in Game 1 of the ALDS were both quite impressive. He's left handed, throws strikes and has a pretty good pickoff move to first. Can we just wait until spring training to see if he continues to improve?

After the last two offseasons, I just needed to say that. Thank you.

munchman33
02-01-2009, 04:44 PM
Yep, the annual winter bashing of young players (particularly pitchers) adjusting to the major leagues -- the true favorite pastime of some WSI posters. Look, young players go through growing pains. That doesn't mean that they won't mature and play well. Last year, some posters could not write Gavin Floyd off fast enough. Tell me that doesn't that look ridiculously premature now.

Clayton Richard showed a lot of positives last year. As the season progressed, he pitched better. His start against New York at Yankee Stadium and his relief stint against Tampa Bay in Game 1 of the ALDS were both quite impressive. He's left handed, throws strikes and has a pretty good pickoff move to first. Can we just wait until spring training to see if he continues to improve?

After the last two offseasons, I just needed to say that. Thank you.

WHAT???

Being young doesn't give you an automatic pass for being bad. That might be the biggest single piece of bull**** I've ever read on this site. Kodus to you and blanket statements that make no sense.

It's a talent issue. Not and adjustment thing. Guys like Danks, Felix Hernandez...guys who throw really good pitches...they need an adjustment period to become stud pitchers. Not guys like Clayton Richard. Clayton needs an adjustment period to be average.

Comparing the talent Clayton has to Gavin Floyd (who's problems were mental and more similar to Rich Hill) is like comparing Lance Broadway to a young and struggling Johan Santana.

munchman33
02-01-2009, 04:47 PM
I am not saying Clayton Richard is going to be better than a #4 in his career. I don't know much about his make up but when you look at a guy like Mark Buerhle or a couple years ago Jamie Moyer, you do not need to have dominating stuff to be a number 1. I am not saying Buerhle's stuff isn't special but it's simply not top of the line stuff.

Buehrle has command of all of his pitches, and superstar control to boot. It would be nice, but saying he's heading to that is like saying I'm on my way to being President. It isn't out of the realm of possibility, but it isn't likely, nor is it even something I'd think to try to do.

jabrch
02-01-2009, 08:51 PM
After the last two offseasons, I just needed to say that. Thank you.

And you are right. Making bold predictions in February is...well...bold. And it may be right too. It was possible that Floyd and Danks would both suck, and we'd fail to win 80 games. It was also possible both would be solid, and we'd make the playoffs. Anyone who said they knew for a fact, was lying (and that includes our coaches and front office). Anyone who claims to know what the back of our rotation will do this year is equally as full of ****.

Craig Grebeck
02-01-2009, 09:15 PM
And you are right. Making bold predictions in February is...well...bold. And it may be right too. It was possible that Floyd and Danks would both suck, and we'd fail to win 80 games. It was also possible both would be solid, and we'd make the playoffs. Anyone who said they knew for a fact, was lying (and that includes our coaches and front office). Anyone who claims to know what the back of our rotation will do this year is equally as full of ****.
Anyone who compares Floyd and Danks to Richard is equally full of ****.

SoxNation05
02-01-2009, 10:36 PM
Buehrle has command of all of his pitches, and superstar control to boot. It would be nice, but saying he's heading to that is like saying I'm on my way to being President. It isn't out of the realm of possibility, but it isn't likely, nor is it even something I'd think to try to do.
Where did i say he was heading tobe the next Buerhle?

cws05champ
02-01-2009, 10:49 PM
You really can't be serious about that, can you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you've never seen Clayton pitch. Because Danks' cutter is a ++, his change is +, and his curve is borderline +. Clayton has average or worse stuff across the board.
First of all I watch every Sox game, so I have seen Richard pitch...but thank you for the condescending comment. And you would read my whole post before responding and spewing bull****, you would see that I said "we'll see if Richard can refine his command of the offspeed pitches and take a step forward over a full season". Why is it so hard to believe that Richard could have a similar year to Dank's rookie year in 2007?

Danks was not even throwing the cutter until last season when it became a good pitch(not a ++ pitch). His change improved greatly from 2007 to 2008 in arm action and location.

And to your last point that Clayton has average or worse across the board. I can't say I disagree at this point. His fastball and slider are average but has some deception to it in his delivery and he needs to improve his change and probably develop a cutter...not unlike....John Danks circa 2007. His stuff is not that much different than Danks.

See if you can answer this question honestly: Did you think Danks was going to pitch the way he did this past year?

munchman33
02-02-2009, 12:02 AM
First of all I watch every Sox game, so I have seen Richard pitch...but thank you for the condescending comment. And you would read my whole post before responding and spewing bull****, you would see that I said "we'll see if Richard can refine his command of the offspeed pitches and take a step forward over a full season". Why is it so hard to believe that Richard could have a similar year to Dank's rookie year in 2007?

Danks was not even throwing the cutter until last season when it became a good pitch(not a ++ pitch). His change improved greatly from 2007 to 2008 in arm action and location.

And to your last point that Clayton has average or worse across the board. I can't say I disagree at this point. His fastball and slider are average but has some deception to it in his delivery and he needs to improve his change and probably develop a cutter...not unlike....John Danks circa 2007. His stuff is not that much different than Danks.

See if you can answer this question honestly: Did you think Danks was going to pitch the way he did this past year?

Yes, as far back as the day we traded for him. Go back and look if you wish. I was one of the few okay with Brandon leaving because I thought Danks was going to be a stud.

Danks needed to refine. He had the movement. He needed command.

Let me reiterate. Comparing Danks to someone like Richard is, well, just plain funny. Even when he wasn't producing at a major league level, his pitches were just plain better than Richard's. So if you don't want condescending commentary, you should probably not say things that are so foolish. Really.

Jerome
02-02-2009, 12:44 AM
If there were no baggage attached I would not be opposed to adding him to the discussion for possible 5th starter, another talented arm couldn't hurt, if the price was right? What happens if Richard, Broadway, Marquez, and Colon all suck this year?

cards press box
02-02-2009, 01:12 AM
WHAT???

Being young doesn't give you an automatic pass for being bad. That might be the biggest single piece of bull**** I've ever read on this site. Kodus to you and blanket statements that make no sense.

It's a talent issue. Not and adjustment thing. Guys like Danks, Felix Hernandez...guys who throw really good pitches...they need an adjustment period to become stud pitchers. Not guys like Clayton Richard. Clayton needs an adjustment period to be average.

Comparing the talent Clayton has to Gavin Floyd (who's problems were mental and more similar to Rich Hill) is like comparing Lance Broadway to a young and struggling Johan Santana.

First, the Cardinals give up the lead in the NFL championship game with 35 seconds left and now I read statements characterizing my post as "the biggest single piece of bull**** I've ever read on this site" and congratulating me for "blanket statements that make no sense." Oh and suggesting that my post was no different that comparing Lance Broadway to Johan Santana. Thanks a whole lot for your ridiculous hyperbole.

As you have mis-characterized my argument as Clayton Richard's talent = Gavin Floyd's talent, I suspect that the problem is not my post but your utter misundertanding of it. So, let's get this straight.

No one said that Richard had the stuff or pedigree of either Danks or Floyd. Richard was selected in the 8th round of 2005 along with his Michigan teammate Chris Getz who was drafted in the 4th round. Floyd and Danks were 1st round picks and I recall that Floyd was the 4th player drafted in the 2001 draft.

I am saying that: (a) young players of all varying talent levels need time to develop, (b) just as Floyd and Danks needed time to develop, the same may be true for Richard, Poreda and Marquez and (c) many posters here have absolutely no patience at all for young players.

And while Richard may not have the stuff of a Gavin Floyd, he definitely has talent. In 2008, he went 6-6 at AA Birmingham with a 2.47 ERA, 16 BB and 53 K's in 83 and 2/3 innings. Richard then went 6-0 at AAA Charlotte with a 2.45 ERA, 4 BB and 33 K's in 44 innings. Performance in the minor leagues is usually a good predcitor of major league performance. Putting aside Richard's minor league stats, he's left-handed, pitches quickly, has good control and a fine move to first. What's more, the Yankee and Tampa Bay games showed that Richard is a competitor.

I don't know whether Richard will become a big league starter, reliver or neither. As I said before, can we just wait until spring training to see if he continues to improve? And, anyway, it's not like Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were available but the Sox decided to give them a pass so Richard could pitch in spring training. I could keep going but this is just as frustrating as watching James Harrison returning that 100 yard interception return to end the first half of the Super Bowl.


Anyone who compares Floyd and Danks to Richard is equally full of ****.

See above.

munchman33
02-02-2009, 08:24 AM
First, the Cardinals give up the lead in the NFL championship game with 35 seconds left and now I read statements characterizing my post as "the biggest single piece of bull**** I've ever read on this site" and congratulating me for "blanket statements that make no sense." Oh and suggesting that my post was no different that comparing Lance Broadway to Johan Santana. Thanks a whole lot for your ridiculous hyperbole.

As you have mis-characterized my argument as Clayton Richard's talent = Gavin Floyd's talent, I suspect that the problem is not my post but your utter misundertanding of it. So, let's get this straight.

No one said that Richard had the stuff or pedigree of either Danks or Floyd. Richard was selected in the 8th round of 2005 along with his Michigan teammate Chris Getz who was drafted in the 4th round. Floyd and Danks were 1st round picks and I recall that Floyd was the 4th player drafted in the 2001 draft.

I am saying that: (a) young players of all varying talent levels need time to develop, (b) just as Floyd and Danks needed time to develop, the same may be true for Richard, Poreda and Marquez and (c) many posters here have absolutely no patience at all for young players.

And while Richard may not have the stuff of a Gavin Floyd, he definitely has talent. In 2008, he went 6-6 at AA Birmingham with a 2.47 ERA, 16 BB and 53 K's in 83 and 2/3 innings. Richard then went 6-0 at AAA Charlotte with a 2.45 ERA, 4 BB and 33 K's in 44 innings. Performance in the minor leagues is usually a good predcitor of major league performance. Putting aside Richard's minor league stats, he's left-handed, pitches quickly, has good control and a fine move to first. What's more, the Yankee and Tampa Bay games showed that Richard is a competitor.

I don't know whether Richard will become a big league starter, reliver or neither. As I said before, can we just wait until spring training to see if he continues to improve? And, anyway, it's not like Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were available but the Sox decided to give them a pass so Richard could pitch in spring training. I could keep going but this is just as frustrating as watching James Harrison returning that 100 yard interception return to end the first half of the Super Bowl.




Let me remind you that the post you're talking about was in response to me...and my opinion that Clayton's ceiling is a number five. And that I do think he needs time to adjust. But that adjustment isn't anything close to higher than a #5, because that's simply what he brings to the table. Individual assessment, not a blanket statement.

Then you go and give rah rah company line blanket statement. Which is fine, except when you're counterpointing an actual argument. And the guy you're trying to fit into the argument doesn't fit there for anyone with a brain.

180 innings 4.50 era. That's realistically what we should be expecting Clayton to be if he gets his act together. Closer to 4 if he gets lucky. Any better than that, and he'd have to reinvent himself completely.

cws05champ
02-02-2009, 08:31 AM
Yes, as far back as the day we traded for him. Go back and look if you wish. I was one of the few okay with Brandon leaving because I thought Danks was going to be a stud.

Danks needed to refine. He had the movement. He needed command.

Let me reiterate. Comparing Danks to someone like Richard is, well, just plain funny. Even when he wasn't producing at a major league level, his pitches were just plain better than Richard's. So if you don't want condescending commentary, you should probably not say things that are so foolish. Really.
Really, there's no point in arguing with you. You are always right....no one else can have an opinion and if they do it's foolish right? You act holier than thou in all your comments and are condescending to a lot of people. You need to dial it down a bit.

Taliesinrk
02-02-2009, 08:35 AM
Yes, as far back as the day we traded for him. Go back and look if you wish. I was one of the few okay with Brandon leaving because I thought Danks was going to be a stud.

Danks needed to refine. He had the movement. He needed command.

Let me reiterate. Comparing Danks to someone like Richard is, well, just plain funny. Even when he wasn't producing at a major league level, his pitches were just plain better than Richard's. So if you don't want condescending commentary, you should probably not say things that are so foolish. Really.

:rolleyes:

cards press box
02-02-2009, 09:16 AM
Then you go and give rah rah company line blanket statement. Which is fine, except when you're counterpointing an actual argument. And the guy you're trying to fit into the argument doesn't fit there for anyone with a brain.

I would respond to this but, honestly, I do not understand what you are saying except for the "company line" reference. You know, the Williams/Guillen regime has done pretty well and deserves the benefit of the doubt. Since 2000, the Sox have had exactly one season under .500. That is awfully good and a lot better than many teams. Counting 2007, Ozzie has averaged 86.5 wins as Sox manager. I view 2007 as an outlier and without 2007, Ozzie has averaged about 90 wins a season. KW and Guillen have produced results.

Yes, this regime has committed to making the team younger. What's wrong with that? Teams that do not produce their own talent get old and bad pretty quickly. I give them credit for developing young players and having the courage to give those players a chance to play. Last year, this board went crazy at the notion of Gavin Floyd in the starting rotation. 17 wins later, the decision looks good. Let's see if Getz, Lillibridge, Flowers, Poreda, Marquez, Richard, Fields, Beckham and Viciedo make the Sox look good, too.

If favoring the Williams/Guillen regime makes me a "company man," then so be it. I hope they are here for years.

180 innings 4.50 era. That's realistically what we should be expecting Clayton to be if he gets his act together. Closer to 4 if he gets lucky. Any better than that, and he'd have to reinvent himself completely.

That's your opinion and that's fine. But you (and no one else) really knows the extent of Richard's upside. If Richard does not develop a cutter or improve his changeup, his curve and fastball might not be enough for him to succeed as a starter. If that happens, he might follow in the footsteps of a Neal Cotts and have some success as a reliever. That has some value, too.

munchman33
02-02-2009, 10:11 AM
I would respond to this but, honestly, I do not understand what you are saying except for the "company line" reference. You know, the Williams/Guillen regime has done pretty well and deserves the benefit of the doubt. Since 2000, the Sox have had exactly one season under .500. That is awfully good and a lot better than many teams. Counting 2007, Ozzie has averaged 86.5 wins as Sox manager. I view 2007 as an outlier and without 2007, Ozzie has averaged about 90 wins a season. KW and Guillen have produced results.

Yes, this regime has committed to making the team younger. What's wrong with that? Teams that do not produce their own talent get old and bad pretty quickly. I give them credit for developing young players and having the courage to give those players a chance to play. Last year, this board went crazy at the notion of Gavin Floyd in the starting rotation. 17 wins later, the decision looks good. Let's see if Getz, Lillibridge, Flowers, Poreda, Marquez, Richard, Fields, Beckham and Viciedo make the Sox look good, too.

If favoring the Williams/Guillen regime makes me a "company man," then so be it. I hope they are here for years.



That's your opinion and that's fine. But you (and no one else) really knows the extent of Richard's upside. If Richard does not develop a cutter or improve his changeup, his curve and fastball might not be enough for him to succeed as a starter. If that happens, he might follow in the footsteps of a Neal Cotts and have some success as a reliever. That has some value, too.

I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST CLAYTON RICHARD.

I think he's a fine option for a fifth starter. Or a reliever. With a lot of work, he'll be valuable in those roles.

But with a lot of work. And in THOSE ROLES.

Anything more is a pipe dream. Call it my opinion if you wish. But don't act like my "opinion" is supported by scouts or by Clayton's pitches themselves.

munchman33
02-02-2009, 10:12 AM
Really, there's no point in arguing with you. You are always right....no one else can have an opinion and if they do it's foolish right? You act holier than thou in all your comments and are condescending to a lot of people. You need to dial it down a bit.

If people want to make ridiculous arguments to counterpoint me, then yes, I'm going to act condescending. Sorry, it's just my nature.

khan
02-02-2009, 10:34 AM
I can't believe posters are getting this amped up over Rich Freakin' Hill.

Having said this, I wouldn't be opposed to picking him up on the cheap and/or on a minor league deal. However, I understand that he's pretty much dealt to Baltimore, anyway...

Next!

Chez
02-02-2009, 11:04 AM
I can't believe posters are getting this amped up over Rich Freakin' Hill.

Having said this, I wouldn't be opposed to picking him up on the cheap and/or on a minor league deal. However, I understand that he's pretty much dealt to Baltimore, anyway...

Next!

MLB.com is reporting that Hill has, indeed, been dealt to the Orioles for a PTBNL.

johnnyg83
02-02-2009, 11:07 AM
MLB.com is reporting that Hill has, indeed, been dealt to the Orioles for a PTBNL.

S-T too.

jabrch
02-02-2009, 11:11 AM
Sox @ Baltimore in mid april. With his inability to throw strikes, I'd love a few shots at him this year. He was a wreck in the VWL.

jabrch
02-02-2009, 11:11 AM
The Cubs have moved Hill, Pie and Cedeno this offseason. That was what they refused to give up for Brian Roberts a few years ago.

munchman33
02-02-2009, 11:29 AM
The Cubs have moved Hill, Pie and Cedeno this offseason. That was what they refused to give up for Brian Roberts a few years ago.

Yeah, but WSI told me that Brian Roberts wasn't a very good leadoff hitter.

CashMan
02-02-2009, 11:39 AM
Yeah, but WSI told me that Brian Roberts wasn't a very good leadoff hitter.


Didn't he admit to using steroids?

NLaloosh
02-02-2009, 12:18 PM
Well, it's almost a certainty that Roberts will be moved by July. Let's see what happens then. He'll be a rental and become a free agent. I don't see the Sox trading for him or signing him.

I still don't understand why they haven't traded him yet. They have no chance to contend and are clearly rebuilding. Roberts is asking for a 4 yr. /$ 40 mil. deal. Why would he sign with them and why would they sign him? The whole thing makes no sense. I think Andy McFail messed up.

munchman33
02-02-2009, 01:16 PM
Didn't he admit to using steroids?

Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with his current production. He claims it was one season, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what season that was.

doublem23
02-02-2009, 01:25 PM
Yeah, but WSI told me that Brian Roberts wasn't a very good leadoff hitter.

He's not worth the price he'd cost.

munchman33
02-02-2009, 01:36 PM
He's not worth the price he'd cost.

Oh? What are his comaparable players? Are they available? Are they ever available?

There might be a handful of players like Brian Roberts in baseball. He can lead off, hit for a decent average and obp, steal bases, hit situationally, and play above average defense at a key defensive position. He's also got decent power. Who do you compare him too? There aren't other second basemen that compare to his skillset. In fact, the only person in baseball that you can fully compare him to, bringing all that and the good defense, is Ichiro. And while I'm not foolish enough to believe he's as good as Ichiro (who is a better "hitter"), you're talking pretty high value.

doublem23
02-02-2009, 02:15 PM
Oh? What are his comaparable players? Are they available? Are they ever available?

There might be a handful of players like Brian Roberts in baseball. He can lead off, hit for a decent average and obp, steal bases, hit situationally, and play above average defense at a key defensive position. He's also got decent power. Who do you compare him too? There aren't other second basemen that compare to his skillset. In fact, the only person in baseball that you can fully compare him to, bringing all that and the good defense, is Ichiro. And while I'm not foolish enough to believe he's as good as Ichiro (who is a better "hitter"), you're talking pretty high value.

Roberts is an outstanding player, no doubt, but I'm not a big believer in the philosophy that states you need a dynamic lead-off hitter to succeed. It helps, of course, but I think really you just need a guy that can work counts and get on base. After that, everything is really gravy. I'm not saying I wouldn't want Roberts or that he isn't elite, but I think you can be successful while taking a discount at the top of the order, especially with some of the bats we have from 2-7.

That said, we still don't have anyone who fits that criteria. Orlando Cabrera, for example, only had a .334 OBA and 19 steals and was a very capable lead-off guy for this offense. I just don't think you need to overspend for a guy like Roberts.

munchman33
02-02-2009, 06:03 PM
Roberts is an outstanding player, no doubt, but I'm not a big believer in the philosophy that states you need a dynamic lead-off hitter to succeed. It helps, of course, but I think really you just need a guy that can work counts and get on base. After that, everything is really gravy. I'm not saying I wouldn't want Roberts or that he isn't elite, but I think you can be successful while taking a discount at the top of the order, especially with some of the bats we have from 2-7.

That said, we still don't have anyone who fits that criteria. Orlando Cabrera, for example, only had a .334 OBA and 19 steals and was a very capable lead-off guy for this offense. I just don't think you need to overspend for a guy like Roberts.

Okay, I see what you're getting at. I don't think it's "overspending" though. That's just his value. If you'd rather not pay the price, I understand. It is steep.

DrCrawdad
02-02-2009, 11:26 PM
So much for all those Cubbie fans who boasted about Rich Hill as the next Barry Zito.

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players_l/20080402/6394.jpg?x=65&y=85&xc=1&yc=1&wc=164&hc=215&q=100&sig=iZCTjmKlCOBzmF1M_tMClw--
Barry Zito
31 yrs old
123 wins
1807 IP

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players_l/20080402/7578.jpg?x=65&y=85&xc=1&yc=1&wc=164&hc=215&q=100&sig=MkliYwHimGaXtTwQ9MF3Kg--
Rich Hill
29 yrs old
18 wins
337 IP

Sargeant79
02-03-2009, 08:59 AM
So much for all those Cubbie fans who boasted about Rich Hill as the next Barry Zito.

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players_l/20080402/6394.jpg?x=65&y=85&xc=1&yc=1&wc=164&hc=215&q=100&sig=iZCTjmKlCOBzmF1M_tMClw--
Barry Zito
31 yrs old
123 wins
1807 IP

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/sp/v/mlb/players_l/20080402/7578.jpg?x=65&y=85&xc=1&yc=1&wc=164&hc=215&q=100&sig=MkliYwHimGaXtTwQ9MF3Kg--
Rich Hill
29 yrs old
18 wins
337 IP

Actually...the way Zito has pitched lately, that may be about right...

DrCrawdad
02-03-2009, 11:53 PM
I seriously have no idea what Rich Hill did to deserve such disdain. Was it because he backed his teammate in the aftermath of an altercation? The horror!

*COUGH* cubbie troll *COUGH*

Yeah, and what about Rick Hill calling AJ's play gutless?