I mean a double standard in the criticism here concerning the Cubs. IMO the handling by the Cubs of Hill and Pie has been consistent, but the criticism has not been. I recall much less complaining when Hill was sent down as compared to the situation with Pie now.

I guess I wasn’t very clear. I meant to compare it with the handling of Hill in 2006, not now.

And btw, Theriot, and to some degree Fontenot, have struggled and Lou has stuck with them (both young). They may not be ‘many people’s choices to stick with but that goes against the argument that Lou has a general lack of patience with young guys.

I agree that in the last weeks Pie should have played more than Reed (swap the ABs from one to the other). However that is beside the point, which is, wether Pie should have been given months of playing time regardless of performance or how he looked. I think the Cubs made the right move in sending him down and looking for alternatives. If the alternative doesn’t pan out Pie will probably come up again and will get another shot.

Your argument of Hill is flawed to some extent. Working on command in the minors is not as easy as in the majors because the hitters there are probably less patient. He had shown great command already in AAA before he sucked in the majors.

Like I said previously, given Hill’s numbers in AAA people should have been furious when he was sent down in 2006 and I didn’t get that. Granted, comparing a pitcher and a hitter makes the argument more complex but not without merit, IMO anyway.

The other difference is that Pie has long been the top prospect in the organization, whereas Hill was a surprising emergence before being called up.

I do think you’re basically right about the “established LH bat” thing. I think Piniella has it ingrained in his mind that the lineup can’t succeed without a power LH bat somewhere in the middle of the lineup. It is why Murton was benched in favor of Floyd. Piniella thought that Fukudome would provide the LH power in the middle of the lineup. He though he needed a LH speed guy, which is why we pursued Matsui and then Roberts. Now, he sees Fukudome as the LH speed (and OBP) guy, but feels he needs a LH power bat. So, since Pie is the only spot on the field in which it might be possible to find a replacement that fits the need, he’s the odd man out.

Was a comment made in 2006 (which is the time I’m refering to), not now.

I don’t believe a pitcher should be given a year in the rotation regardless of performance. I’m just using the Pie argument backwards. If Pie “should” get months of playing time regardless of performance then Hill “should” have gotten a year based on what he did in the minors.

And btw, I’m refering to 2006 (I just edited the post to make it more clear), a year in which the Cubs sucked and winning was much less of a factor than it is now.

No one says to give a free ticket for an entire year for a pitcher. You have to take into accout the alternatives. A 2nd baseman prospect right now probably shouldn’t get two months since Derosa is an above average 2nd baseman. But the alternatives to Pie are Edmonds and Johnson. Thats why we need to try Pie for a consistent amount of time. We really don’t want to have to resort to below average ball players if we have a good prospect to try out. If a team has a terrible staff, then it wouldn’t be wrong to let a pitching prospect in for a whole year.

I doubt it would have stayed so low had he continued on the path down which he was going. His walk rate was just abysmal. It could be argued he was really fortunate to have such a low ERA given the amount of baserunners he was allowing.

Now, I don’t know if he would have settled down with more starts, but Piniella didn’t feel that way about it. There was clearly something going on, because he was walking way too many people at a consistent pace.