ImageImageImageImageImage

Rich Hill is Back

Moderators: Kilroy, TyCobb

User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 10,496
And1: 2,380
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Rich Hill is Back 

Post#1 » by Quake Griffin » Mon Dec 5, 2016 6:30 pm

Another pitcher getting rich off the Dodgers that I do not expect to make it through this season or the length of the contract.

Hopefully they wrote some protections in there for our organization.
High chance of him stealing $48 million from us over the next 3 years.
Clever reactions to aggressive situations

#PlayBrice
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 12,708
And1: 2,624
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: Rich Hill is Back 

Post#2 » by Neddy » Tue Dec 6, 2016 4:50 am

eh, I like this deal.

48 million for 3 years seems alot, but for a 3.8 fWAR player in just 110 innings, I think the contract is a bargain even if he is only healthy a half the time of his contract. most importantly, we did not lose any prospects for a trade.
Corey Seager, 2017 NL MVP.
User avatar
Ranma
Head Coach
Posts: 7,410
And1: 2,263
Joined: Jun 13, 2011
Location: OC, CA
Contact:
       

Back on the Mound with Hill 

Post#3 » by Ranma » Tue Dec 6, 2016 6:18 am

I'm glad to have Rich Hill back given the options that were available. The Nationals seem like the clear front-runners for Chris Sale since they're reportedly willing to give up both of their top prospects in Lucas Giolito and Victor Robles, who are ranked 3rd and 10th overall, respectively, in MLB Pipeline's 2016 Prospect Watch rankings. The Dodgers were never going to beat that and I wouldn't want to give up Julio Urias and Cody Bellinger, in any case.

I'm fine with the money to be paid to Hill for the first 2 years of his 3-year deal even if he is anticipated to pitch for us more as a part-time starter than a full-timer, but that guaranteed $18 million for the 3rd year is going to hurt. He'll either be a really, really expansive relief arm at that point or we'd have to eat a big chunk of his salary to unload him. I guess it's an acceptable cost to do business in this instance.

The asking price for Chris Archer is supposedly 5 or 6 players, which sounds like it applies to a team lacking in assets. The price for Sonny Gray is looking to be cost-prohibitive as well. I haven't heard anything lately about Justin Verlander, but given the remaining dollars left on his contract commitment, it would quite expensive to give up prospects and pay the money due to him.

At least with the high cost for pitching, it should help us in trading Scott Kazmir. Brandon McCarthy's name has also been reported among those to be shopped, but I'm inclined to hold onto him if we have to eat salary to offload him.

The Giants just signed Mark Melancon to an overpriced deal that beat Jonathan Papelbon's previous record awarded to a relief pitcher while the Marlins' owner is pushing to break the market for either Kenley Jansen or Aroldis Chapman. Chapman is apparently looking for a 6-year deal while the Yankees were last seen as being quite interested in him.

It's almost a forgone conclusion that Jansen won't return while the current pulse has Justin Turner likely to be back in Dodger blue with the Cardinals expressing some but not overwhelming interest. However, I'm not keen on spending $17 million/season for 5 years to bring Red Beard back.


Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter
LA's Finest: Clayton Kershaw - Chris Paul____ Image ____IGNORED: QRich3 - EBledsoe12 - alon8882 - 45clip
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 10,496
And1: 2,380
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: Rich Hill is Back 

Post#4 » by Quake Griffin » Tue Dec 6, 2016 2:41 pm

I could do these deals if we could front load them in baseball but the players never work that way.

5 for 85 for Justin.
first 3 years $22 mill/ year.
last 2 years 10 and 9 million.

It absolutely hamstrings us from being able to unload him if his game falls off a damn cliff.
Whatever...bring Turner back...but I'm not paying Jansen a penny over what Melancon got. I refuse to join that circus. We'll find an option internally.


You guys can like this deal all you want.
It's not a matter of you liking it. I liked McCarthy (and he was unlucky imo). I liked Kazmir. I like Rich Hill...at some point there has to be a pitcher that doesn't spend the season on the trainer's table.

When you read a tweet from Ken Rosenthal that says we'd be happy to get 120 innings out of him and make up the rest, the smarter part of you has to say, "that's cute but I'm not just worried about him hitting 160-180 innings, I need him healthy for October"

If you had concerns about Kazmir's health, Rich Hill is an absolute roll of the dice.
Clever reactions to aggressive situations

#PlayBrice
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 10,496
And1: 2,380
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: Rich Hill is Back 

Post#5 » by Quake Griffin » Tue Dec 6, 2016 2:46 pm

The worst part about this deal is I think it is to truly save face....well, in some part. The other part is Rich Hill is a good pitcher.

I doubt this group wants to have dealt 3 prospects away for 3 months of Redick and Hill and nothing else to show for it.
So here we are [at least partially imo] trying to make the deal look better than it was by keeping him around.
Clever reactions to aggressive situations

#PlayBrice
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 12,708
And1: 2,624
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: Rich Hill is Back 

Post#6 » by Neddy » Tue Dec 6, 2016 3:07 pm

I doubt this group would make heavy investment on a bad situation just to save face, and roll of the dice isn't all that bad when you cover every side of that dice. when you have Kazmir/Hill/McCarthy/Ryu to fill in 2 rotation spots, I think the odds are good especially when you have De leon/De Jung/Oaks/Stewart waiting to fill in. depth still I think is the right way to go.
Corey Seager, 2017 NL MVP.
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 10,496
And1: 2,380
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: Rich Hill is Back 

Post#7 » by Quake Griffin » Tue Dec 6, 2016 9:49 pm

I am hoping McCarthy and Rich work out.

I dont care about Kazmir at all. That's just purely how I feel about their stuff.
Very good point on the depth to fill in the 2 spots. It will quiet my holler for a while unless the bodies start falling like they did the last 2 years.
Clever reactions to aggressive situations

#PlayBrice
User avatar
Ranma
Head Coach
Posts: 7,410
And1: 2,263
Joined: Jun 13, 2011
Location: OC, CA
Contact:
       

Dodgers Definitely Happy to Have Hill Back 

Post#8 » by Ranma » Thu Dec 8, 2016 6:44 am

I can see why there is thought that we re-signed Rich Hill to save face in dealing away prospects as I initially had such thoughts, but the Dodgers have made no bones that they wanted Hill back. Friedman mentioned at the press conference that the team tried to trade for him prior to actually acquiring him this past season. They also did their due diligence in investigating his makeup and character, but he still blew them away after spending time and getting to know him. Of course, the organization is going to talk up the guy they just re-signed but it went beyond in singing his praises.

Also, we mostly dealt prospects who were on the decline when we traded Frankie Montas, Grant Holmes, and Jharel Cotton for Hill and Josh Reddick. While Montas and Holmes were the more highly rated prospects, I was more concerned about losing Cotton since I considered him the more reliable prospect in the short term as a bullpen arm for the Dodgers' major-league roster. Montas was the headliner but there were questions as to whether he would be able to stick as a starter and then he encountered the rib injury, which put his future in further doubt. Holmes was a former first-round pick whose progress had stalled and I'm hearing talk that he was not really committed to improving his game; I was hoping to pick Spencer Adams in the 2014 draft but was okay with Holmes since he was rated rated higher on the draft board at the time. However, I was never really sold on Holmes despite his arm strength and notable curveball. I only started to have some optimism in him when I envisioned him as a closer.

We were better off selling high on that package of prospects. Even dealing Cotton can be argued as doing that since he was being developed as a starter instead of my projection as a relief arm who could immediately help.
LA's Finest: Clayton Kershaw - Chris Paul____ Image ____IGNORED: QRich3 - EBledsoe12 - alon8882 - 45clip
User avatar
Ranma
Head Coach
Posts: 7,410
And1: 2,263
Joined: Jun 13, 2011
Location: OC, CA
Contact:
       

Maybe Not So Quick to Be Over the Hill 

Post#9 » by Ranma » Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:43 pm

I've heard on sports-talk radio that Rich Hill has the same fWAR as Jake Arrieta in less innings pitched for 2016, but another thing that was pointed out elsewhere is that Hill has much less innings on his arm for his career than Clayton Kershaw in terms of wear and tear despite his advanced age even if you factor in their respective times in the minor leagues.

Obviously, that doesn't make Hill more reliable than Kershaw to be counted on as a workhorse moving forward but it does mitigate some of the risks associated with his age, especially when you factor in that he doesn't throw particularly hard in pitching mostly off of his curveball.

To put it in further perspective, we're only committing less than ¼ of the money and ½ of the years Arizona gave Zack Greinke albeit at a later point relative to their respective careers with the contract ending for Hill when he would be a year older during his age 39 season than Greinke would be when his deal ends.


Dave Cameron, FanGraphs.com (12/5/16)
Even with just a 138 inning projection for 2017, Steamer is still forecasting Hill to be worth +3 WAR next year. The variance around that projection is wildly high, but it’s not just downside variance; he could have another +4 WAR season and be worth most of the entire contract just with his 2017 performance.

So, yeah, you can’t count on Hill, but the Dodgers are pricing in the reality that he’ll likely spend a few months not pitching next year. There’s actual upside here if he stays healthy. There’s downside too, of course, and the Dodgers continual bets on talent over health are one of the reasons they set the league record for starting pitchers used in 2016.

But with Hill, the story isn’t just about risk. That’s part of the story, certainly, and that part helps explain why one of the game’s best starting pitchers is apparently going to sign effectively the same deal Scott Kazmir got a year ago. But there’s upside here too, and at this price, the risk is priced into the deal.

Hill might not pitch well for the Dodgers next year. He might not pitch much at all. But for roughly $50 million, the Dodgers are getting a guy who could also be the most productive free agent in this class, and are betting on a guy whose health problem last year was a blister, not an elbow or a shoulder. When talking about this signing, you have to acknowledge what Rich Hill isn’t, but just because he’s not a 200 inning workhose doesn’t mean he’s not worth $50 million. Given what he can do when he is on the mound, this seems like the right balance of risk and reward.

Rich Hill Is Just a Different Kind of Risk
LA's Finest: Clayton Kershaw - Chris Paul____ Image ____IGNORED: QRich3 - EBledsoe12 - alon8882 - 45clip
User avatar
Kilroy
Forum Mod - Lakers
Forum Mod - Lakers
Posts: 12,692
And1: 4,327
Joined: Jul 10, 2006
Location: County Line eating Ceviche at the Net
       

Re: Rich Hill is Back 

Post#10 » by Kilroy » Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:44 am

I like Hill the guy, and he was huge for us this post season... But I don't entirely trust him on the mound. When it works, it's something special... But the wheels can fly off in a hurry.
Lakers 2.0... Will it be 0S X Tiger, or Win ME?...
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 12,708
And1: 2,624
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: Rich Hill is Back 

Post#11 » by Neddy » Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:40 am

Kilroy wrote:I like Hill the guy, and he was huge for us this post season... But I don't entirely trust him on the mound. When it works, it's something special... But the wheels can fly off in a hurry.


well that maybe, but what we have going on right now, he is just a place holder with a very high ceiling.

Jensen came back, Turner came back. Kershaw should be happy and by the end of 2018, he should be able to see the potential of this team with the maturation of this club overall to want to come back.

the real key here is that Urias will surpass Hill in two years, not because of Hill's regression alone, but due to the growth of the youngster that will hopefully get to an elite level. I think we are paying for not only the security of having Hill at his best, but to ensure the permance wise, the successor of the next Ace to mature.

overall, I am surprised that we have spent as much as we have to resign our own guys back, and that alone I think secures our 2017 post season whether it is by winning the division for the 5th straight time or by winning the wild card. but I don't think we are done just yet. we will figure out a way to improve our bats against LHP. I also believe we will get a setup man that can perform and not crumble in post season.
Corey Seager, 2017 NL MVP.

Return to Los Angeles Dodgers