RealGM

Ranma wrote:Yeah, his regression and K-rate is something to definitely be monitoring, but the Dodgers' telecast last night mentioned that Cody was actually putting up really good stats from the 7th inning on as a clutch hitter. Something like batting in the .320s and 7 homeruns if I'm not mistaken.

Quake Griffin wrote:Is Rich Hill going to provide any value to this team in the regular season?

Or are we all just going to cross our fingers hoping he's there, healthy, and with his best stuff in October?

Shoulda stood pat and made a competitive offer for Archer later.
Smh.

Ranma wrote:

Quake Griffin wrote:Is Rich Hill going to provide any value to this team in the regular season?

Or are we all just going to cross our fingers hoping he's there, healthy, and with his best stuff in October?

Shoulda stood pat and made a competitive offer for Archer later.
Smh.

Hill has definitely been a letdown but I haven't lost hope on him yet. Hindsight is 20/20 but we were highly unklikely to stand pat in the middle of a pennant race. I'd prefer Archer too but he was unavailable or at least cost prohibitive. The Hill-Reddick deal allowed us to acquire a postseason performer who may still be able to contribute this seasons and postseason without costing us any of our premium prospects.

Archer likely would have cost more than Jose De Leon. This was also before the emergence of Walker Buehler. Even if we were able to acquire Archer for De Leon plus non-premium prospects, it would have likely cost us something of significance for Logan Forsythe since we were unaware of Chris Taylor's offensive prowess this time last season. I was actually of those who didn't want to trade for a second baseman given the prices during the offseason, but accepted the deal, nonetheless, trusting our front office.

Even with Hill's struggles, I'm fine with the trade. The Forsythe trade, on the other hand, is something I'm still a bit skeptical about given his lack of opportunity to perform and Taylor's emergence. In any case, we're in good position and still able to make further moves if necessary. I just don't see one being necessary at the moment.

Quake Griffin wrote:Given that three prospects have been less than stellar for Oakland, I don't mind the rental as much as the double down in the offseason to prove this was a good deal. The bidding against ourselves to give a 37 year old a 3 year deal.

This guy isn't Greinke. He was never Greinke and we shouldn't have invested years into a guy that old with that kind of injury history.


Personally, I love what we're doing with the developmental aspects of our franchise and I actually dont mind "waiting" (read: not winning now) to develop Urias and Yadier behind Kershaw. I thought we had a good team with a shot? Sure. Did I think we were one trade away from our goal? That answer is no.

Imo we're in the same place we were at the last deadline....wondering if we have the #2 behind Kershaw with Kershaw getting ready to throw another Game 4 in the DS no matter if we're up 2-1 or down 2-1.

3 prospects.
$48 million more.
Same place.

6. Los Angeles Dodgers — The Dodgers are one of the best teams in baseball, and they’re stacked. And with Brandon McCarthy pitching well again, that’s been a huge boost. But most talent evaluators think they’ll make a play for the top available starter, whether it be Ervin Santana, Hellickson, Archer, or someone else.

Ranma wrote:

Quake Griffin wrote:Given that three prospects have been less than stellar for Oakland, I don't mind the rental as much as the double down in the offseason to prove this was a good deal. The bidding against ourselves to give a 37 year old a 3 year deal.

This guy isn't Greinke. He was never Greinke and we shouldn't have invested years into a guy that old with that kind of injury history.


Personally, I love what we're doing with the developmental aspects of our franchise and I actually dont mind "waiting" (read: not winning now) to develop Urias and Yadier behind Kershaw. I thought we had a good team with a shot? Sure. Did I think we were one trade away from our goal? That answer is no.

Imo we're in the same place we were at the last deadline....wondering if we have the #2 behind Kershaw with Kershaw getting ready to throw another Game 4 in the DS no matter if we're up 2-1 or down 2-1.

3 prospects.
$48 million more.
Same place.

I know you were and still are against the Hill contract and felt that we forced ourselves into bidding against ourselves in order to re-sign Hill to avoid losing the prospects traded for him for nothing. I believe I said this during our previous discussion on the matter but I'll reiterate, nonetheless: I'd rather pay Rich Hill what we gave him than what the Diamondbacks gave Greinke. I can't say that I'm enamored with Hill's contract, but I'm completely fine with it. He's only getting $16 million a year and it limits our liability to 3 seasons total.

He's having problems with the consistency of his curveball right now due to managing his blister issues, no doubt, but despite his age, I'm actually not concerned about him physically breaking down in the traditional sense. The blister seems like a relatively small issue but it's causing quite a lot of issues. I still think he'll figure things out shortly after the All-Star break.

Having said that, I'm not expecting him to be a workhorse and Neddy has previously said that his contract is reflected as such, which I agree with. Hill may not have been the ideal candidate but he was a calculated risk that afforded us time to figure things out further given how limited of a liability he is with respect to our team payroll situation. Given that, he was arguably our best option in the offseason.

Hill is not the only question mark in our rotation, but he's also part of a promising group that could be quite formidable once everyone figures everything out. I'm referring to Wood, McCarthy, Urias, Kershaw, and Hill. Each one of these pitchers have a decent likelihood of being at the top of their respective games before the season is over.