Weaver, Chacin and Nolasco

[VariousCrap]

6 hours ago, totdprods said:

I don't think it's PEDs, I think he legitmately figured out a way to pitch effectively, but unfortunately he's at an age where his body just isn't capable of keeping up with whatever he's discovered. The stamina, the endurance, the mechanics. He barely made it to 100 IP last year. His fingers were shredded and it was max effort to get there. Brilliant results, but at 37 it's not sustainable nor worth investing tens of millions for a couple years, especially with depth returning next season.

 

It would be extremely rare for a pitcher to finally figure it out at the age of 37.  I just don't buy it.  

Either way, you don't invest in a 37 year old pitcher with the history of injuries he has had.  Let the Dodgers have him.

 

 

[Docwaukee]

Late career success happens.  PED induced success for pitchers typically involves inordinate endurance.  Something that Hill hasn't shown.  

[totdprods]

I think he just realized his career was on the ropes in Indy ball and just said "f@#k it, let's pitch" and started throwing on a whim in a way he knew before caused pain, blisters, or ineffectiveness but he had nothing to lose. And it worked. And kept working. He couldn't throw this way before because it tore his fingers apart and he was fighting for a big league career. Blisters aside, I think he is a tremendous injury risk. 

[Oz27]

There is nothing about Rich Hill that suggests PEDs other than him being good. He totally reinvented himself as a pitcher, relying on his excellent curveball, and it has led to enormous success. I know there are significant durability concerns but people here really underrate him and undersell what he will eventually sign for. He's the best starter on the market and it isn't close.

[disarcina]

I don't think I'd spend a ton of money to sign Rich Hill -- I mean, he may have a great 2017 - but at 2007 he is a real risk and a guy with injury history.

The way these type of signings seem to work out for the Halos -- not sure I'd take the plunge here.

obviously there's room for disagreement here and it appears some posters feel otherwise.

 

 

[disarcina]

but at "37" not 2007 above

[totdprods]

3 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

There is nothing about Rich Hill that suggests PEDs other than him being good. He totally reinvented himself as a pitcher, relying on his excellent curveball, and it has led to enormous success. I know there are significant durability concerns but people here really underrate him and undersell what he will eventually sign for. He's the best starter on the market and it isn't close.

I don't disagree that he's the best starter, I just disagree that he's the best option for the Angels, purely on the level of his risk his contract will carry. 

Remember how much it sucked paying $80m for CJ Wilson and Jered Weaver to suck for 78 starts over the last two years? They were really good pitchers who didn't seem like they had nearly the risk associated with their contract that Rich Hill has, yet we couldn't wait to get that shit off the books.

Maybe Rich Hill is RA Dickey 2.0 and conjures years of success at the end of his career still. Baseball is weird, and that shit happens, and if we were in a better position financially and competitively to roll the dice I'd be all for it, but given that there's an very real possibility that we'd wind paying a 40-year old former lefty specialist $18m in three years to sit on a disabled list isn't worth taking that gamble. 

[Oz27]

1 minute ago, totdprods said:

I don't disagree that he's the best starter, I just disagree that he's the best option for the Angels, purely on the level of his risk his contract will carry. 

Remember how much it sucked paying $80m for CJ Wilson and Jered Weaver to suck for 78 starts over the last two years? They were really good pitchers who didn't seem like they had nearly the risk associated with their contract that Rich Hill has, yet we couldn't wait to get that shit off the books.

Maybe Rich Hill is RA Dickey 2.0 and conjures years of success at the end of his career still. Baseball is weird, and that shit happens, and if we were in a better position financially and competitively to roll the dice I'd be all for it, but given that there's an very real possibility that we'd wind paying a 40-year old former lefty specialist $18m in three years to sit on a disabled list isn't worth taking that gamble. 

I don't think he's the best option for the Angels and that is just because, if you sign a player like Hill, you are doing so because you're confident of being good in 2017 and thinking he can make you better. Maybe we can be successful next year but there are teams with a higher probability than us, who therefore should be able to justify paying him more than we can. Hill is going to get something like 3/$50 million I think and I don't see that as an unreasonable price in general, just probably not a great match for us.

[disarcina]

still wish Dave Roberts would have let him have a chance to finish that no hitter..........

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

On 10/30/2016 at 9:36 PM, disarcina said:

wait until May 1 or whenever the date is that teams could sign these tendered players without losing a draft pick to the player's prior team.

there was talk about changing that rule -- not sure if it's been changed. 

The rule may be changed, there is going to be a new CBA before the next season begins. That is when any rules will be changed, or added.

[VariousCrap]

20 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Late career success happens.  PED induced success for pitchers typically involves inordinate endurance.  Something that Hill hasn't shown.  

 

Late career success is rare.  Sure it happens, but it is rare.  I personally don't believe he just figured it out.  If am the Angels, I stay far away from Hill.