Rich Hill

MLBTradeRumors recently brought up the idea of what to do with Rich Hill.

The Cubs would like to move him, obviously he is a lost cause in their franchise, and any team that is looking for a reclamation project well Hill is your man.

In 17 games (16) starts in 2006 Rich Hill looked promising, a tall lefty with a devastating Zito-like Curve pitching to a line of 6-7 with a 4.17 ERA in 99 1/3 innings. The next year he was given a full time job and did not disappoint going 11-8 with a 3.92 ERA, 1.195 whip and 183 strike outs in 195 innings (8.45 K/9). The wheels completely fell off this last year where although his ERA was ok at 4.12 it was misleading. In just 19 2/3 innings he walked 18, struck out 15 and had a 1.576 whip. His trip to the minors did not help where in 3 different levels combined (Rk, A+, AAA) he pitched 47 2/3 innings with a 5.85 ERA with 44 walks and 57 strike outs.

Sending Hill to the minors clearly did not help his control problems, and a team like the Cubs can't afford to keep him on the 40 man roster and hope he sorts it all out. For a team to want to acquire Hill, they can't really think of themselves as contenders to start the year (for they gotta live with his struggles to really see what he can do), they have to have a hole in the rotation. Tim Dierkes says that there are 6 candidates that he thinks can acquire Hill: the Royals, Mariners, Padres, Pirates, Marlins, and Orioles.

I don't disagree with any of those candidates, and I would throw the A's and the Nationals. I realize the A's have hopes to win the division this year, but I would never put accumulating cheap pitching with potential past Billy Beane, and the Nats well, they suck so why not try something.

One last little or not so little thought: Hill's FIP in in 2006 was 4.67, and 4.32 in 2007. Both years exceeding his actual ERA. I'm not sure what caused this because I don't think the Cubs have a particularly good defense, and Wrigley as we all know isn't a pitchers park, especially for lefty fly ball pitchers. Could it be that Hill was just lucky, or that his skill set will allow him to outpitch his expected ERA. He did have a slightly high LOB% and good BABIPs, but nothing too obscene to think he wasn't a quality pitcher. I think Hill was a little lucky and that made people think he was better than he is, it was wrong to think of him as a potential #1 starter, eventhough he has a knack for missing bats. His fall from grace came out of nowhere, but maybe he wasn't as good as we all thought to begin with. Teams that are looking to acquire him though should be aware that in the off chance Hill puts it back together, he would most likely have an ERA in the mid 4's. That's not to say that wouldnt be good, a 4.5 ERA with 180 innings is valuable, as we saw Garland get $6.25m in a down year. But to give up something of any value for a guy who at his best may only be a little better than league average? I'm starting to think this isn't worth the trouble it may be for teams. Although some teams like the Nats and Padres have nothing going for them so they could give him a spin, and quickly send him off to another team if he shows any form of light.