Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

  • Hayes: Twins To Sign Rich Hill & Homer Bailey

    John Bonnes

    By John Bonnes

    According to Dan Hayes, the Minnesota Twins are signing two starting pitchers, Rich Hill and Homer Bailey. (UPDATE: The Twins have confirmed the signings.)

    Bailey is a 33-year-old right-hander who posted a 4.57 ERA last year and finished his year with the Oakland A’s. Rich Hill is a 39-year-old left-hander who posted a 2.45 ERA last year, but will not be able to pitch until June or July due to elbow surgery he underwent in October.

    Neither represents the Twins' stated offseason goal of adding an “impact” pitcher, and might represent an acknowledgement it’s possible no such move is coming, or at least an insurance policy if it does not.

    Image courtesy of Jake Roth, USA Today

    Twins Video

    The Twins missed out on the starting pitchers at the top of this year’s free agent market, though they retained veterans Jake Odorizzi and Michael Pineda.

    Bailey is a pitcher Twins Daily’s Tom Froemming has brought up frequently this offseason. Earlier this month, Tom pointed out some ways in which Bailey compares favorably to Madison Bumgarner. Bailey gave up a lower OPS to non-pitchers (.719 vs. .764), had a higher K% vs. non-pitchers (21.4 vs. 21.3), surrendered a lower hard hit % (38.7 vs. 41.5) and a lower barrels/plate appearance % (4.0 vs. 6.3).

    https://twitter.com/Twins/status/1212058730394767360

    Tom also used Bailey as a case study in pointing out how it may not be the worst-case scenario if Jake Odorizzi were to decline his qualifying offer.

    . Bailey had a better ERA, WHIP and xwOBA than both Odorizzi and Jose Berrios from June 13 forward.

    Hill has been outstanding - when he's been on the mound. He's had a career ERA of 3.82, including a 2.91 ERA since 2015. But he also hasn't been able to make more than 25 starts since 2007. His contract reflects the risk and reward he presents: he will make $3M guaranteed, with the possibility of making an additional $9.5M in performance bonuses.

    https://twitter.com/Twins/status/1212058963266682881

    The moves will likely disappointTwins fans, who have been waiting for the team to achieve its offseason goal of adding “impact” pitching, as neither pitcher represents impact pitching, or even an upgrade to last year’s starting rotation. They do, however, establish a “floor” for the starting rotation, which still had two vacant spots, not to mention Pineda missing the first 39 games of the season due to a PED suspension going back to September.

    Instead of filling those 2+ spots with internal candidates like Randy Dobnak, Devin Smeltzer and Lewis Thorpe, they now, in theory, have all five spots covered by Jose Berrios, Odorizzi, Pineda, Bailey & Hill - though they will still need coverage at the beginning of the season for Pineda and Hill.

    Bailey's $7M one-year deal and Hill's $3+M guaranteed also leave payroll room for a more significant move this offseason. Twins Daily projects the Twins to have about a $116M payroll after the signing, below last year's level, and about $20 million below our projection of the Twins team's payroll budget.

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY

    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers

    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums

    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email

    John cofounded Twins Daily and co-hosts the Gleeman and the Geek podcast. 
    Follow John Bonnes on Twitter: @TwinsGeek

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share
     Share
    Go to articles

    Community Blogs

    • How many games will the Minnesota Twins win in 2023?
    • Gopher Preview (Week 3)

    Forum Topics

    • PVTEST
    • Hey, look here
    • This is an exceptionally long title to test how various points look on a phone and smaller devices

    Twins Top Prospects

    Jose Rodriguez

    GCL Twins - Rookie, OF
    Jose Rodriguez was the Twins Daily short-season minor-league hitter of the year. He is at the Dominican facilities for spring training now but will likely join Extended Spring Training in Fort Myers.
    View All Top Prospects
    The Ultimate Fan Guide to Target Field

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Vanimal46

    Vanimal46 28,724

  • Old-Timey Member

    • Posted

      On 12/31/2019 at 6:44 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

    Somehow I’m more irritated that the Twins got both Bailey and Hill than if they had signed only one of them.

    I’m past the denial and anger stage of the offseason. Now I’m onto humor, where it’s now funny to think anything was going to change after a 101 win season.

     

    I also feel bad for the writers here who have to dig through obscure stats to show Bailey is “just as good” as Zack Wheeler and Bumgarner.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 6:44 PM, Harrison Greeley III said:

    Fangraphs.

    I'm not going to make any prediction that he will once again be the 36th best starting pitcher or better. I can't speculate on the future. I'm just saying smarter people and systems than me said he was #36 last year. And between his pitch values, and numbers re: K/BB/HR allowed it's not hard to follow why. At $7m for a one year deal, that's really great.

    In terms of fWAR, Martín Pérez posted a 1.9 last year. At $4 mil for a one-year deal, was that "really great"? How much did it move the needle on the Twins 2019 season?

     

    I think that's the issue with Bailey. I don't think anyone disputes that he could provide decent value to the Twins on this contract -- but value doesn't necessarily equate to meaningful impact.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 6:44 PM, Harrison Greeley III said:

    There have been books written on how good front offices need to find value where the market isn't seeing it. One was about Billy Beane, the guy who traded for Bailey last summer. 

    Of course, the A's are dealing with a payroll capacity that's maybe ~70% of the Twins. There's a argument that the Twins are unnecessarily limiting themselves by playing exclusively in the "value" transaction waters, when they have the resources to take better risks than Oakland.

     

    FWIW, the A's may have also gotten better value out of Bailey -- a fungible prospect and league minimum salary in exchange for his pennant race services. I think this contract might have been better received if the Twins had actually scored Bailey at the deadline too, instead of leaving the postseason rotation as thin as we did.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:02 PM, Rigby said:

    Same Billy Beane that didn't re-sign him this year?

    To be fair, Oakland is under more payroll constraints than the Twins. Maybe they would have welcomed him back at this price, if they had the Twins budget. Of course, maybe they would have done something bolder to address the top of the rotation too...

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    baul0010

    baul0010 599

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    Maybe we all just looked at the word "impact" incorrectly.  I was thinking an impact pitcher would be someone of Berrios caliber or better.  Maybe the front office only meant the new pitcher will have an impact.  Like the new pitcher will impact Lewis Thorpe.  Who now gets to start the year in the minors.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    twins_89

    twins_89 1,517

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    Coming into the off-season my optimism level was sky high, I truly believed the Twins would make moves that clearly upgraded the team. Now as the calendar turns over into 2020 and Spring training is on the horizon, I look at an off-season where the only additions are limited upside guys on 1-year deals. I fear this is going to be an off-season that will be looked back on with massive regret.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    SwainZag

    SwainZag 5,031

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 6:44 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

    Somehow I’m more irritated that the Twins got both Bailey and Hill than if they had signed only one of them.

     

    But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 6:35 PM, nicksaviking said:

    It's a pretty cheap bet. After last season I think we saw the Twins prefer the splitter to the two seamer, which Bailey himself shifted more heavily towards last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the club saw a like-minded approach in Bailey and thought last year's results may be more indicative of his numbers going forward than whatever stagnant non-sense was occurring back in Cincinnati.

    It's cheap, only if this isn't our "impact pitching" acquisition of the offseason. That cost remains to be seen.

     

    And if we really like Bailey's upside -- and we think 3+ WAR and those great August starts vs the Yankees are more indicative of his performance going forward -- then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by only getting him for 1 year? What made the original Hughes contract really special was that we got 3 years at that value rate; even Martín Pérez had an affordable team option year.

     

    I guess if Bailey really comes through for us, we could QO him next winter, but that's not quite as good as an affordable control/option year.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    nicksaviking

    nicksaviking 26,755

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 6:39 PM, USAFChief said:

    let's hope it wasnt a short sample size mirage. Let's hope Wes Johnson's miracle work is permanent, like we all saw with Martin Perez and his cutter.

     

    Well Perez wasn't good in 2019, but he was significantly better than in 2018. If Bailey's new approach holds it will be a good deal for the 5th starter. If he improves at the same rate as Perez did, he'd be a really good pitcher.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    SwainZag

    SwainZag 5,031

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:19 PM, labcrazy said:

    The "window" has been slammed shut. 

     

    No, it hasn't.  

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:20 PM, spycake said:

    It's cheap, only if this isn't our "impact pitching" acquisition of the offseason. That cost remains to be seen.

     

    And if we really like Bailey's upside -- and we think 3+ WAR and those great August starts vs the Yankees are more indicative of his performance going forward -- then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by only getting him for 1 year? What made the original Hughes contract really special was that we got 3 years at that value rate; even Martín Pérez had an affordable team option year.

     

    I guess if Bailey really comes through for us, we could QO him next winter, but that's not quite as good as an affordable control/option year.

     

    At Bailey's age there is little reason to give him more than 1 year.  If he has a pretty great year and puts up 3+ WAR, it's looking like a damn good signing for a 34 year old.....and you go from there.  An option would have been nice, but nothing wrong with a 1 year deal here.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    drivlikejehu

    drivlikejehu 2,201

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:17 PM, SwainZag said:

    But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

     

    The downside to signing 2 guys is that it pretty much closes the door on an off-season trade for a starting pitcher. The only remaining (non prospect) upgrade possibility is someone getting hurt/being really bad and the Twins making a deadline deal (which fans have reason to be skeptical about). After all, the Twins' failure to get Stroman last deadline is a big part of the problem they now face.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:17 PM, SwainZag said:

    But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

    I think he's referring more to optics -- two non-impact signings (or at least delay potential impact?), both on the same day.

     

    That said, while I like Hill, I'm not totally sold on that move either. Is he really a good bet, or is this the FO trying to avoid the "high cost" of trade deadline moves? Which both casts doubt on Hill's worth right now, and the future likelihood of an "impact" Twins trade. And of course, when we finally get to add Hill next summer, we won't have any 2020 data on him -- we'll pretty much have to throw him out there to see what he's got, in the middle of a pennant race, perhaps foregoing other trade deadline options in the process.

     

    It's the kind of move I could see liking better if it wasn't paired with a Bailey signing.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    KGB

    KGB 649

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:17 PM, SwainZag said:

    But why?  There should be absolutely zero to not like about the Hill signing.  It's a low cost, possible high reward move that will not be known until midseason at best.  I can see being irritated with Bailey signing because it's pretty much replacing Gibson, but I don't see how them together would irritate you over one or the other.  

    It doesn't seem like the Hill contract is a low risk contract.  He has $9.5 million in incentives which can be met by pitching 75 innings.  So that would be $12.5 million for 75 innings.

     

    He better be very good in the first 70 innings or you probably have to cut him.  Which sounds like a good players contract, not a great team contract.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    nicksaviking

    nicksaviking 26,755

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:20 PM, spycake said:

    It's cheap, only if this isn't our "impact pitching" acquisition of the offseason. That cost remains to be seen.

     

    And if we really like Bailey's upside -- and we think 3+ WAR and those great August starts vs the Yankees are more indicative of his performance going forward -- then aren't we doing ourselves a disservice by only getting him for 1 year? What made the original Hughes contract really special was that we got 3 years at that value rate; even Martín Pérez had an affordable team option year.

     

    I guess if Bailey really comes through for us, we could QO him next winter, but that's not quite as good as an affordable control/option year.

     

    I'd have a hard time seeing Bailey be so good he'd be worth a QO, but there just seems like a lot of hand wringing for what looks to be a 5th starter. Hill on the other hand is a top of the rotation arm when healthy, if he's not healthy, well it was well worth the $3M to find out from my perspective.

     

    But yes, this is all predicated on the Twins still swinging a trade for a higher ceiling, hopefully longer-term arm, which I am still just as hopeful for. They still only have three starters for opening day, so I don't think they're done. Ownership and the front office will still be well aware that these moves will not scrub any egg from their face, face they'll surely still want to save coming off of last season's fan building momentum.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    KirbyDome89

    KirbyDome89 4,113

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 5:49 PM, MMMordabito said:

    That part is a bit frustrating, but the silver lining is that they will have the early part of the season to see if the likes of Thorpe, Dobnak, Smeltzer or Graterol can be part of that long term solution. 

    The time to "see what you have," in regards to young players was when this club was losing 90+ games per season. There's no scenario where running out Dobnak, Smeltzer, and Graterol for 2-3 months is a good idea. The rotation isn't talented enough to carry that trio. Those early season games matter just as much as the ones in September. Ask Cleveland.....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Otto von Ballpark

    Otto von Ballpark 20,320

  • Community Leader

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:28 PM, drivlikejehu said:

    After all, the Twins' failure to get Stroman last deadline is a big part of the problem they now face.

    Yup.

     

    Were LA and Boston interested in Hill, at this price?

     

    Otherwise, it feels like maybe we're betting more on Hill because we don't want to pay the price to get guys like Stroman -- or even Bailey? -- at the deadline.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    nicksaviking

    nicksaviking 26,755

  • Community Moderator

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:24 PM, SwainZag said:

    No, it hasn't.  

     

     

    At Bailey's age there is little reason to give him more than 1 year.  If he has a pretty great year and puts up 3+ WAR, it's looking like a damn good signing for a 34 year old.....and you go from there.  An option would have been nice, but nothing wrong with a 1 year deal here.

     

    Also, if Bailey believes his new approach will bring him better results, he might just prefer to bet on himself. The Twins have been giving out quite a few option years to their free agents the last couple of years and both Bailey and Hill seemed like prime candidates to get one this year, if not from the Twins than from another club. So I might suspect they were the one's who didn't want to be tethered to a 2nd year.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    drivlikejehu

    drivlikejehu 2,201

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

     

      On 12/31/2019 at 7:30 PM, nicksaviking said:

    I'd have a hard time seeing Bailey be so good he'd be worth a QO, but there just seems like a lot of hand wringing for what looks to be a 5th starter. Hill on the other hand is a top of the rotation arm when healthy, if he's not healthy, well it was well worth the $3M to find out from my perspective.

     

    But yes, this is all predicated on the Twins still swinging a trade for a higher ceiling, hopefully longer-term arm, which I am still just as hopeful for. They still only have three starters for opening day, so I don't think they're done. Ownership and the front office will still be well aware that these moves will not scrub any egg from their face, face they'll surely still want to save coming off of last season's fan building momentum.

     

    Though I was optimistic also, at this point I think it's clear this is not going to happen, at least during the off-season. Between Pineda and Hill being slated to join the rotation during the year, and the relatively low need for a 5th starter early in the season, the Twins are going to go with young guys.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Nash Walker

    Nash Walker 851

  • Verified Member

    • Posted

    I believe these signings are similar but different. Bailey seems to be a pure innings-eater with a a decent floor and maybe a *hair* of upside. Bailey had an ERA+ of 100 (exactly league average) last year for Oakland. For comparison, Martín Pérez had an ERA+ of 90 last year. Bailey is an upgrade from Pérez, and if Hill can return to throw 75-100 innings, he will be as strong as a #4 as you will find. We have seen it on Twitter, but in 58 2/3 innings for the Dodgers last year, Hill had a 2.45 ERA and 72 strikeouts. He is great when healthy. This rotation can win in October in my opinion:

     

    1. A consistent José Berríos 

    2. 2019 Jake Odorizzi

    3. Second half 2019 Michael Pineda

    4. Healthy Rich Hill

    5. Oakland Athletics version of Homer Bailey

     

    A trade for another starter would cap it off, but I am not dreading this rotation, I just wish there was a bit more firepower near the top. Depth is nice with Dobber, Thorpe, and Smeltz on the backend. Very Thad and Derek like signings, discounted with low risk, high upside on Homer and Hill. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×

×
×
  • Create New...