Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Article: Assessing Hellickson

  1. #1
    The King In The North All-Star Nick Nelson's Avatar
    Posts
    1,623
    Like
    5
    Liked 65 Times in 24 Posts
    Blog Entries
    292

    Article: Assessing Hellickson


  2. #2
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    3,163
    Like
    19
    Liked 195 Times in 123 Posts
    Good analysis, I'm glad to hear someone who isn't drooling over Hellickson. He looks to be a very useful pitcher, but I don't trust that K/9 rate to improve enough to be a consistant front of the rotation arm.

    The fact that the Rays have suddenly pushed him into the front of the trade line in front of more expensive arms like Sheilds, Price and Davis who are closer to free agency/arbitration tells me that the Rays also see he has a good chance of regression.

    It seems similar to when the Rays pushed to move the seemingly higher upside Delmon Young over the cheaper and closer to free agency/arbitration outfielders Carl Crawford and BJ Upton.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer 70charger's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Like
    72
    Liked 48 Times in 25 Posts
    Interesting take. I hadn't heard this side of things, although I don't read much about ball outside the Twins. Hellickson, as far I had always known, was very clearly a potential #1.

    The fact that the Rays have suddenly pushed him into the front of the trade line in front of more expensive arms like Sheilds, Price and Davis who are closer to free agency/arbitration tells me that the Rays also see he has a good chance of regression.
    I think this is also pretty interesting. After all, the Rays aren't known for making dumb trades, are they?

  4. #4
    Not interested. He profiles long term as a good #3 starter, the kind of pitcher to look to draft, develop, and let go when their salary gets over about 7M in arbitation.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    110
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Good analysis, but if I'm the Twins, I'm still interested (if the trade price is right).
    Though not a #1, he is a HUGE upgrade over anything they have right now

  6. #6
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    1,575
    Like
    7
    Liked 27 Times in 22 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 70charger View Post
    Interesting take. I hadn't heard this side of things, although I don't read much about ball outside the Twins. Hellickson, as far I had always known, was very clearly a potential #1.

    The fact that the Rays have suddenly pushed him into the front of the trade line in front of more expensive arms like Sheilds, Price and Davis who are closer to free agency/arbitration tells me that the Rays also see he has a good chance of regression.
    I think this is also pretty interesting. After all, the Rays aren't known for making dumb trades, are they?
    Sam Fuld, Archer and Guyer were a good return for Garza

  7. #7
    Senior Member All-Star Winston Smith's Avatar
    Posts
    1,097
    Like
    42
    Liked 130 Times in 70 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sorney View Post
    Good analysis, but if I'm the Twins, I'm still interested (if the trade price is right).
    Though not a #1, he is a HUGE upgrade over anything they have right now
    We need at least 3 quality starters next year, he would be one of those. We can't be thinking if it isn't Verlander we don't want him because #1 starters are few and very expensive. 3 Hellickson type guys would go a long way to improving this team, imo.
    This comment brought to you from the Rosedale Mall studio by Hamm's Beer, brewed in the land of sky blue waters.

  8. #8
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,077
    Like
    14
    Liked 89 Times in 55 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 70charger View Post
    Interesting take. I hadn't heard this side of things, although I don't read much about ball outside the Twins. Hellickson, as far I had always known, was very clearly a potential #1.
    The numbers said he was a #1 but the scouting reports differed. IIRC one of the knocks was that he made too many mistakes up in the zone that would get hit hard in the majors. There were also some durability concerns.

    The initial look at the sabr stats aren't very good, but one encouraging thing if you look further into the sabermetrics is that he had a solid swinging strike rate so the K rate could go up some. I certainly don't believe that he's a 3.00 ERA pitcher but he could be a really good #3. I prefer Shields but 4 yrs of Hellickson would also be a good start to rebuilding the rotation.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    383
    Like
    2
    Liked 26 Times in 19 Posts
    Add one more point to analysis - he's not a long term solution, he's a Boris client looking to cash in.

  10. #10
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,077
    Like
    14
    Liked 89 Times in 55 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottyB View Post
    Add one more point to analysis - he's not a long term solution, he's a Boris client looking to cash in.
    I think this is an overanalyzed point. he has absolutely no choice for 4 yrs. At best you sign an extension and buy out an extra year or two but after that most players go the FA route or sign for 80-90% of what they would have gotten on the open market.

  11. #11
    Banned All-Star
    Posts
    1,498
    Like
    419
    Liked 75 Times in 49 Posts
    with tampa looking to add a catcher , 3b,(yes they have longoria), 1b of(cf) and a dh why not trade ham and span for shields and hellickson? then offer up a couple of marginal prospects for vernon wells and 38 million , wells is a better fielder then ham and does have some pop we would be giving up 12 million in payroll and adding about 17 million,still leaving enough to add another starter, some pen help and posibly a middle infielder

  12. #12
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,077
    Like
    14
    Liked 89 Times in 55 Posts
    I doubt Tampa wants to trade 2 pitchers.

    Wells is terrible even if someone else is paying.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Double-A
    Posts
    110
    Like
    0
    Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sorney View Post
    Good analysis, but if I'm the Twins, I'm still interested (if the trade price is right).
    Though not a #1, he is a HUGE upgrade over anything they have right now
    We need at least 3 quality starters next year, he would be one of those. We can't be thinking if it isn't Verlander we don't want him because #1 starters are few and very expensive. 3 Hellickson type guys would go a long way to improving this team, imo.

    Agreed...that was the point I was trying to make (although I probably should have been a little more straight forward)

  14. #14
    Senior Member Triple-A Danchat's Avatar
    Posts
    366
    Like
    67
    Liked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    The only reason why anyone is drooling is because the Twins don't have any starting pitchers.
    I'd take him if he wasn't too expensive. But we can't be cheap, now, can we?

  15. #15
    I was very weary of him coming into this season as he led his rookie year in BABIP & I thought he'd drop significantly.....he didnt.
    Worried a little that he hasnt had a 200IP yr yet also as well as the numbers showing he's not much of an improvement in terms of Ks.
    All said tho, he'd immediately be the teams ace & combined with Kyle Gibson, would be a solid couple youngsters to rebuild with

  16. #16
    Junior Member Rookie
    Posts
    12
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by greengoblinrulz View Post
    I was very weary of him coming into this season as he led his rookie year in BABIP & I thought he'd drop significantly.....he didnt.
    Worried a little that he hasnt had a 200IP yr yet also as well as the numbers showing he's not much of an improvement in terms of Ks.
    All said tho, he'd immediately be the teams ace & combined with Kyle Gibson, would be a solid couple youngsters to rebuild with
    I agree. THere are concerns, but the Twins could do much worse.

    Hellickson was a strikeout pitcher in the minors, so maybe there's a chance he'll trend upward.

    That said, given the questionable peripherals, I'm not sure I want to see the Twins try to match wits with the Rays on this particular player.

  17. #17
    Your Hellickson assestment is a complete and utter head scratcher on many levels. But on the "flip side" they could always, and likely will, identify and aquire another Sam Deduno

  18. #18
    Senior Member Triple-A Dilligaf69's Avatar
    Posts
    363
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    I also am suprised to hear this...the Twins should consider him but not for top talent. Span and a mid level prospect might be all I'm willing to do.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Triple-A Dilligaf69's Avatar
    Posts
    363
    Like
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnydakota View Post
    with tampa looking to add a catcher , 3b,(yes they have longoria), 1b of(cf) and a dh why not trade ham and span for shields and hellickson? then offer up a couple of marginal prospects for vernon wells and 38 million , wells is a better fielder then ham and does have some pop we would be giving up 12 million in payroll and adding about 17 million,still leaving enough to add another starter, some pen help and posibly a middle infielder

    HAHAHA! ...Twins do that deal in a second, problem is this is'nt a video game. Vernon Wells???? really! short of the worst long term contract maybe ever by a baseball team it's a good deal. Maybe football is your sport buddy!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.