Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Article: Assessing Hellickson

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,109 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:55 PM

You can view the page at http://www.twinsdail...sing-Hellickson

#2 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,922 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:51 PM

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 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,179 posts

Posted 06 November 2012 - 11:15 PM

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.

[COLOR=#3E3E3E]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.[/COLOR]


I think this is also pretty interesting. After all, the Rays aren't known for making dumb trades, are they?

#4 Steve J

Steve J

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:10 AM

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 sorney

sorney

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:48 AM

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 old nurse

old nurse

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,788 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:53 AM

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.

[COLOR=#3E3E3E]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.[/COLOR]


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 Winston Smith

Winston Smith

    Old Geezer

  • Members
  • 1,479 posts
  • LocationOceania

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:40 AM

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.

May all our prospects be All Stars and the beer be free.


#8 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,532 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:06 AM

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 ScottyB

ScottyB

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:16 AM

Add one more point to analysis - he's not a long term solution, he's a Boris client looking to cash in.

#10 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,532 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:28 AM

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 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:30 AM

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 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,532 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:37 AM

I doubt Tampa wants to trade 2 pitchers.

Wells is terrible even if someone else is paying.

#13 sorney

sorney

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

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 Danchat

Danchat

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 514 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 03:18 PM

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 greengoblinrulz

greengoblinrulz

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

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 jianfu

jianfu

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:32 PM

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 Jack Torse

Jack Torse

    Member

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 07 November 2012 - 07:37 PM

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 Dilligaf69

Dilligaf69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

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 Dilligaf69

Dilligaf69

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 365 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

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!