This time it’s the Kansas City Royals (sensing a theme in the teams potentially looking at Hill?), though it’s mostly the local media stumping for Hill.
Especially with the Cubs apparently willing to accept just about anything, including the legendary player-to-be-named-later based on Hill’s performance in 2009.
He is left-handed, with a huge curveball, and just about unhittable when he’s right. This is the guy who won 11 games, pitched 195 innings with a 3.92 ERA and 119 ERA+ — and who started in game three of the NLCS two years ago. Mellinger’s Blog on the Royals and Baseball.
1.) Yes, Hill was great two years ago. And then he was the *worst pitcher in the history of the universe.*
Number 2, a word on “PTBNL,” after the jump.
2.) A player to be named later is an actual player. It’s not a thing. You’ve got to actually choose a player. I can’t stand when I read about a team “only giving up” a PTBNL. We have no idea who the player is. Just because they are going to be chosen at a later date doesn’t mean it’s a bad player or non-prospect.
Heck, the article, itself, goes on to concede:
If [Hill] figures it out, the conditional [PTBNL] is a legit prospect you look at as the cost of acquiring a third young staple of the rotation to fit behind Gil Meche and Zack Greinke.
The writer is assuming the PTBNL will be conditional – i.e., chosen from a list of good prospects if Hill succeeds, and chosen from a list of crappy prospects if Hill does not succeed.
So you DO recognize that the PTBNL could be something of value. That’s good. But don’t pander in the beginning of the article like a PTBNL is always junk, and the Cubs are just giving Rich Hill away. Don’t forget – guys like Jason Schmidt and David Ortiz were once traded as PTBNLs.