Quantcast

jason hammel oriolesWhile we await official word that the Chicago Cubs have signed pitcher Jason Hammel to a reported one-year, $6 million deal with another $1 million possible in incentives, there are a handful of relevant bits to discuss …

  • We’ve gone over the performance risks associated with Hammel – good years in 2009, 2010, and 2012, mixed with a down 2013 and a stinker in 2011 – but are there also health risks? Buster Olney says some teams were concerned about what they perceived to be a “heightened risk of an elbow injury”with Hammel. There were a ton of teams in on Hammel, and the Cubs reportedly got him on a deal that is perceived to be a good value. At the outset of the offseason, Olney said Hammel was looking for a three to four-year deal, so maybe there’s something to the injury concerns?
  • Well, Hammel did miss time in 2013 with flexor mass tightness, and that’s a bundle of muscles in the forearm intimately associated with the elbow (and its precious ligaments and nerves). Nervousness, going forward, is understandable. Hammel came back from that injury, however, after rest and a cortisone injection (with an MRI and a Dr. James Andrews review mixed in). Presumably, he’s got a clean bill of health right now, but I suppose it’s fair to say he’s got a slightly higher risk profile than a starter who didn’t have a forearm injury the prior year. (Worth noting: he says he started feeling it in Spring Training last year, which could be a partial explanation for his down 2013 season. It’s also probably additional cause for concern, however slight.)
  • Jeff Sullivan at FanGraphs makes the easy comparison between the Hammel signing and last year’s nearly-identical one-year deal for Scott Feldman. From Sullivan’s take, you get the sense that, unlike with Feldman, where ability to translate stuff into performance was the primary risk, staying healthy (and pitching healthy) is the primary risk with Hammel. It seems likely that, if he’s getting no trouble from his arm, he can be very effective. Some of the superlatives in Sullivan’s piece are striking. (Example: “And in 2012, when Hammel was healthy, he was among the very best starters in baseball. Though he wasn’t throwing eight or nine innings every turn, he matched Doug Fister in ERA-, David Price in FIP-, and Adam Wainwright in xFIP-. Hammel was probably the best starter on an Orioles team that played in October.”)
  • As for Hammel’s role with the Cubs, I think it’s worth pointing out that, yes, he is quite clearly being signed to be a starting pitcher (raising the possibility of a flip at the deadline), but should five other starters prove simply too valuable/good to not start, Hammel could be shifted to the bullpen for a time. Hammel pitched in the pen early in his career, then for a bit in Colorado, and then just a tiny bit last year with the Orioles. He’s not quite a classic “swing” guy, but it would seem he could fulfill that role if necessary.
  • Under what circumstances would that be necessary? Well, keep in mind: even if we all agree that 2014 is a throwaway year, and we agree that flipping short-term assets for longer term pieces is an acceptable use of that throwaway year, there are conceivable benefits of using someone else in the rotation for a long-term benefit. For example, say Justin Grimm shows promise as a starter, but there isn’t a spot for him unless Hammel is bounced. Might giving Grimm a chance to become a quality middle-to-back-of-the-rotation candidate for the long-term be just as valuable as the small chance that Hammel pitches well and is flipped for something that has value in July?
  • That said … I think it’s a mortal lock that Hammel, if healthy, starts the year in the rotation and is not moved out until he is traded or proves inexplicably ineffective. I don’t think the latter is likely. As I’ve said, I’m optimistic that Hammel could be a nice back-of-the-rotation piece for the Cubs in the first half (and another team in the second half). If it plays out that way, everybody wins.
  • NorthSideIrish

    Have the Cubs made a corresponding move to clear a spot on the 40 man?

    • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

      No. Won’t announce signing until they do.

      • CubChymyst

        You think the Cubs delay the announcement for awhile? When does the DL become active again?

        • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

          Nine days before Opening Day, so not soon enough to provide cover for the Hammel signing.

          • Kyle

            Are you sure? You might be right, but I was thinking the 60-man opened before that.

            • Kyle

              *60-day

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

              Hmm. You may be right – I just knew that DL opened up 9 days before the start of the season (so that players injured in Spring Training are available to return after six days). A quick scan of transaction logs around the league suggests the 9 day thing is also for the 60-day disabled list, but it was just a quick scan. I’ll see if I can find the rule, because you may be right.

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

              Every recent Tommy John guy whom I can think of that was an obvious 60-day DL guy was placed on the DL nine days before the start of the season. So there you go, I guess.

          • hansman

            Damn, I hate proving Kyle right but The Cubs Reporter has the 60-day opening with Spring Training.

            ” A player can be placed on the MLB Emergency Disabled List (60-day DL) during Spring Training or anytime during the MLB regular season (a minor league player can be placed on a minor league club’s 60-day DL only during the regular season)”

            http://www.thecubreporter.com/book/export/html/3538

            • mjhurdle

              that report was obviously just a leak by the Cubs front office so that they can say they tried but just came in second….on 60 DL assignments.

              • hansman

                I wonder if they get pissed when they actually do sign players?

                “SONOFABITCH…Agent X told us the other team was willing to go to $7M for a year of Hammel.”

                • Brocktoon

                  I wonder if some people on here get pissed about anything the Cubs do.

                  • hansman

                    They’re just here to compensate for the FO bu&*-kissers.

                    Or that’s what they say.

                • mjhurdle

                  that would definitely fit the brainy Jon viewpoint. Not only is the Front Office so stupid that they are actually intentionally tanking, but they are SO stupid that they can’t even tank right.

                  “You signed who? YOU IDIOT!! I didn’t say EDWIN I said ENGELS!!!!”

                  • hansman

                    They actually spend more time planning and rehearsing their reality show pitches than they do planning the season.

            • http://www.bleachernation.com Brett

              “During” Spring Training is not the same thing as “at the start of” Spring Training. Kind of a big coincidence if all the teams I could find placed their obvious 60-day DL guys on the 60-day DL in late March, consistently.

              To be clear: not saying anyone’s wrong here, but I’m not seeing any examples of a guy going on the DL at the start of Spring Training – and there would be a ton of those moves to find, because why would you wait when there are obvious roster implications?

              • hansman

                So you’re saying there’s a chance Kyle is wrong???

                I searched through the actual MLB rulebook they have posted and didn’t see any mention of the DL.

  • Cubsin

    Let’s just say I won’t be staying up late worrying if all of Shark, Wood, Jackson, Hammels, Arrieta and Grimm are pitching well in Spring Training. I’ll be worrying a lot more if several of them look like crap.

    • Jason P

      It’s probably not worth getting worked up about Spring training statistics either way.

  • http://www.dylanheuer.com Dylan

    Hi Brett (Luke can pitch in if he wants too),

    Let’s say Hammell has a reasonable first half. Nothing too flashy but consistent enough to be flippable, what type of players/prospects do you think the Cubs can manage to get in return?

    • BWA

      I’d say the comparison to Feldman holds true here as well. The Cubs got two high risk high reward young MLB caliber pitchers for Feldman, though they were both struggling at the time. For Hammel, I’d think they could do similar or get something like an 8-15 organizational prospect plus another low level high upside type player.

      • Bric

        6 mil is awfully pricey for the hopes of a low A high upside guy in a flip. if that’s the reasoning why not just go out and hire 5 better scouts at a mil a piece? Provide a little more stability and confidence in an organization. 3 years is plenty of time to start making a plan past high and Double A. If you’re going to spend the money, spend it wisely. I’m not against this signing at all- I just hope the purpose is to add a quality pitcher, not look for more low A prospects.

        • Kyle

          Well, first of all, you could probably by 50 scouts for that price with room to spare.

          • Eternal Pessimist

            …and those million dollar scouts would have just told you to sign Hammel for the $6 million anyway.

  • Blackhawks1963

    There was clearly concern in the market that Hammel is damaged goods. A lot of reports suggest his elbow is dicey. Cubs are rolling the dice…this might end up okay, or it might end up as Scott Baker Version 2.0.

    • Jon

      I know you traditionally, you don’t like to do this type of thing, but if you had to put a % on it either way, what would it be?

      • cubsfan08

        Haha!!

        100% chance his arm falls off, otherwise he would have signed in New York or LA

    • Featherstone

      Yeah the health concerns definitely drove his price down and he certainly could be Scott Baker 2.0, but he could also turn out to be another Scott Feldman or Paul Maholm both of which brought back some valuable assets. The risk of this deal is very real, but it’s still a good risk to take in a year we can afford to take it. I’m happy with the signing.

  • When The Musics Over

    Baseball Prospectus had a somewhat surprisingly positive write-up on the Reds farm system today. Said it could be a top 10 system by 2015.

    Relying on your farm system to take you from last to first in this division is nasty business.

  • MightyBear

    I don’t agree that 2014 is a throw away year.

    • D-Rock

      Well, then buckle your seat belt and get ready for a wake up call…It could be real ugly this year for the Cubbies.

    • Edwin

      Respectively, how is it not? The Cubs have some of the worst playoff odds this year of any team in baseball. Other than following individual performance, there’s not much going for this team.

      • Jon

        I think the lamentation for many is that we have made this calculated, selective choice to be horrible in 2014, vs 2012 where you could argue that it was unavoidable to be horrible.

        • CubFan Paul

          +1

          • Xruben31

            This year is far from “just another throw away year” it’s a complete developmental year. Castro, Rizzo, Shark, Wood Arrietta, E-Jax, Olt, Castillo, Lake, Barney, Strop, Russel, Grimm are all in need of further development to take a step further at the major league level. Then when guys like Baez, Hendricks, Alcantra, Vitters, maybe Bryant, Sczur, Neil Ramirez and more come up they’re going to need plenty of of developmental time.

      • Big City Mick

        I give it to Theo, he’s chosen the best shade of lipstick to slap on this pig in that, he shouldn’t get any grief from Selig for not spending money. Also, there wasn’t a ton of mid-season flip candidates that were willing to sign the 1-year prove-it type contract. This season is going to be horrible from a W-L standpoint but it’s what needs to be done. We need to know what we have in Lake, Olt, Vitters, Barney, Watkins, Valbuena, B-Jackson, Sczur, etc. so we can start pruning the 40-man for the first wave of prospects and next offseason’s top FA’s.

    • Patrick W.

      Maybe it’s just a matter of semantics. You can’t really judge a year as a throwaway year until the season is over. Last year, for example, saw some fundamental changes that are being planned on for future success. This season we could see 1-2 prospects make their major league debuts, and Rizzo and Castro will probably give us enough to know who they are as major-league players. Some valuable things will happen this season.

      Winning more games than lost is pretty fairly not going to happen.

      • Fishin Phil

        I think we should at least wait until after it starts. SMH

      • Edwin

        When people say “throw away year” they typcially mean a year in which playoff odds are so low that it’s a virtual lock that the team won’t make the playoffs. There might be interesting individual performances or trades, but that’s not what people are normally talking about with “throw away”.

        • Patrick W.

          No that’s what you are talking about.

  • CubChymyst

    Szymborski ran Hammels ZiPs for the Cubs: 7-7, 4.01 ERA, 97 ERA+, 1.6 WAR in 134.2 IP.

    • ClevelandCubsFan

      I’d take that.

  • Diehardthefirst

    Disappointed Cubs didn’t give Farnsworth a tryout- Mets did

Bleacher Nation Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Bleacher Nation is a private media site, and it is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago Cubs. Neither MLB nor the Chicago Cubs have endorsed, supported, directed, or participated in the creation of the content at this site, or in the creation of the site itself. It's just a media site that happens to cover the Chicago Cubs.

Bleacher Nation is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

Google+