The Dodgers have real interest in pursuing free agent reliever Aroldis Chapman, Andy McCullough suggests (Twitter links). While we’ve heard plenty of indication that the organization also intends to make a bid on its own departing closer, Kenley Jansen, it appears that the fireballing lefty also represents a viable target for one of the game’s biggest spenders — despite the fact that the club jettisoned a deal to acquire Chapman last winter when domestic violence allegations arose. While Los Angeles has spent very little on its bullpen since hiring Andrew Friedman to run its baseball operations, the club obviously saw the value of a shut-down arm while leaning heavily on Jansen during the postseason. The big question remains just how hard the Dodgers will push, but their presence in the market for the two best-available relievers is certainly a boon for the earning power of both.
- Meanwhile, the Cubs are giving signals that they may be less inclined to pay top dollar for an established relief arm, as Patrick Mooney of CSN Chicago reports. While the organization gave up a haul for Chapman at the trade deadline, and featured him frequently en route to a World Series win, Chicago would seemingly prefer to think outside the box to find its next dominant relief arm. GM Jed Hoyer spoke of a “targeted” approach to the roster, with the club set to “explore every avenue” in finding a replacement for Chapman. He cited two prominent examples of pitchers who failed as starters but later emerged in a late-inning role. “You never know who that guy’s going to be,” said Hoyer. “If you stop thinking that way, you have no chance to find that guy. You always want to think like: ’OK, who is going to be that next Andrew Miller? Who’s going to be that next Wade Davis?'” As Mooney notes, Carl Edwards Jr. represents a possible internal option to take high-leverage opportunities, along with former closer Hector Rondon. Beyond that, Hoyer says, the team will “be looking at a lot of ways to acquire pitching” and will “explore every avenue” to add arms this winter.
- That somewhat unconventional approach has long been pursued by the Pirates, and Travis Sawchik of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review looks at the team’s rotation prospects this winter. Pittsburgh’s reclamation strategy has paid dividends time and again, but that may be tougher than ever with a thin market and perhaps added competition from other organizations who have seen how the Bucs’ approach can work. GM Neal Huntington emphasized that, while a veteran pitcher would “take[] some pressure off,” it remains hard for his small-budget organization to commit the years and dollars needed to compete on the open market. He stressed the need to continue pushing the development of the team’s homegrown starters, and certainly there are a variety of options already on hand, as MLBTR’s Charlie Wilmoth analyzed in taking stock of the Pirates’ offseason outlook. As he notes, and Huntington acknowledges, the club could consider bolstering that group by dealing from its fairly robust array of position-player talent.
- Another organization that could look to the trade market for starters is the Braves, as David O’Brien of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution writes. Per Jon Morosi of MLB Network (via Twitter), Atlanta has spoken with the Rays about staff ace Chris Archer, who is one of the game’s top starting pitching assets (even after a disappointing 2016 season) due in large part to his youth and highly appealing contract. That’s notable, but hardly should be read as an indication that the Braves will push the pedal to the floor for a top arm. GM John Coppolella stressed that the club is looking for value in all regards, and will continue to be opportunistic rather than stretching to add a premium starter. “Starting pitching is the main need that we have, and we want it badly,” he said. “That being said, if the numbers get crazy or the years get too long [for free agents], we’ll just stick with what we have. Or we’ll look to the trade market for short-term guys. … We’re going to look for value, whether it’s starting pitching, catching, whatever. If the market spirals too far out of control, we’ll just move on to other areas of need. Maybe build a killer bullpen and add to [an area that is a strength already.”
- Though the Rockies have received promising returns from their own rotation of late, the team isn’t satisfied with its pitching entering the winter, GM Jeff Bridich said in an appearance on MLB Network Radio on Sirius XM (Twitter link). Certainly, that could take the form of a focus on a bullpen that struggled last year, though perhaps a move for a starter can’t be ruled out either. Bridich said that the club is “going to have to take some risks” this offseason and will seek to “improve the impactful pitchers we have.”
- The NL West-rival Padres also seem primed to take some risks on pitching (and in other areas), and Dennis Lin of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that the organization was one of many to send scouts to watch free agent reliever Greg Holland in his recent showcase. San Diego has done well recently in finding undervalued assets for the bullpen, and a targeted bet on someone like Holland could make sense — though he’ll presumably draw wide interest given his lofty established ceiling. Meanwhile, the Pads may also consider trade offers for their own controlled arms; Lin mentions Ryan Buchter, Brad Hand, and Brandon Maurer as pitchers who have “consistently drawn outside interest.” Though GM A.J. Preller didn’t exactly suggest that the team would be looking to deal, he acknowledged that clubs have come calling. “There’s definitely been clubs checking in on our bullpen,” he said. “They saw the jobs those guys did this year.”
BlueSkyLA
It might be time to revise the characterization of the Dodgers as one of the game’s biggest spenders. The size of the current payroll is almost entirely an artifact of the previous administration. Over the last two years they haven’t signed a single marquee contract or traded for one. In fact their nibbling and tinkering approach right up and down the roster is much more similar to a mid-market or even small-market team. If they do now successfully pursue some expensive free agents it will come as a surprise, not something we should have expected by projecting from the current approach.
fred-3
Especially when they let Kenley go *ducks*
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
You know they spent $500 mill last right. They spent huge money on the farm might not have been where you wanted to allocate the money but they’ve been hellbent on rebuilding the farm. Which puts them in a great position to make a blockbuster trade which is seemingly more likely to happen. Understand that figure is not sustainable and this team that was left would have have been old decrepit, terrible defensively and out of playoff contention. Also understand that they were serious in contention for Grienke. The Dbacks gave him a take it or leave it offer. Now the Dbacks are regretting that contract. So I get that they are trying to get under the threshold. I also like that the system is filled and this teams base will see a significant boost of young talent.
fred-3
how are you getting $500MM spent last year?
BlueSkyLA
I presume an estimate of total team expenditures, but I am only guessing. We’d have to guess because to my knowledge these figures are never published. We also don’t know total revenue, but that number isn’t difficult to estimate.
dutch91701
Perhaps total baseball ops and dev budget. The problem with the “rebuild the farm system” explanation is that the farm system has been rebuilding since new ownership took over. Can’t all be attributed to Friedman. Actually most of it (at least most highly touted prospects) is a product of previous regime. Friedman has acquired several prospect pieces through trade that benefit the system, but also shipped some out for rentals. The lack of 25-man spending is a result of Kasten deeming previous levels of spending unsustainable. Now, I don’t know how much of that I buy, as the Dodgers collect $343MM AAV on a TV contract before 3-4 million fans come through the gates at $50 a piece, but that’s a different conversation, I suppose.
fred-3
Using MLB.com, 7 of the top 10 prospects were acquired by Freidman.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
They collect about $250 for tv contract right now but if we take such revenue sharing you believe they give anywhere from 30-50 mill from that contract. The 500 mill figure also comes payroll taxes, international spending taxes, etc… so it’s a rough number but yes numbers are out there. Which btw the idiotic nature of McCourt still collecting 15 mill from Chavez ravine parking lots but I digress.
But regardless on the other note we are talking about top 100 prospects his regime has brought in 3 most likely 4 when Buehler reaches a full season. It’s understandable that a majority of prospects were brought in by the previous regime because of the length of time but let’s not pretend the talent pipe has dried.
BlueSkyLA
I realize they spend on more than just payroll, but last year that figure was about half of the number you state and most of those obligations came from contracts signed three or more years ago. In any case the point I am making is that the current FO has not signed any large free agent contracts in the last two years, so perhaps it’s time to stop talking about this team as big spenders when it comes to free agent contracts. This isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades, so close doesn’t count.
fred-3
It’s very clear the direction they’re going in if you follow the team. Even if the re-sign Turner and Kenley, it’s probably going to have to be on their terms, such as nothing more than 4 years for Turner. They are almost scared to hand out large contracts now.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Oh I totally understand that but we also have to take into account the state of the team received. If the owners prerogative was to get out from some of the outrageous unmovable contracts the path they are taking makes sense. You haven’t seen any big moves because of just that. You also can’t fault the FO in their pursuit for Grienke and O’Day. The path they are taking I applaud. I’d also would think this is the offseason they spend big maybe probably not on the cespedes of the world but on Jansen and/or Champman, Turner’s, Hill etc..They’ll have the ability with this terrible market to dump some bad money. They also have none of their own crucial FA’s next season with $44 mill coming off the books. I don’t think they are going to act like the Yankees of yester year, but getting the base was the crucial portion of solidifying this team.
BlueSkyLA
You probably already know I am going to disagree with this analysis. At some point we all should reckon with the real possibility that the primary objective of this FO is to make this a more profitable team for ownership. Their experience was entirely in running small-market teams and all the evidence we’ve seen thus far is they were hired for the express purpose of running the Dodgers the same way, and not just for awhile, but on a permanent basis. Friedman never talks about the fans (except to denigrate them) and never about winning championships as being a priority for any of the choices he is making.
Here’s another quote from just the other day: “We just have a number of options that we feel like put us in position to have an above-average major league rotation, which allows that to be a real strength for us next year.”
Above average? Wow.
vtadave
I think you’ll see the big free agent spending starting after 2018 when the payroll is a fraction of what it is now AND there are guys worth the big contracts.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
We can obviously agree to disagree. And I am obviously willing to change my assessment through this offseason. But at some point we have to realize that this a business and the owners do need to recoup on their investment. Living at that 300, 260 payroll plus the 50% threshold taxes just isn’t realistic because you essentially negate the tv contract. That’s not even mentioning the 30-50 mill they send to the MLB as required by revenue sharing. That’s even before exploring all the other expenses. So if they live on the expected threshold of 200-220 I’m ok with that.
In terms of the FO they’ve been up front with their philosophy and it’s been known for a while. They obviously needed to get younger and they had the prospects to do it. They needed to supplant their system after the first wave which they did. The past two years they’ve been more than one or two players away to go all in or even make that one major trade. Last year was an interesting year bc it was all but known that rebuilding teams would hold their prized possessions because it would be an extreme sellers market. They haven’t had the luxury to be in Chicago’ 5 year window. Simply put 2017 was going to their judgement window. Here it is. And do they have the potential to be an above average to dominant staff they sure do when you consider Urias will have enough innings after being started late and Kersh which puts them one starter away assuming Maeda and Wood stay healthy as solid 4/5. So if that’s piece is a Hill and a trade target. I finally have hope this team is on the right track.
I can’t remember a team that won a WS by just throwing extreme amount of money at it. It doesn’t work that way usually teams that win FA are a major disappointments. So I’ll hold all assessments until Spring training is upon us, and we have a better grip on what this assembled team looks like.
BlueSkyLA
I certainly recognize the business aspects of baseball, but I am not going to defend the owners of any team sacrificing competitiveness in favor of profitability. We’ve seen plenty of that around baseball. As fans we ought to be demanding as much competitiveness as any given team can muster. After all, the fans pay the bills.
As far as the Dodgers are concerned, in round numbers they pull down at least $400M in annual revenue. Granted it goes to a lot of places but the single largest place it goes is player salaries. On revenue sharing, the actual number I don’t know but I know it’s a lot less than it might have been but for the bankruptcy. Ownership is getting a huge break there.
Also as far as the Dodgers are concerned, the fans are justifiably impatient. Nobody who’s been forking out their hard earned cash and investing their hopes in this team for the last 28 years and has been rewarded with weak teams and teams unprepared to face the postseason should have to apologize for their impatience. This is where a lot of us find Friedman to be hugely frustrating. For one, he obviously sees the fans as little better than pains in the neck, annoyances to be tolerated, but not that much. This is just plain irritating. For another, he never owns up to having made less than perfect decisions, and that is just plain arrogant. Every time he has the opportunity to give us hope that he’s on the fans’ side, he passes it up. Kind of makes you think he isn’t.
Add it all up and I get a whole lot of skepticism about ownership’s plan. I don’t want to believe it but I can certainly see the possibility that their plan doesn’t have much to do with us. So long as we put up with them fielding teams that aren’t ever good enough, then why should they spend more to make them better?
therealryan
You should be happy then. According to Forbes, the Dodgers are the least profitable team in MLB and only one of three that lost money.
BlueSkyLA
So according to Forbes how are they spending their $438M in revenue?
therealryan
According to Forbes, $346mm went to player expenses including benefits and bonuses. No idea about the rest, but either way, they still show the Dodgers as the least profitable team and it’s not even close. You should be elated knowing that your team doesn’t care about profit. Think, it could be worse. You could be a fan of the Giants, Astros, Cardinals or Cubs. Those teams are the most profitable.
BlueSkyLA
That doesn’t answer the question. The Dodgers are spending another $150M+, but nobody knows where? Really. Sounds about right.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Actually if you do the research it’s pretty accessible. They spent ~$100 on international free agents. Really only $50 mill but with a 100% tax. The other pieces include rev sharing, personnel salary, paying McCourt 15 mill for parking lots etc.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Ok 2016, we’ll go conservative 90 mill on international FAs. Alvarez and Diaz alone cost $63 mill and sit on some ranking system as the number 1 and 4 prospects. You also have to include Estevez at (12), Heredia at 5.6, Brito at 4 mill. Those were just the big big ticket prospects. 2016 payroll 270 payroll, 40 mill on threshold tax. So that’s already 400 not taking into account bonuses. 10 mill draft pool bonuses. 410 mill. That doesn’t include rev sharing, that doesn’t include parking lot price paid out to McCourt, that doesn’t include the cost of personnel from the FO down to the scouts. That also doesn’t include prices for Latin American training facilities.
So yes this is what we talk about when we discuss the Dodgers not being profitable. Most fans would love this and would want there team to put in that type of money. It’s something McCourt could never do. So yes that is why I give the FO and ownership leeway and why I understand this isn’t sustainable.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Dodgers TV contract related to revenue sharing from Forbes”That means the Dodgers will fork over $2 billion to baseball.” 2 billion over the 25 year contract averages 80 mill. 80 mill of that contract goes to fund small market teams let that sink in.
BlueSkyLA
No sinking in required. Forbes gets the sharing part wrong, if that is your source. The new owners were not liable for anywhere close to the revenue sharing normally required by MLB, as a result of the bankruptcy settlement. Instead of them sharing 34% of the net revenue of the deal they signed (minus stadium expenses), it was calculated at the value of the rights as they were established by the court, which was $84M per year. Ultimately Guggenheim agreed to revenue share on $130M/year, less than a half than what they actually got from TWC. So they share closer to $40M annually with MLB.
Two other points: First you might have a look at the footnotes on those tables. A lot of accounting method goes into the final number including depreciation and the like. Second the Dodgers were spending heavily on international free agents when that window as open for them, which it is not any longer, so these are non-recurring expenses.
So if you want to get a true picture of the Dodgers profitability, start with the right baseline number and don’t include one-time expenses or accounting methods.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Actually that is untrue that settlement included the first year only. It was agreed upon that monies was for the first year. Beyond that the 34% would increase by 4% annually. That’s not just Forbes that’s multiple sources. So of that 8 billion dollars, ~2 billion will be allocated to revenue sharing.
If we want to take a baseline we also have to look at past and current. Dodgers simply have lost money the last two years. So in terms of international spending which was taxed for this year, it doesn’t change the facts. They’ve been underwater for two years. So you can’t criticize management for wanting to be profitable.
Further on that note they are already at 188 before bumps in arb etc. So they are easily going to surpass the threshold. So dependent on new rules in which it seems threshold taxes will increase from 50%. They will also be subject to rev spending, they will also be required to pay for numerous other allocations. Obviously those are rough numbers in which you can’t deny, because they are pretty clear.
So in summary, what they do after this point is what will define them. They felt a need to spend large on the international market to supplant their system (which was top heavy) in which they post that spent a cool $140 mill. So sure it was a one time expenditure (not counting the annual salary of Maeda and Seirra) but they dedicated significant resources. Think what you may but to me resigning guys like Jansen, Turner, Hill and taking on salary in a trade for a Braun still qualifies them as big spenders bc not many teams can do what they’ve done.
OCTraveler
Resigning Turner should not be a priority. He’s beginning to show wear and last year could be an anomaly. Prefer trading for a younger option – first two choices would be Kyle Seager or at a lesser cost Trevor Plouffe.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Resigning Turner should be an absolute priority. Seager is highly untouchable. Trevor Plouffe is a year younger and broke down last year. He has also shown extreme defensive decline. Not that he was that great of a defender to begin with. Plouffe also is a below average OBP guy in which doesn’t fit in with the wants of the FO. It means he won’t age well. Turner has also shown to be a leader. He grinds through ABs and can play multiple positions. So even if he has to transition to 1st his numbers still play there. Understand that his slow start can be contributed to his offseason knee surgery. But yes in fact Turner needs to be a priority even if he is just a candle holder for a Machado or Arenado. Fact is Turner’s age and QO will not lead to an outrageous price 60/4-68/4 is more than reasonable.
connorreed
The Dodgers spent $90+ million (including penalties) on international free agents last year, plus another $30 million on Sierra.
I’m not hating on that, but I don’t think it’s fair to say they aren’t big spenders anymore when their total expenditure on IFA in a single year was greater than 20 or 21 of the other 29 teams’ total payrolls.
chop
And this is why you don’t trust Coppy. He said no big names, he calls on Archer. I think he can make a deal come together there.
RunDMC
Like anyone in sales or the service industry knows, Coppy has learned that you need to undersell and over-deliver. You do not say you’re going after Archer and wind up with RA Dickey (as the big get).
Set the table, Coppy. Time to feast.
bravesfan
Braves can go get Archer, go ahead a pick up RA dickey and Hammels. I definitely think we need a upgrade at catching and I prefer Wieters… But if you get those 4 guys, suddenly we can compete. RA is strictly short term
But that would be a pitching staff that can give you a chance every game. 5 quality starters. Archer, Teheran, Hammels, RA, and Folty. We have the prospects, and have the money for the FA’s. Imagine how batters would feel after facing a day of RA throwing junk, then suddenly folty is pumping heat. Would like a lefty, but not the end of the world.
vtadave
Unless you’re talking about Cole Hamels instead of Jason Hammel, they’re only competing for third place in the East.
bravesfan
the key word is compete as oppose to contend. Braves rarely competed last year, and being able to compete will be a big step forward. If somehow we got all those guys, and yes I mean Jason Hammels, then 100% we can compete for a playoff spot. It would be a huge step forward if we are able to do that. Most don’t realize, but we have a lot of pretty good hitters. We can hit the baseball, we just somehow need to figure out how to keep us in the game pitching wise.
RunDMC
RA Dickey, please leave that man alone. I like the 1 year contract mindset, but he’s not going to get any better. There’s more guys that could be had on short-term deals with higher upside and are not 43. Charlie Morton is one such name.
southi
TBH Run, I’m not thrilled about either one of Dickey or Morton. Neither have done much in their career and both have similar type career walk and strike out numbers (Dickey slightly better surprisingly in both categories). In Career ERA Dickey is better, but Morton has the better career FIP. I’d expect production would be similar on each so you’d probably look at whichever one would come cheaper while weighing which one would be the better clubhouse fit as well. Lots of similar type non exciting pitchers available this off season. I just hope Coppy picks the correct one for the team.
bravesfan
At the end of the day, we need pitchers who can give us a shot and go deep into games. Give up 3 runs or less, and limit the use of our bullpen. I know RA is aging, but I feel like he can do that for us. It’s just a 1 year deal anyways, I feel some young guys need just a little extra time to develop
baseballfanforever
And besides, you never know about knuckleballers. They can be really streaky. Once they get the right grip and angle they can be devastating. He could have a decent year — or a horrendous one.
bleacherbum
The Padres need to consider a deal for Derek Holland to plug in the middle of the rotation. If Gomez & Desmond sign elsewhere it will free up some room in that Texas outfield, Travis Jankowski or Alex Dickerson could be nice insurance policies for them. Then call STL & see what it would take to pry Jaime Garcia away. Two left handed pitchers who are just a couple years removed from pitching meaningful games deep in the playoffs & in the World Series, pair them with Darren Balsley with the hopes it regaining some of their old form. Ross, Holland, Perdomo, Garcia, Rea/Cosart would be a pretty solid rotation. It also shakes up the Right handedness it currently composes.
disgruntledreader 2
Derek Holland’s option was not picked up, so there’s no calling the Rangers about him.
Ross, Holland, Perdomo, Garcia, Rea/Cosart would be a hideously bad rotation, even if there was some remote chance they could cobble together 800 innings between them, which seems pretty improbable. (Of course, lots of improbable things seem more possible today.)
zippytms
Clayton Richard is likely to come back to the Padres. Christian Friedrich is still around, and there’s the chance that Robbie Erlin could contribute later in the season. That’s three lefties to mix into the rotation, but nothing worth getting hopeful over. Derek Holland could be a refurb candidate, or he might be shot and a waste of time. Other LH SP names: CJ Wilson, Ross Detwiler, Felix Doubront,
Then again, they could find some guys who’ve bounced around the minors with a prior pedigree who aren’t on our radar. They did well last year with those types.
AndThisGameBelongsToMySanDiegoPadres
1. Derek Holland is a free agent
2. Even if he wasn’t why would Preller even consider trading Dickerson or Jankowski for him?
JT19
What would an Archer to the Braves deal look like? I don’t imagine the Rays selling low so I also imagine it’ll take a couple of top prospects.
RunDMC
I’ve seen varying interpretations of a deal, some involving Mallex Smith, Arodys Vizcaino, Sean Newcombe.
I could a couple of other light pieces involved, but in my opinion they’d be selling low on Viz, Smith, and to a certain extent, Newcombe, considering Viz/Smith both missed a lot of time from injuries in 2016.
therealryan
That is no where near enough for Archer. Look at what pitching has cost in trades over the last couple of years. We all know about the Shelby Miller trade and we just saw 2.5 years of Andrew Miller at $22.5mm return a top 20 OF, a top 75 SP and 2 other pitchers.
Archer is one of the most valuable pitchers in baseball and the return for 5 years of Archer at $39mm is going to be huge. Think about what Braves fans would expect back for Teheran and then start adding to it. I honestly would be a little surprised if the Rays would make a deal without Swanson, but Albies would absolutely be included then.
bradthebluefish
The Dodgers’ problem in the playoffs wasn’t their bullpen, it was the starters not being able to go deep into games.
BlueSkyLA
It was both.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
Jansen was pretty solid. Chapman was very good for awhile but was over worked.
slider32
Any team that thinks they can win the world series without a top closer is making a big mistake. Chapman, Jansen, and Melancon are the best available and the teams that get them will have a leg up.
petrie000
because it’s not like Mike Montgomery saved game 7 of the WS after Chapman blew it or anything, right?
AndThisGameBelongsToMySanDiegoPadres
Blame Maddon for using Chapman incorrectly.
petrie000
is Chapman was the key to winning a world series they way some people thing Closers magically are these days, he wouldn’t have needed ‘proper management’ to get it done.
Andrew Miller wasn’t the magic bullet either when it really counted.
lifelongchopper
Without Chapman, the Cubs likely don’t win game 5, so there would have been no game 7. Also, if Maddon hadn’t inexplicably used Chapman with a 7-run lead in game 6, he wouldn’t have been completely burned out by the time he entered game 7.
Logjammer D"Baggagecling
Jansen to the cubs 4 years 87mil with an option for a 5th year and opt out after 3 years. Chapman to the Dodgers for nearly the same deal. 8mil more opt out after the 2 and 4th year.
YourDaddy
$22 million per year for a reliever? I don’t think so. Maybe $87 million over 5 years. That’s $17.4 million per year AAV, and while it’s still crazy to spend that much on a reliever, it’s also probably market value.
I do some stupid team is going to give one or both of those 2 guys a 9 figure deal over 6 years. That’s pretty insane.
petrie000
i’m so glad Theo’s the GM and not you.
YourDaddy
Not exactly sure why a Padres team that probably won’t be even an ok team until 2018 at the earliest and has no chance of contending before 2019 would want Greg Holland, a reliever that will probably cost $9-10 million per year on a 2-3 year deal.
I could see them going after a reclamation project like Derek Holland if he was cheap enough, say $4-5 million, on a one-year deal. Do that and bring back Richard and you have two back of the rotation lefties along with Ross, Perdomo, and Rea. Of course, Ross and Rea may not make it back to start (or finish?) the year and that leaves the Padres back Friedrich, Cosart, Clemens and some other schmoes competing for those 2 spots.
Or maybe sign Derek Holland and see if he can regain his velocity in the pen. He used to have a 93-94 MPH sinker that went along with a pretty good slider. A closer/setup guy with that kind or repetoire that can also throw a few other pitches for strikes can be very effective.
A 90-100 loss team just doesn’t need a Greg Holland.