After his blister problem reappeared in his most recent outing, Dodgers lefty Rich Hill is heading back to the DL, per a club announcement. For the time being, corner outfielder/infielder Rob Segedin is headed up to the active roster while Alex Wood will take the open rotation spot.
There’s plenty of uncertainty in Hill’s situation. As things stand, the team is examining ways to treat the ongoing problem, though there’s no timetable at present and it seems there’s little in the way of clear answers. Manager Dave Roberts acknowledged that the organization’s medical staff has been stymied thus far in its efforts to get at the root cause, as MLB.com’s Ken Gurnick reports on Twitter. (Gurnick provided more detail on the confounding issue earlier today.)
The strategy of utilizing the 10-day DL to provide rest obviously wasn’t successful on its own. As Roberts notes, and Andy McCullough of the Los Angeles Times tweets, “ten days wasn’t enough.” Whether additional rest will provide a solution obviously isn’t known, though presumably that’s one possible action. It’s even possible that the veteran southpaw could move to the bullpen upon his return, Roberts says (as Bill Plunkett of the Orange County Register tweets), with the idea presumably being that shorter stints may help alleviate the problem.
Fortunately, the Dodgers do have ample depth built into their plans. Every member of the current MLB staff has at least some significant recent injury on his record, but the current top five seems to be a strong and healthy unit at the moment. Swingman Ross Stripling could also step into the rotation, while Triple-A starters Julio Urias and Joe Gunkel could also be called upon. Scott Kazmir and Brock Stewart both represent additional starting options who are currently on the mend.
While the organization always knew there was some health risk with the 37-year-old Hill, that doesn’t soften the blow. The Dodgers promised Hill $48MM over three years to bring him back into the fold, so while a bullpen move might at least allow him to contribute and stay fresh while the team looks for a permanent fix, such an approach would surely not return value on the contract over the long run.
metseventually 2
RICH HILL ON THE DISABLED LIST:
THE BLISTER STRIKES BACK AGAIN FOR THE THIRD OR WHATEVER TIME.
lesterdnightfly
What a blistering criticism. “You’re shouting so loud I can’t hear what you’re saying.”
outinleftfield
37 years old, $16 million per year. Can’t pitch 2 straight starts. I know the Dodgers have more money than any other team, but even Dodger fans have to admit that signing Hill was not a smart move.
dodgerfan711
They basically had to. If not they would have lost Cotton, montas and holmes for 2 rentals.
outinleftfield
They HAD to pay him $48 million for 3 seasons? Give me a break. It was a stupid move.
dodgerfan711
It was not a bad signing at all. If Hill leaves they lose 3 good prospects for basically nothing. If you want to say they overpaid the trade fine i can agree with that. However 48 million was fine for the situation. When healthy hill is one of the top pichers in the game. It may not be often he is healthy , but when he is he dominates. The dodgers are paying him for shutouts in the nlcs. If he misses time in the regular season so be it
User 4245925809
What really gets me with the LAD and SP FA’s, is that they voided the Iwakuma deal, supposedly over concerns regarding his shoulder.. yet they go out and sign all these guys.. Anderson.. Hill etc.. That are disasters regarding arm injuries previously and ‘kuma has been an iron man consistenly for over a decade in both Japan and the US, still is!
outinleftfield
So. It’s better to lose a couple of prospects than to pay $48 million to a guy that might put up 30 starts before his contract is up. That it was a bad trade just compounds how bad the Dodgers FO has done.
Now Hill is headed to the pen where his contract is an overpay by many tens of millions and he will still only be able to go 3-4 innings before hitting the DL for 10 days. There is simply no way to defend the move except that the Dodgers can afford to waste more money on players like Hill and Kazmir that will spend most of the season on the DL than most teams can spend.
dodgerfan711
The dodgers FO has done a tremendous job. Kazmir is a bust, but you cant judge hills contract 2 weeks into the season. Im glad to have Friedman running the team. And you are completely wrong about hill being removed from a playoff game due to blisters. He was on 3 days rest that game and thats why he left not blisters. Hill was acquired for the postseason and he dominated the cubs in the nlcs. You seem to be ignorant to the fact the dodgers have the depth in the rotation to take hills DL stint in the regular season. If he is not pitching in the playoffs you are 100 percent right but until then you cant judge it
Dominic 2
A tremendous job? Hill, Wood, kazmir, Hatcher, Kiki, McCarthy etc… Fantastic!!!
Then consider D. Gordon, trades to Cincy
nysoxsam
Time will tell. Rich Hill going on the DL each year is a given. The unknown is where he’ll be in September and October. That’s the gamble. The Dodgers clearly overpaid but if the offers were close, who says he resigns with LA? Every competing team has contracts that can be second guessed. The big market teams other than the Mets can afford to make a mistake or two. Cubs and Hayward, Red Sox and Panda/Castillo, etc.
TheMichigan
Dee Gordon was trash goods anyway he had maybe one good season with the dodgers till they saw that he couldn’t get on base and was absolute trash with the glove. Then he pumped PEDs with the Marlins, won a batting title, and now Dee Gordon is heralded as “superstar” goods.
dodgerfan711
Dumping Hector olivera for alex wood and peraza was a bad move? That doesent make any sense. Dee was busted for PEDs, so its hard to say thats a bad trade
AndThisGameBelongsToMySanDiegoPadres
They already did lose Cotton, Montas and Holmes for two rentals. They didn’t trade those three for three years and two months of Hill. They traded them for two months of Hill and Reddick. Period. Then they signed Hill to a three year deal in free agency. Period. Neither move had any bearing on the other.
chesteraarthur
“They basically had to. If not they would have lost Cotton, montas and holmes for 2 rentals.”
This is a pretty terrible justification for anything. “We made the mistake of paying too much in prospect value for his time available so now let us compound that by paying him more $ to stay here”.
dodgerfan711
No its not a horrible justification. You people have horrible common sense. If hill sucked i would agree with you 100 percent, but he was dominate last year with oakland/dodgers. So why would they let him go if he performed? Freidman does not like trading good prospects without a decent return, so re signing hill had to happen. There was even an article here that said a week after the trade they were interested in re signing hill. After all he went 6 shutout innings in the nlcs vs the cubs. Its not like this was rickey nolasco or scott kazmir. For his stats 48 million is a reasonable price
dodgerfan711
2.12 ERA. 2.54 FIP. 0.997 whip. If this were a younger free agent today he gets over 100 million easy. 48 is a good deal especially for the dodgers to take the risk
AndThisGameBelongsToMySanDiegoPadres
You are the one with horrible common sense. Trading for Hill had no bearing on signing him. Dodgers still would have signed him even if they hadn’t trade for him. They traded Holmes, Cotton and Montas for the rest of Hill’s 2016 season. Nothing more, nothing less. We can argue whether or not that was an overpay. I think it was bit if the Dodgers hadn’t done it someone else would have offered a similar package.
dodgerfan711
The trade was an overpay. So the only way to justify it was bring back hill. Thats all i am saying and so many people get triggered its crazy. Put the pieces together and it is very obvious from the moment they acquired hill he was going to be resigned
AndThisGameBelongsToMySanDiegoPadres
Bringing back Hill doesn’t justify it because they still traded those guys for just two months of Hill. They could have not made that trade and then still signed Hill last offseason but then they wouldn’t had Hill for the 2016 postseason. That was what they wanted and that was what they traded Holmes, Cotton and Montas for. Anything that happens after is completely irrelevant.
#getsmacked
gocincy
Agreed. This is the sunk cost fallacy on display.
davidcoonce74
I don’t know why the contract amount matters. Somebody else would have paid that if LA didn’t. It’s a sunk cost, so the money at this point doesn’t matter. I assume LA is hoping for maybe 20 starts plus a few postseason starts from Hill. They have the depth to cover him.
outinleftfield
Guess you didn’t follow that whole situation here on MLBTR. No one even bid on Hill. The Dodgers bid against themselves, signed him early, and now it’s apparent they lost. Friedman has not made many good decisions since taking over the Dodgers FO. This one was a $48 million whopper of a mistake.
Hill has had one full season as a starter in the majors and that was in 2007. In 2016 he had a good first half and the Dodgers thought he could help them down the stretch even though he was on the DL at that time for blisters. He didn’t even pitch for them until 3 weeks after the trade. Warning sign #1. In the playoffs he was removed from the 2nd game he pitched against the Nationals because of, wait for it, blisters. So why spend $48 million on a 37-year-old pitcher with a long and sordid history of injuries?
At this point, it’s a sunk cost. Nothing they can do about it. Take their lumps for a bad decision.
padresfan
I recall that. I’m actually shocked the took up hill and got rid of Deleon and still resigned the old 2nd baseman
Cam
It was a calculated risk. The Dodgers have the most rotation depth in Baseball, quality depth, and they used their financial clout to pay for a risky ace knowing that they are in a position where they can absorb the consequences better than anyone.
Irrespective of what you feel about the signing, this front office has done a fantastic job. If commenters on MLBTR ran the team, both Urias and Seager would have been traded away for Hamels and a bat.
padresfan
Do they really have more money than anyone else? They spend a lot but I also heard they owe a lot of money in debt
holecamels35
Pretty sure this surprises nobody. I guess they really value the 10-12 starts a year they will get from him. Is he the only player in MLB history to get a blister? There has to be something they can do for him. Buy some Compound-W or something.
bastros88
noah syndergaard is dealing with a blister at the moment, I’m sure it happens often, maybe not to the extent of rich hill tho
davidcoonce74
Josh Beckett very notably had a problem with blisters for a couple years early in his career.
davidcoonce74
You have to remember that any blister treatment can’t be on his hand during a game. A pitcher can’t even wear a band-aid on his pitching hand during a game. So whatever treatment Hill uses has to do the job before he takes the mound. And compound-W is for warts, not blisters. Warts are a viral infection, while blisters are a product of friction.
ReverieDays
3 years worth of injuries sounds about right.
Phillies2017
Just give him latex gloves when he pitches
clarknaddison
Use lotion.
vinscully16
Josh Beckett credits Stan’s Rodeo Ointment with curing his blister issues – true story. Rich should contact Josh (or Stan).
outinleftfield
For $48 million they better find some solution. We used Super Glue in my day.
davidcoonce74
Super Glue would be illegal in the current game; it being a foreign substance and all.
johnmillerjones
I’ll admit that I laughed at the Twitter user who said he should become the next Mordecai “3 Finger” Brown
bravesfan1998
Hands too soft
srechter
I appreciate the spirit of your intentions with these comments, but you have to understand the obvious fallacy, right? Trading for Hill has no direct bearing on the future contract he received, outside of the small incentive of a free agent returning to his previous team. Framing the deal as though the Dodgers wasted prospects without it is simply incorrect. Obviously, when cash is plentiful, the prospects are worth more than the 48 million, so I get what you’re saying. But, literally speaking, the Dodgers bought Hill for the time they did with the prospects they paid. Whatever follows is an independent variable.
davidcoonce74
Once a contract is signed, the dollar amount no longer matters. Baseball contracts are guaranteed, so Rich Hill gets that money whether he pitches or not. Teams build that risk into their decision to sign players, and I doubt any contract has ever hamstrung a team from doing what they want to do. The Padres are a pretty good example. They are very notably spending more on players not on the team than on the team this year (Kemp, Gyorko, Olivera, Shields, etc.) That didn’t keep SD from spending something like 70 million dollars in the IFA market. Even all the Yankees bad contracts over the years didn’t really keep them from being competitive. The Giants have given out numerous terrible contracts during the time in which they won three World Series in five years. I think all this hand-wringing about big contracts is a little overblown.
lesterdnightfly
True. And maybe hand-wringing can cause blisters….
dodgerfan711
Absolutely trading for hill has the future in mind. If you think gm’s make trades without any long term outlook you are wrong. Hill and reddick were both free agents at the end of the year and freidman knew that very well. The plan was from the start to re sign hill and let reddick walk, which is exactly what happened. The money was unknown but the thought of re signing hill was always a must. If you trade top prospects you usually re sign that player and this was no different
McGlynnandjuice
The idea that the trade and the signing were directly connected seems ridiculous. What if Hill was pure garbage down the stretch (like Reddick) for the Dodgers last season? Would they still try their hardest to resign Hill? I think they overpaid for him on the trade market (it happens to every team during the season) and then proceeded to overpay in free agency.
chesteraarthur
you’re a dodger’s fan and aren’t objective. You don’t rationalize overpaying for a player with prospects with the idea that it was ok because they were gonna go ahead and overpay him in $ too.
Essentially what you are arguing is that it was necessary to trade those assets for him in order to sign him to that contract for 3 years. There is probably some value in acquiring him early and having him be used to the organization, but when you just pay him more money than everyone else on top of that, it negates what little benefit early acquisition brings.
So no. They did not need to sign him long term after trading those prospects for him. Doing so is in large part an independent event from the trade that brought him there.
dodgerfan711
You realize rich hill has been a top pitcher in the game since 2015? They took a risk on his health. At least when he is out there the he performs.
BlueSkyLA
So many Medical Doctors on these boards. If I was ill, this is definitely where I’d go.
RyanR
I’d like to see these blisters and decide for myself if it’s a major issue. Why can’t he pop it and keep on truckin.
McGlynnandjuice
If it were that minor, I imagine he would have done it and completely avoided the DL. I imagine the blisters are pretty bad
Big Poison
Moises Alou used to pee on his hands in the shower to toughen the skin. He hit without batting gloves…maybe Hill could pee on his pitching hand.
lesterdnightfly
Or Hill could hire Moises Alou to do it…..
That could be a new source of endorsement income for retired players.
El Duderino
I’m willing to offer my services for only a 1% fee.
scullycap
Alou played in the PED era. It was likely PED pee pee that helped the blisters.
jd396
And here I thought Rich Hill was going to start 30 games like he always does
usafcop
Waste of money….save your arguments….I catch shoplifters for a living and show up sick of not because we are understaffed and I deal with the lowest type of scum….tweekers that come in to my store thinking we owe them something….it’s a damn free for all and I can’t catch them all but when I do….they want to fight….bite….pull a knife etc…..$17 per hour and this guy has 2 good seasons and gets 14-15 million per year….and is injured constantly….all of them are babies….we are in a deficit and these guys make up to 30 million per year….no man is worth that sorry
dodgerfan711
Thats called capitalism. Baseball is a billion dollar industry so the players make a ton of money as well. If you dont like it too bad. Baseball owners arent the federal government so bringing up the deficit is just irrelevant. If you had the ability to entertain millions you would make millions. Its simple
usafcop
Sick or not….rain or shine….I go to work and do my best to reduce theft in my store….sorry but all these guys are over paid….they have league minimum for bench players that make more than Navy SEALS….police officers….fire fighters and other heroes….I love baseball but I think they should have a max salary of $15 million per year and that is for the Kershaw type players….guys that are injured after they sign huge contract I think should give back some of their salary….just saying
davidcoonce74
What you are suggesting – a maximum salary – is basically a Communist economic tenet – some would reduce it to Marxism. While it seems reasonable to say “these guys make too much money” because they make a lot of money, their teams and owners make way more money than any player does. Firefighters and cops and soldiers don’t do jobs that are monetized in the way baseball players do. Nobody pays money to watch a police officer write a ticket or a firefighter put out a fire.
And if a guy gets injured doing his job he should give back some of his money? That’s actually illegal according to worker’s comp laws in America. If one of those “tweekers” stabbed you at work and you were out of commission for a while would it be okay for the store you work for to ask you for some of your pay back? That would be absurd and really illegal.
Blue_Painted_Dreams_LA
Here’s the issue same finger, same grip, same approach, different spot. I know the intentions were more so getting him and his 15-20 targeted starts, but they were essentially paying for his postseason potential. So I guess the question like Jansen then becomes how much is his potential to impact the post season worth? Kind of along the lines of Rosenthal’s article last year.
The problem here is Urias isn’t fully built up and Maeda has had trouble finding his footing. If Maeda can find his footing and McCarthy continues to pitch well they’ll be fine, with Urias in their back pocket. The problem now becomes can you keep from destroying the bullpen in the interim while Wood gets fully stretched. That tells me the bench needs to get smaller and they may need to add a Oaks type swingman or two. It couldn’t really come at a worst time though with Urias, Stewart, Sborz some time away.
BlueSkyLA
I don’t see where the intention was for him to miss 10-15 starts every season. Forget how much he is paid, that matters a whole lot less than how the team covers so many missed starts from a pitcher who was supposed to be slotted in at #2, a problem no matter when it comes in the season. Besides, injuries can’t be timed. Even assuming they could cover all of his starts in September and didn’t need him for the stretch drive, he could still blister up on his first postseason start, just as he has in his first two of the season. Either way they need to find a medical answer to this issue. Clearly nobody has one now.
sugoi51
Big contract, curve ball, blisters….the Exxon…I mean Ismael Valdez revisited.
AndThisGameBelongsToMySanDiegoPadres
Hill should not come off the DL until that blister is 100% gone
restingmitchface
It’s funny to see so many posters overreact to this.
The Dodgers never expected to get 25 starts or 200+ IP from Hill. Signing him was a calculated gamble, and the F.O. probably figured they’d get about 15 starts in the regular season and have him healthy for the playoffs. If you get something like 17-18 games where he pitches at an elite level, that’s easily worth the price of admission.
Anyway, it’s April 18th. There’s still tons of time to see how this one pans out.