More Rumors: Greg Holland

by Tom Dakers on Dec 5, 2011 2:01 PM EST in Toronto Blue Jays Rumors

The Jays might be interested in Greg Holland from the Royals, He had a terrific season:

Year	Age	Tm	W	L	ERA	G	GS	GF	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	WHIP	SO/9	SO/BB
2011	25	KCR	5	1	1.80	46	0	15	4	60.0	37	13	12	3	19	3	74	0.933	11.1	3.89

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/5/2011.

I'm not against the idea of going for him if it doesn't cost us too much and if it stops people from talking about signing a high priced 'proven closer'. But he is young and cost controlled, so the Royals will be asking a lot for him.

Tweet Comment 40 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Seems like a buy high guy

In which case, that’s not really AA’s M.O.

Maybe he’s made real progress – still, I can’t see AA paying through the nose (in terms of prospect/talent) in the offseason for a reliever

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 2:05 PM EST reply actions

Maybe from one perspective but

If AA thinks this is his closer of the future then maybe he’s trying to get him before he becomes that “proven closer” and requires a ton of prospects.

by T_Mizz on Dec 5, 2011 2:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Hence the second part, referring to Holland making real progress as opposed to a one year blip. If the thought is he is good enough be a shutdown reliever (I will no longer make reference to the proven closer label), yeah, I guess I could see it. On the other hand, there’s a pile of arms coming up who could easily fill the role, so why pay a ransom

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 3:30 PM EST up reply actions

I agree, but I just meant that in response to your first point about buying high

From one perspective it’s “this guy’s stock has never been higher, why buy high on him after a great season” but from the other perspective it could be “this guy’s got what it takes to be that big time shutdown reliever, let’s buy now before he proves it and it takes a lot more to get him”.

And yeah, I’m not a huge fan of the “proven closer” tag either that’s why I keep putting it in quotations.

by T_Mizz on Dec 5, 2011 6:47 PM EST up reply actions

Yep

Kinda like the Bautista situation – is it a one year blip, or it indicative of a fundamental change. It’s a gamble, but you can win big if you’re right. FWIW, he had very good K numbers in the minors, struggled some with control so if he’s actually made progress there, could be a bargain. We’ll see, I guess

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 7:16 PM EST up reply actions

Kinda like that

Granted, Bautista is typically the extreme when people use his situation to compare, as he turned from journeyman to 2 time HR champ and perennial (hopefully) MVP candidate.

But yeah like you said, he had some good K numbers in the minors so maybe he’s not a fluke in his breakout year.

by T_Mizz on Dec 6, 2011 6:25 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

Completely Agree

Clearly a buy high, I don’t see him going cheap at all. I suspect the Royals are floating his name out there to see if someone will actually value him as if he’s a proven closer.
Why would a young team like the Royals even be interested in trading a young and cost controlled arm?

by WPGJFan on Dec 5, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

They’re pretty deep in the pen, hes probably 3rd/4th on the depth chart.

by Dr_Furious on Dec 5, 2011 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

I'd disagree

AAs MO is to improve this team. If he can add Greg Holland at a fair price he will do it.

Just because AA has a history of picking up players when their stock is low (Escobar, Rasmus) doesn’t mean he wouldn’t look to add Holland who has succeeded at every level.

.313/.400/.565

by T.Haynes on Dec 5, 2011 8:21 PM EST up reply actions

If he can add Greg Holland at a fair price he will do it.

Well, that’s the operative clause. Of course, if you can get him cheaply you do it. The point is, KC has no need to dump him, their only reason for doing so would be if they could better value for him then they figure he adds to their team in the role he would have.

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

old news

Hobbes11 brought this rumour up on Nov.30th here:

KC has a surplus of young cost-contolled relief arms slotted in behind Soria and Broxton and is in need of starting pitching help. Think Morrow-League in reverse: Cecil and say Moises Sierra for Holland and an infield prospect (AA or lower)

by khaleeji on Dec 5, 2011 2:37 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

where'd the link go?

http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2011/11/29/2599465/no-soria-but-maybe-greg-holland#comments

by khaleeji on Dec 5, 2011 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

Okay

But I wouldn’t want Morrow-League in reverse – we gained value in that deal.

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

Only a reverse if

You believe that Cecil has a future as a starter.

I’d go for a Cecil and Sierra for Holland plus filler trade.

by siggian on Dec 5, 2011 3:17 PM EST up reply actions

Well, I agree on Cecil, at least in the AL East. I think he could be fine as a starter in the right park, in the right division (NL West).

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 3:27 PM EST up reply actions

I think people are giving up on him way too early.

Hes only a few years older than Drabek and has already accomplished so much more. Cecil already threw a complete game shutout again a team that made it to the world series.

I would give him at least 1 more year (this year) before we sell low.

by Mike Andrew on Dec 5, 2011 8:01 PM EST up reply actions

First, you can’t use one game (and this isn’t the first time you’ve used this exact anecdote) to indictate anything about the players true talent level, anymore than I could point to him giving up 6ER in 6.1IP against Pittsburgh, a pretty bad team, asbeing evidence of him sucking.

Second, I don’t advocate selling low, I just don’t think he’s anything more than a mediocre starter going forward, and he could be a pretty dominant reliever. Consider the splits: career .235/.289/.344 (vs. L) compared to .286/.350/.434 (vs. R). In 2011, they were 186./.282/.208 compared to .282/.337/.488. Those scream reliever. So, even if he doesn’t stick as a starter, he has value as a LOOGY and maybe more than that. Which means, you can trade him to a team that thinks he can stick as a starter, or keep him in the pen. That said, at this point he has a good shot at wining a rotation job in the spring, so he’ll likely get a last shot to stick as a starter.

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

Nobodies don't throw shutouts

Hes still young enough where we can expect him to improve.

I think for this coming year (the year where we aren’t in contention) we should give him a last shot at age 25 to see if he can find his groove. I know his numbers again righties haven’t been the best, but the amount of value you lose converting a mediocre starter to a LOOGY is huge.

All I’m arguing for is 1 more year. He was 24 last season.

by Mike Andrew on Dec 5, 2011 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

"but the amount of value you lose converting a mediocre starter to a LOOGY is huge."

Then you trade him

Derp

by Pikachu on Dec 5, 2011 8:44 PM EST up reply actions

This does make more sense to be honest

But still I think while we are in a waste year mode, keeping him to see if he can be an above average starter is worth it.

by Mike Andrew on Dec 5, 2011 8:45 PM EST up reply actions

Depends what you mean by mediocre. In the sense of average-ish, sure, that’s a 2WAR guy. I meant more in the sense of somewhat below average – maybe 1.5 WAR in a full season. Cecil wouldn’t be strictly a LOOGY, he’s not great against righties but he’s not like he can;t face a few of them – kinda like Rzep this past year, who was 1.0 WAR.

Actually, thinking about it, he could be a Downs type – which is about 1.5 WAR. So you don’t necessarily get a whole lot more out of him trading him, especially since he would probably get sold at a discount.

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 9:10 PM EST up reply actions

nobodies don't throw shutouts?

Bud Smith threw a no-hitter

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 5, 2011 9:14 PM EST up reply actions

Please, leave this straw man to me – I’ve already got a list going

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 9:15 PM EST up reply actions

.

http://i.imgur.com/G6ard.gif

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 5, 2011 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

fail

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 5, 2011 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

"Nobodies don't throw shutouts"

Well, thanks for giving me that straw man to work with.

2009-11 pitchers to throw a shutout included:
- Miguel Batista (yes, THAT Miguel Batista)
- Brian Duensing
- Brad Bergesen
- Randy Wells
- Zach Stewart (also probably a guy better off as a reliever)
- Paul Maholm (notwithstanding this year, pretty bad career)
- Zach Duke
- Luke Hochevar
- Pat Misch
- Justin Lehr
- Eric Stults

Some of the above were okay, not exactly nobodies, but where pretty awful in the season in which they did or at that point in their career.

There’s a serious argument to make for Cecil’s upside, and it has nothing to do with cherry picking one game and then using a platitude to support it.

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

but look at all those good pitchers who threw shutouts!

Derp

by Pikachu on Dec 5, 2011 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

I have no problem giving him a shot, given the guys we currently have

That said, at this point he has a good shot at winning a rotation job in the spring, so he’ll likely get a last shot to stick as a starter.

by MjwW on Dec 5, 2011 9:12 PM EST up reply actions

It's just a matter of personal preference I'm sure but

I do have a problem with them giving him a shot. Especially if he doesn’t regain his 2009 velocity (90.7/90.8 vs 88.5/89.1 last year). The rotation I’d like to see with their velocities (FG/Pfx) is:
Romero 92.1/92.0
Morrow 93.9/93.8
Alvarez 93.3/93.3
McGowan 93.0/92.9
Drabek 93.5/93.4

Obviously there’s more to pitching than throwing heat but still, I like to see the guys that can light up the radar gun.

by T_Mizz on Dec 6, 2011 10:01 AM EST up reply actions

I'm still not sure (and I don't think the Jays are either)

that McGowan can pitch 5+ innings every fifth day. if they’re convinced he can then great, but the Jays will still need a swingman for the inevitable injuries. I don’t know that Villanueva is better suited for that than Cecil

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 6, 2011 10:06 AM EST up reply actions

Neither do I

But and interesting option, if McGowan can’t go more than 4-5 innings, would be to do a combo like thing where you’d have McGowan start for 4-5 inings, then pass the rest to Cecil or Carlos V. This would eat up one guy out of the bullpen, but would also mean the expectation is that most times the bullpen would get fully rested. Both of those guys would probably be more effective in shorter roles – Carlos V especially who was great as a long-man but got chewed up when he went deeper.

Of course, the big assumption if McGowan. At the end of last season, he was only about 15 months away from his last major surgery, and things don’t fully come back for up to 18. I think they’ll keep an open mind in spring training, and ultimately decide where his future is. I’d bet on the pen, just because one more major injury and that’s probably it for him.

by MjwW on Dec 6, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions

yeah, Pikachu threw that idea out a while ago

in any case Farrell would never do it. might not be a bad idea though

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 6, 2011 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

I think we'll see in the Spring

But I feel like McGowan’s in the same situation regardless. Another injury and he’s done. Which I believe he actually said last year. But I don’t know about caudling him in the pen, it just doesn’t seem worth it. I say you send him out there as a starter where he’s got the most value and if his arm blows up it blows up.

by T_Mizz on Dec 6, 2011 12:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Yes, the velocity is an issue

But bottom line for me is, if he can’t get back to averaging 90, then can he be effective sitting where he was last year – it’s certainly a much thinner line to toe. If he can, and he’s one of the top 5 options, give him the chance. If not, then you look at makig him into a reliever or trading him to somebody/someplace where they think he can(if this yields greater value)

by MjwW on Dec 6, 2011 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

It certainly is

I read a piece a while back about throwing 95 vs throwing 90 with respect to effective location. Unsurprisingly, down and away proved to be effective in both cases, but those throwing 95 had an expanded effective zone down and away. And those throwing 95 had an additional effect zone up and in.

by T_Mizz on Dec 6, 2011 12:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

This wouldn't be selling low

It would be getting fair value in return for Cecil, providing KC with a cost-controlled starter in return for a cost-controlled reliever, both of whom have potential and have had past success

by khaleeji on Dec 6, 2011 12:19 AM EST up reply actions

well, it's selling low

if you think Cecil is going to rebound to league-average starter (as we know, very valuable). if you base it entirely on past numbers, it’s a pretty fair deal

I tweet.

by benk on Dec 6, 2011 12:26 AM EST up reply actions

and our bullpen could use a “shutdown” type or 3, and KC could use a starter. Cecil would slot in ahead of Paulino, Duffy and Mendoza on KC’s depth chart, maybe ahead of Chen too, depending on how much they would value Cecil’s upside. A barrier might be that their rotation already has 2 lefties in J. Sanchez and Chen. A plus might be that if he doesn’t work out in the starting rotation you can slide him back into the bullpen and KC is no farther behind than they were.

by khaleeji on Dec 6, 2011 12:37 AM EST up reply actions