December 5th, 2016 at 11:14 am 
by Ron Cervenka The Dodgers have confirmed earlier reports that they were nearing a deal with 36-year-old left-hander Rich Hill with an official announcement on Monday morning that they have signed the veteran lefty to a three-year / $48 million contract.
The Boston, Massachusetts native – who will be 37 years old on March 11 – was originally acquired by the Dodgers in a five-player trade with the Oakland Athletics at the August 1 non-waiver trade deadline. And although Hill spent his first three weeks as a Dodger on the disabled list for a lingering blister on his left middle finger, he finished the regular season with a 3-2 record and a very impressive 1.82 ERA in his 34.1 innings of work. He also went 1-1 in his three postseason starts that included six shutout innings against the Chicago Cubs in Game-3 of the NLCS .
On the season Hill was 12-5 with a 2.12 ERA in his 20 starts between the Athletics (14) and Dodgers (six) – the second best ERA in all of baseball behind only Dodgers’ ace Clayton Kershaw‘s 1.69 ERA among pitchers with a minimum of 100 innings pitched. His .195 batting average against ranked 3rd in the MLB and his 1.00 WHIP fifth.
Despite his soon-to-be 37 years of age, left-hander Rich Hill was arguably the most sought-after starting pitcher in this year’s free agent market. (Photo credit – Ron Cervenka)
Through 12 MLB seasons Hill has a career mark of 38-28 with a 4.10 ERA. He was originally selected by the Chicago Cubs in the fourth round of the 2002 MLB First-Year Player Draft out of the University of Michigan.
Although there are undoubtedly some who are concerned that the Dodgers signing of Hill will take him through his age-39 season and with his recent blister issues, SportsNet LA reporter Alanna Rizzo summed it up best with this post on Twitter shortly after the announcement:
AP is reporting that Hill will receive a $2 million signing bonus and salaries of $12 million in 2017, $16 million in 2018 and $18 million in 2019.
Welcome back, Rich.
Posted in 
I have been and remain completely supportive of this signing. It is very easy to become jaded with the front office and their vision, but I believe that Rich Hill exemplifies the type of competitor that the Dodgers want. Knowing that the Dodgers did not have a #2 for most of the year (without a #1 for two months), their constant platooning, the lack of IP for the starters (by design or otherwise), and the inability to consistently hit LHP, and still come within two games of getting to the WS, says something about the competitive nature of Dave Roberts and the 40 man roster. If the Dodgers come within 2 games again, and have Clayton Kershaw and Rich Hill for games 6 and 7, and they are facing right hand pitching, I would feel very good about the potential outcome.
Okay, we got the #2, now let’s go out and sign JT, add RH power, solidify 2B, and find a competent closer (if not Kenley).
One other observation about competitiveness. I know it is only a word, and I am not criticizing Ross Stripling. But the response from both Stripling and Hill after being removed from the game with no-hitters was telling to me. Ross was very disappointed but not demonstrative. Rich Hill was genuinely pissed. Again, not a criticism of Stripling, more an observation of Rich Hill and his demeanor. Nobody wants to come out and take the ball from Clayton, knowing what is forthcoming. I get the same feeling with Rich Hill. Hopefully this will rub off on Kenta, Urias, De Leon, Kazmir, and the other Dodger starters. I just think that Clayton and Hill take competition up a couple of levels
I believe that your assessment of Ross Stripling is WAY off. It was his MLB debut (in the rain, no less) for crying out loud. Do you honestly believe that he was in ANY position to argue with his manager?
I was going to say that, you already did, so I’ll just agree with you.
In addition, he was obviously tired and I really doubt he’d have completed the no-hitter anyway.
AC – I don’t think a guy being pissed is the only indication of a guy being competitive compared to a guy with a non-descript demeanor. Greg Maddux for instance.
From Dodger Insider: “Stripling recalls Kershaw telling him how it’s hard to tell when he’s pitching well or getting hit hard. Some of the truly great ones are so good at not showing emotion on the mound and moving on from pitch to pitch.”
In his first MLB start, I think Ross handled if perfectly as a team player should, in my opinion. He had no leverage to show disapproval of his manager’s decision. He did not have tenure, a big salary, years of experience at that level. He did battle nervousness, the elements and a hostile SF crowd in his MLB debut thus demonstrating his competitiveness.
Guys, I fully accept the criticism. Of course everything you say about Stripling is true. It was never my intent to direct any negativity towards Ross. I was simply trying to convey my belief that Hill brings that next level of competitiveness that not all players display. My comparative analysis was ill-conceived, and I was rightly criticized for making it.
AC – not a criticism. Just another perspective. I am one who feels players don’t have to be all fired up to show a competitive spirit. I think that competitiveness is the fire on the inside and doesn’t have to be displayed as a fire on the outside. Again, I cite Greg Maddux.
And Sandy Koufax too.
For sure.
Harold, I agree that we may have different perspectives. You correctly cite Greg Maddux, and Respect the Rivalry’s example of Sandy Koufax as examples of your perspective. I can add one of my all-time favorites in that category; Tom Seaver. Maybe it’s because I wear my emotions on my sleeve that I tend to lean towards the more demonstrative mannerisms of Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, and Curt Schilling. I do not believe that anyone can say one way is more right than the other. It is just as you so aptly state, a different perspective.
Competitiveness aside (but I must say that IMO Hill crossed the line from competitiveness to tantrums), Hill may have been the best FA starting pitcher on the market, but that is a very low hurdle in 2016. Hill may turn out to be a terrific pitcher for next 3 years, but that is wishful thinking based on the 2016 season in which he only started 20 games and pitched only 110 innings. For me, if the Dodgers could not do better than Hill then go with the young pitchers (Urias, De Leon, Stewart, Stripling, Wood, De Jong) and use the $48MM to re-sign Turner and Jansen. I just do not understand why this FO continues to gamble on pitchers like Anderson, McCarthy, Kazmir, Hill, et al — perhaps they think that the odds are now in their favor??? I hope for the best (bad decision but good outcome), but expect to see Hill on the DL so often that he is no better than a part-time starting pitcher.
SCB – I share your concerns. I have never been a big fan of expensive three-year contracts to guys on the downhill side of careers – Matt Guerrier, Ted Lilly, Brandon League, Juan Uribe, Manny Ramirez (2 years),etc. It was pretty much known that contracts such as those would not end well.
Hopefully Rich Hill, for whatever reason, is in his prime at age 37. Maybe it has to do with just 610 MLB innings on his arm. He has twice topped 100 innings in 12 years.
Aside from his injury history, his age is still a concern on a three-year deal, topping out at 39.5 at the end of the season in 2019.
It must be the Oakland thing as Kazmir, Anderson, McCarthy and Hill all have an Oakland connection. Look for the Tampa thing to continue with a Dodgers-Rays trade for a SP.
If the blister is a thing of the past we may have something here.