His 2014 small sample size increase in K % is thanks mostly to a jump in strike looking percentage. His strike swinging percentage not much change. Also batters percentage of swung at strikes percentage went down. That combination , in small sample size, can lead to a jump in K rate , but it's probably not sustainable.

Also, don't forget to take into account the relation between his K % and league average, which has gone up

AL K %/ Hellickson K%/Delta

2014 20.2%/19.2%/ -1.0%
2013 20.0%/18.3%/-1.7%
2012 19.4%/16.7%/-2.7%
2011 18.1%/15.1%/-3.0


HERE is same thing represented in graph form, for easier visual

He has closed the delta between himself and league avg K rate steadily over the last 3 years, so thats good. But clearly he is dependent on spotting his fastball just so in order to get guys taking at strikes and swinging at balls, and is still a FB pitcher giving up homers.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

He'll make 11-12 million over the next two years and this team has internal options that are likely to perform just as well for 1/10th the amount. Thats the main point for me. Unless you think he will give you a 3.80 ERA in 180 innings,....which I doubt.

Pass

When calculating the cost of what they would have to give up, you then have to add that to the cost of opportunity lost. As I mention, you probably have internal options that will give you the same performance level for league minimum.

If Hellickson gives you 2 WAR over the next two years for 12 million you roughly break even on his WAR/Dollar cost.

If Vlad Nuno or Chase Anderson or Randall Delgado or a host of others give you 2 WAR over the next years for 1 million than you bank about 11 Million, AND you've furthered the development of an in house option and can build on that for their Arbitration years, or use them as trade value.

Hellickson offers virtually no upside, and no future trade value, and a break even at best scenario on WAR/Dollar cost.

All this before you even take into account what you gave up to get him.

Now if you are dumping significantly more salary on another team, as Qudjy just mentioned, that would change the calculus somewhat. But think about who the trading partner is and THEIR parameters. I doubt they are looking to take on salary.

How many #4's or 5's can a team carry?

The former Rookie of the Year found himself in poor standing with the club after waiting until after his arbitration was settled to report elbow discomfort in January. The result was elbow surgery to clear out bone spurs, and delay of Hellickson's return to the rotation by a few months.

As usual Shoe has hit the nail on the head. What the trade does show is the new FO has no knowledge and/or respect for these new fangled statistic (that are at least 12 years old). Even the basic FIP shows Hellickson as a 4.36 era pitcher. In his 2 best years his FIPS were 4.44 and 4.60. If they are hoping he is going to repeat his best years, two words: Trevor Cahill.

This reminds me of Dessens and Ortiz. FIPS showed them as being below average pitchers. We told them they were bad moves and the FO did not listen. This is the same for Hellickson.

The trade also violates a basic principle of saber metrics that you don't trade young cheap players for a more costly player when you have cheaper options in your system. This is a classis Rays trade of getting something for a not so good player who is going to be be more expensive.

Hell made 3.625M last year in 1 arb. A normal raise under the 40/60/80 rule would mean 5.4M although I think shoe's 4M is closer to CW. My bet would be over 4M and that is money that could be better used elsewhere. This is just like Towers paying top dollar for two mediocre players rather than getting a decent player at a higher price.

All in all very discouraging on a number of fronts.