I'm pretty sure Shea Hillenbrand isn't being signed because of say...talent.

I hope Hillenbrand signs somewhere, he just needs 180 more PA to reach the 4000 threshold and thus qualify for my post-1990 positional rankings. I bet he'd land right inbetween Charlie Hayes and Ed Sprague.

I can't imagine why anyone would sign Hillenbrand even if he was well-liked. He doesn't do anything particularly well. Mediocre glove at third, mediocre on-base chops, moderate power. Not enough bat for 1B/LF/DH, not enough glove for the middle infield.

Let's say someone signs him. What are they hoping for? .270/.330/.400 with a below-average glove? You can get that from a guy like Joe Dillon for the MLB minimum.

.270/.330/.400 with a below-average glove?

No, more like .240/.290/.400 with a below-average glove is probably his 75th percentile projection. The guy isn't even worth a NRI.

I can't imagine why anyone would sign Hillenbrand even if he was well-liked. He doesn't do anything particularly well. Mediocre glove at third, mediocre on-base chops, moderate power. Not enough bat for 1B/LF/DH, not enough glove for the middle infield.

Let's say someone signs him. What are they hoping for? .270/.330/.400 with a below-average glove? You can get that from a guy like Joe Dillon for the MLB minimum.

We'll see. If Kevin Millar (.234/.323/.394 last year, and not much defensive value) ends up on somebody's bench this season, then there will be some evidence for "not being a dick will get you a job" hypothesis.

Let's say someone signs him. What are they hoping for? .270/.330/.400 with a below-average glove? You can get that from a guy like Joe Dillon for the MLB minimum.

Or you could give a .260/.320/.325 guy $3M over 2 years. These are MLB GMs we're talking about here, have a little imagination.

Shea Hillenbrand. Nickname: KATRINA

For those who don't RTFA:

My question was answered before we even spoke. I researched Mr. Hillenbrand and read about how he and his wife Jessica have rescued hundreds of animals - dogs, cats, horses, cattle - and given them homes on their farm, Marley Farms. (Where do you think the dog goes in this economy when a family faces foreclosure and has to move into an apartment that doesn’t allow pets?) I read how the Hillenbrands designated 4 of their 25 acres to a non-profit organization for kids called the Against All Odds Foundation. I saw video of Shea on local (they live in Arizona) news talking about their animals and their plans. And I thought to myself, “Jimmy, true jerks don’t do all this stuff.”

He may only be one of the 4,000 best baseball players in the country, as opposed one of the best 1,200 players, and he may be unpleasant in the clubhouse with lousy interpersonal skills and overinflated sense of his own value, but as the article points out that this is not the entire measure of the man.

I would not want him on my team.

Wow, a puff piece on Shea Hillenbrand. Whoda thunk it?

there will be some evidence for "not being a dick will get you a job" hypothesis.

Oh, I think this is pretty well-settled and not too much up for debate (the Bloomquist ref is a good one; see also Luis Sojo). It's whether teams are willing to overlook cost savings and/or better talent to have the nice guy. Down at the end of the bench, there's almost always a not very useful ballplayer. Given your choice of the many, many not very useful ballplayers available, why wouldn't you pick the "intangibles" guy?

Now when you pass up Barry Bonds for off-field issues ...

It is an out-of-the-box cautionary tale about not judging someone by one or two instances.

If Kevin Millar (.234/.323/.394 last year, and not much defensive value) ends up on somebody's bench this season, then there will be some evidence for "not being a dick will get you a job" hypothesis.

You're going to compare Millar to Shea Hillenbrand? Seriously? Millar's 2008 was the result of horrible luck (.245 BABIP in 2008, .301 BABIP career). Last year was the first time he'd posted a sub-.350 OBP in 10 seasons. There's no way you can compare him to Hillenbrand, who hasn't once posted a .350 OBP in his entire career.

I'm pretty sure Shea Hillenbrand isn't being signed because of say...talent.

Exactly. Shea's biggest problem isn't that he's not a good guy, even though that seems debateable based on his history. His problem is that he believes that he's a better player than he really is. Or at least better than anyone else in baseball thinks he is...

You're going to compare Millar to Shea Hillenbrand? Seriously? Millar's 2008 was the result of horrible luck (.245 BABIP in 2008, .301 BABIP career). Last year was the first time he'd posted a sub-.350 OBP in 10 seasons. There's no way you can compare him to Hillenbrand, who hasn't once posted a .350 OBP in his entire career.

Millar's obviously been a much, much better player over the course of his career. But he's now 37 years old, and I'm not convinced his declining BABIP is all bad luck as opposed to the onset of age-related decline, or that it is reasonable to expect much better out of him going forward.

In any event, I was responding to the suggestion that veterans who can't hit much or play defence never get jobs because there are MLB minimum salary guys who can do the same thing. As Walt points out in post 10, MLB GMs habitually sign veteran bench guys when there are cheaper options available, although they often are no-hit guys like Bloomquist whose calling card is defensive versatility. I picked Millar as an example not because he is especially similar to Hillenbrand, but because he doesn't bring much defence to the table and because he has a reputation as a great clubhouse guy. If he lands on a bench somewhere for a few million (and he probably will), my sense is that this latter reputation will be one of the reasons.