Thread: Oakland released Luke Hughes

Oakland offically signed Inge today and released Luke Hughes to make room.

Anyone think the Twins might grab him? Would be an interesting turn-around.

none. I like Hughes, think he could be a decent platoon guy, but clearly the organization isn't all that enthralled by him. And with where they need to go, I think they can use the 40 man roster spot differently.

Hughes seems like he'll be a perfect pick-up for one of the perenial NL bottom feeders. Teams like the Pirates, Padres and Astros seem to get the somewhat versitile former prospects who still have time to prove themselves. The Pirates and Padres specifically never spend any money so they really reach, hoping to find a diamond in the rough. Good luck Luke, here's hoping you find some regular playing time and make the most of it like Garrett Jones did.

He was not released (Inge was released by Detroit, for example.) Hughes was designated for assignment. He might clear waivers and end up in AAA Sacramento playing for the A's.

If I were the GM of Oakland, I wouldn't have done this move. I would have kept Hughes on the roster and not have signed Inge. Inge was clearly not able to hit at the plate much.

I would have preferred if Oakland released Jarred Parker and we snapped him up.

Is it common for a team to claim someone and then turn around a week later and try to get him through waivers themselves? Is it not viewed as kind of a d*ck move, pardonnez mon français? I could see Terry Ryan thinking "if he's gonna be at AAA, why shouldn't he be on my AAA team?" I wonder why some kind rule similar to what controls Rule 5 drafts wasn't ever written for waiver claims.

Of course maybe a Pittsburgh or a San Diego does claim Hughes, as mentioned above, making the question somewhat moot. But it still rankles.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

Is it common for a team to claim someone and then turn around a week later and try to get him through waivers themselves? Is it not viewed as kind of a d*ck move, pardonnez mon français? .

No. It happens all the time.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

Is it common for a team to claim someone and then turn around a week later and try to get him through waivers themselves? Is it not viewed as kind of a d*ck move, pardonnez mon français? I could see Terry Ryan thinking "if he's gonna be at AAA, why shouldn't he be on my AAA team?" I wonder why some kind rule similar to what controls Rule 5 drafts wasn't ever written for waiver claims.

Of course maybe a Pittsburgh or a San Diego does claim Hughes, as mentioned above, making the question somewhat moot. But it still rankles.

The A's didn't know that the superior option (Inge) would be available. They were playing him every day at third, and he was 1-13 with three errors--not the way to endear yourself to a new organization.

Originally Posted by ashburyjohn

Is it common for a team to claim someone and then turn around a week later and try to get him through waivers themselves? Is it not viewed as kind of a d*ck move, pardonnez mon français? I could see Terry Ryan thinking "if he's gonna be at AAA, why shouldn't he be on my AAA team?" I wonder why some kind rule similar to what controls Rule 5 drafts wasn't ever written for waiver claims.

Of course maybe a Pittsburgh or a San Diego does claim Hughes, as mentioned above, making the question somewhat moot. But it still rankles.

There is nothing stopping Ryan from clearing a 40 man spot, claiming Hughes and then trying the same move. Teams usually don't re-claim a guy, since they already decided to move on when they move the player off the 40 man to begin with.

Originally Posted by stringer bell

The A's didn't know that the superior option (Inge) would be available. They were playing him every day at third, and he was 1-13 with three errors--not the way to endear yourself to a new organization.

I don't know that I'd qualify Inge as a "superior" option. Hughes did badly in a small sample size, but let's be honest, they don't have any hope of contending this season. With Inge there's no intrinsic value. He may be a tiny bit better defensively in that he may not commit as many errors as Hughes, but Hughes has much higher upside in that he's not 35, can hit with decent pop now and again, and is a perfectly serviceable righty off the bench in the future if your team actually does contend in a year or two. Inge almost certainly won't be there when they do contend, but if he were, I'd be shaking my head and sighing if I were an Oakland fan seeing his name on the line-up card, or coming off the bench in a high leverage situation. At least with Hughes there'd be the idea of something good happening.

Originally Posted by TheMix

I don't know that I'd qualify Inge as a "superior" option. Hughes did badly in a small sample size, but let's be honest, they don't have any hope of contending this season. With Inge there's no intrinsic value. He may be a tiny bit better defensively in that he may not commit as many errors as Hughes, but Hughes has much higher upside in that he's not 35, can hit with decent pop now and again, and is a perfectly serviceable righty off the bench in the future if your team actually does contend in a year or two. Inge almost certainly won't be there when they do contend, but if he were, I'd be shaking my head and sighing if I were an Oakland fan seeing his name on the line-up card, or coming off the bench in a high leverage situation. At least with Hughes there'd be the idea of something good happening.

There's no doubt that Hughes has a higher possibility of performing better in the future. Inge is probably on his final MLB breaths. However, as far as value is concerned don't forget Oakland also has a pretty young pitching staff. There is some value in having good fielders behind young pitchers to help build their confidence. Hughes has never been and is never going to be a good defensive player, errors or not. I think they A's decided whatever potential future upside Hughes might offer was outweighed by Inge's current stability. I don't think they were wrong.

I still think they were wrong, but those a valid points for sure.

Originally Posted by TheMix

I don't know that I'd qualify Inge as a "superior" option. Hughes did badly in a small sample size, but let's be honest, they don't have any hope of contending this season. With Inge there's no intrinsic value. He may be a tiny bit better defensively in that he may not commit as many errors as Hughes, but Hughes has much higher upside in that he's not 35, can hit with decent pop now and again, and is a perfectly serviceable righty off the bench in the future if your team actually does contend in a year or two. Inge almost certainly won't be there when they do contend, but if he were, I'd be shaking my head and sighing if I were an Oakland fan seeing his name on the line-up card, or coming off the bench in a high leverage situation. At least with Hughes there'd be the idea of something good happening.

Luke Hughes will be 28 this summer. He OPSed less than Casilla in over 300 PAs and isn't either a proven platoon player or pinch hitter. Hughes isn't a good defensive player, although he is versatile. I hope he finds another major league job because he seems like a nice guy, but he isn't a huge loss for the Twins or the A;s.

Originally Posted by stringer bell

Luke Hughes will be 28 this summer. He OPSed less than Casilla in over 300 PAs and isn't either a proven platoon player or pinch hitter. Hughes isn't a good defensive player, although he is versatile. I hope he finds another major league job because he seems like a nice guy, but he isn't a huge loss for the Twins or the A;s.

Hughes is an above average defensive second baseman. Not that much at 3rd. And also very good at 1st. Check his numbers with any sort of defensive metrics out there at second and first; just don't drink the coolaid the Twins are serving...

I'm waiting for all of the people who screamed bloody murder when Hughes was relased from the Twins to provide some insight on this transaction...

I wouldn't mind it! I liked Hughes.

I still don't get the fascination with this guy.

It's a strange phemonenon in Twins Territory: every few years there is an infielder who convinces a good chunk of the fan base that he's the long-term answer at his position even though all evidence points to him being nothing more than a fringe MLB player. Terry Tiffee and Brian Buscher had their share of fan boys too.

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Hughes is an above average defensive second baseman. Not that much at 3rd. And also very good at 1st. Check his numbers with any sort of defensive metrics out there at second and first; just don't drink the coolaid the Twins are serving...

Advanced defensive metrics take about three seasons' worth of data to be reliably stable measures of true talent. Hughes has started only 36 games at second base in the majors, a sample size much too small to draw any conclusions from. That would be the equivalent of about 12 games of hitting, and no one would take seriously someone claiming a hitter is definitively above or below average based on only a 12 game sample size. Similarly, it is impossible to definitively state at this point that Hughes is above average defensively as a major league second baseman based on those metrics.

(Not to mention that Total Zone doesn't even rate him above average at second in that tiny sample, so it's not like there's even agreement among advanced metrics about Hughes anyway. Again, it is impossible to state for certain any conclusions about his defense from that amount of data.)

The Twins cleared a 40-man roster spot when they designated Luke Hughes for assignment, to keep that extra pitcher...hoping no one would claim him. Oakland did. It looks like some teams did pass on him. Whomever claims him will have to add him to a 40-man roster spot and if they want to send him to the minors, run him thru the whole process again. At this point, he might become a free agent. Like when the Twins waived Neshek last spring, there was the hope no one would claim him...it worked for Perkins at one time, it worked for Slama. So, you never know.......