Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

DFA Hughes

  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#1 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Doom By Design | Tints By Joe™

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:24 AM

Hughes's fastball is under 90 and his other pitches yield a .380 BAA. He has been pitching in the majors for 10 years and his arm is dead. The $30M left to spend on him is lost whether he pitches for the team or not. 

 

If the Twins cut Hughes and lose his negative WAR and sign a rookie with a zero war, they are spending essentially the same amount and improving the team WAR. Do it.

  • Mike Sixel, Loosey, Siehbiscuit and 7 others like this

#2 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,115 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:30 AM

 

Hughes's fastball is under 90 and his other pitches yield a .380 BAA. He has been pitching in the majors for 10 years and his arm is dead. The $30M left to spend on him is lost whether he pitches for the team or not. 

 

If the Twins cut Hughes and lose his negative WAR and sign a rookie with a zero war, they are spending essentially the same amount and improving the team WAR. Do it.

 

Agreed. People will say "they won't eat that money"....but they aren't eating that money. If they bring up a rookie, they are increasing payroll by 400K give or take. Is it better to spend an extra 400K, and have a potentially better player (or be able to cycle thru guys with options, giving team flexibility with their RP roster), or to keep Hughes and, um, not be good most likely?

  • Sconnie, Doomtints, Vanimal46 and 2 others like this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#3 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 7,614 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:33 AM

Yep. And I think the "maybe he'll recoup some value in the bullpen" theory can be eliminated after this season too. His velocity is still the same whether he's throwing 85 pitches or 10 pitches. Sadly the arm is dead. 

  • Doomtints, HitInAPinch and d-mac like this

#4 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,247 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:40 AM

I get that they're giving him every opportunity to show that he can come back, but I don't see it. I agree with the above posters. Whenever the front office is fully convinced that he can be replaced, or that there's no value there, you give him the Nick Blackburn treatment. That money's gone whether we get anything of value out of him or not.

 

Another thing to think about is the 40-man and 25-man situation. Obviously, not having Hughes on the major league roster gives us another opportunity to have a guy like Busenitz or Curtiss come up and show us what they can do. Similarly, but with a slightly longer view, there are a lot of good young players who will need to be protected this offseason, and even some of the fringier guys (Dereck Rodriguez? Kohl Stewart?) who may not ever make it, I still don't see the wisdom in having a guy like Phil Hughes block them. He is what he is. Who knows what some of those guys will be? 

  • d-mac and SF Twins Fan like this

#5 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:40 AM

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.
  • gunnarthor, Deduno Abides, howieramone2 and 2 others like this
Papers...business papers.

#6 70charger

70charger

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 3,247 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:42 AM

 

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.

 

I guess I wouldn't be that surprised if it took that long, and I think that's how most major league front offices would prefer to operate. But I disagree with "little to lose" before next spring training. If you keep him all offseason, you block up a 40-man spot. The thing you might lose is a prospect.

  • Oldgoat_MN, d-mac and SF Twins Fan like this

#7 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:50 AM

I agree with others, time for him to go, he offers nothing to this team in the short term or long term.


#8 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,115 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:52 AM

 

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.

 

Other than a roster spot that can't be used to send players back and forth from the minors, and the opportunity to see if those guys can get MLB out or not......and more runs to give up (potentially). All on the minuscule chance he's ever good again.

 

Making hard roster decisions about veterans is how bad (or meh) teams get good. Keeping bad veterans around is how you extend rebuilds.

  • Deduno Abides, HitInAPinch, Twodogs and 5 others like this

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?


#9 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Doom By Design | Tints By Joe™

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:04 AM

 

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.

 

We would all be surprised if he is cut. This doesn't mean not cutting him is the right answer.

 

You say they have "Little to lose" by keeping him. If we are going to use utilitarian value judgments to make the decision, they have little to gain by keeping him. The $ spent is the same if he goes or stays, so that's not a factor. The only factor is on-field performance. If it's a "long recovery" and he won't pitch well again for another 12 months, that's nearly half of his remaining contract. Cut him.

Edited by Doomtints, 17 July 2017 - 10:13 AM.

  • Mike Sixel, ShouldaCouldaWoulda, Vanimal46 and 1 other like this

#10 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,116 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:15 AM

 

Hughes's fastball is under 90 and his other pitches yield a .380 BAA. He has been pitching in the majors for 10 years and his arm is dead. The $30M left to spend on him is lost whether he pitches for the team or not. 

 

If the Twins cut Hughes and lose his negative WAR and sign a rookie with a zero war, they are spending essentially the same amount and improving the team WAR. Do it.

 

He's signed for 2-1/2 more years correct?


#11 Sconnie

Sconnie

    From the "right" side of the St Croix

  • Members
  • 2,945 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:23 AM

 

He's signed for 2-1/2 more years correct?

http://www.spotrac.c...hil-hughes-585/

 

He's signed thru the 2019 season, correct

 

another 2 years to soak up a roster spot?

 

Though a rookie would cost more like 1.4 mil, it's still nothing. I have no confidence he can recover.

Edited by Sconnie, 17 July 2017 - 10:25 AM.

  • Danchat likes this

#12 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,417 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:24 AM

The Twins have some pretty marginal players on the 40 man roster so I am not sure that should be the reason to outright cut him. I am interested in what he can do in year 2 of his recovery and wouldn't cut him until I have seen him throw next spring (at least).

  • DJSim22, bizaff, KGB and 4 others like this

Is 2016 2017 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Looks like we will have to wait another year until a good pitching prospect is actually blocked.


#13 laloesch

laloesch

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,116 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:32 AM

 

http://www.spotrac.c...hil-hughes-585/

 

He's signed thru the 2019 season, correct

 

another 2 years to soak up a roster spot?

 

Though a rookie would cost more like 1.4 mil, it's still nothing. I have no confidence he can recover.

 

Hughes and Perkins.  At what point does the front office make a decision about both these guys?  Obviously Perkins is a lot less painful with 6.5 million left in his deal next season, but Hughes is going to cost them 26 million over the next 2.5 years.  I can't imagine the Twins will cut these two loose when they can put them on the DL and claim the insurance money.

  • Mike Sixel, Sconnie and SF Twins Fan like this

#14 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,417 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:39 AM

 

Hughes and Perkins.  At what point does the front office make a decision about both these guys?  Obviously Perkins is a lot less painful with 6.5 million left in his deal next season, but Hughes is going to cost them 26 million over the next 2.5 years.  I can't imagine the Twins will cut these two loose when they can put them on the DL and claim the insurance money.

Perkins has an option so he is history after this season although he could be brought back on a minimum contract or a NRI if he wanted to keep trying. I think I saw an article where he questioned his desire to keep rehabbing though.

Hughes is tougher though with a substantial amount of money owed and a significantly shorter length of time since major surgery.

Edited by kab21, 17 July 2017 - 10:39 AM.

  • Danchat and howieramone2 like this

Is 2016 2017 the year that a good pitching prospect is truly blocked by 5 good pitchers in the starting rotation? 

Looks like we will have to wait another year until a good pitching prospect is actually blocked.


#15 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 7,614 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 17 July 2017 - 10:39 AM

 

Hughes and Perkins.  At what point does the front office make a decision about both these guys?  Obviously Perkins is a lot less painful with 6.5 million left in his deal next season, but Hughes is going to cost them 26 million over the next 2.5 years.  I can't imagine the Twins will cut these two loose when they can put them on the DL and claim the insurance money.

 

Luckily in regards to Perkins, he has a club option next year that the team will decline no doubt. 

Eating $26 MM is a tough pill to swallow for a team like the Twins. His performance over the last couple of years certainly doesn't justify the pay he's getting. Hopefully they make the right call, because IMO, he's toast. 

  • Danchat, spanman2 and SF Twins Fan like this

#16 Sconnie

Sconnie

    From the "right" side of the St Croix

  • Members
  • 2,945 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:21 AM

 

Luckily in regards to Perkins, he has a club option next year that the team will decline no doubt. 

Eating $26 MM is a tough pill to swallow for a team like the Twins. His performance over the last couple of years certainly doesn't justify the pay he's getting. Hopefully they make the right call, because IMO, he's toast. 

Perkins has a $700k buy out option for 2018 - that will no doubt be exercised.

 

One could also lump Gibson in this pile - while he's not injured, he's been ineffective, with up to 3 spots in the rotation potentially open at the end of the season, it would be a devil you know, vs devil you don't situation. Gibson will be out of options and no longer arbitration eligible, he might be had cheaply.

 

I hope he's had cheaply elsewhere

  • beckmt, spanman2, HitInAPinch and 1 other like this

#17 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:32 AM

 

We would all be surprised if he is cut. This doesn't mean not cutting him is the right answer.

 

You say they have "Little to lose" by keeping him. If we are going to use utilitarian value judgments to make the decision, they have little to gain by keeping him. The $ spent is the same if he goes or stays, so that's not a factor. The only factor is on-field performance. If it's a "long recovery" and he won't pitch well again for another 12 months, that's nearly half of his remaining contract. Cut him.

 

There is a chance he has something left by next spring training. He's already locked into a contract. 40 man issues are very minimal. Not much to lose.

  • howieramone2 likes this
Papers...business papers.

#18 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:33 AM

 

Other than a roster spot that can't be used to send players back and forth from the minors, and the opportunity to see if those guys can get MLB out or not......and more runs to give up (potentially). All on the minuscule chance he's ever good again.

 

Making hard roster decisions about veterans is how bad (or meh) teams get good. Keeping bad veterans around is how you extend rebuilds.

 

He's not blocking anyone. If not him, they'd have some other marginal 40 guy there as the long man. I don't think any of these concerns apply in this case.

  • howieramone2 likes this
Papers...business papers.

#19 Doomtints

Doomtints

    Doom By Design | Tints By Joe™

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:36 AM

 

The Twins have some pretty marginal players on the 40 man roster so I am not sure that should be the reason to outright cut him. I am interested in what he can do in year 2 of his recovery and wouldn't cut him until I have seen him throw next spring (at least).

 

The Twins can DFA him now and still invite him to spring training next year. He'll be around. I believe DFA rules would mean the Twins would have to cover (most of) the salary this year if someone picks him up, but not in additional years. This means no one will pick him up.

 

2017 can be the year that teams jettison terrible players. Boston cut Sandoval with $50M left on the deal. Hughes and Sandoval are roughly equally bad, the difference being that Sandoval was incredible in the playoffs.

Edited by Doomtints, 17 July 2017 - 11:42 AM.


#20 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,115 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:44 AM

 

He's not blocking anyone. If not him, they'd have some other marginal 40 guy there as the long man. I don't think any of these concerns apply in this case.

 

He's blocking them from upgrading from either inside or outside teh org next year. If you keep him, you are keeping him and less likely to add from outside the org.

 

and if you are going to cut him in teh off season, cut him now, imo. M

Edited by Mike Sixel, 17 July 2017 - 11:45 AM.

I don't know, it is a site to discuss sports, not airline safety.....maybe we should take it less seriously?