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

#21 kab21

kab21

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,417 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 11:54 AM

 

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.

Nobody would claim him on waivers but somebody might pick him up since that team would only have to pay the MLB minimum and the Twins pay the remainder of his salary. 

The only reason to DFA him is to keep the likes of Belisle, Murphy, Haley, Gee or a few others on the 40 man roster. Hughes looks bad but he still has more of a future than that crew.

  • DJSim22, nicksaviking, Sconnie and 2 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.


#22 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 12:10 PM

 

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

 

I don't think the front office would be that irresponsible, to consider a hanging on by a thread Hughes as being sufficient enough reason to pass on other upgrades. But I could be wrong.

  • Riverbrian likes this
Papers...business papers.

#23 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,115 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 12:15 PM

 

I don't think the front office would be that irresponsible, to consider a hanging on by a thread Hughes as being sufficient enough reason to pass on other upgrades. But I could be wrong.

 

if he's on the roster, he's on the roster. And if he's on the roster, you aren't replacing him. so, I'm not sure which side you are on, now.

  • Tomj14 likes this

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


#24 ahart10

ahart10

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 12:19 PM

No reason to act now. His 40 man spot would be nice to have come this offseason.

#25 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Cedar Rapids

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 12:48 PM

Having Hughes up means Busentiz is not.

Paying Hughes not to pitch or paying him to pitch at the expense of this year and the future because others are not getting experience doesn't seem like much of a decision to me.

Maybe somebody could drop a bat on his foot breaking a toe nail and we could put him on the 60 DL, and give him one more chance next spring. (that is the best option in my opinion)

 

  • Danchat and Sconnie like this

#26 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 12:49 PM

 

if he's on the roster, he's on the roster. And if he's on the roster, you aren't replacing him. so, I'm not sure which side you are on, now.

 

I'm on for keeping him, seeing if he improves in the offseason, but having a realistic backup plan if he is still barely touching 90. If he is better the team might have some actual pitching depth to sort through. For example, if Hughes is good, they could start someone like Mejia in AAA at the beginning of next year.

 

If he's still bad, then probably time to let him go.

 

Gassing him now is premature.

  • howieramone2 likes this
Papers...business papers.

#27 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 12:50 PM

 

Having Hughes up means Busentiz is not.

Paying Hughes not to pitch or paying him to pitch at the expense of this year and the future because others are not getting experience doesn't seem like much of a decision to me.

Maybe somebody could drop a bat on his foot breaking a toe nail and we could put him on the 60 DL, and give him one more chance next spring. (that is the best option in my opinion)

 

I suspect that he'll end up on the dl soon enough if he can't recapture his stuff. They don't need the 40 man spot right now.

Papers...business papers.

#28 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,115 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 12:54 PM

 

I'm on for keeping him, seeing if he improves in the offseason, but having a realistic backup plan if he is still barely touching 90. If he is better the team might have some actual pitching depth to sort through. For example, if Hughes is good, they could start someone like Mejia in AAA at the beginning of next year.

 

If he's still bad, then probably time to let him go.

 

Gassing him now is premature.

 

if you wait for to see how the off season goes, you aren't actively replacing him in the off season, even if he's bad the rest of this year?

 

I can almost see keeping him this year, almost. but if he's bad, if you keep him, you aren't signing/trading to replace him.

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


#29 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:03 PM

 

if you wait for to see how the off season goes, you aren't actively replacing him in the off season, even if he's bad the rest of this year?

 

I can almost see keeping him this year, almost. but if he's bad, if you keep him, you aren't signing/trading to replace him.

 

I don't understand this way of thinking. He doesn't even really have a role right now, not sure what you would be preventing from replacing. Keep him on the roster, see if he's back healthy, and if he is you can find a spot. If a not, DFA him.

  • Vanimal46 likes this
Papers...business papers.

#30 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,343 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:07 PM

Hughes to the DL, Romero to the 40 and pen in 2 weeks.

#31 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,115 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:09 PM

 

I don't understand this way of thinking. He doesn't even really have a role right now, not sure what you would be preventing from replacing. Keep him on the roster, see if he's back healthy, and if he is you can find a spot. If a not, DFA him.

 

are we talking past each other? maybe. I'll try more details:

 

1. I am arguing Hughes could be cut now.

2. I believe he won't show he's good this year, meaning you need to make a decision during the off season.

3. If you plan to give him a chance next year, then you aren't going to sign a pitcher to replace him, because you are giving him a chance. Teams don't say "hey, 26MM man, you are on the roster, but we are also signing ANOTHER 15MM man to maybe replace you.

4. Since I don't think you can decide this year, and if you wait until the off season is over to decide, you are essentially keeping him, I think you are giving up a roster spot, again.

  • Sconnie, HitInAPinch, Vanimal46 and 1 other like this

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


#32 yarnivek1972

yarnivek1972

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,794 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:16 PM

If the Pohlads were willing to release him, odds are they would have done so by now. This is not a decision Falvine can make. It's 100% Jim Pohlad's call. Maybe they talk him into it, but I don't see it as likely. I'd put the odds at 10% before the end of 2017. 25% this offseason. Maybe by the end of 2018 up to 50%.

#33 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:17 PM

 

are we talking past each other? maybe. I'll try more details:

 

1. I am arguing Hughes could be cut now.

2. I believe he won't show he's good this year, meaning you need to make a decision during the off season.

3. If you plan to give him a chance next year, then you aren't going to sign a pitcher to replace him, because you are giving him a chance. Teams don't say "hey, 26MM man, you are on the roster, but we are also signing ANOTHER 15MM man to maybe replace you.

4. Since I don't think you can decide this year, and if you wait until the off season is over to decide, you are essentially keeping him, I think you are giving up a roster spot, again.

 

You are certainly giving up a 40 man spot in the offseason, but I don't see that being too big a problem.

 

I would argue that you bring him into camp with no Plan A assigned role. Basically you go into the offseason planning on nothing from Hughes in 2018 and make acquisitions accordingly. If he comes into camp and does well, you can find a spot for him, either in the rotation or in the pen. If he continues to show nothing in camp you cut him and move on.

 

The only cost of doing my plan is the 40 man roster spot over the offseason. If the Twins don't do this, I promise another team would do the same with him, bring him in as a flyer.

  • howieramone2 likes this
Papers...business papers.

#34 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:18 PM

 

If the Pohlads were willing to release him, odds are they would have done so by now. This is not a decision Falvine can make. It's 100% Jim Pohlad's call. Maybe they talk him into it, but I don't see it as likely. I'd put the odds at 10% before the end of 2017. 25% this offseason. Maybe by the end of 2018 up to 50%.

 

I don't think the Pohlads would stand in the way if the front office wanted to do it. But his money would count against the budget next year.

  • Sconnie and bizaff like this
Papers...business papers.

#35 drjim

drjim

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 7,546 posts
  • LocationSt. Paul

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:18 PM

 

Hughes to the DL, Romero to the 40 and pen in 2 weeks.

 

Romero is already on the 40. But I would endorse this plan.

Papers...business papers.

#36 nicksaviking

nicksaviking

    Billy G.O.A.T

  • Twins Mods
  • 10,468 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:18 PM

Would DFA'ing Hughes now mean Belisle gets a reprieve?

Because thus far Hughes is only used in blowouts and Belisle still gets higher leverage situations. If dumping Hughes means Belisle gets extra leash, I vote to keep Hughes and continue to give him the throw away innings. Belisle is a bigger liability.

#37 Vanimal46

Vanimal46

    Minnesota Twins Whine Line Host

  • Members
  • 7,614 posts
  • LocationAustin, TX

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:22 PM

 

Would DFA'ing Hughes now mean Belisle gets a reprieve?

Because thus far Hughes is only used in blowouts and Belisle still gets higher leverage situations. If dumping Hughes means Belisle gets extra leash, I vote to keep Hughes and continue to give him the throw away innings. Belisle is a bigger liability.

 

I hope these players are not connected in any way. They should be mutually exclusive. 

  • Danchat and Sconnie like this

#38 Thrylos

Thrylos

    They Finally fired ’em. Play Ball!

  • Members
  • 8,417 posts
  • LocationLehigh Valley, PA, USA
  • Twitter: thrylos98

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:24 PM

Little perspective:

 

  • Hughes is the long man/mop up pitcher right now, and hardly the problem Belisle, Boshers, and even Pressly are.He is pitching when the Twins are blown out.No leverage at all
  • In the limited sample, his numbers out of the pen are: 6.2 IP, 8 K, 2 BB, 2 HR, .455 BABIP; his 23.5 K% and 10.7 K/9 in that sample, are encouraging, and his BABIP and HR/FB% (that should be ridiculous) will regress.
  • The Twins owe him $30 million or more.Not compared to Blackburn with $5M or so in his contract, so,rightfully, they will give him any opportunity to recoup their investment.
  • If his issue is medical, he will go to the 60-day DL and the Twins will recover $ from their insurance.Not the same as cutting him.

Any way you cut it, the Twins have bigger fish to fry than Hughes at this point...

Edited by Thrylos, 17 July 2017 - 01:25 PM.

  • ChiTownTwinsFan, Riverbrian, Oldgoat_MN and 2 others like this
-----
Blogging Twins since 2007 at The Tenth Inning Stretch
http://tenthinningst...h.blogspot.com/
twitter: @thrylos98

#39 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1,343 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:28 PM

Would DFA'ing Hughes now mean Belisle gets a reprieve?

Because thus far Hughes is only used in blowouts and Belisle still gets higher leverage situations. If dumping Hughes means Belisle gets extra leash, I vote to keep Hughes and continue to give him the throw away innings. Belisle is a bigger liability.


Belisle had been fairly serviceable recently. But I feel ya.

#40 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 22,115 posts

Posted 17 July 2017 - 01:33 PM

 

You are certainly giving up a 40 man spot in the offseason, but I don't see that being too big a problem.

 

I would argue that you bring him into camp with no Plan A assigned role. Basically you go into the offseason planning on nothing from Hughes in 2018 and make acquisitions accordingly. If he comes into camp and does well, you can find a spot for him, either in the rotation or in the pen. If he continues to show nothing in camp you cut him and move on.

 

The only cost of doing my plan is the 40 man roster spot over the offseason. If the Twins don't do this, I promise another team would do the same with him, bring him in as a flyer.

 

As long as you are correct, and having him around does not mean they don't actively replace him during the off season, fine. But I'm not sure any org would do that. I hope to be wrong on every count on this, and that he somehow becomes good again.

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