Now, that is some whacky logic. I still think the Drew signing and the Hughes signing are so different, you can't really compare them. In addition to the draft pick, Hughes has upside. Drew does not. He is likely to regress, fairly rapidly in the next two years. That is why no one has signed him.
Sometimes, I think "upside" isn't always a good thing. Hughes only has "upside" because he hasn't achieved the performance level that Drew has, even as recently as last year. Only the broken ankle in 2011 and rehab in 2012 interrupts Drew's streak of five straight 3+ rWAR seasons. Hughes has two 2 rWAR season as a starter, non-consecutive, and fell well short of that level in 2013. (For those that don't like WAR for pitchers, I don't think Hughes fares too well by other measures either -- his fWAR tops out at 2.5, and his IP in particularly seem strikingly low in his full seasons starting.)
True, Drew is 3 years older, but even after applying his standard positional aging curve, Drew could easily top Hughes' career high rWAR for the next few seasons.
I'm not knocking the Hughes deal. I just fail to see how, for a team with similar deficiencies at both spots, a deal for one of these guys is smart but a similar deal for the other is dumb.
EDIT TO ADD: Put another way, what's more likely: a 28 year old equalling or exceeding his career best performance, or a 31 year old continuing his 5 year established performance minus his standard positional aging curve?
Edited by spycake, 27 February 2014 - 03:22 PM.