Don't Sleep On Phil Hughes

S. · January 19, 2017

If Phil Hughes pitches more than 50 innings this year with an ERA under 5, I will eat my own hat. I'd say there is a much better chance he never starts another game again in his career, orif he does, he's going to be throwing 88 and getting mashed.

Counting on Hughes to produce at all is foolish. Sure, you let him try out in spring training, and we all hope his velocity is back and he's feeling good, but if the Twins are going into the season planning for him to be a part of this years rotation, thats a huge mistake.

Richie the Rally Goat · January 19, 2017

That bothered me less, as it was modest money for a guy who wouldn't kill you as the backup catcher.

Suzuki got $12m over two years. Hughes got $40m over three years on top of the $16m he was already owed over the coming two years. A five year commitment of over $55m.

i also wonder what the realistic alternatives were. Unlike Hughes, Suzuki's first deal was one year. Sure, he sucked but it's not like there were in house alternatives. Now outside the org, pretty much every MLB contract for FA catchers in 2015 was a one year deal for a better catcher than Zukes.

brvama · January 19, 2017

We will find out shortly if the surgery he had can correct an otherwise unexplained 2-3 MPH velocity drop.

I'm skeptical.

Im hoping that's the cause.

gil4 · January 19, 2017

Every time I see the name "Phil Hughes", I think "wildly unnecessary contact extension." Go New FO!

Let's hope for his sake and his livelihood that he recovers.

But, I honestly don't think that him returning to #3 starter quality (versus washing out) is going to move the needle that much for the twins season

A solid #3 vs. a weak #5 (or a rookie who needs another year in the minors) is a big difference.

ThejacKmp · January 19, 2017

Here are the #1 starters for the post-season teams in 2014 (in no order) :

Madison Bumgarner
James Shields
Chris Tillman
Adam Wainwright
Garrett Richards
Max Scherzer
Stephen Strasburg
Clayton Kershaw
Sonny Gray
Gerrit Cole

Hughes might have had a better 2014 that Chris Tillman and maybe Gerrit Cole in that list. However both the Orioles and the Pirates kinda had 3 number 2s that season.

I think that makes him a legit #1. He's not top of the list but 2014 Hughes was an acceptable playoff Game 1 starter.

ThejacKmp · January 19, 2017

Hughes was 71st in ERA, 48th in K%, 36th in WHIP, 33th in xFIP, 29th in SIERA, 18th in IP, 10th in FIP, 1st BB%,

VERY misleading stats. Not sure where you got them - my guess is you counted either relievers or guys who didn't pitch enough innings to qualify for rate stats.

He was #41 in ERA, #30 in K%, #20 in WHIP, #1 in BB%, #6 in FIP, #17 in xFIP, #17 in SIERA.

Those are VERY different numbers.

ThejacKmp · January 19, 2017

i also wonder what the realistic alternatives were. Unlike Hughes, Suzuki's first deal was one year. Sure, he sucked but it's not like there were in house alternatives. Now outside the org, pretty much every MLB contract for FA catchers in 2015 was a one year deal for a better catcher than Zukes.

And who were the in-house alternatives better than Hughes? They took a reasonable gamble that has turned out poorly but to say it was a terrible idea is pretty big Monday morning quarterbacking.

ThejacKmp · January 19, 2017

It was a completely out of left field season and an unnecessary/early extension. It wasn't a good extension based on info available at the time. Hindsight (which, you know, wasn't hard to see coming) confirms it but wasn't necessary to see this was a bad decision. I don't care if a lot of people in here were on a high from his season and applauded the decision at the time because of that season, it was an obvious bad move (and using group think to say other-wise doesn't work either).

1) I think if you look at it, it was the only extension possible - calling it early is disingenuous. They weren't going to get one after 2015 (one year from free agency) and if he made it to 2016 and was effective, they would be unlikely to offer the most money in a free agent situation. 2014 is the only opportunity for an extension.* Unnecessary is more fair but I think it was worth the gamble.

2.) To call it an "obvious bad move" is pretty extreme. I think the key is that they paid #4 starter money (in effect, $11 mill for five years) to a guy who had the potential to be a #1/#2 pitcher. That's a fine gamble because $11 million isn't going to break the bank. Phil Hughes floor sans injury was likely a #4 starter or a relatively effective bullpen option. That's a pretty safe (non-injury) floor. I want the Twins to do things like this every day. Injuries suck but there was no clear consensus that Hughes was super injury prone.

* The thing we haven't talked about on this thread (but maybe alluded to?) is whether they should have traded him. I think hindsight gets even trickier when we talk about when the peak time is to trade a guy (see Dozier, Brian - is now the best time or does a hot first half make him the biggest guy at the trade deadline? only time will tell). That said, it would be interesting to see what the market might have been. I don't think teams would pony up elite prospects for a guy after one year (it's one thing to invest $11 million/year in a guy with one great season, it's another to trade prospects and invest $11 million/year in a guy with one great season) so I'm not sure how viable that would be. Certainly if I had a time machine specific to righting Twins wrongs I would have recommended it but I'm not sure you can say that he should have been traded since he was obviously at peak value.

ThejacKmp · January 19, 2017

I felt it was unnecessary. The Twins had Hughes for two more seasons and 2014 was easily his career season to date.

Yeah, you stand to lose a little by waiting one season to extend that player but you also drastically reduce risk of paying a guy for an outlier season.

As it turned out, it was an outlier season.

But such a minor gamble for those extra three years? $11 million a year is not anything crazy (it's cheap #4 starter money) and there was a ton of upside. If he did it another year you'd be paying market value. I get playing it conservative but it seems hypocritical for us to castigate the TR era for being conservative with money and signing retreads and then also blame them for the one forward-thinking "Let's see if we can jump the market on this guy" move.

ThejacKmp · January 19, 2017

Personally I'd like to see him in the pen regardless of where his velocity is at. I think he could be good back there with his limited repertoire and I'd rather give some of the younger guys a shot at the rotation. I'd like to give two of May, Berrios and Mejia a shot at the very least. I don't really like having 4 vets in the rotation for a rebuilding club.

I don't know about regardless but I agree about the vets. I think Santana, Gibson and Berrios should be in almost no matter what. That leaves Santiago, May and Hughes going for the last two spots in spring training - and the tie should be going to May. But I don't want to hand it to May.

Duffey and Hughes in the pen might really strengthen the back of the pen.

Brock Beauchamp · January 19, 2017

But such a minor gamble for those extra three years? $11 million a year is not anything crazy (it's cheap #4 starter money) and there was a ton of upside. If he did it another year you'd be paying market value. I get playing it conservative but it seems hypocritical for us to castigate the TR era for being conservative with money and signing retreads and then also blame them for the one forward-thinking "Let's see if we can jump the market on this guy" move.

As I mentioned later, I don't go overboard criticizing the move, either, I simply don't think it was necessary.

But overall, I'm conservative when it comes to paying players after a big season. I didn't want to do it for Dozier, either, but was fine with buying out his arb seasons because it was such a low-risk move. Little upside, little downside.

And that move turned out to be a good one, as Dozier will be paid ~$10m less than what he would have received in arbitration.

diehardtwinsfan · January 19, 2017

And that move turned out to be a good one, as Dozier will be paid ~$10m less than what he would have received in arbitration.

The whole part of buying that out is spreading the risk around while giving some cost certainty to both sides. I think in general that is a good thing (though I'd have fought hard for that 1st year of FA). The Twins should be looking to do this with guys like Sano and Buxton once they start to mature as well.

DocBauer · January 19, 2017

Forgetting the contract situation, I often wonder about his 2014 season. Was it an outlier at this point? Yes. But what we may never know now is if it would remain so.

You have to remember he was a top prospect, and despite inconsistencies, he also showed very well for the Yankees at times. He was only 27-28 when the Twins signed him. A little older and wiser and a change if scenery very well could have jump started him. Unfortunately, with the injury we may never know.

I've said all along he is a dark horse and shouldn't really be counted on. But healthy and regaining velocity, man, what a boost he could be.

jimmer · January 19, 2017

1) I think if you look at it, it was the only extension possible - calling it early is disingenuous. They weren't going to get one after 2015 (one year from free agency) and if he made it to 2016 and was effective, they would be unlikely to offer the most money in a free agent situation. 2014 is the only opportunity for an extension.* Unnecessary is more fair but I think it was worth the gamble.

2.) To call it an "obvious bad move" is pretty extreme. I think the key is that they paid #4 starter money (in effect, $11 mill for five years) to a guy who had the potential to be a #1/#2 pitcher. That's a fine gamble because $11 million isn't going to break the bank. Phil Hughes floor sans injury was likely a #4 starter or a relatively effective bullpen option. That's a pretty safe (non-injury) floor. I want the Twins to do things like this every day. Injuries suck but there was no clear consensus that Hughes was super injury prone.

* The thing we haven't talked about on this thread (but maybe alluded to?) is whether they should have traded him. I think hindsight gets even trickier when we talk about when the peak time is to trade a guy (see Dozier, Brian - is now the best time or does a hot first half make him the biggest guy at the trade deadline? only time will tell). That said, it would be interesting to see what the market might have been. I don't think teams would pony up elite prospects for a guy after one year (it's one thing to invest $11 million/year in a guy with one great season, it's another to trade prospects and invest $11 million/year in a guy with one great season) so I'm not sure how viable that would be. Certainly if I had a time machine specific to righting Twins wrongs I would have recommended it but I'm not sure you can say that he should have been traded since he was obviously at peak value.

I'm going to stand by what I wrote in the post you quoted 100%. You may not like my take on what happened or my opinion on it, but its not disingenuous. That word gets thrown around here a lot. Edited January 19, 2017 by jimmer

Brock Beauchamp · January 19, 2017

The whole part of buying that out is spreading the risk around while giving some cost certainty to both sides. I think in general that is a good thing (though I'd have fought hard for that 1st year of FA). The Twins should be looking to do this with guys like Sano and Buxton once they start to mature as well.

With Sano and Buxton, the upside is there where I'm willing to take a bigger risk in length and money. I'd want one, preferably two, post-arb seasons and I'd be willing to pay for them.

drjim · January 19, 2017

With Sano and Buxton, the upside is there where I'm willing to take a bigger risk in length and money. I'd want one, preferably two, post-arb seasons and I'd be willing to pay for them.

I'd want 3 to 6 additional years, but I'd probably wait another year before inking that deal.

Edited January 19, 2017 by drjim

Rosterman · January 19, 2017

Well, they just paid $8 million to Santiago. So he starts. Santana starts. WIll Phil Hughes come back...then he starts. You have Kyle Gibson, who needs to prove himself capable of starting, and possibly being a trading chip if he excels. Then we have Trevor May, who still needs to be stretched out. We may have Tyler Duffey, who led us in victories last season, as well as ERA (on the wrong end). And we have Berrios, who some may say needs more seasoning. Sigh. Maybe at the end of the season a couple of others materialize (Gonsalves and Stewart, for example). But I just hope the rotation can keep their eras in the low 4's rather than pushing 5.

Doomtints · January 19, 2017

Well, they just paid $8 million to Santiago. So he starts. Santana starts. WIll Phil Hughes come back...then he starts. You have Kyle Gibson, who needs to prove himself capable of starting, and possibly being a trading chip if he excels. Then we have Trevor May, who still needs to be stretched out. We may have Tyler Duffey, who led us in victories last season, as well as ERA (on the wrong end). And we have Berrios, who some may say needs more seasoning. Sigh. Maybe at the end of the season a couple of others materialize (Gonsalves and Stewart, for example). But I just hope the rotation can keep their eras in the low 4's rather than pushing 5.

Yeah. Question marks at nearly every pitching slot isn't a position any team wants to be in.

Gonsalves is probably going to be good but I would be shocked to see him ready this year. But at the same time I would be shocked to see many of the other pitches you listed ready to pitch next year either -- nevertheless they will be on the mound.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Doomtints

Richie the Rally Goat · January 19, 2017

And who were the in-house alternatives better than Hughes? They took a reasonable gamble that has turned out poorly but to say it was a terrible idea is pretty big Monday morning quarterbacking.

they already had Hughes for two more seasons, so it wasn't an immediate need to "replace him". Conversely Suzuki was not under contract.

True, it's second guessing, but there was tons of second guessing that move when it happened that winter.

The gamble would have been to not extend Hughes and be ok if he walks or is more expensive to extend later

Edited January 19, 2017 by Sconnie

Otto von Ballpark · January 19, 2017

Hughes at that point in his career on a 5/55 deal is interesting and not bank-breaking, but it is not super valuable.

Hughes at that point in his career on a 2/16 deal is super valuable. Virtually zero risk.

John Bonnes · January 19, 2017

I didn't like the extension when it happened and said as much.

But I can sympathize a little bit for thinking they had found lighting in a bottle. Hughes was a #1 prospect, and ace who never developed in NY, and he was 27(?) and had just shown that he was on the verge of being a #1 guy. At the time, the narrative was that the move from Yankee Stadium to Target Field had greatly helped him because of the dimensions of the two ballparks (and maybe whispered that the pressures inherent to the organizations might have helped, too.)

One could argue that what screwed it up seems to be an injury as much as anything. Those are hard to predict.

Riverbrian · January 20, 2017

I remember being against signing him as a free agent. I wasn't a Hughes fan... I felt he lacked a certain... toughness on the mound when I watched him pitch for the Yankees. It seemed like every time he needed to make a pitch in a big spot... he didn't. For full disclousure... I remember wanting Nolasco and being simply OK with Pelfrey as a 5th spot guy. The guy I wanted instead of Hughes was Kazmir if I remember correctly.

Once he signed with us.. He was impressive. It's debatable if he was extended to soon however... I think Terry Ryan was wrong only in hindsight. At the time... it made sense. It's pitching... if someone shows you something... go ahead and roll with it.

Fast forward to today... I'm hoping big time that he rebounds and helps us out. I won't dismiss it as a possibility.

With that said... perhaps my biggest hope is that he isn't simply handed a spot in the rotation... I hope he has to legitimately compete for it. I want multiple people competing for the rotation... From Hughes to May to Taylor Rogers. I simply want less toleration of 5 plus ERA's overwhelming the rotation. If Gibson has to be moved to the bullpen or waived... so be it.

2017 needs to be a show me that you have fixed whatever the hell went wrong in 2016 year.

Doomtints · January 20, 2017

I remember being against signing him as a free agent. I wasn't a Hughes fan... I felt he lacked a certain... toughness on the mound when I watched him pitch for the Yankees. It seemed like every time he needed to make a pitch in a big spot... he didn't.

Hughes has been a bit of a one trick pony. Toss heat right down Broadway and try to miss bats. This doesn't work after your heat loses a couple of ticks and was probably never going to work against teams facing off against a high powered Yankees offense.

As for his contract extension, that's water under the bridge now, but I think a small majority of us were surprised by the move and did not think it was necessary or a good idea.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Doomtints

Richie the Rally Goat · January 21, 2017

Hughes-Santana-Santiago-Duffey-Gibson:

My nightmare scenario.

if May and Berrios can't win a spot in that rotation, they don't deserve it

drjim · January 21, 2017

if May and Berrios can't win a spot in that rotation, they don't deserve it

Especially true about May. Berrios is more likely to go down no matter what.

TheLeviathan · January 21, 2017

if May and Berrios can't win a spot in that rotation, they don't deserve it

Let's be honest, how often does anyone "win" a spot? I get that this sort of thing sounds good to toss around, but the reality is that teams don't make decisions that way.

Riverbrian · January 21, 2017

Let's be honest, how often does anyone "win" a spot? I get that this sort of thing sounds good to toss around, but the reality is that teams don't make decisions that way.

Yeah

Sadly Yeah

Richie the Rally Goat · January 21, 2017

Let's be honest, how often does anyone "win" a spot? I get that this sort of thing sounds good to toss around, but the reality is that teams don't make decisions that way.

theres truth here. Not every (most) decision is made based on merit, however merit or injury is how Berrios gets starts over Santiago or Duffey.

I think 2017 should be focused on developing pitchers at the highest level. I dont think it will, necessarily

TheLeviathan · January 21, 2017

theres truth here. Not every (most) decision is made based on merit, however merit or injury is how Berrios gets starts over Santiago or Duffey.

I think 2017 should be focused on developing pitchers at the highest level. I dont think it will, necessarily

I'm not convinced merit will even matter with Santiago. But I fully agree with your second sentence, hence why I phrased that rotation as my worst nightmare,

drjim · January 21, 2017

Few things in baseball have a larger gap between meaning and the weeping and gnashing of teeth surrounding it than the opening day roster. If Berrios and May perform they'll get plenty of big league starts.

Sign In

Don't Sleep On Phil Hughes

Twins Video

Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

Recent Twins Articles

Recent Twins Videos

Community Blogs

Forum Topics

Twins Top Prospects

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

Featured Comments

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Do you approve of Twins ownership?