Twins Extend Phil Hughes

Care to wager whether Dozier's number wind up closer to 36 & 32 than to 10 &10?  Was Trout's post all-star production less than a third of his pre all-star production? 

As Brock pointed out, the OPS did not swing much from the first half to the second and the AB's were not close to 50/50. 

I think he has to regress a ton to be an average 2B.

Concern, sure... But it's a prett mild concern. The difference between a .730 and .780 OPS.

 

If that's enough to make you cautious about an extension, I get that.

The Twins could basically have the following player locked up, a prety good, cheap core.

Hughes at 9-13M a year for the next five years

Ervin at $13M a year for the next four

Dozier for the next six years at $40M or so

Perkins for the next 3-4 years at $6M a year

Then 4-6 cost controlled years for:

Meyer, Buxton, Sano, Gibson, Vargas, Berrios, Burdi, Reed, Rosario, May, etc.

If 70% of the prospects come through, it would seem like we would have a talented team with payroll flexibility (even with Mauer). 

Thiink about an all star caliber pitcher (Hughes) through his prime for $58M. An all star caliber 2B in his prime for $40M. And potentially a really good pitcher through ages 25-31 for about $30-40M (Meyer). 

Great move for Hughes,  still am in favor of trading dozier, but I was looking for starting pitching in return.  May not be as necessary now.

Phil Hughes' 2014 is the kind of season that gets you an extension.

If Brian Dozier could have done what he did in the first half for the entire season... then yes, lock him up because it seems he's become superman... but I keep seeing far too much of Clark Kent to feel good about locking of Dozier.

I'm digesting this. I did not expect this.

 

On the one hand, he's only 28 years old, and I'm firmly in the camp that thinks he is for real. Would I give a 5-year, $58 million contract to a guy to a guy like that? Yeah, I think I would. It's certainly favorable to the Santana deal, which seemed like a relative bargain. 

 

Would I rip up a fantastic contract to take on three extra years of risk? I'm a LOT more tentative about that. Even if he is for real, pitchers get hurt.

 

But the last time Hughes missed much time for an injury was 2011 (shoulder) and has basically had a full load of starts four of the last five years. And again , he's just 28.

 

OK, I like this deal - like it, don't love it. But that's from someone who is pretty skeptical about extensions.

I was wondering what the thoughts were about the Hughes extension at the time of the signing. I think this is the most critical comment.

Me too.

You’ll just have to trust me...I was mortified by the Hughes extension.

I hated the Perkins extension

These things are always a gamble. You saw it with Perkins. You saw it earlier with Mays and Blackburn. You can always look bigger, the Joe Mauer contract. Of course, if Joe was going to catch into year 35-36-37 and you didn't need to find, say, a Castro to replace him...then it looks pretty good.

Name WONDERFUL more than 3-year contracts the Twins have signed with players!?!

I find it interesting that literally no one commented about the type of pitcher Hughes is. Even at his absolute BEST, he gave up more than a hit per inning and had a decent, but certainly not great K rate. Kind of seems odd in this era of analytics.

Like I said in other threads, the board I was on most often at the time no longer exists. So, I couldn’t pull up my thoughts even if I wanted too. But I know I was thinking that it didn’t say much about the organization’s opinion on their own highly touted pitching prospects.

The reason this extension was done was because of the failure of the organization to develop almost any above average starting pitcher for more than 3 years over the previous decade plus. The only one was Scott Baker, who was BARELY above average in terms of ERA+. If a team can’t develop it’s own pitchers it is forced to overpay a Ricky Nolasco and over-reward a Phil Hughes.

Holy crap, can this thread be locked? I saw it in the recent posts list and almost had heart failure.

I find it interesting that literally no one commented about the type of pitcher Hughes is. Even at his absolute BEST, he gave up more than a hit per inning and had a decent, but certainly not great K rate. Kind of seems odd in this era of analytics.

Like I said in other threads, the board I was on most often at the time no longer exists. So, I couldn’t pull up my thoughts even if I wanted too. But I know I was thinking that it didn’t say much about the organization’s opinion on their own highly touted pitching prospects.

The reason this extension was done was because of the failure of the organization to develop almost any above average starting pitcher for more than 3 years over the previous decade plus. The only one was Scott Baker, who was BARELY above average in terms of ERA+. If a team can’t develop it’s own pitchers it is forced to overpay a Ricky Nolasco and over-reward a Phil Hughes.

Terry Ryan is too cool for analytics