Article: Who's The Next Phil Hughes?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Its also worth noting that 2/7 of these guys were being talked about last offseason as bounceback candidates - Johnson and Villanueva.

FWIW, I believe Johnson was the only one from this list that was a free agent last offseason, and he didn't throw a pitch in 2014 due to injury.  (I'd have to imagine his deal will be incentive-laden, due to the vagaries of TJ recovery times.)

 

Villanueva is the only other guy on this list to have been a free agent before, two years ago.  Although he wasn't really a "bounceback" guy then or now -- looks like he's pretty much always been a modest swingman.  It's possible someone will target him to be a full time starter (or full-time reliever) but probably more to fill the back end of a rotation than to be the next Hughes (which suggests upside to me).

[Nick Nelson]

I'll ask again. If the Twins didn't already have Pelfrey and Nolasco under contract, wouldn't they be part of this list too? How many more bounceback candidates do we need?

 

Sure. They are bounce-back candidates. I'd just rather have more than less. The Twins are in a good position to gamble on these types of players, and also offer an appealing situation to bring said players aboard.

 

There are health risks on the list (some more than others), but every pitcher is a health risk.

[ShouldaCouldaWoulda]

 The market - particularly for starting pitching, isn't so inefficient that 1 year steals are just waiting around to be signed every offseason. Heck, finding a guy as productive as Hughes has been at 3/24 is extremely rare.

 

I agree that finding the "Hughes" is rare. The more fitting headline would be, "who's the next Palfrey/Nolasco?"

[h2oface]

Yeah, well people here last year were saying the same thing when the Twins would have virtuallly been trading Nick Burdi for a washed up and useless Stephen Drew.

 People here say quite a few things that amaze me.  Most just don't pan out.  Personally, I was never a fan of Stephen Drew, and would not have made a move to acquire him at all, regardless of whether it meant giving up the 2nd round draft pick or not. For Kazmir? Definitely.  I still feel what I feel. Draft picks are over rated, and may never play in the show.  I particularly don't like watching draft picks take 7 years to get to the Twins, and then the Twins trade them for prospects to wait another 3-7 years for, if ever.

Edited November 11, 2014 by h2oface

[Brandon]

These are not low-upside deals. Each pitcher listed (with the exception of Morales I guess) has shown the ability to pitch like a front-of-rotation guy in recent years. That's why they're different from Pelfrey and Correia.

 

Also, it's easy to say "Let's go get Ervin Santana" but is he really going to want to pitch here? You've got to be realistic about the other side of this thing. Pitchers with depressed value will view Minnesota as a more attractive landing spot because the barrier of entry for the rotation is low.

Nick you should write an article on trade candidates and who we should target in trade.  Cause that's how we are going to get our next starting pitcher.  There are too many good starting pitchers available in a trade not to make one.  Next year is a much batter year for the Twins to sign a pitcher in Free Agency when there are lots more pitchers to choose from. 

[tobi0040]

Nick you should write an article on trade candidates and who we should target in trade.  Cause that's how we are going to get our next starting pitcher.  There are too many good starting pitchers available in a trade not to make one.  Next year is a much batter year for the Twins to sign a pitcher in Free Agency when there are lots more pitchers to choose from. 

 

I agree, with a caveat.  A trade like the Tigers did to bring in Scherzer or Fister is the type of move we should do.  Or the White Sox for Adam Eaton (but a pitcher).  Find a high upside, cheap guy via trade.  A diamond in the rough like Hughes was.

 

The Twins are not in a position in my opinion to trade Buxton or Sano for a guy that is making $20M+ or one that is due a huge contract.

 

I think the two things we have going right now are 2-3 great prospects and payroll room to add talent.  A trade for a top guy right now blows through both of those assets in one move.  For example, if we traded Buxton for Hamels, we would lose our best prospect and be up around $100M in payroll.  I don't see how that one move alone takes us to the top of the division.

Edited November 11, 2014 by tobi0040

[James Richter]

Guys on 4/32 contracts generally have much lower upside (that was Jason Vargas' deal last winter), and much higher downside given the length of the deal.

Precisely. Vargas had accumulated a little over 8 WAR over 150 or so starts, so the market valued him as about a 1.5 WAR pitcher per season, expecting him to provide 6 WAR over the life of the deal. That's a #4-#5 starter. Phil Hughes provided that much value last year alone. Imagine if Hughes' deal had been a 1/$8M instead of 3/$24M - he puts up 4x the value he was paid for, and either comes back as a front-end guy on a 1/$15M - impossible to get on the open market - or he opts for free agency and gives us a sandwich pick. That return - while unexpectedly good for Hughes - would be impossible for a guy like Vargas - his stuff simply isn't good enough, and it's not getting any better as he gets deeper into his 30s. Hitting on a Hughes effectively pays for taking the gamble another 3-4 times.

 

How often does one of those hit? Seems like once a season, somewhere. How often does a 4-year deal tank at some point in the 4 years?

 

One other reason I'd rather have a different upside guy 4 straight years than 4 years of a safer bet at the same price: the upside guy is always 28, but the safe guy gets older and older...

[DocBauer]

Masterson yes. Pretty much anyone else on the list a big no.

 

What's with the love for Anderson? I don't get it. Unless he gets totally healthy and totally durable real quick, this is a guy who has topped 30 starts once in his career, hit 19 once, 13 once and 8 games started is the 4th best in his ML career.

 

Billingsley may be toast, but he's a much more intriguing option. Maholm, also from the Dodgers, is also an intriguing option. But a TJ and flexor tendon problem in 2 years for Billingsley and an ACL for Maholm mean milb contracts.

[DocBauer]

I don't mind the 1year idea at all. You haven't tied up big money or multiple years. That gives you flexibility to re-sign said FA for a fair extension, or trade them at the deadline if you've got a nice return and someone else ready to step in.

 

A re-sign is simply not going to be some big $20M deal, which means you are flexible to re-sign and still look at extending Hughes. And the trade option bring back a solid player, and possibly provides a little more time for a May or Meyer if not ready or regress a little. And it allows the parent club to, oh, I don't know, actually March out a quality starter to the mound?

[jay]

The worst part is that the Twins are always looking for a couple/three lucky bargains instead of signing someone that is more of a sure deal for the same amount of total money.

So... like... Ricky Nolasco? Pretty sure that's exactly what they did there.

[h2oface]

So... like... Ricky Nolasco? Pretty sure that's exactly what they did there.

I don't know what you mean with this.  Do you consider Nolasco someone that was more of a sure deal?  (I sure didn't.  I figured 4.50 ERA at best.  Nolasco instead of Kazmir?  Never a move I would have made.)  I meant, with the quote you used, someone like Tanaka (that didn't turn out so well yet, either, with the injury) or this year..... Lester.  One top starter, instead of three of the dreaded innings eaters.  

[DocBauer]

I think a lot of people will be eating some crow after this season in regard to Nolasco. The only thing, S I've said before, that he's guilty of is getting hurt in his first year with the Twins and then trying to play through it.

 

If the only thing he does is just pitch to his career norms, we're talking 30+ starts and 190+ IP, a low 4 ERA and 12-14 wins. Career norms.

 

Not only do I think anyone would take that, it's probably better than anyone on this list will do.

 

Not that I'm not in favor of adding someone somewhere.

[Mike Sixel]

I'll take the bet Nolasco makes 30+ starts and has an ERA under 4.3.

 

I'll take the No side.

Edited November 11, 2014 by mike wants wins

[bird]

Whoever the next Hughes is, it seems doubtful the Twins will be the ones to hit on them. They got very lucky with Hughes and we've seen just how difficult it can be to cash in big on a buy-low pitcher.

 

I do think Masterson is a solid bet, but I want Meyer up ASAP.

Had Hughes stunk up the joint, would it have been a product of BAD luck? Is it ALWAYS a matter of luck, and if not, then who are "the ones" skilled at removing luck from the equation and "hitting" on the next Hughes?

[tobi0040]

Had Hughes stunk up the joint, would it have been a product of BAD luck? Is it ALWAYS a matter of luck, and if not, then who are "the ones" skilled at removing luck from the equation and "hitting" on the next Hughes?

 

The only thing about the Hughes signing that was luck was that he signed here versus somewhere else. Terry said that he sought us out as much as we sought him out. 

 

I am guessing he thought the park was a great place to rebuild value.

 

Phil was a former top prospect, 27, healthy, and in a terrible park that made his numbers and I believe his confidence look bad.  His career ERA everywhere but the new yankee stadium at the time we signed him was 4.10.  Signing him was brilliant.

[bird]

The only thing about the Hughes signing that was luck was that he signed here versus somewhere else. Terry said that he sought us out as much as we sought him out. 

 

I am guessing he thought the park was a great place to rebuild value.

 

Phil was a former top prospect, 27, healthy, and in a terrible park that made his numbers and I believe his confidence look bad.  His career ERA everywhere but the new yankee stadium at the time we signed him was 4.10.  Signing him was brilliant.

The other element of luck was he stayed healthy. Therefore, good decision, good outcome. I would contend that Nolasco was a reasonable decision with a bad first-year outcome.

 

I'm not sure what the odds are, but taking a shot every year on a bounce-back guy with a front-of-the-rotation upside appeals to me if you score big every third year. Now, if only one in ten of these guys pans out...

[tobi0040]

The other element of luck was he stayed healthy. Therefore, good decision, good outcome. I would contend that Nolasco was a reasonable decision with a bad first-year outcome.

 

I'm not sure what the odds are, but taking a shot every year on a bounce-back guy with a front-of-the-rotation upside appeals to me if you score big every third year. Now, if only one in ten of these guys pans out...

Yeah, but the difference for me between Hughes and say Masterson is that Hughes had an identifiable issue that could be removed (Yankee stadium).

 

Masterson has a goofy delivery and questionable control over his career (he may struggle to repeat the delivery). His career BB per 9 is 3.7. That is actually the same number that Alex Meyer had in 2013 that he needed to improve on. His 4.5 last year is actually better than the 4.8 that Masterson had and the Twins would not even bring Meyer up because of it.

 

To me Masterson's issue is harder to fix than Hughes's was. He will be 30 next year with 1,150 career innings.

Edited November 11, 2014 by tobi0040

[Mike Sixel]

Hughes did not just move out of Yankee stadium. Other things were "fixed". 

[tobi0040]

Hughes did not just move out of Yankee stadium. Other things were "fixed". 

 

That is a fair point.  But his numbers at yankee stadium were the biggest difference, in my opinion between last year and every year since 2009 or whatever.

 

The other immeasurable is confidence.  Getting shelled for 3 HR a start at Yankee stadium, then booed all the time had to get in his head.

[ALessKosherScott]

Masterson yes. Pretty much anyone else on the list a big no. What's with the love for Anderson? I don't get it.

 

Anderson is my favorite on the list because he's the kind of pitcher the Twins have had the most success with. The MO of the organization has been working with guys with good command and turning it into great command. That his strikeout rate is pretty good for an extreme groundballer is the bonus and what makes him the most Hughes like. He hasn't been healthy, but that's what lets you sign him to a one-year, make good deal on the cheap. The upside if he gets healthy and figures things out is something of a Cliff Lee-lite. If he doesn't, it costs you $6 or $7 million for one year and that's not that big of risk.

 

I don't mind Masterson, because Target Field can help correct his biggest flaw to an extent (that left handed pitchers tee off on him because he's such an extreme sinker/slider pitcher). But at thirty, he's not going to suddenly figure out a change up and solve his lefty issues when we play in Chicago . And the Fangraphs crowd sourced contract had him as more expensive and more likely to get a multi-year deal than Anderson. Throw in that he's turning 30 and it seems to me like there's more risk and less upside to him than Anderson.

 

Billingsley? Josh Johnson? Morrow? If you can get any of them for a one year, $3 million deal, why not take a risk. The upside for one year is better than signing another Mike Pelfrey.

Edited November 11, 2014 by ALessKosherScott

[jorgenswest]

May and Meyer need to get significant starts in the majors this year. The Twins need to start Nolasco and try to see if he can return to form. Gibson will take a step forward and Hughes is solid. Berrios needs to get starts at the end of the season. 

 

I wouldn't argue with signing or trading for an ace to front that group. Signing a question mark on a short term deal doesn't help long term and slows the development of May, Meyer and Berrios. At the end of this season, the Twins need to know whether they should count on May or Meyer. Anything short of 150 innings won't begin to answer that question. 

 

Did the Royals worry about performance in AAA and consistency when they put Ventura in the rotation this year?

[laloesch]

May and Meyer need to get significant starts in the majors this year. The Twins need to start Nolasco and try to see if he can return to form. Gibson will take a step forward and Hughes is solid. Berrios needs to get starts at the end of the season. 

 

I wouldn't argue with signing or trading for an ace to front that group. Signing a question mark on a short term deal doesn't help long term and slows the development of May, Meyer and Berrios. At the end of this season, the Twins need to know whether they should count on May or Meyer. Anything short of 150 innings won't begin to answer that question. 

 

Did the Royals worry about performance in AAA and consistency when they put Ventura in the rotation this year?

 

Thank you!  The Twins don't need to go out and sign ANOTHER reclamation type pitcher be it Masterson, Billingsley, Josh Johnson, Morrow, etc.  Not with Pelfrey and Milone on the roster.  By all accounts Ryan has all but committed to Pelfrey starting this season (gags and then slaps forehead). 

 

Signing another starter will only be a waste of payroll and further retard the growth of May and Meyer both of whom will be 25/26 this season.  Such a signing would mean that May would go back to AAA and pitch most of the season in Rochester alongside Meyer & Berrios.    

 

I really think the Twins start 2015 with the following rotation (I don't like this either): 

 

1. Hughes 2. Gibson 3. Nolasco 4. Pelfrey 5. Milone / May

 

By August Pelfrey will be history and hopefully May will have stepped up like Gibson did last season.  Meyer should then be able to start 10 games or more.  However, the wildcard / monkey wrench in all of this is Milone.  If Terry Ryan sticks to his stubborn guns and trots Pelfrey and Milone out, start after start, until mid season it will not be good for either of the M&M pitchers regardless of how well they do in AAA.    

 

YES!  WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE starters, unless they go big and sign Lester. Lets be real it ain't gonna happen, not in a million years. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by laloesch

[tobi0040]

I am with Jorgenswest.  Give me a guy that is better than everyone else or roll with what we have.

 

Regarding Ventura....his numbers in his last year at AAA were very similar to Meyer's last year.

 

Ventura  77 IP   3.74 ERA   3.9 BB per 9.  9.5 K per 9.  2.45 k/bb

Meyer     131 IP  3.52 ERA    4.4 BB per 9.  10.6 K per 9.  2.39 k/bb

All he did was come up at pitch 180 IP at a 3.20 ERA this year.  His walk rate was 3.4 per 9.    The key is a high k rate (7.8 per 9), lower hit rate (8.3) and low HR rate of .7 per 9 more than offset the additional runner via BB every say 18 innings.

Edited November 11, 2014 by tobi0040

[Otto von Ballpark]

May and Meyer need to get significant starts in the majors this year. The Twins need to start Nolasco and try to see if he can return to form. Gibson will take a step forward and Hughes is solid. Berrios needs to get starts at the end of the season. 

 

I wouldn't argue with signing or trading for an ace to front that group. Signing a question mark on a short term deal doesn't help long term and slows the development of May, Meyer and Berrios. At the end of this season, the Twins need to know whether they should count on May or Meyer. Anything short of 150 innings won't begin to answer that question. 

 

Did the Royals worry about performance in AAA and consistency when they put Ventura in the rotation this year?

Berrios is irrelevant if we are discussing a short-term (i.e. 1 year guaranteed) deals for 2015.  He K'd 6.2 per 9 at AA last year, and is almost certainly ticketed to begin 2015 there again.  If everything breaks right for him, he can get a September call-up regardless of our MLB rotation, although his pro career high is 140 IP.  Unless he misses time earlier in the year, my guess is Berrios doesn't pitch anywhere in September 2015.

 

Meyer's pro career high is only 130 IP.  I have no problem using him out of the pen until a spot opens up.

 

I posted this elsewhere recently, but the Twins have a decent record of cutting bait on starting pitchers on one-year contracts (or in the last year of a multi-year deal).  Ramon Ortiz was sent to the pen quickly, then traded; Ponson and Marquis cut, Hernandez and Correia traded... I think the argument that the Twins should sign a short-term bounceback candidate is predicated on the idea the Twins can fairly quickly cut/trade/demote him if he's not providing value to the MLB club and a better alternative is ready.

[tobi0040]

Berrios is irrelevant if we are discussing a short-term (i.e. 1 year guaranteed) deals for 2015.  He K'd 6.2 per 9 at AA last year, and is almost certainly ticketed to begin 2015 there again.  If everything breaks right for him, he can get a September call-up regardless of our MLB rotation, although his pro career high is 140 IP.  Unless he misses time earlier in the year, my guess is Berrios doesn't pitch anywhere in September 2015.

 

Meyer's pro career high is only 130 IP.  I have no problem using him out of the pen until a spot opens up.

 

I posted this elsewhere recently, but the Twins have a decent record of cutting bait on starting pitchers on one-year contracts (or in the last year of a multi-year deal).  Ramon Ortiz was sent to the pen quickly, then traded; Ponson and Marquis cut, Hernandez and Correia traded... I think the argument that the Twins should sign a short-term bounceback candidate is predicated on the idea the Twins can fairly quickly cut/trade/demote him if he's not providing value to the MLB club and a better alternative is ready.

 

When the Twins had absolutely nothing at AAA in 2012 and 2013, they should have been signing the high upside guys on 1 year make good deals left and right. 

 

Right now you have three locks in the rotation (Hughes, Nolasco, and Gibson) and three other guys that need innings (Meyer, May, and Milone).  I am for giving these guys innings now over the 1 year thing.

Edited November 11, 2014 by tobi0040

[Mike Sixel]

Last in the AL (all non-CO MLB?) in SP.....and people want to stand pat. Unless they are calling up Meyer day 1, they better bring in some help.

[tobi0040]

Last in the AL (all non-CO MLB?) in SP.....and people want to stand pat. Unless they are calling up Meyer day 1, they better bring in some help.

 

We are not winning the world series in 2015.

 

My preference is either add a guy that is for sure better than the five we have (only four FA qualify for me)...or give innings to young players and let them develop.  

 

As far as I am concerned, the list presented are a bunch of guys with warts.  A one year deal for a guy that I would not want to exend even if they had a good year just is not the proper risk/reward.  Best case you flip them but they are taking innings from a potential future fixture in the process.

 

If Anderson or Masterson pitch a good 180 innigs for us next year, I don't want to see us hand out a 3-4 year extension north of $12M for a guy with the histories they have.

[James Richter]

Had Hughes stunk up the joint, would it have been a product of BAD luck? Is it ALWAYS a matter of luck, and if not, then who are "the ones" skilled at removing luck from the equation and "hitting" on the next Hughes?

The Pittsburgh Pirates.

 

The market collectively values these guys correctly - whether because of injury or inconsistency they can only safely be projected to be worth 0-2 WAR. These pitchers bet on themselves to have 1 or 2 good seasons and hit FA again while they're still not too old. The inefficiency is treating them all the same, when one or more of them might have a very correctable deficiency. Recent history suggests the Pirates are doing something right there.

 

What's with the love for Anderson?

1. He'll only be 27 next year - he could be as much a part of the future as Gibson.

2. Throughout his career, he's accumulated WAR at a rate of about 1 every 50 IP. He only needs to make 8-9 starts to be worth a 1/$8M deal.

3. A healthy Anderson would immediately become the Twins' 2nd best starter, a legit #2.

4. His career lows in GB% and K/9 would make him equivalent to a LH Gibson. That's his floor. 

5. His injuries the last 2 seasons have not been arm-related. Specifically, he missed about 3 months last season with a broken finger suffered on a HBP. Since he wouldn't be batting so much in the DH league, that one doesn't trouble me.

 

Hell, let's sign him for 2-3 years.

[Riverbrian]

Pitchers spend time on the DL. We used be constantly searching for arms.

 

Would love to see the Twins grab a Scherzer or Lester...I just don't think they will.

 

Therefore Masterson makes sense to me. Anderson doesn't stay healthy but he pitches pretty left handed good when he is.

 

I'd sign them both and hope for the best.

 

Let the pile of them compete for spots.

 

Hughes should be the only lock in my mind.

The other guys have stuff to prove and should be pushed to prove it.

Nolasco simply has to pitch better or be sunk cost.

Gibson needs to be more consistent.

Pelfrey has to show something.

Milone has to keep the team in games.

May needs to put it together.

Meyer needs to throw a MLB pitch.

 

I understand the logjam... I won't predict a starting 5... Just gather them and compete for jobs!!!

 

Let's not mess around.. The offense has pieces that could do something in 2015. Get some pitching and let's make 2015 better!!!

[Willihammer]

I think the argument that the Twins should sign a short-term bounceback candidate is predicated on the idea the Twins can fairly quickly cut/trade/demote him if he's not providing value to the MLB club and a better alternative is ready.

A risky assumption. Not everyone turns in a bifurcated outcome where they stink so badly that they can be cut quickly at minimal cost to the W-L record ("Minimal," if you ignore the ~6m price tag on FA wins), or, they bounceback totally a la Kazmir. A third possiblity, maybe the likeliest, is that they just kind of sputter along at mediocre-to-slightly below replacement level value for an extended time. Eg. Dan Haren, Time Linceum, and some of the other bounceback guys that were discussed last offseason.