Article: Who's The Next Phil Hughes?

[Mike Sixel]

1. Every team has contracts tied up in ST assets, it's how time works.

2. I'm not sure why trading for a 1 year guy is better than signing a 1 year guy. That seems 100% backward, unless you are going all in, or getting rid of a guy you don't want.

3. The Dodgers are not trading for Nolasco, not even to fee up money.

4. Brandon McCarthy, or trade for one of the Reds pitchers if you can get a deal worked out ahead of time.

5. Random other guy (assuming they won't go for one of the big 3/4) that wants a 1 year deal.

6. Big trade for a minor leaguer, but I just don't see it happening.

[jay]

2. I'm not sure why trading for a 1 year guy is better than signing a 1 year guy. That seems 100% backward, unless you are going all in, or getting rid of a guy you don't want.

 Agreed -- and the Twins are definitely not all-in.

 

3. The Dodgers are not trading for Nolasco, not even to fee up money.

 

Why not?  I rather like the idea of a Nolasco - Crawford swap for both teams.

[Willihammer]

When the Twins signed Hughes about a year ago, I liked the move quite a bit for three principal reasons:

 

1) He was young, with success in his past.

2) He had good peripherals.

3) He had been pitching under unfavorable circumstances.

Hypocrite warning, because I didn't like the signing at the time, but in retrospect a critical 4th reason that Hughes was a great signing was his good health. That doesn't apply to most of the players on your list.

 

One could say Nolasco was "good when healthy" in 2014. Would he be on this list if he weren't already under contract? What about Pelfrey?

[Mike Sixel]

Well, Pefrey hasn't been healthy for most of his career, so he fails your test.....

[James Richter]

Great list - the Twins should try to get somebody in this vein every single offseason, regardless of their projected rotation. If you hit on these guys, not only do they make the team better by pushing lesser options down the depth chart, they also provide future value, either because their contracts are so easy to trade or because you can pick up a sandwich pick by giving them a QO at the end of the deal. If they bust, you're only out $8M. The potential payoff is always going to be worth that minimal risk.

 

My favorites are Anderson and Masterson because of their ability to miss bats & extreme-GB tendencies. Any additions to the pool of starters should be geared toward minimizing opportunities for the OF to fail to make catches. Happily, Meyer fits into this category, too.

[tobi0040]

Great list - the Twins should try to get somebody in this vein every single offseason, regardless of their projected rotation. If you hit on these guys, not only do they make the team better by pushing lesser options down the depth chart, they also provide future value, either because their contracts are so easy to trade or because you can pick up a sandwich pick by giving them a QO at the end of the deal. If they bust, you're only out $8M. The potential payoff is always going to be worth that minimal risk.

 

My favorites are Anderson and Masterson because of their ability to miss bats & extreme-GB tendencies. Any additions to the pool of starters should be geared toward minimizing opportunities for the OF to fail to make catches. Happily, Meyer fits into this category, too.

 

I think the perception of these moves being low risk could be questioned.  In the case of Masterson or Anderson, I am guessing Anderson gets 7M and Masterson gets 10M.  If you do that every year you have potentially 8-12% of your payroll perpetually tied into guys that are nowhere near a sure thing.  When the going rate for Matt Garza/Ervin Santana is $11-14M a year, then I would rather pay a little extra. 

 

I see no difference in having one on a four year deal versus doing a one year deal four times with a different guy. 

[Willihammer]

Great list - the Twins should try to get somebody in this vein every single offseason, regardless of their projected rotation. If you hit on these guys, not only do they make the team better by pushing lesser options down the depth chart, they also provide future value, either because their contracts are so easy to trade or because you can pick up a sandwich pick by giving them a QO at the end of the deal. If they bust, you're only out $8M. The potential payoff is always going to be worth that minimal risk.

How often do these sort of players - pitchers, specifically, hit? Without knowing that, it seems hasty to say the Twins should be in on one of these contracts every year for ~$8m per.

 

If the hit rate is less than say, your average 4 yr/32m contract, maybe its better to just ink one of those every 4 years instead?

[Boom Boom]

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.

[h2oface]

I like Brett Anderson and Francisco Liriano.  Without the Gardenhire/Anderson duo around, Liriano should be just fine.  Maybe Liriano is not mentioned here because he will command too much money.  Josh Johnson is worth a try, too, although my expectations are not that high for 2015.  

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.

Phil Hughes really needs to put a second and third year like last year in the books before I can really say who is the next Phil Hughes, too.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Well, the Twins have been in the habit in the Terry Ryan era of picking up a FA starter or two each year, it's just that they've usually been low-upside veteran re-treads.

 

Pelfrey, Correia, Jason Marquis, Livan Hernandez, Sidney Ponson, Ramon Ortiz.

 

I think the guys on the list in the original post would be a better gamble. I liked the Rich Harden signing the Twins made a couple offseasons ago, if Harden was actually healthy, he would have really helped the Twins. He wasn't healthy, and as a result he didn't end up taking a roster spot away from any of the young guys.

 

When the possibility is that you'll get Phil Hughes or Scott Kazmir or AJ Burnett (Pirates version), that's so much better than taking a chance on a guys that have been mediocre to bad for several seasons (even when healthy).

 

If it's already decided that the Twins will not get one of the big three guys, they might as well sign one or two of these guys in case they can reclaim their former glory. If they don't make the team, they don't block anyone. If they do make the team, it's because they were good enough to beat out the competition. I think Meyer and May are going to get their shots in 2015 regardless of who the Twins add.

 

Hughes will be in the rotation, Gibson is reasonably set in place and everyone else will have to perform to stay - that's my gut feeling anyway. Nolasco, Pelfrey, Milone will be fighting for the 4/5 spot. I think May will get to start the season somewhere between 3, 4, and 5; Meyer should be the first guy up to take the spot from the injured and/or ineffective guy. We all know there will be one or more...

 

If one of these FA starters makes the team, it only raises the stakes for Nolasco, Pelf, and Milone to try to claim what is left to them. I'd much rather have those three fighting for the 5th spot with a decent 1,2,3, 4 of Free agent, Hughes, May and Gibson.

 

Having real depth in the rotation for the first time in a long time would be a nice change of pace.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I like Brett Anderson and Francisco Liriano.  Without the Gardenhire/Anderson duo around, Liriano should be just fine.  Maybe Liriano is not mentioned here because he will command too much money.  Josh Johnson is worth a try, too, although my expectations are not that high for 2015.  

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

 

The rumors so far put Liriano in the 3 year / 40MM or more territory. It's a bit more than what the Twins gave to Hughes, but less than what they gave to Nolasco. It seems like a bargain to me, but I tend to think Liriano is better than others rate him. 

[dxpavelka]

If there's already "some congestion in the rotation," why does it make sense to bring in a pitchers from this list, but not one from the expensive list?

 

Money aside, It would seem if there's room for Masterson, there's room for Lester.

More often than not, teams  that sign pitchers to contracts longer than 3 or 4 years, regret those contracts on the back end, regardless of  the dollar amount of the contract.  See Santana, Johan, New York Mets.

[Steven Buhr]

Anderson is my preference among the players on that list, primarily because I see him coming cheaper than Masterson and he's a lefty, which the Twins rotation could certainly use. But I'm also in the camp of seeing little value in signing any of them strictly to a 1-year deal. Now, if you can get a reasonable 2nd year team option that rewards the pitcher if he does bounce back well, yet stays affordable for the team to retain (and increases the pitcher's trade value), I'm significantly more interested.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Oh, and don't forget that signing Liriano means losing a draft pick (the Twins' first round pick is protected, so for the Twins it would be a 2nd rounder). That added cost would be the sticking point for most folks.

[toosweet64]

"I like Brett Anderson and Francisco Liriano.  Without the Gardenhire/Anderson duo around, Liriano should be just fine.  Maybe Liriano is not mentioned here because he will command too much money."

 

Liriano isn't mentioned because he will cost the Twins a draft pick. And he'll be too expensive. 

[h2oface]

The rumors so far put Liriano in the 3 year / 40MM or more territory. It's a bit more than what the Twins gave to Hughes, but less than what they gave to Nolasco. It seems like a bargain to me, but I tend to think Liriano is better than others rate him. 

Draft picks, to me, are so overrated.  Levi Michael is a first round pick.  3 years of the mature Liriano is well worth giving up the possibility of the next 2nd round draft pick ever making it to the show.  

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

that would be my thought as well - I'd rather have a player that is likely going to be good this year and next year than taking a chance on a guy that might be 3-4 years away, if they make it at all.

[DJL44]

Not only is it a 2nd rounder but the compensation round happens in between. The pick is around #55. The average WAR from a pick that low is less than 2 WAR (or $10M if you prefer). If you can get a guy you like for the price you want it is definitely worth forfeiting the pick.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/how-much-is-a-draft-pick-worth-in-2014/

[tobi0040]

Not only is it a 2nd rounder but the compensation round happens in between. The pick is around #55. The average WAR from a pick that low is less than 2 WAR (or $10M if you prefer). If you can get a guy you like for the price you want it is definitely worth forfeiting the pick.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/how-much-is-a-draft-pick-worth-in-2014/

 

If my memory serves me correctly, I think Burdi was our 2nd rounder at 46 overall last year.  Should be back a few this year....

 

It is tough, if you go back 15 years or so the Twins have a poor record in the second round.  I was ready to hand over that pick for Stephen Drew last year, but we would have missed on Burdi and that may turn out to be a huge mistake.  Or he could get hurt of fizzle out. 

[nicksaviking]

How often do these sort of players - pitchers, specifically, hit? Without knowing that, it seems hasty to say the Twins should be in on one of these contracts every year for ~$8m per.

 

If the hit rate is less than say, your average 4 yr/32m contract, maybe its better to just ink one of those every 4 years instead?

 

So far it's looking like the Twins are batting 0-1 with those.

 

Looks like I'm in the minority, but I love the list.  Those are exactly the kinds of guys I'm interested in, I love playing the pitcher lottory even if the odds are stacked.  Last I did the math, the three big named pitchers have something like 2 million innings pitched on their arms (though my math could be slightly off).  I wouldn't want a single one of them for more than a few years and you'll be getting them for at least a half decade.  The only pitcher worth a long term deal is a young pitcher and you generally only get those in-house.  So get these upisde types, hope they come through for you this year and either flip them or cross the QO/extension bridge next offseason.

 

Ryan has shown the willingness to eat the contract of a player on a one year deal.  No way will he do it for a guy on a 3-4 year deal. 

[nicksaviking]

Draft picks, to me, are so overrated.  Levi Michael is a first round pick.  3 years of the mature Liriano is well worth giving up the possibility of the next 2nd round draft pick ever making it to the show.  

 

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.

[Willihammer]

So far it's looking like the Twins are batting 0-1 with those.

 

Looks like I'm in the minority, but I love the list.  Those are exactly the kinds of guys I'm interested in, I love playing the pitcher lottory even if the odds are stacked.  Last I did the math, the three big named pitchers have something like 2 million innings pitched on their arms (though my math could be slightly off).  I wouldn't want a single one of them for more than a few years and you'll be getting them for at least a half decade.  The only pitcher worth a long term deal is a young pitcher and you generally only get those in-house.  So get these upisde types, hope they come through for you this year and either flip them or cross the QO/extension bridge next offseason.

 

Ryan has shown the willingness to eat the contract of a player on a one year deal.  No way will he do it for a guy on a 3-4 year deal.

4/32 was an example based on the $8m annual figure put forth to be spent on 1 year lotto picks.

 

People get carried away with the bifurcated outcomes. I don't have hard data but the instances of players given 1 year bounceback contracts - starting pitchers coming off injury in particular, who turn in QO-level seasons seem to be very few and far between. Fewer and farther between than the healther, more productive pitchers who earn similar AAV's with longer term commitments, or that would be my guess. 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.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Willihammer

[Otto von Ballpark]

I am totally against the high upside, 1 year make good contract.  I don't think it makes any sense for where the Twins are as a franchise.

 

Two things will happen, I think neither is really a good thing for us:

You are leaving off some options, notably:

 

3) The player performs well enough in his 1 year deal to be worth a qualifying offer next winter, either giving the Twins an extra draft pick if he signs elsewhere (and could have the domino effect of helping us to trade a competitive balance pick), or a good pitcher on a one-year deal if he accepts the QO.

[Otto von Ballpark]

How often do these sort of players - pitchers, specifically, hit? Without knowing that, it seems hasty to say the Twins should be in on one of these contracts every year for ~$8m per.

 

If the hit rate is less than say, your average 4 yr/32m contract, maybe its better to just ink one of those every 4 years instead?

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.

 

I certainly wouldn't mandate a 1/8 bounceback contract every winter, but if you are not going to be a big FA spender, I see nothing wrong with some aggressiveness in that range.  (And some bounceback guys come even cheaper than 1/8 -- Liriano was 2/12, Kazmir 1/1 or something.)

[tobi0040]

You are leaving off some options, notably:

 

3) The player performs well enough in his 1 year deal to be worth a qualifying offer next winter, either giving the Twins an extra draft pick if he signs elsewhere (and could have the domino effect of helping us to trade a competitive balance pick), or a good pitcher on a one-year deal if he accepts the QO.

 

That is a fair point and a beneficial outcome.  I still think Ervin Santana is the best choice in free agency.  He will likely be one of our two best pitchers next year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It was reported last winter that Masterson proposed some pretty reasonable extension deals that the Indians rejected -- 2/35 and 3/51 were the two I saw.  Obviously even if he rebounds, his 2014 and older age could discount him further from those numbers, but he seems willing to forgo maximizing his earnings on the FA market in return for some security (like Hughes did?).

[ALessKosherScott]

Brett Anderson would be a great choice if Rick Anderson were still the pitching coach. He has that Hughesian trait of having good but not great command and decent stuff. But since Rick isn't the pitching coach, I'm not quite sure how it will play out. It will be interesting to see what the new philosophy on pitching the organization takes.

 

Depending on the price tag, I'd take a shot at any of them though. In a worst case scenario, any of them could be a cromulent reliever even if the starting thing doesn't work out.

Edited November 10, 2014 by ALessKosherScott

[Willihammer]

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

 

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?

[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.

 

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?

Having too many bounceback candidates in our rotation is part of the reason we may want to add another -- the odds are low that they all return to form, so adding another is a cheap way to mitigate some of that risk.

 

Also, some of the guys in this list actually have much higher upsides than our internal bounceback candidates.  If we are hoping for a top of the rotation partner for Hughes (or replacement for Hughes if he regresses), it's probably not coming from inside the organization in 2015.

 

(I will say that this list is probably stretching the definition of "bounceback candidate" -- Villanueva?  Morales?  What exactly would they be bouncing back to?)

 

Pelfrey himself may not make such a list -- not only has he been injured or bad for 3 seasons now, he also had pretty mediocre peripherals before that too.  Not saying he wouldn't be signed, but he couldn't realistically be view as having "next Phil Hughes" upside, if that's what we're looking for.  Nolasco would be a better fit for that, but even he seems to have a pretty modest upside.

[ALessKosherScott]

\

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?

 

Pelfrey, no, he never struck out enough people. Nolasco, maybe. Though his bounce back ceiling is more #3 starter than #2.

 

The question seems to be more how do you find someone who could potentially top the rotation with Hughes if everything breaks right.