Article: Twins Extend Phil Hughes

[TheLeviathan]

Count me as someone who believes Dozier's second half numbers are cause for concern.  Dozier's method of contributions are very erratic and I am uneasy investing heavily in that sort of player.  I still need to see more from him before I want an extension.

[tobi0040]

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Count me as someone who believes Dozier's second half numbers are cause for concern. Dozier's method of contributions are very erratic and I am uneasy investing heavily in that sort of player. I still need to see more from him before I want an extension.

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.

[tobi0040]

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). 

Edited December 24, 2014 by tobi0040

[Brock Beauchamp]

Oh, I'm not against an extension myself - though I'm not in a big rush to get it done either - but I can understand why some might have concern about a longterm extension to Dozier. Personally, I think he's done enough to prove that he's above average. Don't know if he's a great player but certainly above average.

[beckmt]

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.

[TheLeviathan]

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.

Strictly using OPS seems a tad silly does it not? One month it's a high BABIP, one month he's handing out HR souvenirs, the next month it's something else. The guys profile offensively is schizo, which in my eyes, makes sustainability more questionable.

 

Was his second half OPS similar...sure. But it ignores an August BABIP that was 100 points higher than his usual one that drove that OPS when the power sapped. I'd suggest this heavy-handed, one stat analysis is a pretty disengenuous way to argue for an extension. Dozier is a good player we have several years of team control through his peak years and you combine that with his erratic offensive contributions and, IMO, you are taking a wildly unnecessary risk to extend him.

Edited December 25, 2014 by TheLeviathan

[Paul Pleiss]

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Strictly using OPS seems a tad silly does it not? One month it's a high BABIP, one month he's handing out HR souvenirs, the next month it's something else. The guys profile offensively is schizo, which in my eyes, makes sustainability more questionable.

 

Was his second half OPS similar...sure. But it ignores an August BABIP that was 100 points higher than his usual one that drove that OPS when the power sapped. I'd suggest this heavy-handed, one stat analysis is a pretty disengenuous way to argue for an extension. Dozier is a good player we have several years of team control through his peak years and you combine that with his erratic offensive contributions and, IMO, you are taking a wildly unnecessary risk to extend him.

Good players - and even bad players - do that over the course of a season. I'm not using one stat to argue Dozier's merits... Far from it. I believe you're too dependent on a few stats instead of looking at him as an overall player.

 

Two things have remained constant with Dozier for the past ~800 PAs: he takes walks and hits for power, whether it is doubles or homers. He's good for 8-12 XBH most months.

 

Those are the markings of a good, though not great, player. I'm not really sure what you expect out of the guy. If he took a walk every 20+ PAs and was Plouffian with his power (14 XBH one month, 3 the next), I might understand more of your concern. That simply isn't the case. Yeah, his BABIP fluctuates from month to month... That's pretty common with most players.

 

Sure, his August BABIP skyrocketed... He also laced 12 doubles that month. Some of that was surely luck but some of it was probably due to him seeing the ball really well and lacing it (hard to hit double digit 2B in a month unless you're making solid contact). If his average jumped to .400 that month, you might have a point but he hit .280. The reason his BABIP was high is because he strikes out quite a bit and took an absurd 25 BB that month.

 

In Dozier, we have a guy who has spent 1 1/2 seasons hitting around .250 with an OBP of .320-.330. He's good for 8-12 XBHs a month. He has shown consistency in the ways that matter: power, average, walks, strikeouts. Sometimes those XBH are homers, sometimes they're doubles. Dozier isn't a big guy; why should we find that surprising?

 

If Dozier was more consistent, he'd be a great player, not a good one.

[TheLeviathan]

Calling out erratic contributions isn't diminishing him.   I'm more than a bit irritated with that constant scarecrow.  This isn't about whether or not we are going to start Brian Dozier or whether or not to trade him, this is about handing him a bunch of money outside of team control now before that issue has to be decided.  

 

But let's examine your points - in the last two years Dozier has played in 12 months.  In 7 of those 12 months he has had less than 10 XBHs in a month.  His BABIP is actually relatively steady but for that fluke month in August that throws off your 2nd half vs. 1st half OPS comparison significantly.

 

Lots of fine players are bad long-term investments, that doesn't make them bad players.  Just makes them risky investments.  We have ZERO reason to take any risks on Dozier, so why do it?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've said multiple times that I'm in no rush to extend Dozier. I'm mostly neutral on the subject. There's a risk to overpay a guy who might decline but there's a good chance you'll underpay a .750 OPS guy through his prime seasons. It's a risk but not necessarily a bad one.

[TheLeviathan]

I've said multiple times that I'm in no rush to extend Dozier. I'm mostly neutral on the subject. There's a risk to overpay a guy who might decline but there's a good chance you'll underpay a .750 OPS guy through his prime seasons. It's a risk but not necessarily a bad one.

 

I would argue that there is not a "good chance" of that at all for precisely the reasons laid out.  The Hughes extension made total sense because in the best case scenario you save tens of millions on a pitcher and worst case scenario you paid him roughly market value if he becomes average.  He'd have to have a career ending injury for it to be bad.

 

Dozier?  Arbitration and team control protect you from the worst case scenario and you risk getting rid of that protection in the name of buying out years when he is 33 and 34 years old for the benefit of saving a few million.  That's a terrible guiding principle for extensions and I sincerely hope the Twins realize that.

[DaveW]

I would argue that there is not a "good chance" of that at all for precisely the reasons laid out. The Hughes extension made total sense because in the best case scenario you save tens of millions on a pitcher and worst case scenario you paid him roughly market value if he becomes average. He'd have to have a career ending injury for it to be bad.

 

Dozier? Arbitration and team control protect you from the worst case scenario and you risk getting rid of that protection in the name of buying out years when he is 33 and 34 years old for the benefit of saving a few million. That's a terrible guiding principle for extensions and I sincerely hope the Twins realize that.

The benefit of paying him in advance for his age 33 year is you don't have to give him a muti year deal after his age 32 year deal(I assume that's when he hits FA)? Taking a little risk in his 33 and 34 year is better than having to shell out a 4 or so year deal at FA for more money covering his 35/36/37 etx years as well. Dozier plays a premium position and at worst will still be above average at said premium position, he also has the op to be good at said position (a notch or so below all star level) those are the players you lock up IMHO. Edited December 26, 2014 by SpiritofVodkaDave

[Brock Beauchamp]

The benefit of paying him in advance for his age 33 year is you don't have to give him a muti year deal after his age 32 year deal(I assume that's when he hits FA)? Taking a little risk in his 33 and 34 year is better than having to shell out a 4 or so year deal at FA for more money covering his 35/36/37 etx years as well

I'd hope the Twins have better options by that point, honestly. I don't think Dozier is the type of guy who will age well into his 30s - a personal opinion, nothing more - but hey, he might be a Michael Cuddyer type. Time will tell.

 

I think Dozier is the type of guy you're excited to have on the team for 4-5 years. It would be my hope that any extension granted him would be used as trade bait as he crossed his age 30 season. If you can get him for ~$8m/year through his arb seasons plus one, that's not an awful risk, IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

The benefit of paying him in advance for his age 33 year is you don't have to give him a muti year deal after his age 32 year deal

 

I'm confused why you would have to do that?  

[jorgenswest]

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.

[USAFChief]

Reading this thread should make us all a little less certain of ourselves...I found one poster who expressed some doubt about the Hughes extension. One.

[ashbury]

Reading this thread should make us all a little less certain of ourselves...I found one poster who expressed some doubt about the Hughes extension. One.

My memory of my own reaction to the news:

 

 

What I found instead as my contribution in this thread:

 

[Riverbrian]

 

Reading this thread should make us all a little less certain of ourselves...I found one poster who expressed some doubt about the Hughes extension. One.

 

I did not comment in the thread.

 

Phew

 

I'm free to be certain of myself. 

[USAFChief]

I did not comment in the thread.

 

Phew

 

I'm free to be certain of myself. 

Me too.

 

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

[ewen21]

 

Me too.

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

I hated the Perkins extension

[ThejacKmp]

I didn't reply on this but I thought the Hughes extension was a good idea then and I don't feel differently now. Sometimes the thought process is okay but it doesn't work out. We can't be results driven.

 

First point: Phil Hughes has not been the reason the Twins have not been great. His salary hasn't been so onerous that the team was screwed and its not like ownership would've spent that money on some ace pitcher. 

 

Secondly, at the time it made sense. Phil Hughes looked like a potential ace pitcher. The Twins had no reasonable internal ace pitchers in the high minors. They weren't a team that was going to spend huge money on the elite free agent (and as we saw with Darvish, even being willing to do that doesn't get you results if you're in an smaller market). So your choices were to find the next Arietta (easier said than done) or take a reasonable gamble that Phil Hughes had turned a corner.

 

I'm not going to fault them for a reasonable gamble on locking up an ace for five years for very little money. Hughes didn't have huge injury risk written on him, he had a good pedigree, he had plus stuff, he had success as a reliever and a starter (at the time I argued that even if he turned out to not be a great starter, he was still an elite reliever). Yeah you ripped up a great deal and made a longer, less advantageous deal but the money wasn't that crazy and the upside was both unique and real.

 

Sometimes bad things happen but that doesn't mean the process was wrong.

[Riverbrian]

 

Me too.

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

 

I know... You always hate it when the team spends money. 

[Riverbrian]

 

I didn't reply on this but I thought the Hughes extension was a good idea then and I don't feel differently now. Sometimes the thought process is okay but it doesn't work out. We can't be results driven.

 

 

 

I love this paragraph. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Reading this thread should make us all a little less certain of ourselves...I found one poster who expressed some doubt about the Hughes extension. One.

Definitely. IIRC, I wasn't super excited about the extension but generally liked it.

 

I was super excited at the original signing.

[Rosterman]

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!?!

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

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

Uh... Dozier. A guy they already had under control so that makes it less amazing.

 

So... Santana, maybe? But that's more of a "very good" contract than a "great" contract.

[TheLeviathan]

Any time you commit money to a player for a long term you are taking on a ton of risk.  

 

I still agree with the thinking at the time and that is ultimately what matters.  Outcomes long-term don't always work out the way we'd want them too, but hindsight shouldn't have that much control over our thinking.

 

And we'd all personally look like fools.  Between Hughes' extension, people demanding a trade for Troy Tulowitski, and how many of us were keen on giving up Berrios for win-now guys....none of us would be safe.

[yarnivek1972]

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.

[jud6312]

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