Hughes's fastball is under 90 and his other pitches yield a .380 BAA. He has been pitching in the majors for 10 years and his arm is dead. The $30M left to spend on him is lost whether he pitches for the team or not. 

 

If the Twins cut Hughes and lose his negative WAR and sign a rookie with a zero war, they are spending essentially the same amount and improving the team WAR. Do it.

 

Hughes's fastball is under 90 and his other pitches yield a .380 BAA. He has been pitching in the majors for 10 years and his arm is dead. The $30M left to spend on him is lost whether he pitches for the team or not. 

 

If the Twins cut Hughes and lose his negative WAR and sign a rookie with a zero war, they are spending essentially the same amount and improving the team WAR. Do it.

 

Agreed. People will say "they won't eat that money"....but they aren't eating that money. If they bring up a rookie, they are increasing payroll by 400K give or take. Is it better to spend an extra 400K, and have a potentially better player (or be able to cycle thru guys with options, giving team flexibility with their RP roster), or to keep Hughes and, um, not be good most likely?

Yep. And I think the "maybe he'll recoup some value in the bullpen" theory can be eliminated after this season too. His velocity is still the same whether he's throwing 85 pitches or 10 pitches. Sadly the arm is dead. 

I get that they're giving him every opportunity to show that he can come back, but I don't see it. I agree with the above posters. Whenever the front office is fully convinced that he can be replaced, or that there's no value there, you give him the Nick Blackburn treatment. That money's gone whether we get anything of value out of him or not.

 

Another thing to think about is the 40-man and 25-man situation. Obviously, not having Hughes on the major league roster gives us another opportunity to have a guy like Busenitz or Curtiss come up and show us what they can do. Similarly, but with a slightly longer view, there are a lot of good young players who will need to be protected this offseason, and even some of the fringier guys (Dereck Rodriguez? Kohl Stewart?) who may not ever make it, I still don't see the wisdom in having a guy like Phil Hughes block them. He is what he is. Who knows what some of those guys will be? 

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

 

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.

 

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.

 

I guess I wouldn't be that surprised if it took that long, and I think that's how most major league front offices would prefer to operate. But I disagree with "little to lose" before next spring training. If you keep him all offseason, you block up a 40-man spot. The thing you might lose is a prospect.

I agree with others, time for him to go, he offers nothing to this team in the short term or long term.

 

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.

 

Other than a roster spot that can't be used to send players back and forth from the minors, and the opportunity to see if those guys can get MLB out or not......and more runs to give up (potentially). All on the minuscule chance he's ever good again.

 

Making hard roster decisions about veterans is how bad (or meh) teams get good. Keeping bad veterans around is how you extend rebuilds.

 

I'd be surprised if he's gassed before next spring training.

He can be a long man or dl. It's a tough surgery to recover from. They have little to lose from keeping him the rest of the season.

 

We would all be surprised if he is cut. This doesn't mean not cutting him is the right answer.

 

You say they have "Little to lose" by keeping him. If we are going to use utilitarian value judgments to make the decision, they have little to gain by keeping him. The $ spent is the same if he goes or stays, so that's not a factor. The only factor is on-field performance. If it's a "long recovery" and he won't pitch well again for another 12 months, that's nearly half of his remaining contract. Cut him.

Edited July 17, 20179 yr by Doomtints

 

Hughes's fastball is under 90 and his other pitches yield a .380 BAA. He has been pitching in the majors for 10 years and his arm is dead. The $30M left to spend on him is lost whether he pitches for the team or not. 

 

If the Twins cut Hughes and lose his negative WAR and sign a rookie with a zero war, they are spending essentially the same amount and improving the team WAR. Do it.

 

He's signed for 2-1/2 more years correct?

 

He's signed for 2-1/2 more years correct?

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/minnesota-twins/phil-hughes-585/

 

He's signed thru the 2019 season, correct

 

another 2 years to soak up a roster spot?

 

Though a rookie would cost more like 1.4 mil, it's still nothing. I have no confidence he can recover.

Edited July 17, 20179 yr by Sconnie

The Twins have some pretty marginal players on the 40 man roster so I am not sure that should be the reason to outright cut him. I am interested in what he can do in year 2 of his recovery and wouldn't cut him until I have seen him throw next spring (at least).

 

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/minnesota-twins/phil-hughes-585/

 

He's signed thru the 2019 season, correct

 

another 2 years to soak up a roster spot?

 

Though a rookie would cost more like 1.4 mil, it's still nothing. I have no confidence he can recover.

 

Hughes and Perkins.  At what point does the front office make a decision about both these guys?  Obviously Perkins is a lot less painful with 6.5 million left in his deal next season, but Hughes is going to cost them 26 million over the next 2.5 years.  I can't imagine the Twins will cut these two loose when they can put them on the DL and claim the insurance money.

 

Hughes and Perkins.  At what point does the front office make a decision about both these guys?  Obviously Perkins is a lot less painful with 6.5 million left in his deal next season, but Hughes is going to cost them 26 million over the next 2.5 years.  I can't imagine the Twins will cut these two loose when they can put them on the DL and claim the insurance money.

Perkins has an option so he is history after this season although he could be brought back on a minimum contract or a NRI if he wanted to keep trying. I think I saw an article where he questioned his desire to keep rehabbing though.

Hughes is tougher though with a substantial amount of money owed and a significantly shorter length of time since major surgery.

Edited July 17, 20179 yr by kab21

 

Hughes and Perkins.  At what point does the front office make a decision about both these guys?  Obviously Perkins is a lot less painful with 6.5 million left in his deal next season, but Hughes is going to cost them 26 million over the next 2.5 years.  I can't imagine the Twins will cut these two loose when they can put them on the DL and claim the insurance money.

 

Luckily in regards to Perkins, he has a club option next year that the team will decline no doubt. 

Eating $26 MM is a tough pill to swallow for a team like the Twins. His performance over the last couple of years certainly doesn't justify the pay he's getting. Hopefully they make the right call, because IMO, he's toast. 

 

Luckily in regards to Perkins, he has a club option next year that the team will decline no doubt. 

Eating $26 MM is a tough pill to swallow for a team like the Twins. His performance over the last couple of years certainly doesn't justify the pay he's getting. Hopefully they make the right call, because IMO, he's toast. 

Perkins has a $700k buy out option for 2018 - that will no doubt be exercised.

 

One could also lump Gibson in this pile - while he's not injured, he's been ineffective, with up to 3 spots in the rotation potentially open at the end of the season, it would be a devil you know, vs devil you don't situation. Gibson will be out of options and no longer arbitration eligible, he might be had cheaply.

 

I hope he's had cheaply elsewhere

 

We would all be surprised if he is cut. This doesn't mean not cutting him is the right answer.

 

You say they have "Little to lose" by keeping him. If we are going to use utilitarian value judgments to make the decision, they have little to gain by keeping him. The $ spent is the same if he goes or stays, so that's not a factor. The only factor is on-field performance. If it's a "long recovery" and he won't pitch well again for another 12 months, that's nearly half of his remaining contract. Cut him.

 

There is a chance he has something left by next spring training. He's already locked into a contract. 40 man issues are very minimal. Not much to lose.

 

Other than a roster spot that can't be used to send players back and forth from the minors, and the opportunity to see if those guys can get MLB out or not......and more runs to give up (potentially). All on the minuscule chance he's ever good again.

 

Making hard roster decisions about veterans is how bad (or meh) teams get good. Keeping bad veterans around is how you extend rebuilds.

 

He's not blocking anyone. If not him, they'd have some other marginal 40 guy there as the long man. I don't think any of these concerns apply in this case.

 

The Twins have some pretty marginal players on the 40 man roster so I am not sure that should be the reason to outright cut him. I am interested in what he can do in year 2 of his recovery and wouldn't cut him until I have seen him throw next spring (at least).

 

The Twins can DFA him now and still invite him to spring training next year. He'll be around. I believe DFA rules would mean the Twins would have to cover (most of) the salary this year if someone picks him up, but not in additional years. This means no one will pick him up.

 

2017 can be the year that teams jettison terrible players. Boston cut Sandoval with $50M left on the deal. Hughes and Sandoval are roughly equally bad, the difference being that Sandoval was incredible in the playoffs.

Edited July 17, 20179 yr by Doomtints

 

He's not blocking anyone. If not him, they'd have some other marginal 40 guy there as the long man. I don't think any of these concerns apply in this case.

 

He's blocking them from upgrading from either inside or outside teh org next year. If you keep him, you are keeping him and less likely to add from outside the org.

 

and if you are going to cut him in teh off season, cut him now, imo. M

Edited July 17, 20179 yr by Mike Sixel

 

The Twins can DFA him now and still invite him to spring training next year. He'll be around. I believe DFA rules would mean the Twins would have to cover (most of) the salary this year if someone picks him up, but not in additional years. This means no one will pick him up.

 

2017 can be the year that teams jettison terrible players. Boston cut Sandoval with $50M left on the deal. Hughes and Sandoval are roughly equally bad, the difference being that Sandoval was incredible in the playoffs.

Nobody would claim him on waivers but somebody might pick him up since that team would only have to pay the MLB minimum and the Twins pay the remainder of his salary. 

The only reason to DFA him is to keep the likes of Belisle, Murphy, Haley, Gee or a few others on the 40 man roster. Hughes looks bad but he still has more of a future than that crew.

 

He's blocking them from upgrading from either inside or outside teh org next year. If you keep him, you are keeping him and less likely to add from outside the org.

 

and if you are going to cut him in teh off season, cut him now, imo. M

 

I don't think the front office would be that irresponsible, to consider a hanging on by a thread Hughes as being sufficient enough reason to pass on other upgrades. But I could be wrong.

 

I don't think the front office would be that irresponsible, to consider a hanging on by a thread Hughes as being sufficient enough reason to pass on other upgrades. But I could be wrong.

 

if he's on the roster, he's on the roster. And if he's on the roster, you aren't replacing him. so, I'm not sure which side you are on, now.

No reason to act now. His 40 man spot would be nice to have come this offseason.

Having Hughes up means Busentiz is not.

Paying Hughes not to pitch or paying him to pitch at the expense of this year and the future because others are not getting experience doesn't seem like much of a decision to me.

Maybe somebody could drop a bat on his foot breaking a toe nail and we could put him on the 60 DL, and give him one more chance next spring. (that is the best option in my opinion)

 

 

if he's on the roster, he's on the roster. And if he's on the roster, you aren't replacing him. so, I'm not sure which side you are on, now.

 

I'm on for keeping him, seeing if he improves in the offseason, but having a realistic backup plan if he is still barely touching 90. If he is better the team might have some actual pitching depth to sort through. For example, if Hughes is good, they could start someone like Mejia in AAA at the beginning of next year.

 

If he's still bad, then probably time to let him go.

 

Gassing him now is premature.

 

Having Hughes up means Busentiz is not.

Paying Hughes not to pitch or paying him to pitch at the expense of this year and the future because others are not getting experience doesn't seem like much of a decision to me.

Maybe somebody could drop a bat on his foot breaking a toe nail and we could put him on the 60 DL, and give him one more chance next spring. (that is the best option in my opinion)

 

I suspect that he'll end up on the dl soon enough if he can't recapture his stuff. They don't need the 40 man spot right now.

 

I'm on for keeping him, seeing if he improves in the offseason, but having a realistic backup plan if he is still barely touching 90. If he is better the team might have some actual pitching depth to sort through. For example, if Hughes is good, they could start someone like Mejia in AAA at the beginning of next year.

 

If he's still bad, then probably time to let him go.

 

Gassing him now is premature.

 

if you wait for to see how the off season goes, you aren't actively replacing him in the off season, even if he's bad the rest of this year?

 

I can almost see keeping him this year, almost. but if he's bad, if you keep him, you aren't signing/trading to replace him.

 

if you wait for to see how the off season goes, you aren't actively replacing him in the off season, even if he's bad the rest of this year?

 

I can almost see keeping him this year, almost. but if he's bad, if you keep him, you aren't signing/trading to replace him.

 

I don't understand this way of thinking. He doesn't even really have a role right now, not sure what you would be preventing from replacing. Keep him on the roster, see if he's back healthy, and if he is you can find a spot. If a not, DFA him.

Hughes to the DL, Romero to the 40 and pen in 2 weeks.