Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • What To Do With Phil Hughes?


    Nick Nelson

    One of the trends that I was most interested in following during spring training was the velocity readings from Phil Hughes. His drop-off in average fastball speed last year – down about 1.5 MPH from the previous season – was symptomatic of an overall reduction in effectiveness that turned him from the rotation's best contributor in 2014 to its worst in 2015.

    Unfortunately, this year Hughes is continuing to slide the wrong way in just about every regard. And that's an extremely disturbing development, given that he is under contract longer than any other player on the team.

    Image courtesy of Rick Osentoski, USA Today

    Twins Video

    On Tuesday night, Hughes was gritty. It was an admirable outing, without question. One day after the worst start that the Twins have seen in many years, he took the ball and gave a hell of an effort, weaving his way through six shutout innings without having much bite on any of his pitches. The veteran hurler was crafty enough to cruise through the lineup twice but warned his manager before the seventh that he was running out of gas. At this point, he hadn't thrown 70 pitches.

    This is the most pronounced and clear-cut example of something that's been noticeable for some time: for whatever reason, the right-hander's arm strength is deteriorating. He admitted to shoulder fatigue after Tuesday's game, and this isn't a particularly new development. It's a situation that needs to be monitored and handled very carefully, given how deeply the Twins have invested in him.

    Terry Ryan went all-in on Hughes following a fantastic debut in Minnesota, signing the former Yankee to a three-year extension despite the fact that two seasons remained on his original deal. It was an odd move but was reflective of the sheer excellence Hughes displayed in 2014, when he pitched like a legitimate ace, and the dire need for any kind of sustained reliability in the starting corps.

    The favorable terms of Hughes' deal made it palatable to even those who felt he was very unlikely to repeat his sterling results from that first season with the Twins. His average annual salary in the reconfigured contract was less than $12 million, which is roughly the going rate for an average mid-rotation starter in free agency. With his pinpoint command and his history of missing bats at a reasonable clip, he seemed like almost a sure bet to at least maintain at that level, even if his historically incredible strikeout-to-walk ratio was bound to normalize a bit.

    The other point of reassurance in the Hughes extension was his age. Still amidst his theoretical prime, the righty would still be 33 at the end of his renewed pact. That's the same age that fellow free agent signings Ervin Santana and Ricky Nolasco are now.

    Yet, Hughes' arm is exhibiting the signs you might expect to see from someone that age. His velocity continues to decline – the fastball is now clocking at 90.4 MPH on average after registering last year at a career-low 90.7 MPH. He told reporters that his fatigue issue dates back about four starts but a glance at the chart below from Brooks Baseball shows a downward pitch speed trend dating back much, much further – basically to the start of his Twins tenure.

    http://s32.postimg.org/b6gbe7kzp/2016_05_17_2220.png

    Unsurprisingly, this drop has coincided with worsening results. To his credit, Hughes has been holding his own, owing almost entirely to his truly elite control, but now even that isn't getting him by. On a night where he finally managed to get outs (albeit several hard-hit ones), he couldn't get through 80 pitches.

    Sticking with the status quo doesn't seem to be an option here. Hughes is going to be here through 2019 and his long-term outlook is the foremost concern. If he's going through a dead arm period it's been gradually building up for quite a long time, and that doesn't seem to be a great sign. Given the growing irrelevance of this season, it might be wisest to shut him down for a while.

    The hits keep on coming.

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

     

    I endorsed the move, but I'm not sure why I did.......Normally I'd want them to wait until there was 1 year left, but like the post above states, there were reasons to like the deal.

     

    As for now?

     

    He either needs to be shut down, and see a doctor, or needs to move to the bullpen. You can't have a SP that has shoulder fatigue after 70 pitches. It's not good for the team, and more importantly, not good for him as a person.

     

    Yeah. Issue with waiting til 1 year left is you'd pay a TON more if he had repeated it. It was a gamble and it hasn't paid off.

     

    It's a hard situation. If you move him to the pen, he's unlikely to get back to starting this year since he won't have a chance to push himself for it. That said, maybe next spring is the best time for him. I personally think that he should hit the DL for two weeks sometime soon. After two weeks, give him a start or two to see if it helped and then it's time to think about the pen for this year.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Who cares if he was in the bigs for 8 years or 3? He was 28, an age when baseball players frequently hit their prime. If there’s ever a good time to sign a pitcher to a five year deal, that’s it.

     

    You don't make an awful point about the larger picture but you're losing the context because you're all hindsight-focused. Phil Hughes was an elite prospect who had trouble putting it all together (much like Jake Arrieta). 

     

    You don't see a difference in a player that has been mediocre to bad for 8 years vs one that has been mediocre to bad for 3?

     

    I'm sorry, I had to stop reading this reply when you compared him to Arrieta. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    You don't see a difference in a player that has been mediocre to bad for 8 years vs one that has been mediocre to bad for 3?

     

    I'm sorry, I had to stop reading this reply when you compared him to Arrieta. 

     

    Well you missed some solid gold!

     

    Never said he was Arrieta, just saying that they were in the same boat. Arrieta was a good prospect who consistently flamed out. Another team took a flier on him and it worked out. Not a crazy comparison - just a point that you sometimes find an ace in the rubbish bin.

     

    See Han Joleo above . . . he phrased it well!

    Edited by ThejacKmp
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I agree that they should shut him down. Might as well have him healthy next year. This is really the product of a much bigger problem though. The Twins seem to like to sign contracts with players after career years. Mauer, Suzuki, Hughes, and Dozier come to mind. That's just bad business. Hell, I avoid taking players in fantasy baseball after they have a career year. The Twins are not a team that can afford to overpay for players.

     

    Disagree on all of those being “paying for a career year”:

     

    Mauer: you had to sign Mauer. You built the stadium in large part because you argued that you couldn't keep Santana/Hunter because of the Dome. You can't get rid of Mauer even if you wanted to. He doesn’t fit the “paying for a career year” model, he fits the “paying the guy who got you a sweet stadium” model.

     

    Suzuki: I think the Twins looked at the free agent market for the next offseason, looked at what it would take to trade for a catcher and decided that Suzuki was as good as any other option. And I think they were right. Look at the free agent signings the past two years. If you weren't signing Russell Martin, you weren't getting anything better than Suzuki. I think they paid him a bit extra because they wanted continuity for pitchers.

     

    Hughes: They gambled he had turned a corner. They paid #4 starter money for a potential #1 starter. I liked that gamble, even if it has failed miserably.

     

    Dozier: That contract just bought out his arbitration. You can argue they should have done more or waited but it's hardly a crazy contract - they maintained some cost certainty and Dozier saved himself from getting hurt. On TD we mostly wanted the Twins to sign him longer - we seem to be wrong so far this year, not that we'll ever admit it!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My problem with the Hughes signing didn't happen in hindsight.  Didn't like it the very moment it happened.  2014 was a complete outlier season and it was as obvious then as it is now.  Same with Suzuki and getting a contract after his outlier season (or in his case, only half season).  In Hughes case, as a GM, you'd HAVE to see if 2014 was a wonderful fluke or whether or not he had actually had a sustainable turn in his career by waiting until after the 2015 season at least.

     

    I was fine with the Mauer and Dozier contracts.

     

    Mauer didn't really start not being worth the money until his concussion and he got seriously underpaid for what we got before he ever got a big contract.. 

     

    Dozier just had some arbitration years bought out as opposed to going year by year. No biggy.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Well you missed some solid gold!

     

    Never said he was Arrieta, just saying that they were in the same boat. Arrieta was a good prospect who consistently flamed out. Another team took a flier on him and it worked out. Not a crazy comparison - just a point that you sometimes find an ace in the rubbish bin.

     

    See Han Joleo above . . . he phrased it well!

     

    Arrieta had started something like 100 less games when the Cubs dealt for him than Hughes had at the point of this extension... What's the saying, "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... it just might be a duck"... 160+ MLB starts, only one season of which were above avg... 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    TR has a history of buying high on guys after 1 good season despite remaining yrs on their contracts and their suspect resumes....Doumitt, Hughes, Suzuki, Dozier. When your team is terrible and your farm system is strong these extensions are unnecessary IMO. I remember when Willingham had that big first season with the Twins that what they were asking for him was "laughable" as described by other GMs and he went on to be pretty crappy for his remaining tenure in MN. The organization just falls in love with some of these middle of the road vets and can't let go....

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Disagree on all of those being “paying for a career year”:

     

    Mauer: you had to sign Mauer. You built the stadium in large part because you argued that you couldn't keep Santana/Hunter because of the Dome. You can't get rid of Mauer even if you wanted to. He doesn’t fit the “paying for a career year” model, he fits the “paying the guy who got you a sweet stadium” model.

     

    Suzuki: I think the Twins looked at the free agent market for the next offseason, looked at what it would take to trade for a catcher and decided that Suzuki was as good as any other option. And I think they were right. Look at the free agent signings the past two years. If you weren't signing Russell Martin, you weren't getting anything better than Suzuki. I think they paid him a bit extra because they wanted continuity for pitchers.

     

    Hughes: They gambled he had turned a corner. They paid #4 starter money for a potential #1 starter. I liked that gamble, even if it has failed miserably.

     

    Dozier: That contract just bought out his arbitration. You can argue they should have done more or waited but it's hardly a crazy contract - they maintained some cost certainty and Dozier saved himself from getting hurt. On TD we mostly wanted the Twins to sign him longer - we seem to be wrong so far this year, not that we'll ever admit it!

     

    On Suzuki, have you looked at all the catchers that changed teams in the last two years, or just assumed no one better was available? Because, I think if you did, you'd find that plenty of catchers have changed teams in the last 2 off seasons that have been better than Suzuki. Not great, but better.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I mean, the article above literally laid out why the deal made sense at the time. Just because something doesn't work out doesn't make it a bad decision.

    It didn't make a whole lot of sense at the time. He was on a great contract from the Twins perspective, with 2 more years left. Unnecessarily paying someone after a career year generally isn't that great of a move.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Disagree on all of those being “paying for a career year”:

     

    Mauer: you had to sign Mauer. You built the stadium in large part because you argued that you couldn't keep Santana/Hunter because of the Dome. You can't get rid of Mauer even if you wanted to. He doesn’t fit the “paying for a career year” model, he fits the “paying the guy who got you a sweet stadium” model.

     

    Suzuki: I think the Twins looked at the free agent market for the next offseason, looked at what it would take to trade for a catcher and decided that Suzuki was as good as any other option. And I think they were right. Look at the free agent signings the past two years. If you weren't signing Russell Martin, you weren't getting anything better than Suzuki. I think they paid him a bit extra because they wanted continuity for pitchers.

     

    Hughes: They gambled he had turned a corner. They paid #4 starter money for a potential #1 starter. I liked that gamble, even if it has failed miserably.

     

    Dozier: That contract just bought out his arbitration. You can argue they should have done more or waited but it's hardly a crazy contract - they maintained some cost certainty and Dozier saved himself from getting hurt. On TD we mostly wanted the Twins to sign him longer - we seem to be wrong so far this year, not that we'll ever admit it!

    When you use quotation marks you need to be accurate. The entire argument you just made isn't even based on what I wrote. Which is basically, signing players after a career year is bad practice. I tried to use examples that showed the Twins doing that where it was not necessary. They could of waited on any of those contracts. Of course people could disagree with my premise. Perhaps Mauer and Dozier would of ended up with similar money anyways. It really doesn't matter though.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I mean, the article above literally laid out why the deal made sense at the time. Just because something doesn't work out doesn't make it a bad decision.

     

    No, Nick is just wrong about this. It is a bad baseball decision to extend a player (especially a pitcher!!) after a career year when there are two more years under contract. At least wait one more year to see if he can repeat his performance.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I agree that they should shut him down. Might as well have him healthy next year. This is really the product of a much bigger problem though. The Twins seem to like to sign contracts with players after career years. Mauer, Suzuki, Hughes, and Dozier come to mind. That's just bad business. Hell, I avoid taking players in fantasy baseball after they have a career year. The Twins are not a team that can afford to overpay for players.

     

    Hell, unless you're the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox most teams can't afford to do business like that!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Yeah. Issue with waiting til 1 year left is you'd pay a TON more if he had repeated it. It was a gamble and it hasn't paid off.

    But -- who cares?  It seems like we were all so excited to get the guy for 5/58 rather than 5/80 or whatever if we waited another year or two, we lost sight of how incredibly valuable he was at 2/16.  It wouldn't take much for his 2/16 contract to generate equivalent excess value as the 5/58 deal over the 5/80, and with a lot less risk and a lot more flexibility.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    But -- who cares?  It seems like we were all so excited to get the guy for 5/58 rather than 5/80 or whatever if we waited another year or two, we lost sight of how incredibly valuable he was at 2/16.  It wouldn't take much for his 2/16 contract to generate equivalent excess value as the 5/58 deal over the 5/80, and with a lot less risk and a lot more flexibility.

    and if he somehow repeats 2014, which was very doubtful, and the team felt he priced himself too high, we could trade him.  Let someone else bet on him finally turning the corner.  Nothing justifies extending him after the first year of a 3 year-24M dollar deal.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Who cares if he was in the bigs for 8 years or 3? He was 28, an age when baseball players frequently hit their prime. If there’s ever a good time to sign a pitcher to a five year deal, that’s it.

     

    You don't make an awful point about the larger picture but you're losing the context because you're all hindsight-focused. Phil Hughes was an elite prospect who had trouble putting it all together (much like Jake Arrieta). He had flashes of dominance as a starter and reliever but finally put it together. It wasn’t smoke and mirrors either – his FIP was lower at 2.65 and he’d made fundamental changes to how he pitched that spoke to a pitcher on the rise.

     

     

    Talk about hindsight! If you're using nearly decade old prospect rankings to justify an unjustifiable contract extension, those are some pretty acrobatic mental gymnastics. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    and if he somehow repeats 2014, which was very doubtful, and the team felt he priced himself too high, we could trade him.  Let someone else bet on him finally turning the corner.  Nothing justifies extending him after the first year of a 3 year-24M dollar deal.

    He wouldn't even have had to repeat 2014 to be tradeable for a decent return on that contract. But once we extended him, Hughes pretty much became untradeable unless he repeated 2014.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    He had just finished his 8th Major League season, and 1st above avg one as a starter. And had TWO years left on his deal. 

     

    There's nothing hindsight about it, the context was clear at the time, and now.  They paid for the 2014 season (EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS TWO YEARS LEFT), while ignoring 2007-2013

    The Twins have a solid history of paying a premium for a single year of over-performance that includes Mauer and Suzuki.  There may be other examples too.  

     

    It would help if the Twins (Ryan) were negotiating from a position of strength, but it is often not the case.  They seem to see a great season, and expect that to be the new norm.  

     

    OTOH I am not suggesting that the Twins wait for a player to have a crappy season before making a lowball offer.  I would suggest that they do a better job of scouting and developing young talent.  Having the option to bring up a player is good leverage if the contract negotiation is difficult.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    The Twins have a solid history of paying a premium for a single year of over-performance that includes Mauer and Suzuki.  There may be other examples too.  

     

    It would help if the Twins (Ryan) were negotiating from a position of strength, but it is often not the case.  They seem to see a great season, and expect that to be the new norm.  

     

    OTOH I am not suggesting that the Twins wait for a player to have a crappy season before making a lowball offer.  I would suggest that they do a better job of scouting and developing young talent.  Having the option to bring up a player is good leverage if the contract negotiation is difficult.

    I'd argue Mauer was already going to get a very similar contract whether he hit for power in 2009 or not.  I mean, we can't pretend his BA and OBP in 2009 was out of line since him getting a batting title was hardly new for him.  So if his 2009 had like 15 HR less, his contract is still monstrous.  He was an elite catcher before 2009 ever happened.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have no issue with the Mauer deal. It pretty much had to be done from a PR perspective, and from a profitability perspective, and almost from a baseball perspective. The only mistake was keeping him at catcher too long, imo. That deal is why TF exists, so you can sign your stars and keep them. He was on a HOF path.......I just don't get how people question the deal. Could they have spent 3MM a year less? Maybe. 

     

    His money is not keeping them from winning......it just isn't.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    To all those who ranted and raved during the game (including Bert Blyleven) about Paul Molitor's awful decision, I must say that when you are sitting on your couch you do not know the facts of what is happening in between the lines. Sometimes it is best not to have a opinion until the facts are in. And the funny thing about facts, they are seldom all the way in. In other words, I suggest to certain TD members: R-E-L-A-X (to quote Aaron Rodgers).

    Sure, now the decision to pull him doesn't look like the worst managerial move of the season, BUT, if SIXTY f-ing pitches is the best he can do without "losing a tick on his fastball", then maybe someone...I don't know...the manager, the PC, the GM, SOMEONE needs to step in and say, "if that's all you can do, you're shut down". 60 pitches? That could easily be 3 innings for him with the way he's pitched this year.

     

    After getting TWO OUTS by Berrios on Monday, Phil produced about the most ideal scenario imaginable yesterday. Anything less than that and you're scrambling to fill innings. That's a horrible management (on field or FO) decision. Seriously, this story is incredibly concerning, not just for PH but for the people pulling the strings who have apparently already exhausted their backup plans.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I bet the Cubs wished they had signed Arrietta to a Hughes like extension when (if?) they had a chance.

    Maybe, but the Cubs also don't have an irrational fear of spending any real money (relative to provide sports), so it's probably not going to bother them too much.

     

    The Twins incessant fear of spending money is what forced them to have to do that extension.

     

    Hughes was already here, so it wouldn't have been the same as trying to sign an FA. They wouldn't have had to convince him to come here, they only would potentially have had to pony up legit ace money, and we know that will never happen.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I bet the Cubs wished they had signed Arrietta to a Hughes like extension when (if?) they had a chance.

    I bet they don't care that much.  By the time he can leave, they may have gotten ~4 years of Cy Young level pitching from Arrieta for ~$27 mil, 2+ no-hitters, potentially 3 postseasons (or the chance to deal him for an excellent return if they happen to fall well short of the postseason his final year), and possibly a comp pick.  Somebody else paying $200+ mil for his age 32-38 seasons probably won't be that troubling to them (although they could afford it if they wanted to).

     

    Likewise, if the Twins had gotten 2-3 seasons of 2014 Phil Hughes for $24 mil, plus a decent trade return or a comp pick, seeing him go somewhere else for his age 31-35 seasons for ~$100 mil or whatever probably would not have been too troubling either.  Although we too could probably afford that level of contract if we wanted too, we don't have that much committed to players from 2017-2021.  Sano and others won't be eligible for free agency until after 2021.

    Edited by spycake
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The extension for Hughes, IMO, wasn't/isn't really the issue. Its really more the timing of it. He has long been a highly respected talent with a lot of potential. In his days with the Yankees, he certainly had his ups and downs with consistency. When he got the Twins, it seemed as though talent and potential were coming together, and seemingly at the right age, And the way he pitched, he certainly was deserving of the new contract.

     

    The problem is the new contract was based on the one "change of scenery" year in Minnesota, and not his career. The Twins sold themselves high on Hughes.l

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    One problem with banking on Hughes to be a mid-rotation mainstay is that he hadn't really been even that good in New York.

     

    His yearly FIP since 2010, when he became a regular starter:

     

    2010 - 4.25

    2011 - 4.58

    2012 - 4.56

    2013 - 4.50

    2014 - 2.65

    2015 - 4.70

    2016 - 4.83

     

    Terry Ryan and certain bloggers (ahem) were really feeling themselves after 2014 because they thought Hughes had validated something they saw in his K/BB rates, but now it seems pretty clear that his first year with the Twins was an outlier. I couldn't see why the Twins gave him 3 years in the first place. He was a 5th starter in New York, and now, with more wear on his arm, he's a marginal 5th starter locking down a spot in the Twins rotation.

     

    Maybe it's time to move Hughes to the bullpen, particularly if his arm can't handle more than 70-some pitches at a time now. Back in 2009, the Yankees gave him 7 starts where he didn't do well (5.45 ERA, 868 OPS against), but he flourished in 44 appearances in relief (1.40 ERA, 456 OPS against). That's probably where he should've been all along.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    One problem with banking on Hughes to be a mid-rotation mainstay is that he hadn't really been even that good in New York.

     

    His yearly FIP since 2010, when he became a regular starter:

     

    2010 - 4.25

    2011 - 4.58

    2012 - 4.56

    2013 - 4.50

    2014 - 2.65

    2015 - 4.70

    2016 - 4.83

     

    Terry Ryan and certain bloggers (ahem) were really feeling themselves after 2014 because they thought Hughes had validated something they saw in his K/BB rates, but now it seems pretty clear that his first year with the Twins was an outlier. I couldn't see why the Twins gave him 3 years in the first place. He was a 5th starter in New York, and now, with more wear on his arm, he's a marginal 5th starter locking down a spot in the Twins rotation.

     

    Maybe it's time to move Hughes to the bullpen, particularly if his arm can't handle more than 70-some pitches at a time now. Back in 2009, the Yankees gave him 7 starts where he didn't do well (5.45 ERA, 868 OPS against), but he flourished in 44 appearances in relief (1.40 ERA, 456 OPS against). That's probably where he should've been all along.

    I agree with almost the entirety of your post, but I'll address the part of your post I put in bold.

     

    In today's day and age, and with pitchers not close to ready in our system, signing Hughes for 3 years at 8M a year wasn't bad.  It's about what one pays for a veteran #4, #5 pitcher.  I know, crazy, but its true.  It's not a big contract nowadays.  That signing was fine, IMO.  The team assuming he'd continue what he did in 2014 and re-doing his contract, was the huge problem.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    At this point, the Twins either have to DL him to build up his shoulder, or just accept his current limitations and move him to the pen. He has some experience and past success there. He won't have to pitch near as many innings, and as such, perhaps his velocity will uptick slightly.

     

    This could also lead to May being stretched back out for the rotation.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    At this point, the Twins either have to DL him to build up his shoulder, or just accept his current limitations and move him to the pen. He has some experience and past success there. He won't have to pitch near as many innings, and as such, perhaps his velocity will uptick slightly.This could also lead to May being stretched back out for the rotation.

    I agree. The result of this HAS to be swapping May and Hughes, does it not?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...