|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 31, 2013 9:53:52 GMT -5
Bleacher Report posted an article touting the player each team should sign. For the Giants, they pegged Phil Hughes.
I must say that despite Hughes' 5.19 ERA last season, I found the idea intriguing. Hughes has had trouble keeping his arm healthy, but he still boasts a fastball over 92 mph. He's always been a control pitcher, and the past two seasons has been at 2.2 and 2.6 BB/9.
Before the 2007 season, Hughes was considered by many to be the #1 pitching prospect, ahead of Homer Bailey, Tim Lincecum and other good pitchers. As has been the case with Bailey, he hasn't lived up to that billing, posting a 4.54 ERA over his career.
But Phil is still just 27, in theory still early in his prime. His bugaboo has been the home run, and AT&T Park might help with that. Bleacher Report believes he can be acquired at about 2/$20, and I'm not sure whom the Giants might get at that price who would be better.
I like the idea too that a two-year contract would give the Giants choices two years from now between Lincecum, Hughes and two or more of the young arms they so covet. The time tables seem to match well.
The Giants have Matt Cain under contract through the 2017 season, and they have Madison Bumgarner locked up through 2019.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Oct 31, 2013 11:15:22 GMT -5
No, no, no, no, no.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Oct 31, 2013 18:22:19 GMT -5
The Giants are definitely interested in a shorter term contract because of all the young arms, and this will certainly play a large decision in who they eventually sign. Allen, I'm interested in your opinion on why Ryan Vogelsong at 36 is a better chance to bounce back than Phil Hughes at 27. If he is willing to settle for two years, I'd certainly like to see them sign him.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Oct 31, 2013 21:46:23 GMT -5
Pretty simple, really. Hughes has stunk for the last four years, and is frequently injured as well. His ERA has been 4.65 over the last four years. Vogey's ERA over his last three years as a Giant is 3.71. This year Hughes was 4-14 for a winning team, with an ERA of 5.19. Hughes is also said to frequently have confidence problems and other mental issues, besides having a ravenous gopher (59 homers allowed over the last two seasons) In short, a head case. I'll take Vogey every day and twice on Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Oct 31, 2013 22:47:31 GMT -5
Mark -- The Giants are definitely interested in a shorter term contract because of all the young arms, and this will certainly play a large decision in who they eventually sign. Allen, I'm interested in your opinion on why Ryan Vogelsong at 36 is a better chance to bounce back than Phil Hughes at 27. If he is willing to settle for two years, I'd certainly like to see them sign him. Allen -- Pretty simple, really. Hughes has stunk for the last four years, and is frequently injured as well. Rog -- The injury issue is a good point. Allen -- His ERA has been 4.65 over the last four years. Vogey's ERA over his last three years as a Giant is 3.71. Rog -- I understand your point here, but when it has come to Tim Lincecum, you've been a "what have you done for us lately" kind of guy. A year ago Tim's ERA over the past three seasons was 3.50. Like Ryan, he was coming off a down year in which his second half was much better than the first. You said then you saw no reason to expect Tim to improve. How was it that the 28-year-old Lincecum -- down 2 mph but still throwing over 90 -- was less of a good bet than the 36-year-old Vogelsong -- also down 2 mph but throwing only 89 -- is now? To make matters worse, Tim's peripherals indicated a likely improvement, while the closer I looked at Ryan's peripherals from last season, the worse he looked? Allen -- This year Hughes was 4-14 for a winning team, with an ERA of 5.19. Rog -- With the exception of the 2009 season -- when he pitched mosty relief -- Phil hasn't come even close to reaching what was once considered to be vast potential. But get off this foolish "was 4-14 for a winning team" stuff. No question Phil had a bad season, but his 4-14 record was as much due to his 3.52 run support as the 5.19 ERA. Entering last season, Phil had received good run support and had an impressive 52-37 record. When I saw Phil's 4-14 record, I was expecting run support of around 3.5 or so. Just as I would expect his 52-37 record to have been supported by run support of 5.5 or more. Sure enough, when he went 8-3 in 2009, his run support was an unreal 7.44. When he went 18-8 in 2010, his run support was 6.75. His 16-13 record in 2012 was supported by 5.28 runs. He went 5-3 in 2007 with 6.79 runs of support. In 2008, he got only 4.81 runs of support and went 0-4. In 2011 he posted his highest ERA (in over 50 innings) of 5.79 -- yet finished at .500 (5-5) when he got 8.15 runs of support. Are you noticing any kind of trend here? There is far more correlation between Phil's run support and his record than between his ERA and his record. Why in the world would you mention that he went only 4-14 "for a winning team" while ignoring how little run support he got from that "winning team" and ignoring his impressive 52-37 record prior to last season? Allen -- Hughes is also said to frequently have confidence problems and other mental issues, besides having a ravenous gopher (59 homers allowed over the last two seasons) In short, a head case. Rog -- The first is a very good point if true, although second point isn't necessarily as bad as you make it out to be. Two things with regard to the gopher balls. First, as pointed out earlier, that might not be as big a problem for him at AT&T. In fact, that might possibly rebuild his confidence. Second, I haven't seen you deride Bronson Arroyo, who has yielded 104 (!) homers over the past three seasons or Ervin Santana, who has given up 91 homers in that time. In those three years, Santana led the AL in homers once, while Arroyo twice led the NL. Allen -- I'll take Vogey every day and twice on Sunday. Rog -- Here is what I like about Ryan: . He will be far cheaper. . For a year and three quarters through August of 2012, he was about as good as they came (even better than Jonathan Sanchez's year and three quarters that I mentioned!). What I like about Hughes is: . He is only 27, compared to Ryan's 36. . While Ryan's speed dropped off significantly to just 89 last season, Hughes' 92.4 mph last season was just above his career average. . Hughes' 23% line drive percentage wasn't very good, and it was clearly up from his 20% in 2012. Vogelsong's exploded from 18% in 2012 to 27% (!) last season. . Phil strikes out more batters than Ryan, while walking fewer. . At just 27, Phil could be a significant part of the Giants' future, while expecting Ryan to eek out another good season or two might be a STRETCH. Hughes could WIND UP outpitching Ryan in the future. In short, we might expect that his DELIVERY would be greater. Phil might come on FAST, CHANGING UP his career, while last season Ryan was a bit of a SLIDER, throwing us a CURVE with his poor performance. The biggest concern with Phil may be that you say he's a SCREWBALL. In short, I agree with you that Ryan has outpitched Phil the past three seasons. But I would take Phil over the next three. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the Giants signed Phil to be their #4 starter and re-signed Ryan to give him a shot at #5. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=1#16372#ixzz2jMKIaiEHRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=1#16372#ixzz2jMKAq1KP
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 1, 2013 0:38:49 GMT -5
Allen -- His ERA has been 4.65 over the last four years. Vogey's ERA over his last three years as a Giant is 3.71.
Rog -- I understand your point here, but when it has come to Tim Lincecum, you've been a "what have you done for us lately" kind of guy. A year ago Tim's ERA over the past three seasons was 3.50. Like Ryan, he was coming off a down year in which his second half was much better than the first.
You said then you saw no reason to expect Tim to improve. How was it that the 28-year-old Lincecum -- down 2 mph but still throwing over 90 -- was less of a good bet than the 36-year-old Vogelsong -- also down 2 mph but throwing only 89 -- is now?
Allen- Ryan was injured last year, and probably fatigued due to pitching in the WBC. Tim has had two bad years in which he was perfectly healthy. I also think Vogey has better command than Tim, and thus could probably be more effective at a lesser velocity.
To make matters worse, Tim's peripherals indicated a likely improvement, while the closer I looked at Ryan's peripherals from last season, the worse he looked?
Allen- No doubt Ryan had a bad year last year. But an injury to your pitching hand is no small matter. I'm sure there was residual weakness in the hand after the injury, which could account for a loss in command and velocity.
Allen -- This year Hughes was 4-14 for a winning team, with an ERA of 5.19.
Rog -- With the exception of the 2009 season -- when he pitched mosty relief -- Phil hasn't come even close to reaching what was once considered to be vast potential. But get off this foolish "was 4-14 for a winning team" stuff. No question Phil had a bad season, but his 4-14 record was as much due to his 3.52 run support as the 5.19 ERA.
Allen- Rog, I watch alot of Yankee games and saw Hughes pitch many times last year. Believe me when I tell you he was 4-14 on merit. Heck, the Yankees have taken him out of the rotation several times over the last few years, and have even tried to salvage his career by making him a reliever.
Entering last season, Phil had received good run support and had an impressive 52-37 record.
When I saw Phil's 4-14 record, I was expecting run support of around 3.5 or so. Just as I would expect his 52-37 record to have been supported by run support of 5.5 or more.
Sure enough, when he went 8-3 in 2009, his run support was an unreal 7.44. When he went 18-8 in 2010, his run support was 6.75. His 16-13 record in 2012 was supported by 5.28 runs. He went 5-3 in 2007 with 6.79 runs of support.
Allen- And your point is? Do you expect the Giants to be able to score 6-7 runs a game for him? What I'm seeing from your spiel here is that Hughes (who will require alot of runs to win) isn't the pitcher for us.
Second, I haven't seen you deride Bronson Arroyo, who has yielded 104 (!) homers over the past three seasons or Ervin Santana, who has given up 91 homers in that time. In those three years, Santana led the AL in homers once, while Arroyo twice led the NL.
Allen- Au contraire. I have said that I don't particularly care for Arroyo, though he always seems to pitch well against us. In addition, he's too expensive. In summation, there's better pitchers out there than Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 1, 2013 7:53:23 GMT -5
There's better pitchers than Hughes, but the Giants are looking for something very specific, a pitcher who is looking to sign a short term deal because he's looking to rebuild his value. They're not looking at the elite guys who will be asking for five year deals because of the young arms they have coming up. This is why they were so happy to overpay Tim Lincecum, because he was willing to take just two years. So while Phil Hughes might not be the best pitcher out there, he might be exactly what they're looking for, and the best thing about him is he might just be the best one out there if he finally reaches that enormous potential. Maybe getting out of NY is just what he needs. It's a worthwhile risk if it's for only a year or two.
|
|
|
Post by dk on Nov 1, 2013 12:12:59 GMT -5
There's better pitchers than Hughes, but the Giants are looking for something very specific, a pitcher who is looking to sign a short term deal because he's looking to rebuild his value. They're not looking at the elite guys who will be asking for five year deals because of the young arms they have coming up. This is why they were so happy to overpay Tim Lincecum, because he was willing to take just two years. So while Phil Hughes might not be the best pitcher out there, he might be exactly what they're looking for, and the best thing about him is he might just be the best one out there if he finally reaches that enormous potential. Maybe getting out of NY is just what he needs. It's a worthwhile risk if it's for only a year or two. dk...Phil is a "friend" of my Granddaughter, I would like to see him on the Giants as a conduit to some news and autographs....,.however, my Granddaughter doesn't speak too highly of Phil. despite him having her Great Grandfather's first name...
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 1, 2013 12:14:37 GMT -5
Either Petit or Gaudin would be better than Hughes. If what the Giants are looking for is someone to get hammered every fifth day and make sure the fans in the bleachers get alot of souveniers, Phil's their guy.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 1, 2013 12:39:16 GMT -5
Another guy who would be better than Hughes, and who just became available is Jake Westbrook, late of the Cardinals.
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 1, 2013 13:29:27 GMT -5
Phil Hughes is 27 and has a 16 win season and an 18 win season in his career. Again, the Yankees score lots of runs, but his ERA was around 4.00 both those seasons and he struck out almost a batter an inning. I admit he's about an average pitcher who might he slightly above or below average going forward, but to say unequivocally that two pitchers who have been awful in their careers will be better than him going forward is crazy talk.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 1, 2013 14:15:51 GMT -5
Rog -- You said then you saw no reason to expect Tim to improve. How was it that the 28-year-old Lincecum -- down 2 mph but still throwing over 90 -- was less of a good bet than the 36-year-old Vogelsong -- also down 2 mph but throwing only 89 -- is now? Allen- Ryan was injured last year, and probably fatigued due to pitching in the WBC. Rog -- Ryan did his worst pitching early in the season, before he was injured and presumably before he would have become fatigued. Due to his injury, did he even pitch enough innings to BECOME fatigued? If fatigue was the problem, why did he still pitch poorly after having the time off to recover from his injury? Allen -- Tim has had two bad years in which he was perfectly healthy. Rog -- I was talking about a year ago, when he'd had only one -- putting him in a situation similar to Ryan's right now. The excuses you're making for Ryan don't seem to hold up logically. Fatigue early in the season? Fatigue later, after he was off a couple of months with injury? I'm not giving up on Ryan, but this past season he had the same 2 mph drop as Tim had the previous season, and he's eight years older than Tim was. In addition, Tim pitched better in the second half of the 2012 season than Ryan pitched in the second half of last season. Tim never lost his ability to strike out batters. Even as his ERA improved in the second half of last season, Ryan struck out only 4.2 batters per nine. 4.2 (!) The only two Giants starters with K rates below 7.7 were Barry Zito at 5.8 and full-season Vogelsong at 5.8. Ryan's 2nd-half 4.2 was basically HALF the average of Madison Bumgarner, Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum combined. HALF! That doesn't worry you? When Tim Lincecum lost his command, he was eminently hittable. Last season Ryan was eminently hittable pretty much all the time. Even in Tim's worst season, he allowed two fewer hits per nine innings than Ryan did last year. Ryan's swing and a miss percentage dropped to 5.4%, less than half that of Lincecum. Ryan's line drive percentage soared by 50% from 18% to 27%. If you thought Lincecum was dead in the water, what do say about Vogelsong, whose vital signs are much worse? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=1#16390#ixzz2jQBH35HB
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 1, 2013 14:26:41 GMT -5
Allen -- Rog, I watch alot of Yankee games and saw Hughes pitch many times last year. Believe me when I tell you he was 4-14 on merit. Rog -- That comment shows a lack of understanding, Allen. Little question Phil was a bad pitcher in 2013. But was his 5.19 ERA worse than Kirk Rueter's 5.41 in 1999? Was Phil's merit enough worse than Kirk's to justify his going just 4-14 compared to Kirk's 15-10 in 1999? Phil and Kirk pitched about equally well. The huge difference in their records stemmed from Phil's 3.52 run support being more than two runs less than Kirk's 5.84. Kirk wasn't 15-10 ON MERIT. And Phil wasn't 4-14 ON MERIT. They were each essentially the same pitcher. How can one go 15-10 ON MERIT, while the other goes 4-14? Lucy, you gotta lot uh splainin to do! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=1#ixzz2jQIVj8VT
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 1, 2013 17:31:31 GMT -5
I would agree that Woody wasn't 15-10 on merit, any more than Hughes was 18-8 on merit in 2010, or 16-13 on merit in 2012. What in the world does Woody have to do with any of this? Last year, Hughes just got hammered. He wasn't much better the three years prior. As for Mark and his crazy talk comment, Hughes will win if you score seven runs for him. Think the Giants can do that on a consistent basis? What's the love affair with Hughes? All he's ever been is wasted talent.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 1, 2013 17:36:17 GMT -5
I'd be tempted to give Ryan another chance, chalking his bad 2013 up to injury. I'm sure there was some post injury weakness in the arm due to nonuse whle his hand was in a cast. If you don't use it, you lose it. I would take Vogey, Petit and Gaudin before I would take Hughes.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 1, 2013 22:03:26 GMT -5
[ I admit he's about an average pitcher who might he slightly above or below average going forward, but to say unequivocally that two pitchers who have been awful in their careers will be better than him going forward is crazy talk.
Allen- Gaudin's career ERA is lower than Phil's, so I guess Hughes has been even more awful in his career. Needless to say, both substantially outperformed Hughes last season.
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 1, 2013 22:55:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure what Rog's intentions would be for Hughes but I question whether the Giants will sign a surefire starter after they've already signed Lincecum and plan on bringing back Vogelsong. I would imagine the #5 starter will be a scrap heaper. With that in mind, I think the more the merrier, even if it's a pitcher like Hughes. I welcome anyone to camp next season as long as the Giants don't overpay or lose good prospects in the process.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 2, 2013 3:55:49 GMT -5
Allen -- I would agree that Woody wasn't 15-10 on merit, any more than Hughes was 18-8 on merit in 2010, or 16-13 on merit in 2012. What in the world does Woody have to do with any of this? Rog -- Well, let's see. You said that Hughes was 4-14 last season ON MERIT. He pitched at least as well as Rueter did in 1999, when Kirk went 15-10. Your comment that Hughes was 4-14 last season ON MERIT is ludicrous. Allen -- Last year, Hughes just got hammered. Rog -- As did Rueter in 1999, when he went 15-10. Hughes was NOT 4-14 on merit. He was 4-14 on a combination of bad pitching and worse run support. You could look it up. In addition, I think we'd all agree that Tim Lincecum was pretty bad in 2012. His ERA was almost identical to Hughes' ERA of last season. Hughes went 4-14; Tim went 10-15. You could look it up. When Rueter went 15-10, his ERA in wins was 0.99 higher than Hughes' was. His ERA in losses was 2.56 runs higher than Hughes. In no-decisions, Kirk's ERA was 1.71 runs higher than Phil's. You could look it up. In fact, Allen, you could look all this stuff up. If you did so, you likely wouldn't make such ludicrious comments. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=1#16411#ixzz2jTXf7G17
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 2, 2013 4:01:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 2, 2013 4:03:57 GMT -5
You're a big won-loss guy, Allen. Hughes is above .500 in the majors. Petit is below .500 in AAA.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 2, 2013 4:07:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 2, 2013 4:12:30 GMT -5
Boagie -- I'm not sure what Rog's intentions would be for Hughes but I question whether the Giants will sign a surefire starter after they've already signed Lincecum and plan on bringing back Vogelsong. Rog -- Even after re-signing Tim, the Giants have said they were looking to sign a #3 or #4 starter. They haven't yet said whether they will bring back Vogelsong, although I think it is likely they will re-sign him at an amount lower than his $6.5 million option. Boagie -- I would imagine the #5 starter will be a scrap heaper. Rog -- I think the #5 starter is more likely to be either Vogelsong or Gaudin. Boagie -- With that in mind, I think the more the merrier, even if it's a pitcher like Hughes. Rog -- I'm not sure how you mean that. EVEN if it's a pitcher like Hughes? Hughes won't be a scrap heap pitcher. Boagie -- I welcome anyone to camp next season as long as the Giants don't overpay or lose good prospects in the process. Rog -- Right on! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=1#ixzz2jTfqR9Ls
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 2, 2013 4:14:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 2, 2013 7:49:53 GMT -5
Boagie, the Giants have already said they have the financial flexibility to add another good starter, so obviously the plan is not Vogelsong and a scrap heaper. Why bother playing the season if this is the plan? Are they really going to concede the NL west to the Dodgers every year until they run out of money? Dodgers plan this offseason is to trade for Price and sign Tanaka. If you're right about the Giants plan, (and they've already said you're not) the fans who sell out the park should boycott the team.
|
|
|
Post by dk on Nov 2, 2013 12:56:09 GMT -5
Allen -- I would agree that Woody wasn't 15-10 on merit, any more than Hughes was 18-8 on merit in 2010, or 16-13 on merit in 2012. What in the world does Woody have to do with any of this? Rog -- Well, let's see. You said that Hughes was 4-14 last season ON MERIT. He pitched at least as well as Rueter did in 1999, when Kirk went 15-10. Your comment that Hughes was 4-14 last season ON MERIT is ludicrous. Allen -- Last year, Hughes just got hammered. Rog -- As did Rueter in 1999, when he went 15-10. Hughes was NOT 4-14 on merit. He was 4-14 on a combination of bad pitching and worse run support. You could look it up. In addition, I think we'd all agree that Tim Lincecum was pretty bad in 2012. His ERA was almost identical to Hughes' ERA of last season. Hughes went 4-14; Tim went 10-15. You could look it up. When Rueter went 15-10, his ERA in wins was 0.99 higher than Hughes' was. His ERA in losses was 2.56 runs higher than Hughes. In no-decisions, Kirk's ERA was 1.71 runs higher than Phil's. You could look it up. dk..and if you look it up. Kirk won 15 games, Phil 4....when Kirk won 15games, his ERA was 3.27...not bad for a team that scored over 5 runs per game....Kirk won when he pitched well...and when e was bad he lost...I would take his plus 5 wins... In fact, Allen, you could look all this stuff up. If you did so, you likely wouldn't make such ludicrious comments. dk..and when you prefer someone who won 4 games over a 15 game winner, I wonder what the object is in playing the game...
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 2, 2013 13:13:07 GMT -5
If the Dodgers are successful in signing Tanaka and trading for Price, the Giants will likely be playing for the Wild Card slot.
It does appear the Giants are willing to spend a bit, so their hopes must rely on their scouting. Bobby Evans made a point that the Giants were going to evaluate assets via free agency, trades and their own organization.
I'm hoping they have about $25 million to spend on another starting pitcher, a starting left fielder and a lefty reliever.
On the starting pitching front, I'd say the Giants are blessed to have low-priced options including Vogelsong, Gaudin and possibly even Petit. That provides rotation depth, but they still need another strong starter -- especially if the Dodgers land Tanaka and/or Price.
The left field market may have less depth than the starting pitcher market, so perhaps that is where the Giants will make a trade.
Lopez makes an outstanding lefty reliever option, but the two sides are apparently still struggling over dollars and/or length of contract.
Regardless of how it comes down, I think the key is going to be the Giants' scouting abilities. They are exploring a multitude of possiblities, and they need to do a good job of picking good to very good solutions without blowing the budget.
I can't remember an offseason when I felt the Giants' scouting department was being more heavily tested.
Regardless of
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 2, 2013 13:17:36 GMT -5
Allen -- Either Petit or Gaudin would be better than Hughes. Rog -- Mind if I ask why you think Petit would be better than Hughes? Yusmeiro's ERA AT FRESNO last season was just 0.02 lower than Phil's career ERA in the MAJORS. Allen- What was Petit's ERA in the majors last year?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 2, 2013 13:25:00 GMT -5
You're a big won-loss guy, Allen. Hughes is above .500 in the majors. Petit is below .500 in AAA Allen- Ancient history. Again, what's the love affair with Hughes, Because someone said he had potential 10 years ago? Petit has an .800 winning percentage and a 3.59 ERA as a Giant. Plus, he's alot cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 2, 2013 13:28:56 GMT -5
Allen -- Last year, Hughes just got hammered.
Rog -- As did Rueter in 1999, when he went 15-10. Hughes was NOT 4-14 on merit. He was 4-14 on a combination of bad pitching and worse run support. You could look it up.
Allen- So if a guy pitches badly and has a bad record because of it, does that not mean he has a bad record on merit? The way Hughes pitched he deserved to be 4 -14.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 2, 2013 20:41:16 GMT -5
Allen -- Another guy who would be better than Hughes, and who just became available is Jake Westbrook, late of the Cardinals. Rog -- Really? Over their careers, the two have been about equal. But at 27, Hughes could be in or entering his prime; at 36, Westbrook likely isn't. Allen- If this is Hughes' prime, the Giants (or anyone else) shouldn't want any part of it. Phil's ERA has been over 5.00 in two of the last three seasons. In 2011 it was almost 6.00. Westbrook has never had an ERA over 5.00 since he became a full time major leaguer. Westbrook gave up 20 homers once in a 13 year career. In seven years Hughes has given up 25, 35, and 24. The only times he hasn't given up a large number of homers is when he hasn't pitched enough innings to do so.
|
|