|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 5, 2013 1:51:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Nov 5, 2013 9:17:27 GMT -5
Rog, considering what the Giants spent on Lincecum, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Giants throw a big number out there to land someone like Bronson Arroyo or Tim Hudson on a one or two year deal. They're not going to concede the next couple of years to the Dodgers and wait on the young arms. I think they'll throw big money at one starter, then look for a bargain with the second one. They'll then look cheap in LF as well, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 5, 2013 11:37:08 GMT -5
Mark -- Rog, considering what the Giants spent on Lincecum, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Giants throw a big number out there to land someone like Bronson Arroyo or Tim Hudson on a one or two year deal. They're not going to concede the next couple of years to the Dodgers and wait on the young arms. I think they'll throw big money at one starter, then look for a bargain with the second one. They'll then look cheap in LF as well, I believe. Rog -- Some have predicted Dan Haren to the Giants on something like a 1/$10 million contract. Haren had a 3.29 ERA the 2nd half of last season. Arroyo has expressed a desire to pitch for the Giants, which could facilitate his coming over. MLB Trade Rumors pegs Bronson at 2/$24 and projects he'll go to the Mets. That's a surprise to me. Would it make sense, Mark? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#16527#ixzz2jn0u12zF |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 5, 2013 12:22:02 GMT -5
Allen -- Hughes is a guy that's going to give you about a 5.00 ERA. Rog -- How do you know this? Allen -- He isn't going to win many games for you unless you score for him like crazy. Rog -- How do you know THAT? Allen- Track record in both cases. Did you just recently discover the caps key, Rog? |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 5, 2013 15:11:49 GMT -5
Allen -- Hughes is a guy that's going to give you about a 5.00 ERA. Rog -- How do you know this? Allen -- He isn't going to win many games for you unless you score for him like crazy. Rog -- How do you know THAT? Allen- Track record in both cases. Rog -- From the perspective of Tim Lincecum in 2012 plus Ryan Vogelsong and Matt Cain in 2013 I wish what you are saying were true. As they say in the financial arena, past performance isn't a guarantee of future results Are you willing to bet your house that Hughes' ERA will be around 5.00? Are you willing to bet your retirement plan that he won't win many games unless his team scores for him like crazy? Unless you can answer, "Yes. Of course. Without question. Why would you even ask?", you don't really know those things, do you? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#16531#ixzz2jnpKMLCJ |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 5, 2013 15:12:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 5, 2013 16:14:05 GMT -5
So we should risk millions on the hope that Hughes will do something he has never done before, or should we go with his previous track record as an indication of how he would perform in SF.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 5, 2013 20:55:07 GMT -5
Allen -- So we should risk millions on the hope that Hughes will do something he has never done before, or should we go with his previous track record as an indication of how he would perform in SF. Rog -- I haven't made a decision on Hughes yet. I'm probably leaning toward no, but if he is available on a one-year contract as I have seen mentioned, I would consider it more strongly, since the risk would be less. My point was that you said that Hughes' ERA would be around 5.00 and that he had to receive a large amount of runs to win many games. I just didn't understand how you knew that. That was what I was questioning. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#16545#ixzz2jpI8RN6k |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 5, 2013 21:09:46 GMT -5
Weren't you the one who pointed out that in Hughes' two successful seasons, he received almost unreal run support, and that he hasn't been able to win without it. His ERA has been above five in two of the last three seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2013 11:03:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2013 11:28:26 GMT -5
Allen -- Weren't you the one who pointed out that in Hughes' two successful seasons, he received almost unreal run support, and that he hasn't been able to win without it. Rog -- What I pointed out is that with very little run support last seaosn Hughes had a horrendous record, even worse than we would usually expect with his ERA. And that in the seasons he went 18-8 and 16-13, his run support was very high. That would seem to indicate his run support didn't have to be "unreal" for him to win many games. One would have a hard time saying he didn't win many games if he won 10 or 12. He exceeded those numbers by a large percentage. He might well have won 10 or 12 with let's say good but not unreal run support. I could go game by game in each of those two seasons and show you how he could have won even the amounts of games he won with considerably less run support. Would it have happened that way? Probably not. But it certainly could have. Winning 10 or 12 games had a reasonable chance of happening with a run or even two less support. You could look it up. Allen -- His ERA has been above five in two of the last three seasons. Rog -- And yet his road ERA over that period has been 3.88, 4.76 and 4.14. His career road ERA is 4.10. Those numbers would seem to predict an ERA well below 5.00. Add in that the past three seasons Giants pitchers have average 0.42, 1.20 and 0.80 runs lower at home than on the road, and one can see that Hughes could have the potential to put up ERA's FAR below 5.00 if he pitching half his games in AT&T instead of Yankee Stadium. What bothers me, Allen, is that you act as if (and state) that you know his ERA with the Giants will be about 5.00 without even taking into consideration the above facts. How can you know that Phil's ERA will be around 5.00 (not a fact, but an opinion of the future) when you don't even know relevant facts such as these? That is my point. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#ixzz2jskUDy3O |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 6, 2013 12:29:23 GMT -5
I would say based on prior performance, this is what hughes is ing to give you. Why would you expect him to do anything other than what he has done before. It would be like signing Blanco as a FA and expecting him to hit 40 homers.
Any assumptions we make about a player have to be pretty heavily based on past performance. There's really nothing else to go on. Your diagreement with using tht method in regard to Hughes simply do9esn't make any sense. It seems like you're fishing for an argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2013 15:25:45 GMT -5
Allen -- I would say based on prior performance, this is what hughes is ing to give you. Rog -- Based on prior performance you may not be far off. But is far from being so certain that one should state it as a fact. And as guys like Tim Lincecum, Ryan Vogelsong and Matt Cain have shown recently, there are other factors that should be evaluated beyond simply past performance. Allen -- Why would you expect him to do anything other than what he has done before. Rog -- If Phil Hughes pitched on the road as he has in the past and carried the recent AT&T advantage home with him, he wouldn't wind up with a bad season. If Phil had pitched for the Giants rather than the Yankees, we might be looking at him and saying something like: "You know, Hughes hasn't been bad, especially at home. At 27, he's still young enough to maybe have his best years ahead of him. It would be nice if the Giants could keep him." Allen -- It would be like signing Blanco as a FA and expecting him to hit 40 homers. Rog -- It would be something like it except that the degree is vastly different. If Hughes simply pitched to his career ERA on the road and carried the recent AT&T advantage home with him, most would be quite pleased with his performance. If Blanco hit 40 home runs, most would be pinching themselves to prove they're still alive. I haven't made up my mind about Hughes yet and simply brought him up as a possibility. But it is a fact -- a FACT -- that if he simply pitched to his career road ERA and benefitted at home to the same degree as the average Giants pitcher, he would be pitching at the level of a decent #3 or very good #4 starter. Certainly his ERA would be FAR lower than the 5.00 you say one should expect. By the way, on the road, Phil's career WHIP is 1.26. The Giants' road WHIP last season was 1.37. In fact, their HOME WHIP was the same 1.26 as Hughes' career road WHIP. IMO evaluating Hughes is far more complex than you seem to believe. And we're not yet even talking about scouting -- except for the games you have seen Hughes pitch. You may have been a good evaluator of what you have seen, but there are at least three other things at play here: . You have seen only Phil's recent outings, not his full career. . You likely haven't even seen all his recent outings. . You don't seem to have differentiated between how he pitches at home compared to how he pitches on the road. . You don't seem to have evaluated the likely effect of AT&T Park, including evaluating his hit and home run chart. . You may not have considered the impact of his fielders, relievers and even luck on his ERA and won-loss record. . You have said he deserved his 4-14 won-loss record last season, when statistically at least, that doesn't appear to be the case. By the way, Baseball Prospectus lists Hughes' Fair Run Average (based on several factors including sequencing and team fielding) at a nearly full run lower (4.67 compared to his actual Run Average of 5.62). Run Average is usually higher than ERA (which in Hughes' case was 5.19) because it includes unearned runs. Sequencing has to do with factors such as a double, single and walk usually resulting in one run, whereas a walk, single and double usually result in two. So as high as Hughes' ERA was last season, he probably pitched clearly better than that. You made a point too that Hughes didn't win many games unless he has exceptionally high run support. Yet on the road, he has a record just over .500, and I'll bet his run support isn't inordinately high. There are SO many factors to consider in evaluating a pitcher's future -- even BEFORE we get to the scouting report, which sadly we don't have access to. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#16569#ixzz2jtcNlyS5 |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Nov 6, 2013 17:40:05 GMT -5
Allen -- I would say based on prior performance, this is what hughes is ing to give you. Rog -- Based on prior performance you may not be far off. But is far from being so certain that one should state it as a fact. Allen- Rog, you need to use some common sense here. Obviously, unless I can see into the future, I can't factually state how Hughes will perform from now on. Of course, what I'm stating is an opinion, though an educated one. Allen -- Why would you expect him to do anything other than what he has done before. Rog -- If Phil Hughes pitched on the road as he has in the past and carried the recent AT&T advantage home with him, he wouldn't wind up with a bad season. If Phil had pitched for the Giants rather than the Yankees, we might be looking at him and saying something like: "You know, Hughes hasn't been bad, especially at home. At 27, he's still young enough to maybe have his best years ahead of him. It would be nice if the Giants could keep him." Allen- I think there are factors with Hughes that you're not aware of. Up to this time, at least according to the Yankee announcers, alot of his problems have had to do with confidence and mental approach. Maybe getting out of NY would help that. Maybe that's why he pitches better on the road. But I wouldn't want to risk what you'd have to pay Hughes to find out. Let someone else take the risk and make the mistake. IMO evaluating Hughes is far more complex than you seem to believe. Allen- Actually, i would say the same right back at you. And we're not yet even talking about scouting -- except for the games you have seen Hughes pitch. You may have been a good evaluator of what you have seen, but there are at least three other things at play here: . You have seen only Phil's recent outings, not his full career. Allen- I would venture that I've seen at least 75% of Phil's major league outings. I didn't become a Yankee fan two years ago. Look, Phil may pitch better once he gets away from NY. Then again, he may not. What I've seen is that he gets hit, and hit hard. The Yankees have tried everything to try and fix this guy, and it hasn't worked to any great degree. He's been in and out of the rotation several times. From where I sit, he isn't worth the risk, especially at the price he's rumored to command. There are just better alternatives out there, and as far as that goes, already on the roster. |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2013 20:32:19 GMT -5
Rog -- Based on prior performance you may not be far off. But is far from being so certain that one should state it as a fact. Allen- Rog, you need to use some common sense here. Obviously, unless I can see into the future, I can't factually state how Hughes will perform from now on. Of course, what I'm stating is an opinion, though an educated one. Rog -- The point where I feel you ignore the most is in not recognizing how much better Hughes has pitched on the road than at Yankee Stadium. Isn't the road a more objective arena in which to judge Hughes than in Yankee Stadium? Replace Yankee Stadium with AT &T, and it seems likely we would be looking at a pitcher and wondering whether his ERA would be over four or not -- as opposed to the "around five" you state he will pitch to. I'm not saying you're going to be wrong. I'm simply saying you looking at the situation too simplistically IMO. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#16583#ixzz2jv2IupK2 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2013 20:46:57 GMT -5
Allen- I think there are factors with Hughes that you're not aware of. Up to this time, at least according to the Yankee announcers, alot of his problems have had to do with confidence and mental approach. Maybe getting out of NY would help that. Maybe that's why he pitches better on the road. But I wouldn't want to risk what you'd have to pay Hughes to find out. Let someone else take the risk and make the mistake. Rog -- I'm not disagreeing with you here. I just don't know. Where I do disagree is when you say Hughes' ERA will be around five and that he deserved his 4-14 record. We just don't know what his ERA will be, although one can make a decent case that it will decline from his average as a Yankee. As for his deserving his 4-14 record, maybe we should take a look, game by game. On April 18th, Phil gave up just two runs in seven innings, but came up with a no-decision. He didn't blow any leads, because he never had a lead to blow. In his next start, he gave up the same two runs in seven innings, yet was "rewarded" only with another no-decision. Once again, he blew no leads, since he had no leads to blow. The start thereafter he gave up two runs in six innings. Once again, a no-decision. On May 21st, two runs, six innings, no decision. May 27th, one run, seven innings, no decision. June 27th, two runs, eight innings -- yet he got the loss. July 23rd, no earned runs, 5.2 innings, no decision. August 20th, two runs, six innings, no decision. That's a loss and seven no-decisions in games in which Hughes pitched well. I haven't even gone into the games Hughes pitched OK (not great), yet got the loss. Just those eight well-pitched games with a loss and seven no-decisions tells us that Hughes didn't deserve to go just 4-14. I'm not quite sure why you keep insisting that he did. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#ixzz2jv3iKO00 |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 6, 2013 20:49:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Nov 13, 2013 12:40:42 GMT -5
Interesting thing I heard about Hughes this morning.
Home ERA AWFUL!
Road ERA, in the mid 3.00's
Might not be a bad guy on whom we could take a flyer.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 18, 2013 18:11:31 GMT -5
I haven't made up my mind about Hughes yet, but here are some potential positives:
. Might be available at a reasonable price.
. Might be available at for a reasonable term.
. Was once a top prospect, so he might have upside.
. Was hurt badly by home park and home runs there. Likely far less of a problem at AT&T.
. At just 27 years of age, is young enough to still become a core-type pitcher over quite a few years.
To simply write Hughes off without taking at least a cursory look seems ridiculous to me. Too many potential positives.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 1, 2013 11:57:49 GMT -5
Hughes is supposedly going to the Twins for three years/$24 million. The money sounds about right, but no way I'd commit three years to this guy. Maybe he'll do better out of the spotlight,
|
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2013 13:09:16 GMT -5
Allen -- Hughes is supposedly going to the Twins for three years/$24 million. The money sounds about right, but no way I'd commit three years to this guy. Rog -- I think Hughes at 3/$24 is a pretty good signing. I think it was you who mentioned that the Twins were going to spend a lot of money on a player who wouldn't make much difference in how they finish. Hughes is just 27, so perhaps he could become something of a difference maker. As for committing for three seasons, look at the contract as 2/$20 with a third year for $4 million. As long as the dollars weren't unreasonable, I haven't been afraid of term. Remember, Hughes will be just 30 when this contract ends. The one thing I would have done if I were the Twins would have been to try to get a low-priced option for a fourth year at a reasonable price. Something like a $10 million option with a $1 million buyout. Clearly Hughes is a bit of a gamble (as are most free agents), but at 27, he could still have upside. Here is something to consider when saying one shouldn't give a third year to Hughes. Ervin Santana is likely the MLB free agent pitcher who will receive the biggest contract. He'll almost certainly get at least twice as much per season as Santana and perhaps received it for five years. After five seasons, Santana will be 35. After three, Hughes will be just 30, meaning the Twins should get Hughes in his prime, while whoever signs Santana will likely absorb one or more decline years. And here is the point I'm leading to. Hughes' road ERA (in a more neutral environment) is nearly two-thirds of a run LOWER than Santana's. Santana has the advantage of pitching better more recently, and he's provided more consistent innings. But I'm pretty sure I'd rather have Hughes at 3/$24 than Santana at whatever he winds up receiving. The Twins are paying only $8 million per season for a guy who on the road at least has been pretty much a league-average starter. This one might be fun to watch for two or three years. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#17225#ixzz2mFNubk3R |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 1, 2013 13:27:44 GMT -5
I don't dislike the re-signing of Ryan Vogelsong, but I think I would prefer Hughes at 3/$24. More (or least longer) upside and a pitcher entering his prime rather than being in a position of perhaps having lost it. If the Giants' young pitching develops as they think it will, they can likely trade Hughes.
On the other side, if Hughes were to bomb, the Giants probably would be stuck with him, so with Vogelsong, they're reducing their risk.
Maybe the Giants were in on Hughes if the deal lasted only two years but fell out when it went to a third. Quite possibly they weren't serious in the play at all.
One thing I am pretty sure of. I would rather have Hughes at 3/$24 than Vargas at 4/$32. And I'm much rather have Hudson at 2/$23 than either of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 1, 2013 14:08:37 GMT -5
After Hughes last 3 seasons I'm surprised anyone thinks he's worthy of a three year contract. That's a big time gamble.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Dec 1, 2013 16:05:24 GMT -5
At 8 million per year, it's not that big of a gamble. I'm actually surprised he didn't seek a shorter deal to rebuild his value. Maybe he has no confidence that he will.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 1, 2013 16:09:08 GMT -5
The thing is, while Hughes may have some upside, he's currently pretty down. I'd say it's a huge longshot, (especially in that divison) that Hughes and/or Nolasco is going to make much difference in where the Twins finish. On the other hand, they have to look like they're doing something, I guess. But now the Twins have committed over $20 million a year to (at best) mediocrity. Hughes could be worse than mediocre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Dec 1, 2013 19:30:03 GMT -5
At 8 million per year, it's not that big of a gamble. I'm actually surprised he didn't seek a shorter deal to rebuild his value. Maybe he has no confidence that he will.
Boagie- 1 year at 8 mil wouldn't have been the big of a gamble. I was refering more to the 3 year investment in a pitcher who hasn't been worth 8 mil in the previous 3 years as being a big gamble.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 1, 2013 20:01:30 GMT -5
Rog -- I think Hughes at 3/$24 is a pretty good signing. I think it was you who mentioned that the Twins were going to spend a lot of money on a player who wouldn't make much difference in how they finish. Hughes is just 27, so perhaps he could become something of a difference maker.
Allen- Again, you're spending alot of money on a player and hoping he'll do what he never has before.
As for committing for three seasons, look at the contract as 2/$20 with a third year for $4 million. As long as the dollars weren't unreasonable, I haven't been afraid of term. Remember, Hughes will be just 30 when this contract ends.
Allen- If he pitches as he has recently in NY, he may not last three years.
The one thing I would have done if I were the Twins would have been to try to get a low-priced option for a fourth year at a reasonable price. Something like a $10 million option with a $1 million buyout.
Allen- The one thing I would have done is run the other way.
Clearly Hughes is a bit of a gamble (as are most free agents), but at 27, he could still have upside.
Allen- Not for the Twins. Unless he does something he's never done before. Phil Hughes is not going to allow the Twins to leapfrog past the Tigers, Royals, and Indians.
Here is something to consider when saying one shouldn't give a third year to Hughes. Ervin Santana is likely the MLB free agent pitcher who will receive the biggest contract. He'll almost certainly get at least twice as much per season as Santana and perhaps received it for five years.
Allen- I'll assume you mean twice as much as Hughes. The idea of giving Ervin Santana $16 million for five years is insane on its face. He may be the best guy out there, but all that says is that the market is exceedingly thin. As far as I know, there's no rule saying you have to sign a FA. Wait until there's someone there that can help you.
And here is the point I'm leading to. Hughes' road ERA (in a more neutral environment) is nearly two-thirds of a run LOWER than Santana's. Santana has the advantage of pitching better more recently, and he's provided more consistent innings.
But I'm pretty sure I'd rather have Hughes at 3/$24 than Santana at whatever he winds up receiving. The Twins are paying only $8 million per season for a guy who on the road at least has been pretty much a league-average starter.
Allen- I'd rather not have either one.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Dec 2, 2013 17:21:34 GMT -5
After Hughes last 3 seasons I'm surprised anyone thinks he's worthy of a three year contract. That's a big time gamble. ---boly says--- Boagie, you summed up my thoughts exactly! 3 years? 8 million? 3 years?  ? boly |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2013 21:29:24 GMT -5
Boagie -- After Hughes last 3 seasons I'm surprised anyone thinks he's worthy of a three year contract. That's a big time gamble. Rog -- Hughes' past three seasons have been pretty rough, but teams may have looked at his road ERA of 4.14, 4.76 and 3.88, which aren't too bad as a group. Remember, Hughes' career 4.10 road ERA is far lower than Ervin Santana's. The past three seasons Ervin has gone 3.63, 6.22 and 3.20, with a career road mark of 4.73. The advantage Santana has over Hughes is far more consistent innings. But when they're on the mound in the more neutral environment of the road, Hughes has actually been the better of the two. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#17228#ixzz2mNGzWu4l |
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 2, 2013 21:39:33 GMT -5
Allen- I would venture that I've seen at least 75% of Phil's major league outings. I didn't become a Yankee fan two years ago. Look, Phil may pitch better once he gets away from NY. Then again, he may not. What I've seen is that he gets hit, and hit hard. Rog -- What you're seen is Phil hit very hard in Yankee Stadium (4.96 ERA) and moderately on the road (4.10). Phil's road WHIP is 1.26, which certainly isn't being hit hard. He's allowed 8.4 hits per nine innings, which is below league average. On the road, Phil's hit rate has been below league average; his walk rate has been below league average; his home run rate has been below league average; his WHIP has been below league average. As high a percentage of his games as you have watched, I'm surprised you haven't noticed. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=2066&page=3#ixzz2mNJutt3k |
|
?