Phil Hughes gets 3 - year deal from Twins (24 million)

[Inside Pitch]

The point is, there are many pitchers available by trade that can produce just as well as Hughes and cost half that salary.

 

 

And that require a team being willing to move them and will cost the Angels players they really cannot afford to move.  Vs, paying a guy 8 mil and calling it a day.

[xboom28x]

Who of Trumbo, Aybar and Kendrick can the Angels not afford to move?

 

And again, $8M for Hughes means sayonara to Tanaka

[Chuck]

Anyhow, you don't throw 25 million dollars over three years for a pitcher that has never logged 200 innings in their career, has had injuries and has had just one decent season as a starter. Plus he sucked more on the road in 2012 than at home, with a .279 BAA and a 4.76 ERA.

[Inside Pitch]

Who of Trumbo, Aybar and Kendrick can the Angels not afford to move?

 

And again, $8M for Hughes means sayonara to Tanaka

 

Who backs up whoever it is you are trading to get whatever imaginary pitcher you think you can obtain?  

 

You do realize this team has an organizational depth issue right?  I'm all for trading Trumbo, but in doing so you are moving an asset -- and once it's gone it's gone.   Simply signing a guy costs nothing but money.   You and I are working on different models.  If this team makes trades for pitching I'd rather it trade for guys who might be ready to contribute in the near future Vs being in the opening day roster -- it's my opinion they would be able to get more value that way.   That's why I've wanted them to sign guys capable of throwing 175-180 innings of 4.25-4.50 baseball.  I have ZERO delusions of trading for an ace.

 

And since we are talking imaginary scenarios -- where is it you have heard that Tanaka WILL be posted?  Please tell me what those new posting rules will be since you seem to know what nobody in MLB knows and how you are SOOO certain the Angels would win the posting process?  While you're at it -- would you mind telling us what meetings you sat in where the Angels brass stated point blank they had to save their $$$ to sign Tanaka?

 

You are treating an unresolved situation with Tanaka as if it's all absolutes.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Inside Pitch

[mtangelsfan]

Who of Trumbo, Aybar and Kendrick can the Angels not afford to move?

 

And again, $8M for Hughes means sayonara to Tanaka

 

It does?  Do you have a link for that?

[Inside Pitch]

Anyhow, you don't throw 25 million dollars over three years for a pitcher that has never logged 200 innings in their career, has had injuries and has had just one decent season as a starter. Plus he sucked more on the road in 2012 than at home, with a .279 BAA and a 4.76 ERA.

 

Yes wasting a draft pick and paying more for a guy who last pitched 200 innings in 2010 is a much better idea.   Ubaldo Jimenez ERA+ the last three years is 90.   Plus he sucked more than Hughes did ANYWHERE in 2012, with a .817 OPS allowed and a 5.40 ERA overall.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Inside Pitch

[Chuck]

Yes wasting a draft pick and paying more for a guy who last pitched 200 innings in 2010 is a much better idea.   Ubaldo Jimenez ERA+ the last three years is 90.  

 

I watched Ubaldo quite a bit last season. I like him much better than Hughes and yes, I'd give up a draft pick for him. He has top of the rotation stuff. He reclaimed the stuff he had when a stud in Colorado.

[xboom28x]

I get it. You want to eliminate any possibility of Tanaka by signing guys like Hughes and Nolasco. That's cool for you. But I find that to be a losing option. Nolasco and Hughes are not much better than what we threw out there last season. You expect a 15 win turnaround with guys like that? I sure don't.

 

Angels had the 7th best offense in baseball last year with Pujols and Hamilton playing like crap. I think they can afford to trade one of those players for a starter that would put up very similar numbers to (if not better than) Hughes. 

 

Just because I don't provide you a list to your satisfaction doesn't make them imaginary.

[mtangelsfan]

There is zero evidence that signing anyone will eliminate the opportunity to sign Tanaka.  Zero.  You are making stuff up.

[Erstad Grit]

Anyhow, you don't throw 25 million dollars over three years for a pitcher that has never logged 200 innings in their career, has had injuries and has had just one decent season as a starter. Plus he sucked more on the road in 2012 than at home, with a .279 BAA and a 4.76 ERA.

 

That's correct. We throw away 15 million for 2 years of extreme sucking. 

[xboom28x]

There is zero evidence that signing anyone will eliminate the opportunity to sign Tanaka.  Zero.  You are making stuff up.

 

You are right, Arte might pay the luxury tax hit. Or we might miraculously trade Josh Hamilton and his full contract. You never know.

[mtangelsfan]

Has Arte or Dipoto said anywhere they wouldn't go over the luxury tax?

[xboom28x]

Has Arte or Dipoto said anywhere they wouldn't go over the luxury tax?

 

Have they said they would?

[Inside Pitch]

I watched Ubaldo quite a bit last season. I like him much better than Hughes and yes, I'd give up a draft pick for him. He has top of the rotation stuff. He reclaimed the stuff he had when a stud in Colorado.

 

Yes and you once argued with me that Nick Green was just as good and possibly a better prospect than Nick Adenhart.  You may not want to own up to that or admit you took that stance -- but you did and I remember thinking you were delusional.

Regardless -- if you're going to use stats to denigrate one guy you can't turn around and disregard the numbers when they make your guy look worse. 

 

Ubaldo Jimenez will be 30, has his own history of velocity issues and injuries.  He's going to cost more dollars and a draft pick.   You claim you watched him a lot and that he's reclaimed the stuff he had in Colorado but I'm curious what stuff that is?  It isn't his fastball as it was actually down from where it was in 2012 and well off of where it was when he was in Colorado.  Fact is that information available says the velocity of ALL his pitches was down from his Colorado days -- the big difference is he's throwing sliders 25% of the time which he never did in Colorado.

 

So yeah -- forgive me for not getting excited about a guy who supposedly had arm trouble turning to one of the most taxing pitches a guy can throw as his out pitch.

[ettin]

The point is, there are many pitchers available by trade that can produce just as well as Hughes and cost half that salary.

 

Part of the reason I started writing the 'Hot Stove Trade Speculation' articles was to point out the plethora of young starting pitching options out there that we could trade for. Whether you agreed with the trade ideas or not it did show that there are options out there that could join our rotation and pitch just as well as Hughes, Arroyo, et.al. at the league minimum.

 

I sincerely believe that Dipoto has one or more trades ready to go and there is some X event that needs to occur first before it is announced.

[mancini79]

I don't see how the Angels passing on Hughes means that the Angels aren't focused on pitching. All the FA pitchers have their unique risks and Angels didn't see that Hughes was a proper fit. The Angels will not go into the season without improving the rotation.

 

As for the luxury tax threshold, it's pretty minor for the first year. The Angels went over the luxury tax back in 2004 and their penalty wasn't even $1million. If the Angels feel a player is worth going over the luxury tax, they will pull the trigger.

[Chuck]

Yes and you once argued with me that Nick Green was just as good and possibly a better prospect than Nick Adenhart.  You may not want to own up to that or admit you took that stance -- but you did and I remember thinking you were delusional.

Regardless -- if you're going to use stats to denigrate one guy you can't turn around and disregard the numbers when they make your guy look worse. 

 

Ubaldo Jimenez will be 30, has his own history of velocity issues and injuries.  He's going to cost more dollars and a draft pick.   You claim you watched him a lot and that he's reclaimed the stuff he had in Colorado but I'm curious what stuff that is?  It isn't his fastball as it was actually down from where it was in 2012 and well off of where it was when he was in Colorado.  Fact is that information available says the velocity of ALL his pitches was down from his Colorado days -- the big difference is he's throwing sliders 25% of the time which he never did in Colorado.

 

So yeah -- forgive me for not getting excited about a guy who supposedly had arm trouble turning to one of the most taxing pitches a guy can throw as his out pitch.

 

I own up to that argument. I had to think about it for a while. I always loved NA, but thought Green's stuff played out well in the big leagues and made an argument for him.

 

As far as Jimenez, I love his stuff. Outside of a really bad 2012, he's been damn good over his career. Unlike Phil Hughes.

[Chuck]

I don't see how the Angels passing on Hughes means that the Angels aren't focused on pitching. All the FA pitchers have their unique risks and Angels didn't see that Hughes was a proper fit. The Angels will not go into the season without improving the rotation.

 

As for the luxury tax threshold, it's pretty minor for the first year. The Angels went over the luxury tax back in 2004 and their penalty wasn't even $1million. If the Angels feel a player is worth going over the luxury tax, they will pull the trigger.

 

Yeah, after talking to Dipoto this last spring, I got the same feeling from him.

[Inside Pitch]

I don't ever recall arguing Adenhart and Grant Green prospect status, but if I did I don't see what that has to do with this? Green and Adenhart were both top 5 prospects for their respective teams, both talented, neither a can't miss guy, sure thing in the leagues. I don't see where this comparison comes in.

 

As far as Jimenez, I love his stuff. Outside of a really bad 2012, he's been damn good over his career. Unlike Phil Hughes.

 

 

The point is that you saying you saw a lot of Jimenez is no different than when you sang the praises of Nick Green the pitcher Vs Nick Adenhart when both were at AA Arkansas.  

 

It's subjective and requires one to believe you have some insight into their abilities that others don't.  

[Chuck]

Yes and you once argued with me that Nick Green was just as good and possibly a better prospect than Nick Adenhart.  You may not want to own up to that or admit you took that stance -- but you did and I remember thinking you were delusional.

 

I stand by my arguments and unfortunately, outside of just one solid major league start (and his eventual tragic death to follow), we'll never know. Green suffered some arm/shoulder injuries and struggled the year after 2007, much like Adenhart.

 

Here's what I wrote, from the Blog years ago!

 

 

Nick Green vs. Nick Adenhart

11:32 PM by Chuck Richter

 

 

Nick Green 10-6, 3.66 ERA & a 1.12 WHIP - 96 K's in 160 IP

This Nick has been hidden in the shadow of the other Nick, Nick Adenhart all season long, until now, the rock has been uncovered. Nick Green coming off back to back shutout innings (6 2/3 & tonight 8 innings, giving up only 1 hit).

Green has managed to keep opposing batters to a solid .240 BAA all season long, while showing excellent command of his 4 solid/average pitches. While his FB hits 91-93 MPH on the gun with regularity, he can dial it up to 95-96 on occasion. Green shows a solid curve, slider and changeup that he seemingly can throw at any time in the count.

Repeating Double-A with the Travs, Green shows determination to get better and a solid work ethic to maintain his chiseled 6'4, 200lb physique that enables him to go late into games (has 2 complete games in '07), and eat up innings.

While the Angels and scouts are high on Adenhart, they're equally as high on what Nick Green has shown them in 2007.

Nick Adenhart 8-7, 3.84 & a 1.45 WHIP - 99 K's in 136 IP

While Nick Adenhart is 2 years younger than Nick Green and is recognized around Baseball as one of the top right-handed pitching prospects in all of baseball, his #'s don't quite stack up against who I think is the ace of the Double-A Arkansas Travelers staff.

Nick has the makings of being a nice #2 starting pitching in the big leagues, but it's safe to bet he'll anchor the middle of the rotation more than likely.

His stuff is good, but not that of what some would call an ace of a staff or front line starter. His pitches aren't missing many bats (.270 BAA and 136 hits in 134 innings, while fanning only 99 in 136 of those innings). His command is another issue as well as he's walked 59 batters, posting a 1.45 WHIP to date.

Adenhart's FB can reach the mid-90's and his curve and change-up show flashes of brilliance so the future is still bright for this kid.

Be that as it may, for now, Adenhart's not the better of the two Nick's, nor is he even the ace of the Trav's staff, but they both have a bright future ahead of them nevertheless.

[Taylor]

Phil Hughes skus. Even on the road, he has a career 4.10 ERA. That would be like getting pissed for missing out on a career .760 OPS hitter.

[Scott34]

Ug. The one reasonable deal of the offseason and we don't bite. This offseason is horrible so far. Still time to turn it around I suppose...

[mancini79]

Ug. The one reasonable deal of the offseason and we don't bite. This offseason is horrible so far. Still time to turn it around I suppose...

 

Did Arte nix this deal too??

[Taylor]

Lol @ calling a 3-year deal for a career 4.54 ERA pitcher "reasonable."

 

Would you give Jerome Williams 3 years, 24 million?

[m0nkey]

Arte hates white people