It's odd that Salfino asserts that Hughes is probably a #2 starter, then says his problems last year stemmed from injuries that don't typically do long-term damage to a pitcher's ability. Frankly, I think it's too early tell whether he'll be a #1 or #2 starter (or flame out, but the difference between a #1 and #2 is slim enough that it's extremely tough to project for someone with 72 IP in his 21-year-old season.

especially without Brian McNamee working the snack bar

Yes, we all know from recent studies that Pettitte has HGH to thank for his fine pitching ... What a cheap shot ...

Now most scouts I talk to say his ceiling is “No. 2 starter.”

Kevin Goldstein also noted this sometime earlier in the winter and said everyone was crazy. Just like in stats, I'm going to go with what everyone thought for the years he was developing and not give to much weight to some spring training scouting reports. However, if he turns into a #2, Keith Law has been saying it for at least a year+ now.

Was the K decline a random event or did he really fall off the cliff after making gains there in 2006? At his age, we must assume the latter. The velocity readings confirm this.

Any reports on what Moose's velocity looks like this spring? I haven't seen him pitch.

Kevin Goldstein also noted this sometime earlier in the winter and said everyone was crazy. Just like in stats, I'm going to go with what everyone thought for the years he was developing and not give to much weight to some spring training scouting reports. However, if he turns into a #2, Keith Law has been saying it for at least a year+ now.

this change of opinion by everyone all at once is just weird. kind of like the stock market where confidence and the lack of it are contagious. sickels rated hughes higher than buchholz just a month or two ago, iirc. i like james's assessment: too young to project.

and if it's true that he's a #2, should the yanks have traded him for santana?

And his curve is top notch, too, though the change-up seems to have replaced it as the complementary pitch of choice.

I should have said "of choice in the scouting community."

Also, I have an agreement with Repoz that I will make at least one Brian McNamee reference per preseason Yankees piece. Blame it all on a solid eight I left in the 10th.

It's odd that Salfino asserts that Hughes is probably a #2 starter

I did not assert anything of the kind. I asserted that the scouts are asserting it, perhaps. I think Hughes's ceiling remains higher, recognizing that views of a player's ceiling are inherently optimistic. But Hughes's most optimistically as a No. 2 starter? No, I don't assert that.

I am floored that the Yank's rotation projects that high. Off the top of my hand, I'd say Moose and Kennedy will be approaching 5, if not over and AP will be in the 4s. The only ones I like are Hughes and Wang.

If this is even close to true, then the Jays will have zero chance to slip into the post season.

I'd say Moose and Kennedy will be approaching 5

I'll be shocked if Kennedy is the young pitcher who struggles. He knows how to pitch. Even after teams get a second look, I don't see him struggling much. I think Joba is most likely to struggle once he starts starting.

The shift in Hughes' rating is not some weird blip.

He pitched 80 innings in the majors last year, and his fastball was significantly worse than it had been in the minors. Still very good, but not the ace-level plus pitch that it had been.

I don't know why his fastball changed (or whether scouts had simply overrated it before), and I don't know how likely it is that this was a one-year blip, but that's why the rating of Hughes in the scouting community has dropped significantly. It's not some crazy thing - it's a change in opinion driven by a change in the data.

One could certainly argue that the data is being over-interpreted, and there's every reason to think that Hughes will show up with the fastball that he's had for most of his career, not the fastball he had in 2007, and that would be a fair argument. (I do not have the requisite knowledge to adjudicate the argument.) I'm just saying that the drop is quite explicable.

Yes, we all know from recent studies that Pettitte has HGH to thank for his fine pitching ... What a cheap shot

At least this one involved an admitted user. He took a shot at Cano in his last Yankee preview.

I am sure someone, somewhere, finds it amusing.

I don't know why his fastball changed (or whether scouts had simply overrated it before), and I don't know how likely it is that this was a one-year blip, but that's why the rating of Hughes in the scouting community has dropped significantly. It's not some crazy thing - it's a change in opinion driven by a change in the data.

IIRC, the change in the fastball happened after his injury. He was (or at least it seemed to me he was) rushed back from his hamstring injury and at least early, was pitching tenderly. It seems that his fastball was never 95, but he had a start where he was hitting 93-94 towards the end of last year (Toronto maybe, SG or Fabian will remember better than I will).

If Larry gets the archives back up, you can check it on the game threads.

and if it's true that he's a #2, should the yanks have traded him for santana?

Definitely not. If he becomes a reliable #2, that you have realtively cheap for 6 years, that's way more valuable than a #1 who cost $125M.

The reason you'd do the trade is the, not insignifcant, chance of a serious injury/flameout.

That Toronto gun was loaded. Hughes' fastball was very average in '07. Here's to hoping/praying he's fixed whatever was wrong.

Fangraphs has his fastball at 91 mph last year. Is being 'injury-free' going to help him pick up 4-6 mph? I'm honestly curious.

Also, I have an agreement with Repoz that I will make at least one Brian McNamee reference per preseason Yankees piece.

Mike...Good luck working McNamee into that Pete Mikklesen starring vehicle..."John List: My Shabby Ass Family" screenplay you've been working on.

The reason you'd do the trade is the, not insignifcant, chance of a serious injury/flameout.

The chance of serious injury or flameout is another reason to not do the trade. If Hughes goes down, you lose your ace; if Santana goes down, you lose your ace and $100M.

I'm a Mets fan, and I'd trade Johan for Hughes straight up, right now.

FWIW, from MLB.com (not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs!):

The Yankees' catching tandem was ready to hit the streets after another early afternoon at camp when Jose Molina dropped by with a tidbit for Jorge Posada.

Having just completed receiving Phil Hughes' latest bullpen session, an impressed Molina told Posada, "You know what? Phil looks like he has more pop."

Posada concurred, and the backstops aren't the only ones who have noticed.... Hughes confirms he's hitting the glove with more force than in his debut season, when he won five games for New York, plus one more in the playoffs.

Anyone catch the postgame wrap up of the Yanks/Hokies exhibition?

Some good stuff in there.

The chance of serious injury or flameout is another reason to not do the trade. If Hughes goes down, you lose your ace; if Santana goes down, you lose your ace and $100M.

I meant the increased injury risk for a young pitcher who hasn't proven he can handle a 200 IP season.

But, I agree with you that I wouldn't trade Hughes for Santana straight up.

Anyone catch the postgame wrap up of the Yanks/Hokies exhibition?

Yeah, the part about A-rod hanging out in the Hokie dugout was pretty cool. The rest of it was touching.

Santana is worth four Phil Hugheses. Jesus.

Santana is worth four Phil Hugheses.

Yes, but Santana is not worth one Phil Hughes plus $125M.

Sure he is.

For one thing, the Mets are going to win the World Series because of Santana, which they wouldn't do with Phil Hughes plus $125M. For another, assuming Hughes becomes any good at all, he's not going to be free for the next seven years. Assuming he becomes an average rotation starter he'll probably earn $25-$40 million over that time.

You're asserting that Santana is worth four Phil Hugheses, but advocating paying him as much as 60 Phil Hugheses?

EDIT: Even if Hughes does make a quarter of what Santana makes over the next seven years, Santana probably won't be worth "four" Hugheses seven years from now. Maybe 1.7 Hugheses, or even .6 Hugheses, or since this is pitchers we're talking about, possibly 0 Hugheses.

Bottom line is, Yankees did the low-risk move.

Santana probably won't be worth "four" Hugheses seven years from now. Maybe 1.7 Hugheses, or even .6 Hugheses, or since this is pitchers we're talking about, possibly 0 Hugheses.

I would think its more likely Santana is still a quality major league pitcher in 7 years than Hughes.

I would think its more likely Santana is still a quality major league pitcher in 7 years than Hughes.

I agree with Conor

It means probably nothing, but Rotoworld has relayed reports of the Yanks scouting both Blanton and Harden recently. Don't shoot me, I'm just a messenger on this. Greg Smith and Dana Eveland both looked strong this spring, so it's possible the A's feel they have some depth to deal. Who knows.

I would think its more likely Santana is still a quality major league pitcher in 7 years than Hughes.

Yes, but in three years, you'll be able to make that assessment better. And it can either cost you 1 mil if you bet on Hughes, or 40 some million if you bet on Santana.

I would trade Hughes for Santana straight up. But I still think Hughes, in terms of value per dollar or whatever is the safer bet. Doesn't mean its the right one though.

They already made the John List story into a movie (sort of): The Stepfather, a classic BTW. Mikklesen does look eerily like List. How Repoz guessed at my childhood fascination with True Crime is very weird.

Would Hughes turning into a #2 really be that disappointing? That's someone who gives you a consistent 105-110 ERA+ (think Jon Garland) year in and year out. That's not a bad player to have cheaply for six years.

Would Hughes turning into a #2 really be that disappointing?

Yes.

How Repoz guessed at my childhood fascination with True Crime is very weird.

As Edmund Kemper once said about pointing out other serial killers in a crowd..."There's a brother...there's a sister"

Yes, but in three years, you'll be able to make that assessment better. And it can either cost you 1 mil if you bet on Hughes, or 40 some million if you bet on Santana.

Well yeah, but thats also 3 years where you could win the WS with Santana on your team. Not that the Yankees can't win it now, of course, but they would look a lot stronger if they had Santana fronting their rotation.

I would trade Hughes for Santana straight up. But I still think Hughes, in terms of value per dollar or whatever is the safer bet. Doesn't mean its the right one though.

Well sure, in terms of value per dollar he's the safer bet, because he is making peanuts right now and he won't make any real money if he isn't very good. I do think it's funny that the Yankees, of all teams, are a team worried about value per dollar. In terms of winning the WS, I think Santana is the better bet. But the whole situation worked out well for the Yankees, at least for now. Johan doesn't go to the Sox, and the Yanks get to keep their kids. I don't know how this generation of Steinbrenners feels about the Mets; but I think George probably wasn't too happy he landed in Queens.

One other point I wanted to comment on; sure if you keep Hughes you also get to keep the $125 million, but what are the options out there that are better to spend it on than Santana? I guess maybe C.C.; you would probably rather have CC and Hughes over Santana, but it's obviously no lock you even sign him so I don't know. I don't think paying the best pitcher in the game $125 million or whatever is the burden that some people seem to think it is.

Would Hughes turning into a #2 really be that disappointing?

Yes.

Really? That seems like the expectations are too high for him then, when you consider the flameout factor.

Would Hughes turning into a #2 really be that disappointing?

Yes.

Really? Huh. I mean, I will experience disappointment if Clay Buchholz turns out to be Javier Vazquez, but I'll also be really happy about having a good, solid homegrown pitcher with a ridiculous changeup on the staff. The happiness in getting to root for a good, homegrown player will far outweigh the disappointment that he seems to be falling short of the Hall of Fame.

There's definitely no disappointment in Jonathan Papelbon turning into Billy Wagner instead of Curt Schilling.

If I may, I think Yankee fans are a bit spoiled on the prospects. Wang and Cano came out of nowhere to be All-Star performers - that was frickin' weird. When a BA top 10 prospect becomes an All-Star, it's been a huge success. Phil Hughes, solid #2 starter (in the vernacular sense) is a great outcome for the Yankees and their fans. The baseline for a much better prospect than Cano or Wang is much lower than what Cano and Wang have achieved.

Well yeah, but thats also 3 years where you could win the WS with Santana on your team.

Hey, I agree with you, just playing devil's advocate.

I do think it's funny that the Yankees, of all teams, are a team worried about value per dollar.

I don't they are. I do support this theoretical Hughes for Santana. I did not support the Melky, Hughes, Marquez and Jackson trade or whatever the Twins were asking for. Based on what the Mets gave up, that would have been way way too much talent to give up. It's hard for me to believe that the Yanks, after signing Posada, Mo and A-rod to huge contracts, stopped trying to get Santana because of the money.

Really? That seems like the expectations are too high for him then, when you consider the flameout factor.

Eh, I know that a flameout can happen, it won't disappoint me, it will be a "#### happens" kind of thing. If he's healthy and never tops a 115 ERA+ in his career, I'll be let down.

I mean, I will experience disappointment if Clay Buchholz turns out to be Javier Vazquez, but I'll also be really happy about having a good, solid homegrown pitcher with a ridiculous changeup on the staff.

Javier Vazquez is a much better pitcher, who has shown much more upside, than John Garland. If Hughes turns into Vazquez, I'll be happy.

Javier Vazquez is a much better pitcher, who has shown much more upside, than John Garland. If Hughes turns into Vazquez, I'll be happy.

I was using the vernacular sense of #2 starter, becuase I presume that's how it was used by the scouts in reference to Hughes. It doesn't mean between the 31st and 60th best pitcher in baseball. It means more like, very good but won't win a Cy Young and unlikely to be the best pitcher on a world series winning team.

I don't think of Jon Garland as a "#2 starter" in the sense of the term in which the scout was using it.

I was using the vernacular sense of #2 starter, becuase I presume that's how it was used by the scouts in reference to Hughes. It doesn't mean between the 31st and 60th best pitcher in baseball. It means more like, very good but won't win a Cy Young and unlikely to be the best pitcher on a world series winning team.

I don't think of Jon Garland as a "#2 starter" in the sense of the term in which the scout was using it.

This problem comes up everytime some uses this terminolgy (Ace, #2, #3, etc.). I agree, I don't think that's what the scout meant, but I answered the question posed in 30, which had it's own, more literal (?), definition of a #2 starter. I'll be disappointed if Hughes turns into a guy who doesn't strike alot of guys out and becomes an easily tradeable or forgettable commodity like John Garland or Jeff Suppan. If Hughes turns in a career somewhere between Andy Pettitte and Javier Vazquez's (or somewhere just below) career, well, that'll be awesome.

Oh, I missed that he specified that in the original question. Consistent 105-110 ERA+, that would be pretty borderline for me. On the one hand, Jon Garland is more than you get out of most pitching prospects. On the other hand, yeah, Jon Garland.

They already made the John List story into a movie (sort of): The Stepfather

Yeah good movie, for the type. The lead's reminds me of Patty Duke's Father, gone totally psycho.

Also, there is a TV film with Robert "Barretta" Blake as List, he does a decent job.

Jeff Suppan

If Jeff Suppan is #2, who's #3?

I don't think the point is that it would be somehow disappointing if Hughes actually became a No. 2-caliber starter. I quibble with the notion that the blue sky scenario for Hughes right now is No. 2 starter. I think it's still No. 1 starter.

Yeah good movie, for the type. The lead's reminds me of Patty Duke's Father, gone totally psycho.

He actually says at one point, "Father Knows Best," so maybe it's more Robert Young. The movie works best as a black comedy. When Shelly Hack gets cracked over the head with the phone as the past of her husband is (too) slowly being processed by her dim brain, you can't help but laugh.

Also, there is a TV film with Robert "Barretta" Blake as List, he does a decent job.

Type casting, I guess. Courtesy of Nostradamus.