Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JetNation

Yankees dispatch Hughes, three others to minors

Recommended Posts

Scott was almost Tucker-like in this thread.

SD, TD is officially your daddy. I mean, that was just an astounding level of pwnage.

What color pom pons come with your cheerleader outfit?

Just because you agree with another person's point of view, does not make that other person's argument correct.

And you left a little on your chin ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What color pom pons come with your cheerleader outfit?

Just because you agree with another person's point of view, does not make that other person's argument correct.

And you left a little on your chin ;)

Nothing worse than sour grapes. Dude, when you take a beating, take it like a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing worse than sour grapes. Dude, when you take a beating, take it like a man.

I still firmly believe that when the Yankees installed Phil Hughes in the rotation last year, they believed and wanted him to be in the rotation this year.

If you don't believe that, you are only fooling yourself.

yes, pitching depth is great. But what the Yankees truly hoped for, was someone providing depth for Hughes, not vice versa.

That is reality. Sugar coat it all you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still firmly believe that when the Yankees installed Phil Hughes in the rotation last year, they believed and wanted him to be in the rotation this year.

If you don't believe that, you are only fooling yourself.

yes, pitching depth is great. But what the Yankees truly hoped for, was someone providing depth for Hughes, not vice versa.

That is reality. Sugar coat it all you want.

and?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you really this dense? It is ridicilous to think any team, even the Yankees, would pay both Santana and Sabathia. There is way too much risk in signing a pitcher to 7-8 year contracts, let alone two.

You may want to get yourself up to date on this issue. Sabathia and Santana are connected, it was reported this off season, Cashman decided last offseason NOT trade Hughes and other prospects for Santana, but instead wait 1 season, and sign Sabathia, thus not trading Hughes + other prospects.

Kind of interesting how you think having both Captain Cheeseburger and Santana is a huge risk, yet no mention of having CC and Burnett as risky; Burnett a guy who has won more than 12 games exactly once in his injury riddled career.

Edited by Zeebers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kind of interesting how you think having both Captain Cheeseburger and Santana is a huge risk, yet no mention of having CC and Burnett as risky; Burnett a guy who has won more than 12 games exactly once in his injury riddled career.

Last time I checked Burnett isn't making Sabathia/Santana money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rays just sent down pitcher David Price to AAA, I guess that shows how much they think of him.

:yawn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rays just sent down pitcher David Price to AAA, I guess that shows how much they think of him.

:yawn:

That's a financial move "for now". Slow start by their 4th and 5th starters will curtail that quickly.

Hughes looked very good this spring and will be fine. It was nice to see him setting up the curveball again.

I think he could probably handle a rotation spot out of the gate this year and never look back but the Yanks (rightfully so) panicked a little bit with the Burnett signing after the three kids all did less than what they expected last season. With Joba's innings limits, Burnett's injury history and Pettitte's age, we will see Phil in the majors this year. I also think Wang has a big year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still firmly believe that when the Yankees installed Phil Hughes in the rotation last year, they believed and wanted him to be in the rotation this year.

If you don't believe that, you are only fooling yourself.

yes, pitching depth is great. But what the Yankees truly hoped for, was someone providing depth for Hughes, not vice versa.

That is reality. Sugar coat it all you want.

That's correct. Cashman called all 3 kids last spring "future number ones". He may still be correct but if you say that and start the 08 season with 2 in your rotation and the third scheduled to join in mid season, you sure as hell expect all 3 in your following years rotation. When that does not happen their is no wording that will color the situation as anything but a disappointment...... at least at this time.

I still think Joba and Hughes will be very good though. Kennedy does not appear to have a spot down the road unless the Yanks don't want to pay Wang when the time comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What color pom pons come with your cheerleader outfit?

Just because you agree with another person's point of view, does not make that other person's argument correct.

And you left a little on your chin ;)

Scott does need a standing 8 count. Earlier he said personal attacks aren't good. Then this.

Tyler was asked to provide proof that Cashman wanted to wait for CC and he did. Seems like ownage to me. Oh wait, I left off the p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a financial move "for now". Slow start by their 4th and 5th starters will curtail that quickly.

Are you sure? This isn't an Evan Longoria situation where his arbitration clock hasn't started, he was called up last year, and was on the post season roster.

Edited by Tyler Durden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last time I checked Burnett isn't making Sabathia/Santana money.

I guess 82 million dollars for a pitcher who is not in same league as Santana or CC is chump change.

5 years 82 million for Burnett not a risk, but 137 for 6 is risky. A guy who has had an injury plagued career and has won more than 12 games exactly once in his career is more of a risk than perhaps the best pitcher of his generation. Interesting, but I guess to each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess 82 million dollars for a pitcher who is not in same league as Santana or CC is chump change.

5 years 82 million for Burnett not a risk, but 137 for 6 is risky. A guy who has had an injury plagued career and has won more than 12 games exactly once in his career is more of a risk than perhaps the best pitcher of his generation. Interesting, but I guess to each his own.

8 and 7 years deals are not ask risky as 5 year deals. How is that even arguable? That was my argument.

Of course there all risky, but, having both Santana and Sabathia (Which the original poster said) means you have 2 pitchers with 7 or 8 year deals, not even the Yankees would do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 and 7 years deals are not ask risky as 5 year deals. How is that even arguable? That was my argument.

Of course there all risky, but, having both Santana and Sabathia (Which the original poster said) means you have 2 pitchers with 7 or 8 year deals, not even the Yankees would do that.

Obviously giving any pitcher a long term deal is a risk whether it is 6 or 7 years. My point is you claimed that giving 2 pitchers long term deals is too much of a risk even for the Yankees. What you failed to do is mention that they actually did give long term deals to 2 pitchers, the difference is one of them is not in Santana's class. I get it, 5 years is not as much as 6 years, and 137 is > 83. I appreciate the Math lesson btw. But The truth is Santana has not had a history of injuries, Burnett has. Of course the money is different, Santana is arguably the best pitcher in the league and he is paid accordingly. What exactly is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously giving any pitcher a long term deal is a risk whether it is 6 or 7 years. My point is you claimed that giving 2 pitchers long term deals is too much of a risk even for the Yankees. What you failed to do is mention that they actually did give long term deals to 2 pitchers, the difference is one of them is not in Santana's class. I get it, 5 years is not as much as 6 years, and 137 is > 83. I appreciate the Math lesson btw. But The truth is Santana has not had a history of injuries, Burnett has. Of course the money is different, Santana is arguably the best pitcher in the league and he is paid accordingly. What exactly is your point?

My point was not even the Yankees can give 2 pitchers a 7 or 8 year deal worth the amount of money they got. Weather you like it our not 5 years is not 7 or 8 years. It's less risky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was not even the Yankees can give 2 pitchers a 7 or 8 year deal worth the amount of money they got. Weather you like it our not 5 years is not 7 or 8 years. It's less risky.

Do you not take into account performance and injury history? Are those not factors in determining risk?

Which is less risky? Giving Carl Pavano 4 years at 25 million or giving Oliver Perez 6 years at 45 million, hypothetically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not take into account performance and injury history? Are those not factors in determining risk?

Which is less risky? Giving Carl Pavano 4 years at 25 million or giving Oliver Perez 6 years at 45 million, hypothetically speaking.

You can cut your losses much easier. You get rid of the bad contract after 4 years rather than after almost a decade. Some teams don't have the money to bench a guy after paying him that much so if he sucks you are stuck with him. There are a multitude of reasons that can be summed up in one word: More. More money, more years = more risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not take into account performance and injury history? Are those not factors in determining risk?

Which is less risky? Giving Carl Pavano 4 years at 25 million or giving Oliver Perez 6 years at 45 million, hypothetically speaking.

I agree with you in the aspect that should be taken into account, but when you're up in the 7-8 year range, that IMO is a different level of risk. That is a hell of a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link ???

My apologies...Actually it was Hank on looking it up which diminishes the statement somewhat, at least in my mind. Point still remains if they were all 3 in 08's rotation it is a disappointment to have only one this year and on a innings count no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/sports/baseball/06yankees.html?ex=1354597200&en=177a8ea33f9e4982&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My apologies...Actually it was Hank on looking it up which diminishes the statement somewhat, at least in my mind. Point still remains if they were all 3 in 08's rotation it is a disappointment to have only one this year and on a innings count no less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/sports/baseball/06yankees.html?ex=1354597200&en=177a8ea33f9e4982&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

In additon, he mentions that they would have 3 #1's down the road in three years. He didn't specifically name which three. No one in the organization has said or ever believed that Ian Kennedy could be one of those.

Hughes and Chamberlain very much could still be on that course and timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Rays just sent down pitcher David Price to AAA, I guess that shows how much they think of him.

:yawn:

Again, apples vs oranges.

Price has NEVER been handed a rotation spot by the Rays, and proceeded to lose it. Hughes did.

If Hughes showed any kind of consistency related to health and prowess, the Yankees do not either get one of either Pettitte or Burnette.

That has been my point all along. Their intent, as we sat here last year, was not to have Hughes serve as DEPTH. Not the plan at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, apples vs oranges.

Price has NEVER been handed a rotation spot by the Rays, and proceeded to lose it. Hughes did.

If Hughes showed any kind of consistency related to health and prowess, the Yankees do not either get one of either Pettitte or Burnette.

That has been my point all along. Their intent, as we sat here last year, was not to have Hughes serve as DEPTH. Not the plan at all.

The plan was to have 3 of the minor league pitching prospects in the rotation by next season. I say there is a strong chance that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your all over the map, your head is spinning.

You can turn this into negative all you want, but Hughes pitched as well as anyone thing spring, but because of the Yankees depth he's in AAA. You can't even name 5 teams that Hughes wouldn't be in the rotation for.

The name of the game is to win championships, and when you have $85-90 million dollars coming off you books, and your pitching the previous season was very thin, and there are several big time pitchers on the market, you pick up those pitcher, period.

Edited by Tyler Durden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your all over the map, your head is spinning.

You can turn this into negative all you want, but Hughes pitched as well as anyone thing spring, but because of our depth he's in AAA. Hughes would be in any other teams rotation, besides MAYBE the Sox.

How can you be down on Hughes after this spring training? I agree with you TD. Plus you can still have him come up and help depending on the situation. I'd rather him hone his skills this year in AAA and come up later in the year maybe to make an occasional start/out of the bullpen. You can bet he'll be in the rotation next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In additon, he mentions that they would have 3 #1's down the road in three years. He didn't specifically name which three. No one in the organization has said or ever believed that Ian Kennedy could be one of those.

Hughes and Chamberlain very much could still be on that course and timeline.

Come on. The quote is directly below him being asked about those three pitchers.

I don't understand why it is so hard for some Yank fans to admit that last pre-seasons hype on those 3 kids took a giant step backwards over the following 12 months.

It does not mean that they still can't or will not be good. It just means last years plan with those 3 failed for various reasons.....injurie, performance, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you be down on Hughes after this spring training? I agree with you TD. Plus you can still have him come up and help depending on the situation. I'd rather him hone his skills this year in AAA and come up later in the year maybe to make an occasional start/out of the bullpen. You can bet he'll be in the rotation next year.

If we're lucky, we won't see Hughes at all in 2008. That would mean all of our starters are healthy and pitching well, and if that happens... we're winning a championship.

I think this will def. be Andy Pettitte's last season with the Yankees, wether he likes it out not.. to be honest. His spot will probably be giving Hughes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on. The quote is directly below him being asked about those three pitchers.

I don't understand why it is so hard for some Yank fans to admit that last pre-seasons hype on those 3 kids took a giant step backwards over the following 12 months.

It does not mean that they still can't or will not be good. It just means last years plan with those 3 failed for various reasons.....injurie, performance, etc.

The hype for one of them is just as strong; the hype for the other has cooled off a bit but there is still hope and confidence in him. The third guy you are right. 2 our of 3 aint bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on. The quote is directly below him being asked about those three pitchers.

I don't understand why it is so hard for some Yank fans to admit that last pre-seasons hype on those 3 kids took a giant step backwards over the following 12 months.

It does not mean that they still can't or will not be good. It just means last years plan with those 3 failed for various reasons.....injurie, performance, etc.

What does Hank have to do with anything? He wasn't even around when these guys where drafted, and he doesn't even run the team, his brother Hal does, though he obviously has given Cashman control of all the baseball decisions. Hal runs the business side. Hank's a mouth piece, and nothing more.

Edited by Tyler Durden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your all over the map, your head is spinning.

You can turn this into negative all you want, but Hughes pitched as well as anyone thing spring, but because of the Yankees depth he's in AAA. You can't even name 5 teams that Hughes wouldn't be in the rotation for.

The name of the game is to win championships, and when you have $85-90 million dollars coming off you books, and your pitching the previous season was very thin, and there are several big time pitchers on the market, you pick up those pitcher, period.

Based on WHAT are you projecting Hughes as a starter on the majority of mlb teams?

What basis can you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plan was to have 3 of the minor league pitching prospects in the rotation by next season. I say there is a strong chance that happens.

So Hughes in the rotation last season was an aberration?

Do you have a link to that plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plan was to have 3 of the minor league pitching prospects in the rotation by next season. I say there is a strong chance that happens.

Actually "the plan" was to have the three in LAST years rotation, which they were. You must remember the endless Generation Trey talk pr'd to death by the Yankees.

The plan at this point has failed. I agree year three will be a different story for Joba and Phil. I don't see a slot for Kennedy though barring injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on WHAT are you projecting Hughes as a starter on the majority of mlb teams?

What basis can you say that?

Pretty easy. Hughes is the Yankees 6th starter, name 5 teams that has a better 5th starter than Chamberlain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually "the plan" was to have the three in LAST years rotation, which they were. You must remember the endless Generation Trey talk pr'd to death by the Yankees.

The plan at this point has failed. I agree year three will be a different story for Joba and Phil. I don't see a slot for Kennedy though barring injuries.

Pretty sure if Santana or Sabathia where free agents last off season, they would of signed one of them. The free agent market for starting pitchers last season was not good.

Edited by Tyler Durden

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...