wonder what the yankees could have gotten for them at their trade peak?
can't imagine either fetches much now.
obviously there are advantages to holding on to young cost controlled talent but it seems like the safer bet is to trade almost everyone that doesn't have a high probability to turn into a high war player. obviously figuring that out isn't easy, but the odds are just so low in baseball.
I was just now watching the MLB network and the topic was "Who has more trade value? Joba or Phil?" Harold Reynolds and Eric Byrnes both agreed that neither guys were worth much. Ouch.
[3] Maybe as trade bait, but Hughes is a more or less league average starting pitcher or a little worse. That's going to equate to a pretty good contract in the offseason. He's still worth something. But the Yankees and Joba himself have managed to develop Chamberlain into a very bad middle reliever. And that's not worth too much.
[1] I know, crap shoot, yada yada. But Hughes *was* a safe bet to be a real producer, right? and so was, for example, Jesus Montero. Do the Yankees simply do a bad job of getting the most out of such talent? Or is it just as bad for all organizations?
for all the "GRITTY GRIT GRITTINESS" jokes I make about Michael Young, if you can somehow...some way...turn Joba into Young and Chooch, well that's not bad.
Hughes I think you can get a pretty nice return for, since I think if he lands in the right spot he can be a solid 2-3 starter. I mean shit, as recently as last year he was basically a decent 3 starter here. You stick him in Arizona or San Diego and he'll (relatively) thrive.
wonder what the yankees could have gotten for them at their trade peak?
can't imagine either fetches much now.
obviously there are advantages to holding on to young cost controlled talent but it seems like the safer bet is to trade almost everyone that doesn't have a high probability to turn into a high war player. obviously figuring that out isn't easy, but the odds are just so low in baseball.
Johan Santana.
I was just now watching the MLB network and the topic was "Who has more trade value? Joba or Phil?" Harold Reynolds and Eric Byrnes both agreed that neither guys were worth much. Ouch.
[3] Maybe as trade bait, but Hughes is a more or less league average starting pitcher or a little worse. That's going to equate to a pretty good contract in the offseason. He's still worth something. But the Yankees and Joba himself have managed to develop Chamberlain into a very bad middle reliever. And that's not worth too much.
[1] I know, crap shoot, yada yada. But Hughes *was* a safe bet to be a real producer, right? and so was, for example, Jesus Montero. Do the Yankees simply do a bad job of getting the most out of such talent? Or is it just as bad for all organizations?
for all the "GRITTY GRIT GRITTINESS" jokes I make about Michael Young, if you can somehow...some way...turn Joba into Young and Chooch, well that's not bad.
Hughes I think you can get a pretty nice return for, since I think if he lands in the right spot he can be a solid 2-3 starter. I mean shit, as recently as last year he was basically a decent 3 starter here. You stick him in Arizona or San Diego and he'll (relatively) thrive.