Liriano or Hughes

Hughes

I can't see Liriano ever staying healthy with his pitching motion. He reminds me of Kerry Wood. Hughes has the frame to pitch 220 innings for a long time without major injury.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 1, 2007 10:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hughes, if I had to pick one for my team

Liriano cannot sustain a healthy career as a starter.

by Cherith Cutestory on Dec 1, 2007 10:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Liriano

The Yankees are willing to part with Hughes, Melky, and Tabata/Kennedy/whomever to get Santana.

And yet Liriano can be better than Santana on his own. It's a big risk. But you only control Liriano for 5 years anyways. If you can get 3 ace years from Liriano that would top 5 healthy solid years from Hughes IMO.

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 12:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re

The Yanks aren't willing to part w/ Hughes, Melky, Kennedy/whomever to get Santana, at least yet. If they were, Santana would be in pinstripes right now. The two teams are still fighting over the 3rd player from the Yanks.

by albo4lyfe on Dec 2, 2007 3:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Shocked

I'm a little, actually I'm more than a little shocked that people are choosing Liriano by a 3-2 count. I guess I value long term durability much higher than most people, especially for pitchers.

If I was a GM, I would take Hughes without any hesitation mainly because of the injury history for Liriano. You cannot ignore this fact. Liriano hasn't even come back yet from his recent injury, and we don't know how well he will perform when he does. Can he make it through a full season healthy? He's had shoulder problems in the past, and shoulder problems usually are the kiss of death for pitchers.

If we polled everyone in 2003, who would you rather start your team with,Mark Prior or Jake Peavy? It would be the biggest Mark Prior lovefest ever. Obviously, Prior put up a monster, monster year. Now we had no information 4 years ago whether or not Peavy or Prior would be more injury prone than the other. But Prior is a solid example of how injuries can decimate even the most promising pitchers career in a hurry.

Liriano has a history of arm injuries, and MLB is littered with examples of pitchers who just flat out dominated for a few years then faded away quickly due to injuries. Hughes did have a few issues in his 2nd year, and a strained hammy last year, but that is a flukish injury which really doesn't affect him in the long run.

The other thing is, with all the Joba, Lincecum, Felix love-- is that Hughes put up a pretty impressive season this year all things considered. As a 21 year old, he pitched in the tougher league, and gave up just 64 hits in 72.2 IP this year.

Man, if I was a GM, I'd take Hughes in a heartbeat. I'd feel more confident that 5 years from now, I have an All Star in Hughes. And 10 years from now Hughes is still on my roster and pitching well. Liriano on the other hand is a wild card. While I hope he comes back healthy and totally dominates for many years to come, with his injury history, it's tougher to predict his future career path. In 5 years he could be a dominant All Star or possibly a fringe player if he gets decimated by injuries. Really, when your talking about 2 #1 starters here, why would you chance it by preferring the #1 who has a higher degree of variance in terms of the production he will provide over his career?

I just think the safer, more logical pick is on Hughes for the long term vs Liriano. Liriano does have the nastier repertoire, but if your the GM, I guess it comes down to how much risk you are willing to take, and how confident you are in Liriano staying healthy.

by Maurice on Dec 2, 2007 5:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Injury history

Liriano had a shoulder issue/weakness with the Giants, and the Twins medical staff addressed that with him when he came to them. He had a great season with their minor league system the following year, and continued to dominate in 2005. His mechanics have always been a problem for him, but when he shoulder was strong, his elbow was protected-to some degree. As he started to fatigue (and stopped working on his strengthening in the majors), his elbow bore more stress, and the ligament eventually wore down, leading to the surgery. My biggest concern with his rehab was that he would not do it faithfully, and that he was stubborn about following the team direction with regard to medical decisions. According to those who have worked with him in his rehab, he's been a model patient, and his arm is ready to roll come spring training. I was VERY skeptical about how this would play out, and said so on this site, but I'm moving his value up several ticks as a result of what I've learned.
Now, Phil Hughes is a different animal. He's never gone through a minor league season or major league season without an injury of some kind. This year it was his hamstring and his ankle. In the minors, it was his shoulder. At the end of the 2007 season, he was fully healthy, it would seem, so no current injury is hanging over him. That said, to argue that Hughes is a better bet at stardom than Liriano on the basis of his lesser injury history is just plain wrong. Liriano has already had his blowout, and is on the other side of it, ready to contribute to the team in 2008. Hughes has yet to pass through his injury nexus, and while I don't forecast a significant injury on anyone, I put Hughes in the high risk category based on his multiple problems thus far, and it wouldn't surprise me if he came up with a big problem within the next 3 seasons.
For these reasons, I took Liriano in the poll.
JAS

by jasvlm on Dec 2, 2007 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

"He's never gone through a minor league season or major league season without an injury of some kind."

What was Hughes' injury in 2006?

by Yossarian on Dec 2, 2007 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

actually they are

What hasn't been agreed is who the "whomever" is. My usage of "whomever" was to indicate the Yankees are willing to move Hughes + Melky + another prospect for Santana.

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Giants

That's why he was added into that AJ deal - SF was down on him due to the shoulder problems so early on in his career.

by guru4u on Dec 2, 2007 8:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not picking on you knucksie

But how much of that "nasty stuff" that Liriano has is due to his flawed mechanics? My guess is that he does not get the same break on his slider if he changes his mechanics, which may be a big reason why he is unwilling to change.

We probably are looking at the next Kerry Wood - a guy with ultra-nasty stuff that is caused by his poor mechanics. The only question is how long Liriano can stay healthy and deliver ace results. In Wood's case, it was not very long at all.

by guru4u on Dec 2, 2007 8:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

If I were a GM in a draft

picking between the two. I would have to choose Hughes. Liriano does have that chance to be Santana-like which is great for the Twins if they can get both these guys.

Hughes looks pretty easy going on the mound and a lot of people don't seem to have a problem with Hughes being a future #1 (I do see him as a good #2).

I may be a wuss but Hughes is safer without giving that much in upside as Liriano could be plagued with injuries the rest of his career and another arm injury will probably end his career...

Go Jays!!!!

Allan's World

Blue bird Banter

by achengy on Dec 2, 2007 12:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hughes

I just don't trust Liriano to stay healthy enough to be able to stay with Hughes over time. His mechanics make my elbow and shoulder both hurt.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Dec 2, 2007 12:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I like how...

... more of the commenters are going Hughes and more of the voters are going Liriano.

It's Hughes for me. Injury issues for him too, but nothing like Liriano's. Upside's nothing to sneeze at, and he was really good in his rookie year last as well, even with the inconsistency and missed time.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 2, 2007 1:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Liriano

for me. Not sure Hughes is out of the woods re: injuries himself, going fwd I see him as just as big a risk as Liriano in that dept. So with that being equal Liriano has the better stuff, is more MLB proven, a lefty, a verifiable ace #1; difficult to get those guys. I like Hughes a lot but he isn't on that level so its an easy choice for me.

Mulder: Babe Ruth was an alien? Arthur Dales: sure; all the great ones were aliens.

by dew on Dec 2, 2007 2:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

not a big Hughes fan....

....but I'm certainly voting for him here.

no matter how big an injury risk you think he is, is can't compare to that of a guy with two separate major arm injuries with a violent motion who also hasn't pitched in over a year.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 2, 2007 2:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

two?

If by the other you mean his shoulder weakness then Hughes had the same problem. Many dismiss this history with Hughes - but the Yankees kept him 6ip or less and below 100pitches for a full year to protect that shoulder. Obviously there was some cause for concern.

The TJ is a serious cause for concern though. I would agree Hughes is the safer bet. I'm just of the opinion that top-notch talent is worth so much more than solid players. It's the reason ARod gets 30 million and Santana might get 25.

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the Yankees kept him 6ip or less and below 100pitc

This never happened.

...NJASDJDH...

by Fabian on Dec 2, 2007 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

huh?

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re: huh, pedrophile

You said: the Yankees kept him 6ip or less and below 100pitches for a full year to protect that shoulder

However, this never happened, so I was pointing that out.

...NJASDJDH...

by Fabian on Dec 2, 2007 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was referring to his year in the minors

and I thought that was the case. Do you have more info to bring that to light? Or are you referring to last year?

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 10:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

year in the minors

It wasn't until about halfway through the season (when they realized he was going to blow past the innings total they wanted for him) that the Yankees instituted the 75 pitches or 5 innings whichever comes first rule. Prior to that it was up to the manager's discretion. For example, in his June 23rd start where he went 8 innings, Hughes threw 112 pitches. This was after throwing 102 on the 18th, and 103 on the 13th.

...NJASDJDH...

by Fabian on Dec 2, 2007 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

but they were all changeups so he wasn't throwing very hard.

joke.

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

System philosophy

"but the Yankees kept him 6ip or less and below 100pitches for a full year to protect that shoulder. Obviously there was some cause for concern."

Those restrictions had more to do with it being his Age 20 season, and with the Yankees philosophy of being extremely cautious with all their young arms. For example, in August 2006, Hughes teammate at Trenton, Tyler Clippard, tossed a complete game no-hitter during which he was allowed to throw 116 pitches. Clippard was a year older than Hughes and had no injury history (in fact, he had never missed a start at any level). Still, word is that the Yankee brass was upset that he was allowed to go the full 9 and throw over 100 pitches, and the Trenton manager was fired at season's end.

by Yossarian on Dec 2, 2007 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Restrictions

I should say that I assume you were referring to Hughes' 2006 minor league season when you mentioned the innings and pitch-count limits.

by Yossarian on Dec 2, 2007 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

that would be correct

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Liriano

if healthy, but thats a huge if. I'll go with Hughes and probably end up regreting it.

by nyy601 on Dec 2, 2007 3:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

TJ Aftermath

What is the history of pitchers after Tommy John? Are flawed mechanics going to lead to another TJ surgery? I have never heard of anyone needing it twice. Maybe the next thing will be the shoulder maybe? Or maybe not.

Since many pitchers come back from TJ as good as before, I am hoping that will be true of Liriano.

If that happens, there is no doubt in my mind that Liriano is the better choice, because of his already established ability to dominate mlb hitters.

by JRTwins on Dec 2, 2007 8:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

TJ

many things:

First of all when a player gets back from TJ they typically regain their velocity after a year. But it takes them time to gain the control. I think this is more a result of a year layoff than the actual surgery.

But there are players where the control doesn't come back. And there are players where the velocity doesn't come back - Foppert.

I think the mechanics leading to TJ are overrated. Dustin McGowan recently had TJ and a recovery. What's not mentioned was the actual damage was done in HS. His tear was there for about 4 years before it put him under the knife. He threw mid 90's nasty stuff while having a tear. Eventually of course he needed surgery.

Is Dustin a leading candidate to get TJ again? I highly doubt it as he has solid mechanics.

I think Liriano has a serious risk. But this is more about whether he regains his stuff & control. Not about future risk.

by pedrophile on Dec 2, 2007 10:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs