Comments on: Hughes could put Yankees over the top

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:14:50 +0000

http://www.sell.com/2389VV

Great games there!!

By: Jennifer - Save Phil Hughes!

Jennifer - Save Phil Hughes! — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:38:26 +0000

Okay people keep saying Randy was on the downside of his career when we got him. Well the year before he had an era of 2.60 177 hits in 245 innings. 290 so. I also believe he threw a no hitter that year. So to say he was on the down side is in accurate. He also did pretty well for us that season save the post season. So please don’t revise history.

By: El Comaduce

El Comaduce — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:16:22 +0000

Hughes will be carving up the American League, and Boston will still have Beckett, Dice K, Bucholz and Lester.
Joba will be our closer and Santana, Wang, Kennedy and Horne (if heâ€™s not traded) will not be better than Bostonâ€™s rotation.

VOIII – while your at it can we also get some lotto numbers? Mega millions is up to about half of what he just signed A-Rod for…

By: Jason

Jason — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:40:35 +0000

I can understand why people are sad to see Hughes go, but for the life of me, I will never be able to understand the thinking that getting the best pitcher in baseball, in his prime, is a bad thing.

By: VOIII

VOIII — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:36:38 +0000

I am not going to debate this anymore if the trade happens you guys will be on this blog three or four years from now asking why the F(*^$ did we do that trade… Hughes will be carving up the American League, and Boston will still have Beckett, Dice K, Bucholz and Lester.
Joba will be our closer and Santana, Wang, Kennedy and Horne (if he’s not traded) will not be better than Boston’s rotation.

But all of this is really not the point. The point is that, the Yankees can probably get this guy by being patient and not throwing Hughes in the mix so fast.

By: err

err — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:32:48 +0000

Javier Vazquez was never an all-star prior to joining the Yankees (although he ended up making the all-star team once they acquired him). He was a guy who was pretty young that the Yankees thought would be pretty good. obviously that didn’t work out for them. But they werent adding him because he was some awesome all-star with a great MLB record, like Randy Johnson was.

They were trying to get younger in the rotation by adding him since they had just lost Wells and Clemens and El Duque.

Santana is completely different. He has won multiple CY YOungs and his stats say he is the best pitcher in baseball by far over the last 5 seasons.

if the Yankees were giving up Hughes for a 29 year old pitcher with promise, like Vazquez, I;d be outraged. But they are giving up Hughes for a rare commodity – the best pitcher in baseball, and a guy who will in all likelihood be great for many more years.

By: Rob NY

Rob NY — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:28:18 +0000

3.24 * yeah i vote for an edit button….. my point being Javy’s best year is what Santana critics are labeling an off year for him

By: BBB

BBB — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:27:14 +0000

Also, guys, the BBB posts at 9:11 and 9:15 were not me. All hail required registration! I’m out like a batter who has the misfortune of facing Joba, so anything else from BBB tonight is not me!

By: Rob NY

Rob NY — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:26:56 +0000

Javy’s best year was 3.4 ERA and when we traded for him it was all on speculation…. he COULD have been great or not… you werent trading for as known a commodity as Santana has been in the last 5 years

By: err

err — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:24:57 +0000

Ok Jonathan then I guess we can agree to disagree.

I do think that Santana puts them over the top not only this year, but for the next 5 years, so that’s why I am in favor of this trade. If the Yankees had to give up Hughes and Kennedy then I would be much more hesitant.

And you don’t think that Santana puts them over the top so you don’t see the point in making the trade.

Fair enough.