WasWatching.com

This sounds about right. Scouts have always said that Ian was the most polished of the three. He doesn't have the same upside as the others, but he has command of what he does have. Chamberlain pretty much only used two pitches the second half of the year, and Hughes was a two pitch pitcher at the MLB level. He needs to work on his change, and if they let him throw his slider again that would give him four pitches to work with. Another reason Ian is in the best position to help is that he can go the most innings out of the three.

its insight like this that makes you wonder what else is there about these 3 guys that they know that we dont... the answer, i'm sure, is plenty.

and this is why fans shouldnt jump the gun about the yankees and trading Phil Hughes. the fans are arguing that Hughes is going to get us 12-15 wins next year, but if he's only got 2-2.5 pitches to use in April, what he gives is a crapshoot.

if they know he still needs time to develop his secondary pitches, and that it could take him a full season, or two, to master this, well by then we might, or should, be able to develop another phil hughes while Johan gives the team a known commodity on the mound.

there has to be a reason why Gene Michael reportedly gave his approval to move Hughes in a Johan package, maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Command of 2.5 pitches (although I suspect Eiland isn't counting Hughes' slider, which the Yanks took away from him to keep his arm healthy) is plenty.

IPK's pitches aren't of the quality of Hughes, so he has to command them better. Hughes already showed last year that he can succeed in the bigs, so this is really a non-issue.

Did his eye movements meet with your approval during the interview? Otherwise, maybe you're being led down the wrong path.

How has Hughes definately shown that he can succeed? as good as he was at times, he was also shaky in other starts. The guy has pitched less than 100 major league innings at the big league level... how about we wait to say he's proven himself?

Tim Raines, who coached in the Eastern League last year, had very high praise for Ian Kennedy. He thought that Kennedy could be as good as Mark Prior (when Prior was healthy, naturally).

agree with Mike A., Eiland must not have been counting the slider which Hughes clearly commanded last year (possibly better than his curve).

TurnTwo, Hughes pitched 73 ML innings at an ERA+ of 100 (in the AL East no less). he nearly threw a no-hitter and was the Yanks best pitcher in Sept and Oct. oh, he was also the Youngest Pitcher in All MLB and the #1 MLB pitching prospect heading into the year. i think all that together is pretty proven, at least enough to hold him out of any potential deal.

Here's a crazy notion - keep all three, take our chances.

BTW Steve - do yourself a favor and get a DVR box. I set mine to record all the YES 'Hot Stove' shows & watch em' at my own leisure.

"...there has to be a reason why Gene Michael reportedly gave his approval to move Hughes in a Johan package, maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg."
___

Where exactly was this reported?

Also, Hughes has always had a two seam and a four seam fastball. Doesn't he have command of both?

I saw that show, and in the context of the comments he definitely wasn't saying that Ian was the best of the three. He named Joba first, as the explosive, marches-to-his-own-band guy (read: best stuff), Hughes second (he said "I told someone that I wouldn't be surprised if Hughes threw 15 no-hitters"), and then named Ian third and said that he is the most polished. Being the most polished doesn't mean the best. If anything, it sounded like a pat on the back for him, because Ian is considered the third-best of the trio.

He was praising each pitcher and trotted out what we always hear about Ian, that he's the most big-league-ready and that he has great command of four pitches.

This was a Yankee pitching coach spouting platitudes on the Yankees' network in an interview -- I'm not sure how much you can take from it.

But the thing that stuck with me is saying you wouldn't be surprised if someone threw fifteen no-hitters. That's loftier praise than saying someone is polished.

Actually its ludicrous hyperbole when the record for no-hitters is 7.

Let's see if Hughes matches Clay Buchholz in no-hitters in the next couple of seasons before we say stupid shit like "it wouldn't surprise me if he threw 15".

>> Actually its ludicrous hyperbole when the record for no-hitters is 7. >>

Aww, damn you and your common sense - and here I thought Hughes was *actually* going to pitch 15 no-hitters, 12 of them coming in 2008 alone!

;-)

Dan, you're a troll, and also apparently an idiot. He wasn't being literal (you may have to look this concept up to see what I'm talking about). It was simply a way to say that if Hughes achieved greatness in his career, it wouldn't surprise him. Also, Hughes and Buchholz have nothing to do with each other besides that they both pitch in the big leagues. They are not in some direct competition with each other. But I'm not surprised to hear this thought from a Sox fan, since you seem to obsess about the Yanks in a disturbing way.

I hate small sample sizes but Ian Kennedy put up some nice numbers last season in three starts.