Jump to content

Tigers vs. White Sox 7/24/2013


BigEdWalsh
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think the argument is if you think Danks was overpaid before the injury, really.

 

I agree with Jake, the real Danks will probably be the one that pitches next year, after normal offseason workouts and whatnot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 06:36 PM)
I think the argument is if you think Danks was overpaid before the injury, really.

 

I agree with Jake, the real Danks will probably be the one that pitches next year, after normal offseason workouts and whatnot.

No it isn't. It's about having him suffer a major injury after signing the contract and having the team suck now.

 

If you knew those to things were going to happen, would you have given him that contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:38 PM)
No it isn't. It's about having him suffer a major injury after signing the contract and having the team suck now.

 

If you knew those to things were going to happen, would you have given him that contract?

 

Ha, I know what point I'm trying to make, but I can't figure out how to articulate it. I guess I don't think we'll know what we've got in Danks til next year at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 06:41 PM)
Ha, I know what point I'm trying to make, but I can't figure out how to articulate it.

If we were good, or had a real shortage of pitching, or John at his best had a chance to really outperform the contract by a lot, I'd have no problem holding on to him. But this is like gambling $100 on the Bears -3 for the very outside chance of winning $125, when someone is offering to give you your $100 back after the Packers go up 14-0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:47 PM)
If we were good, or had a real shortage of pitching, or John at his best had a chance to really outperform the contract by a lot, I'd have no problem holding on to him. But this is like gambling $100 on the Bears -3 for the very outside chance of winning $125, when someone is offering to give you your $100 back after the Packers go up 14-0.

 

Oh, I'd be in favor of letting him go for very cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 09:36 PM)
I think the argument is if you think Danks was overpaid before the injury, really.

 

I agree with Jake, the real Danks will probably be the one that pitches next year, after normal offseason workouts and whatnot.

(Of course the problem with that is they backloaded the contract and only paid him $6 million last year. It's just feel a bit better if he only was owed $12 million next year.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:49 PM)
(Of course the problem with that is they backloaded the contract and only paid him $6 million last year. It's just feel a bit better if he only was owed $12 million next year.)

 

It wasn't really backloaded per se. It was the second to last year of arb eligibility for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...