Dick Allen

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 03:01 PM) I'll try to elaborate on the last sentence of that post, because I know it isn't clear. The philosophy you've been arguing for lately is "pay up for premium talent that you clearly need. Scrap heap/upside guys will add up to simply treading water." That's exactly what the White Sox THINK they just did. You personally may think that Zach Duke is overrated, but the Sox and much of the market (as evidenced by his ultimate price tag) see him as high end talent, because he changed something and had fantastic results. So it IS consistent with the philosophy above, even though you disagree with their evaluation of Duke's talent, which is totally fair. So while you may be unhappy about the move in terms of the player they got I think you should be happy about the move in terms of what it foreshadows, which is that the Sox are trying to pay up for good players that fit their needs. And I will elaborate, I believe Zach Duke is not premium talent. He is a journeyman at best player who switched some things up and had a freakishly good season, a season which even you would probably admit was highly unlikely and even more unlikely to repeat. Everyone is looking for LH relief pitching. If it was reasonably thought throughout the league that he could sustain his 2014 performance, he would have been paid more than $15 million. Hopefully, they can get at least a good couple months out of him before the clock strikes midnight. Steamer projects Dayan Viciedo to be twice as valuable as Zach Duke in 2015. I think there would be outrage if the Sox gave Viciedo Duke's contract.

While I would agree if 2 weeks in the minors actually does get the White Sox an extra season of control, it is well worth it especially early when there are some off days and potential postponements. You are talking 2 or 3 starts. That said, if he does make the Opening Day roster and 6 years from now we are cussing Hahn and KW out for doing it, he will have had a really nice career. 6 years is a long time. JR will be in his mid 80s. I doubt he still would be running the team.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 02:13 PM) Just out of curiosity, did he make a list like this last season with Abreu(and if he did, where did he have the Sox) In the comments section, someone mentioned why the Dodgers wouldn't be in on him and Badler replied who said they are not. So he is only speculating.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 03:35 PM) Which would a be a ridiculous scenario where the Sox build their entire team through free agency. That isn't an issue. You fill gaps with it, and LHP in the bullpen is a gap that had to be filled. I mean, you could turn it around for Miller and say, "If the Sox are going to be spending $10m on bullpen pieces, they will have a team record payroll," or for Martinez and say "If the Sox are going to spend $17m on a DH, they will have a team record payroll." You have to look at everything in context. I don't think this is a slam dunk by any measure -- but I think it's a defensible move in the context of the market. It's at least as defensible as going for Miller. And we now know that Sox are serious about fixing the bullpen. In other words, I totally get it if you don't think Duke is good, but you have to admit that this is NOT the same thing as Downs/Paulino -- they found a guy coming off an incredible season and just gave him a multi-year deal. This isn't a "scrap heap" signing. I think you can totally knock their evaluation of Duke, but the move tiself is definitely in line with the philosophy you've been arguing for lately. Signing a guy who has had one good season since the White Sox won the World Series and paying him for 3 years based off that one season, is NOT the philosophy I have been arguing lately.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 01:42 PM) ESPN Stats & Info ‏@ESPNStatsInfo 11m11 minutes ago LeBron’s average of 39.1 minutes/game would be his highest since 2007-08; Kyrie Irving’s 38.4 minutes/game would be highest of his career Thibs must be coaching the Cavs.

AA is a pretty good GM. He got a nice season out of Navarro for $3 million and now will deal him when he costs $5 million and his performance most likely will drop. I don't know if I want anyone named Navarro on the White Sox anymore.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 12:19 PM) Nice analogy, but I slightly disagree with the bolded. I don't think it's necessarily an inability to properly determine depreciation, I think it's an ability to ignore future depreciation for the sake of success today. The consensus seemed to be that Russell Martin was good for a 4-year contract. Why did Toronto give him a 5-year deal? It's not simply because they figured he will still be good in the 5th year, it's because they need him now and that's what it took to get him onboard. The thing is no team has ever gone bankrupt. One could argue the only thing these bad long term contracts have done, is limited a few teams from shelling out more of them. If the Marlins give the biggest contract in sports, you know one thing, these teams are swimming in cash. So the question is who do you want to pocket it, past their prime players or owners ? Might as well be players, they can at least maybe help your team win.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:37 AM) I am not a big fan of the idea that you have to move someone for "value's" sake. Many times a players best value to the team is playing on the team, and I feel that numbers don't do Alexei justice. I would be thrilled to keep him for the next two years, and unless the offer blows me away, would have no problem doing so, even if he falls off in hindsight. Yes. I would think if the goal is to win, having a guy on your roster at his "peak value" is a lot better than trading him because he is there.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:29 AM) Francisco Montas is going to be a top 5 prospect in the White Sox system and there are going to be some publications who list him as a top 100 prospect in the game. If you don't think someone would stash him in the bullpen for a year (or outright convert him to a reliever) to have a chance at that arm, you are mistaken. Rondon is also talented enough that there's no reason to risk losing him. I agree. If Montas has to be on the 40, he will be on the 40. With all the hype, there is no way he wouldn't be picked in the rule 5. Probably first.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:17 AM) You can quibble with the numbers exactly some since there are assumptions into what goes into a 1/5 starter but here it is done in terms of fWAR earlier this year. In this compilation, a #4 starter averages 1.8 fWAR, a #5 starter averages ~0.2 fWAR, and last year John Danks put up 0.8 fWAR. So the reality is he is a #4.5 starter.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:10 AM) The point is not to have one of the best 5th starters in the league though, or to have an OK 5th starter. The point is to win ball games. If there's a superior option, would you still insist on using Danks because he's a perfectly fine 5th starter? That's the point I'm trying to make at this time. The point is, there are a lot more worse options than people think. The guys whose stats don't qualify, actually do still count. If he is making his starts, and Sale, Q, Rodon and whoever they sign are making theirs, the White Sox rotation should match up to most rotations in the game. Last year when people looked up fangraphs and the line was John Danks was the 3rd worst starter in the league, I looked at stats and there were over 600 starts made in early September by pitchers with ERA's worse than John Danks. So no, he wasn't the 3rd worst starter in baseball. Not even close.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) That would be very tough to find, because obviously teams don't designate guys with a number, and you'd have injury replacements and guys who made like 11 starts muddling everything too. I looked up the ERA of the bottom 20% of qualified starters and got 4.53 so it's probably in that ballpark on the higher side. The only one I could find was from 2006 Hardball Times. Obviously a different game now, but they went through every start, placed pitchers starts in 1-5 even if not qualified. and determined ERAs. Then, his current ERA would put him closer to a #3 than a #4 and #5s had a collective ERA over 6.00. Allowing for a decrease in offense, I doubt that drops 1.25, so while you get a pretty bad ERA from Danks, he probably would rank pretty high as a #5 considering he makes all his starts. Here was the 2006 chart: Lg #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 MLB 3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24 AL 3.70 4.24 4.58 5.09 6.22 NL 3.51 4.04 4.57 5.11 6.26 I would venture to guess, as bad as some think he is, if you designated John Danks a #5 starter and matched him up to the rest of the major leagues #5 starts, he would be looking pretty good. People tend to forget the guys who make one or two starts, and the teams that have 7 or 8 "fifth" starters.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 09:47 AM) It's entirely possible that Danks is a failed starter at this point too. He'll get another shot this year regardless, but his stuff has deteriorated a ton in the past 2-3 years. The money has already been spent on Danks though, he's with the White Sox. The Sox spent $65 million for John Danks to be a top of the rotation starter for him and he has failed in that role. Thus, moving him to the bullpen would not be an allocation of resources for $14 million towards a pen arm but instead is trying to find something useful for what has turned into a bad contract. In 2011, Adam Dunn was in the first year of a $56 million deal and had one of the worst seasons of all time. When he was benched by Ozzie Guillen, he was essentially a $14 million pinch hitter at that time. It doesn't mean the White Sox intended for that to happen. It is very similar to the Danks situation at this point (though Dunn did regain form to be an acceptable DH). Unless there are superior options. I still envision the Sox signing a starting pitcher, a mid-rotation guy, and Rodon should be up next year to pitch in the rotation too. If that's the case, it could ultimately end up as Noesi vs Danks. No, but it's also not good. The league ERA was 3.82, which means that Danks 4.74 ERA (and 4.76 FIP) were well below the league average. If you can upgrade, you should. And he would be paid way more than a bullpen arm too. He's being paid way too much now, period. At the end of the day, you find the way to utilize him the best without sacrificing for the team. If that's as a 5th starter, great, use him that way. If it's as a middle reliver or swing man, then that's the way it is. Personally, I'd like to see him use his curveball more or to try and refine it. He's overall a very similar pitcher to Buehrle at this point without the control/command of his stuff. Perhaps that's something that a guy like Duke can help him with, as they were similar pitchers prior to Duke falling apart and re-inventing himself. In general, 5th starters do have ERAs that are below league average. What is the league average ERA for a 5th starter?

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 10:05 PM) Man, I really thought I was going to nail my Saul prediction in Sunday's episode. I guess I still could. If they are going to kill him off, it won't be until the season finale, and even then, it would shock me. Patinkin is too big a part of the show. Crazy Carrie can only go so far. But you know someone will go. I'm guessing Quinn.

This may seem a little silly, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Sox made a major move today or tomorrow, as tomorrow the first installment of season ticketholder money is due.

Isn't one of the reasons teams are blowing through their limits is because they all know an International Draft is near?

My point is , while Danks is now overpaid, and won't be sought by other teams, he does provide something to the White Sox. He isn't totally useless. I know quality starts are laughable for some here, but he had almost as many as Max Scherzer, and he pitched nearly 200 innings. He has always been, even pre-surgery, a guy who when he was hit around, he was really hit around. There are a few more games of that right now, but if it is conceivable that Zach Duke can turn his career around and be "fixed" at 31, Danks can learn to pitch with stuff that is shorter than what he had. If it were me, I'd dump the contract if I could, but it wouldn't be a top priority, and I wouldn't dump it in lieu of receiving talent.

If Zach Duke is fixed by throwing side arm and changing his pitches, why can't Danks do the same?

They had the CSN Cubs guy on Kaplan's CSN show today, and Kaplan was so excited asking him if thought Theo would be able to convince Lester to come to Chicago and win a title with the Cubs. The beat guy said he thought Lester winds up back in Boston. Kap looked like he was about to cry.

First 26 games as the Bears Head Coach: Ditka. 12-14 Lovie. 12-14 Trestman. 12-14

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 02:57 PM) Well, I'm glad we have that solved. Better move on to 2016. No. He will just be dead money like Keppinger.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) If Swisher wasn't a former Sox or a major asshat he would make a lot of a sense to this team in exchange for Danks. I think he might be done. He used to be a really good firstbaseman. Now he's even awful in the field. The rumor earlier was for Edwin Jackson. I don't think anything in baseball could be more annoying than Nick Swisher playing for the Cubs and talking about "the Cubbies".

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 02:52 PM) This isn't the case at all. Nate Jones was a replacement for Addison Reed, he was far less expensive. Scott Downs was a replacement for Matt Thornton and he bombed, so they went with other guys throughout the rest of the 2014 season. Zach Duke is a replacement for Scott Downs. Also, I do believe you're wrong if you are insinuating that Belisario or Duke were somehow the replacement for Addison Reed. I think they were planning on signing him anyways. I really don't want to get into the Reed stuff again, but he was making slightly over minimum and Jones was already on the roster, so whoever was his replacement , probably cost more in 2014 and probably 2015 as well. I really honestly hope this Duke signing works out, but I just know it won't. There are too many red flags.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 02:39 PM) Except that the White Sox also got a prospect in Davidson. He looks like a bust at this point, but he's still here. If he hadn't, you wouldn't be singing this tune. He did, so you're singing the hindsight card. If the Sox traded Jake Petricka or Daniel Webb for a similarly talented prospect, I hope the Sox make that move again. Those guys aren't even expensive and I'm hoping they'd make a similar move if it presented itself. If this move flops in year 1, you are going to see people saying that they wished the Sox wouldn't have given him that 3rd year. The idea behind the move - bringing in a lefty reliever - is a worthwhile move. The problem is, the replacement for relievers "about to become expensive" is signing relievers who actually are more expensive.

QUOTE (Andy the Clown @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) 1) No one is excited about dealing with Friedman; rather, they are excited about a potential deal with a team that has actual assets that we would want. There's a difference. 2) What does KW have to do with anything? 3) Who said anything about a coup? We have major needs, and are deep at MI. We are trying to find solutions to glaring holes, not "rip off" someone in a head to head trade. Any more rhetoricals from you? I'm here to help. If you read the proposals and don't think some are expecting to pay pennies on the dollar for LA Dodgers talent, you are higher than Snoop. If you think KW has nothing to do with White Sox activity, you are higher than Snoop. So I really don't think you are in a postion to help.