Dick Allen

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 25, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) That's an .803 OPS over half of a season, and an .803 OPS is still way above average, and that was considered him "struggling". Quentin's .728 was his entire season outside of the 3 weeks prior to the All-Star Break. I don't understand why you are incessant about there being little difference between Quentin and Dunn when you can quite clearly see that there is a huge difference. Dunn has a mediocre season by his standards, Quentin has his second best season, Dunn's is still superior, and you try and suggest they are equal; Quentin puts up a .728 OPS outside of a 3 week period where he put up a 1.500+ OPS (which, at the end of the day, still equates an .821 OPS or whatever over the course of the full season), and Dunn puts up an .803 OPS in the second half, which is still pretty damn good especially considering that is far worse than expected out of him, and you are trying to suggest that they are on equal footing. The White Sox biggest problem last year was their lack of a powerful left handed bat. LHB put up a .272/.326/.368/.694 line against right handed pitching this year, and no matter how you slice and dice that, it's awful, and bringing in a powerful left handed bat would be good. Thome would have made a hell of a lot of sense for this club, considering he was cheap and left handed, but no matter what, the Sox need to bring in a left handed bat, and surprise surprise, Dunn is left handed, provides a sweet stroke, and gets on base quite a bit...so yes, he does solve a lot of the White Sox offensive problems. That doesn't mean that anybody here is advocating giving him $40 million. I don't understand why you've been on this Quentin/Dunn thing recently. Dunn is a superior player to Quentin, and I don't think that's really too hard to see. Because of his low contact rate, Dunn's production can fluctuate, but he still walks and hits a ton otherwise. Quentin can explode, and has in the past, but anybody counting on that next season or any time in the future is really holding on to a prayer, because he's looked like the Carlos of old for that 3 week period before the break, and hasn't otherwise. Dunn generally is superior. I'm just pointing out the worthless, horrible, must be dumped for any price Carlos Quentin has value. Sort of like Konerko last year. Cherry picking numbers is fine, I just wish the people doing the cherry picking are consistent. If you or they were, you would never mention again the Nick Swisher trade as looking at his 2008 season, except for 2 or 3 weeks, he makes the numbers being dubbed for Quentin MVP-like.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 25, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) Lovie also didn't acquire a franchise whose single-greatest asset was past his peak and hadn't had a useful draft in 5 seasons. You may want to look at the team Lovie inherited. Rex Grossman was the savior. He got hurt and Craig Krenzel was the QB. David Terrell at WR? Seriously, the Bears were pretty bad when he took over. Its one reason he got the job. If they were good Jauron never would have been canned.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) FWIW, that was a prearranged deal. Hendry never did claim him for the Cubs sake. In retrospect he should have, and obviously could have. They would never have signed Milton Bradley, so character couldn't be part of it. Of course its easy to look back at it now, but if he had the insight the front office in Cincinatti had, a lot of things would have probably been different with the Cubs. On the other hand, maybe he relapses, but its still good to stick the needle into Cubs fans, no pun intended, about how Josh Hamilton was a Cub for a few minutes.

I'm for the AL although I do have affection for Uribe. Its funny a huge Jim Hendry blunder is really never noted, when he claimed Josh Hamilton in the rule 5 and sold him to Cincinatti.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 25, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) Another game that people want to blame the coaching, but it should be directed at the GM. Again, you can't run any type of system without an offensive line. I don't care who the coordinator is. I don't really think many are blaming coaching on yesterday's debacle. Lovie's challenges always have been pretty pathetic. I don't blame him for that because someone needs to be informing him when to challenge, and apparently the Bears either don't have anyone doing that or someone who might not have access to replays. Outside the first quarter, the line wasn't that bad yesterday, certainly good enough to score more points. I also agree, this is all on Angelo. I'm not a Cutler guy, although I admire the talent, but I can't see where he wouldn't be at least slightly shellshocked right now, and it has to be contributing to his struggles. He drops back into the pocket and drops his head like he's going to get hit a lot of times before the rush is really that close. Ron Turner of course, was the Bears' version of Greg Walker, and he finally took the bullet. But if you recall last season, when people were complaining the game plan was too simple,(ironic because now its supposedly too complicated) he basically stated Bears' personnel was unable to grasp anything but the basic stuff. He basically said they weren't intelligent enough to use his entire offense. Now you have Martz, and it appears Turner was correct in his analysis.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 25, 2010 -> 09:47 AM) Well, option A is an impossibility with this squad, and option B is more likely with every loss. Angelo and Lovie need to go, and bring me Bill Cowher and put him in charge of everything. He'll have us in the Super Bowl in 5 years. It didn't take Lovie 5 years to get the Bears to the Super Bowl.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 25, 2010 -> 07:58 AM) Lovie challenges plays that are 100% clearly correct and challenges plays where, even if he wins the challenge, it doesn't actually change anything. Why he decided to not challenge such a high-impact play is simply baffling. Its definitely baffling but I would love to know exactly how the process works with that team. Lovie isn't going to be able to see what Cutler did with the ball from where he's standing. I go to a few Bears games a year and even the replays are sometimes hard to see in noon starts. There is a lot of glare on the board. Even those watching at home didn't see the ball perhaps go over the goal line until a second or third round of replays. Someone needs to be in a booth looking this stuff over. If its Lovie's call to make the decisions on these from the sidelines, then that's on him, but really if its not in the Bears budget or they just didn't think of it, not paying someone peanuts who only has the responsibility to look at plays that could be challenged is jsut regrettable.

Lovie is horrid on challenges, but don't the Bears have someone looking at that stuff above telling him to challenge or not? The challenge lost was silly as it was pretty clear it wasn't going to be changed from the beginning, but considering the Bears are 0-10 scoring a TD their last 10 snaps from the 1 yard line, perhaps it was warranted. I don't know if they would have given Cutler the TD or not, but not challenging that was ridiculous. But really, and not trying to be a Lovie apologist, Lovie has the worst view of almost all to make the challenge call. If the Bears don't have someone telling Lovie when to challenge, they are even more inept than previously thought.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 24, 2010 -> 05:14 PM) .228/.322/.406/.728 outside of those two weeks Adam Dunn was .223/.337/.466/.803 with 91 strikeouts in 238 AB the second half of the season. Yet, if he signed for 3 years and $40 million some would consider the problems, and considering they were ranked in the top half of almost every offensive category in the AL last year solved.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Oct 24, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) Cutler has the physical talent to be top tier but let's face it, he's a moron, there was no reason for that throw, we are only down 3 pts, a FG ties it you idiot!!! He's Jeff George II. I think its Ron Turner's fault.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2010 -> 12:26 PM) Wins above replacement player from Fangraphs: Carlos Quentin: 0. Adam Dunn: 3.9. Carlos picked up a ton of home runs, but didn't do anything else effectively, he only got 527 PA's because of all the injury time, and he was a much larger liability in the field than Dunn because you can hide defense at 1b and not have it hurt you as much. He drove in a heck of a lot of runs the first half, in fact, his OPS was well over 1.000 with RISP throughout the first half. Try to hide Dunn at 1B and watch Ramirez get 35 errors. Dunn is horrid in the field. As I have stated previously, I believe Dunn is probably a better bet than Quentin, but to say Quentin has no value like the post claimed in my response is silly.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Oct 24, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) I feel that Quentin has zero trade value. Outside of 2008, he has not been an asset. His plate discipline and defense (making him less valuable in the NL) are both declining. He's simply a huge question mark and had problems with his ankle, hand, knee, and thigh in 2010. Who knows how he'd fare on a team which doesn't have the best athletic training staff in MLB. No one wants to trade anything of worth for an inconsistent player who's health/offense output is unreliable Adam Dunn 648 plate appearances 38 homers 103 RBI .260 BA .356 OBP .892 OPS--worth $11 million to $15 million a year Carlos Quentin 527 plate appearances 26 homers 87 RBI .243 BA .342 OBP .821 OPS----worthless? I don't think so. Quentin is another guy Sox fans will realize is better than they think if he goes away.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 24, 2010 -> 02:53 AM) lol. Did you read his post? He did say they were probably still a playoff team. Being the favorite doesn't really mean much, as they were the overwhelming favorite this year. They will be a playoff team with no real legit chance of winning it all? With those 3 in the rotation? I know some don't believe any playoff team can win, but I would image Texas and SF were 2 teams that if they lost in round one, there would have been a few posts saying "they made the playoffs, but they had no legit chance of winning." Its all BS. Every team in the playoffs has a legit chance, and if you have Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels and are in the playoffs, unless I'm batting clean up for them, to say that team has no legit chance is someone just trying to sound smart because only one team wins and odds are against every team.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 10:46 PM) I have a feeling this might have been the last time the Phillies have a super legit chance at winning it all. They'll still be a playoff team next year, but they probably won't get Werth back. That rotation of theirs is still really good, but this is not a young team and I think we might see some regressions from a lot of their position players (Rollins, Ibanez, Polanco, maybe even Utley). You're saying they will be a playoff team next year. They have Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels, and even with those 3 and the offense they have, they won't have a legit chance at winning it all? LMAO.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 11:32 AM) Edwin Jackson had a better 09 campaign than JD, i know hes been inconsistent and who knows what hes gonna bring to the table next year but the last 2 years when in the AL hes had better numbers than Danks. 09 numbers Danks vs Jackson W/L 13-11 vs 13-9 ERA 3.77 vs 3.62 WHIP 1.28 vs 1.26 Ks 149 vs 161 BB 73 vs 70 Pretty damn even with Jackson winning every category. in 44 starts in the AL the last year and a half Jackson is 17-11. Im not saying the staff IS better or the same with jackson over danks but if Jax pitches like he did the last 2 years in the AL then the staff wont skip a beat when compared to last years and you have a better offence. I know youre saying that we need both Danks and Jackson to do big things but we need some O on this team and were gonna have to sacrifice from our strong suit to get it Lemme ask the 1st question from my previous post again. If we dont sign 2 middle of the order bats in FA do you still not wanna trade DAnks? If the answer is still no arent we gonna have the same problems we had this past year? If Edwin Jackson is better than Danks, and makes more money and is signed for a shorter period of time, why wouldn't you want to trade him? Considering each pitcher on the Sox staff, you can't trade Sale, the last pitcher I would trade is Danks, unless its a can't say no deal, of which, everyone is available. I haven't seen one of those deals proposed for Danks, and if you don't get a pitcher you can plug into the rotation who should be pretty effective for him as part of the package, it isn't going to work either. Peavy might come back 100%. Edwin Jackson might pitch as well as he pitched with the Sox for the entire 2011 season, Sale might be able to give you 175 innings, Floyd might put more than 1/3 of a good season together. Garcia might give you a year like 2010 where he's a pretty good #5. Buerhle is about as consistent as they come and he'll probably be what he usually is, but maybe he turns into Jaime Moyer and wins 20. I say the chances of all that happening are about the same as SS2K5 starting a fire KW thread. Everyone is talking budget when discussing Danks and making Garcia almost a lock to return. What do you think Freddy is going to command in the open market? Its going to be more than he made in 2010. Do you really want to give him that money?

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Oct 22, 2010 -> 12:14 AM) Hey Dick what happens when you cant sign 2 big bats in FA then would you agree thank Danks should be traded for a big bat??? This teams needs 2 middle of the order bats (4 and 5 hitters) and with out em your gonna have a offence no better than last year and you saw what the sox did with that offence and that pitching staff. Theyre trying to get better not stay the same. Garcia is Ozzies boy (arent they related?) and i expect him to come back hes a good 5th starter, if someone gets hurt you still have Sale waiting in the wings. lemme put it this way.... assuming garcia come back you have Danks being replaced by Jackson and Hudson being replaced by Sale. Peavy Buehrle Floyd Danks Garcia Hudson (as an injury replacement) With last years (or this year whatever you wanna call it) or Peavy Buehrle Floyd Jackson Garcia Sale With a better offence than last year. Which sounds better??? Jackson is not that big of a drop off from Danks, if at all. There is not one person on this board who would really think the Sox rotation subtracting Danks is anywhere near as strong as it is with him. Look at the 6 you have penciled in. Peavy, huge question mark. Garcia isn't even signed and even if he does, huge question mark, Sale-------huge question mark in a rotation. Jackson looks pretty solid but his history suggests he's no sure thing. Buerhle will do what Buerhle does. Floyd hasn't been solid for more than 2 months in each of the past 2 seasons and ended the season hurt with a sore shoulder. You are going to need Jackson and Danks both to be big. If you are going to go into a re building mode, fine, trade Danks, but if you truly are trying to win a championship, you're only fooling yourself dealing him, at least for what has been discussed on this board. If a team is willing to go over the top, give you some offense and a real good pitcher, then its plausable.There is no way you do what the original poster suggested and Danks as part of a package for Colby Rasmus? Ridiculous.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 07:01 PM) So you don't think Danks for Fielder would help the Sox win more in 2011? No. Pitching wins. I wouldn't mind Fielder for a season, but not for the Sox best pitcher. Besides, since he only has 1 year left on his contract, shouldn't is trade value be much lower than last offseason and at the deadline? That's the formula used by you trade Danks guys. Considering Buerhle, Jackson and Peavy all expire either before or at the same time as Danks, maybe KW should unload them all. Marquez could pitch opening day. Konerko had a better year than Fielder in 2010 so unless Prince picked it up, the Sox would be weaker offensively and defensively at 1B in 2011 than 2010 and be out a sweet starting pitcher. Of course, Prince may hit 50 homers in 2011. It will be interesting to see how much Fielder gets in arb. You would figure at least $13 million. He had an .871 OPS last year. Putting things in perspective, Jim Thome's worst OPS with the White Sox was .864.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 06:43 PM) The Sox have a history of extending pitchers, and yet they haven't extended Danks. You really are making my points for me. You do it again when you instantly started looking long term when I talked about guys who could be here for only a year, I thought the idea was to win, right? I would think the difference between a Danks and a Sale would be smaller than the difference between Fielder and Kotsay, which would make us better and win more, right? I believe you said that the object is to win now, and doing anything that would harm that would be idiotic, right? I don't get quite why you are suddenly obsessed with why I would approve of a Danks deal or not (I'm guessing you are looking for something to bookmark to see if you get some kind of internet "victory" here in the future, but will delete if you don't) , but if it were me, I would have to get a young pitcher if I were to do a Rasmus deal. I don't think he is enough by himself. I don't want to see Danks dealt, but I don't see Danks being willing to sign a deal that helps the Sox position as a team out. If he were willing to sign a reasonable contract, which you yourself have shown the Sox have a history of offering, he would have done it already. We know already he turned one down. The Sox history of extending pitchers would indicate to me, that the Sox have made more than just the one offer, to me that is just common sense. Usually they don't extend pitchers with 3 years left under team control. They tried to buy out the arb years and 1 FA year like with Floyd, but it didn't work. That doesn't mean he will not sign an extension at any time.Why I am obssessed is because of your obsession with me because I state to win in 2011, the Sox cannot trade John Danks. He is still under control for 2 more seasons. They have 2 years to extend him. The buzzer is not just about to go off, and when he rejected the other deal he basically stated he will play for the arb money. The Sox most likely won't go to arb with him, just sign him to a 1 year deal for 2011 and maybe they will revisit an extension then. Buerhle, Dye, they waited until 2 months before their contracts ran out before they extended them. Konerko came back once after they let his contract expire. There is no reason to think Danks signing an extension is hopeless.

There's no place for the racist crap Lebron gets, but you can't tell me he never got any before he signed with the Heat. If he's looking for sympathy, hey what they are sending you shouldn't be sent, and no one should ever have to deal with it, but bringing it up now.................wow. I bet you every black player who has ever played in the NBA has been called that plenty of times. I love him crying about how hard it is to be a professional athlete. Then why don't you just retire and do something else? All athletes, all entertainers have to know coming in, the interaction, the lack of privacy, the love, the hate is all part of it. Its the big reason the careers are so lucrative. If no one really cared, playing basketball may net you 100K a year. And if he's getting all this hate on Twitter and its bothering him, can't he just get rid of it? Oh yeah, he probably gets paid huge money to hawk stuff there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 05:57 PM) If it was D1 straight up for Fielder or Gonzalez, no I wouldn't do it either. That might make us barely better in 2011 but it makes us worse in 2012, and it could well make us worse in 2011 by hurting the budget. However, you start talking about Danks for Rasmus, and you've got me interested. You start moving around additional chips in a Fielder or Gonzalez deal, maybe I'm still interested. And you want the best evidence possible that the Sox think there's a good chance that Danks leaves? They already drafted his replacement. He very well may leave, but they certainly didn't draft Sale as Danks' replacement per se. First off, they had no idea he would even be available where they drafted and 2 years from now when Danks' contract expires, Jackson's will have expired, Buerhle will expire at the same time as Danks, Floyd will have 1 more season, Garcia isn't even signed for 2011, Peavy will probably be bought out at the same time unless the Sox want to pay him $22 million in 2013. So, to say Danks' contract is the reason Sale is a White Sox is silly. Why wasn't he drafted as Garcia's replacement or Buerhle's or Peavy's? JR used to have a policy of 3 year limits on pitchers' contracts. Its actually a pretty wise thought, but the problem is most other teams will go longer so you miss out on a lot of pitchers. Now on Soxtalk, if you are a premium White Sox pitcher and not locked up for at least 3 years, you're trade bait.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 05:38 PM) Go on what record? For what? My job as GM, lmao. Anyways, you act like the budget doesn't matter at all, and I know this all goes back to the White Sox are ass-raping the fans to make tons of money off of them argument that you have been making forever, but the reality is, Kenny Williams has a budget. If John Danks isn't willing to sign an extension, which he hasn't been as of yet, letting him walk away is just stupid to an organization that can't replace him. That is the counterside of your whole shtick. In a backdoor way you agree with what I am saying by stating that the Sox need go players. Getting nothing to replace guys who sign massive contracts else where isn't the way to have good players on your team. The ridiculous extra steps in your argument that trading one good player to replenish the system means that we need to trade everyone at "peek" value, is hyperbole at its finest. It also ignores that this is exactly how Kenny does business. If he figures he can't keep a highly valued player, he will deal them to keep the team moving forward. Am I the only one who remembers the Carlos Lee trade? The Aaron Rowand trade? Hell the very trade that got Danks here involved trading a pitcher at his peak value. Because of his contract status, I would put Danks out and see what fish bite. With the premium on pitching, there is a very good chance we could end up better for it. If you don't get what you want, its not like we are obligated to trade him. With the amount of powerhitting out there who is one year away from free agency, it wouldn't surprise me if a deal for a Fielder or Gonzalez could happen, even if it had to involve a third team to get prospects to the original team. The Aaron Rowand trade? He traded him after a off year for Jim Thome, a guy he basically promised Konerko. The thread which you have posted in is John Danks trade ideas and the original poster had a trade idea. You wish not to comment again so you can play either side. I then asked if you would make that proposed trade or the one posted all over this board, the Rasmus, again, no answer. But why trade for Fielder? If its all about budget he's more expensive in 2011 then he's definitely gone. Gonzalez you have for a bargain rate for one year, then he's gone, and I doubt SD would trade Gonzalez for a guy who will actually be more expensive than him next year and they have control of for only one more after that. Perhaps some 3 way, but 2 years of Danks is better than 1 year of Gonzalez IMO. Maybe it would be something to consider if the White Sox knew without a doubt Danks wasn't going to sign or what he's even asking for, as I have never seen anything published other than he rejected the same deal Floyd took. So you don't really know how difficult he will be to extend, and the Sox have a recent history of extending fairly expensive pitchers. I mentioned Garcia, Buerhle, Contreras, they also extended Vazquez. I don't understand why you and a lot of other posters think Danks is automatically gone in 2 years. The White Sox love him, which is something I have going for me, because I don't want him traded, and they won't trade him. At least this offseason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 05:15 PM) Way to move the goalposts. I'm not moving any goalposts. I said from the beginning, if the object is to win, and your boy KW has stated many times that's exactly what it is, trading Danks is idiotic, unless you are getting back something that is positively ridiculous. Colby Rasmus isn't that. The only reason anyone even mentions trading Danks is budget. They are fearful he might earn what he is worth. So what, then KW won't have $4 million to blow on Manny Ramirez. If you want to use the "well his value may never be higher" line, that's great. Then the White Sox should trade everyone who is possibly at peek trade value. But that's not how it works. You need good players, pitchers especially, to win. That's what Danks is. Perhaps the best pitcher on the White Sox. Why don't you go on the record right now? Should the White Sox trade John Danks if they can get Colby Rasmus for him? Or how about the trade suggestion in the original post?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) I think it won't be that hard to come up with lots of examples of teams doing the exact opposite and winning more the next year. The Padres traded Jake Peavy and nearly won the division. The Twins traded Santana, got nothing of real use back, and hardly missed a beat. Toronto was 12 games under .500 in 2009 with Roy Halladay, and 8 games over .500 in 2010 without Roy Halladay. How many playoff series did they win? Peavy was injured when they traded him and injured again this year. 2008 the Twins went to game 163. If they had kept Santana, do you think there is a chance they would have been at least 1 game better and made the playoffs? And Toronto wasn't playing to win in 2010. Are you saying Toronto would have been worse with Roy Halladay in 2010 than with the 3 minor leagers they got for him? The White Sox are trying to win in 2011. I know a lot of people are talking about depth in the starting rotation, but you don't know if Garcia will be back and really how many innings he can give you. You don't know if Sale is ready to be a starter and how many innings he can give you. You know what you have in Buerhle and Floyd. Peavy is a huge question mark. The minor leaguers are not who you want on the mound if you are trying to win. The White Sox bullpen got beat up late in the season and they were one of the least used bullpens around. DO NOT TRADE JOHN DANKS.

QUOTE (Bruce_Blixton @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 01:20 PM) It's not that I want to trade him, but it's probably the smarter business decision for the team right now. We all know that it's team policy to not sign pitchers to long-term contracts, it was a miracle that they were willing to sign Buehrle to a 4 year deal. Danks has already shown us that he's not interested in signing an extension with us and wants to test the free agent market after his arbitration years are up. Most likely he'll be offered a 6-7 year deal for 15+ mil/year, an offer we'll never match. I only suggested trading Danks because of the team's philosophy in dealing with pitchers, not because he's a player under the control of the team for two more years. We're not going to have this discussion about Beckham when he's got two years left. Trading Danks this offseason would probably receive the maximum return for him from here on out. Smart business decision is BS. The object of the business is to win. Would it be smart to trade Gordon Beckham before arbitration? Might be wise, he'd be worth a lot in a trade right now.Would it be a smart business decision to trade Floyd right now? He has 3 years left, he's probably worth a lot, and definitely more now that he would be if he repeated his last 2 seasons again? You might as well trade everyone. Alexei Ramirez has a nice number on his contract for next year, some team will pay up for him. Send him packing before you have to pay him and get some prospects. In 2004 they signed Garcia to an extension. They signed Buerhle to an extension, they signed Contreras to an extension. There's no reason to think they have no shot of extending Danks, but for some reason people on this board accept it as the truth like they think Walker tells hitters to swing as hard as they can, and they think Cooper tells all the pitchers to take 5 MPH off their fastballs totalling ignoring his biggest suggest story, Thornton. Has he taken 5 MPH off his fastball and the fact that Jenks went to a wind up to gain some velocity. Trading your best starter isn't a good business decision for a team trying to win.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 12:15 PM) Well you're just being silly comparing anything in the White Sox' situation (or in this case the value of John Danks) to Albert f***ing Pujols. I'm not being silly at all. The reason people want him traded is he has 2 years left under team control. Obviously he's not as valuable as Pujols, but he's about as valuable of a White Sox as anyone. Trading him would be a mistake unless there is some sort of injury concern. On this board people are saying Buehrle is appropriately paid $14 million because he gives you 200 innings. Danks gives you a better 200 innings, so he's worth a lot more than his arb number, yet, for some reason people want to trade him.