iamshack

Ahh, you have to be honest about this stuff...you can't trade him and then have him show up to his new team and be like "i don't know if I can start with all this soreness I have been experiencing."

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:22 PM) If you think about it, the Sox are the worst team in baseball that tried to compete this year. The Marlins and Astros gave up long before the season started. I just to reiterate: man, do we suck

QUOTE (Knuckles @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 06:56 PM) Here is the Hudson injury http://deadspin.com/tim-hudson-suffers-gru...dium=socialflow Yeah, I'm going to pass...

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.

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?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 06:29 PM) Money plays a role. Money is meant to buy you certainty. Young players not costing money is meant to offset the risk that they are worthless. Really? So why would we pay all that money to Danks again?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 06:26 PM) Firstly, we don't have to do that. If you did, it is like most deals - you think the collection of players you receive will be worth more wins than the guy you trade away. Particular to our situation, unless something changes, chances are that a trade of Danks for young (or old? I don't give a s***) bats involves trading from a position of strength to cover a position of need. Oh, for a moment I thought it might have had something to do with money...

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 06:21 PM) With the TV money going out next year and just normal player salary inflation, it gets easier and easier to outperform the $15 million number as time goes on Ok, and why do we need to turn Danks into young players?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 06:10 PM) There is a gamble of letting John Danks pitch for a contender w/ a mid-3's ERA as he is quite liable to do. I think there is a far better chance than 20% that he ends being around a $15 million/year pitcher. Contracts have their setbacks, but in the end, lots of people want a guy like a healthy John Danks. If you want to build your team/farm up, you want to be able to turn him into young players. If you want to be good, you want a battle-tested pitcher on your team. I wouldn't stamp my feet and cry if we let him go in this mythical scenario, but I don't think it's so cut and dry. When the best scenario is that you basically break even, and the odds of that are low, it's probably not smart to miss out on the chance of taking a mulligan on the deal. Tell me why it is that young players are so desirable again?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:49 PM) You're acting like "a" is a random occurrence, as if we have no way of knowing when that lack of production will end. We know why he quit producing, too. We have a nice guess for that - next year. We saw this same progression with Jake Peavy where he needed a full offseason of normal activity and health before he came back to normal. Given how much Danks has improved some aspects of his game and we can see his velocity getting closer to normal, it is not unreasonable to think he's going to return to normal. The sucking is meant to be temporary. If he plays out his contract, he'll be here when we don't suck. If we suck longer than intended, the plan is to move him when he's looking like his old self. He won't pitch worse than this, that seems like a fair assumption. Therefore, this is his minimum value and if we're not planning to increase salary, the money isn't a consideration at this point. The same people that would take him off our hands for nothing would rather do that a year from now when there is 15 million less owed to him, too. By then, he might be pitching well enough that the contract looks reasonable again. Why are you taking this huge gamble for no or a very remote upside possibility? The odds of him being an important piece either because we're competitive or because he turns into a valuable asset are remote. Maybe 2 in 10? I don't know why you'd want to spend all the money on those odds when you could take a mulligan. It's just silly. Additionally, he's probably going to be taking the innings of someone we should be developing instead.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:40 PM) John Danks was the 16th highest WAR pitcher in all of baseball from 2008-2011. He doesn't have to be nearly that good again to have enough value to be considered an asset. Yeah, and the last 1.5 years? Lets assume we're paying him generally what he was worth between 2008-2011. Is that fair? Why would you gamble that he'll be worth what we're paying him in a best case scenario when a) he hasn't been worth anywhere near that since 2011 and b) we suck? It's like paying $45 million for the chance at a decent prospect two years down the line.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:39 PM) As usual, someone actually used a stat to say why tey think he's an asset, and that point gets ignored. Ok, what is Danks worth when he is healthy?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:36 PM) He fits in most gameplans for me. Win next year? Perhaps your only real veteran starter (can we call Sale that after two years of starting?). Rebuilding? Salary won't matter and you hold on to him hoping his value increases as he gets healthier. Some sort of rebuild/reload? Wait to see how the team does and act like you were going with either plan A or plan B all along. In what world does $15 million a year not matter?

Kilt

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:33 PM) Danny Knobbler tweeted scouts say Rios is playing with zero energy. The problem is he always appears that way.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:31 PM) I'd have to think about it. Probably not. His xFIP is 3.8, which is pretty much where he's been his entire career. If someone is claiming him now, they'll probably claim him a year from now too. Even in the worst case, I don't see him getting worse. I'll hold on to him. We're not hurting for money right now anyway. Selling off assets at minimal value seems silly for us at this point anyway. It's not so much his performance to me as the fact that he just doesn't really fit into the gameplan anymore. I'd rather put that money in the bank and use it when we're actually competitive.

Damn do we suck.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:26 PM) Simple question Jake...if you could let Danks go on a waiver claim and get nothing in return, would you do it? I don't know how you could say no.

QUOTE (daggins @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:15 PM) I mean I am presenting real sky-is-falling scenarios here like some chicken little but that is just nuts. Santana could probably bring like, 2-3 legit prospects in trade. Slightly less than Garza, especially if the Royals kick a mil or so. That's just not true

QUOTE (daggins @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) Well, 1. This season he has actually been BETTER than Peavy. 2. He is a rental, so this season is what really matters 3. He earns less money this season than Peavy. All of which combines into "Probably some GMs will think he is more valuable than Peavy" which directly translates to "There will be less offers for Peavy" which directly correlates with "There will be less return for Peavy". Ervin Santana has always been extremely inconsistent. I would think the return for him might be similar to what we gave up for Liriano.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) As a White Sox fan, I think this is how you get the best value. Just depends...if a team feels like they can do "one-stop shopping" by acquiring a few guys from us rather than having to risk dealing with another unworkable counterparty, then we may actually see a premium that way...but generally, yes, it may not be in our best interest to "bundle" our players.

QUOTE (daggins @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) I mean they should still get a good package of prospects for the Jakester but Ervin being available means he is no longer the only game in town. They may end up not trading him now. There were always going to be other starters available...but Jake is clearly better...this is a non-factor

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 01:58 PM) Heyman has been saying that GMs love Peavy while Olney has been saying that nobody likes his contract. In my experience, Heyman has always been more accurate. Others may disagree Heyman and Rosenthal are usually the most accurate, but that isn't necessarily a high threshold.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 01:57 PM) That is confusing. And what you think is more leaked? That the price it to high or teams bluffing about being skeptical Peavy's contract? The high price tag is to be expected...that is nothing new...it's the part about teams not wanting him for next year. That is bs.

QUOTE (onedude @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 01:55 PM) Right? High price tag? Not the high price tag, but the part about being unsure about wanting to keep him for next year.