witesoxfan

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 03:15 PM) I completely agree that the Sox aren't going to be big time buyers, but its definitely an interesting though in my opinion. Sox would go into next year with 3 dominant lefties and money off the books that could pay for Hamels. Even without Hamels, they might go into next year with 3 dominant lefties in the rotation.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 03:05 PM) The fact is Danks is on pace for close to 200 innings pitched and most of the time pitches a pretty solid game. If the peripherals say he's one of the league's worst pitchers, the peripherals are wrong. He's no ace, but he's no bum. I have absolutely no problem with these statements right here. He is definitely a glue guy on a staff. Guys like John Danks - who go out, keep the team in the game, and eat innings - are incredibly valuable to a pitching staff, but it's mostly intrinsic value. You aren't going to get a nice package of prospects for him, but if you do trade him, you could certainly get a couple of decent players for him. Frankly, whatever they do with Danks I'm fine with.

That is way, way too much. I like Hamels, but I don't think they're ready to be big time buyers yet.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 02:38 PM) It doesn't paint the picture. It's a different measurement. It paints the picture just fine. If you take out 20% of a player's worst numbers, they are typically going to look pretty good. It wouldn't have mattered if I'd done games or plate appearances or games started by a pitcher. You can't just say "if you take out these 4 starts" because those make up a substantial portion of this season's numbers.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) How long did it take you to do the math? 5 minutes, if that. It may not be exact but it paints the picture.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 01:59 PM) I hope they prove me wrong and at least pick up a serviceable upper minors C for Danks. Doesn't have to have much ceiling, but I don't want to pay Tyler Flowers anymore. Silly, you aren't paying Tyler Flowers anything!

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 01:50 PM) Contract Also I know there are errors in this I diont care to fix them TYVM The Dodgers just signed Darwin Barney after he was DFA'd and released by the Cubs. At this point in time, Beckham and Barney are essentially interchangeable parts. Hell, you can go acquire Willie Bloomquist to be your everyday 2B and there's virtually no difference. Beckham is just a guy right now. Now, try and go sign a left handed bat that puts up a .243/.378/.461/.839 against RHP. You can't do it. Dunn > Beckham. There's not a shred of doubt in my mind.

More than anything, a manager has to be someone the players like and respect, and the manager has to back his players whether or not he agrees with what they're arguing or they're pissed about. He has to be a guy that pulls guys aside and tells them the what-for. You can crucify any manager you want for stupid stuff they do - LaRussa had the pitcher bat 8th on multiple occasions, which goes against all logic, and had an infatuation with hustle guys who didn't have the talent some others and thus, weren't as good. Bobby Cox had a managerial record of 266-323 in his first 4 seasons as manager of the Braves. It's a good thing people decided that he wasn't a washed up nobody as a manager at that point in time. I'm not about to come on here and say that Robin Ventura is the best manager in the league or that he makes good decisions all the time, but he takes a little too much flak on here because he's the current manager.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) For a guy who complains when he thinks pitching moves are being based on ERA, you sure do mention ERA a lot. What I mentioned is take the 4 starts out of 21 where Danks got pummeled and gave up 7 or 8 runs. His other 17 starts , which include a couple of non quality starts produces an ERA of 2.89. His 4 worst games he allowed 28 runs in 19 innings. His other 112 innings, 36 ER. You can give me xFip SIERRA all that crap. What matters in the end is runs, and Danks usually does OK with that. When they hand out the trophy at the end of the year, you can't use a challenge and have them look at the xFIP replay. I understand that, but it's still 19% of his total games pitched this year. You can't just cherry pick those out as if they didn't happen. If you take out 19% of Adam Dunn's worst plate appearances, you're removing 68 plate appearances. If, out of those 68 plate appearances, we take out 10 singles and 58 outs - a line of .150/.150/.150 - Dunn's line transforms into a thing of beauty - .254/.414/.522/.936. Do you believe Dunn is closer to a .254/.414/.522/.936 type of player, or the .229/.363/.435/.798 player we've grown accustomed to?

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 11:22 AM) I guess I'm just cherry picking the times where they go against a player I root for, which is probably silly, but still. If there were no advanced stats and you told me only 19 pitchers in all of baseball had more quality starts than John Danks I'd be a happy man about having that guy as a 3rd starter. But now we have some people calling him one of the worst starters in baseball. Only 19 players have more home runs in the AL than Adam Dunn. What does that tell you? Because all it tells me is that Dunn has hit a lot of home runs. If you tell me that Danks has 15 quality starts in 21 games started, all it tells me is that he's had 15 outings where he went at least 6 innings and allowed 3 or fewer earned runs. That's a 4.50 ERA. That's not particularly impressive, but it's OK. I still want to know more and more, and as you look into it, you see what he is. As a back of the rotation starter, I appreciate what John Danks does for the White Sox. I don't believe he can't improve, but I'm not expecting it. I'm also not expecting a big return for him if/when he is traded.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) And if he sucks and is one of the worst starters in baseball (which is the case based on peripherals and Dave Cameron said so it must be true) then why is it only 20% of the time he truly sucks? He's actually lucky 80%? That seems unlikely. Frankly, I think if something happens 80% of the time vs. 20%, the truth is closer to the 80%. Again, I'm not using the word lucky to describe John Danks. I'm pointing out his peripherals and suggesting that he's not suddenly going to be a 3.00 ERA pitcher. He's an adequate back of the rotation starter. I don't believe him to be one of the worst starters in baseball. Frankly, all I've said that is quality starts is a poor statistic to use because it only tells part of the story. You have to look at the big picture. Do you disagree? QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) I'm not saying it's unlucky. It's baseball, everyone is gonna get roughed up from time to time....I'm just saying, it's about 2/3rds of the way into the season and in 80% of his games he's been solid. Advanced stats has really taken a lot of fun out of baseball...and this message board. I don't disagree. All I've said is that John Danks is not a very valuable commodity and that his statistics indicate that he's going to remain about where he is ERA wise. He's not a great pitcher but he's an adequate back of the rotation starter. I also happen to think that advanced stats make baseball incredibly interesting.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) If a pitcher has a sub 3 era for 80% of the time and is bad 20% of the time.....Why is it that the 80% is lucky? Why is the 20% unlucky? Let's phrase this a different way - if you are unsure as to why the 80% is "lucky" (words that have never been typed by me), then why isn't he a sub 3 ERA pitcher 100% of the time?

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 04:44 PM) Joe Maddon is a pretty good basball manager. He did the exact same thing the other night against the Red Sox. He pinch ran for James Loney but only after he got to 2nd base. The Red Sox color man ( Remy) noted that some managers will pull a starter for a runner from 2nd but not first late in a game. I have not participated in this at all until this point, but if you pinch run for a guy on first base, a ground ball wipes him out and then you lose the roster space and replace a good hitter with a poor hitter. If you pinch run with a runner on 2nd, you can control it a bit better. If there's a runner on first, teams will typically go to 2nd first to try and force a double play. You aren't wasting it per se.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 10:26 AM) Danks does the same. Javy Vazquez and Gavin Floyd didn't pitch up to their peripherals. How do you explain that? Command. Danks is not a bad pitcher, and I'm on record as saying that he pitches better than his peripherals, but the signs point to him being a 4.00 ERA pitcher. That's not a bad thing, but he's not worth a lot, and using quality starts when his overall stats indicate something else is crazy talk. BTW, taking out Danks 4 worst starts is removing almost 20% of his games started. I'm sure if you take out 20% of almost anyone's worst performances and they'll have really good numbers too.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) The problem is you can look at all the predictive stats you want or look at what he's really done. His ancillary stats aren't great but he's been able to prduce at a pretty good level. The stat isn't ridiculous as very few pitchers average 8 innings a game anymore. The 7 or 8 and 4 runs is no different but most pitchers don't go that deep into games because they aren't expected to. How many quality starts do you think John Danks will have the rest of the year? Are you going to look at the number of quality starts he's had to predict how many quality starts he'll have the rest of the year?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 10:05 AM) Thats a little weak because you know in general, when you throw a quality start that you have put your team in a position to win the game. Typically teams that league the lead in quality starts and rank near the top also rank near the top of the standings, so there is a pretty good correlation and you know exactly what it means, that he gave up 3 or less in 6 or more. The bigger question is has he pitched a little lucky, etc, and that is probably the case. You also see deteriorating stuff, etc. You can't look at quality starts and count on future success though, and that's basically it. Yeah, he's thrown a few quality starts, but you are admitting that he's gotten a bit lucky and that number is probably inflated somewhat. I also think the idea of the quality start is outdated too, or that it should be amended (6 IP and 3 ER is a silly guideline). Frankly, the teams that lead the league in quality starts don't target pitches because they put up quality starts, they target them because they are good pitchers and, because they are good pitchers, they put up quality starts. I don't see anybody talking about Sale putting up quality starts, only that he's an awesome pitcher.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) Who knows what he did? He gave up 3 or less runs in 6+ innings of work, which is good enough to win quite a few games. Couple the QS numbers with his ERA and you can see that he has been largely effective in 75% of his outings and a dumpster fire in the other 25%. He's got a mediocre strike out rate, a mediocre walk rate, he gives up a lot of home runs, he doesn't throw as hard, he's been incredibly mediocre to bad overall as a pitcher this year, and he's due another $30 mill or so. As a back end of the rotation starter for the Sox, I have no problem with John Danks, but I'm trying to temper expectations for what the return will be. BTW, the quality start statistic is ridiculous. If a guy goes 6 innings and gives up 3 ER, how is that really any different than a guy going 7 or 8 and giving up 4 ER?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 06:44 AM) Are you sure about that? I know there were a lot of problems around then...with Jimenez and Lofton and Lee, in terms of attitude/chemistry in the clubhouse. Thomas got into a fight with either Lofton or Jimenez on one famous occasion and ended up sitting on him...not sure which player, my memory's a bit hazy now 12 years later. Frank Thomas never played with Kenny Williams, so yeah.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 11:34 PM) The one thing about Boras's system that you'd have to address is the possibility that players intentionally become uncooperative so that they can choose their team. An Eli Manning situation, basically Submit a max bid then. If you draft someone #1 overall, and his draft slot is $9 mill, and you submit a bit for $9 mill, he should not be able to sign with another team. The drafting team has done everything in their reasonably expected power to get you signed. If you just don't want to sign, then you don't GET to sign.

Why I oughta...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 09:53 PM) I've been citing quality starts regarding Danks. Isn't he kicking butt in quality starts? It's not like he's been Axelrod-esque or Carroll-esque in terms of stuff, either. The guy takes the mound and you can be assured a quality start (f*** I've jinxed his next start with this, though). Looking at quality starts for a starting pitcher is like looking singularily at home runs or batting average for a hitter. Yes, it will tell part of the story, but the rest of the story says he hasn't done a hell of a lot. He has 15 quality starts in 21 games started. To me, that says he's essentially pitched poorly enough to lose 6 games, and who knows what he's done in the other 15 - maybe pitched just well enough to lose. The Sox pitching staff is not going to get considerably worse if they trade John Danks.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 05:02 PM) Greg started it! Wite said that Beckham wasn't the biggest bust in franchise history because he actually managed to hold down a job in the MLB for a while, whereas many other high draft choices never even made it that far. Instead of reading anything, greg saw that wite had said something NOT negative about Beckham, and goes "well the SABR guys think Beckham is good, wtf is up with that?" So then we decided to see how long it would take for greg to actually read a post. I don't get it. Why are you saying that I think Beckham is a really good player? I've said NOTHING of the like.

QUOTE (ChiSoxJon @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 03:36 PM) Hahaha I can't tell if that's sarcastic or not because they are poorly written, I just try to share my observations, but thanks a lot, I appreciate if you're serious They've been much appreciated, it was most definitely a sincere comment.

QUOTE (Lemon_44 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) If you match up money, I'd rather have Kemp, Semien/Sanchez/Johnson/whoever, Wilkins, and one of their top prospects on the roster than Dunn, Konerko, and Beckham who are all 3 gone next year. I know he makes way too much money and is having a somewhat down year but his OBP, OPS, and OWAR would still be 5TH, 4th, and 5th on the Sox. That doesn't justify $20 mill/year but he can do much more, overall, than what Dunn/Konerko bring at 20+ mill combined. Plus, he's still young enough to have a couple bounce back productive years. I'm not saying it's the right move, it's just not a crippling move either. Dunn and Konerko are making like $16 million this year, and they aren't here for 5 more years. Matt Kemp is very bad defensively with rapidly decreasing athleticism who doesn't have much of a bat. "It's not a crippling move" is not a good justification to bring a player in. The Sox could easily trade for Ryan Howard and survive and possibly even compete with him as a part time DH, but it'd be an absolutely terrible move to make. For how much we hype Joc Pederson, he's still struck out 110 times in 407 plate appearances this year. He walks and hits for power and does a lot of other things well, but a 27% K rate is nothing to simply just scoff at. He's also in one of the best hitters' leagues in the minors. In AA, he put up .278/.381/.497/.878. Those aren't bad numbers, but you should also expect a drop off from those numbers too.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 12:16 PM) Hasn't been Hahn been clearing payroll to build to this exact type of move? I thought he has even mentioned explicitly that they have given themselves the ability to take back a bad contract. If you can tie one of their top 3 prospects as part of taking on Kemp, that seems like that would fit right into what Hahn has been trying to do. I am not a fan of giving up anything of value for Kemp, but taking on one of those prospects would make me want to really look at evaluating the cost-benefit analysis of such a move. It all depends on what you would need to give up, if it is a spare part, than yes, if it is a core piece than you probably won'd consider it. To me, I'm assuming Matt Kemp's contract is like Vernon Wells' contract when he was traded to LAA. Yes, there is some chance he regains the form he once had, but he's been absolutely terrible defensively to the point where Adam Dunn is a similar fielder in the outfield. There is virtually no chance you even get half value right there. QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 12:22 PM) Then it's moot point anyway. If they were to be included I'd have to really think about it. At some point they're going to add some payroll and if they believe Pederson or Seager live up to that top 20 prospect hype IMO that's a worthy investment. I think the moves Hahn previously made make a move like this possible. But I don't even think about it unless one of those big 3 players are involved(Mainly Pederson or Seager)......That's what this thread/the tweet in the OP is about though. So, are Seager or Pederson going to be worth $70-80 million over the next 6 years? Perhaps, but that's an incredibly risky proposition. I think that's probably what you'd hope their peak value to be in the first 6 years. If they completely bust, then you're left with an albatross of a contract and a busted prospect and lost service time for other prospects too. Best case scenario, you get a decent hitter in Kemp, a really good hitter in Pederson/Seager, and you are still paying $21 mill a year for the combo. Worst case, Kemp continues being a mediocre hitter, the prospect busts, and you're looking at $21 mill per year for 0 production. And people are upset about Dunn because he can't really play the field and he strikes out a lot. That would put Dunn to shame. I think if it were BJ Upton we were talking about instead of Matt Kemp (4 years, $60 million or so left), it'd be worthwhile to have this discussion, but I can't imagine it being anywhere close to worth it with Kemp. QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Jul 28, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) The only reason there is talks of trading him (Lester) is because they know someone will give him more money (years, not necessarily per annum). Obviously, the White Sox won't be that team. I don't think Lester makes a lot of sense, at least at the moment, and given his likely cost, I don't think he'd be worth it either way.