witesoxfan

I cleaned this thread up a bit. Please keep this thread to CONSTRUCTIVE conversation on Zach Duke. This is the final warning for this thread.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 11:07 PM) I'd say that 20 innings is somewhat important when talking about a relivers second half. It raises my "uh-oh" meter. This is coming from a guy who knows not what xFIP means, so please do enlighten me. It shouldn't for a ton of reasons, namely the fact that it's 20 innings. Jose Quintana had a 4.58 ERA and 1.36 WHIP in 35.1 IP in August, but your uh-oh meter didn't go off then. That's almost twice as big of a sample size.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 05:52 PM) The question is whether hanging the extra 10+ innings per starter on everyone else and the bullpen is really the best thing for them. I think it'll be fine.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 05:36 PM) It is also why you could see certain scenarios where he does end up spending time in the bullpen, as a way to manage his innings. I think they'd find ways to skip a start about every 6 weeks. A typical season will see 32 starts in a year if a pitcher remains healthy. If you figure 6 innings per start on average - and that is an optimistic projection - a pitcher will typically throw 192 innings. If you skip 5 starts at 6 innings a piece, you are already back down to 162 innings, which is well within that range. You can't be afraid of letting him work through a dead arm period, but if he looks like it's catching up to him too quickly, you can just give him a rest.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 05:02 PM) That is a very beatable deal. It's an initial offer. It will be beaten. As Michael Scott says, you always turn down the first offer.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 05:01 PM) Great, we can have Vlad Guerrero, Jr., Sandoval and Viciedo together...that should be pure entertainment. Talk about swinging at nearly ever ball thrown at them, no matter what the location. Saw Guerrero's cousin play in Clinton (Midwest League) for the Mariners last year and he was far from impressive. Vlad Jr is an elite level prospect who looks like incredibly similar to Vlad Sr.

Yeah, I disagree that this is a guy that the Sox should look at this early. They need to explore a lot of other options and if LaRoche ends up signing elsewhere between now and then, so be it. However, if he's available come about January 15th and the Sox could use an extra bat, I have no problem giving him $8-10 million his way on a 1 year deal. There's no way I'd give him 2 years guaranteed, but an option of some type is definitely possible for a second year.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 04:23 PM) There is - it's almost a perfect storm. 1) Toronto is crowded at catcher and the odd man out has an easily movable contract. 2) The Sox are a team that would benefit from having two catchers splitting time. 3) Toronto is losing an incumbent outfielder. But it's still predicated on somebody thinking Viciedo is not terrible, which I cannot imagine. It's like if I tried to speak Hungarian - my brain just can't make sense of it. The thing is, it's not a stretch to say that both Jose Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion sucked when they went to Toronto too and somehow, Toronto got through to them. It's not inconceivable. Oh, and if the White Sox were offered Dioner Navarro straight up for Dayan Viciedo, and they turned it down without some shred of logic (like "we got a better offer for him" and not "we think Viciedo has more value than Navarro"), I may make the 837 mile trek to US Cellular Field and protest nude in January.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) I clarified the reason. If Toronto makes that trade, I promise I will eat my hat. I am holding you to that one because there is a bit of logic behind that deal.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 01:45 PM) Navarro is a bat that can "not kill you " at catcher. I want the Sox to go out and get a catcher that will "not kill you" at the plate. I'm still hoping this is Jason Castro. Seems like a completely logical White Sox move.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) Incorrect. Technically this counts too. In the first one, one of the biggest creditors the Rangers had during their bankruptcy proceedings was this muscle bound freak named Alex Roidriguez or something like that. The Dodgers filed Chapter 11 in 2011 too, but that was more related to the divorce of Frank and Jamie McCourt.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 12:17 PM) We hear that other people are overpaid all of the time. It isn't just a sports thing. CEO's, actors, musicians, etc. CEOs, I think, are a little different scenario, but if they are receiving a huge amount of money, then they are still the active working head for a huge, huge company. That's a lot of responsibility and involves swinging a very big stick. I definitely don't think actors or musicians are overpaid. I think the amount of money they may get is a ridiculously large amount, which is a key difference, but I don't say "they shouldn't be making that much." 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. I think you're right in that it's not always the case, but there are some cases where it is true. I think the Sox re-signed Danks to a 5 year deal because they believed he'd be good for the entire 5 year deal, not to just reap the rewards of the initial couple seasons. That definitely played a part, but it wasn't all inclusive one way or another. On the free agent market, I think you will typically see what you referenced. Ultimately, it would be a case by case basis and those two outcomes (or others) aren't mutually exclusive by any means either. With Giancarlo Stanton, I think the Marlins are thinking he's going to be good all 13 or 14 years he's ultimately under contract, but they also want to reap the rewards initially as well, plus this is going to make you trust them again, if just for a little bit. I think the way the Marlins have set that contract up is absolutely brilliant.

He should start in the minors. I actually think Charlotte makes more sense as a place to refine his breaking and other offspeed stuff, but either Charlotte or Birmingham is fine. He pitches there for a month and if he looks ready, you call him up. Basically, even in the most fortunate of scenarios for Rodon, he's going to end up getting like 6 mill more over a 6 year period of time if he's a Super 2 player. Still, it may be a way of increasing his load while keeping him pitching on a good limit - perhaps limit him to 3 or 4 innings, or 70 pitches initially, work it up to 5 or 6 innings, or 90 pitches, and then ratchet it up to 100+ pitches for a couple starts before he comes up. So, of these options, the best one is "starter" but that's with qualifiers.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 11:31 AM) Everyone says this every year. If a fast food restaurant - say Crazy George's - was willing to pay people $30 an hour to put out the best fast food in the area while taking home microscopic profit margins, while the rest of the fast food restaurants - say "Tampa Tacos" - gave the typical $10 an hour to take home bigger profits while putting out a lesser quality product, I doubt people would say "those people are Crazy George's are way overpaid." Economic theory says no one is ever overpaid and that people will only ever be underpaid. Someone/Something may be paid/may cost more than you were willing to spend, but someone out there is willing to spend that amount for that service/product at that price, and thus it is valued properly. The problem never lies in that. The problem lies in our inability to properly determine the depreciation of that service over time. A lot of times these services depreciate way faster than we realize they will, even after time and time again we see it do the same thing, partly because we've seen it work previously (both the service and extending the life of the service) and because the known is better than the unknown until it's not or the unknown becomes known.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:56 AM) If you want someone better them danks starting next year right off that bat you will have to put a good amount of money or prospects to get it. If are not happy with danks era and want better then the sox shouldn't have noesi in the 4 rotation either. Look at the teams who made the post season and tell me non of them didn't have a guy with the a era in the 4. Again no one knows when rodon will be available. Beck, Danish and Montas still could be ways away. Yeah ok.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:46 AM) Someone else said danks is bad because of his high above league average. Pretty much said if he's not league average then he shouldn't be in the rotation. Right now he is one of the best starting option the sox have. You have sale, quintana, noesi and danks. Carroll posted a 5.40 era in his 19 starts last year. Rienzo posted a 5.97 era in 11 starts last year. The only one to not have extensive time pitching in the rotation was bassitt. No body knows what happening with rodon. For the sox to have a better option then to have a a guy like danks i the rotation then they need 3 new pitchers. Nobody has said this. Barring injury or falling off the rails completely, Rodon will pitch for the White Sox this year out of the rotation and will probably end up around 150-160 innings overall. I think they'll acquire another starting pitcher. At that point, your top 4 will likely be Sale, Quintana, new guy, and Rodon. Whether the 5th is Danks, Noesi, Bassitt, Jack McDowell, Wilbur Wood, or whoever, it doesn't matter.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:31 AM) There are superior options other then danks but do you want the sox to sink a ton of money into the rotation then. Scherzer is a superior option. So your saying if we can replace danks we should get scherzer. Also for the sox to have league average in the rotation then the sox need to have 3 new starters to go with sale and quintana. How about we get Lester, scherzer and shields so that we don't have to worry about guys like danks or the other options the sox have that aren't danks types with bad eras. Maybe we should get Samardzija for a bunch of prospects and replace danks that way. They don't have to sink a ton of money into the rotation. There will be options available both via free agency and trade that will be worthwhile investments, and the Sox have Rodon sitting in the minors (along with guys like Beck, Bassitt, Danish, and Montas in the mid-to-high minors) who could make an impact as well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:33 AM) They have stepped up and paid for FAs before, Matt Holliday being the most recent example. He was one of their own at that point though too. I think this is a little gamesmanship on behalf of the Cards to try and drive up the bidding for the Cubs. Sure, they could use Lester, but I don't think they want him. But if it causes the Red Sox or Cubs to pay a little more, then it's worth it. The Cubs connection is easy to make, but bidding up the price for a team that has beaten you in the World Series the last two times you lost doesn't hurt either.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 12, 2014 -> 08:09 PM) The only one of those that should be considered would be Ravelo, possibly. I wouldn't put Montas or Rondon there unless you had no choice, which I don't think is the case yet. Same with Anderson. 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.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 09:50 AM) In general, 5th starters do have ERAs that are below league average. What is the league average ERA for a 5th starter? 5th starters are usually replaced though too. If it's below average, that's not a big deal, but if there's a superior option, which one are you going with? I have no problem with Danks on the roster or starting - I think I'd actively try and move him more than you indicated above, but that it a difference of semantics . But at the end of the day, he may ultimately be the Sox 6th best starter. I don't want them going with him out of veteran deferance or contractual status. I want them going with him because he's one of the 5 best starting pitchers, even if that's below league average.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) People are forgetting that Danks already changed his motion and pitch selection a bit back in September. http://www.southsidesox.com/2014/9/23/6832...h-seasons-again I missed this. Of course the professionals would be ahead of me, as he was mixing the curveball in a bit more in those final 3 starts.

QUOTE (WhiteSoxLifer @ Nov 19, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) My 2 cents on danks. The difference with duke vs danks is that duke is a failed starter and danks is not. 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.

QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 05:22 PM) So Arruebarrena is a slight improvement over Leury? Yikes, never mind. OK, new bucket of s*** to throw at the wall. Tell the Dodgers Gordon and Schebler for Alexei. I hate to keep doing this, but I'm not sure why they'd deal Gordon if they don't feel Guerrero is a capable 2B. If they did, that one might make a little more sense, but the report on Gordon is that he doesn't have the arm for SS (which seems weird knowing who his father and brother are, but that's what they say). The only way that makes sense is if the Sox included Carlos Sanchez in that deal too, and really I think that's getting to be too many moving parts. I'm not sure all sides would be happy with that one.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 18, 2014 -> 05:06 PM) I wouldn't put it past the FO. Baseball runs on offense and Kemp is the powerful, athletic outfielder they were never able to convert on. That's a monstrosity of a commitment and I'm just not sure the Sox are ready for it. If he didn't mind being a full time player - part-time outfielder, part time DH - it gets a little more bearable, and if you can work Danks into the deal somehow, it makes a little more sense, and then you can maybe include a couple of prospects and get a little money and maybe you're cooking with something. Otherwise, it's just hard for me to fit that peg into the White Sox hole (that's what she said)