That's just a bit ambitious

 

You might be able to get a half to 2/3 of a season with him as your number one, but then his arm is going to fall off, just like Humber did.

Danks was obviously not that enamored with Boras.

 

Oops, I forgot that he switched agents. I think the Sox did offer him a deal similar to Romero's, if not more, and he turned it down.

What makes you think Boras would have let Danks sign a similar contract that Romero did? Other than succumbing to AA's hypnotic powers and charming looks?

 

That's just it. If Danks was willing to sign a cheapish deal, he would have done it a long time ago.

I think the Weaver contract makes it more likely that Danks gets dealt.

Danks at $17 million a year? I'd throw up. No way.

This. I'm just not a Danks fan, honestly.

Best GM in baseball gave up up a 160 era + for a 76 ops +.

 

Its limited sample size but im pretty sure if the roles were reversed youd be calling Kenny the dumbest man alive.

 

As for Danks, might as well trade him because no way are the Sox giving him 5 years.

Best GM in baseball gave up up a 160 era + for a 76 ops +.

 

Its limited sample size but im pretty sure if the roles were reversed youd be calling Kenny the dumbest man alive.

 

As for Danks, might as well trade him because no way are the Sox giving him 5 years.

 

 

Rasmus >>> Jackson

Best GM in baseball gave up up a 160 era + for a 76 ops +.

The sample size is so ridiculously small that this post was entirely pointless.

Correct me if Im wrong, but your boy traded Stewart for Rasmus.

 

Or are you going to rewrite history that he never had Stewart and couldnt have kept him?

 

(edit)

 

Steve,

 

Its just as ridiculous as j4l claiming that somehow his boy could have signed Danks. Absolutely no evidence to suggest it being true.

Edited August 22, 201114 yr by Soxbadger

 

Rasmus >>> Jackson

Sadly, he was talking about Zach Stewart, which makes his post even sillier.

 

Jackson, however, might be the worst piece in the entire trade, haha.

Correct me if Im wrong, but your boy traded Stewart for Rasmus.

 

Or are you going to rewrite history that he never had Stewart and couldnt have kept him?

 

(edit)

 

Steve,

 

Its just as ridiculous as j4l claiming that somehow his boy could have signed Danks. Absolutely no evidence to suggest it being true.

 

Stewart? Then again:

 

 

Rasmus >>> Stewart

Its just as ridiculous as j4l claiming that somehow his boy could have signed Danks. Absolutely no evidence to suggest it being true.

J4L shoots from the hip. He's a wild card.

 

Correct me if Im wrong, but your boy traded Stewart for Rasmus.

 

Or are you going to rewrite history that he never had Stewart and couldnt have kept him?

 

(edit)

 

Steve,

 

Its just as ridiculous as j4l claiming that somehow his boy could have signed Danks. Absolutely no evidence to suggest it being true.

 

He either gets a deal done or he trades him at peak value.

I like Danks but I wouldn't pay him $17M/year. If the Sox are going to spend that kind of money on a pitcher, he better be a legitimate ace, and that's not Danks. He'll be very good for a while but at this point I don't see him taking his game to a new level.

He either gets a deal done or he trades him at peak value.

 

His peak value is pretty much right now.

Its easy to always trade things when your not in competition. KW has to balance the Sox winning with the value.

 

As for the ridiculousness of Rasmus v Stewart, people started knocking KW the day Hudson took the mound for AZ. Im surprised as anyone that Rasmus isnt doing well, but maybe there was a reason that STL didnt want him anymore.

Seriously, we're in a "would you sign D1 to the Weaver deal" thread and we've got pimping of Toronto's GM?

His peak value is pretty much right now.

This is not necessarily true. He's had a rough year and gotten closer to FA. A smart GM would have spent more to get him last offseason than they would now.

 

He also could come out next year and have a 2 month stretch where his changeup is on all the time, making him look like one of the best starters in MLB and making that his peak value.

I'd go a max of 4 years. Danks is young enough he might bite on that. I would think more like the 4/56 that Buehrle got. If we did this though Floyd and or Quentin would probably have to be traded. Or Buehrle not re-signed.

 

It's too bad Kenny made some bad spending decisions.

He either gets a deal done or he trades him at peak value.

 

All while he saves an infant from a burning house, while fixing the US's debt ceiling problem all in one day.

All while he saves an infant from a burning house, while fixing the US's debt ceiling problem all in one day.

 

Uphill, barefoot, in three feet of snow.

while blowing a .22 BAC...that AA, you can't stop him! You can only hope to contain him. If he battled Ditka, a hurricane and all the Transformers (minus Optimus Prime), AA would still come out victorious!

 

 

 

KW has done this in the past when he had the surplus of starters.

 

He's already offered Danks once (the Floyd deal) and was quickly rejected.

 

As someone mentioned, he'll make a "public offer" for something like $39 million/3 years to PRETEND we want to keep him (it's usually about PR victories with the Sox in the typical offseason) when the educated baseball fan knows there's simply no way in hell that will get it done.

 

Then he'll quickly be traded for the best package KW and/or the new G.M. can manage to get.

Edited August 22, 201114 yr by caulfield12

Danks is a proven commodity. Prospects are iffy. Look at what we gace up to others. You build around pitching and danks is a very good one

Danks is a proven commodity. Prospects are iffy. Look at what we gace up to others. You build around pitching and danks is a very good one

John Danks leaving after 2012 if the Sox can't expand salary again is even more certain than John Danks's performance.

Fine Rock...

 

The problem right now is signing Danks forces you to let go of Buehrle, maybe Floyd, Quentin, Thornton, Ramirez, etc.

 

You simply won't see another $127 million dollar payroll while the economy is the way it is.

 

At the very least, keeping Danks means goodbye to Buehrle. And once Buehrle is gone, then from the overall perspective, you might as well let Konerko go too and get it over with, because holding on to Paul Konerko will make less and less sense going forward. You just can't expect the 2010-11 level of play to continue into his late 30's.