I would gladly give him away for ALMOST nothing...payroll flexibility is more important than quibbling over getting a Tier B vs. Tier C prospect and holding out for too much.

 

Payroll flexibility is something we already have. By 2015, we have practically nothing committed. There's a huge dropoff for next year too, even without trades.

Payroll flexibility is something we already have. By 2015, we have practically nothing committed. There's a huge dropoff for next year too, even without trades.

 

 

I'll put it this way. Quintana, Santiago and even Snodgress (in a couple of years) probably can pitch just as well at a fraction of the cost.

 

The odds of Danks returning to Blackout Game/2009 form, vs. just being a really good 4 or a weak 3 starter (or another injury)....those scary salary numbers, cost/benefit analysis, best to move on if we possibly can.

Edited July 7, 201312 yr by caulfield12

I'll put it this way. Quintana, Santiago and even Snodgress probably can pitch just as well at a fraction of the cost.

 

The odds of Danks returning to Blackout Game/2009 form, vs. just being a really good 4 or a weak 3 starter (or another injury)....those scary salary numbers, best to move on if we possibly can.

 

Snodgress, really?

Snodgress, really?

 

 

Okay, I'm exaggerating a little. I watched him pitch a full game this week, and he reminded me a lot of Quintana (that's why I edited it to 2 years from now).

 

He's not going to blow anyone away, but he's got a nifty change and decent breaking ball.

There are reasons to move Danks based on the likeliness of him being a good value for his contract, but moving his contract for payroll flexibility is not a good argument because we already have that. When we enter the bidding for Cano and add on Morales and Hunter Pence, then we can start stressing about Danks' contract.

Snodgress, really?

He's got a good chance next year to be where Rienzo is now, in Charlotte and knocking on the door.

There are reasons to move Danks based on the likeliness of him being a good value for his contract, but moving his contract for payroll flexibility is not a good argument because we already have that. When we enter the bidding for Cano and add on Morales and Hunter Pence, then we can start stressing about Danks' contract.

Of course, if we move him beforehand, then going after additional ones of those guys becomes a realistic option.

 

Let's not forget how back-loaded Danks's contract is.

Of course, if we move him beforehand, then going after additional ones of those guys becomes a realistic option.

 

Let's not forget how back-loaded Danks's contract is.

 

14.25 this year as well as the rest of the deal.

14.25 this year as well as the rest of the deal.

After only $2 million and a signing bonus the first season, right?

After only $2 million and a signing bonus the first season, right?

 

Yeah I think we just paid him what he would have been due w/o the extension (I forget what, but you're probably in the ballpark)

Yeah I think we just paid him what he would have been due w/o the extension (I forget what, but you're probably in the ballpark)

 

$7.5M signing bonus (paid between 6/12 and 10/12)

12:$0.5M, 13:$14.25M, 14:$14.25M, 15:$14.25M, 16:$14.25M

full no-trade clause for 2012

may block trades to six clubs annually for 2013-16

 

 

So $8 million last year, in total. About $48 million still owed.

 

Wonder which 6 teams are on the no-trade list? Does anyone know? The Rockies are one team we've seen mentioned in connection with Danks.

Edited July 7, 201312 yr by caulfield12

He's got a good chance next year to be where Rienzo is now, in Charlotte and knocking on the door.

 

I highly disagree with you. Snodgress is has been anything but good in Birmingham this year:

 

4.56 ERA

5.5 K/9

3.1 BB/9

 

I know it's his first year in Double-A, but those stats do not jump out to me as a guy that is going to be contributing anytime soon to the MLB club. At least Rienzo was blowing guys away in Birmingham.

There are reasons to move Danks based on the likeliness of him being a good value for his contract, but moving his contract for payroll flexibility is not a good argument because we already have that. When we enter the bidding for Cano and add on Morales and Hunter Pence, then we can start stressing about Danks' contract.

 

Agreed there is no reason to move Danks or his contract because of "payroll flexibility". The sox need to lock up Santiago and Quintana this offseason and decide what to do with Beckham seeing how he will be a free agent after '16 and it appears we can move him over to SS, baseball reference lists Rickie Weeks as a comparable hitter to Beckham and if thats the case we could have a few wRC+ years of 120 or more.

Agreed there is no reason to move Danks or his contract because of "payroll flexibility". The sox need to lock up Santiago and Quintana this offseason and decide what to do with Beckham seeing how he will be a free agent after '16 and it appears we can move him over to SS, baseball reference lists Rickie Weeks as a comparable hitter to Beckham and if thats the case we could have a few wRC+ years of 120 or more.

 

 

That's a huge assumption that will probably be proven wrong...hey, it's great if he could play an average major league SS, but we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Beckham has a long ways to go to be the same hitter Weeks has been for most of his career, although this year has been a major disappointment and surely the Brewers would trade him if they could find a willing buyer.

 

You just said we don't need payroll flexibility, and yet you want to go out and extend Quintana, Santiago (and one would assume Gordon Beckham) into their FA years...where's all that money going to come from?