Pretty sure Danks leads the majors in homers allowed per inning now

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?

I wouldn't consider Danks an asset.

 

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.

Edited July 25, 201312 yr by Jake

In what world does $15 million a year not matter?

 

The world where you're not trying to move that salary to bring in another $15 million player

Pretty sure Danks leads the majors in homers allowed per inning now

 

Roughly double his career HR/FB. That will change

The world where you're not trying to move that salary to bring in another $15 million player

 

It's just a lot of money for someone that's going to be a #4 or 5 starter most likely for you.

Ok, what is Danks worth when he is healthy?

Even excluding 2008, $13-17 million in the fangraphs world. $22 mil in 08.

Teams are just going to start playing Konerko like a lefty pull hitter. Come on PK, go out on a high note!

It's just a lot of money for someone that's going to be a #4 or 5 starter most likely for you.

 

Indeed. If he's his old self, he won't be our 4-5. If not, there are worse expenditures of money.

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.

Edited July 25, 201312 yr by iamshack

As usual, someone actually used a stat to say why tey think he's an asset, and that point gets ignored.

 

As usual you put too much stock in some kind of bootleg stat (i.e. BABIP!) and ignore what you're seeing with your eyes.

Edited July 25, 201312 yr by Marty34

As usual you put too much stock in some kind of bootleg stat (i.e. BABIP!) and ignore what you're see with your eyes.

Like when you spent a month telling us that Keppinger would never start hitting before he started hitting?

Like when you spent a month telling us that Keppinger would never start hitting before he started hitting?

 

Exactly. Do we really want to get in to the stuff you said that was wrong? You and your bootleg stats.

Yeah, and the last 2.5 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.

 

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.

Edited July 25, 201312 yr by Jake

As usual you put too much stock in some kind of bootleg stat (i.e. BABIP!) and ignore what you're seeing with your eyes.

 

Bootleg stats? Dude you sound like Hawk now

Jake, you ever hear more about what Ventura meant when speaking about Crain?

Bootleg stats? Dude you sound like Hawk now

 

Thats what they are. Statistical analysis has it's place, but just like TWTW it's largely a gimmick.

Thats what they are. Statistical analysis has it's place, but just like TWTW it's largely a gimmick.

 

The term doesn't even make sense.

Jake, you ever hear more about what Ventura meant when speaking about Crain?

The guys posted video links on twitter.

 

http://trib.in/12MvLvx

Dayan's poor pitch selection has turned into an unbelievable ability to make contact on really bad pitches

I don't know if Phegley ultimately pans out, but at the very least, we don't have to watch Tyler Flowers try to hit on a daily basis anymore.

Thought that was gone for Phegley

I think Phegley doesn't really have that much power. He just makes near-perfect contact on a surprisingly consistent basis

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.

Hawk talking about the Sox messing with Cameron. Bevington was the manager. Hriniak the hitting coach.