Jake

John's doctor fixed my shoulder in May so I get to ask him about John on a fairly regular basis. He tells me that the most optimistic outcome for John is that roughly August is when he could start to have normal velocity and normal command. He said the surgery is very simple, reinjury risk is low, but recovery takes a bit and he would be surprised if John pitches like his old self before he gets an offseason at normal health. This is where I'm coming from thinking that John will be okay.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:27 PM) Oh, for a moment I thought it might have had something to do with money... Money plays a role. Money is meant to buy you certainty. Young players not costing money is meant to offset the risk that they are worthless.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:23 PM) Ok, and why do we need to turn Danks into young players? Firstly, we don't have to do that. If you did, it is like most deals - you think the collection of players you receive will be worth more wins than the guy you trade away. Particular to our situation, unless something changes, chances are that a trade of Danks for young (or old? I don't give a s***) bats involves trading from a position of strength to cover a position of need.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:19 PM) When the best scenario is that you basically break even, and the odds of that are low, it's probably not smart to miss out on the chance of taking a mulligan on the deal. Tell me why it is that young players are so desirable again? With the TV money going out next year and just normal player salary inflation, it gets easier and easier to outperform the $15 million number as time goes on

I don't hate Kepp, but he's about the last guy I want to see up with a man on first and 2 out

When will we see Paulie take a nice, aggressive cut on a fastball and loft it over the LF fence?

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:10 PM) Nice timing of Hawk and Stoney bashing the defense and then another Alexei error. Pretty tough error, kind of like Rios getting charged for one last night

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:06 PM) Why not? Just because we got an average at best catcher in the long run, and our pseudo lead off hitter is getting on a hot streak, but is still clueless on defense? I also do not believe Beckham is a long term solution just because his BABIP is at an unsustainable .370 clip, and he has sacrificed all his power in the process. Yes, we don't have any glaring offensive weakness at this point, outside of third base. Gillaspie's offense just isn't going to cut it. The bigger issue is we don't have an above average offensive player at any position outside of Rios. A good offense would feature at least two all stars and one borderline all star. Rios is a borderline all star at best, and should be batting 5th or 6th in a good offense. By the way, none of our hitters have an OBP of over .800 From a typical lineup stand point, I would say we are missing a legit leadoff hitter, and legit number 3 and 4 hitters. Frankly they are the most important holes to fill. Our leadoff hitter is perhaps the strongest spot in our lineup

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 08:05 PM) 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. There is a gamble of letting John Danks pitch for a contender w/ a mid-3's ERA as he is quite liable to do. I think there is a far better chance than 20% that he ends being around a $15 million/year pitcher. Contracts have their setbacks, but in the end, lots of people want a guy like a healthy John Danks. If you want to build your team/farm up, you want to be able to turn him into young players. If you want to be good, you want a battle-tested pitcher on your team. I wouldn't stamp my feet and cry if we let him go in this mythical scenario, but I don't think it's so cut and dry.

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

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

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:56 PM) Why would Sox do that? Maybe a three-way deal

Entering today, Micah has a 1.1 BB% in A+ compared to 11% in A-

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:43 PM) 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.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:42 PM) 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.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:36 PM) If I was a scout, I wouldn't care about Rios' energy in a meaningless game. You'd have to hope that being in a pennant race and the chance to make the postseason for the first time in his career would be enough motivation. It's not like he's been a s***ty player for a team that has been out of it from the get-go

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:39 PM) Pretty sure Danks leads the majors in homers allowed per inning now Roughly double his career HR/FB. That will change

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:38 PM) 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

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:37 PM) 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:33 PM) It's not so much his performance to me as the fact that he just doesn't really fit into the gameplan anymore. I'd rather put that money in the bank and use it when we're actually competitive. He fits in most gameplans for me. Win next year? Perhaps your only real veteran starter (can we call Sale that after two years of starting?). Rebuilding? Salary won't matter and you hold on to him hoping his value increases as he gets healthier. Some sort of rebuild/reload? Wait to see how the team does and act like you were going with either plan A or plan B all along.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:28 PM) My biggest fear is that we balk on sending money over and go for C level prospects and money savings. They key here is to maximize this for top tier talent. We won't do that. We won't send so much money that is as if we are buying prospects for several million apiece, but I think we'll send a fair amount of money if it seems worth it.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:26 PM) Simple question Jake...if you could let Danks go on a waiver claim and get nothing in return, would you do it? I'd have to think about it. Probably not. His xFIP is 3.8, which is pretty much where he's been his entire career. If someone is claiming him now, they'll probably claim him a year from now too. Even in the worst case, I don't see him getting worse. I'll hold on to him. We're not hurting for money right now anyway. Selling off assets at minimal value seems silly for us at this point anyway.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 24, 2013 -> 07:21 PM) Yep...he's giving up the long ball at a crazy rate. A little early to be giving up on Danks. I think we all knew that the recovering version of John Danks was going to deal with longball issues. He never got lefties out. Can't be surprising when one of the best LH power hitters in the game takes him deep. Cut him some slack

How Ervin Santana is even in the conversation as to "who is the better pitcher" is beyond me. More absurd than the Matt Garza conversation

Len Kasper is the reason people say baseball is boring