Eminor3rd

He should be worth several top prospects

This is why no one wants him

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 31, 2014 -> 08:02 AM) Wow! If A's don't resign Lester that's an awful deal for them IMO. Sounds like Cespedes fell out of favor, most recently by refusing to shift to CF to cover Crisp's injury.

I can actually squint and see a Miami connection. They have been publicly braying that they want to "add, not subtract." They have one of the lowest payrolls in the league and are oft-cited as consistently being among the most profitable organizations. As such, they are constantly under pressure to invest more resources to raise payroll and act competitive. If they want to make it appear as though this si what they're doing, picking up a market-rate asset like Danks fits the bill because they have to give up little in return, and many have speculated that it's a tough case for them to make to get market-rate players to sign there. Adding a $14m/yr starter makes their payroll look better on paper, and Danks has just enough name value for them to spin the PR to the casual fan (lol, "Marlins fan") that they're being aggressive in improving the club without sacrificing the future; that ownership was willing to pony up the cash to make an upgrade that doesn't hurt the system.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 09:35 PM) John Danks lhp 5 years/$65M (2012-16) 5 years/$65M (2012-16) signed extension with Chicago White Sox 12/23/11 (avoided arbitration) $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 (for 2014, no-trade list includes Baltimore, Oakland, Toronto and Washington) 2 more unknown teams in Danks' NTC So it's really more like 32-33m

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 08:48 PM) Teams aren't trying to acquire surplus value at the deadline, they're trying to acquire production. Obviously financial elements come into play, but the market price for starting pitching goes up significantly at the deadline, both due to a limited supply of starters being available and the marginal value of each win increasing. The Yankees aren't going to wait until the offseason to fill a need they have now. If Danks is the best guy available that doesn't cost any top prospects, my guess is that they'll be willing to give us a minor piece and take on most of his salary. That would obviously be an overpay in the offseason, but it's the price of doing business at the end of July. The Sox have some leverage here because they don't have to move Danks and Yankees just may be desperate for a starting pitcher. We still seem to disagree but the bolded is something I agree with completely.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 04:20 PM) No you are not. You are asking for the value of the player. Any surplus value in the contract drives up the expected value of the player. There are no market rate assets available at the trade deadline, that is why the Sox have leverage now to deal Danks. You do give up value to get a guy that is paid what he is worth, that is the point of making a trade, to plug a piece of value into your team to try and win baseball games. There is also value in having cost certainty and a certain number of holes filled going into free agency. Surplus value is a nice thing to have in a trade, but that is not what teams are trading for, they are trading for baseball players to help them make the playoffs. The Yankees want Danks because they need a pitcher, but they will be willing to give up talent based on the market value of the asset. The price the player demands is determined by surplus value. Whether they like it or not, the Yankees are not just buying Danks this year, they're buying him the next two and half years. The Sox have no leverage because no one else wants Danks at a higher rate. If the Sox don't cave, the Yanks just get a different mediocre pitcher that doesn't comes with $38m attached. This is EXACTLY why prospects are valued so highly -- the massive potential for surplus value over the life of their pre-free agency contracts. If teams acted like you're describing, they'd give up any minor leaguer for any major leaguer that could contribute.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 04:16 PM) Agreed, but you're also trying to exploit their desire to win now. There was risk taken when that contract was signed, but you did it because you want to avoid being vulnerable in the trade market or to future market conditions. If they come a knockin', you want to try and exploit their immediate need under the circumstances. Absolutely, but there are better options out there if you're going to give up decent prospects. All the Astros guys, all the Rockies guys, and even John Lackey are better short term options if you're willing to pay the talent to upgrade. If you balk at those prices, you'd settle for Danks' contract, but it's only worth settling for if you pay way less for it than you'd have to pay to get the others.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 03:56 PM) $12-14 AAV is pretty standard fair for a #4 these days. It shouldn't be, but there are a lot of teams paying crummy #4 pitchers quite a bit. But what people don't understand is that in a trade, you're asking a team to give you talent for the surplus value of the contract. John Danks has no surplus value at all at $14m per year. Anyone could just sign a market rate asset in the offseason for that. So if you're considering paying Danks the next couple years at that rate, you'd at best take those years for free, because that's the worst case scenario for what it would cost to acquire someone like him in free agency. You don't give up significant talent just for the right to pay a guy every penny he's worth, unless he's some one-of-a-kind talent that isn't available on the open market.

QUOTE (Vance Law @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 02:49 PM) Anyone have an understanding of why defensive metrics are down on him this year? Most likely he just hasn't played real well. But unless he's had a serious injury or something, the larger sample (even over 3 years) is vastly more predictive when it comes to those numbers.

QUOTE (Jose Paniagua @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhwhat

I'd rather just TRADE Viciedo for Parra.

Beane doesn't have the horses for Lester

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 09:08 AM) I think we're the same person, which also makes you a smellface. So...suck it. I'll suck it, but it can't be signature official until at least two people say it!

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 09:38 AM) I think you can have the best of both worlds here. I really don't think it matters if the Sox finish the season with 75 wins or 81 wins. I honestly believe Hahn will be aggressive in the FA market this winter regardless. I also have noticed that Hahn and the organization are finally putting a premium on draft picks. If you look at the farm system, it has improved quite a bit from where it was in 2012. The organization and most other MLB teams know that you need to build from within in today's game. Especially with the limitations of the new CBA. With that said, if the Sox are in the bottom 10, they can get that coveted first rounder AND have a solid chance of obtaining a top tier free agent with a risk of only losing a second rounder. Another thing to consider is some of these FAs might not even cost a pick if they were denied a QO. In my opinion, we will not see much of this as teams want draft picks. The best case scenario will be for the Sox to drop in the bottom 10, sign Shields and possibly a C and new DH, get another talented first round draft pick and be ready to compete in 2015. If the Sox drop into the top 10, signing James Shields probably isn't a good idea, because as of today, he's basically an average #2 to strong #3 on a contender, and he's probably only got one to two years of that performance in him. I'd rather the team play well enough that Hahn is in a position to sacrifice the money and pick because that strong #3 is going to make us serious. Maybe we're simply not there yet, but that's where I'm rooting for us to be.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 08:47 AM) I kinda dislike this logic. Understand it yes, but really dislike it. Sox right now, IMO are just a few pieces away from being a serious threat. Regardless of where they finish I really think they should go for it next year. If Shields/Cueto/Scherzer hit the market I think it's worth losing a pick in the 5-10 range. Where does it end? If the finish out of the bottom 10 the next few years do the just never add a marquee FA? Sox have arguably the best pitcher and best hitter in the game and a lot of good complimentary pieces in guys like Q/Eaton/Gillaspie/Lexi/Avi. I see no reason to waste a year or 2 or 3 of those guys again for anything less than a top 5 pick. It ends when the team actually IS a few pieces from being a serious threat. Right now, we're an entire bullpen, a starting C, and at least two decent starters from being a serious threat, and we could really use at least one corner OF as well.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs...or-cole-hamels/

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 30, 2014 -> 08:42 AM) For the record, I do not support losing the rest of the way. I would not be upset with a top 11 pick, but I want them to end the year over .500. This is where I am too. I would love for the team to convince Hahn that he needs to improve the MLB roster this offseason. While having a protected pick reduces the pain of signing top free agents, it also substantially reduces the incentive.

Hamels is a market-rate asset that someone else needs much more than us. Therefore, what we'd have to pay wouldn't be worth it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 03:05 PM) Danks pitched 7 innings last time out and gave up 4 runs, but actually pitched well. Sometimes QS is a QS, sometimes it's not and vice versa. To tweek it and say it matches what "should" happen to me is just coincidence. We don't know what "should" happen. If we did, there would be no reason to play the game. I have always loved stats. I used to play Stratomatic and one of my favorite parts was doing the stats. (Now it's done on a computer for you). But I am starting to agree with the poster who said the advanced stats are taking the joy out of it. If a guy has a good game, some stat that has nothing to do with hits or outs or strikes or balls or errors or pitches or runs will say, no that's a bad performance, and then you can have the Jeff Samardjiza performance last year where he was yanked after giving up 9 runs in 4 innings, but had a lot of K's so his xFIP that game was 3.70 or something like that , and no, he didn't pitch bad. Look how hard he threw and how many strikeouts he had. Forget everything else. A soft tosser like Danks, it's the opposite. Forget all the outs he got and the lack of runs. He didn't strike nearly enough out. He was only throwing 89. That's not a good performance. The fact is Danks is on pace for close to 200 innings pitched and most of the time pitches a pretty solid game. If the peripherals say he's one of the league's worst pitchers, the peripherals are wrong. He's no ace, but he's no bum. Dude I LOVE it when our guys get lucky and win. It's edge-of-the-seat baseball. I don't give a s*** if they earn it or not. But then when we start talking about what we actually HAVE for the future, reality sets in. I'd rather know what to expect than to be disappointed that Phil Humber didn't turn out to be legit. EDIT: He's not one of the league's worst starters, he's just not anything special and he's paid like he's special. The key to trade value is surplus value, and guys that are overpaid don't have any.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) You pay Tyler Flowers? It's a major drain on my finances

I hope they prove me wrong and at least pick up a serviceable upper minors C for Danks. Doesn't have to have much ceiling, but I don't want to pay Tyler Flowers anymore.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 12:46 PM) Beckham has more value than Dunn by quite a bit. Why? What value does Gordon Beckham have to anyone?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 09:40 AM) No player can sustain their production while "hot". The definition of hot is to be playing better than their norm. If you expect that of any player you will be wrong. Right, I'm calling them hot streaks as opposed to "figuring it out" or whatever you want to call ti where he becomes a legitimate MLB player.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ Jul 29, 2014 -> 08:10 AM) Why do you think the Royals are interested in him?