Something to consider on the potential trade front.

[East Side Z]

If they wanted Mark that bad then they would have given up something for him when Kenny was willing to make a deal. And again, WHY would Mark take a supposed Red Sox offer? They wouldn't have floored him with something like $19M+ per. That wouldn't have happened. They probably would have offer the same as the Sox over 5 years, and Buehrle would have taken that offer and shopped it around.

 

Agree with the bolded part, but why are you arguing for trading/shopping Mark AT ALL if you're not in favor of it NOW? Doesn't make sense. It's like, I could come up with an argument about why we should trade Gordon Beckham if we're out of the race in July 2014. But why?

 

Im not arguing all Im saying its ok for Kenny to listen to offers on Mark........To NOT listen would be stupid.

[Balta1701]

Before I clean this thread up, I'd just like to post a reminder to keep it civil. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

That's cute. You sound like one of the irrational tweenagers who were getting all bent out of shape when Schueler let Ventura go.

 

I find it amusing that somebody who's been posting here for barely a year and a half has the stones to question my dedication to the Sox. Grow up.

Join date = level of fandom, IMO.

 

BTW this "team" over "players" bulls*** doesn't work when you trade your best "players" for a bunch of trash that then becomes your "team." Go ahead and mock my man love for Mark. Post your big solution, like how trading him is going to make us so much better. Talk about all those great players we're going to get and then how we're going to spend his money in all those other areas which will make us so much better. Your idea is dumb as all hell and I'm calling you on it. Mark is a franchise player in his prime and on a market-level deal and you want to trade him so we can make the playoffs easier. Yeah, okay.

 

Here's a good thread

 

And another

 

Hope you enjoy them.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Im not arguing all Im saying its ok for Kenny to listen to offers on Mark........To NOT listen would be stupid.

I would agree with that, but I don't think there will be a lot of listening time unless teams want to offer up big packages of very good, proven MLB talent because Kenny wants to win in 2010.

[WCSox]

Join date = level of fandom, IMO.

 

BTW this "team" over "players" bulls*** doesn't work when you trade your best "players" for a bunch of trash that then becomes your "team." Go ahead and mock my man love for Mark. Post your big solution, like how trading him is going to make us so much better. Talk about all those great players we're going to get and then how we're going to spend his money in all those other areas which will make us so much better. Your idea is dumb as all hell and I'm calling you on it. Mark is a franchise player in his prime and on a market-level deal and you want to trade him so we can make the playoffs easier. Yeah, okay.

 

Here's a good thread

 

And another

 

Hope you enjoy them.

 

I've never posted on a Cardinals board before and I've never suggested that Mark be traded to the Cardinals, so I don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't think that dealing a $14M starting pitcher who will soon be entering the down-slope of his career - when you have an ace two two other young, legitimate #2's in your rotation - is a good idea, that's your business. Other people in this thread disagree with you. And, despite what you think, they're not "dumb."

 

BTW, calling me a "shill" and a "motherf***er" don't strengthen your argument at all.

 

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I've never posted on a Cardinals board before and I've never suggested that Mark be traded to the Cardinals, so I don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't think that dealing a $14M starting pitcher who will soon be entering the down-slope of his career - when you have an ace two two other young, legitimate #2's in your rotation - is a good idea, that's your business. Other people in this thread disagree with you. And, despite what you think, they're not "dumb."

 

BTW, calling me a "shill" and a "motherf***er" don't strengthen your argument at all.

I was speaking in generalities which you took personally. I cannot help that.

 

I'd love to know why Mark is on the "down-slope" of his career. Is it that long injury history of his? What about those ugly mechanics? Is it because he's such a big power arm that he's bound to lose velocity soon? Oh, I know, it's because he's a thrower, not a pitcher, right? It's probably his old age, huh? He'll be 31 next year, I mean seriously, somebody put that man in a nursing home! Maybe the fact that he's pitched 200+ innings in every full season of his career is a sign that he won't be able to do that in the future? It must be because Mark is not a special pitcher then? Maybe the issue is that is that it is extremely unlikely for pitchers to perform well into their 30's?

 

One ace and 2 #2's then? Okay, well I'm glad Peavy's 3 total starts in a White Sox uniform are enough for you to believe that Mark is replaceable, but I'm going to go against the grain here and not only disagree with you, but also BET that Mark pitches more games over the same period that we have Peavy than Peavy does himself. It's great that you see Danks and Floyd as "legitimate #2's" but I think that's a bit premature as well. I see them both as #3's right now with upside to be more. Danks had a season like a #2 in 2008, but he didn't last year and Floyd hasn't yet. And even if all three of those guys are excellent, which I hope they are, then Buehrle only makes them, and the rest of our team, better.

 

This "good business" is not good business and you have failed, still, to give a reason for it being good business. What do you think we would get back for Mark via trade? What do you think we'd spend his money on? And why do you think this would make the club better? And why are all the risks involved worth jettisoning a guy who will have his likeness displayed at the Cell in bronze one day?

[Dick Allen]

No, Mark's value was never LOWER at that point. Mark didn't have a contract beyond that season. He was a rental for a half season that would garner 2 draft picks if he declined arbitration. That's it.

 

You guys who think Mark should be traded need to have your heads examined. Go back and look at the perfect game threads. Every motherf***er here was slobbering all over his nuts, as we all should, and every single sports media outlet was going on about how under-appreciated he is, and how the fans outside of Chicago don't understand how good he is. Now you same motherf***ers want to trade him AS SOON as we acquire a starting staff to complement him. Go burn your Sox hats. You make me sick!

Here's the deal. He is signed for 2 more years. He has said he will retire when his contract is up. So he's around for 2 seasons. His performance declined in the second half. If the Sox are to make the playoffs, he not only will he have to not fall apart in the second half, he will have to come up big in the playoffs. He did it before he can do it again. I love Buerhle because you can write down what he's going to give you in April and its almost always close. So if he pitches well and into the playoffs, his performance seems to fade the next season, which, according to him, would be his final one. Ozzie has said he's going to be a #4 guy. #4 guys, who make $14 million a year, who say they will be retiring in 2 seasons, and who will be 5/10 guys halfway through next season, seem very tradeable to me if they can get back serious value which would include established players and can't miss prospects, not a Javy Vazquez return. That's the only way you can trade him. The PR hit would be huge. I just wonder what his value is. If giving him up can fix the bullpen and maybe add a real good position player, it at least would have to be considered. His perfect game was great. What followed was not so great. I would rather he pitch a 5 hitter and finish the rest of the year strong than what happened.

[WCSox]

I was speaking in generalities which you took personally. I cannot help that.

 

You specifically called me a "shill." Don't try to weasel your way out of it now.

 

I'd love to know why Mark is on the "down-slope" of his career.

 

Nice try, but I said that he MAY BE ENTERING the downslope of his career. The evidence? How about him not being able to reach 90 mph on the gun anymore? Or him pitching like crap in August? Or the 2000+ innings already on his arm? I'm not saying that his arm is going to fall off next year or anything, but I'm convinced that we've seen his best days.

 

One ace and 2 #2's then? Okay, well I'm glad Peavy's 3 total starts in a White Sox uniform are enough for you to believe that Mark is replaceable, but I'm going to go against the grain here and not only disagree with you, but also BET that Mark pitches more games over the same period that we have Peavy than Peavy does himself. It's great that you see Danks and Floyd as "legitimate #2's" but I think that's a bit premature as well. I see them both as #3's right now with upside to be more. Danks had a season like a #2 in 2008, but he didn't last year and Floyd hasn't yet. And even if all three of those guys are excellent, which I hope they are, then Buehrle only makes them, and the rest of our team, better.

 

Apparently your personal feelings for Mark are overriding your business sense. Unlike you, I hope that Kenny at least CONSIDERS dealing him if things don't go well next season.

 

This "good business" is not good business and you have failed, still, to give a reason for it being good business. What do you think we would get back for Mark via trade? What do you think we'd spend his money on? And why do you think this would make the club better? And why are all the risks involved worth jettisoning a guy who will have his likeness displayed at the Cell in bronze one day?

 

If we dealt Mark in another 9-12 months, I think that we'd get a very nice package of prospects in return. In addition, the $14M freed up could be spent on a FA #4 or #5 hitter, something our team desperately needs. Some of it could also be spent on locking up Danks. And, again, this all hinges on how Hudson develops, how our offense responds next year, who (if anybody) Kenny acquires this winter, and a number of other variables.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we should definitely run Mark out of town. But I do think that Kenny needs to CONSIDER the possibility of moving him for both salary relief and younger players if things don't go well over the next 12 months.

 

[WCSox]

Here's the deal. He is signed for 2 more years. He has said he will retire when his contract is up. So he's around for 2 seasons. His performance declined in the second half. If the Sox are to make the playoffs, he not only will he have to not fall apart in the second half, he will have to come up big in the playoffs. He did it before he can do it again. I love Buerhle because you can write down what he's going to give you in April and its almost always close. So if he pitches well and into the playoffs, his performance seems to fade the next season, which, according to him, would be his final one. Ozzie has said he's going to be a #4 guy. #4 guys, who make $14 million a year, who say they will be retiring in 2 seasons, and who will be 5/10 guys halfway through next season, seem very tradeable to me if they can get back serious value which would include established players and can't miss prospects, not a Javy Vazquez return. That's the only way you can trade him. The PR hit would be huge. I just wonder what his value is. If giving him up can fix the bullpen and maybe add a real good position player, it at least would have to be considered. His perfect game was great. What followed was not so great. I would rather he pitch a 5 hitter and finish the rest of the year strong than what happened.

YOUR IDEA IS SO DUMB! DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!!!

Edited October 14, 2009 by WCSox

[Dick Allen]

BTW, as good as Buerhle is and I am a big fan, he's 50-44 the past 4 seasons.

[longshot7]

No, Mark's value was never LOWER at that point. Mark didn't have a contract beyond that season. He was a rental for a half season that would garner 2 draft picks if he declined arbitration. That's it.

 

You guys who think Mark should be traded need to have your heads examined. Go back and look at the perfect game threads. Every motherf***er here was slobbering all over his nuts, as we all should, and every single sports media outlet was going on about how under-appreciated he is, and how the fans outside of Chicago don't understand how good he is. Now you same motherf***ers want to trade him AS SOON as we acquire a starting staff to complement him. Go burn your Sox hats. You make me sick!

 

I agree with everything in this post. KHP is right. Trading Buehrle is a huge mistake, and will never happen, so why even talk about it?

[Kalapse]

Looking at past comparables (Bonderman '05 and Harang '05) it looks as if Danks arbitration number should be somewhere between $2m and 2.3m next year.

That was half a decade ago and Danks is significantly better than Bonderman, take a look at Jon Lester's deal, that's what Danks' agent will be doing. Same service time, similar production at a younger age (24 compared to 25). Thanks to the deal he signed in the offseason Lester will make $3.75M next year, Danks should be looking for ~$3.4M or so.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

You specifically called me a "shill." Don't try to weasel your way out of it now.

 

 

 

Nice try, but I said that he MAY BE ENTERING the downslope of his career. The evidence? How about him not being able to reach 90 mph on the gun anymore? Or him pitching like crap in August? Or the 2000+ innings already on his arm? I'm not saying that his arm is going to fall off next year or anything, but I'm convinced that we've seen his best days.

 

 

 

Apparently your personal feelings for Mark are overriding your business sense. Unlike you, I hope that Kenny at least CONSIDERS dealing him if things don't go well next season.

 

 

 

If we dealt Mark in another 9-12 months, I think that we'd get a very nice package of prospects in return. In addition, the $14M freed up could be spent on a FA #4 or #5 hitter, something our team desperately needs. Some of it could also be spent on locking up Danks. And, again, this all hinges on how Hudson develops, how our offense responds next year, who (if anybody) Kenny acquires this winter, and a number of other variables.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we should definitely run Mark out of town. But I do think that Kenny needs to CONSIDER the possibility of moving him for both salary relief and younger players if things don't go well over the next 12 months.

I'm not weaseling my way in to or out of anything. I'm right here, typing.

 

You're pulling these "reasons" out of your ass. There is nothing alarming about Buerhle in any way. This "he can't touch 90mph anymore" is also bulls*** too. Mark is a master at taking things off his pitches so just because the gun on TV doesn't say 90 doesn't mean he can't touch it. You're grasping at straws talking about a poor month of pitching when Gavin Floyd the legit #2 you so love got off to a terrible start and was shut down with a hip problem, meanwhile this other #2 in Danks just barely hit 200IP this year and looked at the end of his rope in his last start. Peavy got hit with a liner on the elbow and missed a large chunk of time with the ankle injury. There are small little "worries" about single player in the Major Leagues and here you are trying to ignore Mark's strengths and peck away to find a few tiny morsels with which to expand your pointless argument.

 

Business sense? Here we go again. I've already mentioned several times over why it doesn't make business sense. You OTOH have not.

 

We trade Mark for a very nice package of prospects. That means we trade him for a bunch of players who will probably never turn into what we think they'll turn into. Great. Then we'll take his money and give it to hitters players on the FA market, who BTW are all past their primes for the most part, except the Borass guys we're not going to chase. Hudson? Dan f***ing Hudson is a reason to trade Mark Buehrle?

 

I'm done with this argument.

[WCSox]

You're pulling these "reasons" out of your ass. There is nothing alarming about Buerhle in any way. This "he can't touch 90mph anymore" is also bulls*** too. Mark is a master at taking things off his pitches so just because the gun on TV doesn't say 90 doesn't mean he can't touch it.

 

Bullcrap. Mark was getting absolutely shelled back in mid/late 2006 when he was struggling to hit 87 on the gun.

 

You're grasping at straws talking about a poor month of pitching when Gavin Floyd the legit #2 you so love got off to a terrible start and was shut down with a hip problem, meanwhile this other #2 in Danks just barely hit 200IP this year and looked at the end of his rope in his last start. Peavy got hit with a liner on the elbow and missed a large chunk of time with the ankle injury. There are small little "worries" about single player in the Major Leagues and here you are trying to ignore Mark's strengths and peck away to find a few tiny morsels with which to expand your pointless argument.

Yeah, you're right. Those guys are all going to suck. Mark's a much better long-term plan.

 

We trade Mark for a very nice package of prospects. That means we trade him for a bunch of players who will probably never turn into what we think they'll turn into.

 

Right, just like Keith Foulke, John Danks, Gavin Floyd, and Matt Thornton. They would all be instant bombs. The $14M/year freed up would also obviously be wasted.

 

I'm done with this argument.

 

Thank God.

Edited October 14, 2009 by WCSox

[Socal Cid]

That was half a decade ago and Danks is significantly better than Bonderman, take a look at Jon Lester's deal, that's what Danks' agent will be doing. Same service time, similar production at a younger age (24 compared to 25). Thanks to the deal he signed in the offseason Lester will make $3.75M next year, Danks should be looking for ~$3.4M or so.

 

Lester's deal was a multi-year deal. I was speaking in simply one-year terms to avoid arbitration. There is a big difference.

In 2005 (when Bonderman was first-time arbitration eligible) his numbers are very similar to Danks at this point in his career. Now, not so much. Maybe my figures were a little undervalued, especially since it was 4 arbitration seasons ago, but you cannot take Leter's 3.4M figure because that was a mutli-year number.

 

[iamshack]

I honestly think you have to listen to any offers for Buerhle, but I just fear that he's one of those guys you're never going to get good value for. Sure, you might strike gold like the A's did and get a Danny Haren for Mark Mulder, but you also might get a Dan Meyer for your Tim Hudson. s***, the Twins couldn't even really turn Johan into anything that is helping them right now...

 

I think you need to look into any kind of deal you might get, and I have mentioned that previously, but after reading a lot of this thread I think KHP has changed my mind. It's just not worth it to trade a guy like Mark when you know what he's going to give you every year.

 

He's kind of like our Derek Jeter...he may not be worth what we pay him on the field year in and year out, but he is worth what we pay him in a lot of other areas.

Edited October 14, 2009 by iamshack

[lostfan]

Apparently your personal feelings for Mark are overriding your business sense. Unlike you, I hope that Kenny at least CONSIDERS dealing him if things don't go well next season.

Are you actually reading his posts or are you just talking s***? He said this.

[southsider2k5]

Lester's deal was a multi-year deal. I was speaking in simply one-year terms to avoid arbitration. There is a big difference.

In 2005 (when Bonderman was first-time arbitration eligible) his numbers are very similar to Danks at this point in his career. Now, not so much. Maybe my figures were a little undervalued, especially since it was 4 arbitration seasons ago, but you cannot take Leter's 3.4M figure because that was a mutli-year number.

 

Actually when it comes to arbitration, there is NOT a difference. Similar players at similar points in their career are a main point in the process.

[Kalapse]

Lester's deal was a multi-year deal. I was speaking in simply one-year terms to avoid arbitration. There is a big difference.

In 2005 (when Bonderman was first-time arbitration eligible) his numbers are very similar to Danks at this point in his career. Now, not so much. Maybe my figures were a little undervalued, especially since it was 4 arbitration seasons ago, but you cannot take Leter's 3.4M figure because that was a mutli-year number.

You can take Lester's figure, that's what the agent will do when he goes to negotiate with the Sox before arbitration. He'll point out that Lester has been valued at $3.75M for his 4th year of service, doesn't matter if it's a 1 year deal or not.

 

I'm wondering if you've actually seen Bonderman's numbers. In his first 3 years of service he put up an 87 ERA+ and 1.40 WHIP and his 3rd year of service was decidedly mediocre. Danks has a career 115 ERA+ and 1.33 WHIP and is coming off 2 outstanding seasons, I'm not seeing the comparison. Hell given that Danks vastly outperformed Bonderman over the first 3 years of their careers and we have 4 years of inflation to account for that $3.4M number is looking awfully good.

[Socal Cid]

You can take Lester's figure, that's what the agent will do when he goes to negotiate with the Sox before arbitration. He'll point out that Lester has been valued at $3.75M for his 4th year of service, doesn't matter if it's a 1 year deal or not.

 

I'm wondering if you've actually seen Bonderman's numbers. In his first 3 years of service he put up an 87 ERA+ and 1.40 WHIP and his 3rd year of service was decidedly mediocre. Danks has a career 115 ERA+ and 1.33 WHIP and is coming off 2 outstanding seasons, I'm not seeing the comparison. Hell given that Danks vastly outperformed Bonderman over the first 3 years of their careers and we have 4 years of inflation to account for that $3.4M number is looking awfully good.

 

 

Again, I am not talking about pre-arb negotiation. The question that started this whole thread concerned what Danks' number whould be at arbitration this year. During arbitration there is no discussion/comparison whatsoever concerning multi-year deals. The teams and owners submit as evidence one-year deals only. In the pre-arb process I am sure Jeff Berry and the boys at CAA will compare Danksy to Lester in an attempt to convince KW that Danksy should be paid similar to Lester. But again, once the parties enter arbitration there will be no discussion in front of the arbitrator about multi-year deals.

 

During Bonderman's first year of arbitration (when he was decidedely younger than Danks) he had amassed 1 more career inning pitched and 4 more career k's than Danks. Bonderman had the exact same amount of wins as Danks, but a higher ERA and more losses (he played for a horrible Tiger team). All in all, I still think they are very comparable. And I still think if Danks signs a one-year deal or goes to arbitration his number will be in the 2.3M neighborhood.

 

[simba43]

I've never posted on a Cardinals board before and I've never suggested that Mark be traded to the Cardinals, so I don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't think that dealing a $14M starting pitcher who will soon be entering the down-slope of his career - when you have an ace two two other young, legitimate #2's in your rotation - is a good idea, that's your business. Other people in this thread disagree with you. And, despite what you think, they're not "dumb."

 

BTW, calling me a "shill" and a "motherf***er" don't strengthen your argument at all.

yep calling people names just because they think trading buehrle can help the team is just wrong

 

[Kalapse]

Again, I am not talking about pre-arb negotiation. The question that started this whole thread concerned what Danks' number whould be at arbitration this year. During arbitration there is no discussion/comparison whatsoever concerning multi-year deals. The teams and owners submit as evidence one-year deals only. In the pre-arb process I am sure Jeff Berry and the boys at CAA will compare Danksy to Lester in an attempt to convince KW that Danksy should be paid similar to Lester. But again, once the parties enter arbitration there will be no discussion in front of the arbitrator about multi-year deals.

 

During Bonderman's first year of arbitration (when he was decidedely younger than Danks) he had amassed 1 more career inning pitched and 4 more career k's than Danks. Bonderman had the exact same amount of wins as Danks, but a higher ERA and more losses (he played for a horrible Tiger team). All in all, I still think they are very comparable. And I still think if Danks signs a one-year deal or goes to arbitration his number will be in the 2.3M neighborhood.

I never said anything about pre-arb negotiations, no idea where you got that. The Sox and Danks will never go to arbitration, they'll work out a 1 year or multi year deal before the deadline since the Sox do not go to arbitration with their players, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not worried about the process at arbitration hearings since it will not come to that.

 

Playing for a horrible team doesn't account for the full run difference in ERA and near 30 point difference in ERA+. You can't just ignore the fact that John Danks has had 1 very bad year and 2 well above average seasons where as Bonderman had 3 mediocre seasons, there's a big difference in how they got to those 3 year cumulative statistics.

 

Another point:

 

Wandy Rodriguez; 4.79 ERA, 1.41 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 30 years old gets $2.6M in his first year of arbitration. He submitted a figure of $3M.

Justin Verlander; 4.11 ERA, 1.33 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 26 years old gets $3.675M in his first year of arbitration. He submitted a figure of $4.15M

John Lackey; 4.15 ERA, 1.37 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 27 years old gets $3.76M in his first year of arbitration.

Joe Blanton; 4.10 ERA (105 ERA+), 1.31 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 27 years old gets $3.7M in his first year of arbitration.

Scott Kazmir; 3.64 ERA, 1.39 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 24 years old gets $3.785M in his first year of arbitration.

Paul Maholm; 4.30 ERA, 1.41 WHP through his first 3 years of service, 27 years old submitted a figure of $3.8M before signing a multi-year deal. Got $2M in '09 and a $1.5M signing bonus.

 

Also in 2004 the Sox gave a 24 year old Jon Garland $2.3M avoiding arbitration. He put up a 4.60 ERA and 1.459 WHIP over the first 3 years of his career. That was 6 years ago, same organization, substantially less accomplished starter and only a 5 month difference in age. Hell even Kyle Lohse won his case and got $2.4M with his s*** numbers.

 

Just speaking hypothetically: if the Sox went to arbitration with Danks and submitted a figure of $2.4M and Danks submits $3.6M no doubt in my mind who wins that one.

[iamshack]

They'll settle for $3.5, give or take a few hundred k.

[Socal Cid]

I never said anything about pre-arb negotiations, no idea where you got that. The Sox and Danks will never go to arbitration, they'll work out a 1 year or multi year deal before the deadline since the Sox do not go to arbitration with their players, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not worried about the process at arbitration hearings since it will not come to that.

 

Playing for a horrible team doesn't account for the full run difference in ERA and near 30 point difference in ERA+. You can't just ignore the fact that John Danks has had 1 very bad year and 2 well above average seasons where as Bonderman had 3 mediocre seasons, there's a big difference in how they got to those 3 year cumulative statistics.

 

Another point:

 

Wandy Rodriguez; 4.79 ERA, 1.41 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 30 years old gets $2.6M in his first year of arbitration. He submitted a figure of $3M.

Justin Verlander; 4.11 ERA, 1.33 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 26 years old gets $3.675M in his first year of arbitration. He submitted a figure of $4.15M

John Lackey; 4.15 ERA, 1.37 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 27 years old gets $3.76M in his first year of arbitration.

Joe Blanton; 4.10 ERA (105 ERA+), 1.31 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 27 years old gets $3.7M in his first year of arbitration.

Scott Kazmir; 3.64 ERA, 1.39 WHIP through his first 3 years of service, 24 years old gets $3.785M in his first year of arbitration.

Paul Maholm; 4.30 ERA, 1.41 WHP through his first 3 years of service, 27 years old submitted a figure of $3.8M before signing a multi-year deal. Got $2M in '09 and a $1.5M signing bonus.

 

Also in 2004 the Sox gave a 24 year old Jon Garland $2.3M avoiding arbitration. He put up a 4.60 ERA and 1.459 WHIP over the first 3 years of his career. That was 6 years ago, same organization, substantially less accomplished starter and only a 5 month difference in age. Hell even Kyle Lohse won his case and got $2.4M with his s*** numbers.

 

Just speaking hypothetically: if the Sox went to arbitration with Danks and submitted a figure of $2.4M and Danks submits $3.6M no doubt in my mind who wins that one.

The problem I am having is that I view Danks' body of work in his first three years more comparable to Wandy ($2.6M) and Maholm ($2M) as opposed to the front-line starters you submitted: Verlander, Lackey, Kazmir. And Blanton, as unlikely as it sounds, was a workhouse with huge numbers accumulated prior to his fist platform year.

As we won't be able to agree, lets agree to let CAA and KW sort it out.

Good luck.

 

[Kalapse]

The problem I am having is that I view Danks' body of work in his first three years more comparable to Wandy ($2.6M) and Maholm ($2M) as opposed to the front-line starters you submitted: Verlander, Lackey, Kazmir. And Blanton, as unlikely as it sounds, was a workhouse with huge numbers accumulated prior to his fist platform year.

As we won't be able to agree, lets agree to let CAA and KW sort it out.

Good luck.

Just for the record; Maholm got what was essentially $3.5M since it was a $2M base for '09 and an extra $1.5M when he signed the deal. The mid point of the 2 figures that were submitted before the extension was $3.225M.