Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) http://ussmariner.com/2009/10/20/daves-2010-off-season-plan/ His idea: Trade Jose Lopez, Mark Lowe, and Jason Vargas to Chicago for John Danks. Someone pretty much tells him he's a moron, so he responds with this: The White Sox actually have an abundance of pitching. Their rotation currently stands as Peavy-Buehrle-Danks-Floyd-Garcia, with Dan Hudson knocking on the door and demanding a job. They’re not short on starters. They also don’t really have any money to pursue a free agent second baseman. The acquisitions of Rios and Peavy ate up a huge chunk of their budget, and they have to deal with arbitration raises for Bobby Jenks, Carlos Quentin, and John Danks. They simply don’t have the funds to go out and sign a guy like Hudson. So, beyond the fact that your analysis of their situation is incorrect, you’re also just not valuing the players correctly. Lopez is a +2.0 to +2.5 win player under contract for the next two years for $2.3 and $4.5 million, making him a net asset worth around $15 million. Danks is a +3.0 to +3.5 win pitcher who has three arbitration years remaining before free agency. If we estimate his salaries at $3 million, $7 million, and $15 million over those three seasons, the White Sox will pay $25 million for a ~$45 million player, making him a $20 million asset. The gap just isn’t that huge. Lowe’s got value around the league as a future closer thanks to his velocity, and the efficiencies gained by filling a hole with a place they have some depth off-sets the difference between Lopez and Danks. Don’t analyze by labels. Look at the numbers. edit: there's some other moronic quote too but now I can't find it. Edited October 20, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Is this the same guy who wanted us to give away Carlos Quentin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Probably. I know every offseason is full of dumb trade rumors, but some of these just make you go wow. It's one thing for the Score callers to make these things up, but beat writers and bloggers who follow the game religiously do it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 That is pretty bad. Lopez is a solid player and Lowe is nice too, but you dont' give up an above average young starter for a couple solid pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I actually don't find this to be a bad idea. Not sure if I'd do it, but I think it's a plausible trade scenario. Lopez is a decent hitter who doesn't get on base much but his power numbers would benefit from a move away from Safeco, and he's already a 25 hr/45 doubles guy. Mark Lowe has a great arm and had a solid season for the Mariners this year, and would be a nice addition to the bullpen. I don't see much to be impressed with in Vargas, but if he's got a good arm he could be a nice addition. Salary-wise, we'd be taking on a bit more but nothing extreme. I'd probably ask for a better 3rd prospect than Vargas, or a 4th player in A or AA that could play first base/DH and/or was a left-handed power threat (not sure if the Mariners have any players like this, though). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Here's another one "Danks is not that much more valuable than Lopez. Sorry, he’s just not." Moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I would consider the deal. If you dont' have money to spend, and it doesn't look like we do, then you trade. And you trade from your strengths (starting pitching) to fix your weaknesses (offense and bullpen). I would have a deal in line for Nix or Getz first though. I don't understand why people get so upset over a trade proposal. It's just someone's opinion. Why get all upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 It bothers me to know that as soon as the Sox have a stellar rotation 1-4, and a Good-Great rotation 1-5, everyone is looking to take it apart before watching it work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Spamming only helps him get clicks and hits. Ignoring these moronic ideas is a much better alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) It bothers me to know that as soon as the Sox have a stellar rotation 1-4, and a Good-Great rotation 1-5, everyone is looking to take it apart before watching it work. The good news is...the only guy who's opinion actually counts is also the guy who put it together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (striker62704 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) I would consider the deal. If you dont' have money to spend, and it doesn't look like we do, then you trade. And you trade from your strengths (starting pitching) to fix your weaknesses (offense and bullpen). I would have a deal in line for Nix or Getz first though. I don't understand why people get so upset over a trade proposal. It's just someone's opinion. Why get all upset. No, you trade from an area of excess to fill holes, and 5 legitimate SP with a 6th on the horizon is not what I'd call an excess. You don't tear up a strength to address a weakness. That just makes you mediocre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) It bothers me to know that as soon as the Sox have a stellar rotation 1-4, and a Good-Great rotation 1-5, everyone is looking to take it apart before watching it work. I'm not personally looking to take it apart. I would rather have the stellar rotation and keep Hudson to have a 6th arm in the waiting. I just don't think the trade idea is terrible overall. He's writing from the Mariners perspective anyway. I think we can all agree that Lowe and Lopez are good. I think that anytime you can get 2 good players for 1 that you are helping your team. You are also cutting your risk in half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) No, you trade from an area of excess to fill holes, and 5 legitimate SP with a 6th on the horizon is not what I'd call an excess. You don't tear up a strength to address a weakness. That just makes you mediocre. The Tampa Bay Rays tried exactly that last offseason; they felt like they had more pitching than they needed, so they traded Jackson to Detroit. Jackson had a great season, one or two of TB's starters struggled, and Tampa suddenly had a deficit of starting pitching and might well have been a playoff team had they still had Jackson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 06:27 PM) The Tampa Bay Rays tried exactly that last offseason; they felt like they had more pitching than they needed, so they traded Jackson to Detroit. Jackson had a great season, one or two of TB's starters struggled, and Tampa suddenly had a deficit of starting pitching and might well have been a playoff team had they still had Jackson. They also had Price and Davis waiting in the wings but neither one contributed in 2009. This would just reiterate why NOT to get rid of Danks, since he is more accurate to predict than Garcia or Hudson in 2010. Again, no harm in the blogger proposing the deal. That's just part of the fun of the offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (striker62704 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) I'm not personally looking to take it apart. I would rather have the stellar rotation and keep Hudson to have a 6th arm in the waiting. I just don't think the trade idea is terrible overall. He's writing from the Mariners perspective anyway. I think we can all agree that Lowe and Lopez are good. I think that anytime you can get 2 good players for 1 that you are helping your team. You are also cutting your risk in half. The difference between Pena/Linebrink and Lowe, plus the difference between Getz in his 2nd year and Lopez, is less than the difference between Danks and Hudson/Freddy, meaning that trade is stupid. Anyone who blogs about baseball and says there's not much difference between Johnny Danks and Jose Lopez needs to stop immediately. Lopez is a free-swinging, poor defensive 2B with no OBP skills. Danks is one of the better young lefties in baseball. Yeah, that's pretty dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) The Tampa Bay Rays tried exactly that last offseason; they felt like they had more pitching than they needed, so they traded Jackson to Detroit. Jackson had a great season, one or two of TB's starters struggled, and Tampa suddenly had a deficit of starting pitching and might well have been a playoff team had they still had Jackson. Agree. They were idiots for dealing Jackson and putting faith in Sonnancrap. I could see it if they dealt Jackson because they wanted to start the season with Kazmir-Shields-Garza-2 of Price/Niemann/Hammel/Davis but they blew it when they counted on Sonnancrap. The Burrell signing was also dumb, and as was the case with us in '05-'06, having several RP with breakout years is a pretty good sign of an inconsistent bullpen or worse the following season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) The USS Mariner is one of the best sites out there, but this idea is just moronic. That being said, Mark Lowe is a solid buy. Just not for our future #2 starter. Edited October 20, 2009 by Thunderbolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) The USS Mariner is one of the best sites out there, but this idea is just mornic. That being said, Mark Love is a solid buy. Just not for our future #2 starter. r yu drnk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) r yu drnk? Pay no attention to the post before the edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 01:16 PM) Pay no attention to the post before the edit. I was gonna let morncic slide, but once I saw Mark Love I had to comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Considering the talent that Lowe is, and his similarities, in terms of statistics, to Thornton, I would just be curious as to what Soxtalkers would propose in deals that were sending him away. I tend to think we would be asking just as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) Considering the talent that Lowe is, and his similarities, in terms of statistics, to Thornton, I would just be curious as to what Soxtalkers would propose in deals that were sending him away. I tend to think we would be asking just as much. Thornton > Mark Lowe. Thornton is lefty and has been doing it longer. Lowe is just coming off his first full season of good baseball. I'd ask for a prospect like Danks and something else, but it would be insane to ask for a Major Leaguer like Danks. Outside of a few mega bats like Pujols and superstars on dirt-cheap contracts like Longoria, there is nothing more valuable in baseball than very good, young, left-handed starting pitching. If I were Kenny and Seattle called to offer me that package, I'd laugh, hang up the phone, and about a week later the post office would deliver their GM a turd in a box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (striker62704 @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) They also had Price and Davis waiting in the wings but neither one contributed in 2009. This would just reiterate why NOT to get rid of Danks, since he is more accurate to predict than Garcia or Hudson in 2010. Again, no harm in the blogger proposing the deal. That's just part of the fun of the offseason. David Price put up 128.1 IP of slightly above average pitching this year. He contributed quite a bit to the success of the Rays. The areas that held the Rays back this year were a regression in the starting rotation - Kazmir, Shields, Sonnanstine and Garza all put up worse ERAs, and Kazmir's and Sonnanstine's were very significant, enough that they were traded or replaced. If anything, the Rays had the right idea and addressed it the wrong way, because they did have an excess of starting pitching - Shields, Kazmir, Jackson, Sonnanstine, Garza, Niemann, Price, Davis, and perhaps one or two others that could be in consideration - but didn't trade Sonnanstine when had a very fluky season and instead traded Jackson (who also had a fluky season in 2008 as well, but had the talent and prior success at some point in his career to become a dominant starter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striker Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 09:43 PM) David Price put up 128.1 IP of slightly above average pitching this year. He contributed quite a bit to the success of the Rays. The areas that held the Rays back this year were a regression in the starting rotation - Kazmir, Shields, Sonnanstine and Garza all put up worse ERAs, and Kazmir's and Sonnanstine's were very significant, enough that they were traded or replaced. If anything, the Rays had the right idea and addressed it the wrong way, because they did have an excess of starting pitching - Shields, Kazmir, Jackson, Sonnanstine, Garza, Niemann, Price, Davis, and perhaps one or two others that could be in consideration - but didn't trade Sonnanstine when had a very fluky season and instead traded Jackson (who also had a fluky season in 2008 as well, but had the talent and prior success at some point in his career to become a dominant starter). I stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 20, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) That is pretty bad. Lopez is a solid player and Lowe is nice too, but you dont' give up an above average young starter for a couple solid pieces. Danks is 25 years old. They would have to give us all of their top prospects for us to even consider this. A low OBP 2B and a bullpen arm is just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.