John Danks

[Jordan4life_2007]

I don't really know about their pitching outside of Hochevar and Cortes, but I mean they've had Hosmer, Kila, Gordon, Butler, Huber, Lubanski and maybe more be considered top 100 prospects and not much has really come from them at all. I'm not discounting them now and really do think they are in the midst of turning that franchise around here, but it's still not necessarily wrong to point out that they've been in re-building mode for a while now.

 

How can you lump Hosmer in there with those other guys? Hosmer was the third pick in what was an absolutely loaded draft just two years ago. He dominated to the tune of .338/.406/.571/.977 at A+/AA as a 20-year old.

[Jordan4life_2007]

The chances are Royals fans will look back and say "wow, look at all those busts and underachievers."

 

But even if they turn out, here's one good example: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/2000.shtml

 

That's the 2000 Kansas City Royals with a 26-year-old Mike Sweeney, a 26-year-old Jermaine Dye, a 26-year-old Johnny Damon, a 23-year-old Carlos Beltran, and other nice complimentary parts. They went 77-85 that year, which were the most wins that team saw since 1993, and was the winningest Royals team until those 2003 juggernauts won 83 games.

 

Prospects ain't s*** most of the time. That's the truth. And even when they develop it guarantees nothing. Look at all the prospects the Braves have dealt over recent years and look at where they've been. Look at all the prospects the Royals have kept over the years and look where they've been. Since the 1989 season where the Royals won 92 games, they've only won over 80 games thrice, with 84 wins being their best, and in only 10 out of 21 seasons since have they won 70 or more games.

 

The 2000 Royals? Look at that starting pitching. The '99 Indians offense would struggle to go .500 with Jeff Suppan as their 'ace.' Thing is I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said. Of course we're all going to have to see it to believe it. I just don't agree with the premise that "We've heard this before." Because quite frankly they've never had talent like this before. And it's not just about developing talent. I've never longed for a starting lineup and rotation of homegrown players. That's just not realistic. It's a combination of being able to infuse your own roster with young/impact talent and being able to go out and acquire other proven talent that you may need. The Rangers got to the World Series because they were able to develop enough talent internally to land Cliff Lee. Who cares what happens with Smoak (though I'm sure they'd love to have him back now that Lee is gone).

Edited December 22, 2010 by Jordan4life

[Balta1701]

The 2000 Royals? Look at that starting pitching. The '99 Indians offense would struggle to go .500 with Jeff Suppan as their 'ace.' Thing is I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said. Of course we're all going to have to see it to believe it. I just don't agree with the premise that "We've heard this before." Because quite frankly they've never had talent like this before.

I think I've got to ask about the pitching though. Yeah, they have guys, but let's use the Rays turnaround as a comparison. When they pulled off their 2008, they had a very young pitching rotation, but none of the guys in their rotation were actually rookies, and the only guy who was a 2nd year pitcher was Sonnanstine. David Price, for example, took a good couple years before he turned into a dominating ace. Pitching just takes a while.

 

If we're starting to talk about the 2012 Royals...the guys they'll be relying on to be their pitchers to be winners right when they come up.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I think I've got to ask about the pitching though. Yeah, they have guys, but let's use the Rays turnaround as a comparison. When they pulled off their 2008, they had a very young pitching rotation, but none of the guys in their rotation were actually rookies, and the only guy who was a 2nd year pitcher was Sonnanstine. David Price, for example, took a good couple years before he turned into a dominating ace. Pitching just takes a while.

 

If we're starting to talk about the 2012 Royals...the guys they'll be relying on to be their pitchers to be winners right when they come up.

 

Good points. But then you could look at the Rangers. They were able to scrap together a strong enough staff and then go out and get a proven ace. I agree that a vet or two will probably be essential in order to allow their young pitchers to mature.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

The 2000 Royals? Look at that starting pitching. The '99 Indians offense would struggle to go .500 with Jeff Suppan as their 'ace.' Thing is I don't disagree with a lot of what's being said. Of course we're all going to have to see it to believe it. I just don't agree with the premise that "We've heard this before." Because quite frankly they've never had talent like this before. And it's not just about developing talent. I've never longed for a starting lineup and rotation of homegrown players. That's just not realistic. It's a combination of being able to infuse your own roster with young/impact talent and being able to go out and acquire other proven talent that you may need. The Rangers got to the World Series because they were able to develop enough talent internally to land Cliff Lee. Who cares what happens with Smoak (though I'm sure they'd love to have him back now that Lee is gone).

That doesn't matter. Having all one thing or all the other, or some of this and some of that - as has been the case in Kansas City for decades - doesn't matter. You still don't have enough to win unless you have enough to win. And even if you were to do something pretty incredible, like have Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Johnny Damon all young, productive, and under contract, it doesn't mean you'll get enough around them to do anything.

 

You're straight up BSing when you say they've never had talent like that before. Check that paragraph above the one I'm writing now. You are overrating the holy s*** out of their prospects if you're going to look at some of the players who have gone through that organization during all that losing and say a few unproven prospects that they have now are going to be better. They will likely produce some guys who were supposed to be good, others will get hurt or bust out, others will come from nowhere and end up overachievers, others will end up decent bench pieces. Mark Teahen is garbage and he was there future. Alex Gordon isn't anything and he was there future. Prospects who haven't proven anything haven't proven anything. Just because one prospect didn't make it doesn't mean another one won't either, but you can't assume a high success rate when there is none.

 

I do agree with you on the last part though. The only way the Royals will ever do jack s*** in their division is if they identify core pieces and then make deals for proven MLB players to complement what they have. Until they show the desire to spend in FA and move their great prospects they're going to suck. And the good or great players that they do produce are going to come through a losing environment and end up shipped off for very little in return. Nothing about Dayton Moore however tells me he is capable of building a solid cast of MLB regulars to support a strong core on a budget. He makes some of the dumbest moves you see in the entire division, year after year. Assuming Dayton Moore can do anything at all for that franchise is an assumption more or less based on nothing IMO. Lots of guys come out of great systems and still can't do s*** with what they inherit. The Fields+Getz for Teahen move is the last KC move I can remember that I actually liked for the Royals.

[Balta1701]

Good points. But then you could look at the Rangers. They were able to scrap together a strong enough staff and then go out and get a proven ace. I agree that a vet or two will probably be essential in order to allow their young pitchers to mature.

Weird thing about that though...who out of the Rangers rotation was even young? CJ Wilson's been in the bullpen for about 5 years, Colby Lewis spent a while off in Japan, Scott Feldman's been there a while, Tommy Hunter's genuinely sorta young, and there's that Holland kid who picked up some innings.

 

The Rangers were able to scrap together a strong enough staff...out of guys who they developed a lot...but who took periods of 3-5+ years to develop.

 

Hell, how long did that proven ace they acquired take to develop.

 

Guys like Verlander who come in and lead their teams to the playoffs from day 1 are such an exception that I'm having to go back to 2006 with Verlander/Weaver/Liriano to come up with those examples.

[Jordan4life_2007]

That doesn't matter. Having all one thing or all the other, or some of this and some of that - as has been the case in Kansas City for decades - doesn't matter. You still don't have enough to win unless you have enough to win. And even if you were to do something pretty incredible, like have Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Johnny Damon all young, productive, and under contract, it doesn't mean you'll get enough around them to do anything.

 

You used a specific year to try to prove a point and you didn't really prove anything other than the fact, an you don't really need an I.Q. above 2 to realize this, that you're not going to with jack s*** with a rotation of that quality. I don't care if you're sporting nine 1994 Frank Thomas clones.

 

You're straight up BSing when you say they've never had talent like that before. Check that paragraph above the one I'm writing now. You are overrating the holy s*** out of their prospects if you're going to look at some of the players who have gone through that organization during all that losing and say a few unproven prospects that they have now are going to be better. They will likely produce some guys who were supposed to be good, others will get hurt or bust out, others will come from nowhere and end up overachievers, others will end up decent bench pieces. Mark Teahen is garbage and he was there future. Alex Gordon isn't anything and he was there future. Prospects who haven't proven anything haven't proven anything. Just because one prospect didn't make it doesn't mean another one won't either, but you can't assume a high success rate when there is none.

 

I've got a homework assignment for you. I challenge you to find ONE minor league-centric site or publication or whatever that doesn't list KC as the undisputed #1 ranked system in baseball. If I'm overrating them then EVERYBODY is. Now if you're one of those "prospects sucks until further notice" guys then we're not going to agree here. I'm as hard on our system as anybody outside of Tizzle. But that's because it's my belief that most of what we have won't amount to anything. Not that "well, they're prospects, f*** 'em." I've already mentioned that guys like Gordon and Hochevar have to this point flopped (though I still think Gordon has a chance). And again, I'm talking system as a whole. Not one or two guys.

 

I do agree with you on the last part though. The only way the Royals will ever do jack s*** in their division is if they identify core pieces and then make deals for proven MLB players to complement what they have. Until they show the desire to spend in FA and move their great prospects they're going to suck. And the good or great players that they do produce are going to come through a losing environment and end up shipped off for very little in return. Nothing about Dayton Moore however tells me he is capable of building a solid cast of MLB regulars to support a strong core on a budget. He makes some of the dumbest moves you see in the entire division, year after year. Assuming Dayton Moore can do anything at all for that franchise is an assumption more or less based on nothing IMO. Lots of guys come out of great systems and still can't do s*** with what they inherit. The Fields+Getz for Teahen move is the last KC move I can remember that I actually liked for the Royals.

 

I've never disputed that Moore has made a series of crap moves regarding the major league team. But last I checked KC wasn't a hot FA destination. That said, he's still been bad in that regard. But since he took over in '06, he had a specific plan in mind. That was to invest heavily into scouting, spend the money and develop the talent. And here they are. Yes, THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT! I know this. Just like every other prospect in baseball history had to prove it. Just like we had no idea what we were getting from that guy Strasburg until we actually SAW IT. That is not a revelation.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

Weird thing about that though...who out of the Rangers rotation was even young? CJ Wilson's been in the bullpen for about 5 years, Colby Lewis spent a while off in Japan, Scott Feldman's been there a while, Tommy Hunter's genuinely sorta young, and there's that Holland kid who picked up some innings.

 

The Rangers were able to scrap together a strong enough staff...out of guys who they developed a lot...but who took periods of 3-5+ years to develop.

Hell, how long did that proven ace they acquired take to develop.

 

Guys like Verlander who come in and lead their teams to the playoffs from day 1 are such an exception that I'm having to go back to 2006 with Verlander/Weaver/Liriano to come up with those examples.

 

I don't understand your point here. What do the Rangers care that it took Lee time to develop? When it was time for them to make their move and seize a golden opportunity, they pounced. As far as the other guys you named, you have a point. But were any of those guys (save Holland) ever viewed in the same light as KC's top pitching 'spects? Had anybody even heard of Lewis before this year? Who's to say Montgomery can't have a Price-Verlander like impact right off the bat? And he could obviously take longer or flop all together. There's no way to know at this point.

[southsider2k5]

This seems to be the standard response to mock their potential. And I'm certainly not "afraid" of them. But when have they ever had a system that on the surface appeared to be this loaded? I know there was a lot of hype surrounding Gordon and Hochevar. But they've never had anything like this. You're talking 8-10 consensus top 75ish or so prospects. If just 4 of those guys max out then they're in business.

 

And when it becomes reality, I will quit mocking. Until then, their 25 year history of being s***ty speaks for itself.

[Balta1701]

I don't understand your point here. What do the Rangers care that it took Lee time to develop? When it was time for them to make their move and seize a golden opportunity, they pounced. As far as the other guys you named, you have a point. But were any of those guys (save Holland) ever viewed in the same light as KC's top pitching 'spects? Had anybody even heard of Lewis before this year? Who's to say Montgomery can't have a Price-Verlander like impact right off the bat? And he could obviously take longer or flop all together. There's no way to know at this point.

David Price didn't turn into an ace right off the bat.

[caulfield12]

That doesn't matter. Having all one thing or all the other, or some of this and some of that - as has been the case in Kansas City for decades - doesn't matter. You still don't have enough to win unless you have enough to win. And even if you were to do something pretty incredible, like have Mike Sweeney, Carlos Beltran, Jermaine Dye, and Johnny Damon all young, productive, and under contract, it doesn't mean you'll get enough around them to do anything.

 

You're straight up BSing when you say they've never had talent like that before. Check that paragraph above the one I'm writing now. You are overrating the holy s*** out of their prospects if you're going to look at some of the players who have gone through that organization during all that losing and say a few unproven prospects that they have now are going to be better. They will likely produce some guys who were supposed to be good, others will get hurt or bust out, others will come from nowhere and end up overachievers, others will end up decent bench pieces. Mark Teahen is garbage and he was there future. Alex Gordon isn't anything and he was there future. Prospects who haven't proven anything haven't proven anything. Just because one prospect didn't make it doesn't mean another one won't either, but you can't assume a high success rate when there is none.

 

I do agree with you on the last part though. The only way the Royals will ever do jack s*** in their division is if they identify core pieces and then make deals for proven MLB players to complement what they have. Until they show the desire to spend in FA and move their great prospects they're going to suck. And the good or great players that they do produce are going to come through a losing environment and end up shipped off for very little in return. Nothing about Dayton Moore however tells me he is capable of building a solid cast of MLB regulars to support a strong core on a budget. He makes some of the dumbest moves you see in the entire division, year after year. Assuming Dayton Moore can do anything at all for that franchise is an assumption more or less based on nothing IMO. Lots of guys come out of great systems and still can't do s*** with what they inherit. The Fields+Getz for Teahen move is the last KC move I can remember that I actually liked for the Royals.

 

The Royals really did a crappy job of maximizing the returns on Beltran, Damon and Dye...and they held on to Mike Sweeney past the expiration date (because he WAS the franchise and favorite son, more popular in KC than Konerko in Chicago even) and didn't get anything for him in return.

 

Of course, you can look at their list of first round draft pick busts since the late 80/early 90's and you start to see a terrifying (for Royals' fans) trend emerging, especially with high draft picks going on pitchers who ultimately would make the 1998-2000 White Sox draft classes look like they produced a veritable bounty of quality contributors.

 

The other thing that really hurt them was the complete disintegration of Angel Berroa and Carlos Febles (one half of "Dos Carlos") up the middle.

 

And, one of the few starters they did actually did develop internally, Jose Rosado, became an All-Star and then saw his career self-destruct due to injuries.

 

 

 

[beck72]

The Sox don't have to and won't trade Danks. He's the replacement for Buehrle. Give him the type of contract that pays him what he's worth and it'll still be less than what MArk is making this year. His durability and stuff make him a prime guy to build around rather than trade.

[Balta1701]

The Sox don't have to and won't trade Danks. He's the replacement for Buehrle. Give him the type of contract that pays him what he's worth and it'll still be less than what MArk is making this year. His durability and stuff make him a prime guy to build around rather than trade.

Really, no it isn't. If he gets to the FA market right now, no injuries, he's probably a $17-ish million a year pitcher.

[southsider2k5]

Really, no it isn't. If he gets to the FA market right now, no injuries, he's probably a $17-ish million a year pitcher.

 

And probably in the seven year range too.

[beck72]

Really, no it isn't. If he gets to the FA market right now, no injuries, he's probably a $17-ish million a year pitcher.

I'm saying if the sox signed him to an extension now, he'd be making less than Mark. Not his value as a FA.

 

What I'd expect is the sox to use the money from MB and attempt to sign Danks to a deal after 2011. Though Danks would then be wise to wait for the big payday after 2012.

[Balta1701]

I'm saying if the sox signed him to an extension now, he'd be making less than Mark. Not his value as a FA.

Clearly, there's no good reason for him to ink a contract right now that pays him less than MB. You're arguing that he'd make less than MB in the hypothetical world where he signs a substantially below market extension, which he has no reason to do.

 

If he's a $17 million pitcher, and could well be a $20 million a year pitcher if he pulls off a really good year once out of the next 2 years, there's no reason for him to sign a $12 million a year extension.

[beck72]

Clearly, there's no good reason for him to ink a contract right now that pays him less than MB. You're arguing that he'd make less than MB in the hypothetical world where he signs a substantially below market extension, which he has no reason to do.

 

If he's a $17 million pitcher, and could well be a $20 million a year pitcher if he pulls off a really good year once out of the next 2 years, there's no reason for him to sign a $12 million a year extension.

I'm not arguing his value compared to Mark. What I'm saying is he could sign an extension similar to what Grienke did in 2009 and Josh Johnson did last year, that bought out the last 2 years of arb. They both signed 4 yr, $39 mill deals, that had low first and 2nd years, with bigger 3rd and 4th years.

 

Grienke- $3.75 mill. $7.25, $13.5 and $13.5

Johnson- $3.75 mill. $7.75, $13.75, and $13.75.

 

Whether Danks does or not, who knows. But all that money is guaranteed now, before he gets a chance to get hurt and delay or never have that big payday.

[Balta1701]

The only reason they signed those deals was that they were getting their last 2 arbitration years guaranteed, and both of them get paid like $13 million in those years.

 

John Danks has already gotten through the equivalent of the first 2 years on those contracts. Based entirely on comparison with those contracts, it'd take well more than $14 mil a year to extend him at this point. That's the difference between signing when you're 4 years away from FA and signing when you're 2 years away.

[beck72]

The only reason they signed those deals was that they were getting their last 2 arbitration years guaranteed, and both of them get paid like $13 million in those years.

 

John Danks has already gotten through the equivalent of the first 2 years on those contracts. Based entirely on comparison with those contracts, it'd take well more than $14 mil a year to extend him at this point. That's the difference between signing when you're 4 years away from FA and signing when you're 2 years away.

Those 2 signed those deals when they were in the same spot Danks is now--2 years from free agency. It was basically a 2 yr extension.

 

It makes sense for Danks to sign an extension now [to get $40 mill. in his pocket]. And he'd still be in line to be a free agent at 29--good enough to sign a 6, 7 year max deal.

Edited December 23, 2010 by beck72

[Balta1701]

Those 2 signed those deals when they were in the same spot Danks is now--2 years from free agency. It was basically a 2 yr extension.

Except for the fact that Greinke signed his before actually becoming a valuable pitcher, sure. He had 1 season of 200+ innings at that point, a 34-45 record, and a 4.28 career ERA.

[hometeamfan]

Those 2 signed those deals when they were in the same spot Danks is now--2 years from free agency. It was basically a 2 yr extension.

 

It makes sense for Danks to sign an extension now [to get $40 mill. in his pocket]. And he'd still be in line to be a free agent at 29--good enough to sign a 6, 7 year max deal.

Too bad the Sox don't want to pay him what he's already earned. All this talk about "Danks wont agree to extension.." Actually...Sox aren't offering him what he's earned. He could suck this year and he's still a valuable, young, lefthanded, dependable, workhorse starter..... MLB made the rules for salaries. Cant fault Danks for taking care of himself.

[southsider2k5]

Too bad the Sox don't want to pay him what he's already earned. All this talk about "Danks wont agree to extension.." Actually...Sox aren't offering him what he's earned. He could suck this year and he's still a valuable, young, lefthanded, dependable, workhorse starter..... MLB made the rules for salaries. Cant fault Danks for taking care of himself.

 

To be fair, we have no idea what the Sox have, or haven't, offered Danks since Kenny talked about offering him the same thing as Gavin.

[witesoxfan]

Really, no it isn't. If he gets to the FA market right now, no injuries, he's probably a $17-ish million a year pitcher.

 

Absolutely.

 

Pitcher A - 3.48 ERA, 1.235 WHIP, 188 IP, 1 HR/9, 2.2 BB/9, 7.2 K/9, last 3 years before signing as free agent

Pitcher B - 3.61 ERA, 1.241 WHIP, 203 IP, 0.9 HR/9, 3 BB/9, 7 K/9, last 3 years

 

Pitcher A is John Lackey, the bonafide #2 starter who got a 5 year, $80 mill deal from the Red Sox. He went on to produce garbage this past season and become a relative unknown. I imagine him closer to a 4.00 ERA this year, but it's worth a note.

 

And probably in the seven year range too.

 

No way. The only pitchers teams will give 7 years to are those pitchers that are above and beyond the rest, and those teams that can actually afford it. The Yankees are about the only team I can think of that might give 7 years to Danks, and I actually doubt they would. Danks is a 5, maybe 6 year pitcher at the very, very, most, and if he has no interest in signing an extension with the Sox for 5 years, then the Sox can trade him next offseason.

[southsider2k5]

Absolutely.

 

Pitcher A - 3.48 ERA, 1.235 WHIP, 188 IP, 1 HR/9, 2.2 BB/9, 7.2 K/9, last 3 years before signing as free agent

Pitcher B - 3.61 ERA, 1.241 WHIP, 203 IP, 0.9 HR/9, 3 BB/9, 7 K/9, last 3 years

 

Pitcher A is John Lackey, the bonafide #2 starter who got a 5 year, $80 mill deal from the Red Sox. He went on to produce garbage this past season and become a relative unknown. I imagine him closer to a 4.00 ERA this year, but it's worth a note.

 

 

 

No way. The only pitchers teams will give 7 years to are those pitchers that are above and beyond the rest, and those teams that can actually afford it. The Yankees are about the only team I can think of that might give 7 years to Danks, and I actually doubt they would. Danks is a 5, maybe 6 year pitcher at the very, very, most, and if he has no interest in signing an extension with the Sox for 5 years, then the Sox can trade him next offseason.

 

If Danks can keep on the arc that his career has been on, his numbers will be as a 27 year old left hander hitting the free agent market. That means even if he gets a seven year deal, he would be 34 when it ended, which with Danks stuff isn't nearly the risk as many.

 

Looking at the biggest pitchers contracts, Sabathia was 30 when he got his deal, Johan was 29, Zito was 28, Hampton was 29, Lee is 32, and Kevin Brown was 34. Looking at similar points in their careers, Danks compares favorably in most cases. Santanas numbers blow John away, but the rest have had much worse seasons if you don't include Danks rookie year. I could see Danks having a pretty good shot at a seven year deal on the open market

[NorthSideSox72]

Too bad the Sox don't want to pay him what he's already earned. All this talk about "Danks wont agree to extension.." Actually...Sox aren't offering him what he's earned. He could suck this year and he's still a valuable, young, lefthanded, dependable, workhorse starter..... MLB made the rules for salaries. Cant fault Danks for taking care of himself.

New contracts are really not about "what he's earned". Sure, for favorite son type players there tends to be a bit of extra money, but mostly, contracts are given to players based on what the team thinks that player WILL do in the future. These aren't back pay bonuses.