Jump to content

Pieces to start moving soon


NorthSideSox72

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:10 PM)
No downside risk? Like his completely sucking offensively? I think I hit that one.

His sucking offensively is going to cost you what? The difference between winning 69 games versus winning 71 games? And if you actually do compete, like say the Padres did in 2010, you just give him back to the White Sox and lose out on $50k?

 

The worst thing you lose is a roster spot, which could have been taken up by someone else that's currently in your system. But odds are you don't have a ton of replacements if you played a guy that hit for a .600 OPS last year and you didn't bring up anyone too promising in September to replace him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:15 PM)
His sucking offensively is going to cost you what? The difference between winning 69 games versus winning 71 games? And if you actually do compete, like say the Padres did in 2010, you just give him back to the White Sox and lose out on $50k?

 

The worst thing you lose is a roster spot, which could have been taken up by someone else that's currently in your system. But odds are you don't have a ton of replacements if you played a guy that hit for a .600 OPS last year and you didn't bring up anyone too promising in September to replace him.

 

In all seriousness... How many guys are Rule 5 claims based on CF defense? has that ever actually happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:16 PM)
In all seriousness... How many guys are Rule 5 claims based on CF defense? has that ever actually happened?

Actually, this is exactly the kind of guys that are rule 5 claims. If they already had a ton of inherent value, they would be protected. These picks are usually teams seeing something in a player and hoping to extract value from him by trying something that his current team has not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:20 PM)
Actually, this is exactly the kind of guys that are rule 5 claims. If they already had a ton of inherent value, they would be protected. These picks are usually teams seeing something in a player and hoping to extract value from him by trying something that his current team has not.

 

Inherent value? Seriously? The guy strikes out at an Adam Dunn rate with no power. Where is the value in that? The guy has 33 homers... in 1500 plus ABs. There is no market for Jordan Danks. He is Brent Gretzky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:23 PM)
Inherent value? Seriously? The guy strikes out at an Adam Dunn rate with no power. Where is the value in that? The guy has 33 homers... in 1500 plus ABs. There is no market for Jordan Danks. He is Brent Gretzky.

I dunno, maybe he turns into an Austin Jackson type player?

 

Again, you're acting as if no player has struggled in the minors and then had some sort of mental lightbulb go on that caused him to succeed in the major leagues. Certainly the odds are that it won't happen, but it does happen. Which is why these guys are left unprotected and why some teams take chances on them in the Rule 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:27 PM)
I dunno, maybe he turns into an Austin Jackson type player?

 

Again, you're acting as if no player has struggled in the minors and then had some sort of mental lightbulb go on that caused him to succeed in the major leagues. Certainly the odds are that it won't happen, but it does happen. Which is why these guys are left unprotected and why some teams take chances on them in the Rule 5.

 

You can struggle in the minors, but if you want teams to buy in, you have to show some tools. Hit for average. Hit for power. You can't strike out once per three ABs without showing 40 homer potential. Defense is not enough to make up for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 09:29 PM)
You can struggle in the minors, but if you want teams to buy in, you have to show some tools. Hit for average. Hit for power. You can't strike out once per three ABs without showing 40 homer potential. Defense is not enough to make up for that.

You are missing the point.

Go look at Johan Santana's minor league numbers when the Twins selected him in the Rule 5.

 

I'm sure there were people who believed he would never amount to anything either.

 

Edit: Actually, the Marlins drafted Santana and then traded him to the Twins in a prearranged deal.

Edited by iamshack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:33 PM)
You are missing the point.

Go look at Johan Santana's minor league numbers when the Twins selected him in the Rule 5.

 

I'm sure there were people who believed he would never amount to anything either.

Chances are slim he gets better, but teams look for a tool that is already solid and see if they can build from there. In JD's case, it's his defense that plays perfectly in Petco Park. They aren't going to win anyways, so trying to find a player that just "gets it" with the bad somehow would be a decent risk for them considering his defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:29 PM)
You can struggle in the minors, but if you want teams to buy in, you have to show some tools. Hit for average. Hit for power. You can't strike out once per three ABs without showing 40 homer potential. Defense is not enough to make up for that.

 

 

Hence, the Brian Anderson/Torii Hunter comparisons that KW always made when extrapolating his potential results out over a full season.

 

Let's say Danks is even a notch better than Anderson, for argument's sake.

 

Because he plays CF, a team should at least consider it...what's the risk if the most you can lose is 50 grand? That you're blocking a phenom that could be putting up a 900+ OPS? Not in the SD system. Hoyer traded everyone to Boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much in the middle on this one. Danks really has no value to the White Sox right now, he's not that good of a prospect, but he's shown a bit of power in the past and plays good defense. If a coach within your system can get through to him and he hits a little bit, you have a 2-3 WAR player on your hands in his good seasons.

 

If I'm Houston or Minnesota - especially Minnesota who pretty much have jack squat in the minors for OFers right now - I'll take a chance on Danks in a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 04:59 AM)
I'm pretty much in the middle on this one. Danks really has no value to the White Sox right now, he's not that good of a prospect, but he's shown a bit of power in the past and plays good defense. If a coach within your system can get through to him and he hits a little bit, you have a 2-3 WAR player on your hands in his good seasons.

 

If I'm Houston or Minnesota - especially Minnesota who pretty much have jack squat in the minors for OFers right now - I'll take a chance on Danks in a second.

I guess my question to you is who are the players the White Sox should be protecting rather than Danks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 25, 2011 -> 10:33 PM)
You are missing the point.

Go look at Johan Santana's minor league numbers when the Twins selected him in the Rule 5.

 

I'm sure there were people who believed he would never amount to anything either.

 

Edit: Actually, the Marlins drafted Santana and then traded him to the Twins in a prearranged deal.

 

Is Danks recovering from Tommy John or something I don't know about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 06:02 AM)
I guess my question to you is who are the players the White Sox should be protecting rather than Danks?

 

I'd rather either not tie up the rosters spots for future moves, or take a chance on someone else in the rule 5 versus keeping Danks protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 08:30 AM)
I'd rather either not tie up the rosters spots for future moves, or take a chance on someone else in the rule 5 versus keeping Danks protected.

Has there been any point in the last 5+ years where "Not enough roster spots" has caused us to make a move we really regretted?

 

There was a roster spot for Randy Williams for crying out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 07:49 AM)
Has there been any point in the last 5+ years where "Not enough roster spots" has caused us to make a move we really regretted?

 

There was a roster spot for Randy Williams for crying out loud.

And as noted earlier, after those folks become FA's, the 40 man roster is at 31 or 32. Even if you protect 4 of those 5 minor leaguers, you still have 4 or 5 spots open on the 40-man roster BEFORE trading anyone. Shouldn't be a problem to put Danks on there, and they can drop him later if need be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 07:55 AM)
And as noted earlier, after those folks become FA's, the 40 man roster is at 31 or 32. Even if you protect 4 of those 5 minor leaguers, you still have 4 or 5 spots open on the 40-man roster BEFORE trading anyone. Shouldn't be a problem to put Danks on there, and they can drop him later if need be.

 

Eh. I'm sure he will be protected. If he was Jordan Jones, no one would care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 05:59 AM)
I'm pretty much in the middle on this one. Danks really has no value to the White Sox right now, he's not that good of a prospect, but he's shown a bit of power in the past and plays good defense. If a coach within your system can get through to him and he hits a little bit, you have a 2-3 WAR player on your hands in his good seasons.

 

If I'm Houston or Minnesota - especially Minnesota who pretty much have jack squat in the minors for OFers right now - I'll take a chance on Danks in a second.

 

I agree. He increased his overall power, bb rate, contact, stolen base rate, and reduced his k's (though not that drastically) after his second stint in AAA. He was a pretty touted prospect in Texas who was always a stud with the glove. (also had his k issues, though he did walk alot) Scouts were keen on him if he would ever develop the power. Personally, I think he'll be a 4th OF in the bigs at this point, but it wouldn't hurt holding onto him if the sox go that route.

Edited by SoxAce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 04:59 AM)
I'm pretty much in the middle on this one. Danks really has no value to the White Sox right now, he's not that good of a prospect, but he's shown a bit of power in the past and plays good defense. If a coach within your system can get through to him and he hits a little bit, you have a 2-3 WAR player on your hands in his good seasons.

 

If I'm Houston or Minnesota - especially Minnesota who pretty much have jack squat in the minors for OFers right now - I'll take a chance on Danks in a second.

 

 

Depends on how they fit Revere, Span (if he ever recovers) and Hicks (eventually) into the picture.

 

Then you have Cuddyer and Kubel, possibly/probably one of them returning.

 

But I guess you could argue Danks is better than Rene Tosoni.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 08:30 AM)
I agree. He increased his overall power, bb rate, contact, stolen base rate, and reduced his k's (though not that drastically) after his second stint in AAA. He was a pretty touted prospect in Texas who was always a stud with the glove. (also had his k issues, though he did walk alot) Scouts were keen on him if he would ever develop the power. Personally, I think he'll be a 4th OF in the bigs at this point, but it wouldn't hurt holding onto him if the sox go that route.

 

SoxAce, master of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 26, 2011 -> 06:02 AM)
I guess my question to you is who are the players the White Sox should be protecting rather than Danks?

 

That's not a question I can answer at this point. I don't recall exactly when the protection deadline is - December 1st maybe? - but it's obviously before the Winter Meetings because that's when the draft itself is. If the Sox have made enough moves by that time frame - which I strongly doubt will be the case - to tie up all of the roster spots, then I would say they need to protect those players. If they haven't, then I'm obviously protecting Danks because he actually has the potential to be better than fodder.

 

So, as an economics major, all I can say is that it depends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/important_dates.jsp

 

Nov. 18, 2011

Day to file reserve lists for all Major and Minor League levels.

 

Nov. 21, 2011

AL Most Valuable Player Award announced

 

Nov. 22, 2011

NL Most Valuable Player Award announced

 

Nov. 23, 2011

Last date for former club to offer salary arbitration to ranked XX(B) free agents in order to be eligible for compensation. Deadline is midnight.

 

Dec. 1, 2011

Last day to request outright waivers to assign player prior to Rule 5 Draft

 

Dec. 5, 2011

5 p.m. ET is last time to outright a player prior to the Rule 5 Draft

 

Dec. 7, 2011

Last date for player who declared free agency to accept an arbitration offer from former club. Deadline is midnight ET

 

Dec. 5-8, 2011

Baseball Winter Meetings, Dallas, TX

Dec. 8, 2011

Major League Rule 5 Draft, Dallas, TX

Edited by NHDadUmp-RI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...