iamshack Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 12:10 AM) Right now I'm confused at what the Sox plan is but my guess is you don't resign Danks to move Floyd. You need starting pitchers and with Peavy coming off the books a year from now you can still build a rotation around Danks/Floyd. Is it a great rotation, no, but could be solid, depending on what happens with Molina, Sale, etc. I imagine the Sox will move Quentin for the right price and if they got the right offer for Floyd would make a trade as well (key being the right offer). In general, I'm really confused right now. If you get Cepedes and go with this than I wonder what the Sox plan really is? They would seem to be getting younger but they are still in a bind with Peavy/Rios/Dunn. Those three truly put the Sox in a real bad spot. If I were to guess, the Sox are going to look at moving Alexei, Thornton, and Quentin. I'm probably talking out of my butt, but all make decent returns, are close to or on the wrong side of 30, and could command pretty good value in return. I'm with you until you get to Alexei....why would we move him other than being overwhelmed by something ridiculous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 11:10 PM) Right now I'm confused at what the Sox plan is but my guess is you don't resign Danks to move Floyd. You need starting pitchers and with Peavy coming off the books a year from now you can still build a rotation around Danks/Floyd. Is it a great rotation, no, but could be solid, depending on what happens with Molina, Sale, etc. I imagine the Sox will move Quentin for the right price and if they got the right offer for Floyd would make a trade as well (key being the right offer). In general, I'm really confused right now. If you get Cepedes and go with this than I wonder what the Sox plan really is? They would seem to be getting younger but they are still in a bind with Peavy/Rios/Dunn. Those three truly put the Sox in a real bad spot. If I were to guess, the Sox are going to look at moving Alexei, Thornton, and Quentin. I'm probably talking out of my butt, but all make decent returns, are close to or on the wrong side of 30, and could command pretty good value in return. Except Konerko was on the wrong side of 30 a long time ago. Same with AJ. It would make more sense to move him (Paulie) than Ramirez, because Viciedo/Dunn could play 1B. Who would play SS? Beckham? Escobar? Martinez? YUCK. There's no easy replacement/solution for dealing Thornton (of course, we can get some nice pieces back in return that might fill that need too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...0,2242728.story http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/...ion-source-says Edited December 22, 2011 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Fangraphs How’s that for rebuilding? Just weeks after general manager Kenny Williams announced the Chicago White Sox were starting from scratch, he has apparently signed John Danks to a five year, $65 million contract extension. Even though Danks would have been a useful trade chip, Williams decided to lock up the 26-year-old lefty — proving, once again, that Kenny Williams is one of the most unpredictable GMs in the game. With the White Sox in a rebuilding mode, was signing Danks the right decision? On the surface, the price to retain Danks doesn’t seem exorbitant. To live up to the $65 million deal, Danks would have to post about 2.5 WAR every season for the next five years. In each of the past four seasons, Danks’ lowest single season WAR total has been 2.9 — so he’s certainly capable of maintaining the proper level of success over multiple seasons. Danks is still young, and he should remain effective throughout the length on the contract. And he’s also been incredibly durable over his career, making 124 starts over the past four seasons and throwing 778.2 innings — good for 12th in the American League during that period. Even though there’s a decent chance that Danks lives up to the contract extension, the deal is still somewhat of a head-scratcher when you consider other pitchers’ extensions. Danks compares statistically to both Wandy Rodriguez and Chad Billingsley, both of whom signed for three years and roughly $30 million. Additionally, all three players signed their deals after logging about the same amount of service time — which made their situations very similar. Still, despite an identical statistical profile as Billingsley and Rodriguez, Danks received $30 million more than either pitcher. Rodriguez is significantly older — and Billingsley is coming off a down year — but it’s tough to argue that Danks will be $30 million dollars better than either player during the next five seasons. The move also is puzzling when considering the White Sox current state. Following the Sergio Santos trade, Williams declared that the team would be rebuilding this season. In that scenario, Danks seemed to be one of Chicago’s more valuable trade chips. After seeing what the San Diego Padres were able to get for Mat Latos, Williams should have been salivating over the potential offers he could have gotten for Danks. Those offers might not have been as strong for Danks — he’s older and only under team control for two seasons one season — but Danks has been worth more wins than Latos during the past two seasons (7.5 to 7.3). Since the White Sox have so many unmovable contracts, Danks was one of the few players who could have brought back some significant prospects. Out of context, the deal looks pretty fair for the White Sox. Danks is good, young and left-handed. He should live up to the financial aspects of the contract. When looking at the Billingsley and Rodriguez contracts, though, one has to wonder why Williams paid Danks significantly more money than the market seemed to dictate. The move is also interesting considering the White Sox are attempting to rebuild. Danks is still young enough to be considered part of that rebuilding process, but he could have brought back multiple pieces to a team devoid of useful farm-system players. The Danks extension won’t kill the White Sox, but giving him this much money right now certainly makes things confusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 01:30 AM) Fangraphs Right there in the article, there's a big discrepancy between saying one year/two years left on his contract. Seems the author was misinformed. There wasn't a strong comparison to Latos at that time, clearly. As far as comparing to Billingsley and Wandy Rodriguez goes, whatever...especially in the case of Rodriguez. There was a lot of talk the Astros would simply non-tender him and let him walk away for nothing last year. At the worst, it's a "fair" contract. At best, it's a very very good one for a pitcher just approaching the prime of his career, and a lefty to boot. Having two lefties (along with Sale) in the rotation gives it a good balance. http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/12/21/2654092...x?sct=mlb_t2_a3 Those offers might not have been as strong for Danks — he’s older and only under team control for two seasons one season Second, comparing $30 million for 3 years and $65 million for 5 years, and saying he's NOT worth $30 million more than those guys is horrible math. He should be asking is Danks worth $3 million more per season. He also neglects to mention the fact that Danks was going to be getting paid $8-10 million after arbitration anyway heading into this season. Edited December 22, 2011 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 12:38 AM) Right there in the article, there's a big discrepancy between saying one year/two years left on his contract. Seems the author was misinformed. There wasn't a strong comparison to Latos at that time, clearly. As far as comparing to Billingsley and Wandy Rodriguez goes, whatever...especially in the case of Rodriguez. There was a lot of talk the Astros would simply non-tender him and not let him walk for nothing last year. At the worst, it's a "fair" contract. At best, it's a very very good one for a pitcher just approaching the prime of his career, and a lefty to boot. Having two lefties (along with Sale) in the rotation gives it a good balance. http://mlb.sbnation.com/2011/12/21/2654092...x?sct=mlb_t2_a3 My impression was that he was overestimating the potential returns for Danks. As for the contract, I think it's fair, especially in this market. I don't hate it and I don't love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) I love this more than greg loves ozzie. Because I see this working out very favorably for the white stockings. Edited December 22, 2011 by MAX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (MAX @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 02:32 AM) I love this more than greg loves ozzie. Because I see this working out very favorably for the white stockings. More than the customers at Applebee's, Chili's and TGI Friday's in Lawrence, Kansas, love Ozzie? Well...if he's traded, he brings a TON back now. If he stays, that's better for the stability of the franchise and allows us to be more competitive. Either way, it's a win/win unless KW botches a possible trade terribly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I'm just praying this man has a plan. If we go into the season with the team we have now, so help me god... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:16 PM) Then that Sergio trade was foolish, incredibly foolish. Kenny should be fired over the Sergio trade unless Addison is the real deal as closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 03:01 AM) Kenny should be fired over the Sergio trade unless Addison is the real deal as closer. No GM will ever get fired for trading a reliever who has a younger, cheaper replacement already lined up, for a 22-year-old pitcher with good upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 02:01 AM) Kenny should be fired over the Sergio trade unless Addison is the real deal as closer. There have been 5 moves he could have been fired for in the last 3 years. However, let's wait on the lynch mob foaming at the mouth until at least July 31st. What would you define as the "real deal," by the way? 30 for 36 equates to 83.3%, a notch below very good level for a closer. On the other hand, I think we lost either 5 or all 6 of those games, so those losses were not only blown saves but catastrophic blows to the team's momentum. Probably at least 40-50% of blown saves result in tie games or the blown game eventually being recovered, especially at home. Cost controlled young/quality starting pitching >>> any closer not named Rivera/Nathan in prime/Hoffman, etc. So there are two things to watch...what we do with the money saved on Santos (Reed has to stick as an effective shutdown closer) and how Molina develops. Even if Molina didn't become a starter in the major leagues, this trade could still end up a (slight) plus for the Sox...although most would acknowledge it's all predicated on Molina's eventually contributing as a #2/3 starter in the bigs. Edited December 22, 2011 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I am beyond happy to hear this. Danks is a friggin stud. Yes I'm probably his biggest fan on the board, but I still firmly believe he has alot of untapped potential. He is also still very young to build around for this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (DirtySox @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:22 PM) keithlaw keithlaw If you're rebuilding, you trade Danks. If you re-sign Danks, you're not rebuilding. If you re-sign Danks while rebuilding, you're lost. 1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply Keith Law is a jagoff. Maybe the problem was they offerred Danks around and didn't like the return they would get, so they decided to re-sign him. Maybe the plan was to trade him and make a run at him when he became a free agent. We probably will never know, but Mr. Law fails to see Danks is probably more attractive to teams with top prospects now as opposed to a guy who may be around only one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 05:56 AM) Keith Law is a jagoff. Maybe the problem was they offerred Danks around and didn't like the return they would get, so they decided to re-sign him. Maybe the plan was to trade him and make a run at him when he became a free agent. We probably will never know, but Mr. Law fails to see Danks is probably more attractive to teams with top prospects now as opposed to a guy who may be around only one year. Something’s missing between the reality of where the Cubs are going to be the next two or three years and what some expect next season. Think of it this way: Any player who isn’t certain to be here and helping the Cubs in a significant way in three years is absolutely expendable if he can bring the Cubs something of value in return. The Cubs aren’t going to give away any reasonable assets, but Garza could net a huge package, so they’re shopping him to see just how big that could be. If they can’t get enough, the Cubs won’t do it and they’ll be happy to have Garza stay here and start for them, revisiting trades again in July and next off-season. Garza will be 30 and a free agent in two years if the Cubs don’t trade him or lock him up long term before that. If he remains on the roster, they have time to decide whether they want to do that. But in the meantime they will consider all the options — only one of which is trading Garza for a package of players that helps them build for the future. The deal Baseball America is out with its top 10 Rays prospects and ranks shortstop Hak-Ju Lee No. 2 and righty Chris Archer No. 3, projecting Archer as Tampa’s future closer. Both were acquired from the Cubs in the Matt Garza deal a year ago. dailyherald.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 all of k0na's leaks have been of pitching acquisitions, maybe something to consider when trying to figure out who his source is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 03:47 AM) He is also still very young to build around for this team. He'll be 27 in april.. not exactly a spring chicken, but maybe your definition of a young athlete is different than mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 We also control Alexei Ramirez through 2016. Even moreso than Danks, is he a centerpiece we continue to build around or do me maximize whatever we can get for him now in one of those Sizemore/Phillips/Cliff Lee type blockbuster deals...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 If the Sox were to have traded Danks, is there any doubt Keith Law would have said the return was pitiful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I don't get why everyone thinks this extension is probably the result of KW not liking the offers he was getting for Danks. Why is it so hard to believe that KW wanted to extend Danks this whole time but Danks had simply expresses no interest until now? If I had to guess, the trade talks got to Danks and he decided he was happy here. Either his agent went to KW or KW came to him and told he was close to dealing him if he wouldn't agree to extension. Extending Danks has always made the most sense for this club regardless of the direction we are heading. He's a young, quality left-hander who can be the anchor of a young rotation. He's definitely no ace but he still has the potential to be a damn good #2 starter. We now have one of our top of the rotation spots filled for the next five years, with a lefty no less. That makes the rebuilding effort that much easier. If you believe in Sale, then we only have three spots to fill long-term. Between Humber, our existing minor league talent, and any prospects we bring in by trading Floyd, Quentin, and Thornton, I think that's very doable. However, in two years if we're still struggling to fill those spots, we now have a 29 left-handed starter with three years left on his deal that we can use to get a ton of young talent, much more than than we would have gotten now. Either way, this deal seems like a win-win for the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 all of k0na's leaks have been of pitching acquisitions, maybe something to consider when trying to figure out who his source is Garland for OCab was trading pitching away, not acquiring it, but that doesn't necessarily blow up your theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Typical KW, coming out of nowhere to re-sign Danks after everyone pegged him as gone. I think it's a great deal, good market value. Even if you are re-building, he can be an important part of the rotation 2-3 years from now. I think the trade market just wasn't there for him with all these other cost-controlled pitchers available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Signing Danks strengthens both the rotation and bullpen. It's likely one of Stewart, Axelrod or Molina can be in the sox bullpen, where they could be more effective than in the rotation. Molina will prob. be a SP in the minors. Yet could slide into the pen if the sox need him. I don't see Gavin around. The sox should get a decent return for him that allows the sox to compete next year but also builds for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (Real @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 06:11 AM) He'll be 27 in april.. not exactly a spring chicken, but maybe your definition of a young athlete is different than mine That is plenty young in baseball terms (just entering the beginning of prime years), not boxing. And I feel insulted you consider 27 "old" sir. <_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 04:47 AM) I am beyond happy to hear this. Danks is a friggin stud. Yes I'm probably his biggest fan on the board, but I still firmly believe he has alot of untapped potential. He is also still very young to build around for this team. I'm much more frustrated with Danks than you are, but my frustration comes out of the same thing you say...that he still has a lot of untapped potential. 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.