Balta1701 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) Let's just hope Humber returns and can give us a 4.75 ERA type rest of season. Otherwise, I don't know how to do it without using Viciedo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) Otherwise, I don't know how to do it without using Viciedo. No way do you give up Viciedo for what's likely to be 2 months worth of starts. You use someone like Jared Mitchell and others for a mid-level guy, or if you go after a lower-level caliber starter, you could get him by giving up someone like Petricka or Rienzo. In my opinion, Humber has got to get another chance to prove he has anything left. Edited July 12, 2012 by fathom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:02 PM) Otherwise, I don't know how to do it without using Viciedo. What? We can add a starting pitcher without trading Viciedo. Maybe not Hamels or Grienke, but we can definitely get a decent innings eater for much less. Also, the cost of rentals should drop with the change in compensation rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) No way do you give up Viciedo for what's likely to be 2 months worth of starts. You use someone like Jared Mitchell and others for a mid-level guy, or if you go after a lower-level caliber starter, you could get him by giving up someone like Petricka or Rienzo. In my opinion, Humber has got to get another chance to prove he has anything left. Unfortunately I think you are right about this. At least give him 2-3 starts, although it's fairly certain he will get rocked at Fenway if that's where he comes back Tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) What? We can add a starting pitcher without trading Viciedo. Maybe not Hamels or Grienke, but we can definitely get a decent innings eater for much less. Also, the cost of rentals should drop with the change in compensation rules. If you count Humber, we're already sitting here 6 deep in terms of starting pitching, right? Sale Peavy Floyd Quintana Axelrod Humber Which means if this team is trading for a starter, it needs to get someone who is significantly more reliable than either Humber or Axelrod to make it worth doing the deal at all. After Greinke and Hamels, you get to guys like Garza and Dempster (Dempster can say no to us). Wandy Rodriguez is available but has big money next year. Brett Meyers has started before but he's in the bullpen now. Then that leaves you Liriano. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 07:17 PM) If you count Humber, we're already sitting here 6 deep in terms of starting pitching, right? Sale Peavy Floyd Quintana Axelrod Humber Which means if this team is trading for a starter, it needs to get someone who is significantly more reliable than either Humber or Axelrod to make it worth doing the deal at all. After Greinke and Hamels, you get to guys like Garza and Dempster (Dempster can say no to us). Wandy Rodriguez is available but has big money next year. Brett Meyers has started before but he's in the bullpen now. Then that leaves you Liriano. Don't rule out Mr. Stanford, Jeremy Guthrie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) Don't rule out Mr. Stanford, Jeremy Guthrie Is his 6.05 ERA and 1.644 WHIP really a significant upgrade from Humber/Axelrod? (Yeah, it's in Colorado. I don't care.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Why are people acting as if this matters? Injury or not, Danks was -- quite possibly -- the worst pitcher in our rotation. Losing him did not hurt us...probably helped us. If he did come back, would he have returned to form? And if he did, what form ar we talking about? That of last year, or his better years prior to that? His career numbers do not suggest he's a #1 or even a #2, IMO. In either case, who knows, since it doesn't look like he's coming back anytime soon. All we can use is the statistical data we have, and based on last season and this season his WHIP and ERA were on the rise, and his effectiveness as an under powering pitcher were on the fall. He was practically an automatic loss this season unless we got him out of the game early enough. The few starts he had that were quality were few and far between the really bad ones. Let's not pretend the loss of Danks is the reason we need another pitcher...even if he wasn't injured, we'd need another pitcher BECAUSE of him. Practically every team in MLB would want another quality starting pitcher...the loss or gain of Danks wouldn'teit have changed that, either. Edited July 12, 2012 by Y2HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Why are people acting as if this matters? Injury or not, Danks was possibly the worst pitcher in our rotation...losing him did not hurt us...it quite possibly helped us. If he did come back, would he have returned to form? And if he did, what form ar we talking about? His career numbers do not suggest #1 or #2, IMO. In either case, who knows...since he's not coming back. All we can use is the statistical data we have, and last season and this season his WHIP and ERA were on the rise. He was practically an automatic loss unless we got him out of the game early enough. The few starts he had that were quality were few and far between the really bad ones. Let's not pretend the loss of Danks is the reason we need another pitcher...even if he wasn't injured, we'd need another pitcher BECAUSE of him. John Danks was hurt, which was why he had pitched so badly. His career numbers suggest a really good middle of the rotation anchor. Really a #2 or #3 starter who will get you better than the league average ERA, and 30+ starts. Don't let this year's shoulder injury cloud your judgement here. Last years really bad start really muddied his numbers last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) Why are people acting as if this matters? Injury or not, Danks was possibly the worst pitcher in our rotation...losing him did not hurt us...it quite possibly helped us. If he did come back, would he have returned to form? And if he did, what form ar we talking about? His career numbers do not suggest #1 or #2, IMO. In either case, who knows...since he's not coming back. All we can use is the statistical data we have, and last season and this season his WHIP and ERA were on the rise. He was practically an automatic loss unless we got him out of the game early enough. The few starts he had that were quality were few and far between the really bad ones. Let's not pretend the loss of Danks is the reason we need another pitcher...even if he wasn't injured, we'd need another pitcher BECAUSE of him. Unless of course, his performance this year had something to do with injury, which is very possible, if not probable. And we only need him to be a #3, BTW, which he's plenty capable of. He's 27 and just entering his pitching prime, when healthy. Sucks that we have to wait, but he's still more likely to be an asset than a liability long-term, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Why are people acting as if this matters? Injury or not, Danks was possibly the worst pitcher in our rotation...losing him did not hurt us...it quite possibly helped us. If he did come back, would he have returned to form? And if he did, what form ar we talking about? His career numbers do not suggest #1 or #2, IMO. In either case, who knows...since he's not coming back. All we can use is the statistical data we have, and last season and this season his WHIP and ERA were on the rise. He was practically an automatic loss unless we got him out of the game early enough. The few starts he had that were quality were few and far between the really bad ones. Let's not pretend the loss of Danks is the reason we need another pitcher...even if he wasn't injured, we'd need another pitcher BECAUSE of him. Are you saying even a healthy John Danks sucks? I think it's fairly evident he wasn't healthy this year. The loss of velocity on all his pitches seemed too great, especially for a 27 year old, to be considered as a talent regression. John Danks is one of the top left handed starters in the AL, when healthy. His peripherals last year weren't bad, at least not as bad as his ERA indicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) John Danks was hurt, which was why he had pitched so badly. His career numbers suggest a really good middle of the rotation anchor. Really a #2 or #3 starter who will get you better than the league average ERA, and 30+ starts. Don't let this year's shoulder injury cloud your judgement here. Last years really bad start really muddied his numbers last year. He's a #3 at this point...and I base it not on a single bad start from last year, but from watching him. His slowly rising WHIP, IMO, is a red flag...that tells me, as the finesse pitcher he is with underwhelming speed, that he's losing his control/effectiveness of the strike zone...he's allowing too many runners per inning to reach...and that doesn't appear to be changing. I know it's convenient to blame the injury this year...but to blame one bad start last year? No way. His ERA was into the 4's...and one bad start didn't do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Are you saying even a healthy John Danks sucks? I think it's fairly evident he wasn't healthy this year. The loss of velocity on all his pitches seemed too great, especially for a 27 year old, to be considered as a talent regression. John Danks is one of the top left handed starters in the AL, when healthy. His peripherals last year weren't bad, at least not as bad as his ERA indicated. His WHIP says otherwise. Edit: And no, I don't think Danks sucks...but I don't think he's a #1 or #2, either. He's slightly better than an average starter to me. Edited July 12, 2012 by Y2HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerksticks Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Why are people acting as if this matters? Injury or not, Danks was -- quite possibly -- the worst pitcher in our rotation. Losing him did not hurt us...probably helped us. If he did come back, would he have returned to form? And if he did, what form ar we talking about? That of last year, or his better years prior to that? His career numbers do not suggest he's a #1 or even a #2, IMO. In either case, who knows, since it doesn't look like he's coming back anytime soon. All we can use is the statistical data we have, and based on last season and this season his WHIP and ERA were on the rise, and his effectiveness as an under powering pitcher were on the fall. He was practically an automatic loss this season unless we got him out of the game early enough. The few starts he had that were quality were few and far between the really bad ones. Let's not pretend the loss of Danks is the reason we need another pitcher...even if he wasn't injured, we'd need another pitcher BECAUSE of him. Practically every team in MLB would want another quality starting pitcher...the loss or gain of Danks wouldn'teit have changed that, either. I agree with you man. He's always my least favorite pitcher to watch. It always seems like he only has 2 pitches to me and maybe more importantly, he's proven he's afraid to pitch inside. I don't know how he's lasted this long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) He's a #3 at this point...and I base it not on a single bad start from last year, but from watching him. His slowly rising WHIP, IMO, is a red flag...that tells me, as the finesse pitcher he is with underwhelming speed, that he's losing his control/effectiveness of the strike zone...he's allowing too many runners per inning to reach...and that doesn't appear to be changing. I know it's convenient to blame the injury this year...but to blame one bad start last year? No way. His ERA was into the 4's...and one bad start didn't do that. You have Sale and Peavy in front of him. What is wrong with getting a 4-4.25 ERA and 1.30 WHIP out of him? And the guy had a 6 era after his start last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) His WHIP says otherwise. He had a league-average WHIP along with a league-average ERA. All of our pitchers had mediocre to bad seasons last year when it came to the surface stats, a lot of that had to do with how bad our defense was. The Sox had a 3.66 FIP as a team last year, good for best in the AL. However, our team ERA was 4.10, 8th in the AL. Say what you want about DIPS theory, but over a sample size of 1500 innings, it should be fairly accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:53 PM) He had a league-average WHIP along with a league-average ERA. All of our pitchers had mediocre to bad seasons last year when it came to the surface stats, a lot of that had to do with how bad our defense was. The Sox had a 3.66 FIP as a team last year, good for best in the AL. However, our team ERA was 4.10, 8th in the AL. Say what you want about DIPS theory, but over a sample size of 1500 innings, it should be fairly accurate. And? I called him slightly better than average. His statistics, as you just cited...actually say I'm wrong...and he's NOT better than average...he's merely average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) You have Sale and Peavy in front of him. What is wrong with getting a 4-4.25 ERA and 1.30 WHIP out of him? And the guy had a 6 era after his start last year. Nothing is wrong with that. But you have Sale, Peavy and Q in front of him right now...he's a #4 on this staff...and NOT the reason we will or will not go to the post season. That's all I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) And? I called him slightly better than average. His statistics, as you just cited...actually say I'm wrong...and he's NOT better than average...he's merely average. A 3.82 FIP is not average, especially not in a homerun friendly park like U.S. Cellular Field. Danks has been an above average starter for much of his career and he posted ace-like numbers in 08 and 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 08:04 PM) Nothing is wrong with that. But you have Sale, Peavy and Q in front of him right now...he's a #4 on this staff...and NOT the reason we will or will not go to the post season. A #4 starter is a heck of a lot better than what we've gotten from Humber and Axelrod (and Stewart) this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:04 PM) Nothing is wrong with that. But you have Sale, Peavy and Q in front of him right now...he's a #4 on this staff...and NOT the reason we will or will not go to the post season. That's all I'm saying. To think Q is sustainable is crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (fathom @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) A #4 starter is a heck of a lot better than what we've gotten from Humber and Axelrod (and Stewart) this year. This is true. I'm not a Danks hater as a few are already appearing to think I am...I just don't think he's as good as people here do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:06 PM) To think Q is sustainable is crazy. I don't...but until he falls apart who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) I don't...but until he falls apart who cares? Q is not going to be a better pitcher than a healthy John Danks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) A 3.82 FIP is not average, especially not in a homerun friendly park like U.S. Cellular Field. Danks has been an above average starter for much of his career and he posted ace-like numbers in 08 and 10. You said he posted an average ERA and an average WHIP. That's average. 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.