The Value of John Danks

[The Ultimate Champion]

This season:

Jorge de la Rosa = 1 year $11M

Scott Feldman = 3 years $30M

Dan Haren = 1 year $10M

Tim Hudson = 2 years $23M

Phil Hughes = 3 years $24M

Josh Johnson = 1 year $8M

Scott Kazmir = 2 years $22M

Hiroki Kuroda = 1 year $16M

Tim Lincecum = 2 years $35M

Ricky Nolasco = 4 years $49M

Jason Vargas = 4 years $32M

Ryan Vogelsong = 1 year $5M

 

....drumroll prease....

 

John Danks = 3 years $43.5M

 

Even coming back from injury it doesn't sound out of line at all in comparison to that list.

[witesoxfan]

I think you'd have to include money or essentially give him away, but I could absolutely see him getting traded.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Judging by what some of these FAs got, especially Kazmir, if Danks can prove at all that he's even 85%-90% of his former self, there is no reason the Sox shouldn't be able to trade him at the deadline if they wish. You're return might be minimal, but the way the market is I don't really think Danks is overpriced much at all.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I think you'd have to include money or essentially give him away, but I could absolutely see him getting traded.

Here's a scenario:

 

-Sox want 3 lefty, 2 righty rotation with Sale at the top, Q as a 3, X lefty as a 5

 

-Two trade options present themselves: 1 we deal Santiago away and pick up a really good looking MLB-ready or close prospect or else we get a young MLB player; 2nd scenario we get a decent looking reliever and/or UT prospect from another team that agrees to take on all Danks salary in the belief that Danks will return to near 100% prior effectiveness and they are getting a steal

 

 

Which option do you take? Immediate salary relief + potential small piece with Hector in a guaranteed spot, or do you eat the money, deal Hector for another young piece that you believe can help now?

 

[Balta1701]

Here's a scenario:

 

-Sox want 3 lefty, 2 righty rotation with Sale at the top, Q as a 3, X lefty as a 5

 

-Two trade options present themselves: 1 we deal Santiago away and pick up a really good looking MLB-ready or close prospect or else we get a young MLB player; 2nd scenario we get a decent looking reliever and/or UT prospect from another team that agrees to take on all Danks salary in the belief that Danks will return to near 100% prior effectiveness and they are getting a steal

 

 

Which option do you take? Immediate salary relief + potential small piece with Hector in a guaranteed spot, or do you eat the money, deal Hector for another young piece that you believe can help now?

Since I think both of them have the possibility to be substantially better this year, I move Danks's contract first unless I think I'm stealing someone in a Santiago trade.

 

My real answer would be to wait for the deadline unless again someone offers something really tempting.

[The Ultimate Champion]

The absolute best case scenario IMO would involve keeping both Hector & Danks with Hector establishing himself in a guaranteed spot while Danks makes a full recovery, and then trading Danks at the deadline for a return not too much smaller than what someone might be willing to give up for Hector right now. But there is a lot of risk involved, i.e. what if Danks doesn't come back fully, what if Hector takes a step back, what if you potentially pass on either a good young player/prospect or big salary relief when you had the chance.

[harfman77]

Here's a scenario:

 

-Sox want 3 lefty, 2 righty rotation with Sale at the top, Q as a 3, X lefty as a 5

 

-Two trade options present themselves: 1 we deal Santiago away and pick up a really good looking MLB-ready or close prospect or else we get a young MLB player; 2nd scenario we get a decent looking reliever and/or UT prospect from another team that agrees to take on all Danks salary in the belief that Danks will return to near 100% prior effectiveness and they are getting a steal

 

 

Which option do you take? Immediate salary relief + potential small piece with Hector in a guaranteed spot, or do you eat the money, deal Hector for another young piece that you believe can help now?

 

I am not trading Danks at all unless someone gives me a Garza type deal. Their career numbers were similar before the injury but he is signed long term at a seemingly reasonable contract. If he doesn't bounce back this season the way I think he will, thats when I would start to consider a mitigation strategy. Trading him now is giving him up when his value is the lowest its ever been (or will be IMO) so it doesn't make any sense. You don't get value selling low, thats why Sale, Quitana, and Santiago are all trade chips as their respective values will never be higher.

[witesoxfan]

Here's a scenario:

 

-Sox want 3 lefty, 2 righty rotation with Sale at the top, Q as a 3, X lefty as a 5

 

-Two trade options present themselves: 1 we deal Santiago away and pick up a really good looking MLB-ready or close prospect or else we get a young MLB player; 2nd scenario we get a decent looking reliever and/or UT prospect from another team that agrees to take on all Danks salary in the belief that Danks will return to near 100% prior effectiveness and they are getting a steal

 

 

Which option do you take? Immediate salary relief + potential small piece with Hector in a guaranteed spot, or do you eat the money, deal Hector for another young piece that you believe can help now?

 

I'd move Santiago in that instance. I believe in the minor league depth and the Sox ability to develop pitching, so I get whoever I get and he's a stud for me.

[The Ultimate Champion]

You also have to factor in risk. Of all of our starters Danks carries the most risk.

 

Sale is owed money so if he gets hurt tomorrow and never throws another pitch in a Sox uniform then we owe him all that cash. But the reward is well worth that risk.

 

Q & Hector are already producing. Q hit 200IP in his first full season so he's already proven himself. Both of those guys get hurt tomorrow & never throw another pitch then we owe them nothing.

 

With Sale, Q, and Hector, as well as with Erik Johnson who should be capable of a fine return himself, you have the potential to acquire prospects, but those prospects aren't themselves guarantees for anything. Any deal we might make with any of those pitchers could very easily leave us disappointed because we end up trading the best player in the deal. The game is always about winning in the Majors, and real on-field value is what matters most, not "trade value."

 

Danks OTOH has already been hurt and is already owed a lot of money. He also would figure to bring in the smallest return both now and in the future among our group of SP especially if Hector and Johnson prove they are quality MLB starters. Now while Danks could massively up his trade value with an excellent first half in 2014, is the potential price of Danks now (full salary relief and possibly a very small piece) and the price of Danks at the deadline (Peavy deal?) worth the risk of paying a guy $43M over the next 3 years to be your 6th best pitcher?

[Dunt]

I think you are selling if you ship Danks out right now as well. We know what he can do when he is 100% and I would much rather have that guy in my rotation that Santiago. Granted, I know Hector did a nice job last season and has performed well with the Sox, I just don't think his "stuff" is good enough to stick. With that said, I think you need to trade him now with his value probably being the highest it'll be.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Absolutely no reason to trade John Danks right now. Go into the season with him in the back end of the rotation and have him reestablish his value. There's no doubt in my mind he can be a #4 or at best a #2-#3 option. His shoulder will be a 100% and I expect him to bounce back.

I hope this happens, because we could realistically make him available on June 1 as the best pitcher available with 2+ years control remaining at less than market rate, and as a lefty, and as a younger type of SP.

 

But it's risky though if for example there is a deal out there now.

[Rowand44]

I think trading him at the moment would be a huge mistake.

[BlackSox13]

I don't see much of a return for Danks right now. If he pitches well in the first half of 14 then we might get a decent return , however, if he pitches well in a full 14 season he would bring some prospects worth getting excited over. Timeing is just plain bad right now. He would be nothing more than a salary dump at this point and that would only make sense if the Sox were trying to sign a FA or two in an effort to make the team better in 14.

[ILMOU]

I don't see much of a return for Danks right now. If he pitches well in the first half of 14 then we might get a decent return , however, if he pitches well in a full 14 season he would bring some prospects worth getting excited over. Timeing is just plain bad right now. He would be nothing more than a salary dump at this point and that would only make sense if the Sox were trying to sign a FA or two in an effort to make the team better in 14.

 

I agree with the line of thinking that says it's better to wait on trading Danks. He can potentially regain a LOT of value with 10-12 good starts to begin next season.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Stan Bahnsen

[southsider2k5]

Trading Danks now would be a big risk.

[Balta1701]

Trading Danks now would be a big risk.

You know, that's not how I'd describe it at all. I'd describe it as a moderate risk. If he returned to his former self...he becomes a "moderately" underpaid pitcher. Trading away a guy on a minimum salary with the potential to become a #2 starter is a high risk. Trading away a guy making $15 mil a year for the next 3 years who has the potential to become a #2 starter is at best a moderate risk. Even if he returns to being a #2 starter...you've still cleared $15 million a year for 3 years.

[ILMOU]

You know, that's not how I'd describe it at all. I'd describe it as a moderate risk. If he returned to his former self...he becomes a "moderately" underpaid pitcher. Trading away a guy on a minimum salary with the potential to become a #2 starter is a high risk. Trading away a guy making $15 mil a year for the next 3 years who has the potential to become a #2 starter is at best a moderate risk. Even if he returns to being a #2 starter...you've still cleared $15 million a year for 3 years.

 

If, in fact, you could clear all of that amount with his future performance being more of an unknown.

[southsider2k5]

You know, that's not how I'd describe it at all. I'd describe it as a moderate risk. If he returned to his former self...he becomes a "moderately" underpaid pitcher. Trading away a guy on a minimum salary with the potential to become a #2 starter is a high risk. Trading away a guy making $15 mil a year for the next 3 years who has the potential to become a #2 starter is at best a moderate risk. Even if he returns to being a #2 starter...you've still cleared $15 million a year for 3 years.

 

If he pitches well, he is a guy looking at a 6 or 7 year deal worth WAY over $100 million, probably closer to $150 million.

[Balta1701]

If he pitches well, he is a guy looking at a 6 or 7 year deal worth WAY over $100 million, probably closer to $150 million.

Yeah, but to get to that point where you'd have confidence you'd need 2+ years of him pitching like a 4-5 WAR pitcher again. Even a solid season from him this year no way you'd sign him for 6 years.

 

Worst case scenario if you traded him for a pittance but shed the entire contract...you're out maybe 2 WAR each year if 1 WAR = $5 million.

 

Worst case scenario if you hold onto him = the 2012 and 2013 John Danks, paid for the next 3 years.

 

At the very least, there's a balanced risk in both cases that could be pushed one way or the other by how desperate your team is to clear payroll and whether or not you have a replacement pitching candidate.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, but to get to that point where you'd have confidence you'd need 2+ years of him pitching like a 4-5 WAR pitcher again. Even a solid season from him this year no way you'd sign him for 6 years.

Worst case scenario if you traded him for a pittance but shed the entire contract...you're out maybe 2 WAR each year if 1 WAR = $5 million.

 

Worst case scenario if you hold onto him = the 2012 and 2013 John Danks, paid for the next 3 years.

 

At the very least, there's a balanced risk in both cases that could be pushed one way or the other by how desperate your team is to clear payroll and whether or not you have a replacement pitching candidate.

 

I call BS on this. If John Danks pitches like 2008 to 2010 John Danks, even for one year, he'd get 6 to 7 years if he were on the open market. Seeing what pitchers are getting now, there is zero doubt in my mind.

[Jake]

We are in the perfect position to hold onto him instead of trading him at his lowest value of his career

[BlackSox13]

Danks getting a 7 year deal is just ludacris considering he hasn't pitched a full season let alone regain his old form. I just don't get where the idea comes from in the first place? Talk about the cart pushing the horse.

 

Let's just wait and see how Danks pitches first, injuries happen and we just might end up wanting/needing him around. The thing I like most about Danks is he a been a solid pitcher in the past and is easily still young enough to regain his old form.

[Chicago White Sox]

Who cares if Danks would get a 7 year deal on the open market, as teams don't want to give 7 year deals to starting pitchers in the first place. Having said that, if Danks can return to form this year, he'll have 2+ years of team control at a reasonable rate (given this market) and will have plenty of value. Given our lack of long-term financial commitments at the moment, holding on to Danks and hoping he rebuilds his value this year is a risk worth taking IMO.

[southsider2k5]

Who cares if Danks would get a 7 year deal on the open market, as teams don't want to give 7 year deals to starting pitchers in the first place. Having said that, if Danks can return to form this year, he'll have 2+ years of team control at a reasonable rate (given this market) and will have plenty of value. Given our lack of long-term financial commitments at the moment, holding on to Danks and hoping he rebuilds his value this year is a risk worth taking IMO.

 

That is the whole point of "Value!"

[Chicago White Sox]

That is the whole point of "Value!"

What I'm saying is a team may not want or be willing to give Danks a long-term contract (i.e. a 7 year deal) because of his recent health problems, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a ton of value on a short-term deal (2 to 3 years) which is exactly what he's under contract for. Teams at the trade deadline are going to be much more likely to give up something of value for Danks if the risk is short-term.