Dodgers aggressively pursuing Alexei

[southsider2k5]

If Zach Duke is fixed by throwing side arm and changing his pitches, why can't Danks do the same?

 

While appreciating the consistent attempts here, I will say that Danks problem is the opposite. He hasn't been able to maintain his mechanics very well. It is also worth mentioning that the team did alter his arm slot at the end of the year, and Danks had probably his best month of the year after doing so.

[Eminor3rd]

My 2 cents on danks. The difference with duke vs danks is that duke is a failed starter and danks is not.

 

There's some mounting evidence that Danks is a failed starter. It's the injury that led to the substantially reduced velocity that led to three years of bad. He hasn't turned in a sub-4 ERA since 2010. He hasn't thrown 200 innings since 2010.

 

You guys are complaining about paying 10 million AAV for miller but would be fine with danks and 14 plus million in the pen.

 

No one wants to SIGN Danks at $14m to be in the pen, we're just trying to figure out the best role for the $14m that we already have committed no matter what.

 

If danks is on the team is most value to the team is starting pitcher. Again he made 32 starts tied with quintana on the team and had 193 innings second most behind quintana. A 5th starter to make 32 starts, 193 innings and sub 5 era isn't nothing to sneeze at.

 

Lots of dudes can rack up bad innings if their teams would refuse to DFA them. If Danks didn't have his contract, his performance would have earned him a role in Charlotte. We should all sneeze at "sub-5 ERA" all day. We're in a historically depressed run environment, 4.74 ERA is terrible. At the very least, it represents an obvious hole that needs to be upgraded.

 

Yes he's being paid way more then a 5th starter. I want to bring up brandon Mccarthy. His last deal signed was for 2yrs/18 million for 2013-14 seasons. His 2012 numbers was a 3.24 era with only 18 starts made and 111 innings. Those stats got him 9 million AAV. Jason Hammel signed a 1 yr 6 million contract for 2014 season. His stats in 2013 was a 4.97 era, 23 starts and 139 innings. Both are possibly going to be at 10 million or more a year for just about having career years for them in parts of 2014 season.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You just quoted McCarthy's very good numbers and pointed out he's making just 40% less than Danks. Then you pointed out Hammel's similarly bad numbers and pointed out that it earned him more than 50% less than Danks. Doesn't that just underscore that Danks is a huge albatross?

 

I don't get any joy out of crucifying Danks. I LIKE him. I have a Danks shirsey I wear all the time. It's not his fault he had shoulder surgery. I don't blame him for signing a big contract that made him rich.

 

But none of that changes the fact that he isn't good anymore and we should get out from under his contract if we can. If the only way to do that is to swap him for some similarly faulty guy whose roles is a bit more useful to us, then why wouldn't we do it?

 

Dick Allen's command control turnaround scenario is certainly POSSIBLE, but there's no evidence to suggest it's remotely likely. If that's the best we can do, then I hope he figures it out and turns around. But I think doing what we can do turn him into even a marginally useful asset is a more likely path to success for us at this point.

 

[TheFutureIsNear]

The White Sox have no reason to have to trade Alexei Ramirez.

 

-They have publicly stated they are now looking to win this year (even if you don't believe it, which I don't think it is realistic).

-Ramirez is under team control for up to two years at a HUGE bargain to what he would pull on the free agent market right now. My guess is he would be in the neighborhood of a 5/75 type deal if he were currently a FA.

-The Sox have no payroll squeeze where they need to move the salary off of the books.

 

If we don't get a big offer, there is literally no good reason to move Alexei.

 

If we don't trade Alexei this year, either now or at the deadline, then we have a 34 year old SS with 1 year left on his deal...and then you get into the obvious that he's getting older and is due for regression sooner or later. Like it or not, this team most likely not going to compete for anything serious in 2015. All this nonsense that we are going to spend $50+M on free agents and go for a world series isn't going to happen. And quite frankly, I really hope it doesn't. That's not how you build a good franchise, and with the pieces already in place we(Hahn) has a chance to build something special if done the right way. Alexei is the last older player we have with any value and if you're realistic you realize he won't be around when this team is going to be true serious contenders. Getting the most you can for him now makes a ton of sense when you are thinking about what is best for the team in the long run.

[2nd_city_saint787]

People are forgetting that Danks already changed his motion and pitch selection a bit back in September.

 

http://www.southsidesox.com/2014/9/23/6832...h-seasons-again

 

 

 

 

 

 

[witesoxfan]

My 2 cents on danks. The difference with duke vs danks is that duke is a failed starter and danks is not.

 

It's entirely possible that Danks is a failed starter at this point too. He'll get another shot this year regardless, but his stuff has deteriorated a ton in the past 2-3 years.

 

You guys are complaining about paying 10 million AAV for miller but would be fine with danks and 14 plus million in the pen.

 

The money has already been spent on Danks though, he's with the White Sox. The Sox spent $65 million for John Danks to be a top of the rotation starter for him and he has failed in that role. Thus, moving him to the bullpen would not be an allocation of resources for $14 million towards a pen arm but instead is trying to find something useful for what has turned into a bad contract.

 

In 2011, Adam Dunn was in the first year of a $56 million deal and had one of the worst seasons of all time. When he was benched by Ozzie Guillen, he was essentially a $14 million pinch hitter at that time. It doesn't mean the White Sox intended for that to happen. It is very similar to the Danks situation at this point (though Dunn did regain form to be an acceptable DH).

 

If danks is on the team is most value to the team is starting pitcher.

 

Unless there are superior options. I still envision the Sox signing a starting pitcher, a mid-rotation guy, and Rodon should be up next year to pitch in the rotation too. If that's the case, it could ultimately end up as Noesi vs Danks.

 

Again he made 32 starts tied with quintana on the team and had 193 innings second most behind quintana. A 5th starter to make 32 starts, 193 innings and sub 5 era isn't nothing to sneeze at.

 

No, but it's also not good. The league ERA was 3.82, which means that Danks 4.74 ERA (and 4.76 FIP) were well below the league average. If you can upgrade, you should.

 

Yes he's being paid way more then a 5th starter.

 

And he would be paid way more than a bullpen arm too. He's being paid way too much now, period. At the end of the day, you find the way to utilize him the best without sacrificing for the team. If that's as a 5th starter, great, use him that way. If it's as a middle reliver or swing man, then that's the way it is.

 

Personally, I'd like to see him use his curveball more or to try and refine it. He's overall a very similar pitcher to Buehrle at this point without the control/command of his stuff. Perhaps that's something that a guy like Duke can help him with, as they were similar pitchers prior to Duke falling apart and re-inventing himself.

[shysocks]

My 2 cents on danks. The difference with duke vs danks is that duke is a failed starter and danks is not. You guys are complaining about paying 10 million AAV for miller but would be fine with danks and 14 plus million in the pen. If danks is on the team is most value to the team is starting pitcher. Again he made 32 starts tied with quintana on the team and had 193 innings second most behind quintana. A 5th starter to make 32 starts, 193 innings and sub 5 era isn't nothing to sneeze at. Yes he's being paid way more then a 5th starter.

The major difference is that Danks is a sunk cost while we'd be throwing new money at Miller.

 

I do think Danks is better suited for the rotation right now, by the way. There is value in a guy who makes 32 starts as long as they're above replacement level, which is where Danks is. He was about a 1 WAR guy and that's where I'm guessing he'll be next year and the year after too. That makes his contract bad but not an abomination, and I'll quote DA again:

 

If it were me, I'd dump the contract if I could, but it wouldn't be a top priority, and I wouldn't dump it in lieu of receiving talent.

 

[Dick Allen]

It's entirely possible that Danks is a failed starter at this point too. He'll get another shot this year regardless, but his stuff has deteriorated a ton in the past 2-3 years.

 

 

 

The money has already been spent on Danks though, he's with the White Sox. The Sox spent $65 million for John Danks to be a top of the rotation starter for him and he has failed in that role. Thus, moving him to the bullpen would not be an allocation of resources for $14 million towards a pen arm but instead is trying to find something useful for what has turned into a bad contract.

 

In 2011, Adam Dunn was in the first year of a $56 million deal and had one of the worst seasons of all time. When he was benched by Ozzie Guillen, he was essentially a $14 million pinch hitter at that time. It doesn't mean the White Sox intended for that to happen. It is very similar to the Danks situation at this point (though Dunn did regain form to be an acceptable DH).

 

 

 

Unless there are superior options. I still envision the Sox signing a starting pitcher, a mid-rotation guy, and Rodon should be up next year to pitch in the rotation too. If that's the case, it could ultimately end up as Noesi vs Danks.

 

 

 

No, but it's also not good. The league ERA was 3.82, which means that Danks 4.74 ERA (and 4.76 FIP) were well below the league average. If you can upgrade, you should.

 

 

 

And he would be paid way more than a bullpen arm too. He's being paid way too much now, period. At the end of the day, you find the way to utilize him the best without sacrificing for the team. If that's as a 5th starter, great, use him that way. If it's as a middle reliver or swing man, then that's the way it is.

 

Personally, I'd like to see him use his curveball more or to try and refine it. He's overall a very similar pitcher to Buehrle at this point without the control/command of his stuff. Perhaps that's something that a guy like Duke can help him with, as they were similar pitchers prior to Duke falling apart and re-inventing himself.

In general, 5th starters do have ERAs that are below league average. What is the league average ERA for a 5th starter?

[witesoxfan]

People are forgetting that Danks already changed his motion and pitch selection a bit back in September.

 

http://www.southsidesox.com/2014/9/23/6832...h-seasons-again

 

I missed this. Of course the professionals would be ahead of me, as he was mixing the curveball in a bit more in those final 3 starts.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

In general, 5th starters do have ERAs that are below league average. What is the league average ERA for a 5th starter?

 

5th starters are usually replaced though too. If it's below average, that's not a big deal, but if there's a superior option, which one are you going with?

 

I have no problem with Danks on the roster or starting - I think I'd actively try and move him more than you indicated above, but that it a difference of semantics . But at the end of the day, he may ultimately be the Sox 6th best starter. I don't want them going with him out of veteran deferance or contractual status. I want them going with him because he's one of the 5 best starting pitchers, even if that's below league average.

[shysocks]

In general, 5th starters do have ERAs that are below league average. What is the league average ERA for a 5th starter?

That would be very tough to find, because obviously teams don't designate guys with a number, and you'd have injury replacements and guys who made like 11 starts muddling everything too. I looked up the ERA of the bottom 20% of qualified starters and got 4.53 so it's probably in that ballpark on the higher side.

 

EDIT: Bottom 20% refers to bottom 20% in ERA, by the way.

Edited November 19, 2014 by shysocks

[Dick Allen]

That would be very tough to find, because obviously teams don't designate guys with a number, and you'd have injury replacements and guys who made like 11 starts muddling everything too. I looked up the ERA of the bottom 20% of qualified starters and got 4.53 so it's probably in that ballpark on the higher side.

The only one I could find was from 2006 Hardball Times. Obviously a different game now, but they went through every start, placed pitchers starts in 1-5 even if not qualified. and determined ERAs.

 

Then, his current ERA would put him closer to a #3 than a #4 and #5s had a collective ERA over 6.00. Allowing for a decrease in offense, I doubt that drops 1.25, so while you get a pretty bad ERA from Danks, he probably would rank pretty high as a #5 considering he makes all his starts.

 

Here was the 2006 chart:

Lg #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

MLB 3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24

AL 3.70 4.24 4.58 5.09 6.22

NL 3.51 4.04 4.57 5.11 6.26

 

 

I would venture to guess, as bad as some think he is, if you designated John Danks a #5 starter and matched him up to the rest of the major leagues #5 starts, he would be looking pretty good. People tend to forget the guys who make one or two starts, and the teams that have 7 or 8 "fifth" starters.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

The only one I could find was from 2006 Hardball Times. Obviously a different game now, but they went through every start, placed pitchers starts in 1-5 even if not qualified. and determined ERAs.

 

Then, his current ERA would put him closer to a #3 than a #4 and #5s had a collective ERA over 6.00. Allowing for a decrease in offense, I doubt that drops 1.25, so while you get a pretty bad ERA from Danks, he probably would rank pretty high as a #5 considering he makes all his starts.

 

Here was the 2006 chart:

Lg #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

MLB 3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24

AL 3.70 4.24 4.58 5.09 6.22

NL 3.51 4.04 4.57 5.11 6.26

 

 

I would venture to guess, as bad as some think he is, if you designated John Danks a #5 starter and matched him up to the rest of the major leagues #5 starts, he would be looking pretty good. People tend to forget the guys who make one or two starts, and the teams that have 7 or 8 "fifth" starters.

 

The point is not to have one of the best 5th starters in the league though, or to have an OK 5th starter. The point is to win ball games. If there's a superior option, would you still insist on using Danks because he's a perfectly fine 5th starter? That's the point I'm trying to make at this time.

[Balta1701]

The only one I could find was from 2006 Hardball Times. Obviously a different game now, but they went through every start, placed pitchers starts in 1-5 even if not qualified. and determined ERAs.

 

Then, his current ERA would put him closer to a #3 than a #4 and #5s had a collective ERA over 6.00. Allowing for a decrease in offense, I doubt that drops 1.25, so while you get a pretty bad ERA from Danks, he probably would rank pretty high as a #5 considering he makes all his starts.

 

Here was the 2006 chart:

Lg #1 #2 #3 #4 #5

MLB 3.60 4.14 4.58 5.10 6.24

AL 3.70 4.24 4.58 5.09 6.22

NL 3.51 4.04 4.57 5.11 6.26

 

 

I would venture to guess, as bad as some think he is, if you designated John Danks a #5 starter and matched him up to the rest of the major leagues #5 starts, he would be looking pretty good. People tend to forget the guys who make one or two starts, and the teams that have 7 or 8 "fifth" starters.

You can quibble with the numbers exactly some since there are assumptions into what goes into a 1/5 starter but here it is done in terms of fWAR earlier this year. In this compilation, a #4 starter averages 1.8 fWAR, a #5 starter averages ~0.2 fWAR, and last year John Danks put up 0.8 fWAR.

[Dick Allen]

The point is not to have one of the best 5th starters in the league though, or to have an OK 5th starter. The point is to win ball games. If there's a superior option, would you still insist on using Danks because he's a perfectly fine 5th starter? That's the point I'm trying to make at this time.

The point is, there are a lot more worse options than people think. The guys whose stats don't qualify, actually do still count. If he is making his starts, and Sale, Q, Rodon and whoever they sign are making theirs, the White Sox rotation should match up to most rotations in the game.

 

Last year when people looked up fangraphs and the line was John Danks was the 3rd worst starter in the league, I looked at stats and there were over 600 starts made in early September by pitchers with ERA's worse than John Danks. So no, he wasn't the 3rd worst starter in baseball. Not even close.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Dick Allen]

You can quibble with the numbers exactly some since there are assumptions into what goes into a 1/5 starter but here it is done in terms of fWAR earlier this year. In this compilation, a #4 starter averages 1.8 fWAR, a #5 starter averages ~0.2 fWAR, and last year John Danks put up 0.8 fWAR.

So the reality is he is a #4.5 starter.

[AlSoxfan]

The White Sox have no reason to have to trade Alexei Ramirez.

 

-They have publicly stated they are now looking to win this year (even if you don't believe it, which I don't think it is realistic).

-Ramirez is under team control for up to two years at a HUGE bargain to what he would pull on the free agent market right now. My guess is he would be in the neighborhood of a 5/75 type deal if he were currently a FA.

-The Sox have no payroll squeeze where they need to move the salary off of the books.

 

If we don't get a big offer, there is literally no good reason to move Alexei.

Like and Agree

[Balta1701]

So the reality is he is a #4.5 starter.

And conveniently, if Noesi simply does what he did with he White Sox over a full season next year, no improvement whatsoever, he also would come in at a #4.5 starter.

 

Between Danks working to get back where he was preinjury and any possible growth from Noesi, that does give us 2 guys who could pencil in as strong, back of the rotation options. The missing piece is the middle of the rotation, which Rodon can help with but isn't going to fill the full year.

[Whisox05]

The point is not to have one of the best 5th starters in the league though, or to have an OK 5th starter. The point is to win ball games. If there's a superior option, would you still insist on using Danks because he's a perfectly fine 5th starter? That's the point I'm trying to make at this time.

 

There are superior options other then danks but do you want the sox to sink a ton of money into the rotation then. Scherzer is a superior option. So your saying if we can replace danks we should get scherzer. Also for the sox to have league average in the rotation then the sox need to have 3 new starters to go with sale and quintana. How about we get Lester, scherzer and shields so that we don't have to worry about guys like danks or the other options the sox have that aren't danks types with bad eras. Maybe we should get Samardzija for a bunch of prospects and replace danks that way.

Edited November 19, 2014 by WhiteSoxLifer

[BlackSox13]

Lol hate to break the news to you, but you're expectations are really far removed from reality. You should just prepare yourself to be disappointed already.

My sentiments exactly.

 

The White Sox have no reason to have to trade Alexei Ramirez.

 

-They have publicly stated they are now looking to win this year (even if you don't believe it, which I don't think it is realistic).

-Ramirez is under team control for up to two years at a HUGE bargain to what he would pull on the free agent market right now. My guess is he would be in the neighborhood of a 5/75 type deal if he were currently a FA.

-The Sox have no payroll squeeze where they need to move the salary off of the books.

 

If we don't get a big offer, there is literally no good reason to move Alexei.

The only thing I can say that I have not said yet is if Alexei is traded, I'm going to have fun reading all the posts of people b****ing, whining and complaining about how Alexei was worth more and blah blah blah. I've said all I have to say without repeating myself which I'm done doing. We will see what happens...

Edited November 19, 2014 by StRoostifer

[shysocks]

There are superior options other then danks but do you want the sox to sink a ton of money into the rotation then. Scherzer is a superior option. So your saying if we can replace danks we should get scherzer. Also for the sox to have league average in the rotation then the sox need to have 3 new starters to go with sale and quintana. How about we get Lester, scherzer and shields so that we don't have to worry about guys like danks or the other options the sox have that aren't danks types with bad eras

Pretty sure that's not what he was saying. From wite earlier in the thread: "I don't want them going with [Danks] out of veteran deferance or contractual status. I want them going with him because he's one of the 5 best starting pitchers, even if that's below league average."

[southsider2k5]

Mynsentiments exactly.

 

 

The only thing I can say that I have not said yet is if Alexei is traded, I'm going to have fun reading all the posts of people b****ing, whining and complaining about how Alexei was worth more and blah blah blah. I've said all I have to say without repeating myself which I'm done doing. We will see what happens...

 

I am not a big fan of the idea that you have to move someone for "value's" sake. Many times a players best value to the team is playing on the team, and I feel that numbers don't do Alexei justice. I would be thrilled to keep him for the next two years, and unless the offer blows me away, would have no problem doing so, even if he falls off in hindsight.

[witesoxfan]

There are superior options other then danks but do you want the sox to sink a ton of money into the rotation then. Scherzer is a superior option. So your saying if we can replace danks we should get scherzer. Also for the sox to have league average in the rotation then the sox need to have 3 new starters to go with sale and quintana. How about we get Lester, scherzer and shields so that we don't have to worry about guys like danks or the other options the sox have that aren't danks types with bad eras. Maybe we should get Samardzija for a bunch of prospects and replace danks that way.

 

They don't have to sink a ton of money into the rotation. There will be options available both via free agency and trade that will be worthwhile investments, and the Sox have Rodon sitting in the minors (along with guys like Beck, Bassitt, Danish, and Montas in the mid-to-high minors) who could make an impact as well.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

I am not a big fan of the idea that you have to move someone for "value's" sake. Many times a players best value to the team is playing on the team, and I feel that numbers don't do Alexei justice. I would be thrilled to keep him for the next two years, and unless the offer blows me away, would have no problem doing so, even if he falls off in hindsight.

Yes. I would think if the goal is to win, having a guy on your roster at his "peak value" is a lot better than trading him because he is there.

[Whisox05]

Pretty sure that's not what he was saying. From wite earlier in the thread: "I don't want them going with [Danks] out of veteran deferance or contractual status. I want them going with him because he's one of the 5 best starting pitchers, even if that's below league average."

 

Someone else said danks is bad because of his high above league average. Pretty much said if he's not league average then he shouldn't be in the rotation. Right now he is one of the best starting option the sox have. You have sale, quintana, noesi and danks. Carroll posted a 5.40 era in his 19 starts last year. Rienzo posted a 5.97 era in 11 starts last year. The only one to not have extensive time pitching in the rotation was bassitt. No body knows what happening with rodon. For the sox to have a better option then to have a a guy like danks i the rotation then they need 3 new pitchers.

Edited November 19, 2014 by WhiteSoxLifer

[witesoxfan]

Someone else said danks is bad because of his high above league average. Pretty much said if he's not league average then he shouldn't be in the rotation. Right now he is one of the best starting option the sox have. You have sale, quintana, noesi and danks. Carroll posted a 5.40 era in his 19 starts last year. Rienzo posted a 5.97 era in 11 starts last year. The only one to not have extensive time pitching in the rotation was bassitt. No body knows what happening with rodon. For the sox to have a better option then to have a a guy like danks i the rotation then they need 3 new pitchers.

 

Nobody has said this.

 

Barring injury or falling off the rails completely, Rodon will pitch for the White Sox this year out of the rotation and will probably end up around 150-160 innings overall. I think they'll acquire another starting pitcher. At that point, your top 4 will likely be Sale, Quintana, new guy, and Rodon. Whether the 5th is Danks, Noesi, Bassitt, Jack McDowell, Wilbur Wood, or whoever, it doesn't matter.