PDA

View Full Version : Danks Concern


FoulTerritory
04-27-2012, 11:57 PM
Danks' fastball was topping out at 90 mph tonight which is down a tick or two from what we are accustomed to. And while he has never been a power-pitcher per say, this is still a concern. For one, the velocity difference isn't as vast between his fastball and change-up. Also, I think he is aware of the velocity dip and that is maybe why he is nibbling at corners so much, afraid of the bat.

Anyway. I'm very concerned about Danks' ability to simply "get back on track" because his stuff looks worse. I think this is more than just about him merely finding his rhythm or feel.

ChicagoG19
04-27-2012, 11:58 PM
It was 39 degrees tonight.

LoveYourSuit
04-28-2012, 12:05 AM
It was 39 degrees tonight.

Danks has been sucking regardless of weather or timezone.

doublem23
04-28-2012, 12:15 AM
It was 39 degrees tonight.

Yeah, I agree, gonna at least let the weather heat up before I jump off the deep end.

All pitchers go through funks. Lincecume, FWIW, is off to a worse start to this year than Danks.

WhiteSox5187
04-28-2012, 12:23 AM
Yeah, I agree, gonna at least let the weather heat up before I jump off the deep end.

All pitchers go through funks. Lincecume, FWIW, is off to a worse start to this year than Danks.

Doesn't cold weather typically favor pitchers?

JB98
04-28-2012, 12:35 AM
The main problem with Danks is he often lets down the inning after the Sox score. Happened Opening Day. Happened in Cleveland his second start. Happened in Seattle. Happened tonight.

I don't think his stuff is the problem. He looks fine until the Sox get him a run or two. Then it's time to start walking people. You walk people against this Boston team, the roof is gonna cave in.

Brian26
04-28-2012, 12:39 AM
The main problem with Danks is he often lets down the inning after the Sox score. Happened Opening Day. Happened in Cleveland his second start. Happened in Seattle. Happened tonight.

Happened his last start, and happened twice tonight. The Sox come back and tie the game or take the lead, and Danks goes out and walks the first guy or the first two batters. Unacceptable.

The Sox gave Danks basically a Buehrle-type package to take over Buehrle's role. Yet, this is something Buehrle never did. When Buehrle got beat around occassionally, it was because teams were jumping all over his first pitch fastballs. However, that's ok because Buehrle lived and died by throwing strikes, usually living well because batters got themselves out. Buehrle never got killed because he was walking guys left and right.

TDog
04-28-2012, 12:56 AM
Doesn't cold weather typically favor pitchers?

It depends. Many hitters don't hit well in cold weather because the air is heavier and they can't catch up with pitches as easily. Balls tend not to carry as well, unless the wind is blowing into a pitcher's face. Foul balls tend to sting a little more. Bees in the bat, they used to say. Effective pitchers might get more movement in heavy air even if the wind is blowing in their face. Hot weather tends to take more out of a pitcher.

On the other hand, there are pitchers who can't get loose as easily in cold weather, and that can vary from start to start. Sometimes it's harder to throw strikes in cold weather. There are pitchers who can't stay loose as easily in cold weather. If it gets cold enough, umpires will let pitchers go to their mouths on the mound becasue it is more difficult to get a grip on the baseball.

Cold weather doesn't add speed to a fastball, but there are days when hitting is more difficult and often pitchers can take advantage of that.

Parrothead
04-28-2012, 01:00 AM
Anyway. I'm very concerned about Danks' ability to simply "get back on track" because his stuff looks worse. I think this is more than just about him merely finding his rhythm or feel.

I more concerned about 15.75 million each year til the end of 2016 for him. Looks like more bad money out there.

DrCrawdad
04-28-2012, 01:18 AM
The main problem with Danks is he often lets down the inning after the Sox score. Happened Opening Day. Happened in Cleveland his second start. Happened in Seattle. Happened tonight.

I don't think his stuff is the problem. He looks fine until the Sox get him a run or two. Then it's time to start walking people. You walk people against this Boston team, the roof is gonna cave in.

That's not just a Danks problem, it's a White Sox problem. Watch for it over for the next couple games against The Other Sox.

DSpivack
04-28-2012, 03:10 AM
It depends. Many hitters don't hit well in cold weather because the air is heavier and they can't catch up with pitches as easily. Balls tend not to carry as well, unless the wind is blowing into a pitcher's face. Foul balls tend to sting a little more. Bees in the bat, they used to say. Effective pitchers might get more movement in heavy air even if the wind is blowing in their face. Hot weather tends to take more out of a pitcher.

On the other hand, there are pitchers who can't get loose as easily in cold weather, and that can vary from start to start. Sometimes it's harder to throw strikes in cold weather. There are pitchers who can't stay loose as easily in cold weather. If it gets cold enough, umpires will let pitchers go to their mouths on the mound becasue it is more difficult to get a grip on the baseball.

Cold weather doesn't add speed to a fastball, but there are days when hitting is more difficult and often pitchers can take advantage of that.

I've often heard this in relation to cold weather, and I don't understand it. Isn't cold air less dense? I thought that's why balls traveled farther in Denver--at altitude, the air is less dense and batted balls have less resistance. But from experience, that's not the case. What am I missing?

kufram
04-28-2012, 06:20 AM
I wonder if it isn't contract related if only psychologically. He's supposed to be the new ace in many people's eyes because of the contract and the opening day start. I think he will pull out of it, but I don't see him as an ace, at least not yet. I'm hoping Peavy is this years' ace.

In Danks case the pressure of holding a lead seems to get to him.

dickallen15
04-28-2012, 08:36 AM
He'll be fine. He is having control issues right now.

doublem23
04-28-2012, 08:40 AM
I've often heard this in relation to cold weather, and I don't understand it. Isn't cold air less dense? I thought that's why balls traveled farther in Denver--at altitude, the air is less dense and batted balls have less resistance. But from experience, that's not the case. What am I missing?

No, the colder air is, the denser it is. That's why hot air balloons fly.

SCCWS
04-28-2012, 09:18 AM
I wonder if it isn't contract related if only psychologically. He's supposed to be the new ace in many people's eyes because of the contract and the opening day start. I think he will pull out of it, but I don't see him as an ace, at least not yet. I'm hoping Peavy is this years' ace.

In Danks case the pressure of holding a lead seems to get to him.


Danks was 8-12 last year when he was projected to be the 3rd guy in the rotation till Peavy went down. That is probably what he is. He is still a career .500 pitcher now in his 7th year. He is a lefty which is a quality teams want but as he showed last night sometimes that means nothing. The Red Sox lefties were teeing off on him. Contract or not, he may never be an ace of a staff.

doublem23
04-28-2012, 09:27 AM
Danks was 8-12 last year when he was projected to be the 3rd guy in the rotation till Peavy went down. That is probably what he is. He is still a career .500 pitcher now in his 7th year. He is a lefty which is a quality teams want but as he showed last night sometimes that means nothing. The Red Sox lefties were teeing off on him. Contract or not, he may never be an ace of a staff.

Danks' individual W-L record is pretty meaningless (much like all SP) especially when you factor in he got 3.5 runs of support per start, tied for 6th worst in the AL out of about 70 qualified starting pitchers. Only Doug Fister, Jason Vargas, Philip Humber, Tyler Chatwood, and Brett Cecil had it worse and all of those guys were sub-.500 on the year as well, except for Humber who went 9-9.

Also, the Sox bullpen blew leads for Danks 4 times when he left the game as the winning pitcher of record. Only 8 SP in the AL last year had their bullpen lose them more wins.

kufram
04-28-2012, 10:18 AM
Danks was 8-12 last year when he was projected to be the 3rd guy in the rotation till Peavy went down. That is probably what he is. He is still a career .500 pitcher now in his 7th year. He is a lefty which is a quality teams want but as he showed last night sometimes that means nothing. The Red Sox lefties were teeing off on him. Contract or not, he may never be an ace of a staff.


Agreed, but he was the hard luck kid for at least the first half of 2011. No run support if I remember correctly. Zilch. Nada. Zero. No pitcher can win games like that.

This year he's getting a lead, albeit small, but giving it up immediately. He can't afford to do that.

I'm not a huge Danks fan but he's in a White Sox uniform so I want him to succeed.

Pitching is vastly overpaid at the MLB mediocre level in my opinion. I'm just saying that I don't think it is a talent problem.

SCCWS
04-28-2012, 12:08 PM
Danks' individual W-L record is pretty meaningless (much like all SP) especially when you factor in he got 3.5 runs of support per start, tied for 6th worst in the AL out of about 70 qualified starting pitchers. Only Doug Fister, Jason Vargas, Philip Humber, Tyler Chatwood, and Brett Cecil had it worse and all of those guys were sub-.500 on the year as well, except for Humber who went 9-9.

Also, the Sox bullpen blew leads for Danks 4 times when he left the game as the winning pitcher of record. Only 8 SP in the AL last year had their bullpen lose them more wins.


That is why I said he is a career .500 pitcher. If he got less support last year or the pen blew leads maybe he should have been 10-10, 12-8, etc. But usually those things even out especially when you have 6+ years. It still makes him a .500 pitcher so far in his career.

He also was 30th in ERA and 31st in Whip in the AL so again those are not the stats of an ace.

Huisj
04-29-2012, 12:05 AM
http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=6329&position=P&pitch=FA

Looks like he's definitely down velocity wise to start the year. He's had a few starts here and there where he threw about the same speed over the years, but never for more than 1 or 2 starts.

SBSoxFan
04-29-2012, 07:30 AM
http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxo.aspx?playerid=6329&position=P&pitch=FA

Looks like he's definitely down velocity wise to start the year. He's had a few starts here and there where he threw about the same speed over the years, but never for more than 1 or 2 starts.

Yes, it does look like his velocity is down. It also looks like the range is smaller than in previous years. So, he's not changing speeds enough.

Parrothead
05-03-2012, 10:10 PM
Ok I am convinced...Danks stanks. Trade him, if anyone would take him.

LoveYourSuit
05-03-2012, 11:12 PM
Ok I am convinced...Danks stanks. Trade him, if anyone would take him.

Not with that contract now.

We just seem to handcuff ourselves with bad money after bad money.

chisoxfanatic
05-03-2012, 11:13 PM
Not with that contract now.

We just seem to handcuff ourselves with bad money after bad money.
And not with him pitching like this. Nobody's going to want that contract, nobody's going to want the pitcher that he is.

Parrothead
05-03-2012, 11:18 PM
Not with that contract now.

We just seem to handcuff ourselves with bad money after bad money.

And not with him pitching like this. Nobody's going to want that contract, nobody's going to want the pitcher that he is.

I know. It blows but maybe the Yankees or Boston will be dumb enough to take him.

Boondock Saint
05-03-2012, 11:26 PM
Not with that contract now.

We just seem to handcuff ourselves with bad money after bad money.

Funny thing is that Dunn, Peavy and Rios are all earning that money right now.

Lip Man 1
05-03-2012, 11:29 PM
Some guys start to press after getting big, big money...Danks may be a guy trying to show everyone he's worth it.

He's given up at least three runs in every start he's made this year.

Lip

Parrothead
05-03-2012, 11:46 PM
Some guys start to press after getting big, big money...Danks may be a guy trying to show everyone he's worth it.

He's given up at least three runs in every start he's made this year.

Lip

I would settle for only 3 runs in six innings.

doublem23
05-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Danks isn't the first pitcher in baseball history to string together a month's worth of bad starts.

http://images.etsy.com/all_images/6/648/7f5/il_200x200.180711320.jpg

Definitely should sell low on the guy, though, that's a winning strategy

LITTLE NELL
05-04-2012, 07:13 AM
For the money we gave this guy we could still have Buerhle.

Parrothead
05-04-2012, 07:18 AM
Danks isn't the first pitcher in baseball history to string together a month's worth of bad starts.

Definitely should sell low on the guy, though, that's a winning strategy

No he isn't but he is the only ones that the Sox are paying 15.75 mil for thru 2016. If you not worried about that / him you are playing dumb.

Golden Sox
05-04-2012, 07:45 AM
Everybody (including myself) was expecting nothing this year from Peavy, Dunn and Rios. So far all 3 of these guys have produced. Did anybody see Danks becoming the bust that he has become?

chisoxfanatic
05-04-2012, 08:22 AM
Danks isn't the first pitcher in baseball history to string together a month's worth of bad starts.

http://images.etsy.com/all_images/6/648/7f5/il_200x200.180711320.jpg

Definitely should sell low on the guy, though, that's a winning strategy

He had a bunch of bad months last year too. The guy's been nothing better than mediocre for a while now.

doublem23
05-04-2012, 08:33 AM
He had a bunch of bad months last year too. The guy's been nothing better than mediocre for a while now.

Given the completely toxic and unprofessional environment of the team last year, I am willing to cut guys some slack on their subnormal performances in 2011.

And either way, it doesn't matter, the Sox in 2012 weren't going to do much anyway, sticking with John and just letting him work through his troubles is the better move in the long run. People have been clamoring for KW to get out of "win now at all cost" mode for a while now, but then they suggest something silly like selling low on an established, quality MLB veteran because he's struggled for a month. Does not compute.

chisox12
05-04-2012, 09:00 AM
Everybody (including myself) was expecting nothing this year from Peavy, Dunn and Rios. So far all 3 of these guys have produced. Did anybody see Danks becoming the bust that he has become?

Danks was the guy that I was least concerned about. Can't believe how bad he has been. He was ****ing garbage last night.

chisoxfanatic
05-04-2012, 09:13 AM
Danks was the guy that I was least concerned about. Can't believe how bad he has been. He was ****ing garbage last night.
I was more concerned with Gavin Floyd than Danks, to be honest with you. But, I don't have the same stomach-churning feeling when Floyd takes the mound.

russ99
05-04-2012, 09:46 AM
Everybody (including myself) was expecting nothing this year from Peavy, Dunn and Rios. So far all 3 of these guys have produced. Did anybody see Danks becoming the bust that he has become?

Sort of, both Danks and Floyd have laid eggs in August pressure pennant-race type games like against the Twins the last couple of years.

I was hoping that Kenny would trade Danks and Floyd for top talent when their perceived value was high, but now both have contracts that they're not living up to.

Also, with Buehrle here, there was always the notion that these guys were mid-rotation starters, and now they're top-rotation guys with salaries to match.

doublem23
05-04-2012, 10:00 AM
Gavin Floyd is making $7 million this season, hardly in elite pitcher range.

Plus, I'm not sure how anyone could think Floyd's not living up to his end of the bargain so far this year, his ERA is 3.13, well under the AL average, his WHIP is under 1, and his strike outs are up. The only thing he's doing wrong right now is he's walking more guys that usual, but that's pretty well off set by the fact that his amount of hits he's giving up is waaaaaaaaaay down. I guess some people might whine about his 2-3 record, but that's moreso testament to the fact the Sox are giving him an average of 2.1 runs per 9 innings of support (which is pathetic) than it is anything Floyd's done. He's pitching very well. If he keeps this up, he will probably fetch something of value in July if the Sox fall out of the playoff race.

He's had 1 bad start this year, against the Rangers, who are probably the most offensively prolific team in the AL. Take away that game, and he's 2-2 with a 2.42 ERA, 14 H and 28 K in 26 IP, and an opponent's slash line of .165/.273/.271.

hawkjt
05-04-2012, 10:26 AM
As long as he is healthy, I am not that worried about Danks. Guys do not just lose it at his age. He does not have good command right now,no doubt,but that will return. He is in a slump.It happens.

Just have to hang in there and ride the hot pitchers,who will probably have their own slump eventually also. Peavy,Sale and Floyd are going well,which is more than most rotations.

eriqjaffe
05-04-2012, 10:30 AM
Looks like the Sox wound up losing that McCarthy trade after all.

doublem23
05-04-2012, 10:37 AM
Looks like the Sox wound up losing that McCarthy trade after all.

http://nopepper.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/PhilRogers-150x105.jpg
I knew it all along

kittle42
05-04-2012, 10:46 AM
Danks isn't the first pitcher in baseball history to string together a month's worth of bad starts.

See Gallardo, Yovanni

Definitely should sell low on the guy, though, that's a winning strategy

Plenty of folks seem to think that's how you manage a team. Funny.

Looking forward to the people screeching when AJ and Peavy are sent out in July while both having their best seasons in a long time.

Hitmen77
05-04-2012, 11:12 AM
Looks like the Sox wound up losing that McCarthy trade after all.

http://nopepper.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/PhilRogers-150x105.jpg
I knew it all along

:rolling:

Parrothead
05-14-2012, 09:42 PM
Holy crap. Another beat down for Danks. Although, improvement I guess, he averaged only 3 hits in each inning he pitched. It's sad that the Sox are saddled with another horrible contract since no one will take Danks and his 6+ ERA off the Sox hand.

sox1970
05-14-2012, 09:46 PM
Holy crap. Another beat down for Danks. Although, improvement I guess, he averaged only 3 hits in each inning he pitched. It's sad that the Sox are saddled with another horrible contract since no one will take Danks and his 6+ ERA off the Sox hand.

4 years/ 57 mil 2013-2016

Awesome. :(:

SI1020
05-14-2012, 09:51 PM
He was never worth that kind of money. He also peaked in 2008 and has steadily declined each year since then. This does not come as a total shock to me at all.

soxinem1
05-14-2012, 11:00 PM
Happened his last start, and happened twice tonight. The Sox come back and tie the game or take the lead, and Danks goes out and walks the first guy or the first two batters. Unacceptable.

The Sox gave Danks basically a Buehrle-type package to take over Buehrle's role. Yet, this is something Buehrle never did. When Buehrle got beat around occassionally, it was because teams were jumping all over his first pitch fastballs. However, that's ok because Buehrle lived and died by throwing strikes, usually living well because batters got themselves out. Buehrle never got killed because he was walking guys left and right.

Agreed. Danks command has been for **** all year thus far, as has his fielding.

For a guy being paid as and considered an ace, he has been disappointing thus far.

Frontman
05-15-2012, 08:56 AM
I think Danks wasn't ready for "ace" status, and its getting to him. He's still a capable pitcher (and shows flashes of brilliance) but I don't think he's taking on the role too well after Mark's departure.

Hopefully, the team/media can shift that off of him, maybe onto Peavy as Jake's personality seems to be one that wouldn't give a care either way.

TaylorStSox
05-15-2012, 11:05 AM
Danks' loss of velocity is concerning, but I'm hoping it's more of a dead arm thing. Right now, his biggest problem is that he's trying to be to perfect and K everyone. He's always had this problem. In the minors, he's a power pitcher. At this level, he needs to pitch to contact more. He doesn't have the out pitch to get away with mistakes. I think he'll be okay.

The "ace" thing doesn't bother me. He's not an "ace" and really isn't paid like one. He's a 2/3. Going forward, if everything goes well, Sale's the 1, Danks 3, Molina/Castro 4 and Humber's 5. KW needs to find a couple more prospects with 2 type of ceilings during the deadline. Peavy, Thornton, AJ, Crain and possibly Ramirez need to be moved (I'd move PK too). Hopefully, he can land a couple high upside pitching prospects this go around.

I also think there's some passive aggressive shots being thrown Danks' way from Buehrle's biggest fans, but that's probably to be expected.

Parrothead
05-15-2012, 10:46 PM
The "ace" thing doesn't bother me. He's not an "ace" and really isn't paid like one. He's a 2/3.....

I also think there's some passive aggressive shots being thrown Danks' way from Buehrle's biggest fans, but that's probably to be expected.

15.75 million a year is not "ace" money. oh my. Don't know who you are refering to about Buehrle but I don't care that he is gone and thought they should have traded him years ago when they could've got the farm for him.

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 10:41 AM
15.75 million a year is not "ace" money. oh my. Don't know who you are refering to about Buehrle but I don't care that he is gone and thought they should have traded him years ago when they could've got the farm for him.
Buehrle wasn't very good for a couple years, so you weren't going to get the farm for him. Plus, you're not going to trade him in '11, when the team was in win now or rebuild mode. Isn't Danks making $8M this year and $14M for the remainder of his contract? That's not ace money. That's number 2 money.

sox1970
05-16-2012, 10:48 AM
Buehrle wasn't very good for a couple years, so you weren't going to get the farm for him. Plus, you're not going to trade him in '11, when the team was in win now or rebuild mode. Isn't Danks making $8M this year and $14M for the remainder of his contract? That's not ace money. That's number 2 money.

Danks will make 14.25/yr. 2013-2016.

Frontman
05-16-2012, 03:16 PM
As a Buehrle fan, I didn't mean that as a shot at Danks. I think he's a capable pitcher, I just don't think he's an ace, nor should he have that role assigned to him as heir apparent to Mark.

Mark was an exception to "ace" status. His personality wasn't a do or die, rip the guys throat out like most aces are.

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 03:58 PM
As a Buehrle fan, I didn't mean that as a shot at Danks. I think he's a capable pitcher, I just don't think he's an ace, nor should he have that role assigned to him as heir apparent to Mark.

Mark was an exception to "ace" status. His personality wasn't a do or die, rip the guys throat out like most aces are.
MB, at no point in his career, was ever an ace. What's the highest he ever finished in CY voting? He was a 2/3 innings eater. His track record is what I expect from Danks. IMO Danks contract is fair for both him and the Sox. Will he live up to it? Maybe, maybe not, but it was the right choice vs. Mark.

kittle42
05-16-2012, 04:22 PM
MB, at no point in his career, was ever an ace.

I don't see how so many people don't agree with this.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buehrma01.shtml

He was only in the CYA running one season - 2005 - when he finished 5th.

His most similar pitchers listing isn't exactly a who's who of baseball greats:



Bill Gullickson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gullibi01.shtml) (949)
Bruce Hurst (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hurstbr01.shtml) (931)
Scott Sanderson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sandesc01.shtml) (931)
Charlie Leibrandt (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/leibrch01.shtml) (924)
Doug Drabek (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/d/drabedo01.shtml) (924)
Johnny Podres (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/podrejo01.shtml) (924)
Bartolo Colon (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/colonba01.shtml) (924)
Bret Saberhagen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/saberbr01.shtml) (921)
Mike Hampton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hamptmi01.shtml) (919)
Jim Lonborg (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lonboji01.shtml) (918)

If you go by similar pitchers through age 32, you get a few HOFers, but one is Eck, who was an HOFer for his relief career, really. Jack Morris is a nice add there, too:


Frank Viola (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/violafr01.shtml) (932)
Herb Pennock (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pennohe01.shtml) (917) *
Dennis Eckersley (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/e/eckerde01.shtml) (913) *
Rick Wise (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/wiseri01.shtml) (909)
Johnny Podres (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/podrejo01.shtml) (909)
Mike Hampton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hamptmi01.shtml) (907)
Jerry Reuss (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reussje01.shtml) (905)
Bill Sherdel (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sherdbi01.shtml) (902)
Jack Morris (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morrija02.shtml) (900)
Kevin Millwood (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/millwke01.shtml) (898)

But really, Buehrle is a consistent, good if unspectacular, innings eater who is a great compliment to one or two absolutely dominant starters. We as Sox fans glorify him because of longevity with us, 2005, and a consistency none of our other starters has really displayed over recent years.

DSpivack
05-16-2012, 04:44 PM
I don't see how so many people don't agree with this.

But really, Buehrle is a consistent, good if unspectacular, innings eater who is a great compliment to one or two absolutely dominant starters. We as Sox fans glorify him because of longevity with us, 2005, and a consistency none of our other starters has really displayed over recent years.

Is Buehrle a #1? Probably not.

But I would much rather the Sox have spent $14.25 million per season on a proven commodity than give that contract to a might-be in John Danks.

kittle42
05-16-2012, 04:52 PM
Is Buehrle a #1? Probably not.

But I would much rather the Sox have spent $14.25 million per season on a proven commodity than give that contract to a might-be in John Danks.

Danks isn't an ace, either. The Sox felt he has a higher ceiling than Buehrle. Does he? Maybe not.

But it's not like we should be shocked with this organization's talent evaluation.

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 04:54 PM
Is Buehrle a #1? Probably not.

But I would much rather the Sox have spent $14.25 million per season on a proven commodity than give that contract to a might-be in John Danks.

It seemed like the message board consensus was the 13M Danks would average over his contract was below market value.

Frater Perdurabo
05-16-2012, 05:04 PM
Is Buehrle a #1? Probably not.

But I would much rather the Sox have spent $14.25 million per season on a proven commodity than give that contract to a might-be in John Danks.

In addition, I think Buehrle might have stayed with the Sox for a little less than what he got from Miami.

sullythered
05-16-2012, 05:07 PM
Buehrle is one of the most difficult pitchers to label. Is he dominant? No. Well, unless he's throwing a perfect game or a no hitter. His numbers don't look awesome, unless you look at how damn consistent the guy is. And how UNBELIEVABLY durable. He is not a conventional ace, but his value is very high, when all things are considered.

I like Danks, and he has better stuff than Mark ever had (who doesn't), but he's no Buehrle.

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 05:10 PM
Let's get a little perspective here. Danks is something like 6 starts into a contract that will last for over 150. Let's wait a little before casting judgement.

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 05:15 PM
Buehrle is one of the most difficult pitchers to label. Is he dominant? No. Well, unless he's throwing a perfect game or a no hitter. His numbers don't look awesome, unless you look at how damn consistent the guy is. And how UNBELIEVABLY durable. He is not a conventional ace, but his value is very high, when all things are considered.

I like Danks, and he has better stuff than Mark ever had (who doesn't), but he's no Buehrle.

Even Buehrle's consistency was overrated. He was in steady decline for years before his resurgence in '11. It was a big concern among many Sox fans.

kittle42
05-16-2012, 05:31 PM
Even Buehrle's consistency was overrated. He was in steady decline for years before his resurgence in '11. It was a big concern among many Sox fans.

This is actually a very valid point. I think 2011 and his departure made people forget about the few declining years prior.

DSpivack
05-16-2012, 05:34 PM
Let's get a little perspective here. Danks is something like 6 starts into a contract that will last for over 150. Let's wait a little before casting judgement.

I didn't mean to cast judgement on just this season, but in comparing Buehrle's career with Danks. Given the similarity of their deals, I would much rather have Mark Buehrle over the next 4 or 5 seasons than John Danks.

Harry Chappas
05-16-2012, 05:56 PM
Let's get a little perspective here. Danks is something like 6 starts into a contract that will last for over 150. Let's wait a little before casting judgement.

But he's 116 games into his career with a losing record (I know, overrated stat) and an ERA north of 4 and a WHIP of 1.3. At $13mm or whatever it averages out to, that's Zach Greinke, Ryan Dempster, Derek Lowe, etc. territory. I don't recall what the consensus here was but it seems like a hell of a contract for a guy who was coming off of a pretty uninspired year.

I guess we'll see how it plays out.

MISoxfan
05-16-2012, 06:41 PM
Buehrle had a poor 2010, but suddenly that means he was declining for years? He was slightly better in 2007 than in 08 and 09, but I'm not sure how that is a steady decline. He had almost identical stats in 08, 09, and 11 with a downyear in 2010.

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 06:48 PM
Buehrle had a poor 2010, but suddenly that means he was declining for years? He was slightly better in 2007 than in 08 and 09, but I'm not sure how that is a steady decline. He had almost identical stats in 08, 09, and 11 with a downyear in 2010.

You realize you pretty much just said he was declining, right?

Frontman
05-16-2012, 06:55 PM
You realize you pretty much just said he was declining, right?

Reads more to me that Mark had 4 good years with one down year in 5.

Yes, Mark was never "ace" material, but that was what I said a few pages ago. Exception to the rule, as the Sox and the fan base looked to him as one; because of his leadership and his consistency.

Danks has had flashes of brilliance, but he's got a losing record as a pitcher with over 100 games under his belt. Yeah, some of those "L" were created by poor defense behind him; but when you put up 3 or 5 runs before your team even gets to bat?

That's not on the defense entirely. John's got the stuff, but he needs to strengthen that space between the ears. Same with Floyd, but I'm beginning to give up all hope on Gavin ever living up to his potential.

kittle42
05-16-2012, 07:00 PM
Danks has had flashes of brilliance, but he's got a losing record as a pitcher with over 100 games under his belt. Yeah, some of those "L" were created by poor defense behind him; but when you put up 3 or 5 runs before your team even gets to bat?

That's not on the defense entirely. John's got the stuff, but he needs to strengthen that space between the ears. Same with Floyd, but I'm beginning to give up all hope on Gavin ever living up to his potential.

Can't disagree, but I'm not going top fault the team - as others have here - for taking the chance on similar money for multiple years over a 26 year-old who has shown flashes of brilliance over a 33 year-old who is consistent but it a "you know what you get with him" type guy, if choosing solely between those two players was indeed the choice.

I think too many folks are still in the "win in 2012" mindset, when the organization (and its Captain) all but admitted before the season started that it is not.

MISoxfan
05-16-2012, 07:08 PM
You realize you pretty much just said he was declining, right?

No, I didn't. In 09 Buehrle had a an ERA or 3.84 and in 08 it was 3.79, but his WHIP dropped from 1.335 to 1.252 and his ERA+ improved from 121 to 122. Those years were nearly identical to each other. So what if he was better in 07? Its just one year.

Mark is on the backside of his career, but there is no reason that he can't maintain the numbers he put up from from '07-'11 through the length of one more contract.

DSpivack
05-16-2012, 07:47 PM
Can't disagree, but I'm not going top fault the team - as others have here - for taking the chance on similar money for multiple years over a 26 year-old who has shown flashes of brilliance over a 33 year-old who is consistent but it a "you know what you get with him" type guy, if choosing solely between those two players was indeed the choice.

I think too many folks are still in the "win in 2012" mindset, when the organization (and its Captain) all but admitted before the season started that it is not.

I don't disagree that the team is in a rebuilding mode this season. Part of how you build any team, whether rebuilding or contending, is in devoting resources to the team. The contract that the White Sox signed with John Danks is relatively similar to the one that Mark Buehrle got with Miami. I think it's irresponsible to sign a guy to a large 5-year deal on the hope that he improves because of his age.

Any time you sign a guy to a contract it is an investment in that player's future. Mark Buehrle's deal is for 4 years and $58 million; John Danks' is for 5 years and $65 million; CJ Wilson, to use a recent comparison, is signed for 5 seasons at $77.5 million. In my view, looking at the recent past for each pitcher and guessing their performance for the length of their respective deals, I would say Wilson>Buehrle>Danks. I look at Gavin Floyd and see a similar, frustratingly inconsistent pitcher as is John Danks. And while Danks is better than Floyd, I don't think he's twice as good--but his salary is twice that of Floyd.

Neither Danks nor Buehrle are #1 guys, and their salaries may be slightly less (though not that much less) than most true aces, but I look at Buehrle and see a guy who in his career has performed at the level of a real #2, while Danks is more of a #3. For a team in rebuilding mode and one that already is mired with a few bad contracts, I don't think it was prudent to sign an inconsistent SP to a deal similar to what some near-aces are getting on the hope that he'll improve.

SI1020
05-16-2012, 08:55 PM
It seems like a sport to savage every ex Sox player on this site. All things considered Mark Buehrle was a model of stamina and consistency. He had a bad first half in 2003 and then rebounded nicely. He had decidedly down years in 2006 and 2010. Other than that he was consistently good. Even in the down years, giving the team 200+ innings. His lifetime ERA+ is a healthy 120 and in only one year did it dip below 100. In White Sox history he's 7th all time in pitching WAR and 6th in wins. Among left handers only Billy Pierce and Doc White might be considered superior to him. I'm not questioning the Sox decision to let him go, just some of the criticism on this thread. Since the Reinsdorf group bought the team who has been better on the mound for the Sox than Mark Buehrle? Others have had better individual years to be sure, but career wise who has been better?

asindc
05-16-2012, 09:04 PM
Buehrle had his best season in years last year because of, IMO, the six-man rotation last season. I doubted that he could duplicate that in the future with a five-man rotation. Apparently, so did Sox management. I wish Mark well and I expect him to have a good season this year. A fresh environment seems to invigorate a lot of athletes (see Thomas, Frank, circa 2006) and I expect the same from Mark. I don't think he would have performed up to the value of a four-year contract if he had stayed here, though.

DSpivack
05-16-2012, 09:13 PM
Buehrle had his best season in years last year because of, IMO, the six-man rotation last season. I doubted that he could duplicate that in the future with a five-man rotation. Apparently, so did Sox management. I wish Mark well and I expect him to have a good season this year. A fresh environment seems to invigorate a lot of athletes (see Thomas, Frank, circa 2006) and I expect the same from Mark. I don't think he would have performed up to the value of a four-year contract if he had stayed here, though.

I doubt John Danks will perform up to the level of his contract, either. The White Sox cried poor and seemed to say there was no way Buehrle was coming back, and two weeks later turned around and gave Danks a very similar contract. I'll take the player with the proven record of success rather than hoping a player with potential will magically turn around and be great, a la Edwin Jackson or Javier Vazquez.

kittle42
05-16-2012, 09:30 PM
It seems like a sport to savage every ex Sox player on this site. All things considered Mark Buehrle was a model of stamina and consistency. He had a bad first half in 2003 and then rebounded nicely. He had decidedly down years in 2006 and 2010. Other than that he was consistently good. Even in the down years, giving the team 200+ innings. His lifetime ERA+ is a healthy 120 and in only one year did it dip below 100. In White Sox history he's 7th all time in pitching WAR and 6th in wins. Among left handers only Billy Pierce and Doc White might be considered superior to him. I'm not questioning the Sox decision to let him go, just some of the criticism on this thread. Since the Reinsdorf group bought the team who has been better on the mound for the Sox than Mark Buehrle? Others have had better individual years to be sure, but career wise who has been better?

No one over a period of as many years has been as good as Buehrle. Thus, maybe the most consistently good long-term Sox pitcher of my lifetime. Hell, I still produly wear my Buehrle jersey.

That doesn't color my opinion of whether choosing Danks over Buehrle was a good idea for the team going forward long-term.

DSpivack
05-16-2012, 09:34 PM
No one over a period of as many years has been as good as Buehrle. Thus, maybe the most consistently good long-term Sox pitcher of my lifetime. Hell, I still produly wear my Buehrle jersey.

That doesn't color my opinion of whether choosing Danks over Buehrle was a good idea for the team going forward long-term.

Is it because you see Buehrle declining, or Danks finally filling his potential?

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 10:02 PM
It seems like a sport to savage every ex Sox player on this site. All things considered Mark Buehrle was a model of stamina and consistency. He had a bad first half in 2003 and then rebounded nicely. He had decidedly down years in 2006 and 2010. Other than that he was consistently good. Even in the down years, giving the team 200+ innings. His lifetime ERA+ is a healthy 120 and in only one year did it dip below 100. In White Sox history he's 7th all time in pitching WAR and 6th in wins. Among left handers only Billy Pierce and Doc White might be considered superior to him. I'm not questioning the Sox decision to let him go, just some of the criticism on this thread. Since the Reinsdorf group bought the team who has been better on the mound for the Sox than Mark Buehrle? Others have had better individual years to be sure, but career wise who has been better?

It seems like a sport to savage every current Sox player, coach and front office person. I love Mark Buehrle, but I'm not going to disparage John Danks because the Sox chose him.

Danks record is irrelevant considering he's had notoriously poor run support. He needs to grow as a pitcher though. Resigning him was a good move then, and its a good move now IMO.

TaylorStSox
05-16-2012, 10:07 PM
Is it because you see Buehrle declining, or Danks finally filling his potential?

I know this post isn't directed towards me, but I expect the Sox to start competing in 2014. MB will be 35 and Danks will be 28. Combine the age with Danks upside and it's a no brainer.

kittle42
05-16-2012, 10:10 PM
I know this post isn't directed towards me, but I expect the Sox to start competing in 2014. MB will be 35 and Danks will be 28. Combine the age with Danks upside and it's a no brainer.

Thanks for saving me an answer! I agree.

DSpivack
05-16-2012, 10:15 PM
I know this post isn't directed towards me, but I expect the Sox to start competing in 2014. MB will be 35 and Danks will be 28. Combine the age with Danks upside and it's a no brainer.

As a soft-tossing lefty, I think Buehrle will be fine for years.

sullythered
05-16-2012, 10:49 PM
As a soft-tossing lefty, I think Buehrle will be fine for years.

Yeah, if Mark wants to, I see now reason he can't be just as effective into his forties.

And for those who are trying to manufacture a marked decline in Mark Buehrle's performance, the numbers just don't back you up. His relevant numbers are practically identical every year, save one.

I like John Danks, and I hope he turns it around, but he is no Mark Buehrle.

Parrothead
05-16-2012, 11:59 PM
Danks will make 14.25/yr. 2013-2016.

According to Cot's Contracts website he is making 15.75 mil thru 2016

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Ah4PW47PiAi-dG9HanhMTzc1YkJfUnZEVWN1ek9KOEE&output=html

asindc
05-17-2012, 08:40 AM
Yeah, if Mark wants to, I see now reason he can't be just as effective into his forties.

And for those who are trying to manufacture a marked decline in Mark Buehrle's performance, the numbers just don't back you up. His relevant numbers are practically identical every year, save one.

I like John Danks, and I hope he turns it around, but he is no Mark Buehrle.

The ERA+ totals for each pitcher since 2007:

Danks
86-rookie year
138
124
115
98
65

Buehrle
130
121
122
100
118
123

FoulTerritory
05-17-2012, 09:17 AM
I know this post isn't directed towards me, but I expect the Sox to start competing in 2014. MB will be 35 and Danks will be 28. Combine the age with Danks upside and it's a no brainer.

The only problem is that regardless of age, danks isn't a good pitcher anymore. He has lost FB velocity and thus also minimslized the effectiveness of his changeup.

sullythered
05-17-2012, 10:20 AM
The ERA+ totals for each pitcher since 2007:

Danks
86-rookie year
138
124
115
98
65

Buehrle
130
121
122
100
118
123
So, Danks has been below league average three times in the last six seasons, whereas Buehrle has been below league average no times.

asindc
05-17-2012, 10:55 AM
So, Danks has been below league average three times in the last six seasons, whereas Buehrle has been below league average no times.

Yes.

asindc
05-17-2012, 10:58 AM
So, Danks has been below league average three times in the last six seasons, whereas Buehrle has been below league average no times.

By the way, the only time Buehrle has had a better ERA+ than Danks is in Danks rookie season and last season, in case you hadn't noticed. (This season is still ongoing, so it would seem premature to count it at this point.)

sullythered
05-17-2012, 11:28 AM
By the way, the only time Buehrle has had a better ERA+ than Danks is in Danks rookie season and last season, in case you hadn't noticed. (This season is still ongoing, so it would seem premature to count it at this point.)
My initial point was that Buehrle's value lies in his consistency and his durability. These numbers argue my point for me.

SI1020
05-17-2012, 12:26 PM
The ERA+ totals for each pitcher since 2007:

Danks
86-rookie year
138
124
115
98
65

Buehrle
130
121
122
100
118
123 Thanks for posting this. Like I said, I don't criticize the Sox for letting Buehrle go. I do think that Danks was and is a big risk. You can talk all you want about his age, but the man peaked in 08 and it's all downhill since then.

MISoxfan
05-18-2012, 12:52 AM
By the way, the only time Buehrle has had a better ERA+ than Danks is in Danks rookie season and last season, in case you hadn't noticed. (This season is still ongoing, so it would seem premature to count it at this point.)

This is true, but Danks has been on a downward slide since 2008. If you weren't looking at Danks and Buehrle, but Pitcher 1 and Pitcher 2 based on stats alone nobody is going to rank Pitcher 1 over Pitcher 2.

Of course they aren't Pitcher 1 and Pitcher 2 they are a 27 year old and a 33 year old. Buehrle has a chance of putting on a great year if everything goes right, especially in the NL, but he has already peaked. Danks is young and still has time to turn his career around. I hope he does, but I've been disappointed in him since 2010.

I think the NL is good for Mark, though. After a few seasons in the NL I think you'll see more asterisks in his similar pitchers than you would if he stayed in the AL.