PDA

View Full Version : Danks moving to bullpen


thomas35forever
09-12-2007, 05:45 PM
Per the press notes on the team's web site. Maybe they want to give Floyd a chance to prove he still belongs? See how someone like Broadway does as a starter? I didn't see most of last night's game, but why was Danks pulled so early?

ilsox7
09-12-2007, 05:46 PM
Smart move. Let Danks have some much-needed rest.

kittle42
09-12-2007, 05:46 PM
Good move. Now he can allow fewer total baserunners.

sox1970
09-12-2007, 05:55 PM
Good move. Now he can allow fewer total baserunners.

His second half---not good. 100 pitches by the 5th inning is unacceptable, especially with this bullpen.

He'll be competing for a job in the spring. No guarantees he breaks camp with the Sox in 2008.

oeo
09-12-2007, 05:57 PM
His second half---not good. 100 pitches by the 5th inning is unacceptable, especially with this bullpen.

He'll be competing for a job in the spring. No guarantees he breaks camp with the Sox in 2008.

Competing with who? :?:

I'm thinking one of Contreras or Garland will be gone next year...where the hell are we going to pull these pitchers from?

jabrch
09-12-2007, 06:07 PM
Floyd has looked fairly solid as a starter this time up. His last three starts have all been 6 or 6.1IP, with an average of 2 ER per. Let him go the rest of the way and let John rest and gear up for next year.

I wouldn't mind seeing more Broadway and Phillips either.

The Immigrant
09-12-2007, 06:19 PM
Competing with who? :?:

I'm thinking one of Contreras or Garland will be gone next year...where the hell are we going to pull these pitchers from?

Even if both Contreras and Garland are gone next year, Danks should absolutely compete with Floyd, Gonzales, Egbert, Broadway, Haeger and even Phillips for one of the spots.

After all, free and open competition is how he won this year's job in the first place.

kittle42
09-12-2007, 06:22 PM
Even if both Contreras and Garland are gone next year, Danks should absolutely compete with Floyd, Gonzales, Egbert, Broadway, Haeger and even Phillips for one of the spots.

After all, free and open competition is how he won this year's job in the first place.

Thanks for reminding me that we've amassed something like 7 wins from the 5th starter spot this season. AGGGHH!!!!!!

Oh, wait, we only have 9 from two others and 6 from another? AHHHHHH!!!!!

jdm2662
09-12-2007, 06:30 PM
Thanks for reminding me that we've amassed something like 7 wins from the 5th starter spot this season. AGGGHH!!!!!!

Oh, wait, we only have 9 from two others and 6 from another? AHHHHHH!!!!!

7 wins?

If only they got that production from the #5 in 2003 or 2004... I'm sure we'd all be happy as hell.

oeo
09-12-2007, 06:38 PM
Even if both Contreras and Garland are gone next year, Danks should absolutely compete with Floyd, Gonzales, Egbert, Broadway, Haeger and even Phillips for one of the spots.

After all, free and open competition is how he won this year's job in the first place.

You think two of those guys can make the team next year? I'd be surprised if one of them did.

Alright, maybe they will be "competing," but I highly doubt anyone of those guys would beat Danks out for a starting job next year.

Domeshot17
09-12-2007, 06:46 PM
I think Danks is spent, physically and mentally. The guy has hands down the best stuff of anyone (besides maybe Gio) in our system. His problem has been control, which often times come from fatigue. He also doesnt have that look in his eyes he did earlier in the year. For the first few months, You had confidence when Danks pitched, you expected a good outting. I know he only has like 7 wins, but he could easily have 11-12 with any real run support in the first half. His 2nd half has been down hill, which is normal for rookie pitchers. Teams make adjustments to pitchers, and young pitchers generally don't know HOW to adjust back, so they force it. The offseason comes around, they see a lot of film, alot of mechanical work, and come back stronger in year 2.

Im not entirely worried about Danks. Even Matsuzaka is getting hit a lot harder in the 2nd half. I think the important thing is he comes back in 2008 with his endurance up, and mentally strong. A year like this year, not just from an individuals standpoint, but as a team, can break a young player. The one thing that appears to be true is John Danks is a major league capable pitcher. He just has to learn to not beat himself, which has been the case the majority of the 2nd half.

The best thing he has, a team mate like Mark Buehrle, who is living proof that you CAN come back from a TERRIBLE half of baseball. The flip side of that is if I wonder if too much time has been put in trying to make Danks a Buehrle clone, and not letting him be John Danks.

WhiteSox5187
09-12-2007, 09:56 PM
This is a good move if only cuz it gives John a rest. The problem with Danks of late is simple, he's gassed.

chisoxfanatic
09-12-2007, 10:21 PM
See how someone like Broadway does as a starter?
Barring major developments in spring training, I want Broadway as our #5 starter.

kittle42
09-12-2007, 11:01 PM
Barring major developments in spring training, I want Broadway as our #5 starter.

Why, exactly? His stellar numbers at AAA?

Brian26
09-12-2007, 11:13 PM
AAA numbers can be skewed for a variety of reasons.

Broadway's mound presence is encouraging. I think he's going to be a surprise.

kittle42
09-12-2007, 11:15 PM
Am I the only one who wants NONE of these rookies to be starters next year? I know I am living in pipe dream land, but really...

champagne030
09-12-2007, 11:30 PM
Am I the only one who wants NONE of these rookies to be starters next year? I know I am living in pipe dream land, but really...

You're not alone. We need to raise payroll significantly or trade a pitcher to create the space to fill the massive holes in our offense. I suspect that a pitcher will be dealt and that means a probable #4 of Danks and a #5 that will likely top out at a 2007 Danks.

We better have one hell of a lineup in that's going to hide our #4 and #5.

Parrothead
09-13-2007, 12:38 AM
I am shocked ! :o: The Sox takes a guy who is bad and put them into the bullpen. What a concept !:cool:

JB98
09-13-2007, 02:03 AM
Am I the only one who wants NONE of these rookies to be starters next year? I know I am living in pipe dream land, but really...

You're not alone. I don't have a problem bringing back Danks as the No. 5 next year. But we need to somehow get rid of Contreras and then add another established arm to the rotation in order to win in 2008.

If we deal Garland and keep Contreras, we have a situation where a busted leg is our No. 3 starter and a bunch of kids are competing for spots No. 4 and 5. That's a recipe for a last-place finish in 2008.

Grzegorz
09-13-2007, 05:44 AM
You're not alone. I don't have a problem bringing back Danks as the No. 5 next year. But we need to somehow get rid of Contreras and then add another established arm to the rotation in order to win in 2008.

If we deal Garland and keep Contreras, we have a situation where a busted leg is our No. 3 starter and a bunch of kids are competing for spots No. 4 and 5. That's a recipe for a last-place finish in 2008.

My feeling is that Contreras is done. I am not willing to take the chance that he'll go through the season without some type of injury.

Face it; The Chicago White Sox caught lightning in a bottle with this guy. They will not do it in 2008.

If Garland is dealt and Contreras is in the rotation I have a hard time believing that the 2008 Chicago White Sox will be contenders.

Trade Garland??? Sure if your plan is to tear it down and start over.

The Dude
09-13-2007, 10:39 AM
Barring major developments in spring training, I want Broadway as our #5 starter.

I've seen a lot from Danks this season, except for the recent slide, that shows he is a very talented kid who can be great for this team. Broadway is still another year away IMO. Danks should have at least 4 more wins that our offense and bullpen blew for him.

D. TODD
09-13-2007, 10:41 AM
Smart move. Let Danks have some much-needed rest. I agree, with the number of innings he has logged, and the pathetic spot the team is in playing out the string there is no need to over tax his young arm in the final few weeks.

FedEx227
09-13-2007, 11:06 AM
Am I the only one who wants NONE of these rookies to be starters next year? I know I am living in pipe dream land, but really...

No... we all want a team of high-priced free agent 30 year olds that handcuffs the organization for years.

kittle42
09-13-2007, 11:21 AM
No... we all want a team of high-priced free agent 30 year olds that handcuffs the organization for years.


Hancuffs, handcuffs, handcuffs. I see KW's talking points are not going to waste.

soxrme
09-13-2007, 11:33 AM
Am I the only one who wants NONE of these rookies to be starters next year? I know I am living in pipe dream land, but really...

I am with you. Why get rid of Garland? I think they should sign him. He is a good pitcher for our park. We have to hit free agency not trades, so we should keep our proven pitchers. With a better shortstop and Joe back our infield defense should improve helping the groundball pitchers. KW has to do his job.

FedEx227
09-13-2007, 12:41 PM
Hancuffs, handcuffs, handcuffs. I see KW's talking points are not going to waste.

Yes, it's only KW who sees the point. He's the only GM in baseball who doesn't want to put tons of money into free agent pitchers. Ask Baltimore and Texas how it's working out for them, ask the Rockies, they're still paying Mike Hampton.

kittle42
09-13-2007, 01:03 PM
Yes, it's only KW who sees the point. He's the only GM in baseball who doesn't want to put tons of money into free agent pitchers. Ask Baltimore and Texas how it's working out for them, ask the Rockies, they're still paying Mike Hampton.

Well, maybe teams should be smarter about who they sign. E.g., I think everyone was very questioning of whether Barry Zito, who had really never proven a damn thing, was worthy of the contract he received. The Giants were dumb enough to give it to him, so they're screwed.

FedEx227
09-13-2007, 02:01 PM
Well, maybe teams should be smarter about who they sign. E.g., I think everyone was very questioning of whether Barry Zito, who had really never proven a damn thing, was worthy of the contract he received. The Giants were dumb enough to give it to him, so they're screwed.

Hindsight is always 20-20.

Mike Hampton was 85-53 before getting signed by Colorado and has been 21-28 sine then with a ton of injuries.

Zito was 102-63 before being signed, that's proving nothing?

Every organization has done it, how quickly you forget Todd Ritchie or David Wells.

Honestly, I understand why Jerry and Kenny are weary of signing FA pitchers. With increased age you have no idea when injuries will come or when skill will fall. It's not worth it to sign a guy for 5 years, 60 million and he plays for 2 of those then is hurt the rest. That's worthless and it handcuffs up for another three worthless years.

JorgeFabregas
09-13-2007, 02:26 PM
Todd Ritchie was not a free agent. Neither was David Wells. I'm not sure what my point was...oh yeah. The Sox didn't get saddled with long megabux deals with those guys, so far as I know.

JB98
09-13-2007, 07:38 PM
The fact that salaries for free-agent pitchers have spiraled out of control is all the more reason to keep Garland for 2008. Unless we're rebuilding, in which case we should trade Jon.

Brian26
09-13-2007, 09:10 PM
Every organization has done it, how quickly you forget Todd Ritchie or David Wells.

Neither of those guys were signed as free agents. They had existing contracts and were acquired through trades for younger players. Neither of those guys had ungodly contracts either.

FedEx227
09-13-2007, 09:12 PM
Neither of those guys were signed as free agents. They had existing contracts and were acquired through trades for younger players. Neither of those guys had ungodly contracts either.

Yeah my bad, after I posted that I realized we got Ritchie in a trade and was unsure about Wells so I took a look.

I didn't want to use the played-out Jamie Navarro argument but I guess that's the most recent we have.

Brian26
09-13-2007, 09:22 PM
I didn't want to use the played-out Jamie Navarro argument but I guess that's the most recent we have.

It's ok to use the Navarro example because that's the same one Reinsdorf always pulls out too, albeit it's been 10 years now since that crap contract was signed. Maybe someday the Contreras contract will look just as bad, but there will probably always be some latitude based on his 2nd half performance in '05.

FedEx227
09-13-2007, 09:26 PM
It's ok to use the Navarro example because that's the same one Reinsdorf always pulls out too, albeit it's been 10 years now since that crap contract was signed. Maybe someday the Contreras contract will look just as bad, but there will probably always be some latitude based on his 2nd half performance in '05.

Yeah, I hate to use the Navarro example because as you said, JR uses it, too much I think.

I have no problem with signing in-house guys to long term deals, but not sure about 30-somethings from the FA market.