Danks vs. McCarthy Pt.1

by spengler on May 12, 2007 12:35 AM CDT Comment 32 comments

Through the first 20% of the season

W/L IP K BB WHIP ERA BAA
Danks 1-4 35.1 28 11 1.30 4.33 .254
McCarthy 3-4 31.1 16 16 1.76 6.89 .300

So far so good for KW.

Buuuuut:

AB AVG HR RBI STATUS
Brian Anderson 17 .118 0 0 demoted
Chris Young 120 .250 6 17 starting CF D'Backs

It's true. The Sox offense does suck. But would anyone prefer B-Mac to Javier Vazquez?

W/L IP K BB WHIP ERA BAA
Vazquez 3-2 38.1 33 11 1.07 3.52 .216
McCarthy 3-4 31.1 16 16 1.76 6.89 .300

Poll

Whom Would You Rather Have Right Now?

Brandon McCarthy and Chris Young

24 votes

Brian Anderson and Javier Vazquez

43 votes

67 votes | Poll has closed

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

From a BP chat w/ Bryan Smith today

http://baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=292

Bryan, do you think John Danks has the potential to be a quality MLB starter? His peripherals look good this year (7+ k/9, 2.4 K/bb).

Bryan Smith: I've watched almost all of Danks starts this season, and I've been really impressed. His W-L record is not at all indicative of how he's pitched -- Danks pounds the zone with his stuff, has good control, and can strike hitters out consistently. He's better than Brandon McCarthy and a big haul for Kenny Williams.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on May 12, 2007 1:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm with Phil Rogers

Danks has a big league/man's/major league pickoff move, and that's the only reason he's better than Boozey McDrunky. ;)

by Paxson Jackson on May 12, 2007 9:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

spengler

I wish it was that simple (BMac and Young or Anderson and Vazquez), but its not.

Vazquez actually replaced El Duque in the rotation, and Danks replaced BMac who replaced Garcia.

The Young/Anderson debate is fine straight up, but there was a lot more to all those moves. Also, right now it would be Erstad vs Young. Who would you take?

If you include BMac at all, you have to include Danks AND Masset.

Also, the stats still don't tell the whole story. Danks could get hammered the 2nd time thru the league and BMac could start throwing shutouts.

If you look back at the Young trade, at the time, he was expendable for an arm like Vazquez. Now the Sox have Vazquez locked up for several years at a very reasonable price.

The Danks/BMac trade is still too early to assess. It does look like the Sox have the clear edge, but that can change pretty quick based on their performances.

by RME JICO on May 12, 2007 11:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the problem

with the danks trade (from the perspective of rangers fans) is that this was, like all trades, supposed to be a pretty even trade long-term. basically, daniels threw in masset so he could get a starter who was ready to contribute this year. but what is danks doing right now? daniels now has a guy who will likely perform roughly as well as danks over this season, is projected by most to perform slightly less well than the guy he traded away over his career, and also gave away nick masset. a fuck-up that will only become more colossal if danks blows up real bad - something that, quite honestly, isn't all that likely to occur.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 12, 2007 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

will only become more colossal "unless"

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 12, 2007 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks for picking up on the crux of my post

I agree it's not that simple, but I wanted to keep things uncomplicated because ultimately, I think, all the moves made over the last couple of years were based on the following assessments:

1.The Sox have 2 guys in the minor league system who can take over in CF: Chris Young and BA.
2. The Sox bet that BA can do the job.

These organizational assessments fuel the Rowand trade, the Vazquez trade and then, consequentially, the B-Mac trade. I see it all as flowing from the one decision to entrust BA with CF, a decision that Ozzie seems to have sabotaged. Thoughts?

by spengler on May 12, 2007 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree about the young and rowand deals

but not about the BMac deal. what's the connection you're claiming?

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 12, 2007 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are correct

In that there is no direct link between the b-mac/danks-masset trade and the vazquez/young-vizcaino-hernandez trade. But if you recall, after that trade the Sox had a temporary glut of starting pitching with what we thought were 6 major-league starters (Buehrle, Garland, Contreras, Garcia, Vazquez, McCarthy).

From there, it was perceived that the Sox could deal from a position of strength to a league starving for starting pitching. As tdogg correctly pointed out, it seems that KW felt "more comfortable" dealing McCarthy at that point. I would add that it ultimately became more of a requirement than a comfort, considering the need to unload Freddy, who was in the last year of his contract and appeared to be fading.

As such, Chris Young was the crown jewel of the "El Duque for Vazquez" trade (remember the howls from prescient posters like Landfill on this very site?) and led directly to the situation that resulted in, nay, required, the acquisition of Danks.

by spengler on May 13, 2007 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ozzie sabotaged BA?!

If BA hit in 2006 [and probably had a more professional approach to the game], he'd be in CF in 2007. BA probably isn't off the radar in the long term, though. Esp. if BA finds his hitting stroke in AAA.

If Ba is set, then the sox can sign Ichiro for RF. That way, the sox can work two young guys in Sweeney and BA into the OF.

by cfisk72 on May 13, 2007 6:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

tellin yall its sabotage

Anderson shot himself in the foot last september.
he caught fire in July, hit well through august and looked like he turned it around, then fizzled back down to his 1st half performance in september.

i do think he deserved more than 17 at bats this season, since the guy prevents a run just about every game.

by Gus on May 13, 2007 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Power Outage

As much as I would love Ichiro in the lineup (and i really would, I'm a big fan of his) the Sox would have very little power in the outfield. You might get 30-35 homers out of the 3 of them combined, if you're lucky; can the Sox survive on that?

-Jeeves Sweet Home Sports

by jeeves on May 13, 2007 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i would take young over erstad

Any day

by spengler on May 13, 2007 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

He means getting Javy made Kenny a little more comfortable to trade BMac for Danks. At least I think :-)

One thing though Young is on the way up numbers wise. I believe he will have great rookie numbers at the end of this year.

However I am more than happy with Danks.

by Tdogg on May 12, 2007 5:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Vazquez + Anderson...

The difference b/t Anderson and Young isn't that great. Besides, Vazquez is the only reliable guy in that group.

This breakdown seems simplistic, though.

by Stealfirstbase on May 12, 2007 5:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

wait four months then

young is going to be rookie of the year.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 12, 2007 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah disagree here

Young is the goods

by Tdogg on May 12, 2007 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're kidding, right?

"The difference b/t Anderson and Young isn't that great."

Yes it is. Young has struggled so far this year, and he's still slugging .475 with an OPS around .775. His OPS+ is pretty much league average at 96. Anderson isn't close to the player Young is.

by CWSKeith on May 12, 2007 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a reason they call them prospects...

Remember when Jeremy Reed was the next Rickey Henderson?

I will give him four months. I'll give him four years. But it's far from a sure thing he'll make it. Heck, look at Connor Jackson or Carlos Quentin on his own team...

Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don't. Anderson might, Young might.

We'll see.

by Stealfirstbase on May 12, 2007 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Young

C. B. Young is the only player out of that group that has the "potential" to be a perennial All-Star. We can all agree that "potential" is an extremely dangerous word.

BA will never be better than league average at the plate, Jaby Basquez will never be much better than a league average pitcher, and for a fly ball pitcher like B-Mac Arlington certainly will not help him for the next 5 years.

There was no way to predict the future when KW traded C.B. Young, and Vazquez definitely helped the '05 Sox win the World Series. However, trading C.B. Young will haunt Sox fans and KW for his entire career.

I have no idea how this poll is as one-sided as it is right now. If you just look as those four players right now, and factor out all of the other moves and trades, B-Mac and Chris Young are the better combination. Anybody who argues otherwise is drinking the KW Kool-Aid.

by BoKnows on May 13, 2007 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

isn't it a bit early in the day?

"Vazquez definitely helped the '05 Sox win the World Series"

by The Wizard on May 13, 2007 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vazquez helped us win the World Series?

Good one.

by defensive indifference on May 13, 2007 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vazquez

I'm an idiot. Must be this hangover.

by BoKnows on May 13, 2007 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I don't...

Reed was never compared to Henderson.

And yes, prospects are prospects, but you're making it seem like there's no difference between Young and Anderson. You'd have to be mentally inept to take Young over Anderson at this point.

by CWSKeith on May 12, 2007 11:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Whew!

Good thing I never suggested that, then.

by Stealfirstbase on May 13, 2007 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You sure seemed to imply it

"The difference b/t Anderson and Young isn't that great."

Maybe you're not going so far as to say you'd rather have Anderson, but the difference between Young and Anderson is huge.

by CWSKeith on May 13, 2007 12:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The difference b/t their potentials, sure.

But we're talking about the differences in their value That difference "isn't that great", since either (or both) of them could flame out at any time for any reason. They could get injured, they could be unable to adjust to the big leagues, they could lose some of their skill set in the transition to the big leagues.

Yes, Young is more valuable. But they're both crapshoots.

by Stealfirstbase on May 13, 2007 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh...

They're both young guys. Their value is their potential.

by Paxson Jackson on May 13, 2007 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry

BA has 400+ ABs at the major league level. what he's going to do isn't so much of a "crapshoot" anymore.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by larry on May 13, 2007 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

funny story

One of my friends called me today after noticing I sponsored Anderson's B-R page. They laughed after seeing it.

Go Badgers!

by shaftr on May 13, 2007 12:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

why couldnt we have...

Danks and Young in this hypothetical world?

by Gus on May 13, 2007 10:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Young trade cost us 2006 season

I firmly believe that Young trade cost us 2006 season because BA was abysmal in 2006 and along with Juribe (No 8 and 9 hitters and add Podsednic) it made our lineup easier to navigate (I know people are going to show offensive numbers of 2 through 7) but remember the difference between post season and going home was 5 games and how many times potential rallies were crushed by those three guys. If you take out Vazquez record from that season and plug McArthy/Young in those two slots, I definitely think that they would have made 5 games difference. I know Young was hurt last year but I wouldn't buy that he would have hurt if he was with us. That's really hypothetical

by indianguy30 on May 14, 2007 5:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs