Dank(s) You Sir, May I Have Another Five Years?
How’s that for rebuilding? Just weeks after general manager Kenny Williams announced the Chicago White Sox were starting from scratch, he has apparently signed John Danks to a five year, $65 million contract extension. Even though Danks would have been a useful trade chip, Williams decided to lock up the 26-year-old lefty — proving, once again, that Kenny Williams is one of the most unpredictable GMs in the game. With the White Sox in a rebuilding mode, was signing Danks the right decision?
On the surface, the price to retain Danks doesn’t seem exorbitant. To live up to the $65 million deal, Danks would have to post about 2.5 WAR every season for the next five years. In each of the past four seasons, Danks’ lowest single season WAR total has been 2.9 — so he’s certainly capable of maintaining the proper level of success over multiple seasons. Danks is still young, and he should remain effective throughout the length on the contract. And he’s also been incredibly durable over his career, making 124 starts over the past four seasons and throwing 778.2 innings — good for 12th in the American League during that period.
Even though there’s a decent chance that Danks lives up to the contract extension, the deal is still somewhat of a head-scratcher when you consider other pitchers’ extensions. Danks compares statistically to both Wandy Rodriguez and Chad Billingsley, both of whom signed for three years and roughly $30 million. Additionally, all three players signed their deals after logging about the same amount of service time — which made their situations very similar.
Still, despite an identical statistical profile as Billingsley and Rodriguez, Danks received $30 million more than either pitcher. Rodriguez is significantly older — and Billingsley is coming off a down year — but it’s tough to argue that Danks will be $30 million dollars better than either player during the next five seasons.
The move also is puzzling when considering the White Sox current state. Following the Sergio Santos trade, Williams declared that the team would be rebuilding this season. In that scenario, Danks seemed to be one of Chicago’s more valuable trade chips. After seeing what the San Diego Padres were able to get for Mat Latos, Williams should have been salivating over the potential offers he could have gotten for Danks. Those offers might not have been as strong for Danks — he’s older and only under team control for two seasons one season — but Danks has been worth more wins than Latos during the past two seasons (7.5 to 7.3). Since the White Sox have so many unmovable contracts, Danks was one of the few players who could have brought back some significant prospects.
Out of context, the deal looks pretty fair for the White Sox. Danks is good, young and left-handed. He should live up to the financial aspects of the contract.
When looking at the Billingsley and Rodriguez contracts, though, one has to wonder why Williams paid Danks significantly more money than the market seemed to dictate. The move is also interesting considering the White Sox are attempting to rebuild. Danks is still young enough to be considered part of that rebuilding process, but he could have brought back multiple pieces to a team devoid of useful farm-system players. The Danks extension won’t kill the White Sox, but giving him this much money right now certainly makes things confusing.
Rodriguez is so much older, he really shouldn’t even been mentioned as a comparison. Billingsley is very similar, but his contract represents one data point, so I am not sure why it should be a benchmark for Danks. That one deal does not represent the market. The real market is flush with cash and mediocre hurlers are cashing in. Danks is a 26 year old lefty who had a WAR around at least 5 in 3 of the past 4 seasons. Those kind of pitchers aren’t very valuable.
Are?
Yes…the above should read “are very valuable”.
“Danks is a 26 year old lefty who had a WAR around at least 5 in 3 of the past 4 seasons.”
Have you been to his player page? I bet you have and you’re just totally ignoring it, calling rWAR “WAR” in response to a FG article. Awesome.
because rWAR is in any way less statistically valid?
^How could you get that from my comment? It’s the guy I responded to who is being presumptuous about the validity of the metrics. That’s exactly the thing I’m calling him out for.
The differences are well-known. To come to fangraphs and post a reply disagreeing with an article on the basis of “WAR” without specifying that the referent is rWAR is just obnoxious.
Generally it’s best to split the difference. In a case like this where fWAR and rWAR value a player so differently, citing only rWAR as a basis for disagreement without articulating any reason for doing so is a waste of everyone’s time.
Not to mention it makes it confusing too. I thought he went to the wrong player page at first.
Give me a break. If you feel threatened by other versions of WAR, that’s your problem. When fangraphs becomes a closed forum for only those who adhere to its worldview, let me know. In the meantime, it’s just as valid to reference either version of WAR, or any other metric, for that matter.
You shouldn’t be called out for posting rWAR to FG. But I’m not sure you are being called out for that.
What you should be called out for is posting it as “WAR” on FG, where the assumption, rightly, is that you’re using fWAR.
Nothing wrong with other WAR calculations. Just make it clear which one you’re using.
Ari’s right. Referencing “WAR” on fangraphs’ site strongly implies that you are referencing fWAR. It’s disingenuous, therefore, to use bWAR to bolster your argument about how great Danks is without pointing out that you’re not using fWAR. Presumably, you elected not to use fWAR to bolster your argument because his fWAR is considerably lower. Perhaps that’s not the case but it certainly gives that impression since you only used bWAR to support your argument while failing to point out that you were ignoring fWAR, on fangraphs’ site, and using bWAR solely.
That’s fair, but is that “obnoxious”? I prefer rWAR to fWAR, so, in my mind, its WAR and fWAR. I guess I don’t think of the fangraphs forum as an advocacy for its version of WAR, so I am not sure why anyone would be offended by a stream of consciousness.
What’s more, the comment was not based on the merits of one version of WAR vs. another. Danks is valuable based on either. Picking on nomenclature makes me suspect a turf battle, which is a waste of time.
Yeah, no one should have called you obnoxious. Just a good idea to clarify which WAR you’re using, especially since if you don’t specify, fWAR is assumed on this fWebsite.
Which is NOT the same thing as saying people here even prefer fWAR over bWAR. But it’s assumed that’s what you’re using if you don’t specify.
Better off specifying, so no one has to guess..
Two possibilities that still keep rebuilding in play:
(1) Williams is assuming the White Sox’ rebuilding phase will be complete and they’ll be competitive again in one or two seasons, meaning Danks will be locked up at 13 per for 3 or 4 more years at that point.
(2) Depending on a potential no-trade clause (or, really, the lack thereof), Williams thinks Danks will be a more valuable trade chip in the near future while attached to a reasonable contract over the next five years.
That’s my initial reaction, at least.
People who look for Ken Williams to do a Cleveland Indian style rebuild aren’t being realistic.
Williams, with the resources he has, is doing a retooling more than a rebuild.
He has 3 players that he’d love to be out from under: Peavy, Rios, and Dunn, but as of now are immovable until they establish some value to a team at the deadline (when many retooling deals are completed).
He has Matt Thornton that he may be able to unload but with Francisco Cordero and Ryan Madson available along with possibly Andrew Bailey and Brandon League it may be awhile before teams turn to Thornton.
He also has Carlos Quentin, but until Prince Fielder and Carlos Beltran work their way off the market Quentin won’t be moved.
As for the starting pitching trade market, yes, Danks has some value but with only 1-year remaining on his contract teams may be more interested in Matt Garza (2 years), Gio Gonzalez (4 years), Wade Davis (4 years0, or Jeff Niemann (3 years). Or, teams could see a 1-year rental of Roy Oswalt as a better option than giving up prospects for Danks.
In the meantime, Williams was smart to take advantage of doing what all smart GMs should do when beginning a rebuild (or if you’d like retooling) and that is to identify the core of the team and lock it up. Starting a pitching staff off every year with John Danks is smart.
Now, will Williams surprise us with a Carlos Quentin/Gavin Floyd extensions or will they be shopped around and net back prospects.
The 3 players he’d love to be out from under are 3 players he needlessly lusted for. From what I can tell, he doesn’t have a plan, other than hoping to catch lightning in a bottle like 2005.
“The 3 players he’d love to be out from under are 3 players he needlessly lusted for. From what I can tell, he doesn’t have a plan, other than hoping to catch lightning in a bottle like 2005.”
From what I can tell, you don’t really know what you’re talking about. There’s nothing needless about getting a former Cy Young winner for the amazing Clayton Richard and a bunch of guys who aren’t even in the Padres organization anymore. There’s nothing needless about potentially getting a good CF only for money when the team hasn’t had a good CF for years. There’s nothing needless about signing one of the most consistent offensive players of the decade when the team’s DH the previous year was the corpse of Mark Kotsay.
The moves haven’t worked out, but KW definitely doesn’t deserve total criticism for these moves, and they certainly weren’t “needless.”
I agree w/ #1. Rebuilding “this year” doesn’t preclude signing a 26 year old pitcher to a 5 year deal. The White Sox can rebuild (perhaps “reload” is a better term) this year and still be ready to contend in 2013 and in the future w/ Danks as an important bullet in their pitching arsenal.
Those offers may not have been as strong for Danks — as he’s older and only under team control for two seasons
Danks was under team control for 1 season. He would have been a a free agent after the 2012 season.
You are correct. It’s fixed now.
Is Danks under control for two more years? I was under the impression he was going to be a FA after this season.
Meant to ask if Danks was under control for two more years before signing this deal, of course.
It’s fixed now.
My guess is Kenny wasn’t getting what he wanted in the offers for Danks so he decided to keep him. The contract is still fairly movable if he continues to pitch well.
Kenny also said it would be a minor rebuilding not a “falling domino” rebuild. We’ll see how it goes. I’m just happy to hear ANY White Sox news.
Chris – I’m not really sure if it’s fair ask if he’ll be worth 30mil more when you are comparing a 5 year deal to a couple of 3 year deals.
Isn’t is more of a question of whether he’ll be 3mil better per year (Danks will be getting 13mil per vs the others getting 10mil per).
There’s also the salary inflation aspect as those other deals were signed a little while ago (though $/WAR has been relatively flat)
oops not meant as response…apologies – I’ll repost below
Not sure why it is being described as more player-friendly to sign the longer deal in these cases (Danks, BIllingsley, Wandy). The extra two years at 15 million per in Danks’ case is probably roughly market value, if not below it by the time we get to those years. If he became a free agent instead you’d have to give him 5/75 at least… why wouldn’t you want the two extra years at that rate w/out committing the longer term dollars? And those two extra years will be closer to his prime years. If I’m the Dodgers right now I’d like to have that extra 2 years on Billingsley, rather than be stuck committing to him long term or letting him walk when that time comes.
I totally agree. Danks is better than this pack statistically, worth an extra 1.5 war since 2008 over chad. Danks knows that as such a young pitcher if he risks making it to the open market, after pocketing 10 million in arb this year he’s getting a 5 or 6 year deal, as he’s the best young pitcher after hamels and cain in that class. This deal doesn’t get done unless you buy out 4 of his FA years. The price they paid for them is worth it.
Also just realized that chad’s contract came another year before his fa started. That’s a huge difference. Of course he’s willing to take less, they took a whole extra year of risk off his hands.
Maybe Billingsley is the true outlier.
Still, It’s not a bad contract nor is it a good contract which is fine most of the time for a bigger market team. Just weird in the context of a rebuilding team. I don’t think it makes him a more valuable trading chip if you look at it from that context. Maybe even less so than he was yesterday.
is it possible that this could make Danks a better trade chip? Sure, he’s not as cheap in the short run, but he won’t be a free agent for a while now, the money is pretty reasonable, and he should be pitching the best years of his career over the next 3-5 years. In other words, you’re not going to give up prospects only to A) lose a guy or B) possibly have to pay him even more.
I have a hard time believing Danks would sign this contract so close to free agency without some sort of trade restrictions.
I agree the fact that he’s locked up makes him far more attractive. He would have been a rental otherwise.
In the last 4 years Danks pitched 778 innings, with 18.3 rWAR and 15.6 fWAR. His last season was the worst, with 170 innings and 2.7 WAR (average).
Billingsley has 14.1 fWAR and 8.4 rWAR in 776 innings in weaker league and friendlier stadium (how are rWAR and fWAR adjusted for league?), with 188 innings and 1.4 WAR (average) in the last season. If rWAR is completely ignored, they are similar pitchers (Danks is still somewhat better). If rWAR and fWAR are valued 50-50, there is no comparison.
Considering Danks is a pitcher, 5-year deal is risky (pitchers are always risky, and they can peak at much earlier age than hitters). Still, CWS are betting that 26 yo pitcher will have over the next 5 seasons roughly 80% of value he had in the past 4 seasons.
If CWS had signed Danks to 3/3x, he would have been FA after his age 29 season. This contract gives them control over his age 30 and 31 seasons, probably making it sure that they won’t extend him further.
LOL, worst headline ever. Just bustin’ your chops, Chris. I groaned, but I also chuckled. :)
I would prefer the use of ‘danke’ to make a pun, but Dank(s) does okay.
Chris – I’m not really sure if it’s fair ask if he’ll be worth 30mil more when you are comparing a 5 year deal to a couple of 3 year deals.
Isn’t is more of a question of whether he’ll be 3mil better per year (Danks will be getting 13mil per vs the others getting 10mil per).
There’s also the salary inflation aspect as those other deals were signed a little while ago (though $/WAR has been relatively flat)
I still see Danks as being a decent trade chip in a few years. It’s reasonable to think he’ll post 7ish WAR in the next two seasons, justifying an okay prospect for danks trade down the road. Or, that he’ll be like a value FA signing when the team competes again.
For all we know, Williams was underwhelmed at the interest for danks and decided to keep him. Still a weird decision, though if he planned on signing a FA starter next off season anyway, not super awful.
What affect does this signing have on the offers Edwin Jackson will get? As Dave Cameron pointed out, Danks and Jackson have been very comparable over the past 3 years. EJax being 19 months older, would that suggest a deal of 4 yrs/$60M being the baseline for what he should expect?
Hard to know, since Jackson is 1) older (as you mention), 2) righty, and 3) a free agent. 1 and 2 would imply less value than Danks, but 3 should inflate it assuming multiple bidders.
Also, Dave Cameron seems to have an abnormally low view of Danks compared to most. This time he says he’s confused by this deal compared to Wandy and Billingsley, but was confused by Billingsley signing for so cheap back when that happened (thought he left a bunch of money on the table) and Wandy is considerably older than Danks. Danks has proven he can pitch in he AL in a bandbox home park. Even if the Sox are retooling/rebuilding (they’re in Chicago, they’re not going to tear it all down, especially since the big contracts of Dunn, Rios and Peavy are unmovable anyway) doesn’t it make sense to lock up one of your good young players to deal cheaper than what he’d get as a free agent, especially if the trade offers you’re getting aren’t up to snuff? I don’t get KLaw’s and DC’s problem with this at all.
Dave Cameron doesn’t write everything on this site…
Chris, I’m guessing this is in reference to Dave’s Twitter comments.
Dave Cameron has some history with trying to value John Danks.
“To live up to the $65 million deal, Danks would have to post about 2.5 WAR every season for the next five years.”
At 2.5 WAR per year to get to $85M, I am seeing:
$4.5M/WAR start, plus 11% per year
$5.0M/WAR start, plus 8% per year
$5.5M/WAR start, plus 5.5% per year
$6.0M/WAR start, plus 3% per year
It seems as though the $4.5M/WAR is about where it is at now and inflation has been very low on that, so I think maybe 3% is appropriate.
Given those numbers instead, he’d have to average 3.4 WAR per season, not 2.5, to be worth $85M. At 2.5 WAR per year, it’d come out to just $62M…
It’s a $65M deal, not an $85M deal.
Whoops :)
I agree with someone up above who says any White Sox news is welcomed. After losing Buehrle this offseason signing Danks is welcome news. Maybe one minor detail for resigning him is to have a starting lefty pitcher help Chris Sale make the transition to the rotation….but very very minor.
Sox will probably let Peavy go when his contract expires so keeping Danks was important…especially after losing Buehrle.
An alternative thought is that Williams is in the camp who was completely underwhelmed by what the Padres got for Latos. If you can sign a very good 26 year old lefty long-term, where he would have only fetched you one Grandal-type and a couple guys, why not just keep him? The Santos deal looks very much like an isolated case now, where he had a scout that really liked the prospect, and Kenny knows relievers are very fungible. His saying they were rebuilding could have just been to see if he could get a GM to fall over himself trying to outbid the competition for Danks.
I thought the Padres got a ton more for Latos than either the Twins got for Santana or the Royals for Greinke.
Kenny tried to lock up Danks a couple of times over the last few years, especially after Floyd signed, with no luck. Danks seemed set on testing free agency unless a free agency-type deal came along. This is that. With the 2013 free agent class of starting pitchers a bit crowded right now with viable options (Cain, Santana, Lewis, Marcum) along with a few acceptable, stop-gappy ones, seems to me this is a good deal for both sides. Protects himself against injury, locks him into a contract through age 32 and with Peavy money off the books after 2012 ($4M buyout though), a swap of Quentin for something, some performance resembling more than a garbage can with a bat attached to it from Dunn and Rios and the Sox could contend for the division by 2013. You know, something like tied for the division in late August and then go to Minnesota for a four-game set and perform a ritual crapping of the pants. It’s tradition.
Typical fangraphs analysis. Choose a narrative. Write an article that touches upon data that conflicts with the narrative, but grossly underestimates it’s impact.
It’s such a basic thing. “Rebuilding” doesn’t mean assemble a team of teenagers. The author gets this, but he doesn’t like Kenny Williams, so he conveys negative sentiment based on a set of (weak) imaginary assumptions.
I blame politics. They teach you that heavily biased analysis is acceptable with their behavior, granting a sense of normalcy to a culture of stupidity.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but this seems pretty simple to me. A 26-year-old pitcher has to accumulate about as much WAR in the next 5 years as he has in the last 4 to be worth this contract. Ignoring risk of injury or his talent dropping off a cliff, this is a pretty good bet. Considering risk, the contract is fair.
No big deal.
1. I think some have mid-interpreted what KW means by rebuilding.
2. Danks has 1-year left on his contract. His value as a trade piece is not as great as what’s being represented.
3. The contract is a good one. Even on a rebuilding organization, Danks at 65/5 is a good contract. It’s not like the CWS could trade off everyone and be a version of the Royals.
4. KW probably isn’t done.
Can’t we just say this is a pretty good deal for pitcher and team?
Ridiculing the Dunn deal is using a method we don’t favor at FG .. and that’s using hindsight as the determining factor.
I don’t recall anyone projecting Adam Dunn to fall off a cliff, but just the opposite … that he’d continue being a metronome moving to a hitters park and playing positions where his defense wouldn’t negate his batting runs.
Also, a sucky Dunn in 11 does not mean a sucky Dunn in 12. Wouldn’t we say that a careers worth of data trumps a single season. He has to be the front runner for comeback player of the year.
Unless Danks blows out his shoulder in year one or two; this actually could be a fantastic deal for the White Sox. Young lefties who have thrown over 900 quality innings before their 27th birthday don’t grow on trees. Danks should provide the Sox with at least 3WAR over the next five years; and there’s always the chance for a CJ Wilson like jump in his age 29 season…
The White Sox are probably setting themselves up for 2014 right now. Having Danks under contract at a more than reasonable price seems smart.
And let’s not forget that the White Sox could actually rebound to be an 88 win team this year… it’s unlikely, but considering how bad Beckham, Morel, Dunn and Rios were, it’s not like projecting the Pirates to win 90.
I think we’re viewing this signing with some selection bias… if say, Alex Anthopoulos makes this signing, I think people are calling it a genius move.
It’s very amusing seeing this now. Not only are the White Sox doing good, but so are the Pirates!
Yeah, and you rebuild by locking up young players through their prime and replace older players with younger ones. Not by trading those guys in a contract year for prospects that will likely never replace his production.
The problem is the guys that KW would want to move are not valued by other teams and/or don’t have younger players to replace their production.
In those cases you either let the contracts run out or eat the money while trading them. I doubt too many teams are offering good trades for JP, AR, AD or PK.
I don’t think CWS should trade the pieces they’re looking to build around, Danks, Floyd. Alexei, etc. While it hasn’t been their strong suit, they have to build through the draft and perhaps Latin America.
KW isn’t going to be able to recreate all of the lopsided deals and waiver claims that he did in the past.
Somebody has to pitch and play to win enough games to keep revenue up. Danks is a guy you’d want on your team for 65/5.
The Latos deal brought so many prospects because of the combination of talent and team control. That’s not Danks.
As a Sox fan, I really think the timing of all of this was less than ideal for the organization.
It was generally assumed that Danks would walk at the end of the 2012 season.
If they had locked him up long term before Buehrle left for Miami, the negative reaction would’ve been drastically muted.
Buehrle’s one of the most popular players in franchise history. Letting him go was going to hurt no matter what. But if it had been framed as “we’d rather spend that money locking up Danks here” I think most Sox fans would’ve respected/preferred that course of action.
I am very confused by this deal. We are giving Danks, Buehrle type of money, now Danks needs to give us Buehrle type of return.
This is definitely a Theo Epstein move, in paying for future performance, instead of past performance.
As of right now I think the Sox may have overpaid a small bit, I would have liked a 3 yr/ deal for about 12 million, but if Danks performs, then the White Sox will have a steal.
So there is a bit of risk on both the White Sox and Danks part.