PDA

View Full Version : LA Dodgers intersted in Konerko?


Rockabilly
10-07-2009, 10:34 PM
http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog?post=4537815&name=levine

soxfanreggie
10-07-2009, 10:44 PM
If we don't have a lot of flexibility in payroll, we may have to bring back Jim if he's willing to come back at a very reduced rate.

Rockabilly
10-07-2009, 10:47 PM
If we don't have a lot of flexibility in payroll, we may have to bring back Jim if he's willing to come back at a very reduced rate.

I wouldn't mind signing Nick Johnson to play 1B. Would love to get some of LA young pitching talent for Konerko

Jpgr91
10-07-2009, 10:51 PM
Where does Konerko play? Loney is a much better all around ball player. It makes no sense for the LAD. I hear PK can play some 3b...

DumpJerry
10-07-2009, 10:52 PM
This is Bruce Levine reporting, therefore it is only about 15% accurate.

He shows his ignorance by claiming Konerko has a "complete no trade clause" in his contract. Konerko is a 5/10 player, the NTC is not needed anymore and, therefore, is irrelevant.

Brian26
10-07-2009, 10:53 PM
http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog?post=4537815&name=levine

One short eleven word sentence buried at the end of the article that Levine probably pulled out of his ass?

Let us know when something newsworthy is said.

soltrain21
10-07-2009, 11:12 PM
If we don't have a lot of flexibility in payroll, we may have to bring back Jim if he's willing to come back at a very reduced rate.

Please no. We already failed with that team this year.

Noneck
10-07-2009, 11:15 PM
Levine is another guy that's understating Pods worth. No way Pod signs a 1 year contract with an option. He knows this is probably his last chance for a payday and will get more than that.

InKennyWeTrust
10-07-2009, 11:43 PM
This is Bruce Levine reporting, therefore it is only about 15% accurate.

He shows his ignorance by claiming Konerko has a "complete no trade clause" in his contract. Konerko is a 5/10 player, the NTC is not needed anymore and, therefore, is irrelevant.
What a moron! How could make such as major error like that?

WhiteSox1989
10-07-2009, 11:46 PM
I'd actually like to see Konerko in a Sox uniform in 2010. I know I'm probably in the minority.

sox1970
10-07-2009, 11:48 PM
I'd actually like to see Konerko in a Sox uniform in 2010. I know I'm probably in the minority.

He actually had a very solid year. I'd like to have him back as long as Dye is gone, which he probably is.

Martinigirl
10-07-2009, 11:52 PM
I'd actually like to see Konerko in a Sox uniform in 2010. I know I'm probably in the minority.

I agree with you.

Zisk77
10-08-2009, 12:01 AM
I'd actually like to see Konerko in a Sox uniform in 2010. I know I'm probably in the minority.

I do not think you need to worry, as I see no realistic chance that he gets traded. He just isnt a good fit to the teams he would likely waive his no-trade clause to.

WSox597
10-08-2009, 07:58 AM
I'd actually like to see Konerko in a Sox uniform in 2010. I know I'm probably in the minority.

Then so am I, because I'd like to see Paul Konerko finish his career with the Sox.

I realize this may be the minority opinion here, but there it is. I know he's slow on the basepaths, but many sluggers are. He plays first very well, and could easily have been the MVP of the 2005 Series.

Keep him until the end of his career.

doublem23
10-08-2009, 08:46 AM
Please no. We already failed with that team this year.

I missed where the guy who hit .249/.372/.493 for us and .253/.413/.985 with RISP was at fault.

soxyess
10-08-2009, 09:10 AM
Konerko needs to be moved. Moving him will give them payroll flexibility, and the opportunity to add high OBP players to the roster. You have your power in TCQ. We need good situational hitters, and moving PK will help us aquire them. He will never be more attractive trade bait as he is now. He's coming off of a pretty good year

SOXSINCE'70
10-08-2009, 09:17 AM
This is Bruce Levine reporting, therefore it is only about 15% accurate.


15%?? Not even 5%.

DumpJerry
10-08-2009, 09:38 AM
15%?? Not even 5%.
Typo, my bad. My finger slipped.

CPditka
10-08-2009, 09:41 AM
How can you even start to say that the Dodgers want PK when they have James Loney.

DumpJerry
10-08-2009, 09:43 AM
How can you even start to say that the Dodgers want PK when they have James Loney.
When you're Bruce Levine, you can say anything.

Craig Grebeck
10-08-2009, 09:52 AM
Let's be honest guys: James Loney isn't very good at baseball. Are people really guffawing at the possibility that they'd be displeased with a .756 OPS from first base?

That being said, this is probably the first in a long line of "__________ intersted (sic) in Konerko?" posts this offseason. And this one makes as little sense as all the others that will inevitably follow. Get ready.

kittle42
10-08-2009, 10:40 AM
That being said, this is probably the first in a long line of "__________ intersted (sic) in Konerko?" posts this offseason. And this one makes as little sense as all the others that will inevitably follow. Get ready.

As maddening as the season can be around here, the offseason is always worse! Of course, I am a glutton for punishment.

doublem23
10-08-2009, 11:24 AM
Let's be honest guys: James Loney isn't very good at baseball. Are people really guffawing at the possibility that they'd be displeased with a .756 OPS from first base?

That being said, this is probably the first in a long line of "__________ intersted (sic) in Konerko?" posts this offseason. And this one makes as little sense as all the others that will inevitably follow. Get ready.

Well, considering he is 25, had a pretty solid track record through the minors, has a slick glove at 1B, cost the Dodgers less than $500 K this year, and is under their control until 2012... Yes?

jabrch
10-08-2009, 11:41 AM
Goodness Gracious...

When do pitchers and catchers report?

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 11:44 AM
Goodness Gracious...

When do pitchers and catchers report?

I live for the off-season on this board. :cool:

PennStater98r
10-08-2009, 12:47 PM
This is Bruce Levine reporting, therefore it is only about 15% accurate.

He shows his ignorance by claiming Konerko has a "complete no trade clause" in his contract. Konerko is a 5/10 player, the NTC is not needed anymore and, therefore, is irrelevant.

You give Bruce far too much credit.

NLaloosh
10-08-2009, 01:50 PM
I agree completely with this article.

It's very likely that Konerko and Pods are back.

It's very likely that Jenks, Dotel and Dye are gone.

It's possible that Thome could be back.

I think the Sox will be fine next year as they will have an outstanding rotation and a pretty good # 6 in the pen with Hudson. All they need to do is add two more bullpen arms which Jenks should bring back in trade.

The lineup is powerful and balanced enough with:

Pods, Ramirez, Beckham, Quentin, Getz, A.J., Rios, Konerko and Kotsay/Nix/Flowers/Thome.

It would be hard to lose with Peavy, Danks, Floyd, Buehrle and Garcia all season and Hudson as a backup. I'm not sure there is a better rotation.

Plus, there has to be improvement from Beckham, Getz, Quentin, Ramirez, Rios and Nix.

ewokpelts
10-08-2009, 02:37 PM
http://espn.go.com/chicago/columns/blog?post=4537815&name=levineI support this.

Tragg
10-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Please no. We already failed with that team this year.
Can't wait for Scott Podsednik at DH myself - that's a winning approach.

akingamongstmen
10-08-2009, 02:42 PM
Konerko needs to be moved. Moving him will give them payroll flexibility, and the opportunity to add high OBP players to the roster. You have your power in TCQ. We need good situational hitters, and moving PK will help us aquire them. He will never be more attractive trade bait as he is now. He's coming off of a pretty good year

I'm a big fan of TCQ, but he hasn't proven to be very reliable in his career so far. I'm not counting on him until he proves he can stay healthy.

Also, I sometimes wonder about the definition of the "situational hitter" tag. That's usually code for "grinder" which is also code for "not especially talented, but might dive for some balls." Konerko, even as his numbers slide, is a more than adequate 1B and one of the few guys that we can count on to drive in runs.

Tragg
10-08-2009, 02:45 PM
James Loney give the Dodgers little power at a power position. No suprise at all if they'd want an upgrade.

Jerksticks
10-08-2009, 04:50 PM
See, I thought the Jim Thome ship had sailed, but many of us continue to send communications to said ship. Must we forget this is a really, really, really old ship? In fact, this ship never belonged in our waters.

SoxNation05
10-08-2009, 05:04 PM
Who's David Hudson?

jabrch
10-08-2009, 05:17 PM
I live for the off-season on this board. :cool:

Offseason is when the crazies no longer have facts to ignore when coming up with crazy ignorant opinions.

Marqhead
10-08-2009, 05:21 PM
Offseason is when the crazies no longer have facts to ignore when coming up with crazy ignorant opinions.

There's nothing more satisfying than watching someone create a "What about this guy/trade thread" and then the subsequent 20 posters bashing him to all eternity for being a moron.

I enjoy the off-season baseball threads more as an observer than a participant. Of course I'm a staple in the Parking Lot as I have nothing better to do at work. :D:

spawn
10-08-2009, 05:22 PM
I live for the off-season on this board. :cool:
The off-season rules.:cool:

southside rocks
10-09-2009, 11:38 AM
See, I thought the Jim Thome ship had sailed, but many of us continue to send communications to said ship. Must we forget this is a really, really, really old ship? In fact, this ship never belonged in our waters.

Nonsense! With Slugger Jim back and Aaron Rowand re-established in CF (--of course we trade Rios to the Giants in a 1-for-1 on that), the White Sox are invincible in 2010!

CPditka
10-09-2009, 12:22 PM
Offseason insanity is where it is at...


I think that James Loney is Will Clark reincarnated, and thats not a bad thing.

James Loney give the Dodgers little power at a power position. No suprise at all if they'd want an upgrade.

sullythered
10-10-2009, 12:28 AM
Just for kicks, go check out Paulie's career averages vs. this past season's numbers. It's actually kinda freaky how exactly they match.

Tragg
10-10-2009, 12:49 AM
Offseason insanity is where it is at...


I think that James Loney is Will Clark reincarnated, and thats not a bad thing.


He doesn't have anywhere near the OBP that Will Clark had. He's more of a Lyle Overbay.

JB98
10-10-2009, 02:23 PM
It would take a very good offer for me to support a trade of Konerko. Ditto Jenks.

It seems to me that some on this board would like to see those two very good players moved just for the sake of moving them. Silliness.

PatK
10-10-2009, 02:26 PM
I've never really come here in the off-season, unless a trade or acquisition happens.

This could be entertaining

oeo
10-10-2009, 02:30 PM
It would take a very good offer for me to support a trade of Konerko. Ditto Jenks.

It seems to me that some on this board would like to see those two very good players moved just for the sake of moving them. Silliness.

False. There's reason to be alarmed with Jenks, and he will be due $7-8 million. That's not moving for the sake of moving, it's anticipating throwing $7-8 million in the trash. For a closer, nonetheless.

JB98
10-10-2009, 02:50 PM
False. There's reason to be alarmed with Jenks, and he will be due $7-8 million. That's not moving for the sake of moving, it's anticipating throwing $7-8 million in the trash. For a closer, nonetheless.

There are people in the Jenks thread who think he is worth nothing more than a mid-level prospect in a trade.

We got a mid-level prospect for Jose Contreras.

If you can get an everyday position player for Jenks, you move him. But you don't move a proven relief pitcher for trash, especially when the bullpen has been identified as an area of need.

dickallen15
10-10-2009, 03:32 PM
Jenks had 29 saves this past season, however, 18 or 19 of them were accumulated with a 3 run lead. When he came in with the Sox ahead by 1 run he was something like 6 for 11 or 6 for 12. I think way too much credit is being given Jenks. He has definitely slipped a bit. He could bounce back, but at his salary figure, it is a pretty expensive test. If the Sox can get value back for him, I say go for it. They really have never been in the business of paying their closers $120k or so an inning. I doubt they really want to start now with a guy who has been very shaky and doesn't seem all that committed considering his belly.

JB98
10-10-2009, 03:45 PM
Jenks had 29 saves this past season, however, 18 or 19 of them were accumulated with a 3 run lead. When he came in with the Sox ahead by 1 run he was something like 6 for 11 or 6 for 12. I think way too much credit is being given Jenks. He has definitely slipped a bit. He could bounce back, but at his salary figure, it is a pretty expensive test. If the Sox can get value back for him, I say go for it. They really have never been in the business of paying their closers $120k or so an inning. I doubt they really want to start now with a guy who has been very shaky and doesn't seem all that committed considering his belly.

Jenks might be motivated to rebound next year, though. If he wants the big free-agent contract, he needs to get his **** together. No question 2009 was his worst year with the Sox. But I would caution against throwing him on the scrap heap because you think he's going to be overpaid.

If we can get good value in a trade, pull the trigger. But I wouldn't trade Jenks for prospects.

SBSoxFan
10-10-2009, 04:10 PM
Jenks might be motivated to rebound next year, though. If he wants the big free-agent contract, he needs to get his **** together. No question 2009 was his worst year with the Sox. But I would caution against throwing him on the scrap heap because you think he's going to be overpaid.

If we can get good value in a trade, pull the trigger. But I wouldn't trade Jenks for prospects.

Yes. How do you rebuild your bullpen by starting with trading your closer of the last 4+ years? I love Matt, but there's scant proof that he actually can close. While I think he'll make the transition okay, I also think he needs to develop a secondary "out" pitch because he has way too many 20+ pitch innings of 97+ fastballs to be readily available for an entire season.

oeo
10-10-2009, 05:19 PM
There are people in the Jenks thread who think he is worth nothing more than a mid-level prospect in a trade.

We got a mid-level prospect for Jose Contreras.

If you can get an everyday position player for Jenks, you move him. But you don't move a proven relief pitcher for trash, especially when the bullpen has been identified as an area of need.

Good luck getting an everyday position player for a reliever.

Anyways, you do move him if you don't think he's worth the cash he's going to receive. Maybe we only get a mid-level prospect+cash for him, but we can use the money saved to fill other holes, including the bullpen. Jenks is getting to that point where he's a pretty big expense. If what he did in 2009 is telling of his future, we don't need to be wasting big money on him.

soxinem1
10-10-2009, 06:13 PM
Who's David Hudson?

http://www.cairns.net.au/~ocraftm/images/david_hudson.jpg http://www.henrystonemusic.com/store/funk/davidhudson.jpg

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/dhs/publichealth/newsletter/articles/0204/davidhudson.jpg


"According to Google Image Search, we are!!"

JB98
10-10-2009, 10:22 PM
Good luck getting an everyday position player for a reliever.

Anyways, you do move him if you don't think he's worth the cash he's going to receive. Maybe we only get a mid-level prospect+cash for him, but we can use the money saved to fill other holes, including the bullpen. Jenks is getting to that point where he's a pretty big expense. If what he did in 2009 is telling of his future, we don't need to be wasting big money on him.

Then you don't trade him. Period.

Look at the list of free agent relievers. I'm not willing to use the money that could be saved on Jenks to sign two of those mediocre bums. I'd rather have one proven closer in Jenks than two average guys off the scrap heap.

Jjav829
10-11-2009, 12:09 AM
You guys are slipping. 4 pages in and no "we should get Juan Pierre in return" posts. We need to trade the Juan Pierre fans for some minor league posters. Clearly they've lost their speed.

JermaineDye05
10-11-2009, 12:20 AM
Give them Pauly and a pitcher not named Buehrle/Danks/Peavy for Andre Ethier.

For the record I don't think the Dodgers will be giving up Andre anytime soon. I can dream though, can't I? I mean, one already did come true :cool:.

oeo
10-11-2009, 03:17 AM
Then you don't trade him. Period.

That's completely unrealistic. Period.

Look at the list of free agent relievers. I'm not willing to use the money that could be saved on Jenks to sign two of those mediocre bums. I'd rather have one proven closer in Jenks than two average guys off the scrap heap.

I never said sign them through free agency. That's not the only way to acquire players. With that said, relievers are so fickle, I'd take that 2-for-1. Dustin Hermanson was one of those 'mediocre bums', and he was our closer much of the year in 2005.

EDIT: Just looked at the free agent relievers, and there's some pretty good ones on there, as well as some guys I would not be against giving 1-year deals to.

Lip Man 1
10-11-2009, 01:04 PM
Can you be more specific on what names intrigue you?

Lip

mzh
10-11-2009, 02:10 PM
Can you be more specific on what names intrigue you?

Lip
Mike Gonzalez was shoved out of the role in Atlanta by Rafael Soriano (who is also a free agent), and might be willing to sign on the cheap. J.J. Putz has a $9.5 M option with the Mets, if the Sox are not set on Thornton and trade Jenks, this might be a guy to go after. If he is not kept by the Red Sox, I would not mind signing Takashi Saito to a short-term deal, given his age.

JB98
10-11-2009, 02:32 PM
Mike Gonzalez was shoved out of the role in Atlanta by Rafael Soriano (who is also a free agent), and might be willing to sign on the cheap. J.J. Putz has a $9.5 M option with the Mets, if the Sox are not set on Thornton and trade Jenks, this might be a guy to go after. If he is not kept by the Red Sox, I would not mind signing Takashi Saito to a short-term deal, given his age.

None of these guys are better than Jenks. All of them are injury risks, too.

JB98
10-11-2009, 02:35 PM
That's completely unrealistic. Period.



I never said sign them through free agency. That's not the only way to acquire players. With that said, relievers are so fickle, I'd take that 2-for-1. Dustin Hermanson was one of those 'mediocre bums', and he was our closer much of the year in 2005.

EDIT: Just looked at the free agent relievers, and there's some pretty good ones on there, as well as some guys I would not be against giving 1-year deals to.

If you can't hit a home run on a Jenks trade, you don't trade him. It's that simple.

I know you hate Jenks and want him gone, but c'mon. I'm not dealing a closer who has 140 saves over the last four years for a mid-level prospect and cash. That's ridiculous.

mzh
10-11-2009, 03:54 PM
None of these guys are better than Jenks. All of them are injury risks, too.

In the two full seasons that he closed, Putz was 36/43 and 40/42 in saves, with ERA's of 2.30 and 1.38, both better than any of Bobby's seasons.

If Jenks can bounce back and put up 40+ saves again, I wouldn't be against giving him $5-6 M. I like Bobby, but the only reason I am bringing this up is because $8M is a huge investment for such a big question mark.

Domeshot17
10-11-2009, 04:42 PM
(1) Do you people Invest like you armchair GM, Selling low all the time? It is the worst time to move Jenks

(2) Jenks won't cash 7-8 through arbitration this year because he didn't have a big season, salary wise he should compare to what he got last year, with a modest raise

(3) Everyone that wants to dump Jenks and go spend money on top FA rp, do you really want some more Scott Linebrinks? I think 1 is enough, and honestly, I feel better paying Jenks 7 mil then I do paying Linebrink 5.

oeo
10-11-2009, 05:19 PM
(1) Do you people Invest like you armchair GM, Selling low all the time? It is the worst time to move Jenks

That's an opinion, not a fact. Worst time in Jenks' career to move him? Certainly. Worst time ever? That's up for debate. Jenks has some alarming splits which do not instill a lot of confidence in me. Closers generally have a short life span, this isn't Paul Konerko of a couple years ago where you knew he would come back.

(2) Jenks won't cash 7-8 through arbitration this year because he didn't have a big season, salary wise he should compare to what he got last year, with a modest raise

They take more into account than just the previous season. Even if that was the case, unless you watched him everyday, it takes some digging to realize how bad he really was.

(3) Everyone that wants to dump Jenks and go spend money on top FA rp, do you really want some more Scott Linebrinks? I think 1 is enough, and honestly, I feel better paying Jenks 7 mil then I do paying Linebrink 5.

Once again, allocating money towards relief pitching does not mean you have to sign free agents. No I don't want another Linebrink, and another Linebrink won't happen. For a couple of reasons: a)the Sox can't afford it, if they could they would just pay Jenks and b)no one is making the same kind of dough they were as free agents two years ago.

Domeshot17
10-11-2009, 06:02 PM
That's an opinion, not a fact. Worst time in Jenks' career to move him? Certainly. Worst time ever? That's up for debate. Jenks has some alarming splits which do not instill a lot of confidence in me. Closers generally have a short life span, this isn't Paul Konerko of a couple years ago where you knew he would come back.



They take more into account than just the previous season. Even if that was the case, unless you watched him everyday, it takes some digging to realize how bad he really was.



Once again, allocating money towards relief pitching does not mean you have to sign free agents. No I don't want another Linebrink, and another Linebrink won't happen. For a couple of reasons: a)the Sox can't afford it, if they could they would just pay Jenks and b)no one is making the same kind of dough they were as free agents two years ago.

Would you clarify what you mean by this? I was unaware you could move Jenks at any time that wasn't in his career.

JB98
10-11-2009, 11:01 PM
In the two full seasons that he closed, Putz was 36/43 and 40/42 in saves, with ERA's of 2.30 and 1.38, both better than any of Bobby's seasons.

If Jenks can bounce back and put up 40+ saves again, I wouldn't be against giving him $5-6 M. I like Bobby, but the only reason I am bringing this up is because $8M is a huge investment for such a big question mark.

That 40 out of 42 year was a career season and a fluke, IMO. 36 out of 43 is just an average year.

But mainly, I'm not interested in Putz because of his injury history. That's the reason he might be available.