PDA

View Full Version : Big Bad Bobby Jenks


HBaines03
03-11-2010, 09:01 AM
With the potential season ending injury to Joe Nathan and sudden questioning to whether the Twins can capture the Central without him, I was thinking about our own closer.
Jenks was the topic of many off season trade rumors/discussions and it is apparent he has slipped in his good graces with the organization and fans. Since Bobby admitted he has removed alcohol from his life and is focusing more on what he needs to provide for his family I wonder if his struggles were more focus related than skill related.
My question to all of you is this. If Bobby Jenks has a fantastic season this year, do you think he should be resigned knowing he will make big money?

cbone
03-11-2010, 09:02 AM
My question to all of you is this. If Bobby Jenks has a fantastic season this year, do you think he should be resigned knowing he will make big money?


Yes.

jabrch
03-11-2010, 09:05 AM
In isolation - sure...

But that all depends on what we would otherwise not be able to do.... We will have a bunch of decisions to make next offseason that will be somewhat intertwined. This is one of them.

LoveYourSuit
03-11-2010, 09:29 AM
With the potential season ending injury to Joe Nathan and sudden questioning to whether the Twins can capture the Central without him, I was thinking about our own closer.
Jenks was the topic of many off season trade rumors/discussions and it is apparent he has slipped in his good graces with the organization and fans. Since Bobby admitted he has removed alcohol from his life and is focusing more on what he needs to provide for his family I wonder if his struggles were more focus related than skill related.
My question to all of you is this. If Bobby Jenks has a fantastic season this year, do you think he should be resigned knowing he will make big money?


I think what the Sox are doing with Jenks going year to year on contracts is the best way to go. There are very few relief pitchers in the game that are worth 4 or 5 year deals because of how fragile they are year to year.


I think I would put Jenks very high on the fragile list.

dickallen15
03-11-2010, 09:47 AM
Jenks is being shut down for a couple of days with a calf issue.

guillen4life13
03-11-2010, 10:17 AM
I think what the Sox are doing with Jenks going year to year on contracts is the best way to go. There are very few relief pitchers in the game that are worth 4 or 5 year deals because of how fragile they are year to year.


I think I would put Jenks very high on the fragile list.

I don't think Jenks will accept doing a year to year thing unless he has a down year. He's not old yet, and he's one of the better closers in the majors. If the Sox don't give him a multi-year deal, someone else will.

downstairs
03-11-2010, 10:51 AM
I don't think Jenks will accept doing a year to year thing unless he has a down year. He's not old yet, and he's one of the better closers in the majors. If the Sox don't give him a multi-year deal, someone else will.

Which is completely asinine. Other than Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera- in their prime- why give any reliever a multi-year deal? I understand... people overpay to get what they need, etc. etc.

But any non-starting pitcher is a crap shoot from season to season. Heck, from month to month!

Anyone remember Shingo Takatsu's 2004? And then his 2005? Happens all the time to MOST relief pitchers.

PatK
03-11-2010, 11:13 AM
Which is completely asinine. Other than Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera- in their prime- why give any reliever a multi-year deal? I understand... people overpay to get what they need, etc. etc.

But any non-starting pitcher is a crap shoot from season to season. Heck, from month to month!

Anyone remember Shingo Takatsu's 2004? And then his 2005? Happens all the time to MOST relief pitchers.

One thing I do agree with about the Moneyball/FOBB crowd is that teams tend to overpay for relievers and give them contracts that are too long.

CWSpalehoseCWS
03-11-2010, 01:54 PM
Jenks is a solid closer and to trade him or let him walk would be a bad move IMO. There really isn't many options to take over the closer's role. Thornton has shown he can't close games, and unless Putz blows the Sox away, I don't see how the Sox can not hang on to Jenks, unless getting rid of him lands them a really nice player in return.

oeo
03-11-2010, 04:04 PM
No, at least not long term. Nathan is a prime example of why you don't give long term contracts to relievers. Closers come and go every year. As Kenny said last year, it's a "fluid" market. Money would be spent best elsewhere.

DirtySox
03-11-2010, 04:15 PM
Thornton has shown he can't close games.

And when did this happen?

I have no problem with letting Jenks walk next year. I also wouldn't mind a reasonable contract extension. He certainly isn't worth the near 10 million a year he's making though.

HomeFish
03-11-2010, 07:55 PM
Jenks should be traded ASAP. Perhaps even to Minnesota.

thomas35forever
03-11-2010, 08:16 PM
Jenks should be traded ASAP. Perhaps even to Minnesota.
Tell me you're kidding. Help out your rival when their down and putting our closer situation on the line?

Linebrink is another reason you don't give long-term deals to relievers even though he's not a closer.

CWSpalehoseCWS
03-11-2010, 08:50 PM
And when did this happen?

I have no problem with letting Jenks walk next year. I also wouldn't mind a reasonable contract extension. He certainly isn't worth the near 10 million a year he's making though.

There are a few games from last year that come to mind when Jenks was out. One of which I was at. And look at his career stats: 9 SV / 28 SVO. I realize not all those are probably 9th inning work, but still something to look at.