PDA

View Full Version : Trading Jenks


soxfan43
07-15-2007, 12:02 PM
Just wanted to hear what the rest of you thought about Bruce Levine's suggestion that the Sox should trade Bobby Jenks. Basically he said, he'd bring a large return and as we all know, he's a one inning guy. Personally, I think the idea is terrible. He's the only (somewhat)reliable guy in our bullpen, and playoff tested All Star closers don't just grow on trees. Let's hope Contreras helps his value today....

churlish
07-15-2007, 12:06 PM
It makes very little sense to trade an established closer who is under team control for a bunch more years. The Sox might get a top prospect and a nice mid-level prospect. So, in other words, they MIGHT get an all-star player in return for the all-star player they just traded.

Does Levine realize how bad the bullpen is?

balke
07-15-2007, 12:08 PM
Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me if the return is good. The Sox struck oil with the guy, and maybe he can bring two decent bullpen arms for the price of one great bullpen arm, then the Sox can trade for a Lidge and hope Macdougal turns things around in the offseason.

russ99
07-15-2007, 12:16 PM
No, I'd rather the Sox make a deal to get someone else to help Jenks.

This hooey that the Sox can only fix the relief problems with more minor leaguers is Kenny's biggest failure this season.

TDog
07-15-2007, 12:40 PM
Jenks isn't having a great year. He's about 86 percent in save opportunities. Ryan Demptster and Joe Borowski are having more success in saving games. I doubt that Jenks would bring a huge amount in return. Contenders already tend to have closers, and a team with a closer isn't going to give up a lot for a non-closing reliever. Regardless, the Sox don't pay Jenks much in relation to players who have been in the major leagues longer, and the Sox have control over Jenks for a few more years. Last year, the Sox paid Jenks only $340,000. The Cubs paid Bobby Howry $3 million last year.

If a team offered a great package for Jenks, I'm sure the Sox would consider it. But suggesting the Sox should trade Jenks because he would bring a large return demonstrates a lack of baseball sense.

JB98
07-15-2007, 12:57 PM
This is a stupid idea. We only have two major-league pitchers in our bullpen right now. Jenks is one. We have four relievers that need to be replaced. Trade Jenks, and now we need five relievers.

Utter nonsense.

getonbckthr
07-15-2007, 01:24 PM
As long as Hunter Pence or Carl Crawford are coming back.

Lukin13
07-15-2007, 01:35 PM
You gotta give something up to get something in return. Everyone just wants to trade our garbage and get studs in return.

If we could get a proven major league SS or OF in return I would say do it.

Very few relievers have had long term success.

Frontman
07-15-2007, 01:39 PM
Bruce Levine once again proves that he's an idiot.

Right now, Jenks is one of the few bright spots in the bullpen. We need more mid-relief help.

Tragg
07-15-2007, 01:45 PM
This hooey that the Sox can only fix the relief problems with more minor leaguers is Kenny's biggest failure this season. Williams didn't try to fix the pen with minor leaguers. He tried to fix it by acquiring someone else's middle relievers: that's what Aardsma, MacDougal, and Sisko were. And they were all disasters. Masset was the only minor leaguer.

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 02:02 PM
If the Sox can get a young All-Star type of position player then its a no-brainer IMO.

Last year Jenks made 67 appearances pitching in 69 2/3 innings. A starting position player could play 140 games or more, get well over 500 AB's, and play over 1,260 innings in the field. Postion players are much more valuable overall so if KW gets the chance to get someone who has produced at the major league level, he has to do it IMO. Anyone in our bullpen should be fair game as long as they are offering something that would make for a large improvement.

AJ Hellraiser
07-15-2007, 02:04 PM
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but it isn't that far-fetched for me to think about...

Bobby has been FAR from his dominant self this season.... his fastball isn't anywhere near the 97-99 range with any kind of consistency and he's not striking out guys with the same rate as he used to...

I think we are all somewhat blind to the fact that he has slipped slightly because 1) he was our only All-Star, 2) he is one of the guys from the 2005 WS team and 3) he is our most reliable guy in the bullpen

But, like I said.. if the return is great and will help us improve a couple of areas then I would take a close look at it... a good/great closer on a BAD team is basically worthless

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 02:05 PM
As long as Hunter Pence or Carl Crawford are coming back.
I'd take Pence over the overrated (but still very good) Crawford, but I don't think you'll be able to pry him away from the Astros with a stick. Their GM gave up Taveras, Hirsch, and Buccholz for one year of Jason Jennings, and even he wasn't stupid enough to give up Pence. If he was, Garland would be in Houston right now.

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 02:09 PM
No, I'd rather the Sox make a deal to get someone else to help Jenks.

This hooey that the Sox can only fix the relief problems with more minor leaguers is Kenny's biggest failure this season.
Boone is a minor leaguer and he's been pretty good overall. Besides, everyone at some point is a minor leaguer, so I don't get your point. Sooner or later you have to give a guy a chance. Also, as already pointed out, the guys we picked up weren't exactly minor leaguers anymore. And Day is the only other minor leaguer we've called up. Bukvich and Prinz were journeymen.

jabrch
07-15-2007, 03:27 PM
There is nobody I wouldn't trade if the right deal was out there.

That said, the right deal for Jenks would be HUGE. If the Ms want to trade Jones and Clement or the Mets want to trade Gomez and Humber or the Yanks want to trade Hughes and Chamberlain, then we should surely look into it.

Oldschoolsoxguy
07-15-2007, 03:39 PM
Damn right.There isn't anybody on this team that can't be dealt
(Burly aside) if the price is right.This team has a disease.

Chisoxfn
07-15-2007, 03:46 PM
Bruce Levine once again proves that he's an idiot.

Right now, Jenks is one of the few bright spots in the bullpen. We need more mid-relief help.
Bobby Jenks could and should get you at least two of an organizations top 3 prospects plus another top 5 prospect in an organization. That means you make the move, especially because closers are probably the last piece to the puzzle and are relatively easy to find.

Moving Jenks is actually one of the better suggestions Levine has had in recent terms because he could get you an everyday shortstop (who could turn into the clubs leadoff hitter) and potentially an everyday catcher (if you want to get a replacement for AJ) or a very good outfielder.

The Dodgers don't need a closer, but a package of Kemp and Hu would be the type of deal I'd be looking at if I were going to move Jenks. That would give you a RF with super upside in Kemp and a SS that looks like a very good long term leadoff hitter.

If you talk Braves you go after Salty/Escobar as both look to be very good long term major league ball players at need positions with the Sox. The Indians would obviously love Jenks but I don't think you deal with them. Tigers could be interested but again I don't think you go within the division.

Even the Red Sox could be interested (as it would enable them the option of moving Pablebon into the rotation when Schilling leaves this off-season).

JB98
07-15-2007, 04:10 PM
I think this thread is a product of Jenks having a rough two weeks here at the start of July.

We'd have to get three players coming back in order for me to even consider trading Jenks.

TDog
07-15-2007, 04:10 PM
If you could get Carl Crawford for Bobby Jenks, the White Sox probably would trade him. That isn't the point. I'm not a big Carl Crawford fan because I believe he is not a smart ballplayer, but I would still make that deal.

What makes the suggestion that the Sox should trade Jenks a matter of baseball idiocy is that Jenks for Crawford isn't going to happen. Compound that with the fact that he is valuable to the Sox not simply because he is their best pitcher, but because he is inexpensive and under their control. You might be able to replace Jenks with a free agent at the end of the season at four or five times the cost. Jenks is more valuable to the Sox than the players they could get for him.

When people really hate a noncontending team and don't want to see them do well, they often suggest trading the best player (or, in this case, best reliever) under the premise that no other players have trade value. People who don't have good baseball sense can be swayed by the argument, but it rarely ends up being a good idea.

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 04:23 PM
I think this thread is a product of Jenks having a rough two weeks here at the start of July.

We'd have to get three players coming back in order for me to even consider trading Jenks.
I think the thread is mainly the product of a **** team on the field. Jenks may have the most trade value on the team and while he is important to us, we have quite a few holes to fill.

JB98
07-15-2007, 04:29 PM
I think the thread is mainly the product of a **** team on the field. Jenks may have the most trade value on the team and while he is important to us, we have quite a few holes to fill.

Vazquez has the most trade value of anyone on the team.

Yes, we do have quite a few holes to fill, but I fail to see how creating a hole at closer will make things better. We don't have anyone in the system who can fill Bobby's shoes. That would mean we would have to spend on a free-agent reliever to close for us next year.

Pass.

Chisoxfn
07-15-2007, 04:34 PM
If you could get Carl Crawford for Bobby Jenks, the White Sox probably would trade him. That isn't the point. I'm not a big Carl Crawford fan because I believe he is not a smart ballplayer, but I would still make that deal.

What makes the suggestion that the Sox should trade Jenks a matter of baseball idiocy is that Jenks for Crawford isn't going to happen. Compound that with the fact that he is valuable to the Sox not simply because he is their best pitcher, but because he is inexpensive and under their control. You might be able to replace Jenks with a free agent at the end of the season at four or five times the cost. Jenks is more valuable to the Sox than the players they could get for him.

When people really hate a noncontending team and don't want to see them do well, they often suggest trading the best player (or, in this case, best reliever) under the premise that no other players have trade value. People who don't have good baseball sense can be swayed by the argument, but it rarely ends up being a good idea.
What costs more...one closer or a new shortstop, a new outfielder, and a new relief prospect.

Say you get an offer of Hu, Kemp, and Yhancy Brazoban from the Dodgers or the Red Sox offer up Bucholtz/Ellsbury/Craig Hansen (and yes I know Hansen has not been good this year but he has a great arm). That is three young players that will be filling up positions cheap.

But if you keep Jenks you really don't have anyone in house to fill up all those other spots so instead of having to buy one closer, you have to buy three position players (and that is gonna cost a bloody fortune, not to mention the fact you couldn't buy a good shortstop to save your life this off-season, unless of course you want to drop 35 million a year on Arod).

Plus we aren't even including the fact that while Jenks is young (and I am a big Jenks fan) he has seen his velocity slip in two consecutive seasons and had a history of arm/injury problems when he was in the Angels organization.

Bottom line the Sox have so many position needs that if any one player can net you two starters next year, plus another guy that very well could be a starter (so that is potentially 3 starters, under your control for the next 5 years on the cheap) than you absolutely do it and find a closer somewhere else (did the Brewers have to pay a ton to get Cordero? No. Did the Sox pay a ton of Shingo? The Dodgers for Saito?).

For cripes sake the Indians/Braves/Tigers are in the races with closers named Joe Borowski/Bob Wickman/Todd Jones (that alone should tell you that you can still win without a premiere closer (and than once you get to that position you can buy that top closer at the deadline).

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 04:40 PM
Vazquez has the most trade value of anyone on the team.

Yes, we do have quite a few holes to fill, but I fail to see how creating a hole at closer will make things better. We don't have anyone in the system who can fill Bobby's shoes. That would mean we would have to spend on a free-agent reliever to close for us next year.

Pass.

I posted this earlier in the thread:


Last year Jenks made 67 appearances pitching in 69 2/3 innings. A starting position player could play 140 games or more, get well over 500 AB's, and play over 1,260 innings in the field.

I would argue that the position player is more valuable than the closer. If Jenks gets you the position player you want then you have to do it. Just think of how many of those 67 appearances were tie game situations or save situations where he was brought in to start an inning with a two run lead or larger. Any decent reliever can wrap up saves in those situations.

The closer is important but IMO it is overrated. Yes, Jenks would be very hard to replace, but right now we have no future SS, no future DH/1B, no future OF with a better than average bat, and no future C. Filling those positions will be harder than finding a guy capable of pitching typically one inning or less 60-70 times per year, usually with a lead.

spiffie
07-15-2007, 04:44 PM
Vazquez has the most trade value of anyone on the team.

Yes, we do have quite a few holes to fill, but I fail to see how creating a hole at closer will make things better. We don't have anyone in the system who can fill Bobby's shoes. That would mean we would have to spend on a free-agent reliever to close for us next year.

Pass.
Why would we? This team is not likely to be a contender in 2008 whether we have Jenks or not. Let MacDougal or Thornton close that year and hope for the best.

Bobby is not the same pitcher he was. His velocity has dropped substantially since 2005. I love Bobby, but I would not be surprised if he is more Bobby Thigpen than Mariano Rivera. If someone wants to give us something solid for him, move him now, and start grooming someone to be the closer come 2009.

Chisoxfn
07-15-2007, 04:45 PM
I posted this earlier in the thread:



I would argue that the position player is more valuable than the closer. If Jenks gets you the position player you want then you have to do it. Just think of how many of those 67 appearances were tie game situations or save situations where he was brought in to start an inning with a two run lead or larger. Any decent reliever can wrap up saves in those situations.

The closer is important but IMO it is overrated. Yes, Jenks would be very hard to replace, but right now we have no future SS, no future DH/1B, no future OF with a better than average bat, and no future C. Filling those positions will be harder than finding a guy capable of pitching typically one inning or less 60-70 times per year, usually with a lead.
I just want to say....we are on the exact same page. It is a no brainer if you get blown away and get a teams two top prospects plus a top 5 or so prospect for Jenks.

Heck if you somehow got a package including Escobar and Salty from the Braves you take it and know you have a catcher and SS for the long haul (this makes Uribe expendable..and that 5 mill that Uribe is slated to make can easily help you get another reliever or two) plus the Braves have a guy named Devine who could potentially be a closer down the road (or a set up type guy) and you also now have AJ available (and as much as I know people dislike the Cubs, you could probably get something of value for AJ Pyrzinski).

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 04:56 PM
I just want to say....we are on the exact same page. It is a no brainer if you get blown away and get a teams two top prospects plus a top 5 or so prospect for Jenks.

Heck if you somehow got a package including Escobar and Salty from the Braves you take it and know you have a catcher and SS for the long haul (this makes Uribe expendable..and that 5 mill that Uribe is slated to make can easily help you get another reliever or two) plus the Braves have a guy named Devine who could potentially be a closer down the road (or a set up type guy) and you also now have AJ available (and as much as I know people dislike the Cubs, you could probably get something of value for AJ Pyrzinski).
I'd do a backflip if we could get Salty+Escobar+Devine. Hell, I'd do a backflip if we could get Salty+anything without having to give up a good prospect. I'd probably break my neck since my instincts tell me I wouldn't be a very good backflipper, but ****, I'd try anyway.

That said, I don't know if the Braves would be looking for a closer right now. They supposedly are looking for a SP so I think in order to get the type of package you mentioned we'd have to give up Vazquez. But if we could get that for Javy, I'd pack his bags for him right now.

JB98
07-15-2007, 04:58 PM
Why would we? This team is not likely to be a contender in 2008 whether we have Jenks or not. Let MacDougal or Thornton close that year and hope for the best.

Bobby is not the same pitcher he was. His velocity has dropped substantially since 2005. I love Bobby, but I would not be surprised if he is more Bobby Thigpen than Mariano Rivera. If someone wants to give us something solid for him, move him now, and start grooming someone to be the closer come 2009.

This is where I differ from everyone else: I am absolutely not resigned to sucking in 2008.

I don't think you're out on a limb saying Bobby is not Mariano Rivera. Who is? That's a once-in-a-generation closer right there.

Jenks is young, cheap and under the Sox control for four more years. Bobby has four pitches. He is not Billy Koch. Even if he throws "only" 94 for the rest of his career, he will be a very good reliever for a long time.

I repeat, we're already in a situation where we are FOUR ARMS short in the bullpen. Why make it five?

JB98
07-15-2007, 05:01 PM
I'd do a backflip if we could get Salty+Escobar+Devine. Hell, I'd do a backflip if we could get Salty+anything without having to give up a good prospect. I'd probably break my neck since my instincts tell me I wouldn't be a very good backflipper, but ****, I'd try anyway.

That said, I don't know if the Braves would be looking for a closer right now. They supposedly are looking for a SP so I think in order to get the type of package you mentioned we'd have to give up Vazquez. But if we could get that for Javy, I'd pack his bags for him right now.

I think you're far more likely to get that type of package for Vazquez than you would for Jenks. And that's what I would try to do if I were KW.

Four players should be on the block: Vazquez, Dye, Contreras and Iguchi. We can fill in a lot of blanks by moving all of them AND keep our closer.

UserNameBlank
07-15-2007, 05:10 PM
I think you're far more likely to get that type of package for Vazquez than you would for Jenks. And that's what I would try to do if I were KW.

Four players should be on the block: Vazquez, Dye, Contreras and Iguchi. We can fill in a lot of blanks by moving all of them AND keep our closer.
I don't think Jenks would fetch three very good players either, but I think he gets at least one. The LaRoche for Gonzalez deal over the offseason IMO set the bar for Jenks' value. Now granted, a couple of prospects went in that deal too with ATL picking up Lillibridge IIRC, but Gonzalez had an injury history and I think was having problems at the end of the '06 season. And while Jenks' velocity is down, he doesn't need that 99mph fastball to be successful. He also has a cutter, a slider, a couple curveballs, and even showed a changeup in ST (which I think he needs to develop because it would be devasting with that FB). Jenks IMO is a much better bet than Gonzalez to have a long, generally healthy career so his value should be higher. That means Bobby should be worth a young 30+ HR/year position player straight up, and if we can get that, see ya later Bobby. Thanks for '05.

spiffie
07-15-2007, 05:11 PM
This is where I differ from everyone else: I am absolutely not resigned to sucking in 2008.

I don't think you're out on a limb saying Bobby is not Mariano Rivera. Who is? That's a once-in-a-generation closer right there.

Jenks is young, cheap and under the Sox control for four more years. Bobby has four pitches. He is not Billy Koch. Even if he throws "only" 94 for the rest of his career, he will be a very good reliever for a long time.

I repeat, we're already in a situation where we are FOUR ARMS short in the bullpen. Why make it five?
I'm not resigned to sucking in 2008, but I would say the team would be better served to look towards 2009. If 2008 comes together well, then that's great, you change plans and work with that. But as an organization, I cannot imagine how they retool from this team to a 95 win team in one offseason. While admittedly closers don't go on trees, Since 2000 we have had solid seasons as a closer out of Keith Foulke, Shingo Takatsu, Dustin Hermanson, and Bobby Jenks. Basically every other year or so on average that spot has turned over successfully.

And while he might be a very good reliever for a long time, will he be so excellent that he is worth keeping if we can get someone who can contribute every day at a harder to fill position than Bobby plays? I would say no, assuming such a deal came up. If no one wants to pay a decent price then sure, I'm happy with Bobby closing. But I would hope KW is listening to offers for him.

Bobby is young and cheap, and thus very likely to be able to bring in a very good haul.

JB98
07-15-2007, 05:34 PM
I'm not resigned to sucking in 2008, but I would say the team would be better served to look towards 2009. If 2008 comes together well, then that's great, you change plans and work with that. But as an organization, I cannot imagine how they retool from this team to a 95 win team in one offseason. While admittedly closers don't go on trees, Since 2000 we have had solid seasons as a closer out of Keith Foulke, Shingo Takatsu, Dustin Hermanson, and Bobby Jenks. Basically every other year or so on average that spot has turned over successfully.

And while he might be a very good reliever for a long time, will he be so excellent that he is worth keeping if we can get someone who can contribute every day at a harder to fill position than Bobby plays? I would say no, assuming such a deal came up. If no one wants to pay a decent price then sure, I'm happy with Bobby closing. But I would hope KW is listening to offers for him.

Bobby is young and cheap, and thus very likely to be able to bring in a very good haul.

I posted the list of free-agent relievers available this offseason, and I tell you it is an aging and unimpressive list.

Understand, I am not arguing that Jenks is untouchable. I do think that people have posted some pie-in-the-sky scenarios in this thread. Which is fine. This is "What's The Score?", and I checked my brain at the door. If somebody offers us a bounty for Jenks, KW should consider it.

I am, however, arguing that we have other tradeable commodities that can fill multiple holes for us. We can deal from a position of strength, namely the rotation. If you deal Jenks, you're dealing from a position from weakness, namely the bullpen.

Unlike a lot of people here, I think we can get something decent for Dye. Especially if we hold on another week or 10 days and he continues to hit the ball out of the park. I'll take whatever for Contreras, and I hope he dangles Vazquez to see if Javy is the chip we can use to fill multiple holes. We gave up three players for Vaz. Maybe we can get three players back.

Milwaukee and Atlanta sure could use a starting pitcher, and both have prospects to deal. That's who I'd call.

TDog
07-15-2007, 05:53 PM
...

For cripes sake the Indians/Braves/Tigers are in the races with closers named Joe Borowski/Bob Wickman/Todd Jones (that alone should tell you that you can still win without a premiere closer (and than once you get to that position you can buy that top closer at the deadline).

And two of those guys have better rates of converting saves than Jenks does. Wickman is 80 percent. Jenks is about 86 percent. That is the reason you won't get much in trade for Jenks. Good teams don't spend a lot on their bullpens. Joe Borowski is with his sixth team since 1997, and he hasn't been traded since 1996. In the 2002 post season, the best reliever was Francisco Rodriguez, who had only faced 21 major league hitters before the postseason -- none before Sept. 18.

Jenks is a good closer. He isn't Gossage or Eckersley or Sutter, and he isn't having a great season. A team would have be stupid (as in the Phillies trading Polanco for Urbina stupid) to give up what he is worth to the White Sox, not just this year but in future years. The Braves aren't going to give up a lot for an upgrade over Wickman. If a team had a prosepct who was almost ready to be a stud in the starting rotation, bullpen problems might have that guy starting anyway, and probably doing as good a job as Jenks could do.

Fans here have a tendency to overvalue what White Sox players could get in trade and then complain when players bring too little in trade. People here who are advocating trading Jenks would be screaming the loudest about the incompetency of of Kenny Williams if a Jenks trade were completed.

spiffie
07-15-2007, 05:58 PM
I posted the list of free-agent relievers available this offseason, and I tell you it is an aging and unimpressive list.

Understand, I am not arguing that Jenks is untouchable. I do think that people have posted some pie-in-the-sky scenarios in this thread. Which is fine. This is "What's The Score?", and I checked my brain at the door. If somebody offers us a bounty for Jenks, KW should consider it.

I am, however, arguing that we have other tradeable commodities that can fill multiple holes for us. We can deal from a position of strength, namely the rotation. If you deal Jenks, you're dealing from a position from weakness, namely the bullpen.

Unlike a lot of people here, I think we can get something decent for Dye. Especially if we hold on another week or 10 days and he continues to hit the ball out of the park. I'll take whatever for Contreras, and I hope he dangles Vazquez to see if Javy is the chip we can use to fill multiple holes. We gave up three players for Vaz. Maybe we can get three players back.

Milwaukee and Atlanta sure could use a starting pitcher, and both have prospects to deal. That's who I'd call.
Why would we have to sign someone. We have a previous all-star closer on staff in MacDougal. We have Thornton who could probably step in and be a decent closer.

I would be happy with a good position player prospect in return for Bobby. Some of these scenarios are insane. Get me someone who can step in as our 2008 SS for Jenks and I make that deal in a heartbeat.

HotelWhiteSox
07-15-2007, 06:02 PM
I love Jenks but I would do it

whitesoxfan1986
07-15-2007, 07:01 PM
If we could get 3 of an organizations top 5 prospects then I'll pack his bags for him. Let's face it, Jenks is not the same pitcher without the heat, no matter what anybody else says, it is obvious to me. He's losing velocity each year, and is an injury waiting to happen. I think we're going to be seeing a lot more outings like last night from him during the second half, making our bullpen worthless as a whole. It baffles me that Bobby has had so much success so far this season because all the batters have to do is look for the 93 mph straight as an arrow fastball and crush it. I think that during the first half that batters still expected the heat, but now they know that Bobby's fastball is only average at best.

JB98
07-15-2007, 07:40 PM
Why would we have to sign someone. We have a previous all-star closer on staff in MacDougal. We have Thornton who could probably step in and be a decent closer.

I would be happy with a good position player prospect in return for Bobby. Some of these scenarios are insane. Get me someone who can step in as our 2008 SS for Jenks and I make that deal in a heartbeat.

You're a very kind and forgiving soul if you're willing to put your faith in the oft-injured and inconsistent Mike MacDougal. That's like saying Pods should be the leadoff hitter next year.

Thornton had a solid 2006, but you have to wonder whether that was an aberration.

Why would we have to sign someone for the bullpen? How could we not? Look at what we have currently and what we have in the system.

Jenks has been nothing but good since he's joined the Sox. The Orioles just have his number. Bobby is 66-for-73 in saves since Opening Day 2006. Three of the seven blown saves were against Baltimore.

JB98
07-15-2007, 07:42 PM
If we could get 3 of an organizations top 5 prospects then I'll pack his bags for him. Let's face it, Jenks is not the same pitcher without the heat, no matter what anybody else says, it is obvious to me. He's losing velocity each year, and is an injury waiting to happen. I think we're going to be seeing a lot more outings like last night from him during the second half, making our bullpen worthless as a whole. It baffles me that Bobby has had so much success so far this season because all the batters have to do is look for the 93 mph straight as an arrow fastball and crush it. I think that during the first half that batters still expected the heat, but now they know that Bobby's fastball is only average at best.

LOL. Bobby is a four-pitch closer with a nasty deuce. I think you have Jenks confused with Billy Koch.

Chisoxfn
07-15-2007, 08:02 PM
I think you're far more likely to get that type of package for Vazquez than you would for Jenks. And that's what I would try to do if I were KW.

Four players should be on the block: Vazquez, Dye, Contreras and Iguchi. We can fill in a lot of blanks by moving all of them AND keep our closer.
I think you have to move Thome because a team like the Angels would give up a very strong package to get him (especially with Tex on the DL, Glaus banged up and Tejada out till sometime in August).

I would never give up Vazquez unless the club inks Garland to an extension (which I don't think will happen) so I think Garland is the one you move for that package to the Braves than swing Jenks to another team looking for a closer (potentially Boston, who would use Jenks in the 8th or 9th and eventually slide Pablebon into the rotation next year). Only reason I suggest Jenks is that Gammons continues to say the Red Sox really want Lidge.

Thome and Garland or Jenks should get you 4 of an organizations best prospects (2 for each player) plus at least 1-2 more good prospects (the guys like Craig Hansen, Joey Devine type of guys). I keep hoping Saito falls a part and the Dodgers end up going for a deal involving Dye and Jenks because I think at that point you have a shot at getting quite a bit of young major league talent from the Dodgers and than swing a Thome deal to get a lot of young talent from the Angels (of course all of this is moot cause Thome has a full no trade).

Still I see no reason to keep Thome because even if he sticks around he's going to be productive for what, one more season. Why even bother with that when now is the time we could get 2-3 guys that could help the Sox for a long long time (especially when they have SO many holes to fill next year to be competitive). To me the only way to really contend next year is to move a couple older guys that have a limited future with the Sox for some good young athletes (and than you sign 1-3 guys via FA to fill holes, people like Jose Guillen, I'm not talking about breaking the bank) and mess around with the pen, but not as drastically as some would indicate).

alohafri
07-15-2007, 08:03 PM
Trade him before the rest of baseball figure out that his velocity is down and can't throw strikes.

Chisoxfn
07-15-2007, 08:06 PM
And two of those guys have better rates of converting saves than Jenks does. Wickman is 80 percent. Jenks is about 86 percent. That is the reason you won't get much in trade for Jenks. Good teams don't spend a lot on their bullpens. Joe Borowski is with his sixth team since 1997, and he hasn't been traded since 1996. In the 2002 post season, the best reliever was Francisco Rodriguez, who had only faced 21 major league hitters before the postseason -- none before Sept. 18.

Jenks is a good closer. He isn't Gossage or Eckersley or Sutter, and he isn't having a great season. A team would have be stupid (as in the Phillies trading Polanco for Urbina stupid) to give up what he is worth to the White Sox, not just this year but in future years. The Braves aren't going to give up a lot for an upgrade over Wickman. If a team had a prosepct who was almost ready to be a stud in the starting rotation, bullpen problems might have that guy starting anyway, and probably doing as good a job as Jenks could do.

Fans here have a tendency to overvalue what White Sox players could get in trade and then complain when players bring too little in trade. People here who are advocating trading Jenks would be screaming the loudest about the incompetency of of Kenny Williams if a Jenks trade were completed.
Dude...you can not tell me you are going to compare Jenks with Wickman (this season). Conversion rate be damned I think Jenks is one of the best in the biz at closing games since he entered the league. He is tough to hit (aside from when he wore down the second half of last year) and has dominating stuff. Wickman gets lit up and has gotten very lucky (look at the ERA and WHIP) and compare that to Jenks.

Closers....Ugie Urbina (when he was already losing it a bit) fetched Adrian Gonzalez and more so Jenks would get an absolute ton (considering he's one of the best closers in the game).

Krod, Rivera, Hoffman are about the only three that I hands down take over Jenks. JJ Putz has been very strong this year, Cordero has been strong for the Brewers, obviously Pablebon has been very good for the Red Sox (I don't take Pable over Jenks because Jenks has more good pitches, imo).

And given the long term ramifcations, of the Krod, Rivera, Hoffman...I'd only take Krod over Jenks (because the other two are much older).

Chisoxfn
07-15-2007, 08:08 PM
I posted the list of free-agent relievers available this offseason, and I tell you it is an aging and unimpressive list.

Understand, I am not arguing that Jenks is untouchable. I do think that people have posted some pie-in-the-sky scenarios in this thread. Which is fine. This is "What's The Score?", and I checked my brain at the door. If somebody offers us a bounty for Jenks, KW should consider it.

I am, however, arguing that we have other tradeable commodities that can fill multiple holes for us. We can deal from a position of strength, namely the rotation. If you deal Jenks, you're dealing from a position from weakness, namely the bullpen.

Unlike a lot of people here, I think we can get something decent for Dye. Especially if we hold on another week or 10 days and he continues to hit the ball out of the park. I'll take whatever for Contreras, and I hope he dangles Vazquez to see if Javy is the chip we can use to fill multiple holes. We gave up three players for Vaz. Maybe we can get three players back.

Milwaukee and Atlanta sure could use a starting pitcher, and both have prospects to deal. That's who I'd call.
We really only gave up one player for Vazquez. Vizcaino was a serviceable reliever and I definitely didn't want to see Duque back in the rotation (although I tip my cap to what he did in the playoffs against the Red Sox and he is doing a good job with the Mets this season) but Chris Young is the only thing we gave up and right now if the Sox wanted to deal Vazquez they would get two prospects that are rated to a similar level as Young, imo.

However, I think moving Vazquez (unless you get a ridiculous offer) would be foolish unless you ink Garland.

santo=dorf
07-15-2007, 08:18 PM
Still I see no reason to keep Thome because even if he sticks around he's going to be productive for what, one more season. Why even bother with that when now is the time we could get 2-3 guys that could help the Sox for a long long time (especially when they have SO many holes to fill next year to be competitive). To me the only way to really contend next year is to move a couple older guys that have a limited future with the Sox for some good young athletes (and than you sign 1-3 guys via FA to fill holes, people like Jose Guillen, I'm not talking about breaking the bank) and mess around with the pen, but not as drastically as some would indicate).
Jim Thome was the best hitter against RHP last year. Better than A-Rod, Pujols and Howard. This year in overall OPS for DH's he's only behind Ortiz. Against RHP he's second of all of the Major leagues with a 1.151 OPS (.006 behind Ortiz.)

Jose Guillen has never been as productive as Thome, and if his $9 million option is picked up next year, he'll make more than what the Sox will be paying Jimmy. With this market, everyone will be "breaking the bank." Even Eric Byrnes is looking for Gary Matthews Jr. money.

Please give it a rest already. The club likes Thome and Thome wants to play close to home. He has a NTC so it's very unlikely they'll trade this bargain of a player to the beloved Angels.

Frontman
07-15-2007, 08:27 PM
Bobby Jenks could and should get you at least two of an organizations top 3 prospects plus another top 5 prospect in an organization. That means you make the move, especially because closers are probably the last piece to the puzzle and are relatively easy to find.

Moving Jenks is actually one of the better suggestions Levine has had in recent terms because he could get you an everyday shortstop (who could turn into the clubs leadoff hitter) and potentially an everyday catcher (if you want to get a replacement for AJ) or a very good outfielder.

The Dodgers don't need a closer, but a package of Kemp and Hu would be the type of deal I'd be looking at if I were going to move Jenks. That would give you a RF with super upside in Kemp and a SS that looks like a very good long term leadoff hitter.

If you talk Braves you go after Salty/Escobar as both look to be very good long term major league ball players at need positions with the Sox. The Indians would obviously love Jenks but I don't think you deal with them. Tigers could be interested but again I don't think you go within the division.

Even the Red Sox could be interested (as it would enable them the option of moving Pablebon into the rotation when Schilling leaves this off-season).

Those deals only work if the team in question is willing to part with that amount of talent. To just get two prospects for Jenks? No, it isn't worth it. Getting two MLB ready players for Jenks? A possibility, as long as they aren't DH/1st basemen only. We have needs for certain on the Sox, but to get to AA possibly AAA players? We already have enough of them on the Sox roster. Get us some long term MLB ready players, then we've got a possible deal.

TDog
07-15-2007, 09:25 PM
Dude...you can not tell me you are going to compare Jenks with Wickman (this season). Conversion rate be damned I think Jenks is one of the best in the biz at closing games since he entered the league. He is tough to hit (aside from when he wore down the second half of last year) and has dominating stuff. Wickman gets lit up and has gotten very lucky (look at the ERA and WHIP) and compare that to Jenks.

Closers....Ugie Urbina (when he was already losing it a bit) fetched Adrian Gonzalez and more so Jenks would get an absolute ton (considering he's one of the best closers in the game).

Krod, Rivera, Hoffman are about the only three that I hands down take over Jenks. JJ Putz has been very strong this year, Cordero has been strong for the Brewers, obviously Pablebon has been very good for the Red Sox (I don't take Pable over Jenks because Jenks has more good pitches, imo).

And given the long term ramifcations, of the Krod, Rivera, Hoffman...I'd only take Krod over Jenks (because the other two are much older).

If you have Wickman and you can get Jenks from the White Sox without having to give up much, you'll go for it. But you're not going to give up much for the upgrade.

I don't think any contender is desperate enough for a closer to give up more than a prospect for a bench player or a combination of the two for Jenks. If you were debating a proposed trade, you might have an argument. But just because people have overpaid for Urbina (which will never happen again) and Matt Karchner, doesn't mean anyone who wants to keep his job will overpay for Jenks. Roberto Hernandez brought back five prospects, of course, but he was packaged with two starters.

If you were discussing a trade rumor in which a team was offering a lot for Jenks, it would be one thing. This is all premised on the mistaken belief that by giving up their closer, the White Sox could fill other holes on their team.

That probably isn't going to happen.

JB98
07-15-2007, 11:12 PM
We really only gave up one player for Vazquez. Vizcaino was a serviceable reliever and I definitely didn't want to see Duque back in the rotation (although I tip my cap to what he did in the playoffs against the Red Sox and he is doing a good job with the Mets this season) but Chris Young is the only thing we gave up and right now if the Sox wanted to deal Vazquez they would get two prospects that are rated to a similar level as Young, imo.

However, I think moving Vazquez (unless you get a ridiculous offer) would be foolish unless you ink Garland.

No, we gave up three players for Vazquez. Duque, Vizcaino and Young are all currently in the major leagues. Regardless of what you think of them, they are big-league players.

Frater Perdurabo
07-16-2007, 06:56 AM
Jim Thome was the best hitter against RHP last year. Better than A-Rod, Pujols and Howard. This year in overall OPS for DH's he's only behind Ortiz. Against RHP he's second of all of the Major leagues with a 1.151 OPS (.006 behind Ortiz.)

I agree completely; I've been saying the same thing for a few weeks. Instead, sign a slugging RHB to play left and have him DH against LHP to rest Thome. Ironically, that player might already be on the roster: Dye. I would trade Dye to a contender for a solid reliever or a top position player prospect. Then, if the price is right, sign him this again this offseason.

The only way KW should trade Jenks if he plans to go into full rebuilding mode.

But that might not even be wise. If the Sox go into full rebuilding mode, presumably they build around pitchers who they already have under their control for the long term: Danks, Buehrle and Vazquez. Presumably the Sox would be facing a year or two of low scoring games: good pitching but inexperienced hitting. If so, Jenks actually allows the Sox to remain competitive in games they do manage to build small leads.

Besides, I don't think KW goes into full rebuilding mode. It's more likely he tries to re-load in the hopes of contending in 2008. Well, if Jenks is a premium closer, trading him away substantially weakens the 2008 team.

jabrch
07-16-2007, 08:39 AM
If some team with a decent farm really would give us 2 of top 3 + 1 more top 5, I'm guessing KW would be all over that. There's no reason not to. I like Jenks - but that's a ton to get. And if you are talking about the packages mentioned in this thread from Atlanta or Boston, we'd be foolish to not do it.

I don't think teams will give up that much for Bobby.

beck72
07-16-2007, 09:26 AM
Jenks isn't easily replaced. And he's locked up for years at a cheap price

The sox should trade Vazquez, as he'd get a similar return as Jenks. And he costs more, and the sox have SP options to replace him.

Lukin13
07-16-2007, 10:24 AM
I don't think any contender is desperate enough for a closer to give up more than a prospect for a bench player or a combination of the two for Jenks.


BINGO!

On a daily basis I see trades proposed here where contenders give up current everyday players in exchange for Dye, Contreras etc.

Be it the Dodgers, the Padres or the Mets are not going to create one hole in order to fill another.

Back in '05 when we were after Griffey our top ML level prospect was Crede or maybe Garland..... were we gonna give up either of them for Junior??? No chance.

We are not getting Heilman from the Mets he is there number 2 man in the pen, how can they give that up???

ZombieRob
07-16-2007, 10:49 AM
Who wants any of our players? Jenks and A.J are basiclly the only tradible players .Thome would be a rent type player .No contending team really needs Thome.And he really shouldn't be in our long term plans anyway I'm sure I'm on a short list of fans who say keep Javy,But if I'm K.W Javy is on my team next couple of years.If you don't keep Javy then why sign Buerhle?


Sox still have a heckuva starting rotation.It's easier IMO to build around 4 starters then 3.

PatK
07-16-2007, 11:38 AM
Why anybody would want to trade Javy at this point blows my mind.

Sure, right now, we'd probably get the most for him, but you can't make that move with the rotation the way it is.

ZombieRob
07-16-2007, 11:44 AM
Why anybody would want to trade Javy at this point blows my mind.

Sure, right now, we'd probably get the most for him, but you can't make that move with the rotation the way it is.
I agree.The only thing that scares me is the velocity Jenks is throwing at.I just don't want to see another Billy Koch .

cws05champ
07-16-2007, 12:03 PM
BINGO!

On a daily basis I see trades proposed here where contenders give up current everyday players in exchange for Dye, Contreras etc.

Be it the Dodgers, the Padres or the Mets are not going to create one hole in order to fill another.

Back in '05 when we were after Griffey our top ML level prospect was Crede or maybe Garland..... were we gonna give up either of them for Junior??? No chance.

We are not getting Heilman from the Mets he is there number 2 man in the pen, how can they give that up???

The Deal for Griffey was Chris Young, Casey Rogowski and another minor leaguer...there were no discussions of sending anyone from our major league roster IIRC.

If you get a large haul for Jenks, which you should, then I think you have to consider it. But this is all contingent on two things: 1) What is the Sox real direction for 08, is it conceeding the year to develop young talent and hope for resurgence in 09. KW can say in media speak that he wants to win every year, but sometimes that's just not the reality of the siuation. 2) What you get for Dye and Contreras, assuming they are both traded.

However, you can imagine the backlash and "dispicable" labels thrust upon the Sox if they were to trade Jenks as well as the one's they are expected to trade!!

UserNameBlank
07-16-2007, 01:39 PM
BINGO!

On a daily basis I see trades proposed here where contenders give up current everyday players in exchange for Dye, Contreras etc.

Be it the Dodgers, the Padres or the Mets are not going to create one hole in order to fill another.

Back in '05 when we were after Griffey our top ML level prospect was Crede or maybe Garland..... were we gonna give up either of them for Junior??? No chance.

We are not getting Heilman from the Mets he is there number 2 man in the pen, how can they give that up???
We gave up an everyday player in Olivo when we picked up Garcia. Teams will trade everyday players who don't have track records for veterans that do.

Teams will deal from a position of strength. If a team has a starter working out of the bullpen, that team can deal that starter. You open one hole that is easier to fill and in turn plug a larger hole. That said, out of our pitchers only Jenks, Garland, or Javy are going to bring a substantial piece right now.

Garland and Crede were not prospects in '05. If you mean "young major leaguers" that is another thing. The deal that was discussed IIRC was centered around Chris Young, and that deal had as much to do with what Cincinnati wanted as it did with what the Sox wanted to give up. Cincy wasn't going to take a veteran a year or two from FA making several million dollars. They would have wanted a highly touted prospect a year or less away, which is exactly what Young was at that time. He debuted in the Majors in '06.

If the Mets shied away from dealing Heilman in order to improve the rotation they would be nuts. That said, I don't know if Contreras would be an improvement for them, but someone like Javy would be, and he'd be worth much, much, much more than Heilman. If the choice for the Mets was give up a reliever and take a hit in the major league bullpen or give up a top prospect, they would take the hit in their pen every time - and run away laughing.

JB98
07-16-2007, 03:08 PM
Why anybody would want to trade Javy at this point blows my mind.

Sure, right now, we'd probably get the most for him, but you can't make that move with the rotation the way it is.

Why not? Buehrle and Garland are throwing great. Danks is showing a lot of promise. Gio might be ready next year. The starting rotation is the LEAST of our worries now that Mark is signed.

Sell high on Javy. He's the guy you can fill two or three holes with right now, not Jenks.

PatK
07-16-2007, 03:41 PM
Why not? Buehrle and Garland are throwing great. Danks is showing a lot of promise. Gio might be ready next year. The starting rotation is the LEAST of our worries now that Mark is signed.

Sell high on Javy. He's the guy you can fill two or three holes with right now, not Jenks.

Gio MIGHT be ready? He better be better than Javy if you trade him.

I don't see anyone trading us anything that will fill two or three holes for him. One immediate need would be his vacancy.

oeo
07-16-2007, 04:15 PM
Why not? Buehrle and Garland are throwing great. Danks is showing a lot of promise. Gio might be ready next year. The starting rotation is the LEAST of our worries now that Mark is signed.

Sell high on Javy. He's the guy you can fill two or three holes with right now, not Jenks.

Trading Javy would create another hole. We're not going to get anyone as good as Javy as a stopgap if we trade him. He needs to stay. Contreras needs to go, and then we should insert one of Masset, Floyd, or Gio into the rotation (if it's Floyd; package up Masset to bring in a young OF/SS).

alohafri
07-17-2007, 10:31 PM
I agree.The only thing that scares me is the velocity Jenks is throwing at.I just don't want to see another Billy Koch .

Too late. Jenks came in and I said to the wife, "here is the ball game. Bet he at least allows it to be tied."

ChiSoxGirl
07-17-2007, 10:38 PM
Too late. Jenks came in and I said to the wife, "here is the ball game. Bet he at least allows it to be tied."

I could tell right away that something was going to go horribly wrong from the start- he couldn't find the strike zone, just like what happened in the 9th on Saturday night in Baltimore.

Rongey just said this is his third blown save in his last seven chances! :o:

chisoxfanatic
07-17-2007, 10:54 PM
Rongey just said this is his third blown save in his last seven chances! :o:
That's just as mind-numbing a stat as the 16 blown games overall by the entire bullpen when we've held a lead in the last three innings.

Chicken Dinner
07-17-2007, 11:15 PM
I'd be OK with trading Jenks tonight! :mad:

TDog
07-18-2007, 02:10 AM
I'd be OK with trading Jenks tonight! :mad:

No you wouldn't. You would be upset with how little the Sox got for him.