WCSox

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 06:25 AM) Without knowing Gordon personally...my guess is that's exactly the kind of stuff he needs. They've moved him around too much over the past year, but I basically agree. Learning how to deal with adversity is part of becoming a professional in any line of work. QUOTE (zenryan @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 09:57 AM) "You may run like Hayes, but you hit like s***."

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2010 -> 06:09 AM) Peavy has been toying around mechanically, and something seems to have clicked last night. He's been, at times, throwing HARDER this year than he had in previous years. I highly doubt he's injured. If he were, I'd think that he'd have the sense to shut himself down. This isn't some kid from a poverty-stricken family in South America who's playing for a big contract. I didn't get to see the game, but it's nice to hear that he had really good stuff after that first inning.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) I just remember a lot of idle speculation at the beginning of the offseason that K-Rod was talking numbers like $50-100 million. He didn't, in the end, come close to sniffing those numbers, and rightfully so. There's a lot of wear and tear on that arm/shoulder, and he does have a pretty violent delivery that screams DL in the 2nd half of his career. $100 million deal is off-the-charts ridiculous. Rivera wasn't even getting that money in his prime, in a strong economy. Totally agreed about K-Rod. Omar Minaya is one of the worst GMs in the league, so I'm not surprised that he's paying K-Rod that much after logging a gazillion innings on his arm.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 27, 2010 -> 08:25 PM) Valverde and K-Rod didn't get anything close to what some were speculating, Fernando Rodney, etc. K-Rod got $33M. Valverde got $14M. Rodney got $11M after posting a laughable 1.47 WHIP in his one full year as a closer. I'd take one year of Jenks at $7.5M over two years of Rodney at $11M. And it's a moot point, because the Sox typically don't over-pay for FA closers anyway. Well, yeah, but that's how baseball contacts work. Teams under-pay good players in pre-arb and often over-pay those same players in arb years. You're not going to be able to ride a guy with Jenks' track record at $3M/year forever. Not really. He's under contract through this year, and it's highly unlikely that he'll be in a Sox uniform next year. If the Sox fall out of contention, they can deal him at the deadline for a bag of Big League Chew and save a couple million. The trick now is to find a cheap, in-house replacement for Bobby. Santos may be that guy, but he still has a lot to prove.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 09:55 PM) The time to get rid of Jenks was during the offseason when we could have used those funds elsewhere. Now that he's here and we can't spread that money around anymore, it's retarded to think about further weakening our baseball team. If anything, we need to *add* to the bullpen. We have to be counting on an occasionally painful learning curve for Santos, overall ineffectiveness from Williams, a garbage Linebrink in the 2nd half, and DL time here and there for Jenks and Putz. We should be in shopping mode right now. Getting rid of Bobby would've been a step in the wrong direction. One could make a strong argument that $7.5M is too much for a guy who posted a 1.28 WHIP last year, but it's a lot less than what we would've paid for an established FA closer. If Kenny would've waived Jenks this winter and gone with cheap replacements, that would've created another hole in an already-shaky bullpen. In addition, cheap FA relief pitchers are a major crapshoot. Even expensive, established guys can blow up in your face (Linebrink). Going with a $7.5M guy in his prime with a nice track record for one more year is a lot safer than going cheap and risking 2007 all over again, or paying out the ass for a FA and restricting the budget for multiple years.

And despite all of this analysis, we still don't know what Danks would sign for, or if he wants to wait and hit the free agent market.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:35 PM) NO. I was referring to the fact that very few teams would trade for him at that salary. An elite team doesn't take the risk unless their closer goes down and there's nothing else available on the market, that's the only way. Maybe the top 3-5 payroll teams could do what the Mets did and make Putz set-up, or the Cubs with Zambrano. But they're not going to give up much in return young talent-wise. I could see the Rays or a team like the Twins (if they weren't in the AL Central) trading for Jenks. Despite the sticker shock of $7.5M, he isn't owed a cent more than that. That said, I agree that the Sox would get a mediocre prospect at best in return. Dealing Bobby would mostly be a salary dump.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 09:12 AM) Thornton was warming to come into the game. They didn't want him to, but they also wanted to win that game. If Bobby gave up the tying run, Thornton would have been in. I also took that as Ozzie sending Bobby a message, with minimal embarrassment. Nice to see Bobby respond positively.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 01:03 AM) We probably did wait 2 years too late. Last offseason there was a glut of relievers. It does beg the question, was Matt Thornton or Dotel capable of being the closer in 2008? Linebrink? I don't think so....without Jenks, no ALCD crown in 2008. I feel they did look at and serously consider what options there were out there as far as trades...after 2008, but nothing overwhelming came up, and then you had the fact his salary really started to jump up in ARB years, as well. He would be tradeable, but that salary is going to scare off 18-20 clubs, and the high budget teams mostly have expensive closers already. You don't pay $7.5 million for a nasty set-up guy that has a high WHIP and screw in his arm. You do when he has Jenks' track record, you have no better in-house options, and your bullpen outside of Thornton is pretty much terrible (nobody could've foreseen a converted SS becoming our best bullpen arm this winter). Better to pay Bobby year-by-year than to throw a $10M+ multi-year deal at somebody like K-Rod and hope that he doesn't blow his arm out. I don't want Bobby around next year, but bringing him back this year was absolutely the right thing to do.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 26, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) YET, reading the tea leaves with the "firing" of Boras and the future of his brother in the organization...LV odds would be 60-75% or so that we can keep him in his first or second year of FA, that's my guess, based entirely on conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Didn't Danks reject a deal similar to the one that the Sox gave Floyd? Those "tea leaves" seem to suggest that he wants to test free agency. I'm all for offering him an extension, but there's ample evidence suggesting that he's not looking for one in the foreseeable future.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Apr 25, 2010 -> 02:03 PM) Southpaw was giving the the Mariners' on-field reporter the business with a broom during the post-game show today. Funny stuff.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 07:53 PM) Or just tell him to stop f***in around and throw old man Griffey some heat which he can't catch up to No kidding. His bat has REALLY slowed down since his heyday.

I see that 2007/2008 Aardsma is back. Shocker.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 03:34 PM) At this point, just free up his salary. He should have never been brought back this season. I disagree. The bullpen was horrible last year and Jenks was one of its few decent arms. Ozzie could've moved Thornton to closer, but that would've left Putz, Linebrink, and Pena to cover the 7th and 8th innings. Ouch. Santos pretty much came out of nowhere, and his minor league numbers don't exactly suggest that he's a can't-miss prospect.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) You extend D1; you can still deal him for bats if you think that's the right move. He's probably more valuable if you can buy out an Arb year or two. And anyway...no, you can't have too much starting pitching. This isn't a bad strategy, but you still limit his trade market if you attach a guaranteed $30M+ contract to him. A team like the Rays very well may give up somebody like Upton for two arb years of Danks, but would probably not trade for that contract. I'm all for giving extensions to excellent home-grown pitching... and I do hope that Danks stays in Chicago for a long time. But I can't imagine how bad this offense is going to be next year without PK and Jones. And it's not like Flowers or D2 have shown that they can hit major-league pitching yet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 02:54 PM) Konerko's contract ends this year and that will save some money. Pierzynski's ends and that will save some money. And salary overall has actually been pretty stagnant for a couple years now. If you give D1 a 5 year extension and your finances go in the toilet, the only way that possibly hurts you is if he blows out his arm. My point wasn't the salary commitment, but the lack of balance on the team. If you're committed to Peavy, Buehrle, and Floyd for the next few years and will likely have Hudson in the rotation next year, it might makes sense to deal Danks for a couple of young bats. He's going to be worth a ton with a couple of arb-eligible years left. (It may also be worth it to give PK an extension.) I generally agree that locking up Danks would be a good thing (especially if Mark is truly done after next year). However, there are circumstances where dealing him may put the Sox in a better position to win.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2010 -> 01:59 PM) If he'd sign an extension tomorrow, I'd sign him to it. What if Mark asks for a reasonably-priced 3-year extension, Peavy ends up posting a 1.20 WHIP, and Floyd has a good year?

What I'd be willing to give Danks would depend on a lot of other factors (how he pitches this year, how Floyd pitches this year, how Peavy pitches this year, if Mark really wants to retire after 2011, if the Sox play halfway decent ball later this year, etc.). I'd wait until this winter and came up with a long-term plan before putting together an offer for him.

Jenks would likely net us a mediocre prospect at best. The real motivation to moving him at the deadline would be to save a couple million dollars. That said, if we're out of contention, moving him at the deadline makes sense. Because trading his rights this winter will net us zilch. Nobody's going to give up something to pay a declining closer $8.5M+ next year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 01:48 PM) He was out of options and they had no room for him on their staff at the time. IIRC, Borchard was out of options as well. As is Nix right now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) I hope you aren't comparing Jayson Nix to either Marte or Borchard, because it isn't even in the same neighborhood. Borchard had a better minor league career than Nix (and got to the bigs faster), but he was still regarded as a bust when we dealt him to Seattle. I'm still surprised that they were willing to give up a guy with Thornton's arm.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 23, 2010 -> 12:17 PM) Wouldn't it make more sense to DFA or waive Vizquel and replace him with Retherford...but then keep Nix in AAA playing 2B everyday (affording the spot to say D2)? Or your idea is that he might be claimed by another team if he goes through the process? Or, since Ozzie will never be part of embarassing/shaming Omar, they'll just flip flop Nix and Retherford on the 25 man? Given how the Sox tend to treat veterans, I'm pretty sure that Vizquel won't be DFA'd. If they eventually want him off the roster, they'll trade him to a contender for a low-tier prospect.

As the saying goes, "You can't polish a turd." As long as half of the lineup isn't hitting, switching it around isn't going to make much of a difference.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 22, 2010 -> 11:24 PM) Just an FYI, but while some of us might like seeing young players, the majority of the fans will have zero interest seeing young players, especially if they aren't high upside young players, go through the motions of a 90 to 100 loss season. They've done it before and they'll do it again if they have to.

I said it during ST and I'll say it again: If his team isn't competitive by the ASB of next year, 2011 may be Ozzie's last year in Chicago. His teams have under-performed since late 2006 (yes, the 2008 team was better than 89 wins) and Ozzie's strong points (leadership, motivation) no longer appear to be strengths. If he can't even inspire his players to focus and have good at-bats, what exactly is he bringing to the table?