WCSox

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 10:49 AM) Dude, Bradley has changed clubhouses 7 times, and its about to be 8 times. And its all for the exact same reason, Anger, Anger and more anger. this cat aint changin his stripes. Jurassic Carl looks like a normal person standing next to Bradley. QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) The difference is, AJ was a Major League catcher, which we needed. Carl Everett (the second time) was our DH, which we needed because Frank was out. Floyd was a young SP, which we needed. Jenks was a young, cheap power arm, which we needed. I don't see any hole on this club that Milton Bradley would fill other than DH, because we certainly wouldn't want him in the OF, and why would we want a guy who isn't even hitting for power to be our DH? Why would we want to pay even Linebrink's salary to a guy like that when we could probably get Thome back for the same amount? Besides, Bradley is never healthy for a full season anyway. Thome is a better health bet than Bradley is. Linebrink is a sunk cost. We're better off eating that and hoping we get something out of it on OUR field rather than taking on an even worse contract and expecting that player to perform in an even larger role. At least when Linebrink sucks we can - in theory, not practice when it comes to Ozzie - hide Linebrink's ass as the last man in the pen. But if Bradley sucks for us then we still have to play him every day because if we're paying him that much money then we're not going to be bringing in a real DH as a backup plan. And at least if Linebrink suddenly becomes good again he'll be a player who fits an area of need for other teams, whereas Bradley would be basically untradeable to the entire NL and wouldn't be wanted by at least half the AL because of character issues, or intradivisional issues, or because we simply don't want to help out another contender. It's simple: Bradley-for-Linebrink, like Peavy-for-Zambrano, is just the wishful thinking of Cub fans who still haven't realized that unlike Jim Hendry, our GM is not a complete buffoon. The Cubs gave an assload of money to a career cancer with major health issues who just happened to have a career year in the best hitting environment in baseball. Now they're going to have to pay him to play for someone else. Let's just let those Cubbies enjoy their misery. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) AJ was looked at as a great teammate in MIN, then had one bad year in SF. Not SEVEN BAD STINTS WITH SEVEN TEAMS. And Jenks had off-field problems, not on-field ones. The only player I've seen the Sox take on who had a bad rep that is in the same genre as Bradley's was Jurassic Carl, and he had issues as it was. But Everett was never seen as a guy who didn't make the effort, or who had a fragile ego - both of which Bradley has, and both of which would be an epic disaster in Chicago and on an Ozzie-coached team. No frickin way. ^^^ I'd rather go 72-90 with Pods or Kotsay at DH than bring a nutcase douche like Bradley into the clubhouse. Remember when Griffey gushed about how the Sox organization had a "family" atmosphere? That attracts free agents and players with no-trade clauses. Let's not mess that up.

Given that the Sox can't score runs consistently, does it freaking matter? Sabathia and Greinke probably wouldn't have won with the sorry-ass effort that our offense put up today.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 10:03 PM) There's no reason to make Buehrle the 4th starter unless his performance warrants it. I agree, but his performances in August and June haven't exactly been a strong argument for him being an ace. He's been a veritable Jeckle and Hyde this year.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Sep 20, 2009 -> 04:56 AM) This thread started with professional baseball writers, mainly Nightengale, who isn't a hack, and others who have their ears to the ground, suggesting Jenks is more likely to be traded than to remain with the team. That being the case, and knowing Kenny Williams isn't shy about pulling the trigger on a trade, scenarios were thrown out there. If you don't like the premise, that Jenks may be traded, fine. A solid case could be made for keeping Bobby. Yet the premise is that what to do if the sox are intent on trading him, what should they get back. It's worth noting that the Sox have gone almost exclusively in-house for closers over the past 20 years. The one time that they traded for an established veteran (Koch) was a complete disaster. So, if Bobby is dealt, I seriously doubt that somebody like Valverde or Qualls will be signed to replace him. Thornton seems to be the most likely candidate.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 07:28 PM) I guess you can manipulate the data as you want. His consistent regression in 2 key categories (BAA, BB/9) is worrisome, to me. I could understand if it was more random, but it's quite consistent. And the killer for me, is during this same time his workload has decreased steadily as well. He can no longer pitch 60 games, and I doubt he pitches 55 games next season (with serious DL time a distinct possibility). I think this fits perfectly with the wear-and-tear argument, and that we've seen the last days of Bobby being a quality closer. Speaking of "manipulation," you're cherry-picking data over the past three seasons. Bobby's BB/9 is still significantly lower than it was in 2005 and 2006. His BAA and WHIP are also significantly lower than they were in 2006, and just above his 2005 numbers. If you want to play with more numbers, Bobby's K/BB jumped significantly from last year and is currently above his career average. What you don't seem to (want to) recognize is that Bobby had a career, Rivera-like year in 2007 and another really good year in 2008. Both seasons were well above his career average, so it's only logical to expect a regression at some point. Not surprisingly, his current numbers are in between his 2005 and 2006 performances. I don't see one more year of 2005/2006 Bobby as a negative, but that's just my opinion. Jenks' short-term "downward trend" of BAA and BB/9 is due to a decline in command. If you've been watching this year, you surely noticed that his command has been awful, which is why he's been getting shelled. In previous years, he had difficulty locating his offspeed stuff at times. This year, he's had difficulty getting his fastballs over. That said, he's still hitting the mid-90's routinely, so I don't see any evidence that the number of innings he's pitched is suddenly going to render him ineffective next season. Your argument that Bobby "can no longer pitch 60 games" is also pure conjecture. I'd like to see some evidence to support this statement ("kidney stones" doesn't count). No, what's ridiculous is your straw man argument that I believe that Thornton "would fail" as a closer. I merely stated that his effectiveness as a closer is an unknown, which is true. For all I know, he may go on to be the next Billy Wagner. I correctly pointed out that he wouldn't be the first setup man to not have success as a closer. There's a reason why guys like Hawkins and Marmol haven't done well in that role: there's a lot more pressure involved and it takes a certain mental makeup to handle that pressure. I didn't even bother to mention that Thronton can't throw an offspeed pitch for strikes consistently, which doesn't help his case. While making your dubious argument that Thornton's effectiveness in the closer role is a slam dunk, you've avoided addressing my point that moving Thornton from the setup role creates another hole in the bullpen. Who's our new setup man now? Linebrink? Pena?

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 03:09 PM) Never said it wasn't applicable. But I'm not tying up another $8 million to assure ourselves that we have an above average reliever in the pen. I'd rather take the chance at one of the others bouncing back to the level they've shown they can be at. None of them have closed before (except Dotel, who will be pitching for somebody else in March). Pitching well as a setup man or 7th inning guy is a lot different than closing. Also, a crap pen that can't hold leads severely undermines the investment in Peavy. I disagree that it's a "solid trend" (more like a one-year dip, especially when you look at his entire career), but I'll buy the wear-and-tear argument. I certainly don't want him here past 2010. I have no problem replacing Bobby, but it needs to be with a veteran closer who can still pitch at a high level. Otherwise, it's a step backwards.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 02:19 PM) I'm of the opinion, that you don't keep around a ~$10 mil above average reliever just because the rest of your bullpen struggled last year. Especially when those pen guys have had a decent history of success. That's not using your resources to the fullest. The move from Jenks to Thornton at closer is an immediate upgrade, imo. Also, don't overlook the fact that Jenks could be even worse next year. He's certainly trending that way. So, Linebrink and Pena's "decent history of success" is a positive, but Jenks' history of success is somehow not applicable because he may be worse next year because of a perceived short-term trend? Jenks has had a lot more recent success than Linebrink or Pena, so this conclusion doesn't make much sense to me. If I had to bet on Jenks vs. Linebrink to bounce back next year, I'd take Jenks all the way. Jenks' "downward trend" started with one of the best closer seasons in Sox history (2007) and was followed by a very good season (2008). I look at it as Bobby having a down year after two really good years, and don't see why he can't bonce back. He did this after his career-worst 2006 season. I also disagree that Thronton is an "immediate upgrade" at closer. First of all, he's never closed in his life and nobody knows how he'll respond to that role. For all we know, he could be the next LaTroy Hawkins or Carlos Marmol. Also, moving Thornton to closer creates an immediate downgrade at the setup position and takes away the possibility of him being an occasional left-handed specalist. I'm all for Kenny going out and signing somebody like Valverde, but that's going to be A LOT more guaranteed money than giving Bobby a one-year/$7M deal. I guess it depends on what Kenny wants to do. But I don't trust any of our other in-house options, or a retread like Kerry Wood. This is absolutely true. You need more than one or two effective relievers, and we need Linebrink and Pena to be at least semi-decent next season.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 01:53 PM) And Buerhle has pitched as much as anyone in his era. Why is he all of a sudden so fragile? I never argued that he was fragile, but nice straw man nonetheless. Wow, you're on a roll today. Since your arguments have degraded to this level, it's probably best that we just agree to disagree.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 01:41 PM) Nolan Ryan once threw 259 pitches in one game. Pitchers used to make 40 starts a year and would go well over 100 pitches. Yes, but not all of them were able to do that. There are a lot of good pitchers (like, say, Freddy Garcia) who can't handle that load, but can still help you win a World Series. In general, pitchers back in the good old, pre-steroid, high-mound, huge-ballpark days also had a number of advantages that today's players don't. Today's pitching environment doesn't even remotely resemble that in the Dead Ball Era. Right, because Nolan Ryan isn't some freak of nature or anything, but is representative of the average #2 MLB starter today instead. Next, you'll argue that Quentin should drink beer during games, because it worked great for Babe Ruth.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 01:19 PM) Then Rios should sit because the Sox owe him $60 million, and what the heck is Peavy doing? They owe him $55 million and repetitive arm use will be used. Sit him down. These guys shouldn't pitch one inning in a spring training game either. (1) Rios isn't a pitcher. (2) Peavy has only pitched half of a season and doesn't have 2,000 innings on his arm. (3) Pitchers are actually preparing for something important in Spring Training. Right now, Mark is preparing to work on his golf game. Pitchers threw fewer pitches per inning because the mound was higher, the ballparks were smaller, the bats/balls were softer, there was no DH in the AL, and hitters weren't using steroids and HGH. Of course, that resulted in less strain on their arms. The talent pool was also less diluted because there were fewer teams, which translated into fewer marginal pitchers who couldn't physically handle that type of load. I'd love to see your supporting evidence for this. Especially in light of the popular argument in this thread that two more starts will have a miniscule effect on his arm.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 01:00 PM) What if Beckham or Quentin got hit on the hand tonight with a pitch and broke it? Maybe they shouldn't play either. I'd say that happening especially for Quentin is more probable than MB getting hurt because he threw 215 innings this year instead of 203, wouldn't you? We don't have $28 million committed to Beckham or Quentin and I'm talking about shoulder and elbow injuries unique to pitchers due to repetitive arm use, not freak accidents. So that's a bad comparison. That said, I'd probably shut down Quentin due to his plantar fascitis if the Sox were out of it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) So on a team where budget is everything, you think its necessary to pay a guy with an ERA in the mid 3/s who converts saves when he comes in with a one run lead 50% of the time, over $100,000 an inning? Budget is everything with the Sox??? Alex Rios says hi. Clearly, that is not the case, and a 1-year/$7M deal would be far from a budget-breaker. Pena and Linebrink (and even Dotel) have been significantly worse than Jenks this year... Pena: 1.41 WHIP Linebrink: 1.64 WHIP Dotel: 1.48 WHIP Jenks: 1.28 WHIP ... and I doubt that they'd be any more (or even equally) effective in the closer role. I absolutely agree that Jenks is not having a good year, but the numbers really show how incredibly bad the rest of our bullpen is. If you're going to deal Jenks, you absolutely need to do better than the above supporting cast as a replacement. Thornton is the only viable in-house option, but that also creates a hole in the setup role and takes away the option of using him as a left-handed specialist on occasion. The other option would be free agency, but then you're looking at $20M+ in guaranteed money for somebody good (i.e., not a Keery Wood or Kevin Gregg). The Sox have also had a ton of success developing their own closers over the past 20 years, so I don't see them shelling out a K-Rod-type deal (or anything close to it) on a FA.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) Because then you are paying the remainder of a high priced contract THIS SEASON just to SIT, and even if they are out of contention, the fans are ostensibly still buying tickets to see those high-caliber players perform. So, putting on a show for the fans trumps the intelligent handling of players in meaningless games? That sounds like a pretty bad way to handle a baseball team. And in case you haven't noticed, the "high-caliber" Sox players aren't really performing right now. No, it doesn't prove your point. Freddy was damaged goods in early 2006, and everybody on this board knew it. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Freddy's ERA ballooned from 3.87 to 4.53, he gave up a career-high 32 homers, and he lost 5-6 mph off of his fastball. The latter point is particularly important, as it highlights how the 2005 season not only permanently damaged Freddy's arm, but forced him to completely change his approach on the mound. If the Sox didn't make the playoffs in 2005, who knows what would've happened. But there's no denying that a pitcher's arm can only handle so much - over both long- and short-term periods of work. If you're not playing meaningful games in September and October, there's point in rolling the dice by putting more mileage on somebody's shoulder and elbow.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) You made his point with the Garcia story. Freddy blew out the next spring. Uh, no I didn't. He lost effectiveness in 2006 and was likely pitching through pain as well. You can't equate potential injury to pitchers to potential injury to position players. Pitchers are off-the-charts more subject to career-ending injuries than position players. Especially pitchers who already have over 2,000 innings on their arms. I completely disagree with this. If a team is mathematically eliminated or a GM has determined that his team's chances of making the playoffs are unrealistically low, the health of your players becomes the first and foremost priority. There's no "integrity" in risking tens of millions of dollars in meaningless games. If Kenny determines that the Sox are out of it next week, I can think of a couple good reasons to run Freddy and a healthy Peavy out there. I can't think of any good reason to run Mark, Floyd, or Danks out there.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) Linebrink better not be here next year. I can't believe that the Sox would keep him next year after this debacle of a second half. He'll be here. Take a look at his contract.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) This year was terrible. There are a ton of pitchers making a lot less money than Jenks that would have done better being put in the same situations. Yeah, and they're either not tradeable or are going to cost a ton in guaranteed money as FAs this winter. We're stuck with trash like Tony Pena, Lance Broadway, and Jimmy Gobble as our realistic cheap options. I don't consider a 1.28 WHIP "terrible" for a closer. By that definition, K-Rod has also been "terrible" this year. Statistically, Jenks was a lot better this year than he was in 2006. All I hear on this site is "Jenks sucks," "Jenks costs too much," "get rid of him," but I never hear a viable alternative. I agree that $7 million next year would be over-paying him, but who are you going to replace him with? Thornton, who's never closed in his life? Who's going to take the setup role then? Linebrink? Are you going to dole out a 4-year/$20 mil deal to somebody like Valverde, who's entering the downside of his career? The Sox have historically done best with closers who they've developed in their minor league system (Jenks, Foulke, Hernandez, Thigpen), and I don't see that strategy changing. I don't see anybody in our farm system who appears capable of stepping in, and that would be a hell of a gamble as well. This is a baseball team, not the stock market. You're trying to put a winning team together, not avoid over-paying players at all costs. Our bullpen completely sucks right now and dumping Jenks would be tantamount to eliminating half of its effective pitchers. The Sox need to add talent to the bullpen, not subtract it.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) So explain to me how 200 more repetitions of that arm this season differs from 600-800 repetitions of his arm next March. His arm has the same number of innings logged throughout the past, and if a major injury is going to happen in his next 15 IP, it's going to happen whether or not we sit him this season, because it means there's something fundamentally physically wrong that's going to give eventually. Not true. For example, there could be a very minor tear in Mark's labrum or rotator cuff that isn't problematic right now and would heal on its own over the winter, but could be further strained over the course of the next two starts. You never know when something like this might happen. Remember how Freddy coincidentally lost 5 mph off of his fastball after logging 241 innings in 2005, and then coincidentally blew out his shoulder the following spring? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating benching Mark if the Sox are still trying to win the division. But if Kenny has given up and has instructed Ozzie to give other players some playing time, you absolutely take out Mark at this point. You can take injury risk completely out of the picture and use 2005/2006 as a good example of what added innings can do to Mark's velocity and effectiveness the following season. If you're not playing for anything, why potentially subject your #2 pitcher to that?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 07:48 AM) I think any pitching we get back will be younger. I don't think anyone would trade major league ready pitching. I agree, and that highlights the problem with trading Jenks. By committing over $100 million to Peavy and Rios this summer, Kenny's obviously trying to win now, not two or three years from now. People here correctly point out that Bobby's going to get more expensive next year and that he's having a down season (possibly indicative of a long-term decline), and they argue that KW should trade him now before his value decreases further. That mentality works fine for a rebuilding team, but if you're not going to get any talent in return that will help you win right away, it's the wrong approach. Kenny's obviously more interested in putting together the most competitive 25-man roster right now than getting the maximum trade value for players that don't fit into his long-term plans. And as mediocre as Bobby has been this year, he's still the second best pitcher in this bullpen - and one of only two statistically-solid relievers. The rest of our 'pen has been nothing short of bad this season and will take another half-step back when Dotel walks this winter. If you deal Bobby for a player that isn't ML-ready, the Sox will be relying heavily on Linebrink, Pena, and whoever they bring up from the minors to fill the LOOGY role. Having only one reliable relief pitcher is a recipe for disaster. The option of going after a FA closer to replace Bobby is also problematic. The cream of the crop (Valverde, Soriano, Qualls) will command three- or four-year deals and you'll have to over-pay them to beat out other teams in the bidding war. These guys might perform better than Bobby, but they also carry a lot more financial risk. If they fall apart (remember, they'll all be over 30 next season), Kenny's stuck with another Linebrink-like albatross of a contract. If Bobby falls apart next year, the Sox can trade his rights for an A-baller or release him outright and spend on somebody else next winter. Kenny also has the option of going cheap with a Kerry Wood or Kevin Gregg, but both of those guys were worse than Jenks this year and are not exactly getting better with age. I'd also wait until more salary comes off the books next winter before considering a multi-year deal for a veteran closer. I agree with NSS that riding Bobby through the arbitration-eligible years and grooming another closer in our farm system is probably the best way to go. At the very least, wait and see if Bobby has a second down year in a row before dumping him. Realistically, I don't see him doing much worse than this year (which wasn't exactly terrible) and his upside is probably a repeat of 2008 (pretty good).

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 05:56 PM) 1) applicable to any player on the white sox roster Not every player on the roster has Mark's value. Yes, because there's absolutely zero correlation between the repetition of an unnatural arm motion and major arm injuries. Freddy Garcia says hi. Not necessarily true If they're eliminated, sitting the most valuable players makes sense, no? If the Sox are still fighting for the division, I agree that you leave Mark in there. If the Sox are out of it (mathematically or realistically), none of your reasons justify leaving Mark in the rotation. Even taking Mark's health and contract out of the equation, there's no reason to not play minor-leaguers when a team is out of contention. I'd much rather see Torres, Carrasco, Hudson, etc. out there. It also makes sense to put Freddy out there to build arm strength or a healthy Peavy out there to regain some confidence. On the other hand, there's absolutely nothing to gain by throwing Mark out there if the Sox don't have a realistic shot at the playoffs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) If Buerhle isn't hurt, what difference is one or two starts going to make in 2010? We are talking about 15 IP tops. It makes sense with Floyd so that he doesn't worsen an injury, or hurt himself trying to over compensate for the injury, but why Buehrle? I can name several reasons: (1) Players can suffer freak injuries at any time (2) Pitchers can suffer major arm injuries at any time (3) Mark has over 2,000 innings of wear and tear on an arm that isn't guaranteed to last forever (4) We still owe Mark $28 million

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 12:56 PM) I wouldn't be opposed to trading him, but I don't think we'll get much, so I'd rather not. If I am wrong and we can get something good, then great. But I am one of those people that believes that not just any reliever, even a very good one like Thornton, can necessarily be a good closer. It take a certain mentality to be effective at it. I've seen the Sox experiment with moving setup guys to closer, and watched it fail. And there really aren't any guys in AAA or AA for the Sox that look like big time closers either. So you are left with either trying to convert Thornton to a closer, which I put a 50/50 chance on succeeding, or going to find one elsewhere who is just as expensive (if not more) than Jenks. Basically, unless we can get a whole lot for Jenks, I ride him as our closer until he breaks down, and in the meantime try to groom some closers in the system or acquire some serious closing prospects via trade. Thornton can be Plan B. I agree with this. The logic that we could get more in return for him this winter than we'd be able to next winter is solid, but incorrectly applied. This is a baseball team, not the stock market. Getting maximum value in return for Jenks comes in a distant second to putting together the best team possible and winning. Right now, I don't see any trade scenario involving Jenks that wouldn't weaken our bullpen. The Sox bullpen is in bad shape right now, and will quite possibly be in even worse shape next year with Dotel gone. Thornton and Jenks are the only semi-reliable relief options right now and if you deal Bobby this winter, you're setting yourself back even further. I'm hopeful that Linebrink and Pena improve substantially next year, but dealing Bobby would be tantamount to relying heavily on those two. No thanks.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) Bobby's first year in the majors was 05. Of course his following seasons are going to be better than his rookie year. He was statistically worse in 2006 and this season than he was as a rookie. I'm not sure which Bobby Jenks you've been watching, but that hook was much more devastating in 2007 when he was (1) throwing it for strikes and (2) throwing most of his fastballs in the 95-96 mph range. I have no idea where you're getting the "92 mph tee balls" from. He was consistently clocked 2-3 mph faster than that last night. "The control thing" worked great for him in 2007 and 2008, and I'll add that it's essential. Bobby's getting shelled this year because he's not locating any of his pitches and he's falling behind in the count early. Predictably, hitters then sit on 2-0 and 3-1 get-me-over fastballs and launch them over the fence. Having an arrow-straight 100 mph fastball and an inability to locate a good offspeed pitch will turn Bobby into Kyle Farnsworth.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) Dominant is Mariano Rivera in his prime or Eric Gagne on steroids or Bobby Jenks bringing Jeff Bagwell to his knees in the world series. Bobby probably had his best year in 2007, but other than that consecutive sit down streak, he was a good closer. That streak made him elite for the year. Honestly though, I think he could've had as good of a chance doing it and became flat out dominant if he was throwing 100mph. A hot streak can only pad one's stats so much. Bobby gave up a total of 4 earned runs in April and August this year, but you'd never know it looking at his overall numbers. A 2.77 ERA, .892 WHIP, and 40 saves is definitely Rivera-like. This notion that Bobby needs to throw 100 mph consistently to be dominant is a canard. Bobby was much better in 2007 and 2008 than he was back in 2005. Command and the ability to change speeds consistently trumps raw heat.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 07:55 AM) Oh, i absolutely agree with you on Floyd, but shutting Danksy and Buehrle down for the hell of it would be a real issue with me Why? Danks threw over 200 innings last year, which was WAY higher than his previous high. Mark is going to exceed 200 IP for the NINTH straight season this evening. If anything, these guys need MORE rest than Floyd. If the Sox are still 6+ games out at this time next week, I shut down all three and let Freddy, Peavy (with a strict pitch count), and three minor-leaguers round out the rotation for the last two weeks.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 10:33 AM) Dye has the longer legacy you can say. Jenks was more electric in 2005 though. After he stopped "trying" to throw the 100mph with ease, his curve ball didn't look so unhittable and his "control" never made up for it. He wasn't throwing 100 mph in 2007 and he was absolutely dominant with good command of his offspeed pitches.