WCSox

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) Not Cindy either She probably has a better arm than Pods.

Willie Mays Hayes

QUOTE (rockren @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) I thought the purpose of getting Fred in here was to help build up his arm strength and maybe he could be a factor for us next year if that went well? I thought it was to see if his arm isn't completely dead. If he doesn't have the arm strength now, he'll probably never have it. I love me some Freddy, but I don't like his odds.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) Speculation or not, I'd be a big fan of that move. I know one of the two will be gone and If I were going to pick I'd let it be Thome and not Dye, who has been one of the most productive Rfers during his tenure in Chicago. I'd be cool with a two-year extension. Not sure that JD would, though. He might be looking for three years, as this is likely the last multi-year deal he'll get.

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) Well, first of all, I said in 2 different seasons. That word is pronounced dif-fer-ent. It is from around the 14th century (which I am sure you're an expert on as well much like everything else apparently) and its Middle English, from Latin. You misread it for consecutive or the last two seasons. Clearly acceptable and expected from someone like yourself. This is what you said... Forgive me for making the assumption, as I wasn't sure what "better then Jenks in 2 different season" referred to. Given that your argument is premised on Jenks declining, it would make sense to cite the last two seasons as evidence. Your citation of 2006 actually works against that argument, as Jenks was nearly lights-out the following year. Cherry-picking aside, Jenks' worst seasons were better than Howry's one as a closer. His WHIP was lower and his stuff has been off-the-charts better. Howry was a hard thrower with mediocre command who couldn't throw any off-speed pitches for strikes. This is one of the reasons that he lasted one whole year as a closer. I don't know of any Sox fans who think that 1999 Bob Howry was more effective than 2006 or 2009 Bobby Jenks. And, of course, that completely omits Jenks' better years, which leave Howry in the dust. If you're incapable of tolerating a dissenting opinion, a message board isn't the place for you.

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) And if you disagree - then don't try and pretend to put down a simple argument by pulling out 1 stat in the line of a million. Howry pitched very well for us that year - better then Jenks has in 2 different season. WHIP is a much better metric for relievers than ERA, BAA, etc. And your argument that Howry was a more effective closer for us in '99 than Jenks has been over the past two seasons is pure ignorance. Howry was a f'n gas can as a closer. QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) When you reply to someone with "LOL, Yeah" Commonly taken as insulting and sarcastic...You get what you deserve. There are plenty of message boards out there that tolerate trolls with poor grammatical skills. This isn't one of them.

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) The Kidney stone thing is too funny. Kidney stones take out closers ability to pitch as soon as he starts struggling. Its an excuse. If he has them - he had them for a while. I said 98 or 99 - I couldnt quite remember the year but I am glad you had time to go look it up and check out stats. 1.42 whip was his poor stat. Jenks is up around 1.3, not 1.42 but he has a BAA 50 points higher than howry, a higher ERA, more blown saves, and almost as many losses in half the games....See why picking out one stat is so dumb? Because there are 5 others that say he outperformed a guy who you think is the holy one. And closers with a 4.2 era and 1.3 whip do grow on trees. Now ones who have a screw in their arm, make 8 million, have a fastball down about 5mph while only in their prime and have an following similar to Jesus...Those don't grow on trees. Your posts are as insulting as they are illogical. Go away.

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) So for all the people who want to keep Jenks. I am curious. He comes out next year and puts up this same season or worse. Let's wait until Jenks is actually healthy before projecting that he will pitch just as poorly next year without kidney stones. Bill Simas got the vast majority of the save opportunities in '98. When Howry was given that role the next year, he put up a 1.42 WHIP, which is f'n awful for a closer. The comparison of Jenks to Koch is completely off-base. Koch, like Howry, had nothing but a 97 mph fastball, and was completely ineffective when he lost velocity. Jenks throws two offspeed pitches for strikes (and has recently developed a change with tailing motion). Jenks doesn't need to consistently throw in the upper 90's to be effective. LOL, yeah, effective closers grow on trees. Just look at Bob Howry and Matt Karchner.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 05:20 AM) If I were the White Sox, I certainly would wait until the end of the year to decide on JD. I don't know if he would be agreeable to an extension and thus terminating his option. He may not go for it. Also, an he'd probably want a three-year extension. I'm not sure if I'd want Dye on the books at age 38. Picking up the option on his current contract may not be a bad move, if the Sox want to be in "go-for-it" mode next year without committing a ton of long-term money. Sure, you'd be over-paying him for one year by this economy's standards ($11M), but it'd still be cheaper than a multi-year deal. And you avoid potentially paying a diminished-skills JD two or three years from now. JD coming off the books next winter would also free up money to re-sign a younger Paulie, or an even younger FA. Then again, this may be the last time that JD will be able to get a multi-year deal, so he might not want to go this route (his option is mutual).

QUOTE (tommy @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 07:39 PM) I'll take Alexei any day over Nix as my starting SS. No kidding. Nix has 4 errors in 9 starts at SS this year, which makes Alexei look like Ozzie Smith in comparison. Nix has great versatility as a utility player, but let's not get carried away.

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 06:25 PM) Foulke was actually an excellent pitcher during his White Sox tenure--mostly during the heyday of the steriod era. He put up very comparable numbers to Jenks. Foulke was outstanding. But, man, we had some serious crap between him and Roberto Hernandez. The position was a revolving door between those two, followed by more instability between Foulke and Jenks.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 05:26 PM) Mike Gonzalez (32) Kevin Gregg (32) Trevor Hoffman (42) Fernando Rodney (33) Rafael Soriano (30) Jose Valverde (30) Billy Wagner (38) - $8MM club option with a $1MM buyout Pretty sure Franklin will be back with STL, and wouldn't want him in the AL anyway. Wagner's done, Gregg sucks, and Rodney's injury-prone. Not sure if I'd want Hoffman at his advanced age. Are Soriano and Valverde seriously going to be available and cheap?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 05:18 PM) But NOT having a fifth starter can keep you out of post-season, surely. I'd rather pay Jenks (or another accomplished closer) for 2010 than pay Webb to be a 5th starter. Having a great #5 doesn't mean much if your 'pen consistently blows the lead later in the game. Assuming that Peavy's healthy later this summer, our rotation is in pretty freaking good shape. But our bullpen's going to have some serious holes this winter.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 05:15 PM) Don't think the Red Sox will bring him back...well, depends on what happens with Varitek, I suppose. Varitek's getting up there in age. I don't know about Victor specifically, but Varitek definitely appears to be on his way out.

Oh, I'd love Victor Martinez. But wouldn't Konerko have veto rights on a trade? And would Kenny even want to deal The Captain?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 05:07 PM) Miguel Olivo for one year and Flowers' mentor....lol. I'd actually love to have Olivo's arm back there until Flowers is ready. Too bad that A. J. is getting paid more coin than today's market dictates.

I'm going to start a "Should We Trade A. J.?" thread, and then not offer an idea for a replacement.

The author also seems to believe that the combined efforts of Richard, Poreda, Russell, and Carter will have a similar positive impact as those of Peavy. If Peavy pitches the way that the author believes he will in the coming years, he's flat-out wrong. A #3 (at best), a left-handed bullpen arm, and two more good-but-not-great minor league prospects have about a snowball's chance in hell of matching a dominant Peavy's impact, especially in the playoffs.

QUOTE (35thstreetswarm @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 02:07 PM) So, in sum: "The Jake Peavy trade was not only bad, but one of the worst in the collective memory of the baseball world. Of course, the baseball world will not actually 'REMEMBER' it as a bad trade, since Jake Peavy will likely play very well. And White Sox fans will be very 'happy' with the trade for the duration of Peavy's contract. And the media will also heed the siren song of Peavy's excellent play, and will pronounce this a 'good deal.' This naive misconception will only be fueled by the fact that the players for whom Peavy was traded will, in common parlance, 'suck' for their new teams. But for complex reasons obvious to noone but me, the trade will continue to go down as a failure of epic proportions, the quaint exigencies of Peavy's real-world 'pitching' situation notwithstanding. Just remember, in a few years you will likely look back at this article and think 'Wow, the Peavy trade worked out great, this guy was an idiot.' At that moment, know that I will be sitting back in my parlor watching you fall into the web I have woven for you and the rest of the uninformed, your scorn only further proving my initial thesis. Checkmate, and you're welcome. P.S. - I am currently looking for a job." Awesome first post. Welcome to Soxtalk.

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:27 PM) he says he's a recent graduate looking to continue his career in baseball, and left his email address for employment offers. I just sent him this: http://www.keystonemascots.com/mascotcamp.html

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 12:53 PM) Good players cost money, lots of young, not very good players cost little, but can fill out a roster. His article basically claims that teams don't need good players, but tons of bad ones making little. Maybe he works for Billy Beane?

One cheaper, short-term option that hasn't been discussed is simply picking up Dye's option this winter. I realize that $11M (accounting for the buyout) for one year of service is over-paying in today's market (I imagine that Dye is worth about $7M/year now), but if you buy him out and try to re-sign him as a FA (and there's no guarantee he wouldn't go elsewhere at this point) it would probably take a three-year deal to re-sign him and that will cost over $20 million. The upside to over-paying him for one year is that you've saved $10 million overall and he's no longer on your books at age 37 and 38, where his skills will probably begin to decline. The saved money could either be used to extend Paulie next winter, or go elsewhere.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) The argument there was that JR is willing to go above and beyond and be convinced about a Peavy while with the Bulls, he works with a hard cap and such. And in baseball, you lose in revenue sharing if you spend more than a certain amount. Basically, it was about Reinsdorf caring more about the White Sox and himself creating a hole on a team that he admitted that he doesn't care about as much, "I'd trade in my 6 championship rings for 1 world series". I see. Ironically, many Sox fans made the opposite-but-equally-erroneous "He cares more about the Bulls than the Sox!" argument back in the '90s.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 11:26 AM) I doubt Jenks arbitration value is over 6-6.5 million. You are probably right about Linebrink. But if there was one guy that would hold trade value this winter, it will be Bobby Jenks. Fair enough. But if you deal him, you'd better get somebody who can close out games reliably. I hear a lot of "trade him, trade him!" but don't hear any viable alternatives. Outside of Thornton (who should stay in his setup role), I don't see anybody in the organization capable of shutting the door.

QUOTE (soxfan3530 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 10:32 AM) didnt hurt their cofidence too much this past weekend as they completely dominated the twins. They'll be a lot less confident when they go into the playoffs with a very average rotation.