Pumpkin Escobar

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 10:12 PM) I don’t know if I can say enough about the job that DJ Carrasco did tonight. He kept us in the game against one of the best offensive teams in the majors. That was incredibly impressive. Naturally, Beckham and Quentin get a lot of credit for their bombs, but frankly, I’m run out of ways to say just how impressed I am with both these players. Finally, another shout out to the luckiest man on earth, Scotty Pods who had a great approach to win the game following a great AB by Jayson Nix. Contreras looked bad. Worse was he looked like he gave up and just had no passion or will out there. Maybe time to replace him with Marti

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 03:24 PM) Somehow I doubt he'll be too excited by these silly awards typically awarded to mere mortals. HOF

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 08:41 AM) I checked the AAA roster and he's listed as being on the 7 day DL -- but his assignment reads : rehab. I've heard murmurs of his imminent return to the Sox, does anyone have any updates? Is he still topping out in the mid 80's, or has he somehow found some velocity as of late? His minor league stats look decent, but that doesn't translate to ML stats, either. Anyway, was just looking for any info if anyone had any. Edit -- topic should be Freddy, not Freddie...don't know why I typed it like that. I like him tossing 84 mph heaters up there. We dubbed him "The Doc" for those of you who have seen Major league 3. "you want me to stick with the offspeed stuff?" "You have anything else?" "Nope"

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 01:47 PM) No way the Rays accept that package. It will take at least two top 100 prospects (one top 50) and possibly another high-upside guy to get him IMO. We're talking about two advanced players (AA/AAA) who will be able to contribute in the next two years. Something like Flowers and Hudson. The last guy would be probably need to be a high-upside arm like Leesman or Infante who's farther away from helping. I would not trade that kind of talent for one year of Crawford, especially with Mitchell in the system. Thats what I would assume but seeing those packages given to Oakland and Cleveland - the top 100 thing is tough to call. A sure fire, consensus top 50 guy plus two 1st-2nd rounders with upside. Regardless of what they're projected to be or doing should be enough. I'm sure they'll ask for more and probably could get more but if things don't turn around for them and several other teams economically - itll only leave X amount of teams able to make a play. The Mets? Yankees maybe but they have enough OF. Cubs have an 18 million investment in LF already. Boston will most likely have Bay or anything else they want. Phili has 3 Allstar OF and 2 top-tier OF in the minors. Angels have too many. Dodgers have too many. Holliday will take someone out of this equation also. Who else would be interested and able to take on that salary? I shouldnt be saying he isn't worth more - not sure if I did or didnt - but I'm saying based on what we've seen economically, unwillingness to deal prospects, and what the compensation was in the trades that did happen for better talent than Crawford - I just don't see them getting a huge haul like they should/want. They'll get a very good one but I think they'll peak around what Holliday got. Which was 1 top-flight prospect and two lower level arms with upside (both first rounders I believe). And I agree with you anything more than that or like the offer you project from our club is not worth it us.

QUOTE (hogan873 @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) And I don't think anyone pointed out that Beckham is spelled wrong in the user name. haha so true. almost classic.

QUOTE (whitesox901 @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) Im fine bringing back Dye if its to DH Switch Q to right (his natural position) and get us two outfielders Agree. With how Pods played and if he continues to play well. I think we'll float him an offer though.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) Keith Foulke and Dustin Hermanson were actually serviceable though. Foulke was very good for us. I know he got bombed that May but I checked and it wasn't 25 scoreless innings it was only like 17 1/3 but his era in the 2nd half for us in 2002 was like .71. He got roughed up that May - no doubt but he should've been given more of a chance. Which is why I am all for giving Jenks more time/chances. It's just scary to think of the $ and the downside if it backfires on us. Hermy was good. Shame he got hurt.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) 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. There are plenty of message boards out there that tolerate trolls with poor grammatical skills. This isn't one of them. 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. Those 2 DIFFERENT seasons being 2006 and this season. Or was Jenks 1.39 whip in 2006 acceptable because you will pull out the 1 other stat he outperformed Howry in? Get real. Howry was not dominant but neither was Jenks. And that is the point!!! A guy like Howry has a decent season and gets called crap. Jenks has a worse season and a similarly bad one - and he is defended to the moon. And I didn't type the "LOL, yeah" to start the bickering - you did. So if that was your reference to poor grammaticals skills. Then so be it. I didn't realize this was a 14 year old AOL/Text msg site where LOL constituted as an intelligent way to rebuttal someones opinion. Then again. I did go to high school at some point but I forgot how you kids conduct civilized conversations there. I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. You go out of your way to try and put people down with your resonses even though it is crystal clear you have zero clue what you're talking about. I'll move on from here to different replies and you can manipulate someone elses words. You're incorrect and obnoxious.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) Your posts are as insulting as they are illogical. Go away. When you reply to someone with "LOL, Yeah" Commonly taken as insulting and sarcastic...You get what you deserve. 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. Jenks has become a folk hero because of the method, the time and the way he came up with us. Eventually that needs to go out the window and we need to remove who he is and look at the player. The player is declining and is getting expensive and is bad for business if he can help us improve other ways moreso then staying and being paid handsomely to be medicore.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) 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. LOL, yeah, effective closers grow on trees. Just look at Bob Howry and Matt Karchner. 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.

So for all the people who want to keep Jenks. I'll say upfront Jenks is a good closer and I don't mind him. I do mind his potential salary and his declining ability/performance. I am curious though. He comes out next year and puts up this same season or worse. Shows the same declining stuff and we are paying him 7-10 mil, then maybe looking at paying him more the following year because we let him rack up 35 more saves with a 4+ era. He is worth it why? Cuz he is a body who had a few good years for us? Eventually you need to perform. I dont get how we didnt find anyone? Howry pitchd great in 98 or 99 and was passed up by Foulke, who was a phenomal closer for us. And had we not dealt him, he probably would've continued to do well. He hit a slump in May or June or whatever that year - and we removed him. Dealt his 6 mil due to Oakland for a Flame thrower in the offseason who came into the league dominating but lost his stuff (sounds similar to what we have). It seems like everyone is acting like we couldn't find a good closer from Roberto til Jenks but reality is - Howry did great and only was removed because Foulke was better suited. Foulke pitched great until his slip up in May where Kenny paniced and went for the glamour guy in Koch. I remember all of this vividly. haha cuz I remember Foulke ended the season with like 25 scoreless innings and I didnt get why we were dealing him. Koch imploded for us upon arrival. I dont want to think about him. I get angry. I just dont quite comprehend it all. Jenks is a good closer but how good is he when he will be making 8-10 million and putting up 4+ era when we can physically see that he isn't the same pitcher. I'm cool with giving him another shot and keeping him around but interms of the "if" factor - that being "if he continues to perform as he is" then what? Cuz his price will be high and his value will be lower. Lower when you consider his health concerns, his salary and his lackluster performance. Now if he bounces back and earns his 8 million - I still say trade him cuz then he'll want 12 million the next year. There are plenty of closers out there who can give us his performance minus the salary and health concerns. Go sign one.

Why does everyone think he is going to cost as much as I am interpreting them to? He may be a Free Agent this offseason if they don't exercise his option in fear of not being able to deal him. They've been very clear about needing to move Crawford's 11.5 mil next season, their attempts to move the expensive and terrible Kazmir, as well as their potential need to move Pena/Burrell. No doubt Crawford is an amazing talent and that is why we think he is going to cost a ton under normal circumstances. But we've seen reluctancy to deal prospects almost everywhere but a handful of teams, the economy is horrible for teams wanting to add 11 million in a trade, and tampa cannot afford the guy. Maybe I am just misunderstand what everyone perceives as a ton because I'm looking at what a guy like Holliday got and guys like Sabathia and they hold more weight then Crawford and weren't on teams desperate to deal payroll away. Crawford will command good players. 3 of them. One top 50 kind of prospect. Flowers is who I see it as. Then I'll say two arms in single-A with good upside. They dont have multiple years on his contract and if they dont deal him in the offseason, his value is only going to go down just that much mroe by the deadline. He won't get a Lee package, or a Halladay, or a Holliday even. He'll get a very good package but Tampa understands their situation and seem more willing to building around Longoria, Upton, Price and their prospects instead of Crawford, Pena and Kazmir.

It's not like Thome is performing so poorly as to why some, like myself, want to get rid of him. He can still produce pretty well but reality is - his numbers have declined every year since he has been here. And don't say he is bouncing back this season because his numbers are not monumentally different right now in avg/obp/ops...and september is historically his worst month I believe. Including last September where I believe he was below the Mendosa line. So its still early yet for him to fall below last seasons production - if he stays where he is...he'll be up in some and down in other categories. Now all of this isn't a case of why Thome sucks. Because he doesnt. He's a beast. It's just not in our clubs best interest to keep him and his salary while he is at an age when everything can go in season. He is old and isn't a speed guy. He takes huge hacks and we can say he isnt losing it but it's a business and you need to play somethings safe - investing in a 40 year old DH isn't one of them. And thats the reason we need to part ways. It'll suck and be a bad PR move even I feel but he understands the nature of the beast and when guys hit his age - teams lose faith if they can improve another way. Dye to DH gives us a little better production - at worst the same. He gives an option to slide into RF once a week or twice even if need be. And we can improve the club by getting a player who can play out there with better defense and still be a factor at the dish. Now - regardless of your stance with this. Thome is a great guy and he understands business. I wonder if we work something out with him that says he doesnt accept our arbitration and tests the market (cuz he is Type A) and if some team is willing to pay the pick for him (it's not cabrera but I am sure teams will still shy away) - so be it. If not, we can see where we stand and bring him back for a cheap contract. I think he is a an honorable guy who'd consider that.

We'll have to wait until Free Agency most likely. However if he isnt dealt before the season and tampa continues to get bomed in this economy then he could probably be had for much cheaper then we think. They can't afford him - and the league knows it. I think they'd take one prospect of a Flowers caliber and two lesser ones with upside. He'll be much more attainable then we all think.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 06:45 PM) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=mlb The DBacks have an $8.5 million dollar option for next year or a $2 million buyout. Would guess they would probably keep him and risk that if they're not in contention that they could trade him next year, kind of like the M's did with Bedard this year instead of letting him go and not getting anything back in return (especially when M's fans have to be reminded of how that Bedard trade cost them future contention in the AL West for many years). Yes to Jenks. No to Webb. Why to this being tied into the same thread? Jenks gets talked about enough in every other thread.

QUOTE (JoeCredeYes @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) It boggles my mind that a large percentage of high school graduates in this country cannot spell the word "tomorrow" properly. The day before you are set to get your diploma they should make you spell, tomorrow, weird, and friend correctly. Then demonstrate proper usage of your, you're, too, to, and two. Twenty years from now I'm going to have some recent college grad, surely named Aiden, Aden, Aydyn, Aaden, Brayden, or Jayden send me an E-mail that says, "Sir, ur 2pm meetting 4 tommorrow has been canceled". And I'm going to throw a desk at him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 06:20 AM) I find it funny that you're supposed to put guys in certain positions so they have more "value" in people's minds. Who cares what position Beckham plays as long as he's in the line-up. I saw one post where if you put Chase Utley in the OF he just becomes your regular 30-35 homer guy with 110-120 rbi, like there are hundreds of those around. If Beckham gets even better than he is now and stays at 3rd, he'll probably be the best 3rd baseman the White Sox ever had. I don't see the downside. I really don't understand the disdain a lot here have for Getz. In March, the consensus was he should lead off, now after performing about as well as expected, he needs to be replaced. I guess fans are conditioned to scoring via the longball. They complain when thats the only way to score, but when a guy like this comes along, since he doesn't hit a lot of homers, he's garbage, and needs to be replaced by someone who can play 3rd and hit homers. Beckham's "value" is his value to the White Sox, not his "value" vs. others at certain positions. If the White Sox are better off with Beckham at 3rd, that's where he's most valuable. If its second, the same. As long as he's in the line-up, I'm happy. I agree with you to an extent and I love having Getz/Beckham. Having Beckham in your lineup whatever position he is at - the production is great. The case is what can we get more out of to help the team. Lets say Getz becomes an average 2nd baseman. Which I wouldn't call him yet. If he is average and Beckham is putting up those kind of numbers at 3rd. Thats great but he isn't a top 3 3rd baseman. Now he doesnt need to be one which is why I agree with you. Who cares if he is top 3? His production will be great. Thats completely true. The issue is that it's rare you can move a guy from 3rd to 2nd usually because the modern day 3rd baseman is a bruising power hitter. In Beckhams case - we can. Now moving him to 2nd instantly makes him a top 3 2nd baseman IMO (Utley, Kinsler, Beck) with the production we project for him. If we go sign an average 3rd baseman - that average 3rd baseman easily exceeds and produces beyond an average 2nd baseman like Getz was when he was in the lineup. Thats kind of where you maximize what you put out on the field. Now I for one am a believer in having a Getz type of guy in your lineup. I think because 2nd base is a weak offensive position in most cases it is good to have the guy who just plays baseball. By that I mean that he does the little things. Hits for a solid avg, has speed, good defense, and know how to play the game. It's more of an NL mindset it seems to have this kind of guy anymore unless you're Minnesota and Oakland. If thats Getz, then great. If it's not, why wouldn't we want to move a premium player to 2nd base and fill in 3rd with an average to above-average player? That play in the AL would be worth it. Either way though I think the point is Beckhams bat will be great for us regardless of where he is at. Peoples concern is where he fits in among who else plays that position and at 3rd base he is not the same bang for your buck guy as he is at 2nd base. Just the nature of the beast.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) What no one has addressed is if we lose Thome, we will no longer have a power LH bat. Would it be better to resign him for less or trade for someone like Adam Dunn? Bacon can probably hit lefty.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:55 PM) Good Post. Another thing we need to take into consideration is the Arbitration eligibal players in relation to free agents. The Free Agent class of 2009 recieved a significant pay cut due to the uncertainty of the economy. How will the Arbitration hearings be effected? So its safe to say Bobby Jenks will recieve from 6-8 million next season. Thats kind of what I am wondering. I wouldn't assume they would take the economy into consideration since some of those big contract players still got their big paydays. They can essentially write it off as players taking contracts below league value for their production. I went through and looked and Lidge was a guy who received a minimal raise. So it is possible I guess. Then again - Lidge spent a couple years being a setup man down there so he doesnt have the huge track record that I keep emphasizing with Jenks. I don't think we'd win in a case against him. And I feel as though our case against him really will rely on the economy, his declining abilities and his less than stellar performance this year. Their case will put him as a top 5 or even top 10, elite closer and those guys are all earning 11-15 million (Rivera, Nathan, Krod and Lidge - who both got their contracts this past offseason in a bad climate, then Papelbon - who is the only one not but don't be surprised if he is after arbitration or if the Saux buy him out early.) From there you have the Corderos at 12 mil. Guys like Ryan and Wagner who had big contracts not closing. Valverde is makin 8+ mil. Lots of guys like Soria and Broxton who are behind Jenks in Arb. If they arent factoring in the economy - Jenks is getting a hefty raise. Tough to see him getting the Lidge or Fuentes treatment. Doesn't bode too well for us without him agreeing to less. At least in my opinion but I'm not an arbitrator - I did stay at a Holiday Inn express though last night.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) Jenks: ~5.6 million QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 01:26 PM) 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. K...I get we have a weak economy and that arbitration cases havent seen this kind of climate before. However, Jenks made 5.6 million this year. Which is what we agreed on with him. Usually implying we met half way on an offer and lots of times more than half way to avoid arbitration because teams really do like to avoid going to a hearing and bashing their all-star player just to save a couple bucks. Now, we as Sox fans, don't see Jenks as the greatest closer in baseball or baseball history. But when he steps in front of an independent arbitrator, who is paid to go on facts, - not opinions, or causes for concern with his stuff, or whatever - we are going to lose. The reason we will lose is Jenks has been near record setting for us. He is near the top of several statistical categories for closers and he is the 2nd fastest all-time to 100 or 150 saves. Whatever the thing is - behind Sasaki. He already made basically 6 million. It's rare you see a guy in arbitration not earn raises - I can think of Fuentes losing but thats more or less because he sucked. He doesnt have Jenks track record. Rare to the point that they usually have to totally regress or get hurt or whatever. They also will compare him to other closers around the league - some of which most recently just got nice paydays in a bad economy. They'll point out the K-Rods of the world who got 7 million and 10 million their first 2 times in arbitration. They'll point out Papelbon - who wasn't the 2nd fastest to 100 - earned 6.5 million or whatever this season and is probably on pace for 10 million this year in arb. They'll point out Jose valverde and his 8 million or whatever. Point being - Jenks track record is going to get him those numbers. He'll get 8 mil easy in my honest opinion and I wouldnt be shocked if he gets 9 or 10. The only way I see him not getting it is if he hears these rumbles of being dealt and agrees to take a lesser contract to remain and avoid arbitration. As his agent - do you do this? Especially if you have one of the better cases to win in this situation? Does Bobby Jenks do that? I don't know how it will all unfold because of how the economy is - but based on recent history with a closer of his caliber. To pay him 5.6 or 6 million is going to be a slap in the face and I can't see it unfolding that way.

Anyone see us floating a Longoria like offer to Beckham? 6 years 13-15 mil?

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 08:44 AM) I wonder how much CQ will be getting via arbitration? Same with Danks? . I think they'll both be in that 4-6 mil range. Maybe 3-6 mil. I can't think of many pitchers similar to Danks recently who actually hit arbitration. Maybe you guys can throw some other names out there. Kazmir is what came to my mind initially and thats kind of where I stopped. He got 3.8 million or something in 2008. So thats where I drew the 4-6 mil figure from. Quentin I am unsure about if he'll command even that much just because of his lackluster season thus far. I'd assume he would be in the same range. Again - I am lacking a comparison. I think with both guys it's tough to draw one because usually they get their contracts bought out X years in advance or they avoid arbitration year to year. I was putting them at about 4.5 each but I have a feeling we will see KW try to give them another shot at a nice extension. Seeing a guy like Floyd take it, seeing what a guy like Longoria is getting, Sizemore even - and I would hope these two have interest in staying here and some common sense to understand their value in comparison to the league and with the present economy. A guy like Quentin should take anything he can get since he has yet to figure out how to remain healthy.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 12:34 AM) Kalapse, Who would you compare Gordon to, if you had to? I don't know why but ever since we moved him to 2nd back in the day now - I can't help but shake Utley hitting comparisons. With him playing 3rd I see it less but that bat is great.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 2, 2009 -> 07:45 PM) The 3 ER in 21+ IP his last three starts....hitting 94-95 MPH consistently in the middle to latter innings....and he controlled the Brewers, one of the top 2-3 offenses in the NL, for most of his SD debut start two nights ago. You could understand why players might feel "sacrificing" 3 spots starts was questionable. Of course, we won Carrasco's spot start (luckily against Mitre) and Torres pitched extremely well compared to expectations coming into that game. Ya and he got bombed before those 3. When not facing the god awful Rays and company. I hope you aren't one of the Jenks supporters who says "velocity means nothing". Im not sure if you are but anytime that gets brought up with him - people love to defend how it doesn't matter. He'llpitch well I hope in SD. But the point isn't what he will become - it's what he was giving us this season. Which was inconsistency. So who cares if we have 3-4 spot starts with guys throwing who are incapable of giving us the same confidence or chance to win as a Mark Buehrle. Richard was not a lock to pitch well. Don't believe me??? Check his ERA. Pitchers have good starts - and good streaks. It happens. We sold him at the best point we could - he has just every bt a chance to get bombed (like he did in several starts this season) as anyone else we throw. Then we bring in a guy who most likely will pitch better then Richard ever would've. So it's worth it. End of story.

QUOTE (VAfan @ Aug 2, 2009 -> 09:22 PM) For all the guys here who want to deal Bobby, you have to step back and look at the overall condition of the pen first. We wouldn't just be trading Bobby -- and I assume no one would give us a younger and cheaper but just as good Bobby clone in return -- we are also looking at the loss of Dotel, and the continued weakness of Scott Linebrink. Plus, we've just traded the guy -- Aaron Poreda -- in our system who was best positioned to take a key bullpen role next year if we'd wanted him there instead of as a starter. So, look at the big picture. NOW Jenks - closer Thornton - lefty set up Dotel - 7th inning guy Linebrink - set up guy who's not so effective Pena -- 6th inning guy Carrasco -- long relief Williams -- LOOGY Nunez -- just a body NEXT YEAR WITHOUT BOBBY Thornton -- closer? Who set's up? Linebrink? Who's the 7th inning guy? Pena? Who's the lefty set up guy? Not Williams Carrasco -- long relief To me, without Bobby, it looks like it could be a bullpen implosion. NEXT YEAR WITH BOBBY Jenks - closer Thornton - set up man Pena or Linebrink -- 7th inning guy Williams (or another lefty) - LOOGY Carrasco -- long relief In this scenario, the Sox don't have to fill the shoes of any critical bullpen pitcher. They can phase in someone who will be no higher than 3rd in the pecking order. To me, that's worth whatever Bobby's going to get in arbitration. Sure, Jenks can eventually be replaced. But I want a pen with at least 4 guys I can count on to close the game from the 7th through the 9th in a 1 run game against Boston, NYY, or the Angels. Remember also that Peavy is not a pitcher that goes that deep into games. The Sox will need a deep bullpen. It's tough to keep a guy around who will be making doulbe our already "overpaid" bullpen arms without being much more effective than them. It doesnt become a matter of what's left - it's how can we round out/replace/rebuild this bullpen. Unfortunately we need to make a lot of changes and Jenks is one of them. He just isnt worth what he is about to be paid and frankly he needs to be dealt. I'd love to see him show up and pop 100 and dominate again but realistically - it's not goign to happen. I think he can be dealt for prospects or mlb talent. I think the Sox can sign 1-2 bullpen arms. We've proven we have no issue with signing them and paying them big contracts (or longer than expected). Guys I'd target - Soriano, Mike Gonzalez, Valverde, Rodney etc...Valverde or Soriano can easily match or exceed what Jenks is giving us at a cheaper cost. Valverde will not see the 8 million he got this season and most likely Jenks will see or exceed that figure goignthrough arbitration with his track record. Soriano will be in the same position. As will Gonzalez. We've got 60 mil committed before our arbitration guys - who are all due nice raises. If we dump Jenks and stay around 70-75 mil - that leaves us plenty of room to spend money on a couple of bullpen guys (8mil) with what we saved on Jenks. Bring back Dye (8 mil) and still go out and improve our club with the other 10-15 mill remaining to keep us well under our 09' payroll. I'm starting to view it similar to the Carlos Lee situation. Use that 8+million on other things.