Why would you trade Bobby Jenks?

[Steve9347]

To answer the top question of the thread:

 

 

"BECAUSE HE'S A RELIEF PITCHER THUSLY HE IS OVER VALUED AND YOU COULD GET REAL TALENT FOR HIM!"

[harfman77]

It's a tough question, but honestly I don't know if you can.

 

Our bullpen is so fragile right now. You lose the most stable guy in there, how are you going to replace him? One of our own, or a free agent who would be more expensive than Jenks?

 

Unless I got wowed by an offer, Jenks should stay IMHO.

 

I think that we should be open to trading everyone if we get the right offer. If Jenks is dealt, maybe we get his replacement back in the trade, maybe we use one of the guys who has struggled this season, and if all else fails we move a starter to the pen - I would think it would be Contreras rather than Vazquez though. But again if we are going to be in the top two of the division, it doesnt matter. We need talent everywhere, and if you can get multiple pieces for one guy, especially a guy who pitches 3-4 innings a week, you have to do it.

[StrangeSox]

How fast was Bobby's fastball last night?

And can someone theorize how/why Bobby's fastball is in the low 90s when in 2005 it was consistently in the top 90s????

 

It's more than just Bobby. Everyone loses velocity on this staff.

[RockRaines]

How fast was Bobby's fastball last night?

And can someone theorize how/why Bobby's fastball is in the low 90s when in 2005 it was consistently in the top 90s????

Can you theorize how he has been more effective with his fastball in the low 90;s as compared to when it was in the high 90's?

[AddisonStSox]

Q: Why would you trade Bobby Jenks?

 

A: Read Moneyball.

 

...an overweight, velocity-reduced relief pitcher that will be seeking a multi-million dollar deal in the near future...

[BearSox]

If the Sox had someone from the minors making minimum taking his spot in the rotation, what difference would it be having someone making minimum starting and someone making $11.5 million closing or vice versa? Laugh all you want, Dennis Eckersley was a good starter until he became a mediocre one and look what happened to him. Vazquez was considered a good starter, have you seen the scouts' quotes on him? They think he's become mediocre. I think he would be great if he was programmed to go 1 inning. He throws too many types of pitches. Closers don't do that. Plus Vazquez is usually pretty good the first time through the order.

I'd hardly call Vazquez a mediocre starter... He does have the best stuff on the staff.

[The Critic]

umm very few people have even brought up the thought of trading Jenks and those that have were quickly verbally abused for such a though, so what exactly is this thread trying to prove?

To prove that you can create a thread about NOT trading him and still be verbally abused?

[Dick Allen]

I'd hardly call Vazquez a mediocre starter... He does have the best stuff on the staff.

Maybe you should look at 10 years of results. Nah. Its what he looks like warming up in the bullpen that counts.

[BearSox]

Maybe you should look at 10 years of results. Nah. Its what he looks like warming up in the bullpen that counts.

Not a lot of pitchers can go 200+ innings a year, K 150, and win at least 10 games. And to be honest, I don't care what he's done in the past. He still have great stuff and I could see him having another 3-5 years as a very good starter (at least .500, ERA around 4, and 150+ K's in 200+ innings).

[CWSGuy406]

Maybe you should look at 10 years of results. Nah. Its what he looks like warming up in the bullpen that counts.

 

Yep, it's all about that W/L percentage, right Hawk?

 

Give me a f***ing break. Even in Vazquez' "bad" years -- the ones in which his ERA is 4.50-4.90 -- he still gives you 200+ innings. And according to this article per The Hardball Times, Vazquez "bad years" still rate above average for a fourth starter. And if he continues doing what he's done this year? He's better than the average #2 starter.

 

Turning Vazquez into a closer would be stupid.

[Dick Allen]

Yep, it's all about that W/L percentage, right Hawk?

 

Give me a f***ing break. Even in Vazquez' "bad" years -- the ones in which his ERA is 4.50-4.90 -- he still gives you 200+ innings. And according to this article per The Hardball Times, Vazquez "bad years" still rate above average for a fourth starter. And if he continues doing what he's done this year? He's better than the average #2 starter.

 

Turning Vazquez into a closer would be stupid.

If ERA is important, he has yet to finish a season with an ERA below league average since leaving Montreal. He's a stud, the Hardball Times says so. Put me on ignore, I have more stupid ideas.

[CWSGuy406]

If ERA is important, he has yet to finish a season with an ERA below league average since leaving Montreal.

 

Oh, right, he's put up ERAs marginally below the league average, making ERA+s of 92, 99 and 96. And all the while, he's averaged 205 innings per season. Still better than the average #4 starter.

 

 

He's a stud, the Hardball Times says so.

 

I didn't say that, but if you can't read, I can't help ya there. I said:

 

"And according to this article per The Hardball Times, Vazquez "bad years" still rate above average for a fourth starter."

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Put me on ignore, I have more stupid ideas.

 

No, putting a guy who currently has a 3.95 ERA in ~100 innings is a brilliant idea! Even better, let's pay $10 million dollars for our closer! That's an awesome idea! Let's turn the guy who, since last August, has put up a ~3.90 ERA in ~170 innings, into a closer! If only everyone could share your brain, DA...

[Dick Allen]

Oh, right, he's put up ERAs marginally below the league average, making ERA+s of 92, 99 and 96. And all the while, he's averaged 205 innings per season. Still better than the average #4 starter.

 

 

I didn't say that, but if you can't read, I can't help ya there. I said:

 

"And according to this article per The Hardball Times, Vazquez "bad years" still rate above average for a fourth starter."

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

No, putting a guy who currently has a 3.95 ERA in ~100 innings is a brilliant idea! Even better, let's pay $10 million dollars for our closer! That's an awesome idea! Let's turn the guy who, since last August, has put up a ~3.90 ERA in ~170 innings, into a closer! If only everyone could share your brain, DA...

When 2007 is all said and done, Vazquez's numbers will be their usual mediocre selves. You're right spending money on the bullpen is stupid, You can have Sisco and Aardsma and Bukvich and Day for cheap, that's the way to go. I just said the guy would be a good closer IMO, if the Sox decided to trade Jenks and had no other options.

[CWSGuy406]

When 2007 is all said and done, Vazquez's numbers will be their usual mediocre perfectly average selves.

 

Fixed.

 

You're right spending money on the bullpen is stupid

 

Yeah, spending $10 million dollars on one guy to pitch 75 innings is definitely the way to go. Like I said, pure brilliance.

[WCSox]

I can't wait until Vazquez walks off the field in late September with a respectable 4.30 or so ERA this year and shuts up a lot of people here.

[BearSox]

I can't wait until Vazquez walks off the field in late September with a respectable 4.30 or so ERA this year and shuts up a lot of people here.

You mean a 3.8 ERA

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

I can't wait until Vazquez walks off the field in late September with a respectable 4.30 or so ERA this year and shuts up a lot of people here.

 

I can see it being around 4.00.

 

Isn't Jenks eligible for arbitration after the year?

[BobDylan]

Because how much value is a closer to a rebuilding team? I consider the closer one of the last pieces you really need (and by closer I mean a true shutdown closer, ala Jenks/Rivera/Hoffman/Krod) and the type of piece that you usually can find in relatively short notice.

 

I mean to a rebuilding team wouldn't it be better to get a Salm (best catching prospect in baseball) and Escboar (very very good SS prospect whose major league ready) at the very least for Jenks (plus I think you can get Devine or someone else) from a team like the Braves.

 

Ie you get a catcher and SS for the next 5-10 years for a closer (someone who is not going to be the key piece to your rebuilding at least not early on).

 

I don't know many teams that can get a "Jenks/Rivera/Hoffman/KRod in relatively short notice." These guys don't grow on trees.

 

Plus, usually when a team gets one, he comes from within the system. When is the last time a big name closer was dealt? When is the last time, besides Jenks, the Sox developed a pitcher within their system that had closer type stuff? (And Jenks didn't even come from our system.)

 

Keep Jenks. Closers stick around with teams for a long time for a reason. Good ones aren't easy to find.

Edited July 3, 2007 by BobDylan

[WCSox]

I can see it being around 4.00.

 

Isn't Jenks eligible for arbitration after the year?

 

Not until '09

[Dick Allen]

I can't wait until Vazquez walks off the field in late September with a respectable 4.30 or so ERA this year and shuts up a lot of people here.

I don't know how or why it would shut anyone up if the Sox finish in 3rd or 4th place. His being around and signed probably means either Buerhle or Garland, guys that are better than him will be gone, if not both, and means Chris Young isn't in CF. I'm pretty sure KW had a little better than a 4.30 ERA in mind when he traded for him.

[WCSox]

You mean a 3.8 ERA

 

I was erring on the side of caution. He's having a rock-solid year and is getting zero respect here.

[BobDylan]

It is almost impossible for any GM to put out a good team that could compete every year with this old as hell lineup and pretty terrible farm.

 

Believe it or not, a rebuilding is the best possible thing any GM could do to this team.

 

I don't think that was the point he was trying to make. If I read into it correctly, the Sox don't want to go back to 20,000 fans a game. They're on the heels of the Cubs in this city and this years misstep is eating away at a lot of ground the franchise made up the past two years.

 

Going into complete rebuild mode assures the fans that they're not going to win jack in the next 1-3 years and puts people right back on the Cubs bandwagon.

 

You trade a guy like Jenks, that's a big message to the fan base. "Not this year, sorry." Of course a lot of people at this site understand that rebuilding is the best thing this team can do... but it's just about the worst business strategy the franchise can use.

[WCSox]

I'm pretty sure KW had a little better than a 4.30 ERA in mind when he traded for him.

 

A 4.30 ERA would put him in the Top 20 of qualified AL starters. That's not bad at all.

[Kalapse]

I don't know many teams that can get a "Jenks/Rivera/Hoffman/KRod in relatively short notice." These guys don't grow on trees.

 

Plus, usually when a team gets one, he comes from within the system. When is the last time a big name closer was dealt? When is the last time, besides Jenks, the Sox developed a pitcher within their system that had closer type stuff? (And Jenks didn't even come from our system.)

 

Keep Jenks. Closers stick around with teams for a long time for a reason. Good ones aren't easy to find.

They also tend to burn out real quick. How many closers from 2002 are still closing out games today? I'd say Jenks has a much better chance at being the next Billy Koch than the next Troy Percival.

[BobDylan]

They also tend to burn out real quick. How many closers from 2002 are still closing out games today? I'd say Jenks has a much better chance at being the next Billy Koch than the next Troy Percival.

 

I won't completely disagree. But Bobby Jenks is much more of a pitcher than Billy Koch is.