Jenks inks one year deal

[southsider2k5]

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c.../AAN4133658.htm

 

Chicago, IL (Sports Network) - The White Sox signed closer Bobby Jenks to a one-year contract Monday, according to the Chicago Tribune.

 

Jenks is expected to receive a small raise from his $450,000 salary in 2007, after matching a major league record by retiring 41 consecutive batters last season and converting 40-of-46 save chances.

 

The 27-year-old, two-time All-Star, is still a year away from the arbitration process, where he will likely get a significant pay raise.

 

The flame-thrower has compiled a 7-10 record with 87 saves and a 3.26 earned run average in parts of three big league seasons with the ChiSox.

[BigSqwert]

Excellent!

 

[RME JICO]

Woo Hoo, I almost thought they would never sign him.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Wow, a player not getting gready? Haven't seen that since Paul Konerko. Good for you Bobby.

[Kalapse]

Wow, a player not getting gready? Haven't seen that since Paul Konerko. Good for you Bobby.

Bobby had no choice, the Sox decide how much to pay him, he has no say in the matter. They'll soon do the same with the likes of John Danks, Gavin Floyd, Ehren Wasserman, Boone Logan, Nick Masset, Jerry Owens, Josh Fields and Danny Richar (assuming they make the team.) When a player has fewer than 3 years of service time he's at the mercy of the team when it comes time to sign their deal for the season.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Bobby had no choice, the Sox decide how much to pay him, he has no say in the matter. They'll soon do the same with the likes of John Danks, Gavin Floyd, Ehren Wasserman, Boone Logan, Nick Masset, Jerry Owens, Josh Fields and Danny Richar (assuming they make the team.) When a player has fewer than 3 years of service time he's at the mercy of the team when it comes time to sign their deal for the season.

 

Ah, thanks. I just skimmed the title and didnt really read the article.

[WilliamTell]

Good to see.

[Baines3]

That is a big relief to have Bobby signed for another year. I would hate to see what the bullpen would be like without him.

[TheBigHurt]

He was a free agent??? Where have I been?

[Marky Mark]

He was a free agent??? Where have I been?

 

 

He wasn't a FA, he was to make the league minimum this year but the Sox chose to give him a little more $.

[DBAHO]

Yeah he'll certainly get quite a sizeable raise next season.

 

So the Sox are going to have to factor that in, for next season's payroll obviously.

 

Although having Uribe's 4.5M come off the books (if he's not re-signed), will help.

 

Just shows the value of having good young major league players.

 

If Jenks was a FA, he could easily be making over $10M this season. Instead he'll only make about 500K.

[lvjeremylv]

I hope the Sox and Bobby can come to terms on a long-term deal some soon. I've heard people on here saying "Why pay him before we have to", but the simple fact is that he's been one of the best closers in baseball since taking over in 2005, and he deserves to be compensated for it. Something along the lines of a 3 year, $18M deal would be good for both parties. I'm pretty sure Bobby would take it, and it would be a good deal for the Sox.

[DBAHO]

There's also the questions about his arm / shoulder and whether that would hold up over a long - term period.

 

My guess is though, if the Sox could sign him a 3/18M contract next off-season, if he was still healthy, they'd do it in a second.

 

I'd say he'd probably ask for more though.

 

I mean Eric Gagne got $10M this off-season FWIW.

[Kalapse]

I hope the Sox and Bobby can come to terms on a long-term deal some soon. I've heard people on here saying "Why pay him before we have to", but the simple fact is that he's been one of the best closers in baseball since taking over in 2005, and he deserves to be compensated for it. Something along the lines of a 3 year, $18M deal would be good for both parties. I'm pretty sure Bobby would take it, and it would be a good deal for the Sox.

That does absolutely nothing for the Sox except maybe save them $3M between '09-'11 (assuming Jenks continues to produce and stay healthy.) If the Sox are going to give him a long term deal it's going to have to be at least 4 years, buying out all 3 years of arbitration and the first year of free agency. And giving a 4 year $28M-$32M deal to a closer with a history of arm problems, velocity loss and 1 full season of success under his bealt would be just silly.

 

The Sox aren't in the business of unnecessarily rewarding players for doing their jobs, they're in the business of winning championships and guaranteeing big money to a guy who plays a notoriously inconsistent position just to guarantee themselves a 5th year of control over him would be irresponsible.

 

And they are rewarding Jenks for his fine play by paying him 25% more than they have to next season.

[lvjeremylv]

That does absolutely nothing for the Sox except maybe save them $3M between '09-'11 (assuming Jenks continues to produce and stay healthy.) If the Sox are going to give him a long term deal it's going to have to be at least 4 years, buying out all 3 years of arbitration and the first year of free agency. And giving a 4 year $28M-$32M deal to a closer with a history of arm problems, velocity loss and 1 full season of success under his bealt would be just silly.

 

The Sox aren't in the business of unnecessarily rewarding players for doing their jobs, they're in the business of winning championships and guaranteeing big money to a guy who plays a notoriously inconsistent position just to guarantee themselves a 5th year of control over him would be irresponsible.

 

And they are rewarding Jenks for his fine play by paying him 25% more than they have to next season.

1 full season of success? Have you been hibernating somewhere? Since coming onto the scene mid-2005, he has compiled 91 saves in 103 chances (counting the 2005 playoffs). That's much more than 1 full season of success. His ERA wasn't the best in 2006, but all that matters with closers is that they come in and close out the game, and he was successful 91% of the time that season (41-for-45).

 

The guy is clutch. Pay him.

[knightni]

That is a big relief to have Bobby signed for another year.

 

I for one, enjoy a good double entendre.

 

I salute you sir!

[Kalapse]

1 full season of success? Have you been hibernating somewhere? Since coming onto the scene mid-2005, he has compiled 91 saves in 103 chances (counting the 2005 playoffs). That's much more than 1 full season of success. His ERA wasn't the best in 2006, but all that matters with closers is that they come in and close out the game, and he was successful 91% of the time that season (41-for-45).

 

The guy is clutch. Pay him.

Bobby Jenks was dreadful in the from July 5th 2006 through the end of the season. 32.1 IP, 5.85 ERA, 1.81 WHIP, 37:20 K:BB.

 

So he had a very good stint with the big club in '05 and was very good for the first half of '06 but 2007 was his first FULL season of success. Having a very good closer with only 2 years of service time is one hell of an asset, it means you can sign 1 year deals for the next 4 years without having to guarantee him anything beyond that season.

 

There's a reason why the Angels didn't throw $30M at K-Rod after the 2005 season when he saved 45 games as a 23 year old . . . because they didn't have to, they knew that they had him under their control for the next 3 seasons.

 

Closers have this awful habit of falling apart after a few years of success, why guarantee one huge money when you don't have to?

[santo=dorf]

Bobby Jenks was dreadful in the from July 5th 2006 through the end of the season. 32.1 IP, 5.85 ERA, 1.81 WHIP, 37:20 K:BB.

 

So he had a very good stint with the big club in '05 and was very good for the first half of '06 but 2007 was his first FULL season of success. Having a very good closer with only 2 years of service time is one hell of an asset, it means you can sign 1 year deals for the next 4 years without having to guarantee him anything beyond that season.

 

There's a reason why the Angels didn't throw $30M at K-Rod after the 2005 season when he saved 45 games as a 23 year old . . . because they didn't have to, they knew that they had him under their control for the next 3 seasons.

 

Closers have this awful habit of falling apart after a few years of success, why guarantee one huge money when you don't have to?

He sure was terrible in August 2006: 1.84 ERA, .95 WHIP, 10 saves

 

He had a brutal July and even worse September sue in part by Ozzie being afraid to use certain members of the bullpen (Riske.)

I can play with the dates too. From August 8th 2006 to September 3rd, Jenks' numbers: 11 G, 13.2 IP, .66 ERA, .88 WHIP, 13k's, 5BB's, 9 saves, 1 W

 

Think that August stretch gave Ozzie a lot more confidence in Jenks. Ah f*** it, he was dreadful after July 5th all the way through the end of the 2006 season.

[Kalapse]

He sure was terrible in August 2006: 1.84 ERA, .95 WHIP, 10 saves

 

He had a brutal July and even worse September sue in part by Ozzie being afraid to use certain members of the bullpen (Riske.)

I can play with the dates too. From August 8th 2006 to September 3rd, Jenks' numbers: 11 G, 13.2 IP, .66 ERA, .88 WHIP, 13k's, 5BB's, 9 saves, 1 W

 

Think that August stretch gave Ozzie a lot more confidence in Jenks. Ah f*** it, he was dreadful after July 5th all the way through the end of the 2006 season.

Here's my rule that I've just come up with now and have put no real thought into: if you're bad for about a full month then good for about a full month then bad again for about another full month then you relinquish credit for that good month sandwiched between the 2 bad ones. Otherwise you can really lend no credence to good or bad stretches of play, they lose all value since you can just play around with the dates. Any date in time you choose is going to arbitrary whether it's the beginning of a month or the day after the all star break it's an arbitrary date.

 

You say Brian Anderson was terrible in 2006, someone else says he was actually pretty damn good in July and August, another person says between July 21st and August 13th he was brutal, where does it end?

 

Do you go game to game? Week to week? Month to month? Is there any value in cumulative stats between arbitrary points in time?

 

Did Jim Thome have a great first half in 2006 or did he have 2 really good months followed by an only ok month? Was Jermaine Dye really that good after the AS break last year or was it just a great August that makes his 2nd half look a whole lot better than it actually was?

[lvjeremylv]

Here's my rule that I've just come up with now and have put no real thought into: if you're bad for about a full month then good for about a full month then bad again for about another full month then you relinquish credit for that good month sandwiched between the 2 bad ones. Otherwise you can really lend no credence to good or bad stretches of play, they lose all value since you can just play around with the dates. Any date in time you choose is going to arbitrary whether it's the beginning of a month or the day after the all star break it's an arbitrary date.

 

You say Brian Anderson was terrible in 2006, someone else says he was actually pretty damn good in July and August, another person says between July 21st and August 13th he was brutal, where does it end?

 

Do you go game to game? Week to week? Month to month? Is there any value in cumulative stats between arbitrary points in time?

 

Did Jim Thome have a great first half in 2006 or did he have 2 really good months followed by an only ok month? Was Jermaine Dye really that good after the AS break last year or was it just a great August that makes his 2nd half look a whole lot better than it actually was?

It's all semantics. For the entire season he put up a 4.00 ERA. Like I said, not a great ERA at all, but all that matters is saving games since that's his job as a CLOSER. He was successful 91% of the time. So even in his worst season, he was still extremely reliable.

 

Pay him before it's too late and we end up with someone like Billy Koch closing for us again.

[Kalapse]

Jenks will earn $550K this year which is 37.5% more than the White Sox are obligated to pay him. It's also the most the Sox have ever given to a player with only 2 years of service time.