What's wrong with Bobby Jenks?

[Pumpkin Escobar]

I think that you just answered your own question. I imagine that several teams would be interested in a guy like Jenks, who is still under team control from year-to-year through 2011. Even if arbitration puts him at $8 or $9 million next year and he blows out his elbow, it's not a terribly risky investment for a very good closer with a proven track record.

 

No because teams aren't looking to give up what we would require is the point.

 

He is trending downward, losing velocity, struggling and becoming more expensive by the day.

 

His past performance and present performance from a numbers standpoint would warrant type-A compensation. So in a trade - we would demand that kind of haul.

 

No one is going to want to deal for a closer who could be potentially falling apart. Will cost them potentially an arm and a leg in an economy where we are seeing salaries regress. Arbitration players will not see a decline because I believe they go off what is currently already paid to players. Jenks - I think is the 2nd fastest to 100 saves in his career behind Sasaki from Seattle...So he'll win the arbitration case. They don't care about the economy or his declining stuff. They care about his body of work.

 

All that said - no one is dealing us two first round or top flight talent for a closer. Theyd rather turn to an in house option at that point.

 

Sure he has value and is still performing and teams would love him. They wouldn't pay the price is the point when all things are considered.

[Chisoxfn]

Here's a Commentary from SoxNet.net, by Mario Scalise

 

We're new here, but one of the things you'll regularly see me grunting about is the role of the closer. In short, I don't believe in it. Relievers are relievers. Your best ones are used in the most crucial moments of the game, the rest get used around and between.

 

And because there are so many of them in today's game, they all deserve a leash. Some longer than others. Your very best, for instance, or the best of the best (Rivera, Nathan...etc.), but a leash shouldn't extend to a loss. But in today's game, the leash of the closers is just that long, and last night was a perfect example of it.

 

Bobby Jenks, coming off a 28-pitch, 1-hit, 2-walk ninth inning the night before against the Rays -- which came before already giving up 4 runs in 4 innings so far in the month -- was back on the bump in the last inning Tuesday night with a one-run lead.

 

He was trying to "save" the game for Clayton Richard, who pitched a career-game enlight of speculation and calls for his removal from the rotation. It didn't work out.

 

A single, hit by pitch, and another single loaded the bases without a single batter batter being retired. Any old reliever would have been pulled probably after the first two of that sequence. But a "closer" gets a longer leash and is allowed to load the bases. Fine.

 

And then comes a walk to bring in the tying run.

 

Again, any old reliever gets pulled after the first two batters reaching, but the closer is allowed to do that TWICE!

 

The next guy hits a sacrifice fly to bring in the go-ahead run (no thanks to Dye, who setup poorly to make a play at the plate a close one). Jenks is still in. Next batter walks. Jenks is still in. That guy steals second. Jenks is still in.

 

This all happening, again, after a poor performance the night before and a series of poor performances throughout the month, and it all happens while six other relievers are in the bullpen.

 

Guillen finds it necessary -- vital -- to have two more relievers (7) than starting pitchers (5) in his pen. Vital, to have three more relievers than bench players. Yet six go unused after the struggling "closer" allows four straight base-runners to reach?

 

And yes, something is brewing

[WCSox]

No because teams aren't looking to give up what we would require is the point.

 

He is trending downward, losing velocity, struggling and becoming more expensive by the day.

 

Bobby has been "losing velocity" since October of 2005, yet has been about the 5th best closer in the AL over that time. He still has great stuff and there's nothing to suggest that he's suffering from an injury. Jenks' current problem is not his velocity, but his command. He's walking and hitting batters left and right.

 

No one is going to want to deal for a closer who could be potentially falling apart. Will cost them potentially an arm and a leg in an economy where we are seeing salaries regress. Arbitration players will not see a decline because I believe they go off what is currently already paid to players. Jenks - I think is the 2nd fastest to 100 saves in his career behind Sasaki from Seattle...So he'll win the arbitration case. They don't care about the economy or his declining stuff. They care about his body of work.

 

You're evaluating Jenks's future on less than a month's worth of baseball. This isn't the first time in his career that he hasn't pitched well and has blown a couple of saves, so your prognostication that he's falling apart is dubious at best. Bobby's "body of work" over the past 3+ seasons is nothing short of excellent and, frankly, there's nothing to suggest that he's going into some sort of Billy Koch-like free-fall.

 

Because of this, there will be considerable interest in Jenks during the off-season. He's year-to-year for the next 2 1/2 seasons, which translates into very little financial risk for an interested GM.

Edited July 22, 2009 by WCSox

[Pumpkin Escobar]

Bobby has been "losing velocity" since October of 2005, yet has been about the 5th best closer in the AL over that time. He still has great stuff and there's nothing to suggest that he's suffering from an injury. Jenks' current problem is not his velocity, but his command. He's walking and hitting batters left and right.

 

 

 

You're evaluating Jenks's future on less than a month's worth of baseball. This isn't the first time in his career that he hasn't pitched well and has blown a couple of saves, so your prognostication that he's falling apart is dubious at best. Bobby's "body of work" over the past 3+ seasons is nothing short of excellent and, frankly, there's nothing to suggest that he's going into some sort of Billy Koch-like free-fall.

 

Because of this, there will be considerable interest in Jenks during the off-season. He's year-to-year for the next 2 1/2 seasons, which translates into very little financial risk for an interested GM.

 

Thats very true all of it.

 

If you look back at one of my previous posts or first post in this section I believe I said his velocity has been going down, the problem now is his inability to locate it.

 

The velocity has been going down but for the last couple seasons - the excuse was always - "he is doing it intentionally and he can still bring it at 100 when he needs to". I think even Jenks himself has said that.

 

Now maybe he can. Maybe I am overestimating the value of a save situation in the middle of July against a team you're competing with for the Wild Card when you're also a game back in the division. But I'd assume that is one of the times you reach back for it.

 

My point was that he can't. And he isn't the same player without it because now teams know he can't. They know he can't locate it either. And they for the most part are trying to lay off his still dominating breaking ball. Which I dont care how great it is - it is more hittable coming off a 94 mph pitch then a 100 mph pitch.

 

And I must not have been clear to you when I said "his body of work". I wasn't knocking his body of work. In fact - I noted it was excellent and was simply showing he is going to get a ton of money from an arbitrator because they look at the "body of work".

 

It had nothing to do with what he is doing right now other than with a decline in his stuff. The concerns about his arm. Concerns about his weight. And the fact that an arbitrator doesnt care about those things when he pays out. So if we were looking to trade him now - teams would note that he is "struggling" and would not be able to meet the package where it'd be worht dealing him.

 

Do I think Jenks is headed for a decline. Yes, but I am also only like 60-40 on that. The point is I'd rather hedge my bets now and deal him while he still has value as opposed to keeping him and those "concerns" being correct then getting nothing for him while still having to pay out the rear for him.

 

That is the point. Make all the excuses you want. Pop a viagra if needed to keep the hardon for him.

 

He doesn't have the same stuff as he did before. He still is very good and has good stuff but a continued decline out of him where we weren't proactive would make us look stupid - when we are paying him 10mil+ in two years while the league average will have dropped considerably due to the closers that have and will continue signing via free agency.

 

This isn't some anti-Jenks rocket science here. He has some value you now - I dont know which teams that need closers are willing to pay a premium of 2-3 elite prospects for him when he is showing signs of wearing down. Who cares that he has been great at saving games...His ERA, homers, baa and his WHIP are up. His k's have declined faster then any other "Elite" closer I've seen and guys are starting to hit him because theyre laying off the hammer and forcing him to locate a fastball that he cannot do.

 

It's very simple stuff. Really, it is. And you're right - he'll still draw interest but for a guy who is under control with record setting save numbers, devistating stuff (well whats left of it) and type-A compensation, he wont be getting the package that kind of history deserves. Thats all.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Pumpkin Escobar

[Colorado Sox Fan]

I don't think this is just a rough patch. I am worried about him.

[Pumpkin Escobar]

I don't think this is just a rough patch. I am worried about him.

 

[WCSox]

If you look back at one of my previous posts or first post in this section I believe I said his velocity has been going down, the problem now is his inability to locate it.

 

So are you claiming that his command, like his velocity, is forever lost now? I hope not.

 

The velocity has been going down but for the last couple seasons - the excuse was always - "he is doing it intentionally and he can still bring it at 100 when he needs to". I think even Jenks himself has said that...

 

My point was that he can't. And he isn't the same player without it because now teams know he can't. They know he can't locate it either. And they for the most part are trying to lay off his still dominating breaking ball. Which I dont care how great it is - it is more hittable coming off a 94 mph pitch then a 100 mph pitch.

 

Jenks has been throwing in the mid-90's for over two years now, and I don't believe I ever claimed that he'd be throwing 100 again. My point is that he doesn't need to throw 98-100 mph on a regular basis to be an effective closer.

 

It's also possible that he's going through a "dead arm" period right now. I recall this happening to him in years past, and it didn't exactly doom him to a career of mediocrity.

 

It had nothing to do with what he is doing right now other than with a decline in his stuff. The concerns about his arm. Concerns about his weight.

 

I must've missed the memo about Bobby putting on an extra 40 lbs. this past off-season. He pitched well fat in 2005, he pitched well fat in 2006, he pitched well fat in 2007...

 

And the fact that if we were looking to trade him now - teams would note that he is "struggling" and would not be able to meet the package where it'd be worht dealing him.

 

I didn't realize that we were shopping him right now. Since we're in contention, my plan would be to shop him in November.

 

Do I think Jenks is headed for a decline. Yes, but I am also only like 60-40 on that. The point is I'd rather hedge my bets now and deal him while he still has value as opposed to keeping him and those "concerns" being correct then getting nothing for him while still having to pay out the rear for him.

 

I think that he's on a decline as well... but a relatively slow one. But I don't see him losing tremendous value in the foreseeable future.

 

Make all the excuses you want. Pop a viagra if needed to keep the hardon for him.

 

You were doing well until you introduced this weak-ass, childish rhetoric.

 

I dont know which teams that need closers are willing to pay a premium of 2-3 elite prospects for him

 

Who says that Kenny is looking for "2-3 elite prospects" for Jenks? Not me. I'd be satisfied with one, and two other relatively good prospects. Again, nobody is confusing Jenks with Halladay or Nathan.

 

when we are paying him 10mil+ in two years while the league average will have dropped considerably due to the closers that have and will continue signing via free agency.

 

Perhaps you and I just disagree on the point that Jenks will still have significant trade value this off-season. He's one of the Top 5 closers in the AL and he's under team control for two more years. There will be suitors. Look at all of the money that the Mets threw at K-Rod as a FA, after he nearly threw his arm off last season. Hell, look at all of the money that they threw at Putz (coming off of an injury, to boot) to be a freaking setup man. You're telling me that other GMs would be afraid to deal for Jenks and his uber-favorable contract status??? No freaking way.

Edited July 22, 2009 by WCSox

[southsider2k5]

Thats very true all of it.

 

The velocity has been going down but for the last couple seasons - the excuse was always - "he is doing it intentionally and he can still bring it at 100 when he needs to". I think even Jenks himself has said that.

 

I haven't seen 100, but I have seen him hit 99 a couple of times this year.

[WCSox]

I haven't seen 100, but I have seen him hit 99 a couple of times this year.

 

I also recall Jenks maxing out in the mid-90's back in early 2006. This is nothing new.

 

[JorgeFabregas]

His k's have declined faster then any other "Elite" closer I've seen

His K/9 is higher than it was in 2008 or 2007.

[Pumpkin Escobar]

So are you claiming that his command, like his velocity, is forever lost now? I hope not.

 

 

 

Jenks has been throwing in the mid-90's for over two years now, and I don't believe I ever claimed that he'd be throwing 100 again. My point is that he doesn't need to throw 98-100 mph on a regular basis to be an effective closer.

 

It's also possible that he's going through a "dead arm" period right now. I recall this happening to him in years past, and it didn't exactly doom him to a career of mediocrity.

 

 

 

I must've missed the memo about Bobby putting on an extra 40 lbs. this past off-season. He pitched well fat in 2005, he pitched well fat in 2006, he pitched well fat in 2007...

 

 

 

I didn't realize that we were shopping him right now. Since we're in contention, my plan would be to shop him in November.

 

 

 

I think that he's on a decline as well... but a relatively slow one. But I don't see him losing tremendous value in the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

You were doing well until you introduced this weak-ass, childish rhetoric.

 

 

 

Who says that Kenny is looking for "2-3 elite prospects" for Jenks? Not me. I'd be satisfied with one, and two other relatively good prospects. Again, nobody is confusing Jenks with Halladay or Nathan.

 

 

 

Perhaps you and I just disagree on the point that Jenks will still have significant trade value this off-season. He's one of the Top 5 closers in the AL and he's under team control for two more years. There will be suitors. Look at all of the money that the Mets threw at K-Rod as a FA, after he nearly threw his arm off last season. Hell, look at all of the money that they threw at Putz (coming off of an injury, to boot) to be a freaking setup man. You're telling me that other GMs would be afraid to deal for Jenks and his uber-favorable contract status??? No freaking way.

 

Ok. I'll try and wrap this up because everything I feel like is being twisted. When I write something you'll twist it or if I direct something towards you - it's misinterpeted.

 

Jenks has been in a decline - with his stuff - for a good couple years. We all can agree on that now. Right now - I said his stuff is not the same. It could be a dead arm but the distinct possiblity is there that it is just declining for good. He stil lcan b very effective at 95 mph. There is minimal issue there. In fact 0 issue there with a closer throwing 95. The problem is that he isnt locating his stuff I said. No where in any post did I say it will be forever. I said that is what is contributing to his recent struggles.

 

In the past, people assumed he was just not throwing hard because he didnt have to in order to be effective. Which I agree with the logic of not needing to throw 100 to be effective.

 

I did not agree with that he was doing it intentionally. I just thought he was losing his stuff and could probably run it up there at 97 if he needed to. Still a very very good closer.

 

My problem was - with a guy that has a screw in his arm and seeing him decline in stuff - how much longer will he be a dominant closer? And how much longer do you want to take the risk that he doesnt blow his arm out? He may never blow it out and he may shatter records for saves with a 93-95 heater and gross curveball but there is also a chance that next season he blows his arm out and we werent proactive in avoiding that kind of possibility by dealing him when his value was peaking - about 12-18 months ago. Last season he pitched great but I saw his k's drop to like .5 an inning so his value slipped. Where he was usually around 1 an inning, as I believe he is back to this season but his stuff is noticibly more hittable.

 

Seeing that kind of decline for a closer isn't great. So I was all for moving him this past offseason, as some people are.

 

My point from the very beginning was his value to us. If we keep signing him and let him hit free agency in a few years. He will most likely get TYPE-A status. I have some doubts because his decline isn't going to be overnight or immediate as you stated but if we wait 3-4 years - he may have lost his TYPE - A value if he continues on his slower decline.

 

Right now - he is a TYPE-A status player. Now I know you didn't say the we had to get 2-3 good players for him but it is rare you see a guy who is a type-a dealt for anything less. The reason is because if you just let him walk - you'll get 2 first round compensation picks for him. So no one trades their Type-A players for one pretty good one that often. When they do - they usually get 2-3 pretty solid guys and it isn't for a guy who is still under team control. It usually is because that traded player is a free agent at seasons end.

 

Kenny will be looking to be bringing in that kind of talent for him. You're absolutely right that he isnt Halladay or Nathan. Ricciardi - if you havent been following - is turning down 3-5 very good players for Halladay, who is older, more expensive and has 1.5 years left.

 

Nathan is in the same mold as Jenks though because when a team deals you a couple very good players - they also know when this guy hits FA - if he walks he can draft two good players back with his compensation. Nathan is a better closer but his package wouldn't be insanely more then Jenks.

 

They both can attract nice packages. But in terms of who gets their full value - Nathan has a much more likely shot. And he has a heavier contract, age, and a limited no trade clause to work with - yet still the Twins would get proper value.

 

Jenks - the longer we hold him - will cost us more $, he will lose his trade value unless he rediscovers his fastball, and there is always a huge risk with him for injury or loss of Type-A by the time he is ready to hit FA. Again, for the 30th time, that isnt to say he can't attract a good package or that teams won't be interested - it is to say that we would be silly to move a guy under control - for less then his value (which is a "top 5 closer in the AL" with Type-A status) unless we were well aware that there is an underlying problem with him.

 

And your Putz comment was perfect too. They traded for Putz. They didn't throw money at him. He is making 5 million this season and 8 next season for an option. And he got hurt. So now teams are going to say - "Hey did you see the Mets dealt for Putz to be a setup man and he got hurt - we should go deal for the guy who is showing signs of decline in his stuff and a screw in his arm. That'll be a safe bet. Lets deal 2 top prospects for him and pay him MORE then a guy like Putz. Ya!"

 

Now - I hope that makes more sense and that we can stop debating over his value when he has about a 1% chance of being moved at all in the next 6 months.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Pumpkin Escobar

[Pumpkin Escobar]

His K/9 is higher than it was in 2008 or 2007.

 

Ya - I pointed that out already. But last season it was down immensely and this season he is striking guys out again but I think teams are hitting near .260 against him. Which isn't bad at all, for the 100th time, it's just not dominant and statistically not going to be worth the 10 million we will be paying him next season.

 

And he absolutely can turn it around this season. I think a guy throwing with 95mph stuff and a nasty curveball is still a great pitcher. I just think his value was above that of a 95 mph closer and was in an elite level when factoring age, team control, stuff, his history, etc...And now we will only watch his value decline because his $ will go up, his stuff is going down (not bad again for those who don't understand - but it is less then what he was known for), and that he has. a screw. in his arm. That will make teams weary and makes myself weary when I see struggles like right now.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2009 by Pumpkin Escobar

[WCSox]

Jenks has been in a decline - with his stuff - for a good couple years. We all can agree on that now.

 

No, we can't. Your information about Jenks' "decline over the years" appears to be overly-anecdotal...

 

Year WHIP

2005 1.25

2006 1.39

2007 0.89

2008 1.10

2009 1.29

 

WHIP is the most statistically-relevant tool for measuring a closer's effectiveness, and there is no obvious pattern of "decline over the years." Jenks was phenomenal in 2007, and he wasn't throwing anywhere near 100 on a regular basis.

 

And your Putz comment was perfect too. They traded for Putz. They didn't throw money at him. He is making 5 million this season and 8 next season for an option. And he got hurt. So now teams are going to say - "Hey did you see the Mets dealt for Putz to be a setup man and he got hurt - we should go deal for the guy who is showing signs of decline in his stuff and a screw in his arm. That'll be a safe bet. Lets deal 2 top prospects for him and pay him MORE then a guy like Putz. Ya!"

 

This is such a silly comment that I don't know where to begin. First of all, Jenks was a high-tier closer for a much longer time than Putz. Secondly, Jenks hasn't been injured since 2004, even with heavy use of a surgically-repaired elbow. Putz, on the other hand, was injured just last season in Seattle. Third, Putz's lack of durability and Omar Minaya's idiotic decision to over-pay him have nothing to do with what other teams will pay for a healthier and more accomplished Bobby Jenks.

Edited July 22, 2009 by WCSox

[caulfield12]

Jenks won't be at $10 million in his fifth year/2nd arbitration year.

 

He'll be about 5-15% behind Papelbon, who's the cream of that closing crop.

 

$8-8.5 million is a pretty reasonable estimate.

 

Pumpkin Escobar, I read your entire post (longer than most of mine), and your arguments can be used just as well (by other teams) as evidence against giving up much of anything in terms of value. Think of him like we did Joe Crede at that point in his Sox career, year-to-year contracts, uncertainty building up about his health and performance. And Joe never made it to the neighborhood of $10 million per year, I think he maxed out closer to $6.5 or maybe 7 million.

 

Yes, he very well could/should become a Type A FA down the line, but he just AS EASILY could go down for the count with an injury and end up out of baseball like Billy Koch. Then, you'd have very little return on your investment. So any GM is not going to give away a Top 50 MLB minor leaguer...maybe one 50-75, or two 75-125, and a fringe prospect.

 

With how bad he has looked recently, we would be pretty fortunate to get rid of the $8-$8.5 million price tag and get someone back in trade like a Richard/Poreda/Thornton as a possible replacement closer-in-waiting down the line (lefty or righty), as well as a 3B, leadoff hitter candidate (fringe) or fringe candidate for the 5th spot in the rotation, pitchers two steps down from Mulvey and Humber when the Santana trade went down (Hudson territory?).

 

For the White Sox, perhaps THE biggest consideration is the rising salary and possibly declining performance, and the calculation of injury....versus the damage to the team's psyche trying the likes of Thornton, Pena, etc., in that role.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2009 by caulfield12

[Pumpkin Escobar]

No, we can't. Your information about Jenks' "decline over the years" appears to be overly-anecdotal...

 

Year WHIP

2005 1.25

2006 1.39

2007 0.89

2008 1.10

2009 1.29

 

WHIP is the most statistically-relevant tool for measuring a closer's effectiveness, and there is no obvious pattern of "decline over the years." Jenks was phenomenal in 2007, and he wasn't throwing anywhere near 100 on a regular basis.

 

Ok so his stuff isnt getting worse you're saying but his Whip has gone up the last 2 years?

 

05' was his first year and he plyed in less games that year then I think he did all of this year.

 

06' first full season as closer nd had a pretty good season. Similar to this season where he is having a pretty good season. He was also 25 in 2006 so for a closer to be throwing 100mph and 25 - in his 1st full season - no one cared as much.

 

07' great season - exactly what was expected out of him. Exactly what I was saying interms of where his value was at it's peak. a 26 year old with dominating stuff and even though this may have been the first season of noticible inconsistency with hitting 99-100 - he was still effective. O ya for a team who finished what - 7th/8th worst in baseball.

 

08' - another great season. 27 y/o closer who still has immense value even with more growing concerns about him only throwing mid-90's now. Most people, myself included still saw no reason he wouldnt be effective but the thought was in the back of your head that there may be some issues. Huge decline in k's but still very good.

 

09' - more concern over him now. Lack of velocity seems to be evident. Still A VERY GOOD closer. Not worth 10 million next season if his production this season doesnt change. Still has good trade value and should be moved if we can get his value for him.

 

I am more comfortable with a guy (who came into the league throwing 95 with no screw in his arm - that dominates - and i pay 10 million) then a guy who came in throwing 99-100, who is down to 94-95 and has a screw in his arm about to make 10 million who I still have a shot at getting full value for in a trade.

 

That is the whole point of the Bobby Jenks situation.

[nitetrain8601]

In 2005, Jenks had some of the most electric stuff I had seen from a pitcher in my lifetime. Now his stuff is pretty average for a closer.

 

He has above average pitches, but the thing is, he has too many for a closer IMHO and then he starts falling in love with his breaking stuff. Part of that is Coop's fault as well for allowing it to happen. All he needs is his fastball at 100mph, his hammer, and if he wants, throw in his change. He doesn't need to keep learning new pitches like a two seamer.

[WCSox]

Think of him like we did Joe Crede at that point in his Sox career, year-to-year contracts, uncertainty building up about his health and performance. And Joe never made it to the neighborhood of $10 million per year, I think he maxed out closer to $6.5 or maybe 7 million.

 

Yeah, let's compare Jenks to a guy who missed the latter halves of the past two seasons with chronic back problems, and didn't respond to his surgery from 2007. That's a brilliant comparison.

Edited July 22, 2009 by WCSox

[southsider2k5]

Keep in mind, with a surgically rebuilt elbow, there is a very good chance that Jenks hurts himself if he is always going at 100%. At that point he becomes a payroll drain as he sits out a year to get surgery again.

[WCSox]

Ok so his stuff isnt getting worse you're saying but his Whip has gone up the last 2 years?

 

Right now, it's approximately equal to his WHIP form 2005, when you (incorrectly) claim that he was at his best. It's also much better than it was in 2006, what you describe as a "good season."

 

Edited July 22, 2009 by WCSox

[Pumpkin Escobar]

[quote name='WCSox' date='Jul 22, 2009 -> 04:02 PM' post='1955222

 

 

 

This is such a silly comment that I don't know where to begin. First of all, Jenks was a high-tier closer for a much longer time than Putz. Secondly, Jenks hasn't been injured since 2004, even with heavy use of a surgically-repaired elbow. Putz, on the other hand, was injured just last season in Seattle. Third, Putz's lack of durability and Omar Minaya's idiotic decision to over-pay him have nothing to do with what other teams will pay for a healthier and more accomplished Bobby Jenks.

 

 

You're hilarious. I have to leave work. I don't have time keep dealing with you changing and manipulating things like a coward.

 

You said and I am paraphrasing "Look at all the money the Mets through at him".

 

I pointed out you were clueless. Because they traded for him. So your logic was invalid in saying they paid tons of money to sign a setup man. They didn't - they traded for a closer to be a setup man.

 

And you can say Bobby Jenks is healthy all you want. The guy is an out-of-shape, screw in the elbow, closer who came into the league 4-5 years ago throwing 100 mph. He is only 28-29 and has lost his ability to do so. He is without a doubt able to keep being a very good closer - but - for the amount of return his work history deserves and the amount of money he will be paid over the next 2 years in arb and then his contract following. He will have much less interest then you think.

 

He will still have immense value. But there is a risk associated with acquiring him that isn't there if a team wants to spend less on acquiring a closer who hasn't shown signs of a decline physically in his stuff and has a screw in his arm.

 

I'm pretty much done debating it. For whatever reason - in order to act like you have some remote clue on things - you change things around to me saying Jenks isn't a good closer or isnt effective or whatever other nonsense. It's a waste of my time to keep dancing circles around you.

[caulfield12]

Yeah, let's compare Jenks to a guy who missed the latter halves of the past two seasons with chronic back problems, and didn't respond to surgery in 2007. That's a brilliant comparison.

 

 

Is Jenks closer to Papelbon or the "Joe Crede" of closers?

 

Maybe not the best analogy, but you're never going to get a F-Mart type for him, not with the over-stress now on young/affordable talent.

 

Jenks was hurt in 2006, and there's the screw issue...and perhaps the possibility of a DL visit, which would be a disaster with Thornton also out for his wife's delivery.

 

I'll ask this question. If you were another GM and had the White Sox system to trade from, who would you be willing to give up from our top prospects for two uncertain years (or 2.333, technically) of Bobby Jenks at $8-12 million and the possibility he goes down with injury and you get nothing in terms of Type A FA comp?

 

Would you trade Poreda, Hudson and Shelby III straight up for Jenks right now? How confident would you be in making that move?

Edited July 22, 2009 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Let's watch the name calling, shall we?

[Pumpkin Escobar]

Right now, it's approximately equal to his WHIP form 2005, when you (incorrectly) claim that he was at his best. It's also much better than it was in 2006, what you describe as a "good season."

 

Hmm...His stuff was at it's best. He came in throwing 100 non-stop.

 

And 2006 was a good season but he also gave up his most walks and homers. Sort of like what he is doing this year except in 2006 he still was throwing 99 consistently.

 

I'm out of the conversation. Debating with 14 year olds after I am off work is the last reason I joined the site or wanted to contribute my 2 cents on the matter.

 

Apparently that is a crime and apparently you just dont have a clue about the game of baseball.

 

Now go twist something I said in this or a previous post and ignore how you don't understand trade value when it comes to why KW would ask for 2-3 prospects because of status. Or how you think the Mets signed Putz. Or how Jenks whip has gone up the last 3 seasons and his stuff has gone down but that isnt bad because his 07' was sooooo good. It is bad brainiac. He may not be bad - or even medicore - he is still good but from where he was mixed with signs of arm issues in relation to throwing as hard as he did when he is still only 28 years old is a problem. Wake the ____ up!

[nitetrain8601]

Right now, it's approximately equal to his WHIP form 2005, when you (incorrectly) claim that he was at his best. It's also much better than it was in 2006, what you describe as a "good season."

 

I'd certainly say someone with a 100mph fastball, he's a lot better IMHO. There are valid arguments on both sides. I do think he's declining and I thought that in '07 as well. It seemed like somehow, someway, baserunners were getting aboard. Last year especially, he always made the 9th interesting, but was able to get out of it more times than not.

[BigSqwert]

If you don't want to see the closer then don't go to the God damn game!