Jenks done for the rest of the year

[sircaffey]

You know, that is actually a good point...the team needs to intervene a bit with Jenks's offseason, get him either training or throwing a bit differently since he's no longer just a kid...but he'd be an excellent candidate for a comeback player next year. He can still fire it up hthere and still has good stuff, but it's less consistent and his control is worse. Those are things that can be fixed.

 

The key is going to be keeping him healthy. More rest and days between outings. If that means 45-50 innings of Bobby at 3.00 ERA performance rather than 60-65 innings at 4.00 ERA, then that's what you gotta do.

[southsider2k5]

I will say this much, if Jenks calf was giving him problems before this injury, it explains a lot of why he got so bad in the second half. Its hard to drive on a bad calf. It makes your fastball loose zip, and your breaking stuff hang. Sound familiar?

[santo=dorf]

I read one rumor on the internets that Jenks is hitting the bottle again and it's a distraction in the clubhouse.

[LVSoxFan]

Yeah I don't get the Jenks-bashing either. So he's had a bad year. After all he's given us, people are quick to turn on him. I don't get it.

[WCSox]

I read one rumor on the internets that Jenks is hitting the bottle again and it's a distraction in the clubhouse.

 

Now if THAT'S true, I'd be all for letting him walk as a FA. But I need more than internet innuendo to make that call.

 

[nitetrain8601]

Eh, the bigger news is that Jermaine at one point was going to take a paycut instead of the 12 million option at the end of the season (he decided this by the All-Star break) to give the Sox a hometown discount and finish his career here. Now, he considers himself gone. It was in the Sun-times as well. I wonder why no one made a post about that.

[NorthSideSox72]

I read one rumor on the internets that Jenks is hitting the bottle again and it's a distraction in the clubhouse.

Source?

 

[son of a rude]

Eh, the bigger news is that Jermaine at one point was going to take a paycut instead of the 12 million option at the end of the season (he decided this by the All-Star break) to give the Sox a hometown discount and finish his career here. Now, he considers himself gone. It was in the Sun-times as well. I wonder why no one made a post about that.

Most of us assumed it/didn't want him back anyway.

[southsider2k5]

Eh, the bigger news is that Jermaine at one point was going to take a paycut instead of the 12 million option at the end of the season (he decided this by the All-Star break) to give the Sox a hometown discount and finish his career here. Now, he considers himself gone. It was in the Sun-times as well. I wonder why no one made a post about that.

 

Actually I would argue there is a better chance he is back next year now, as we might get him really cheap, and not many other teams are going to want to take a chance on an unknown commodity. The Sox know Jermaine as good as anyone in baseball. Unless he has been told something we don't know about, I won't agree to that assumption.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd have to dig up the post, but as I showed earlier in this thread, his year is not reflective of a pitcher in decline. He had a bad month in, I think July, then was nasty in August. September I'd have to look.

 

I agree he needs a conditioning routine, and some offseason work, but I think he can be had for a reasonable price this offseason via arb, and its just not at all easy to find a reliable closer. If Jenks is kept up on conditioning this winter, I'd bet he has a very good year in 2010.

 

 

[Kalapse]

I'd have to dig up the post, but as I showed earlier in this thread, his year is not reflective of a pitcher in decline. He had a bad month in, I think July, then was nasty in August. September I'd have to look.

 

I agree he needs a conditioning routine, and some offseason work, but I think he can be had for a reasonable price this offseason via arb, and its just not at all easy to find a reliable closer. If Jenks is kept up on conditioning this winter, I'd bet he has a very good year in 2010.

He'll get $7M-$8M so it depends on your definition of the word "reasonable".

[NorthSideSox72]

He'll get $7M-$8M so it depends on your definition of the word "reasonable".

Well, here is what I mean. Let's say he gets that much. Now, you can put Thornton and his much lower salary (I think $2.5M) in that role, but he's not a closer and I give him at best a 50/50 shot at succeeding at even a 2009 Jenks rate. Likely, he'll do worse. Anyone we acquire in trade that is a proven closer will cost as much as Jenks anyway, maybe more in a combination of trade bait and salary. You could find a not yet major league guy in-system or elsewhere, give up something in trade maybe, but that is an even bigger crap shoot.

 

For a guy who has been, amazingly for his "conditioning", pretty damn reliable for years, and who I happen to think will be solid in 2010 if he stays in some semblance of shape, I'd call $7M reasonable. I value closers. I think having a guy you know will close things down at a high rate is as important as the rest of the bullpen combined. So I don't find that number a problem.

 

[sircaffey]

Well, here is what I mean. Let's say he gets that much. Now, you can put Thornton and his much lower salary (I think $2.5M) in that role, but he's not a closer and I give him at best a 50/50 shot at succeeding at even a 2009 Jenks rate. Likely, he'll do worse.

 

Why can't Matt Thornton be a quality closer?

 

A broad question here, but has there been any study done about the transition from top setup man to closer?

[mmmmmbeeer]

Damn...unreal the hatred for Bobby. He's not had a great season by any means but he hasn't been JD or Linebrink bad, not even close. I for one hope he is back next year because that's one helluva tough position to fill. Seems everyone thinks Thornton can just step in and succeed....that's no sure thing, nor is there any sure thing to backfill the LH setup roll.

 

All these "fat tub of lard" and "screw in his arm" crap is ridiculous. The guy was big when he was very successful and he's big now...it has nothing to do with anything. We've also got absolutely zero evidence that his arm has been or will be a problem.

[JorgeFabregas]

Matt Thornton is our best relief pitcher and I think Ozzie uses him very well. He doesn't have a set inning, but instead Ozzie generally uses him in high-leverage situations. That's the best role for your best reliever in my opinion.

[southsider2k5]

Matt Thornton is our best relief pitcher and I think Ozzie uses him very well. He doesn't have a set inning, but instead Ozzie generally uses him in high-leverage situations. That's the best role for your best reliever in my opinion.

 

That is why I would be afraid of Matt as our closer. We'd have to find a situational guy and/or another lefty to be able to get that outs that Thornton currently does.

[NorthSideSox72]

Why can't Matt Thornton be a quality closer?

 

A broad question here, but has there been any study done about the transition from top setup man to closer?

 

I don't know of any study, but I have certainly seen examples of guys transitioning to closing from mid-late relief and failing for no apparent mechanical or stuff reasons. Being a closer simply takes a different player-personality type. Thornton may or may not succeed, I do not know, but I wouldn't bet on it. Its not about stuff (though keep in mind that Thornton is a 95% one pitch pitcher), its about attitude and approach.

 

 

That is why I would be afraid of Matt as our closer. We'd have to find a situational guy and/or another lefty to be able to get that outs that Thornton currently does.

 

That's another reason - hard to replace Thornton in the role he is already in.

 

[WCSox]

Well, here is what I mean. Let's say he gets that much. Now, you can put Thornton and his much lower salary (I think $2.5M) in that role, but he's not a closer and I give him at best a 50/50 shot at succeeding at even a 2009 Jenks rate. Likely, he'll do worse. Anyone we acquire in trade that is a proven closer will cost as much as Jenks anyway, maybe more in a combination of trade bait and salary. You could find a not yet major league guy in-system or elsewhere, give up something in trade maybe, but that is an even bigger crap shoot.

 

I have no idea if Thornton would be more or less effective than Bobby is a closer role, but Thornton sure as heck is an unknown in that role. Do you role the dice on him in a year where you're sporting the best rotation in the bigs? I don't unless I'm financially constrained and have no other choice.

 

For a guy who has been, amazingly for his "conditioning", pretty damn reliable for years, and who I happen to think will be solid in 2010 if he stays in some semblance of shape, I'd call $7M reasonable. I value closers. I think having a guy you know will close things down at a high rate is as important as the rest of the bullpen combined. So I don't find that number a problem.

 

One of the main arguments against Jenks is that he's "not worth" the $7M or so that he'll command next year. So what? Is Konerko worth $10M in today's market? No. Do we need a good OPS guy in the middle of the lineup? Yes. Is Rios worth $10M? No. Do we need somebody who can hit and play CF competently? Yes. I just don't see the problem in keeping Jenks around one more year. If he has another down year, THEN you dump him. The ability to force a successful player to go on a year-by-year contructual basis for a few seasons is a luxury, given the minimal financial risk.

 

The argument that we should trade Bobby now before his trade value falls any lower is also misplaced. This is a baseball team, not an investment firm. The goal is to put together a winning team, not sell off assets at their point of highest value. If that logic applied to MLB, Kenny would be fielding offers for Danks and Beckham right now. Heck, look at how the Angels kept Figgins through all of his arb-eligible years, despite the fact that they could've dealt him for a nice package and saved millions a couple of years ago. Trading away a guy who has high market value for non-ML-ready prospects only makes sense if (1) you don't anticipate being competitive for more than a year or (2) there is somebody else who can step up and fill that role. Neither of those scenarios fit the Sox right now.

Edited September 23, 2009 by WCSox

[son of a rude]

I have no idea if Thornton would be more or less effective than Bobby is a closer role, but Thornton sure as heck is an unknown in that role. Do you role the dice on him in a year where you're sporting the best rotation in the bigs? I don't unless I'm financially constrained and have no other choice.

 

 

 

One of the main arguments against Jenks is that he's "not worth" the $7M or so that he'll command next year. So what? Is Konerko worth $10M in today's market? No. Do we need a good OPS guy in the middle of the lineup? Yes. Is Rios worth $10M? No. Do we need somebody who can hit and play CF competently? Yes. I just don't see the problem in keeping Jenks around one more year. If he has another down year, THEN you dump him. The ability to force a successful player to go on a year-by-year contructual basis for a few seasons is a luxury, given the minimal financial risk.

 

The argument that we should trade Bobby now before his trade value falls any lower is also misplaced. This is a baseball team, not an investment firm. The goal is to put together a winning team, not sell off assets at their point of highest value. If that logic applied to MLB, Kenny would be fielding offers for Danks and Beckham right now. Heck, look at how the Angels kept Figgins through all of his arb-eligible years, despite the fact that they could've dealt him for a nice package and saved millions a couple of years ago. Trading away a guy who has high market value for non-ML-ready prospects only makes sense if (1) you don't anticipate being competitive for more than a year or (2) there is somebody else who can step up and fill that role. Neither of those scenarios fit the Sox right now.

Rios and Konerko are players who help your team every day in every inning. Jenks is a player who helps your team during 1 inning probably once every 3 games. They are definitely worth more.

[dyuen]

Damn...unreal the hatred for Bobby. He's not had a great season by any means but he hasn't been JD or Linebrink bad, not even close. I for one hope he is back next year because that's one helluva tough position to fill. Seems everyone thinks Thornton can just step in and succeed....that's no sure thing, nor is there any sure thing to backfill the LH setup roll.

 

All these "fat tub of lard" and "screw in his arm" crap is ridiculous. The guy was big when he was very successful and he's big now...it has nothing to do with anything. We've also got absolutely zero evidence that his arm has been or will be a problem.

 

Yeah it is suprising that there is such a backlash against Bobby and yet Rios who has been here just over a month and sucked monkey balls is so well supported because he is just having a bad season and everyone is so sure he will be good again. Makes no sense to me.

 

I think the Sox should explore trading Bobby. I don't think he or any closer for that matter is worth the amount the top ones get paid and if they can get something good for him I am all for it. But I don't have any hatred for him and think he is pretty capable of doing the job. I like Thorton in the setup role and think he is too valuable there to move, plus that would cause all kinds of problems with the rest of our troubled pen.

[son of a rude]

Yeah it is suprising that there is such a backlash against Bobby and yet Rios who has been here just over a month and sucked monkey balls is so well supported because he is just having a bad season and everyone is so sure he will be good again. Makes no sense to me.

 

I think the Sox should explore trading Bobby. I don't think he or any closer for that matter is worth the amount the top ones get paid and if they can get something good for him I am all for it. But I don't have any hatred for him and think he is pretty capable of doing the job. I like Thorton in the setup role and think he is too valuable there to move, plus that would cause all kinds of problems with the rest of our troubled pen.

Most people view an OF having a bad year differently than a reliever having a bad year. Relievers can often just turn to s***, while that usually doesn't happen to everyday players.

[WCSox]

Rios and Konerko are players who help your team every day in every inning. Jenks is a player who helps your team during 1 inning probably once every 3 games. They are definitely worth more.

 

Well, that's good, because Bobby will make about 70% of what those two make next year.

 

The mid-90's Mariners teams are a good example of what happens when you skimp on your bullpen.

 

[WCSox]

Most people view an OF having a bad year differently than a reliever having a bad year. Relievers can often just turn to s***, while that usually doesn't happen to everyday players.

 

JD and Joe Crede say hi.

 

[Milkman delivers]

Damn...unreal the hatred for Bobby. He's not had a great season by any means but he hasn't been JD or Linebrink bad, not even close. I for one hope he is back next year because that's one helluva tough position to fill. Seems everyone thinks Thornton can just step in and succeed....that's no sure thing, nor is there any sure thing to backfill the LH setup roll.

 

All these "fat tub of lard" and "screw in his arm" crap is ridiculous. The guy was big when he was very successful and he's big now...it has nothing to do with anything. We've also got absolutely zero evidence that his arm has been or will be a problem.

 

Those are both 100% true. People can mention them as much as they want.

 

I don't know of any study, but I have certainly seen examples of guys transitioning to closing from mid-late relief and failing for no apparent mechanical or stuff reasons. Being a closer simply takes a different player-personality type. Thornton may or may not succeed, I do not know, but I wouldn't bet on it. Its not about stuff (though keep in mind that Thornton is a 95% one pitch pitcher), its about attitude and approach.

 

 

 

 

That's another reason - hard to replace Thornton in the role he is already in.

 

On the other hand, haven't a lot of the better closers been set-up men?

[Milkman delivers]

I have no idea if Thornton would be more or less effective than Bobby is a closer role, but Thornton sure as heck is an unknown in that role. Do you role the dice on him in a year where you're sporting the best rotation in the bigs? I don't unless I'm financially constrained and have no other choice.

 

 

 

One of the main arguments against Jenks is that he's "not worth" the $7M or so that he'll command next year. So what? Is Konerko worth $10M in today's market? No. Do we need a good OPS guy in the middle of the lineup? Yes. Is Rios worth $10M? No. Do we need somebody who can hit and play CF competently? Yes. I just don't see the problem in keeping Jenks around one more year. If he has another down year, THEN you dump him. The ability to force a successful player to go on a year-by-year contructual basis for a few seasons is a luxury, given the minimal financial risk.

 

The argument that we should trade Bobby now before his trade value falls any lower is also misplaced. This is a baseball team, not an investment firm. The goal is to put together a winning team, not sell off assets at their point of highest value. If that logic applied to MLB, Kenny would be fielding offers for Danks and Beckham right now. Heck, look at how the Angels kept Figgins through all of his arb-eligible years, despite the fact that they could've dealt him for a nice package and saved millions a couple of years ago. Trading away a guy who has high market value for non-ML-ready prospects only makes sense if (1) you don't anticipate being competitive for more than a year or (2) there is somebody else who can step up and fill that role. Neither of those scenarios fit the Sox right now.

 

Or (3), if you're sure the guy is going downhill at a very fast pace and he currently has some value in trade.