What's out there for LH relief?

[Princess Dye]

free agency i guess

[maggsmaggs]

I really think we can keep it in-house this year. Randy Williams was great last year except two outings. Against lefties, he allowed them only to hit .162 with two extra-base hits. Since he only costs about $500K, I see no reason to go out and spend on a lefty reliever. Sure, bring in a bargain player or two, but I think he will ultimately be the best option. However, I suppose this could change a bit if Jenks is traded and Thornton becomes the closer because Williams is probably simply a second lefty. But if Jenks stays, I think Williams will be a great LOOGY for this team. But here are your options according to MLBTradeRumors.com (I'd say slim pickings):

 

Joe Beimel (32) - Type B, not offered arb

Bruce Chen (33)

Alan Embree (40)

Scott Eyre (38) - Type B, not offered arb

Casey Fossum (32)

Eddie Guardado (39)

Mark Hendrickson (36)

Ron Mahay (39)

Will Ohman (31) - Type B, not offered arb

Darren Oliver (39) - Type A, not offered arb

Horacio Ramirez (30)

Glendon Rusch (35)

Scott Schoeneweis (36)

Brian Shouse (41) - Type B, offered arb

Ken Takahashi (41)

Jack Taschner (32)

Ron Villone (40)

Jamie Walker (38)

Edited December 3, 2009 by maggsmaggs

[NorthSideSox72]

I really think we can keep it in-house this year. Randy Williams was great last year except two outings. Against lefties, he allowed them only to hit .162 with two extra-base hits. Since he only costs about $500K, I see no reason to go out and spend on a lefty reliever. Sure, bring in a bargain player or two, but I think he will ultimately be the best option. However, I suppose this could change a bit if Jenks is traded and Thornton becomes the closer because Williams is probably simply a second lefty. But if Jenks stays, I think Williams will be a great LOOGY for this team. But here are your options according to MLBTradeRumors.com (I'd say slim pickings):

 

Joe Beimel (32) - Type B, not offered arb

Bruce Chen (33)

Alan Embree (40)

Scott Eyre (38) - Type B, not offered arb

Casey Fossum (32)

Eddie Guardado (39)

Mark Hendrickson (36)

Ron Mahay (39)

Will Ohman (31) - Type B, not offered arb

Darren Oliver (39) - Type A, not offered arb

Horacio Ramirez (30)

Glendon Rusch (35)

Scott Schoeneweis (36)

Brian Shouse (41) - Type B, offered arb

Ken Takahashi (41)

Jack Taschner (32)

Ron Villone (40)

Jamie Walker (38)

I think there is a danger in going with Williams. First, despite that he did reasonably well last year, his career history says he's unlikely to do it again. Second, the Sox basically have no lefties in the system who are major league ready or close to it. I think what KW will do, and should do, is pick up one or two Williams-like guys off the scrap heap, knowing that one of the three will likely show something in ST, and the other two can be in Charlotte in case the guy in Chicago screws up. I am not against Williams per se, but, I'd like to see the Sox find something cheap in a LF reliever to add to the pool.

 

[harfman77]

Rule V Canditate possibly?

[Princess Dye]

If we really are low on cash, part of me just wants to acquire a great bullpen arm and then just go to war with what we have (I suppose with Pods or Thome).

 

Would be really nice to let the starters have some security.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Princess Dye

[NorthSideSox72]

If we really are low on cash, part of me just wants to acquire a great bullpen arm and then just go to war with what we have (I suppose with Pods or Thome).

 

Would be really nice to let the starters have some security.

I still don't see where this philosophy makes any sense. You want to invest the biggest dollars in the bullpen, which should be at least decent next year as is, and then go to the scrap heap for both OF and DH? Pods wants a multi-year deal, you want to take that risk?

 

Bullpens are dicey propositions always, and the very few truly consistently solid arms are very costly for a guy who pitches 3 innings a week. I'd rather invest in the two positions that play every day, and where we can have a better read on future success.

 

[Princess Dye]

I still don't see where this philosophy makes any sense. You want to invest the biggest dollars in the bullpen, which should be at least decent next year as is, and then go to the scrap heap for both OF and DH? Pods wants a multi-year deal, you want to take that risk?

 

Bullpens are dicey propositions always, and the very few truly consistently solid arms are very costly for a guy who pitches 3 innings a week. I'd rather invest in the two positions that play every day, and where we can have a better read on future success.

 

You're right, but I guess I just see next offseason as the one where we really make our splash. If the Sox really are strapped, then I'd rather get really good on one side of the ball (pitching).

 

I would only bring back Pods or Thome on a 1-year...and I choose them specifically because I'd assume they'd give a hometown discount.

 

If the Sox have more to spend, then definitely scratch all that. But bullpen is more chaotic to predict,yes...but sometimes because of that fact.... you can get a free agent that has an impact for relatively cheap.

 

I do remember our recently posted list of failed FA relievers, so I'm aware of the dangers that treads on....but it could be a lot better than paying for a Willy Taveras the multiyear $ he got.

 

Basically if we are spending 5M I'd prefer one of our Pods/Thome and the rest on a proven reliever, as opposed to all of it to Vlad and nothing to the pen. Who knows though.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Princess Dye

[2nd_city_saint787]

Im gonna agree with princess dye here. It may not be the sexy thing to do but this team can win with its pitching staff, I know right now were kind of an NL team playing in the AL but the starting pitchers we have (aside from peavy who looked great in his few starts over here) have proven that they can pitch here in the AL so that make a big difference. I do think we have enough offense WITH THE STAFF THAT WE HAVE, if we had a garbage staff and were throwin out say danks and kotsay everyday then we might be in some trouble. Ive said this numerous times (and i almost wanna save my original post and just keep posting it on all these "god were gonna suck" threads or when it turns into one which i guess im kind of doing right now by going along with the past few posts) we could POTENTIALLY have a good offense as well, I see rios bouncing back and becoming our 3 hitter, which drops Q into cleanup, and PK down to the 5 spot where he wont have as much pressure to mash 40 HR which I dont he can do anymore. I would like to see lexi given the leadoff spot if we go with what we got then if we go with danks out there and he performs throw him up there in the leadoff spot. Id start flowers out in AAA for a month and if hes mashin then id bring him up to take the DH role from Kotsay, that being said Id sign henry blanco as a backup catcher and to go along with what princess dye said id also sign 1 more good arm for the pin just in case linebrink is a dud again.

[iamshack]

You're right, but I guess I just see next offseason as the one where we really make our splash. If the Sox really are strapped, then I'd rather get really good on one side of the ball (pitching).

 

I would only bring back Pods or Thome on a 1-year...and I choose them specifically because I'd assume they'd give a hometown discount.

 

If the Sox have more to spend, then definitely scratch all that. But bullpen is more chaotic to predict,yes...but sometimes because of that fact.... you can get a free agent that has an impact for relatively cheap.

 

I do remember our recently posted list of failed FA relievers, so I'm aware of the dangers that treads on....but it could be a lot better than paying for a Willy Taveras the multiyear $ he got.

 

Basically if we are spending 5M I'd prefer one of our Pods/Thome and the rest on a proven reliever, as opposed to all of it to Vlad and nothing to the pen. Who knows though.

 

Why do you keep insisting that next year is going to be the year we're going to make our splash?

[Jordan4life_2007]

If we really are low on cash, part of me just wants to acquire a great bullpen arm and then just go to war with what we have (I suppose with Pods or Thome).

 

Would be really nice to let the starters have some security.

 

Giving them consistent/legitimate run support definitely would qualify as "security." And with our lineup as currently constructed, that won't be the case (although rebound years from CQ/Rios/Alexei would improve the offense dramatically).

[ThunderBolt]

The Marlins have Renyel Pinto on the market, Really, i'd prefer to gamble on a Rule 5 Kid.

[southsider2k5]

The Marlins have Renyel Pinto on the market, Really, i'd prefer to gamble on a Rule 5 Kid.

 

Any good rule 5 previews up anywhere yet?

[ThunderBolt]

Ben Snyder of the Giants is a guy who's up for Rule 5 draft, and might make a decent lefty that we could hide in the pen. Average K/9 in the minors was 7.9. http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/p...id=snyder001ben

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I have been pulling for Beimel for a couple years now.

[GreatScott82]

Honestly with the lack of quality lefty relievers out there, we are better off holding onto Jenks and hoping he rebounds. We are going to need Thorton in that 7th and 8th inning role.

[beck72]

Honestly with the lack of quality lefty relievers out there, we are better off holding onto Jenks and hoping he rebounds. We are going to need Thorton in that 7th and 8th inning role.

With the lack of quality relievers out there period, lefty or righty, Jenks should be kept, even if he makes more than he should.

[Dick Allen]

I think there is a danger in going with Williams. First, despite that he did reasonably well last year, his career history says he's unlikely to do it again. Second, the Sox basically have no lefties in the system who are major league ready or close to it. I think what KW will do, and should do, is pick up one or two Williams-like guys off the scrap heap, knowing that one of the three will likely show something in ST, and the other two can be in Charlotte in case the guy in Chicago screws up. I am not against Williams per se, but, I'd like to see the Sox find something cheap in a LF reliever to add to the pool.

I hope not. He tried that in 2007. I do agree about Williams.

[Dick Allen]

I still don't see where this philosophy makes any sense. You want to invest the biggest dollars in the bullpen, which should be at least decent next year as is, and then go to the scrap heap for both OF and DH? Pods wants a multi-year deal, you want to take that risk?

 

Bullpens are dicey propositions always, and the very few truly consistently solid arms are very costly for a guy who pitches 3 innings a week. I'd rather invest in the two positions that play every day, and where we can have a better read on future success.

I wouldn't want to give a reliever a 4 year contract, but spending $3-4 million on a one or two year contract doesn't seem like it should hamper other areas.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

With the lack of quality relievers out there period, lefty or righty, Jenks should be kept, even if he makes more than he should.

I think that all depends though. I mean, Jenks should get $7-8M this year in arb, which means that if he's at least pretty good in 2010 then he'll be looking for at least $10M in arb going into 2011, his last arbitration year. If the Sox could deal Jenks for prospects and dump his salary, and then sign Soriano/Valverde for 2/$18 or something (the same amount or less), then that could work out a lot better. Because of how we finished, if we signed Soriano/Valverde we only give up a 2nd rounder, and we should be able to recoup that value in a Jenks deal, and possibly get a little more. At least that way we get some cost certainty, and depending on what is out there, we may even be able to improve in 2010 as well.

 

That might sound redundant, but because of Jenks' arb situation we're basically shelling out $7-8M for him this year and hoping he's good, and then if he is, we still may have some serious reservations about tendering him a contract in 2011, meaning we could lose him for nothing. Unloading him now, getting a little something back, and then picking up another 2-year option wouldn't be a bad thing at all IMO.

[Dick Allen]

I think that all depends though. I mean, Jenks should get $7-8M this year in arb, which means that if he's at least pretty good in 2010 then he'll be looking for at least $10M in arb going into 2011, his last arbitration year. If the Sox could deal Jenks for prospects and dump his salary, and then sign Soriano/Valverde for 2/$18 or something (the same amount or less), then that could work out a lot better. Because of how we finished, if we signed Soriano/Valverde we only give up a 2nd rounder, and we should be able to recoup that value in a Jenks deal, and possibly get a little more. At least that way we get some cost certainty, and depending on what is out there, we may even be able to improve in 2010 as well.

 

That might sound redundant, but because of Jenks' arb situation we're basically shelling out $7-8M for him this year and hoping he's good, and then if he is, we still may have some serious reservations about tendering him a contract in 2011, meaning we could lose him for nothing. Unloading him now, getting a little something back, and then picking up another 2-year option wouldn't be a bad thing at all IMO.

It wouldn't but it takes two to tango. Why would another team give up something useful for Jenks and pick up Jenks' money especially after he came off a mediocre at best season and finished the season hurt? The rumor is Jenks is getting into better shape, but we have all heard that before. He was at an autograph signing a couple of weeks ago, and judging by some photos I saw, looked as round as ever.

 

I think the Sox would trade him if they could get something for him, but chances are, they won't. If that is the case, its best for the Sox to offer him arb, and if he shows up at Spring Training heavy and throwing 91 and looking like he won't be earning his $7 million, just cut him. It seems harsh, especially since he probably has earned more chances than others, but money comes into play. Guys that break down in their 20s who really don't do anything about it, don't suddenly stop breaking down. It will be interesting to see how Jenks proceeds this winter.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

It wouldn't but it takes two to tango. Why would another team give up something useful for Jenks and pick up Jenks' money especially after he came off a mediocre at best season and finished the season hurt? The rumor is Jenks is getting into better shape, but we have all heard that before. He was at an autograph signing a couple of weeks ago, and judging by some photos I saw, looked as round as ever.

 

I think the Sox would trade him if they could get something for him, but chances are, they won't. If that is the case, its best for the Sox to offer him arb, and if he shows up at Spring Training heavy and throwing 91 and looking like he won't be earning his $7 million, just cut him. It seems harsh, especially since he probably has earned more chances than others, but money comes into play. Guys that break down in their 20s who really don't do anything about it, don't suddenly stop breaking down. It will be interesting to see how Jenks proceeds this winter.

If the Sox could get the equivalent of a Santos Rodriguez/Nathan Jones type player for Jenks - someone who is talented but is still a ways away and doesn't take up a roster spot, and who basically meets or exceeds the value of a 2nd round pick - and then put that Jenks money towards another veteran on a 2-year deal with possibly an option for a third, then I would do that. I wouldn't ask for anything more than that for Jenks because I agree with you, he's not going to be worth a really great prospect or anything like that. But I think Jenks does definitely have *some* value if for no other reason than the fact that he'll make in arb what would be his market value or less, and he's only a 1-year commitment versus the other closers on the market who will all want at least 2 years guaranteed.

 

I do kind of disagree about the breaking down part though since IIRC his main issues were with his non-pitching shoulder and kidney stones. Jenks was still going out there on many occasions and flashing very high-level stuff even though he didn't always get the job done in the way he was expected to.

[beck72]

I think that all depends though. I mean, Jenks should get $7-8M this year in arb, which means that if he's at least pretty good in 2010 then he'll be looking for at least $10M in arb going into 2011, his last arbitration year. If the Sox could deal Jenks for prospects and dump his salary, and then sign Soriano/Valverde for 2/$18 or something (the same amount or less), then that could work out a lot better. Because of how we finished, if we signed Soriano/Valverde we only give up a 2nd rounder, and we should be able to recoup that value in a Jenks deal, and possibly get a little more. At least that way we get some cost certainty, and depending on what is out there, we may even be able to improve in 2010 as well.

 

That might sound redundant, but because of Jenks' arb situation we're basically shelling out $7-8M for him this year and hoping he's good, and then if he is, we still may have some serious reservations about tendering him a contract in 2011, meaning we could lose him for nothing. Unloading him now, getting a little something back, and then picking up another 2-year option wouldn't be a bad thing at all IMO.

Teams that have to give up 2 picks for Soriano and Valverde--teams with winning records--may pass on these guys. Their asking prices may drop big time and be looking for a job in Jan. The sox could get themselves a bargain if they wait.

 

But I still see a trade of some sort for the bullpen. The sox have some major league talent to trade [Lillibridge, Nix, Torres] that may be appealing to a team looking to drop an expensive arm.

 

Bobby Jenks may be expensive--prob. too expensive to trade. Yet his leaving would make the bullpen an even bigger mess.

Edited December 6, 2009 by beck72

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Teams that have to give up 2 picks for Soriano and Valverde--teams with winning records--may pass on these guys. Their asking prices may drop big time and be looking for a job in Jan. The sox could get themselves a bargain if they wait.

 

But I still see a trade of some sort for the bullpen. The sox have some major league talent to trade [Lillibridge, Nix, Torres] that may be appealing to a team looking to drop an expensive arm.

 

Bobby Jenks may be expensive--prob. too expensive to trade. Yet his leaving would make the bullpen an even bigger mess.

Teams only have to give up 1 pick if they want one of those guys. If the signing team finishes with a top-15 record then they give up a 1st rounder. If they finish with a bottom-15 record they give up a 2nd rounder. The supplemental first round pick that goes to the team losing the player in either case doesn't come out of anyone's pocket.

 

I agree there will be bargains, but I think it will be more of the setup man variety. If we're looking for a closer to replace Bobby it would be best to act right now and forfeit the 2nd rounder so we can set the payroll. Then we could dump Jenks off on someone else for basically nothing if we absolutely had to, and we wouldn't end up stuck with someone we don't want simply because the other options are all gone.

 

It seems like the Sox and Bobby are in a weird place right now. Kenny is saying he still has faith in Bobby and isn't looking to move him, but the arb situation as well as the Sox payroll situation keep coming up, and the Sox clearly aren't enamored with Jenks in the first place. Kenny has to be shopping Bobby pretty hard, and I believe there were other unnamed execs who were quoted saying he is, but Kenny is denying it and having contract negotiations with Jenks. Whatever the Sox do for their closer they appear to be pretty reluctant about doing it.

[Dick Allen]

If the Sox could get the equivalent of a Santos Rodriguez/Nathan Jones type player for Jenks - someone who is talented but is still a ways away and doesn't take up a roster spot, and who basically meets or exceeds the value of a 2nd round pick - and then put that Jenks money towards another veteran on a 2-year deal with possibly an option for a third, then I would do that. I wouldn't ask for anything more than that for Jenks because I agree with you, he's not going to be worth a really great prospect or anything like that. But I think Jenks does definitely have *some* value if for no other reason than the fact that he'll make in arb what would be his market value or less, and he's only a 1-year commitment versus the other closers on the market who will all want at least 2 years guaranteed.

 

I do kind of disagree about the breaking down part though since IIRC his main issues were with his non-pitching shoulder and kidney stones. Jenks was still going out there on many occasions and flashing very high-level stuff even though he didn't always get the job done in the way he was expected to.

He has back issues and the calf popped at the end of the year.

[DBAHO]

Well if Jenks was dealt, this guy would be a pretty decent replacement if the price was right;

 

FOXSports.com reports that the Dodgers are shopping setup man George Sherrill.

 

Since he spent two-thirds of the season as a closer before being traded to the Dodgers, Sherrill figures to make $4 million-$4.5 million in arbitration. He is worth it: he had a 1.70 ERA in 69 innings for the season and a 0.65 ERA in 27 2/3 innings after joining the Dodgers. Still, the ugly ownership situation in L.A. may result in him moving on again.