Insider Rumor Mill

[elrockinMT]

Rumor land is a fun thing isn't it? It is speculation only by folks who are arm chair GM's. Generally they are wrong, but it stirs up a lot of conversation.

[ThunderBolt]

I guess I dont understand why Thornton is perceived as the closer in waiting. I just dont see him translating well to the closers role, why mess with success of where he is today?

I'm just scared about what will happen when we move our best relief pitcher into the closers role without a viable replacement. Who the hell is going to get the game into the 9th? Pena, Linebrink, Nunez? There's no real trust here. That's why i'd be willing to risk putting Pena in the closers role, if it meant getting Thornton for two innings in the 7th and 8th.

[elrockinMT]

I guess I dont understand why Thornton is perceived as the closer in waiting. I just dont see him translating well to the closers role, why mess with success of where he is today?

 

 

I think he can be, but I also don't think the Sox want to really use him in that role. Your right to bring up messing with success becasue he has been a great set up guy in the 7th and 8th innings. That role is as important in my book as the closer. You have to get to that 9th inning guy first.

[bmags]

Jeeze not only was he only mentioned as a RF once, but in that post wite acknowledges his defense and gives an explanation:

 

Knowing Williams and Guillen's disregard for outfield defense over their entire tenure (outside of Rowand and Anderson for a shortwhile), signing Abreu and a big left handed bat to DH (for instance, Jim Thome), would not surprise me in the least, and would help the offense. Preferably Beckham would leadoff, and the lineup you'd be left with would be potent as hell

[Texsox]

No, I meant exactly what I said. He'll be easy to move but it will be hard to get what people will probably expect out of him, i.e. a good return/good value, which means no top-5 prospects, no productive pre-arb MLB players, etc. Calling Jenks a non-tender candidate implies he has zero value. That will not be the case and if he's traded Jenks will still bring in pieces that will either deepen the farm or help the MLB club. There's a difference here between good value and no value.

 

And no, it isn't true that any player is easy to move if you don't care what you get back. Salary is just as much an issue as talent and many players are immovable because of their contracts. Jenks however has not hit that point because FA closers are still going to make more in FA than he'll cost in arb, and they will command more years which adds greater risk to the package whereas Jenks isn't on the hook for anything beyond 2010 after he's offered arbitration. There will still be demand for Jenks, but because of the number of available arms and the limited financial flexibility of several clubs, Kenny has a lot less negotiating power than he would have had last year.

 

Your real estate scenario is also a terrible comparison, in fact I couldn't even think of a worse one if I tried to. If you need to sell a home then you need to sell a home. You can't just waive off all responsibility and "release" yourself from the entire situation the way the Sox can release Jenks. If the Sox trade Jenks they will do it to recommit funds to other areas while improving the farm system and/or the big club at the same time, meaning worst case scenario they still add some value to the organization. In other words, there is no minimum amount of compensation that the Sox need to recoup in order to make the investment in Jenks during prior years worthwhile, and there is nothing 2010-related hinging on Jenks' return either. You're comparing a homeowner in a desperate situation who has everything to lose to a baseball club with nothing to worry about and only room for gain.

 

Bad contracts also aren't a problem, just toss in some cash. So yes, everyone is easy to move if you don't care.

He'll be easy to move but it will be hard to get what people will probably expect out of him, i.e. a good return/good value,

 

The rest of the world calls that "hard to move".

[kitekrazy]

He admits Jenks' value will be down, and earlier in the article he mentions that Jenks could be traded and still bring in useful pieces. I would agree with all that.

 

Just as long as it's not for prospects. You still have to replace the set up guy. The worst scenario for that is Pena.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Bad contracts also aren't a problem, just toss in some cash. So yes, everyone is easy to move if you don't care.

 

 

The rest of the world calls that "hard to move".

Paying a player to play for another team is another matter entirely.

 

Hard to move = trouble getting anything of value back without eating salary. GMJ and Luis Castillo are hard to move. Linebrink is hard to move. Jenks is not.

 

Again, this concept of weak value, but still value nonetheless, seems lost on you guys. I'll put it this way: last year, had we moved Jenks, from our current farm system Bobby probably would have been worth something like Jordan Danks and Danny Hudson. Hell, Sox fans wanted Fernando Martinez + Murphy + more from the Mets. This year, from our system, Bobby should be worth more like Brent Morel and CJ Retherford. Neither of those guys are trash and they both represent value, but not "good" value because of current market conditions. Why is this so difficult to understand? There's a point between good value and no value. And why non-tender a player when at the very least you can still get something positive out of the deal to help the farm?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Just as long as it's not for prospects. You still have to replace the set up guy. The worst scenario for that is Pena.

It depends on who has interest first. It might be the case that the teams offering the most are offering prospects, so we take that offer. Prospects can always be converted into productive MLB pieces because each year in every division there is at least one small-market club in the middle of a rebuilding project.

[NorthSideSox72]

Paying a player to play for another team is another matter entirely.

 

Hard to move = trouble getting anything of value back without eating salary. GMJ and Luis Castillo are hard to move. Linebrink is hard to move. Jenks is not.

 

Again, this concept of weak value, but still value nonetheless, seems lost on you guys. I'll put it this way: last year, had we moved Jenks, from our current farm system Bobby probably would have been worth something like Jordan Danks and Danny Hudson. Hell, Sox fans wanted Fernando Martinez + Murphy + more from the Mets. This year, from our system, Bobby should be worth more like Brent Morel and CJ Retherford. Neither of those guys are trash and they both represent value, but not "good" value because of current market conditions. Why is this so difficult to understand? There's a point between good value and no value. And why non-tender a player when at the very least you can still get something positive out of the deal to help the farm?

Its not difficult to understand. Its just weird that you are agreeing with the author, but you think you are disagreeing. He says he's hard to move, you say he's easy to move but hard to get good value for. Those are the same damn thing.

 

I give up.

 

[kitekrazy]

Where is the $10 million to sign Abreu going to come from?

 

My guess is we are already starting off 2010 about $5-8 million in the red...

 

Maybe J.R. needs to take a chance and go a little over the mystery budget everyone seems to know about.

 

[kitekrazy]

When Thome/Giambi/Johnson etc can be had for a fraction of that money.

 

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Baseball hasn't run out of stupid spending. With the Cubs sale, that may have taken Hendry out of the picture.

I wouldn't be shocked if Dye comes back as the DH. HE doesn't want to leave so maybe he take a hometown discount.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Its not difficult to understand. Its just weird that you are agreeing with the author, but you think you are disagreeing. He says he's hard to move, you say he's easy to move but hard to get good value for. Those are the same damn thing.

 

I give up.

Stark is saying Jenks is hard to move AND a non-tender candidate, which essentially means he believes Jenks has no value at his arb-level salary. I am disagreeing with ALL of that. Jenks will not be hard to move for value, and he is not a non-tender candidate. Non-tender candidates are players whose salaries pay them more than their expected production is worth. That is why they are non-tendered in the first place. You don't non-tender a $7M player when you know that player can immediately hit the open market and receive *more guaranteed money* than what you're deliberating offering him in the first place. If Jenks hits the open market, he easily gets one year guaranteed plus an option for a second, at the bare minimum, and the total sum is almost definitely going to be higher than what he'd get from the Sox in arb.

[ThunderBolt]

Just as long as it's not for prospects. You still have to replace the set up guy. The worst scenario for that is Pena.

You absolutely trade Jenks for prospects if the haul is right. It’s not out of the question to have a go with Hudson in a set-up role

[elrockinMT]

Abreu to the Sox assumes that the Angels don't want him back. Why wouldn't they?

[Balta1701]

Abreu to the Sox assumes that the Angels don't want him back. Why wouldn't they?

They would, but they also have other needs. They have as long of a list of FA's out of their regular players as anyone I can think of. Abreu, Lackey, Figgins, Darrin Oliver, Vlad.

[G&T]

They would, but they also have other needs. They have as long of a list of FA's out of their regular players as anyone I can think of. Abreu, Lackey, Figgins, Darrin Oliver, Vlad.

 

Vlad won't be back. The rest will be harder. But I wouldn't doubt that they pay Abreu.

Edited October 8, 2009 by G&T

[Balta1701]

Vlad won't be back. The rest will be harder. But I wouldn't doubt that they pay Abreu.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do either. But I also wouldn't be surprised if someone offered him a 2nd/3rd year that the Halos weren't willing to match.

[iamshack]

Its not difficult to understand. Its just weird that you are agreeing with the author, but you think you are disagreeing. He says he's hard to move, you say he's easy to move but hard to get good value for. Those are the same damn thing.

 

I give up.

 

Stark is saying Jenks would be "hard to move." In fact, he stated he would be the most difficult player to move on the Sox roster. What that implies is exactly what KHP is saying - that Kenny would either have to assume some of his salary in any trade, or to non-tender him. That is what is generally meant in baseball by saying "hard to move." I don't believe that will be the case here. I agree with KHP that Jenks would in reality be easy to move. If Kenny called up every GM in baseball the day after the World Series, and told them all "Bobby Jenks is available," I am certain he would get several offers which included decent prospects and did not ask that the White Sox pick up any of his salary. Kenny could then trade him that day if he wanted to. "Hard to move" is when you are calling every GM there is and trying to sell them on your player. You are making concessions, like throwing in half or more of his salary. You are throwing in another player that team likes as well to make it worth their while. THAT, in my mind, is "hard to move." And that is not the case with Bobby Jenks (at least I don't think it is).

 

So I don't think KHP is agreeing when he thinks he is disagreeing. I think he is pointing out a subtlety in phrases here that somewhat drastically differs from what Jayson Stark is saying.

[WCSox]

But make no mistake: Bobby Jenks at around $7M on a one-year commitment is A s*** TON better than Jose Valverde at $8-10 per year for several years or 2-3 years to constantly injured Mike Gonzalez.

 

I agree with this. If Kenny has decided that he wants to part ways with Jenks, Thornton is a much better option than over-paying for an aging FA closer.

 

If I'm Kenny and I've already decided that Thornton is my closer next season, I offer Bobby to the Rays for Crawford straight-up. It's only one year of Crawford, but it provides us with a legit leadoff hitter/impact player immediately and buys another season to allow Getz to raise his OBP at the bottom of the order. If Getz improves, he can move to the leadoff spot in 2011. If not, we have the option of giving Crawford a long-term deal or letting him walk and pursuing somebody else on the FA market.

 

I wouldn't mind Abreu as our DH next year, but I'm hesitant to give a multi-year deal to a guy at his age, after he's been on a slow decline for years.

 

[Steve9347]

I guess I'll resurrect my sig from last off-season.

 

[iamshack]

I agree with this. If Kenny has decided that he wants to part ways with Jenks, Thornton is a much better option than over-paying for an aging FA closer.

 

If I'm Kenny and I've already decided that Thornton is my closer next season, I offer Bobby to the Rays for Crawford straight-up. It's only one year of Crawford, but it provides us with a legit leadoff hitter/impact player immediately and buys another season to allow Getz to raise his OBP at the bottom of the order. If Getz improves, he can move to the leadoff spot in 2011. If not, we have the option of giving Crawford a long-term deal or letting him walk and pursuing somebody else on the FA market.

 

I wouldn't mind Abreu as our DH next year, but I'm hesitant to give a multi-year deal to a guy at his age, after he's been on a slow decline for years.

 

If the Rays want to move Crawford because they aren't interested in paying him $10 million this year, I have a hard time believing they want to do so in order to acquire a high-priced closer coming off a poor year.

My guess is that if the Rays do move Crawford, they would be hoping to get back young arms and a catching prospect.

[NorthSideSox72]

If the Rays want to move Crawford because they aren't interested in paying him $10 million this year, I have a hard time believing they want to do so in order to acquire a high-priced closer coming off a poor year.

My guess is that if the Rays do move Crawford, they would be hoping to get back young arms and a catching prospect.

Matt Zaleski and Kevin Dubler should do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

If the Rays want to move Crawford because they aren't interested in paying him $10 million this year, I have a hard time believing they want to do so in order to acquire a high-priced closer coming off a poor year.

My guess is that if the Rays do move Crawford, they would be hoping to get back young arms and a catching prospect.

 

The can use a closer more than they could use another OFer. It might not be the best that they can get for Crawford, but it might be the move that improves them the most for next year.

[greg775]

I love the way you say this move could improve them the most for next year, yet some Sox fans are convinced if we have Bobby as OUR closer the move will weaken our team.

Why would it weaken our team to keep Bobby and help a team as good as the Rays to acquire him?

If he's going to help an already good team, why don't we want him?

Not flaming, just asking.

 

[bigruss]

Dan Uggla anyone? What type of talent would it take to get him?