Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Red Sox did not rely on Bobby Jenks


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 rglenmt

  • Pip
  • 526 posts

Posted 06 January 2012 - 01:38 PM

I saw concern suggested about how the Red Sox will replace Bobby Jenks, at least temporarily. Hope Jenks fully recovers from his 2 sequential back surgeries, but the Sox, other than in finacial sense did not become dependent on him. Jenks, at one time, was an effective pitcher for the White Sox. Last season, cause of back problems, Jenks never showed the Red Sox what he might still be able to do, maybe he has degenerative back problem(s), but from photos and seeing him during games, did not look like he had lost weight (maybe a problem, very few can be effective as El Guapo was with extra pounds). Since the Red Sox did not become dependent on Jenks in the pen, he is probably more of a financial strain on the Sox, interesting to see what Red Sox have in Contracts for non-productive players, mostly pitchers. Can understand how even a billionaire hedge fund principal owner might think about this, but imagine with The Red Sox, Liverpool F.C. and other investments the tax writeoffs are valuable. A baseball team owner can depreciate every one of the Contracts with player(s), thus, it is relative, but still understandable why team owners, in these times, are more conscious of luxury taxes and similar penalties imposed by their league. Of course, successful ownerships just see paying Renteria, Lugo, Tazawa, Mike Cameron, Ellsbury, Victor Martinez, Varitek, Pedroia, Youkilis, Lackey, DiceK, Rich Hill, Kalish,Jenks etc. as a cost of doing business, even while those players are not playing. Of course, this happens to all employers, just maybe not on the same scale, but certainly it is not in the daily media nor chatted about by fans.

#2 The Celtbot

  • 94 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:30 AM

I would still bring Dan Wheeler back, it's not going to take much to resign him anyway. Last year was a bit of a disappointment but he was struggling with injuries for a long part of it. If there's one thing we know about him is that he is battle tested in the AL East and has been one of the most consistent relief pitchers in the AL East in the last 4 years. I have yet to see much news on this guy going anywhere and he's not too old yet, only 34.

#3 bribar

  • 2 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:39 PM

I'd try to trade the Jenks contract to the Cubs as "compensation" for Theo. If we're not counting on Jenks, it'd be helpful to have the opportunity to reallocate his contract, perhaps for Oswalt.

#4 MakMan44


  • SoSH Member


  • 10141 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 03:35 PM

Why would you want to trade him when, if healthly, he can an important part of the bullpen? On top of that he's not making enough to warrant trading him for salary relief. Flat out GIVING him to the cubs is borderline idiotic because we could at least attempt to pry a prospect from another team if the sox did want to get rid of him.

#5 TOleary25

  • 324 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 03:50 PM

Why would you want to trade him when, if healthly, he can an important part of the bullpen? On top of that he's not making enough to warrant trading him for salary relief. Flat out GIVING him to the cubs is borderline idiotic because we could at least attempt to pry a prospect from another team if the sox did want to get rid of him.


Healthy being the key word since he hasn't been able to show it during his time with the Sox. He had a second surgery in December which means he'll probably miss a good chunk of spring training. He makes $6 mil which would potentially give the Sox enough salary relief to sign Oswalt to the $8 mil he's looking for. I don't think the Cubs would go for it but it wouldn't hurt to mention it. With Oswalt on board, Bard could be moved back to the pen which would have a greater impact than Jenks.

Edited by TOleary25, 16 January 2012 - 03:50 PM.


#6 bribar

  • 2 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 04:51 PM

Why would you want to trade him when, if healthly, he can an important part of the bullpen? On top of that he's not making enough to warrant trading him for salary relief. Flat out GIVING him to the cubs is borderline idiotic because we could at least attempt to pry a prospect from another team if the sox did want to get rid of him.


The Jenks contract is a sunk cost, and for 2M more we can add Oswalt to the rotation. You wouldn't make that move? (Jenks might not even be available on Opening Day.)

#7 MakMan44


  • SoSH Member


  • 10141 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 09:43 PM

The Jenks contract is a sunk cost, and for 2M more we can add Oswalt to the rotation. You wouldn't make that move? (Jenks might not even be available on Opening Day.)


You assume that by removing Jenks they'll go after Oswalt. I disagree. With Padilla, Cook, Silva, Aceves and Bard competing for spots #4 + 5 in the rotation I think they would spend the money on a RH outfielder to platoon with Sweeney but I don't see the difference between the 2 mill they have now and whatever money they get from Jenks being shipped to the Cubs making a significant difference in the player they get. I'd rather see if we can trade Jenks for that player then spend the money to get whatever we can dreg up from the scrap pile.

#8 BeantownIdaho

  • 93 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 10:37 PM

If they took all of Jenks salary for compensation that's 6 million...that's not a significant difference in the player they get? We want to see if you can trade Jenks @ 6 million and a bad back? Good luck with that.

#9 MakMan44


  • SoSH Member


  • 10141 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:03 AM

If they took all of Jenks salary for compensation that's 6 million...that's not a significant difference in the player they get? We want to see if you can trade Jenks @ 6 million and a bad back? Good luck with that.


I was thinking more along the lines of splitting the salary so its more like 3 mill. Jenks is only a year off a good season, I don't think it will be so hard to get a team to bite at that price if he starts the season off the DL. Anyways, I can't think of anyone outfielder on the market that would be worth the 6 mill or like 8-9 mill if you want the total price anyways. Spilborghs? Terrible right fielder, not much of a platoon split, not going get near 6-9 mill on a one year deal. Maggs? Terrible fielder, probably won't hit 6-9 mill, better off as a DH at this point. The only outfielder that might fit the bill for an actual upgrade is Cody Ross and he wouldn't take a one year deal or being willing to platoon anyways, IMO. Maybe if we were his only offer. And honestly, do you want to spend that money on Ross anyway? I'd rather keep Jenks, see what he's worth this season, I hope he bounces back but honestly if he doesn't it's not going to kill us. We much more money tied into contracts that are going to be sitting on the bench for a good portion of the season anyways, those are the contracts I wish we could get Theo could take as compensation.

Edited by MakMan44, 17 January 2012 - 12:04 AM.


#10 BeantownIdaho

  • 93 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 08:41 PM

can Soriano play right in Fenway?

#11 MakMan44


  • SoSH Member


  • 10141 posts

Posted 17 January 2012 - 10:22 PM

can Soriano play right in Fenway?


Just no.... Jesus Christ no....

#12 santadevil

  • 767 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 02:22 PM

I just saw this article on ESPN, describing how Jenks back surgery almost ended up killing him.

#13 Tyrone Biggums


  • nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion in colorado,


  • 3226 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:46 PM

Just no.... Jesus Christ no....


Soriano is the most unmovable contract in sports right now. I doubt it could even be traded for Antonio Cromarties child support payments.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users