PDA

View Full Version : Buehrle


Crede24Thome25
05-24-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm not saying I want this to happen, but would you trade Buehrle if you knew you could get Cliff Lee(who will be a free agent after this year) or another dominant lefty. I bring this up because Buehrle, who has stated many times before that he'd retire in a few years and would love to play for the Cards before he retires.

PorkChopExpress
05-24-2010, 04:51 PM
I'm not saying I want this to happen, but would you trade Buehrle if you knew you could get Cliff Lee(who will be a free agent after this year) or another dominant lefty. I bring this up because Buehrle, who has stated many times before that he'd retire in a few years and would love to play for the Cards before he retires.

I don't see the point in trading Buehrle for a Cliff Lee type. If we trade Buehrle it is because we do not believe we could contend this year. So why pick up a pitcher that will only be here for this year? If we trade Beuhrle it will be for prospects in the hope to improve our farm system and maybe even get a little young, major league ready player to fill a spot on the roster that won't cost much in salary.

Crede24Thome25
05-24-2010, 05:03 PM
I don't see the point in trading Buehrle for a Cliff Lee type. If we trade Buehrle it is because we do not believe we could contend this year. So why pick up a pitcher that will only be here for this year? If we trade Beuhrle it will be for prospects in the hope to improve our farm system and maybe even get a little young, major league ready player to fill a spot on the roster that won't cost much in salary.
No I'm not saying trade Buehrle for Lee, I'm saying if we trade Buehrle and sign Lee or another lefty in the off season. I brought this up because of his 10-5 rights and our lack of potential to contend this year.

Boondock Saint
05-24-2010, 05:06 PM
If the Sox were to trade Buehrle, it wouldn't be so that they could spend $20m+ a season on another pitcher.

sox1970
05-24-2010, 05:09 PM
Buehrle won't get traded. Nobody is going to want him for 2.5 yrs/ $38 mil.

Crede24Thome25
05-24-2010, 05:09 PM
If the Sox were to trade Buehrle, it wouldn't be so that they could spend $20m+ a season on another pitcher.
I'm not saying we have to get Lee just a suggestion.

Crede24Thome25
05-24-2010, 05:10 PM
Buehrle won't get traded. Nobody is going to want him for 2.5 yrs/ $38 mil.
Wow I wasn't aware of his contract, just thought up this scenario while biking.

Boondock Saint
05-24-2010, 05:11 PM
I'm not saying we have to get Lee just a suggestion.

Well, even an unnamed "dominant lefty" starter would cost in the 15-20 million dollar range, not just Lee.

Crede24Thome25
05-24-2010, 05:44 PM
Well, even an unnamed "dominant lefty" starter would cost in the 15-20 million dollar range, not just Lee.
We have a dominant lefty ready to take over Buehrle's role once he calls it quits in Danks. I'll put this suggestion on hold until another year or so, when Danks is ready to take over.

Slappy
05-24-2010, 07:15 PM
Buerhle for Jaime Garcia?

Noneck
05-24-2010, 07:58 PM
If things keep going the way things have been going and Buerhle keeps pitching the same as he has been since his perfecto, I wouldn't mind the Sox trading him for a bag of balls as long as some team picked up his salary.

Next year Rios, Peavy and Buerhle could comprise about 1/2 of the Sox teams salary. Dumping him would give a little room, to maybe get something to help the team compete.

TDog
05-24-2010, 08:06 PM
I'm not saying I want this to happen, but would you trade Buehrle if you knew you could get Cliff Lee(who will be a free agent after this year) or another dominant lefty. I bring this up because Buehrle, who has stated many times before that he'd retire in a few years and would love to play for the Cards before he retires.

No.

If Buehrle were that interested in playing for the Cardinals, he wouldn't still be with the White Sox.

Crede24Thome25
05-24-2010, 08:12 PM
No.

If Buehrle were that interested in playing for the Cardinals, he wouldn't still be with the White Sox.
Last time I checked his career wasn't near over, I was talking about his comment where he said when he is near the end of his career at his terms he would like to play for the Cards.

Brian26
05-24-2010, 09:06 PM
No.

If Buehrle were that interested in playing for the Cardinals, he wouldn't still be with the White Sox.

Correct. It's one of those myths that has been promulgated on Chicago sports radio over the years. Buehrle is on record as to saying Chicago is his home, and he doesn't want to deal with the headaches of pitching that close to his family in St. Louis.

TDog
05-24-2010, 09:44 PM
Correct. It's one of those myths that has been promulgated on Chicago sports radio over the years. Buehrle is on record as to saying Chicago is his home, and he doesn't want to deal with the headaches of pitching that close to his family in St. Louis.

That doesn't stop former Cardinals catcher Tim McCarver from talking about Mark Buehrle's dream to ultimately pitch for the Cardinals every time he mentions Buehrle's name.

PalehosePlanet
05-24-2010, 09:57 PM
Wow I wasn't aware of his contract, just thought up this scenario while biking.

This is because his contract has a clause that states that if he is traded he gets an extra year at 15 million from the acquiring team.

That alone makes him nearly un-tradeable.

Marqhead
05-24-2010, 09:59 PM
This is because his contract has a clause that states that if he is traded he gets an extra year at 15 million from the acquiring team.

That alone makes him nearly un-tradeable.

I read 19 somewhere, but that just accentuates your point.

WhiteSoxFTW
05-27-2010, 05:02 PM
That doesn't stop former Cardinals catcher Tim McCarver from talking about Mark Buehrle's dream to ultimately pitch for the Cardinals every time he mentions Buehrle's name.

THIS is where people got that "Buehrle to finish career in St. Louis" story from. That's who I heard it from.

McCarver is a joke.

Lip Man 1
05-27-2010, 05:09 PM
This week in the print edition of Sports Illustrated (Rajon Rondo on the cover) in the baseball section a G.M. is quoted as saying that's he's been looking at Buehrle and Thornton from the Sox. The story also speculates that Konerko and A.J. could be on the move in a month.

Lip

TDog
05-27-2010, 05:38 PM
This week in the print edition of Sports Illustrated (Rajon Rondo on the cover) in the baseball section a G.M. is quoted as saying that's he's been looking at Buehrle and Thornton from the Sox. The story also speculates that Konerko and A.J. could be on the move in a month.

Lip

That is because people who report on sports, where journalistic standards don't apply, as loose as they have become over the last 20 years, speculate on teams not in the race trading their veterans midseason.

Strictly speaking, if the GM wasn't named, it really wasn't a quote (and I am assuming that if the GM were named in the story, he would have been named in the post). Real journalists can't get away with unnamed sources, except in extreme circumstances, and when they do print things with unnamed sources, people vocally challenge the credibility of the story. It seems rare that a sports story even names its sources.

I'm sure Ken Griffey Jr. agrees with me.

Buehrle isn't going anywhere. His contract effectively prevents that. Konerko isn't going anywhere. He certainly wouldn't agree to go to San Francisco (a place I have heard sportswriters say would be a good fit for him) -- not in his contract year, going from a hitters home park to play in San Francisco and face pitchers he has never faced before.

And I don't see Thornton going anywhere, but if he were, people at WSI should be happy because they would get more than Borchard, because capital gains seems so important to many.

Lip Man 1
05-27-2010, 08:17 PM
TDog:

Here is the exact line from the story. Dissect it as you please:

"One G.M. says he also has his eye on several Chicago pitchers, including starter Mark Buehrle and reliever Matt Thornton."

And as someone who is in the sports media, I can personally tell you that journalistic standards still apply, especially to individuals who take their profession seriously, as I do.

Lip

DirtySox
05-27-2010, 08:44 PM
TDog:

Here is the exact line from the story. Dissect it as you please:

"One G.M. says he also has his eye on several Chicago pitchers, including starter Mark Buehrle and reliever Matt Thornton."

And as someone who is in the sports media, I can personally tell you that journalistic standards still apply, especially to individuals who take their profession seriously, as I do.

Lip

I think now is a good time to sell high on Thornton. He's not exactly a spring chicken.

TDog
05-27-2010, 08:59 PM
TDog:

Here is the exact line from the story. Dissect it as you please:

"One G.M. says he also has his eye on several Chicago pitchers, including starter Mark Buehrle and reliever Matt Thornton."

And as someone who is in the sports media, I can personally tell you that journalistic standards still apply, especially to individuals who take their profession seriously, as I do.

Lip

If journalistic standards applied, the GM would have been named. Otherwise it's just a gossip column.

Lip Man 1
05-27-2010, 09:16 PM
T-Dog:

The next time the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune quotes an anonymous source for a story on the front page, I'll be thinking of you.

I won't have to wait to long.

Lip

Brian26
05-27-2010, 09:20 PM
This week in the print edition of Sports Illustrated (Rajon Rondo on the cover) in the baseball section a G.M. is quoted as saying that's he's been looking at Buehrle and Thornton from the Sox. The story also speculates that Konerko and A.J. could be on the move in a month.

Lip

Theo Epstein looked at Buehrle in 2007 before Kenny told him to go pound sand when Coco Crisp was offered in return.

Just because GM's are looking, that doesn't mean a deal is going to be made.

Lip Man 1
05-27-2010, 10:30 PM
Brian:

I never said he would be, it was the first time though I'd seen in print that someone was looking. Many felt with his contract he couldn't be traded, perhaps that's not the case.

Lip

TDog
05-28-2010, 02:24 AM
T-Dog:

The next time the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune quotes an anonymous source for a story on the front page, I'll be thinking of you.

I won't have to wait to long.

Lip

Ask most newspaper publishers and they they will insist their newspapers have policies against naming unnamed sources. The New York Times has a policy against running stories with unnamed sources, believe it or not. The truth is, even newspapers who attempt to hold firm to those policies will print stories with unnamed sources if other publications are reporting the stories.

The New York Times is more likely to break its policy of generating stories with unnamed sources than, say, the Pekin Daily Times because of the importance the stories the New York Times is dealing with. Printing stories with unnamed sources should never be routine practice. There are legitimate, if extreme reasons for not naming a source on your story. Most frequently the reason cited comes down to there being no other way to get the story. While this may be true of attributing something vague to an anonymous general manager who may argue that he could lose his job if he were quoted, the importance of the story does not rise to the level of risking jail time to protect the source, which would be the case in a New York Times news story with an unnamed source. A story with an unnamed source also costs a media outlet some of its credibility, so the importance of the story had better justify the credibility questions it raises.

The problem with sports journalism is that no such standard exists. (And perhaps the fact that more people don't raise credibility concerns should be a concern of a lack of core credibility.) It is routine for reporters at major media outlets to attribute the most mundane information to unnamed sources on stories that don't involve event coverage. Ask Ken Griffey Jr. how he feels about unnamed sources. Reporters report trade rumors that more often than not seem to have no basis in reality. There is never a score kept on how many unnamed-source stories pan out to have any shred of a connection with reality. And the problem with an unnamed source in this thread's cited story goes beyond whether the public may believe that a reporter is fabricating that a GM is looking at players on another team because I don't mean to imply that the reporter is lying as some in the public might.

News stories involve relationships between reporters, their sources and the public. Not only does the public have to have reason to believe the story and the sources have to believe their position was reflected accurately in the story, but the public has to believe the sources believe they were treated fairly by the reporters. Mention that a GM says he has his eye on several Chicago pitchers and there is no way for a GM who may have talked to a reporter and mentioned Chicago pitching to know if he was the one being referred to in the story if he believes the reporter made too much out of his comments. Maybe he wasn't correctly understood, but maybe someone else said something closer to what Sports Illustrated printed.

The result is that baseball reporters are taking on the level of gossip columnists, sometimes shamelessly. Of course, if Sports Illustrated cared about journalistic integrity, it wouldn't have an annual swimsuit issue.

Go ahead and think of me the next time you read a story with an unnamed source in the New York Times or Chicago Tribune. Think about basic journalism ethics.

Lip Man 1
05-28-2010, 11:12 AM
T-Dog:

I will. I make my living with them and have for 30 years now. There are good reporters and bad ones, there are good broadcasters and bad ones...just like in any other position in life.

I agree standards have dropped in EVERYTHING in the business...sports, news etc. but one shouldn't use broad based generalizations. That's insulting and lazy, there are a ton of professionals who care about what they do and where the business is going. And it's not a recent thing, in the mid 1970's at the National Association of Broadcasters Convention in San Antonio, Walter Cronkite stunned the industry with his keynote speech blasting the business (and he was talking about news specifically by the way) on their hiring practices, their tendency towards soft news and the fact that they were "telling people what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to know" in their quest for ratings.

Not directing this specifically towards you but in general terms it always bothers me when folks criticize my business without really knowing what the hell goes on inside it. It's a lot more complex than what someone writes in a college textbook, broadcasting theory is one thing, broadcasting reality is another. Unnamed quotes are always going to be a part of the business, they always have, they always will. How those quotes are treated is what's important and the way a story is written using those quotes is of prime importance be it news or sports. You seem to feel that news is somehow "above" what sports does. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Regarding standards, there never has been and probably never will be a "standardized" set of codes or requirements. Every story is different, every situation is different, every individual is different. New York has different standards than Pocatello, Idaho...that's reality.

Personally, my "standards" are when I use unnamed sources is that I have to have at least two of them before I will break something (and not to blow my own horn but I've had at least three occasions in my time in sports where I've done so...). That has served me well but again that's just me, I can't claim to know what's going on in anybody's else situation that may come up. If I can't get two I keep things filed away until I can or until circumstances force me to write or air something and in those cases (very rare) I make it clear that this is simply a rumor, that despite my efforts I could not get it confirmed at this particular time. Sometimes you know from a source that this is true but you can't get a second confirmation. A lot depends on the source, the relationship I have with them, how reliable they have been in the past and what is their position in say an organization. As well as trying to understand what they might have to gain by this.

Like I said, it's not easy...it's not as cut and dried as some think it is. It is a free flowing, nebulous situation and no two situations are alike.

Lip

TDog
05-28-2010, 05:17 PM
Lip, when I criticize your business, I know very well what is going on inside. And I'm not happy about it. The issue of unnamed sources isn't even the tip of the iceberg. But it shouldn't matter, because the person who knows what is going on in the business is more inclined to cut you slack when it comes to credibility. This is a credibility question, and that is something you should care about.

If you are pinting rumors, you aren't practicing journalism. Everyone knows it even if thief can't articulate it.

When you use an unnamed source, it should be on a story important enough that you would go to jail to protect your source. In fact, there are Pulitzer Prize winning reporters who have never used unnamed sources. I supervised a reporter who was nominated for a Pulitzer, and she never came close to needing to use an unnamed source while working on the story that earned her the nomination -- although I can't speak for the rest of her career.

Then you have the Pulitzer Prize winning reporters who reveal later that they made up things that were attributed to unnamed sources. The standards and credibility of the profession continue to spiral downward.

Unnamed sources destroy the credibility of the media, which has already degraded to the point where people only consider something news if it is something they agree with.

For example: Here is a rumor that confirms my view of the White Sox. Great story. I can't agree with that one so I can't believe it. You see it all the time on WSI. A great story isn't one that is well-researched and well-documented or even necessarily well-written. It is one with which people agree. If you want to take some vague anonymous, out-of context GM to assure you that the Buehrle contract won't prevent him from being traded, go ahead. But don't use that in an argument.

It doesn't matter how many sources you get to confirm something if no one will own up to saying it. The reporting relationship requires trust from the readers not just that you aren't yanking their chains, but that you aren't being manipulated. Go back and read the stories that reporters were writing based on unnamed sources regarding how the league would punish the White Sox and Kenny Williams for the Sirotka trade.

The spiraling lack of credibility demeans us all.

Lip Man 1
05-28-2010, 05:38 PM
T-Dog:

Just curious what do you do in the business?

Regarding sources going on the record, there are valid reasons why some folks don't as you well know.

If enough folks that I trust (an important component) are telling me the same story yet none of them are willing to go "on the record" that doesn't mean the story is wrong. That's the main issue, is the story / rumor / report / issue TRUE? Yes or no?

If enough folks are saying it is, even if they won't go on the record, I'll give serious thought to airing it. Again it depends of how many peoiple, what they are saying and how reliable they are. I'm not saying either that you're wrong when talking about credibility, it IS an issue...but that doesn't mean it's an issue with every journalist, broadcaster or reporter. There are a number of folks in the business, and I'm one of them, who have high standards in what they do.

Regarding Buehrle specifically I never made any claims about weather he's being shopped. I mearly passed along what I read and made the comment the perhaps the folks who think he can't be traded because of his deal may need to rethink that...plus with Kenny Williams ANYBODY can get traded, that's a fact.

Lip

TDog
05-29-2010, 01:28 PM
T-Dog:

Just curious what do you do in the business?

Regarding sources going on the record, there are valid reasons why some folks don't as you well know.

If enough folks that I trust (an important component) are telling me the same story yet none of them are willing to go "on the record" that doesn't mean the story is wrong. That's the main issue, is the story / rumor / report / issue TRUE? Yes or no?

If enough folks are saying it is, even if they won't go on the record, I'll give serious thought to airing it. Again it depends of how many peoiple, what they are saying and how reliable they are. I'm not saying either that you're wrong when talking about credibility, it IS an issue...but that doesn't mean it's an issue with every journalist, broadcaster or reporter. There are a number of folks in the business, and I'm one of them, who have high standards in what they do.

Regarding Buehrle specifically I never made any claims about weather he's being shopped. I mearly passed along what I read and made the comment the perhaps the folks who think he can't be traded because of his deal may need to rethink that...plus with Kenny Williams ANYBODY can get traded, that's a fact.

Lip

I apologize for hijacking this thread into a discussion of journalism ethics.

I worked as a reporter and editor for newspapers in Arizona, Wisconsin and Alaska.

I never used an unnamed source. I never let a story go through with an unnamed source. There were times when I had to work very hard to find a source I could quote so that I could have a story. I understand there are exceptions, but everyone who approached me pretending to be the second coming of Deep Throat turned out at best to be deep background. It goes to credibility. It is a standard that separated what I did from gossip sheets.

Maybe a big chunk of sports reporting anymore is trivial gossip. Maybe there is a market for presenting speculation that passes as news about sports. Certainly there is enough of it on the radio and Internet (to your credit, you don't post anonymously as most people do here, myself included). Maybe because sports is just recreation and it doesn't involve life and death and issues that could destroy political careers or damage lives, just maybe the standard has been relaxed and unnamed sources is acceptable in sports reporting.

I'm sorry I let my passion for ethics lead to the rant that hijacked the thread.

Brian26
05-29-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm sorry I let my passion for ethics lead to the rant that hijacked the thread.

If that's what you call a hijack, then I'd like to see you do it more often. Intelligent, respectful discourse is very welcome here. The conversation is a bit tangent to the subject of Buehrle, but that's certainly acceptable.

If you and Mark want us to break this off into a separate thread, we can do that too.

Lip Man 1
05-29-2010, 02:54 PM
Brian:

No that's OK. I think T-Dog and I will probably let it go. Fundamentally we don't really differ, we do have a different perspective on some of the nuances but I think we both feel an obligation concerning our jobs.

and T-Dog, thanks for the kind words. I've just always felt that if I say something, or write something or air something I have an obligation to use my name and take whatever comes. I've been wrong before and apologized for it (including here at WSI) and I'm sure I'll be wrong again in the future but overall I take pride in my resume and what I've done in my life.

Good discussion.

Lip

TDog
05-29-2010, 04:15 PM
I agree with Lip. I think we've made our points.

And a spirited discussion on journalism ethics and the state of the industry would would run serious risk of becoming political.

SCCWS
05-30-2010, 09:30 AM
Theo Epstein looked at Buehrle in 2007 before Kenny told him to go pound sand when Coco Crisp was offered in return.

Just because GM's are looking, that doesn't mean a deal is going to be made.


WRONG: The rumored trade was Ellsbury, Buchholz and Bowden. KW wanted Lester( L) instead of Buch. ( R). Teams could not agree and trade did not happen. In hindsight, KW should have pulled trigger now that Buchholz and Ellsbury are both stars. Bowden has yet to make majors.

FarWestChicago
05-30-2010, 10:37 AM
For example: Here is a rumor that confirms my view of the White Sox. Great story. I can't agree with that one so I can't believe it. You see it all the time on WSI. A great story isn't one that is well-researched and well-documented or even necessarily well-written.You have just perfectly described Lip; who has aligned himself so many times with known Sox haters like Mariotti and Tailgunner Joe. What is frustrating is Lip is such a great writer/interviewer and has the most encyclopedic knowledge of the Sox I have ever seen. However, he lets his emotions run rampant here and revels in being the Nouriel Roubini of the Sox. Oh well...

Brian26
05-30-2010, 08:07 PM
WRONG: The rumored trade was Ellsbury, Buchholz and Bowden. KW wanted Lester( L) instead of Buch. ( R). Teams could not agree and trade did not happen. In hindsight, KW should have pulled trigger now that Buchholz and Ellsbury are both stars. Bowden has yet to make majors.

Can you provide a link showing that was the rumored trade? I feel we've had similar debates about this before, and you've been proven wrong. I don't believe that package of prospects was ever offered to KW, and I can't believe he would have turned something like that down. At the time, the story was posted at several sites that Theo offered Coco Crisp in return for Buehrle, and KW told him no thanks.

Sargeant79
06-01-2010, 01:15 PM
Can you provide a link showing that was the rumored trade? I feel we've had similar debates about this before, and you've been proven wrong. I don't believe that package of prospects was ever offered to KW, and I can't believe he would have turned something like that down. At the time, the story was posted at several sites that Theo offered Coco Crisp in return for Buehrle, and KW told him no thanks.

I can't provide a link, but what I remember is about what you remember Brian...

Boston started the discussion by offering Coco Crisp. Kenny responded that he wanted Bucholz and Ellsbury. I don't recall Lester ever being part of the discussion. As far as I remember, that was all that got out publicly. At that point, they were both so far apart and neither GM was going to completely get his way.