PDA

View Full Version : Buehrle News?


Lip Man 1
12-19-2002, 01:46 PM
Frankly I'm shocked. I guess most of the media and perhaps many Sox fans didn't catch the Buehrle news last night on WSCR.

I figured the site would be crawling with Buehrle stuff and so would the papers but nothing. Very strange.

Well this marks three incidents or disagreements in two and a half years. (The St. Louis comments / Williams "disappointment"...Mark rejecting the Sox offer last year and they cutting the deal fifteen thousand...and now Mark rejecting the multi year deal.)

Is this becomming Jack McDowell 2: This Time He's Left Handed?" (and we all know how that turned out...)


Lip

FanOf14
12-19-2002, 01:49 PM
I am just curious why Mark turned it down, it was supposed to be one heck of a deal. My guess is that this is his way of saying, "As soon as I can be gone, I am." Who could blame him?

Kilroy
12-19-2002, 02:38 PM
This seems like a strange thing to me. Because all of us know that the Sox didn't offer him a deal beyond 2006, and his contract runs thru 2006, so he's not going anywhere anyway. So why wouldn't he sign the deal and avoid the arbitration mess when he's going to be here no matter what?

hold2dibber
12-19-2002, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
This seems like a strange thing to me. Because all of us know that the Sox didn't offer him a deal beyond 2006, and his contract runs thru 2006, so he's not going anywhere anyway. So why wouldn't he sign the deal and avoid the arbitration mess when he's going to be here no matter what?

Two possibilities:

(1) The proposed deal DID run past 2006 and he wants out of here so bad that he's not going to sign past '06 even if it means foregoing mucho $ and security for the next 3 years; or

(2) Buehrle thinks he can get more in arbitration than the Sox are offering (but when does he become arbitration eligible?).

And as an aside, does anyone know how much Zito, Hudson, Mulder and/or Sabathia are making? I seem to remember Sabathia getting a 2 year contract for either $4 million total or $4 million per year (can't remember which).

TraderTim
12-19-2002, 02:52 PM
Lip:

They can't make him sign a deal. Until Mark's agent or Mark dispute KW's claim that this proposed deal was better than the deals Hudson and Zito have, it appears they offered Mark a very nice long-term contract. Why is that something to blame the White Sox about?

Look, it's just possible his agent is telling him that right now, it's a poor time to sign a long-term deal. There's pressure on salaries in general and Mark may feel he has nothing but upside potential--in which case, he may be willing to sit tight and try to have another CY-type year--and then revisit a long-term deal.

That doesn't mean this was an insulting offer by the White Sox, which is partly what you infer in your post. And by the way, being a very long-time White Sox fan, Black Jack was a good pitcher, but the White Sox mysteriously managed to be free of Black Jack just as his career started on a downward spiral. You can say all you want about the Sox, but they have eerily missed signing more than a few pitchers to long-term contracts that would have been bad decisions.

I'm not thrilled by KW. Jerry Manuel has me cussing and swearing when I watch the games at times. I'd love to have a few of the big name free agents that were available in the past few years. Hey, at $7 1/2 mill a year for two or three years, I'd try Ivan behind the plate for half the games, platooned with Olivo, and let Ivan have some DH as well--but that's just me.

But not all decisions are made by the White Sox and not all the blame goes to them. They can't make Mark sign. They can't make another team accept their trade offers. I'd rather have them make deals without reaching than overpay for middle level talent.

TT

joecrede
12-19-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


Is this becomming Jack McDowell 2: This Time He's Left Handed?" (and we all know how that turned out...)


Lip

I hate to be put in the apologist role for the Sox, but they turned out right with their handling of McDowell, Alvarez & Fernandez too. Four more years is a lot of wear and tear on a pitcher. There's a decent chance we won't want him after '06.

Dadawg_77
12-19-2002, 03:03 PM
Until 2006, Mark will probably have one deals. I think he has enough service to be eligible for arbitration this next season. Mark could of rejected the deal because while it was more then what Hudson and Zito made at that stage of their career in total dollar amount, one it isn't when (baseball) inflation is applied, 2 Mark and his advisor's feel they can make more money in the arbitration process.

jeremyb1
12-19-2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I hate to be put in the apologist role for the Sox, but they turned out right with their handling of McDowell, Alvarez & Fernandez too. Four more years is a lot of wear and tear on a pitcher. There's a decent chance we won't want him after '06.

that's a really good point. no one ever wants to say it and obviously we all hope mark will be this good til he's 40 but sometimes players and pitchers in particular just lose it. sometimes they get injured. you don't want to be shelling out million per year if a guy can't help you anymore.

I-55_Series
12-19-2002, 03:05 PM
Hello, all.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't Buehrle "super-two" eligible? I remember him rising early in 2000.
:?: Does/did he have to apply, and what would this mean for his current negotiations, etc.?

Thanks all.

from Hyde Park/Pilsen

joecrede
12-19-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

(2) Buehrle thinks he can get more in arbitration than the Sox are offering (but when does he become arbitration eligible?).

And as an aside, does anyone know how much Zito, Hudson, Mulder and/or Sabathia are making? I seem to remember Sabathia getting a 2 year contract for either $4 million total or $4 million per year (can't remember which).

I heard on the SCORE Hudson & Sabathia are around 4yrs/$10M and Zito is around 5yrs/$14M

The problem as I see it for Buehrle is that when he goes to arbitration these guys are his peers. He is going to have to significantly outpitch them to make a killing in arbitration.

hold2dibber
12-19-2002, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I heard on the SCORE Hudson & Sabathia are around 4yrs/$10M and Zito is around 5yrs/$14M

The problem as I see it for Buehrle is that when he goes to arbitration these guys are his peers. He is going to have to significantly outpitch them to make a killing in arbitration.

When he goes to arbitration, he'll argue that guys like Glavine, Kenny Rogers, Matt Morris, etc. (all guys earning in the $10 million per year range) are his peers and that his stats are in the same ball park as these guys, so he should get the same $. The younger guys you're referring to took below open market value contracts to get some security over several seasons prior to free agency; those are not market value contracts. If the Sox offered, as an example, a 4 years at $3 million per year deal, Buehrle would earn $12 million from '03 to '06. If he takes his $350,000 this year then goes to arbitration in '04, '05 and '06, he could score between $5 and $10 million per year, or from $15 - $30 million total. He's rolling the dice, at this point, that the Sox will either come up with a bigger offer, or figuring he'll be healthy and will get more through arbitration.

SoxFan14
12-19-2002, 03:30 PM
Buehrle must think very highly of himself to be turning down offers that put him in the same category as Zito, Mulder, etc. Who does he think he is anyway.....Curt Schilling, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux? It seems MB was given a fair offer by the Sox but his ego must think he's better than that. He turned down the Sox' offer last year so is this going to become a yearly thing with him?

If he wants to get out of Chicago so bad, then screw him. Let him go. Just hope we can get something decent in return.

hold2dibber
12-19-2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I hate to be put in the apologist role for the Sox, but they turned out right with their handling of McDowell, Alvarez & Fernandez too.

Oh boy, Lip's gonna take exception to that ... here we go! :smile:

Cheryl
12-19-2002, 03:43 PM
You can say all you want about the Sox, but they have eerily missed signing more than a few pitchers to long-term contracts that would have been bad decisions.

Jaime Navarro.

BTW, welcome newbies!

joecrede
12-19-2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
When he goes to arbitration, he'll argue that guys like Glavine, Kenny Rogers, Matt Morris, etc. (all guys earning in the $10 million per year range) are his peers and that his stats are in the same ball park as these guys, so he should get the same $. The younger guys you're referring to took below open market value contracts to get some security over several seasons prior to free agency; those are not market value contracts. If the Sox offered, as an example, a 4 years at $3 million per year deal, Buehrle would earn $12 million from '03 to '06. If he takes his $350,000 this year then goes to arbitration in '04, '05 and '06, he could score between $5 and $10 million per year, or from $15 - $30 million total. He's rolling the dice, at this point, that the Sox will either come up with a bigger offer, or figuring he'll be healthy and will get more through arbitration.

The Sox can argue that Glavine, Rogers, Morris are not his peers because they have more service time. That Glavine & Rogers' salaries were artificially inflated by the free-agent bidding process. The definition of "market value" is not "best offer".

TraderTim
12-19-2002, 03:57 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cheryl
[B]Jaime Navarro.

God, he was brutal to watch. Even a few beers out by the bullpen didn't help. I understood why they thought he might pan out as an inning eater...but every game he pitched was just brutal.

TT

voodoochile
12-19-2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
Lip:

They can't make him sign a deal. Until Mark's agent or Mark dispute KW's claim that this proposed deal was better than the deals Hudson and Zito have, it appears they offered Mark a very nice long-term contract. Why is that something to blame the White Sox about?

Look, it's just possible his agent is telling him that right now, it's a poor time to sign a long-term deal. There's pressure on salaries in general and Mark may feel he has nothing but upside potential--in which case, he may be willing to sit tight and try to have another CY-type year--and then revisit a long-term deal.

That doesn't mean this was an insulting offer by the White Sox, which is partly what you infer in your post. And by the way, being a very long-time White Sox fan, Black Jack was a good pitcher, but the White Sox mysteriously managed to be free of Black Jack just as his career started on a downward spiral. You can say all you want about the Sox, but they have eerily missed signing more than a few pitchers to long-term contracts that would have been bad decisions.

I'm not thrilled by KW. Jerry Manuel has me cussing and swearing when I watch the games at times. I'd love to have a few of the big name free agents that were available in the past few years. Hey, at $7 1/2 mill a year for two or three years, I'd try Ivan behind the plate for half the games, platooned with Olivo, and let Ivan have some DH as well--but that's just me.

But not all decisions are made by the White Sox and not all the blame goes to them. They can't make Mark sign. They can't make another team accept their trade offers. I'd rather have them make deals without reaching than overpay for middle level talent.

TT

Welcome aboard and some excellent points about both Jack Mcdowell and the other pitchers they refused to give long term contracts to (Alvarez, Fernandez, Bere)

One can only hope they do find a way to get MB for as little as possible for the time he has left. Perhaps the Sox are still expecting him to hit the wall or see a bigger upside in Garland or Rauch - but that is just speculation. I am not surprised that Buehrle is rejecting their initial foray into the multi-year contract. I am sure it is just his way of regaining some of the control they stripped from him last year and sending a message that if they want to get him to stick around longer than he has to (if at all possible) that they will have to be extra nice. Get that $15K back and more...

voodoochile
12-19-2002, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by I-55_Series
Hello, all.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't Buehrle "super-two" eligible? I remember him rising early in 2000.
:?: Does/did he have to apply, and what would this mean for his current negotiations, etc.?

Thanks all.

from Hyde Park/Pilsen

Welcome aboard, I can't answer your question, but I bet the other moderators (almost definitely Daver) can.

hold2dibber
12-19-2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
The Sox can argue that Glavine, Rogers, Morris are not his peers because they have more service time. That Glavine & Rogers' salaries were artificially inflated by the free-agent bidding process. The definition of "market value" is not "best offer".

Absolutely right; both sides would have decent arguments to make in arbitration about what Buehrle should get. Buehrle is rolling the dice right now that his arguments would prevail and he'd make more than the Sox are currently offering (or that the Sox will up the ante in the interim).

joecrede
12-19-2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Absolutely right; both sides would have decent arguments to make in arbitration about what Buehrle should get. Buehrle is rolling the dice right now that his arguments would prevail and he'd make more than the Sox are currently offering (or that the Sox will up the ante in the interim).

I think both sides have very good reasons to go to arbitration. I can't see the Sox arbitration offer being less than Sabathia/Hudson/Zito money and I can't see an arbiter awarding Buehrle his offer which presumably would be for significantly more than what those guys are making.

Buehrle's taking the bigger chance here because of the injury factor though.

voodoochile
12-19-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think both sides have very good reasons to go to arbitration. I can't see the Sox arbitration offer being less than Sabathia/Hudson/Zito money and I can't see an arbiter awarding Buehrle his offer which presumably would be for significantly more than what those guys are making.

Buehrle's taking the bigger chance here because of the injury factor though.

Not only that, but if he has an off year any of the arbitration years, he will get significantly less than a guaranteed contract would give him. He not only has to stay healthy, he has to perform...

duke of dorwood
12-19-2002, 05:03 PM
No offense to #56, but he should have signed. Who knows what will happen defensively behind him next year with Manos at short. Lots of his grounders go to the left side.

hold2dibber
12-19-2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Not only that, but if he has an off year any of the arbitration years, he will get significantly less than a guaranteed contract would give him. He not only has to stay healthy, he has to perform...

Taking all this into consideration, it would seem entirely irrational for Buehrle to be content to just go on a year-by-year basis. I have to believe that he's just negotiating and trying to get the Sox to up the ante. Then again, we went down this road with McDowell, so maybe that's where we'll end up with Buehrle as well. I certainly hope not.

guillen4life13
12-19-2002, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Taking all this into consideration, it would seem entirely irrational for Buehrle to be content to just go on a year-by-year basis. I have to believe that he's just negotiating and trying to get the Sox to up the ante. Then again, we went down this road with McDowell, so maybe that's where we'll end up with Buehrle as well. I certainly hope not.

Speaking of McDowell.... Lip, when is that interview gonna be posted? I really would like to see it, and Daver told me it would be up in mid-December. Thanks.

As for Burly-mon, I wonder what it's gonna take. And if he is gonna sit and not accept any offers from the Sox, lets trade him while we can for one of the big 3 of the A's.

By the way, I don't know if I'll be posting until the 3rd... going to India. Take it easy everyone. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, etc.

hold2dibber
12-19-2002, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
As for Burly-mon, I wonder what it's gonna take. And if he is gonna sit and not accept any offers from the Sox, lets trade him while we can for one of the big 3 of the A's.

I don't think the A's would trade for Buehrle at this point; if you conclude that Buehrle and the A's big 3 are all comparable in terms of quality, then why would they want the 1 guy of those 4 that refuses to sign a multi-year contract that is in the same ballpark as the other 3?

Daver
12-19-2002, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Not only that, but if he has an off year any of the arbitration years, he will get significantly less than a guaranteed contract would give him. He not only has to stay healthy, he has to perform...

The chances of a player taking a significant cut in salary from arbitration are very slim.

jeremyb1
12-19-2002, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by I-55_Series
Hello, all.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't Buehrle "super-two" eligible? I remember him rising early in 2000.
:?: Does/did he have to apply, and what would this mean for his current negotiations, etc.?


i know for sure buehrle isn't and won't be arbitration elligible this off season. the only three arbitration elligible players the sox have are ritchie, parque, and koch. as for the super two stuff i'm not so familiar with how that will end up working but i'm pretty sure its not a factor with buehrle this offseason.

voodoochile
12-19-2002, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by daver
The chances of a player taking a significant cut in salary from arbitration are very slim.

Yeah, but a guaranteed contract probably pays more as the years go by - 3 yrs, $15M = $4M Y1, $5M Y2, $6M Y3. With arbitration if he has an off year, he would do no better than stay at the same salary thus hurting himself in the overall scheme of things.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2002, 07:15 PM
Tim:

I'm not blaming the Sox for anything (yet) because details are so sparse. Nobody knows how long the deal was and for how much.

At this point I was just making an observation about the "history" between Buehrle and the Sox in only two and a half short seasons.

If you want to "blame" the Sox for anything it would probably be the fact that they cut their offer to Buehrle last Spring after he rejected their initial offer. That probably wasn't the smartest thing to do to your best pitcher. That may have sown the seeds for what Williams talked about last night.

Lip

Lip Man 1
12-19-2002, 08:48 PM
and Hold is right so I'll give you the abridged version Tim....

McDowell won 15 games in 95 and 13 in 96. In 96 the Sox were blowing a 4 1/2 game Wild Card lead in September because they didn't have any 5th starters and the bullpen was in shambles.

Think McDowell could have been of help and maybe put the Sox in the post season?

To those who have asked, Pale Hose George told me the McDowell interview goes up Sunday night. (and you're going to be shocked and amazed at some of the things he said! I know I was and went back over them a second time just to make sure I understood him correctly!)

Lip

longshot7
12-19-2002, 08:58 PM
sorry to be a pain, but I think I missed something - what did Buehrle turn down?

TraderTim
12-19-2002, 09:11 PM
Lip wrote:

"McDowell won 15 games in 95 and 13 in 96. In 96 the Sox were blowing a 4 1/2 game Wild Card lead in September because they didn't have any 5th starters and the bullpen was in shambles.

Think McDowell could have been of help and maybe put the Sox in the post season?"


All fine and good. But the Sox had to balance that against how they felt he would hold up and perform over a long-term contract [if memory serves me right, he wanted a five year contract and that wasn't going to happen here] before the situation occurred.

It's easy to say they could have used him. Lip, we could have used a David Wells that won 17 games in 2002...but that wasn't available to us, since he took his bad back and went to NY, where he performed somewhat better.

All things are a balance and require trade offs. It's not as easy as saying the Sox could have used Black Jack. They felt his arm and upcoming career weren't worthy of a five year deal. I think history says they were right. If you disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree.

By the way, I am a new poster here. I'm not a new White Sox fan. I've been reading this board and the board that came before it. I was just a tad too busy to post until this now. I have had the pleasure [and at times, displeasure] of owning season tickets for a very long time. In fact, my father was a rabid Sox fan until the team was dismantled after 1959 and then he swore he'd watch a million Cub games before he'd watch a Sox game again [out of spite to the Sox, not a love of the Cubs]. I had the pleasure of taking him to his "first" game at the new park four years ago, right before his 88th birthday. It took me decades of hard work to get him to see the light, so do your worst on me, Lip.

TT

joecrede
12-19-2002, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
and Hold is right so I'll give you the abridged version Tim....

McDowell won 15 games in 95 and 13 in 96. In 96 the Sox were blowing a 4 1/2 game Wild Card lead in September because they didn't have any 5th starters and the bullpen was in shambles.

Think McDowell could have been of help and maybe put the Sox in the post season?

Lip

McDowell is one of my all-time favorite Sox and maybe he could have helped them make the playoffs in '96. The problem though was you would have had to had paid him #1 starter money for #5 starter performance.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2002, 10:00 PM
Joe:

If the Sox make the playoffs in 96, maybe they don't sign Belle, maybe they don't have the "White Flag" disaster

Just food for thought.

The bottom line though is when you get a chance to go to October and beyond you better go for it.

Does this organization want to win, or make money. You can't have both. (unfortunately we know what they have decided...)

If they want to make money that's fine, then don't complain because fans aren't showing up. Also keep in mind what Sox historian Rich Lindberg brought up in the interview I did with him, the Sox lease expires in seven years. If the organization wants to stay in Chicago and get another sweetheart lease from the state, they better start acting like they give a damn to start pushing attendance back up.

Lip

pudge
12-19-2002, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

If the Sox make the playoffs in 96, maybe they don't sign Belle, maybe they don't have the "White Flag" disaster

Just food for thought.

The bottom line though is when you get a chance to go to October and beyond you better go for it.

Does this organization want to win, or make money. You can't have both. (unfortunately we know what they have decided...)

If they want to make money that's fine, then don't complain because fans aren't showing up. Also keep in mind what Sox historian Rich Lindberg brought up in the interview I did with him, the Sox lease expires in seven years. If the organization wants to stay in Chicago and get another sweetheart lease from the state, they better start acting like they give a damn to start pushing attendance back up.

Lip

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Jack McDowell had a 5.11 ERA and a WHIP close to 2.0 in 1996... he won 13 games with a far superior Cleveland team... if anyone thinks that McDowell would have led us to the post-season in '96, they're smoking crack.

I don't agree with a lot that our beloved organization does, but losing Jack McDowell was NEVER an issue for me. He was way overrated after '92 - even in '93, he wasn't a "Cy Young". A Cy Young doesn't get bombed twice in the post-season.

I'm sure the Sox are handling this Buehrle issue as best they can, and hopefully it will work out for the best - but frankly, 2006 is a LONG way away - there's a good chance Buehrle will not be a great pitcher by then.

THE_HOOTER
12-19-2002, 10:41 PM
I think not signing Black Jack was the right move, and it turned out to be as well. I missed him, but a five year deal would have been a disaster.

Plus, he really did sooooo horrible in the playoffs that I dont think he could have been considered an ace.

I agree with Lip on one thing: I hate this crap about the future-that is nothing but an excuse to fail.

You should do everything to win when you are a few pieces away.

You sign Maddux, you have a rotation of Buerhle, Maddux, Garland, Wright and Ritchie( who should bounce back to 10-12 wins).

The lineup needs one more go-getter at the top.

The sox have the lineup to compete, and the bullpen depth and quality. Their division is a joke, and some of their best performers are under paid.

Now is the time to go for it; when you wait for prospects to develop you tread water each and every year.

Lip Man 1
12-19-2002, 11:24 PM
McDowell had an interesting reply when I asked him about the 93 ALCS, you can read about it Sunday night.

Lip

Paulwny
12-20-2002, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
I heard on the SCORE Hudson & Sabathia are around 4yrs/$10M and Zito is around 5yrs/$14M

The problem as I see it for Buehrle is that when he goes to arbitration these guys are his peers. He is going to have to significantly outpitch them to make a killing in arbitration.

The arbitration system is another big owner mistake. Unless the agreement changed, it's my understanding that both sides, mlb/union, agreed to use arbitrators who were not familiar with baseball.

I heard an interview with an owner who complained about the arbitrators not having baseball knowledge. His ss went to arbitration and his agent was comparing his numbers to those of Cal Ripkin who was in the twilight of his career, but making $4mil per year.
The arbitrator had heard of Ripkin, knew nothing of Ripken's all-star status, or that he was a drawing card. When the owner's gm tried to present Ripkin's status it was rejected by the arbitrator who was only interested in numbers.
If Burhle goes to arbitration he'll try to have his numbers compared to the highest paid pitchers with similar numbers.

Sorry, it was quite awhile ago and I don't remember the ss, team or owner.

hold2dibber
12-20-2002, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by pudge
I'm sure the Sox are handling this Buehrle issue as best they can, and hopefully it will work out for the best - but frankly, 2006 is a LONG way away - there's a good chance Buehrle will not be a great pitcher by then.

You have a lot more faith in Sox management than I do. And although it is true that 2006 is a ways away, the fact of the matter is, Buehrle is very young and, from what I understand, has a delivery and arm action that makes it less likely that he will suffer arm problems in the near future (unlike, for example, Jack McDowell in his prime, or Jeff Weaver now). Plus, if you jack Buehrle around, what does that tell the other, younger guys on the team about the organization? I think it would be beneficial to the Sox organization and the team we seeon the field, if management didn't view the players as their enemies. Do you think the Diamondbacks treat their players like the enemy? The Cardinals? The Yankees? No, of course not. The Sox aren't going to save much $ (if any) by forcing Buehrle to go through arbitration each year and they will engender bad will both on the part of Buehrle and on the part of other players in the organization (and possibly outside the organization). They jerked him around last off season for no good reason - taking $15,000 off the table just to show him who was boss. What sense did that make?

voodoochile
12-20-2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
They jerked him around last off season for no good reason - taking $15,000 off the table just to show him who was boss. What sense did that make?

:KW:reinsy
"Lot's of sense. We spent the money on strippers and vodka..."

hold2dibber
12-20-2002, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
:KW:reinsy
"Lot's of sense. We spent the money on strippers and vodka..."

Oh, well, all right then. Never mind.

voodoochile
12-20-2002, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Oh, well, all right then. Never mind.

:KW:reinsy
"Stupid fans... if you'd only spend more money at the park we could afford even more strippers and booze..."

CLR01
12-20-2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Plus, if you jack Buehrle around, what does that tell the other, younger guys on the team about the organization?


What does it tell the younger guys if the sox just give in to whatever ridiculous $ amount Buehrle is asking for? Hey why sign this contract when i can hold out and get more. Buehrle will get his pay day. He should sign the contract that is there now, get some financial security and then in 4-5 years when he has proven he can do it season after season, he will be looking at 10-15 mil/year.

CLR01
12-20-2002, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
:KW:reinsy
"Stupid fans... if you'd only spend more money at the park we could afford even more strippers and booze..."


Maybe they could even afford the good vodka. No more Smirnoff for them.

hold2dibber
12-20-2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by CLR01
What does it tell the younger guys if the sox just give in to whatever ridiculous $ amount Buehrle is asking for? Hey why sign this contract when i can hold out and get more. Buehrle will get his pay day. He should sign the contract that is there now, get some financial security and then in 4-5 years when he has proven he can do it season after season, he will be looking at 10-15 mil/year.

True; it all comes down to whether the Sox are truly making a competitive offer and we're just in negotiations or they're jerking him around like they did last off season. I am a little skeptical about the Sox' claim that they made him an offer on par with the deals Zito, Hudson, Sabathia, et al. have signed because, well, I don't trust Sox management. But if that's true and Buehrle is intent on holding out for a contract on par with what other pitchers have earnd in free agency (i.e., $8 to $10 million/year), I don't hold Sox management accountable at all for not signing him up.

jortafan
12-20-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by CLR01
What does it tell the younger guys if the sox just give in to whatever ridiculous $ amount Buehrle is asking for? Hey why sign this contract when i can hold out and get more. Buehrle will get his pay day. He should sign the contract that is there now, get some financial security and then in 4-5 years when he has proven he can do it season after season, he will be looking at 10-15 mil/year.

How do you know Buehrle is asking for a ridiculous amount? We don't know what he's asking for, or what the White Sox offer is. Maybe the Sox offer is ridiculous. The bottom line is that we don't know, and can't really judge who's right or wrong until we hear figures, which I'm sure the Sox will go out of their way to keep from us.

But more importantly, I can understand why Buehrle expects to be paid as one of baseball's best pitchers right now. The White Sox, and us, certainly expect him to be our best. He was thrown into a role at a very young age where he had to become the ace of the staff, and he did not flop in that role. Right now, he's one of the few jewels, so to speak, that the White Sox have. You say he should wait a few years for the big pay day. Does this mean we should have had to wait a few years before he became the team's top pitcher?

Player careers are short enough, plus they have to go through the minor league stage where (Borchard is the rare exception) they are paid piss poor and have no money. Why shouldn't he be able to take advantage of his skills? And considering the White Sox past tactics in negotiating with young players, I wouldn't be surprised if their idea of a comparable salary to other young pitchers is below what we would consider to be a comparable salary.

The bottom line? I'm willing to give Buehrle the benefit of the doubt, for now.

Lip Man 1
12-20-2002, 11:43 AM
From Steve Rosenbloom's column in the Tribune:

ON THE MARK: During an appearance on WSCR-AM, Williams said the Sox tried to sign ace Mark Buehrle to a long-term contract, but Buehrle rejected them. This sounds like payback for the way the Sox renewed Buehrle’s contract last season for less than their last offer. This might be the earliest the Sox have ticked off their best pitcher so he can leave in an ugly manner the way they all do.

This is the first mention that I know of by any newspapers or WGN-TV of the Buehrle contract problems.

I'm still amazed that this has flown under the radar of the media, maybe because it's Christmas week?

Lip

pudge
12-20-2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by jortafan


Player careers are short enough, plus they have to go through the minor league stage where (Borchard is the rare exception) they are paid piss poor and have no money. Why shouldn't he be able to take advantage of his skills? And considering the White Sox past tactics in negotiating with young players, I wouldn't be surprised if their idea of a comparable salary to other young pitchers is below what we would consider to be a comparable salary.

The bottom line? I'm willing to give Buehrle the benefit of the doubt, for now.

It's still a business... even the Yankees are irritating Clemens and the Cardinals are irritating Finley - no club is perfect. I remember when the economy was good and I was negotiating with a dot-com, it was a lengthy, nasty negotiating process. I was trying to get the most I could, and the company was trying to get the best deal possible, that's just the way it goes, and once we came to a middle ground and the deal was done, all the ugly things were forgotten. That's how it goes anywhere, and baseball is not immune to it. Let's also not forget the players get greedy at times too.

My biggest problem with the Sox brass is that when they did break the bank, they did it stupidly on the likes of Belle and Navarro - and when they try to get "creative" they come up with crappy trades like the Ritchie deal. Schu is lucky as heck he pulled off that Eldred/Valentin steal back in 2000.

joecrede
12-20-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

If the Sox make the playoffs in 96, maybe they don't sign Belle, maybe they don't have the "White Flag" disaster


I agreed with the reasoning behind the "White Flag" deal at the time, and it did help us win the division in '00.


The bottom line though is when you get a chance to go to October and beyond you better go for it.


With the advent of the wild card and the extra division most teams now have a chance at the playoffs. Smart organizations figure out whether they are a contender in the truest sense of the word or whether it's just a byproduct of the two extra playoff slots.


Does this organization want to win, or make money. You can't have both. (unfortunately we know what they have decided...)


My thinking with the Sox is that they are like most teams, they cannot be in a position to win every year so they have to take a step back to rebuild sometimes. I much prefer the rebuilding method to what the Cubs and more so the Orioles do which is sign veteran free-agents to fill holes and in the process show the public they are doing something.


Also keep in mind what Sox historian Rich Lindberg brought up in the interview I did with him, the Sox lease expires in seven years. If the organization wants to stay in Chicago and get another sweetheart lease from the state, they better start acting like they give a damn to start pushing attendance back up.
Lip

Daley needs to be re-elected to two more terms then the Sox will be playing in a new state-of-the-art park right on the lake when the CPII lease expires.

hold2dibber
12-20-2002, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Daley needs to be re-elected to two more terms then the Sox will be playing in a new state-of-the-art park right on the lake when the CPII lease expires.

What makes you think so?

joecrede
12-20-2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
What makes you think so?

Call it just a hunch.

If you remember the "plan" a few years ago was to renovate Comiskey for the Bears and build a baseball park on the lake. The New Soldier Field is not going to attract the amount of people into the downtown area that a baseball park would not only because there are fewer dates, but because when a lot of those dates are, November-December. I think Daley still envisions a baseball park on the lake as another piece in his making downtown Chicago the place to be.

Even if a(nother) new park is out of the question 7 years from now i think Daley will get funding to renovate CPII pushed through. Suffice to say the Sox ain't moving as long as there's a Daly in office.

nixsox
12-20-2002, 05:13 PM
The reason why there wasn't any Buehrle news in the media is because the Cubs had a bigger story brewing, the re-signing of the great Antonio Alfonseca. And they are also in intense negotiations with the next Ron Santo, being Bill Mueller. That my friends is huge news. :D:

Lip Man 1
12-20-2002, 10:23 PM
Joe Crede:

The Sox have been "rebuilding" three times in the last nine years, a little excessive don't you think?

More numbers: 84 years since a World Series title...43 years since a World Series appearance... 43 years since a home postseason win...three division titles in the past 22 years.

Stop the madness! (LOL)

If current ownership can't (or won't) play the game the way it has to be done to win today they they need to leave.

Very simple.

Lip

CLR01
12-21-2002, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
How do you know Buehrle is asking for a ridiculous amount? We don't know what he's asking for, or what the White Sox offer is. Maybe the Sox offer is ridiculous. The bottom line is that we don't know, and can't really judge who's right or wrong until we hear figures, which I'm sure the Sox will go out of their way to keep from us.

But more importantly, I can understand why Buehrle expects to be paid as one of baseball's best pitchers right now. The White Sox, and us, certainly expect him to be our best. He was thrown into a role at a very young age where he had to become the ace of the staff, and he did not flop in that role. Right now, he's one of the few jewels, so to speak, that the White Sox have. You say he should wait a few years for the big pay day. Does this mean we should have had to wait a few years before he became the team's top pitcher?

Player careers are short enough, plus they have to go through the minor league stage where (Borchard is the rare exception) they are paid piss poor and have no money. Why shouldn't he be able to take advantage of his skills? And considering the White Sox past tactics in negotiating with young players, I wouldn't be surprised if their idea of a comparable salary to other young pitchers is below what we would consider to be a comparable salary.

The bottom line? I'm willing to give Buehrle the benefit of the doubt, for now.

I dont know if the Sox are telling the truth or not, but if in fact they were lying i would think Buehrle, or his agent, would be talking to every reporter they can find telling them that the Sox made no such offer. They have not so i am going to believe Kenny until i hear otherwise.