PDA

View Full Version : Clearing Up a Few Things


MarkV
11-18-2003, 04:47 PM
Here are just a few things that constantly keep coming up in these threads that need to be cleared up:
Konerko: Cannot be traded because of really bad 2003 and $8.75 mil contract next year.
Thomas: Cannot be traded because of a Do Not Trade Clause.
Mike Cameron: I don't know why anyone would want him back, but he's looking for a $7 mil per year deal, which the Sox won't pay.
Kaz Matsui: The Sox have Valentin. Even if they wanted Matsui, they'd have to pay his current Japanese team an exorbitant amount. After that, they'd have to outbid ever other team in MLB to get his services.
Jeremy Reed: He had a great year this year, but the earliest you can expect to see him on the big club is September, unless six or seven outfielders get hurt.

Those are just some things that needed to be cleared up. If anyone has any more or any questions, feel free to respond. :smile:

joepoe
11-18-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Here are just a few things that constantly keep coming up in these threads that need to be cleared up:
Konerko: Cannot be traded because of really bad 2003 and $8.75 mil contract next year.
has any more or any questions, feel free to respond. :smile:

Hey, the Chicago National League Baseball Club traded Todd Hundley, didn't they? Why can't KW get rid of the Piano Lugger?

MarkV
11-18-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by joepoe
Hey, the Chicago National League Baseball Club traded Todd Hundley, didn't they? Why can't KW get rid of the Piano Lugger?

If you were another team, would you be willing to trade for a guy who had such a bad year with such a huge contract?

Daver
11-18-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by MarkV

Thomas: Cannot be traded because of a Do Not Trade Clause.


Thomas doesn't have a no trade clause.

He does have the right to refuse any trade however.

DrCrawdad
11-18-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by joepoe
Hey, the Chicago National League Baseball Club traded Todd Hundley, didn't they? Why can't KW get rid of the Piano Lugger?

Follow the money...The Cubbies were able to trade Todd Hundley for Karros/Grud. because the Cubbies were willing to take on the salary of those two. The Cubbies got 6Finger & Abe Lincoln because they took the salaries of those two as well.

MarkV
11-18-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Thomas doesn't have a no trade clause.

He does have the right to refuse any trade however.

...which pretty much makes it a no trade clause.

SoxxoS
11-18-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Here are just a few things that constantly keep coming up in these threads that need to be cleared up:
Konerko: Cannot be traded because of really bad 2003 and $8.75 mil contract next year.
Thomas: Cannot be traded because of a Do Not Trade Clause.
Mike Cameron: I don't know why anyone would want him back, but he's looking for a $7 mil per year deal, which the Sox won't pay.
Kaz Matsui: The Sox have Valentin. Even if they wanted Matsui, they'd have to pay his current Japanese team an exorbitant amount. After that, they'd have to outbid ever other team in MLB to get his services.
Jeremy Reed: He had a great year this year, but the earliest you can expect to see him on the big club is September, unless six or seven outfielders get hurt.

Those are just some things that needed to be cleared up. If anyone has any more or any questions, feel free to respond. :smile:

As stated above, if the Cubs can trade Hundley, than the Sox can trade Konerko.

That isn't true about Jeremy Reed. He is on the 40 man roster, which means they are going to give him a chance at spring training. Most likely, he will start the season at AAA. But if we saw him in late April, I wouldn't be suprised in the least.

If we keep Maggs and Lee, Borchard continues to be a bust (meaning he doesn't make the team out of S.T. or struggles from the start) then I predict the Rowand/Harris experiment won't last long...i.e. Jeremy Reed will make an quick appearance.

If Maggs or Lee are traded, depending on who they get in return, I expect to see Jeremy Reed make the team out of spring training...as long as we don't get an OF in return (for Maggs or Lee). Who are we going to start, Rowand/Borchard/ Maggs-Lee or even worse Roward/Harris/Maggs-Lee? No way.

Mike Cameron may be looking for a 7 million per year deal, but looking and receiving are two WAY different things.

Daver
11-18-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
...which pretty much makes it a no trade clause.

There is a large difference between a contractual clause as opposed to rights granted by the CBA.

Daver
11-18-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS

That isn't true about Jeremy Reed. He is on the 40 man roster, which means they are going to give him a chance at spring training. Most likely, he will start the season at AAA. But if we saw him in late April, I wouldn't be suprised in the least.



He is on the forty man roster so that he is required to report to spring training at the same time as the rest of the rostered players,unlike players not on the roster,who have a week to show up.

TraderTim
11-18-2003, 05:19 PM
I don't believe you'd have to pay Kaz's ex-team a dime. This is a different situation than Ichiro..Kaz is a free agent.

Forkit!

Hondo
11-18-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Here are just a few things that constantly keep coming up in these threads that need to be cleared up:
Konerko: Cannot be traded because of really bad 2003 and $8.75 mil contract next year.
Thomas: Cannot be traded because of a Do Not Trade Clause.
Mike Cameron: I don't know why anyone would want him back, but he's looking for a $7 mil per year deal, which the Sox won't pay.
Kaz Matsui: The Sox have Valentin. Even if they wanted Matsui, they'd have to pay his current Japanese team an exorbitant amount. After that, they'd have to outbid ever other team in MLB to get his services.
Jeremy Reed: He had a great year this year, but the earliest you can expect to see him on the big club is September, unless six or seven outfielders get hurt.

Those are just some things that needed to be cleared up. If anyone has any more or any questions, feel free to respond. :smile:



Wow you really have some insider info. Is it me or does this thread so really trite?
The Sox have Valentin? REALLY!?!?!
And why can't Konerko be traded because of this year? Does he have a no trade if I have a really crappy year and ground into 5,000 double plays clause?
Once again if the Cubs can get Hundley off their hands for more than a bag of balls anything is possible.

jeremyb1
11-18-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Jeremy Reed: He had a great year this year, but the earliest you can expect to see him on the big club is September, unless six or seven outfielders get hurt.

Those are just some things that needed to be cleared up. If anyone has any more or any questions, feel free to respond. :smile: [/B]

I agree with everything else you said but I see no reason that Reed not making the team out of the spring is a sure thing like the other items. The club has not made any statements about his role next season and already has one opening in the outfield with another likely to surface from a trade. Furthermore, Reed is easily one of the top five position playing prospects in the game and the team hasn't shown an unwillingness to give young players with promise a shot in the past. Just last season Olivo made the team out of spring training without any AAA experience.

washington
11-18-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by joepoe
Hey, the Chicago National League Baseball Club traded Todd Hundley, didn't they? Why can't KW get rid of the Piano Lugger?

Schu traded Jamie Navarro !! (with I think Snyder) for 2 guys who actually produced. So who knows maybe Konerko has market value

Daver
11-18-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Just last season Olivo made the team out of spring training without any AAA experience.

Olivo is not a good example,he made the team out of neccescity more than from anything else.

ewokpelts
11-18-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Daver
There is a large difference between a contractual clause as opposed to rights granted by the CBA.

While they sound the same, they are two completely different beasts. Most no trade clauses are in contracts where players went on the free agent market, and dont want to be used as trade bait. Frank's right of refusal stem s from Curt Flood's case against mlb and the resulting labor agreements made since.
Gene

HITMEN OF 77
11-18-2003, 07:00 PM
Living in Washington State and hearing nothing but about the Mariners (yuck) please don't get Mike Cameron. That guy talks so much crap about the white Sox and he hates them. I know he use to play for us, but I truley can't stand that guy or the Mariners for that matter. Why can't we get Everett back? Or is he too much?

jeremyb1
11-18-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Olivo is not a good example,he made the team out of neccescity more than from anything else.

I disagree. We could've signed a starting catcher with the money we paid Alomar but we decided we would rather give Olivo a shot and pay Alomar good money as a backup since we liked his presence in the clubhouse and more importantly thought he'd be a good tutor for Olivo. Additionally, We had around a million dollars left on the budget we tried to sign Rodgers with at the beginning of the spring, that money also could've been used to sign an additional catcher. We thought Olivo was ready for the job and wanted to start breaking him in. We didn't start him in 120 games last season simply because we had no other options.

poorme
11-18-2003, 07:28 PM
MarkV, the only point I disagree with is the last one about Reed. I believe he will get the opportunity to win the job and he will win it.

Daver
11-18-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I disagree. We could've signed a starting catcher with the money we paid Alomar but we decided we would rather give Olivo a shot and pay Alomar good money as a backup since we liked his presence in the clubhouse and more importantly thought he'd be a good tutor for Olivo. Additionally, We had around a million dollars left on the budget we tried to sign Rodgers with at the beginning of the spring, that money also could've been used to sign an additional catcher. We thought Olivo was ready for the job and wanted to start breaking him in. We didn't start him in 120 games last season simply because we had no other options.

When did you start working in the front office for the Sox?

:)


They handed Miguel the starters job on a short leash,with two other catchers (OK a catcher and a half) on the opening day roster,it was a gamble that worked.

jeremyb1
11-18-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Daver
When did you start working in the front office for the Sox?

:)


They handed Miguel the starters job on a short leash,with two other catchers (OK a catcher and a half) on the opening day roster,it was a gamble that worked.

Haha. 2 and a half catchers is accurate. We weren't absolutely positive he could handle it but I still think we tried knowing we could deal if it didn't work out.

ondafarm
11-18-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by MarkV
Kaz Matsui: The Sox have Valentin. Even if they wanted Matsui, they'd have to pay his current Japanese team an exorbitant amount. After that, they'd have to outbid ever other team in MLB to get his services.
[/B]
Matsui is truly a free-agent. No payment to his Japanese club is required, although certainly Daiei would expect a polite gift. An invite to American spring training (not unusual) or an exhibition game on atour at their homeground. Think considerate. (Oh yeah this is JR.) Think monetary, Jerry. Also, I think Matsui would be more persuable by other factors besides money. Offer him a good salary but make sure he's style of play is considered. Guillen can go a long way in that regards.