PDA

View Full Version : Score Reports Buehrle Deal "Likely" Done II


Pages : [1] 2

ukigdog
06-27-2007, 10:50 PM
Well, comcast said that they called 3 different hight white sox sources, and all said the rumors were false, no nothing happening with buehrle.

veeter
06-27-2007, 10:53 PM
Well, comcast said that they called 3 different hight white sox sources, and all said the rumors were false, no nothing happening with buehrle.There's definitely smoke here and hopefully fire. All these "sources" were probably told to keep their mouths shut.

Viva Medias B's
06-27-2007, 10:56 PM
Something is going on. Cowley and Ofman would not have ran with this is something wasn't going on.

ukigdog
06-27-2007, 10:57 PM
I agree that something is going on, i am seriously about 90 percent confident that buehrle will be in a sox uniform for years to come after that interview they just had with him.

He is a whitesox for life i feel it

ilsox7
06-27-2007, 10:58 PM
Something is going on. Cowley and Ofman would not have ran with this is something wasn't going on.

Regardless, it seems they completely jumped the gun by initially saying it was a done deal, then saying it was close to being done. What they should have said is that things were heating up and there was a good likelihood that Mark would re-sign. Instead, they gave up any integrity they once had to make a story.

Soxfanspcu11
06-27-2007, 11:00 PM
There is no doubt something going on! Something GOOD!!!

The Sox MUST RE-SIGN MARK!!!!! THEY JUST MUST!!!!!

This is really a no-brainer. I think that everyone knows that, and finally Kenny has come around.

IMHO, everyone else on this team is expendable, EXCEPT Mark.

Really quite simple, you build your team, your pitching staff around MB and Garland.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Kenny, make this "official" ASAP!!!!!

AZChiSoxFan
06-27-2007, 11:02 PM
TDOG,

way to pick only the examples that fit your view. I guess you believe that the Astros should not have parted with Larry Anderson in a trade deadline deal in the summer of 1990? After all, that young prospect they got in return, Jeff Bagwell, yeah, he never amounted to much.

ilsox7
06-27-2007, 11:02 PM
This is really a no-brainer. I think that everyone knows that, and finally Kenny has come around.


Please. It's not like KW woke up today and thought, "Hell, maybe it would be a good idea to sign Mark." He has always wanted to re-sign him, but could only do so within certain parameters. If anything, the last few days have shown that it's probably Mark who budged from a big stumbling block (years).

Viva Medias B's
06-27-2007, 11:03 PM
Regardless, it seems they completely jumped the gun by initially saying it was a done deal, then saying it was close to being done. What they should have said is that things were heating up and there was a good likelihood that Mark would re-sign. Instead, they gave up any integrity they once had to make a story.

It seemed like Ofman was going there in his latter updates by having the story at the "Buehrle is close to re-signing" line.

Martinigirl
06-27-2007, 11:03 PM
After seeing the clip of MB being interviewed after the game, I can't fathom how we don't sign him. He genuinely wants to be here and wants to work out a deal. I truly believe Kenny is too smart to let him walk.

bahn1225
06-27-2007, 11:03 PM
Something is going on. Cowley and Ofman would not have ran with this is something wasn't going on.

Cowley, I agree with you.
However,
Ofman is a stooge.:dunno:

Gavin
06-27-2007, 11:05 PM
I can't help but think Kenny Williams is saying to MB at this point:
"Look, we want you to stay in Chicago, you want to stay in Chicago, you want your family to stay in Chicago. Now, if we could just agree about some of these numbers, there'd be no need for us to have to deal you to whoever wants your contract."

ilsox7
06-27-2007, 11:05 PM
It seemed like Ofman was going there in his latter updates by having the story at the "Buehrle is close to re-signing" line.

According to those here that listened (I don't) that he not what he initially said. It appears whoever first broke this did so in the most dramatic way possible. After a day of reading and listening to what's been said, it certainly sounds like there is a decent chance Mark will re-sign. But to intimate it was a done deal was over the top. When will people stop listening to this crap so these stations will go out of business or hire respectable folks? Oh wait, never. Because we live among idiots.

rdivaldi
06-27-2007, 11:07 PM
During this entire Sign/Trade Buerhle fiasco I've read a lot of disparaging towards Mark's ability as a pitcher. To all those questioning his status as a #1 or #2 pitcher I ask you, would you have let Tom Glavine walk as a free agent?

As a special treat, here are Mark Buerhle and Tom Glavine stats up to their 28th birthday.

Glavine:
108- 75, 3.58 ERA, 233 GS, 30 CG, 12 SHO, 1522.3 IP, 1467 H, 513 BB, 904 SO, 109 ERA+

Buerhle:
101- 70, 3.80 ERA, 218 GS, 21 CG, 7 SHO, 1521 IP, 1554 H, 345 BB, 888 K, 121 ERA+

For those not familiar, ERA+ is adjusted to the league average and the park the player played in.

I'd think long and hard before trading or letting Tom Glavine walk in his prime. I think Mark should be given the same courtesy.

chisoxmike
06-27-2007, 11:07 PM
Sign & trade...

:dunno:

decolores9628
06-27-2007, 11:10 PM
Sign & trade...

:dunno:

I don't ever remeber a sign and trade happening in baseball. It is used in the NBA for salary cap reasons, which baseball doesnt have obivously.

tacosalbarojas
06-27-2007, 11:12 PM
After seeing the clip of MB being interviewed after the game, I can't fathom how we don't sign him. He genuinely wants to be here and wants to work out a deal. I truly believe Kenny is too smart to let him walk.
His postgame talk was pure 100% Buehrle, the guy is 100% genuine. The more I think about this it seems to me that he had his agent make one last effort to reopen talks and try to get something done. Whether or not it happens is a whole other topic. But it's clear from both his talk and his actions that he wants to stay. But it also has to make sense for him dollar-wise. Will it? Time will tell us.

CWSpalehoseCWS
06-27-2007, 11:13 PM
I don't ever remeber a sign and trade happening in baseball. It is used in the NBA for salary cap reasons, which baseball doesnt have obivously.
If that happened, the Sox would have to pay some of his contract for the next few years, which is idiotic if you ask me.

Flight #24
06-27-2007, 11:14 PM
I think it has happened, but usually to make a player more attractive by buying out arb years (Bronson Arroyo being the example that comes to mind).

But I cannot recall an incident where a player signed as an FA (or pending FA) and was dealt. Seems odd for the player unless he gets a great deal since he could wait and theoretically get a similar offer from the same team or maybe a better offer and pick his location. There is no way Buehrle gives a hometown discount AND goes without an NTC.

C'mon smoke. It would make no sense for Hahn to head to Tampa amid the rumors unless there were serious talks. Trades don't need to be done face to face, and anyway unless the talks are with Tampa why would he head there?

Rumors+Hahn trip+Sox non-denial+Ozzie's comments ("I think he'll be here") = optimism!

ilsox7
06-27-2007, 11:14 PM
During this entire Sign/Trade Buerhle fiasco I've read a lot of disparaging towards Mark's ability as a pitcher. To all those questioning his status as a #1 or #2 pitcher I ask you, would you have let Tom Glavine walk as a free agent?

As a special treat, here are Mark Buerhle and Tom Glavine stats up to their 28th birthday.

Glavine:
108- 75, 3.58 ERA, 233 GS, 30 CG, 12 SHO, 1522.3 IP, 1467 H, 513 BB, 904 SO, 109 ERA+

Buerhle:
101- 70, 3.80 ERA, 218 GS, 21 CG, 7 SHO, 1521 IP, 1554 H, 345 BB, 888 K, 121 ERA+

For those not familiar, ERA+ is adjusted to the league average and the park the player played in.

I'd think long and hard before trading or letting Tom Glavine walk in his prime. I think Mark should be given the same courtesy.

I've gone on record saying Mark is not a #1. I think he is a solid #2. Nothing really changes that opinion from my perspective. I'm not saying he is not a very good pitcher. I am just saying he is not a shutdown Ace, which is my definition of a #1.

anewman35
06-27-2007, 11:14 PM
If that happened, the Sox would have to pay some of his contract for the next few years, which is idiotic if you ask me.

And nobody would ever want to sign with the Sox again, if they'd pull a stunt like that. Why do people keep saying "sign and trade" without thinking about it at all? This is BASEBALL, it doesn't happen.

MRM
06-27-2007, 11:14 PM
After seeing the clip of MB being interviewed after the game, I can't fathom how we don't sign him.

I can't think of a single player ever signed based on a media interview.

Gavin
06-27-2007, 11:15 PM
I think it has happened, but usually to make a player more attractive by buying out arb years (Bronson Arroyo being the example that comes to mind).

But I cannot recall an incident where a player signed as an FA (or pending FA) and was dealt.

Not only that.. it's a tremendous risk for an organization to make. There's no reason why the White Sox are going to go through the transaction cost of gift-wrapping Mark for another team. Either make it your problem or theirs, but not both.

MRM
06-27-2007, 11:18 PM
Sign & trade...

:dunno:

Huh? This isn't basketball. There is no salary cap. AND ANY signing will include at least a short term no-trade clause. Garland got that much, so did Jose.

CLR01
06-27-2007, 11:21 PM
I can't think of a single player ever signed based on a media interview.

:rolleyes:

ShoelessJoeS
06-27-2007, 11:22 PM
Sign & trade...

:dunno:I HIGHLY doubt this will be a sign and trade for two reasons...

1. If Mark re-signs, it will certainly be for a "hometown discount," and turning around and immediately trading him will be nothing short of a Chuck Norris-style roundhouse kick to the face. Kenny doesn't roundhouse his own players. Maybe a buffet table or two; not White Sox.

2. If Mark re-signs, Kenny would be completely foolish to trade him given the calibur of pitcher Buehrle is, and especially for the price he would be getting him for. MB at roughly 12.5/per is an absolute steal.

I'm not saying that the Sox couldn't get a boatload in return, I'm just saying I HIGHLY doubt it will happen.

Martinigirl
06-27-2007, 11:23 PM
I can't think of a single player ever signed based on a media interview.

Clearly.

But the fact that in the interview he again reiterated his desire to stay with the Sox and I believe him to be genuine in his desire to stay, seems to indicate he more than willing to listen if Kenny is willing to give him a reasonable offer. He doesn't seem hell bent on going to free agency to test the market and break the bank.

CLR01
06-27-2007, 11:26 PM
Well, comcast said that they called 3 different hight white sox sources, and all said the rumors were false, no nothing happening with buehrle.

Maybe everyone misunderstood and Buehrle really signed the extension with St. Louis? :dunno:

ukigdog
06-27-2007, 11:26 PM
OK i got a great read that pretty much sums everything up and is what i think the truth with everything...... just posted on foxsports:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6967378


after reading this i have to agree with a previous poster, buehrle will be signed within a few days!!!

MRM
06-27-2007, 11:29 PM
Clearly.

But the fact that in the interview he again reiterated his desire to stay with the Sox and I believe him to be genuine in his desire to stay, seems to indicate he more than willing to listen if Kenny is willing to give him a reasonable offer. He doesn't seem hell bent on going to free agency to test the market and break the bank.

Or a media ploy to force the Sox to the table. Don't mean to sound so cynical, but I've also posted why I believe the Sox could have started the rumor themselves.

chisoxfanatic
06-27-2007, 11:30 PM
I'm waiting until Mike North confirms the deal to be done! Then I'll be hosting a ticker-tape parade on my block here in Bridgeport. All WSI posters are invited.

decolores9628
06-27-2007, 11:31 PM
OK i got a great read that pretty much sums everything up and is what i think the truth with everything...... just posted on foxsports:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6967378


after reading this i have to agree with a previous poster, buehrle will be signed within a few days!!!

After reading that I don't think Buehrle will be signed according to Ken but I think he will be, or at least I hope he does sign.

CLR01
06-27-2007, 11:33 PM
Boston fans are assuring themselves that if the extension talks are true it just confirms that the Sox are looking to trade Mark. Something about the Sox taking care of the dirty work for the Red Cubs.

I guess no one ever said they were intelligent.

TDog
06-27-2007, 11:45 PM
TDOG,

way to pick only the examples that fit your view. I guess you believe that the Astros should not have parted with Larry Anderson in a trade deadline deal in the summer of 1990? After all, that young prospect they got in return, Jeff Bagwell, yeah, he never amounted to much.

I mentioned five examples, I think, and three don't fit my view. I mentioned one of the greatest pitchers of all time being traded at the age of 19 before he ever won a game. In the vernacular of WSI, Christy Mathewson > Jeff Bagwell.

I also could have mentioned the Mariners got Freddy Garcia, Carlos Guillen and John Halama at the deadline for Randy Johnson. But the examples of forgettable players with marginal careers being exchanged for beloved home town stars are more abundant.

I may be in the minority of people here because I would rather the Sox not trade Mark Buehrle even if they can't sign him. I think the people who don't want to sign Buehrle because they want to trade him are in the minority as well.

As for the sign and trade thing, in baseball, that would be considered to be a bad faith deal. Most players would prevent that with no-trade clauses. The point is probably moot.

lakeviewsoxfan
06-27-2007, 11:49 PM
I remember posting a fair offer would be 4/60MM with a team option for 16MM in 13-14 seasons. I think that is a very reasonable contract for the market Buerhle has a chance to pocket 92MM in 6 years not to shabby.

ilsox7
06-27-2007, 11:51 PM
I remember posting a fair offer would be 4/60MM with a team option for 16MM in 13-14 seasons. I think that is a very reasonable contracts for the market Buerhle has a chance to pocket 90MM in 6 years not to shabby.

I agree with the 4/60 part, but the team options are not really that fair to Mark. It gives all of the leverage to the Sox. Mark would be better off as a free agent after 4 years.

HotelWhiteSox
06-27-2007, 11:57 PM
Either the Sox are planting this or someone at the Score is having a good laugh? Unless Mark just wants to keep it quiet incase things don't work out, not wanting numbers out for other teams (though it wouldn't matter as much). Just weird with the SunTimes "Exclusive" story, Score report, and then everyone in Buehrle's camp to say there haven't even been new converstations. There are a few possibilites here.

MRM
06-27-2007, 11:58 PM
I mentioned five examples, I think, and three don't fit my view. I mentioned one of the greatest pitchers of all time being traded at the age of 19 before he ever won a game. In the vernacular of WSI, Christy Mathewson > Jeff Bagwell.

As someone who disagrees with you (partially) I'll back up that you absolutely did include examples that go against your view.

The thing you seem to neglect is that you aren't just trading talent for talent in such a situation. No, the Sox are NOT going to get equal "talent" back in a trade for MB. If such a trade happens, MB will be controlled by his new team for 2 MONTHS. In such a situation it's completely unreasonable to think you are going to get an equal amount of talent back.

RowanDye
06-28-2007, 12:00 AM
OK i got a great read that pretty much sums everything up and is what i think the truth with everything...... just posted on foxsports:

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6967378


after reading this i have to agree with a previous poster, buehrle will be signed within a few days!!!

This part of the article is what has been causing me some reservation as this thing dragged on through the day:

"It is possible the White Sox are preparing one last push to sign Buehrle before trading him."

I would really like to know what the initial reports this morning were based on. Did the Score, Tribune, Sun-Times, etc. have a source that told them a deal is done or were they just speculating. If all they did was run with the fact that Buehrle's agent and the Sox top contract negotiator are both in Tampa, they may be misleading us.

Rather than a deal being "imminent", it could just be a last ditch, good faith effort from KW.

As Rosenthal points out, KW could have said let's try to work something out one more time before I pull the trigger on a trade.

I know we have heard that Buehrle might go for a 4 year contract, but how optimistic should we be that the two sides can reach a compromise when they've failed to do so for the past year?

areilly
06-28-2007, 12:12 AM
This part of the article is what has been causing me some reservation as this thing dragged on through the day:

"It is possible the White Sox are preparing one last push to sign Buehrle before trading him."


Yes, but the very next sentence:

"It also is possible that the Sox are floating the idea of a Buehrle extension to goad prospective trade partners into increasing their offers for the pitcher."

essentially reduces the Fox piece entirely from news to saying that the gossip is out there. Again, we know as much as the media. Which, as shown repeatedly today, is not much.

areilly
06-28-2007, 12:16 AM
I've gone on record saying Mark is not a #1. I think he is a solid #2. Nothing really changes that opinion from my perspective. I'm not saying he is not a very good pitcher. I am just saying he is not a shutdown Ace, which is my definition of a #1.

I couldn't agree more: Game 7 of the WS and I can think of a LOT of pitchers I would call on before Buerhle. The thing is, there doesn't seem to be a well-defined #2 deal out there. Fine time for MB to define one, then.

CWSpalehoseCWS
06-28-2007, 12:18 AM
I couldn't agree more: Game 7 of the WS and I can think of a LOT of pitchers I would call on before Buerhle. The thing is, there doesn't seem to be a well-defined #2 deal out there. Fine time for MB to define one, then.

I have the idea that Buehrle is a #1, but not the Santana/Sabathia power pitching #1 that everyone thinks about, more of a control type.

DoItForDanPasqua
06-28-2007, 12:24 AM
I couldn't agree more: Game 7 of the WS and I can think of a LOT of pitchers I would call on before Buerhle. The thing is, there doesn't seem to be a well-defined #2 deal out there. Fine time for MB to define one, then.

He's had quite a few opening day starts for Sox teams with good starting pitching; that makes him a number one starter. I also can think of several pitchers I would start in game 7 before Buehrle, but consistency and reliability are factors that make you an ace as well.

ilsox7
06-28-2007, 12:25 AM
He's had quite a few opening day starts for Sox teams with good starting pitching; that makes him a number one starter. I also can think of several pitchers I would start in game 7 before Buehrle, but consistency and reliability are factors that make you an ace as well.

Starting Opening Day does not make a pitcher a true #1, by the definition that I and many others use.

DoItForDanPasqua
06-28-2007, 12:28 AM
Starting Opening Day does not make a pitcher a true #1, by the definition that I and many others use.

I disagree, it's an honor given to the team's ace.

oeo
06-28-2007, 12:28 AM
Starting Opening Day does not make a pitcher a true #1, by the definition that I and many others use.

Alright, we get it; he's not Johan Santana.

Yet, he is our #1 and no matter what people say, has been for years. Not to mention, he can duel with the best of them, too. He's a winner, and in my eyes a #1. Any guy that can give us a great chance to win no matter who the opponent has going, is a #1 to me.

Noneck
06-28-2007, 12:30 AM
I have the idea that Buehrle is a #1, but not the Santana/Sabathia power pitching #1 that everyone thinks about, more of a control type.

I always imagine Burls dishing junk up there for another 15 years, like Kenny Rogers, that is as long he learns the true worth of pine tar.

ilsox7
06-28-2007, 12:31 AM
Alright, we get it; he's not Johan Santana.

Yet, he is our #1 and no matter what people say, has been for years. Not to mention, he can duel with the best of them, too. He's a winner, and in my eyes a #1. Any guy that can give us a great chance to win no matter who the opponent has going, is a #1 to me.

See, this is why I hate getting into this discussion. Everyone assumes I hate Mark or do not think he is a good pitcher. All I am saying is that b/c you happen to be the best pitcher on a team does not make you a #1. Everyone is certainly free to disagree with that. I have no issue with it. But if people bring it up and I state my opinion, it's not exactly fair for me to be painted in a light of not thinking Mark is a very good pitcher. And yes, that has been done several times over the last few days.

DoItForDanPasqua
06-28-2007, 12:32 AM
See, this is why I hate getting into this discussion. Everyone assumes I hate Mark or do not think he is a good pitcher. All I am saying is that b/c you happen to be the best pitcher on a team does not make you a #1. Everyone is certainly free to disagree with that. I have no issue with it. But if people bring it up and I state my opinion, it's not exactly fair for me to be painted in a light of not thinking Mark is a very good pitcher. And yes, that has been done several times over the last few days.

See what spending the day listening to the Score has done to us?

Soxfanspcu11
06-28-2007, 12:33 AM
Please. It's not like KW woke up today and thought, "Hell, maybe it would be a good idea to sign Mark." He has always wanted to re-sign him, but could only do so within certain parameters. If anything, the last few days have shown that it's probably Mark who budged from a big stumbling block (years).


What??

A few days ago it seemed as if KW was drooling over the chance to trade Mark. He made it VERY obvious that he was looking to move Mark, he showed NO indication that he was interested in re-signing him. If you have been watching this play out, at least since Sunday, then you would see how this entire situation has done a complete 180.

Nearly EVERYONE thought that Mark was gone. And now it looks as if Mark will stay (THANK GOD).

Sure there was/is differences between the Sox and Mark and Mark's agent regarding years and money. But the situation that they are in today (Wednesday) is soooooo much different than the situation just a few days ago.

Whether it's Kenny finally coming to his senses and realizing just how valuable Mark is or what, who cares, as long as Mark stays, that's all that matters.

pmck003
06-28-2007, 12:33 AM
See what spending the day listening to the Score has done to us?

:D:

ilsox7
06-28-2007, 12:33 AM
See what spending the day listening to the Score has done to us?

I don't listen to the Score. I am trying to keep any level of intelligence I may have been blessed with and listening to that crap would be make more stupid by the second. However, I was blessed with having to deal with Comcast today, which meant I could not go into work and had to resort to sitting around al lay while they made idiots of themselves.

oeo
06-28-2007, 12:34 AM
See, this is why I hate getting into this discussion. Everyone assumes I hate Mark or do not think he is a good pitcher. All I am saying is that b/c you happen to be the best pitcher on a team does not make you a #1. Everyone is certainly free to disagree with that. I have no issue with it. But if people bring it up and I state my opinion, it's not exactly fair for me to be painted in a light of not thinking Mark is a very good pitcher. And yes, that has been done several times over the last few days.

No, I never said you hate him...nor did I say you thought he was a bad pitcher. I disagree with your definition of a #1 pitcher, though.

areilly
06-28-2007, 12:35 AM
Alright, we get it; he's not Johan Santana.

Yet, he is our #1 and no matter what people say, has been for years. Not to mention, he can duel with the best of them, too. He's a winner, and in my eyes a #1. Any guy that can give us a great chance to win no matter who the opponent has going, is a #1 to me.

Of course he's the Sox' #1, but I would be too if Scott Schoeneweis and Rocky Biddle were pitching behind me.

:rolling: Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

ilsox7
06-28-2007, 12:37 AM
What??

A few days ago it seemed as if KW was drooling over the chance to trade Mark. He made it VERY obvious that he was looking to move Mark, he showed NO indication that he was interested in re-signing him. If you have been watching this play out, at least since Sunday, then you would see how this entire situation has done a complete 180.

Nearly EVERYONE thought that Mark was gone. And now it looks as if Mark will stay (THANK GOD).

Sure there was/is differences between the Sox and Mark and Mark's agent regarding years and money. But the situation that they are in today (Wednesday) is soooooo much different than the situation just a few days ago.

Whether it's Kenny finally coming to his senses and realizing just how valuable Mark is or what, who cares, as long as Mark stays, that's all that matters.

You said that you were glad KW finally woke up and decided he wanted to re-sign Mark. KW has tried to re-sign Mark numerous times over the last 12 months. All I said is that it's not like he all of a sudden decided today that, "Hey, Mark is pretty good. Maybe I ought to try to sign him."

He's done exactly that for quite some time now. After today's events, it seems quite clear that if Mark is going to re-sign, it will be for 4 years. That would be a big compromise on at least Mark's part, if not both sides. Hence, I responded to your comment that KW finally gets it by saying that KW has gotten it all along, he just wouldn't go past 4 years.

CWSpalehoseCWS
06-28-2007, 12:37 AM
Whether it's Kenny finally coming to his senses and realizing just how valuable Mark is or what, who cares, as long as Mark stays, that's all that matters.

If these talks to re-sign are true, I would bet KW didn't get any offers that he thought were top notch. He probably couldn't get any top of the line specs, similar to what happened with Soriano last year.

ilsox7
06-28-2007, 12:39 AM
No, I never said you hate him...nor did I say you thought he was a bad pitcher. I disagree with your definition of a #1 pitcher, though.

And that's totally cool. Plenty of others have intimated that I disparaged Mark as a pitcher, though. Hence my comments about that.

I've been up front that Mark has never been one of my favorite White Sox players. That doesn't mean I dislike him, just that I like others better. However, as I said earlier today, if he signs for 4 years and 50-60MM, he will have earned a lot of respect in my book.

As for the definition of a #1, I have no problem if people don't see it the way I do. The world would be boring if everyone agreed with me. I mean, we couldn't live in a world where everyone is right. :D:

ilsox7
06-28-2007, 12:41 AM
If these talks to re-sign are true, I would bet KW didn't get any offers that he thought were top notch. He probably couldn't get any top of the line specs, similar to what happened with Soriano last year.

I think if today's rumors are true, it was more of Mark realizing he could be out of Chicago within 24 hours. That may have budged him off of the 5 year requirement. Of course, this is all speculation. When he decided to budge off of that, KW pulled him off the market, knowing there is a good chance they can agree on a reasonable 4 year deal.

DSpivack
06-28-2007, 12:44 AM
And that's totally cool. Plenty of others have intimated that I disparaged Mark as a pitcher, though. Hence my comments about that.

I've been up front that Mark has never been one of my favorite White Sox players. That doesn't mean I dislike him, just that I like others better. However, as I said earlier today, if he signs for 4 years and 50-60MM, he will have earned a lot of respect in my book.

As for the definition of a #1, I have no problem if people don't see it the way I do. The world would be boring if everyone agreed with me. I mean, we couldn't live in a world where everyone is right. :D:

I think a #1 means that a guy should be among the top 30 starters in baseball. I think Buehrle qualifies. Top 5, no. Top 10, probably not either.

Also, a world where everyone is right would be extremely boring. There's a reason I don't listen to Garrison Keiller & Lake Wobegon.

kevingrt
06-28-2007, 12:48 AM
I think a #1 means that a guy should be among the top 30 starters in baseball. I think Buehrle qualifies. Top 5, no. Top 10, probably not either.

Also, a world where everyone is right would be extremely boring. There's a reason I don't listen to Garrison Keiller & Lake Wobegon.

Depends what the criteria is for top 5 or top 10. The thing about Burly is you can rely on him every fifth day. Some of the top starters in the league or that ESPN hypes aren't there every fifth day. A lot of pitchers are injury prone. But Burly is just so consistent and even if he is sucking he will still eat innings for you (Hell and sometimes win, anyone remember the Twins game where he gave up 7 in the first and still won?)

I just cannot see the Sox not resigning him. Whoever leaked the info to Cowley and Offman would be shot then.

MRM
06-28-2007, 12:55 AM
Of course he's the Sox' #1, but I would be too if Scott Schoeneweis and Rocky Biddle were pitching behind me.

:rolling: Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

Then you are among those who believe win-loss record is meaningless?

Soxfanspcu11
06-28-2007, 12:59 AM
If these talks to re-sign are true, I would bet KW didn't get any offers that he thought were top notch. He probably couldn't get any top of the line specs, similar to what happened with Soriano last year.

If that is indeed true, then that would be very upsetting to know. Mark is just one of those guys that you MUST keep, at all costs. You need to let JD go to afford him? Then so be it. It upsets me very much that Mark was the one talked about so much in a trade, it just makes no sense and has me questioning Kenny's sanity if that was indeed true.

You said that you were glad KW finally woke up and decided he wanted to re-sign Mark. KW has tried to re-sign Mark numerous times over the last 12 months. All I said is that it's not like he all of a sudden decided today that, "Hey, Mark is pretty good. Maybe I ought to try to sign him."

He's done exactly that for quite some time now. After today's events, it seems quite clear that if Mark is going to re-sign, it will be for 4 years. That would be a big compromise on at least Mark's part, if not both sides. Hence, I responded to your comment that KW finally gets it by saying that KW has gotten it all along, he just wouldn't go past 4 years.

Well, I would have to respectfully disagree.

I don't believe that Kenny has been that serious about re-signing Mark. At least not as serious as I would have liked him to be. I wish that Kenny would have signed him in the winter, and all of this would be a non-issue. I could understand that Kenny might have had second thoughts about Mark, especially after the '06 that Mark had. Also, the fact that JR has probably told Kenny a thousand times that he just won't go past 3 years probably played a big part.

All of which brings me back to my point that I just don't believe that Kenny was/is all that crazy about bringing Mark back. And my suspicions of that were enhanced by the way Kenny was talking back on Sunday. I was really put off by the way Kenny was saying things like, "Mark won't be traded, at least not today". And then of course all of the rumors floating around. The fact that watching Sunday Night Baseball on ESPN, I had to keep seeing the scroll on the bottom of the screen that said, "White Sox looking to trade Mark Buehrle". It's not like those rumors and stories were just out of thin air. On Sunday and Monday, it really looked like Kenny REALLY wanted to move Mark. And it even looked like, at least to me, that he was so dedicated and determined to get rid of Mark, that he was willing to get the bad end of a deal just to get rid of him.

The fact that in just a few days, Kenny's opinion and stance has completely changed is very exciting and refreshing. Like I said, I disagree with you when you say that Kenny has tried to sign Mark all along. I just don't believe that to be true.

It just seems, again, at least to me, that Kenny has FINALLY come around within the last 48 hours, and has finally realized that you build a team AROUND Mark Buehrle. EVERYONE and ANYONE else on this team could go, but not Mark.

Vernam
06-28-2007, 01:11 AM
I think if today's rumors are true, it was more of Mark realizing he could be out of Chicago within 24 hours. That may have budged him off of the 5 year requirement. Of course, this is all speculation. When he decided to budge off of that, KW pulled him off the market, knowing there is a good chance they can agree on a reasonable 4 year deal.I agree. I think the leak (if it can even be called that) may have come from Buehrle or his agent, rather than from the Sox. Cowley is not well-liked by members of the organization -- look at Reifert's blog for evidence. Doesn't make sense that they'd give him a scoop like this. I know Buehrle's agent denied that there has been movement, but that could easily be a smoke screen.

I just cannot see the Sox not resigning him. Whoever leaked the info to Cowley and Offman would be shot then.I agree it will be a huge letdown now if they don't work out a contract, but this smells like a desperate effort by someone, and I think it's Buehrle trying one last time to stay. With a baby about to arrive, getting traded would have to suck. Hahn's flight to Tampa, IMO, reinforces that it was Buehrle's camp that leaked the info that he might settle for four years. If that turns out to be true and Kenny still doesn't sign him, the media and fans will go nuts.

Vernam

Slats
06-28-2007, 01:13 AM
One of my favorite memories as a Sox fan was seeing Mark running in from the bullpen to get the save in game 3 of the World Series.

Man. I hope he's a White Sox for life :Rocker::Rocker::Rocker:

areilly
06-28-2007, 01:25 AM
Then you are among those who believe win-loss record is meaningless?

I don't believe it's meaningless, but I do believe it's misleading and definitely overemphasized.

guillen4life13
06-28-2007, 01:44 AM
Kenny is playing the media like a politician. This is very entertaining in a sick, 3rd person way.

I really hope they sign Buehrle, but I have a depressing, gut feeling that KW is just doing this to try and get the other GM's/scouts to crap or get off the pot with an reasonable offer.

WhiteSox5187
06-28-2007, 03:50 AM
I agree. I think the leak (if it can even be called that) may have come from Buehrle or his agent, rather than from the Sox. Cowley is not well-liked by members of the organization -- look at Reifert's blog for evidence. Doesn't make sense that they'd give him a scoop like this. I know Buehrle's agent denied that there has been movement, but that could easily be a smoke screen.

I agree it will be a huge letdown now if they don't work out a contract, but this smells like a desperate effort by someone, and I think it's Buehrle trying one last time to stay. With a baby about to arrive, getting traded would have to suck. Hahn's flight to Tampa, IMO, reinforces that it was Buehrle's camp that leaked the info that he might settle for four years. If that turns out to be true and Kenny still doesn't sign him, the media and fans will go nuts.

Vernam
Had I read this post at say, one o'clock this afternoon, I would not have believed it because I was listening in to the Score (I shall never recover the part of my brain taht was destroyed while doing that) thinking that we were about to sign him at any second. Maybe it is because I'm tired or maybe it is because of a variety of reasons but as I write this now, I'm starting to think that that maybe true. Somebody here jumped the gun. Whether or not this was info released from a Sox source trying to calm down an edgy fan base, something released by Buerhle's camp as one last desperate plea to stay or in fact is the truth and we wake up on Friday to see Mark has re-signed, only time will tell. I'm really hoping that we see him re-sign soon (and I didn't see the post game clips of him, but truth be told I can only think of one player saying "I want to leave here..." and that was Jack McDowell) but at the same time I wouldn't be shocked if this deal fell through the cracks kinda like the Magglio deal did, thank you Bruce Levine...we'll see. Tommorrow it might be that we're ready to trade him to the Nationals. At the rate things are going, I wouldn't be surprised.

delben91
06-28-2007, 06:52 AM
Latest from tailgunner Joe (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/446970,CST-SPT-ssep28.article).

I want to believe it...but I just can't get there from here. I can see KW not being involved and Rick Hahn handling the negotiations. I can't picture neither Mark nor his agent being involved and that Mark's relatives are handling it?

Just a mental leap I can't make.

harwar
06-28-2007, 07:22 AM
and that Mark's relatives are handling it?

I wonder if Buehrle's pregnant wife is involved .. "I don't want to leave Chicago". then an hour later .. .."I can't wait to get away from here"... mood swings are a big part of the package.:?:

bryPt
06-28-2007, 07:40 AM
JUST GET IT DONE ALREADY!

One again, the media in this town jumps the gun. I had to turn the radio off yesterday.

We will know once it is on the sox website, until then, I cannot pay attention anymore.

itsnotrequired
06-28-2007, 08:18 AM
I wonder if Buehrle's pregnant wife is involved .. "I don't want to leave Chicago". then an hour later .. .."I can't wait to get away from here"... mood swings are a big part of the package.:?:

They probably can't get a deal done becuase Buehrle is always running out to get her pickles and ice cream.

The Immigrant
06-28-2007, 08:32 AM
Prior to yesterday's broadcast, Farmer said that Buehrle told him he's looking for $14 million/year. If Mark has backed off his reported demand for a 5-year contract, this deal is a no-brainer and will get done. The lack of public comments by either side is not surprising given that KW and Mark agreed during the offseason to keep all extension negotiations private. See Merkin's article on that here: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061204&content_id=1750901&vkey=hotstove2006&fext=.jsp&partnered=rss_mlb

"Buehrle and Garcia both have one year left on their respective contracts, but Williams begged off a question Monday in regard to contract extensions being broached with either pitcher. It's an indirect approach Williams rarely takes, but he was honoring an agreement made with one of the two pitchers not to talk about the negotiations."

(Credit to The Cheat at southsidesox.com for this find)

There obviously have been some leaks from the Sox but nothing that would poison the water. My guess is that Kenny and Mark have a handshake deal on a 4-year extension in the $56 million range and are letting Hahn and Berry work out the details. In the meantime, everyone involved is pleading ignorance and, frankly, having some fun with the reporters. But there's simply too much smoke right now for this to be a false alarm.

Hitmen77
06-28-2007, 09:19 AM
.....and so we enter Day 2 of the "Buehrle Deal Likely Done" rumor.......

1917
06-28-2007, 09:39 AM
Prior to yesterday's broadcast, Farmer said that Buehrle told him he's looking for $14 million/year. If Mark has backed off his reported demand for a 5-year contract, this deal is a no-brainer and will get done. The lack of public comments by either side is not surprising given that KW and Mark agreed during the offseason to keep all extension negotiations private. See Merkin's article on that here: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061204&content_id=1750901&vkey=hotstove2006&fext=.jsp&partnered=rss_mlb

"Buehrle and Garcia both have one year left on their respective contracts, but Williams begged off a question Monday in regard to contract extensions being broached with either pitcher. It's an indirect approach Williams rarely takes, but he was honoring an agreement made with one of the two pitchers not to talk about the negotiations."

(Credit to The Cheat at southsidesox.com for this find)

There obviously have been some leaks from the Sox but nothing that would poison the water. My guess is that Kenny and Mark have a handshake deal on a 4-year extension in the $56 million range and are letting Hahn and Berry work out the details. In the meantime, everyone involved is pleading ignorance and, frankly, having some fun with the reporters. But there's simply too much smoke right now for this to be a false alarm.

4 years x 14 = 56....Buehrle # is 56....thats fate his you ask me, and more than fair for his services

soxfan13
06-28-2007, 09:41 AM
In the times this morning there is a mention that Williams has put a deadline for friday to get this done.

voodoochile
06-28-2007, 09:44 AM
4 years x 14 = 56....Buehrle # is 56....thats fate his u ask me, and more then fair for his services

I'd actually assume there would be a 5th year team option with a $4M buyout to bring the entire package to $60M. It's a compromise that works for everyone and Buehrle would be getting something back for his reduction in years requested.

salty99
06-28-2007, 09:52 AM
I hope this gets done by the Friday deadline.

barryball
06-28-2007, 09:56 AM
My gut says it's 80/20 the deal gets done if it's $14m for 4 years plus an option for year 5 with a buyout all based upon year 4 stats. The only bad thing about this is that Morinetti get's some level of credit about writing about this last week.

Flight #24
06-28-2007, 10:00 AM
FWLIW, interesting bit in Rozner's article today:



With the Sox on record as saying they’d never go past three years on a pitcher’s contract, and with Buehrle knowing there would be at least five or six years waiting for him on the open market worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million, there was no common ground.
Until Jerry Reinsdorf said OK to four years. That, at the least, has given the two sides something to talk about, and that’s all that’s happening right now.

That makes it seem like this latest round was instigated by the Sox rather than Burls.

I like the fact that it's now generally acknowledged that there are discussions that began with "intermediaries", including the coaching staff and Burls' family and has now progressed to the agent & Hahn.

Given that the coaches were involved, it's especially nice that Ozzie's been quoted as saying "I think he'll stay" and "We said it was time to talk to the agent", which makes it seem like the general framework had been hammered out. That's very very nice to read.

IMO the perfect deal would be 4/$56 with a 5th year option at $17M or a $4M buyout. That puts it at a 4/$60, or 5/$73 which is just about market rate for Mark with a slight hometown discount of $1-2M/yr.

Goose
06-28-2007, 10:01 AM
My gut says it's 80/20 the deal gets done if it's $14m for 4 years plus an option for year 5 with a buyout all based upon year 4 stats. The only bad thing about this is that Morinetti get's some level of credit about writing about this last week.

Marriotti is a hack. In what little I unfortunately read in today's column, he is placing the reason for these possible negotiations being rekindled on the Cubs sudden "turnaround" and 6 game winstreak. I stopped reading after that, but he is definitely pulling **** out of his ass.

bugsandcranks13
06-28-2007, 10:05 AM
Mod Edit: Don't spam the site with links to your baseball forums if you want to stay a member here.

I just think Buehrle's blue collar attitude and sense of loyalty to the Sox makes the thought of trading him or losing him to free agency ridiculous.

Trade Contreras and/or Vazquez and build around Buehrle and Garland with the youngsters...Danks, Gio, Masset, Floyd and Russell.

And get some middle infield help in return please!!!

:cool:

Flight #24
06-28-2007, 10:11 AM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=89635
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1619709#post1619709

Yeah, I'd say you're the only one interested.

tebman
06-28-2007, 10:22 AM
Marriotti is a hack...
I stopped reading after that, but he is definitely pulling **** out of his ass.

'Twas ever thus.

jabrch
06-28-2007, 10:38 AM
If that is indeed true, then that would be very upsetting to know. Mark is just one of those guys that you MUST keep, at all costs. You need to let JD go to afford him? Then so be it. It upsets me very much that Mark was the one talked about so much in a trade, it just makes no sense and has me questioning Kenny's sanity if that was indeed true.

There are no guys that you MUST keep. It all depends on how you can use your limited resources to put the best team on the field. If Mark is willing to take a contract that the Sox can fit into their plans, then keeping him is good. If he isn't, then trading him for two MLB ready, top prospects is good. The only bad option is not extending him now, and losing him in FA for nothing but two draft picks. For JD, I'd take the one or two draft picks vs what we are likely to get in a trade if he doesn't turn it around and get healthy, but for Mark we should be able to get top tier talent, right now, for him if he isn't willing to resign at a number that KW feels he can afford without tying this team down to one contract.

ND_Sox_Fan
06-28-2007, 10:49 AM
The only bad thing about this is that Morinetti get's some level of credit about writing about this last week.

Yeah, and Al Gore gets credit for inventing the internet.

BNLSox
06-28-2007, 10:53 AM
Perhaps this thought is a thread hijack. I have not read through all the Buehrle postings, but my original thought was if Marky REALLY wants to stay with the Sox and also wants to help the team wouldn't giving him as a rental to the highest bidder and then resigning him the day thereafter serve as the best of both worlds? Sure there's obviously the risk involved with letting him hear other offers and letting him see what life on another team is like...But I think he and Kenny could sit down and agree to the terms of a future contract and Kenny could tell him that he not only could help with his own talent but also help the White Sox bring depth for the future through a trade.

Flight #24
06-28-2007, 10:55 AM
Perhaps this thought is a thread hijack. I have not read through all the Buehrle postings, but my original thought was if Marky REALLY wants to stay with the Sox and also wants to help the team wouldn't giving him as a rental to the highest bidder and then resigning him the day thereafter serve as the best of both worlds? Sure there's obviously the risk involved with letting him hear other offers and letting him see what life on another team is like...But I think he and Kenny could sit down and agree to the terms of a future contract and Kenny could tell him that he not only could help with his own talent but also help the White Sox bring depth for the future through a trade.

Highly unlikely. Burls likely doesn't want to move from Chicago when his wife's about to give birth. He also would prefer not to have the risk of injury. And the Sox would want not to face the risk that even if they came to an agreement, when actually faced with a significantly higher offer, Mark could get tempted and take it. It's one thing to "reject" potential offers, another to reject an actual one that possibly doubles your total pay.

lostfan
06-28-2007, 10:56 AM
Why is it there are so many people that are positively closed-minded to the idea of trading Buehrle? I understand he's a fan favorite (one of my favorites too and I don't want to see him go) but if getting something in return for Buehrle helps the team then so be it, gotta do what you gotta do. It's not like this is the NFL or the NBA where you have a Brian Urlacher or a LeBron James as the face of your franchise because they impact the team in a big way every single day. MLB SPs start every 5th day and ideally pitch just over 2/3 of the game. Of course their impact is significant, but not to the point where you blind yourself to any ideas that don't involve keeping one of your more solid starters at all costs. Open your mind a little.

soltrain21
06-28-2007, 10:56 AM
Perhaps this thought is a thread hijack. I have not read through all the Buehrle postings, but my original thought was if Marky REALLY wants to stay with the Sox and also wants to help the team wouldn't giving him as a rental to the highest bidder and then resigning him the day thereafter serve as the best of both worlds? Sure there's obviously the risk involved with letting him hear other offers and letting him see what life on another team is like...But I think he and Kenny could sit down and agree to the terms of a future contract and Kenny could tell him that he not only could help with his own talent but also help the White Sox bring depth for the future through a trade.

That has to be illegal in some way.

BNLSox
06-28-2007, 10:59 AM
That has to be illegal in some way.
Yeah that was the only concern I have. Also like the other poster mentioned in reference to the thought, it is a lot harder to turn your back on a real offer than just the potential of a higher off season offer. Just wanted to have my cake and eat it too.

BRDSR
06-28-2007, 11:03 AM
Does anybody know what the score is reporting now? When did they back off their "it's practically done" language and what language are they using now? Are they even covering the story or just shutting up and hoping nobody notices that they reported something at least partially (and possibly entirely) wrong for an entire day? Did anyone get fired?

SBSoxFan
06-28-2007, 11:05 AM
Does anybody know what the score is reporting now? When did they back off their "it's practically done" language and what language are they using now? Are they even covering the story or just shutting up and hoping nobody notices that they reported something at least partially (and possibly entirely) wrong for an entire day? Did anyone get fired?

This morning they reported a deal had to be done by Friday or that Buehrle would be traded.

soxfan13
06-28-2007, 11:05 AM
That has to be illegal in some way.

I would think its only illegal if Williams and MB agreed to do it behind closed doors. I am sure at some point a upcoming free agent has been traded at mid season only to come back to his original team.

AZChiSoxFan
06-28-2007, 11:28 AM
4 years x 14 = 56....Buehrle # is 56....thats fate his u ask me

Thank you Nancy Reagan.

dakuda
06-28-2007, 11:30 AM
I would think its only illegal if Williams and MB agreed to do it behind closed doors. I am sure at some point a upcoming free agent has been traded at mid season only to come back to his original team.

Geoff Blum. Granted he was on with San Diego for the first half of the 2005 season, but he went back there after the World Series.

veeter
06-28-2007, 11:36 AM
Ozzie's thrown out the, "I hope it gets done by the time we come home Sunday". Either way we'll know soon.

soxfan13
06-28-2007, 11:40 AM
Geoff Blum. Granted he was on with San Diego for the first half of the 2005 season, but he went back there after the World Series.

Forgot about Blum but was thinking someone of a higher profile.:gulp:

TDog
06-28-2007, 12:10 PM
Forgot about Blum but was thinking someone of a higher profile.:gulp:

Harold Baines has a higher profile than Geoff Blum. He was a midseason, free-agent year trade when he was playing for his hometown Orioles team. He went to Cleveland. He became a free agent and went back to Baltimore.

dakuda
06-28-2007, 12:11 PM
Forgot about Blum but was thinking someone of a higher profile.:gulp:

You didn't say high-profile. He was the first example to pop in my head. :redneck

jdm2662
06-28-2007, 12:16 PM
Harold Baines has a higher profile than Geoff Blum. He was a midseason, free-agent year trade when he was playing for his hometown Orioles team. He went to Cleveland. He became a free agent and went back to Baltimore.

Rickey Henderson was an even higher profile. A's trade him to the Blue Jays in 1993, wins a ring with the Jays, then re-signs with the A's in the offseason.

JohnTucker0814
06-28-2007, 12:25 PM
Rickey Henderson was an even higher profile. A's trade him to the Blue Jays in 1993, wins a ring with the Jays, then re-signs with the A's in the offseason.

Rickey... I hear he is still in good shape... can you say our next lead-off hitter? And he plays LF... couldn't be more perfect!

Hitmen77
06-28-2007, 12:27 PM
FWLIW, interesting bit in Rozner's article today:



That makes it seem like this latest round was instigated by the Sox rather than Burls.

I like the fact that it's now generally acknowledged that there are discussions that began with "intermediaries", including the coaching staff and Burls' family and has now progressed to the agent & Hahn.

Given that the coaches were involved, it's especially nice that Ozzie's been quoted as saying "I think he'll stay" and "We said it was time to talk to the agent", which makes it seem like the general framework had been hammered out. That's very very nice to read.

IMO the perfect deal would be 4/$56 with a 5th year option at $17M or a $4M buyout. That puts it at a 4/$60, or 5/$73 which is just about market rate for Mark with a slight hometown discount of $1-2M/yr.

If this report is true - it really says alot to me about Mark's interest in staying here and how loved he is by the Sox staff. This almost strikes me as the anti-Maggs approach. Instead of going the Boras route, his family is trying to help get negotiations jump-started because he wants to spend his career with the White Sox. Short of just taking a low-ball offer, that says alot to me about Mark being a team player.

I also liked reading this week about how MB has been mentoring Danks. I like the intangibles like this that Mark brings to the team.

I'm still doubtful, but I hope they get a deal done. As you suggested in your last paragraph, there is some gray area between a 4 yr and a 5 yr deal. Hopefully some combination of option year/buyout provision will be acceptable to both the Sox and to Buehrle.

voodoochile
06-28-2007, 01:06 PM
Why is it there are so many people that are positively closed-minded to the idea of trading Buehrle? I understand he's a fan favorite (one of my favorites too and I don't want to see him go) but if getting something in return for Buehrle helps the team then so be it, gotta do what you gotta do. It's not like this is the NFL or the NBA where you have a Brian Urlacher or a LeBron James as the face of your franchise because they impact the team in a big way every single day. MLB SPs start every 5th day and ideally pitch just over 2/3 of the game. Of course their impact is significant, but not to the point where you blind yourself to any ideas that don't involve keeping one of your more solid starters at all costs. Open your mind a little.

It would be illegal to trade him and then sign him while he is still under contract to the team he was traded to because it would be tampering. They would have to wait until the FA period started and hope that Mark didn't get re-signed by the team they traded him to during the exclusive period that team has prior to wide open FA starting.

Flight #24
06-28-2007, 02:27 PM
FWLIW, BP has an article on Burls potentially resigning. In the "free" bit, it seems like they compare him favorably to Zito (making the resigning seem like a great move) but then begin to talk about the risks on him long term.

Not sure how it ends tho.

Dauis
06-28-2007, 03:17 PM
The article basically ends by saying that his strikeout rate isn't great and how that doesn't give him much margin for error. It then lists the 53 pitchers going back to 1959 that have thrown at least 1300 innings by age 28 and struck out less than 6 a game. While there are a couple good pitchers on there (Tom Glavine, Tommy John), there are a lot of pitchers that weren't nearly as good in their 30s.

It concludes by saying that strikeout rate is the biggest predictor of a pitcher's success, so signing Mark is a big risk, even at a discount. Sheehan would trade him to bolster the outfield and spend the money on a shortstop or outfielder in free agency.

Goose
06-28-2007, 03:20 PM
The article basically ends by saying that his strikeout rate isn't great and how that doesn't give him much margin for error. It then lists the 53 pitchers going back to 1959 that have thrown at least 1300 innings by age 28 and struck out less than 6 a game. While there are a couple good pitchers on there (Tom Glavine, Tommy John), there are a lot of pitchers that weren't nearly as good in their 30s.

It concludes by saying that strikeout rate is the biggest predictor of a pitcher's success, so signing Mark is a big risk, even at a discount. Sheehan would trade him to bolster the outfield and spend the money on a shortstop or outfielder in free agency.


Fine by me. If the White Sox are th eonly ones that realize how good this guy is then we will keep him. Let the rest of the underappreciate while we reap the rewards.

PatK
06-28-2007, 03:41 PM
Marriotti is a hack. In what little I unfortunately read in today's column, he is placing the reason for these possible negotiations being rekindled on the Cubs sudden "turnaround" and 6 game winstreak. I stopped reading after that, but he is definitely pulling **** out of his ass.

As much as a dislike Jay, he brings up a good point.

Mark is one of the most popular players, and the Cubs to many are their biggest rival.

People are unhappy with the way the season is going, the Sox got their asses handed to them by the Cubs this year, and they are potentially getting rid of one of the fan favorites.

There's still whining over trading Rowand. Right now, there is a very unhappy fanbase.

Goose
06-28-2007, 04:58 PM
As much as a dislike Jay, he brings up a good point.

Mark is one of the most popular players, and the Cubs to many are their biggest rival.

People are unhappy with the way the season is going, the Sox got their asses handed to them by the Cubs this year, and they are potentially getting rid of one of the fan favorites.

There's still whining over trading Rowand. Right now, there is a very unhappy fanbase.

Be that as it may. KW and the rest of the Sox brass never have, never will do anything based on what the fans think in terms of players. That is what the Cubs do. They sign players to appease the sheep. $126MM or whatever ludicrous amount they spent on him for a LFer? Come on. That was not a strategic move, it was a "look, we spend money and are TRYING to win a championship" move so the fans will come back. They don't think about what they need and go get it...why do you think that they held onto the Wood/Prior tandem for so long? Because the sheep liked them, they were names that where on the backs of their jerseys. It was not a good baseball move...it they were concerned about baseball, they would have done something about their pitching staff years ago instead of relying on 2 gimps every year since 2003.

Lip Man 1
06-28-2007, 06:12 PM
Pitching wins pennants people or have you forgotten 2005 so soon?

If the Sox have a chance to keep one of the better pitchers in the game, good for them. I mean it's not like the minor leagues are going to produce enough quality and more importantly quantity of pitchers at the same time to suddenly all come up and start winning games.

Probably the last time the Sox had something like this happen was in the early 90's when guys like Jack, Jason Bere, Alvarez, Greg Hibbard, Melido and so forth all came up about the same time from the farm system or through trades and won games.

It just doesn't happen that often.

Sign Mark, then sign Garland to an extension and you have a solid rotation for the next few seasons.

Lip

voodoochile
06-28-2007, 06:25 PM
Pitching wins pennants people or have you forgotton 2005 so soon?

If the Sox have a chance to keep one of the better pitchers in the game, good for them. I mean it's not like the minor leagues are going to produce enough quality and more importantly quantity of pitchers at the same time to suddenly all come up and start winning games.

Probably the last time the Sox had something like this happen was in the early 90's when guys like Jack, Jason Bere, Alvarez, Greg Hibbard, Melido and so forth all came up about the same time from the farm system or through trades and won games.

It just doesn't happen that often.

Sign Mark, then sign Garland to an extension and you have a solid rotation for the next few seasons.

Lip

There it is. I don't understand why people are so anxious to trade instead of re-sign Mark. With Buehlre, Vazquez, Garland and Danks, the Sox have a solid top 4 for their rotation. 5th slot can either be filled by one of the young arms jumping up and grabbing the job (Floyd, Gio, Masset, etc.) or by signing another veteran during the off-season and figuring out how the rotation goes.

With Buehrle the Sox are still in the mix in the ALC for the next few years, without him, they are back to rebuilding from scratch, IMO and should then go ahead and trade Vazquez and Garland too.

I didn't mention Contreras in the mix, because I expect him to be traded before the deadline - something I don't have a major problem with because of his age. Should the Sox go on some kind of mythic run to get back in the race before the deadline, I don't have a problem with keeping him too and I don't think the Sox should jump at the first offer they get unless it is too damned amazing to pass up.

TDog
06-28-2007, 06:31 PM
There it is. I don't understand why people are so anxious to trade instead of re-sign Mark. ...

Neither do I. But I'm old enough to remember when Jerry Crider was starting games for the White Sox, because somebody had to.

Hitmen77
06-28-2007, 09:39 PM
Pitching wins pennants people or have you forgotton 2005 so soon?

...Sign Mark, then sign Garland to an extension and you have a solid rotation for the next few seasons.

Lip

There it is. I don't understand why people are so anxious to trade instead of re-sign Mark.

I don't get it either.

One thing I'm sure of is that one of the 4 veteran starters will be gone next year. If the Sox want to be competitive in this tough division, they have to have Buehrle and Garland anchor this rotation. Rookies plus an aging Jose and an always up-and-down Javy as our rotation will just be too inconsistent.

HoosierHerb
06-28-2007, 10:04 PM
Thank you posts 109-112, I hate it when people fall in love with potential of young players. We have a proven commodity in place, resign him and Garland, then reload as necessary around them.

kevingrt
06-28-2007, 10:12 PM
Thank you posts 109-112, I hate it when people fall in love with potential of young players. We have a proven commodity in place, resign him and Garland, then reload as necessary around them.

I agree you think people would figure out that how many times have youngsters won pennants and World Series rings? Not many actually twice both Fishy Florida teams. A solid, deep rotation wins championships not five star prospects.

Please resign Burly JR and KW.

munchman33
06-28-2007, 10:16 PM
Thank you posts 109-112, I hate it when people fall in love with potential of young players. We have a proven commodity in place, resign him and Garland, then reload as necessary around them.

Proven commodity or not, though, things happen. People get hurt. People get old. People regress. It's always a risk, and if 4/50 is what Buehrle's getting, while it's a bargain, it's not without its potential to be an albatross.

kevingrt
06-28-2007, 10:19 PM
Proven commodity or not, though, things happen. People get hurt. People get old. People regress. It's always a risk, and if 4/50 is what Buehrle's getting, while it's a bargain, it's not without its potential to be an albatross.

Well don't three prospects have the potential to be an "albatross?"

DSpivack
06-28-2007, 10:24 PM
I agree you think people would figure out that how many times have youngsters won pennants and World Series rings? Not many actually twice both Fishy Florida teams. A solid, deep rotation wins championships not five star prospects.

Please resign Burly JR and KW.

The '97 Marlins weren't very young.

munchman33
06-28-2007, 10:26 PM
Well don't three prospects have the potential to be an "albatross?"

If you sign them for big money? :?:

You can handcuff an organization with big contracts that prevent spending. If you build around younger players and it doesn't work out, you can at least go spend money.

Not saying I wouldn't do the Buehrle deal. Just trying to point out that locking up an expensive rotation can also have its problems, especially when your team has trouble drafting answers. Our organization seems to have better luck targeting talent others have drafted and developed.

Lip Man 1
06-28-2007, 10:32 PM
Munch:

Any type of move has the potential to be an 'albatross' if you let it.

Not saying you're wrong but in point of fact if you as an organization don't take any chances because of what 'might' happen, the odds are long that you don't win anything.

I don't want to get into the entire financial discussion but let's just say that I think 90% of all MLB teams can afford to take some chances and the White Sox are without question one of them.

To me the odds of sticking with a proven commodity have worked out a lot better for the club then relying on what the farm system has tended to deliver (or have you forgotten the All Star performances of guys like Arnie Munoz, Jon Rauch, Danny Wright, Brian West and their ilk?)


Lip

Lip Man 1
06-28-2007, 10:38 PM
By the way Scott Merkin now has a story on the Buehrle contract situation (at this hour) at White Sox.com.

Rick Hahn is now apparently back in Chicago saying nothing...neither is Mark or his agent.

Stay turned.

Lip

munchman33
06-28-2007, 10:41 PM
Munch:

Any type of move has the potential to be an 'albatross' if you let it.

Not saying you're wrong but in point of fact if you as an organization don't take any chances because of what 'might' happen, the odds are long that you don't win anything.

I don't want to get into the entire financial discussion but let's just say that I think 90% of all MLB teams can afford to take some chances and the White Sox are without question one of them.

To me the odds of sticking with a proven commodity have worked out a lot better for the club then relying on what the farm system has tended to deliver (or have you forgotten the All Star performances of guys like Arnie Munoz, Jon Rauch, Danny Wright, Brian West and their ilk?)

Lip

Lip

That brings back some horrific memories...

Finances are at the heart of it though. And I think the organization made a switch in philosophy to spend on its roster at the expense of player development, especially with the draft. I'd like to see more of a balance between the two. Relying on expensive players getting older can lead to seasons like this. It didn't happen with the starting pitching yet, but our position players are showing their age, and they're only getting older. Thome and Konerko will be here again next year. Older than this year. And at a very large cost.

Watching a guy like Porcello slip past us...and then go to the Tigers to boot.
Guess it's to develop that next Arnie Munoz...

munchman33
06-28-2007, 10:41 PM
By the way Scott Merkin now has a story on the Buehrle contract situation (at this hour) at White Sox.com.

Rick Hahn is now apparently back in Chicago saying nothing...neither is Mark or his agent.

Stay turned.

Lip

Well that doesn't sound too good.

hi im skot
06-28-2007, 10:44 PM
Well that doesn't sound too good.

Read the article...it's not as bad as it sounds...

DeadMoney
06-28-2007, 10:48 PM
By the way Scott Merkin now has a story on the Buehrle contract situation (at this hour) at White Sox.com.

Rick Hahn is now apparently back in Chicago saying nothing...neither is Mark or his agent.

Stay turned.

Lip

Hmm...this entire situation is like nothing I've ever seen before. Most of the front office, Buehrle's family, Buehrle's agent and more go down to TB for the 4 game series and everyone comes away tight-lipped. Then Buehrle decides to be funny as he, " gave the media the silent treatment with a smile." And then continued to add, "I don't want to say anything and get you guys confused." What the heck is going on here? (I DO really like Merkin's idea though since I'll be in attendence for the first time in about a month or so)

Lip Man 1
06-28-2007, 10:50 PM
Munch:

Well the Porcello situation is somewhat different.

His agent and the White Sox organization do not get along and in a story from Mark Gonzales on the new scouting director a few days ago apparently the policy of not drafting any of his clients will continue.

As Kenny would say, 'it is what it is...'

Lip

lakeviewsoxfan
06-28-2007, 11:01 PM
Munch:

Well the Porcello situation is somewhat different.

His agent and the White Sox organization do not get along and in a story from Mark Gonzales on the new scouting director a few days ago apparently the policy of not drafting any of his clients will continue.

As Kenny would say, 'it is what it is...'

Lip

I think the policy blows.

munchman33
06-28-2007, 11:03 PM
Munch:

Well the Porcello situation is somewhat different.

His agent and the White Sox organization do not get along and in a story from Mark Gonzales on the new scouting director a few days ago apparently the policy of not drafting any of his clients will continue.

As Kenny would say, 'it is what it is...'

Lip

it is pretty ****ty if you ask me.

we get burned by one guy in joe borchard and the organization does a drastic change in philosophy. it isn't the price of the pick so much as who you're getting. everybody knew porcello was a top of the rotation guy in about a year or two. well, maybe the sox don't know it yet. but they will in two years when he goes 4-0 against the sox and helps pitch detroit to another division title.

balke
06-28-2007, 11:04 PM
I think its a great policy. No agent should have a strangle hold on talent like Borass. This is one more reason the Sox should lock up Buehrle and Garland Long term.

DSpivack
06-28-2007, 11:07 PM
I think its a great policy. No agent should have a strangle hold on talent like Borass. This is one more reason the Sox should lock up Buehrle and Garland Long term.

Great policy? To restrict the talent you can bring in? I think it's a joke.

munchman33
06-28-2007, 11:08 PM
I think its a great policy. No agent should have a strangle hold on talent like Borass. This is one more reason the Sox should lock up Buehrle and Garland Long term.

Yeah, lock up a guy for tens of millions per year, but don't spend five million on a signing bonus for can't miss guys you control for at least half a decade.

I agree that Boras' major league client demands are a little crazy, but you can't not draft his guys simply because you don't like him.

balke
06-28-2007, 11:10 PM
Its not like they don't talk to Boras because he's just not a likeable guy. He's obviously tried lying, and screwing the Sox in negotiations. You don't need his business to win.

Goose
06-28-2007, 11:28 PM
Alright. I am tired of this ****. Why isn't anyone saying something about anything?!? All this **** started with those ********ers at the Suntimes and then the *******s over at the Score just fueled the fire and now we are left here holding our dorks in our hands waiting for a crumb of information.

I am tired of this ****.

WhiteSox5187
06-28-2007, 11:35 PM
The '97 Marlins weren't very young.
No, they weren't, but they weren't being brought in for a long term deal thing. The owner of the Marlins (I can't even attempt to spell his last name) told David Dombrowski to go out and get the type of players who can win a championship within a year or two. And then, ship them out for young talent. That is exactly what Dombrowski did and the guys from 1997 helped net the Marlins a championship in 2003.

As far as the Boras thing, I think it is silly to limit your talent because you dont like a guy. I'm not a fan of Boras, but at the same time to say "We're not going to negotiate with his clients" is a stupid buisness policy too. You don't have to like someone to work with them well. That is a huge part of life and one that the Sox seems to struggle with.

As far as the Buerhle situation, I'm not so sure what will happen anymore. A friend of mine from Scout magazine told me that he heard the Sox will try to re-sign him until Monday and then will put him back on the trading block. He also told me that he has a feeling the Sox are not going to re-sign him. I'm not sure what to believe, but someone really jumped the gun here in the media. Not the first time, sadly.

kba
06-28-2007, 11:47 PM
Hmm...this entire situation is like nothing I've ever seen before. Most of the front office, Buehrle's family, Buehrle's agent and more go down to TB for the 4 game series and everyone comes away tight-lipped. Then Buehrle decides to be funny as he, " gave the media the silent treatment with a smile." And then continued to add, "I don't want to say anything and get you guys confused." What the heck is going on here? (I DO really like Merkin's idea though since I'll be in attendence for the first time in about a month or so)

The quote is a little different in the AP story. Burhrle says the contract situation is "ongoing."


"There's no comment on any contract situation because it's ongoing, and I don't want to say anything and get you guys confused," Buehrle said. "I haven't heard any deadlines or anything like that."http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070628soxgamer,1,6753979.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

GoSox2K3
06-28-2007, 11:49 PM
Proven commodity or not, though, things happen. People get hurt. People get old. People regress. It's always a risk, and if 4/50 is what Buehrle's getting, while it's a bargain, it's not without its potential to be an albatross.

That brings back some horrific memories...

Finances are at the heart of it though. And I think the organization made a switch in philosophy to spend on its roster at the expense of player development, especially with the draft. I'd like to see more of a balance between the two. Relying on expensive players getting older can lead to seasons like this. It didn't happen with the starting pitching yet, but our position players are showing their age, and they're only getting older. Thome and Konerko will be here again next year. Older than this year. And at a very large cost.

Watching a guy like Porcello slip past us...and then go to the Tigers to boot.
Guess it's to develop that next Arnie Munoz...

So, Buehrle's performance over the next 4 years is too questionable to risk a contract - but you're pretty confident that a high school pitcher drafted by the Tigers will be a success? :?:

balke
06-28-2007, 11:49 PM
As far as the Buerhle situation, I'm not so sure what will happen anymore. A friend of mine from Scout magazine told me that he heard the Sox will try to re-sign him until Monday and then will put him back on the trading block. He also told me that he has a feeling the Sox are not going to re-sign him. I'm not sure what to believe, but someone really jumped the gun here in the media. Not the first time, sadly.

Boras has A-Rod, Betran, Zito, Damon, Drew, and Beckam's contracts on his record.

Any player the Sox are gonna draft isn't someone the Sox are gonna pay for if he does pan out. Why train a player who's certain to play somewhere else in a few seasons? There's a lot more to his story than the we know from the Sox position. I trust the organization that Boras isn't worth dealing with, and I think it goes beyond the money he commands for players.

Harry Potter
06-28-2007, 11:51 PM
I'll be in attendence for the first time in about a month or so)

And you call yourself a fan... :redneck

balke
06-28-2007, 11:52 PM
Yeah, lock up a guy for tens of millions per year, but don't spend five million on a signing bonus for can't miss guys you control for at least half a decade.

Can't miss prospects? Borchard, Anderson, Sweeney, Rauch, Fields, Chris Young, Jeremy Reed. Gavin Floyd, Kris Benson, Kip Wells. Talent doesn't equal all-star MLB.


May I add: The Sox got Buehrle in the 38th Round

rdivaldi
06-28-2007, 11:55 PM
Yeah, lock up a guy for tens of millions per year, but don't spend five million on a signing bonus for can't miss guys you control for at least half a decade.

we get burned by one guy in joe borchard and the organization does a drastic change in philosophy. it isn't the price of the pick so much as who you're getting. everybody knew porcello was a top of the rotation guy in about a year or two. well, maybe the sox don't know it yet. but they will in two years when he goes 4-0 against the sox and helps pitch detroit to another division title.

Wow, that's a huuuuuuuuge leap of faith. Remember Jason Stumm, the flamethrowing right hander we drafted out of high school in 1999? How about Brian West in the same year? Another flame throwing 18 year old. How about Gavin Floyd in 2001? Another can't miss high schooler. How many times did the Royals brag on the great Colt Griffin, a can't miss high schooler taken 5 picks after Floyd. The list goes on and on and on and on with head cases, immaturity and blown arms.

There's no such thing as a "sure thing". Odds are better that the great Rick Porcello will have a footnote in an old scouting handbook than a bust in Cooperstown.

DeadMoney
06-28-2007, 11:59 PM
And you call yourself a fan... :redneck

Very funny.

It's not my fault that most of my homestands for work have coincided with the Sox. You know that though...jerk. :wink:

rdivaldi
06-29-2007, 12:02 AM
Can't miss prospects? Borchard, Anderson, Sweeney, Rauch, Fields, Chris Young, Jeremy Reed.

Lorenzo Barcelo, Matt Ginter, Royce Ring, Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, Rocky Biddle, Joe Valentine, etc. etc. etc.

munchman33
06-29-2007, 12:02 AM
So, Buehrle's performance over the next 4 years is too questionable to risk a contract - but you're pretty confident that a high school pitcher drafted by the Tigers will be a success? :?:

And so would just about every scout in the country. Kid's that good. And Buehrle's getting old. Not that I don't want Buehrle. But I don't think we should be locking up so many players at the cost of losing out on talent like that.

munchman33
06-29-2007, 12:03 AM
Lorenzo Barcelo, Matt Ginter, Royce Ring, Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, Rocky Biddle, Joe Valentine, etc. etc. etc.

None of those guys are top of the draft talent like Porcello. Money aside, he was easily #1.

balke
06-29-2007, 12:03 AM
And so would just about every scout in the country. Kid's that good. And Buehrle's getting old. Not that I don't want Buehrle. But I don't think we should be locking up so many players at the cost of losing out on talent like that.

29 (next season) is old? Pitchers are going into their 40's nowadays.

rdivaldi
06-29-2007, 12:05 AM
And Buehrle's getting old.

:thud:

Wha???? He's 28 for crying out loud.

balke
06-29-2007, 12:05 AM
None of those guys are top of the draft talent like Porcello. Money aside, he was easily #1.

Buehrle was taken in the 38th round. Royce Ring was drooled over by Gammons and the like. Kris Benson was taken #1 overall.

rdivaldi
06-29-2007, 12:08 AM
None of those guys are top of the draft talent like Porcello. Money aside, he was easily #1.

Kip Wells, Matt Ginter, Rocky Biddle and Royce Ring were taken in the first round of the draft. Wells was actually the 6th pick overall.

jdm2662
06-29-2007, 12:10 AM
And so would just about every scout in the country. Kid's that good. And Buehrle's getting old. Not that I don't want Buehrle. But I don't think we should be locking up so many players at the cost of losing out on talent like that.

Gee thanks! Mark is two years younger than me, and I just turned 30. :redneck

balke
06-29-2007, 12:13 AM
Kip Wells, Matt Ginter, Rocky Biddle and Royce Ring were taken in the first round of the draft. Wells was actually the 6th pick overall.


Kris Benson was taken #1 overall. Good pitcher, but not franchise changing.

Tragg
06-29-2007, 12:18 AM
FWLIW, BP has an article on Burls potentially resigning. In the "free" bit, it seems like they compare him favorably to Zito (making the resigning seem like a great move) but then begin to talk about the risks on him long term.

Not sure how it ends tho.
Sheehan says that he's about as good as Zito and that if we signed him at a deal close to the rumored numbers, it would be a comparative steal. However, he then goes through the historical list of southpaws 28+ and says that most start declining around that age.
Concludes that he'd trade him for outfield help and use the $$ savings to bolser the of and ss. Implicit in his conclusion is that we could get a serious haul for him - "considerable return" - although opinions on that certainly varied.

KRS1
06-29-2007, 12:25 AM
However, he then goes through the historical list of southpaws 28+ and says that most start declining around that age.


The guys I see him as most closely resembling, Moyer, and Rogers seemed to hold up rather admirably after the age of 28.

Tragg
06-29-2007, 12:37 AM
The guys I see him as most closely resembling, Moyer, and Rogers seemed to hold up rather admirably after the age of 28.

They certainly are still pitching - but I always considered those 2 #5 or maybe #4 starters (although Rogers seems to be reborn in Detroit); I think MB's better than those 2, closer to Glavine, but not as good. I wouldn't have given either one of Rogrers or Moyer this type of deal even if I knew they'd hold up.

I think he'll hold up. Some don't - hello Mike Hampton. It's easy to forget those who aren't pitching anymore.

BP compares him to Jerry Reuss and Jim Kaat, who pitched forever.

KRS1
06-29-2007, 12:53 AM
They certainly are still pitching - but I always considered those 2 #5 or maybe #4 starters (although Rogers seems to be reborn in Detroit); I think MB's better than those 2, closer to Glavine, but not as good. I wouldn't have given either one of Rogrers or Moyer this type of deal even if I knew they'd hold up.

I think he'll hold up. Some don't - hello Mike Hampton. It's easy to forget those who aren't pitching anymore.

BP compares him to Jerry Reuss and Jim Kaat, who pitched forever.

I only omitted Glavine because of the difference of stuff. Tom threw in the low 90's for the good parts of his career. Moyer, and Rogers are just more comparable as far as stuff goes. As for Hampton, his max effort delivery and (and tiny frame) doesnt even compare to the smooth and seemingly effortless ones displayed by the other three.

Also, I completely agree about Mark being better than Moyer or Rogers

TDog
06-29-2007, 12:54 AM
Kris Benson was taken #1 overall. Good pitcher, but not franchise changing.

In 1989, the year the White Sox drafted Frank Thomas in the first round, the No. 1 pick was Ben McDonald from LSU, considered to be a can't-miss talent who was not just going up against high school hitters, but had pitched in the College World Series. He was so can't-miss, he came up with the Orioles to pitch six games in 1989, giving up only 7 earned runs in 7.1 innings. He pitched eight more seasons before finishing his career with a 78-70 record. He never won more than 14 games. Only in 1990 did he record an ERA under 3.39. The other can't-miss pitcher taken before Thomas, who everyone believed would hit, was Roger Salkeld, who finished his major league career with a 4-7 record. The can't-miss high school pitcher taken after Thomas never made it to the big leagues.

Mark Prior was a can't-miss prospect, and he was on the downside of his career before getting a shot at free agency.

Sure there is a chance that Mark Buehrle could regress. Has anyone noticed that not every can't-miss high school or college pitcher can't miss? They often regress before the get to the big leagues. There are stories about kids who pass up huge signing bonuses out of high school to go to a junior college so they can do better, only to lose velocity on their unhittable fast balls.

The chances of that high school stud pitcher developing arm problems is better than the chances of him winning 100 games in the major leagues.

Blackheart
06-29-2007, 04:30 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070628soxbrite,1,1899724.story?coll=cs-home-headlines I believe that this is a fair offer to Mark.:)

KRS1
06-29-2007, 05:08 AM
Mark's got to be pretty exhausted with this whole process, hell, Im exhausted just reading and waiting, getting my hopes up, and getting them crushed.

Vernam
06-29-2007, 07:40 AM
One of the potential stumbling blocks, according to one of the sources, could be the Major League Baseball Players Association, which might hesitate to approve the deal because it believes Buehrle could command more on the free agent market this winter.:?:

Vernam

Hitmen77
06-29-2007, 09:12 AM
None of those guys are top of the draft talent like Porcello. Money aside, he was easily #1.

....and yet he was the 27th or 28th pick. It isn't just the Sox that passed on this guy, almost every other team in the league passed on him too.....and don't tell me it's because other teams have other needs - EVERY team would want to draft an ace pitcher if he was such a "sure thing" that you are claiming he is.

Meanwhile, back to the Buehrle topic - if the Sox are that afraid of injury risk, we may as well change our name to the Royals or Pirates and just let every good player go after their arbitration year. But,not because we can't afford them, rather because there is always a risk of an injury that we just don't wan't to take.

For the most part, I agree with JR's position about long term deals for pitchers. The problem is when it's an absolute, never any exceptions rule. Once in a while, someone comes along who happens to be worth the risk of a longer term deal. A finesse pitcher who is still young, is very durable, and is in the mold of some of today's 40 yr old pitchers (Glavine, Moyer). A person who has meant so much to this franchise over the last 6 years. A player who is a fan and clubhouse favorite who is liked by everybody and who is serving as a good mentor to young pitchers like Danks. Someone who apparently isn't just looking to "go for broke" like a Boras client would. A pitcher who gives up his 6+ IP streak to stick up for his teammates. Mark Buehrle may never be seriously considered for the H.O.F., but as another poster mentioned recently - Mark Buehrle is a player who could very much end up with his jersey # and his face on the LF wall at the Cell some day.

Building championships isn't for cowards. If the Sox are that afraid to commit to 4 years even for Mark Buehrle - then we may as well just give up for the rest of this ownership because no one is worth the risk. In that case, I guess we'll just have to sit around and hope we can catch lightning in a bottle again.

Goose
06-29-2007, 09:18 AM
WGN Morning News just reported that the Sox and Mark are close to a deal for 4/56. FWIW.

Hitmen77
06-29-2007, 09:21 AM
One of the potential stumbling blocks, according to one of the sources, could be the Major League Baseball Players Association, which might hesitate to approve the deal because it believes Buehrle could command more on the free agent market this winter.


:?:

Vernam

:?: indeed.

I think this was discussed in another thread and, from what I remember other people saying, the MLBPA really doesn't have a say in this matter because Mark is not taking a pay cut and he's not already on the open market.

Even if he was on the open market, I don't think the MLBPA could "block" this deal, but I think by then they certainly could put a TON of pressure on Mark to not walk away from higher priced deals that other teams have already offered.

cheezheadsoxfan
06-29-2007, 09:26 AM
WGN Morning News just reported that the Sox and Mark are close to a deal for 4/56. FWIW.

That sounds promising. Even tho they annoy the hell out of me with the Cubs, they are hopefully a tad more reputable then the Score. I'm going to the game Monday. It would be so cool if he was signed by then.:praying:

tebman
06-29-2007, 09:31 AM
:?: indeed.

I think this was discussed in another thread and, from what I remember other people saying, the MLBPA really doesn't have a say in this matter because Mark is not taking a pay cut and he's not already on the open market.

Even if he was on the open market, I don't think the MLBPA could "block" this deal, but I think by then they certainly could put a TON of pressure on Mark to not walk away from higher priced deals that other teams have already offered.
I read that other thread too, and as I understand it the language in the collective bargaining agreement applies to existing contracts, not new ones. On its face any MLBPA objection doesn't make sense. If a player's contract expires he's starting from zero -- whether he can get ten dollars or a billion dollars is determined by who's offering it and whether the player chooses to accept it.

The MLBPA could lean on Buehrle to hold out, but if he's talking about a new contract it seems the decision is entirely his to make.

hi im skot
06-29-2007, 09:42 AM
Good lord...what a mess.

tebman
06-29-2007, 09:46 AM
WGN Morning News just reported that the Sox and Mark are close to a deal for 4/56. FWIW.

That sounds promising. Even tho they annoy the hell out of me with the Cubs, they are hopefully a tad more reputable then the Score. I'm going to the game Monday. It would be so cool if he was signed by then.:praying:

Yeah -- WGN annoys me too with its aw-shucks chirpiness, but it is a more reliable news source than Mike North and his chorus of fools.

Argghh! Let's get this deal done already! MB wants to stay, the Sox want him to stay, the fans want him to stay, even his wife wants him to stay. So what's the problem?
:cuss:

.

Luke
06-29-2007, 09:47 AM
I don't think 14 million a year is far enough off to get the MLBPA upset. It's a little below market, but considering Mark is not on the open market yet, it's pretty fair.

It sounded more like speculation than anything else, I would like to believe that Rick Hahn and Kenny Williams are smart enough to not waste their time negotiating a contract that would or could be rejected.

infohawk
06-29-2007, 09:48 AM
Even if he was on the open market, I don't think the MLBPA could "block" this deal, but I think by then they certainly could put a TON of pressure on Mark to not walk away from higher priced deals that other teams have already offered.
I think it would have to be a "pressure" type of thing because there's just no way the MLBPA has veto power over EVERY deal not to its liking. I understand the pay-cut rules, but c'mon! If I recall correctly, one of the reasons Glavine took the Mets contract a few years ago was because he deemed it his "responsibility" as an activist in the MLBPA to take the highest offer and pace the market for everyone else.

Just as an aside, I can understand activism over things like boosting the retirement pensions for players from a previous era and even over things like minimum salaries to a degree. I just can't find any sympathy or common cause for player unions when it comes down to whether someone will get $12 million a year or $16 million a year. Sorry.

eriqjaffe
06-29-2007, 09:48 AM
Mark Prior was a can't-miss prospect, and he was on the downside of his career before getting a shot at free agency.In fairness, however, Mark Prior's peak is far greater than Ben McDonald's and Roger Salkelds's combined.

If Prior's career hadn't been derailed by injuries (insert comparisons here), he'd probably be one of the best pitchers in the game right now - he had tremendous success at the major league level.

itsnotrequired
06-29-2007, 09:52 AM
Yeah -- WGN annoys me too with its aw-shucks chirpiness, but it is a more reliable news source than Mike North and his chorus of fools.

Argghh! Let's get this deal done already! MB wants to stay, the Sox want him to stay, the fans want him to stay, even his wife wants him to stay. So what's the problem?
:cuss:

.

:farmer

"Even when they say it isn't about the money, it's about the money."

Hokiesox
06-29-2007, 10:04 AM
:?: indeed.

I think this was discussed in another thread and, from what I remember other people saying, the MLBPA really doesn't have a say in this matter because Mark is not taking a pay cut and he's not already on the open market.

Even if he was on the open market, I don't think the MLBPA could "block" this deal, but I think by then they certainly could put a TON of pressure on Mark to not walk away from higher priced deals that other teams have already offered.

If other teams have offered him something, isn't that tampering?

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 10:15 AM
If other teams have offered him something, isn't that tampering?

I think you misread that final paragraph. The poster was referring to competing contracts during an open FA period. If the player were to choose the lower one, the MLBPA would probably try to pressure them into taking the higher one.

Flight #24
06-29-2007, 10:19 AM
I think you misread that final paragraph. The poster was referring to competing contracts during an open FA period. If the player were to choose the lower one, the MLBPA would probably try to pressure them into taking the higher one.

This is true. I can remember IIRC Mark MchGhwire resigning with the Cards at a discount and there being a lot of talk about how the MLBPA put a ton of pressure on him not to do so because he'd have increased the market for everyone else.

Huisj
06-29-2007, 10:37 AM
This is true. I can remember IIRC Mark MchGhwire resigning with the Cards at a discount and there being a lot of talk about how the MLBPA put a ton of pressure on him not to do so because he'd have increased the market for everyone else.

What about when Dye signed with the Sox? Didn't he have a supposedly bigger offer from Arizona or somebody?

It really bites to think that the union actively tries to pressure players into signing with teams they might not want to sign with.

balke
06-29-2007, 10:37 AM
I'm kinda glad he didn't sign for 12.5. I'd feel like he ripped himself off. 13 mil a year or more is his range, and though I hope its on the low end of that, I for some reason think it wouldn't be right to only pay him 12.5.

Goose
06-29-2007, 10:44 AM
This is true. I can remember IIRC Mark MchGhwire resigning with the Cards at a discount and there being a lot of talk about how the MLBPA put a ton of pressure on him not to do so because he'd have increased the market for everyone else.

See, to me, this is BULL****! Why can't a player decide on his own if he wants to stay with a team or not based on things other than $$? If say, Mark headed to FA and there were only 2 teams that offered him a contract: White Sox and Royals. The WS offered 10MM a year for 3 years and the Royals offered 15MM a year for 4 years according to what is written in this thread, the MLBPA would pressure Mark to taking the Royals deal. Why? he does not have to always go for the money. There are other things to consider...longevity on one team, the direction a team is going, knowing what the players are like...it seems like the MLBPA is only concerned about the top dollar and not what will make the player happy. This seems unethical and needs to be stopped. I am surprised the FBI has not issued a RICO Warrant to the MLBPA because it sounds like extorsion to me.

SoxxoS
06-29-2007, 10:50 AM
I'm kinda glad he didn't sign for 12.5. I'd feel like he ripped himself off. 13 mil a year or more is his range, and though I hope its on the low end of that, I for some reason think it wouldn't be right to only pay him 12.5.

If he signed for 12.5 then he obviously thought it was a fair deal...dont feel "bad" for him, please. Not saying he's a bad guy - But he wouldnt give two ****s if you lost your job.

itsnotrequired
06-29-2007, 11:02 AM
See, to me, this is BULL****! Why can't a player decide on his own if he wants to stay with a team or not based on things other than $$? If say, Mark headed to FA and there were only 2 teams that offered him a contract: White Sox and Royals. The WS offered 10MM a year for 3 years and the Royals offered 15MM a year for 4 years according to what is written in this thread, the MLBPA would pressure Mark to taking the Royals deal. Why? he does not have to always go for the money. There are other things to consider...longevity on one team, the direction a team is going, knowing what the players are like...it seems like the MLBPA is only concerned about the top dollar and not what will make the player happy. This seems unethical and needs to be stopped. I am surprised the FBI has not issued a RICO Warrant to the MLBPA because it sounds like extorsion to me.

Gimmie a break. It isn't like the union brass is holding a gun to Mark's head. It is sort of an unwritten rule that you take the best deal. Players sign for less all the time. It is the really out-of-whack deals that are avoided (i.e. ARod signing for $2 million a season).

I'm not sure how much legal recourse the union would have anyway. Mark is getting a pay raise, after all.

Flight #24
06-29-2007, 11:03 AM
See, to me, this is BULL****! Why can't a player decide on his own if he wants to stay with a team or not based on things other than $$? If say, Mark headed to FA and there were only 2 teams that offered him a contract: White Sox and Royals. The WS offered 10MM a year for 3 years and the Royals offered 15MM a year for 4 years according to what is written in this thread, the MLBPA would pressure Mark to taking the Royals deal. Why? he does not have to always go for the money. There are other things to consider...longevity on one team, the direction a team is going, knowing what the players are like...it seems like the MLBPA is only concerned about the top dollar and not what will make the player happy. This seems unethical and needs to be stopped. I am surprised the FBI has not issued a RICO Warrant to the MLBPA because it sounds like extorsion to me.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but the MLBPA's stance would be that the player has some responsibility to the group of players as a whole to continue the advances that have enabled him to make $13-15M/yr. So they'd push him to take the deal that continues those advances by raising the comparables for arbitration and FA purposes.

TommyJohn
06-29-2007, 11:04 AM
If he signed for 12.5 then he obviously thought it was a fair deal...dont feel "bad" for him, please. Not saying he's a bad guy - But he wouldnt give two ****s if you lost your job.


"If your father can't pay the rent, go ask Mickey Mantle for the money,
see what he tells you. Mickey Mantle don't care about you, why should
you care about him? Nobody cares."

Goose
06-29-2007, 11:15 AM
Gimmie a break. It isn't like the union brass is holding a gun to Mark's head. It is sort of an unwritten rule that you take the best deal. Players sign for less all the time. It is the really out-of-whack deals that are avoided (i.e. ARod signing for $2 million a season).

I'm not sure how much legal recourse the union would have anyway. Mark is getting a pay raise, after all.

Jeez, does team ALWAYS need to be used?


OK, half teal.

Hitmen77
06-29-2007, 11:17 AM
It sounds like we're agreement that Mark Gonzalez's implying the MLBPA has to "approve" this deal is just not accurate.

On the other hand, I found this following item from his article most encouraging:
Manager Ozzie Guillen acknowledged speaking with Hahn Wednesday night.

"Everything sounded great," Guillen said. "I was excited."

itsnotrequired
06-29-2007, 11:18 AM
Jeez, does team ALWAYS need to be used?


OK, half teal.

Beats me. (2/3rd teal)

:redneck

Goose
06-29-2007, 11:32 AM
Beats me. (2/3rd teal)

:redneck

I go to box for 2 minutes. I feel shame.

:redface:

Flight #24
06-29-2007, 11:34 AM
Per Bruce Levineline, the MLBPA can't officially stop a deal, but they can put a lot of pressure on Burls and his agent. He mentioned that the union certifies agents, wo they'd have that as a club, albiet one that they'd probably have trouble using effectively (so they couldn't ban the agent).

tebman
06-29-2007, 11:41 AM
Per Bruce Levineline, the MLBPA can't officially stop a deal, but they can put a lot of pressure on Burls and his agent. He mentioned that the union certifies agents, wo they'd have that as a club, albiet one that they'd probably have trouble using effectively (so they couldn't ban the agent).
Well, if Levine says the MLBPA can't stop the deal it probably means they can, based on how accurate his reports have been in the past. :tongue:

TDog
06-29-2007, 11:44 AM
In fairness, however, Mark Prior's peak is far greater than Ben McDonald's and Roger Salkelds's combined.

If Prior's career hadn't been derailed by injuries (insert comparisons here), he'd probably be one of the best pitchers in the game right now - he had tremendous success at the major league level.

In fairness, the fact that Mark Prior's career was derailed by injuries contributed to my point. He had tremendous success, but it was brief. If he comes back to be a success, it will be as a different type of pitcher. People raved about Kerry Wood during his rookie season, but I was doubting he would win as many games as Wilbur Wood did.

People criticized the Twins as being cheap when they didn't take Prior with the first pick. Mauer has worked out well enough, and Prior didn't extort the Twins with a first deal that set him up for life. If you know an agent is going to make unjustified demands, you don't draft his client.

A can't-miss pitching prospect can miss for a couple of reasons. Like Roger Salkeld who struggled as a big leaguer or the countless Earl Cunninghams picked in the top 8 who never made it to the major leagues; like Ben McDonald who regressed after his first full season; like Mark Prior or Kerry Wood who have career gaps because of injuries the can't-miss prospects often have baseball careers that don't fulfill their promise.

Kip Wells was can't-miss out of Baylor and he bargained with the White Sox like he was a proven winner. There are valid reasons not to draft a can't-miss prospect. There are reasons for fans to be angry if they their team trades a perennial winner for a can't-miss prospect, or two or three can't-miss prospects for that matter.

CLR01
06-29-2007, 11:49 AM
So what's the problem?



Mark is holding out for an office at the UC, an apartment downtown, a car, a private jet, air travel for family and a skybox at Busch Stadium.

jsg-07
06-29-2007, 12:00 PM
Mark is holding out for an office at the UC, an apartment downtown, a car, a private jet, air travel for family and a skybox at Busch Stadium.

You forgot the new engine for his truck!!:redneck

twsoxfan5
06-29-2007, 12:01 PM
"If your father can't pay the rent, go ask Mickey Mantle for the money,
see what he tells you. Mickey Mantle don't care about you, why should
you care about him? Nobody cares."

Nice use of "A Bronx Tale" quote.

CLR01
06-29-2007, 12:03 PM
You forgot the new engine for his truck!!:redneck

Maybe but I haven't heard anything about a new engine. I don't think he wants to come away from this looking greedy.

jsg-07
06-29-2007, 12:14 PM
Maybe but I haven't heard anything about a new engine. I don't think he wants to come away from this looking greedy.

True.. I mean he probably wants to give us the hometown discount.

Taliesinrk
06-29-2007, 12:25 PM
any new news??

Flight #24
06-29-2007, 12:30 PM
Things keep inching towards getting done. It's been a few days now and ALL sources are reporting very similar things: a 4 yr deal worth ~50-60M. And a guy close to the situation is putting out positive comments (Ozzie). At this point I have a hard time seeing it fall apart, but anything's possible.

dickallen15
06-29-2007, 12:34 PM
any new news??
Buerhle wants to wear a Cardinals cap during games he pitches.

jdm2662
06-29-2007, 12:39 PM
Things keep inching towards getting done. It's been a few days now and ALL sources are reporting very similar things: a 4 yr deal worth ~50-60M. And a guy close to the situation is putting out positive comments (Ozzie). At this point I have a hard time seeing it fall apart, but anything's possible.

Never believe anything until the ink is dry on the contract...

doogiec
06-29-2007, 01:08 PM
Per Bruce Levineline, the MLBPA can't officially stop a deal, but they can put a lot of pressure on Burls and his agent. He mentioned that the union certifies agents, wo they'd have that as a club, albiet one that they'd probably have trouble using effectively (so they couldn't ban the agent).

Why does the union have the right to do anything in this situation?

When the owners got together in the late 80's, under the guidance of the commissioners office, and pressured each other to hold down free agent signings, the owners were found guilty of collusion and fined significantly.

Now the players get together, under the guidance of MLBPA leadership, and pressure each other (and agents) to not sign contracts they normally would want to sign, and that's any different? How?

The union has forever fought against a salary cap. They want the market to determine contracts, period. So why would they be allowed to effectively create a "salary floor" by stating a minimum salary acceptable for certain players?

The union should either be pro-free market, or admit its own collusion and allow the owners the same right.

Dan Mega
06-29-2007, 01:08 PM
Mark is holding out for an office at the UC, an apartment downtown, a car, a private jet, air travel for family and a skybox at Busch Stadium.

He wants his statue to be next to Erstad's on the concourse.

DaBearsSoxBulls3
06-29-2007, 01:20 PM
I understand that he likes Chicago and what not but if he signs the deal that the Trib reported today (4 yrs @ 14 per year), he would lose out on around 10 million or more and at least one more year of job security. Why would he make that deal? Any ideas?

Harry Potter
06-29-2007, 01:20 PM
He wants his statue to be next to Erstad's on the concourse.

and Rowand's

Oblong
06-29-2007, 01:21 PM
Why does the union have the right to do anything in this situation?

When the owners got together in the late 80's, under the guidance of the commissioners office, and pressured each other to hold down free agent signings, the owners were found guilty of collusion and fined significantly.

Now the players get together, under the guidance of MLBPA leadership, and pressure each other (and agents) to not sign contracts they normally would want to sign, and that's any different? How?

The union has forever fought against a salary cap. They want the market to determine contracts, period. So why would they be allowed to effectively create a "salary floor" by stating a minimum salary acceptable for certain players?

The union should either be pro-free market, or admit its own collusion and allow the owners the same right.

Because that's how the laws are written. The owners have an anti-trust exemption and with that comes the right to collude. However in their collective bargaining agreement with the players it specifically said collusion was not allowed. It was determined that they colluded and they were fined. What the players union is doing here is not collusion. It's what unions do. If Buehrle wants to be a part of the union then he has to follow the rules of that union. Just as if anyone wants to be a part of any organization they have to follow their rules. The union looks out for all players, not just the invididual ones.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that this is the way it is based on current law.

Lip Man 1
06-29-2007, 01:24 PM
Mark seems to be a pretty grounded type of guy...maybe because I'm not rich and never will be but I don't see a lot of practical difference (not mathematical mind you) between say 14 million a year and 17 million a year.

I couldn't spend 14 million a year even if I wanted to let alone 17 million.

To me and maybe to Mark, when you are talking about that kind of money (say 14 million) it's really meaningless.

14 million, 17 million, 25 million...you still have more then enough to live on...and for your kids to live on and probably your grandkids to live on.

Lip

CLR01
06-29-2007, 01:24 PM
I understand that he likes Chicago and what not but if he signs the deal that the Trib reported today (4 yrs @ 14 per year), he would lose out on around 10 million or more and at least one more year of job security. Why would he make that deal? Any ideas?

Kenny slipped him a roofie.

spiffie
06-29-2007, 01:26 PM
I understand that he likes Chicago and what not but if he signs the deal that the Trib reported today (4 yrs @ 14 per year), he would lose out on around 10 million or more and at least one more year of job security. Why would he make that deal? Any ideas?
Anything to get the chance to one day play with Brian Anderson again.

veeter
06-29-2007, 01:27 PM
I understand that he likes Chicago and what not but if he signs the deal that the Trib reported today (4 yrs @ 14 per year), he would lose out on around 10 million or more and at least one more year of job security. Why would he make that deal? Any ideas?First of all, job security is up to him and how well he pitches. Second of all, if after making about 90 million dollars from the Sox (if he takes the 4yr/56mil.)by 2011, and he needs "job security", he would be the dumbest financial mind in history.

doogiec
06-29-2007, 01:30 PM
Because that's how the laws are written. The owners have an anti-trust exemption and with that comes the right to collude. However in their collective bargaining agreement with the players it specifically said collusion was not allowed. It was determined that they colluded and they were fined. What the players union is doing here is not collusion. It's what unions do. If Buehrle wants to be a part of the union then he has to follow the rules of that union. Just as if anyone wants to be a part of any organization they have to follow their rules. The union looks out for all players, not just the invididual ones.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that this is the way it is based on current law.

I absolutely agree that based on current law, this screwed up situation exists. But I refuse to overlook the absolute hypocrisy displayed by the players' union.

dwalteroo
06-29-2007, 01:38 PM
Another thing....say he takes the 4 yr/56 mil deal. When he gets done, he's still only 32, and for a pitcher of his caliber with virtually no injuries...imagine what the market will be like in 2011. He theorhetically could sign a 3 year deal then worth bajillions.

I know you'd want the 5 year deal now, but the market will change, and provided he's healthy, he can make more in a few years. Something tells me Mark is going to be around for a long time.

GAsoxfan
06-29-2007, 01:39 PM
First of all, job security is up to him and how well he pitches. Second of all, if after making about 90 million dollars from the Sox (if he takes the 4yr/56mil.)by 2011, and he needs "job security", he would be the dumbest financial mind in history.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:HTUrMRuw6fPHRM:http://www.top-fighting.de/bildergalerien/mike0.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.top-fighting.de/bildergalerien/mike0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friend ID%3D27717535&h=360&w=356&sz=20&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=HTUrMRuw6fPHRM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmike%2Btyson%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%2 6hl%3Den)
I take exception to that comment. He wouldn't even be in my league.

DSpivack
06-29-2007, 01:50 PM
Mark seems to be a pretty grounded type of guy...maybe because I'm not rich and never will be but I don't see a lot of practical difference (not mathematical mind you) between say 14 million a year and 17 million a year.

I couldn't spend 14 million a year even if I wanted to let alone 17 million.

To me and maybe to Mark, when you are talking about that kind of money (say 14 million) it's really meaningless.

14 million, 17 million, 25 million...you still have more then enough to live on...and for your kids to live on and probably your grandkids to live on.

Lip

Lip, I would think that athletes are very full of pride and want the most on the market because it shows their "value" compared to other players. I forgot what player said "It's not about the money, it's about respect." Of course it's about the money, but because pride and "respect."

Another thing....say he takes the 4 yr/56 mil deal. When he gets done, he's still only 32, and for a pitcher of his caliber with virtually no injuries...imagine what the market will be like in 2011. He theorhetically could sign a 3 year deal then worth bajillions.

I know you'd want the 5 year deal now, but the market will change, and provided he's healthy, he can make more in a few years. Something tells me Mark is going to be around for a long time.

This reminds me of the deal Pippen signed in 91(?) that Reinsdorf told him not to sign because while it was a lot then, it wouldn't be towards the end of the contract (as compared to heightening NBA salaries).

TDog
06-29-2007, 01:50 PM
Why does the union have the right to do anything in this situation?

When the owners got together in the late 80's, under the guidance of the commissioners office, and pressured each other to hold down free agent signings, the owners were found guilty of collusion and fined significantly.

Now the players get together, under the guidance of MLBPA leadership, and pressure each other (and agents) to not sign contracts they normally would want to sign, and that's any different? How?

The union has forever fought against a salary cap. They want the market to determine contracts, period. So why would they be allowed to effectively create a "salary floor" by stating a minimum salary acceptable for certain players?

The union should either be pro-free market, or admit its own collusion and allow the owners the same right.

A labor attorney could answer the question better than I, but there is a difference between a union pressuring members to negotiate for the highest possible contracts and an industry colluding to hold down salaries. The reasons for this go to the evolution of labor law.

With arbitration rulings using free-agent contracts to determine what players are worth, it is in the union's interest to see that players sign for as much as they possibly can. Some of the things you talked about were addressed in the NFL strike of the early 1980s, but because enough people will watch the NFL no matter who is playing and the owners' primary interest is not the quality of their respective teams, the players' ended up negotiating a salary cap. Baseball is exempt from antitrust laws that apply to other sports, but through collective bargaining agreements, baseball has ended up with the system it has today. If baseball players did not use the threat of strike in negotiations, things wouldn't be much different than 1970 when former first-round draft pick Carlos May battled back from what everyone expected to be a career-ending injury to resume his career with a contract increasing his salary to $20,000. What is a strike but union "collusion?"

Union collusion is part of the labor system. It is wrong only by some people's ethical standards. Some states, Arizona for example, have right-to-work laws, which effectively diminish the power of unions. Other states allow closed shops, which can require people to have union membership to work in certain jobs. In either case, employers in an industry are not allowed to collude to keep wages and salaries down.

tebman
06-29-2007, 01:52 PM
First of all, job security is up to him and how well he pitches. Second of all, if after making about 90 million dollars from the Sox (if he takes the 4yr/56mil.)by 2011, and he needs "job security", he would be the dumbest financial mind in history.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:HTUrMRuw6fPHRM:http://www.top-fighting.de/bildergalerien/mike0.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.top-fighting.de/bildergalerien/mike0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friend ID%3D27717535&h=360&w=356&sz=20&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=HTUrMRuw6fPHRM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmike%2Btyson%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%2 6hl%3Den)
I take exception to that comment. He wouldn't even be in my league.

:rolling:


.

Huisj
06-29-2007, 01:52 PM
Maybe but I haven't heard anything about a new engine. I don't think he wants to come away from this looking greedy.

Hey, isn't Ford offering $2000 cash back and 0% financing on '07 F-series and Super Duty trucks? That might be a better deal than a new engine. Quick, someone call KW to tell him about this offer (http://www.fordvehicles.com/features/news/detail/index.asp?id=1631)! :D:

Hitmen77
06-29-2007, 02:04 PM
Things keep inching towards getting done. It's been a few days now and ALL sources are reporting very similar things: a 4 yr deal worth ~50-60M. And a guy close to the situation is putting out positive comments (Ozzie). At this point I have a hard time seeing it fall apart, but anything's possible.

I hate to get my hopes up, but it sure seems that way. Previously, when there were questions floating around about possible contract talks between MB and the Sox, it was always quickly shot down directly by KW or MB. They'd give a very blunt "there are no talks" comment in no uncertain terms. That's what I was waiting for when this rumor first appeared in the Sun-Times and the Score.

At first, there was denial and other media outlets (Trib, ESPN Radio) dismissed the story as false. But now everyone has switched to "no comment" mode. Other media outlets have picked up the story too. We'll see.....

Never believe anything until the ink is dry on the contract...

My biggest hope is that a deal is already done and signed and they're just waited for the right time to make an announcement. Otherwise, the way everything else has been going this season, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that there is no deal or that it has fallen through.

Thome25
06-29-2007, 02:16 PM
My wife's sister's boyfriend's uncle's brother-in-law who went to the laundrymat with a friend of the brother of the housekeeper who had pizza delivered by the same guy who delivers once a week to a reliable White Sox source said that it's imminent that Buehrle is going to sign a 4-year contract with the Sox but only if there's a clause that says he can tarp-slide in it.

That's what I feel like this thread has become.^^^^^

pmck003
06-29-2007, 02:19 PM
I couldn't spend 14 million a year even if I wanted to let alone 17 million.




If given the opprotunity, I could easily spend 14 million in one day

tebman
06-29-2007, 02:24 PM
If given the opprotunity, I could easily spend 14 million in one day
The Cubs are for sale.

.

eriqjaffe
06-29-2007, 02:28 PM
If given the opprotunity, I could easily spend 14 million in one dayYou're gonna pick up Buehrle's salary next year in one lump payment?

thomas35forever
06-29-2007, 02:42 PM
If given the opprotunity, I could easily spend 14 million in one day
Yeah? What would you do with all that money?

thomas35forever
06-29-2007, 02:46 PM
My wife's sister's boyfriend's uncle's brother-in-law who went to the laundrymat with a friend of the brother of the housekeeper who had pizza delivered by the same guy who delivers once a week to a reliable White Sox source said that it's imminent that Buehrle is going to sign a 4-year contract with the Sox but only if there's a clause that says he can tarp-slide in it.

That's what I feel like this thread has become.^^^^^
So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

Luke
06-29-2007, 02:54 PM
345 viewing this forum? Did something just break, or I have I just gone nuts from all of this?

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 02:58 PM
345 viewing this forum? Did something just break, or I have I just gone nuts from all of this?

Yeah, currently up over 550, but most of those are Yahoo Spiders looking for searchable material...

Gammons Peter
06-29-2007, 04:00 PM
whatsa yahoo spider??

Goose
06-29-2007, 04:07 PM
whatsa yahoo spider??

You know Spider, you're a ****in' mumbling stuttering little ****. You know that?

stl_sox_fan
06-29-2007, 04:09 PM
So, if the Beers beat Detroit and Denver beats Atlanta in the American Southwestern Division East Northern, then Milwaukee goes to the Denslow Cup, unless Baltimore can upset Buffalo and Charlotte ties Toronto, then Oakland would play LA and Pittsburgh in a blind choice round robin. And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

Props for quoting BASEketball. :D:

Rocky Soprano
06-29-2007, 04:25 PM
whatsa yahoo spider??

I think is an automatic program they use to "browse" websites for key words and then they use them for the yahoo search function.

CLR01
06-29-2007, 04:25 PM
Props for quoting BASEketball. :D:

It should be bannable offense.

Flight #24
06-29-2007, 05:10 PM
FWIW, AM1000 & LevineLine are speculating that the current 4/$56M offer being bandied about isn't enough for Burls and that's what they're negotiating on. They don't think it'll get done, but they definitely have an axe to grind against WSCR for jumping the gun, so I think that may be coloring their opinions.

spiffie
06-29-2007, 05:15 PM
FWIW, AM1000 & LevineLine are speculating that the current 4/$56M offer being bandied about isn't enough for Burls and that's what they're negotiating on. They don't think it'll get done, but they definitely have an axe to grind against WSCR for jumping the gun, so I think that may be coloring their opinions.
If that's the case, then go to 60 or 64. If Mark blows his arm out and sucks, are we going to be that much worse off throwing 15 million a year down the toilet than 14? Or will that extra million be the breaking point for us being able to compete? If so, then hold fast right there. But if this deal falls apart over what is in baseball terms a very small sum of cash I will be highly disappointed.

balke
06-29-2007, 05:21 PM
This'll be just one more reason you don't deal with Scott Boras if 14-15 mil won't be enough for Buehrle. That Zito signing will have prevented us from locking down a great pitcher who wants to stay in Chicago, and IMO should stay in Chicago.

toastyZ71
06-29-2007, 05:28 PM
FWIW, AM1000 & LevineLine are speculating that the current 4/$56M offer being bandied about isn't enough for Burls and that's what they're negotiating on. They don't think it'll get done, but they definitely have an axe to grind against WSCR for jumping the gun, so I think that may be coloring their opinions.

a few things: farmer said that mark told him he wanted 14/year -- would he lie about what he wanted?

2) its possible that the trib heard farmer's mention of 14, and did the math for 4 year contract and came up with 56 on their own.... so that figure could be totally inacurate.

thomas35forever
06-29-2007, 06:16 PM
Props for quoting BASEketball. :D:
I actually hate that movie. I only quoted from it because Thome25's post sounded just like that.

tony1972
06-29-2007, 06:34 PM
a few things: farmer said that mark told him he wanted 14/year -- would he lie about what he wanted?

2) its possible that the trib heard farmer's mention of 14, and did the math for 4 year contract and came up with 56 on their own.... so that figure could be totally inacurate.

$14.00 a year..personally I think that's a huge bargain...that's only about $.05 a day..less than a cup of coffee...

The Dude
06-29-2007, 06:37 PM
I actually hate that movie. I only quoted from it because Thome25's post sounded just like that.

Come on, I hadn't seen that movie in years and threw it in the other day and still laughed my ass off.

I only quoted from it because Thome25's post sounded just like that.

Indeed!

psyclonis
06-29-2007, 06:45 PM
Imagine the Yanks/BoSox signing Zambrano/Buehrle in the offseason and Santana/Sheets in '09
:angry:

toastyZ71
06-29-2007, 06:57 PM
$14.00 a year..personally I think that's a huge bargain...that's only about $.05 a day..less than a cup of coffee...


wth? did i say $14.00 i think not. if you would pay attention, you'd know that everyone knows we're meaning 14 million, so go away.

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 07:32 PM
whatsa yahoo spider??

It's a small program that goes to various websites and looks for information. The data is then retrieved and added to the search engines data stores.

MarySwiss
06-29-2007, 07:35 PM
See, to me, this is BULL****! Why can't a player decide on his own if he wants to stay with a team or not based on things other than $$? If say, Mark headed to FA and there were only 2 teams that offered him a contract: White Sox and Royals. The WS offered 10MM a year for 3 years and the Royals offered 15MM a year for 4 years according to what is written in this thread, the MLBPA would pressure Mark to taking the Royals deal. Why? he does not have to always go for the money. There are other things to consider...longevity on one team, the direction a team is going, knowing what the players are like...it seems like the MLBPA is only concerned about the top dollar and not what will make the player happy. This seems unethical and needs to be stopped. I am surprised the FBI has not issued a RICO Warrant to the MLBPA because it sounds like extorsion to me.

Didn't Paulie actually do this? I seem to recall he had a higher offer but gave the SOx the hometown discount.

Daver
06-29-2007, 07:39 PM
Didn't Paulie actually do this? I seem to recall he had a higher offer but gave the SOx the hometown discount.

Paul was offered more by Baltimore, it was worth the four million left on the table to not work for Peter Angelos.

voodoochile
06-29-2007, 07:42 PM
Paul was offered more by Baltimore, it was worth the four million left on the table to not work for Peter Angelos.

He'll probably make most of it up in off the field work too. PK has a good reputation in Chicago and I am sure he can find advertising work if he wants it. Heck, he even can use his name to open businesses and make more here than in Baltimore any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Name recognition will easily make up any lost revenue from the contract, IMO.

In Chicago, he's a big deal. In Baltimore (I thought it was Anaheim) he's just another player.

MarySwiss
06-29-2007, 07:53 PM
Paul was offered more by Baltimore, it was worth the four million left on the table to not work for Peter Angelos.

He'll probably make most of it up in off the field work too. PK has a good reputation in Chicago and I am sure he can find advertising work if he wants it. Heck, he even can use his name to open businesses and make more here than in Baltimore any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Name recognition will easily make up any lost revenue from the contract, IMO.

In Chicago, he's a big deal. In Baltimore (I thought it was Anaheim) he's just another player.

I think you're both right. He was offered more bucks by Baltimore and also offered a good deal by Anaheim--IIRC, about the same money the Sox offered him. The Anaheim thing was tempting because he'd be closer to his Arizona home.

Another point: since he turned down the Baltimore deal, I don't think anyone can take that Yankees thing seriously. Unless they came up with an obscene offer. And even then, I'm not sure it'd be worth it to him. As VC says, he has a good rep here. In NYC, he'd have to line up behind Jeter, ARod, etc. Why would he want to?

jdm2662
06-29-2007, 07:53 PM
He'll probably make most of it up in off the field work too. PK has a good reputation in Chicago and I am sure he can find advertising work if he wants it. Heck, he even can use his name to open businesses and make more here than in Baltimore any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Name recognition will easily make up any lost revenue from the contract, IMO.

In Chicago, he's a big deal. In Baltimore (I thought it was Anaheim) he's just another player.

If I remember correctly, the Angels offered the same contract he ended up signing with the Sox. It was BALT that offered him the extra 4-5 million. The sticking point for signing was Thome AND the fifth year, which the Sox didn't offer at first.

And, as Daver said, any amount to not work for Peter Angelos is well worth it.

ViPeRx007
06-29-2007, 08:28 PM
The way I see it, if Mark REALLY wants to stay, they'll find a way to get a deal done regardless of what anyone says or does. Mark's a big boy, he can make his own decisions. Can't he just say "screw you" to his agent and sign whatever the heck he wants to? It's his life.

Part of me has to believe that it's not all about money. What difference does it really make if you're making 10 vs 20 million? You're pretty much set for life either way.

redsand22
06-29-2007, 08:29 PM
Imagine the Yanks/BoSox signing Zambrano/Buehrle in the offseason and Santana/Sheets in '09
:angry:
No, I can't it'll hurt too much.

CLR01
06-29-2007, 08:55 PM
The way I see it, if Mark REALLY wants to stay, they'll find a way to get a deal done regardless of what anyone says or does. Mark's a big boy, he can make his own decisions. Can't he just say "screw you" to his agent and sign whatever the heck he wants to? It's his life.

He could but then it would have been pretty foolish to hire him in the first place.

Part of me has to believe that it's not all about money. What difference does it really make if you're making 10 vs 20 million? You're pretty much set for life either way.

It's easy to say when you are not being offered it. You would turn down $10 mil? I doubt that.

ViPeRx007
06-29-2007, 09:21 PM
It's easy to say when you are not being offered it. You would turn down $10 mil? I doubt that.


I know it's easier to say from my perspective. But honestly, if I was in Mark's shoes or really any major leaguer's, I'd have to consider my priorities. If I was truly happy with where I was - living in a nice city, in a nice neighborhood, likes the team, etc. - it would have to play into the equation even more than money would.

I know that isn't the case with everybody though.

rdivaldi
06-29-2007, 09:30 PM
It's easy to say when you are not being offered it. You would turn down $10 mil? I doubt that.

It's all kind of relative though. If someone offered you a salary of $150,000 per year and you got to live in downtown Chicago, and if someone offered you a salary of $160,000 but you had to move to downtown Detroit, what would you do? I would stay in Chicago.

CLR01
06-29-2007, 09:38 PM
It's all kind of relative though. If someone offered you a salary of $150,000 per year and you got to live in downtown Chicago, and if someone offered you a salary of $160,000 but you had to move to downtown Detroit, what would you do? I would stay in Chicago.

$150,000 to $160,000 is not relative to $10,000,000 to $20,000,000.


If I was offered $150,000 to stay in Chicago and $300,000 to go to Detroit I would be on the first flight out.

Yours number would be like getting offered $10 million and $11 million. In that case I would probably stay but not for twice the money.

JB98
06-29-2007, 09:44 PM
Tailgunner Joe reports the Buehrle camp rejected the $56 million over four years, and that KW will resume trade talks with the Mets and Dodgers.

CLR01
06-29-2007, 09:47 PM
So much for 3 days of hope. Bye Buehrle. :angry:

JB98
06-29-2007, 09:50 PM
So much for 3 days of hope. Bye Buehrle. :angry:

It's a great year to be a Sox fan!

MRM
06-29-2007, 09:51 PM
Tailgunner Joe reports the Buehrle camp rejected the $56 million over four years, and that KW will resume trade talks with the Mets and Dodgers.

If it's true they rejected that offer, then KW should resume trade talks. The fans wanted the Sox to make a real offer. That would be a real offer. No way MB can say with a straight face "I really, really wanted to stay but $14mil/yr for 4 years just wasn't reasonable".

CLR01
06-29-2007, 09:53 PM
It's a great year to be a Sox fan!

If you live in the Tampa region and attended that series you got some free pizza and a sweep.

Think he is still here come Monday?