PDA

View Full Version : Garland Comment


Lip Man 1
06-28-2007, 09:24 PM
An interesting comment to Scott Merkin of White Sox.com (from the story on the Buehrle contract negotiations, which Garland will probably have to go through next season...)

"The whole policy kind of gets me because you hear teams say pitching and defense is what will get you there but they (the White Sox organization) shied away from the long-term deal on pitchers. It kind of defeats what you are after in the first place."

Lip

RowanDye
06-28-2007, 09:34 PM
An interesting comment to Scott Merkin of White Sox.com (from the story on the Buehrle contract negotiations, which Garland will probably have to go through next season...)

"The whole policy kind of gets me because you hear teams say pitching and defense is what will get you there but they (the White Sox organization) shied away from the long-term deal on pitchers. It kind of defeats what you are after in the first place."

Lip

Carl Pavano.

balke
06-28-2007, 09:39 PM
Pitching is a risk, but it doesn't seem as much a risk for Garland or Buehrle.

santo=dorf
06-28-2007, 09:40 PM
....and supposedly the Sox were cheap, timid and/or stupid for not re-signing Alex Fernandez and Jack McDowell. They got burned with Navarro as well. I can understand why the organization is a little nervous of giving out long term deals to pitchers.

Martinigirl
06-28-2007, 09:42 PM
I can understand what Garland is saying. The organization is going to have to take some chances at some point with longer contracts because you can't just assume you can keep filling the spots of people like Mark and Jon and continue to contend.

Lip Man 1
06-28-2007, 09:45 PM
Dorf:

Both Alex and Jack seemed to do pretty well after they left Chicago. I recall Alex pitching the Marlins to a World Series and Jack making two more playoff series with New York and Cleveland.

They weren't able to do it as long as some would have liked, but it's not like they completely fell off the face of the Earth immediately after leaving the Sox.

In four out of the next five seasons after Jack left in 94 the Sox did though...

Lip

rainbow6
06-28-2007, 09:49 PM
I heard Reinsdorf interviewed prior to the season and he said it wasn't that they wouldn't offer a multi-year deal to a pitcher, it just had to be the right caliber of pitcher.

This topic will surely bring up names like McDowell, Fernandez, and Alvarez (along with Navaro) as examples that prove that the Sox philosophy is the right one...

However, I would like, just once, for the Sox to pursue and sign a STUD pitcher to multi-year deal. We have signed top-of-the line hitters over the years to multi-year deals, both in house (Thomas) and from free agency (Belle) but never a pitcher. And I don't mean middle-of-the-road innings eaters.

I mean being a serious contender when a pitcher like Santana becomes available.

Beurhle will be the first test to the Sox in a long time...I think letting him go and becoming the South Side version of Greg Maddux would be too much for me to handle.

balke
06-28-2007, 09:50 PM
mark & jon are young too.

gobears1987
06-28-2007, 09:51 PM
Beurhle will be the first test to the Sox in a long time...I think letting him go and becoming the South Side version of Greg Maddux would be too much for me to handle.And that is exactly what will happen if we lose Buehrle. If KW doesn't bring Buehrle back, I will seriously question his ability to put together another winner.

jdm2662
06-28-2007, 09:55 PM
Lip,

With all due respect, Fernandez made 64 starts for the Marlins during his five year contract, 32 of them were in 1997. Yes, he pitched well in 1997, but I wouldn't exactly say he earned his contract.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fernaal01.shtml

McDowell pitched well in 1995 for the Yankees, but never had an ERA under 5 after that.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcdowja01.shtml

One good season doesn't justify a long term contract. I do agree the White Sox, like every company no matter what business you are in, have to take some chances here and there. They will need to take a chance with Mark or Garland (or both) if they plan on contending in the future. However, I think it's safe to say the way these two careers turned out, the White Sox letting them go wasn't a bad thing. They would've been even worse then they were.

And, when was the last time the White Sox let a player go that they truly regret? The only one I can think of is maybe Ventura? Anyone else I'm missing? I doubt anyone is regretting letting Ordonez go despite his good season so far.

santo=dorf
06-28-2007, 09:56 PM
Fernandez had only one full season, and it was good. Missed 1998 when he was the third highest paid player in the NL. A good 2/3 of a season after that, and about 52 innings over the next 2 seasons. The Marlins paid $35 million for it. I don't think they got their money's worth.

The Indians and Yankees did not make the playoffs because of McDowell, in fact his numbers with the Indians were below average. It wouldn't have mattered if the Sox had McDowell in 1995 because they finished 32 games out of first.

balke
06-28-2007, 09:57 PM
Carl Pavano.

Pavano again is also an NL pitcher, one good season and he got lucky. Garland is an AL pitcher who has more wins than anyone in the past 4 seasons.

Ones a poor man's fireballer, the other gets guys out by making good pitches.

I like sticking with these kinds of pitchers that don't rely on the heater. Less wear on the arm, more longevity. The Sox should lock both up, and get the rest from the Farm system if they have to.

santo=dorf
06-28-2007, 10:06 PM
Pavano again is also an NL pitcher, one good season and he got lucky. Garland is an AL pitcher who has more wins than anyone in the past 4 seasons.

Ones a poor man's fireballer, the other gets guys out by making good pitches.

I like sticking with these kinds of pitchers that don't rely on the heater. Less wear on the arm, more longevity. The Sox should lock both up, and get the rest from the Farm system if they have to.
Why are you only using wins to evaluate a pitcher's performance?

In both 2005 and 2006 Garland had 18 wins. Are you telling me his performances in both those years were even? Was he better in 2006 because he was 18-7 opposed to 18-10? :?:

balke
06-28-2007, 10:21 PM
Actually no. If a pitcher is in long enough to earn that many losses it can actually mean good things. He was keeping the team in more games most likely, and the offense let him down. Losses aren't great, but they can indicate a pitcher who was in the game long enough to earn that loss. Not always, but usually that can be a good thing.

But your question is pretty much out of nowhere, cause it relates to nothing I said. I think you're just trying to pick a fight about something. I was saying he has more wins than anyone in baseball over the past (I believe its 4 seasons). Do you want to say that's not good? That's longevity, what Pavano had was one good season. Everyone knew he sucked when he went into free agency (Except the Yankees).

WhiteSox5187
06-28-2007, 10:25 PM
I certainly understand the Sox philosphy of not signing a pitcher to more than three year deals, but at the same time, I don't think that is a philosphy that should be carved into stone...granted a guy like Bartolo Colon is probably a risk after any more than three years (or even less) but there are guys like Maddux, Glavine and Buerhle who when they were thirty or so warranted a long term contract. I understand why we're hesistant to give out long deal contracts but if we keep saying "Well, we got burned with Navarro" that would be like giving up on dating at age fifteen because some girl broke up with you (yes, I'm stretching for analogies here). Really two guys like Buerhle and Garland I certainly think warrant breaking the three year deal. And we MIGHT be moving in that direction. I am not expecting us to go crazy and give either Mark a seven year deal, but a four year deal certainly could be in teh works and I think a four year deal is a damn good deal for a pitcher too. Gives them a good sense of security and doesn't tie the White Sox hands. The Giants are going to be regretting that Zito deal for a loooong time. Had they signed him to a four year deal, all of a sudden it's not that bad. But, time will tell.

havelj
06-28-2007, 10:35 PM
McDowell had questionable mechanics and a weak frame.

Fernandez and Alvarez refused to stay in shape and were fat.

The Sox would have made an offer to Ventura and probably kept him if Belle didn't wait so long holding his $11 million option over their heads.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 12:00 AM
Its all about the current market for pitchers. If all the teams are giving 4,5 or more year contracts for front line pitchers, the Sox have to do the same. If not, they will never keep front line pitchers or get any through free agency.

bigfoot
06-29-2007, 12:04 AM
It's still a business decision. Since the insurance industry has decided several years ago that they would not insure contract for more than 3 years(thanks to getting burned by LT contracts), many GM's shy away from the LT contract. Many are for no more than 3 yrs, with an "option/s" for future mutual considerations.

michned
06-29-2007, 12:12 AM
Its all about the current market for pitchers. If all the teams are giving 4,5 or more year contracts for front line pitchers, the Sox have to do the same. If not, they will never keep front line pitchers or get any through free agency.

That's what I keep coming back to. It's all about the market. It doesn't matter whether we think six years, 100 mil is too much if that is the market price.

This is all about the Sox not wanting to pay pitchers the market price. I was listening to Dibble and Kevin Kennedy on XM today and they were talking about how much pressure there is from other players for guys not to give a hometown discount, because it essentially drives down everyone's market value.

That being said, I'm not optimistic about Mark re-signing.

johnnyg83
06-29-2007, 12:27 AM
I think it's a good question. What players went on to be studs after they left the Sox (to me, ordonez for dye is wash over the life of the deal)? That may chnage but the only cat I can think of is Ventura and he was good at times, but not dominant. Bonilla? Drabek? That's pretty far back.

rdivaldi
06-29-2007, 12:42 AM
Lip,

With all due respect, Fernandez made 64 starts for the Marlins during his five year contract, 32 of them were in 1997. Yes, he pitched well in 1997, but I wouldn't exactly say he earned his contract.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fernaal01.shtml

McDowell pitched well in 1995 for the Yankees, but never had an ERA under 5 after that.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcdowja01.shtml
.

Thanks, I was going to bring up the exact same stats.

The Dude
06-29-2007, 12:44 AM
Carl Pavano.

Great example! :rolleyes:

santo=dorf
06-29-2007, 05:22 AM
Actually no. If a pitcher is in long enough to earn that many losses it can actually mean good things. He was keeping the team in more games most likely, and the offense let him down. Losses aren't great, but they can indicate a pitcher who was in the game long enough to earn that loss. Not always, but usually that can be a good thing.

But your question is pretty much out of nowhere, cause it relates to nothing I said. I think you're just trying to pick a fight about something. I was saying he has more wins than anyone in baseball over the past (I believe its 4 seasons). Do you want to say that's not good? That's longevity, what Pavano had was one good season. Everyone knew he sucked when he went into free agency (Except the Yankees).
You said "Garland is an AL pitcher who has more wins than anyone in the past 4 seasons."

So what? Why compare that to an NL pitcher?

Comparing wins to two player on a different is an bad way to make a point on who is better. Garland is better than Pavano, but it's not because of win totals.

balke
06-29-2007, 06:05 AM
You said "Garland is an AL pitcher who has more wins than anyone in the past 4 seasons."

So what? Why compare that to an NL pitcher?

Comparing wins to two player on a different is an bad way to make a point on who is better. Garland is better than Pavano, but it's not because of win totals.

He's better than Pavano in a lot of ways. Wins are the most, or second most important stat in my book. They show your pitcher is going deep in games maintaining a lead. Maybe his ERA is high, but its most likely from games he lost.

Wins aren't the only stat I look at, because there are exceptions for if you play for teams like the Red Sox or Yankees and the batting order is stacked, but Garland in 2005 wasn't winning that many games because of he had 6 all-stars in the batting order.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2007, 06:29 AM
McDowell had questionable mechanics and a weak frame.

Fernandez and Alvarez refused to stay in shape and were fat.

The Sox would have made an offer to Ventura and probably kept him if Belle didn't wait so long holding his $11 million option over their heads.

Your're right. McDowell has questionable mechanics because he had some kind of congenital hip issue that affected his throwing motion. He was a ticking time bomb.

You're also right about Alex and Wilson - they paved/ate the path for Bartolo Colon to follow.

They did offer Ventura a low-ball deal as a courtesy; Robin politely told JR, "thanks but no thanks."

Where Lip certainly does have a point historically is with the non-signing of Roger Clemens. A five year contract offered in 1997 certainly would have been a fantastic deal for the Sox.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Sox will sign Buehrle, then trade Contreras, then (later) extend Garland, then (eventually) deal/not re-sign Vazquez. I've said for years that based on their ability to generate ground ball outs, Buehrle and Garland are a perfect fit for the Cell and should be the cornerstones of the rotation into the next decade.

graham5
06-29-2007, 07:23 AM
Its all about the current market for pitchers. If all the teams are giving 4,5 or more year contracts for front line pitchers, the Sox have to do the same. If not, they will never keep front line pitchers or get any through free agency.

In my opinion, 'just because everyone else is doing it' is not a good reason for us to do it, too. If Reinsdorf and Williams have a strong conviction that this isn't the way to go then I back them 100%.

Hopefully, whilst everyone else is exposed to long-term contracts for pitchers who are worth a lot less than they are actually paying them, we can use our dollars to produce world series contending teams.

SBSoxFan
06-29-2007, 08:30 AM
Your're right. McDowell has questionable mechanics because he had some kind of congenital hip issue that affected his throwing motion. He was a ticking time bomb.

You're also right about Alex and Wilson - they paved/ate the path for Bartolo Colon to follow.

They did offer Ventura a low-ball deal as a courtesy; Robin politely told JR, "thanks but no thanks."

Where Lip certainly does have a point historically is with the non-signing of Roger Clemens. A five year contract offered in 1997 certainly would have been a fantastic deal for the Sox.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Sox will sign Buehrle, then trade Contreras, then (later) extend Garland, then (eventually) deal/not re-sign Vazquez. I've said for years that based on their ability to generate ground ball outs, Buehrle and Garland are a perfect fit for the Cell and should be the cornerstones of the rotation into the next decade.

Frater, had the Sox GM at the time not thought Clemens was washed up, does he get a 5-yr offer from the Sox? Just curious.

Also, I agree about Garland being a good fit for the Cell. I'm not sure Buehrle is, but he consistently wins, so I certainly hope he's around for awhile. However, I also think Vazquez is a good fit too because he's a strikeout pitcher. Did you know that last night was the 30th :o: game in his career where he's struck out 10 or more batters? His w/k ratio is pretty sick, and Buehrle is the only other starter in the Sox' rotation with a good w/k ratio. In my opinion, Garland needs to really decrease his walks, and if Contreras could do the same, he'd be dominant again. I like the rotation, but if one has to go, I'd have to pick Contreras.

soxfan13
06-29-2007, 08:47 AM
Frater, had the Sox GM at the time not thought Clemens was washed up, does he get a 5-yr offer from the Sox? Just curious.

Also, I agree about Garland being a good fit for the Cell. I'm not sure Buehrle is, but he consistently wins, so I certainly hope he's around for awhile. However, I also think Vazquez is a good fit too because he's a strikeout pitcher. Did you know that last night was the 30th :o: game in his career where he's struck out 10 or more batters? His w/k ratio is pretty sick, and Buehrle is the only other starter in the Sox' rotation with a good w/k ratio. In my opinion, Garland needs to really decrease his walks, and if Contreras could do the same, he'd be dominant again. I like the rotation, but if one has to go, I'd have to pick Contreras.

Too bad that doesnt relate to wins . Yes he has great stuff but he is way to inconsistent for me. I too would pick Contreas to go along with Vazquez

jdm2662
06-29-2007, 09:19 AM
I think it's a good question. What players went on to be studs after they left the Sox (to me, ordonez for dye is wash over the life of the deal)? That may chnage but the only cat I can think of is Ventura and he was good at times, but not dominant. Bonilla? Drabek? That's pretty far back.

See, no matter how well Ordonez plays from here on out, I think it's safe to say letting him go was the right move. For starters, he couldn't even prove to the Sox he could still play. Also, letting him go allowed KW to fill the holes of the team and enabled them to win the World Series.

Ventura had a very good, MVP-caliber season in 1999. After that, he still had some solid seasons, but not close to he had in 1999.

Good call on Bonilla, which was over 20 years ago. That's probably why I couldn't come up with his name. If that's the last time the Sox trading/letting a player go they truely regret, well, I think the Sox might be doing something right... We will see if the same thing happens with their starting rotation.

Madvora
06-29-2007, 09:45 AM
With guys like Garland and Buehrle, you can see their longevity and see what they can do for this team. These are guys you have to lock up. If they get hurt and you're stuck with two years of the contract finishing in 4th place, then so what? What's the difference between that and finishing in 4th place with a bunch of rookies or washed up bums starting instead? The only difference is you really have a chance to do something big when you have guys like this locked up. If they're gone, then you're going to have to replace them anyway. It doesn't make sense, you're just going to go out looking for more guys just like them. Take the risks!

Trav
06-29-2007, 09:57 AM
Why is no one talking about how the Braves were able to keep their core of three great starters, throwing caution to the wind and giving them what they wanted? Shouldn't the Sox be studying how they dealt with keeping those pitchers and implementing those procedures?

Madscout
06-29-2007, 09:59 AM
I agree. With Buehrle and Garland, we are going to get our money's worth. Young guys, not much of a history of injuries. Clearly the most consistant guys on the staff. With Masset and Floyd in AAA, I wouldn't mind seeing Contreras or Vasquez go in the next few years.

kobo
06-29-2007, 10:06 AM
Garland is absolutely correct. The organization for the past few years has said that pitching and defense wins championships, yet their reluctance to sign a pitcher to more than a 3 year deal sort of contradicts that philosophy. The Sox are going to have to take a chance here with Buehrle and hopefully Garland and offer each of these guys at least a 4 year deal. They are both young and both in thier prime, this is the perfect opportunity to offer these guys longer deals and build the rotation around them.

If the Sox are serious about being contendors and wanting to win another World Series then they need to start focusing on the other teams in the AL Central. The Tigers, Indians, and Twins are not going away any time soon. All of those teams are built right now to be contendors for the next 3-4 years. The Sox have to take a good look at what they have and not let some of these guys get away simply because they don't want to pay them. That's an insult to the fan base who has shown their appreciation the last few years by selling out the Cell and supporting the team. Garland and Buehrle have proven themselves over the last few years, the Sox need to step up and recognize that. I don't want the Sox to go another 88 years before winning another championship.

flo-B-flo
06-29-2007, 10:31 AM
Yesterday on Comcast Sullivan said Garland was "immature". I wonder what he bases that on? If he is immature what is Mr. cra-Z?

veeter
06-29-2007, 10:39 AM
How much God Damn money have the Sox made in the last three years, from us fans pumping it in. If the fans want these guys to stay, for intelligent reasons, not just sentimentality, pay them the money.

Noneck
06-29-2007, 11:23 AM
Yesterday on Comcast Sullivan said Garland was "immature". I wonder what he bases that on? If he is immature what is Mr. cra-Z?

And he said, He would take Lilly over Garland.

areilly
06-29-2007, 11:24 AM
He's better than Pavano in a lot of ways. Wins are the most, or second most important stat in my book. They show your pitcher is going deep in games maintaining a lead. Maybe his ERA is high, but its most likely from games he lost.

Wins aren't the only stat I look at, because there are exceptions for if you play for teams like the Red Sox or Yankees and the batting order is stacked, but Garland in 2005 wasn't winning that many games because of he had 6 all-stars in the batting order.


Your second point negates your first; wins only mean your offense is capable of scoring more runs than your pitcher surrenders; as a statistical tool, it's more a reflection of the whole team than of the pitcher. See our very own 2000 AL Central champions for examples of this. You can't tell me with a straight face that James Baldwin went 14-7 because he was such an awesome pitcher. Same for Jim Parque and his 13-6.

Lip Man 1
06-29-2007, 11:56 AM
Frater:

From Jack's interview with WSI:

ML: After an impressive debut in 87 (Authorís Note: 4 games, 3-0 record, 1.98 ERA in 28 innings), you struggled the next two years. Didnít you have some type of hip injury that really hurt you?

JM: "It wasnít really a hip injury, and it may have been my fault for not explaining it better at the time. I was born with an arthritic hip. Iíve had it all my life and learned to play with it. I adjusted my mechanics for it.

After my rookie season, the Sox tinkered with those mechanics and it did certain things to my motion. That caused me to start having some problems with the hip. I tried to adjust to what they wanted and I realize the coaches were only trying to help, but it wasnít good for me.

I know they didnít want me to hurt my arm but I also realized that I had to pitch the way I wanted. Iíve seen guys throw all kinds of different ways and that has nothing to do with who gets hurt. It happens. The best coaches are the ones who work with you on the mental aspects of the game not the physical. Thatís what gets you to the majors and thatís why you win. The best coach I ever had was Rick Peterson. When the Sox let him go, it was a real shame." (Authorís Note: Peterson now is with the Oakland Aís and has been a major factor in the rapid development of Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito.)

Also regarding Jack and his 'meaningless' 13 wins and 196 innings pitched in 1996.

Think the Sox wouldn't have LOVED to have had him when they were blowing a decent sized lead in the wild card race in August / September because the back end of the rotation was comprised of such luminaries as:

Brian Keyser, Joe Magrane, Mike Bertotti and a very young Mike Sirotka?

Just wondering...

Lip

balke
06-29-2007, 12:00 PM
Your second point negates your first; wins only mean your offense is capable of scoring more runs than your pitcher surrenders; as a statistical tool, it's more a reflection of the whole team than of the pitcher. See our very own 2000 AL Central champions for examples of this. You can't tell me with a straight face that James Baldwin went 14-7 because he was such an awesome pitcher. Same for Jim Parque and his 13-6.


My second point doesn't negate anything. Pitchers get paid to win games. Cy Young isn't won by guys with 13 wins. Wins are important, and a reason real studs can get them anywhere they play.


Baldwin had Durham, Thomas, Maggs, Konerko, Valentin, Carlos Lee, a decent year out of Singleton and Perry, and a good amount of play out of Charles Johnson. I see 13 wins with that lineup, and think Garland could've gotten 20.

Which is the same point I made about having a great hitting team behind said pitcher. I take into account more than wins, but wins are about the first thing anyone should look at when ranking a pitcher. Some pitchers have inflated ERA's for 2-3 outings where they couldn't get out of the 1st inning. ERA as a stat is just as tricky as wins. Generally on a decent team, a pitcher winning over 15 games in a season consistantly is doing a great job, no matter what lineup is behind him.

balke
06-29-2007, 12:03 PM
You said "Garland is an AL pitcher who has more wins than anyone in the past 4 seasons."

So what? Why compare that to an NL pitcher?

Comparing wins to two player on a different is an bad way to make a point on who is better. Garland is better than Pavano, but it's not because of win totals.

And also, in this case I wasn't comparing Garland to one guy, I was comparing him to every pitcher in MLB. He's got more wins than anyone that past few seasons. Pavano had one good year. We're not talking about giving an extension to a player with one good year.

Lip Man 1
06-29-2007, 12:08 PM
Another thing to consider should the Sox decide to let either Mark or Jon or both go...

Who replaces them? Who in the minor leagues is ready? Who is available of the free agent market that the Sox would be willing to pay for? (and contrary to Kenny's 'hopes' it doesn't appear the market will 'correct' itself this off season. At least Kenny's the only one who has said that he thinks this will happen...)

Pitching wins pennants people...let's not forget that. (I mean 2005 isn't that far removed right?)

Lip

ode to veeck
06-29-2007, 12:16 PM
Being conservative on long term pitchers contracts is a reasonable strategy outside of Boston and the Bronx, but Garland and Burhle are both young and have very sound mechanics, and are as likely as any pitchers around to have long successful careers. I could be wrong, but I could see Burly-mon easily pitching another 10 years ... sign 'em up, starting pitching gets you there and wins in the playoffs.

hawkjt
06-29-2007, 01:11 PM
no doubt JR has to break his ''rule'' for burls and garland cus they are special- young,experienced,playoff-tested,and extremely durable...

not many fit into those descriptions around mlb... plus they are your own homegrown players... sign 'em up , kenny...

soxinem1
06-29-2007, 01:19 PM
I see both sides are right here, and with good reason.

The White Sox take has been for the most part, correct, as in regards to pitching. McDowell and Fernandez were the most mentioned here, but Alvarez bears note too. He absolutely bombed in Tampa, and got a boatload of $$$$.

I remember old Sox nemesis Juan Guzman getting a huge deal from Tampa too around that time, and he pitched about ONE inning for a 3yr, $18 million deal.

Pavano gave every possible warning that he was a borderline performer having a career year at the right time. The NYY had to have him, and now they can enjoy the greed they mutually share.

The players, however, cannot be faulted, especially Buerhle. Other than one half season, he has been as consistent as any starter in baseball since 2001, and he should cash in. Why should he be pinched just to stay here when tons of scrubs are making tons for doing far less?

Back in 2000, a lot of fans clamored for the Sox to resign Charles Johnson, and the Sox had little interest in the guy who hit .300 with 30HR's. And do you know why? Because he was barely a .250 hitter who had a career year. He signed a big deal w/FLA and was washed out well before his contract was done. In fact, the first half of 2001 was the best seasoalso n he had after that.

The reality is that with any free agent, you run the risk of two main things.

One, the FA achieved his numbers in his prime. Very rarely does any FA top what he did before he got the big money.

Second, he achieved the numbers with another team. Different manager, trainers, coaches, teammates, home stadium, etc. are all factors.

It's sort of like replanting a tree that has been in the ground for 5-6 years. It may survive after it is moved, it may not.

So as far as the Sox foray into the FA market, I can see their side. Other than Fisk, how many lasted? Cruz and Navarro were disasters, and Joey Belle could have been if he didn't opt out (Thank you, BAL!!) The only recent top-tier FA I could think of that did well for a sustained period after he left is Roberto Hernandez.

So I propose this. Give Burls four years, with two option years that are player choice, the first is IP, win, and/or ERA enacted, but the second can be declined by the team with a buyout. Then everyone is covered.

RowanDye
06-29-2007, 02:55 PM
Great example! :rolleyes:

Yes, it is a great example of why teams shy away from longterm contracts with pitchers.

I wasn't comparing Pavano to Buehrle or Garland.

I was simply addressing and disagreeing with Garland's comment that the White Sox philosophies are inconsistent.

It's very simple. Pitchers make the most money and are the biggest risk. Therefore, a smart team should be very careful in projecting and investing in veteran pitching.

Buehrle and Garland might be less risk than most pitchers, but I still think they are a greater risk for injury or decline than lesser-payed position players.

I_Liked_Manuel
06-29-2007, 03:54 PM
i'd be a lot more willing to give buehrle a longterm deal if he didn't have so much wear and tear on his arm. i know, he's never been on the DL- but we saw what happened last year when he lost a few mph on that fastball. the fact that he hasn't been on the DL yet doesn't indicate that logging a ton of innings isn't going to put him on the DL- it just shows that he's been fine up until now. i hope mark has a healthy career- but logging a high amount of innings is usually indicative that he's going to end up on the DL at some point.

areilly
06-29-2007, 04:03 PM
My second point doesn't negate anything. Pitchers get paid to win games. Cy Young isn't won by guys with 13 wins. Wins are important, and a reason real studs can get them anywhere they play.


Baldwin had Durham, Thomas, Maggs, Konerko, Valentin, Carlos Lee, a decent year out of Singleton and Perry, and a good amount of play out of Charles Johnson. I see 13 wins with that lineup, and think Garland could've gotten 20.

Which is the same point I made about having a great hitting team behind said pitcher. I take into account more than wins, but wins are about the first thing anyone should look at when ranking a pitcher. Some pitchers have inflated ERA's for 2-3 outings where they couldn't get out of the 1st inning. ERA as a stat is just as tricky as wins. Generally on a decent team, a pitcher winning over 15 games in a season consistantly is doing a great job, no matter what lineup is behind him.


Garland as a rookie starter went 4-8 with a 6.46 ERA with that very lineup...

jabrch
06-29-2007, 05:21 PM
If Jon wants 5/75, he's welcome to go get it elsewhere after his contract expires. If he wants 4/50, I'm sure KW can find a way to work it out.

This isn't brain surgery to me. Williams and Reinsdorf will not gamble the future of this franchise to a long term contract to a pitcher. I dont see anything wrong with that philosophy.

balke
06-29-2007, 05:56 PM
Garland as a rookie starter went 4-8 with a 6.46 ERA with that very lineup...

As a rookie. Different pitcher then, and I knew that.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2007, 05:56 PM
i'd be a lot more willing to give buehrle a longterm deal if he didn't have so much wear and tear on his arm. i know, he's never been on the DL- but we saw what happened last year when he lost a few mph on that fastball. the fact that he hasn't been on the DL yet doesn't indicate that logging a ton of innings isn't going to put him on the DL- it just shows that he's been fine up until now. i hope mark has a healthy career- but logging a high amount of innings is usually indicative that he's going to end up on the DL at some point.

Wear and tear due to number of innings pitched?

Which is worse? Pitching 110 pitches in 5 innings or 100 pitches in 7 innings?

Put it another way - imagine a pitcher who throws a complete 9-inning game with 27 pitches. How is that heavy wear and tear on the pitcher?

Innings pitched are a poor measure of wear and tear.

EndemicSox
06-29-2007, 06:01 PM
If Jon wants 5/75, he's welcome to go get it elsewhere after his contract expires. If he wants 4/50, I'm sure KW can find a way to work it out.



I agree with this, Garland isn't the type you invest long-term money in. I feel differently about MB. If the owners use this philosophy with all pitchers, however, I think they are simply being cheap. It depends on the pitcher in question.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:17 PM
Garland needs to shut up and keep his nose out of someone elses negotiations when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. To publicly criticize the very team that gave HIM a contract extension just over a year ago is insanity.

Daver
06-29-2007, 06:17 PM
i'd be a lot more willing to give buehrle a longterm deal if he didn't have so much wear and tear on his arm. i know, he's never been on the DL- but we saw what happened last year when he lost a few mph on that fastball. the fact that he hasn't been on the DL yet doesn't indicate that logging a ton of innings isn't going to put him on the DL- it just shows that he's been fine up until now. i hope mark has a healthy career- but logging a high amount of innings is usually indicative that he's going to end up on the DL at some point.

Pitchers get hurt because they don't throw enough, not from pitching too much.

balke
06-29-2007, 06:23 PM
Yeah, leave the griping to the guys on message boards who aren't even on the team.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:25 PM
I agree with this, Garland isn't the type you invest long-term money in. I feel differently about MB. If the owners use this philosophy with all pitchers, however, I think they are simply being cheap. It depends on the pitcher in question.

It's a sad state of fandom when fans call owners "cheap" for offering to pay a guy $12mil+/yr to play in 32-34 games.

That's an INSANE amount of money to do what these guys do. Yet we call the owners "cheap" for not paying more.

I'd imagine many fans can't even fathom how much money $12mil is. To put some perspective on this, it's more than 10 times the amount of money MOST people will earn in their entire life combined. Working from age 18 to age 65.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 06:33 PM
It's a sad state of fandom when fans call owners "cheap" for offering to pay a guy $12mil+/yr to play in 32-34 games.

That's an INSANE amount of money to do what these guys do. Yet we call the owners "cheap" for not paying more.

I'd imagine many fans can't even fathom how much money $12mil is. To put some perspective on this, it's more than 10 times the amount of money MOST people will earn in their entire life combined. Working from age 18 to age 65.

MRM - here's where I disagree with you. MLB players are paid to draw fans to the park, not to play a game. The value of what they do is directly related to how many people come through the gates (and watch on TV and radio, and buy shirts and hats, etc.) They are paid what they are worth. If they weren't worth it, owners wouldn't keep throwing money at them. It's not a truly efficient market, but it is not outrageous either.

I'm not concerned about the difference between paying a guy 12, 14 and 16mm. It's good money either way. To me, I'd be more concerned about the difference between being comitted to a 3 year deal vs a 5 year deal vs a 7 year deal. That was what was most crazy about the Giants paying Zito so much last year - the length of the deal, rather than the $ per season.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:33 PM
Yeah, leave the griping to the guys on message boards who aren't even on the team.

Fans running their mouth on a message board is no big deal. It's what fans do. A player publicly running his mouth to the press about ANOTHER players contract is absurd.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 06:34 PM
Fans running their mouth on a message board is no big deal. It's what fans do. A player publicly running his mouth to the press about ANOTHER players contract is absurd.

You are 100% right on this one. I'm sure Garland's agent is advising him to **** and mind his own business here. It's never good to enter yourself into your teammates contract disputes.

MRM
06-29-2007, 06:47 PM
MRM - here's where I disagree with you. MLB players are paid to draw fans to the park, not to play a game. The value of what they do is directly related to how many people come through the gates (and watch on TV and radio, and buy shirts and hats, etc.) They are paid what they are worth. If they weren't worth it, owners wouldn't keep throwing money at them. It's not a truly efficient market, but it is not outrageous either.

I'm not concerned about the difference between paying a guy 12, 14 and 16mm. It's good money either way. To me, I'd be more concerned about the difference between being comitted to a 3 year deal vs a 5 year deal vs a 7 year deal. That was what was most crazy about the Giants paying Zito so much last year - the length of the deal, rather than the $ per season.

Zito was cheap on a per year basis when compared to Clemens $28mil deal :D:

I understand what you are saying about market value and all that, but it's the success of the team that draws the fans, not the success of a single player. Particularly not a player who only plays every 5 days. If you pay someone $2mil/yr more than you budgeted, that's $2m less you have to spend elsewhere. It's not like the budget is going to jump just because you give in to one guys demand. Is one player, particularly a starting pitcher, going to make the difference in wins to justify cutting corners in other areas? I'm not so sure about that.

All other arguments aside, the Sox budget is going to be what it's going to be. They will have to fit their entire team in under that budget. As we've seen thus far this year, MBs performances don't generally mean much if the rest of the team isn't performing. It's a fragile balance that the team has to find.

I've been on record numerous times agreeing that the Sox stance on years where starters contracts are concerned is historically the smart thing to do. No way I'd do a straight 5 year deal, let alone a 7 year, on ANY pitcher. Ever.

EndemicSox
06-29-2007, 06:55 PM
It's a sad state of fandom when fans call owners "cheap" for offering to pay a guy $12mil+/yr to play in 32-34 games.

That's an INSANE amount of money to do what these guys do. Yet we call the owners "cheap" for not paying more.

I'd imagine many fans can't even fathom how much money $12mil is. To put some perspective on this, it's more than 10 times the amount of money MOST people will earn in their entire life combined. Working from age 18 to age 65.

I understand what you're saying, and it needed to be said. Perspective is nice. However, MLB owners/players live and play in a different world than most of us do. So while the owners certainly aren't being "cheap" in the traditional sense, I do believe this policy signals the Sox refuse to play with the big dogs, so to speak. If KW can bring a consistant winner to the SouthSide using the moneyball philosophy, good for him. I believe he can...and it would be good for the game and society in general.

jabrch
06-29-2007, 07:31 PM
I do believe this policy signals the Sox refuse to play with the big dogs, so to speak.

I think it is a signal that KW and JR think the big dogs are stupid. And if that entails not getting stuck in Hampton, Park, Zito type contracts, then hell yeah, I agree.

One bad deal like that takes 15mm of productive money right off the top of your payroll. That's a terrible way to go.

MRM
06-29-2007, 07:41 PM
I understand what you're saying, and it needed to be said. Perspective is nice. However, MLB owners/players live and play in a different world than most of us do. So while the owners certainly aren't being "cheap" in the traditional sense, I do believe this policy signals the Sox refuse to play with the big dogs, so to speak. If KW can bring a consistant winner to the SouthSide using the moneyball philosophy, good for him. I believe he can...and it would be good for the game and society in general.

How are the Sox not "playing with the big dogs"?

Moneyball philosophy? Are you kidding?

You are aware that the Sox have the 4th highest payroll in MLB, right?

jabrch
06-29-2007, 07:56 PM
How are the Sox not "playing with the big dogs"?

Moneyball philosophy? Are you kidding?

You are aware that the Sox have the 4th highest payroll in MLB, right?


Cheap...cheap and stupid MRM... :angry:

MRM
06-29-2007, 08:04 PM
Cheap...cheap and stupid MRM... :angry:

Huh?

rdivaldi
06-29-2007, 08:16 PM
Yesterday on Comcast Sullivan said Garland was "immature". I wonder what he bases that on? If he is immature what is Mr. cra-Z?

I saw that as well, and it reaffirmed my belief that Sullivan is a gigantic douchebag. If it isn't Cub related he half-asses his reporting.

Lip Man 1
06-29-2007, 11:08 PM
My only comment to the discussion is something Howard Cosell said, I'd guess, 30 years ago or so around the time Reggie Jackson got his large deal from the Yankees.

"When you beat odds of 100,000-1 to get to the top of your professional you deserve to collect big."

It's no different for U2, the Rolling Stones, Brad Pitt, Dan Patrick, the top lawyers, computers programmers, heart specialists or any of the top pro athletes.

If you are among a very few in the world who can do what you do, you get paid accordingly.

Lip

Nellie_Fox
06-30-2007, 01:14 AM
How are the Sox not "playing with the big dogs"?

Moneyball philosophy? Are you kidding?

You are aware that the Sox have the 4th highest payroll in MLB, right?So many on here keep missing this point. How in the hell are the Sox cheap because they don't outspend the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox?

My only comment to the discussion is something Howard Cosell said, I'd guess, 30 years ago or so around the time Reggie Jackson got his large deal from the Yankees.

"When you beat odds of 100,000-1 to get to the top of your professional you deserve to collect big."

It's no different for U2, the Rolling Stones, Brad Pitt, Dan Patrick, the top lawyers, computers programmers, heart specialists or any of the top pro athletes.

If you are among a very few in the world who can do what you do, you get paid accordingly.

LipAnd very few professions are able to make that determination. What if you are the best high-school teacher in the whole freaking world? Are you going to get multi-millions? Of course not, because of the economics of the occupation. No school feels pressured to be the best in the country. Just being "pretty good" is good enough. So, being one of the few in the world who can do what you do in most occupations won't get you an unlimited earning ceiling.

MRM
06-30-2007, 02:09 AM
My only comment to the discussion is something Howard Cosell said, I'd guess, 30 years ago or so around the time Reggie Jackson got his large deal from the Yankees.

"When you beat odds of 100,000-1 to get to the top of your professional you deserve to collect big."

It's no different for U2, the Rolling Stones, Brad Pitt, Dan Patrick, the top lawyers, computers programmers, heart specialists or any of the top pro athletes.

If you are among a very few in the world who can do what you do, you get paid accordingly.

Lip

It's plenty different from U2 and the Rolling Stones. They get paid if they draw. If they don't draw, they don't get paid. If Brad Pitts next movie doesn't sell, he won't get as much for the next one. Dan Patrick? Lawyers work case to case and command their pay based on their ability to win, if they lost the last one the next one isn't paying so well. Computer programmers are almost universally free lance guys who get paid AFTER they perform. (I'm all for THIS in pro sports). How much business is a heart specialist who loses 6 straight customers gonna get?

Nobody on your list, other than pro athletes, get a 5 year contract guaranteeing them huge $$$$ whether they perform well or not.

Bad examples all.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 11:01 AM
Huh?


I was just rolling my eyes at all the people implying the Sox are cheap. They amaze me.

roadrunner
06-30-2007, 12:29 PM
You are aware that the Sox have the 4th highest payroll in MLB, right?

This argument, while true, does not give the club a blanket defense. The fact that they misallocated other resources does not mean that they can't be labeled as cheap when it comes to rewarding one of the most deserving members of the organization. They knew that the Buehrle deal was looming when they signed Vazquez to big money. They talk about having a philosophy of winning with pitching yet they play games when it comes to signing their best pitcher.

jabrch
06-30-2007, 12:52 PM
They talk about having a philosophy of winning with pitching yet they play games when it comes to signing their best pitcher.

Signing a pitcher to a long term contract without ability to trade that player is not necesarily congruent with winning.

I like Mark - but he's not so great that losing him, instead of paying him a ton for a long time, will doom the franchise.

Daver
06-30-2007, 03:18 PM
It's plenty different from U2 and the Rolling Stones. They get paid if they draw.

No, they get paid regardless, the promoter is the one that loses if they don't draw.

ilsox7
07-02-2007, 05:23 AM
Lawyers work case to case and command their pay based on their ability to win, if they lost the last one the next one isn't paying so well.

That's not true at all for the vast majority of lawyers in the world.

nsolo
07-02-2007, 11:41 AM
How much God Damn money have the Sox made in the last three years, from us fans pumping it in. If the fans want these guys to stay, for intelligent reasons, not just sentimentality, pay them the money.
To me, that's the real question. The organization has probably (not sure) made more money in the past few years than it ever has. That money didn't just appear on its own. It was paid to the Sox in exchange for appreciation of a World Series championship. The problem with a championship is that they are addictive, more so for fans who went without for so long.

God know I REALLY APPRECIATE winning the WS, but history tells me that the heads of state of the Sox organization:

1. Haven't hired a field manager with prior experience at that ex,act position since,,,,,,I forget. Some of which were TERRIBLE, but cheap.

2. Apparently haven't devoted too much of their recent spoils into the farm or scouting system. Witness the performance levels of some of our higher regarded prospects at the Big Show level.

3. Mismanaged the spending of the payroll (i.e. giving JV, a perennial "he has great stuff" guy without fruition) but now seem to be poor mouthing MB.

4. How stated a few years ago (I paraphrase) "if only the fans would come out and spend more money, we'd could afford to field a better team.

5. Lest we forget the white flag trade!!!!

2005 was great, but in my opinion, it was more a combination of the players having great years rather than the owners being baseball gurus. I will never forget what a great feeling it was. But I will never forget the possibility of '94 with JR being a major player in the whole situation.

Nor will I change my mind that actions and words are two different things. Sox ownership like to talk about being a family with its past players, but it seems that many of the fan favorites leave on bad terms or to the disappointment of the fans, who ultimately pay the bills.

So, in agreement to that which is quoted above, I ask, if the fans want a guy to stay, for legitimate reasons based on excellent performance, and for general fan likeability, why not keep him? In reality, it's us that pay the bills. The owners wouldn't have it without our support.

PennStater98r
07-02-2007, 12:18 PM
Actually no. If a pitcher is in long enough to earn that many losses it can actually mean good things. He was keeping the team in more games most likely, and the offense let him down. Losses aren't great, but they can indicate a pitcher who was in the game long enough to earn that loss. Not always, but usually that can be a good thing.

Last time I checked, you only needed 1/3 an inning to earn a loss.

I think what you're trying to say is that if you "earn" a lot of losses it means that you probably had good enough stuff to stay in a rotation - instead of being demoted, moved to the bullpen or DL - which is the case.

The thing about Garland is that he makes a lot of good pitches - no doubt about it. However, he makes a lot of mistakes too. Sure he's had some hard-luck losses. But he's "earned" quite a bit of those losses with that one bad inning which he couldn't avoid early in his career.

I love Garland. I love that we stole him out from under the Cubs noses. I love Mark too. However, I don't believe they're worth big money contracts with no trade clauses and lots of years. Pitching wins championships. Hall of Fame pitching builds dynasties. Neither Garland or Mark are Madduxesque.

Right now there are a few special guys that you give the big money contracts to. Johan Santana, Roy Oswalt, Chris Young - and maybe 3 other guys right now - who have not shown themselves to be injury risks. Strikeouts translate to domination, and you need to have the punchout in your bag-of-tricks.

When I watch a guy like Garland - I think darn - I am glad that I have him right now, and I am glad that I have him for the price tag that we paid for him. I just don't know if we put that kinda money into his contract. Go out and spend it on Ichiro or A-Rod or both (and move A-Rod back to SS PLEASE). With guys like Ichiro and A-Rod, pitchers that we'd bring over would be that much better b/c of the D. That's not to mention that you have one lock for the Hall on your team and another that's got a great shot.

I'd love Garland to play out his career here. Buehrle too - but I think we need them at the right price for the right amount of time and the ability to cut ties with them should they not be worth their contracts. If we are going to risk $50-$60 million on a pitcher, let's look at pushing it to $70+ and get our hands on a Johan.

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 12:33 PM
Penn:

Santana will get much higher numbers then 70 million of the open market. If Zito got 126 million, God knows how much a team like the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers would be willing to offer him.

Lip

rdivaldi
07-02-2007, 12:48 PM
2005 was great, but in my opinion, it was more a combination of the players having great years rather than the owners being baseball gurus.

:?:

So basically no matter who a GM signs it's completely random if players have great years?

You might want to re-think what you are saying.

rdivaldi
07-02-2007, 12:52 PM
So, in agreement to that which is quoted above, I ask, if the fans want a guy to stay, for legitimate reasons based on excellent performance, and for general fan likeability, why not keep him? In reality, it's us that pay the bills. The owners wouldn't have it without our support.

Actually that's not entirely correct. True the fans buy tickets and merchandise, but a large portion of the White Sox's revenues come from corporate advertising and sponsorships. As payrolls grow, the fans will have less and less and less of a percentage of the overall bill.

Kilroy
07-02-2007, 01:05 PM
I was just rolling my eyes at all the people implying the Sox are cheap. They amaze me.

Sox might not be cheap, but they can't escape stupid.

Buehrle is going to command 65-70 mil on the market (and be worth the $$), and he says to the Sox give me 56 and no-trade and we're done. You're getting Buehrle's caliber of pitcher for 15-20% under market value to start with, and that's only going to increase over the life of the deal.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 01:20 PM
Sox might not be cheap, but they can't escape stupid.

That is, of course, your opinion. I wholly disagree.

Believe It!
07-02-2007, 01:35 PM
Actually no. If a pitcher is in long enough to earn that many losses it can actually mean good things. He was keeping the team in more games most likely, and the offense let him down. Losses aren't great, but they can indicate a pitcher who was in the game long enough to earn that loss.


Not really. A pitcher can come in, give up three BB's and a Slam without recording an out and get yanked with 0.0 IP and still get tagged with the loss. It's not like a win where you have to pitch 5 innings for the decision. So that argument has no relevance.

nsolo
07-02-2007, 01:39 PM
:?:

So basically no matter who a GM signs it's completely random if players have great years?

You might want to re-think what you are saying.

I'll stick with my original thought. KW, wanted to win it all, and he did. In my opinion, he didn't do it through great business dealings. He did it by the luck of just about everyone on that team having a career year.

To me, the bar will or will not be set for KW's ability to recreate 2005. The before and afters of that particular season have not been up to par. Yes, we won 90 games last year, but save for a great first half, we might not have finished at 500.

Kilroy
07-02-2007, 01:43 PM
That is, of course, your opinion. I wholly disagree.

So you think trading away your home-grown, fan-favorite, all-star, left handed, starting pitcher and going with prospects is NOT stupid?

nsolo
07-02-2007, 01:49 PM
So you think trading away your home-grown, fan-favorite, all-star, left handed, starting pitcher and going with prospects is NOT stupid?
I think it is. And, I think corporate sponsorship dollars would dwindle away if it wasn't for the original support of the fan base kicking in their hard earned dollars.

Corporate sponsorship brings in HUGE amounts of cash, but they also do great research before the check is issued to determine if the product they are supporting is worth the investment. Without us, someone to see and be inticed by their advertising and sponsorship, they usually seek out more fertile grounds.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 02:03 PM
So you think trading away your home-grown, fan-favorite, all-star, left handed, starting pitcher and going with prospects is NOT stupid?

I think you can make a very reasonable case that paying 14mm and giving up rights to trade a contract for a 3.80/1.25 SP while you have lots of SP prospects in your system instead of trading him for top prospects, using the money to sign a hitter (where you have a glaring need and no clear help from the farm) and adding at least one strong prospect, if not more, is not stupid.

home-grown, fan-favorite, all-star, left handed

None of those thing matter to me at all. The first two are not reasons to be attached to him. The third is completely irrelevant. The fourth is only relevant if you don't have any other LH SP and you believe that it is necesary to have one. I don't think either is the case for the Sox.

Mark is a 3.80/1.25 guy on his career. He's had some good years and some bad years; all except 2007 with a decent team behind him. I'm just not going to give him a full NTC if I am Kenny/Jerry. I don't want anyone on my team that I can not trade at some point in time during their contract. (Now if I have a 10/5 guy, there's nothing I can do - but I wouldn't run my contract into that time without leaving myself a window - and I certainly wouldn't do it for a pitcher with a career 3.80/1.25.)

jabrch
07-02-2007, 02:10 PM
I think it is. And, I think corporate sponsorship dollars would dwindle away if it wasn't for the original support of the fan base kicking in their hard earned dollars.

Corporate sponsorship brings in HUGE amounts of cash, but they also do great research before the check is issued to determine if the product they are supporting is worth the investment. Without us, someone to see and be inticed by their advertising and sponsorship, they usually seek out more fertile grounds.

For the record, I don't believe for one second that there are this many Mark Buehrle fans. I believe there are lots of White Sox fans who root for Mark Buehrle, but not this many Mark Buehrle fans who will no longer support the team if Mark is gone.

Say all you want - but I don't believe it for one second.

I recall the same talk when Frank's contract was approaching the end. The Frankophiles aren't now wearing tacky green jerseys with shiny blue hats. They are wearing Frank Thomas jerseys to USCF. I'd be willing to be that most of the Buehrlemons out there will come out next year in their #56 and cheer for whomever is wearing Silver and Black.

I am a huge Freddy Garcia fan. I wear my Freddy jersey to the park all the time. But trading him was the right thing to do because we got more for him than we would have any other time, and we freed up $10mm to use for other things.

I have no doubt that Mark is no different than Frank or Pudge, and that fans will quickly find other guys to latch on to.

If Mark wants to leave, then I hope he likes wherever he goes next if he doesn't stay. I hope he gets 7 years, 18mm per, and full NTC. I just don't want it being the Sox paying him too much, for too long, and giving up the right to trade him.

rdivaldi
07-02-2007, 02:43 PM
I believe there are lots of White Sox fans who root for Mark Buehrle, but not this many Mark Buehrle fans who will no longer support the team if Mark is gone.

I agree, cheering for a team because of one and only one player is a bizarre way to pick allegiances. I worshipped Walter Payton growing up, but I didn't stop cheering for the Bears when he retired. I loved watching Robin play 3rd, but I didn't stop cheering for the White Sox when he was let go.

The team is bigger than the player, coach and GM.

santo=dorf
07-02-2007, 03:34 PM
I think you can make a very reasonable case that paying 14mm and giving up rights to trade a contract for a 3.80/1.25 SP while you have lots of SP prospects in your system instead of trading him for top prospects, using the money to sign a hitter (where you have a glaring need and no clear help from the farm) and adding at least one strong prospect, if not more, is not stupid.



None of those thing matter to me at all. The first two are not reasons to be attached to him. The third is completely irrelevant. The fourth is only relevant if you don't have any other LH SP and you believe that it is necesary to have one. I don't think either is the case for the Sox.

Mark is a 3.80/1.25 guy on his career. He's had some good years and some bad years; all except 2007 with a decent team behind him. I'm just not going to give him a full NTC if I am Kenny/Jerry. I don't want anyone on my team that I can not trade at some point in time during their contract. (Now if I have a 10/5 guy, there's nothing I can do - but I wouldn't run my contract into that time without leaving myself a window - and I certainly wouldn't do it for a pitcher with a career 3.80/1.25.)
Please shut up with the 3.80/1.25.

Do you realize how silly you are making yourself look by trying to spin these as bad numbers? He has always pitched in the AL, and the Cell has been a band box for the past 4 seasons.
As mentioned in another thread:
WHIP: 13th amongst active players
ERA: 23rd amongst active players
ERA+ : 18th amongst active players.

This includes Johan, Halladay, Pedro, Schilling, Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Oswalt, Clemens, Johnson, Mussina, Sabathia, Hudson, etc.....


Am I replying to Mark Gonzales or something?

PennStater98r
07-02-2007, 04:41 PM
Penn:

Santana will get much higher numbers then 70 million of the open market. If Zito got 126 million, God knows how much a team like the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers would be willing to offer him.

Lip


Hey Lip!


I know Johan is going to get a heck of a lot more than $70 million, but what I am saying is we need to find someone that is on the verge of being special like Johan and offer that kind of contract to him. I don't know who that person is, but that's the kind of guy who we should be extending long contracts with no-trade clauses. Guys with incredible K-BB ratio and K per 9 IP are who we should be targeting... not guys that "get the double play" a bunch because - you had to put someone on if you need that double play. :tongue:

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 06:32 PM
Jab:

Of course part of your point of view is that the Sox actually have a pitcher come up out of the minor league system and does 'decently' plus that they take the 14 million per year on Mark and actually use it to sign a hitter.

We'll just have to wait and see if those issues come to pass.

Lip

santo=dorf
07-02-2007, 06:35 PM
Jab:

Of course part of your point of view is that the Sox actually have a pitcher come up out of the minor league system and does 'decently' plus that they take the 14 million per year on Mark and actually use it to sign a hitter.

We'll just have to wait and see if those issues come to pass.

Lip
How many free agents who deserve $14 million a year don't get NTC's when they sign as a free agent?

I'm not holding my breath. Just take the safe route and give it to Buehrle.