PDA

View Full Version : Fans standing up for Mark


It's Dankerific
06-30-2007, 08:03 PM
I know some people support management on this no trade clause issue (you guys feel free to move to the next thread.) BUT, if this no trade clause is the reason that mark doesn't sign for 4 years/$56 million (a deal by ANY quantification), what can we, as fans, do to show our disgust (either before or after its dead in the water.)

I don't want to drop my season tickets, because i love the sox. But I sure am tired of spending my money on a product I can't be proud of. Mark is a fan favorite and we deserve to have him if we want him. Unlike the crazy posts I've been reading, we are not "breaking the bank" or "holding up the rest of the team" for this contract. if it were 5/$75 with a NTC, sign me up with management.

Heck, just add a $3 million per year escalator to the contract if hes traded. he gets market if he is moved. FAIR FAIR FAIR

I look forward to any ideas.

MarySwiss
06-30-2007, 08:11 PM
I know some people support management on this no trade clause issue (you guys feel free to move to the next thread.) BUT, if this no trade clause is the reason that mark doesn't sign for 4 years/$56 million (a deal by ANY quantification), what can we, as fans, do to show our disgust (either before or after its dead in the water.)

I don't want to drop my season tickets, because i love the sox. But I sure am tired of spending my money on a product I can't be proud of. Mark is a fan favorite and we deserve to have him if we want him. Unlike the crazy posts I've been reading, we are not "breaking the bank" or "holding up the rest of the team" for this contract. if it were 5/$75 with a NTC, sign me up with management.

Heck, just add a $3 million per year escalator to the contract if hes traded. he gets market if he is moved. FAIR FAIR FAIR

I look forward to any ideas.

Be hard to chime in, since the exact terms are unknown. If Mark really wanted to stay with the team, his demanding a "no-trade clause" seems unreasonable on his part; even Paulie has a limited no-trade clause. If he was offered a 4 year, $56K deal, that would, I believe, have made hin the highest paid player on the team.

I'd hate to lose Mark, but if the deal can't get done, it can't.

HotelWhiteSox
06-30-2007, 08:12 PM
Considering days ago this deal was reported as done at a very cheap price, I am weary of anymore reports concerning the situation

chitownhawkfan
06-30-2007, 08:17 PM
Give him the no trade clause, the guy wants to stay here is that such a bad thing.

It's Dankerific
06-30-2007, 08:21 PM
Be hard to chime in, since the exact terms are unknown. If Mark really wanted to stay with the team, his demanding a "no-trade clause" seems unreasonable on his part; even Paulie has a limited no-trade clause. If he was offered a 4 year, $56K deal, that would, I believe, have made hin the highest paid player on the team.

I'd hate to lose Mark, but if the deal can't get done, it can't.

I can certainly understand Mark's fear that an "unbeatable offer" comes to kenny after mark and his cheap contract that sends him a) to a place he would never have signed or b) for much less money than would have been necessary to sign him (see posts on how new york market pays for its intense scrutiny, etc.)

Assuming the general reports are true: I'm with Mark on this deal. Its disrespectful of the sox not to agree to a NTC, bad business or not. We ALL know, on the open market, mark will, at MINIMUM, get more years. Its 99% likely he'll get more money. You can't ask for a hometown discount and refuse to back it up with a hometown guarantee.

OKCSoxFan
06-30-2007, 08:30 PM
I can certainly understand Mark's fear that an "unbeatable offer" comes to kenny after mark and his cheap contract that sends him a) to a place he would never have signed or b) for much less money than would have been necessary to sign him (see posts on how new york market pays for its intense scrutiny, etc.)

Assuming the general reports are true: I'm with Mark on this deal. Its disrespectful of the sox not to agree to a NTC, bad business or not. We ALL know, on the open market, mark will, at MINIMUM, get more years. Its 99% likely he'll get more money. You can't ask for a hometown discount and refuse to back it up with a hometown guarantee.

I think this is a reasonable point of view. I would like to see them work out whatever differences they have and from a fan's perspective we assume he'd be here the rest of his contract, but if he's willing to take a lower offer than the open market would bring then we need to make some sort of guarantee for him.

Soxfanspcu11
06-30-2007, 08:33 PM
I don't want to drop my season tickets, because i love the sox. But I sure am tired of spending my money on a product I can't be proud of.


I considered this as well, for pretty much the same reason as you.

But I wouldn't do this for 2 main reasons, 1. There is a long waiting list for season tickets and if you gave yours up, someone else would just jump on them and the Sox probably wouldn't notice. And 2., the most important reason, like you said, your a Sox fan. You don't want to give them up and then have second thoughts and then you can't get them back.

I agree with everything that you said, especially the part about paying for an inferior product. But I have come to the conclusion, at least for myself, that not re-uping my season tickets would be a BIG BIG mistake.

I wish that there was more that we could do to show the Sox and Kenny just how much we want Mark to be here. And really, how much sense it makes to keep him here.

Does Kenny have an email addy??

Lukin13
06-30-2007, 08:42 PM
anyone think this may be posturing to make it look like MB is signable for 50mil???

just a thought.

MarySwiss
06-30-2007, 08:46 PM
Give him the no trade clause, the guy wants to stay here is that such a bad thing.

I can certainly understand Mark's fear that an "unbeatable offer" comes to kenny after mark and his cheap contract that sends him a) to a place he would never have signed or b) for much less money than would have been necessary to sign him (see posts on how new york market pays for its intense scrutiny, etc.)

Assuming the general reports are true: I'm with Mark on this deal. Its disrespectful of the sox not to agree to a NTC, bad business or not. We ALL know, on the open market, mark will, at MINIMUM, get more years. Its 99% likely he'll get more money. You can't ask for a hometown discount and refuse to back it up with a hometown guarantee.

I think this is a reasonable point of view. I would like to see them work out whatever differences they have and from a fan's perspective we assume he'd be here the rest of his contract, but if he's willing to take a lower offer than the open market would bring then we need to make some sort of guarantee for him.

You guys, I agree that we should try to keep Mark. But c'mon, how far back should the team bend? I would hate to see Mark become the Sox version of Greg Maddux (sp?) but we don't know that would happen. (And we also don't know it wouldn't. It's a crapshoot.)

Meanwhile, how is it "disrespectful" to offer a guy a sum that 99% of us would kill for, whatever the provisions are? The Sox offered Mark, IMO, a fair deal. Apparently, he didn't think so.

So all we can do is see how it plays out. I love Mark and I hope he finishes his career on the South Side. But if not, the Sox will survive.

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 08:47 PM
1. There is a long waiting list for season tickets and if you gave yours up, someone else would just jump on them and the Sox probably wouldn't notice.

There is no waiting list. You can buy season tickets Monday if you want. Check the website.

Soxfanspcu11
06-30-2007, 08:52 PM
There is no waiting list. You can buy season tickets Monday if you want. Check the website.


Are you sure that that is for full season tickets??

I was under the impression from my rep that there was a long list for that.

Perhaps your talking about split-season packages??

Jason82807
06-30-2007, 09:06 PM
Are you sure that that is for full season tickets??

I was under the impression from my rep that there was a long list for that.

Perhaps your talking about split-season packages??

There is no waiting list, I believe you can still buy prorated full-season plans now, but if you have been a season ticket holder for a long time, you probably wouldn't want to give up your seniority and good seat location.

Getting back to the MB issue, I am really split. He's definately worth the 56m based on this year, but he had a very disappointing season in 2006. I guess I'm leaning towards signing him with the NTC, but I could understand KW's reluctance

Viva Medias B's
06-30-2007, 09:08 PM
For those of you who want to, for lack of a better word, boycott White Sox baseball if they trade Buehrle, let me ask you this. Are you a White Sox fan or a Mark Buehrle fan? I hope they re-sign Buehrle, and I actually wish the White Sox would grant him the NTC. However, similar to the stand I took when the White Sox lost Mágglio, I am a bigger fan of the institution of Chicago White Sox baseball than any player. Regardless of what eventually happens to Buehrle, I still support my team.

oeo
06-30-2007, 09:08 PM
I like Mark and all, but he has to be willing to compromise. Do what Bill Melton just said...find a middle ground; let Buehrle list the 5-10 teams he doesn't want to go to.

He's my favorite player, but I'm a White Sox fan first and foremost (won't be 'disgusted' either way)...either compromise or we'll just have to move on.

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 09:18 PM
The most ridiculous thing about it IMO is that Mark is a 10 and 5 player after the 2009 season, meaning he will have been in the big leagues for 10 years and he would have spent the last 5 years or more with the same club.

10 and 5 players AUTOMATICALLY get a no trade clause, so they're really only split on the ability to trade him between now and the end of the 2009 season.

2007 - Obviously they wouldn't trade him if they just extended him for 4 years. A "sign and trade" without Marks knowledge just to get a very attractive contract to move would be downright nasty of Kenny and Rick.

2008 - Assuming things still aren't looking up for the organization, the problem certainly wouldn't be solved by dealing the anchor of your staff one year after extending him.

2009 - If the team still stinks, we're coming off a 4th place finish again, and we still need to "shuffle the deck" so to speak, I highly doubt a good solution to the problem would be dealing Mark. The only way that would make sense is if they decided to blow the whole thing up and go REAL young. Not to mention that the Gil Meches and Ted Lillys of the world will probably be making about 15-20 million a year unless the market corrects itself.

After that season he can't go anywhere without signing himself away first.

All that being said, it's hard for me to imagine that this whole thing is anything more than posturing by the organization to (a) drive up Marks price on the trading block, and (b) attempt to show the fans that they did all they could to sign him.

If a player who has been a model of consistency for the last 7-8 years or so (with the exception of one horrible half season) offers you a hometown discount, at least have the decency to guarantee he'll get to stay in his new hometown.

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 09:23 PM
For those of you who want to, for lack of a better word, boycott White Sox baseball if they trade Buehrle, let me ask you this. Are you a White Sox fan or a Mark Buehrle fan? I hope they re-sign Buehrle, and I actually wish the White Sox would grant him the NTC. However, similar to the stand I took when the White Sox lost Mágglio, I am a bigger fan of the institution of Chicago White Sox baseball than any player. Regardless of what eventually happens to Buehrle, I still support my team.

I don't think you can compare the Maggs issue. He was withholding info about his health and his surgeries and all that stuff.

I wouldn't stop being a Sox fan by any means, but I would still question the baseball department, and rightfully so I think.

If Mark doesn't want to move in the next 2 years, Mark doesn't want to move. It's not about guaranteeing he won't get shipped to the west coast or wont get shipped to the east coast, he just wants to stay in Chicago with his wife and start a family without having to uproot it in a year or two. I think him being willing to take about 25 million dollars less is worth that guarantee.

GlassSox
06-30-2007, 09:31 PM
Let's sign Mark and give him the no trade clause. Do we want to lose another great dugout and club house guy? Who are they going to put on the bump to give us the performance that Mark has? Sign him!

cws05champ
06-30-2007, 09:40 PM
Why can't there just be a comprimise? 2 year No trade clause, after that then no clause. split the difference 50/50!!!

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 09:42 PM
Why can't there just be a comprimise? 2 year No trade clause, after that then no clause. split the difference 50/50!!!

He automatically gets it after 2 years anyway (see: the 10 and 5 rule)! Thats why it's so ridiculous if you ask me.

Patrick134
06-30-2007, 09:42 PM
If Mark signs a nice big contract, then goes out next year and pitches like he did the 2nd half of '06, how many people here would be ripping management for signing him ?

JB98
06-30-2007, 09:49 PM
If Mark signs a nice big contract, then goes out next year and pitches like he did the 2nd half of '06, how many people here would be ripping management for signing him ?

Not me. The Buerhle we saw the second half of 2006 was a fluke, IMO. I'd like to see Buerhle retained and Contreras dealt.

It's not my money, but I'd be willing to roll the dice on a homegrown pitcher who has been nothing but solid and consistent throughout his White Sox career.

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 09:50 PM
If Mark signs a nice big contract, then goes out next year and pitches like he did the 2nd half of '06, how many people here would be ripping management for signing him ?

Only the Monday morning QB's. Every contract has it's risks.

I'll pose this question....if we don't commit 14 million to Mark each year between 2008-2011, how will that money be better spent? Andruw Jones? Watching Ichiro's skills diminish? Find a Jeff Weaver-esque pitcher and pay him about half of that so the fans in the outfield get more souvenir baseballs?

I think it's safe to assume we won't find a better way to spend 14 million a year.

AZChiSoxFan
06-30-2007, 09:57 PM
Give him the no trade clause, the guy wants to stay here is that such a bad thing.

Totally agree. By all accounts, Mark is willing to take less money per year and less years than he will get on the open market. It seems that the least the Sox can do is give me the no-trade clause.

EndemicSox
06-30-2007, 10:06 PM
Is Mark likely to pitch well for the next 4 seasons?

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 10:06 PM
It seems that the least the Sox can do is give me the no-trade clause.

Me? Is this Marks secret log-on name?:redneck

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 10:09 PM
Is Mark likely to pitch well for the next 4 seasons?

Yes. Based on his age and his body of work, I believe it's more likely that he pitches well over the next four years than that he doesn't pitch well.

JB98
06-30-2007, 10:11 PM
Is Mark likely to pitch well for the next 4 seasons?

I have no crystal ball, but my gut tells me yes.

Mark is 28 years old, not 38.

Chipol
06-30-2007, 10:12 PM
I think most people would agree that Mark could find a team to offer him 6/90. That's not to say he's worth 6/90 to the Sox, but as a free agent he'd get at least 6/90 based on last year's signings. That means that he's giving up $34MM to stay with the Sox. That's got to be worth a NTC.

EndemicSox
06-30-2007, 10:28 PM
I have no crystal ball, but my gut tells me yes.

Mark is 28 years old, not 38.

This is my feeling as well. I would like to know how Kenny Williams and the Sox owners answer the same question. If they agree with us, and Mark wants to stay in Chicago for a reasonable price, there should be no excuses, get him signed.

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 10:30 PM
I have no crystal ball, but my gut tells me yes.


My gut tells me I need to stop drinking so much and give sit-ups a second chance.

That's my second bad joke of the night. I'm done...I promise.

tebman
06-30-2007, 10:47 PM
My gut tells me I need to stop drinking so much and give sit-ups a second chance.

That's my second bad joke of the night. I'm done...I promise.
:rolling:

Hey, that was good! Like a well-placed pitch, you delivered the in the right spot! Don't be done -- we need more laughs!

CWSRULE
06-30-2007, 10:53 PM
Totally agree. By all accounts, Mark is willing to take less money per year and less years than he will get on the open market. It seems that the least the Sox can do is give me the no-trade clause.

Why are we all wasting time debating an issue that probably isn't the real problem? Of course, they can compromise on the no trade clause - this is what these guys do for a living. If there was a compromise to make, it would have been (or will be made).

Clearly there is more going on. We simply cannot trust what has been reported because it has been wrong for over a week - Mark going to Boston, Deal done, deal not done, Deal done Monday, White Sox won't give him a no trade. It's all media speculation.

Frankfan4life
06-30-2007, 11:18 PM
Good pitching is extremely hard to come by, and it's especially hard to find a pitcher who can eat a lot of innings, is a team-player and good person, too. Sign Mark now and then concentrate on getting some players who can hit and field consistently.

gobears1987
06-30-2007, 11:27 PM
My feelings towards KW have gone down considerably since the off-season in 2006. (his comments towards Frank)

If we lose Buehrle because of his stupid refusal to give him a NTC, I think it might be time to question his ability to bring us another winner.

CHISOXFAN13
06-30-2007, 11:34 PM
My feelings towards KW have gone down considerably since the off-season in 2006. (his comments towards Frank)

If we lose Buehrle because of his stupid refusal to give him a NTC, I think it might be time to question his ability to bring us another winner.

Like KW or not, can we come to the grips here that this is not his decision. He doesn't own the team.

kaufsox
06-30-2007, 11:49 PM
Only the Monday morning QB's. Every contract has it's risks.

I think it's safe to assume we won't find a better way to spend 14 million a year.

My thinkiing exactly. As of right now, $14 mill for Buerhrle seems like the best way to spend. It could turn out to be a huge mistake, but that is the nature of the beast. Also along with other folks, I agree I don't root for a player (well, not entirely. I still like Frank. I don't hate Mags...) and I do "root for the laundry" as Seinfeld once said, but I also don't root for the organization's checkbook. I want results in the win column, not the accountants ledger. If that were the case, I'd have a favorite trading house on the Board of Trade. Though the cheers might be more fun: "buy pork! pork damn you!!

Noneck
06-30-2007, 11:58 PM
Like KW or not, can we come to the grips here that this is not his decision. He doesn't own the team.


I agree, He's just another paid employee doing what he is told to do.

Parrothead
07-01-2007, 12:11 AM
While I would rather the Sox keep him. If trading him helps the team in the long run just do it. Everyone in the world is replacable. Look a few years back, Seattle got rid of A-Rod, Griffey Jr. and Randy Johnson and went on to win 116 games. Sure they did not win it all but they had a nice run.

pearso66
07-01-2007, 12:15 AM
If Mark is just worried about a Sign and Trade, do like they did with Contreras (I think) and give him a 1 year no trade clause, that way he doesn't get dealt this year, or maybe go past next season, so that way if we do suck for another year, they could possibly trade him in 09 and get something in return, who knows, he may want to go by then anyway.

But as someone else said, who knows exactly what is going on? The guys on the Score today were ripping the Sox already because "Friday was the deadline" and Mark wasn't signed. I've heard tons of reports, from last weekends, he's going to be traded possibly last monday to the Red Sox, then I heard he could be resigned, then I turn on the Score, and they said done deal, Mark has signed on the dotted line. Then I heard he wasn't, but it was close. Then I heard deadline by the time they leave Tampa, then Friday was the deadline, then Monday was the deadline. It's being held up by the players union, and now it's being held up by a NTC. Seems like a bunch of jumping back and forth, and it sure sounds like someone needs a new source.

Noneck
07-01-2007, 12:38 AM
We have no idea why Burls wants a no trade clause. But if it's because he wants some stability for his family. The suggestions like, Picking a few team he doesn't want to be traded to or a NTC for 1 year will not solve the issue if it's a family stability issue. If he really wants to stay put in one place for awhile, he will get it. Maybe not here but some team will give him it. Alto he may have to give up salary for it.

WhiteSox5187
07-01-2007, 12:40 AM
If Mark is just worried about a Sign and Trade, do like they did with Contreras (I think) and give him a 1 year no trade clause, that way he doesn't get dealt this year, or maybe go past next season, so that way if we do suck for another year, they could possibly trade him in 09 and get something in return, who knows, he may want to go by then anyway.

But as someone else said, who knows exactly what is going on? The guys on the Score today were ripping the Sox already because "Friday was the deadline" and Mark wasn't signed. I've heard tons of reports, from last weekends, he's going to be traded possibly last monday to the Red Sox, then I heard he could be resigned, then I turn on the Score, and they said done deal, Mark has signed on the dotted line. Then I heard he wasn't, but it was close. Then I heard deadline by the time they leave Tampa, then Friday was the deadline, then Monday was the deadline. It's being held up by the players union, and now it's being held up by a NTC. Seems like a bunch of jumping back and forth, and it sure sounds like someone needs a new source.
I agree...it certainly is aggravating but truth be told I have no clue what the helll is going on. In the past week I think I've heard eight different stories about what's going on. For right now though, he is on the White Sox. I certainly hope we re-sign him. If it is true that this whole deal fell apart because of a no trade clause, I will be disgusted and will express my disgust by not going to so many games this year. But I will be back next year and the year after that and the year after that...now, I have two bits of news and none of them is from a "credible" source but truth be told is probably just as credible as a "source familiar with the situation." One is from my friend Keith who works at Scout magazine and said the deadline really is Monday but if both parties think they are close to something that deadline will be pushed back. The other is from my dad who I told the situation too and he laughed and said "Ah, that's silly. That's just part of the negotiations. If it was something like the length of a contract, I'd be worried but over a no trade clause? They'll work that out." Now that might not sound like much but my dad is very close friends with the GMs of the Cardinals and the Tigers and is familiar with how they negotiate with free agents etc. He has no knowledge of the Buerhle situation but feels that unless the Sox are absolutely dead set against re-signing him, if the contract is in up in the air over something as trivial really as a NTC, then they'll find a way to work it out. We'll see though. As I write this Kenny maybe putting the finishing touches on a deal with the Mets involving Buerhle...or Mark might be signing the dotted line on a contract. We'll see. The rest is just total speculation. Unless Kenny or Mark comes out and says either "It's done, I'm staying." Or "I'm gone" everything is total speculation.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-01-2007, 12:46 AM
I agree...it certainly is aggravating but truth be told I have no clue what the helll is going on. In the past week I think I've heard eight different stories about what's going on. For right now though, he is on the White Sox. I certainly hope we re-sign him. If it is true that this whole deal fell apart because of a no trade clause, I will be disgusted and will express my disgust by not going to so many games this year. But I will be back next year and the year after that and the year after that...now, I have two bits of news and none of them is from a "credible" source but truth be told is probably just as credible as a "source familiar with the situation." One is from my friend Keith who works at Scout magazine and said the deadline really is Monday but if both parties think they are close to something that deadline will be pushed back. The other is from my dad who I told the situation too and he laughed and said "Ah, that's silly. That's just part of the negotiations. If it was something like the length of a contract, I'd be worried but over a no trade clause? They'll work that out." Now that might not sound like much but my dad is very close friends with the GMs of the Cardinals and the Tigers and is familiar with how they negotiate with free agents etc. He has no knowledge of the Buerhle situation but feels that unless the Sox are absolutely dead set against re-signing him, if the contract is in up in the air over something as trivial really as a NTC, then they'll find a way to work it out. We'll see though. As I write this Kenny maybe putting the finishing touches on a deal with the Mets involving Buerhle...or Mark might be signing the dotted line on a contract. We'll see. The rest is just total speculation. Unless Kenny or Mark comes out and says either "It's done, I'm staying." Or "I'm gone" everything is total speculation.

I hope your dad is right.

It's Dankerific
07-01-2007, 07:35 AM
Great comments everyone.

The thrust of this thread is what we could do as fans to apply pressure to get the deal done. Like i said, its hard for me threaten season ticket cancellation, BUT I don't know what other method (other than withholding my $6k) will make it clear to management that not giving Beuhrle a NTC is unacceptable. I may have to watch a "rebuilding team" either way, but one way shows to me that we're serious about trying (keeping a under 30 left handed starter with great history) or that were not (getting rid of a loyal pitcher who wants to stay in chicago below market).

hawkjt
07-01-2007, 07:40 AM
all the more reason to make Monday nite an unofficial Mark Buehrle nite at the ballpark , complete with signs urging kenny to do the right thing and reward mark and the fans for their loyalty by getting this done..perfect world ?- they announce it monday afternoon and the fans can have a MB's staying party.. and win the game with MB on the mound as well.

Lip Man 1
07-01-2007, 11:11 AM
In my opinion here's why the second year of the 'no trade' deal becomes an issue.

Say in 2009 the Sox still aren't doing well and decide to go into a full blown, 'the kids can play III' mode.

Buehrle is the biggest trading chip they have, he's making a very good salary and is signed for two more years.

The Sox probably would think they could get a king's haul for him. But with the no trade clause, if Mark doesn't want to leave, the Sox are dead.

Mind you I'm not siding with the Sox, I think special players deserve special considerations but if this scenario were to play out I could see the organization's side of what is holding up a deal.

Lip

pearso66
07-01-2007, 11:28 AM
In my opinion here's why the second year of the 'no trade' deal becomes an issue.

Say in 2009 the Sox still aren't doing well and decide to go into a full blown, 'the kids can play III' mode.

Buehrle is the biggest trading chip they have, he's making a very good salary and is signed for two more years.

The Sox probably would think they could get a king's haul for him. But with the no trade clause, if Mark doesn't want to leave, the Sox are dead.

Mind you I'm not siding with the Sox, I think special players deserve special considerations but if this scenario were to play out I could see the organization's side of what is holding up a deal.

Lip

That was my point exactly. You give him the first year, maybe he doesn't want to be a sign and trade this year per say, or even between season, and it gives him and his wife a year with their new kid in a stable home.

soxfan1983
07-01-2007, 11:31 AM
In my opinion here's why the second year of the 'no trade' deal becomes an issue.

Say in 2009 the Sox still aren't doing well and decide to go into a full blown, 'the kids can play III' mode.

Buehrle is the biggest trading chip they have, he's making a very good salary and is signed for two more years.

The Sox probably would think they could get a king's haul for him. But with the no trade clause, if Mark doesn't want to leave, the Sox are dead.

Mind you I'm not siding with the Sox, I think special players deserve special considerations but if this scenario were to play out I could see the organization's side of what is holding up a deal.

Lip




I hear you on that one... but I think Mark would take the same stance that Contreras is... If they want to trade him, that he would waive it because why would he want to be on a team that doesn't want him anymore.

Really I think Mark wants this no trade clause to silence all the critics that say he wants to go to St Louis and regain all the support from the Sox fan base. Makes sense from a PR standpoint, but really if this is the only thing holding this deal up... I personally think both sides are at wrong, but more so Kenny.

It's Dankerific
07-01-2007, 11:33 AM
The issue is that they are not going to have him in 08, or a CHANCE to have him in 09, or 10, or 11 unless they give him the NTC. If they were serious about "needing flexibility", just include esclator clauses the moment hes not a white sox anymore (which should be more than market value because hes not picking where hes going).

Finally, I'm pretty pissed that 2 years after a world series, management worried that years 3 and 4 after the parade are going to be so bad we cant afford a great pitcher at a bargain price.

ps. dye and iguchi. we love you guys, but you werent drafted, brought up with through the lean years, etc. like with mark. thats why we aren't clamoring to talk to you guys too. that makes a difference.


In my opinion here's why the second year of the 'no trade' deal becomes an issue.

Say in 2009 the Sox still aren't doing well and decide to go into a full blown, 'the kids can play III' mode.

Buehrle is the biggest trading chip they have, he's making a very good salary and is signed for two more years.

The Sox probably would think they could get a king's haul for him. But with the no trade clause, if Mark doesn't want to leave, the Sox are dead.

Mind you I'm not siding with the Sox, I think special players deserve special considerations but if this scenario were to play out I could see the organization's side of what is holding up a deal.

Lip

soxfanreggie
07-01-2007, 12:11 PM
After watching what pitchers like Lilly, Meche, and Zito received, I have no doubt MB could command more than this amount in a FA market. He is a lefty pitcher that has shown he can shut teams down completely (no hitters, 27 batter-faced games, etc.). He has also been pretty darn consistent over the years. I would say that a fair agreement would be to give him a NTC for the first year and then an escalator deal that bumps up his contract if he is traded after that. He needs something to compensate for a hometown discount. I think an escalator is a good idea, that or a 5th year player option that vests if he is traded. I don't agree with the "3-year deal" limit we seem to have for our pitchers. You are going to have a hard time signing most quality pitchers to L-T deals, and you can't always expect to find a diamond in the rough to replace pitchers that leave. Sometimes you need that L-T stability that a pitcher like MB can provide. Keeping MB with Garland would provide us the base for a good rotation. You can replace someone like Vaz, but I don't think you could replace a guy like MB with a max 3 year offer on the table to someone.

I am a Sox fan first and foremost, but I think letting MB go would be taking a step backwards unless we get some proven MLB-ready talent that could step in and fill the huge void him leaving would have. What I don't want to see is us lose a bunch of guys like MB, Dye, and Iguchi and get nothing in return.

Let's hope something can get done. There has to be a way to get things ironed out. I have faith that JR, KW, and MB can get things worked out to the benefit of both the team and MB.

fusillirob1983
07-01-2007, 12:19 PM
ps. dye and iguchi. we love you guys, but you werent drafted, brought up with through the lean years, etc. like with mark. thats why we aren't clamoring to talk to you guys too. that makes a difference.

Mark's also having a great season. Dye's having a terrible season. Iguchi's starting to creep closer to his career norms, but is still having a below average season.

I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning. I just thought another factor was involved.

Tragg
07-01-2007, 12:28 PM
In my opinion here's why the second year of the 'no trade' deal becomes an issue.

Say in 2009 the Sox still aren't doing well and decide to go into a full blown, 'the kids can play III' mode.

Buehrle is the biggest trading chip they have, he's making a very good salary and is signed for two more years.


That's certainly the thinking. But the $$ (14/56) is below market; so to offset that, you give a no trade. This notion that "if I give it ot Mark i have to give it to everyone" is completely ludicrious. Does that mean you have to give 14/56 to every player because you gave it to mark? Of course not. It's just part of the package; $$ and benefits - MB takes less money for this benefit.
If this is the "Reason" then I think they really don't want to extend him.

Fine with me to trade him in lieu of extension....value is value and we have openings. So IF they get more than what they paid to rent Garcia, it's okay.

I won't hold my breath. (especially if their central prospect target is Reyes).

Rocky Soprano
07-01-2007, 12:32 PM
I am a White Sox Fan first.

BUT, Mark is an example of what Sox Pride is all about. He pretty much defines why we are Sox fans.

Mark loves it here and wants to stay. We all know he can get more years and more money in FA. Yet that is not what he is all about.

I am VERY disappointed that the Sox can never seem to re-sign one of their players without some kind of circus.

****! We just wont the whole ****ing thing 2 ****ing years ago! For once can the organization please step up to the plate and not strike out?

Will I boycott the Sox if they don't resign Mark? No. But I will lose a ton of respect for management.

doublem23
07-02-2007, 09:24 PM
I think the most ridiculous thing in this thread is the belief that the Sox are just "trying not to bend too far" by not offering Mark a no-trade clause. The guys is willing to sign for WELL BELOW established market value and they're still trying to pull this nickel and dime bull**** that drove me so ****ing crazy a decade ago. I know we all like to believe that the Sox and management have turned a new leaf since 2005, but before that we all view Reinsdorf as tight with the pursestrings and that's exactly what this reeks of.

Mark Buehrle and his agent have MORE than met the Sox halfway, they're giving them the steal of the decade if they can ink Buehrle to a 4-year deal/$50 million-something deal. He would easily land 7+ years and $100 million+ guaranteed on the open market.

Just sign the ****ing deal, Williams. This organization is morphing back into Cheap Ass, No Talent 1997 mode again.

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 10:51 PM
Well if Monday night is any indication Sox fans are voicing their concerns.

The AP story noted the loud ovations during the game for Mark, noted the fans chanting 're-sign Buehrle' in the 6th inning and commented on two large signs that were draped open at the stadium in his support.

Lip

WikdChiSoxFan
07-02-2007, 10:59 PM
ok, i think the voice of reason is represented well here. it's clear that b-man is in the right here. (4/56? that's an amazing discount, this is a sign & trade ploy by management and a hometown discount, i think it's too clear. kenny will upset a lot of people if he find he can't budge on this issue. the fact that he has a problem with the NTC shows he's a GM and likes to control what his gladiators say and do, or he wants to pull of this sign/trade deal. (and i don't mean it has to be this or next year either), or both. so, those are 2 cents of my own...and no doubt it has been stated better earlier.

but, in regards to ticker holders giving their tickets up, that's all fine and good, i personally couldn't do that, if i could afford them. but, as sox fans, i think there are more creative ways we can try to convince sox management to resign mark. the cheering tonight was a good start, but i think we can be a little more persuasive than that... i'm not advocating terrorism, just maybe some creative signs, anyone feel like handcuffing themselves to a seat?, how bout a pole-sitter?, perhaps just flooding in-boxes with emails? maybe a sit-in on the expressway exits before the game? some large sign? bags for beurhle? :anon: can we get o'bama to endorse mark?

all right, it's late, these ideas are gettin' tooooo crazy...

perhaps the sox army could enlist the help of twobyfour?

Law11
07-02-2007, 11:08 PM
Thanks for another solid outing tonight Mark!
You deserve better than this typical Sox managemnt soap opera.

NSSoxFan
07-02-2007, 11:14 PM
Thanks for another solid outing tonight Mark!
You deserve better than this typical Sox managemnt soap opera.

That's a great picture. During the 8th inning, I kept thinking that this might be the last pitch I see MB pitch in a Sox uniform. To say the least, it was tough thinking of the possibility of trading him, which I still think won't happen. Still, I know Mark knows how much he means to the Sox and the fans. I hope the standing ovation showed him that he's the man. I agree that the Sox should sign him ASAP, I just don't know the behind the scenes details to be mad.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:51 PM
Where were all you Mark Buehrle fans last fall? I remember a lot of Sox fans who were furious at him. Ronge and a caller of his today were right. This is such typical revisionist history bull**** that so many people think that Mark is the lynchpin upon which our franchise sits.

Watching this team today reinforced in my mind that trading Mark, whether it today, or in 18 months or in 3 years needs to be an option for the franchise. If he is unwilling to take 4/64, with NTC for the first year and the last 2, then Kenny is right to not sign him.

I'd hate to see it, but if Mark has to go to make this team better, then Bye Bye Buehrle.

Parrothead
07-02-2007, 11:53 PM
Perhaps I am wrong here but if MB does not want to sign, he won't it does not matter what the numbers are. The big question, this year they are going nowhere. What are they going to do next year and the year after that? Is MB really going help? What about all the other holes? Again years ago Seattle got rid of A-Rod, Griffey Jr and Randy Johnson and the team got better. It is possible (providing the scouts are correct) that the trading of MB, if it happens can help the team. Bottom line everyone is replaceable. If Edminton can trade Gretzkey anyone can be traded.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:54 PM
In KWs interview today before the game he made some comments about having more trade protection than any deal they have given...

What about giving Mark a 5mm escalator that kicks in if he gets traded - then Mark's discount is no longer a discount if he gets traded.

I just can't see the Sox giving him full NTC - it's a bad move for the Sox.

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 11:57 PM
Well if Mark does go, I've be very curious to see where the money saved goes, and to whom it is 'lavished' on.

What hitters are available for 14 million a season and would the Sox make them an offer for that amount of money?

We'll see how it plays out this off season I guess.

Lip

Noneck
07-03-2007, 12:16 AM
Well if Mark does go, I've be very curious to see where the money saved goes, and to whom it is 'lavished' on.

What hitters are available for 14 million a season and would the Sox make them an offer for that amount of money?

We'll see how it plays out this off season I guess.

Lip

Or Maybe we will forget. BTW: Where did the money go from the Garcia deal?

jabrch
07-03-2007, 12:18 AM
Or Maybe we will forget. BTW: Where did the money go from the Garcia deal?

Into our 100mm payroll

Noneck
07-03-2007, 12:22 AM
Into our 100mm payroll

Which players were added to club that added up to Garcia's salary? What I'm saying is we may not see anything tangible with the 14m savings. Mostly with an expected team salary cut next year.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 12:26 AM
Which players were added to club that added up to Garcia's salary?

Who cares? There is a total payroll budget that KW has to work with. It doesn't matter what dollar you slot for whom. Are you asking who KW signed after he traded Freddy? Nobody - but that just means that the KW needed to clear 10mm or so to stay on budget - and that's how he did it.

Are you really implying that the team isn't spending enough $ and that they should have spent $10mm more? Because that's just absurd given our payroll.

kevingrt
07-03-2007, 12:33 AM
Well if Monday night is any indication Sox fans are voicing their concerns.

The AP story noted the loud ovations during the game for Mark, noted the fans chanting 're-sign Buehrle' in the 6th inning and commented on two large signs that were draped open at the stadium in his support.

Lip

All I can say is the song "My Hero" played when Buehrle left the mound in the 8th might have been the end.

Noneck
07-03-2007, 12:36 AM
Who cares? There is a total payroll budget that KW has to work with. It doesn't matter what dollar you slot for whom. Are you asking who KW signed after he traded Freddy? Nobody - but that just means that the KW needed to clear 10mm or so to stay on budget - and that's how he did it.

Are you really implying that the team isn't spending enough $ and that they should have spent $10mm more? Because that's just absurd given our payroll.

Heck I have no idea what their budget is, but a salary dump is is a salary dump. People (including yourself ) are talking A Rod, Suzuki etc. I am saying we may just see a a 86m payroll with similar type players currently on team, No pick up of any "Star" Players. And of course no Burls.

RockJock07
07-03-2007, 12:47 AM
For those of you who want to, for lack of a better word, boycott White Sox baseball if they trade Buehrle, let me ask you this. Are you a White Sox fan or a Mark Buehrle fan? I hope they re-sign Buehrle, and I actually wish the White Sox would grant him the NTC. However, similar to the stand I took when the White Sox lost Mágglio, I am a bigger fan of the institution of Chicago White Sox baseball than any player. Regardless of what eventually happens to Buehrle, I still support my team.

Well said, I completely agree. If MB brings a legit SS or a stud OF prospect or pitcher, I'd be all for a trade. I'd be very happy if they re-sign him, but at this point this saga is dragging on to long. Although, it's not like we have anything else to talk about until moves are made with Mark or other players.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 12:56 AM
Heck I have no idea what their budget is, but a salary dump is is a salary dump. People (including yourself ) are talking A Rod, Suzuki etc. I am saying we may just see a a 86m payroll with similar type players currently on team, No pick up of any "Star" Players. And of course no Burls.

If that's what our payroll is - then we need to get to that number - but to call Garcia a salary dump is assinine. That's distorting the truth. Williams traded a guy who he felt would suck, for the #2, #3 or #4 ranked LHP in minor league baseball and another decent propsect. That's not a salary dump for a team who's remaining payroll is over 100mm.

Noneck
07-03-2007, 01:04 AM
If that's what our payroll is - then we need to get to that number - but to call Garcia a salary dump is assinine. That's distorting the truth. Williams traded a guy who he felt would suck, for the #2, #3 or #4 ranked LHP in minor league baseball and another decent propsect. That's not a salary dump for a team who's remaining payroll is over 100mm.

Maybe I am using salary dump incorrectly according to you but one of the main reasons in trading Sweaty Freddie was to decrease payroll. Williams decision seems correct now and may be correct with Burls. But don't assume the saved money will be used to get star players for next year. Or that we will be able to see how the 14m was spent.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 08:41 AM
If Mark signs a nice big contract, then goes out next year and pitches like he did the 2nd half of '06, how many people here would be ripping management for signing him ?

Most of the same ones doing it now - because most of them will rip on management and ownership no matter what they do when it comes to decisions around resource scarcity.


Only the Monday morning QB's. Every contract has it's risks.

Only the Monday Morning QBs? That's like what...90% of WSI?


I think it's safe to assume we won't find a better way to spend 14 million a year.

Option A
Mark Buehrle

Option B
A 14mm FA OF
a Top tier MLB ready prospect for 5-6 years
and a 5th starter from our farm (Gavin, Gio, Broadway, etc.)

I think you could make a reasonable arguement for or against either of those. It depends on what you project from Mark vs what you project from whomever we'd start from the farm, and what the difference is between that, and what you'd get from a FA OF (maybe combine Dye and Buehrle's dough to come up with enough to sign a bigger impact guy?) vs what you'd get from BA/Sweeney/Erstad/Pods/whomever.

It's not so cut and dry that it is just about Mark being worth $14. I don't think anyone would disagree with that point. The Sox don't seem to disagree on money or years - just on Mark's insistence that the Sox not have the option, at any point in time during this deal, to move him if the situation dictates it.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 08:51 AM
Maybe I am using salary dump incorrectly according to you but one of the main reasons in trading Sweaty Freddie was to decrease payroll. Williams decision seems correct now and may be correct with Burls. But don't assume the saved money will be used to get star players for next year. Or that we will be able to see how the 14m was spent.

You don't have to see a $ to $ match for where it went to have it spent. The team has a $100mm payroll. It's not like there are salary slots where you move someone in and out. You are right - you don't see exactly how the money is spent - but you see that $100mm is in this payroll. We will see whatever it is next year as well.

The implication (at least in my mind) is that they cut Freddy, dumped salary, and pocketed the difference. That's not true - if it weren't Freddy, they'd have had to move someone else to get to the budget level that was set at just over 100mm.

balke
07-03-2007, 08:59 AM
Well if Mark does go, I've be very curious to see where the money saved goes, and to whom it is 'lavished' on.

What hitters are available for 14 million a season and would the Sox make them an offer for that amount of money?

We'll see how it plays out this off season I guess.

Lip


They'll probably lock down Erstad, and trade for Jim Edmonds. Vizquel will be playing SS. As many past their prime players as the Sox can get I'm sure. The all 1990's squad.

mccoydp
07-03-2007, 09:27 AM
They'll probably lock down Erstad, and trade for Jim Edmonds. Vizquel will be playing SS. As many past their prime players as the Sox can get I'm sure. The all 1990's squad.

Paging the Alomars...

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-03-2007, 10:15 AM
How can KW justify spending $11.5MM on Vazquez but not give Buehrle an extension? This is what really gets me upset. And then he blames Mark for wanting protection from a sign and trade deal? I would not put it past Kenny to do such a thing. Besides, doesn't Contreras have some sort of a no trade clause?

From Buehrle's standpoint, he cannot afford to risk signing a discount deal to stay where he wants to without some sort of protection. If he is signed below market value, lots of teams will want him, and Kenny will be more likely to trade him. Mark knows this, so it doesn't make any sense for him to sign without a guarantee that he'll stay in Chicago.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 10:20 AM
How can KW justify spending $11.5MM on Vazquez but not give Buehrle an extension? This is what really gets me upset. And then he blames Mark for wanting protection from a sign and trade deal? I would not put it past Kenny to do such a thing. Besides, doesn't Contreras have some sort of a no trade clause?

From Buehrle's standpoint, he cannot afford to risk signing a discount deal to stay where he wants to without some sort of protection. If he is signed below market value, lots of teams will want him, and Kenny will be more likely to trade him. Mark knows this, so it doesn't make any sense for him to sign without a guarantee that he'll stay in Chicago.

MERCY...

1) Javy's money has nothing to do with this - they have agreed on $ and years.

2) There is no such thing as a "sign and trade" in MLB.

3) He is offering Mark 1 year NTC (same as Jose) and then he gets 10/5 FULL NTC after year 3.

4) Mark can "afford" whatever he wants.

5) If Mark were to ask for escalators to bring it to 18mm if he were traded, I'm sure that would be no problem.

6) KW is not signing this with the intent of trading Mark right away -- he wants organizational flexibility in case it gets to a point where we are in the same spot we are in today, and he needs to capitalize on pieces to make sure he reloads, not rebuilds.

Noneck
07-03-2007, 11:09 AM
You don't have to see a $ to $ match for where it went to have it spent. The team has a $100mm payroll. It's not like there are salary slots where you move someone in and out. You are right - you don't see exactly how the money is spent - but you see that $100mm is in this payroll. We will see whatever it is next year as well.

The implication (at least in my mind) is that they cut Freddy, dumped salary, and pocketed the difference. That's not true - if it weren't Freddy, they'd have had to move someone else to get to the budget level that was set at just over 100mm.


I think the Sox payroll will be cut next year due to this years decrease in attendance. Lets say the payroll next year will be cut by 14m to 86m. This decrease could be done by not signing Burls and Gooch (I believe their combined current salaries are about 14m). At that point is where construction of next years club begins. The obvious money obtained to move forward will be letting Dye go. But now we have lost Burls, Gooch and J.D and only have J.D.'s salary to fill these holes and to better the club. This being the case I can't see any star players being obtained.

Finally, Yes I'd love for the Sox to spend more money and I personally wouldn't care if that meant higher ticket and concession prices but I realize this is a business and they know how to run it better than I do.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 11:38 AM
I think the Sox payroll will be cut next year due to this years decrease in attendance. Lets say the payroll next year will be cut by 14m to 86m. This decrease could be done by not signing Burls and Gooch (I believe their combined current salaries are about 14m). At that point is where construction of next years club begins. The obvious money obtained to move forward will be letting Dye go. But now we have lost Burls, Gooch and J.D and only have J.D.'s salary to fill these holes and to better the club. This being the case I can't see any star players being obtained.

In that case, signing Mark for $14mm would mean we'd have to make even more moves. In either case, I trust KW is doing the right thing. Not having a contract that you can not move is a good idea.

Noneck
07-03-2007, 11:43 AM
In that case, signing Mark for $14mm would mean we'd have to make even more moves. In either case, I trust KW is doing the right thing. Not having a contract that you can not move is a good idea.
The ramifications could be huge by signing Burls, If I am correct.

nccwsfan
07-03-2007, 11:59 AM
I think the Sox payroll will be cut next year due to this years decrease in attendance. Lets say the payroll next year will be cut by 14m to 86m. This decrease could be done by not signing Burls and Gooch (I believe their combined current salaries are about 14m). At that point is where construction of next years club begins. The obvious money obtained to move forward will be letting Dye go. But now we have lost Burls, Gooch and J.D and only have J.D.'s salary to fill these holes and to better the club. This being the case I can't see any star players being obtained.

What if they re-sign Buehrle, trade one of the other rotation guys (Contreras, Vazquez, or Garland), and let Iguchi and Dye leave via FA? That gives the CWS anywhere from $20 million (if Contreras is traded) to $24 million (if Vazquez is traded) to work with. I would think that most of us could envision a scenario where KW can fill the holes with $20-24 mil. Finding a proven, front of the rotation, LHP in his prime with no injury issues (knock on wood), who is fully respected by management, players, and fans alike, and who is one of the "faces of the franchise" (i.e. sells tickets)....at $14 million per year? That's a helluva deal.
My two cents say that CWS management would be short sighted not to jump on that. I understand the precedent of not wanting to get into the NTC issue with every incoming FA, but pitching is the money position and Buehrle has earned it.

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-03-2007, 12:24 PM
MERCY...

1) Javy's money has nothing to do with this - they have agreed on $ and years.

2) There is no such thing as a "sign and trade" in MLB.

3) He is offering Mark 1 year NTC (same as Jose) and then he gets 10/5 FULL NTC after year 3.

4) Mark can "afford" whatever he wants.

5) If Mark were to ask for escalators to bring it to 18mm if he were traded, I'm sure that would be no problem.

6) KW is not signing this with the intent of trading Mark right away -- he wants organizational flexibility in case it gets to a point where we are in the same spot we are in today, and he needs to capitalize on pieces to make sure he reloads, not rebuilds.

I realize Vazquez's deal is a separate issue. The point is that Kenny spent a large chunk of change on a mediocre pitcher, and if he is willing to let Mark go because of a NTC then he is making a serious mistake. It makes very little sense to pay a lot of money to a poor pitcher while letting a good pitcher walk out the door rather than pay a similar price.

"Sign and trade" is just a term I've picked up from other sources ... I don't know if that is the correct term or not. However, if Mark signs a discounted deal, and does not have any protection, there will be lots of teams that will be willing to give up more prospects to get him than if they know he's just a rental. Those teams would never be able to get him at 4 yrs/$14MM on their own, and because he's clearly worth more than that (on the market), they'd sacrifice more to get him. Whether or not Kenny is currently planning to trade Mark after signing him, there is a good chance that a deal might come up closer to the deadline.

Buehrle knows that this scenario could happen, and because he wants to stay in Chicago, he wants the NTC. I do agree, though, that a one year NTC and an escalator clause could make the deal attractive enough for Buehrle to sign. Otherwise, there's no way he's going to sign it because he could easily get screwed.

Goose
07-03-2007, 12:38 PM
... that a one year NTC and an escalator clause could make the deal attractive enough for Buehrle to sign. Otherwise, there's no way he's going to sign it because he could easily get screwed.

I got a question about this...if MB is traded in year 2 of the deal, and there is an escalator clause in the contract, what do the Sox stand to lose? Wouldn't the team MB is traded to be responsible to pick up the extra salary?

Seems like the easiest option to protect both ends. I would still prefer to have a full NTC for Mark, but this may be a good alternative to get this deal done.

spiffie
07-03-2007, 12:42 PM
5) If Mark were to ask for escalators to bring it to 18mm if he were traded, I'm sure that would be no problem.
I highly doubt the Sox would agree to that, since that would be handcuffing them just as much. The whole reason they won't give a NTC is in order to be able to move a pitcher who is signed at a below market rate and maximize return. If they give him escalator clauses they might as well just trade him now while at least someone can get three months of him for his current value. The Sox current stance seems to be that they demand 18 months of time where they can trade Mark while he is signed to below-market value rates. An escalator would damage that and would be unlikely. The only way I see that happening is if the Sox really fear the PR hit from not resigning Mark would be financially traumatic and they are looking for some way to save face, since the escalator would be nearly a defacto NTC.

Noneck
07-03-2007, 01:00 PM
What if they re-sign Buehrle, trade one of the other rotation guys (Contreras, Vazquez, or Garland), and let Iguchi and Dye leave via FA? That gives the CWS anywhere from $20 million (if Contreras is traded) to $24 million (if Vazquez is traded) to work with. I would think that most of us could envision a scenario where KW can fill the holes with $20-24 mil. Finding a proven, front of the rotation, LHP in his prime with no injury issues (knock on wood), who is fully respected by management, players, and fans alike, and who is one of the "faces of the franchise" (i.e. sells tickets)....at $14 million per year? That's a helluva deal.
My two cents say that CWS management would be short sighted not to jump on that. I understand the precedent of not wanting to get into the NTC issue with every incoming FA, but pitching is the money position and Buehrle has earned it.


I think that your calculations do not factor a cut in salaries from 100m to 86m for next year or the increase of 5m in Burls salary from this year to next (if he is signed at reported figures).

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-03-2007, 02:00 PM
I highly doubt the Sox would agree to that, since that would be handcuffing them just as much. The whole reason they won't give a NTC is in order to be able to move a pitcher who is signed at a below market rate and maximize return. If they give him escalator clauses they might as well just trade him now while at least someone can get three months of him for his current value. The Sox current stance seems to be that they demand 18 months of time where they can trade Mark while he is signed to below-market value rates. An escalator would damage that and would be unlikely. The only way I see that happening is if the Sox really fear the PR hit from not resigning Mark would be financially traumatic and they are looking for some way to save face, since the escalator would be nearly a defacto NTC.

So basically, the Sox want to take advantage of Buehrle and the fact he is willing to take less pay to stay in Chicago. To me, that is unfair, and if I were Mark, I wouldn't accept it.

The escalator clause would make it more difficult to trade him, but it would not be the same as a NTC. The other team would know what it was getting into in advance, and might ask the Sox to pay some of the contract. This situation would be similar to what frequently happens when a high salary player is traded. It is fair to the player, because he is only taking the pay cut to stay where he wants. If he is forced to leave the team and city he loves, he should be compensated.

Nellie_Fox
07-03-2007, 02:16 PM
Most of you guys are basing your statements on a faulty premise, that Mark is agreeing to some bargain price.

We don't know that yet. The free-agent market might be different. He doesn't know what is going to be out there. There are a lot of very attractive free-agent outfielders who are going to be attracting big-dollar interest, and there is a limited number of dollars available for signing people.

What a player like Mark gets by agreeing early is risking losing potential dollars in an uncertain market for the security of known dollars in a known situation. "I can take this offer which will make me and my family very rich and will allow me to stay where I'm comfortable, or I can risk going into an unknown free-agent market where I'll probably be offered some amount more, but it might be in a situation I'm not comfortable with. It might be that the only teams that offer me more will be teams I don't want to go to."

A bird in the hand might be worth two in the bush, particularly if there might also be a snake in that bush when you reach in there.

champagne030
07-03-2007, 02:40 PM
Most of you guys are basing your statements on a faulty premise, that Mark is agreeing to some bargain price.

We don't know that yet. The free-agent market might be different. He doesn't know what is going to be out there. There are a lot of very attractive free-agent outfielders who are going to be attracting big-dollar interest, and there is a limited number of dollars available for signing people.

What a player like Mark gets by agreeing early is risking losing potential dollars in an uncertain market for the security of known dollars in a known situation. "I can take this offer which will make me and my family very rich and will allow me to stay where I'm comfortable, or I can risk going into an unknown free-agent market where I'll probably be offered some amount more, but it might be in a situation I'm not comfortable with. It might be that the only teams that offer me more will be teams I don't want to go to."


A bird in the hand might be worth two in the bush, particularly if there might also be a snake in that bush when you reach in there.

It's not a faulty premise, it's common sense. He'll have his pick of several teams, at a higher salary than $14M, and you, I, Kenny and everyone else knows it.

It's Dankerific
07-03-2007, 02:49 PM
Most of you guys are basing your statements on a faulty premise, that Mark is agreeing to some bargain price.

We don't know that yet. The free-agent market might be different. He doesn't know what is going to be out there. There are a lot of very attractive free-agent outfielders who are going to be attracting big-dollar interest, and there is a limited number of dollars available for signing people.

What a player like Mark gets by agreeing early is risking losing potential dollars in an uncertain market for the security of known dollars in a known situation. "I can take this offer which will make me and my family very rich and will allow me to stay where I'm comfortable, or I can risk going into an unknown free-agent market where I'll probably be offered some amount more, but it might be in a situation I'm not comfortable with. It might be that the only teams that offer me more will be teams I don't want to go to."

A bird in the hand might be worth two in the bush, particularly if there might also be a snake in that bush when you reach in there.


Last time i checked, there is not a salary cap in baseball. Also, the league (but apparently not the white sox) is experiencing the record setting revenue. (lets not even talk about if mlb.com becomes publically traded like has been speculated.) also, the yankees, mets, dodgers, red sox still exist and spend money.

I am willing to bet ANY amount of money that Mark will sign for more than 4/56 if the sox don't sign him. the only risk is a serious injury in the next 3 months, which unless its tommy john, he'd still be able to cash in.

spiffie
07-03-2007, 02:49 PM
Most of you guys are basing your statements on a faulty premise, that Mark is agreeing to some bargain price.

We don't know that yet. The free-agent market might be different. He doesn't know what is going to be out there. There are a lot of very attractive free-agent outfielders who are going to be attracting big-dollar interest, and there is a limited number of dollars available for signing people.

What a player like Mark gets by agreeing early is risking losing potential dollars in an uncertain market for the security of known dollars in a known situation. "I can take this offer which will make me and my family very rich and will allow me to stay where I'm comfortable, or I can risk going into an unknown free-agent market where I'll probably be offered some amount more, but it might be in a situation I'm not comfortable with. It might be that the only teams that offer me more will be teams I don't want to go to."

A bird in the hand might be worth two in the bush, particularly if there might also be a snake in that bush when you reach in there.
I have to think that considering the Sox previous stance on in-season negotiating, that the only reason they have gotten this close to an agreement is because the front office feels they are getting a significant deal in terms of money. Yes, anything might happen in the FA market, but the actions of all parties involved lead me to believe that no one has any reason to believe that Mark wouldn't earn significantly more after this season on the open market. And as long as everyone is proceeding from basically that same point, I would say the premise that Mark is taking a discount, whether truly accurate or not, has become an agreed upon fact by all involved parties, thus making it so.

Nellie_Fox
07-03-2007, 03:00 PM
And you all leave out an important part of what I said. Mark (and his agent) probably have a pretty good idea which teams would offer him significantly more money, and maybe he doesn't want to go to any of them.

Surprisingly, once you get past a certain point, more money isn't the only thing. One reason the Yankees pay so much is because they have to. A lot of players don't want to go into that nightmare. Money is not the sole motivator for a lot of people. I could easily be making more than twice my current salary if I was willing to move and make another career change. However, I like where I'm living and a lot of the intangibles about my current position. I have enough money to be relatively comfortable, so I stay. And I'm not making even a tiny fraction of what Buehrle will be making no matter where he signs.

IlliniSox4Life
07-03-2007, 04:05 PM
I think the most ridiculous thing in this thread is the belief that the Sox are just "trying not to bend too far" by not offering Mark a no-trade clause. The guys is willing to sign for WELL BELOW established market value and they're still trying to pull this nickel and dime bull**** that drove me so ****ing crazy a decade ago. I know we all like to believe that the Sox and management have turned a new leaf since 2005, but before that we all view Reinsdorf as tight with the pursestrings and that's exactly what this reeks of.

Mark Buehrle and his agent have MORE than met the Sox halfway, they're giving them the steal of the decade if they can ink Buehrle to a 4-year deal/$50 million-something deal. He would easily land 7+ years and $100 million+ guaranteed on the open market.

Just sign the ****ing deal, Williams. This organization is morphing back into Cheap Ass, No Talent 1997 mode again.

This is what really upsets me too. IF Mark has agreed to the 4 year 56 million contract and just wants a no trade clause (I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, none of us do), then it is insane not to give it to him.

It's like when you give something that has value to a family member. Let's say I gave my brother my old Xbox after buying a new xbox360. I gave it to him under the assumption that he is going to use it and not going to turn around in a week and sell it to make money. If I wanted somebody else to have it, I would have sold it myself and kept the money, but instead I was being nice and giving him my Xbox. Mark is giving his services to the Sox for a significant discount because they are his home right now. All he wants is to make sure they don't turn around and sell his Xbox.



However, none of us really know what the problem is. If it ends up being that it is KW/Jerry refusing to give Mark a NTC at 4/56, then I am going to be upset.

IlliniSox4Life
07-03-2007, 04:07 PM
And you all leave out an important part of what I said. Mark (and his agent) probably have a pretty good idea which teams would offer him significantly more money, and maybe he doesn't want to go to any of them.

Sure, it's very probable that he doesn't want to go there, and that is the exact reason that athletes are willing to give a "hometown discount". But if he is going to end up there one way (free agency) or another (trade after signing a contract), he might as well be making the most money he can.

Frontman
07-03-2007, 04:32 PM
I've already said it (and a lot on it in this post http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1624266&postcount=18 )

But the Sox should open up their wallet, pay Mark and give him the NTC. The argument that they don't allow it when having 3 active players with NTC's in their contracts just plain stinks.

You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Mark's one of the few bright spots we've got, and to give him away at this point for another handful of "prospects" is just plain stupid.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 05:08 PM
I've already said it (and a lot on it in this post http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1624266&postcount=18 )

But the Sox should open up their wallet, pay Mark and give him the NTC. The argument that they don't allow it when having 3 active players with NTC's in their contracts just plain stinks.

You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Mark's one of the few bright spots we've got, and to give him away at this point for another handful of "prospects" is just plain stupid.

Are you making **** up?

They have already offered him the same thing, in fact more, in terms of no-trade than anyone else they have.

Frontman
07-03-2007, 05:20 PM
Are you making **** up?

They have already offered him the same thing, in fact more, in terms of no-trade than anyone else they have.

No, they haven't. Javy's alone is stronger, as he could only be traded to eastern division teams. Mark could be traded for a ham sandwich for 18 months in the middle of this deal, ie "He can be traded easily."

If Mark is giving them a home-town discount, he should be protected with a NTC. Period.

champagne030
07-03-2007, 05:55 PM
No, they haven't. Javy's alone is stronger, as he could only be traded to eastern division teams. Mark could be traded for a ham sandwich for 18 months in the middle of this deal, ie "He can be traded easily."

If Mark is giving them a home-town discount, he should be protected with a NTC. Period.

Stop with the facts. The poster has a crush on Kenny. He/She cannot have a rational discussion about the White Sox that involves KW.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 06:05 PM
No, they haven't. Javy's alone is stronger, as he could only be traded to eastern division teams. Mark could be traded for a ham sandwich for 18 months in the middle of this deal, ie "He can be traded easily."

If Mark is giving them a home-town discount, he should be protected with a NTC. Period.

You know a lot about the terms of the offer. You must be Mark's agent. Oh - you aren't? So when Kenny said that they offered him more trade protection than anyone else has in the organization, what do you think they meant?

And if this was just about not going ot the West Coast, it would be done by now. That's not what this is about.

champagne030
07-03-2007, 06:09 PM
You know a lot about the terms of the offer. You must be Mark's agent. Oh - you aren't? So when Kenny said that they offered him more trade protection than anyone else has in the organization, what do you think they meant?

And if this was just about not going ot the West Coast, it would be done by now. That's not what this is about.

So you know what's in the NTC? Do you fetch Kenny's coffee? Oh-you don't? So Kenny is negotiating through the media. How nice. Sounds like a CYA move if MB calls his bluff.

kobo
07-03-2007, 06:13 PM
You know a lot about the terms of the offer. You must be Mark's agent. Oh - you aren't? So when Kenny said that they offered him more trade protection than anyone else has in the organization, what do you think they meant?

And if this was just about not going ot the West Coast, it would be done by now. That's not what this is about.
What is it about then? What exactly did Kenny offer that protects Mark more than anyone else in the organization?

Frontman
07-03-2007, 07:01 PM
What is it about then? What exactly did Kenny offer that protects Mark more than anyone else in the organization?

Nothing. If mark is exposed for 18 months in the middle of the deal, then he's exposed and not protected at all.

Nellie_Fox
07-04-2007, 12:18 AM
Once again, absolutely no one on here knows what type of limited NTC Buehrle has been offered. No one.

And a few of you are skating dangerously close to the edge of getting personal. Turn it back a couple of notches.

Frontman
07-04-2007, 09:07 AM
Once again, absolutely no one on here knows what type of limited NTC Buehrle has been offered. No one.

And a few of you are skating dangerously close to the edge of getting personal. Turn it back a couple of notches.

Nellie,

We all know as that both Mark and the Sox have said he isn't covered for "approximately 18 months in the middle of this contract" so that's the part that at least I'm talking about. That part is at the time, the only stuff we really do know about what Mark was offered.

As far as personal, I've never have and never will accuse someone of "making **** up." But since you brought it up, I certainly didn't appreciate jabich's comment and would like to say something.

My comments about NTC's that the Sox have have been based on what ESPN and WSCR have been saying all along about Jose, Konerko, and Javy. And yes, we have to assume that the radio guys are giving us accurate information, otherwise what would be the point of discussing stuff in the first place?

We can agree to disagree, but I certainly didn't like the "make **** up" comment and felt that crossed the line and was a bit much. Can we just chalk that one up to both of us being passionate about this team and shake hands?

Jabrich, I'm cool with you. But please, let's not get into being nasty to each other, as obviously, we're both Sox fans.

Now, if one of us was a Cubs fan, then the war is on. :wink:

Law11
07-04-2007, 09:49 AM
Once again, absolutely no one on here knows what type of limited NTC Buehrle has been offered. No one.

And a few of you are skating dangerously close to the edge of getting personal. Turn it back a couple of notches.

It stemming from one person who wont budge on his opinion of the situation.
he's on multiple threads ripping the fans for their where were you last year
when mark was down and some of our beliefs that management is screwing this whole thing up. I guess we're all wrong...

jabrch
07-04-2007, 10:35 AM
As far as personal, I've never have and never will accuse someone of "making **** up." But since you brought it up, I certainly didn't appreciate jabich's comment and would like to say something.


Sorry Front - poor word choice on my part. But I still propose that the Sox are giving him MORE than they have given anyone, and that they'd continue to give him more, but they will draw the line (in my opinion rightfully so) at a full NTC.

jabrch
07-04-2007, 11:01 AM
It stemming from one person who wont budge on his opinion of the situation.

Isn't that my right?

he's on multiple threads ripping the fans for their where were you last year when mark was down and some of our beliefs that management is screwing this whole thing up. I guess we're all wrong...

I have been on our fans since the middle of last year for SUCKINGmore than our team. Since 05, we have had an influx of frontrunners, fair weather fans, and most annoyingly the know-it-alls who would (in their own minds) all make much better GMs, managers and owners than the ones we have. I'm so tired of our fanbase's complete irrational swings, illustrated by wanting to dump Mark just 6 months ago for nothing, to now wanting to cancel their tickets because Mark might not be given a complete and total NTC. (when we really know very little about the finances and terms of what is or isn't being offered or not.

I'm just dead tired of hearing the bashing of the manager, GM and owner who brought us a WS title and have built a team that has delivered so much joy to me for so many years, before AND AFTER 2005.

The nice thing about WSI was always that everyone didnt have to agree. Before the WS, there was about a 50/50 split between positive and negative people here - and it was OK. Now that balance is completely gone, and the owner/gm/coach are being treated (unfairly IMO) like complete crap for no freaking reason.

189 wins in two years were not an accident. I tuly believe this management team has a philosophy that makes sense in this market - and I am not going to turn on them because our best hitters aren't hitting and the bullpen bets they made failed. I support them and hope things are better next year. Given all the good looking arms we have, both in the majors and minors, with or without MB, I like our chances to be a 90+ win team next year. (and then the bandwaggon jumpers will be back praising KW/OG/JR.

UserNameBlank
07-04-2007, 11:18 AM
Once again, absolutely no one on here knows what type of limited NTC Buehrle has been offered. No one.

And a few of you are skating dangerously close to the edge of getting personal. Turn it back a couple of notches.
Does it really matter though? Even if the Sox give him a full NTC they can still trade him, they just need his approval. Sure he can deny any trade, but if you were in Mark's shoes and a year from now your GM came up to you and basically said "we don't want you here anymore" why wouldn't you accept a trade?

IMO this whole thing is going to reflect very badly on the Sox if the deal falls through. Even if the deal goes through it will still reflect badly on the Sox. KW is negotiating through the media after lowballing his franchise player the year before and now he's talking about being handcuffed by a NTC? This whole fiasco only makes the Sox look cheap, stupid, and unwilling to bend an inch even for homegrown All-Star players.

So Kenny and Co. don't want to give out full NTC's yet still think they can build championship teams? How? Any big name FA is going to want one, or at least some type of NTC. They won't draft the BAP if that player wants a ton of money. They won't deal with Boras clients on the FA market. They won't spend the big money in the international market. How in the **** are they going to consistently win? Fill the lineup with grinders? When KW inherited this team he had a very, very solid offensive core with CLee, Thomas, Konerko, and Maggs. Buehrle and Garland were just spending their first years in the majors. He had a great farm system. Now he has to start this whole thing over yet he insists on unnecessarily handcuffing himself and placing more restrictions on himself than he needs. Maybe this is all JR's influence and it is making Kenny look like the idiot, but I don't understand the thinking here.

Lip Man 1
07-04-2007, 12:15 PM
User:

VERY well said.

Lip

Nellie_Fox
07-04-2007, 01:48 PM
Does it really matter though? Even if the Sox give him a full NTC they can still trade him, they just need his approval. Sure he can deny any trade, but if you were in Mark's shoes and a year from now your GM came up to you and basically said "we don't want you here anymore" why wouldn't you accept a trade?Turn your own question around. If you think that Buehrle would waive it simply because he was asked to, why does he want it? Lots of players have refused to waive NTCs.

Lip Man 1
07-04-2007, 05:43 PM
Agreed.

I remember Kenny Rogers for example would not leave Texas for a shot at the playoffs with the Reds.

Lip

Mohoney
07-04-2007, 06:41 PM
I'm just dead tired of hearing the bashing of the manager, GM and owner who brought us a WS title and have built a team that has delivered so much joy to me for so many years, before AND AFTER 2005.


If the NTC is indeed the hang-up, I don't blame JR one bit. He ponied up an extra year, plus enough dough to entice Buehrle to stay. It's all coming down to KW not wanting to budge on 18 months of flexibility, and as much as I love KW, Buehrle is a guy that I would relax corporate policy for. Hell, JR already did.

The argument that "If I give it to Buehrle, I have to give it to everyone" doesn't make much sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I hope our farm system cranks out several guys that perennially go 200+ innings with an ERA under 4, and the issue rears its ugly head again. However, since Buehrle is really the only homegrown guy to do it this consistently that we have had in a long time, I say give him the NTC, and if other people use Buehrle's NTC as leverage in contract negotiations, just politely explain to them that they don't have anywhere near the track record to demand it.

The claim that giving Buehrle a NTC is erasing corporate policy is not valid to me. All KW would be doing is relaxing it for one player, and it's a player with a stellar track record at that. In fact, if Garland compiles a similar track record by the time he's in his walk year, I would say lock him up, too.

I really believe that Buehrle, Garland, and Vazquez can anchor a competitive rotation for the next 3 or 4 years, and I like what I see from Danks, too. Then we can either plug Floyd/Gio in as the 5th starter, or if we feel they need more development, sign a free agent to buy some time.

I just think that, even if we lose the flexibility to deal Buehrle, signing him is the best investment of the $56 million. Our rotation would still be viable.

GoSox2K3
07-07-2007, 11:07 AM
I know some people support management on this no trade clause issue (you guys feel free to move to the next thread.) BUT, if this no trade clause is the reason that mark doesn't sign for 4 years/$56 million (a deal by ANY quantification), what can we, as fans, do to show our disgust (either before or after its dead in the water.)

I don't want to drop my season tickets, because i love the sox. But I sure am tired of spending my money on a product I can't be proud of. Mark is a fan favorite and we deserve to have him if we want him. Unlike the crazy posts I've been reading, we are not "breaking the bank" or "holding up the rest of the team" for this contract. if it were 5/$75 with a NTC, sign me up with management.

Heck, just add a $3 million per year escalator to the contract if hes traded. he gets market if he is moved. FAIR FAIR FAIR

I look forward to any ideas.

Good question. Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do to show our displeasure unless we drop season tickets or (for us non ST holders) go to less games. Just ask the Cubs - they've put up a crappy product for years and their fans ***** and moan about it, but they keep going to games like lemmings and their management doesn't really care. Well, I guess we can start throwing trash on the field.

I know this will draw the ire of the die-hard "I've been with this team since 1970" season ticket holders on this site, but if the Sox let Mark Buehrle go over the NTC then I am certainly not going to be buying any advanced sales tickets for next year - and I plan on letting the Sox know this. Sure, go ahead and chew me you out you die-hards, but that is the cold-honest truth that will be reflected by thousands of other Sox fans out there.

Oh, and if you guys think the Sox will be a better team next year by "saving" the $14 million they would have paid Buehrle and putting that to getting key players they otherwise couldn't have afforded - well, I hope that silver and black koolaid tastes good. Really the choice for the Sox is likely to either a) pay MB $14mil and then TRADE Contreras and his $10million salary away or b)trade 2-month rental Buehrle for some B-prospects and keep Jose for next year. Either way, they are putting in a rookie in the 5th spot for next year. The net difference in pay for going with Jose through his downward slide vs. sticking with more of the same great stuff from Buehrle is $4 million. How many holes is that going to plug? ....and don't forget, some of that $4 million in savings will go towards offsetting the lost revenue from all the fans the Sox will have alienated.

Also, if we keep Mark, I think that really opens the door for an opportunity to extend Garland at below market price. Based on comments from Garland, if Mark goes, I think that pretty much slams the door on Jon too. But hey, at least we're rooting for a team that sticking to its principles on a NTC. Woohoo!!!

It's Dankerific
07-07-2007, 03:28 PM
I pretty much agree 100% with that sentiment. I don't know if I can give up my season tickets. But I can refuse to buy any extra games, (for going with friends/family), for buying any more merchandise, hell, from spending any money at the concessions. I also probably won't resell any of my extras through ticketmaster because that generates revenue for the sox (not to mention keeping my money interest free).


Good question. Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do to show our displeasure unless we drop season tickets or (for us non ST holders) go to less games. Just ask the Cubs - they've put up a crappy product for years and their fans ***** and moan about it, but they keep going to games like lemmings and their management doesn't really care. Well, I guess we can start throwing trash on the field.

I know this will draw the ire of the die-hard "I've been with this team since 1970" season ticket holders on this site, but if the Sox let Mark Buehrle go over the NTC then I am certainly not going to be buying any advanced sales tickets for next year - and I plan on letting the Sox know this. Sure, go ahead and chew me you out you die-hards, but that is the cold-honest truth that will be reflected by thousands of other Sox fans out there.

Oh, and if you guys think the Sox will be a better team next year by "saving" the $14 million they would have paid Buehrle and putting that to getting key players they otherwise couldn't have afforded - well, I hope that silver and black koolaid tastes good. Really the choice for the Sox is likely to either a) pay MB $14mil and then TRADE Contreras and his $10million salary away or b)trade 2-month rental Buehrle for some B-prospects and keep Jose for next year. Either way, they are putting in a rookie in the 5th spot for next year. The net difference in pay for going with Jose through his downward slide vs. sticking with more of the same great stuff from Buehrle is $4 million. How many holes is that going to plug? ....and don't forget, some of that $4 million in savings will go towards offsetting the lost revenue from all the fans the Sox will have alienated.

Also, if we keep Mark, I think that really opens the door for an opportunity to extend Garland at below market price. Based on comments from Garland, if Mark goes, I think that pretty much slams the door on Jon too. But hey, at least we're rooting for a team that sticking to its principles on a NTC. Woohoo!!!

TDog
07-07-2007, 04:06 PM
I pretty much agree 100% with that sentiment. I don't know if I can give up my season tickets. But I can refuse to buy any extra games, (for going with friends/family), for buying any more merchandise, hell, from spending any money at the concessions. I also probably won't resell any of my extras through ticketmaster because that generates revenue for the sox (not to mention keeping my money interest free).

Unfortunately, showing your displeasure that way will guarantee the Sox won't produce a winning team. The White Sox ownership group wants to win. This year's team was a result of increasing payroll. While I have said all along that increasing payroll won't guarantee a winner, decreasing payroll by giving the Sox less money to work with has a good chance of guaranteeing a loser.

If people would support the Sox when they are losing, a losing season wouldn't mean the start of a crisis period for the franchise.

Hitmen77
07-07-2007, 05:08 PM
Unfortunately, showing your displeasure that way will guarantee the Sox won't produce a winning team. The White Sox ownership group wants to win. This year's team was a result of increasing payroll. While I have said all along that increasing payroll won't guarantee a winner, decreasing payroll by giving the Sox less money to work with has a good chance of guaranteeing a loser.

If people would support the Sox when they are losing, a losing season wouldn't mean the start of a crisis period for the franchise.

...and that is the catch 22 for us Sox fans. :(:

It's not so much the losing, but the feeling that ownership is giving up on winning. It is what happened after the white flag trade - fans were angry that the team gave up on the season and attendance plummeted. What followed was years of a low attendance-low payroll vicious circle.

I guess the best solution would be for the Sox to not make a stupid move like letting Buehrle go over a NTC. But if that's not going to happen, I really don't blame fans for being angry and staying away.....but then as you say, that'll hurt the team. But, IMO that's JR's and KW's problem even though we all as fans will suffer.

I think Sox fans as a whole are smart enough to tell the difference between necessary moves that are unpopular and hurt, but will help the team overall vs. stupid moves based on their rigidity and obsession with "avenging the Navarro mistake". For example, letting Maggs go. I was angry at the time and so were many Sox fans. Yet, there was a prevailing understanding that he wasn't worth the money, his injury was worrisome, and the money not going to one player could be used to fill many holes. However, Buehrle situation isn't the same. The difference between keeping Mark and trading someone like Jose as opposed to letting Mark walk and keeping Contreras is something like $4 million. The Sox won't be filling any holes with only $ 4 million by letting their most popular and arguably best player leave. That's just stupid in the opinion of this costumer. If I wanted to just keep forking over the same amount of money to my team no matter how angry I was at them, then I guess I would have become a Cubs fan in the first place.

wilburwood
07-08-2007, 07:52 AM
Maybe I am being cynical here but it seems to me this is the exact type thing that has in the past caused a lot of empty seats. This is a class ballplayer, with roots here, he has expressed allegiance to the team and the fans, after all he gets a lot more on the open market.
So let me think Mark likes the fans ....we obviously like him. His age and experience make his upside at the very least promising.
This guy will go for huge cash if we do not do the deal..........I am hearing other teams are looking at this like the AFLAC Duck...........HUH????
SO WE ARE NOT SIGNING HIM WHY???:o:

wassagstdu
07-08-2007, 10:42 AM
Not to sign Buehrle would be an epochal blunder. I can't think of a worse one off hand in Sox history.

The Sox have made mistakes trading top franchise players in the past, but generally near the end of their careers. Those were all big mistakes, but not to sign Buehrle would be in a whole different category. They traded Billy Pierce, who was even more popular than Buehrle and probably a better (certainly different) pitcher, but that turned out well for Pierce because he got to start a WS game with the Giants, something he was denied by some fat-headed manager of the Sox. Pierce, of course is still an important part of the Sox organization and I have seen him at several events recently. I think Buehrle maybe sees a similar future for himself, but not if he leaves the Sox now and spends the prime of his career elsewhere.

Trading Aparicio in the prime of his career was terrible, and drove me away from the Sox for years, but one could argue that they got value for him. They won't get much value for Buehrle, certainly not as much as his below-market (alleged) signing would be worth to the Sox.