PDA

View Full Version : Where do you stand on the Buehrle issue?


OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 11:18 PM
Just wanted to see where everyone stands on this because the thread was a little mixed....

Frankfan4life
06-30-2007, 11:27 PM
Give him the no-trade clause and get this over with. I would rather concentrate on baseball instead of wondering every day if the Sox are going to sign Buehrle.

OzzieBall2004
06-30-2007, 11:29 PM
Give him the no-trade clause and get this over with. I would rather concentrate on baseball instead of wondering every day if the Sox are going to sign Buehrle.

I agree. I'm personally surprised that more people aren't bringing up the fact that he gets a NTC anyway after the 2009 season because he'll be a 10 and 5 player.

tebman
06-30-2007, 11:50 PM
I agree. I'm personally surprised that more people aren't bringing up the fact that he gets a NTC anyway after the 2009 season because he'll be a 10 and 5 player.
Yep. And I don't see why the NTC is such an either/or question. This is a negotiation -- why not a limited NTC, with MB specifying which teams he'd agree to if certain conditions were in place. I have no idea what those conditions might be, but that's what negotiations are for.

oeo
07-01-2007, 12:03 AM
As much as I like Mark, he needs to make a compromise and go without a full NTC. Same goes for the Sox if they don't even want to give him a limited one (I don't see why not).

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-01-2007, 01:44 AM
They got Mark to go for 4 years, they got Mark to sign for below market value, give him the ******* NTC and get this over with.

Nellie_Fox
07-01-2007, 01:55 AM
I stand for waiting to hear what's really going on, instead of flying off the handle on yet another, possibly inaccurate, media report.

How many threads are we going to have that say essentially the same things over and over again?

FedEx227
07-01-2007, 02:08 AM
I stand for waiting to hear what's really going on, instead of flying off the handle on yet another, possibly inaccurate, media report.

How many threads are we going to have that say essentially the same things over and over again?

Well if you guys would STOP merging them we'd have over 3,000.

Nellie_Fox
07-01-2007, 02:10 AM
Well if you guys would STOP merging them we'd have over 3,000. I can't keep up with the merging.

ChicagoG19
07-01-2007, 02:19 AM
Does anyone think that buehrle wants a NTC because he is afraid that Kw might be planning a sign-and-trade behind the scenes.

Nellie_Fox
07-01-2007, 03:03 AM
Does anyone think that buehrle wants a NTC because he is afraid that Kw might be planning a sign-and-trade behind the scenes.This has been discussed ad nauseum in several threads. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE HAS BEEN OFFERED.

MISoxfan
07-01-2007, 05:07 AM
Well assuming that he is looking to take a 4 year 50 mil contract or something similar that would definatelly be a big home team discount. If he is willing to take a home team discount I would 100% agree that he should have a no-trade clause. How foolish would he be for taking a home team discount and then get traded to another team the next day?

Grzegorz
07-01-2007, 06:26 AM
The goal I want achieved is a series of Chicago White Sox World Series championships.

I agree that we have to wait until we hear the whole story. That said, as much as I appreciate Mark Buehrle as a baseball player and leader no one player is greater than the whole.

Railsplitter
07-01-2007, 08:10 AM
I understan Mark's view, but he's been given a bona fide offer. Besides, shouldn't the ten and five kick in sometime during the life of the contract?

tebman
07-01-2007, 08:49 AM
This has been discussed ad nauseum in several threads. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE HAS BEEN OFFERED.

Yeah, but I know a guy...


.

tick53
07-01-2007, 08:59 AM
Give him the no-trade clause and get this over with. I would rather concentrate on baseball instead of wondering every day if the Sox are going to sign Buehrle.

Same here...enoughs enough!!

jabrch
07-01-2007, 11:05 AM
Players and fans have become so whiney... Screw it - trade his ass if he doesn't want to play here for 14mm for 4 years with him getting 10/5 rights after 2 years.

Build escalators so that if he gets traded he makes more money or something - whatever - there are loads of ways to do that. But I'm so sick of hearing about contracts.

It's millionaires fighting with billionaires - and my ticket prices keep going up over it.

It's Dankerific
07-01-2007, 11:40 AM
Players and fans have become so whiney... Screw it - trade his ass if he doesn't want to play here for 14mm for 4 years with him getting 10/5 rights after 2 years.

Build escalators so that if he gets traded he makes more money or something - whatever - there are loads of ways to do that. But I'm so sick of hearing about contracts.

It's millionaires fighting with billionaires - and my ticket prices keep going up over it.

Its like having to lock your car doors. I wish i lived in a world I didnt have to do that. But this is the world, this is what we have to work with. Once the constraints of the problem are clear, the answer (Signing Mark with his NTC) is also clear.

wassagstdu
07-01-2007, 12:28 PM
I can see only one reason why the Sox would let Buehrle go rather than sign him well below market with a full NTC, and that is to reserve the right to cash in the HUGE extra value that Buehrle will have once he is tied up by trading him. Right now he is worth a decent prospect. The day he signs (without the NTC) he is worth a top-notch proven major leaguer plus. Even if the organization never thought of this (yeah, right) they will the day after they sign him when they start getting offers they cannot refuse. So IF Buehrle is willing to sign well below market and the Sox say no thanks because of the NTC, then the Sox must really want to unload Buehrle, but get more than a prospect for him. Why should he cooperate?

If they really want to keep Buehrle, they will agree not to trade him through 2009 (big deal) because, if I understand correctly, he gets NTC rights anyway in 2010. If I were Buehrle and the Sox refused that I would assume that they intend to trade me and say "See ya in the FA market."

kevingrt
07-01-2007, 12:54 PM
I see both sides, but I cannot believe we are not signing him because of a fricking no trade clause.

Right now I am sick to my stomach about this situation.

WhiteSox5187
07-01-2007, 01:42 PM
I see both sides, but I cannot believe we are not signing him because of a fricking no trade clause.

Right now I am sick to my stomach about this situation.
My dad swears to this, and that is IF we were serious about signing him and we have the years and the money all worked out then we will find some sort of middle ground about a NTC. There is though, the rather serious possibility that Kenny made this offer hoping that Mark would flat out reject so it so at the very least the SOx can say they tried.

Nellie_Fox
07-01-2007, 03:02 PM
I understan Mark's view, but he's been given a bona fide offer. Besides, shouldn't the ten and five kick in sometime during the life of the contract?Did you read any of the other hundred or so threads on this the past couple of days? What "bona fide offer" are you referring to? The rumor on top of rumor from the media? And his five and ten status has been discussed dozens of times.

Flight #24
07-01-2007, 03:11 PM
Based strictly on the report on whitesox.com (and corroboration from mediots only strengthens things), it seems that the contract is basically agreed to but the NTC is the issue. To me, whether it's the Sox not wanting to give a partial, or not wanting to give a full, I don't understand their issue. Buehrle is a "face of the franchise" type of guy, like Paulie (IMO moreso). So I don't buy the "if you do it for him you have to do it for everyone" argument. I think even Garland would have to admit that while he's a good pitcher, he's not Buehrle on or off the field.

To me, I think about the situation in which they would want to trade him. It would have to be in the next 2 years (before he hits 10-5), and they'd have to both be bad, not project to be good soon, and need the infusion of talent. I don't buy the quote from Kenny that he "can't build a championship team" that way because a championship team wouldn't be trading a Mark Buehrle. A crappy team would trade a Mark Buehrle in order to rebuild.

If Kenny is either too arrogant to bend on this or was only resigning Mark to set up a trade, then boo to him. It's an odd way to run a franchise when you have franchise type of guys and you're not willing to make a commitment to them while they're willing to commit to you (and at a significant discount based on any of the numbers that have been reported/rumored). And IMO that's not on JR if indeed they've agreed on the years & $$$, it's on KW.

IlliniSox4Life
07-01-2007, 04:31 PM
IF the problem is the NTC, then the Sox need to just go ahead and give it to him. As it's been stated, he'll have the NTC after 2 years anyway (2009). Are you really planning on trading him in the next 2 years? I thought the point of signing him was that we wanted him to play for us.

TomBradley72
07-02-2007, 11:06 AM
This franchise is on the edge of returning to the pathetic 1995-2004 era of letting our best/most popular players go (McDowell, Fernandez, Ventura,etc.) while muddling along as a perennial "also ran". The excuse then was always based on low attendance/revenues...so how could poor JR compete with the "big market" teams (despite residing in one of the biggest metropolitan areas in the US).

So what's the excuse now? Three years in a row of tremendous attendance, high TV/radio ratings...Buehrle is a 100% great guy, stays healthy, on track for a 200+ win career...if we won't compete to retain a pitcher like him...than WHO will we ever retain? Other free agents and players will take notice. To a lesser degree, the same goes for Dye..great guy,has done everything the team has asked, could have gone to the DBacks for more money before he officially signed with the White Sox..but kept his word and signed with us.

How do we repay him? Play out 2007 with complete risk of injury and we'll talk to you after the season. Again...potential free agents and players will take notice of how we treat our own.

If we lose MB over the NTC, I'll be cancelling my season tickets.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:11 AM
If we lose MB over the NTC, I'll be cancelling my season tickets.

So you are a Mark Buehrle fan more than a White Sox fan? (Serious question)

Or is that a matter of principle? And if the latter is the case, and it is about how you choose to spend your money and the things that are important to you, why pass that value judgement based on principles when that's the same thing KW/JR/OG are doing?

I'm a fan of the team - and I don't care who is in the uniform as long as they are trying to win. Trade Mark, get me two top prospects and have 14mm to go out and get me a big bat in the OF and I'll be fine next year.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:13 AM
My dad swears to this,

I heard Kenny on his cell phone at the airport saying that he hopes Mark turns him down

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 11:19 AM
So you are a Mark Buehrle fan more than a White Sox fan? (Serious question)

Or is that a matter of principle? And if the latter is the case, and it is about how you choose to spend your money and the things that are important to you, why pass that value judgement based on principles when that's the same thing KW/JR/OG are doing?

I'm a fan of the team - and I don't care who is in the uniform as long as they are trying to win. Trade Mark, get me two top prospects and have 14mm to go out and get me a big bat in the OF and I'll be fine next year.

I'm a Sox fan, I'm just not convinced that the GM is making smart moves to keep my team in contention. And I'm not willing to throw up my hands and say "Oh well, Kenny knows best" when he makes moves that make little to no sense. Especially when he's made both good and bad moves in the past. I've been a KW fan, and I think he's a smart guy. But his moves starting this past offseason have been extremely confusing and in general have not panned out.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:19 AM
Its like having to lock your car doors. I wish i lived in a world I didnt have to do that. But this is the world, this is what we have to work with. Once the constraints of the problem are clear, the answer (Signing Mark with his NTC) is also clear.


I still don't see why we are better off with Mark that we'd be with two top tier prospects and 14mm.

Let's look at some options

Option A
Mark
Of OF as is
Our pen as is
Our Farm as is

Option B
Ichiro
Broxton
Gavin/Gio/Lance
Billingsley

Option C
Andruw Jones
Adam Jones
Jeff Clement

Option D
Something that gets us Alex Rodriguez somehow


Giving up the right to trade Mark at some point in time is still a bad idea. KW knows it. JR knows it.

This sentimentality for a 3.80/1.25 pitcher still shocks me.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 11:23 AM
I still don't see why we are better off with Mark that we'd be with two top tier prospects and 14mm.

Let's look at some options

Option B
Ichiro
Broxton
Gavin/Gio/Lance
Billingsley


Option D
Something that gets us Alex Rodriguez somehow



That team will have a lot of problems unless 2 of Danks/Gavin/Gio/Lance/Billingsley develop into good #2 or 3 SPs immediately. That's highly unlikely, even good pitchers frequently struggle
in their first year. Plus, you really think Ichiro's coming to a team relying that significantly on young, unproven pitching? The man's leaving Seattle because he wants to win (otherwise he'll stay since I believe they'll offer the most $$$ to maintain the Japanese fan base).

ARod - that would be nice, but similarly, I have a hard time imagining him making another potential Texas move. He's likely to be a lot choosier about the team around him.

Remember - this isn't signing Buehrle at $17M or more. This is $14M. That's not much more than Jose & Javy get, and you can trade one of them and replace internally a lot easier than you can replace a Buehrle.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:24 AM
in general have not panned out.

Way to early to draw that conlcusion, isn't it?

If PK, JD, Crede, Thome and Pods (not this year's moves) hit like expected, we are in contention.

We've got the 5th best ERA in the AL, and that's after a complete and total bullpen collapse.

I just get the feeling that some people are overreacting to a ****ty season.

credefan24
07-02-2007, 11:24 AM
This was brought up earlier in the thread, and I don't get it.
KW said that he cannot build a championship team if he signs MB to the no trade clause.

My question is, how does KW come to this conclusion? I thought MB would be a guy this team would build around. Leadership on and off the field, and one of the best pitchers in the AL. It seems silly to let him go simply because of a No-Trade Clause. And besides, aren't those waived all the time anyways?

The whole thing doesn't make much sense, but then again, we are only getting the media's version of the story.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:28 AM
Remember - this isn't signing Buehrle at $17M or more.

What's the difference?

To me, 14 or 17 is not difference. It is the length and the lack of ability to move him if we desire that are much more important.

Noneck
07-02-2007, 11:29 AM
I still don't see why we are better off with Mark that we'd be with two top tier prospects and 14mm.

Let's look at some options

Option A
Mark
Of OF as is
Our pen as is
Our Farm as is

Option B
Ichiro
Broxton
Gavin/Gio/Lance
Billingsley

Option C
Andruw Jones
Adam Jones
Jeff Clement

Option D
Something that gets us Alex Rodriguez somehow


Giving up the right to trade Mark at some point in time is still a bad idea. KW knows it. JR knows it.

This sentimentality for a 3.80/1.25 pitcher still shocks me.

Do you really think (in your head not heart) that the Sox will get the players in options B,C or D if they don't sign Burls?

jabrch
07-02-2007, 11:59 AM
Do you really think (in your head not heart) that the Sox will get the players in options B,C or D if they don't sign Burls?

I really think the Sox will use the 14mm to get some player who is worth 14mm. Those 3? Maybe - maybe not. But here's the one thing we know about baseball players - they, like owners, are attracted to money. There will be a FA out there who will take our $14mm.

In short - yes - I feel like if we don't sign Mark we will get someone else to take his roster spot for 14mm.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 12:03 PM
Way to early to draw that conlcusion, isn't it?

If PK, JD, Crede, Thome and Pods (not this year's moves) hit like expected, we are in contention.

We've got the 5th best ERA in the AL, and that's after a complete and total bullpen collapse.

I just get the feeling that some people are overreacting to a ****ty season.

I really think the Sox will use the 14mm to get some player who is worth 14mm. Those 3? Maybe - maybe not. But here's the one thing we know about baseball players - they, like owners, are attracted to money. There will be a FA out there who will take our $14mm.

In short - yes - I feel like if we don't sign Mark we will get someone else to take his roster spot for 14mm.

14M doesn't buy you what it used to. That's a flawed player like JD Drew. Or a pitcher like Ted Lilly. It most certainly is not a star caliber guy like Ichiro, ARod, etc. And it's a virtual certainty that you won't find a Mark Buehrle caliber guy for $14M.

As for drawing early conclusions, the Sox are out of contention and it's barely July. I don't think it's early to say that Kenny's bullpen moves and poor decisionmaking in CF have contributed significantly to killing this team in 2007. If the moves end up being good for the future, that's great, they still cost this team in 2007.

Noneck
07-02-2007, 12:08 PM
I really think the Sox will use the 14mm to get some player who is worth 14mm. Those 3? Maybe - maybe not. But here's the one thing we know about baseball players - they, like owners, are attracted to money. There will be a FA out there who will take our $14mm.

In short - yes - I feel like if we don't sign Mark we will get someone else to take his roster spot for 14mm.

But either Suzuki or A Rod would both get more than 14m. But if you are right I'll be at tonights game singing Na Na Na Hey Hey Goodbye to Burls.

sox1970
07-02-2007, 12:12 PM
It appears to me they just don't want Buehrle to sign. They were probably surprised he accepted the 4 years/$56 million. Then they had to find a reason for him not to sign--the no-trade clause. If they really wanted him to stay, they'd give the NTC without even thinking. He'll be gone by next week.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 12:20 PM
It appears to me they just don't want Buehrle to sign. They were probably surprised he accepted the 4 years/$56 million. Then they had to find a reason for him not to sign--the no-trade clause.

That's nuts.

Why would they not want him to sign?

That's completely foolish.

They aren't giving a full NTC on a long term contract to a pitcher. That's SMART. Kudos to them.

FarWestChicago
07-02-2007, 12:31 PM
But his moves starting this past offseason have been extremely confusing and in general have not panned out.Yeah, I really wish we still had Fingernails and Freddie.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 12:33 PM
Yeah, I really wish we still had Fingernails and Freddie.

Yeah, but he traded Aaron Rowand...

FarWestChicago
07-02-2007, 12:33 PM
It appears to me they just don't want Buehrle to sign.I think you may be imagining things.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 12:35 PM
Yeah, I really wish we still had Fingernails and Freddie.

I have no problems with dealing those guys. I was confused that a team with bullpen issues that supposedly wanted to contend brought in a slew of unproven and/or poor performing young relievers. That's a move made for 2008, not 2007. It was completely predictable that they would struggle, and Kenny put ~4 of those type of guys in the 'pen. It's not about who they traded away, it's about how the focus seemed not to be on shoring up weak spots for 2007 when you knew there was likely to be significant turnover after the year given the FAs.

I was also confused that when you had a question mark in CF with Anderson, and a question mark in LF with an injured Podsednik, the big move was a guy with an injury history in Erstad.

sox1970
07-02-2007, 12:37 PM
That's nuts.

Why would they not want him to sign?

That's completely foolish.

They aren't giving a full NTC on a long term contract to a pitcher. That's SMART. Kudos to them.

They know their minor league system is void of many positional players. They want to get a few for Buehrle and Dye, and hope they work out. Plus I think Kenny wants to prove how smart he is by getting all of the young pitchers he got last offseason on the staff soon. I think the NTC is just bull****. After the money was agreed upon, the rest should have been easy.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 12:38 PM
They aren't giving a full NTC on a long term contract to a pitcher. That's SMART. Kudos to them.

So Mark is supposed to take a significant discount to stay without guaranteeing that he'll actually be able to do that? How exactly is that supposed to work?

Kenn'ys on record that he won't pay market rates. Now he won't even pay 50-75% of market unless he maintains full flexibility? Who exactly does he think he's going to get under this philosophy of his?

And it's not like he's going to get multiple top-tier guys. If he's lucky, he'll get 1. Teams just don't pay the same for rentals as they used to. Maybe if there's an injury he can squeeze a team. But that's what he's betting on?

jabrch
07-02-2007, 12:39 PM
I have no problems with dealing those guys. I was confused that a team with bullpen issues that supposedly wanted to contend brought in a slew of unproven and/or poor performing young relievers. That's a move made for 2008, not 2007. It was completely predictable that they would struggle, and Kenny put ~4 of those type of guys in the 'pen. It's not about who they traded away, it's about how the focus seemed not to be on shoring up weak spots for 2007 when you knew there was likely to be significant turnover after the year given the FAs.

I was also confused that when you had a question mark in CF with Anderson, and a question mark in LF with an injured Podsednik, the big move was a guy with an injury history in Erstad.

And despite those concerns, had Crede, PK, JD, Thome, Iguchi and AJ performed this year as they have in the past, we'd be in striking distance.

KW's biggest failure this year was that he didn't project major collapses from the players he has counted on most the past two years. Sorry - I'm not badmouthing the GM who lead this team to a WS over this one.

Is he perfect? nope - no GM is. But I'll take KW over the options.

santo=dorf
07-02-2007, 12:41 PM
If it's true the deal is agreed at 4/$56 million, the Sox should just cave in and give him the NTC. Buehrle is a solid pitcher and very marketable to Sox fans.

If people believe that the reason why this team isn't winning is because Crede, Dye and others aren't hitting like they are suppose to, then I guess the pitching is do their job. So why wouldn't you bring him back? If the excuse is "they aren't meeting expectations," does that mean it's ok to bring everyone back for next season and hope for different results?

jabrch
07-02-2007, 12:48 PM
So Mark is supposed to take a significant discount to stay without guaranteeing that he'll actually be able to do that? How exactly is that supposed to work?

No - he's no supposed to do anything. He (presumedly) has an offer on the table for $14-15mm per year for 4 years, presumedly with 1 year NTC and he'd get his 10/5 rights after the 2nd year. It's his choice what he does. He's in control.

But the team shouldn't let him bully them into some stupid clause because it is July 2. The choice is up to Mark - but the terms will not be his. That's not how it works when you are under contract somewhere. If he wants to write his own ticket, he will need to wait until FA to do so.

Kenn'ys on record that he won't pay market rates. Now he won't even pay 50-75% of market unless he maintains full flexibility?

First off, I don't think I have seen him say he won't pay market rates - I think what I saw him say is that the market is out of whack when Zito gets 17mm and Schmidt gets the same and he anticipates a correction. After seeing how well those two deals have worked for SF and LA, it looks like KW may end up being part right?

Second, You think Mark gets 19-21mm? I don't think that's going to happen.

Third, I don't blame him for wanting flexibility. GMs need that. Once you lose it, you lose a lot of room to maneuver. I can't imagine Ranger fans are happy right now paying 10mm per year to watch A-Rod play for the Yankees.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 12:50 PM
They know their minor league system is void of many positional players. They want to get a few for Buehrle and Dye, and hope they work out. Plus I think Kenny wants to prove how smart he is by getting all of the young pitchers he got last offseason on the staff soon. I think the NTC is just bull****. After the money was agreed upon, the rest should have been easy.

They'd have made the deal last week then. They'd have no reason to create this circus, and to have negative stuff out there that would hurt his trade value if this was the route they wanted to go.

I'm sure they want to keep him, but not if it means surrendering the right to trade him before he hits 10/5.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 12:55 PM
No - he's no supposed to do anything. He (presumedly) has an offer on the table for $14-15mm per year for 4 years, presumedly with 1 year NTC and he'd get his 10/5 rights after the 2nd year. It's his choice what he does. He's in control.

But the team shouldn't let him bully them into some stupid clause because it is July 2. The choice is up to Mark - but the terms will not be his. That's not how it works when you are under contract somewhere. If he wants to write his own ticket, he will need to wait until FA to do so.



First off, I don't think I have seen him say he won't pay market rates - I think what I saw him say is that the market is out of whack when Zito gets 17mm and Schmidt gets the same and he anticipates a correction. After seeing how well those two deals have worked for SF and LA, it looks like KW may end up being part right?

Second, You think Mark gets 19-21mm? I don't think that's going to happen.

Third, I don't blame him for wanting flexibility. GMs need that. Once you lose it, you lose a lot of room to maneuver. I can't imagine Ranger fans are happy right now paying 10mm per year to watch A-Rod play for the Yankees.

Even a pretty decent correction is going to leave you with Ted Lilly's making $10M (that would be a 15% correction), and Mark Buehrle's going for.....$14M. And if there isn't a correction, Mark Buehrle's will be going to $17+. The discount he's giving is off of the total guaranteed money, in part by taking fewer years than he'd get on the market and in part by taking a lower salary. I find it completely rational for mark to say "if I'm going to take a big discount to stay, I want assurances that I'll stay". I'm sure if the Sox were offering him more money, he'd be more flexible on the NTC.

I don't blame Kenny for wanting flexilibility. But it seems like he wants it all - Buehrle on a shorter than market deal, at a lower than market price, AND maintaining trade flexibility. I am highly skeptical that Kenny can find talent anywhere close to Mark Buehrle's by maintaining that stance.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 12:59 PM
KW's biggest failure this year was that he didn't project major collapses from the players he has counted on most the past two years. Sorry - I'm not badmouthing the GM who lead this team to a WS over this one.



I disagree. Those guys all performed well last year and the team underperformed, significantly due to the bullpen. And Kenny did little to nothing to ensure that that wasn't a problem again by relying on unproven/turnaround type guys.

I don't think having won a WS means that Kenny can do no wrong. Perhaps we disagree on that.

Tragg
07-02-2007, 01:31 PM
$14 mill is a below market price; we would get $17 or so mill of free agent value for $14 mill.

If Ken Williams can get $17 mill of value by trading MB and spending the $14 mill on other players, then that's fine. The implicit debate is, however about whether he can do it.

I don't see it; but the media has its biases so perhaps KW can net 2 grade A prospects and a couple of Bs for him and then use the 14 mill on undervalued free agents. Hope so.

TomBradley72
07-02-2007, 01:50 PM
Way to early to draw that conlcusion, isn't it?

If PK, JD, Crede, Thome and Pods (not this year's moves) hit like expected, we are in contention.

Three of the four you mention (Crede, Thome and Pods) all had significant health issues/history of injuries coming into this season. We're not talking "freak injuries" here. KW went out and traded for Thome and resigned Pods knowing their health situation. He's accountable.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 02:14 PM
I don't think having won a WS means that Kenny can do no wrong. Perhaps we disagree on that.

If you show me where I said that KW can do no wrong, I'd appreciate it. If not, implying it is really inaccurate. You are usually a much better poster than that #24.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 02:16 PM
Three of the four you mention (Crede, Thome and Pods) all had significant health issues/history of injuries coming into this season. We're not talking "freak injuries" here. KW went out and traded for Thome and resigned Pods knowing their health situation. He's accountable.

So you are saying he should have built a team around guys he had, but have suitable backups for his DH, his 3B and his leadoff hitter? Or are you saying that he should have gotten rid of those guys since they had injuries in the past?

He took a calculated gamble that didn't pay off. The problem isn't any one of those in isolation - it is the complete combination of the injuries and the lack of productivity of this entire offense that could not be predicted unless you are choosing to make the most negative possible predictions - in which case no team projects out well...

soxinem1
07-02-2007, 02:17 PM
This has been discussed ad nauseum in several threads. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE HAS BEEN OFFERED.

Exactly why I refuse to take a side, we do not know what is really going on.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 02:18 PM
If Ken Williams can get $17 mill of value by trading MB and spending the $14 mill on other players, then that's fine. The implicit debate is, however about whether he can do it.

I think that's a great point Tragg. What's the value of whatever he'd get in trade for Mark? I'd say one or two MLB ready prospects, if they pan out, and I'd want a guy who is a low chance of failure type guy, is worth well over 3mm. 6 years of control of Milledge, Martinez, Gomez, Pelfrey, Humber, Jones, Clement, Chamberlain, etc. etc... is worth a lot to me.

Jerome
07-02-2007, 02:34 PM
Buehrle is accepting a contract that is so below market value, the least the Sox could give him is a full NTC. The 4 yr 56 million will seem like peanuts for what he can get on the open market.

Besides, what's the downside of having to keep MB on the team until the 4 years is over? He'll only be 32.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 03:06 PM
If you show me where I said that KW can do no wrong, I'd appreciate it. If not, implying it is really inaccurate. You are usually a much better poster than that #24.

Nothing specific, just a sense I got from your posts. Things along the lines of "I'll trust the WS winning GM".

I'd trust him too if I could think of a rational argument for why you wouldn't want to retain Buehrle at such a discount and on a contract of length that's not crippling.

As for the "correction" argument, Kenny's really banking the future of the franchise on that at this point. That seems like a risky gamble, because even if there IS a correction, does it really matter if it's a 10-20% one? For Kenny to be able to capitalize on it, it's going to have to be 50% (so Ted Lilly & co go back to making $6-8M).

And FWIW, Buehrle is effectively giving them a "market-corrected" salary!!!

Mickster
07-02-2007, 03:10 PM
KW's biggest failure this year was that he didn't project major collapses from the players he has counted on most the past two years. Sorry - I'm not badmouthing the GM who lead this team to a WS over this one.

I am a charter member of the FOKW but his biggest failure this year is tying up Vazquez to a 3 year deal at $11.5M per, iirc, when those funds could/should have been used on a pitcher of MB's caliber. We should be discussing possible trade options for Vazquez, instead we are discussing Buehrle. Would anyone on the planet not give Vazquez + $3M per year for a Mark Buehrle?

Last year we were faced with the Contreras/Garland signings and I think KW used the implied threat of a trade for one of the two who didn't sign a contract - this coming after a world series win and a team that, at least on paper, was better that the one that won it all the year prior. It worked for Jon and Jose, doesn't look to promising for Buehrle expecially after he handcuffed himself with Vazquez.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 03:23 PM
I am a charter member of the FOKW but his biggest failure this year is tying up Vazquez to a 3 year deal at $11.5M per, iirc, when those funds could/should have been used on a pitcher of MB's caliber. We should be discussing possible trade options for Vazquez, instead we are discussing Buehrle. Would anyone on the planet not give Vazquez + $3M per year for a Mark Buehrle?

But the obstacle with Mark (so we hear) isn't the money - it is his demand that the White Sox surrender their right to trade him if they want.

If he signs with us, he gets 10/5 in two years. If he leaves, he would have to negotiate nearly a full NTC for the life of the contract - as he won't get 10/5 until 5 years into that deal.

Is the problem the money or the NTC? It sounds like the latter to me, unless Mark's people are making a big deal out of that, when what they really want is more money, but they don't want to go asking for it.

Let's see what he does in the off season? If suddenly he signs a 7/105 deal to be a Card or a Met, then we will know this was never about the NTC and always about the money.

NTCs are bad business for a club.

sox1970
07-02-2007, 03:32 PM
NTCs are bad business for a club.

Yes, they are very rare these days.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 03:33 PM
Nothing specific, just a sense I got from your posts. Things along the lines of "I'll trust the WS winning GM".


I do - but that doesn't mean he can do no wrong. I just want to see him do wrong a few times before I jump on his **** over it. Even in his so called terrible offseason, he still made some great moves (Freddy for instance).

I agree with the philosophy that KW is appearing to enforce - don't give up control and don't grant a full NTC. If that's what Mark needs to be happy, I'll take the compensation, either in prospects or picks, and use the money elsewhere. I just don't believe you give up that flexibility when you don't have to.

Mark is a career 3.80/1.25 guy. This year that puts him with Pettite, Dice-K, Chein Ming Wang, Joe Kennedy, Fausto Carmona and...Javy Vazquez

If this were Johan Santana - I'd agree with you more. Mark is good - but not so good that we should engage in silly contract games just to pay him 14mm. I'm sorry - I don't see it.

Mickster
07-02-2007, 03:43 PM
But the obstacle with Mark (so we hear) isn't the money - it is his demand that the White Sox surrender their right to trade him if they want.

Is the problem the money or the NTC? It sounds like the latter to me, unless Mark's people are making a big deal out of that, when what they really want is more money, but they don't want to go asking for it.

If he signs with us for 4/56 as is being reported, would you agree that it is a less than market rate deal?

If you answer yes to the above, then the discussion should end there. If Mark really wanted more money and money was the only issue in the Buehrle camp, then discussions would not have gone this far - either behind closed doors or reported/discussed by the media/team as has been done over the last week.

He is willing to give up money taking a lower guaranteed deal for happiness. He might be very happy in Chicago, it is the only team that he knows, is close to his home, etc. If he is willing to take less guaranteed cash for happiness, wouldn't you want to at least "guarantee" your happiness with a NTC?

If he signs with us, he gets 10/5 in two years. If he leaves, he would have to negotiate nearly a full NTC for the life of the contract - as he won't get 10/5 until 5 years into that deal.

He will not have 10/5 rights if the Sox trade him within the first 2 years of this deal. If they do happen to trade him, he ends up taking less than market value to play for a team/city that he may not like or have no interest playing for. Then the clock for the 10/5 starts all over again.

I am fairly certain that any team that happens to sign Buehrle in the off season (should it get that far) will have no problem giving him a no trade clause.


Let's see what he does in the off season? If suddenly he signs a 7/105 deal to be a Card or a Met, then we will know this was never about the NTC and always about the money.

I don't think that these two relate. He is willing to take less money for the guarantee that he will be in Chicago for the duration of the contract. If he gets traded or goes into the off season as a FA, then I would expect nothing less than Mark signing for considerably more money that what he was willing to sign with the Sox. He may sign with the Cards. If he passes up more money from another team to sign with the Cards for a discount, great. Either way, Buehrle will not sign a deal for 4/56 with any other team. Neither would anyone else in this situation.

I seem to recall Boston signing Bronson Arroyo to a heavily discounted contract in the start of 2006 only for Arroyo to be immediately dealt before he threw a pitch under his new contract. It reeked of BS with him, and does now with Buehrle.

TomBradley72
07-02-2007, 03:45 PM
So you are saying he should have built a team around guys he had, but have suitable backups for his DH, his 3B and his leadoff hitter? Or are you saying that he should have gotten rid of those guys since they had injuries in the past?



Resigning Pods was a mistake. Replacing an aging/injury prone/base clogging DH (Thomas) with another (Thome) was a mistake. Crede couldn't be helped and we had a decent prospect to back him up.

Mickster
07-02-2007, 03:47 PM
NTCs are bad business for a club.

I agree. :cool:

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 03:50 PM
But the obstacle with Mark (so we hear) isn't the money - it is his demand that the White Sox surrender their right to trade him if they want.

If he signs with us, he gets 10/5 in two years. If he leaves, he would have to negotiate nearly a full NTC for the life of the contract - as he won't get 10/5 until 5 years into that deal.


If he goes somewhere else, he most certainly would get more money and more years. What he's saying is "It's worth the loss of $20+M guaranteed to me to stay with the Sox in Chicago, but it's not worth that discount if I'm NOT going to stay". In fact, if I'm Buehrle Kenny's telegraphing exactly what I'd be afraid of: taking less money to stay and then getting shipped out as soon as the partial NTC expires.

This isn't Konerko taking $1M/yr less to stay. This is Buehrle taking a LOT bigger discount.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 03:54 PM
If he signs with us for 4/56 as is being reported, would you agree that it is a less than market rate deal?

If you answer yes to the above, then the discussion should end there. If Mark really wanted more money and money was the only issue in the Buehrle camp, then discussions would not have gone this far - either behind closed doors or reported/discussed by the media/team as has been done over the last week.


Not if he is requiring the inclusion of something he knows the organization absolutely won't do.


He is willing to give up money taking a lower guaranteed deal for happiness. He might be very happy in Chicago, it is the only team that he knows, is close to his home, etc. If he is willing to take less guaranteed cash for happiness, wouldn't you want to at least "guarantee" your happiness with a NTC?

That's not his option. His options are to take the deal offered to him, or go somewhere else. The Sox appear like they are not going to give him the NTC, so that's not a choice.


He will not have 10/5 rights if the Sox trade him within the first 2 years of this deal. If they do happen to trade him, he ends up taking less than market value to play for a team/city that he may not like or have no interest playing for. Then the clock for the 10/5 starts all over again.

The 5 side does -- but the 10 side doesn't. So he'd have to negotiate it into whatever deal he wants. A lot of teams won't give that to a 3.80/1.25 pitcher. I wouldn't if I were a GM.

I am fairly certain that any team that happens to sign Buehrle in the off season (should it get that far) will have no problem giving him a no trade clause.

Then he will have to leave and negotiate that into his next deal.

I seem to recall Boston signing Bronson Arroyo to a heavily discounted contract in the start of 2006 only for Arroyo to be immediately dealt before he threw a pitch under his new contract. It reeked of BS with him, and does now with Buehrle.

It happens - that's why the Sox give 1 year NTC to (most) everyone. It appears they want a crack at having the option to move the deal, if they want, between year 1 and his 10/5 vesting.

Again - Mark's choice - what's more important to him. If he wants to stay with the Sox, he will do so on terms they will agree to. That's just how it works when you are not a FA. If he wants to go elsewhere, he can demand any of a number of things that the Sox won't give him. Some of them would make him look bad (like asking for Zito years or Clemens money) but others he can ask, knowing he won't get them, and knowing that Joe Lunchpail will side with him. One example is a full NTC.

I don't care - really. Mark's 3.80/1.25 is replaceable. I know people don't want to hear it, but it is. And 14mm would be nice to have next offseason.

I'm a Sox fan, I'll cheer for whomever wears the uniform and goes out and gives it their all.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 03:57 PM
If this were Johan Santana - I'd agree with you more. Mark is good - but not so good that we should engage in silly contract games just to pay him 14mm. I'm sorry - I don't see it.
The problem is that Santana is going to get significantly more AND probably should he wish, the NTC. That means $20M. The bottom line is that $14M is simply not a ridiculous salary anymore - it's barely more than the going rate for Ted Lilly, Gil Meche, etc.

Would you agree that Mark is providing the Sox a significant discount on both the years and the $ compared to what he'd get in FA? Isn't that type of commitment to the org and the financial flexibility that that type of discount provides worth it for the team to make a similar commitment to the player by ensuring that he won't get shipped out?

If Mark were getting anywhere close to market rate, I could see the argument that you don't do the NTC. But when he's cutting his guaranteed earnings by anywhere from 25%-50% to stay, that's an almost unprecedented move. For the Sox not to say "Mark, we appreciate your desire to stay with the org and reciprocate our desire for you to stay by giving you the NTC" seems just plain dumb.

I agree that NTCs in general are bad business, but there are no absolutes. If ARod wants to play for the Sox for $1M/yr, but wants an NTC - you give it to him! That's an extreme example, but the logic is the same: Solid #2 to ace pitcher who's willing to give a sizeable discount to stay.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 04:02 PM
Resigning Pods was a mistake.

2.9mm really wasn't bad for Pods. Now if you don't like that sort of player, you wouldn't have liked him at any price.

Replacing an aging/injury prone/base clogging DH (Thomas) with another (Thome) was a mistake.

I missed the part where you were saying that last year, when he hit .288/.416/.598. I missed hearing that at the end of April when he was hitting .340/.558/.680. Oh yeah, that's right - because it is sillytalk.

Hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to be a critic. But every move KW has made you can make a reasonable case for if you look at it even-handedly, and every arguement you can make a reasonable case against. That's the nature of the beast. None of the moves he made were completely idiotic, despite the opinions of some people here (not refering to you tom - just the general tendencies of many baseball fans to know more than GMs)

Mickster
07-02-2007, 04:04 PM
I don't care - really. Mark's 3.80/1.25 is replaceable. I know people don't want to hear it, but it is. And 14mm would be nice to have next offseason.

I'm a Sox fan, I'll cheer for whomever wears the uniform and goes out and gives it their all.

jabrch, I don't disagree with you in principle, I just feel that the Sox are looking like jagoffs here. In any negotiation, there is give and take. He is willing to give in on the money for the security of staying on the Sox. The Sox are willing to take the discount while giving up nothing, unfortunately.

I don't think Buehrle walks on water but I don't think he is as easy to replace as you make it sound either. If anyone wants to call him an ace, feel free. I don't consider him one. But 4/56 for someone who genuinely wants to be here and who could get considerably more on the open market - you have to do the deal. Trade Contreras or Vazquez to make the financials work if you have to, imho.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 04:09 PM
The problem is that Santana is going to get significantly more AND probably should he wish, the NTC. That means $20M. The bottom line is that $14M is simply not a ridiculous salary anymore - it's barely more than the going rate for Ted Lilly, Gil Meche, etc.

Nobody said it is ridiculous.


Would you agree that Mark is providing the Sox a significant discount on both the years and the $ compared to what he'd get in FA? Isn't that type of commitment to the org and the financial flexibility that that type of discount provides worth it for the team to make a similar commitment to the player by ensuring that he won't get shipped out?

He's not a FA. The Sox are offering him the security of having a done deal, today, and they have already gone to 4 years and 14mm. If 2 or 3mm more per is what he wants, and that's such a big deal, he will get it. Let him. I don't care. But under no circumstance would I give him full NTC. I just wouldn't do it. I don't want to be tied to any one single contrct for 4 years.

But when he's cutting his guaranteed earnings by anywhere from 25%-50% to stay, that's an almost unprecedented move.

25-50%? You think Mark will get anywhere close to $21mm? Then screw it - he should go get that.

For the Sox not to say "Mark, we appreciate your desire to stay with the org and reciprocate our desire for you to stay by giving you the NTC" seems just plain dumb.

Instead, they are saying, "Mark, we appreciate...and will reciprocate...by giving you a contract for 4 years and $56mm."

If ARod wants to play for the Sox for $1M/yr, but wants an NTC - you give it to him!

Wake me up when this one happens.

Solid #2 to ace pitcher who's willing to give a sizeable discount to stay.

Comparing A-Rod taking $1mm to MB taking $14mm is equivalent to comparing Javy to Johan. It's not even in the same league. Mark, at $14mm is a 2-3mm discount. That's different than a $26mm per year discount

spiffie
07-02-2007, 04:10 PM
I don't care - really. Mark's 3.80/1.25 is replaceable. I know people don't want to hear it, but it is. And 14mm would be nice to have next offseason.

Really? It's that easy? Please, find me another pitcher in the AL who will provide Buehrle's production year in and year out at that price who will be available to us. You keep bantering around the SAVE $56 MILLION as though that number is enough to get any top flight player anymore. Here's the starters, under age 31, who have career ERA+ as good as Mark's:
Johan Santana - 145
Roy Oswalt - 141
Carlos Zambrano - 129
Roy Halladay - 128
Barry Zito - 124
Mark Buehrle - 122

Production on a year-in and year-out basis like Mark Buehrle has given is not nearly that easy to replace. Those are the guys who have bettered him as a starter for their careers and are around his age. Now which of those arms are you getting here for $56 million? But hey, there is a can't miss kid with an ERA+ of 116 coming available at the end of the year, and he's only 30. Kerry Wood. Bet he'll come cheap.

If 3.80 ERA's were easy to replace, Gil Meche wouldn't be the richest man in Kansas City, and Ted Lilly wouldn't be able to eat at Charlie Trotter's every night for the next 5 years.

spiffie
07-02-2007, 04:11 PM
25-50%? You think Mark will get anywhere close to $21mm? Then screw it - he should go get that.

He won't earn 21 million a year, but someone will give him 15-17 million for five to six years. It will be shocking if his total contract isn't at least 75-80 million on the free agency market.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 04:12 PM
jabrch, I don't disagree with you in principle, I just feel that the Sox are looking like jagoffs here.

On that point, I agree 100%. But we know that they don't give a damn. They never have cared if anyone thinks about them in that way.

The Sox are willing to take the discount while giving up nothing, unfortunately.

They are willing to give 4 years and 14mm per, by all accounts. That's hardly nothing for a pitcher who just had a ****ty year last year and is a 3.8/1.25 pitcher just getting to his 30s.

Trade Contreras or Vazquez to make the financials work if you have to, imho.

If it were about the $, then I'd agree. It's not the $ or so Mark says. It's the NTC. I don't think they can protect themselves against that if this is a deal killer for Mark.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 04:14 PM
He won't earn 21 million a year, but someone will give him 15-17 million for five to six years. It will be shocking if his total contract isn't at least 75-80 million on the free agency market.

So that's 1 (7%) - 3 (21%) more per year - a far cry from 25-50%.

In any case - I don't believe this is about the money. This is about the NTC.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 04:14 PM
Again - Mark's choice - what's more important to him. If he wants to stay with the Sox, he will do so on terms they will agree to. That's just how it works when you are not a FA. If he wants to go elsewhere, he can demand any of a number of things that the Sox won't give him. Some of them would make him look bad (like asking for Zito years or Clemens money) but others he can ask, knowing he won't get them, and knowing that Joe Lunchpail will side with him. One example is a full NTC.

I don't care - really. Mark's 3.80/1.25 is replaceable. I know people don't want to hear it, but it is. And 14mm would be nice to have next offseason.


You ignore the fact that Mark's taking a significant discount. It seems like you're saying "If Mark really wants to stay, he should take the discount AND receive no assurances that he'll actually stay".

On the one hand you seem to feel like Mark should want to stay badly enough to sign on the Sox terms (less $, fewer years, no NTC). On the other hand, you don't seem to recognize that when a guy wants to stay badly enough, he's leery of getting shipped out at the first available point.

What possible rationale should Mark have for caving now? He can make a lot more money elsewhere. He's willing to give that up because he wants to stay, all he wants is to actually stay once he signs. It smacks of Kenny's irrational hatred of Frank all over again - only it's that much harder to understand because Buehrle's a gem in the clubhouse and off the field.

As for comparable pitchers, Javy Vazquez is not comparable to Mark Buehrle, and any stats that make it seem so are misleading, irrelevant, or being misused(And FWIW, baseballreference.com has his career ERA at 4.32, much of it in the NL). Pettite's not a bad comparison except that he was a)signed in a different market and b) a lot older now (and even his career stats are worse than Mark's at 3.81 & 1.35). Wang is another good one, but he's not an FA for a while so from a benchmarking perspective it's tough to tell. And Joe Kennedy is WAY off the mark with career: 4.7ERA / 1.46WHIP.

Mickster
07-02-2007, 04:18 PM
They are willing to give 4 years and 14mm per, by all accounts. That's hardly nothing for a pitcher who just had a ****ty year last year and is a 3.8/1.25 pitcher just getting to his 30s.

I certainly would not consider the Sox paying $14M per for 4 years the "give" in that situation. That is what they are "taking" from the negotiations imho.

Btw, he had a ****ty 1/2 year. :cool:

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 04:19 PM
25-50%? You think Mark will get anywhere close to $21mm? Then screw it - he should go get that.



If Mark hits FA, his low-end deal is 5/$75. $56/$75=.74666667. And IMO he's going to get a lot more than 5/$75.

He's giving up guaranteed money of anywhere from $19-$50M to stay. All he wants is to make sure that when he makes that kind of sacrifice, he actually gets to stay.

If the Sox were buying out some arb years, I could see your argument. But the "security" you talk about is 3 months worth. And your stats of 3.80 / 1.25 are actually pretty good when you look at other pitchers career numbers.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 04:19 PM
Really? It's that easy? Please, find me another pitcher in the AL who will provide Buehrle's production year in and year out at that price who will be available to us.

I'd propose we use our farm system to find a starter (Gio, Floyd, Broadway, etc), add a prospect or two in the Buehrle deal, and use the $56mm to go out and get a hitter. I think that's the best bet.


I don't think this is a good market to go out and buy high end FA pitching as was evidenced by the two teams that tried it last year. (SF and LA) The teams that did well were the ones who took bigger risks like the Cubs and got both Lilly and Marquis, both effective, for 10 and 7 (I think) per respectively.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 04:21 PM
So that's 1 (7%) - 3 (21%) more per year - a far cry from 25-50%.

In any case - I don't believe this is about the money. This is about the NTC.

Right. Buehrle is willing to take a hit on guaranteed money of 25-50% to stay. The NTC is the contractual method he has to make sure he stays. Kenny wants the financial discount but not to make a similar commitment.

This isn't 2005 when $10+M was a big step for a franchise to commit to. In 2007, $14M is a lot more like $6-8M was in 2005. So it's not like the Sox are making a big statement to Mark by "offering" a 4/$56 deal. That's a statement he's making to them that he's willing to accept it.

spiffie
07-02-2007, 04:21 PM
So that's 1 (7%) - 3 (21%) more per year - a far cry from 25-50%.

In any case - I don't believe this is about the money. This is about the NTC.
The per year is meaningless. It's about how much is guaranteed in terms of a discount. So if Mark is willing to take $21-35 million less of a guarantee, that to me and most anyone else is going to equal a discount of that much. And since you're the one so concerned about the Sox being tied to a torturous and onerous deal that would sink the franchise forevermore, I am surprised you are trying to argue differently.

champagne030
07-02-2007, 04:21 PM
I certainly would not consider the Sox paying $14M per for 4 years the "give" in that situation. That is what they are "taking" from the negotiations imho.

Btw, he had a ****ty 1/2 year. :cool:

Hey now, Mark should kiss the very ground KW walks because he came up from 3 years to 4. :rolleyes:

Mickster
07-02-2007, 04:22 PM
So that's 1 (7%) - 3 (21%) more per year - a far cry from 25-50%.

In any case - I don't believe this is about the money. This is about the NTC.

No, that's "1 (7%) - 3 (21%) more per year" for an additional year at the minimum. If he gets $15/75 or $18/90 that would be 26% to 37% discount over the course of a 5 year guaranteed deal - he's already willing to take less years with the Sox.

spiffie
07-02-2007, 04:24 PM
I'd propose we use our farm system to find a starter (Gio, Floyd, Broadway, etc), add a prospect or two in the Buehrle deal, and use the $56mm to go out and get a hitter. I think that's the best bet.


I don't think this is a good market to go out and buy high end FA pitching as was evidenced by the two teams that tried it last year. (SF and LA) The teams that did well were the ones who took bigger risks like the Cubs and got both Lilly and Marquis, both effective, for 10 and 7 (I think) per respectively.
We had better be planning to use that farm system a lot, since it seems most likely that this deal moves Garland out after 2008, and Jose is likely gone by 2009 at the latest. We've developed a total of 2 quality starters in the last decade, but I like our chances of getting 3 of them in a 2-3 year span. Them's some fine odds.

And I'm not sure what you're planning to buy with $56 million as far as hitting goes. Considering a Carlos Lee is going for $100 million, and an Alfonso Soriano is going for $136 million. I guess you might be able to buy a J.D. Drew, that's about $55 million. Maybe a Juan Pierre, those only run about $40 million these days.

jabrch
07-02-2007, 04:28 PM
Ok guys - I'm off to the game. Let's hope we see many more years of Mark, or some great prospects, or two draft picks, or whatever.

I think we are all getting way too worked up when there is no way to determine if this is/was a good/bad move until long after it is over.

I appreciate the baseball banter - but I'm ready to go see some baseball - hopefully not as crappy as the last few games I have been to (11 runs scored in 7 games combined). Maybe I'm the problem?

Tragg
07-02-2007, 05:51 PM
I'd propose we use our farm system to find a starter (Gio, Floyd, Broadway, etc), add a prospect or two in the Buehrle deal, .
Two prospects (one of which top 5 in BLB) plus a starting player...that's what Williams sent to rent Garcia, and MB's superiority over Garcia, should take care of any market inefficiencies.

Think he'll get it?

If he does, I'm fine with it, as I think we can find a minor league pitcher. Of course, we could sign MB, trade Contreras and use his money on a hitter.....

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-02-2007, 06:05 PM
I think the reason Mark wants the NTC is that he knows that without it, he is giving the Sox management a substantial bargaining chip with no guarantee that he'll get anything back in exchange for taking a discount. Look at it this way: if Mark signs without the NTC for less than market value, but the end of July Kenny could be sending him to some place he doesn't want to go, and he'll no longer have the ability to seek a new team at the end of the season. And what team wouldn't want a 28 year-old lefty pitcher, who is in his prime and has proven to be durable, and puts up very solid numbers in a tough league and hitter's park? Mark Buehrle is much more valuable as a trading piece if he signs an extension without a NTC than if he doesn't sign one at all.

Basically, if Mark doesn't hold out for the NTC, he will probably get screwed, and he knows this.

TomBradley72
07-02-2007, 07:11 PM
2.9mm really wasn't bad for Pods. Now if you don't like that sort of player, you wouldn't have liked him at any price.

I missed the part where you were saying that last year, when he hit .288/.416/.598. I missed hearing that at the end of April when he was hitting .340/.558/.680. Oh yeah, that's right - because it is sillytalk.

Hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to be a critic. But every move KW has made you can make a reasonable case for if you look at it even-handedly, and every arguement you can make a reasonable case against. That's the nature of the beast. None of the moves he made were completely idiotic, despite the opinions of some people here (not refering to you tom - just the general tendencies of many baseball fans to know more than GMs)

I didn't say they were idiotic..just mistakes. I never like re-signing Pods...Thome has disappeared after a stellar first half in 2006..when he (predictably) began to break down physically. His 2nd half 2006 numbers were pathetic.

Daver
07-02-2007, 07:15 PM
I'd propose we use our farm system to find a starter (Gio, Floyd, Broadway, etc), add a prospect or two in the Buehrle deal, and use the $56mm to go out and get a hitter. I think that's the best bet.




The best bet to what?

Pitching is the most valuable thing there is in MLB, period. If you can acquire it or keep it at a reasonable rate, you jump on it.

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 07:25 PM
Daver is 100% correct in his comment.

Lip

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 10:22 PM
FWIW, here's where Buehrle ranks among active SPs as well as among younger pitchers.

WHIP: 13th among active SPs, 5th among SPs under 32 behind Santana, Oswalt, Sheets, Halladay. Tied for youngest in this group at 28.

ERA: 21st among active SPs, 8th among SPs under 32 behind Oswalt, Santana, Zambrano, Hudson, Zito, Halladay, Sheets. Tied for youngest in this group at 28.

Career ERA+ (i.e. park and league adjusted): 14th active SPs, 7th among players under 32 (arbitrarily chosen cutoff). Behind Santana, Oswalt, Zambrano, Halladay, Hudson, Zito. He's tied for youngest in this group at 28.

Complete Games: Tied for 27th among active SPs. There are only 3 guys on the list ahead of him who are under 32: Mulder, Halladay, and P:?:ns:?:n.

Basically, whatever you think of Buehrle's style and K-rate, he's in pretty select company as a young, excellent LHP. He's never had any serious injury issues, he's not a mental headcase (hello big Z), he's great in the clubhouse and a leader on the staff with the younger pitchers, and to top it off he's great with the fans and media.

This is the type of guy I couldn't imagine trading even if you're rebuilding. What better guy to have at the front of the rotation of a young team than a guy you can rely on to give you a quality outing almost every time out, a guy who works with younger pitchers, and a guy who'll help as the "face of the franchise" through lean times? Oh yeah, and he'll give you a huge discount because despite the lack of commitment you're showing him, he's committed to stay.

How in the world does a team NOT jump all over that? How can an organization that talks up "playing the game the right way", "team first", and is generally fighting an uphill PR battle let this guy go?

:?:

jabrch
07-03-2007, 12:56 AM
The best bet to what?

Pitching is the most valuable thing there is in MLB, period. If you can acquire it or keep it at a reasonable rate, you jump on it.

Pitching alone won't win you much. And SP alone wins you less.

I'm all for more pitching - I'm not for it at the cost of not ever being able to capitalize on Mark if the organization feels it is the best thing to do.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 12:58 AM
Two prospects (one of which top 5 in BLB) plus a starting player...that's what Williams sent to rent Garcia, and MB's superiority over Garcia, should take care of any market inefficiencies.

Reed, Morse and Olivo - I guarantee we can get WAY more than that for MB. There wasn't a single player in that trade worth a damn at the end of the day. For all the freaking geniuses who evaluated Jeremy Reed and called him a top prospect, KW knew better.

kevingrt
07-03-2007, 01:37 AM
I'm sorry but whatever Gio, Gavin, Lastings, Chad B, or whomever do in the MLB will pale in comparison to what Buehrle does. Just a thought. I mean one of them may do what Buehrle does, but then you are still taking a >25%. Buehrle is a sure thing, why not keep him?

champagne030
07-03-2007, 10:30 AM
I'm sorry but whatever Gio, Gavin, Lastings, Chad B, or whomever do in the MLB will pale in comparison to what Buehrle does. Just a thought. I mean one of them may do what Buehrle does, but then you are still taking a >25%. Buehrle is a sure thing, why not keep him?

I'm still trying to figure out why KW has to have the flexibility to trade MB in 2009 or the first half of 2010.

He still has a ton of flexibility with the roster even if MB has a full NTC. Trade JV, JC, don't resign Garland, Thome's contract comes off the books, ect. Someone may try to argue that it's not payroll flexibility KW wants, but a trade to restock the minors. That is a futile argument because JV will bring much more in a trade today, 2008 or 2009 than MB will bring in return today.

And the idea that they never do a full NTC and setting a precedent will screw KW during negotiations in the future is just plain silly. KW can say that you're not a home grown talent, won 100+ games for the White Sox, was part of a World Series championship team, clubhouse leader, ect. And if this hypothetical guy has all these qualifications then he deserves a NTC too.

There's been no give by KW, it's all take (and offering 4 years instead of 3 is not giving - it's going from insulting to below market). MB would be taking less years and less dollars each year. And now Kenny want doesn't want to give him a full NTC?

Flight #24
07-03-2007, 10:35 AM
There's been no give by KW, it's all take (and offering 4 years instead of 3 is not giving - it's going from insulting to below market). MB would be taking less years and less dollars each year. And now Kenny want doesn't want to give him a full NTC?

This is important to recognize. Pitchers get a lot more than 3 years, so the Sox budging off of that is not giving anything, it's just telling Mark "You don't have to give as much of a discoutn as before to stay".

jabrch
07-03-2007, 10:40 AM
I'm sorry but whatever Gio, Gavin, Lastings, Chad B, or whomever do in the MLB will pale in comparison to what Buehrle does. Just a thought. I mean one of them may do what Buehrle does, but then you are still taking a >25%. Buehrle is a sure thing, why not keep him?

First, Mark is not a sure thing.

Second, you don't have any idea what Gio or Gavin will do.

Third, you are leaving out what would be done with the $14mm.

Fourth, nobody is saying we shouldn't keep Mark under the right circumstances

Fifth, the Sox are willing to keep Mark - but not if it means giving him full NTC.

I want the Sox to do what is in the Sox best interest. Giving any player a full NTC is not in their best interest - at least not in the minds of the people running the team. (I'm still assuming that they know more than I do about how to run a baseball team, and I assume that they know more than anyone here does as well.)

spiffie
07-03-2007, 11:29 AM
First, Mark is not a sure thing.

Second, you don't have any idea what Gio or Gavin will do.

Third, you are leaving out what would be done with the $14mm.

Fourth, nobody is saying we shouldn't keep Mark under the right circumstances

Fifth, the Sox are willing to keep Mark - but not if it means giving him full NTC.

I want the Sox to do what is in the Sox best interest. Giving any player a full NTC is not in their best interest - at least not in the minds of the people running the team. (I'm still assuming that they know more than I do about how to run a baseball team, and I assume that they know more than anyone here does as well.)
So if later today something gets done with a full NTC I assume you will be rescinding all those posts since it obvioulsly would then be in the team's best interest?

As for Gio and Gavin, we don't have an idea what they will do, but considering that Mark has been among the top pitchers in baseball during the last 7 seasons it is very unlikely either of them will match that performance simply because so few pitchers do.

And again, I have yet to hear any real explanation of what you assume this $56 million will provide us. The market these days treats $56 million like chump change, and is likely at best to give us a mid-level player, either someone who is a one or two tool guy, or a very good player with a major flaw (like J.D. Drew).

champagne030
07-03-2007, 11:30 AM
First, Mark is not a sure thing.

Neither is Javy, but we're giving him $11.5M per year.


Second, you don't have any idea what Gio or Gavin will do.

Neither do you and it's irrelevant. If someone from our minor league system is ready they can replace some less effective than MB, like JC or JV.

Third, you are leaving out what would be done with the $14mm.

The Sox did make $42M in pretax profit the last two seasons. And if you want to disagree with Forbes or hold payroll then you trade the less effective JC or JV.

Fourth, nobody is saying we shouldn't keep Mark under the right circumstances

And you're saying we should keep him if he takes significantly less than market in contract length and dollars per season. And not receive a full NTC. Sounds like BOHICA for Mark to me.

Fifth, the Sox are willing to keep Mark - but not if it means giving him full NTC.

See response to 4th comment.

I want the Sox to do what is in the Sox best interest. Giving any player a full NTC is not in their best interest - at least not in the minds of the people running the team. (I'm still assuming that they know more than I do about how to run a baseball team, and I assume that they know more than anyone here does as well.)

You have no idea what the Sox think is in their best interest. It's called sucking every last ounce of blood during negotiations. And the old cliche applies - never assume. You've admitted that Kenny has made mistakes (although it's more along the lines of incorrectly lacing his shoes), maybe this whole NTC is a huge mistake.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 11:51 AM
So if later today something gets done with a full NTC I assume you will be rescinding all those posts since it obvioulsly would then be in the team's best interest?

No - I'd then think it was a bad idea to give him it, and I'd be disappointed that Kenny caved into pressure.

And again, I have yet to hear any real explanation of what you assume this $56 million will provide us. The market these days treats $56 million like chump change, and is likely at best to give us a mid-level player, either someone who is a one or two tool guy, or a very good player with a major flaw (like J.D. Drew).

If Buehrle walks and Dye walks, unless the Sox cut payroll, they have enough to go after whomever they want. It's not matching a $56mm slot - it is about the annual budgeting process for the team. Frankly, I don't really care who they go after. I care who they get.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 03:05 PM
Reed, Morse and Olivo - I guarantee we can get WAY more than that for MB. There wasn't a single player in that trade worth a damn at the end of the day. For all the freaking geniuses who evaluated Jeremy Reed and called him a top prospect, KW knew better.
Prospects involve evaluation - also risk and also luck. The ones we get may flop - it happens.

What we gave was a top prospect, our starting catcher (who is still a starting catcher in the major leagues) and a B prospect.

That's what we should receive - although I would hope that we are better than the Mariners were at separating the legit from the bogus. And if we do judge talent better, that's OUR edge, our consumer surplus...it doesn't mean we should pay more because we are better at evaluating.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 05:00 PM
What we gave was a top prospect, our starting catcher (who is still a starting catcher in the major leagues) and a B prospect.

We gave up a flawed prospect from a position of surplus (at the time we had Young, BA, Sweeney and Owens) a flawed catcher and a SS who couldn't play SS. I loved Olivo, but he wasn't the answer. Morse was a stiff. And I was not a fan of Reed - ever.

Daver
07-03-2007, 05:18 PM
First, Mark is not a sure thing.



Five consecutive years of over two hundred innings?

No time lost on the DL since he was called up?

Left handed control pitcher with excellent mechanics?


The closest damn thing I have seen to a sure thing in years.

It's Dankerific
07-03-2007, 05:19 PM
Five consecutive years of over two hundred innings?

No time lost on the DL since he was called up?

Left handed control pitcher with excellent mechanics?


The closest damn thing I have seen to a sure thing in years.

Reminds me of that quote from starship troopers

Something like "Son, you once asked me for advice... Never turn down a sure thing."

jabrch
07-03-2007, 05:50 PM
Five consecutive years of over two hundred innings?

No time lost on the DL since he was called up?

Left handed control pitcher with excellent mechanics?


The closest damn thing I have seen to a sure thing in years.


Remember last year?

Daver
07-03-2007, 05:54 PM
Remember last year?

Yeah, he had a dead arm and chose to pitch through it, so what.

Throw away 4.5 years of quality pitching because he tried to take one for the team for half a season?

jabrch
07-03-2007, 06:04 PM
Yeah, he had a dead arm and chose to pitch through it, so what.

Throw away 4.5 years of quality pitching because he tried to take one for the team for half a season?

Absolutely not - don't throw away anything.

But don't sign a deal that gives you absolutely no flexibility in case the situation arises - that's all I'm saying.

Daver
07-03-2007, 06:10 PM
Absolutely not - don't throw away anything.

But don't sign a deal that gives you absolutely no flexibility in case the situation arises - that's all I'm saying.

What situation?

The guy has proven he can deliver innings every fifth day, and he's willing to take the mound when he is not 100% if it helps the team, you reward that if you want any credibility, to do anything else makes you look like a fool, and a cheap one to boot.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 06:15 PM
What situation?

The guy has proven he can deliver innings every fifth day, and he's willing to take the mound when he is not 100% if it helps the team, you reward that if you want any credibility, to do anything else makes you look like a fool, and a cheap one to boot.

Yes, you reward it with 4 years and 14mm per. You reward him with limited NTC. You reward him however you feel you can, and still maintain a decent amount of flexibility to manage your team as you need.

Or you reward him by sending him somewhere that he can get what he wants - if that's the only option. But you don't reward him by putting the team at risk, in violation of your managerial philosophy.

Daver
07-03-2007, 06:22 PM
Yes, you reward it with 4 years and 14mm per. You reward him with limited NTC. You reward him however you feel you can, and still maintain a decent amount of flexibility to manage your team as you need.

Or you reward him by sending him somewhere that he can get what he wants - if that's the only option. But you don't reward him by putting the team at risk, in violation of your managerial philosophy.

If Kenny trades Mark now he will never get taken seriously by any GM in baseball, because he has created an atmosphere where no team is going to offer a single quality piece for him. If he is stupid enough to not sign him he'd be better off letting him walk and taking the draft picks.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 06:24 PM
If Kenny trades Mark now he will never get taken seriously by any GM in baseball, because he has created an atmosphere where no team is going to offer a single quality piece for him. If he is stupid enough to not sign him he'd be better off letting him walk and taking the draft picks.

You really don't think a GM will give him more value than a 15 or later and a supplemental pick?

Daver
07-03-2007, 06:26 PM
You really don't think a GM will give him more value than a 15 or later and a supplemental pick?

I don't think it, I know it.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 06:29 PM
I don't think it, I know it.

Then in that case - I'd hold him and take the picks if he chooses to walk. I have a hard time envisioning no GM giving more than that that - but we will see in a few weeks.

Daver
07-03-2007, 06:33 PM
Then in that case - I'd hold him and take the picks if he chooses to walk. I have a hard time envisioning no GM giving more than that that - but we will see in a few weeks.

Why would they offer anything, knowing they hold all the cards? Kenny dealt himself a losing hand, and continues to try and play with it.

jabrch
07-03-2007, 06:37 PM
Why would they offer anything, knowing they hold all the cards? Kenny dealt himself a losing hand, and continues to try and play with it.

The teams in contention need pitching. Kenny has it to trade. I think you are wrong on who is holding the cards.

Lip Man 1
07-03-2007, 07:14 PM
I am struck by the tone of some of the comments pertaining to 'the future,' or (paraphrasing) 'you can't handicap yourself three years or five years or ten years down the road.'

Folks a lot can happen in three years, five years and especially ten years. Given the fact that the chairman of the board of the White Sox is about to turn 74 in February I'd be very surprised if a new owner isn't in place in the next few years and that changes the dynamics of everything doesn't it?

If ownership was relatively young or middle aged, I could buy the continuity point....but frankly given what the circumstances are I just can't see being so concerned over the future that you absolutely shoot yourself in the foot today and in the very near future. (And that's not even knowing what the market price tag for pitchers may be in three years...barring a serious 'correction' as Kenny has put it, one can reasonably think that it will continue to escalate as long as MLB keeps raking in the money from business deals, TV / Internet contracts and so forth.)

Lip

kobo
07-03-2007, 07:26 PM
The teams in contention need pitching. Kenny has it to trade. I think you are wrong on who is holding the cards.
You honestly believe that a team is going to offer what is fair for Buehrle because they are in contention? Every GM knows what is going on right now with KW and the Buehrle situation, and each GM is going to lowball the Sox because KW has put them in this position.

And sorry, but letting Mark go just to pick up a couple of draft picks is ****ing stupid. Mark Buehrle is worth more than a couple draft picks who may or may not make the team within the next 5 years.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 07:51 PM
The teams in contention need pitching. Kenny has it to trade. I think you are wrong on who is holding the cards.
In my opinion, Kenny has generally gets a good grade for evaluating talent, but doesn't get the highest grades in bargaining for the best deal he can get.

The problem here is that the teams are putting their top prospects off limits - his job is to get them back in play. We'll see if he can do it, but as the other guys mentioned above, he has put himself in a weak bargaining position.

And if we're trading MB, we need A prospects, ready to go...not failed prospects that we think cooper or walker can turn around.

I wonder what Ozzie's position on re-signing MB is. I've gotten the feeling that Ozzie has a lot of influence on personnel.

ArkanSox
07-03-2007, 08:00 PM
I think we need to sign him, no trade clause or not. He's too good of a pitcher to let walk if we can lock him up for 4 years at $14 m/per. That's way under today's market value, and my guess is that salaries are going to keep rising like they usually do. Despite last year's second-half problems, Mark's a proven commodity in my eyes.

santo=dorf
07-03-2007, 09:45 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1158/705628082_b8cbbefdb1_o.jpg


I agree with half of that, but it's cute to see.

IlliniSox4Life
07-03-2007, 10:27 PM
I agree with half of that, but it's cute to see.


It's gonna be hard to find a team to take BOTH Buehrle and Kenny. Or are you thinking of two separate deals?

jabrch
07-03-2007, 11:49 PM
In my opinion, Kenny has generally gets a good grade for evaluating talent, but doesn't get the highest grades in bargaining for the best deal he can get.

Can you give me a few examples of where he gave up more than he got back? I can't think of many.

And if we're trading MB, we need A prospects, ready to go...not failed prospects that we think cooper or walker can turn around.

I agree 100%

Noneck
07-04-2007, 12:12 AM
As I try to sort through all the reports on the Burls situation by the media I have come up with the reason why the deal is stalled or dead. It all comes down to trust. Burls or his agent or both don't trust Sox management. I do understand the future ramifications of granting a NTC to Burls. It could drastically affect future negotiations, particularly next year with Garland. The scary thing to me is not Burls being traded, its the lack of trust in Sox management. Willams according to media reports has assured Burls he won't be traded and that is not enough of an assurance. If free agents have a similar lack of trust, this could turn into a situation the Bulls had after their championship run.

JB98
07-04-2007, 12:20 AM
As I try to sort through all the reports on the Burls situation by the media I have come up with the reason why the deal is stalled or dead. It all comes down to trust. Burls or his agent or both don't trust Sox management. I do understand the future ramifications of granting a NTC to Burls. It could drastically affect future negotiations, particularly next year with Garland. The scary thing to me is not Burls being traded, its the lack of trust in Sox management. Willams according to media reports has assured Burls he won't be traded and that is not enough of an assurance. If free agents have a similar lack of trust, this could turn into a situation the Bulls had after their championship run.

Are you suggesting that Benny the Bull will be charged with greeting prospective Sox free-agent signees at O'Hare?

jabrch
07-04-2007, 12:24 AM
You honestly believe that a team is going to offer what is fair for Buehrle because they are in contention? Every GM knows what is going on right now with KW and the Buehrle situation, and each GM is going to lowball the Sox

Then every GM will not get Buehrle. There will be a GM who wants him enough to pay for him. That GM will get Mark, and then (assumedly) be able to turn him into a 1st and a supplemental pick. So I don't see any way that Kenny trades him for anything short of a top tier prospect +. If that's not available, then I'd be very surprised, but I would just hold him.

because KW has put them in this position.

I don't know what position KW put them in by continuing to negotiate with Mark instead of rush to dump him. If you mean other GMs knowing that the Sox are looking to trade him, that would be inevitable for any team that is 10+ games out in July.

And sorry, but letting Mark go just to pick up a couple of draft picks is ****ing stupid.

That's why you are shopping him around now to move him. But if the market won't support giving you one top tier, MLB ready prospect, then you take the #1 and the Supp and hope for the best.

Mark Buehrle is worth more than a couple draft picks who may or may not make the team within the next 5 years.

Actually, if he departs as a FA, that's exactly what he is worth. So the Sox need to get more that that in trade - seeing how whatever team acquires him will have the option to then turn around and get the draft picks...

Noneck
07-04-2007, 12:38 AM
Are you suggesting that Benny the Bull will be charged with greeting prospective Sox free-agent signees at O'Hare?

Too bad Andy The Clown is not with us anymore, He'd be a more suitable greeter.