PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2

mmsuggins
07-02-2007, 11:19 AM
Mark is making a concession by taking less money than he could get elsewhere.

The club is making a concession by giving a longer contract than they want to give any pitcher.

It's not realistic to expect the club to make an even larger concession and agree to keep this player for 4 years come hell or high water.



Don't forget that Buerhle is compromising substantially on both money and years (whether or not you believe that he'll command a Zito type contract), and I'm not convinced that the Sox are really compromising their philosophy all that much.

The Sox are opposed to extending players for more than three years because of the risk involved. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but they've already given Contreras and Vazquez three year extensions with one year remaining on their pre-existing contracts (essentially committing to them for four years). How were those extensions any less risky than giving Buehrle four years?

Meanwhile, the Sox are seemingly unwilling to guarantee that Buehrle won't be spending three of the next four years playing for another team at a tremendous hometown discount. I agree that if he were asking for a market rate, he shouldn't command a full no-trade clause, but that is not the current situation. Konerko got his partial no-trade clause after testing the market and getting a competitive offer from the Sox.

I guess I just don't see a lot of compromise from the Sox in this situation.

barryball
07-02-2007, 11:36 AM
I agree 110% with you!!! The Sox inflexibility is change makes them look like idiots. I love the Sox, KW and have complete respect with JR but this posturing on a NTC makes no sense unless you had a change of heart on the original $'s of the offer. The NTC in the scheme of things on this contract means nothing unless you are not really committed to MB in the first place.

Jaffar
07-02-2007, 11:41 AM
If they figure it out and MB is re signed I will not be saying hooray and jumping up and down, instead I'll be saying it's about ****ing time considering the below market value deal MB is willing to take to stay with the White Sox.

kittle42
07-02-2007, 11:52 AM
I agree 110% with you!!! The Sox inflexibility is change makes them look like idiots. I love the Sox, KW and have complete respect with JR but this posturing on a NTC makes no sense unless you had a change of heart on the original $'s of the offer. The NTC in the scheme of things on this contract means nothing unless you are not really committed to MB in the first place.

Their inflexibility on this issue is nothing short of Wirtz-ian.

Goose
07-02-2007, 11:53 AM
If they figure it out and MB is re signed I will not be saying hooray and jumping up and down, instead I'll be saying it's about ****ing time considering the below market value deal MB is willing to take to stay with the White Sox.

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, this is going to turn out for the worst with Mark leaving. This is just a shame. I just don't understand the Sox thoughts on this one at all. It is Ventura and Fisk all over again. To a lesser extent Frank Thomas as well.

For some reason, the Sox just keep ****ing it up in the PR department.

I think this one is going to come back and bite them in the ass for a long long time.

Shame on the Sox.

CPditka
07-02-2007, 12:02 PM
I truly hope that is not what holds it up. They have given NTC before, why not now? Is KW that serious about wanting to ship Mark out next year, or maybe the year after?? Thats crazy. Besides, if we suck, like real bad, wouldnt Mark want to waive his NTC to go to a winner, if KW asked him to? So it kinda boils down to this. If were good, we get a good pitcher, if were bad Mark will want out. This NTC essentially means nothing. And if it holds up a undervalued contract on a MB I will be pissed.

Id say its 50/50 at this point. Part of me says that this deal has been done since last Wed and theyve waiting to announce it til tonight, And have been driving the price up on our other guys through the media and this is just a spectacle and will announce it @ the game tonight.

But then again, it could totally be off. And if thats the case. 670 The Score should and will be hung, and if it is truly over a NTC so should White Sox mgmt.

DrCrawdad
07-02-2007, 12:02 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.

hi im skot
07-02-2007, 12:06 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.

Source?

ShoelessJoeS
07-02-2007, 12:08 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.If that's true, I'll be there anxiously awaiting with beer in hand...

CHIsoxNation
07-02-2007, 12:08 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.

I am hoping/wishing the same thing. Especially since I'll be there tonight.

Gammons Peter
07-02-2007, 12:09 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.

tell me more

JermaineDye05
07-02-2007, 12:10 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.

is this just wishful thinking or do you actually have a source to back this up?

Chicken Dinner
07-02-2007, 12:11 PM
I thought the sticking point in the new contract was the "slip and slide" issue. :o:

Gammons Peter
07-02-2007, 12:15 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.


GREAT, if true.

Lifetime ban is you're chain yanking??

CHISOXFAN13
07-02-2007, 12:18 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.

I kinda had the same feeling as of last Thursday. Make it official when he's pitching at home coming back from a successful trip.

We can only hope it is true.

DrCrawdad
07-02-2007, 12:24 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.


TO CLARIFY...

I used the little light bulb icon thingy so I thought it was clear that this was my idea on what would happen tonight.

I have no inside information just my thought (wish) that this will happen tonight.

DrCrawdad
07-02-2007, 12:26 PM
GREAT, if true.

Lifetime ban is you're chain yanking??

Yanking? It was just a thought, or my hope. Please drop the lifetime ban as a lifetime ban would leave me with way too much time on my hands...

:)

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 12:26 PM
Viva:

Towards the end of Part II of this thread you basically asked the question how does Kenny expect to 'rebuild' this team.

One of the conclusions I've drawn based upon comments Kenny made himself and his history is that I feel Kenny honestly believes it when he says that he thinks the free agent market is going to correct itself either next year or in the near future.

If that happens Kenny I think then expects to be able to play the game like he was for a period of time, where teams are trying to unload contracts of pretty good players AND pay some of the deal to ship them out.

That's how the Sox got Contreras, Vazquez and Thome to name a few.

I think Kenny is hoping or figuring (your choice of words) to be able todo that again.

I hope he can but from everything I have read, heard or seen both in speaking to my contacts and just from reading the papers he's the only person who thinks the market will correct itself next year.

Is this Kenny thinking he's smarter then everyone else or knowing something that others don't?

I don't know... we'll have to see.

I did find it interesting that in Mark Gonzales latest column where he answers fans questions that he made the statement that 'many in baseball think that's Kenny's Stanford education hurts him.'

What I drew from the comment is that Kenny perhaps thinks he's smarter then a lot of others and falls into traps from time to time over it.

Lip

kittle42
07-02-2007, 12:27 PM
TO CLARIFY...

I used the little light bulb icon thingy so I thought it was clear that this was my idea on what would happen tonight.

I have no inside information just my thought (wish) that this will happen tonight.

Probably best that you cut that off before anyone else misinterpreted what were obviously wishful thinking comments!

Noneck
07-02-2007, 12:49 PM
Tonight there will be a surprise announcement as Buehrle is on the field getting in his warm-up tosses that the Sox and Buehrle have agreed to a new contract.

Wishful thinking, That is way too good of a public relations move for this bunch. Us Sox fans only see that kinda stuff in movies.

TDog
07-02-2007, 12:52 PM
Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, this is going to turn out for the worst with Mark leaving. This is just a shame. I just don't understand the Sox thoughts on this one at all. It is Ventura and Fisk all over again. To a lesser extent Frank Thomas as well.

For some reason, the Sox just keep ****ing it up in the PR department.

I think this one is going to come back and bite them in the ass for a long long time.

Shame on the Sox.

The fact is, from a strictly business perspective, the easy thing to do would be to sign Mark Buehrle to an extension with a no-trade clause. It would benefit public relations, which factors heavily in to revenues.

But management is trying to build a winner. Fans won't support the team if it isn't a winner. Public relations may work from a strictly business perspective with some teams, but it won't work for the White Sox. If Buehrle wins 20 on a team that wins 70, the fans won't go to the games. Some teams can get by on good PR that is unrelated to wins and losses. The Sox are not such as team.

The White Sox primary goal is to build a winner. That may require letting Ordonez go and trading Carlos Lee in some years. Maybe committing to Buehrle beyond the possibility of players they could bring in to do a better job at a lower price isn't in their best interests. Maybe committing to Buehrle with no option to dump his contract should the team not be able to afford it would be a bad move business-wise.

The fact is, I've never been in a situation where I've had to make decisions that are both best for the necessary public perception of a product and best for the product's athletic competition against its competitors. Trading for Ron Santo before the 1974 season was a great PR move, but it didn't help the White Sox. Letting Frank Thomas go was a bad PR move, but the White Sox believed it was necessary to continue to field a winner. Pitching living up to expectations could have made that change in designated hitters the right move.

People here seem to believe that when players get dumped or benched or returned to the minors that it is because management has a grudge against them. They are not the ones under pressure to build a winning team. I'm sure it looks easy enough from where they sit. I remember talking to fans at the Cell and being told that the Sox should just bring up Joe Borchard and let him develop. I'm sure Sox management is doing what they believe is best with Buehrle.

I think the Sox should agree to the no-trade-clause. I would be disappointed to see Buehrle leave at the end of the season. I would be more disappointed to see him traded especially because little would come back in return.

But I also know that the Sox aren't jerking Buehrle around to upset me.

Jaffar
07-02-2007, 01:01 PM
The fact is, from a strictly business perspective, the easy thing to do would be to sign Mark Buehrle to an extension with a no-trade clause. It would benefit public relations, which factors heavily in to revenues.

But management is trying to build a winner. Fans won't support the team if it isn't a winner. Public relations may work from a strictly business perspective with some teams, but it won't work for the White Sox. If Buehrle wins 20 on a team that wins 70, the fans won't go to the games. Some teams can get by on good PR that is unrelated to wins and losses. The Sox are not such as team.

The White Sox primary goal is to build a winner. That may require letting Ordonez go and trading Carlos Lee in some years. Maybe committing to Buehrle beyond the possibility of players they could bring in to do a better job at a lower price isn't in their best interests. Maybe committing to Buehrle with no option to dump his contract should the team not be able to afford it would be a bad move business-wise.

The fact is, I've never been in a situation where I've had to make decisions that are both best for the necessary public perception of a product and best for the product's athletic competition against its competitors. Trading for Ron Santo before the 1974 season was a great PR move, but it didn't help the White Sox. Letting Frank Thomas go was a bad PR move, but the White Sox believed it was necessary to continue to field a winner. Pitching living up to expectations could have made that change in designated hitters the right move.

People here seem to believe that when players get dumped or benched or returned to the minors that it is because management has a grudge against them. They are not the ones under pressure to build a winning team. I'm sure it looks easy enough from where they sit. I remember talking to fans at the Cell and being told that the Sox should just bring up Joe Borchard and let him develop. I'm sure Sox management is doing what they believe is best with Buehrle.

I think the Sox should agree to the no-trade-clause. I would be disappointed to see Buehrle leave at the end of the season. I would be more disappointed to see him traded especially because little would come back in return.

But I also know that the Sox aren't jerking Buehrle around to upset me.

I would agree with all of this if the contract was for market value but if Mark is in indeed willing to sign a 4yr/56m contract then I cannot blame him for wanting some kind of garauntee that he will be allowed to play it out considering that both years and amount per year will be more on the open market. I don't know how KW plans to rebuild this club if he let's Mark go on this deal because I think it will tell us all that Garland is gone after 2008.

roylestillman
07-02-2007, 01:02 PM
Yanking? It was just a thought, or my hope. Please drop the lifetime ban as a lifetime ban would leave me with way too much time on my hands...

:)
...or the Sun-Times and the Score reported it as "sources outside the organization."

Goose
07-02-2007, 01:27 PM
The fact is, from a strictly business perspective, the easy thing to do would be to sign Mark Buehrle to an extension with a no-trade clause.
...

But management is trying to build a winner.

Then you say...

The White Sox primary goal is to build a winner.



There you have it. If the Sox want to build a winner, then this should be a no-brainer.

I think we can all agree that good Starting Pitching is the first step to building a winner. If we trade Mark, we are trading away one of the best SPs we have. That goes against what you state the Sox's goal is if you believe (and I think most do believe) that pitchers are the hardest piece of the "winner" puzzle to put into place. I know what the other side of the argument is...we can get back quality prospects for MB. Well, we have some quality prospects in your lineup (Danks, Masset) as well as in our minors. The problem is you just cant throw them into the rotation and expect them to perform at the level that a veteran can perform. You NEED to have the balance of Vets and younger players. MB has more value to this club than the 30 starts he makes every year. He is a mentor and a role model in the clubhouse for the youngsters on the team. I think if he continues to work with Danks, Danks will certainly benefit greatly from MB's involvement. It is like having another pitching coach on the bench. MB can be that to other young pitchers should we move JV or JC.

If the Sox want to compete in this division, keeping mark around is a must.

Bill Naharodny
07-02-2007, 02:00 PM
There you have it. If the Sox want to build a winner, then this should be a no-brainer.

I think we can all agree that good Starting Pitching is the first step to building a winner. If we trade Mark, we are trading away one of the best SPs we have. That goes against what you state the Sox's goal is if you believe (and I think most do believe) that pitchers are the hardest piece of the "winner" puzzle to put into place. I know what the other side of the argument is...we can get back quality prospects for MB. Well, we have some quality prospects in your lineup (Danks, Masset) as well as in our minors. The problem is you just cant throw them into the rotation and expect them to perform at the level that a veteran can perform. You NEED to have the balance of Vets and younger players. MB has more value to this club than the 30 starts he makes every year. He is a mentor and a role model in the clubhouse for the youngsters on the team. I think if he continues to work with Danks, Danks will certainly benefit greatly from MB's involvement. It is like having another pitching coach on the bench. MB can be that to other young pitchers should we move JV or JC.

If the Sox want to compete in this division, keeping mark around is a must.

This is exactly the reason that the Tigers signed Kenny Rogers last year. They had Bonderman and Verlander and Robertson, but they needed an anchor for the staff: Rogers provided that. To me, it's not so much what the veteran imparts to the younger players; it's the likelihood that every five days you'll get a quality start. With young pitchers, that's not quite as likely, which is why you need that consistency that the older pitcher provides -- provided he's of a high caliber. Buehrle is. He should stay.

TomBradley72
07-02-2007, 02:20 PM
Reinsdorf, KW, etc. are continually trying to "outsmart" the rest of MLB. The results they've achieved as leaders don't support their opinions.

Reinsdorf: 27 Years of ownership, 4 Division titles, 1 World Series Championship

Williams: 7 years as GM (inherited the 2000 Division Championship team), 1 post season appearance, 1 World Series Championship. KW has also served as Director of Minor League Operations/Vice President of Player Development from 1995-2000. He has had oversight in some way or another of player development for over a decade. But now, due to a mediocre pipeline of prospects we're forced to look at trading our pending FA's to replenish our minor league system.

I thank JR and KW for the 2005 season every day. But over the long haul their results don't merit any view that they have the ability to "outsmart" their peers.

getonbckthr
07-02-2007, 02:23 PM
Reinsdorf, KW, etc. are continually trying to "outsmart" the rest of MLB. The results they've achieved as leaders don't support their opinions.

Reinsdorf: 27 Years of ownership, 4 Division titles, 1 World Series Championship

Williams: 7 years as GM (inherited the 2000 Division Championship team), 1 post season appearance, 1 World Series Championship. KW has also served as Director of Minor League Operations/Vice President of Player Development from 1995-2000. He has had oversight in some way or another of player development for over a decade. But now, due to a mediocre pipeline of prospects we're forced to look at trading our pending FA's to replenish our minor league system.

I thank JR and KW for the 2005 season every day. But over the long haul their results don't merit any view that they have the ability to "outsmart" their peers.
This simply is a question. In the past 27 years what are the results of the other owners? What is the win totals of other owners? In the past 7 season what is the success rate of other GMs?

jdm2662
07-02-2007, 02:23 PM
Here is my question to those who keep saying they will either boycott, stop going to games, etc if Mark is indeed not retained. I will ask it here since this seems to be the main thread of the topic, eventhough there are about ten different ones already running. Do you all think if the Sox continue their losing ways, the Sox will still draw well with Mark still on the team? I doubt it. I'm willing to bet people going to the game will be based on the Sox's record. The Sox have Mark now and they are buried in fourth place. Do you people really think people are going to the games to see Mark? The best PR move is to win. Even with Mark back, and the Sox still under .500, I really doubt people will renew to just for one player. I like Mark as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to make my trips to the park based on his status. Right now, I'm not inclined to make as many trips as possible due to the team being crappy (but I will be there on Wed...).

TomBradley72
07-02-2007, 02:37 PM
Here is my question to those who keep saying they will either boycott, stop going to games, etc if Mark is indeed not retained. I will ask it here since this seems to be the main thread of the topic, eventhough there are about ten different ones already running. Do you all think if the Sox continue their losing ways, the Sox will still draw well with Mark still on the team? I doubt it. I'm willing to bet people going to the game will be based on the Sox's record. The Sox have Mark now and they are buried in fourth place. Do you people really think people are going to the games to see Mark? The best PR move is to win. Even with Mark back, and the Sox still under .500, I really doubt people will renew to just for one player. I like Mark as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to make my trips to the park based on his status. Right now, I'm not inclined to make as many trips as possible due to the team being crappy (but I will be there on Wed...).

I plan on cancelling my weekend season tickets, but I won't be boycotting the team..I'll still attend 8-10 games/year. There's just no excuse for not signing Buehrle and letting the NTC get in the way. It tells me that even if 3MM people show up every year...that's still not enough revenue for KW/JR to retain top talent. I don't buy the excuse that this makes sense because then we'll have the "prospects" we need...one of the main reasons we're so desperate for prospects is that KW has mismanaged the minor league system over the decade he's had responsibility.

If they're not completely committed to winning. Then I'll be a little less committed as a fan. But still a fan. As I have been for 36 years.

Harry Potter
07-02-2007, 02:42 PM
The town-hall meeting forum at next year's Sox Fest will be very calm and cordial.

TDog
07-02-2007, 02:48 PM
There you have it. If the Sox want to build a winner, then this should be a no-brainer. ...

And I think it should be a no-brainer.

But I'm just a fan. I've made attempts at playing baseball and I've watched baseball a lot more closely during the last 40 years than most people. I daresay that when I go to a baseball game, I see things that many people don't. If I were rebuilding the Sox, which will be necessary after this season, I would be looking for a foundation of starting pitching, but I wouldn't stop there. I would look for a better defensive catcher, a better offensive shortstop, a new centerfielder. The Sox need more team speed. But pitching would be my priority. I don't believe a lot of money should go to improve the bullpen because a bullpen's success rarely reflects what it is paid. But I would build my pitching staff around Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez (as much as people would like to see Vazquez go).

I would even look at a compromise to the no-trade clause being a contract clause to that would guarantee the right of Buehrle to renegotiate his contract if he is traded, possibly enabling him to become a free agent in the next off season. I don't even know how to phrase such a thing legally, but that would protect Buehrle from being forced to play for another team at the discount for which he agreed to pitch for the White Sox. It would make him harder to trade (and I could see how that prospect would not be an advantage to the White Sox), but wouldn't forbid it to a team willing to pay for his market value.

I can do a lot of things in my imagination to make the White Sox a winner. I'm not overly sentimental about players. After Frank Thomas left the Sox, I didn't care if he had never hit a home run again, and I really wish he hadn't hit so many against the Sox last year. I wouldn't care if Buehrle ever won another game. In fact, as much as A.J. Pierzynski has meant to the self-esteem of Sox fans, I think the Sox would be better off finding a better catcher. My desire to keep Buehrle is entirely rational.

But in my imagination, it isn't my money I'm spending. It isn't my business whose future could hinge on the decision whether to sign Buehrle, even to a hometown discount.

Luke
07-02-2007, 03:05 PM
I can't believe that there's no middle ground for either side in this.

I've read a few ideas here that on initial look, seem pretty workable. I can't believe that the Sox and Buehrle can't come up with a couple options or clauses that kick in if Buehrle happens to be traded.

I suppose like every story, there's more to it than what we know.

upperdeckusc
07-02-2007, 03:09 PM
The town-hall meeting forum at next year's Sox Fest will be very calm and cordial.

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

Goose
07-02-2007, 03:19 PM
... it isn't my money I'm spending. It isn't my business whose future could hinge on the decision whether to sign Buehrle, even to a hometown discount.

See, this is where I think you are wrong. It IS your money that they are spending. It DOES matter who the fans want to be kept on this team because, ultimately, it is OUR money that pays the White Sox players, personnel and management. We SHOULD care about when a player is dealt that is a fan favorite (and a winner to boot).

See, it goes both ways. When JR said that he would spend the money if the fans came out to watch the game...there is a correlation. The Fans come out to spend the money = JR spends the money. Take out the middle man (JR) and you get if the fans spend the money, the players will get it. Well, we went to see the games at record rates. JR seems to still not want to hold up the entire end of his side of the bargain (in this case keeping a player at a hometown discount, albeit with a NTC). They are still going cheap, and what pisses me off the most is that they cannot just go out and get an equally talented pitcher for the same or less money. They CANNOT. The 14MM/year is a discounted rate, so what does that mean? They are going to go with youngsters who will (most likely) not be winners for a few years if ever. We spend our money and we still get the "Kids".

It is just not right.

Steelrod
07-02-2007, 03:27 PM
And I think it should be a no-brainer.

But I'm just a fan. I've made attempts at playing baseball and I've watched baseball a lot more closely during the last 40 years than most people. I daresay that when I go to a baseball game, I see things that many people don't. If I were rebuilding the Sox, which will be necessary after this season, I would be looking for a foundation of starting pitching, but I wouldn't stop there. I would look for a better defensive catcher, a better offensive shortstop, a new centerfielder. The Sox need more team speed. But pitching would be my priority. I don't believe a lot of money should go to improve the bullpen because a bullpen's success rarely reflects what it is paid. But I would build my pitching staff around Buehrle, Garland and Vazquez (as much as people would like to see Vazquez go).

I would even look at a compromise to the no-trade clause being a contract clause to that would guarantee the right of Buehrle to renegotiate his contract if he is traded, possibly enabling him to become a free agent in the next off season. I don't even know how to phrase such a thing legally, but that would protect Buehrle from being forced to play for another team at the discount for which he agreed to pitch for the White Sox. It would make him harder to trade (and I could see how that prospect would not be an advantage to the White Sox), but wouldn't forbid it to a team willing to pay for his market value.

I can do a lot of things in my imagination to make the White Sox a winner. I'm not overly sentimental about players. After Frank Thomas left the Sox, I didn't care if he had never hit a home run again, and I really wish he hadn't hit so many against the Sox last year. I wouldn't care if Buehrle ever won another game. In fact, as much as A.J. Pierzynski has meant to the self-esteem of Sox fans, I think the Sox would be better off finding a better catcher. My desire to keep Buehrle is entirely rational.

But in my imagination, it isn't my money I'm spending. It isn't my business whose future could hinge on the decision whether to sign Buehrle, even to a hometown discount.
I also root for the team, not the player. I do not care about players once they leave the Sox. I don't wish them bad, I just put them out of my mind.I
disagree about AJ but thats what makes it fun.
I take a look at this team which has underperformed, added 7 Million more in salary for Mark, and realize that there is much to do with limited funds to do it. Unfortunately it is impossible for dynasty's to happen. Especially since you can count on lower attendance this year and next. Whether on not we like it or believe it, salaries and attendance go hand in hand.

getonbckthr
07-02-2007, 03:30 PM
See, this is where I think you are wrong. It IS your money that they are spending. It DOES matter who the fans want to be kept on this team because, ultimately, it is OUR money that pays the White Sox players, personnel and management. We SHOULD care about when a player is dealt that is a fan favorite (and a winner to boot).

See, it goes both ways. When JR said that he would spend the money if the fans came out to watch the game...there is a correlation. The Fans come out to spend the money = JR spends the money. Take out the middle man (JR) and you get if the fans spend the money, the players will get it. Well, we went to see the games at record rates. JR seems to still not want to hold up the entire end of his side of the bargain (in this case keeping a player at a hometown discount, albeit with a NTC). They are still going cheap, and what pisses me off the most is that they cannot just go out and get an equally talented pitcher for the same or less money. They CANNOT. The 14MM/year is a discounted rate, so what does that mean? They are going to go with youngsters who will (most likely) not be winners for a few years if ever. We spend our money and we still get the "Kids".

It is just not right.
If it was up to the fans Carlos Lee would still be on the team not that pesty little #22 that stole like 70 bases and was a table setter. If it was up to the fans we wouldn't have had room in the budget for guys like AJ, Dye and Iguchi (when he contributed positively). If it was up to the fans we wouldn't have taken a chance on Bobby Jenks because it would have been viewed as signing an "alcoholic." If it was up to the fans our SS would have a really big mustache and not fly into the 3rd row in Houston. See where I am going with this. We are fans who grow personal attachments to players. KW is a professional who doesn't cave to the popular decision, he is all about the franchise. For that reason I trust KW decision whatever it may be.

Steelrod
07-02-2007, 03:31 PM
See, this is where I think you are wrong. It IS your money that they are spending. It DOES matter who the fans want to be kept on this team because, ultimately, it is OUR money that pays the White Sox players, personnel and management. We SHOULD care about when a player is dealt that is a fan favorite (and a winner to boot).

See, it goes both ways. When JR said that he would spend the money if the fans came out to watch the game...there is a correlation. The Fans come out to spend the money = JR spends the money. Take out the middle man (JR) and you get if the fans spend the money, the players will get it. Well, we went to see the games at record rates. JR seems to still not want to hold up the entire end of his side of the bargain (in this case keeping a player at a hometown discount, albeit with a NTC). They are still going cheap, and what pisses me off the most is that they cannot just go out and get an equally talented pitcher for the same or less money. They CANNOT. The 14MM/year is a discounted rate, so what does that mean? They are going to go with youngsters who will (most likely) not be winners for a few years if ever. We spend our money and we still get the "Kids".

It is just not right.
I disagree with you. For 2007, salaries are up and attendance is down. Not to mention all the talk I read in WSI about people not renewing for 2008. It does follow a natural progression.

TDog
07-02-2007, 03:39 PM
See, this is where I think you are wrong. It IS your money that they are spending. It DOES matter who the fans want to be kept on this team because, ultimately, it is OUR money that pays the White Sox players, personnel and management. We SHOULD care about when a player is dealt that is a fan favorite (and a winner to boot).

See, it goes both ways. When JR said that he would spend the money if the fans came out to watch the game...there is a correlation. The Fans come out to spend the money = JR spends the money. Take out the middle man (JR) and you get if the fans spend the money, the players will get it. Well, we went to see the games at record rates. JR seems to still not want to hold up the entire end of his side of the bargain (in this case keeping a player at a hometown discount, albeit with a NTC). They are still going cheap, and what pisses me off the most is that they cannot just go out and get an equally talented pitcher for the same or less money. They CANNOT. The 14MM/year is a discounted rate, so what does that mean? They are going to go with youngsters who will (most likely) not be winners for a few years if ever. We spend our money and we still get the "Kids".

It is just not right.

No, it isn't your money. When Coca-Cola changed it's formula, they didn't have a duty to consult the people who bought their product. The company made a business decision that, at the time, appeared best to the corporate decision makers.

The White Sox re-signing Mark Buehrle will not guarantee fans will go to the games. If the White Sox trade Buehrle and win the division next year, attendance will be higher than if they re-sign Buehrle and lose 90 games. Re-signing Buehrle will not take care of all the White Sox needs. In fact, it is conceivable that it could stand in the way of the White Sox filling other needs.

You don't have a financial stake in the White Sox. Neither do I. If it's my company, I would probably re-sign Buehrle. If it didn't work out, I would have to live with the consequences. As a fan, I can choose to stop buying tickets at any time. White Sox fans have shown they are very good at not buying tickets, and re-signing Buehrle still could end with fans not buying tickets.

People posting at WSI seem proud of the fact that White Sox fans demand a winner. They ridicule Cubs fans for supporting lousy teams. The fact is, that attitude makes the management decisions more difficult.

The Immigrant
07-02-2007, 03:41 PM
For 2007, salaries are up and attendance is down.

For obvious reasons, team payroll depends on the attendance figures for the previous season rather than the current one.

If attendance continues to be down for the rest of this season, expect the team's payroll for 2008 to go down as well.

Steelrod
07-02-2007, 03:41 PM
No, it isn't your money. When Coca-Cola changed it's formula, they didn't have a duty to consult the people who bought their product. The company made a business decision that, at the time, appeared best to the corporate decision makers.

The White Sox re-signing Mark Buehrle will not guarantee fans will go to the games. If the White Sox trade Buehrle and win the division next year, attendance will be higher than if they re-sign Buehrle and lose 90 games. Re-signing Buehrle will not take care of all the White Sox needs. In fact, it is conceivable that it could stand in the way of the White Sox filling other needs.

You don't have a financial stake in the White Sox. Neither do I. If it's my company, I would probably re-sign Buehrle. If it didn't work out, I would have to live with the consequences. As a fan, I can choose to stop buying tickets at any time. White Sox fans have shown they are very good at not buying tickets, and re-signing Buehrle still could end with fans not buying tickets.

People posting at WSI seem proud of the fact that White Sox fans demand a winner. They ridicule Cubs fans for supporting lousy teams. The fact is, that attitude makes the management decisions more difficult.
Well stated. I couldn''t have put it better.

Goose
07-02-2007, 03:54 PM
If it was up to the fans Carlos Lee would still be on the team not that pesty little #22 that stole like 70 bases and was a table setter. If it was up to the fans we wouldn't have had room in the budget for guys like AJ, Dye and Iguchi (when he contributed positively). If it was up to the fans we wouldn't have taken a chance on Bobby Jenks because it would have been viewed as signing an "alcoholic." If it was up to the fans our SS would have a really big mustache and not fly into the 3rd row in Houston. See where I am going with this. We are fans who grow personal attachments to players. KW is a professional who doesn't cave to the popular decision, he is all about the franchise. For that reason I trust KW decision whatever it may be.

Well, I am not saying that the Sox need to take an opinion poll on every roster move. What I am saying that that the Sox have said time and time again that pitching is the top priority. If that is the case, then MB needs to be in a Sox uniform until he demonstrate that he can no longer perform. When that will be is anyone's guess. But the argument that "he could throw his arm out next year and we would be stuck with this contract" is Bull****. Anyone can get injured at any time...if one does not like the risk, one should not own or (General) manage a professional team.

I disagree with you on the Carlos Lee aspect. I think the decision to move him was a strategic one (more speed, less base clogging). Fine. If that was the intent, then as a fan I am OK with it (I even liked the outcome of that deal, and for the record, I had no feelings about that trade one way or another when it happened). I am not following your argument as far as the A.J., Iguchi and Dye aspect. We needed a catcher, so we went out and got one that was a proven winner with Minn (not to mention on the cheap)...who did we have in the system to take on that role? Iguchi was also a cheap signing. Getting him from Japan (not a huge name like Ichiro, Matsui, etc). Dye was a stop gap. We had no one to play RF. We did not sign Maggs because his knee looked like it was never going to be 100%. We needed a RF, so we signed Dye. Was it a good move? One can argue it one way or another, but I will say it was a good move even though Maggs looks like is back to his old self. Your Jenks argument makes no sense to me. Hermanson went down and Jenks auditioned for the job and won it. We got him off the scrap heap. No fan (as far as I can tell) gave two ****s about his drinking. You make it sound like we paid top dollar for Jenks. We did not.

My question to you is: What are the other options to get the same or similar productivity from a Starting Pitcher? Replace Buehrle's numbers with the same money and without losing any prospects/players. In 2-3 years $14MM will be the salary of a .500 pitcher if salaries keep going the way that they are going. Is there a better option out there that we can get to replace MB? Cuz I don't see one.

Goose
07-02-2007, 04:00 PM
No, it isn't your money. When Coca-Cola changed it's formula, they didn't have a duty to consult the people who bought their product. The company made a business decision that, at the time, appeared best to the corporate decision makers.

The White Sox re-signing Mark Buehrle will not guarantee fans will go to the games. If the White Sox trade Buehrle and win the division next year, attendance will be higher than if they re-sign Buehrle and lose 90 games. Re-signing Buehrle will not take care of all the White Sox needs. In fact, it is conceivable that it could stand in the way of the White Sox filling other needs.

You don't have a financial stake in the White Sox. Neither do I. If it's my company, I would probably re-sign Buehrle. If it didn't work out, I would have to live with the consequences. As a fan, I can choose to stop buying tickets at any time. White Sox fans have shown they are very good at not buying tickets, and re-signing Buehrle still could end with fans not buying tickets.

People posting at WSI seem proud of the fact that White Sox fans demand a winner. They ridicule Cubs fans for supporting lousy teams. The fact is, that attitude makes the management decisions more difficult.

And then what happened?

That's right. Coca~Cola went back to the old coke: Coke Classic. The customers (fans) did not like the new Coke (The Kids Can Play), so they went back to the old formula. With your scenario, do the Sox trade for Mark Buehrle (or someone of his caliber) next year and spend more to get him back, or do they not spend the R&D money in the first place and stick with what works?

I respect your opinion, but I see it differently.

Domeshot17
07-02-2007, 04:02 PM
I dont know, lately what Kenny says and what Kenny does are 2 different roads. All we hear about are championships and championship baseball players, but we keep letting them go. Im not saying I would not have dealt Freddy, but he was a damn good pitcher for us. We kept Contreras and Vazquez instead, which seems to be half right, but we put too many yeard and money into the old arm of Contreras.

I guess I just don't understand why you give Javy 3 years 12+ per, but you don't give Burls 4 at 14-15 per.

Kenny seems to fall in love with the under dog too much. He clearly loves players like Uribe, Vazquez, Erstad, guys who are erratic and unpredictable, but could look be lightning in a bottle (with the same chance they are just nothing in a bottle).

The fans are iffy right now, not jumping ship, but the only reason Im going tonight is it might be my last chance to see Burls. Otherwise I probably wouldnt be using these tickets or the ones coming up. I just hate putting money out to see the Chicago Knights take the field. Kenny keeps talking, but since 2005, hes made a lot of gutsy, and iffy moves, and like them or not (which I did like moves for Thome and Thorton), we pissed away the playoffs last year and really suck this year.

DeadMoney
07-02-2007, 04:03 PM
Some thoughts...

KW doesn't care one bit about what we (fans) think. He made that very clear in the offseason when he said this (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2006-12-07-notes-garland-deal-canceled_x.htm):
"Our fans waited 88 years to win a World Series. They have an affinity to that team. And so do I. But if I have to be unpopular, so be it. You can't be trapped in the sway of public opinion."

And the reality of it is, if a majority of fans stop buying tickets, be prepared for this team to continue being cheap.

---------------

And as for people having a connection to Buehrle as a person:
KW is going to make his decision on his own and if he let's Buehrle go, I believe that this team will pay the consequences in the W/L column. If not, I'll gladly eat my words, but without Buehrle in the rotation it would be a VERY weak starting five. I think that's why so many people are not happy with the idea of losing an ACE. It's not that they have a connection to Buehrle as a person, but it's that they can't see a positive outcome from losing him.

champagne030
07-02-2007, 04:03 PM
See, it goes both ways. When JR said that he would spend the money if the fans came out to watch the game...there is a correlation. The Fans come out to spend the money = JR spends the money. Take out the middle man (JR) and you get if the fans spend the money, the players will get it. Well, we went to see the games at record rates. JR seems to still not want to hold up the entire end of his side of the bargain (in this case keeping a player at a hometown discount, albeit with a NTC). They are still going cheap, and what pisses me off the most is that they cannot just go out and get an equally talented pitcher for the same or less money. They CANNOT. The 14MM/year is a discounted rate, so what does that mean? They are going to go with youngsters who will (most likely) not be winners for a few years if ever. We spend our money and we still get the "Kids".



:reinsy

The $42M EBITDA for the last two seasons doesn't go as far as you think. And the fact that the club value increased 1800% or $361M in the 27 years I've owned the team isn't anywhere close to what I demand as a ROI. :cool:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_Chicago-White-Sox_334758.html

getonbckthr
07-02-2007, 04:05 PM
Well, I am not saying that the Sox need to take an opinion poll on every roster move. What I am saying that that the Sox have said time and time again that pitching is the top priority. If that is the case, then MB needs to be in a Sox uniform until he demonstrate that he can no longer perform. When that will be is anyone's guess. But the argument that "he could throw his arm out next year and we would be stuck with this contract" is Bull****. Anyone can get injured at any time...if one does not like the risk, one should not own or (General) manage a professional team.

I disagree with you on the Carlos Lee aspect. I think the decision to move him was a strategic one (more speed, less base clogging). Fine. If that was the intent, then as a fan I am OK with it (I even liked the outcome of that deal, and for the record, I had no feelings about that trade one way or another when it happened). I am not following your argument as far as the A.J., Iguchi and Dye aspect. We needed a catcher, so we went out and got one that was a proven winner with Minn (not to mention on the cheap)...who did we have in the system to take on that role? Iguchi was also a cheap signing. Getting him from Japan (not a huge name like Ichiro, Matsui, etc). Dye was a stop gap. We had no one to play RF. We did not sign Maggs because his knee looked like it was never going to be 100%. We needed a RF, so we signed Dye. Was it a good move? One can argue it one way or another, but I will say it was a good move even though Maggs looks like is back to his old self. Your Jenks argument makes no sense to me. Hermanson went down and Jenks auditioned for the job and won it. We got him off the scrap heap. No fan (as far as I can tell) gave two ****s about his drinking. You make it sound like we paid top dollar for Jenks. We did not.

My question to you is: What are the other options to get the same or similar productivity from a Starting Pitcher? Replace Buehrle's numbers with the same money and without losing any prospects/players. In 2-3 years $14MM will be the salary of a .500 pitcher if salaries keep going the way that they are going. Is there a better option out there that we can get to replace MB? Cuz I don't see one.
The point with the AJ, Dye and Iguchi comment was that we got rid of Maggs and Lee and their money and used it to sign those key components. As far Mark's replacement. If Kenny is confident enough to ship Burls out that would mean he has enough faith in our prospects or the ones he gets in return to replace him.

getonbckthr
07-02-2007, 04:09 PM
I dont know, lately what Kenny says and what Kenny does are 2 different roads. All we hear about are championships and championship baseball players, but we keep letting them go. Im not saying I would not have dealt Freddy, but he was a damn good pitcher for us. We kept Contreras and Vazquez instead, which seems to be half right, but we put too many yeard and money into the old arm of Contreras.

I guess I just don't understand why you give Javy 3 years 12+ per, but you don't give Burls 4 at 14-15 per.

Kenny seems to fall in love with the under dog too much. He clearly loves players like Uribe, Vazquez, Erstad, guys who are erratic and unpredictable, but could look be lightning in a bottle (with the same chance they are just nothing in a bottle).

The fans are iffy right now, not jumping ship, but the only reason Im going tonight is it might be my last chance to see Burls. Otherwise I probably wouldnt be using these tickets or the ones coming up. I just hate putting money out to see the Chicago Knights take the field. Kenny keeps talking, but since 2005, hes made a lot of gutsy, and iffy moves, and like them or not (which I did like moves for Thome and Thorton), we pissed away the playoffs last year and really suck this year.
Apparently that deal worked and KW new what he was doing.

russ99
07-02-2007, 04:09 PM
For obvious reasons, team payroll depends on the attendance figures for the previous season rather than the current one.

If attendance continues to be down for the rest of this season, expect the team's payroll for 2008 to go down as well.

Actually there a LOT of tickets sold for the remainder of this season. Even if the team completely tanks, the Sox will still pull in the ballpark of 2.5 million.

My concern is if the Sox management decides that attendance will be much lower in 2008, and they'll reduce payroll significantly. I wonder how season-ticket renewals affect the Sox payroll budget process... and how much Jerry slashes the payroll budget next season.

getonbckthr
07-02-2007, 04:12 PM
Actually there a LOT of tickets sold for the remainder of this season. Even if the team completely tanks, the Sox will still pull in the ballpark of 2.5 million.

My concern is if the Sox management decides that attendance will be much lower in 2008, and they'll reduce payroll significantly. I wonder how season-ticket renewals affect the Sox payroll budget process... and how much Jerry slashes the payroll budget next season.
Possibly just the opposite spend in FA to get attendance up.

Jaffar
07-02-2007, 04:12 PM
Actually there a LOT of tickets sold for the remainder of this season. Even if the team completely tanks, the Sox will still pull in the ballpark of 2.5 million.

My concern is if the Sox management decides that attendance will be much lower in 2008, and they'll reduce payroll significantly. I wonder how season-ticket renewals affect the Sox payroll budget process... and how much Jerry slashes the payroll budget next season.

It'll mean buy your tickets for the Jon Garland farewell tour in 2008.

thomas35forever
07-02-2007, 04:13 PM
My concern is if the Sox management decides that attendance will be much lower in 2008, and they'll reduce payroll significantly. I wonder how season-ticket renewals affect the Sox payroll budget process... and how much Jerry slashes the payroll budget next season.
I was gonna respond to this, but I don't wanna talk about attendance at the risk of getting banned.

Domeshot17
07-02-2007, 04:14 PM
Apparently that deal worked and KW new what he was doing.

Maybe, theres no way to know. If Freddy stays maybe he doesnt get hurt, maybe he does, my point was, with a team, in what was clearly the last year of a prime championship run, went cheap. We dealt Freddy for 2 kids who may or may not ever be anything. We have all said it from the offseason. I have no problem moving some guys, if their money is used to make us better and keep what we have. I still firmly believe you don't win championships by trading 27 year old front line starters and resigning 30-40 year old mid to back of the rotation starters. That seems to be Kennys strategy. Let Burls go, eventually same with Garland, but we have 4 more years of Javy and Contreras. Javy is a great 2 or 3 man, but he can't anchor a rotation.

SaltyPretzel
07-02-2007, 04:14 PM
If it was up to the fans Carlos Lee would still be on the team not that pesty little #22 that stole like 70 bases and was a table setter.

I remember the fans at the 2005 Soxfest being pretty happy about the trade.

oeo
07-02-2007, 04:20 PM
I dont know, lately what Kenny says and what Kenny does are 2 different roads. All we hear about are championships and championship baseball players, but we keep letting them go. Im not saying I would not have dealt Freddy, but he was a damn good pitcher for us. We kept Contreras and Vazquez instead, which seems to be half right, but we put too many yeard and money into the old arm of Contreras.

Yes, Freddy pitched well for us in 2005...but he's obviously on the decline. He can't stay healthy, and his fastball clocks in lower than Mark Buehrle's. We got rid of him at the right time.

Contreras and Vazquez have not shown signs of injuries, or losing velocity. Javy is still his mediocre self. We don't have a ton of money in Contreras (or Vazquez for that matter)...both of those guys could be traded with their current contracts.

I guess I just don't understand why you give Javy 3 years 12+ per, but you don't give Burls 4 at 14-15 per. Because they don't want to give him a full NTC. It's not that difficult to understand.

Kenny seems to fall in love with the under dog too much. He clearly loves players like Uribe, Vazquez, Erstad, guys who are erratic and unpredictable, but could look be lightning in a bottle (with the same chance they are just nothing in a bottle).:?:

He signed Erstad because the free agent market sucked balls. Javy has not been bad for us...he hasn't been an ace, but he gives us a chance to win every time out. And Uribe has been here for years now. He plays great defense when he wants to...that's why he's here. Hopefully this is the last we see of him, but to say Kenny loves him because he's an 'underdog' makes no sense.

The fans are iffy right now, not jumping ship, but the only reason Im going tonight is it might be my last chance to see Burls. Otherwise I probably wouldnt be using these tickets or the ones coming up. I just hate putting money out to see the Chicago Knights take the field. Kenny keeps talking, but since 2005, hes made a lot of gutsy, and iffy moves, and like them or not (which I did like moves for Thome and Thorton), we pissed away the playoffs last year and really suck this year.What gutsy and iffy moves? He got good value out of Garcia right before he hit the brakes on his career (Floyd is turning around), traded McCarthy for two very promising young pitchers, traded a mediocre utility man (if you'd call him that) for Sisco, and Cotts for two young arms.

We traded our garbage for what could turn out to be garbage, as well. Name an 'iffy' or 'gutsy' move he's made.

getonbckthr
07-02-2007, 04:21 PM
I remember the fans at the 2005 Soxfest being pretty happy about the trade.
That was after all the news stories came out about CLEE in the clubhouse.

SaltyPretzel
07-02-2007, 04:24 PM
That was after all the news stories came out about CLEE in the clubhouse.

No, I think everyone was sick of the station to station, feast-or-famine, waiting for the 6-run home run offense.

Goose
07-02-2007, 04:31 PM
The point with the AJ, Dye and Iguchi comment was that we got rid of Maggs and Lee and their money and used it to sign those key components. As far Mark's replacement. If Kenny is confident enough to ship Burls out that would mean he has enough faith in our prospects or the ones he gets in return to replace him.

Maggs and Lee 2005 Salaries = 15MM (that is including the discounted salary Maggs took, 7.2MM vs. the 14MM he made in 2004). The combined AJ, JD and Iguchi 2005 salaries was ~8.5MM. My point is, we did not get rid of Lee and Maggs to free up money for AJ, JD and Iguchi. Those moves were made out of necessity and/or direction change.

Trading MB (or letting him walk at the end of the year) is neither strategic nor necessary. What we will give will be far more valuable than what we can get back and I say this based on the fact that KW got nothing he liked when he dangled MB out there for a trade. That is why the discussions opened up again. I am against trading high value commodities for the unproven. MB is not asking for the world, here. Give him what he wants if the Sox indeed intend on competing for years to come.

soxinem1
07-02-2007, 04:32 PM
No, I think everyone was sick of the station to station, feast-or-famine, waiting for the 6-run home run offense.

Has that really changed (other than 2005) since Y2K?

TDog
07-02-2007, 04:35 PM
And then what happened?

That's right. Coca~Cola went back to the old coke: Coke Classic. The customers (fans) did not like the new Coke (The Kids Can Play), so they went back to the old formula. With your scenario, do the Sox trade for Mark Buehrle (or someone of his caliber) next year and spend more to get him back, or do they not spend the R&D money in the first place and stick with what works?

I respect your opinion, but I see it differently.

I chose the analogy, in part, because I was a fan of Coca-Cola and was disappointed in the change, just as I would be disappointed in the White Sox not re-signing Mark Buehrle. But the aftermath of the new formula wasn't simply the reinstatement of Classic Coke. The product diversivied, putting the Coke label on a number of cola-based products. The company made a mistake and did its best to recover from it. Classic Coke alone wouldn't have been enough. (Frankly, I'm now partial to the lime but can only find the product in its diet manifestation any more.)

I don't want to see the White Sox trade Mark Buehrle even if they can't resign him. I will metaphorically shed a tear if he ceases to pitch for the White Sox.

What the White Sox have to work with is different from what Coca-Cola had to work with. Spending money on free agents isn't going to put enough fans in the park to pay for them. As I noted before, White Sox fans have a track record. A starting pitcher alone isn't going to win enough games to make the difference in the standings that fans will demand. A pitcher alone isn't enough. Virgil Trucks pitched two no-hitters and a one-hitter in 1952. From everything I read, he was nasty. And he finished with a 5-19 record.

I want Buehrle to pitch for the Sox for years to come. But if he doesn't, I will understand why.

hose
07-02-2007, 04:43 PM
Not signing Burls is going to be a big mistake, I hope I hear Hawk announcing a new contract at the start of tonight's game.

Goose
07-02-2007, 04:53 PM
Spending money on free agents isn't going to put enough fans in the park to pay for them.

I wonder how many FAs will be lining up to sign contracts with the White Sox after this latest fiasco. MB is practically begging to stay here and is being jerked around by the front office. Players are watching. When they see **** like what is happening with Mark go down, they have to be thinking to themselves "If they do it to a player they love, what will they do to a player that they don't know yet"? Unless we outbid all other teams for Free Agents (not going to happen), the Sox don't stand a chance on getting any names on the South Side with the reputation that are building for themselves.

wulfy
07-02-2007, 04:56 PM
This to me, bears a very strong resemblance to Maddux/Cubs in 1993 ... let a young, homegrown starter walk away at his peak.

Steelrod
07-02-2007, 04:56 PM
Don't forget that Buerhle is compromising substantially on both money and years (whether or not you believe that he'll command a Zito type contract), and I'm not convinced that the Sox are really compromising their philosophy all that much.

The Sox are opposed to extending players for more than three years because of the risk involved. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but they've already given Contreras and Vazquez three year extensions with one year remaining on their pre-existing contracts (essentially committing to them for four years). How were those extensions any less risky than giving Buehrle four years?

Meanwhile, the Sox are seemingly unwilling to guarantee that Buehrle won't be spending three of the next four years playing for another team at a tremendous hometown discount. I agree that if he were asking for a market rate, he shouldn't command a full no-trade clause, but that is not the current situation. Konerko got his partial no-trade clause after testing the market and getting a competitive offer from the Sox.

I guess I just don't see a lot of compromise from the Sox in this situation.
FYI
A player traded with a multiyear contract can demand a trade.

jsg-07
07-02-2007, 05:05 PM
The score is now reporting that Ken Williams was just quoted saying they are still talking and there is some sort of "limited" no trade clause on the table. They are going to air his comments momentarily....

rdivaldi
07-02-2007, 05:10 PM
I wonder how many FAs will be lining up to sign contracts with the White Sox after this latest fiasco. MB is practically begging to stay here and is being jerked around by the front office. Players are watching. When they see **** like what is happening with Mark go down, they have to be thinking to themselves "If they do it to a player they love, what will they do to a player that they don't know yet"? Unless we outbid all other teams for Free Agents (not going to happen), the Sox don't stand a chance on getting any names on the South Side with the reputation that are building for themselves.

:thud:

If the Sox offer a player the amount of money that they are looking for, they are going to take the money. They actually have a good reputation for taking care of their players and treating them with respect. Some of you are really flying off the deep end...

Bulls_Fan
07-02-2007, 05:20 PM
The score is now reporting that Ken Williams was just quoted saying they are still talking and there is some sort of "limited" no trade clause on the table. They are going to air his comments momentarily....

Way to go Kenny, you sure are bending over backwards to keep the face of our franchise!

Goose
07-02-2007, 05:30 PM
:thud:

If the Sox offer a player the amount of money that they are looking for, they are going to take the money. They actually have a good reputation for taking care of their players and treating them with respect. Some of you are really flying off the deep end...

Are you kidding me? First, as far as free agents are concerned, the amount that most FAs want is the highest amount. The Sox will not offer that for a top-tiered FA. When was the last time this happened? Albert Belle?

I may be wrong, but I don't remember many good-byes go very well with Sox FAs. Here are some that I can remember that went pretty poorly...In recent years: Frank, Maggs, Ventura, Jack McDowell, Karzy Karl. I don't remember how Wilson Alvarez left, so I am leaving him off the list. What high profile names do you remember that went well (i.e., without animosity)?

This is a pattern that does not bode well.

I promise to quite jumping off the deep end, as you say, if you promise take off your rose colored glasses.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-02-2007, 05:40 PM
Are you kidding me? First, as far as free agents are concerned, the amount that most FAs want is the highest amount. The Sox will not offer that for a top-tiered FA. When was the last time this happened? Albert Belle?

I may be wrong, but I don't remember many good-byes go very well with Sox FAs. Here are some that I can remember that went pretty poorly...In recent years: Frank, Maggs, Ventura, Jack McDowell, Karzy Karl. I don't remember how Wilson Alvarez left, so I am leaving him off the list. What high profile names do you remember that went well (i.e., without animosity)?

This is a pattern that does not bode well.

I promise to quite jumping off the deep end, as you say, if you promise take off your rose colored glasses.

Actually, (I know this has nothing to do with KW or Jerry) look at how Aparicio left back in the 60's. I think it runs throughout Sox history.

soltrain21
07-02-2007, 05:43 PM
Way to go Kenny, you sure are bending over backwards to keep the face of our franchise!

Konerko is the face of this franchise.

JorgeFabregas
07-02-2007, 05:52 PM
Kenny says the contract on the table has trade protection through the first year. That plus 5-10 means there's only 18 months without trade protection.

The Immigrant
07-02-2007, 06:02 PM
That plus 5-10 means there's only 18 months without trade protection.

Give him a limited NTC for the 18-month period and let's go get a drink.

102605
07-02-2007, 06:05 PM
My 1st comment on this megathread:


Get it done KW!

TomBradley72
07-02-2007, 06:07 PM
I wonder how many FAs will be lining up to sign contracts with the White Sox after this latest fiasco. MB is practically begging to stay here and is being jerked around by the front office. Players are watching. When they see **** like what is happening with Mark go down, they have to be thinking to themselves "If they do it to a player they love, what will they do to a player that they don't know yet"? Unless we outbid all other teams for Free Agents (not going to happen), the Sox don't stand a chance on getting any names on the South Side with the reputation that are building for themselves.

Well said. The way they are treating Dye after two great seasons with the team and the fact that he had a higher offer from the DBacks before he officially signed the contract also reinforces for ANY player that is considering joining the White Sox that this organization has little loyalty to it's players. Ask Robin Ventura after he worked his ass off to heal from his horrible spring training injury. Here we are seven years later...with some of the highest revenue in MLB the last few years...and nothing has changed.

sox1970
07-02-2007, 06:11 PM
Kenny says the contract on the table has trade protection through the first year. That plus 5-10 means there's only 18 months without trade protection.

Which means his trade exposure will be January 1, 2009--July 15, 2010.

I still think this deal is dead until he gets a full no-trade.

The Immigrant
07-02-2007, 06:17 PM
I still think this deal is dead until he gets a full no-trade.

Don't bet on it. This is a high stakes game of chicken and it is safe to assume that there is room to move on both sides. Mark's wife is about to give birth and I imagine the last thing he wants to think about now is moving, only to move again once the 3-month rental expires.

I expect that they will meet in the middle, with some sort of limited NTC to cover the 18-month gap. But I wouldn't be surprised if they went down to the wire.

TDog
07-02-2007, 06:25 PM
Actually, (I know this has nothing to do with KW or Jerry) look at how Aparicio left back in the 60's. I think it runs throughout Sox history.

I was a big Aparicio fan, but I don't see the connection.

The 1963 Aparicio trade, along with Al Smith, was a good one for both teams. The teams traded shortstops, the White Sox got a great young ballplayer in Pete Ward along with Hoyt Wilhelm and Dave Nicholson. The 1964 White Sox fell one game short of going to the World Series. The 1966 Orioles went to the World Series. The White Sox were a better team for having traded Aparicio to Baltimore.

The 1970 Aparicio trade was far more depressing. Mike Andrews and Luis Alvarado. Pete Ward was a Rookie of the Year. Luis Alvarado had trouble with drew the ire of Harry Caray. When the White Sox made a run at the A's in 1972, they really needed a solid veteran shortstop.

oeo
07-02-2007, 06:25 PM
Well said. The way they are treating Dye after two great seasons with the team and the fact that he had a higher offer from the DBacks before he officially signed the contract also reinforces for ANY player that is considering joining the White Sox that this organization has little loyalty to it's players. Ask Robin Ventura after he worked his ass off to heal from his horrible spring training injury. Here we are seven years later...with some of the highest revenue in MLB the last few years...and nothing has changed.

How else are they supposed to treat Dye? Sign him to a 5 year contract? No thank you...he'll be worth nothing by the end of that contract. That's a terrible example of your "point."

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 06:40 PM
Scott Reifert has posted on his blog that Kenny met with the media before the game this evening. I'll be curious to read tomorrow what he said.

and Jorge, 18 months is a very long time. It only takes a few days or weeks to make a deal, I'm sure this is of legit concern to Buehrle and his family.

Lip

oeo
07-02-2007, 06:42 PM
Scott Reifert has posted on his blog that Kenny met with the media before the game this evening. I'll be curious to read tomorrow what he said.

and Jorge, 18 months is a very long time. It only takes a few days or weeks to make a deal, I'm sure this is of legit concern to Buehrle and his family.

Lip

On Chicago Tribune Live, he was quoted as saying that he is very optimistic they can get the deal done. In other words, no one knows what's going on and shouldn't make any assumptions until there is official word that he's been signed or traded.

Lip Man 1
07-02-2007, 06:43 PM
Part of the Aparicio deal was also because the team cut his salary the full allowable 20% after his 'sub par' 1962 season.

Ed Short felt Luis' best days were behind him and Aparicio was royally upset over the pay cut.

It was a deal that had to be made. Mark shows no apparent signs of being upset with the organization over anything done in the past short of perhaps a few seasons ago when the Sox withdrew their offer to him and then resigned him for I think 300,000 less.

Lip

WSox597
07-02-2007, 07:28 PM
Since we're speaking of Buehrle, has any team in major league history traded a pitcher that threw a no-hitter, in the year he threw the no-hitter?

I don't recall any, but it may have happend before. I realize this hasn't happened yet, but the signs point to it happening.

kba
07-02-2007, 07:44 PM
On Chicago Tribune Live, he was quoted as saying that he is very optimistic they can get the deal done. In other words, no one knows what's going on and shouldn't make any assumptions until there is official word that he's been signed or traded.

Sox GM still hopeful for Buehrle deal (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-070702soxwilliamsbuehrle,1,795995.story?coll=cs-home-headlines)

areilly
07-02-2007, 08:01 PM
Since we're speaking of Buehrle, has any team in major league history traded a pitcher that threw a no-hitter, in the year he threw the no-hitter?

I don't recall any, but it may have happend before. I realize this hasn't happened yet, but the signs point to it happening.

Dennis Eckersley no-hit the California Angels in 1977 and the Indians thanked him by trading him to the Red Sox in March of 1978.

TDog
07-02-2007, 08:12 PM
Since we're speaking of Buehrle, has any team in major league history traded a pitcher that threw a no-hitter, in the year he threw the no-hitter?

I don't recall any, but it may have happend before. I realize this hasn't happened yet, but the signs point to it happening.

Virgil Trucks pitched two no-hitters in the 1952 season and the Tigers traded him in December 1952.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-02-2007, 08:13 PM
I was a big Aparicio fan, but I don't see the connection.

The 1963 Aparicio trade, along with Al Smith, was a good one for both teams. The teams traded shortstops, the White Sox got a great young ballplayer in Pete Ward along with Hoyt Wilhelm and Dave Nicholson. The 1964 White Sox fell one game short of going to the World Series. The 1966 Orioles went to the World Series. The White Sox were a better team for having traded Aparicio to Baltimore.

The 1970 Aparicio trade was far more depressing. Mike Andrews and Luis Alvarado. Pete Ward was a Rookie of the Year. Luis Alvarado had trouble with drew the ire of Harry Caray. When the White Sox made a run at the A's in 1972, they really needed a solid veteran shortstop.

I was reffering to the players that leave here unhappy and angry at the organization: Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, etc.

Just saying that it seems to run throughout the team history. it has nothing to do with Buehrle.

rdivaldi
07-02-2007, 08:19 PM
Are you kidding me? First, as far as free agents are concerned, the amount that most FAs want is the highest amount. The Sox will not offer that for a top-tiered FA. When was the last time this happened? Albert Belle?

I may be wrong, but I don't remember many good-byes go very well with Sox FAs. Here are some that I can remember that went pretty poorly...In recent years: Frank, Maggs, Ventura, Jack McDowell, Karzy Karl. I don't remember how Wilson Alvarez left, so I am leaving him off the list. What high profile names do you remember that went well (i.e., without animosity)?

This is a pattern that does not bode well.

I promise to quite jumping off the deep end, as you say, if you promise take off your rose colored glasses.

Rose colored glasses? Is that what color reality is? Ventura was so upset after he left that he joined the White Sox as an announcer afterwards.

The Sox haven't had to go after any high profile free agents over the past 4 years because KW kept filling up our roster with outstanding players via trades. Anyway, like I said, if the White Sox offer the right amount the player will sign. Unlike what you wrote, which I quote, "I wonder how many FAs will be lining up to sign contracts with the White Sox after this latest fiasco."

TDog
07-02-2007, 08:34 PM
I was reffering to the players that leave here unhappy and angry at the organization: Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, etc.

Just saying that it seems to run throughout the team history. it has nothing to do with Buehrle.

As unhappy as Aparicio was, he returned to the Sox and was the highest-paid player on the team in 1970.

A lot of players who leave organizations are unhappy with the organizations they leave. If you want to twist that into a negative toward Sox management, it's your prerogative. It is more an indictment of the system than an individual team. I do know that in this century Miguel Olivo, Aaron Rowand and Rocky Biddle were quite upset when they learned they were traded from the Sox. Ordonez had no interest in staying with the Sox, but I've heard that Albert Belle wanted to stay with the Sox before he signed with Baltimore.

Your generalization don't match the apparerent treatment Paul Konerko has received fromt the Sox, either.

rdivaldi
07-02-2007, 08:41 PM
Your generalization don't match the apparerent treatment Paul Konerko has received fromt the Sox, either.

Yep. The losing and the drawn out Buerhle ordeal has caused quite a few people's memories to get selective.

churlish
07-02-2007, 08:59 PM
The Sox will re-sign Buehrle. If the only problem is the NTC for a year and a half, it'll get done. That's a minor thing, and I have a feeling Reinsdorf will "push" KW to get it done.

Without Buehrle next year, the rotation will suck. If the Sox trade Contreras, the Sox should still have excellent SP with Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez, Danks, and Floyd/Gio, etc.

The problem with the Sox right now is in the outfield and in the pen. Fortunately (or unfortunately), bullpen guys are notoriously unpredictable, and the 'pen that is awful now can catch lightning in a bottle. People forget that Cotts, Politte, and Hermanson all had career years in 2005. All it takes is MacDougal and a cheap vet to suddenly figure it out, and the bullpen suddenly seems good again.

Goose
07-02-2007, 09:05 PM
Anyway, like I said, if the White Sox offer the right amount the player will sign. Unlike what you wrote, which I quote, "I wonder how many FAs will be lining up to sign contracts with the White Sox after this latest fiasco."

Well, I gues you're right. If the Sox offer any player "the right amount" they will sign with the Sox. What you fail to see is that "the right amount" is generally the highest bid, and THAT, the Sox will not do.

So really, I guess you're wrong.

rdivaldi
07-02-2007, 09:11 PM
Well, I gues you're right. If the Sox offer any player "the right amount" they will sign with the Sox. What you fail to see is that "the right amount" is generally the highest bid, and THAT, the Sox will not do.

So really, I guess you're wrong.

Well, I agree that you won't see us out there offering a $20 million per season deal for A-Rod or Santana anytime soon. However we've already shown the willingness to pay guys such as Konerko, Vazquez and Contreras. So I wouldn't be surprised to see us pay Buerhle.

Flight #24
07-02-2007, 09:36 PM
Are there "trade kickers" in MLB? Could that be a way to do it? How about an option year at $17M that automatically vests if he's dealt? If the Sox are going to be dumbassed about it, hopefully at least they're willing to step forward and do something that rewards Buehrle if they don't keep him, even if it reduces his trade value.

soxfan26
07-02-2007, 09:52 PM
On Chicago Tribune Live, he was quoted as saying that he is very optimistic they can get the deal done. In other words, no one knows what's going on and shouldn't make any assumptions until there is official word that he's been signed or traded.

But then how will we ever make it to episode VI of this thread?

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-02-2007, 10:42 PM
Per MLB Trade Rumors:

Kenny Williams spoke to the press tonight; the White Sox have offered Buehrle no-trade protection except for an 18-month span. It seems likely that the two sides reach an agreement.

Take it for what it's worth.

voodoochile
07-02-2007, 10:49 PM
Kenny Williams spoke to the press tonight; the White Sox have offered Buehrle no-trade protection except for an 18-month span. It seems likely that the two sides reach an agreement.

Isn't this simply saying they won't trade him the first year? I mean someone said it was June 2010 that he gets his 10/5 rights, so at that point, the rights are his regardless.

This isn't new news. It's exactly what the Sox have been saying all along isn't it?

Is it enough for Buehrle?

TDog
07-02-2007, 10:50 PM
Since we're speaking of Buehrle, has any team in major league history traded a pitcher that threw a no-hitter, in the year he threw the no-hitter?

I don't recall any, but it may have happend before. I realize this hasn't happened yet, but the signs point to it happening.

I also forgot that Joe Cowley's last win for the White Sox in 1986 was his no-hitter. Before the 1987 season, he was traded to the Phillies for Gary Redus -- and never won another game.

gobears1987
07-02-2007, 10:53 PM
I really hope this is true.

soltrain21
07-02-2007, 11:39 PM
I really hope this is true.


Which part?

Noneck
07-02-2007, 11:53 PM
Per MLB Trade Rumors:



Take it for what it's worth.

18 month span from when to when? The reporters that Williams spoke to had to ask him that.

Mr. White Sox
07-02-2007, 11:56 PM
If that's truly management's final offer, we may have just seen the last of Buehrle in a White Sox uniform. KW supposedly personally called Buehrle to promise him they wouldn't trade him, and it's just necessary to not have a NTC for future negotiation reasons. I don't think a phone call is enough, I think he needs it in writing.

I hope I'm wrong; I may be reading into that 12 month window a bit more than I should, but we'll see.

goon
07-03-2007, 12:46 AM
If that's truly management's final offer, we may have just seen the last of Buehrle in a White Sox uniform. KW supposedly personally called Buehrle to promise him they wouldn't trade him, and it's just necessary to not have a NTC for future negotiation reasons. I don't think a phone call is enough, I think he needs it in writing.

I hope I'm wrong; I may be reading into that 12 month window a bit more than I should, but we'll see.


I think this is a HUGE part of this contract signing and what a NTC for Mark would signify to other White Sox players. When the time comes to re-sign, how many would point to Mark Buehrle about his NTC and ask for the same treatment? It seems like the Sox are more worried about setting a precedent than they are about Buehrle getting hurt or his abilities diminshing.

GregO23
07-03-2007, 01:02 AM
if we dont sign buehrle i say we walk off like pittsburgh did the other night. WE CANT TRADE BUEHRLE, a 27 year old lefty ACE

Nellie_Fox
07-03-2007, 01:05 AM
It seems like the Sox are more worried about setting a precedent than they are about Buehrle getting hurt or his abilities diminshing.Players are already protected if they get hurt. A NTC would not help the Sox in that situation; teams would not be knocking down their door with offers for an injured pitcher. Same if his abilities decline. The number of years and number of dollars protect the pitcher in this situation.

The reason management wants to avoid NTC is because of the unforseen opportunities that they might have to pass up. Let's say that in August of 2009, a team leading their division has a pitcher or two go down. Their lead starts to shrink. They are desperate enough to make the Sox an offer for Buehrle that would make the Sox a better team for the next several years. However, they can't do it, because their hands are tied. THAT'S why management doesn't like to do them.

anewman35
07-03-2007, 06:30 AM
if we dont sign buehrle i say we walk off like pittsburgh did the other night. WE CANT TRADE BUEHRLE, a 27 year old lefty ACE

You realize that the Pittsburgh "walk-off" didn't work at all, right?

RedHeadPaleHoser
07-03-2007, 06:44 AM
But then how will we ever make it to episode VI of this thread?

This is WSI - we've done 9 generations of Cubune headlines, and a tomato award thread, about, tomatoes. You don't think something as minor as the contract actually being signed would stop this train, do you? :cool:

Steelrod
07-03-2007, 07:36 AM
Isn't this simply saying they won't trade him the first year? I mean someone said it was June 2010 that he gets his 10/5 rights, so at that point, the rights are his regardless.

This isn't new news. It's exactly what the Sox have been saying all along isn't it?

Is it enough for Buehrle?
Plus, as that he would have a multiyear contract, if he is traded, he has the right to demand a trade or become a free agent after 1 season, so we are actually talking about a 6 month window.

WizardsofOzzie
07-03-2007, 08:07 AM
Not sure if this was posted somewhere else. If so, please merge mods

Per Rotoworld
"White Sox GM Ken Williams said Monday that his latest offer to Mark Buehrle includes no-trade protection except for in an 18-month window in the middle of the deal.
We assume that window will be closed by Buehrle's 10-and-5 rights when he reaches 10 years of service time during the 2010 season. Still, Buehrle should insist on a full no-trade clause if he's going to accept a below-market deal. After all, if he's traded during the window, he'll lose his potential 10-and-5 rights on his new team. Williams may know this, which is why he's opted to tell the media about his offer. If Buehrle turns it down, at least everyone will know Williams tried. Jul. 3 - 12:20 am et"

BeviBall!
07-03-2007, 08:37 AM
Williams may know this, which is why he's opted to tell the media about his offer. If Buehrle turns it down, at least everyone will know Williams tried.

The White Sox invented this kind of spin. The "at least we tried" line makes me puke.

MeteorsSox4367
07-03-2007, 08:50 AM
The White Sox invented this kind of spin. The "at least we tried" line makes me puke.


BeviBall: Way to hit it perfectly. If the Sox trade Buehrle, I don't want to hear this BS from Kenny Williams about all the efforts made by the organization and then to have him go into his corporate BS buzzwords about "bettering the organization" or the "best interests of the White Sox" and about how the player(s) he'll get for Buehrle have "high ceilings" or "should attain future degrees of success" or some other crap.

I know it's just a game and it's just baseball, but all I really give a damn about in the summer (spring and fall, too) other than my family and my job is the Sox. I don't want to be BSed and fed some well-spun crap.

Make a deal with Buehrle and sign the man NOW. Get this mess over with. Will he trade him? Will he sign him? End it. Give Buehrle a contract, RFN!

Rant's over. Sorry about that.

balke
07-03-2007, 09:10 AM
Not sure if this was posted somewhere else. If so, please merge mods

Per Rotoworld
"White Sox GM Ken Williams said Monday that his latest offer to Mark Buehrle includes no-trade protection except for in an 18-month window in the middle of the deal.
We assume that window will be closed by Buehrle's 10-and-5 rights when he reaches 10 years of service time during the 2010 season. Still, Buehrle should insist on a full no-trade clause if he's going to accept a below-market deal. After all, if he's traded during the window, he'll lose his potential 10-and-5 rights on his new team. Williams may know this, which is why he's opted to tell the media about his offer. If Buehrle turns it down, at least everyone will know Williams tried. Jul. 3 - 12:20 am et"


Buehrle wants to stay in Chicago and raise his family with no hassles it looks like. So why do the Sox have to impose a window for trading? That trade period would last through the majority of his contract really. He'd be safe a year, and they'd trade him for sure after that season regardless of production. Its just Kenny getting greedy at the thought of trading him down the line for as much as he can get, when Mark has already given something to discussions by offering a discount.

Kenny must have a lot of faith in his farm system arms. He must not be looking at what's come out of the Sox farm lately though. That's the place talent goes to wilt.

The Immigrant
07-03-2007, 09:12 AM
He must not be looking at what's come out of the Sox farm lately though.

Maybe, but Floyd and Gonzales aren't looking too shabby lately. Neither is Broadway.

southside rocks
07-03-2007, 09:17 AM
Buehrle wants to stay in Chicago and raise his family with no hassles it looks like. So why do the Sox have to impose a window for trading? That trade period would last through the majority of his contract really. He'd be safe a year, and they'd trade him for sure after that season regardless of production. Its just Kenny getting greedy at the thought of trading him down the line for as much as he can get, when Mark has already given something to discussions by offering a discount.

Kenny must have a lot of faith in his farm system arms. He must not be looking at what's come out of the Sox farm lately though. That's the place talent goes to wilt.

KW made an interesting point when he said that to give one player a complete NTC will invite every future FA that the club tries to sign to request a complete NTC also.

It may be the precedent that KW is worried about, not so much whether or not he will be able to trade MB in that 18-month 'window' when MB may be available to trade.

In other words, this might not be so much about MB as it might be about the way the Sox organization does business, with MB's agent challenging that. In any event, it's a really interesting negotiation going on.

balke
07-03-2007, 09:20 AM
Maybe, but Floyd and Gonzales aren't looking too shabby lately. Neither is Broadway.

I heard the Brewers manager mention Gonzalez as the best AA pitcher in baseball. But, I've seen a lot of top tier future aces go to Charlotte only to be DOA in the majors.

Flight #24
07-03-2007, 09:30 AM
KW made an interesting point when he said that to give one player a complete NTC will invite every future FA that the club tries to sign to request a complete NTC also.

It may be the precedent that KW is worried about, not so much whether or not he will be able to trade MB in that 18-month 'window' when MB may be available to trade.

In other words, this might not be so much about MB as it might be about the way the Sox organization does business, with MB's agent challenging that. In any event, it's a really interesting negotiation going on.

I don't buy it. You point me to a guy of the caliber of Mark Buehrle, who also means as much in the clubhouse and with the fans as Mark Buehrle, who's also giving as much of a discount on the total value of guaranteed money as Mark Buehrle and I'll say OK, it's comparable and you have an argument for an NTC. Mark is giving a ton in this negotiation to get his NTC, and I can't recall another palyer in similar position giving that much to the team financially to stay.

But it ain't happening - players just don't do that. And if by chance it does happen, chances are it's the kind of guy that you wouldn't mind offering that to.

spiffie
07-03-2007, 09:32 AM
KW made an interesting point when he said that to give one player a complete NTC will invite every future FA that the club tries to sign to request a complete NTC also.

It may be the precedent that KW is worried about, not so much whether or not he will be able to trade MB in that 18-month 'window' when MB may be available to trade.

In other words, this might not be so much about MB as it might be about the way the Sox organization does business, with MB's agent challenging that. In any event, it's a really interesting negotiation going on.
If other multiple time all-stars want to give us extremely large discounts in negotiations in return for NTC's I fail to see that as a bad thing. I somehow doubt that becomes the norm. Very few free agents will take 30% less guaranteed money simply to have stability promised to them. Mark is a rare bird in that regard.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 09:35 AM
Maybe, but Floyd and Gonzales aren't looking too shabby lately. Neither is Broadway.

Floyd and Gonzalez have never won a thing at the major league level. Buehrle's won a World Series, pitched an hour and 39 minute game, pitched a no-hitter, and has been the rock of the pitching staff for seven years. He could conceivably pitch another 10 years effectively because of the type of pitcher he is. Buehrle could easily win more games in the rest of his career than Floyd, Gio and Broadway combined for the rest of theirs.

Buehrle must be signed now.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 09:36 AM
I heard the Brewers manager mention Gonzalez as the best AA pitcher in baseball. But, I've seen a lot of top tier future aces go to Charlotte only to be DOA in the majors.

Scott Ruffcorn for starters.

dwalteroo
07-03-2007, 09:45 AM
This is so frustrating...the Sox are getting almost exactly what they want with Buehrle here. He could go get a Zito deal and he isn't. He asked for 5 yrs/$75 mil, and they rejected it. So now it's 4 yrs/$56 mil, a hefty deduction from the $75. And now all the guy wants is a NTC.

If the Sox don't want to give it to him, then they should give something up. Like if they trade him during that "window of exposure," they give him an extra [insert several million dollars here]. They have got to offer him SOMETHING to make up for it, otherwise they are the ones who are killing this negotiation.

Show me anywhere on the open market where the Sox could get anyone similar to Buehrle's caliber for his asking price and terms. You can't.

DMBSOXFAN
07-03-2007, 09:54 AM
KW made an interesting point when he said that to give one player a complete NTC will invite every future FA that the club tries to sign to request a complete NTC also.

It may be the precedent that KW is worried about, not so much whether or not he will be able to trade MB in that 18-month 'window' when MB may be available to trade.

In other words, this might not be so much about MB as it might be about the way the Sox organization does business, with MB's agent challenging that. In any event, it's a really interesting negotiation going on.

That is complete BS like a few have mentioned before me. Each contract negotiation is different and involves different circumstances. If someone else down the line wants a NTC because MB got one, are they also going to take a 25% (maybe more) pay cut from what their market value is? I doubt it.

Personally, I think think there are always a few players who are deserving of having the organization make exceptions to their policies in order to accommodate them. Right now I would say only Pauly and MB are at that level. Some might say you could consider Garland at that level too. I think almost all other players would understand why guys like this would be given special accommodations for what they have meant to their organization. They are the heart of the team.

So if someone else down the line does ask for a NTC and makes the case that this guy got one why can't I? You say have you done what they have done on and off the field for us? Are you going to take less money to stay here like they did? Have you meant what they meant to the organization? If all of those answers are yes then there is a good chance that player would be deserving of a NTC too.

southside rocks
07-03-2007, 10:11 AM
That is complete BS like a few have mentioned before me. Each contract negotiation is different and involves different circumstances. If someone else down the line wants a NTC because MB got one, are they also going to take a 25% (maybe more) pay cut from what their market value is? I doubt it.



I'm not arguing this. I just thought what KW said was interesting. The fact that it's judged to be BS by posters here doesn't mean that it isn't a serious factor to KW, that was my only point. KW was explaining why this aspect of the negotiation is a problem for him.

The Immigrant
07-03-2007, 10:17 AM
Floyd and Gonzalez have never won a thing at the major league level. Buehrle's won a World Series, pitched an hour and 39 minute game, pitched a no-hitter, and has been the rock of the pitching staff for seven years. He could conceivably pitch another 10 years effectively because of the type of pitcher he is. Buehrle could easily win more games in the rest of his career than Floyd, Gio and Broadway combined for the rest of theirs.

Buehrle must be signed now.

Nobody in their right mind would compare Buehrle to either Floyd, Gonzales or Broadway, despite their future potential.

I'm just saying that our minor league talent, at least as far as starting pitching is concerned, is not too shabby.

mmsuggins
07-03-2007, 11:22 AM
Plus, as that he would have a multiyear contract, if he is traded, he has the right to demand a trade or become a free agent after 1 season, so we are actually talking about a 6 month window.

Forgive me if I'm being dense, I'm unfamiliar with all of the ins and outs of MLB contracts, except for what I've heard in the media, and I'm still trying to understand what's at stake.

Wouldn't Buehrle only be entitled to become a free agent if the new team fails to trade him after he demands it? Say the absolute worst case scenario happens: the White Sox trade Buehrle to Team B after 2008. He's no longer in line to become a 5-10 player in June 2010, and he still only gets paid at his hometown discount rate for 2009. If he can't just void his contract and become a free agent, the only thing he can do is demand a trade at the end of the 2009 season. His attractive $14 million multi-year deal makes it likely that team B will be able to trade him. If Team B meets his demand, he loses the right to become a free agent for the next three years. He's given up a substantial amount of guaranteed money (probably somewhere between $20 and $40 million) for the sake of staying in Chicago, but he's only managed to gain ONE extra year here. Even if he has the right to block trades to a handful of other teams, he's still going to wind up having given his hometown discount to someone else for 2009, 2010, and 2011. (And he'll possibly be under Team C's control for 2012?)

The possibility of an escalator clause that others have suggested sounds promising. Could the Sox offer to increase his salary to somewhere around his market rate for any time not spent with the team. Is there any reason why this couldn't be done in an MLB contract?

Steelrod
07-03-2007, 11:26 AM
Forgive me if I'm being dense, I'm unfamiliar with all of the ins and outs of MLB contracts, except for what I've heard in the media, and I'm still trying to understand what's at stake.

Wouldn't Buehrle only be entitled to become a free agent if the new team fails to trade him after he demands it? Say the absolute worst case scenario happens: the White Sox trade Buehrle to Team B after 2008. He's no longer in line to become a 5-10 player in June 2010, and he still only gets paid at his hometown discount rate for 2009. If he can't just void his contract and become a free agent, the only thing he can do is demand a trade at the end of the 2009 season. His attractive $14 million multi-year deal makes it likely that team B will be able to trade him. If Team B meets his demand, he loses the right to become a free agent for the next three years. He's given up a substantial amount of guaranteed money (probably somewhere between $20 and $40 million) for the sake of staying in Chicago, but he's only managed to gain ONE extra year here. Even if he has the right to block trades to a handful of other teams, he's still going to wind up having given his hometown discount to someone else for 2009, 2010, and 2011. (And he'll possibly be under Team C's control for 2012?)

The possibility of an elevator clause that others have suggested sounds promising. Could the Sox offer to increase his salary to somewhere around his market rate for any time not spent with the team. Is there any reason why this couldn't be done in an MLB contract?
I believe that he has the right to a trade or free agency if traded in the midst of a multiyear contract. Not sure exactly, but it's something like that!

Steelrod
07-03-2007, 11:28 AM
Just playing devil's advocate....

If he does get traded, and it works out for the Sox, I wonder if that thread will have over 1,000 replies like this one has?

mmsuggins
07-03-2007, 11:46 AM
Just playing devil's advocate....

If he does get traded, and it works out for the Sox, I wonder if that thread will have over 1,000 replies like this one has?

Probably not. :smile: But I think a lot of this activity is caused by anxiety over not knowing what is going to happen.

upperdeckusc
07-03-2007, 11:53 AM
if we dont sign buehrle i say we walk off like pittsburgh did the other night. WE CANT TRADE BUEHRLE, a 27 year old lefty ACE

yea, im right behind you brother....

<Insert completely unnecessary and overused chunks tag.>

*****

Flight #24
07-03-2007, 12:04 PM
Wouldn't Buehrle only be entitled to become a free agent if the new team fails to trade him after he demands it? Say the absolute worst case scenario happens: the White Sox trade Buehrle to Team B after 2008. He's no longer in line to become a 5-10 player in June 2010, and he still only gets paid at his hometown discount rate for 2009. If he can't just void his contract and become a free agent, the only thing he can do is demand a trade at the end of the 2009 season. His attractive $14 million multi-year deal makes it likely that team B will be able to trade him. If Team B meets his demand, he loses the right to become a free agent for the next three years. He's given up a substantial amount of guaranteed money (probably somewhere between $20 and $40 million) for the sake of staying in Chicago, but he's only managed to gain ONE extra year here. Even if he has the right to block trades to a handful of other teams, he's still going to wind up having given his hometown discount to someone else for 2009, 2010, and 2011. (And he'll possibly be under Team C's control for 2012?)


IIRC, this was the case with Javy. He did have the right to demand a trade, but he didn't have any control over where he was traded to (outside of and partial NTC clauses in the contract such as a list of no-trade teams).

So theoretically, the DBacks could have traded Javy to the KC Royals and he'd have had no control over it. The key is that having demanded the trade and been traded, the player then is arb eligible at the conclusion of the contract, so the Royals would have had arb rights over Javy (as the Sox did before the extension).

So while it's potentially useful to the player, it's not anywhere close to actual NTC clauses. Burls could theoretically be dealt to NYY (assuming he wouldn't want to go there), then demand a trade, get dealt, and be "stuck" beyond the term of his contract in that new location.

Far better for Mark if he just gets the NTC. Hopefully they can work something out. If the issue for KW is actually the precedent, hopefully they can work something out where KW promises Mark not to deal him without his approval - assuming Mark thinks KW's a man of his word, that could be enough.

Chicken Dinner
07-03-2007, 12:05 PM
Just playing devil's advocate....

If he does get traded, and it works out for the Sox, I wonder if that thread will have over 1,000 replies like this one has?

Just wait for the "appreciation" thread. :smile:

jdm2662
07-03-2007, 12:09 PM
Just wait for the "appreciation" thread. :smile:

Considering what Miguel Olivo and Jeremy Fricking Reed got as appreciation, it's going to be lively for someone that actually deserves appreication.

upperdeckusc
07-03-2007, 12:12 PM
Considering what Miguel Olivo and Jeremy Fricking Reed got as appreication, it's going to lively for someone that actually deserves appreication.

was that english?

ma-gaga
07-03-2007, 12:20 PM
The Mariners believe they are in contention this year. And looking at the standings, they definitely are in the mix. So the good folks at USS Mariner have put together what they believe a good offer for Mark Buerhle would be.

*WARNING* These are not household names. Just prospects to chew on:

Wladimir Balentien and Jeff Clement
Wladimir Balentien, Ryan Feierabend, and Rob Johnson
Wladimir Balentien, Chris Tillman, and Greg Halman

I know next to nothing about most of these guys. I know that earlier this year this site was suggesting that the Twins/Mariners hook up to trade something like Wladimir for Baker (http://ussmariner.com/2007/05/08/three-trades-that-should-happen-tomorrow/). ... So when I see one fan group constantly making trade proposals for the same player over and over, that scares me a little bit. I would guess that Wladdy is a little iffy. Maybe he has some off-field baggage. Who knows.

It seems like they also have some bullpen arms already up in the majors (maybe trading away Soriano wasn't as dumb as it sounded). I think there's some potential for KW to obtain "major league talent" there as well.

http://ussmariner.com/2007/07/02/mark-buehrle/

:gulp:

eriqjaffe
07-03-2007, 12:24 PM
If the issue for KW is actually the precedent, hopefully they can work something out where KW promises Mark not to deal him without his approval"Sure, I'll give you that NTC, but not in writing - how's that strike you?"

Tragg
07-03-2007, 12:41 PM
The Mariners believe they are in contention this year. And looking at the standings, they definitely are in the mix. So the good folks at USS Mariner have put together what they believe a good offer for Mark Buerhle would be.


Best I can tell, a bunch of B and C prospects. That's what fans of most teams want to give us.

That guy runs a good site.

Phil Bradley
07-03-2007, 12:51 PM
Nobody in their right mind would compare Buehrle to either Floyd, Gonzales or Broadway, despite their future potential.

I'm just saying that our minor league talent, at least as far as starting pitching is concerned, is not too shabby.

Our minor league pitching might not be too shabby for minor league pitching, but that's about it. I don't want a staff of what if's. Right now, we have a staff of answers, a staff that is not too shabby for major league talent.

Flight #24
07-03-2007, 01:09 PM
"Sure, I'll give you that NTC, but not in writing - how's that strike you?"

I'm with you 100% and I think the Sox should offer up the NTC. Mark's a unique case, IMO moreso than even Konerko.

I'm just saying that if Burls trusts KW to stick to his word, that might be a way around the current impasse. I'm not even sure KW would give him his word, he seems to be so interested in maintaining flexibility that he'd caveat it and make it meaningless like "unless I think it's really better for the team, I won't trade you, so you should make all the sacrifices to stay". To which I'd say "So basically you promise not to trade me in a deal you think makes the team worse? Duh."

kevingrt
07-03-2007, 01:10 PM
Best quote from KW, so laughable. ""But if [Buehrle being traded] happens, it happens. I know what's coming next because there's nothing that people can say, or people can write, or anything else that I haven't already heard when Magglio [Ordonez] left, or when Carlos [Lee] was traded, or Bartolo [Colon] and Frank [Thomas]."

Give me the difference in the four players he mentioned and Mark Buehrle.

Hint:It has to do with a finger.

eriqjaffe
07-03-2007, 01:15 PM
Best quote from KW, so laughable. ""But if [Buehrle being traded] happens, it happens. I know what's coming next because there's nothing that people can say, or people can write, or anything else that I haven't already heard when Magglio [Ordonez] left, or when Carlos [Lee] was traded, or Bartolo [Colon] and Frank [Thomas]."

Give me the difference in the four players he mentioned and Mark Buehrle.

Hint:It has to do with a finger.Frank got a ring, too. Just sayin'.

balke
07-03-2007, 01:16 PM
Best quote from KW, so laughable. ""But if [Buehrle being traded] happens, it happens. I know what's coming next because there's nothing that people can say, or people can write, or anything else that I haven't already heard when Magglio [Ordonez] left, or when Carlos [Lee] was traded, or Bartolo [Colon] and Frank [Thomas]."

Give me the difference in the four players he mentioned and Mark Buehrle.

Hint:It has to do with a finger.

Those guys were all lost due to budget, not a NTC. And if I were Kenny, I wouldn't be bragging about the decision to let CLee or Maggs go. Although I agreed with both moves, he's talking about all-stars he dumped when he had a surplus. Now he's talking about dumping a pitcher (who with Garland) the team can build around.

ilsox7
07-03-2007, 01:18 PM
Best quote from KW, so laughable. ""But if [Buehrle being traded] happens, it happens. I know what's coming next because there's nothing that people can say, or people can write, or anything else that I haven't already heard when Magglio [Ordonez] left, or when Carlos [Lee] was traded, or Bartolo [Colon] and Frank [Thomas]."

Give me the difference in the four players he mentioned and Mark Buehrle.

Hint:It has to do with a finger.

The premise of his point does not change. In fact, the big difference between all of these situations is that Mark apparently is willing to take a hometown discount, whereas the others were not. If anything, that would give the fans a bit of justification in their outrage. However, stupid and incorrect things were yelled and screamed by fans when each of those other players left and I am sure much of the same will happen if Mark goes. KWís whole point is that fan favorites have left this organization in the past and life has gone on (quite well, in fact).

Just b/c Mark was on a World Championship team does not mean the reaction will be materially different. As I said above, the only material difference is that Mark and the organization have apparently agreed on years and numbers. Regardless, I am sure the reaction will follow the historical patterns of the ďcheap, timid, and stupid White Sox.Ē Nothing new there from people.

MeteorsSox4367
07-03-2007, 01:21 PM
No way should Kenny Williams be bragging about the departures of some of the aforementioned players. While hindsight is indeed 20/20, last time I checked Magglio is going to be playing in some game in SF next Tuesday and we're stuck with a quality OF of Terrero, Gonzalez and Mackowiak.

While I felt badly about the losses of Ordonez, Thomas and Lee (especially the first two players), as for Colon, when he left it wasn't that big of a deal.

Just. Sign. Buehrle.

kevingrt
07-03-2007, 01:23 PM
Frank got a ring, too. Just sayin'.

Shingo Takatsu has a ring too and he was more important in '05 then Frank. Still love Frank though.

ilsox7
07-03-2007, 01:27 PM
No way should Kenny Williams be bragging about the departures of some of the aforementioned players. While hindsight is indeed 20/20, last time I checked Magglio is going to be playing in some game in SF next Tuesday and we're stuck with a quality OF of Terrero, Gonzalez and Mackowiak.

While I felt badly about the losses of Ordonez, Thomas and Lee (especially the first two players), as for Colon, when he left it wasn't that big of a deal.

Just. Sign. Buehrle.

I donít think KW is bragging about letting those guys go, but even if he is, he has every right to. Trading Lee and not signing Magglio led directly to a World Series. Itís funny that a lot of people seem to forget that. Everyone keeps trying to say how incredible our outfield could be if we had kept those two. However, we probably do not have a World Series if even one of those two guys was kept around. Thatís a damn good trade-off.

kba
07-03-2007, 01:29 PM
KW made an interesting point when he said that to give one player a complete NTC will invite every future FA that the club tries to sign to request a complete NTC also.

It may be the precedent that KW is worried about, not so much whether or not he will be able to trade MB in that 18-month 'window' when MB may be available to trade.

In other words, this might not be so much about MB as it might be about the way the Sox organization does business, with MB's agent challenging that. In any event, it's a really interesting negotiation going on.


But doesn't the precedent issue work both ways? If Buehrle signs a 4 year/$56 million contract with a NTC, doesn't that make it harder for Garland for instance to insist on a 6 or 7 year deal? Or for some future potential free-agent to demand a break-the-bank contract?

Wouldn't the precedent of this contract help hold down the cost of retaining Garland or signing other starters over the next four years?

MeteorsSox4367
07-03-2007, 01:33 PM
I donít think KW is bragging about letting those guys go, but even if he is, he has every right to. Trading Lee and not signing Magglio led directly to a World Series. Itís funny that a lot of people seem to forget that. Everyone keeps trying to say how incredible our outfield could be if we had kept those two. However, we probably do not have a World Series if even one of those two guys was kept around. Thatís a damn good trade-off.

ilsox7: You're right. It was a great trade-off. I guess I'm just frustrated watching an outfield that consists of a backup shortstop, a reserve third baseman and someone whom other teams didn't want.

My thing with the OF is that if the Sox aren't going to win anything this year, then play guys like Sweeney, BA and Owens who are allegedly slated to be part of the future. No offense to Terrero, Gonzalez and Mackowiak, but let's see what the prospects can do.

y2j2785
07-03-2007, 01:47 PM
No way should Kenny Williams be bragging about the departures of some of the aforementioned players. While hindsight is indeed 20/20, last time I checked Magglio is going to be playing in some game in SF next Tuesday and we're stuck with a quality OF of Terrero, Gonzalez and Mackowiak.

While I felt badly about the losses of Ordonez, Thomas and Lee (especially the first two players), as for Colon, when he left it wasn't that big of a deal.

Just. Sign. Buehrle.

Why wasnt losing Bartolo Colon a big deal? He went on to win a Cy Young award.

ilsox7
07-03-2007, 01:52 PM
Why wasnt losing Bartolo Colon a big deal? He went on to win a Cy Young award.

Heís also been hurt a LOT over the years. If the Sox gave him the long-term deal he demanded, itís highly likely that it would have crippled the organization.

ilsox7
07-03-2007, 01:53 PM
ilsox7: You're right. It was a great trade-off. I guess I'm just frustrated watching an outfield that consists of a backup shortstop, a reserve third baseman and someone whom other teams didn't want.

My thing with the OF is that if the Sox aren't going to win anything this year, then play guys like Sweeney, BA and Owens who are allegedly slated to be part of the future. No offense to Terrero, Gonzalez and Mackowiak, but let's see what the prospects can do.

Thatís a fair argument.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 02:00 PM
My thing with the OF is that if the Sox aren't going to win anything this year, then play guys like Sweeney, BA and Owens who are allegedly slated to be part of the future. No offense to Terrero, Gonzalez and Mackowiak, but let's see what the prospects can do.

Thank You!!!

jdm2662
07-03-2007, 02:08 PM
Why wasnt losing Bartolo Colon a big deal? He went on to win a Cy Young award.

One good season doesn't justify a four year contract where he pitched like crap one season (over 5 ERA in 2004), and been hurt the last two seasons. He also was unavailable in the ALCS against the Sox. That's almost saying letting Alex Fernandez go wasn't a big deal (32 starts in his first year, 32 in the last four years combined).

Chicken Dinner
07-03-2007, 02:10 PM
Kenny obviously doesn't sign players that have had prior injuries ie. Thomas, Ordonez, or Colon..... he waits for the healthy guys like Thome, Erstad, Crede, Pods.

dwalteroo
07-03-2007, 02:18 PM
Kenny obviously doesn't sign players that have had prior injuries ie. Thomas, Ordonez, or Colon..... he waits for the healthy guys like Thome, Erstad, Crede, Pods.

That's the grinder way!

kevingrt
07-03-2007, 02:25 PM
Kenny obviously doesn't sign players that have had prior injuries ie. Thomas, Ordonez, or Colon..... he waits for the healthy guys like Thome, Erstad, Crede, Pods.

Classic and well thought out. I like it a lot!

TDog
07-03-2007, 02:30 PM
Kenny obviously doesn't sign players that have had prior injuries ie. Thomas, Ordonez, or Colon..... he waits for the healthy guys like Thome, Erstad, Crede, Pods.

You left out Dye.

Chicken Dinner
07-03-2007, 02:34 PM
You left out Dye.

Your so right.....silly me.

FJA
07-03-2007, 02:53 PM
Best quote from KW, so laughable. ""But if [Buehrle being traded] happens, it happens. I know what's coming next because there's nothing that people can say, or people can write, or anything else that I haven't already heard when Magglio [Ordonez] left, or when Carlos [Lee] was traded, or Bartolo [Colon] and Frank [Thomas]."

Give me the difference in the four players he mentioned and Mark Buehrle.

Hint:It has to do with a finger.

I don't think Kenny does know what's coming next. When Frank and Maggs left, there were serious questions whether either would ever play again. I don't know anyone in their right mind who was thinking, at that time, that Kenny had made a terrible mistake. Hell, Detroit was the only team to offer Maggs a contract, and Frank signed with Oakland for next to nothing. It might have been sad to see them go, but it was smart at the time, regardless of how it turned out.

Bartolo was asking for something like $14 million per year, if I remember correctly, which seemed like a totally ridiculous number at the time. And you could see the injury-prone years coming from a mile away. I would have been outraged then had we been stuck with that for three or four years, regardless of a Cy Young award I'm still not sure how he won.

Carlos is the only truly "controversial" transaction out of the bunch, but it was a trade for value - not a failure to sign - and it reflected an emerging on-field philosophy. A lot of us had grown tired of the station-to-station, three-run homer club of 2001-04 and, in particular, Carlos' boneheaded baserunning that cost us quite a few runs over the years. It was definitely a bold move, but Carlos was the embodiment of all that was right and wrong with the White Sox of 2001-04. It was neither surprising nor particularly disappointing when he left, and he almost needed to for a supposedly new era to begin; the shocking thing was what Kenny got in return, not what he sent out.

If Buehrle is traded, it won't be because we're trying to get away from solid, young pitching as a club philosophy. He is neither injured, injury-prone, nor asking for an unreasonable contract. While I think most of us can understand Kenny's position on the NTC, we're also able to balance the incredible discount we might get on one of this upcoming off-season's top free agents. Kenny needs to stop patting himself on the back for not blindly sticking by other players and realize that this situation is totally different. The sooner he drops the ego, the better, because we'll be going through this same **** with Garland next year.

Jaffar
07-03-2007, 03:17 PM
I don't think Kenny does know what's coming next. When Frank and Maggs left, there were serious questions whether either would ever play again. I don't know anyone in their right mind who was thinking, at that time, that Kenny had made a terrible mistake. Hell, Detroit was the only team to offer Maggs a contract, and Frank signed with Oakland for next to nothing. It might have been sad to see them go, but it was smart at the time, regardless of how it turned out.

Bartolo was asking for something like $14 million per year, if I remember correctly, which seemed like a totally ridiculous number at the time. And you could see the injury-prone years coming from a mile away. I would have been outraged then had we been stuck with that for three or four years, regardless of a Cy Young award I'm still not sure how he won.

Carlos is the only truly "controversial" transaction out of the bunch, but it was a trade for value - not a failure to sign - and it reflected an emerging on-field philosophy. A lot of us had grown tired of the station-to-station, three-run homer club of 2001-04 and, in particular, Carlos' boneheaded baserunning that cost us quite a few runs over the years. It was definitely a bold move, but Carlos was the embodiment of all that was right and wrong with the White Sox of 2001-04. It was neither surprising nor particularly disappointing when he left, and he almost needed to for a supposedly new era to begin; the shocking thing was what Kenny got in return, not what he sent out.

If Buehrle is traded, it won't be because we're trying to get away from solid, young pitching as a club philosophy. He is neither injured, injury-prone, nor asking for an unreasonable contract. While I think most of us can understand Kenny's position on the NTC, we're also able to balance the incredible discount we might get on one of this upcoming off-season's top free agents. Kenny needs to stop patting himself on the back for not blindly sticking by other players and realize that this situation is totally different. The sooner he drops the ego, the better, because we'll be going through this same **** with Garland next year.

Very well said on the whole thing. The Garland part is what concerns me most. If Buehrle isn't re-signed I don't even see Garland discussing contracts with the Sox based on how this is going down.

dwalteroo
07-03-2007, 03:36 PM
Very well said on the whole thing. The Garland part is what concerns me most. If Buehrle isn't re-signed I don't even see Garland discussing contracts with the Sox based on how this is going down.

No kidding - no way is Garland going to put up with this BS. He strikes me as too calm, too controversy-averse. He'll just walk.

roylestillman
07-03-2007, 03:43 PM
This may have been brought up before, but how about this for saving face. The Sox don't want to give the NTC for flexibility sake, yet Kenny says trust me it isn't going to be a sign and trade deal. Buehrle is ready, by most accounts to give a hometown discount, but doesn't want to find himself traded to whoever at a below market rate. So what about signing the 4 year $56 million contract with a clause that says if we trade you in year one you get a let's say $4 million payment. Year two a $2 million payment. By year 3 you're a 10/5 guy so we can't trade you. You've given your discount, and if the Sox trade you you've got some portion of the market value back.

Discuss.

...
07-03-2007, 03:46 PM
This may have been brought up before, but how about this for saving face. The Sox don't want to give the NTC for flexibility sake, yet Kenny says trust me it isn't going to be a sign and trade deal. Buehrle is ready, by most accounts to give a hometown discount, but doesn't want to find himself traded to whoever at a below market rate. So what about signing the 4 year $56 million contract with a clause that says if we trade you in year one you get a let's say $4 million payment. Year two a $2 million payment. By year 3 you're a 10/5 guy so we can't trade you. You've given your discount, and if the Sox trade you you've got some portion of the market value back.

Discuss.

Because that defeats the purpose of refusing the no trade clause in the first place...

soxinem1
07-03-2007, 03:49 PM
This domino effect is quite possible, and more than likely probable.

While I agree with the general philosophy with the long-term deals, this is one time an exception should be made, especially if we are to beleive that the team is just going to re-tool, not overhaul.

And while I am not a big Garland fan, it would be a shame if both these guys hit the road and they would have nothing to show. It's not like weither resemble Dave Mlicki or some of the other scrubs that have had a boatload of cash dumped on them the past few years.

ilsox7
07-03-2007, 03:50 PM
I don't think Kenny does know what's coming next. When Frank and Maggs left, there were serious questions whether either would ever play again. I don't know anyone in their right mind who was thinking, at that time, that Kenny had made a terrible mistake. Hell, Detroit was the only team to offer Maggs a contract, and Frank signed with Oakland for next to nothing. It might have been sad to see them go, but it was smart at the time, regardless of how it turned out.

Bartolo was asking for something like $14 million per year, if I remember correctly, which seemed like a totally ridiculous number at the time. And you could see the injury-prone years coming from a mile away. I would have been outraged then had we been stuck with that for three or four years, regardless of a Cy Young award I'm still not sure how he won.

Carlos is the only truly "controversial" transaction out of the bunch, but it was a trade for value - not a failure to sign - and it reflected an emerging on-field philosophy. A lot of us had grown tired of the station-to-station, three-run homer club of 2001-04 and, in particular, Carlos' boneheaded baserunning that cost us quite a few runs over the years. It was definitely a bold move, but Carlos was the embodiment of all that was right and wrong with the White Sox of 2001-04. It was neither surprising nor particularly disappointing when he left, and he almost needed to for a supposedly new era to begin; the shocking thing was what Kenny got in return, not what he sent out.

If Buehrle is traded, it won't be because we're trying to get away from solid, young pitching as a club philosophy. He is neither injured, injury-prone, nor asking for an unreasonable contract. While I think most of us can understand Kenny's position on the NTC, we're also able to balance the incredible discount we might get on one of this upcoming off-season's top free agents. Kenny needs to stop patting himself on the back for not blindly sticking by other players and realize that this situation is totally different. The sooner he drops the ego, the better, because we'll be going through this same **** with Garland next year.

The entire problem with your post is what I bolded. Take a look around WSI and you'll see plenty of people nowhere near being in their right mind. To this day, you can find posts *****ing about Frank being gone. Hell, in this thread you can find posts wishing we'd have broght Magglio and Lee back.

soxtalker
07-03-2007, 04:07 PM
Very well said on the whole thing. The Garland part is what concerns me most. If Buehrle isn't re-signed I don't even see Garland discussing contracts with the Sox based on how this is going down.

There seems to be a general assumption among fans (or at least on WSI) that the Sox will keep Garland. That doesn't seem obvious at all to me. He's pitching well, so fans tend to want to keep him. But that also makes him one of the most marketable players on our team. KW almost traded him in the off season. There's a lot of discussion here about players not wanting to go through this protracted semi-public negotiation; well, KW probably doesn't want to go through it either. And, if MB is signed, I would think that it only increases the chances that Garland will be traded.

FJA
07-03-2007, 04:08 PM
The entire problem with your post is what I bolded. Take a look around WSI and you'll see plenty of people nowhere near being in their right mind. To this day, you can find posts *****ing about Frank being gone. Hell, in this thread you can find posts wishing we'd have broght Magglio and Lee back.

I did say I didn't know anybody in their right mind. :tongue:

I'm not going to search through old posts and name names, but to anyone who is upset we didn't pay Frank $10 million after his being injured for most of two years in his late 30s, or Magglio $14 million for five years after he had to go to Austria to find a satisfactory medical opinion, or Bartolo Colon $14 million a year for several years of overweight, injured, and inconsistent goodness, all I can say is I'm glad you're not the general manager. None of the situations surrounding those players is applicable to the situation with Buehrle.

Carlos raises the only legitimate argument in my mind, but it's hard to take seriously people who still ***** about that unless they're willing to give up 2005.

DeadMoney
07-03-2007, 04:08 PM
Here's my solution...

Santana has a no trade clause that looks something like this:

limited no-trade clause 2006-08
may block trades to 3 clubs in 05, 8 in 06, 10 in 07 & 12 in 08
full no-trade clause for 2007-08 with top 3 in CY vote in 06 or 07
full no-trade clause for 2009 with top 3 in CY vote in 08Link (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/minnesota-twins_17.html)

Put something together like that with an All-Star clause or SOMETHING for those 18 'unprotected' months (not necessarily of the CY Young level), and I think you may be much closer to getting something done.

gobears1987
07-03-2007, 04:35 PM
All I have to say is that Kenny Williams is the person who called Frank a moron!?!?!? I think this bull**** he is doing to MB makes him the moron.

ilsox7
07-03-2007, 04:44 PM
There seems to be a general assumption among fans (or at least on WSI) that the Sox will keep Garland. That doesn't seem obvious at all to me. He's pitching well, so fans tend to want to keep him. But that also makes him one of the most marketable players on our team. KW almost traded him in the off season. There's a lot of discussion here about players not wanting to go through this protracted semi-public negotiation; well, KW probably doesn't want to go through it either. And, if MB is signed, I would think that it only increases the chances that Garland will be traded.

I actually think Gar may be traded if Mark re-signs. I hope not, but that's what my gut says.

JB98
07-03-2007, 05:12 PM
I actually think Gar may be traded if Mark re-signs. I hope not, but that's what my gut says.

Kenny has tried to trade Garland at least twice. Unfortunately, my ample gut is telling me the same thing your gut is telling you.

Garland will get moved by the trade deadline if Buehrle signs. If Mark is traded, Garland will be retained for the rest of the year and traded over the offseason.

103 screwball
07-03-2007, 05:17 PM
Because that defeats the purpose of refusing the no trade clause in the first place...

True. However, why give a huge discount to stay with the Sox if all he is doing is making himself an attractive trading chip. Mark is giving a the Sox a break in years and cash, for that he deservers the NTC or something that insures that his contract increases in value.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 05:20 PM
Shingo Takatsu has a ring too and he was more important in '05 then Frank. Still love Frank though.

I completely disagree with that. Other than the Opening Day save, Shingo was done by mid April of that year. Frank single-handidly put this team on his back for a couple of weeks in June of '05 when they started showing signs of getting tired. There was a game against Tamps Bay that he single-handidly won with a three run bomb in the 7th or 8th.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 05:21 PM
Everyone keeps trying to say how incredible our outfield could be if we had kept those two. However, we probably do not have a World Series if even one of those two guys was kept around. Thatís a damn good trade-off.

Absolutely great trade off, and the people who are saying that completely miss the point that, logistically, it would have been impossible to keep both of those guys with the kind of money they would have been making.

Martinigirl
07-03-2007, 05:23 PM
Kenny has tried to trade Garland at least twice. Unfortunately, my ample gut is telling me the same thing your gut is telling you.

Garland will get moved by the trade deadline if Buehrle signs. If Mark is traded, Garland will be retained for the rest of the year and traded over the offseason.


Good god I hope you are wrong. Losing one would be bad, losing both would be a disaster.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 05:27 PM
There seems to be a general assumption among fans (or at least on WSI) that the Sox will keep Garland. That doesn't seem obvious at all to me.

My gut feeling is that Garland, being a California guy with no real midwestern ties, is going to want to play on the west coast (added to the fact that the Sox have essentially tried to trade him, very publically, twice since he's been here). Garland hasn't necessary shown the love for the organization or city that Buehrle has.

I'd like to see the Sox keep both guys, and I hope they do.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 05:29 PM
I'm not going to search through old posts and name names, but to anyone who is upset we didn't pay Frank $10 million after his being injured for most of two years in his late 30s, or Magglio $14 million for five years after he had to go to Austria to find a satisfactory medical opinion, or Bartolo Colon $14 million a year for several years of overweight, injured, and inconsistent goodness, all I can say is I'm glad you're not the general manager.

Of those three players, the Colon situation was the most upsetting. Frank and Magglio were huge question marks because they were both coming off of season ending (and possibly career ending) injuries. Colon had a decent year in '03.

To his credit, didn't KW offer Colon the largest contract EVER offered by the Sox organization to a pitcher? Colon still turned it down for insane LAA money, so you can't necessarily blame KW.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 05:32 PM
Garland will get moved by the trade deadline if Buehrle signs. If Mark is traded, Garland will be retained for the rest of the year and traded over the offseason.

My hope is that Buehrle is re-signed, Garland is not traded and eventually re-signs, and the Sox part with Contreras' declining skills and Vazquez' inability to get a big out to save his life. Add Danks to the mix, and we've got three solid starters to build around.

...
07-03-2007, 05:50 PM
True. However, why give a huge discount to stay with the Sox if all he is doing is making himself an attractive trading chip. Mark is giving a the Sox a break in years and cash, for that he deservers the NTC or something that insures that his contract increases in value.

Even though it defeats the purpose of not allowing Mark a full NTC, I completely agree. Mark has sacrificed, and Kenny needs to meet him in the middle. Breaking the 'rule' of not giving any pitcher a contract over three years (instead, giving Mark a four year contract) is not compromising IMO, it's reality. Any free agent pitcher that is willing to sign a three year contract in today's market is looking for work and will most likely pitch as such.

Kenny, give the man a limited NTC that covers the entire contract, Mark's waiting for you in the middle...

JB98
07-03-2007, 05:56 PM
Good god I hope you are wrong. Losing one would be bad, losing both would be a disaster.

I want badly to be wrong. Buehrle and Garland both rank among my favorite Sox players of all time. We've watched these guys grow into the outstanding pitchers they are today. I hope they hang around to anchor our next championship rotation.

JB98
07-03-2007, 05:57 PM
My hope is that Buehrle is re-signed, Garland is not traded and eventually re-signs, and the Sox part with Contreras' declining skills and Vazquez' inability to get a big out to save his life. Add Danks to the mix, and we've got three solid starters to build around.

Agree 100 percent. But Vazquez is here to stay, like him or not. If he's a back-of-the-rotation guy, I can live with that. Even though he's being paid front-of-the-rotation money. If KW is trying to build a rotation around Javy, we're in trouble.

Contreras got old quickly. Trade him to the Mets for whatever we can get.

champagne030
07-03-2007, 06:04 PM
My hope is that Buehrle is re-signed, Garland is not traded and eventually re-signs, and the Sox part with Contreras' declining skills and Vazquez' inability to get a big out to save his life. Add Danks to the mix, and we've got three solid starters to build around.

Those are clearly the 3 best pitchers to build the starting staff around. No if's, and's or but's. KW has all the roster flexibility in the world. He just needs to dump JC and JV if he's looking for payroll relief and to restock his minor league system. They will, IMO, bring more in return than a 3 month rental of Mark.

oeo
07-03-2007, 06:05 PM
Kenny has tried to trade Garland at least twice. Unfortunately, my ample gut is telling me the same thing your gut is telling you.

We would have gotten a killing in that Astros trade. We would have a nice young outfield with Taveras and Pence, as well as Hirsh who is only 25 (although he's on the DL now). :drool:

I'll take Garland, though, too. Looking back, I think Kenny's plan for this year was probably about Plan E. If that trade goes down, we have a healthy lead off hitter and another young outfielder that's coming into his own. We're not the same old, slow, station-to-station offense. Although our SP wouldn't be as good, it would be interesting to see where we would be if it did go through, though.

JB98
07-03-2007, 06:12 PM
We would have gotten a killing in that Astros trade. We would have a nice young outfield with Taveras and Pence, as well as Hirsh who is only 25 (although he's on the DL now). :drool:

I'll take Garland, though, too. Looking back, I think Kenny's plan for this year was probably about Plan E. If that trade goes down, we have a healthy lead off hitter and another young outfielder that's coming into his own. We're not the same old, slow, station-to-station offense. Although our SP wouldn't be as good, it would be interesting to see where we would be if it did go through, though.

We'd still suck. Our starting pitching wouldn't be as good, and our bullpen would still be the worst in the league.

Hirsh is only 25, but Garland is only 27 and proven. I'd much rather have Jon. Obviously, we need some outfield help, and it's been very disappointing to see our outfield prospects fail to contribute this season.

oeo
07-03-2007, 06:14 PM
We'd still suck. Our starting pitching wouldn't be as good, and our bullpen would still be the worst in the league.

Hirsh is only 25, but Garland is only 27 and proven. I'd much rather have Jon. Obviously, we need some outfield help, and it's been very disappointing to see our outfield prospects fail to contribute this season.

Maybe we would still suck, but our future would be brighter. Right now we look like a bunch of old, has-beens. Willie Taveras and Hunter Pence would have changed that...and with the extra money freed up, who knows who else Kenny could have picked up for the bullpen. This trade would have went down in December, so there was a lot of time for other changes to happen. We wouldn't have the Charlotte Knights out there, Erstad would have never been signed, Pods probably wouldn't have been brought back, etc.

JB98
07-03-2007, 06:20 PM
Maybe we would still suck, but our future would be brighter. Right now we look like a bunch of old, has-beens. Willie Taveras and Hunter Pence would have changed that...and with the extra money freed up, who knows who else Kenny could have picked up for the bullpen. This trade would have went down in December, so there was a lot of time for other changes to happen. We wouldn't have the Charlotte Knights out there, Erstad would have never been signed, Pods probably wouldn't have been brought back, etc.

The bottom line is, if that trade happens, it's done to retool for the future. I don't think too many of us would have been interested in hearing about the future this past offseason.

Like most Sox fans, I was thinking, "One more run with this core group." I knew this team was aging, but I truly believed we would contend this season. There is absolutely no way I would have supported a trade of Garland back in the winter because it would have weakened us for 2007.

I'm not going to pretend otherwise with the benefit of hindsight. I'm not suggesting you are pretending otherwise, just speaking for myself here.

oeo
07-03-2007, 06:23 PM
The bottom line is, if that trade happens, it's done to retool for the future. I don't think too many of us would have been interested in hearing about the future this past offseason.

I disagree with this. Taveras and Pence are making an impact right now...Mackowiak and Terrero, not so much.

Like most Sox fans, I was thinking, "One more run with this core group." I knew this team was aging, but I truly believed we would contend this season. There is absolutely no way I would have supported a trade of Garland back in the winter because it would have weakened us for 2007.

I'm not going to pretend otherwise with the benefit of hindsight. I'm not suggesting you are pretending otherwise, just speaking for myself here.I'm just interested in how it would have turned out. Like I said, I like having Garland here; I'm not saying I wish it would have happened...just what if.

This lineup looks a lot better than the one we're currently putting out there:
Taveras, CF
Pence, LF
Thome, DH
Paulie, 1B
Dye, RF
AJ, C
Gooch, 2B
Fields, 3B
Uribe, SS

But again, it's just fun thinking, what if? I mean the reason it didn't happen was because the Astros didn't want to include Pence, so it's not like I'm saying Kenny should have pulled the trigger...he wanted to, just wasn't getting the guy he wanted.

JB98
07-03-2007, 06:28 PM
I disagree with this. Taveras and Pence are making an impact right now...Mackowiak and Terrero, not so much.

Well, it isn't like we went into the season thinking we'd be relying on Mackowiak and Terrero this much. In addition to sucking, we've had catastrophe after catastrophe injury-wise.

If Pence were on the Sox, he'd probably be batting .220 with our luck. We haven't had a young player come in and make an immediate impact since Maggs and CLee came up in the late 90s.

oeo
07-03-2007, 06:30 PM
Well, it isn't like we went into the season thinking we'd be relying on Mackowiak and Terrero this much. In addition to sucking, we've had catastrophe after catastrophe injury-wise.

Fine, Taveras+Pence > Pods+Erstad+Terrero+Mackowiak+Gonzalez+...I could go on.

If Pence were on the Sox, he'd probably be batting .220 with our luck. We haven't had a young player come in and make an immediate impact since Maggs and CLee came up in the late 90s.If Pence was batting in front of Thome, I disagree. It's all moot, though.

Bottom line is, for all the crap Kenny has gotten, he was trying to get this team younger and more talented, it just didn't work out. I'll hold back on him until he starts signing the Pods and Erstads every year.

JB98
07-03-2007, 06:44 PM
Fine, Taveras+Pence > Pods+Erstad+Terrero+Mackowiak+Gonzalez+...I could go on.

Maybe, but Garland > Hirsh, and pitching wins.

As a general rule, you can contend going through growing pains with one young starting pitcher, but not two.

oeo
07-03-2007, 06:47 PM
Maybe, but Garland > Hirsh, and pitching wins.

As a general rule, you can contend going through growing pains with one young starting pitcher, but not two.

I've already said that our SP would be worse. I'm not going to argue this, but until some guys are traded now for some younger pieces, we'd be in better shape in terms of our future than we are now if that trade happened.

champagne030
07-03-2007, 06:56 PM
I've already said that our SP would be worse. I'm not going to argue this, but until some guys are traded now for some younger pieces, we'd be in better shape in terms of our future than we are now if that trade happened.

Deal JC or JV to the Mets now.

I never heard the offer for Garland was Hirsh, Pence and Taveras. I thought it was Hirsh, Taveras and Buchholz. I might be wrong.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 06:58 PM
We would have gotten a killing in that Astros trade. We would have a nice young outfield with Taveras and Pence, as well as Hirsh who is only 25 (although he's on the DL now). :drool:



ARe you sure that they offered Taveras and Pence and Hirsch? That's their 2 top prospects and their starting CF.
If they did, wow.

2 of those is what I'd like to see for MB. I'm afraid it will be two Bs and two Cs.

upperdeckusc
07-03-2007, 07:00 PM
Deal JC or JV to the Mets now.

I never heard the offer for Garland was Hirsh, Pence and Taveras. I thought it was Hirsh, Taveras and Buchholz. I might be wrong.

thats what i heard too. no way we were getting pence AND hirsch AND taveras. so that talk can just stop. if we were getting pence and hirsch in the same deal, im pretty sure garland wouldnt be here. and i cant really say i'd be mad about it either.

Frontman
07-03-2007, 07:04 PM
I completely disagree with that. Other than the Opening Day save, Shingo was done by mid April of that year. Frank single-handidly put this team on his back for a couple of weeks in June of '05 when they started showing signs of getting tired. There was a game against Tamps Bay that he single-handidly won with a three run bomb in the 7th or 8th.

Agreed. While Frank's contribution to the '05 squad was limited, he did help win games that might of made the difference when the Indians were surging and threatening to overtake the Sox in August/September.

oeo
07-03-2007, 07:09 PM
ARe you sure that they offered Taveras and Pence and Hirsch? That's their 2 top prospects and their starting CF.
If they did, wow.

2 of those is what I'd like to see for MB. I'm afraid it will be two Bs and two Cs.

Okay, I'm wrong. Pence was rumored in another deal for Andruw Jones at around the same time.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 07:12 PM
Okay, I'm wrong. Pence was rumored in another deal for Andruw Jones at around the same time.

Still, it was something to look at; although Taveras hadn's shown much at the plate at the time, he seemed to fit Oz's philosophy. And Hirsch was their top prospect (with pence).
I think we could have gotten TAveras by himself cheap - maybe a middle reliever (boy, wouldn't that have been nice in retrospect).

My hope is that Buehrle is re-signed, Garland is not traded and eventually re-signs, and the Sox part with Contreras' declining skills and Vazquez' inability to get a big out to save his life. Add Danks to the mix, and we've got three solid starters to build around.
Personally, I'd trade Garland and keep Vasquez (if we must part with one). Vasquez is improving and he's the one pitcher of the bunch who could develop into that elite #1 starter. (it's been a long wait, I know).
MB, Danks and Vasquez....get a prospect for Contreras and a nice haul for Garland.

RowanDye
07-03-2007, 07:56 PM
Still, it was something to look at; although Taveras hadn's shown much at the plate at the time, he seemed to fit Oz's philosophy. And Hirsch was their top prospect (with pence).
I think we could have gotten TAveras by himself cheap - maybe a middle reliever (boy, wouldn't that have been nice in retrospect).


Personally, I'd trade Garland and keep Vasquez (if we must part with one). Vasquez is improving and he's the one pitcher of the bunch who could develop into that elite #1 starter. (it's been a long wait, I know).
MB, Danks and Vasquez....get a prospect for Contreras and a nice haul for Garland.

It better be an outstanding haul. Big Jon has been one of the best pitchers in baseball for the past 3 years.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 07:59 PM
Personally, I'd trade Garland and keep Vasquez (if we must part with one). Vasquez is improving and he's the one pitcher of the bunch who could develop into that elite #1 starter. (it's been a long wait, I know).

Garland has improved every single year, if not by numbers then by mound presence and confidence. I'd go to war with Garland any day of the week, but Vazquez scares the hell out of me. I think Garland is a solid #2 starter, while Vazquez will never live up to that #1 potential.

WSox597
07-03-2007, 08:03 PM
Buehrle, Garland, and Danks are what the Sox should build on. Giving Vazquez the kind of money they did is beyond stupid.

The guy is not a winner. For all of the whining people do about no run support, you can't give him enough runs. Tonight the Sox score in the bottom of the first. How does he handle that? BAM! Lead off home run, top of the second. Millar sent that STUFF into the left field seats.

It blows me away that the Sox gave this mutt so much money and an extension, and then mess with Buehrle and Garland. It makes no sense, unless you were going to trade Vazquez after getting him signed. Not right after, of course, but the immediate future.

Building the rotation around Vazquez and whoever is a recipe for disaster, and an empty ballpark. Because, unlike the "other" team in town, Sox fans don't come to the park if the product sucks. Which is good, since it forces the organization to produce.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-03-2007, 08:44 PM
Vazquez is a #5, not an ace. What do you expect him to do. Look at some of the pitchers we've had in the past in the #5 spot: Wright, Schoeneweis, Munoz, El Duque; Vazque has outperformed all of them. Plus who would you rather have insted of him? One of the unproven minor leaguers such as Gio or Floyd? You're not going to have a rotation full of Mark Buehrles. Vazquez is as good as it gets when it comes to a #5 starter.

Domeshot17
07-03-2007, 08:46 PM
If it was my call, and this is very wishful thinking, we look something like this next year

Castillo 2b (FA)
Hunter CF (fa)
Thome DH
Konerko 1b
A. Jones RF (FA)
AJ C
Fields 3b
Eckstein SS
Sweeney LF

BENCH
Pablo
Mack
Pods
Hall
Gonzalez

Rotation
Burls
Garland
Vaz
Danks
Floyd (if he keeps up this work in triple a) if not Massett

Bullpen
Massett
Macdougal
Thornton
Linebrink (FA)
Julio (FA)
Jenks
Logan

Defensively it makes us top notch, powerful offense with a variety of hitters, much more speed, the pitching is solid. I know this won't be the way it is because it probably looks like a 120-125 mil payroll, but that is a team right there that can win a world series.

Domeshot17
07-03-2007, 08:48 PM
Vazquez is a #5, not an ace. What do you expect him to do. Look at some of the pitchers we've had in the past in the #5 spot: Wright, Schoeneweis, Munoz, El Duque; Vazque has outperformed all of them. Plus who would you rather have insted of him? One of the unproven minor leaguers such as Gio or Floyd? You're not going to have a rotation full of Mark Buehrles. Vazquez is as good as it gets when it comes to a #5 starter.


I disagree, for 12-14 million a year, you better be atleast a number 3.

The problem is Vazquez is a number 1 who pitches like a number 3. He has dominating stuff but cant keep it up all year, so hes like a 3rd pitcher. Different from a guy like Garland who has number 3 stuff but pitches like a 2. Not a guy you can build a rotation around, but a guy who can step it up 15 times a year.

Frontman
07-03-2007, 08:56 PM
I can handle Javy being streaky, as long as he winds up with a winning record. The Javy of 2007 is worth keeping. If he reverts to his performance last year? Scary.

MB, Garland, Javy, Danks. I agree these four are the four to keep. While I'll always appreciate Jose for his 2005 season, he isn't as good as the Sox have advertised. Not last year; certainly not this year.

Brian26
07-03-2007, 09:03 PM
If it was my call, and this is very wishful thinking, we look something like this next year

You have the Sox signing Castillo, Hunter, Andruw Jones, Julio, Linebrink, and Eckstein (Is he a free agent too or is this a trade?)

That's a pretty big jump in payroll.

TheOldRoman
07-03-2007, 09:13 PM
I completely disagree with that. Other than the Opening Day save, Shingo was done by mid April of that year. Frank single-handidly put this team on his back for a couple of weeks in June of '05 when they started showing signs of getting tired. There was a game against Tamps Bay that he single-handidly won with a three run bomb in the 7th or 8th.
Maybe we remember 2005 differently. Frank didn't put anyone on his back. Of course, the time he was with the club was the time the team was playing their best ball of the year, and he was a huge part of that. However, they were playing great before Frank, and continued playing really good for a few weeks after Frank left. They didn't start showing signs of struggling or getting tired until the very end of July.

oeo
07-03-2007, 09:18 PM
Vazquez is a #5, not an ace. What do you expect him to do. Look at some of the pitchers we've had in the past in the #5 spot: Wright, Schoeneweis, Munoz, El Duque; Vazque has outperformed all of them. Plus who would you rather have insted of him? One of the unproven minor leaguers such as Gio or Floyd? You're not going to have a rotation full of Mark Buehrles. Vazquez is as good as it gets when it comes to a #5 starter.

A #5 my ass. He's a #3 at worst...go back to your fantasy land.

oeo
07-03-2007, 09:19 PM
You have the Sox signing Castillo, Hunter, Andruw Jones, Julio, Linebrink, and Eckstein (Is he a free agent too or is this a trade?)

That's a pretty big jump in payroll.

And it makes our team even older. Do people realize how quickly this team aged? That team may give us one good year and then we're right back where we are this year, except we'll have to live through it for 2 or 3 more years instead of one.

Not only can we not afford filling all our holes through free agency, we shouldn't. We need to bring some youth in. Maybe a veteran middle infielder, and another outfielder (or two if the other comes cheap). No more of this 30+ crap.

And BTW, Andruw Jones sucks...no thanks.

JorgeFabregas
07-03-2007, 09:35 PM
The guy is not a winner. For all of the whining people do about no run support, you can't give him enough runs. Tonight the Sox score in the bottom of the first. How does he handle that? BAM! Lead off home run, top of the second. Millar sent that STUFF into the left field seats.
Hilarious.

...
07-03-2007, 09:40 PM
Buehrle, Garland, and Danks are what the Sox should build on. Giving Vazquez the kind of money they did is beyond stupid.

The guy is not a winner. For all of the whining people do about no run support, you can't give him enough runs. Tonight the Sox score in the bottom of the first. How does he handle that? BAM! Lead off home run, top of the second. Millar sent that STUFF into the left field seats.

It blows me away that the Sox gave this mutt so much money and an extension, and then mess with Buehrle and Garland. It makes no sense, unless you were going to trade Vazquez after getting him signed. Not right after, of course, but the immediate future.

Building the rotation around Vazquez and whoever is a recipe for disaster, and an empty ballpark. Because, unlike the "other" team in town, Sox fans don't come to the park if the product sucks. Which is good, since it forces the organization to produce.

Brilliant!

JB98
07-03-2007, 09:50 PM
I can handle Javy being streaky, as long as he winds up with a winning record. The Javy of 2007 is worth keeping. If he reverts to his performance last year? Scary.

MB, Garland, Javy, Danks. I agree these four are the four to keep. While I'll always appreciate Jose for his 2005 season, he isn't as good as the Sox have advertised. Not last year; certainly not this year.

You don't know what you're going to get with Javy. He's hot and cold. Right now, he's produced three really good ones in a row. Before that, he got cuffed around by the Pirates and such.

He's no more than a No. 4 starter. Maybe a No. 3 at best. And I'm posting that on a night where he turned in perhaps his best performance in a White Sox uniform.

soltrain21
07-03-2007, 09:56 PM
He's no more than a No. 4 starter. Maybe a No. 3 at best. And I'm posting that on a night where he turned in perhaps his best performance in a White Sox uniform.


Didn't he throw a one hitter last year against the Royals? I'm not trying to argue; I'm just seeing if I remember correctly.

Domeshot17
07-03-2007, 09:57 PM
And it makes our team even older. Do people realize how quickly this team aged? That team may give us one good year and then we're right back where we are this year, except we'll have to live through it for 2 or 3 more years instead of one.

Not only can we not afford filling all our holes through free agency, we shouldn't. We need to bring some youth in. Maybe a veteran middle infielder, and another outfielder (or two if the other comes cheap). No more of this 30+ crap.

And BTW, Andruw Jones sucks...no thanks.


The problem is its not there. Do we have any viable option at middle IF in the minors, because next year we are going to need a new middle IF entirely. We have the arms in the minors no doubt, but outside Sweeney and maybe (and its a really big maybe) Brian Anderson, do we have much offensively? I know we have that kid we traded Cunningham for, but I havent heard much as if he will be ready next year.

One thing I did think is with my wishlist, I didnt take into account any trades. Saying we can get a Kemp type hitter for Dye, then you can take Jones off the list. I do have a feeling one of Jones or Hunter will be here next year as we know Kenny loves them both.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 10:06 PM
Vazquez is as good as it gets when it comes to a #5 starter.
You may think he's a #5 and perhaps he's pitched like it (although not recently). But I can assure you that he wasn't brought here to be #5...he was brought here to be a #1.

Hell, we gave a #5 and a bullpen pitcher and our top prospect (who was also our best prospect in years) for him.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 10:08 PM
The problem is its not there. Do we have any viable option at middle IF in the minors, because next year we are going to need a new middle IF entirely. We have the arms in the minors no doubt, but outside Sweeney and maybe (and its a really big maybe) Brian Anderson, do we have much offensively? I know we have that kid we traded Cunningham for, but I havent heard much as if he will be ready next year.

We also need a new outfield entirely. NONE of the legitimate possible AAA replacements are with the big club, although there are obviously numerous openings. We don't seem to have much of a sense of urgency in giving Sweeney and Anderson a good look in the majors.
Which makes me think that one of Iguchi, Crede, Uribe will be re-signed.

JB98
07-03-2007, 10:12 PM
Didn't he throw a one hitter last year against the Royals? I'm not trying to argue; I'm just seeing if I remember correctly.

He took a no-hitter into the seventh against the Royals. Don't think he completed that game though. He has never thrown a complete-game shutout in a Sox uniform.

Frontman
07-03-2007, 10:49 PM
You may think he's a #5 and perhaps he's pitched like it (although not recently). But I can assure you that he wasn't brought here to be #5...he was brought here to be a #1.

Hell, we gave a #5 and a bullpen pitcher and our top prospect (who was also our best prospect in years) for him.

But Tragg, is he #1 stuff? Is he the best chance the Sox have in the five man rotation any time he takes the mound?

I'd have to say no, and I would rank him #3 behind Buehrle and Garland.

Tragg
07-03-2007, 11:10 PM
But Tragg, is he #1 stuff? Is he the best chance the Sox have in the five man rotation any time he takes the mound?

I'd have to say no, and I would rank him #3 behind Buehrle and Garland.
Overall, I would agree with your ranking.
But I also think that he's the only one that could be a real #1. Maybe that's real unlikely...I don't know. Maybe the value of a real #1 isn't that great.

If it were up to me, only Jose would go. But if we have to lose 2 of the 5, I'd vote Garland....but that's just my own flimsy preference and I certainly like Garland and agree that overall he's pitched a lot better than has Javy..

Frontman
07-03-2007, 11:23 PM
That's the thing I absolutely will never understand in sports.

"Ok, time to rebuild. Who should we keep? The guys who do well for us?" GM of a Major League team

"Heck no, boss. We can get MORE if we trade those guys. So what if our shortstop has forgotten how to field a ball and the rest of the team can't run bases? Get rid of the best pitcher you've got and get more 'projects' for the farm system and the pitching coach to work with!" Assistant GM

Kenny is so ready to get rid of Mark, all the while claiming he wants to keep him. I just don't understand that aspect of the biz.

Lip Man 1
07-04-2007, 12:20 AM
Front:

It's generally called cutting your losses and covering your rear end.

What I've never understood is the mentality that says, 'OK we have a guy who has proven himself successful in the big leagues, yet we're willing to trade him (or his ilk) for prospects who may be future Hall of Famers or who may not spend a month in the major leagues.'

I guess I just don't understand 'big league' thinking.

:rolleyes:

For every minor league prospect who comes up and has a successful major league career there are probably five or so who never spend a day in the show.

Some odds eh?

Lip

The Immigrant
07-04-2007, 08:04 AM
Ken Rosenthal chimes in again: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6988444

"The Mark Buehrle contract will get done. It has to get done. The difference between Buehrle and the White Sox ó a year-and-a-half of no-trade protection ó is too small for the deal to collapse."

Frontman
07-04-2007, 09:11 AM
Front:

It's generally called cutting your losses and covering your rear end.

What I've never understood is the mentality that says, 'OK we have a guy who has proven himself successful in the big leagues, yet we're willing to trade him (or his ilk) for prospects who may be future Hall of Famers or who may not spend a month in the major leagues.'

I guess I just don't understand 'big league' thinking.

:rolleyes:

For every minor league prospect who comes up and has a successful major league career there are probably five or so who never spend a day in the show.

Some odds eh?

Lip

Either way, the team is in deep trouble when you have to consider trading away quality pitchers, as they are the hardest player to develop.

southside rocks
07-04-2007, 09:41 AM
Either way, the team is in deep trouble when you have to consider trading away quality pitchers, as they are the hardest player to develop.

Has KW, since he's been GM of the Sox, ever traded pitching without getting pitching in return?

I do not think that he has, but I can't recall every deal, so maybe someone else knows the answer to this?

Tragg
07-04-2007, 09:50 AM
Has KW, since he's been GM of the Sox, ever traded pitching without getting pitching in return?

Marte for Mack.

Steelrod
07-04-2007, 10:42 AM
Marte for Mack.
At the time, Marte wasn't much of a pitcher

UserNameBlank
07-04-2007, 10:44 AM
Marte for Mack.
Rauch and Majewski for Everett also comes to mind. So does Ring for Alomar, although I think the Sox threw in another piece or two along with Royce.

TDog
07-04-2007, 01:23 PM
At the time, Marte wasn't much of a pitcher

It's easy to forget that in 2005, people around here wanted to get rid of Marte because the impression was that he was done. People also wanted Mackowiak, having seen him do very well in games against the Cubs. I'm sure that somewhere in here is an old thread or two that can document this. People didn't care about Ring. People were happy to see Rauch go.

Sox fans would be happy to see the Sox trade MacDougal today. The chances are good that if they do, MacDougal would do better with his new team. That doesn't mean the Sox have bad coaches or a losing atmosphere. That's the way careers go for career relievers.

It's easy to forget that when the White Sox won 11 of 12 postseason games, fans were talking about getting "a bucket of balls" for Marte because you could probably call up some bum from AA to do just as well. I agreed with getting Mackowiak at the time (though I believed Marte would again pitch well and I still believe Mackowiak would be a very good bench player), and I'm not going to whine today about it being a stupid deal.

oeo
07-04-2007, 01:42 PM
Sox fans would be happy to see the Sox trade MacDougal today. The chances are good that if they do, MacDougal would do better with his new team. That doesn't mean the Sox have bad coaches or a losing atmosphere. That's the way careers go for career relievers.

MacDougal is going to stay and people are going to like it. I'm telling you Mac will be back.

Marte was different...not only did he suck, but he was a real piece of **** in the clubhouse.

You're right, though, all people say around here is, "What have you done for me lately?"...completely ignoring their track record.

Tragg
07-04-2007, 04:22 PM
At the time, Marte wasn't much of a pitcher
Just answering the question - not making a judgment.
He certainly had control problems when we traded him; but he also carried our bullpen for several years prior to 2005.

Lip Man 1
07-04-2007, 05:48 PM
OEO:

I don't think Flight is ignoring the 'track record.'

Hasn't he spoken often about the bullpen corps being wild and inconsistent in their limited major league / minor league careers and wondering how Kenny thought that was going to change?

Lip

oeo
07-04-2007, 11:02 PM
OEO:

I don't think Flight is ignoring the 'track record.'

Hasn't he spoken often about the bullpen corps being wild and inconsistent in their limited major league / minor league careers and wondering how Kenny thought that was going to change?

Lip

I was saying in general. That means guys like Konerko, Dye, Iguchi, Mackowiak, MacDougal, etc. These guys are proven.

Sockinchisox
07-04-2007, 11:53 PM
Just posted on rotoworld/foxsports.com

Agent Jeff Berry said Wednesday night that Mark Buehrle will not sign a proposed four-year, $56 million contract with the White Sox unless it includes complete no-trade protection.

Smart. Berry also said that if Buehrle is traded, the pitcher will decline any offer of a contract extension from the team that acquires him and exercise his right to become a free agent at the end of the season. The White Sox are offering Buehrle a no-trade clause for the rest of 2007 and 2008 only. If they want to keep him, they'll have to go all the way, apparently.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6992814

Flight #24
07-04-2007, 11:58 PM
Just posted on rotoworld/foxsports.com

Agent Jeff Berry said Wednesday night that Mark Buehrle will not sign a proposed four-year, $56 million contract with the White Sox unless it includes complete no-trade protection.

Smart. Berry also said that if Buehrle is traded, the pitcher will decline any offer of a contract extension from the team that acquires him and exercise his right to become a free agent at the end of the season. The White Sox are offering Buehrle a no-trade clause for the rest of 2007 and 2008 only. If they want to keep him, they'll have to go all the way, apparently.

This is the right move on Burls part. He's proven that he's more interested in the team, city, and org that he plays with than just the money. Not signing any extension lets him make sure all those things are right.

It also puts more pressure on the Sox. This public statement reduces his trade value because he is 100% a rental. So Kenny can either get pennies on the dollar, lose him for 2 picks, or give him the NTC. It really should be a no-brainer to just give him the damn thing if KW can get over the ego aspects of giving in.

The bad: this appears to be a last-ditch effort on Burls/Berry's part to force the Sox into acquiescing. But I'd be afraid that once KW's ego comes into play, reason might go out the window. C'mon KW, do the right thing and give your franchise guy the same commitment he's willing to give you.

oeo
07-05-2007, 12:06 AM
The bad: this appears to be a last-ditch effort on Burls/Berry's part to force the Sox into acquiescing. But I'd be afraid that once KW's ego comes into play, reason might go out the window. C'mon KW, do the right thing and give your franchise guy the same commitment he's willing to give you.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, where do you people pull this crap from?

Flight #24
07-05-2007, 07:57 AM
:rolleyes:

Seriously, where do you people pull this crap from?

His singlemindedness regarding among other things, Frank & Rauch off the top of my head combined with his reactions when things don't go his way. Also the comments Lip relayed from his acquaintances that KW seems to think he's smarter than everyone else re: a market correction.

Maybe ego is the wrong word. I'm referring to the fact that his emotions seem to get the better of him in bad situations at times, and in this scenario I could easily see him ignoring the rationality of the Buehrle signing and dealing him for pennies on the dollar rather than giving in to the NTC.

I don't buy the precedent argument. I can't see a scenario in which the only real option is to deal Mark (barring a true catastrophe situation with no current or future hope, and in that case I can't see Mark forcing to stay). To me this is about having drawn a line "We don't do that", and treating it as an absolute. That's BS because Mark is giving a huge amount on this deal. It's not even "cheap", it's just "stupid".

fusillirob1983
07-05-2007, 08:40 AM
That's BS because Mark is giving a huge amount on this deal. It's not even "cheap", it's just "stupid".

I completely agree. If someone told me before the season that Mark would re-sign for 4/56 I would have thought 1) Mark has some good qualities most ballplayers don't, 2) the Sox are getting a great deal, regardless of "flexibility".

Jaffar
07-05-2007, 08:53 AM
I think KW dug his heels in after the spring and was planning on trading a guy that wanted to go to free agency and get top dollar and counting on the trade to help the team in the future. Now that the reports are out that Buehrle is willing to take such a paycut in years and money KW should be jumping at the chance to re-sign him but he had his mind made up and so now for it to get done Buehrle has to come all the way to what KW wants or he'll stick to what he had planned otherwise this deal would be done in my opinion. I could see this having a lot to do with KW's ego/personality or whatever you want to call it.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2007, 09:49 AM
I'm not going to comment on anyone's intelligence or ego.

Signing Buehrle for 4 years, $56 million with a NTC is a no-brainer. :kukoo:

Failing to lock up Buehrle for such a low price would be a cheap, timid and stupid action.

Do it, Kenny.

RedHeadPaleHoser
07-05-2007, 10:08 AM
I'm not going to comment on anyone's intelligence or ego.

Signing Buehrle for 4 years, $56 million with a NTC is a no-brainer. :kukoo:

Failing to lock up Buehrle for such a low price would be a cheap, timid and stupid action.

Do it, Kenny.

Not signing him or trading him looks as if KW wants to go into rebuilding mode. He has stated publicly he does not want to go into said mode. So, sign a cornerstone on the team, give him the NTC, and be done with it.

IMHO, this has more of a PR nightmare hanging over KW than anything else that might happen this season.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2007, 11:40 AM
Not signing him or trading him looks as if KW wants to go into rebuilding mode. He has stated publicly he does not want to go into said mode. So, sign a cornerstone on the team, give him the NTC, and be done with it.

IMHO, this has more of a PR nightmare hanging over KW than anything else that might happen this season.

I'm OK with rebuilding as long as it's rebuilding around the rarest and most precious commodity in baseball - quality starting pitching.

Buehrle is still relatively young, healthy, durable and knows how to win efficiently in a hitters park like the Cell. He and Garland are the two players around whom KW should build the team.

Mr. White Sox
07-05-2007, 12:11 PM
I'm OK with rebuilding as long as it's rebuilding around the rarest and most precious commodity in baseball - quality starting pitching.

Buehrle is still relatively young, healthy, durable and knows how to win efficiently in a hitters park like the Cell. He and Garland are the two players around whom KW should build the team.

I'm throwing this out here now: I think if Buehrle gets his contract, Garland is traded (either now or in the off-season). Jon is signed through 2008 and will command a similar deal to Buehrle in the open market (5/70?). Management will not devote such a gigantic amount of payroll to two pitchers (three including Javy), and I just see Garland as the dark horse to be traded. Javy has three years left and could command quite a bit of return if he's traded now, but I think Garland will get KW even more in terms of prospects.

Keep in mind KW loves those under-the-radar deals, and Jon is the only pitcher (aside from Danks) who hasn't been mentioned in trade rumors, from what I've seen.

Either Buehrle or Jon will be gone come 2008.

spiffie
07-05-2007, 12:48 PM
I'm throwing this out here now: I think if Buehrle gets his contract, Garland is traded (either now or in the off-season). Jon is signed through 2008 and will command a similar deal to Buehrle in the open market (5/70?). Management will not devote such a gigantic amount of payroll to two pitchers (three including Javy), and I just see Garland as the dark horse to be traded. Javy has three years left and could command quite a bit of return if he's traded now, but I think Garland will get KW even more in terms of prospects.

Keep in mind KW loves those under-the-radar deals, and Jon is the only pitcher (aside from Danks) who hasn't been mentioned in trade rumors, from what I've seen.

Either Buehrle or Jon will be gone come 2008.
Resign Garland, trade Jose now, trade Javy at deadline or after 2008. That way your pitcher payroll in 2008 is 36 million or so, and 2009 is 30 million or so.

mark2olson
07-05-2007, 01:03 PM
Signing Buehrle for 4 years, $56 million with a NTC is a no-brainer. :kukoo:

Agreed. Get out the pens and get this thing done! No more talk, time for action.

veeter
07-05-2007, 03:17 PM
So the 'Magical' year is 2009. The Sox say they wouldn't trade Mark the rest of this year or 2008. 2010 and 11 he would be 5 and 10. What is Kenny's thinking here. What does he think might unfold by the end of 2008, that he needs his Buehrle trade option open? Any thoughts?

Nellie_Fox
07-05-2007, 03:24 PM
So the 'Magical' year is 2009. The Sox say they wouldn't trade Mark the rest of this year or 2008. 2010 and 11 he would be 5 and 10. What is Kenny's thinking here. What does he think might unfold by the end of 2008, that he needs his Buehrle trade option open? Any thoughts?Maybe he'd say that the fact that he doesn't know what might unfold is the reason he needs to maintain as much flexibility as possible?

crazyozzie02
07-05-2007, 03:51 PM
So the 'Magical' year is 2009. The Sox say they wouldn't trade Mark the rest of this year or 2008. 2010 and 11 he would be 5 and 10. What is Kenny's thinking here. What does he think might unfold by the end of 2008, that he needs his Buehrle trade option open? Any thoughts?

He might find out the Luis Terrereo can pitch and would need to open a place for him in the rotation:redneck

gobears1987
07-05-2007, 05:24 PM
If KW refuses to get this done, then I think we would be justified in calling for his head on a platter.

I think that the man who called Frank Thomas an idiot is nothing more than a hypocrite. If he wants to see an idiot, he just needs to look in a mirror.

getonbckthr
07-05-2007, 05:38 PM
If KW refuses to get this done, then I think we would be justified in calling for his head on a platter.

I think that the man who called Frank Thomas an idiot is nothing more than a hypocrite. If he wants to see an idiot, he just needs to look in a mirror.
He is an idiot for not wanting to handcuff the franchise? There is no player worthy of a NTC.

JB98
07-05-2007, 05:45 PM
I'm not going to comment on anyone's intelligence or ego.

Signing Buehrle for 4 years, $56 million with a NTC is a no-brainer. :kukoo:

Failing to lock up Buehrle for such a low price would be a cheap, timid and stupid action.

Do it, Kenny.

For a change, you and I are in 100 percent agreement. :cool:

Vernam
07-05-2007, 05:52 PM
He is an idiot for not wanting to handcuff the franchise? There is no player worthy of a NTC.Well, no player is worthy of $14M per season, either, but it happens every day. Same with the NTC. But I do agree with you that Kenny isn't automatically mean/dumb/unethical/etc. if he doesn't give Buehrle the clause.

Strategically, it's a shame they couldn't have cut this deal in the spring. That way, all the focus would now be on what the Sox could get for Vazquez or Contreras. IMO, the emphasis on Buehrle actually hurts the stock of the other two, who could theoretically be more valuable in trade because they're under contract. ("Theoretically," as in: "Theoretically, Jose might start throwing strikes in the mid-90s again." :(:) Instead, it's like Vazquez and Contreras are an afterthought compared to the Buehrle sideshow.

Most criticism of KW is 20/20 hindsight, but I do believe he's making a baseball mistake by not finishing the Buehrle deal. At this point, there can be little doubt it's a PR mistake, not that such things should enter into his decision.

Vernam

oeo
07-05-2007, 06:20 PM
If KW refuses to get this done, then I think we would be justified in calling for his head on a platter.

I think that the man who called Frank Thomas an idiot is nothing more than a hypocrite. If he wants to see an idiot, he just needs to look in a mirror.

You come in here at least once a day saying the same exact thing. We get it already, everything Frank says about the organization is fine and dandy to you...but no one better ever talk back to him. :rolleyes:

gobears1987
07-05-2007, 07:06 PM
You come in here at least once a day saying the same exact thing. We get it already, everything Frank says about the organization is fine and dandy to you...but no one better ever talk back to him. :rolleyes:Frank took a ton of **** from the organization (declining skills clause). The least they could've done with the man is treat him with dignity. I have no problem with them replacing him with Thome. It seemed like the smart move at the time. I just with the team could've given Frank the respect he deserved.

It appears that KW knows jack **** about respect. He's being a dick to Buehrle.

oeo
07-05-2007, 07:10 PM
Frank took a ton of **** from the organization (declining skills clause). The least they could've done with the man is treat him with dignity. I have no problem with them replacing him with Thome. It seemed like the smart move at the time. I just with the team could've given Frank the respect he deserved.

Frank had words to say beforehand. And while Kenny should have kept his mouth shut, Frank should have never opened his either. You cannot defend either one.

It appears that KW knows jack **** about respect. He's being a dick to Buehrle.How is he not respecting him? I haven't heard him say a bad thing about Mark. Kenny and Mark are obviously pretty good friends, but a business is a business. The Sox don't want to be handcuffed by contracts like so many teams are currently...how is that disrespect? And again why does the 'blame' go on Kenny alone? These are organizational decisions, not Kenny's decisions.

Frontman
07-05-2007, 07:12 PM
He is an idiot for not wanting to handcuff the franchise? There is no player worthy of a NTC.

Oh for the love of Nancy Faust. No player worth it? None? Ask the Twins if they would be willing to part with Santana, or the Indians with Sabathia (don't ask them today, let the sting wear off a bit first.) Just because the Sox never have treated a superstar or near superstar player properly, doesn't mean no player isn't worth one.

The Sox are the one's with the handcuffs here, and are trying to get Mark to handcuff himself. At the amount of money they are offering, Mark should and will go open market without a NTC to keep him from being cheap trade bait.

Then the next time the player's union wants a new deal, all NTC's must be removed.

Granted, that will never fly, but hey, NO player is worth one. :rolleyes: