PDA

View Full Version : Morrissey Column


Lip Man 1
07-04-2007, 12:13 AM
Seems to knock down the arguments about the 'no trade clause' issue from the Sox standpoint pretty well in my opinion.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070703morrissey,1,4829339.column?coll=cs-home-utility

Lip

skobabe8
07-04-2007, 12:47 AM
I agree with the tone of the article.

Noneck
07-04-2007, 12:56 AM
I see very little difference in Burls and Garland. If you give it for Burls, the same argument holds true for Garland.

gobears1987
07-04-2007, 01:00 AM
I see very little difference in Burls and Garland. If you give it for Burls, the same argument holds true for Garland.
Give them both NTCs and trade Jose.

Noneck
07-04-2007, 01:04 AM
Give them both NTCs and trade Jose.

That way the chairman goes against his philosophy not once but twice. I doubt that will ever happen.

wassagstdu
07-04-2007, 08:24 AM
I see very little difference in Burls and Garland. If you give it for Burls, the same argument holds true for Garland.
Absolutely -- if he is willing to accept a well-below-market contract.

CallMeNuts
07-04-2007, 09:01 AM
Absolutely -- if he is willing to accept a well-below-market contract.

Exactly! When you negotiate, it is foolish to establish hard and fast rules such as:

1) We won't give a pitcher a contract for more than 3 years.
2) We won't give a contract with a no-trade clause.

Let me illustrate with the following ludicrously simple example:

What if Mark Buehrle wanted a 10-year contract with the White Sox, with a no-trade clause, at the Major League Minimum Salary?

Would the Sox say they couldn't give a contract for that long?
Would the Sox say they couldn't give a contract with a no-trade clause?

I hope they aren't that dumb.

But the point is that it is always foolish to box yourself in with these kinds of rules. And that in a negotiation, you have to try to convert every contract clause into some kind of monetary value.

By agreeing to a contract for less than what he could get on the free market, MB is saying that staying in Chicago is worth millions of dollars per year to him. By asking for the NTC, MB is merely asking for assurance that he can actually stay in Chicago.

By rejecting the NTC request, the Sox seem to be rejecting the premise that MB will be accepting a significantly below-market contract. Or they are placing a very high cost on the NTC. That too, seems foolish to me.

oldcomiskey
07-04-2007, 10:06 AM
on another sox board everybody but me is against management. And as everyone knows Im never on managements side, but this club has a lot of holes to fill and KW knows that. We are going into 2008 with Konerko at first, AJ and Hall catching and some of the starting staff. Everything else is a question mark. They may have to move Buerhle later to improve the club in other areas. And something else everybody seems to be forgetting about, The spinners in this saga---(KW, JR and Mark and his camp) will always tell you what they want you to know which may or may not be the whole truth. And whose to say that Mark didnt already know there would be no no trade clause there to begin with. If thats ther case then he is posturing for the fans. The sad thing is with or without him the Sox have some serious holes to fill in 08

Tragg
07-04-2007, 10:11 AM
this club has a lot of holes to fill and KW knows that.

That's true.
Garland, because he's signed for 1.5 years (and because KW put himself in a weak trading position re MB), would bring more than MB in a trade at this point...a lot more probably.

veeter
07-04-2007, 10:27 AM
I hope Kenny knows Javy's stock is zooming straight up right now. Great contract status, pitching great, very durable. I think Kenny could really parlay Javy into something good.

NoNeckEra
07-04-2007, 10:29 AM
The longer the Buehrle situation goes, the more likely it is the deal will get done.

The two sides are not at an impass. Once the money issue was settled, it came down to posturing on "team policy".

The bigger question is, what deals WILL the Sox make by July 31.

Javi's stock is skyrocketing, and Jose's is tumbling.

UserNameBlank
07-04-2007, 10:36 AM
Nice article. I hope the deal gets done rather soon because I'm sure everyone in the sports world is sick of hearing about this crap already. Give the guy his NTC. He could get DOUBLE what the Sox are offering on the FA market.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:nPusdPX2IjjkQM:http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/2006/11/20/pMryJtmh.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/images/2006/11/20/pMryJtmh.jpg&imgrefurl=http://feedingthegoat.blogspot.com/search/label/Hawk%2520Harrelson&h=235&w=275&sz=16&hl=en&start=4&sig2=iZzdnAIpUjm0XOONyk59jg&tbnid=nPusdPX2IjjkQM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=114&ei=Xb6LRsOVJZigiQGCw93YDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhawk%2Bharrelson%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D 10%26hl%3Den)
"Talk about a hometown discount! Mercy!"

UserNameBlank
07-04-2007, 10:39 AM
The longer the Buehrle situation goes, the more likely it is the deal will get done.

The two sides are not at an impass. Once the money issue was settled, it came down to posturing on "team policy".

The bigger question is, what deals WILL the Sox make by July 31.

Javi's stock is skyrocketing, and Jose's is tumbling.
I don't know if Jose's stock is tumbling. He'll fetch something decent. The question is if the Sox will have to eat some of that contract, and if so, how much will it be?

I'm not saying you, but some people forget that Javy is signed for below market value when they bash him. If Buehrle is re-signed and there is some hope of retaining Garland, I'd deal Javy but only because I'd want an All-Star position player in return. Javy should bring that. If not, Garland should.

RowanDye
07-04-2007, 10:51 AM
The longer the Buehrle situation goes, the more likely it is the deal will get done.

Not quite sure what you mean here?

I agree that no news is good news, in that neither side has come out and said "negotiations are dead", but the sooner a deal gets done the better in my opinion.

NoNeckEra
07-04-2007, 11:26 AM
Not quite sure what you mean here?

I agree that no news is good news, in that neither side has come out and said "negotiations are dead", but the sooner a deal gets done the better in my opinion.

What I mean is, since he's either going to sign, or be traded, the likelihood of him signing is 90%. Teams that want him badly just assume get him earlier than later and this is the time to get top dollar for him in a trade.

KW is holding out, now that he has the financial terms sewed up. Do you really expect to turn on the radio and hear that he was suddenly dealt somewhere?

dwalteroo
07-04-2007, 11:43 AM
I think its easy to forget how good we have it right now with our pitchers. Jose will bring us back someone decent. He's a great mid-year pickup for a lot of teams.

upperdeckusc
07-04-2007, 11:48 AM
I see very little difference in Burls and Garland. If you give it for Burls, the same argument holds true for Garland.

ehhhh. i dont know if i'd go that far....just yet. obviously, buehrle is a little more proven, both with stats and health. i know 18 wins is a great accomplishment, but i'd like to see garland post a season or 2 of a low to mid 3 era to cement his dominance and eliminate a few of his critics. if that happens, i'd have no problem giving him an extension as well so our core rotation can be buehrle/garland/danks/javy (hopefully, im a big fan of his). the alternative, of course, is to trade garland while his value is at its peak. i think we could get a huge ransom in return as far as position players are concerned. we shall see....

hawkjt
07-04-2007, 11:55 AM
honestly, I like Gar almost more than Burls.. it is close but Garland has simply learned the art of pitching, is two years younger and throws sinkers that do not leave the homer friendly Soxpark..

I want them both to be retained for the long term.. they are the building blocks for the next 5-6 years..

Garland has quietly developed a mental toughness that he always exhibited but had to work to actually achieve.. not afraid to throw a strike when behind and will throw 5 straight strikes on 3-2... I am extremely confident with him on the mound these last 2 years..as for morrisey.. he is clearly the best of a bad lot of columnists at the Trib.. by a long shot.

Nellie_Fox
07-04-2007, 02:15 PM
He could get DOUBLE what the Sox are offering on the FA market. Really? Who do you see paying him $28 million per?

UserNameBlank
07-06-2007, 12:16 AM
Really? Who do you see paying him $28 million per?
Buehrle - 4 years $56 million
Zito - 7 years $126 million

Zito got paid more than double what the Sox are offering Buehrle. The main difference on paper is Zito has a Cy Young and a higher K/9 rate, but Zito also pitched half his games in a pitchers park whereas Mark has pitched half of his in a hitter's park. All in all, maybe Buehrle doesn't get Zito money on the FA market, but he can get close to it and very possibly double the amount the Sox are willing to give him.

It's Dankerific
07-06-2007, 01:26 AM
Really? Who do you see paying him $28 million per?

I think he was talking total value of the contract, not per year.

nccwsfan
07-06-2007, 09:09 AM
I see very little difference in Burls and Garland. If you give it for Burls, the same argument holds true for Garland.

No question in my mind that Buehrle & Garland at the top of the rotation in 2009 and beyond would be a good move, however no one knows whether or not Garland would want to take a hometown discount to stay. One can only hope...

Lip Man 1
07-06-2007, 11:54 AM
Two notations from the newspapers today caught my eye.

One was this comment in a Joe Cowley story..."as well as several Sox players believing the Mark Buehrle contract saga is about to end with the left-hander signing a four-year, $56 million extension" and the other was a notation about next year's rotation.

It said if Mark signs it will be Buehrle, Garland, Gonzales, Floyd and Danks.

If Mark doesn't sign it will be Garland, Danks, Floyd, Vasquez and Gonzales.

Lip

hawkjt
07-06-2007, 09:13 PM
Kass had a good column on Mark today also..

Hitmen77
07-07-2007, 12:17 AM
Great articles by Morrissey and Kass.

The Sox are at a crossroads here. Are we going to build a rotation around Mark and Garland or around Jose and Javy? If the Sox can come to terms with Mark, I think this will greatly increase the likelihood that Garland would give the Sox a discount to stay here. If Mark leaves, then IMO Garland is as good as gone too.

Jose is on the decline. Javy will forever be maddeningly inconsistent. I think Gavin Floyd tonight showed us how iffy the success of our pitching prospects can be. To me, this is the difference between trying to re-load with two solid anchors in our rotation or just building our team based on the lowest bidder and getting set for at least several years of complete mediocrity. People here can argue this point for hundreds of posts, but don't tell me this isn't how most of the Sox paying customers will view things.

The way this MB saga is playing out is going to be the Sox biggest PR disaster in 10 years. The Sox are on track to losing a ton of goodwill and local interest generated after the World Series win. I'm sure a lot of the long-time regulars/season ticket holders here will get all indignant over this statement and puff up their chest in pride over how they'll stick with this team no matter what. Good for them. But the truth is that letting go an extremely popular, very successful, extremely durable, young pitcher who wants to stay with the Sox so bad that he'll forego the millions more he'd certainly get through FA to stay with the Sox at a rate that the team is willing to pay ---- only to have the deal die because the Sox want to retain the right to trade him away at any time --- is going to look like a mini- White Flag fiasco by the Sox.

Will die-hard Sox fans all become Cub fans? Of course not. But people many people will give up or cut back on their season tickets. People who went to 10 games this year will go to 1 or 2 next year. Kids who would form the core of the next generation's expanding Sox fan base will lose interest in a team that lets the heart of it's team go.

WLL1855
07-07-2007, 12:46 AM
But the truth is that letting go an extremely popular, very successful, extremely durable, young pitcher who wants to stay with the Sox so bad that he'll forego the millions more he'd certainly get through FA to stay with the Sox at a rate that the team is willing to pay ---- only to have the deal die because the Sox want to retain the right to trade him away at any time --- is going to look like a mini- White Flag fiasco by the Sox.


Way to hit the nail on the head. This isn't Jamie ****ing Navarro we are talking about here. Give the man his due. Build around this guy. If we don't we are screwed for the near future. Either Mark Buehrle is on this team for the foreseeable future or we are destined for mediocrity for the next few years.