Buehrle Fest

[Steff]

What about Chris Carpenter's deal though? Wasn't it 5/65? That's basically the same deal, but 1 year longer and 500k a year more than the number being mentioned here. The MLBPA would be frustrated by this deal, but their involvement would have no implications upon anything.

 

 

What part of "of course they can't force a player to do something" did you not understand?

[WCSox]

The MLBPA would be frustrated by this deal, but their involvement would have no implications upon anything.

 

Probably not right away, but you can bet that they'd use it during the negotiations for the next CBA. Didn't the MLBPA win a collusion suit against MLB owners back in the mid-80's? They could threaten to do that again. Also consider that Jerry Reinsdorf and Donald Fehr aren't exactly the best of buddies.

 

Mark signing a contract that's $20 million+ under market value could create some very serious problems.

[Kalapse]

I don't know why everyone things 4yr/$60mm is below market. $15mm a year makes him one of the highest paid pitchers in baseball, hell even 4yr/$50mm makes him in the upper echelon...just because Zito got a huge contract doesn't mean every lefty, soft-throwing, innings eater gets $18mm/year.

 

Per USA Today's database, only 5 of the top 25 paid players this year are pitchers and the top 25 paid players are starting at $13.25mm a year, I do believe this database is dated but it gives an idea of where top salaries are currently at. If there is a better list to search please post it.

 

I would argue that anything more than 4yr/$60mm is paying too much and something the sox could regret in the future.

 

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sa....aspx?year=2007

It's more about the years than anything else. Considering what Zito, Schmidt, Suppan and Lilly got on the free agent market Mark was looking at 6-7 years at $15-$17M per. As opposed to 4 years, $12.5M per.

[iamshack]

That was also a restructuring of a deal he had previously signed. It added more money up front and 4 years to the original deal. Carpenter was smart to take that deal, considering his injury problems he wasn't going to make it to his 2009 free agent year in 1 piece.

 

Well he looks smart right now for taking it, but at the time many thought he had given the Cardinals exactly what Mark could be giving us right now- a hometown discount at well-below market value.

[Steff]

Probably not right away, but you can bet that they'd use it during the negotiations for the next CBA. Didn't the MLBPA win a collusion suit against MLB owners back in the mid-80's? They could threaten to do that again. Also consider that Jerry Reinsdorf and Donald Fehr aren't exactly the best of buddies.

 

Mark signing a contract that's $20 million+ under market value could create some very serious problems.

 

But it would prove that he likes it here... waa, waa, waa, bla, bla, bla, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Good grief. I like it at my job too but I aint working for less than my decided value.

[Kalapse]

Well he looks smart right now for taking it, but at the time many thought he had given the Cardinals exactly what Mark could be giving us right now- a hometown discount at well-below market value.

Even then he was having some arm trouble and was only what? 3 years removed from major shoulder surgery? he wasn't going to make it to free agency without spending a good amount of time on the DL.

[103 mph screwball]

Stuck at work, gotta ask. Still BS? In other words, anything other than the score?

[iamshack]

What part of "of course they can't force a player to do something" did you not understand?

 

I wasn't challenging your response, Steff. I was mentioning another deal where a discount was given.

 

And if there are no negative implications other than the MLBPA getting themselves in a tizzy about the contract, who the hell cares if they get involved? You stated "you bet your ass they would" when commenting on whether they would get involved. Well tell me what are the implications upon the White Sox of their involvement then? If those are not significant tangible negative implications, I could give a sh*t if they get involved or not.

[kapkomet]

But it would prove that he likes it here... waa, waa, waa, bla, bla, bla, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Good grief. I like it at my job too but I aint working for less than my decided value.

There's some choice, ah, phrases that come to mind.

 

What is your "value" anyway?

 

[Chisoxfn]

Yep, and there's precedent for it as well (the nixed A-Rod-to-Red Sox deal).

Yep, and there's precedent for it as well (the nixed A-Rod-to-Red Sox deal).

That had to do with Arod actually basically giving money back IIRC (making his contract worth less). Buehrle can sign whatever contract he wants as long as there isn't some crazy clause that could get the MLBPA's attention.

[iamshack]

But it would prove that he likes it here... waa, waa, waa, bla, bla, bla, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Good grief. I like it at my job too but I aint working for less than my decided value.

 

I'm assuming there is an actual difference it would make on your lifestyle. At some point, you're making so much damn money it doesn't really matter anymore, you just want to be in the place you want to be. What's the damn difference between having $50 million and having $60 million in your bank account on your daily lifestyle? Not much. But what might the difference be in living where you are comfortable and living where you aren't? I would imagine it could be quite substantial.

[WCSox]

Well tell me what are the implications upon the White Sox of their involvement then? If those are not significant tangible negative implications, I could give a sh*t if they get involved or not.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1460718

[Steff]

I wasn't challenging your response, Steff. I was mentioning another deal where a discount was given.

 

And if there are no negative implications other than the MLBPA getting themselves in a tizzy about the contract, who the hell cares if they get involved? You stated "you bet your ass they would" when commenting on whether they would get involved. Well tell me what are the implications upon the White Sox of their involvement then? If those are not significant tangible negative implications, I could give a sh*t if they get involved or not.

 

 

I've already stated my opinion on the matter. They are not going to like a player of Mark's calibur setting the bar so low. What ramifications come after that, I don't know, and likely never will since I can't imagine Mark would do this deal. It's not in his best interest.

 

There's some choice, ah, phrases that come to mind.

 

What is your "value" anyway?

 

 

 

More than yours.

[chiguy79]

It's more about the years than anything else. Considering what Zito, Schmidt, Suppan and Lilly got on the free agent market Mark was looking at 6-7 years at $15-$17M per. As opposed to 4 years, $12.5M per.

 

I think teams this off-season may rethink those 7-year deals after seeing what those clubs got for their huge investments Zito, Schmidt, etc....without the full facts I am guessing that you can count on one hand the # of pitchers who have signed deals >$80mm which is the "market-value" people seem to be throwing around here (ie 5yr $15mm+).

 

While I am a big Buerhle fan, I don't see Mark making that kind of money even as a free agent. Zambrano can get that kind of money becuase I think people pay more for a power pitcher, but Zambrano is also younger with less miles on his arm. Also I think Mark doesn't want to play in NY/Bos/West Coast and likes playing in the midwest so 4/50 or 4/60 is as good of an offer he will get from anyone...that being said if he really wants to play for the cards (which is disputable) I am sure they would step up and do a 4/50 deal with him.

[iamshack]

Mark signing a contract that's $20 million+ under market value could create some very serious problems.

 

This ain't the mid-80's anymore, where guys are making $150,000. I'm sorry, but the courts would laugh at the MLBPA bringing a collusion suit against MLB owners right now, especially with Mark as the lead plaintiff.

 

I can see it now....Mr. Reinsdorf only offered Mr. Buehrle $50 million over 4 years!

 

This current market is ridiculous, and using it as some sort of measuring stick is erroneous. When you're looking long-term like we are right now, you have to take yourself out of this current landscape for a moment. Paying players, especially starting pitchers, at current market rate, will not last.

Edited June 27, 2007 by iamshack

[Steff]

I'm assuming there is an actual difference it would make on your lifestyle. At some point, you're making so much damn money it doesn't really matter anymore, you just want to be in the place you want to be. What's the damn difference between having $50 million and having $60 million in your bank account on your daily lifestyle? Not much. But what might the difference be in living where you are comfortable and living where you aren't? I would imagine it could be quite substantial.

 

 

To you and I, it seems like no difference at all. Today versus tomorrow I would agree there is not one.

 

However, in 10 years when Mark is 38 and his arm is s*** and he can't "work" anymore and must rely on that $$ to last him the rest of his life it will make a difference.

[Harry Chappas]

But it would prove that he likes it here... waa, waa, waa, bla, bla, bla, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Good grief. I like it at my job too but I aint working for less than my decided value.

 

Lifestyle v. money

 

What % of your family lifestyle would you be willing to give up for the money you will recieve in giving up that lifestyle? There is a gamble involved in turning down the money at hand and going blind into the offseason. The MLBPA gets involved if he turns down 7/$140M from Boston to take 5/$60 from St. Louis.

 

I do not know Mark Buerhle nor do I know what he is thinking but is it possible he wants to stay close enough to home that it is worth a few million dollars. At 32 he could probably get a another nice deal if he so desired as oppossed to what he could get at 34.

[iamshack]

To you and I, it seems like no difference at all. Today versus tomorrow I would agree there is not one.

 

However, in 10 years when Mark is 38 and his arm is s*** and he can't "work" anymore and must rely on that $$ to last him the rest of his life it will make a difference.

 

Are you kidding me? If he can't make the money he has earned during his career last for 5 lifetimes, he has a seriously pathetic financial advisor. Mark's already made, what, $30 million roughly in his career, with another $50-60 coming in this deal, and probably another substantial contract left. He'll be fine, I trust.

[chiguy79]

But it would prove that he likes it here... waa, waa, waa, bla, bla, bla, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Good grief. I like it at my job too but I aint working for less than my decided value.

 

I think the decision on getting paid $150,000 in an office job in NY working 80 hours a week or working 50 hours a week in Chicago for $120,000 is much different thand deciding if you would take $10mm/year or $9mm/year. For all we know Mark's wife could have said she doesn't want to move get the deal done and that is that.

 

People take less money than they could get "on the market" all the time. When was the last time each person on this board sent their resume around to head hunters to see if they could get more money to sign with a different firm/company...I bet not many, but you could...reality is if you are comfortable where you are at and satisfied that you are making "fair" money you probably just keep showing up for work and plugging along. I guess the main difference is baseball players know exactly what their peers are making, but for that matter it isn't much different than most workplaces, everyone has a boss/supervisor that makes more than them and may not produce as much but if they got a good deal at the time good for them...the only difference is baseball contracts are guaranteed, while in the private sector high-paid guys who don't produce get fired.

[ChiSox9]

Seriously, I dont see a big difference in $50 and $70 million... and if a player has the mindset that: I want to finish my career with enough money to retire and sit on my ass, provide for my family, send my children to college at no cost and die a happy man why should anyone outside of the player himself get involved in the process. Hell, give me $1 mill for 10 years pitching for the sox and id die a happy man. Not everyone NEEDS the biggest house on the block, the nicest cars, the most expensive clothes... outside of inheritance to your kids what the f*** are you going to do will all the millions you got when you die??

[Dick Allen]

There probably isn't too much a difference to Buerhle if he makes $50 million or $100 million, but he would hate 20,30, 40, 50 years from now to find out there was. There's more than a couple of players who were apparently set for life, finding out otherwise. Also the union would be concerned about the effect it would have on similar pitcher's contract offers. It conceivable could lower the "market rate." You can be pissed off at the union all you want, but its probably been as successful as any in history. If he's considering signing this reported contract, you can be assured he's being pressured not to.

Edited June 27, 2007 by Dick Allen

[Chisoxfn]

Are you kidding me? If he can't make the money he has earned during his career last for 5 lifetimes, he has a seriously pathetic financial advisor. Mark's already made, what, $30 million roughly in his career, with another $50-60 coming in this deal, and probably another substantial contract left. He'll be fine, I trust.

Who are you and I to say a player should give up an extra 20 million on the open market or 40 million. Yeah, he already has a lot of money but wouldn't you or I take an extra 50,000 (say I make 120K per year and someone offers 170K). I'm damn well entitled to that even if I could obviously still live a solid life on that other salary (and this is being modest).

 

I won't get into politics, but its the same reason I think it is ridiculous to assume that just because someone makes more money they should pay a higher % in taxes as opposed to just the same % everyone else pays based on that same amount of money.

 

You and I would maximize our income and its no different for an athlete. If they take less, more power to them, but I don't think of them any less for taking the best offer.

[Steff]

Seriously, I dont see a big difference in $50 and $70 million... and if a player has the mindset that: I want to finish my career with enough money to retire and sit on my ass, provide for my family, send my children to college at no cost and die a happy man why should anyone outside of the player himself get involved in the process. Hell, give me $1 mill for 10 years pitching for the sox and id die a happy man. Not everyone NEEDS the biggest house on the block, the nicest cars, the most expensive clothes... outside of inheritance to your kids what the f*** are you going to do will all the millions you got when you die??

 

 

Leave it to your kids and grandkids.

 

Are you kidding me? If he can't make the money he has earned during his career last for 5 lifetimes, he has a seriously pathetic financial advisor. Mark's already made, what, $30 million roughly in his career, with another $50-60 coming in this deal, and probably another substantial contract left. He'll be fine, I trust.

 

 

No, I'm not kidding you. And I am also not speaking for Mark. I am posting a hypothetical situation and one I would not blame Mark for following. It's none of your business, nor mine, how much money Mark thinks he will need the rest of his life, and I would support him, as well as anyone, trying to get the maximum amount for his talent.

[CWSGuy406]

You bet your ass they would.

 

Around the time of the last contract offer (3/$34, was it?), I know you talked about a lot of incentives that could bump the contract up to around 3/$45-50. Could that be the same thing here, ie, a base salary of $12.5 million per season, but incentives that could bring it up to 4/$60?

[chiguy79]

To you and I, it seems like no difference at all. Today versus tomorrow I would agree there is not one.

 

However, in 10 years when Mark is 38 and his arm is s*** and he can't "work" anymore and must rely on that $$ to last him the rest of his life it will make a difference.

 

 

I don't think so....$10mm in the life of Mark Buerhle is not going to make or break his financial well-being...if he is dumb enough to blow $50mm he would sure enough blow through $60mm if he had it. Mark Buerhle VIII (the eighth) should be covered for his lifetime as well.

 

Well I guess he could go broke if he gets divorced a few times, that seems to cost quite a bit (ask Frank Thomas)...but I am sure they still get a MLB pension, which OJ simpson still lives fine off his NFL pension.