Mark Buehrle on the Score

[Texsox]

With today's market, 5/75 isn't even a starting point for a guy like Buehrle unless he has a terrible 07. We are talking about AT LEAST 6/96 if not more years and dollars. And trust me, someone will pay it.

 

And IMNSHO, a good gamble at 6/100. I'd bet the rational is they would hold him to just under 200 innings a year.

 

I look at the Braves dynasty and their starting rotation and damn it, Buerhle and Garland are a great start towards that. Those guys stayed together for more than the 4 year horizon the Sox work with. But how many bullets did we dodge by not offering up $$$$$ when $$$ worked as well?

[Hideaway Lights]

I just got my Buehrle jersey back from being numbered and lettered....

 

but I think the White Sox need to trade him and Vazquez and finish building for the future.

 

We are an 83-87 game winner right now. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise with Vaz in the 4-slot and a cast of thousands in the 5-slot. Sure, we still have a great lineup and we have a great bullpen, but the winner of this division the last several years has had starting pitching as its major strength. Can you really count on Contreras having another great year at his age and with his injury history? Can we really count on Garland to carry us again? Can we really count on Buehrle to rebound? These are all HUGE contigencies. Even if all three go as well as possible there is still the question of Vazquez and Floyd/Sisco/whoever.

 

In any case, we are NOT signing Buehrle to a five or six year contract. Reinsdorf has never done it, and he will not do it now. So why not get something for him? You're not getting enough for him midseason. Additionally, Vazquez still has value in the NL.

 

I would HATE to see Buehrle go but I think it makes the most sense with the moves we have already made.

[SpringfieldFan]

You can call this the stupid post of the week, but I was just wondering...Instead of deals like 5/75 or 6/96, would Buehrle take...say...1yr/20 mil? Would the Sox offer it if he would? Perhaps it is ridiculous thinking, but what kind of one year contract would he accept? 1/20? 1/22? 1/25?

 

 

*and now the trolley heads back for Mr. Rogers' living room*

 

 

SFF

[Texsox]

You can call this the stupid post of the week, but I was just wondering...Instead of deals like 5/75 or 6/96, would Buehrle take...say...1yr/20 mil? Would the Sox offer it if he would? Perhaps it is ridiculous thinking, but what kind of one year contract would he accept? 1/20? 1/22? 1/25?

 

 

*and now the trolley heads back for Mr. Rogers' living room*

 

 

SFF

 

While anything is possible, the smart money guess is Mark is looking at the total dollars on this contract. It will probably be half or more of what he'll make as a MLB pitcher. Some of the intangibles will be no trade clauses, the amount of differed money, etc. He's going to have to compare a 6/96 versus a 4/80 type of thing.

[CanOfCorn]

I just got my Buehrle jersey back from being numbered and lettered....

 

but I think the White Sox need to trade him and Vazquez and finish building for the future.

 

We are an 83-87 game winner right now. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise with Vaz in the 4-slot and a cast of thousands in the 5-slot. Sure, we still have a great lineup and we have a great bullpen, but the winner of this division the last several years has had starting pitching as its major strength. Can you really count on Contreras having another great year at his age and with his injury history? Can we really count on Garland to carry us again? Can we really count on Buehrle to rebound? These are all HUGE contigencies. Even if all three go as well as possible there is still the question of Vazquez and Floyd/Sisco/whoever.

 

In any case, we are NOT signing Buehrle to a five or six year contract. Reinsdorf has never done it, and he will not do it now. So why not get something for him? You're not getting enough for him midseason. Additionally, Vazquez still has value in the NL.

 

I would HATE to see Buehrle go but I think it makes the most sense with the moves we have already made.

 

If you thinkthe Sox are an 83-87 win team this year...and the Sox do trade Buehrle and/or Vazquez now...are you prepared for a 4th place finish and barely making .500 if at all? I'm not. I, personally, would rather have the Sox compete year after year. If that means that we trade some of our chips and let some go with just draft pick compensation, then that's what it means. If the teams is competing year after year, it's a lot easier to catch lightning in a bottle when you are consistently winning.

 

One exception to that rule would be the Marlins. Tore down and built back up.

Edited January 8, 2007 by CanOfCorn

[Hideaway Lights]

I'm prepared to mortgage 07 if it means we have one more quality arm prospect and a shortstop for 08.

[witesoxfan]

I just got my Buehrle jersey back from being numbered and lettered....

 

but I think the White Sox need to trade him and Vazquez and finish building for the future.

 

We are an 83-87 game winner right now. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise with Vaz in the 4-slot and a cast of thousands in the 5-slot. Sure, we still have a great lineup and we have a great bullpen, but the winner of this division the last several years has had starting pitching as its major strength. Can you really count on Contreras having another great year at his age and with his injury history? Can we really count on Garland to carry us again? Can we really count on Buehrle to rebound? These are all HUGE contigencies. Even if all three go as well as possible there is still the question of Vazquez and Floyd/Sisco/whoever.

 

In any case, we are NOT signing Buehrle to a five or six year contract. Reinsdorf has never done it, and he will not do it now. So why not get something for him? You're not getting enough for him midseason. Additionally, Vazquez still has value in the NL.

 

I would HATE to see Buehrle go but I think it makes the most sense with the moves we have already made.

 

Uh, why stockpile more arms when you already have enough? It doesn't make much sense.

 

By my count, the Sox have like 8-9 potential 5th starters right now within the organization, and some of those starters have the potential to become pretty damn good pitchers. Why would you kill any chance the team has this season when you wouldn't be able to contend until like 2009 again (because trading Buehrle and Vazquez would do exactly that to you)?

 

I also think the team is better than most people give it credit for, but I am generally pretty optimistic around this time of year. The offense should be about as good as it was last year, or perhaps a small step back (I see Thome, Dye, and Crede all regressing a little bit, with Podsednik, Pierzynski, Uribe, and Anderson all improving slightly), but it should be more balanced 1-9 this year. The rotation will be fine, because you need 1 of the aforementioned 8-9 starters to put up an ERA in the 5.00 range, and the 1-4 starters essentially just need to put up a combined ERA in the 4.25 range. Hopefully we'll see them pick it up a little bit. The bullpen itself seems to just be loaded with talent, but not many results. There are only like 4 guys who have guaranteed jobs (Jenks, Thornton, MacDougal, and Aardsma), but one of Sisco and Logan should make it, and then you're looking at Floyd, Masset, Haeger, Oneli Perez, and several other candiates for the final spot in the bullpen. It's probably going to be Sisco/Masset with Floyd taking the #5 spot, but that's why ST is played.

 

Basically, I don't think this team is an 83-87 win team, but rather 87-92 win team with potential to be better.

[Hideaway Lights]

Uh, why stockpile more arms when you already have enough? It doesn't make much sense.

 

because most prospects don't pan out.

 

By my count, the Sox have like 8-9 potential 5th starters right now within the organization, and some of those starters have the potential to become pretty damn good pitchers. Why would you kill any chance the team has this season when you wouldn't be able to contend until like 2009 again (because trading Buehrle and Vazquez would do exactly that to you)?

 

First of all, we lose Buehrle after 2007 anyway. The White Sox will not re-sign him. He will want more than 4 years. Reinsdorf has said he does not pay pitchers for more than 4 years. There you have it.

 

Second of all, 8-9 potential fifth starters? How many combined major league wins do these 8-9 potential 5th starters have? We also had 8-9 potential fifth starters in 2004.

 

I also think the team is better than most people give it credit for, but I am generally pretty optimistic around this time of year. The offense should be about as good as it was last year, or perhaps a small step back (I see Thome, Dye, and Crede all regressing a little bit, with Podsednik, Pierzynski, Uribe, and Anderson all improving slightly), but it should be more balanced 1-9 this year.

 

Crede definitely regresses. Book it. At least 15 points off of his 2006 average. He was extremely hot for four months last year and then regressed back towards his career average. Dye had about as good as year as you're ever going to get from him, and I think it would be foolish to expect similar numbers from Thome, or for him to remain injury free. I don't see the evidence that either Uribe or Pods necessarily improve. Podsednik has had an up and down career and just because the odd numbered years have been good in the past doesn't mean 2007 will be good as well. I also don't see the evidence that Williams and Guillen are really willing to give Anderson a shot and ride it out if he doesn't hit well. Pierzynski should do better.

 

The rotation will be fine, because you need 1 of the aforementioned 8-9 starters to put up an ERA in the 5.00 range, and the 1-4 starters essentially just need to put up a combined ERA in the 4.25 range. Hopefully we'll see them pick it up a little bit.

 

What evidence have you seen that Javier Vazquez can pitch in the American League at less than a 5.00 ERA? What evidence have you seen that any of the fifth starter candidates can pitch at even a 5.00 ERA in the toughest division in baseball? Do you think it's more likely Garland's going to pitch at his career totals for ERA (around 4.45-4.5) or at his anomylous 2005 levels? Do you think it's likely that Contreras can keep it up despite his age and injury history? Why? Certainly I feel Buehrle will rebound because a rebound is more in line with his career totals.

 

The bullpen itself seems to just be loaded with talent, but not many results. There are only like 4 guys who have guaranteed jobs (Jenks, Thornton, MacDougal, and Aardsma), but one of Sisco and Logan should make it, and then you're looking at Floyd, Masset, Haeger, Oneli Perez, and several other candiates for the final spot in the bullpen. It's probably going to be Sisco/Masset with Floyd taking the #5 spot, but that's why ST is played.

 

I like the bullpen a lot better than I did last year, and if we have mostly innings eaters in the rotation, the fifth and sixth slots theoretically shouldn't be an issue most of the time.

 

Basically, I don't think this team is an 83-87 win team, but rather 87-92 win team with potential to be better.

 

So despite the fact that the rotation got significantly worse, and the lineup is fundamentally the same, and the bullpen may be improved but the jury's still out, you project a similar or higher win total than last year? Bewildering.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Hideaway Lights

[Balta1701]

because most prospects don't pan out.

First of all, we lose Buehrle after 2007 anyway. The White Sox will not re-sign him. He will want more than 4 years. Reinsdorf has said he does not pay pitchers for more than 4 years. There you have it.

 

Second of all, 8-9 potential fifth starters? How many combined major league wins do these 8-9 potential 5th starters have? We also had 8-9 potential fifth starters in 2004.

On a simplistic level, yes you're right, having multiple 5th starter candidates did not work for us the last time it was done. However, there is one potential point you may be missing...look at the people who were filling that "potential 5th starter" role back in those years. Mr. Offday, Mr. Rauch who has never recovered from surgery, Jason Grilli, a guy who at the time was already 28 and who doesn't have the pitches to be a starter, I believe Neal Cotts was thrown in there and he doesn't have the pitches to be a starter, Felix Diaz - a now 26 year old who wound up released in Japan, and Arnie Munoz, who I believe is still hanging around our minor leagues somewhere and might someday turn into a serviceable bullpen guy.

 

This year, we now have the guy who was drafted right before Mark Teixeira, a first round pick of the Rangers, a knuckleballer who just keeps winning and getting better, our 2nd round pick from a few years ago, our first round pick from 05, a lefty who put up a 2.96 ERA at charlotte last year.

 

Just in terms of talent, the only guy from the 04-03 5th starter black hole who would even be on the same board as any of our potential 5th starters right now would have been Rauch before he was injured. Simply saying that sticking rookies into the starting rotation doesn't work because it didn't work for us in 03-04 ignores a lot of other things. Look what penciling in rookies like Verlander, Liriano, Weaver, Reyes, Cain, and so forth did for teams last year. These guys we now have are hopefully either at or near the same level as those rookies who turned into stars rapidly. Just because they're rookies and rookies sucked for the Sox in 04 doesn't mean that no rookie will ever succeed in the major leagues again.

Crede definitely regresses. Book it. At least 15 points off of his 2006 average. He was extremely hot for four months last year and then regressed back towards his career average.

Ok, again you're ignoring the actual situation. Did Crede have a sh*tty september last year? Yes. Was it because Crede was doing something different or regressing? No, it was because his back was hurting and it flared up big time in September. Could Crede regress just by picking up some bad habits next year? Of course. Could Crede regress because his back goes out on him? Probably even more likely. But let's not pretend that Crede suddenly became a .230 hitter again in September because of anything but his back...that's a specific issue, one which hopefully rehab will help with. But we'll see on that.

[Chisoxfn]

If you thinkthe Sox are an 83-87 win team this year...and the Sox do trade Buehrle and/or Vazquez now...are you prepared for a 4th place finish and barely making .500 if at all? I'm not. I, personally, would rather have the Sox compete year after year. If that means that we trade some of our chips and let some go with just draft pick compensation, then that's what it means. If the teams is competing year after year, it's a lot easier to catch lightning in a bottle when you are consistently winning.

 

One exception to that rule would be the Marlins. Tore down and built back up.

Great post. Completely agree.

[greg775]

I love Buehrle.

He deserves to get the best possible contract.

He wants to be a White Sox.

Will the White Sox make him the best offer he can get?

Obviously not.

 

I hope we keep him. If not, we'll probably have our front office people

trash him when he's let go.

 

I love the fact he admits he's a Cardinal fan.

It's a free country.

[heirdog]

So despite the fact that the rotation got significantly worse, and the lineup is fundamentally the same, and the bullpen may be improved but the jury's still out, you project a similar or higher win total than last year? Bewildering.

 

Not really. In 2006, most people predicted 95-105 wins and they underperformed to the tune of 90 wins. So now even with a worse rotation (I don't agree that it is significantly worse by losing Garcia only), same line-up and theoretically better bullpen, I think predicting 87-92 wins is on the money. If they overindex, they could get 95-100 wins. If they underperform again, they could get 80-85 wins. The fulcrum number this year is 90 wins and it can swing up or down from there. Last year it was 95 wins and based off your assessment on the team's moves, it seems correct for it to swing down to 90. So in essence, you should agree with the 87-92 range.

[Hideaway Lights]

Not really. In 2006, most people predicted 95-105 wins and they underperformed to the tune of 90 wins. So now even with a worse rotation (I don't agree that it is significantly worse by losing Garcia only), same line-up and theoretically better bullpen, I think predicting 87-92 wins is on the money. If they overindex, they could get 95-100 wins. If they underperform again, they could get 80-85 wins. The fulcrum number this year is 90 wins and it can swing up or down from there. Last year it was 95 wins and based off your assessment on the team's moves, it seems correct for it to swing down to 90. So in essence, you should agree with the 87-92 range.

 

I predicted 95-105 wins based on a 2005 that was now apparently an 87 win team overacheiving, so maybe that prediction was actually off. There's no way in hell Garland ever has that 2005 year again in my opinion, and there's no way in hell Contreras has that kind of run again. That run was Santana like. Every time he was on the mound I knew he was going to win.

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle. They were probably talent wise a high eighties winning team that way overacheived in 2005, and they were probably a talent wise a low to mid nineties team last year that underachieved. Keep in mind that we got about as much as anyone could hope for from Thome, Dye and Thorton last year. It's not like there weren't people who greatly exceeded expectations despite the disappointments.

 

I'm not sure how anyone could argue this team is better or even as good on paper than the 2006 team for 2007. In my eyes it's at least 5-10 games worse. Now for 2008 and beyond, we will see. But I've been down this road a few times and seen too many Baldwins and Ruffcorns to know that prospects don't mean anything necessarily.

[CanOfCorn]

I predicted 95-105 wins based on a 2005 that was now apparently an 87 win team overacheiving, so maybe that prediction was actually off. There's no way in hell Garland ever has that 2005 year again in my opinion, and there's no way in hell Contreras has that kind of run again. That run was Santana like. Every time he was on the mound I knew he was going to win.

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle. They were probably talent wise a high eighties winning team that way overacheived in 2005, and they were probably a talent wise a low to mid nineties team last year that underachieved. Keep in mind that we got about as much as anyone could hope for from Thome, Dye and Thorton last year. It's not like there weren't people who greatly exceeded expectations despite the disappointments.

 

I'm not sure how anyone could argue this team is better or even as good on paper than the 2006 team for 2007. In my eyes it's at least 5-10 games worse. Now for 2008 and beyond, we will see. But I've been down this road a few times and seen too many Baldwins and Ruffcorns to know that prospects don't mean anything necessarily.

 

You are absolutely right about the truth being in the middle. And you are right about Thome and Dye, but I think Thornton has more. I can definitely argue that this team is better than last year.

 

First, and probably the weakest argument, is that they have more rest. Not only were the Sox coming off the World Series run, but some were coming off of the World Baseball Classic.

 

Second, it's not how well you hit the ball or how hard, it's when. What the Sox did in 2005 was clutch hitting. Last year, not so much, it came in home run bunches. If Ozzie can get his team to do some bunting, some smart base-running, manufacture runs, which I think he will stress in camp, then this team will be better offensively than last year.

 

Third, the fifth starters of past years weren't the high ceiling guys that we have now. Well, maybe they were, but there was one of them. And they were handed the job...sound familiar? Now, we have a competition between all the pitchers Balta mentioned before. A competition of high ceiling guys is better than handing the job to one high ceiling guy, IMHO.

[GIOin08]

The truth is somewhere in the middle. They were probably talent wise a high eighties winning team that way overacheived in 2005, and they were probably a talent wise a low to mid nineties team last year that underachieved. Keep in mind that we got about as much as anyone could hope for from Thome, Dye and Thorton last year. It's not like there weren't people who greatly exceeded expectations despite the disappointments.

 

I'm not sure how anyone could argue this team is better or even as good on paper than the 2006 team for 2007. In my eyes it's at least 5-10 games worse. Now for 2008 and beyond, we will see. But I've been down this road a few times and seen too many Baldwins and Ruffcorns to know that prospects don't mean anything necessarily.

 

assuming the 4 starters are equal to last year, ( i think Buehrle, Vaz, better) yes we will be a mid 80's win team. But if one of these young guys can be a 12-15 game winner, (we will see)... we are talking 90 wins. And then you would hope buehrle is back to normal. And although many don't believe in Vaz on this site... I do... i think he has great stuff and that he will figure it out soon. I don't expect Garland to have another 18 win season. If i had to guess i would say 91 wins