Buehrle Fest

[MurcieOne]

There is no upside to letting Mark go.

[The Beast]

There is no upside to letting Mark go.

Yep. Unless you REALLY want draft picks...

[Kalapse]

Yep. Unless you REALLY want draft picks...

Or you REALLY don't want 30% of your payroll tied up in 2 players over the next 3 years, one of whom is a huge risk to be injured/ineffective some time over the life of the deal and leave you eating $14M+ for a few years. There's a pretty big downside to giving Mark 4+ years and ~$60M guaranteed.

 

If Konerko, Buehrle and Garland are all still with the Sox in 2009, somewhere around $40M of probably an $85-$95M payroll will locked up in 3 players.

[Steff]

Or you REALLY don't want 30% of your payroll tied up in 2 players over the next 3 years, one of whom is a huge risk to be injured/ineffective some time over the life of the deal and leave you eating $14M+ for a few years. There's a pretty big downside to giving Mark 4+ years and ~$60M guaranteed.

 

If Konerko, Buehrle and Garland are all still with the Sox in 2009, somewhere around $40M of probably an $85-$95M payroll will locked up in 3 players.

 

 

It aint gonna be pretty the next few years... though the bathroom lines should be shorter.

[WCSox]

If Konerko, Buehrle and Garland are all still with the Sox in 2009, somewhere around $40M of probably an $85-$95M payroll will locked up in 3 players.

 

I thought that Jon was only under contract through next year?

[Capn12]

Or you REALLY don't want 30% of your payroll tied up in 2 players over the next 3 years, one of whom is a huge risk to be injured/ineffective some time over the life of the deal and leave you eating $14M+ for a few years. There's a pretty big downside to giving Mark 4+ years and ~$60M guaranteed.

 

If Konerko, Buehrle and Garland are all still with the Sox in 2009, somewhere around $40M of probably an $85-$95M payroll will locked up in 3 players.

 

I'm not sure I understand exactly where this assumption is coming from....based on what?

[LVSoxFan]

Not to be selfish but I am glad that all the bandwagon jumpers from last season are gone from the park; that sucked.

 

Although the bathroom lines at Cubs/Sox were HELLACIOUS.

[Capn12]

I thought that Jon was only under contract through next year?

 

Jon Garland p

3 years/$29M (2006-08)

 

* signed extension 12/05

* 06:$7M, 07:$10M, 08:$12M

[Steff]

I'm not sure I understand exactly where this assumption is coming from....based on what?

 

 

I don't remember the exact quote from someone earlier in this thread, but something like...

 

He throws a ball at a high velocity of speed. He is at risk to injure his arm.

[iamshack]

It aint gonna be pretty the next few years... though the bathroom lines should be shorter.

 

I think it's a bit premature to say that...I'm not buying this impending doom of the next few upcoming seasons as some others are. We've got the potential to have quality starting pitching in place for the forseeable future. We've all seen enough in baseball over the past few seasons that if you can get solid starting pitching, you can be competitive.

 

And for everyone who is basing this impending doom upon us getting "older" so fast, the Tigers could be looking at the same thing happening to them very soon. Surely, they are better position with their farm system, but not so much in position players outside of Cameron Maybin...

[Steff]

I think it's a bit premature to say that...

 

 

 

People thought it was premature for me to say it was going to be a bad year after Soxfest, and again after spring training...

 

It aint exactly been a good one.

[kapkomet]

I seem to recall the owners locking out said players ... more then once ... for "escalating prices". Now, if they do it again, it's suicide, but then again, these athletes getting paid so much money is ridiculous. They're entertainers. It's just sick.

 

I find it simply NUTS that a union is going to step in and deny a guy getting paid $14MM per year on average, AGAIN, making him one of the top ten pitchers in the game when it comes to per year $$ (Roger Clemens the asswipe part time screwtard aside and to think I used to somewhat respect his sorry ass).

 

People thought it was premature for me to say it was going to be a bad year after Soxfest, and again after spring training...

 

It aint exactly been a good one.

Hey, that's enough about all that premature talk.

 

[iamshack]

People thought it was premature for me to say it was going to be a bad year after Soxfest, and again after spring training...

 

It aint exactly been a good one.

 

No, it hasn't. But I am willing to at least imagine that perhaps we've had our "second-half slide" in the first half this season, and maybe we'll play great ball in the second half as opposed to our usual second half. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities. All this focus tends to happen when you play poorly in the first half, but not so much when you do it in the second half. Maybe we aren't as bad as we all tend to believe.

[Kalapse]

I thought that Jon was only under contract through next year?

That's the idea. If the Sox decide to lock up Garland to a long term deal it's going to take a similar contract to the one Buehrle signs to get Garland to stick around as well. So that's going to be somewhere around $28M between the both of them and another $12M for Konerko. The first year of any mult-year contract that Garland signs would be 2009, hence the way I worded it.

[LVSoxFan]

Since we're on the subject, I have a 101 question. I was discussing with a friend the another night my frustration with us not being able to capitalize beyond 2005 (remember all the talk of a potential dynasty? Pfft).

 

How is it that clubs like Boston/NYY or Minny, year after year, are always contenders? Even Detroit--unlike us--doesn't seem to be having the dropoff that we did post-WS.

 

Is it really just that they have money (or the Twinks have a farm club)?

 

How come we can never seem to do that? After all, in seven years we've only made it into and beyond the playoffs once.

 

No, it hasn't. But I am willing to at least imagine that perhaps we've had our "second-half slide" in the first half this season, and maybe we'll play great ball in the second half as opposed to our usual second half. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities. All this focus tends to happen when you play poorly in the first half, but not so much when you do it in the second half. Maybe we aren't as bad as we all tend to believe.

 

I concur with this. I have said since '05 I'd rather have carp 1st half (like the Indians that year) and come on second half like gangbusters than go through another September swoon. That was nerve-wracking.

 

And there's bad and then there's BAD and, as many holes as we may have we are CERTAINLY not as awful as we have been playing so far. That tells me a turnaround is coming.

[iamshack]

I seem to recall the owners locking out said players ... more then once ... for "escalating prices". Now, if they do it again, it's suicide, but then again, these athletes getting paid so much money is ridiculous. They're entertainers. It's just sick.

 

I find it simply NUTS that a union is going to step in and deny a guy getting paid $14MM per year on average, AGAIN, making him one of the top ten pitchers in the game when it comes to per year $$ (Roger Clemens the asswipe part time screwtard aside and to think I used to somewhat respect his sorry ass).

Hey, that's enough about all that premature talk.

 

 

I agree with you, the Union won't do anything. Nor can they. They'll whine to his agent that he should wait until he hits free agency and that he should get whatever the market will pay, but that's all.

 

As for the owners, they don't have to do anything such as locking out players. All they have to do is direct their gm's to be more shrewd with their resources. That will happen one or two ways: By direct order, or by fiscal reality setting in. Either way, I've got to believe there will be some kind of slight downturn in the market as their was in 03'-04'-05'.

[Steff]

Since we're on the subject, I have a 101 question. I was discussing with a friend the another night my frustration with us not being able to capitalize beyond 2005 (remember all the talk of a potential dynasty? Pfft).

 

How is it that clubs like Boston/NYY or Minny, year after year, are always contenders? Even Detroit--unlike us--doesn't seem to be having the dropoff that we did post-WS.

 

Is it really just that they have money (or the Twinks have a farm club)?

 

How come we can never seem to do that? After all, in seven years we've only made it into and beyond the playoffs once.

I concur with this. I have said since '05 I'd rather have carp 1st half (like the Indians that year) and come on second half like gangbusters than go through another September swoon. That was nerve-wracking.

 

And there's bad and then there's BAD and, as many holes as we may have we are CERTAINLY not as awful as we have been playing so far. That tells me a turnaround is coming.

 

 

Honestly... I think their players are/were more hungry for it. JMO.

[Kalapse]

I'm not sure I understand exactly where this assumption is coming from....based on what?

First think of all the pitchers who have signed 4 or 5 year deals over the past 15 years or so. Now think of how many actually made it through the entire life of the contract without getting injured or becoming ineffective. The best comparison I have and I continue to use it is Mike Hampton. Through the 2000 season he was a better career pitcher than Buehrle, a year younger, with the same clean bill of health and similar throwing style/mechanics, he was considered by many to be one of the most athletic pitchers in the history of the game. In 2001 he signed an 8 year deal with the Rockies. That contract is now considered one of the worst in the history of the game since Hampton has had more injuries than any other pitcher in the game over the past few years.

 

Every pitcher is a huge risk over a 4-5 year span.

[iamshack]

Since we're on the subject, I have a 101 question. I was discussing with a friend the another night my frustration with us not being able to capitalize beyond 2005 (remember all the talk of a potential dynasty? Pfft).

 

How is it that clubs like Boston/NYY or Minny, year after year, are always contenders? Even Detroit--unlike us--doesn't seem to be having the dropoff that we did post-WS.

 

Is it really just that they have money (or the Twinks have a farm club)?

 

How come we can never seem to do that? After all, in seven years we've only made it into and beyond the playoffs once.

I concur with this. I have said since '05 I'd rather have carp 1st half (like the Indians that year) and come on second half like gangbusters than go through another September swoon. That was nerve-wracking.

 

And there's bad and then there's BAD and, as many holes as we may have we are CERTAINLY not as awful as we have been playing so far. That tells me a turnaround is coming.

 

Well, at this point in last season, we hadn't had the dropoff yet either. We were 56-31 at the ASB I believe. The dropoff to me, began in the series prior to the ASB, when we played so poorly against Boston. So if the Tigers are going to have the dropoff we did, it would occur in the second half. Because we came out like gangbusters in the first half last year just as they have this year.

Edited June 29, 2007 by iamshack

[klaus kinski]

So does the KW clock still stop today? Or did it while I was in line at Taste of Chicago?

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

Thread Hijack

 

Brewers are pwning the Cubs 5-0 before the Cubs even bat

[soxfan3530]

Sorry if im like the 500th person to do this but i was out of town yesterday and at work today and dont have the time to read through all these pages to see the latest of the MB thread. From what i know they are talking about 4 years for 56 mil? is that right? are they close or does it look like its not gonna happen. is there still a deadline of today? any updated info would be greatly appreciated. thanks guys!

[Harry Chappas]

Thread Hijack

 

Brewers are pwning the Cubs 5-0 before the Cubs even bat

 

Gallardo backed it up with a 7 pitch inning that included a strike out. Santo blames the off day.

 

As a side note to why I follow this is I work up north and have to end my work around before the end of the cub game especially today with Taste.

[WCSox]

That's the idea. If the Sox decide to lock up Garland to a long term deal it's going to take a similar contract to the one Buehrle signs to get Garland to stick around as well. So that's going to be somewhere around $28M between the both of them and another $12M for Konerko. The first year of any mult-year contract that Garland signs would be 2009, hence the way I worded it.

 

I see. I thought it kind of went without saying that locking up BOTH Mark and Jon was out of the realm of possibility, especially with the way that Jon's been pitching this season. Did somebody actually suggest that? (I'm having difficulty keeping up with the dizzying amount of material in this thread and paying attention to work at the same time.)

 

I agree with you.

[southsider2k5]

Sorry if im like the 500th person to do this but i was out of town yesterday and at work today and dont have the time to read through all these pages to see the latest of the MB thread. From what i know they are talking about 4 years for 56 mil? is that right? are they close or does it look like its not gonna happen. is there still a deadline of today? any updated info would be greatly appreciated. thanks guys!

 

Two places have mentioned the $14 million a year number, both Ed Farmer and the Trib. There is no official word anywhere yet.