supernuke Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Got to hand it to the Buehrle camp on this one. They have everybody beleiving that he really wanted to stay. He never had any intention of signing, this was just an effort to look good in front of the fans. Notice a lot of the sources talked about in articles were said to be people outside the organization but close to the negotiation. To me that says these were people on Mark's side of the table. This was all just a PR effort, but it was organized by the Buehrle camp not the Sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 05:50 PM) Bowden supposedly has the worst rep as a GM in baseball. Arrogant or alcoholic? BTW, what's the chances we trade for C. Guzman this offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(Brian @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) I still LOL thinking that he wanted to meet ARod without Boras around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) Garland and Contreras were given No Trade protection for the first year of the new contract ONLY. That's pretty standard, it takes away any possibility of a sign and trade. Javy was only given no trade protection to a few teams on the west coast since he absolutely never wants to pitch out there again, so the Sox still have over 20 teams they could trade him to if they really wanted. Buehrle is looking for a complete no trade clause that covers the full life of the contract, meaning for the 4-5 years he's signed for the Sox would not be able to trade him anywhere without his consent. The Sox haven't given out full no trade protection to any player that I know of. When you're investing around $60M into a pitcher he want to keep your options open in the long term which is why it makes sense that they wouldn't give him a NTC. That's my point. Buehrle becomes a 10 and 5 in 2009 anyways, so instead of having a 1 year NTC like Count and Garland got, he wants a 2 and after that you wouldn't be able to trade him anyways. So in other words, the Sox don't want 10 and 5 guys no matter how cheap they will sign because they want to be able to trade anybody and save money errr......get young prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Arrogant or alcoholic? BTW, what's the chances we trade for C. Guzman this offseason? I can't remember where I read it, but he was totally being an ass about the Majewski trade. His scouts have quit on him due to poor pay and his attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) That's my point. Buehrle becomes a 10 and 5 in 2009 anyways, so instead of having a 1 year NTC like Count and Garland got, he wants a 2 and after that you wouldn't be able to trade him anyways. So in other words, the Sox don't want 10 and 5 guys no matter how cheap they will sign because they want to be able to trade anybody and save money errr......get young prospects. Wouldn't it be 2011? Before the 2007 season started he had just over 6 years of service time. 2007: 6 2008: 7 2009: 8 2010: 9 2011: 10 (10/5 kicks in) That would mean he needs 3 years of no trade protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) Wouldn't it be 2011? Before the 2007 season started he had just over 6 years of service time. 2007: 6 2008: 7 2009: 8 2010: 9 2011: 10 (10/5 kicks in) That would mean he needs 3 years of no trade protection. He's been up since 2000 without being sent down, so I would think it kicks in at 2010 the latest. Anyways even so, I reallly don't care what bull s*** they give us, if Buehrle will take 4/56 and you won't let him have it over a NTC, then your cheap. KW and Jerry really put the wool over our eyes with 2005 but their true colors have both come out in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) He's been up since 2000 without being sent down, so I would think it kicks in at 2010 the latest. Eh, I think you're right about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 That is really indefensible. If Buehrle pitches like we think he should, you'd never trade a lefty in his prime signed that cheap anyways and if he pitched bad enough that we'd want to trade him, it's not like we'd get anything in return (and that's unlikely anyways). Just pathetic, I mean I wanted us to trade Buehrle and now i'm mad at the organization. Only the Sox could f*** this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I knew that this was too good to be true. QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) Buehrle is looking for a complete no trade clause that covers the full life of the contract, meaning for the 4-5 years he's signed for the Sox would not be able to trade him anywhere without his consent. The Sox haven't given out full no trade protection to any player that I know of. When you're investing around $60M into a pitcher you want to keep your options open in the long term which is why it makes sense that they wouldn't give him a NTC. I can't blame Kenny and JR for having a problem with that. Two or even three years of a NTC is reasonable, but the ENTIRE duration of the contract is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 This deal is going to get done.... i can't see both sides coming this far only to not get this done. color me optimistic.... with a gold plated paint brush b**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:01 PM) Eh, I think you're right about that. Yeah now that I think about it his 10 and 5 would kick in something in July of 2010, since he debut was July of 2000 and he's been here ever since. Edited June 30, 2007 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) He's been up since 2000 without being sent down, so I would think it kicks in at 2010 the latest. Anyways even so, I reallly don't care what bull s*** they give us, if Buehrle will take 4/56 and you won't let him have it over a NTC, then your cheap. KW and Jerry really put the wool over our eyes with 2005 but their true colors have both come out in 2007. Buehrle will reach 7 years of service time just after the All-Star break. He came up July 17th (i believe) of 2000, and has been here ever since. The 10/5 rights would kick in on July 17th (i think) of 2010, the third year of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) I can't blame Kenny and JR for having a problem with that. Two or even three years of a NTC is reasonable, but the ENTIRE duration of the contract is not. As of July 2010 he'd have a NTC anyways by Union rules, so realistically he wants 2 and a half years of NTC (2008, 2009, and about half of 2010 until he becomes a 10 and 5) and then the rules say he has it anyways. QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) Buehrle will reach 7 years of service time just after the All-Star break. He came up July 17th (i believe) of 2000, and has been here ever since. The 10/5 rights would kick in on July 17th (i think) of 2010, the third year of the contract. Yeah my brain is not working properly today, his debut was July 2000 and he never left so July of 2010 is when 10/5 would kick in obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) Buehrle will reach 7 years of service time just after the All-Star break. He came up July 17th (i believe) of 2000, and has been here ever since. The 10/5 rights would kick in on July 17th (i think) of 2010, the third year of the contract. Yep, that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg The Bull Luzinski Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:44 PM) We don't sign big free agents and we won't spend money on draft picks. So where the f*** do they expect to compete from? Trading our farm system for veterans that are past their prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 (edited) So in other words, Buehrle's camp is telling the Sox he wants the extra year and half of NTC rights as they gave Garland and Contreras the one year (and after 2 and a half of it for Mark he'd be 10/5), and in return he'll sign for just the 4 years and just the 56 million. That seems MORE than fair to me towards the Sox. Edited June 30, 2007 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 06:12 PM) So in other words, Buehrle's camp is telling the Sox he wants the extra year and half of NTC rights as they gave Garland and Contreras the one year (and after 2 and a half of it for Mark he'd be 10/5), and in return he'll sign for just the 4 years and just the 56 million. That seems MORE than fair to me towards the Sox. Which is exactly what the Buehrle side wants you to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagotony06 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(3E8 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) Last time he rebuilt the team, we won the World Series. 16 players on our postseason roster had been aquired within 1 year of 2005. Granted, rebuilding a team with prospects instead of veterans will prove way more difficult. Unfortunately, we are going nowhere with this core of players. Seems like we do not have a choice. Some of our favorite/most talented players will have to be sacrificed. Based on reports, KW has been asking for teams' top 2 prospects for Buehrle, which is exactly what needs to happen. No 'projects' for a pitcher of Buehrle's caliber. Everyone here will probably agree that 2005 was a special year and a lucky one also. We got every break and took advantage of every break we got. KW put that team together and luckily caught lightning in a bottle. Our Starting pitching was lights out, that's why we won. To me it would be important to keep intact at least 2/5ths of that rotation, in JG and MB. They are 2 guys you should build around. Instead the Org. chooses to build around JV a headcase, and JC an old man, and Danks, who hasn't proven a damn thing yet. Prospects are just that, prospects. With MB you know what you are gonna get every 5th day. With JG also. Lock these guys up. If you are gonna trade anyone trade, JV and JC. Get whatever you can for them, but why would you rid yourself of a guy that came up with your Org. They might as well go ahead and listen for offers from JG, because the same s*** is gonna happen next year. I really doubt he will stick around especially after the way they treated his buddie. This Org. is just plain old ass backward. As far as you saying we don't have a choice since we are going nowhere with our core players, well we wouldn't have to worry about it, if we had a farm system that produced a couple of prospects every now and then. That's just another area of this Org. that is totally f***ed up. We have a farm system that can't produce even a average postion player. I was frustrated with this whole Org. before this fiasco with Buerhle, now I'm just fed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg The Bull Luzinski Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 What are the odds that some new shred of news come up before the end of the day that gives a glimmer of hope and drags this on so Buehrle's next start is a sell out? I say 3-1 odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) As of July 2010 he'd have a NTC anyways by Union rules, so realistically he wants 2 and a half years of NTC (2008, 2009, and about half of 2010 until he becomes a 10 and 5) and then the rules say he has it anyways. So, in effect, Mark would have to give the Sox his permission to be traded throughout the duration of his contract. Again, I can see why KW and JR would have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29thandPoplar Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Buehrle will reach 7 years of service time just after the All-Star break. He came up July 17th (i believe) of 2000, and has been here ever since. The 10/5 rights would kick in on July 17th (i think) of 2010, the third year of the contract. The rule is based on 10 years of service time. One year of service time is 172 days per the CBA. He did not accrue one year of service time in 2000, as he arrived in July. His first year of service time was 2001. Therefore the 10/5 no trade would kick in April 2011. That means the White Sox would be granting a full no trade for 3 years of this rumored extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(29thandPoplar @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) The rule is based on 10 years of service time. One year of service time is 172 days per the CBA. He did not accrue one year of service time in 2000, as he arrived in July. His first year of service time was 2001. Therefore the 10/5 no trade would kick in April 2011. That means the White Sox would be granting a full no trade for 3 years of this rumored extension. That would make me right. It would also make sense since Andruw Jones got 10/5 rights following the 2006 season even though he was up in 1996. He spent 10 full years with the club starting in 1997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernuke Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) That would make me right. Was there ever any doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29thandPoplar Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That would make me right. I did not read your post, but the rule is based on years of service, not days of service. 10 full years of MLB service, 5 full years MLB service with the same team. So yes, effective start of 2011 season. This also means that Merkin appears to be on the right track. He said in his article the Buehrle camp wants a full no trade for the full duration of the contract, which has been said to be 4 years. After 4 years of the contract, he gets no trade rights anyways, i.e. beginning of 2011 season. Should the White Sox grant a no trade clause, full, for 4 seasons, that is the question it seems. They seem to think it's not a wise business practice. Many will disagree. That is, if all this media chatter is true. Edited June 30, 2007 by 29thandPoplar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts