Buehrle Fest

[Gregory Pratt]

Well I'd hope there is more to this than just the no trade clause, cause if that was really the only sticking point then I have a huge problem with Mr. Williams.

 

and Reinsdorf

[dagotony06]

Buehrle would have been guaranteed about $30M more than Contreras with no way of ridding yourself of Mark's contract if something does happen to him unlike with Jose.

In my eyes he is worth every penny and then some. I just believe not signing him is a big mistake, and is gonna send the wrong message to the fans and to the players on this team and future players for this team. There is no loyalty in my eyes.

[Rowand44]

In my eyes he is worth every penny and then some. I just believe not signing him is a big mistake, and is gonna send the wrong message to the fans and to the players on this team and future players for this team. There is no loyalty in my eyes.

There is no loyalty in sports, period. I'm sorry but this proposed contract is just an absolute steal for the Sox even with the no trade clause. This would have been way to good of a deal for the Sox to pass up imo and it looks like that is exactly what they're going to do.

[fathom]

There is no loyalty in sports, period. I'm sorry but this proposed contract is just an absolute steal for the Sox even with the no trade clause. This would have been way to good of a deal for the Sox to pass up imo and it looks like that is exactly what they're going to do.

 

And it makes it about 99 pct likely that Jon Garland is gone after this year as well.

[Dick Allen]

What is all this talk about ridding themselves of Buerhle if something happens to him? If he blew out his shoulder or elbow or whatever, no team is going to want to pick up the contract NTC or no NTC. Its apparent the White Sox at the very least don't want pitchers with full NTC, so Buerhle's White Sox days as well as Garland's are numbered anyway.

 

Frankly, I think these "negotiations" were all hatched for PR. I'm sorry, but why would you go through the entire song and dance of negotiating years and numbers and get caught up in a NTC? Wouldn't that be a starting point? Considering you have to accept a "hometown discount" isn't it fair to assume you need something in the contract saying you will be in said "hometown"?

Edited June 30, 2007 by Dick Allen

[dagotony06]

And it makes it about 99 pct likely that Jon Garland is gone after this year as well.

Which is also a damn shame. So instead of having an anchor of MB and JG signed to go along with JV,Danks, and Floyd as a possible future rotation, you are gonna have JV, JC, Danks, Floyd and Gio and if by chance he gets rid of JC which I hope he does then maybe Broadway would be put into the rotation. I'm not sure about anyone else but I would rather have the rotation with MB and JG, over the other possible one. But JR and KW will be happy Cause it will be cheap, and no longterm deals. The future of this franchise sure is dark. VERY DARK!!!

 

Support from a friend: Jon Garland seemed a bit perplexed on Thursday in regard to the numerous issues emanating from contractual discussions surrounding his friend and teammate. These are issues that could apply to Garland when he becomes a free agent after the 2008 season.

 

For starters, Garland had a hard time figuring out a somewhat unwritten White Sox rule to not give pitchers more than three-year deals.

 

"The whole policy kind of gets me because you hear teams say pitching and defense is what will get you there but they shied away from the long-term deal on pitchers," Garland said. "It kind of defeats what you are after in the first place."

 

Garland understood the theory of how it's tough to project certain pitchers' health and success rate out over a fourth or fifth year, let alone the second year of a contract. But, he also pointed to Buehrle's track record of six straight years with at least 200 innings and 12 victories as worth the risk.

 

"I think the guy deserves it," said Garland of Buehrle. "I think he will deserve everything he gets, whether it be here or with another team. He has earned it.

 

"Since he has been in the league, I don't think he's missed a day. Every time he steps on that field, everyone in the ballpark knows his team probably has a better chance to win that game. It's kind of hard to argue that fact."

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

I haven't read through this whole thread so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned. Buehrle is a 10-5 guy in a couple of years, so the Sox would only have to give him the no trade for the first two years of the deal. If the deal doesn't get signed because of a no trade clause, I really have to question Williams/Reinsdorf.

[WCSox]

I still think it is probably best for us to trade him in the long run, but to have it be this public and then negotiations break down over this is awful.

 

It's nowhere near as bad as trading Wilson Alvarez and Roberto Hernandez at the deadline in '97.

 

Its the "we really tried" technique that you knew was coming. They even went as far as saying the money was right, so the Sox wouldn't have come off as lowballing.

 

Yep

 

I still think this was all done by Mark's camp.

 

I think that it was orchestrated by both. If the Sox aren't interested in keeping Mark around, I don't believe Reinsdorf's alleged refusal to allow a trading partner to negotiate with Mark until free agency. Mark agreeing to VERY reasonable, un-Zito-like money now will make him more attractive to a team like the Mets would need him now AND want him for the long-term. The Sox could get a lot more in return.

 

In my eyes he is worth every penny and then some. I just believe not signing him is a big mistake, and is gonna send the wrong message to the fans and to the players on this team and future players for this team.

 

People were saying the same things about Blackjack and Alex Fernandez a decade ago. How did their careers pan out after leaving the Sox?

 

Sox fans survived the Strike and the White Flag Trade. This is nothing in comparison.

[dagotony06]

It's nowhere near as bad as trading Wilson Alvarez and Roberto Hernandez at the deadline in '97.

Yep

I think that it was orchestrated by both. If the Sox aren't interested in keeping Mark around, I don't believe Reinsdorf's alleged refusal to allow a trading partner to negotiate with Mark until free agency. Mark agreeing to VERY reasonable, un-Zito-like money now will make him more attractive to a team like the Mets would need him now AND want him for the long-term. The Sox could get a lot more in return.

People were saying the same things about Blackjack and Alex Fernandez a decade ago. How did their careers pan out after leaving the Sox?

 

Sox fans survived the Strike and the White Flag Trade. This is nothing in comparison.

My point is this. You already took a risk, a huge one, in giving a 35 year old a 3 year extension, so by the time his deal is up hell be 38. Now keep in mind, nobody really knows how old JC is, so it's even a greater risk, plus he is a power pitcher and he is right handed. There should be nowhere near the risk when it comes to giving MB a 4year deal. He is 28, in 4 years he will be 32, he is left handed, a finesse pitcher, who has made every start in his career. Has been a stand up guy his whole time in a Whitesox unform. Plus you might as wel kiss 27 year old JG goodbye, cause he's gonna want the same kind of deal. To me this is unacceptable as a fan who supports this team, and has for the 36 years. Give MB his NTC and rebuild your rotation around MB and JG, not JC and JV!!!

[YASNY]

My point is this. You already took a risk, a huge one, in giving a 35 year old a 3 year extension, so by the time his deal is up hell be 38. Now keep in mind, nobody really knows how old JC is, so it's even a greater risk, plus he is a power pitcher and he is right handed. There should be nowhere near the risk when it comes to giving MB a 4year deal. He is 28, in 4 years he will be 32, he is left handed, a finesse pitcher, who has made every start in his career. Has been a stand up guy his whole time in a Whitesox unform. Plus you might as wel kiss 27 year old JG goodbye, cause he's gonna want the same kind of deal. To me this is unacceptable as a fan who supports this team, and has for the 36 years. Give MB his NTC and rebuild your rotation around MB and JG, not JC and JV!!!

 

Well said. I couldn't agree with you more.

[WCSox]

My point is this. You already took a risk, a huge one, in giving a 35 year old a 3 year extension, so by the time his deal is up hell be 38. Now keep in mind, nobody really knows how old JC is, so it's even a greater risk, plus he is a power pitcher and he is right handed.

 

JC was also practically unhittable from about August of '05 through maybe June of last year. Mark has never been that dominant. Contreras' extension was only $29 million in guaranteed money and his NTC was only for this season. Mark's alleged deal was $56 million in guaranteed money and his NTC clause would've been, in effect, indefinite because of his impending 5-10 status. I don't think that the two situations are that comparable.

 

There should be nowhere near the risk when it comes to giving MB a 4year deal. He is 28, in 4 years he will be 32, he is left handed, a finesse pitcher, who has made every start in his career.

 

People said similar things about Mike Hampton. You never know what's going to happen down the line.

 

I understand what you're saying and agree to a certain extent. However, just look at the studs that the Sox dealt back in the mid-90's. Giving huge deals veterans with 1000+ innings on their arms is a huge risk, no matter who you're talking about. I can see both sides of the argument.

 

I don't believe the 4/56/NTC deal being talked about today, just like I didn't believe the 4/50 deal that the Score stupidly announced earlier in the week. None of this info seems to be coming from a credible source, so I'm going to stop arguing about an alleged offer that probably was never made in the first place.

Edited June 30, 2007 by WCSox

[Flash Tizzle]

I'm going to be upset if I wake up Tuesday morning and Buehrle is still a member of this ballclub. Without proof to back myself up, I'm guessing Monday's start at home will be -- and should be -- his last. It's probably more of a sentimental move than anything else. The crowd will cheer him regardless of results, and maybe we'll get to see a tear roll down his cheek.

 

If all publicaitons indicate a break-down between the two parties because of a no-trade clause (which I personally doubt), then there should be no quesitons left as to his future with the ballclub. Grant whichever team provides the best package the negotiating window, and say goodbye once and for all.

[LVSoxFan]

Anybody who believes that JC is 35 is high. I'm 41 and he looks 15 years older than me.

[dagotony06]

JC was also practically unhittable from about August of '05 through maybe June of last year. Mark has never been that dominant. Contreras' extension was only $29 million in guaranteed money and his NTC was only for this season. Mark's alleged deal was $56 million in guaranteed money and his NTC clause would've been, in effect, indefinite because of his impending 5-10 status. I don't think that the two situations are that comparable.

People said similar things about Mike Hampton. You never know what's going to happen down the line.

 

I understand what you're saying and agree to a certain extent. However, just look at the studs that the Sox dealt back in the mid-90's. Giving huge deals veterans with 1000+ innings on their arms is a huge risk, no matter who you're talking about. I can see both sides of the argument.

 

I don't believe the 4/56/NTC deal being talked about today, just like I didn't believe the 4/50 deal that the Score stupidly announced earlier in the week. None of this info seems to be coming from a credible source, so I'm going to stop arguing about an alleged offer that probably was never made in the first place.

Hey buddy, I don't mean to come across as arguing or anything like that, I'm just having a debate on the subject. I'm just giving my opinion on what I would like to see done. Everyone has their own opinions and I respect that. I just believe locking up MB and JG should be the way to build a rotation, I guess we will see what happens, but you might as well go ahead and see if you can trade JG now, because I really doubt he is gonna stick around. You will probably get alot more for him this year, than next because he will be in the same situation as Buerhle is this year. He'll just be a rental player. If you get rid of him this year, he is still under contract for next. Plus I would get rid of JC no matter what. I don't care what they get for him, just get rid of that contract.

[WCSox]

I just believe locking up MB and JG should be the way to build a rotation

 

Not a bad idea, but those two's extensions are going to be about $120 million in guaranteed money. Their combined salaries will be ~1/3 of the team's payroll for the next four years or so. That's a lot of money to invest in two pepole.

 

If it were completely up to me, I'd extend Mark, deal JC, and play wait-and-see with Jon next year (deal him by the deadline if we're not competitive or take the draft picks if we happen to get lucky).

[dagotony06]

Not a bad idea, but those two's extensions are going to be about $120 million in guaranteed money. Their combined salaries will be ~1/3 of the team's payroll for the next four years or so. That's a lot of money to invest in two pepole.

 

If it were completely up to me, I'd extend Mark, deal JC, and play wait-and-see with Jon next year (deal him by the deadline if we're not competitive or take the draft picks if we happen to get lucky).

If we don't sign Mark then us contending next year I really can't see. By not signing him, they are telling me they are going into full rebuilding mode. They have to see if they can get rid of JC and his contract. he's gotta go. You're not gonna get much, except salary relief from another team taking on his contract. Right now would be the best time to deal JG if MB doesn't sign. There isn't a reason to keep him around at all for next year. You can get the best package of prospects if you deal him this year. I say he has to go also.

 

As for position players, no one is untouchable. I would deal Thome in a heartbeat, Dye would be gone, not gonna get much for him, but I would try and get something. Same goes for Iguchi, and Uribe. I'm not sure if there will be a market for Pods or Erstad, if there is, then by all means get rid of them. But something is telling me KW has plans on bringing back Pods and Erstad for next year. I don't agree at all if he does, but I just have a feeling he is gonna. As for Crede I can see us not even offering him arbitration, just like we did with Magglio. I think the Org. has made the move to the Fields era. I think they like that Richar kid they got from AZ. and he will be out SS or 2nd baseman next year. I would see what was out there for Jenks, because we aren't gonna need a closer for the next few years. I can't see us contending in this division. So I would see what Jenks could bring in a trade. Thornton has some trade value, as does Mackowiak, and Cintron, not much but some. Man the more I think about this team, the more depressed I get.

[nitetrain8601]

Haven't followed this thread much, but I heard that the Dodgers will be looking at him now since negotiations have broken down. I must say, even though I'm not a huge fan of Mark, the fact that a NTC is the sticking point if pretty fkn stupid IMHO.

[Chisoxfn]

Jesus...I just get home and what the f*** did I miss.

[CanOfCorn]

Anybody who believes that JC is 35 is high. I'm 41 and he looks 15 years older than me.

 

 

I'm 36 and Greg Oden looks 15 years older than me.

[kapkomet]

Jesus...I just get home and what the f*** did I miss.

AAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaabsolutely NOTHING, just like I said on page three of this thread.

 

This always was bulls***. I'm glad to know that the organization hasn't changed its stripes any.

[SoxFan1]

Our organization sucks at life.

[Gregory Pratt]

Our organization sucks at life.

 

It's good at winning games.

[SoxFan1]

It's good at winning games.

My god, how often are you going to change your avatar? You change it almost as much as your diaper.

[FlaCWS]

Well I'd hope there is more to this than just the no trade clause, cause if that was really the only sticking point then I have a huge problem with Mr. Williams.

 

 

Tell me about it... I am just hearing about this now (9:15pm ET Saturday night) and I am absolutely stunned. Buehrle isn't even 30 years old yet, and you're signing him to a measly 4 year deal... why the hell would you even CONSIDER trading him anyway?!?!? That is what f**king killed this deal?!?!?

 

As I have said before and will say this one last time... if you can't hold on to a guy like Mark Buehrle - above-average left-handed starter in his prime, model citizen... then who the F**K can you hold on to? Who are the guys we actually DO want if we DON'T want Buehrle? What a joke.

[klaus kinski]

Everyone makes it sound like the money comes out of OUR pockets to keep a popular productive pitcher. Its the money of a team owned by a bunch of rich men who act like they are down to their last dime. 30,000 plus per game-mucho TV $-everything in the park spponsored. Profit Profit Profit

 

THis is another wake up call for me-one of many throughout the Reinsdorf years-from which we have ONE world series appearance. We have been good many times, but except for once ALWAYS come up short. Its not like the way they do it has a proven record of working.

 

Arent any of you sick of this in a big city?

 

We are letting go baseballs prize commodity-a durable productive left handed pitcher. And keeping him would be better on the field than trading for more prospects the KEN WILLIAMS farm system will never develop.

 

This is a kick to all of us below the belt. And this time they screwed with our heads too.

Edited July 1, 2007 by klaus kinski