Steff Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) And another question (for us non-experts): even if a player has a NTC, they can waive that if they want, right? (Example: two years from now KW needs to trade for talent and the only way to get it is if Buehrle waives, so he asks Buehrle if he would. He could, right?) Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(Drew @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:49 AM) Ridiculous. Nickel-and-diming your franchise player out of town. Can't say I haven't seen Reinsdorf do this before, though. Still waiting for some names. You just can't make a disparaging claim and not back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 04:28 PM) Still waiting for some names. You just can't make a disparaging claim and not back it up. How about Frank Thomas? Or Magglio Ordonez? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) You don't want to, but you contine to piss on the wall then cry when called to the carpet on misleading info. Whatever. You win. Incorrect. I don't mind admitting when I am wrong, and I think it's great when other posters contribute additional information to the discussion. Once again, it's a matter of being condescending when answering a question that (at least the way I interpretted it) was not meant to be nearly as complicated as some choose to make it. I believe the poster was asking whether or not Kenny made an effort to acquire ARod, which he absolutelty did, and has continued to throughout his tenure, as the previous discussion in this thread was whether or not the organizaton has tried to acquire prime free agents. The question was NOT, however, whether Scott Boras actually gave him an honest chance to acquire ARod. Regardless, I appreciate yours and Dick Allen's additional point that Kenny was not allowed to meet with Alex in the absence of Scott Boras; I just wish you wouldn't attempt to make me the fool in doing so, when the gist of my statement was clearly correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:31 AM) How about Frank Thomas? Or Magglio Ordonez? Really? Considering the injuries they both sustained in their contract year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 04:34 PM) Really? Considering the injuries they both sustained in their contract year? No, not really, but those are the names that they are going to attempt to throw out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klaus kinski Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 09:29 AM) Since when have we actually tried to acquire prime time free agents? Especially since most are Boras clients Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) No, not really, but those are the names that they are going to attempt to throw out. They can also try Robin - who they actually didn't try to nickel and dime, but rather did nothing. Ozzie, also if they want to get picky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Part of the reason that we have not acquired many prime free agents is because in the past we have not had the payroll to acquire all that many, and we have not been able to draw that many here. As a result, Kenny has tried to trade for impact players while they are under contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(bschmaranz @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 01:12 AM) I just watched the Kenny comments on CSN. While he makes some valid points (players in the future asking for full NTC), a pitcher like Buehrle doesn't come along every day and he doesn't come with that discount. If Kenny doesn't think it's a tremendous discount at 4/56, he should just trade him and watch him get 100 million over 7. All I know is I'd hate to be Kenny at Soxfest next year if Buehrle isn't under contract. That's not a valid point. If the White Sox can't say no to lesser players, then they need to learn how to negoatiate better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(spiderman @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) That's not a valid point. If the White Sox can't say no to lesser players, then they need to learn how to negoatiate better. It has nothing to do with lesser players. It has to do with Jon Garland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:28 AM) Still waiting for some names. You just can't make a disparaging claim and not back it up. I think it's fair to say that some of the White Sox better players have left town not on the greatest of terms - Fisk, Mags, Frank, etc. For whatever reason, when the White Sox are in contract talks, they have tended to become public, and and drawn out. This went on with the Bulls as well with the yearly Phil Jackson deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 09:40 AM) They can also try Robin - who they actually didn't try to nickel and dime, but rather did nothing. Ozzie, also if they want to get picky. Meh, Ozzie was done by '97. Robin was productive for three or four more years after that, but I can understand them being hesitant to give him $32 million to a 30-year-old 3B when the guy projected to be the next Mike Schmidt was in their farm system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) It has nothing to do with lesser players. It has to do with Jon Garland. Garland isn't a lesser player - the guy has become one of the better pitchers around. If Pablo Ozuna wants a no trade clause, say no. If Garland wants one, and he's one your pitchers you hope to build another championship team around, I think you need to think about giving him one. Again, for your important players, this shouldn't be a deal breaker. For your role players, you just say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(spiderman @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:00 AM) Garland isn't a lesser player - Than Mark? I'm not sure I'd say that. They're not going to extend both of these guys - that'd be at least $110 million in guaranteed money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Than Mark? I'm not sure I'd say that. They're not going to extend both of these guys - that'd be at least $110 million in guaranteed money. I think they would absolutely extend them both at that price. They just want to know that they can move one or both of them should something come up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klaus kinski Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I just dont get where Williams track record grants him this kind of slack to basically be a jerk . I honestly believe that we will not be in another World Series as long as he is GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHITESOXRANDY Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Than Mark? I'm not sure I'd say that. They're not going to extend both of these guys - that'd be at least $110 million in guaranteed money. Then, why are we are even watching ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:09 AM) I think they would absolutely extend them both at that price. They just want to know that they can move one or both of them should something come up. When in the past have the Sox spent $56 million on ONE pitcher? Sorry, but I think there's no way in hell that they commit $100 million to two players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) I just dont get where Williams track record grants him this kind of slack to basically be a jerk . I honestly believe that we will not be in another World Series as long as he is GM. So he should be a pushover? Since when do you have to have a track record to try to get the best possible deal for your organization? Track records have more to do with player agents than General Managers IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiderman Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Than Mark? I'm not sure I'd say that. They're not going to extend both of these guys - that'd be at least $110 million in guaranteed money. I still think they will resign Buerhle, but it needs to get done soon else Kenny will have to look at those trades out there. As for Garland, I hope they look to resign him. Yes, that will be expensive, but we do have Denks and Gavin Floyd filling out the rotation next season because they need to move Contreras' contract. I'd like to see next season be: 1) Buerhle 2) Garland 3) Vazquez 4) Denks 5) Floyd/Gonzalez Is it realistic to expect the White Sox to sign both Garland and Buerhle ? Probably not, especially with Kenny so in love with all his acquired pitchers, in particular, Floyd and Gonzalez, who both could be ready for next season's rotation, and moving Garland during the off-season could bring a nice player or two to fill in holes in the OF/SS/2B and bullpen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) When in the past have the Sox spent $56 million on ONE pitcher? Sorry, but I think there's no way in hell that they commit $100 million to two players. I can come up with no other explanation for why the trade clause with Mark would bother Kenny so much other than that he intends to offer the same/similar extension to Jon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:40 AM) They can also try Robin - who they actually didn't try to nickel and dime, but rather did nothing. Ozzie, also if they want to get picky. Exactly... Robin is the only one I could think of that was healthy, productive and a free agent. So ONE player in the 20+ years of ownership does not make a trend as Drew was quick to say. Edited July 3, 2007 by RibbieRubarb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) When in the past have the Sox spent $56 million on ONE pitcher? Sorry, but I think there's no way in hell that they commit $100 million to two players. Years ago, I would have agreed. But right now, I think they would do it if the deals were right. Why, you ask? Here is why... Attendance at last night's game, a Monday night against the mighty Orioles: 35000+ Even 2 years after the WS, and with the team playing like crap... people show up. As long as the attendance stays up, which it looks like it will, and the money keeps flowing in... this club will spend the money. Especially on young pitching talent. It wasn't more than a few years back that there were only 4 games a year where they drew 35k - 3 Cubs games and Opening Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 After winning the WS, I think that Kenny envisioned a 2-3 year window to repeat with the same core players. I think that he's anticipating major turnover between next year and '09, with Garland being part of that turnover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.