Rowand44

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 04:08 PM) 10 days?! It should be resolve by tomorrow. This is becoming ridiculous. Either trade him or sign him, already. I'm tired of waking up to the same information bouncing around. The deadline I read several days ago concerning Buehrle and a contract should be enforced by Wednesday. It's quite annoying, there is no doubt about that, however, this situation really doesn't need to be rushed. It honestly just needs to be resolved by July 31st.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 07:09 AM) If the Sox had someone from the minors making minimum taking his spot in the rotation, what difference would it be having someone making minimum starting and someone making $11.5 million closing or vice versa? Laugh all you want, Dennis Eckersley was a good starter until he became a mediocre one and look what happened to him. Vazquez was considered a good starter, have you seen the scouts' quotes on him? They think he's become mediocre. I think he would be great if he was programmed to go 1 inning. He throws too many types of pitches. Closers don't do that. Plus Vazquez is usually pretty good the first time through the order. Vazquez has been very, very good this year. If he starts to decline one of these years then maybe the team starts discussing him as a reliever. But as of now, he's becoming a very nice starter for the White Sox, why would you want a guy on pace for over 200 innings and an era under 4 as a starter, in the bullpen?

Since the team officially died in my eyes, I have been perfectly fine with trading Mark but I'll be devastated now if this thing doesn't get done.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 01:38 AM) Don't you think the effect on the fan base (butts in seats) that a sub .500 season would cause would be worse than anything gained from the draft? That's certainly a valid question and obviously I could be wrong but I personally don't think that hovering around .500 is going to do anymore for selling tickets than a team that is playing some kids and at least could be exciting to watch.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:53 AM) Saito: 46/49 | 93.88% Nathan: 52/56 | 92.86% K-Rod: 71/77 | 92.20% Hoffman: 69/76 | 90.78% Wagner: 56/62 | 90.32% Jenks: 63/70 | 90% Rivera: 44/49 | 89.80% Putz: 59/66 | 89.39% Papelbon: 54/61 | 88.52% Valverde: 44/51 | 86.27% T. Jones: 57/67 | 85.07% Ray: 47/56 | 83.93% Borowski: 60/72 | 83.33% C. Cordero: 43/53 | 81.13% Fuentes: 50/62 | 80.65% Isringhausen: 48/60 | 80% Dempster: 40/51 | 78.43% Street: 46/59 | 77.97% F. Cordero: 49/63 | 77.78% Thank you sir.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 10:18 PM) Jenks is not one of the best closers in the game, as some people on this board think. His ERA last year was 4.00 (not good for a closer), this year 3.21(not bad, but not very good for a closer). Actually, I would say that Bobby is one of the best "closers" in the game. You put him in a save situation and for the most part he gets it done. Kal, you're usually all over this stuff so where does his save percentage rank the last 2 seasons compared to others?

QUOTE(greg775 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 11:00 PM) Fair question. I hate to say this, but I'll take anybody that's not a former Royals player right now. And I did have some hope that the team could overachieve and perhaps finish .500 this season, fathom. The 5-1 road trip, despite the opposition and bad hitting against KC, gave me hope. Add to that the opponent tonight and the six runs ... I think it is a really bad loss. Finishing at .500 would probably be the worst thing for this franchise in the long run, not sure why you'd want that.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 06:22 PM) Do you suppose it's accurate to say that Jerry Owens is a poor man's Nook Logan? Julio Ramirez minus the arm.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 03:27 PM) I wonder what percentage of players with blanket NTC get traded. It seems a lot of them do. That's another thing I thought of right away. If this team is winning why would we trade Buehrle to begin with in the next two and a half years? If we're losing I'd bet Mark would be willing to waive that no trade to go to a contender. Obviously I don't know that for sure but I'd be willing to bet on that being the case. It's definitely arguable as to how good Kenny has been in his tenure as gm but I don't see how anyone can defend him in this instance.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:43 AM) The 4/56 number hasn't been attributed to any credible source. It's all anonymous smoke-and-mirrors right now. Whitesox.com is just re-hashing the same crap that we're reading in the papers. I don't believe any of it. Mark very well may be OK with extending for $50-70 million below his market value. But I'll believe it when I see him do it. If Omar Minaya announces that the Mets have signed Mark to a 5/80 deal in December, I'll know that the 4/56 number was a lie. The Sox have overview on their own website though. I'm sure if this was pure fiction they would have had it taken down.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:14 AM) I've never seen Kenny, Mark, or Mark's agent quoted as saying anything about a 4/56 deal. IIRC, that figure was from some "source" and was thrown in with Kenny's comments about a NTC. It's amazing how journalists can mislead thier readers. And think about it: Why would Mark agree to $70 million LESS than what Zito got? It makes absolutely no sense. I don't know because he's Mark Buehrle and not Barry Zito? Maybe in actuality Mark really did want to stay here and realized he can live just fine on 56 million for the rest of his life. Athletes shouldn't be scrutinized if they chase the most money but they should be allowed to take less if it's somewhere they want to be as well. To me I sure hope there is more to this than just the no trade clause but it certainly seems like 4 years 56 mill was indeed the deal because many places have reported that including Whitesox.com.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:07 AM) What makes you think that Mark actually agreed to a 4/56 deal? Because some "source" fed it to the media? Why would Mark take $70 million LESS than what Barry Zito got this past winter? You may want to consider that before going on another profanity-laced tirade. The bold part is directly from that article.

Good stuff guys. First time I've listened and I really enjoyed it, very entertaining. Gage, I couldn't agree more with you on the Buehrle stuff. I agree with absolutely everything you said about Mark and the Sox management in this instance. But my god shut up about Kobe . Not a chance in hell that Kobe is in a Bulls uniform this season. Mario, you were absolutely hilarious there at the end. I'll say though that I completely disagree with you on Andy Gonzalez, he might be an ok bench player, but he should never even come close to the starting lineup.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:03 AM) If we're talking my lifetime, I'll take Griffey. I'll take Alex.

Tatum can and will play in the NBA(of course I'm not biased at all), but it wont be with the Bulls.

I'd still kill for this guy to end up on the White Sox.

QUOTE(AirScott @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 10:05 PM) So here's an embarrassing thought: With Billy Koch circa 2003 in the closer's role, we're in the cellar of the AL Central. Closers aren't that easy to find. And the difference between the cellar and 4th place is what exactly?

QUOTE(BearSox @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) Tony Gwynn isn't a top ranked prospect, and that is why it would be stupid to deal Logan or Thornton for him. However, if it was a top prospect, maybe someone like Lorenzo Cain, then KW should consider possibly dealing Thornton. Boone should be untouchable right now, unless we get a great offer. I'm a big Boone fan as well but a loogy should never be untouchable.

QUOTE(29thandPoplar @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 04:54 PM) His no trade due to 10 and 5 doesn't kick in until the start of the 2011 season, it was discussed at length yesterday. My bad, I haven't been around too much lately so I missed that.

I honestly can't believe the only hold up in this deal is a stinkin no trade clause, there has to be more to it than that. If not, there is something completely messsed up with this organization. Buehrle is a 10 and 5 guy in 2010 anyways, correct? So in other words the hold up on this freakin deal is cause Kenny wants the flexibility to trade Mark for two seasons? Why the hell would we be trading him in the first two years of a four year deal anyway? Something isn't right here, and Kenny is really starting to get on my bad side(I know it's his worst nightmare ) I really used to be a huge fan of his but not anymore.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 02:35 PM) 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.

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.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) I think that Lucy is not viewed as future starter outside of soxtalk as well. I don't think many people here view Lucy as a future starter either.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) I really think people are overestimating what Dye would bring back in a trade right now. His average is .230. He's getting $7 million. He's only signed for 2 months, as of the trade deadline, and has had knee and quad problems this season. I'm starting to wonder if you could even get 1 B prospect for him. Hard to argue any of that at this point.