Steff

QUOTE(Brian @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 04:12 PM) Agreed. Warrior will say something horrible and will give out ridiculous opinions that should not be believed or listened to. Didn't he used to spit colored stuff out of his mouth? Tassles handing off his biceps..?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) I'm somewhat being sarcastic and mocking, but I don't really doubt it. What says thou? Thou says nothing...

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 03:58 PM) I love the Canon EOS 5D I use at work. It's down to about $2,500 now. If you don't want any lenses that is. Well, you did say "fancy digital." Oye ve... That's nuts!!! Perhaps if I was a professional photographer, but for fun... no way Jose!!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 04:19 PM) Instead of Ichiro we're getting Rowand.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Steff, stop taking everything Buehrle says so literally. He's obviously tried to keep this out of the press since negotiations first started back in Nov/Dec. He's the center of/reason for most of the misinformation regarding the process. He and the agent even were denying any talks had taken place as late as 36 hours ago. Buehrle has been playing with the media, even to the point of joking about retirement. I know I didn't believe any of the statements that said there were no negotiations taking place, why should we believe these? I don't believe that there's any hard deadline, but it's got to get done as soon as possible so the franchise can move forward with a trade of one of the starters. Buehrle wants to get it done as soon as possible. Kenny wants to get it done as soon as possible. It will get done in the next few days. No packing necessary. Is it ok if I take others close to the situation literally? (RE: red text) I agree, and since I have yet to see anything stating there was a deadline at all, I'm gonna go with that.

So.. Kenny imposed a deadline for Mark to agree to a contract, but didn't tell Mark. I suppose that's as logical as anything else that's been posted on this topic. QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) Oh gawd waiting until the end of the month Steff? I can't do it. I just can't! You can do it.. I have faith. QUOTE(chisox2334 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 09:07 PM) update on buerhle The White Sox have a full house in attendance on a warm summer night for the start of the final homestand before the All-Star break. Coming off a successful road trip to Florida and Kansas City, Mark Buehrle takes the mound to begin this eight-game stretch in Chicago. But, before Buehrle throws his first pitch, a video montage of his career highlights pops up on the center field Jumbotron and a dramatic announcement follows regarding the White Sox and their ace hurler agreeing to a new long-term deal. Many short-term wishes for the ardent South Side supporters would be immediately fulfilled. Of course, this above scenario stands as completely and totally steeped in the hypothetical. When Buehrle was asked on Thursday evening about the reality of the contract talks going on between his agent, Jeff Berry, and White Sox assistant general manager Rick Hahn, talks manager Ozzie Guillen said "sounded great" when he was informed late Wednesday night, Buehrle gave the media the silent treatment with a smile. "No comment. No comment on any contract situation," said Buehrle, one day after rumors swirled that he was close to agreeing to a four-year deal, worth somewhere in the range of $50 million. "I don't want to say anything and get you guys confused. "Call Rick. Call Jeff. Call Kenny," Buehrle added. Berry said via e-mail on Thursday night, "There was nothing new to report." Also reached through e-mail, Hahn reiterated the company policy that unless or until the organization has an announcement of some sort, he "wouldn't expect us to provide any updates or comment." Hahn returned to Chicago, after flying to Florida on Wednesday, not necessarily indicating if a deal had been reached or both sides had hit another impasse. Speculation has centered on this deal needing to be agreed upon by Friday, or this weekend, at the latest, in order for general manager Ken Williams to move forward with his plans for this underachieving team around the July 31 non-waiver deadline. But after having lunch with his agent on Thursday, Buehrle said he wasn't aware of any arbitrary deadline. "I'm kind of tired of seeing my name out there, but that's going to happen until the trade deadline or until a deal is done," Buehrle said. "It's going to happen until July 31 or even later. "I read somewhere that Kenny said that it had to be done by Friday, but I haven't been told anything. I don't know what that means anyway." chisox, where is this article from? TIA. If Kenny did set a deadline, and didn't tell Mark. I'll help Mark pack.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) I would hope that Kenny wouldn't impose a deadline of today and then wait until Monday to announce a signing. That seems a bit too much like torture to a fanbase which has already experienced enough this season. Maybe Kenny forgot to tell Mark he was under a deadline. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines Buehrle said he had lunch with Berry Thursday but said the agent didn't convey a sense of urgency to complete a deal by this weekend. "Would I like it to?" Buehrle said. "I'm kind of tired of seeing my name out there, but that's going to happen up to the trade deadline (July 31) or until a deal is done. It's going to happen until July 31 or even later."

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:56 PM) Pffft... $300 is nothing compared to some that she was looking at. Aye aye aye... Are you sure she was looking at a digital then? As far as they go, the most expensive one's aren't much higher than that. Within $50 to $70.

The HP R967 does that. That's the camera I have and I love it. It's expensive though. $300 range.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:39 PM) 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.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:30 PM) 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.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) 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.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:20 PM) 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.

She's a feisty one.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:38 AM) That may be true...but if someone was calling me stupid, and I had something like that to back it up, I WOULD take it out and dust it off. And you know why? Cuz I'm petty. I'd never put it away..

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) And he can sit back, kick up his feet and blind them with the luster that is his 2005 World Series Championship ring. Right after he digs it out and dusts it off. Seriously, those rings mean more to us than they do to them.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) I meant that the Arod deal violated the terms of the collectively bargained agreement, which prevented him from renegotiating for less money when more money had been agreed to (probably a better terms and conditions clause). As far as salary amounts go, it only stipulates a minimum, which relates to buehrle in this case. Sorry for not being clear. Thanks. I don't know specifics about how all that works either. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:09 AM) I'd love to be a member in a union that works for a racket. B) QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:11 AM) btw, this statement is patently untrue. Just because Major League Baseball's union is the most powerful one in the world does not make it exempt from the NLRB's jurisdiction. There are some things that a union simply cannot do, particularly whimsical obstruction of normal contract negotiations. In this case, and any with a reason, they most definitely can call for a review. And in this case where the $$'s are what they will call "under market" they will site the best interest of the player as their reason.

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:00 AM) I work at a union. It may not be exactly the same, but my understanding of labor law is that as long as the terms of the agreement are not in conflict with the collectively bargained agreement (which only stipulates a minimum salary, from what I understand), the union can't do jack s*** about a player signing for less than they think he should. The A-Rod situation violated those terms, so the union took action. In this instance, they can't and won't do anything. The ARod deal violated the MINIMUM...? Not even close. It's really moot to continue to discuss the union end. Obviously they are snooping around. If they didn't have an interest, they wouldn't be. If they do anything remains to be seen, but to say they can't do anything is ridiculous. They can do whatever they want - in terms of reviewing and holding things up, and they will if they choose to.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) I think Florida has very low taxes, that came into play when T-Mac and Hill signed with the Magic Florida has NO state tax. Makes a big difference.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 10:49 AM) If the union blocked a player from taking 14 million a year because it was "unfair", I don't think that would sit too well with the fans. I took a 20% pay cut to be happy and I have no regrets. The extra money is meaningless if you are miserable. If Mark wants 14 and his happy home instead of 17 and uncertainty, he has that right. 56 million can set your family up for generations and that is just 4 years. They are the strongest union in all the land. They don't give a crap about the fans, or the integrity of the game.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) They said they screwed up by retiring Baines number while he was still playing, and they wouldn't do that again. Interesting. Never heard that.

QUOTE(SoxPride56 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 10:38 AM) Steff, I am not too familiar with the process of the contract talks, but why would there be an MLB rep sitting outside the meeting? In case they signed the deal? That they are even being mentioned means they are interested. How many deals do they even come up? I doubt they will cause an issue, but I'm sure they have been called by other agents regarding the impact a perceived below market contract will have and just want to be sure their clients aren't going to get screwed. In the end, if this is the deal Mark takes, I would guess the worst that happens is he's called stupid by others in his talent class as they collect higher contracts.

QUOTE(IowaSoxFan @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) There is, they did not allow Arod to take less money to go to the Red Sox. Its not exactly the same as ARod wanted to modify his current contract, but it is an instance of the union sticking its nose into contract negoitiations. Arod's deal was pre-existing. Not the same thing. QUOTE(toasty @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 10:03 AM) it's likely that hahn would be submitting the paperwork to MLB after returning to chicago..... You can bet there was an MLB rep sitting outside the door during the meeting... QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 10:07 AM) It is realy not that uncommon for a player to take less to stay with the same team. If you think back awhile, some guy named Paul Konerko did it. It's a nice feel good thing to say.. but in reality, he did not. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) The least of people's worries is the MLBPA here. Don't even worry about it, it's a non issue. The issue is whether or not both sides agree that a 4 yr. $56MM deal is going to work. All the other crap that people is posting is just that, crap. Kap, we are simply talking about what is being reported. No need for you to get all snotty, crapman.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 08:52 AM) The question is more like, "Is there precedent for them blocking it because the player's taking a little less money?" I don't think there is, but I don't know. Someone enlighten me. There doesn't need to be. They can make him the example. It's got to start somewhere.

QUOTE(Balance @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 08:44 AM) Can the players' union actually block a deal, or can they just voice their displeasure with what they may feel is a "below market" deal? That can block it.