WCSox

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 09:52 AM) Wow. I won't even comment on this post. Or this one. If you're absolutely convinced that Mark agreed to $70 million LESS in guaranteed money than Barry Zito got just because he's a swell guy and really, really, really wants to stay in Chicago and that it's most definitely true because some unnamed source reported it to the Trib last week and everybody else in the media decided to regurgitate it, then I'd say that you're being incredibly naive. The truth is that nobody knows what the heck is going on behind closed doors. Getting incredibly upset about Mark's illogical agreement to an illogical contract and JR/KW's illogical refusal to accept this steal-of-a-deal because of a NTC clause is a waste of time, IMO. When Mark actually DOES sign a contract later this year, we'll have a better idea of whether this "reported deal" actually occurred or not.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 09:40 AM) Well considering it has been reported by every major news source in Chicago, I believe the 4/56 is what they agreed upon. I also believe Buerhle is giving the Sox a big discount because he really wants to stay here, and the only thing holding the deal up is a full NTC that KW and JR are to unwilling and stupid not to give. Would you also believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale?

QUOTE(chisox2334 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 08:15 AM) June 5 Chicago Tribune - re Jermaine Dye Dye is making $7 million this year, hits free agency after the '07 season and has his eye on a contract approaching Carlos Lee's yearly salary ($17M). GM Ken Williams has had talks with Dye's agent, Bob Bry, about an extension, but isn't sure he wants to commit that much money to one player. "There's no doubt we have strong interest in bringing him back, but those are numbers where we have to take a step back and wrestle with them," Williams told the newspaper. "Once you do these deals, if you are wrong, they can cripple the club with ramifications for a lot of years. ... We just have to consider all the variables." JD could hit .390 and 20 HR from here on out and there's no way that he's getting an extension. That was obvious to me halfway through last year. He's here mostly because KW got him cheap.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 08:54 AM) Which is why I think the whole thing was bulls*** from the beginning. Yet everybody treats it like gospel because the media keeps repeating it. :oldrolleyes

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 07:36 AM) As I contended on page three of this thread: there's a LOT more going on then the media has reported. This whole thing was bulls*** from the beginning and it was a giant smokescreen, IMO. My opinion never changed from day one of this season, and it still hasn't. MB will not pitch for the White Sox beyond this season. The only difference now is: it's more just a matter of when he's traded. KW's "slip-up" at Soxfest told us what to expect, and this "change of heart" crap that was talked about in the media last week was just a bunch of hooey to get Sox fans to think they were trying. I am really beginning to think that both sides were just posturing for the inevitable. I really now expect MB to make his last start at Comiskey (as a part of this ball club, anyway) tonight. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'll say so. Nothing in the past 10 days has told me anything different then what was said going into the season. Good info here. I hope that the people cursing KW read this post. How many huge contracts with indefinite no-trade clauses did Ron Schueler and Larry Himes give to veteran pitchers with 1,200+ innings on their arms? Did you guys ever stop to consider that JR & Co. might be responsible for this policy? When was the last time that a Sox GM had free reign to spend however he wished?

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:56 AM) No idea. But I trust the Sox will do what is right for the team long term. Or at least what they THINK is right for the long-term. The refusal to give big contracts to any of their studs back in the mid-'90s and the fact that they were proven right in hindsight strongly suggests which way they're leaning. As does their recent extension of Javy and acquisition of two young LHSPs. I foresee a lot of extremely pissed off fans here later this month. I hope that I'm wrong.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 11:47 PM) The Sox have overview on their own website though. I'm sure if this was pure fiction they would have had it taken down. It's not pure fiction, it's an unsubstantiated rumor. Also, MLB has a ton of control over the content and design of the team web sites, so I'm not sure how much say the Sox have in the matter. Hell, the Sox's own flagship radio station reported the 4/50 deal that never happened. And speaking of that deal, I find it interesting that all of Soxtalk thought the 4/50 was ridiculously below Mark's value, yet they're overwhelmingly willing to believe 4/56 and that a NTC is the only sticking point. Is $6 million really that much of a difference-maker? It just doesn't make any sense.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 11:28 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) I know on this board and around town that the pressure has been off to deal since the Buehrle rumors started, and I think if he were actually serious about signing Mark, after getting approval for a 4th year, a NTC would have been a non-issue. I agree that if Kenny could've gotten Mark at 4/56, the NTC most likely wouldn't have been an issue. Mark's worth AT LEAST 5/75 on the open market, which leaves me to believe that the reported 4/56 deal and NTC issue are both complete horses***. Mark has no incentive to extend his contract with a declining team and take $70 million less than Zito in the process. Similarly, KW and JR have no incentive to let a steal like that pass them by, even if it means setting a bad precedent or two. My feeling is that the bogus 4/56 number was leaked intentionally and that the Sox have no plans to extend Mark. I hope I'm wrong about that. I also believe that this false piece of information has been mixed in with comments from KW about their standard procedure of no idefinite NTCs and that all of this has been reported out of context. From what Mark and his agent have been saying, there haven't even been any negotiations recently.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 11:10 PM) The bold part is directly from that article. 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.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) While Buehrle and the White Sox had agreed on a four-year, $56 million contract extension, the deal disintegrated because the Sox won’t give the 28-year-old left-hander a full no-trade clause. In the grand scheme of things, that seems like a ludicrous deal-breaker. And surely, the Sox will budge, right? “No,’’ White Sox general manager Kenny Williams told the Daily Herald in an e-mail Saturday night. “I cannot build a championship team if I do. The short-term and long-term ramifications are just too great.’’ Does this asshole even know what he's talking about!! Last time I looked if your plan is to build a championship team, I would think locking a a solid No.1 starter would be a priority. Especially if you are signing him to a lower than market value contract, and only 4 years. I'm done with this guy. He's an arrogant and pmpous ass!! He reminds me so much of Jerry Krause it's makes me sick. The short and longterm ramifications are just to great?? Give me a f***ing break. This whole situation with Buerhle just makes me realize that our GM doesn't have a clue. That's it KW build a rotation around JC and JV, you f***ing moron!! 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.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) I'm pretty sure they can be amended, but the changes must pass the MLBPA's muster -- anything the player is giving up must be equally compensated somehow. The player can't agree to reduce the deal. If they're just adding a NTC, it shouldn't be much of a problem. Exactly, since Mark would be getting something and not giving up anything in return. QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) I suppose what Mark could do, were he to sign an extension, is to have his agent insert a clause which would state that the extension contract becomes null and void if Mark is traded prior to the inception of its terms. That way, were he to sign an extension, and then the Sox were to trade him this season, the extension would become void, thereby allowing him to test the market as if he never signed the extension. I know there are salary kickers which occur if a player is traded, so I don't see why a void clause or an opt out clause for Mark could be built in were he to be traded prior to the inception of the terms of the extension. That would be another way to do it. Then again, it's a moot point because the Sox never intended to re-sign Mark and Mark isn't going to sign for a paltry 4/56, NTC or not. Everything we're hearing from these "sources" through the media is complete BS.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) I'm fairly certain that you cannot void a contract in the middle of the season. The contract itself is not being voided. A section of it is being ammended. Unless the CBA specifically prohibits this, it's perfectly legal, provided that both parties sign off on it.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) This sort of post is the exact reason I am always condemning the ignorance and irresponsibility of journalists in this town. You've been told this sort of nonsense for years and years by the idiots writing in our papers and speaking on sports talk radio, to the point where you believe it despite the fact that it has no place whatsoever in reality. +1,000,000 I don't know what's more ridiculous: Mark supposedly accepting $70 million LESS in guaranteed money than Barry Zito or the belief that Kenny Williams has the final say in large contract negotiations. All they'd have to do is draw up an addendum and have both parties sign it. This happens all of the time in the "real world" (e.g., signing a rental agreement with a No Pets Allowed clause and then voiding that clause with a Pet Addendum). I don't recall the CBA specifically prohibiting it. Wouldn't there be a lot more sign-and-trade deals if it were prohibited?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) He'd have no kind of trade protection for the rest of the 2007 season. Any NTC he receives in an extension would kick in at the beginning of '08. He couldn't have worked a NTC into the remaining portion of this year's deal? Contracts are ammended/restructured all of the time.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 09:51 AM) I still have a hard time believing the NTC was something that suddenly popped up at the end of the negotiation. I really think its something that is being used to make both sides look good. Buerhle looks good because he's willing to accept a big discount in exchange for it, and the White Sox look good, because when Buerhle goes away, the issue isn't money. I personally think the White Sox and Buerhle's agent played Joe Cowley and whoever is the Score's informant like a fiddle and nothing serious went on this past week. I think it all was spin preparing for Buerhle's departure. Thank you. Somebody else gets it!

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 07:33 AM) However, it does seem like KW was trying to get Buehrle to sign a discounted deal only to trade him for more value before the deadline. Given that one-year NTCs are pretty much standard for veteran pitchers to avoid such scenarios, I doubt it. What I think is giong on is that KW made clear to Mark and his agent that they didn't really want to re-sign him. Mark's alleged acceptance of a well-below-market-value 4/56 offer and Mark's demand for an indefinite NTC seem a lot more like political posturing than reality. I'll believe 4/56 AFTER I see what Mark actually signs this winter. I'm really surprised at the reaction to this. Again, when was the last time that this ownership group gave the go-ahead to sign a veteran pitcher with 1,200+ innings on his arm to a four- or five-year deal at $50+ million? Have you guys been living under a rock for the past 20+ years?

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 06:48 PM) Then dont suck Great strategy for a Chicago baseball team. I find it unbelievable that nobody was willing to buy The Score's reported 4/50 earlier this week, but everybody's buying the Trib's reported 4/56, as if an extra $6 million over four years is the difference between "unreasonably low" and "reasonable"... and also considering that both figures are WELL BELOW what Mark could command on the FA market. I'm convinced that what we're being fed by these "sources" right now is utter bulls***.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 06:41 PM) Yeah, they still think of themselves as a small market team. The Sox aren't a lock to draw 35,000+ a game when they suck, like the Red Sox and Cubs. Nor do they own their own TV network, like the Yankees and Mets. Being located in a major market doesn't ensure top-tier spending ability.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 06:31 PM) 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 As the Sox return to mediocrity, 30,000 per game is going to be a pipe dream. That's going to influence the personnel decisions.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 02:24 PM) 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).

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 01:30 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:03 PM) If we're talking my lifetime, I'll take Griffey. Not a bad choice, but I'd take Barry or A-Rod over Griffey.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:06 PM) 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. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) 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 QUOTE(supernuke @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) 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. QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 12:35 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. 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.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) You risk that with every player that signs a contract. What if Konerko would have blown out his knee after signing the contract he signed.] IIRC, Paulie doesn't have a NTC that goes throughout the duration of his contract. Pitchers are also much more subject to career-ending injuries than position players. For starters, they have still have $56 million to spend on lower-risk investments. I don't disagree. But, again, it's very easy to see why the ownership is hesitant to do this. Historically, the vast majority of $50+ million deals given to veteran pitchers haven't worked out well.