WCSox

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 11:52 AM) Yes, but there's heavy rumors that many of the "sources" during the last week were members of Buehrle's family. IMO, this is all a massive smokescreen. Given (1) the fact that KW traded for two LHSPs this past winter, and (2) JR's decisions regarding Blackjack, Alvarez, and Fernandez back in the mid-'90s, I don't think that the Sox ever intended to extend Mark. This is a PR circus orchestrated by both sides to make them look like the good guy.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) Why the face? You can't trade 10/5 guys, so by your logic if we have a veteran that's been here for 5 years or a guy that's been in our system for 10 years, we can't ever keep them because hey, we can't trade them!! So if KW and JR give in and give Mark what he wants, what if Mark blows out his shoulder in September and his performance diminishes afterwards? They would have a very difficult time recouping even a tiny fraction of their $55-60 million investment. I'm not saying that Mark's NTC demand is unreasonable, but you need to take off your fan glasses and look at this through the ownership's perspective. How have high-tier veteran pitchers performed after signing big four- and five-year contracts recently? What happened the last time that the Sox give a veteran pitcher one of those big four-year deals? What would've happened if JR had allowed Schueler to give Blackjack, Fernandez, and Alvarez deals like that back in the mid-90's. From what they've seen around the league recently and experienced personally, their chances of getting their money's worth from the deal that Mark supposedly wants is very low.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) You can never re-sign a guy with or near 10/5 then ever.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 11:08 AM) As of July 2010 he'd have a NTC anyways by Union rules, so realistically he wants 2 and a half years of NTC (2008, 2009, and about half of 2010 until he becomes a 10 and 5) and then the rules say he has it anyways. So, in effect, Mark would have to give the Sox his permission to be traded throughout the duration of his contract. Again, I can see why KW and JR would have a problem with that.

I knew that this was too good to be true. QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 10:51 AM) Buehrle is looking for a complete no trade clause that covers the full life of the contract, meaning for the 4-5 years he's signed for the Sox would not be able to trade him anywhere without his consent. The Sox haven't given out full no trade protection to any player that I know of. When you're investing around $60M into a pitcher you want to keep your options open in the long term which is why it makes sense that they wouldn't give him a NTC. I can't blame Kenny and JR for having a problem with that. Two or even three years of a NTC is reasonable, but the ENTIRE duration of the contract is not.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) If he says "no thanks" then he has to go back to Japan for another year, he can't pick which bid he wants to accept. Ah, so if the bid OR the contract offer are rejected, he's not eligible to transfer for another year? I thought that he was only ineligible to go to MLB that year if the winning bidder couldn't sign him to a contract. But I guess that makes sense. I'll bet that Seattle bid high because they knew that he'd be much more likely to play there than, say, in Milwaukee.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) Whoever bids the most money gets to negotiate with the player. No choice for the player. It's the team that posts him, sells him. Kind of like a couch doesn't have the right to say, "Don't sell me to him!" My understanding is that the player has to accept the bid before the MLB team has the right to negotiate with the player. If, say, the Reds won the bid to negotiate with Ichiro and he didn't want to play there, Ichiro could've said "no thanks."

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 02:07 PM) 1. The Mariners didn't sign him as a free agent. He was "posted" like Matsuzaka. Ichiro may or may not have signed because of the city, too, but he had no choice, really, except between that of MLB or Japan. I thought that the player knows the team AND amount of the highest bid in the posting system. If that's the case, he would've had plenty of say as to which team he would accept a bid from.

QUOTE(chisox2334 @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 01:54 PM) let me bring up a point say this long term contract affects what we do in offeason... kenny might bring up floyd take buerhle's spot and say sox do long term deal with ichiro I don't see why Ichiro would want to sign with a declining Sox team. I'm assuming that part of Ichiro's decision to sign with Seattle was the city's large Japanese/Asian population. He won't find that in Chicago, so I don't see what incentive he has to go there unless JR and KW break the bank for him (unlikely).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) That's the idea. If the Sox decide to lock up Garland to a long term deal it's going to take a similar contract to the one Buehrle signs to get Garland to stick around as well. So that's going to be somewhere around $28M between the both of them and another $12M for Konerko. The first year of any mult-year contract that Garland signs would be 2009, hence the way I worded it. I see. I thought it kind of went without saying that locking up BOTH Mark and Jon was out of the realm of possibility, especially with the way that Jon's been pitching this season. Did somebody actually suggest that? (I'm having difficulty keeping up with the dizzying amount of material in this thread and paying attention to work at the same time.) I agree with you.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) 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. I thought that Jon was only under contract through next year?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 10:02 AM) I'm with you. There's something to be said for a pitcher that knows how to WIN. But then again, we all know the W-L record is not a valid measure of a pitcher's value. Give me a staff full of Jack McDowells and I'll take my chances. If KW can deal Javy, I'm all for it IF he extends Mark or Jon. But if Mark walks at the end of the year, we're going to be hurting in '09 if Javy is gone as well.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) Also tell your kids that he played baseball the way it was meant to be played. One of my very favorite players. Absolutely

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 29, 2007 -> 09:09 AM) I'd love to be a member in a union that works for a racket. The antitrust exemption continues to boggle my mind when it comes to MLB. The MLBPA is the exact opposite of the NFLPA. And that may partially explain why the NFL is so much more popular than MLB. I still think that 4/56 is BS. If JR really doens't want to give Mark a five-year deal, methinks that he would have to compromise by paying him a higher yearly salary. If the four-year part is true, I'd expect it to be more like 4/62.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 28, 2007 -> 01:26 PM) Can someone clarify Lester's cancer to me? Is it something that might recur, or are they SURE it's done, now that he's been treated? Because if there's the possibility that it'd recur, there's no way I'd deal for him. +1

I have a difficult time believing 4 years, $14 million per. That's only $6 million more than the 4/50 that everybody thought was ridiculously-low yesterday.

For somebody who doesn't know Mark at all, you sure pretend to know a lot about him. LOL, yes, I actually care about people that I grew up with, but don't live around anymore. If somebody gave me $70 million, you can bet that my old high school would have a brand new football stadium and weight room. And you can bet that I'd offer to supplement the pensions of some of my old teachers.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) And I agree, I wouldn't want to leave Chicago either. If someone offered me $50 million and told me I could live in Chicago for the next 5 years or $70 million and I would have to live in New York for the next 5 years, I would take the $50 million. That is the ENTIRE POINT we are trying to make here. LOL. So what's to stop Mark from living in Greenwich, CT and taking a private helicopter to Yankee Stadium every day?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) I may be waaay off here, and this is entirely speculation based on my observation of Mark throughout his career here, but I would tend to believe that Mark would rather play where he wants to play than worry about the rare books section of the St. Charles, MO library. You sound pretty confident that Mark cares more about his career than the community where he grew up and the people that live there. I wouldn't be so sure. Neither will I. Mark could hire Scott Boras, accept 7/130 from the Yankees, and I'd still be happy for him.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) I understand my point just fine. To think just because someone has $50M they don't care about another $10M is simply put, imo retarded. Especially when one considers that Mark may want to use that extra money to set his great-grandchildren for life, build a new baseball stadium for his old high school, build a new library in his hometown, donate more money to charity, etc. The more money that Mark makes, the more money he has to give.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 12:39 PM) This ain't the mid-80's anymore, where guys are making $150,000. I'm sorry, but the courts would laugh at the MLBPA bringing a collusion suit against MLB owners right now, especially with Mark as the lead plaintiff. I can see it now....Mr. Reinsdorf only offered Mr. Buehrle $50 million over 4 years! I never said that the MLBPA was definitely going to sue the owners again. But they certainly can threaten and can find other ways to make life miserable for the owners. Historically, they've been very successful in doing so. You can laugh all you want, but the MLBPA will NOT like players signing for $20 million lower than their market value. If it happens, you can bank on them using it as leverage in the next CBA, which could become a huge problem.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) Well tell me what are the implications upon the White Sox of their involvement then? If those are not significant tangible negative implications, I could give a sh*t if they get involved or not. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1460718

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 12:20 PM) The MLBPA would be frustrated by this deal, but their involvement would have no implications upon anything. Probably not right away, but you can bet that they'd use it during the negotiations for the next CBA. Didn't the MLBPA win a collusion suit against MLB owners back in the mid-80's? They could threaten to do that again. Also consider that Jerry Reinsdorf and Donald Fehr aren't exactly the best of buddies. Mark signing a contract that's $20 million+ under market value could create some very serious problems.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 11:54 AM) i understand what you mean, but those are different situations, arod alreayd had a contract and was going to give some of it back, buerhle be signing a completely new contract I'm no expert in legal issues surrounding CBAs, so I don't know if they'd have a case. But as Steff pointed out, "you can bet your ass" that they'd do everything in their power to TRY to force the Sox to pay more. Especially since the MLBPA and Reinsdorf don't exactly have a history of peaceful coexistence. QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jun 27, 2007 -> 11:48 AM) Buerhle taking that discount would be a huge problem for his union. Not only would he cost himself money, but theoretically other players down the line. Yeah, those poor players down the line who might take a 2% cut in their multi-million dollar contracts. Yep, and that's just sad. The MLBPA represents everything that people don't like about unions.