iamshack

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:43 PM) How impressive is that percentage when for 5 of those seasons the Sox played 2 of the worst teams in basebal 38 times a season, and Cleveland as well for about 3 or 4 years was brutal. He inherited a team that very well could have been in the same place Cleveland, Kansas City, Detroit were those years they were bad. And he refused to accept that and brought in players that at least made us competitive. I know, I know, he inherited a division winner. One that was based on smoke and mirrors, so don't even go there. He also inherited a top-5 farm system. That same top-5 farm system that produced absolutely nothing of any consequence.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) Levine was saying that on the first day all of this started, but plenty of talk and action has come out of both camps to make it pretty clear that they were at least talking last week. Well he may be telling the truth about KW and himself actually not negotiating. Apparently things have been going through "intermediaries," such as Rick Hahn and others. The point is, Levine was stating nothing was going on simply so AM 1000 could make the Score look poorly. It's been clear now that the Score was on to something (though a little presumptuous) and scooped AM 1000.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 11:32 AM) Contreras has two years left on his deal, Vazquez has three and Garland has one. Kenny did a nice job so that none of the starters are coming off the books all in the same year (Freddy and Mark would have, but he made the off-season move to correct that). I think you are wrong about the eating of the contract and not getting prospects. Contreras is still a value based upon what other players got in free agency. His contract is small compared to Jason Marquis and despite him losing velocity he's a far more effective pitcher than guys like Marquis, plus the move to the national league will only make him better, imo. He got more money than Marquis, but you're correct, the value is probably better.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) Haven't both sides agreed that it comes down to a complete NTC. Is either side denying these reports? Yes. And this isn't about Mark, it's about Jon Garland. Kenny would give the NTC clause if Jon Garland wasn't under contract for only one more year. It's my belief that Kenny intends to try to sign Jon for the same or a similar extension this offseason that he wants to sign Mark to right now. And yet, if he gives Mark the full NTC, he's going to have to give it to Jon as well. He doesn't want to have two untradeable assets for the next 4-5 years.

I think it is unrealistic to get Billingsly at this point. He's been moved to the starting rotation and had a masterful performance yesterday afternoon. I'm still interested in Chin Lung Hu, who's carrying an .875ish OPS down in AA. At this point, I'd take him straight up for Dye. As for Mark, the returns are sounding so pathetic, despite the fact that the experts are claiming the interest in him is "heating up," that I think it's just time to hope we sign him. It's beginning to look as though the benefits of having him around (despite having to pay him the $14 million), are better than any quality young players you can get back.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 11:34 AM) I'm clearly a bandwagon fan, because I don't live in or near Chicago. You're just so smart. I just can't keep up with you. I'm not even going to try. Go ahead, raise yourself above EVERYONE else on this board and keep talking down to the masses no matter what their opinions are, right or wrong, clear or not. You argue with everyone, no matter what their stance is, and I'm sick of it. If you want to carry on, that's your business. That was more my point, and now you have to go throwing out more s*** just to make yourself look better. For the record, I could care less if they sign Mark, or not - it's not about me or whether or not I was right or wrong. I hope they do, but I never saw it, and that's it. I am mocking the Sox, not anyone on this board or their opinion, unlike you. The last sentance of your post, I agree, and can respect. It's the other bantering that's getting old. Is that more clear for you? That's really not it at all. I don't talk down to anyone, I try to change misperceptions they have about the organization. My apologies if that comes off as rude. But I am tired of people firing off at the organization based on misperceptions they have. I don't blame the fanbase for this as much as I blame the Chicago journalists. If you check my record of posts on this forum, you will see that I have continually attacked the irresponsible journalism which occurs in this town far more than I have "talked down" to anyone. When I do, people tell me to ignore columnists such as Mariotti because I am contributing to his employer's bottom line. And yet, the net result is a large percentage of our fanbase continues to be misinformed about how the organization is run and the direction in which it is going. Then, when something like this Buehrle fiasco ensues, we see posts like "Reinsdorf is trying to build his retirement fund," or "the Sox are trying to spin this entire situation so they don't appear cheap." It's just simply not the case. Any diligent and accurate research into the way the organization has been run in the past 10-15 years will prove otherwise. And it just pains me to see fans frustrated or giving up on the organization because they have been mislead to believe the nonsense they have. So I try to correct that once in a while.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 11:15 AM) Wow, I think the post you quoted by Steff was pretty crystal clear, and you turn around and says that she implies she knows more then most? Well, it's because she does, she doesn't have to "imply it". You said it yourself later on in this post. Can we please stop with the mental gymnastics now? The semantics of this is starting to get silly. First of all, I wasn't asking you. Second of all, you've obviously misunderstood the entire point of the exercise. And by the way, speaking of mental gymnastics, you've been patting yourself on the back for the last 5 days now by claiming that you were correct in stating that these Buehrle negotiations were bs. And yet, you haven't made any explicit points or educated guesses about what the real story is, just that this whole thing is bs and the organization is trying to somehow fool the fanbase into thinking they have tried to sign Mark. It's very easy to claim something that is a longshot to happen is bs and that it won't happen, and then take credit for being correct in your original assertion as if you did anything other than take the side that had 75% of happening, and bucking the side that had 25% of happening. It's not very difficult. The insight you've given us is that this is the organization's effort to trick the fanbase and not look bad for not re-signing Mark. And yet, if they fail to re-sign Mark, the organization will look exponentially worse now than had Kenny just traded Mark a week ago when the Boston rumors were swirling. Why the organization would take the fanbase on some roller coaster ride all weekend which ends crashing and burning just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 04:56 AM) I never said such a thing, and I don't know why you keep attempting to make my words out to be something more than they are. I said they are "what have you done for me lately" fans. That does not equal bandwagon jumpers in any way, shape, or form. As for me thinking my opinion or knowledge is greater because I spend money... that's you just making s*** up because I would never say such a think because it's NOT TRUE, especially on the knowledge part. Yes, I am aware many others have been dishing out money to see the Sox... and I am also aware there are many more knowledgable Sox fans out there. I never said there weren't so if you could stop implying that I did, I would appreciate that. You sure as hell do imply that you are more knowledgable and that your opinion somehow matters more, Steff. And you know what, I absolutely believe that you do know more than most and I value your opinion more than most. I guess I just wish that you would not preface it so often in the fact that you have been a member of the "12k crowd" and just let your opinions rest on the fact that you are an intelligent, loyal, and dilligent fan of the team. Because while you certainly do understand this team and organization, there are plenty of people in that 12k crowd that don't know jack sh*t despite years and years of going to the Park.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 08:33 PM) The season ticket base had been hovering between 12K and 15K before 2006 for nearly two decades. It was a solid pattern as new ones would join, old ones would fall off. Regardless, that decade of fans WITHOUT a World Series win in 70+ years bought tickets. There is no need to spout off about being a knowledgable fan. I never said anything to imply you weren't. And don't put words in my mouth and claim I said there weren't more than 12K TRUE fans. There are many more. They just don't put their money where their mouth is. They watch from home. Then... they come out when the team wins. Some bandwagon jumpers...? Some...? When the base goes from just under 30K back down to the mid teens that'll show how many bandwagon jumpers there were. Hell.. many have already jumped off. There is no longer a wait list for tickets. Naa.. there's a lot of you. Hang in there. What would you expect after winning a World Series title? The season ticket base to decrease? Believe me, we all appreciate those fans who stuck it out while the organization was struggling through the mid-to-late 80's and early nineties, and certainly again in the late nineties and 2002-2004. However, you often imply that because you and some other loyal fans have been buying season tickets for years, that you somehow know far more than the rest of the fanbase or are somehow more entitled to your opinion or are somehow more correct in your opinions. I disagree. You are certainly a loyal fan for laying out the cash for the season tickets over the years. But plenty of others have been laying out as much cash as they feasibly could for the team, including myself. There are a hell of a lot more knowledgable and dedicated Sox fans than your "12k crowd."

Mark Gonzalez speculates in his article today that the Marlins have been scouting the White Sox, and perhaps they may have some interest in Brian Anderson. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines

Mark Gonzalez, in his article today, mentioned the Brewers are still scouting our pitching. As was mentioned previously, they are probably scouting Thornton and Logan. I can't imagine neither will come cheap. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines

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. That's correct. Coming into this season Mark has 6.078 years of ML service time, which means his 10/5 protection will not become effective until 2011. My apologies for believing it was 2010, as I heard Scott Merkin say this on the Score yesterday afternoon and failed to double-check him.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) I'm not. And most season ticket holders, the 12K crowd, not the "Oooo... I got Sox season tickets, look at the pretty WS logo..." are also not that way. I would agree that extreme is an excellent word to describe it. I'm really getting tired of this 12k crowd nonsense that you continue referring to. You're not taking into consideration any of the fans who are too young to have had season tickets pre-05' or those that are reaching the point in their career where they have enough dispensable income to afford season tickets for a baseball team. I'm 30, been a fan since 1983, and yet, I've been in school for 20 years of my life. I've not yet reached a point (certainly for some fault of my own while in my twenties) that I can afford season tickets. That doesn't mean I don't attend 20 + games a year and watch nearly every one of the remaining 142 on television. I also consume as much public information as is available, and consider myself a very knowledgable fan. Certainly, there are some bandwagon jumpers in the past few years. But believe it or not, there are more than 12,000 true and knowledgable fans that have been attending games for years and years.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 03:49 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. Iirc, this came up with the ARod trade. I don't remember exactly what the issue was, but there were rumors about some changes in the contract which the MLBPA said it would not agree to (because the concessions offered on the other side didn't match what ARod would be giving up). Yeah, I looked through the CBA and could not find any clause which prohibited amending a contract. 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 couldn't be built in were he to be traded prior to the inception of the terms of the extension.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) 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. You're right, I should have made my response more clear. I'm fairly certain contracts cannot be ammended either. Maybe it's legal, and it just doesn't happen, but I certainly cannot remember one instance of it.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 03:06 PM) 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? I'm fairly certain that you cannot void a contract in the middle of the season.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) Anyone besides me tired of smugass KW mouth every time he speaks.......I loathe KW always have. I'm not sure why it is everyone considers him smug. I prefer to think of it as confident. He's perfectly willing to admit when he's wrong- he's accepted blame for mistakes. And then he goes out and attempts to correct them. If he has any fault in my mind, it's that at times he is too competitive. But smug, I don't see it.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) Well they didnt have to give 5 years-so they found another way out of paying. These guys are slime. No one can defend this. Williams is an arrogant puppet I never want to hear him say "build a championship" again. Better yet, I dont want to see or hear him again. This is Reinsdorf retirement fund economics at its best 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. QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 01:31 PM) He couldn't have worked a NTC into the remaining portion of this year's deal? Contracts are ammended/restructured all of the time. When they are restructured, they are normally done so by voiding the remainder of the existing deal and creating a new one. However, it does not happen in mid-season (or at least I cannot think of that ever being the case).

QUOTE(BlackBetsy @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 12:49 PM) I don't quite get what the hubbub is here. Kenny did offer Buehrle a no-trade clause. He can't be traded in 2008, has limited no-trade rights in 2009-10 and then in 2011 WHEN HE GETS CBA NO-TRADE CLAUSE RIGHTS, his Sox no-trade clause goes away. That it's the same limited no-trade clause that Garland and Konerko and Contreras signed makes it seem like Buehrle is the one being aggressive here. Now, if it doesn't give him no-trade rights for 2007, that would be weird on KW's part. The new contract should DEFINITELY add no trade rights for the rest of this year. Doesn't make sense otherwise. If this is what Buehrle is holding out for, and he knows KW won't give it to him, then it's just Buehrle trying to make an issue. You can't add no-trade protection in the middle of a current contract. He couldn't of given him no trade protection this season unless Mark would've signed an extension this past offseason and he and the Sox would have voided the 07' option year.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 03:54 AM) Buehrle + Garland + Vazquez + Konerko = $52M w/ a payroll cap of about $95M. That leaves you about $43M (assuming they go with a $95M payroll, could be less with attendance dropping) to fill 21 other roster spots. Good luck with all that. And with the players we have leaving, and the fact that we aren't going to make much of a splash in free agency, it could reasonably happen. Here is a VERY ROUGH sketch of what the team and salaries could look like with that pitching staff next year: 3b- Josh Fields- $400k ss- Andy Gonzalez or perhaps someone like Chin Lung Hu received in trade for JD in trade with Dodgers- 400k 2b- Tadahito (Resigned at 3/16.5)- $5.5 million Catcher- AJ- $5 million, Toby Hall- $1.95 million DH- Jim Thome- $8 million LF- Ryan Sweeney- $400k Right Field- Aaron Rowand- $7 million Center Field- Ichiro (Pipedream) $13 million SP- Danks- $500k SP- Floyd- $500k Bullpen- Jenks- $600k Thornton- $875k MacDougal- $1.95 million Logan- $450k David Aardsma - $450k Carlos Vasquez- $400k Bench- Pablo Ozuna- $1.05 million Luis Terrero- $600k Jerry Owens- $400k =49,380,000 + $52,000,000 $102,380,000 Now this is budgeting for over $20,000,000 in Free Agent OF acquisitions, which probably won't happen. It's also assuming Crede will be dealt or released, and that Toby Hall will be brought back (he should probably be dealt for some maple bats right now, he isn't worth $1.95 million next year). But things could be tweaked and moved around to get it closer to $95 millionish. And Javy could be dealt eventually as Gio is ready and other salaries are escalating. I'm not advocating this, just pointing out that it's possible. What is our payroll looking like right now? Buehrle+ Garland+ Contreras+ Vazquez+ Konerko = $50 million for 5 players. We have managed to pay our remaining 21 players with that remaining $45 million or so, haven't we?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 11:30 AM) Since when is John Maine a chump though? The guy was very good last year (3.60 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 15 GS), has been one of the best pitchers in the game this year (2.74 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 84 K, 102 IP, 150 ERA+) and is only 26 years old. Just yesterday he went 8 in Philly allowing 4 H, 1 ER, 6 K and 0 BB. Maine has been better than Buehrle for the last 30 or so starts the two have had.. Olly Perez has been beyond terrible over the past 2 seasons but has seemingly turned it around in New York (3.14 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 85 K, 94.7 IP, 131 ERA+), I wouldn't bank on him as an intricate part of my rotation during a pennant chase but it appears Minaya is content with sticking with his 25 year old who has shown great success in the majors before. Not claiming either of them are chumps. I am very well aware that both have had success before in the major leagues and that both are having very solid years. That doesn't mean I am trusting either of them over Buehrle in a World Series game, however. Also, take a moment to consider what Buehrle's numbers might be this season were he pitching in the NL in Shea stadium this year.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 10:00 AM) Yes. They've both been as good or better than Buehrle this year. And both have better stuff (particularly Perez). The Mets don't need Buehrle. Ok, you do that then pal. I can't imagine why it is you want to give the man $56 million if he's not even as solid as Oliver Perez or John Maine then.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 11:41 PM) That's the one of the better case scenarios. It would be worse if KW keeps Vazquez and Garland and Jenks and Konerko and lets their value erode rather than dealing them now (Konerko's 5 and 10 rights kick in next season, so the Sox need to deal him if they are consistent in philosophy). And the situation will be worse still if the Sox go out and grab second-tier free agents like Rowand and Eckstein. I'm sure no on cares a whit but I think I was definitely wrong to suggest KW be fired for the Buehrle fiasco. Not signing him for more than the team is willing to risk may be justifiable. But if KW doesn't clean house, if he fails to sell high on Garland and Jenks, and especially if he brings in veterans to make some half-assed claim to competing in 2008 then I think calling for a change is justified. Because there is no middle road to take and compete while rebuilding when the Sox farm system has nothing to offer. That may be a smart way to approach it, but it won't happen. The fanbase would probably riot, especially considering how close we are to the 05' World Series title, and I just don't think the organization has the sack to do it.

I just don't buy this. Assuming we don't give him the NTC, he would still receive a NTC in the third and fourth years of his deal because he'll have 10 years of major league service time and 5 years with the same team. The years you'd think the organization would be worried about would be the final years of the deal, if anything, IMO. Also keep in mind that the organization has established a precedent of being willing to offer 1 year of NT protection, as it did with Jon/Jose. So assuming they would be willing to give him 1 year of NT protection, you're telling me this entire argument is about that second year of the contract? Because that's what it boils down to: 2008- NTC (as they gave Jon/Jose), 2009- no protection, 2010- NTC (per his 10/5 rights), 2011- NTC (per his 10/5) rights. It just doesn't make sense. I have to believe the organization wouldn't hold this up over one year of no trade protection in 2009, in which the the odds of Mark being a successful pitcher are still fairly good, in his 30 age year.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 09:12 PM) Today's game did nothing to convince me of an offensive resurgence. Today's win did nothing to convince me a trade isn't necessary. We're bad. We're not winning anything this year. The sooner we realize this, the better. The 2007 White Sox are not jumping seven teams to win the wild card. I hope everyone realizes we're three games from being the worst in the league. If Buehrle isn't signing a contract extension he needs to leave immediately. Receive something for him now. Grant whichever team trades for him a window to work out an extended contract. Forget about 2007 and finally people the superfans to rest. I think you've made your opinions here fairly clear. However, in regards to a trade, you simply keep reiterating that Kenny must get back several grade A prospects in return for the regulars and starter he deals- but you don't know what is being offered at this time- you don't know what his options are. Perhaps he isn't able to get the sort of package you claim he must get at the current time. Simply saying he must do this or he must do that, without knowing what, in reality, his options are currently, isn't any way to evaluate anything. I'm sure he's evaluating his options, hoping to buy some time to get some guys who may have some value on a roll, as well as giving the team as long a chance as possible to get this turned around. I agree with you for the most part- the chances of this year being anything other than forgettable are overwhelming at this point. But if Kenny is not getting the offers he wants at this point, there is little to be gained by trying to force certain players out. We've still got another month here- a month where hopefully some movable players will heat up and make themselves more valuable, and another 23 games or so to evaluate this team's needs for the next few years. QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jun 30, 2007 -> 09:18 PM) It's over. Admit it. So, we win the next two games and fall within 7 games of .500 -- what does it ultimately do but give people such as yourself false optimism? Haven't we had the last several months to know what this team can do? One more week won't do anything. According to some, the stretch against the National League was an opportunity to climb back into the race. What happened? We slipped back further into Royals territory. They had the chance to rebound and BLEW IT. It's time to look towards the future. Enough waiting. If we wait one week, then it'll become two...then three...then four. Then afterwards we'll hear about all the division games remaining, as well as the second half resurgence of past teams. If losses make Williams speed everything up, I'll cheer for it. I don't care if anyone calls me a bad fan. People can't let go of this season, and it's becoming quite sad. It probably is over. But I don't see much of a point in forcing a move now if we aren't getting the offers we are looking for. If some of the races tighten up, and more teams further identify possible weaknesses, our players may become more in demand. Hopefully, as things continue to return to the mean with Iguchi, and hopefully Jermaine if he can get on the field, our players increase their value a bit. Regarding the 7 games back, if you can win tomorrow and beat Bedard Monday, you've got Cabrera/Trachsel/some piece of crap the following three games. I'm not trying to get ahead of myself too much here, but we do have some more winnable games ahead of us. You are correct in pointing out that we did blow our chance in June to get back in this thing, but I feel if we can get within 3-4 of .500 at the ASB, we still have a slight chance. Stop and consider the fact that we are historically a very solid first half team and a poor second half team. Perhaps we will buck the trend and get hot in the second half this year and climb back in this thing. There are plenty of games left. I'm not giving up hope until that trade deadline comes...