Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) You specifically called me a "shill." Don't try to weasel your way out of it now. Nice try, but I said that he MAY BE ENTERING the downslope of his career. The evidence? How about him not being able to reach 90 mph on the gun anymore? Or him pitching like crap in August? Or the 2000+ innings already on his arm? I'm not saying that his arm is going to fall off next year or anything, but I'm convinced that we've seen his best days. Apparently your personal feelings for Mark are overriding your business sense. Unlike you, I hope that Kenny at least CONSIDERS dealing him if things don't go well next season. If we dealt Mark in another 9-12 months, I think that we'd get a very nice package of prospects in return. In addition, the $14M freed up could be spent on a FA #4 or #5 hitter, something our team desperately needs. Some of it could also be spent on locking up Danks. And, again, this all hinges on how Hudson develops, how our offense responds next year, who (if anybody) Kenny acquires this winter, and a number of other variables. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we should definitely run Mark out of town. But I do think that Kenny needs to CONSIDER the possibility of moving him for both salary relief and younger players if things don't go well over the next 12 months. I'm not weaseling my way in to or out of anything. I'm right here, typing. You're pulling these "reasons" out of your ass. There is nothing alarming about Buerhle in any way. This "he can't touch 90mph anymore" is also bulls*** too. Mark is a master at taking things off his pitches so just because the gun on TV doesn't say 90 doesn't mean he can't touch it. You're grasping at straws talking about a poor month of pitching when Gavin Floyd the legit #2 you so love got off to a terrible start and was shut down with a hip problem, meanwhile this other #2 in Danks just barely hit 200IP this year and looked at the end of his rope in his last start. Peavy got hit with a liner on the elbow and missed a large chunk of time with the ankle injury. There are small little "worries" about single player in the Major Leagues and here you are trying to ignore Mark's strengths and peck away to find a few tiny morsels with which to expand your pointless argument. Business sense? Here we go again. I've already mentioned several times over why it doesn't make business sense. You OTOH have not. We trade Mark for a very nice package of prospects. That means we trade him for a bunch of players who will probably never turn into what we think they'll turn into. Great. Then we'll take his money and give it to hitters players on the FA market, who BTW are all past their primes for the most part, except the Borass guys we're not going to chase. Hudson? Dan f***ing Hudson is a reason to trade Mark Buehrle? I'm done with this argument.

We all grow beards. Those with beards must grow them longer.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 03:27 PM) Saying an article is stupid and at the same time saying you haven't read it isn't "right", it laughably ironic. As to the point of the article, I would agree they are pretty much unrelated, but I want to read the rest of it at some point later to see if the writer brings up any worthwhile points. I agree with that, but I also understand Steve's immediate reaction because I do that all the time too. In fact, I wouldn't have read the thing if I didn't see good reviews first. When I personally come across absurd headlines like that I usually ignore them and consider them stupid because I know they almost have to be, and this is a perfect example of that. Either they're stupid because there's nothing of substance in them and/or they're basically hit pieces, or they're stupid because they're trying to capitalize on a controversial topic to gain readership. And speaking of irony, isn't it ironic that the author attempts to put a focus on the kind of romanticizing of the sport which leads to problems (like viewing the athletes as "warriors" who must "battle" through injuries, etc.) but at the same time he romanticizes it himself by comparing human beings playing a lucrative game with injury potential to animals fighting to the death? LOL.

That was Captain Lou in the Super Mario Bros. Show?!?!? I never knew that! Awesome!

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 03:10 PM) I've never posted on a Cardinals board before and I've never suggested that Mark be traded to the Cardinals, so I don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't think that dealing a $14M starting pitcher who will soon be entering the down-slope of his career - when you have an ace two two other young, legitimate #2's in your rotation - is a good idea, that's your business. Other people in this thread disagree with you. And, despite what you think, they're not "dumb." BTW, calling me a "shill" and a "motherf***er" don't strengthen your argument at all. I was speaking in generalities which you took personally. I cannot help that. I'd love to know why Mark is on the "down-slope" of his career. Is it that long injury history of his? What about those ugly mechanics? Is it because he's such a big power arm that he's bound to lose velocity soon? Oh, I know, it's because he's a thrower, not a pitcher, right? It's probably his old age, huh? He'll be 31 next year, I mean seriously, somebody put that man in a nursing home! Maybe the fact that he's pitched 200+ innings in every full season of his career is a sign that he won't be able to do that in the future? It must be because Mark is not a special pitcher then? Maybe the issue is that is that it is extremely unlikely for pitchers to perform well into their 30's? One ace and 2 #2's then? Okay, well I'm glad Peavy's 3 total starts in a White Sox uniform are enough for you to believe that Mark is replaceable, but I'm going to go against the grain here and not only disagree with you, but also BET that Mark pitches more games over the same period that we have Peavy than Peavy does himself. It's great that you see Danks and Floyd as "legitimate #2's" but I think that's a bit premature as well. I see them both as #3's right now with upside to be more. Danks had a season like a #2 in 2008, but he didn't last year and Floyd hasn't yet. And even if all three of those guys are excellent, which I hope they are, then Buehrle only makes them, and the rest of our team, better. This "good business" is not good business and you have failed, still, to give a reason for it being good business. What do you think we would get back for Mark via trade? What do you think we'd spend his money on? And why do you think this would make the club better? And why are all the risks involved worth jettisoning a guy who will have his likeness displayed at the Cell in bronze one day?

QUOTE (East Side Z @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) Im not arguing all Im saying its ok for Kenny to listen to offers on Mark........To NOT listen would be stupid. I would agree with that, but I don't think there will be a lot of listening time unless teams want to offer up big packages of very good, proven MLB talent because Kenny wants to win in 2010.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) That's cute. You sound like one of the irrational tweenagers who were getting all bent out of shape when Schueler let Ventura go. I find it amusing that somebody who's been posting here for barely a year and a half has the stones to question my dedication to the Sox. Grow up. Join date = level of fandom, IMO. BTW this "team" over "players" bulls*** doesn't work when you trade your best "players" for a bunch of trash that then becomes your "team." Go ahead and mock my man love for Mark. Post your big solution, like how trading him is going to make us so much better. Talk about all those great players we're going to get and then how we're going to spend his money in all those other areas which will make us so much better. Your idea is dumb as all hell and I'm calling you on it. Mark is a franchise player in his prime and on a market-level deal and you want to trade him so we can make the playoffs easier. Yeah, okay. Here's a good thread And another Hope you enjoy them.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) Wow, you are really young. I saw Captain Lou live one time at the Rosemont Horizon or something (when it was still called that) when he was with those guys. I think that was Summerslam where Owen Hart fought Bret Hart in a cage and the fake Undertaker fought the real Undertaker. If I didn't see him there then it was at one of the other events they did. But yeah, I missed all the 80's stuff unfortunately.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) Wow, sounds like somebody has a massive man-crush on Mark. Sorry to break this to you, but he's married. I like Mark, but I'm a Sox fan first and foremost. Players come and go, but the organization is more important to me than anything else. If dealing Mark can help free up salary for a more balanced team that has a better shot of getting this team back to the WS, I'm all for it. I said click the X. I'm sure there's a "Bring back Holliday???" thread on CardinalsTalk.com waiting for you.

QUOTE (East Side Z @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) If the Red Sox did trade for him they would have PAYED him to the point of where he couldnt turn it down.I also never said that he should be traded NOW.We have a one of the best starting 4 in baseball,lets see what they can do. If they wanted Mark that bad then they would have given up something for him when Kenny was willing to make a deal. And again, WHY would Mark take a supposed Red Sox offer? They wouldn't have floored him with something like $19M+ per. That wouldn't have happened. They probably would have offer the same as the Sox over 5 years, and Buehrle would have taken that offer and shopped it around. Agree with the bolded part, but why are you arguing for trading/shopping Mark AT ALL if you're not in favor of it NOW? Doesn't make sense. It's like, I could come up with an argument about why we should trade Gordon Beckham if we're out of the race in July 2014. But why?

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) It's nice to see that you have an open mind. I'm sure that many Sox fans were pissed that Schueler let Robin Ventura walk after the '98 season. He's about the best comparison that I can think of in terms of fan popularity. The Sox only drew 1,339,000 back in '99, but it wasn't because they let Ventura walk. It was because of the White Flag trade. This is clearly reflected in the massive drop-off in attendance from '97 to '98. The drop-off from '98 to '99 was minimal in comparison... 1997 - 1,865,000 1998 - 1,391,000 1999 - 1,339,000 2000 - 1,948,000 Magically, the fans returned in 2000, with Herbert Perry playing 3B. And this highlights my point: Sox fans like their players, but they like winning a lot more. The PR fallout from dealing Mark would be short-lived and completely wiped out by another trip to the playoffs. I'm not suggesting that the Sox deal Mark this winter. I'm suggesting that they consider it if they're out of contention by the deadline next year, when "a major hit to the rotation" will be a moot point. Robin Ventura was probably my favorite player during those years, and as much as I love Robin, there is no f***ing way I'd compare him to Buehrle. Buehrle threw 2 no-hitters including a perfecto, started an All-Star game for us, pitched a CG in the ALCS for us, saved a World Series game for us, even hit a home run for us against the Brewers this year, among other accomplishments like ranking in wins and ERA (which underscore perfectly how under-appreciated he is, again) and being the only lefty in baseball right now that I can think of that has a shot at 300 wins. And off the field he's loved even more. Ha, so we're going to deal Mark and get back to the play-offs? HOW? We will LOSE THAT TRADE. We will NOT get back Mark's value. What are we going to do after that? Spread some money around? WHERE? Who is it that the Sox could reasonably acquire with Mark's money that will make this team better than it will be with Mark? The ideas on this board are f***ing pathetic, like we'd deal Mark and use the money to sign injury-prone Nick Johnson and give out another bad contract to a reliever or something, that's probably the solution. Or take on Milton Bradley or Juan Pierre with that money. Brilliant! Or maybe we'll sign or trade for a Borass client (yeah right, like that will ever happen). Let me know why we can afford to weaken our staff. Because the last thing you're supposed to do when you have a strong starting staff is weaken it. As for dealing Mark if we're out of it in July, WHY would we be out of it in July? This division is going to suck next year just like it has the last two. We were like 8 games below .500 or something in June and we still were in it late despite playing bad baseball. The only way this team is out of the race by July 2010 is if the whole f***ing plane crashes. And even then, the 2010 Charlotte Knights could still win some ballgames against the likes of the Indians and Royals. I can't believe I have to defend how important it is to keep Buerhle. And anyone who feels the need to respond to this post with an argument in favor of dealing Mark or shopping Mark shouldn't even bother. Just click the X in the browser window because you're not a Sox fan. You're an undercover Cardinals shill once again trying to stir up s***.

QUOTE (East Side Z @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) The team that would have aquired Mark 2 years ago,would have singned him to a deal.Its allowed to trade for a guy in his last year and sign him. Right. So Mark would have just decided against testing the free agent market and potentially forfeited millions because of some trade. Mark only made concessions because he wanted to stay HERE. He wouldn't have signed some longterm deal with any team outside of possibly St. Louis, and even that is only guessing because Mark himself has said that he doesn't know if he would be able to pitch as effectively while in his "backyard" so to speak.

QUOTE (East Side Z @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) Ahhh an optimist............LOL. No, a realist. It's NOT realistic to expect to trade a player like Mark Buehrle and "win" the deal. We will LOSE that trade 99 times out of 100. In return our 2010 team is worse and our fan base is pissed. Yeah, brilliant move.

QUOTE (East Side Z @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) I have a hard time seeing Mark in a differnt uniform,thats just me.I thought the time to trade him was 2 yaers ago when they were talking contract........He's value was never higher. No, Mark's value was never LOWER at that point. Mark didn't have a contract beyond that season. He was a rental for a half season that would garner 2 draft picks if he declined arbitration. That's it. You guys who think Mark should be traded need to have your heads examined. Go back and look at the perfect game threads. Every motherf***er here was slobbering all over his nuts, as we all should, and every single sports media outlet was going on about how under-appreciated he is, and how the fans outside of Chicago don't understand how good he is. Now you same motherf***ers want to trade him AS SOON as we acquire a starting staff to complement him. Go burn your Sox hats. You make me sick!

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) I think that you overestimate the PR disaster from dealing Mark. I'm sure that some people wouldn't be happy, but it wouldn't be anything near what we saw when the front office pulled the plug on the team in '94 and '97. Remember when Kenny was going to trade him how like every Sox fan on the planet was b****ing about the Sox being petty for not giving him more than 3 years? Remember the chants at the Cell and how loud they were? Let's see, the last time our fan base reacted so passionately over a player was...? Fisk maybe? And that was BEFORE he threw a perfect game. No, I think anyone who is saying a Buehrle trade wouldn't be disastrous for this franchise is wrong, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise. In theory, we could trade Buehrle and get back a bunch of players who turn out and then go on to win another World Series, but that's not very likely. What is likely is that the fans would be pissed as hell and ticket sales would drop, the players we'd get back would never become anywhere near as good as Buehrle and at least one large piece would be a straight bust (who would hurt our record while we played him to see if he was a bust or not), and our rotation would take a major hit in 2010, which means we could easily go from a potential pack leader to the same 2008-09 Sox teams all over again.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) He probably makes less than a minimum player. If they thought this guy could make the difference half this board thinks he could, they could eat Walker's contract in a heartbeat. He'll probably wind up in Chicago. If that were the case then I wouldn't be against it at all. Whether you love Walk, hate Walk, or fall somewhere in between, it would be hard to see the hiring of Jaramillo as a lateral move or worse.

Just saw this I'm not old enough to remember the earlier years of his career, but I thought he was great as part of the Headshrinkers gang alongside Afa the Wild Samoan.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 01:06 PM) While I agree trading AJ is just foolish, except for the horrible PR move it would be, trading Buerhle makes a lot of sense if you could get market rate. You'd have to get a lot more than market value to offset that kind of PR disaster. It would be like the equivalent of what would happen to KFC if Colonel Sanders were to suddenly pop up on the national sex offender registry. I mean the guy is dead so that's not going to happen, but just sayin.

Walker is already back anyway.

The Sox should trade Buerhle and AJ right away. That way we can weaken our team AND piss off just about every Sox fan sans a few here at SoxTalk all at the same time. What a great idea.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) LOL at the irony of this statement. He is right though. The piece shed light on an important topic, but there still is no comparison between football and dogfighting. Dogs are animals incapable of making decisions based on logic. Even if the dogs acquired for fighting are trained from birth to fight, they still come from a long line of ancestors captive bred to love and trust human beings. They have no option to "quit" or find a new owner and they are in a sense defenseless as well, because although they have jaws to bite, they do not have the necessary weapons (brainpower) to defend themselves against a master who uses food and attention to trick them into risking their lives needlessly. And on top of that, the dogs 1) do not enjoy it, 2) receive no monetary or other forms of benefits like humans do, 3) receive no medical care, 4) are eventually destroyed and thrown out like garbage, win or lose. Beyond that, running a dogfighting ring requires no skill, no intelligence, it mandates ZERO compassion, and there are no rewards for the competitors of any kind which make the activities worth their risk. If there is any comparison between dogfighting and human beings, the closest thing I could think of would be a situation that made the news before (can't remember when/where this was) where a bunch of staff at a mental health facility conned mentally disabled people into fighting each other. There are dangers involved in contact sports that can end the lives of those athletes involved early and miserably, and it is true that the controlling forces of these things turn and look the other way, but so do the fans, so does the media, and so do the athletes themselves. Brain trauma in contact sports is the pink elephant in the room, nothing more. OTOH, dogfighting is one of the most despicable activities any human being can participate in. You're tricking an animal of low intelligence that was bred to love you into maiming itself for the benefit of your pocketbook. That's highly f***ed up. The article was informative and worth its ink when it dealt with head trauma in football and boxing, but the writer just had to go for the dogfighting connection to get attention. If the guy was just in love with the metaphor it would be different, but he actually tries to make a case that there is a similar trust/love/faith element in both player-game/team and dog-master relationships, and that in each case brutality is inherent to the "sport." That's f***ing ridiculous anyway, because dogfighting is definitely not a sport, it's only something that sick f***s do to make money.

I don't want Pods a DH. I don't want Pods in center. I don't want Pods in right. I don't mind Pods playing in left, but I don't want to see Carlos in right. I would like Pods on the bench, but that means he plays everyday if Ozzie is running things, which again means one of the above. I think we'll end up bringing Pods back because we always f***ing do. Juan Uribe is the only other Sox player that I loved as much as I wanted gone, but for me, Pods carries more emotion both ways.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 13, 2009 -> 10:26 AM) I'd say it's between Getz and AJ, no doubt about it. Buerhle counts too if you want to consider a pitcher.

QUOTE (hometeamfan @ Oct 13, 2009 -> 09:08 AM) Quentin was offered MUCH MORE than Danks or Floyd. Remember, Danks is two years younger than Gavin...is lefthanded, and has a year more ML under his belt. You might not think that matters, but trust me it does in the baseball front office. Danks started the season off strong and only faltered due to dealing with a nasty finger issue. Even with that, he finished strong and reached 200 innings. Were it not for the the unfortunate 7 NDs his W/L outcome wouldve been much different too. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/03/whit...four-years.html Kenny also stated this himself in an interview. Danks, Floyd, and CQ all got the exact same contract offer. Floyd was the only one to sign.

Maybe they sent him home so that he could spend some more time with his family. There doesn't have to be a negative reason for that. I'm sure that if the Sox had something to play for, they'd want Jenks around if for no other reason than camaraderie.