Kalapse Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 04:49 PM) #3 - Losing velocity is not an issue. It was in the second half of last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 He's not a velocity-reliant pitcher. He's a location-reliant one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Name three location-reliant right-handers who are anything above-average. (And let's not cite Maddux who was changeup reliant, more than anything, and who COULD pop it in there when he was younger.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) How about Maddux, Glavine over the years? I don't know how long each contract they've ever signed has been, but they've been worth their contracts. Smoltz. Randy Johnson's been worth his contracts, hasn't he? Not necessarily the latest, but he's been worth most of his contracts. Interestingly, I'm pretty sure that most of those folks wound up being on shorter deals that were renewed. RJ's best deal, his 4 cy young in a row deal with the D backs, was a 4 year deal IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 05:53 PM) Name three location-reliant right-handers who are anything above-average. (And let's not cite Maddux who was changeup reliant, more than anything, and who COULD pop it in there when he was younger.) Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera, Jeff Suppan. Edited June 20, 2007 by knightni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 5 years for 70 million... you'd have to brain dead to not give him that. And you'd also have to be brain dead to settle for that when you could get a lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted June 20, 2007 Author Share Posted June 20, 2007 Yeah, the REALLY LONG pitcher contract is a newer invention. God bless Scott Boras! But the truth is that some pitchers are worth the risk and not all good pitchers break down. Not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Fireworks Man Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(BearSox @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 04:55 PM) 5 years for 70 million... you'd have to brain dead to not give him that. And you'd also have to be brain dead to settle for that when you could get a lot more. I just went back and looked up where I thought I heard that--actually, I was mistaken. I was confusing what we were discussing at work this morning with what was actually printed. It comes from Phil Rogers suggesting the Sox should offer Mark $75M for 5years. That would definitely be a no-brainer for the Sox. I have previously said I think Buehrle could get $90M for 5yrs if he becomes a free agent. Edit: I also read this on mlbtraderumors.com -- "Both van Dyck and Buehrle himself give much credence to this particular trade talk. Buehrle wants to stay, but chances are slim because he's looking for a five-year contract. He deserves it, but it's not the White Sox way. Five years, $70MM sounds appropriate. Poor guy's got a kid coming soon; I'm sure he'd rather not go through this." Again this is just someone's opinion and not from Buehrle himself. Edited June 21, 2007 by South Side Fireworks Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 04:51 PM) He's not a velocity-reliant pitcher. He's a location-reliant one. It really doesn't matter if he's location reliant, if he's tossing his fastball up there at 85 MPH when he reaches back he's going to get hit around. Mark has said it himself, one of the main reasons why he was so terrible in the second half of last season was because of a lack of velocity. That big 77 MPH change on the outer half isn't nearly as effective when his fastball is only 8 or less MPH faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 QUOTE(knightni @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 02:51 PM) He's not a velocity-reliant pitcher. He's a location-reliant one. He's reliant on both. When Mark's fastball was topping off at 86 last summer, he got rocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeynach Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 QUOTE(South Side Fireworks Man @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) This is absolutely correct. I read today that supposedly Buehrle is seeking $70M for 5yrs. If that's what he's really asking, it should be a no-brainer for the Sox to re-sign him today. By the end of that contract, $14M per year will be a bargain for a pitcher of Mark's calibur. Especially if by 35 or whatever he turns into Greg Maddux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeynach Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) It was in the second half of last season. Buehrle even said himself his loss of velocity was a big problem for him. He said the difference in speed between his fastball at 85-87 mph to his change up at 81-82 was a big drop off from his normal fastball at 88-89 mph to his change up. He said he wasn't able to keep hte hitters off balance enough and use his change up effectively and it was getting hammered since it was too close in velocity to his fastball. Since his velocity is back up to 88-89 hes been much better and his K rate is up too, important in our hitter friendly park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagotony06 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 All I have to say that if stupid ass KW gives the headcase known as Javier Vazquez a 3 year 33 million dollar extension, then he better not even hesitate to give a guy who is your ACE, has been the face of this orginazation and a class act, and someone who has helped bring you your first World Series title in 88 years, and also is only 28 years old, give the f***ing guy 5 years and 80 million contract without hesitation. But knowing KW and his smugass attitude he'll trade him for some scrubs that he says our scouts have been wanting for a long time. Reward the guy for his service to your orginazation, if he doesn't then what does that say for future players that come here. KW gives Vazquez 3/33, abd this guy hasn't done jack s*** to help this team win. The guy isn't even a .500 pitcher for his career. Give Buerhle the contract he deserves, and take care of your own!!! 5/80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted June 21, 2007 Author Share Posted June 21, 2007 Tony, don't take this the wrong way. I'm just curious. Your name isn't Tony Cisneros, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 21, 2007 -> 05:47 PM) All I have to say that if stupid ass KW gives the headcase known as Javier Vazquez a 3 year 33 million dollar extension, then he better not even hesitate to give a guy who is your ACE, has been the face of this orginazation and a class act, and someone who has helped bring you your first World Series title in 88 years, and also is only 28 years old, give the f***ing guy 5 years and 80 million contract without hesitation. But knowing KW and his smugass attitude he'll trade him for some scrubs that he says our scouts have been wanting for a long time. Reward the guy for his service to your orginazation, if he doesn't then what does that say for future players that come here. KW gives Vazquez 3/33, abd this guy hasn't done jack s*** to help this team win. The guy isn't even a .500 pitcher for his career. Give Buerhle the contract he deserves, and take care of your own!!! 5/80 KW is not the reason why Buehrle will not be receiving a 5+ year contract from the White Sox. Your anger is misguided. And Vazquez' contract has absolutely nothing to do with Mark Buehrle's status as a White Sox pitcher. (ie: The fact that Vazquez is making $11M is not going to keep the Sox from extending Mark.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 21, 2007 -> 05:51 PM) KW is not the reason why Buehrle will not be receiving a 5+ year contract from the White Sox. Your anger is misguided. He's not the reason he won't be receiving the years, but he is certainly part of why he won't be getting the annual dollars Mark wants. Personally, I don't blame KW one bit, either. Oh, and one more thing. Anyone who thinks Vazquez wasn't extended BECAUSE of what Buehrle will be able to command on the open market this offseason is missing the boat. Edited June 21, 2007 by iamshack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 21, 2007 -> 05:53 PM) Oh, and one more thing. Anyone who thinks Vazquez wasn't extended BECAUSE of what Buehrle will be able to command on the open market this offseason is missing the boat. I definitely think that was a major contributing factor and I still believe it's a damn good contract, all things considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagotony06 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Well I should have said KW and JR. My fault. But to me it's both of their faults. My anger is at KW for basically offering MB the same contract he offered JV before the season started. That is a slap in the f***ing face as far as I am concerned. How do you offer a guy who is 40 games over .500 for you in his carrer, the same contract that you give to a guy, who has been absolutely s*** for you?? I don't get it at all. That's what makes me angry. I understand he had a bad 2nd half lst year, but that still is a bunch of s***. The guy is you ACE plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 21, 2007 -> 05:57 PM) Well I should have said KW and JR. My fault. But to me it's both of their faults. My anger is at KW for basically offering MB the same contract he offered JV before the season started. That is a slap in the f***ing face as far as I am concerned. How do you offer a guy who is 40 games over .500 for you in his carrer, the same contract that you give to a guy, who has been absolutely s*** for you?? I don't get it at all. That's what makes me angry. I understand he had a bad 2nd half lst year, but that still is a bunch of s***. The guy is you ACE plain and simple. It's not like he extended Vazquez then offered that same deal to Buehrle. Mark was offered an extension at the All-Star break last season and he turned it down, Vazquez signed his deal 7 months later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagotony06 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 21, 2007 -> 06:04 PM) It's not like he extended Vazquez then offered that same deal to Buehrle. Mark was offered an extension at the All-Star break last season and he turned it down, Vazquez signed his deal 7 months later. I understand that. But it's an insult. How do you offer your ACE the same contract that you ofeer to a guy that is no where near the caliber pitcher as MB. Actually it's emabarrasing for the orginazation in my eyes. I say you offer MB 5/80. That's fair and if he decide to turn that down, then I will say that KW and JR did all they could to try to keep him. But to offer him last year at the All Star break and ext. for 3/33, is just a slap in the face and in embarrasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Pitching is still the name of the game. We had a super staff in 2005, but you can see how the front office mentality still is set on no long term contracts and no real big payouts and the staff will be dismantled. Buerhle needs to stay and five yeasr is not that big a risk for the team to take. They need to consider just who is going to step up from the minors to take his place? Edited June 21, 2007 by elrockinMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jun 21, 2007 -> 06:37 PM) I understand that. But it's an insult. How do you offer your ACE the same contract that you ofeer to a guy that is no where near the caliber pitcher as MB. Actually it's emabarrasing for the orginazation in my eyes. I say you offer MB 5/80. That's fair and if he decide to turn that down, then I will say that KW and JR did all they could to try to keep him. But to offer him last year at the All Star break and ext. for 3/33, is just a slap in the face and in embarrasing. Would you mind posting the deal that was offered to Mark because by all accounts I have heard, including the slip from Hawk and Kenny at Soxfest, it was NOTHING remotely close to what Vaz got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxPride56 Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 08:23 AM) Would you mind posting the deal that was offered to Mark because by all accounts I have heard, including the slip from Hawk and Kenny at Soxfest, it was NOTHING remotely close to what Vaz got. Steff, excuse my ignorance, but what was the deal offered to Mark. I probally just missed it at SoxFest, or don't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29thandPoplar Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 My understanding (recollection?) is a 3 year extension, $34M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 QUOTE(29thandPoplar @ Jun 22, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) My understanding (recollection?) is a 3 year extension, $34M. Those were the reports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.