Trading Buehrle is not the smart thing to do. 28 years old, not an injury risk and already at 100 wins. What prospects of ours have ever turned out better than Buehrle? What makes you guys think the sox will obtain someone even close to Buehrle? It is a good bet that Buerhle will have a longer career from this point on then any prospects the sox receive. If the sox trade the ship and get their payroll under 70 mil, who cares what they offer him? They should MATCH any offer. Buehrle at 28 is STILL a good buidling block for the future.

I'm gonna go with the over/under on "don't trade Mark threads" before the weekend at 85.

I'm gonna go with the over/under on "don't trade Mark threads" before the weekend at 85.

I think you have to take the over since we're currently sitting at about 70 right now.

This is Mark Buehrle people. This is the single greatest loss for the sox for at least the last 20 years. What else do we have to talk about? Our team sucks

 

and please show me a similar thread to the topic "Trade The Ship, resign Buehrle"

I think you have to take the over since we're currently sitting at about 70 right now.

 

 

I was just going to count Monday to Friday... if it's overall I think the mark should be set near 150.

This is Mark Buehrle people.

 

You're right, this is Mark Buehrle. Not Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens in their primes. Not even Johan Santana.

 

We should be upset that his days in Chicago are numbered. But we shouldn't tear our hair out and scream in agony. We'll get over this, just as we got over Blackjack and Alex Fernandez.

Buehrle has gotta go..

 

This team is way too old and has too many holes.. If he gives us a chance to add some good young players, then you do it.. if not we take the picks.. but don't kid yourself, we aren't resigning him no matter how much you want it to happen

Trading Buehrle is not the smart thing to do. 28 years old, not an injury risk and already at 100 wins. What prospects of ours have ever turned out better than Buehrle? What makes you guys think the sox will obtain someone even close to Buehrle? It is a good bet that Buerhle will have a longer career from this point on then any prospects the sox receive. If the sox trade the ship and get their payroll under 70 mil, who cares what they offer him? They should MATCH any offer. Buehrle at 28 is STILL a good buidling block for the future.

 

He throws overhand at a high velocity. Thus, he's an injury risk.

He throws overhand at a high velocity. Thus, he's an injury risk.

 

I think history is on his side.

I'd take my chances on Buehrle but EVERY pitcher is a huge injury risk. Some are less huge. But they're all big risks.

I think history is on his side.

 

It was also on the side of Alex Fernandez, Mark Mulder, and Jamie Navarro.

If we could pull off successful deals, there would be no shame in having the top 2 in our rotation next year be Garland and Buehrle, while the other 3 slots go to a selection of Danks, Floyd, and whoever else we decide is ready (lotta candidates: Broadway, Haeger, Gio, Russell, anyone we get for dealing other players, etc.)

 

That would be a $30-$35 million rotation which should have a lot of depth to it and a fair amount of balance. We spent more than that on our rotation in 05, so that would free up money to be spent on position players. But that all would depend on us being able to move Vaz and Jose.

I have started thinking about this, and I now think I am in the camp of Keep/Re-sign Mark and trade away Jose and/or Vazquez.

 

I don't know if the "Mets interested in Contreras" thing has any legs to it, but if so, I say get that one done. Even if we get only one top prospect, I can live with that. I don't see how Jose fits into our plans.

 

Javy I could go either way on. For the right deal, I'd say let's move him. That said, I'm leaning towards keeping him.

 

MB $15, JV 11.5, JG 12, Danks minimum, Gio/Floyd/Other minimum = about the 40 million our rotation

cost in 2005

 

I think that'd leave us enough room to go after one big star for the offense (A-Rod? Ichiro?)

to pair with Konerko and Thome, or some solid parts (Castillo, Rowand and a good FA SS?)

 

Anyway, just thinking out loud here...

I am in this camp as well. I have been for a few years and even during last year's second-half disappointment. I found myself in complete agreeance with Mariotti, a columnist I despise 95% of the time who articulated my feelings on the issue:

 

You can sign Buehrle for five years, a fair expectation for established hurlers in today's market, and he likely won't suffer the same injuries and performance breakdowns that have befallen other.

 

If a trade happens, I trust KW will pull it in the best interests of the team for the future, but I am very reluctant to support trading away #56 unlike El Duque, Garcia, McCarthy, and Rowand, all of whom I thought were correctly traded at the time of the deals.

Keep Buerhle!!

Trading him for something good speeds up the rebuilding process. If you want to wait longer to be good again so we can keep Mark, go ahead, but I think most Sox fans want a winner again as soon as possible, and we can't do that and keep Mark.

I think I'm on the side of not re-signing him. I just don't see how Mark Buehrle is any different from some of the other starters who were given 5+ year deals over the years. What kind of injury problems did Mike Hampton, a 27 year old who was considered by many in the game to be the most athletic pitcher in baseball, have before the 2001 season? None.

 

I just don't see how Mark's case is any different from someone like Hampton's.

 

I also don't buy that it would only take 5 guaranteed years to keep him around. He could get 6+ on the open market, easy I don't see why he wouldn't ask for that sort of deal from the Sox.

If the Sox are serious about winning, Mark and Garland will be our top

two starters a long time.

You can't throw 5 Danks' out there and expect to be even a .500 team.

See: Barry Zito

 

 

That's where the bar is set. I love Buehrle and it will break my heart to see him go, but Zito's contract is ALREADY an albatross for the Giants. Buehrle may be a better pitcher, but this is very similar to what he will be seeking. I dont care how great of a guy he is, it's a potentially crippling move that is historically unsuccessful.

sounds like a new club is being formed here as we speak.

I also don't buy that it would only take 5 guaranteed years to keep him around. He could get 6+ on the open market, easy I don't see why he wouldn't ask for that sort of deal from the Sox.

 

 

Well that would be part of this "hometown discount" that many are hoping for... it would already be a HUGE stretch for the Sox to offer 5, 6 is absolutely unthinkable.....and he does state that he wants to stay, maybe even more now than ever before.

 

That being said, I agree with what you have to say in your post here....the likelyhood that we'll get Tom Glavine years out of Burls is wishful thinking. Matter of fact, I cant think of 1 pitcher int he game that I'd throw 5 years at right now, no matter the price. Between this trade-deadline and looming off-season, I see all the hideous contracts from last year start to scale back a bit due to a trickle down effect. Team WILL be much more weary to open thier pockets, and the Yankees are not the only litmus test for this thinking.

Well that would be part of this "hometown discount" that many are hoping for... it would already be a HUGE stretch for the Sox to offer 5, 6 is absolutely unthinkable.....and he does state that he wants to stay, maybe even more now than ever before.

 

Mark's "hometown" is in Missouri. I seriously doubt that he'd take one less year and over $10 million less in guaranteed money to stay in Chicago.

Mark has said if the Sox match the best offer, he will return to the Sox.

 

But that's the rub..."the best offer"

i honestly don't feel that buehrle's best years are ahead of him, and whoever signs him is going to end up paying over a million dollars per win. sure he's a good face for the organization, but he's not even the best starter on our staff. $15m/year is better spent on filling some of our MANY glaring holes.