KW Speaks about Buehrle's NTC

[Rockabilly]

I am going to go to the game Tuesday and Wednesday, and make a big sign that says:

 

Buehrle (check)

Buehrle's Money (check)

NTC and Kenny's Brain (empty check box)

 

I am embarassed to have Kenny Williams as our GM. Honestly, I would just give Buehrle the No-trade clause and let those who want one go because you can build a good team easier with Garland, Danks and young pitching.

 

But hey, it'll be a long five years of rebuilding.

 

 

Were you embarass when KW gave us a championship...

[StrangeSox]

Let's not act like the 2005 team was due to solely KW's genius. Wasn't it his Plan C or D after several other moves he wanted to make fell through?

[Chisoxfn]

I don't know the exact details of what Mark wants and I can sort of understand why you don't want to give out a full no trade when you don't want to give it to future players cause it could open up a pandora's box persay.

 

However, Mark Buehrle is taking substantially less to stay in Chicago. Konerko and Garland didn't do so (not substantially less).

 

This really is embarrassing. Kind of like the White flag trade was embarrassing.

 

Note: I'm not saying the Sox may not turn better out over the long haul for not making this deal either cause they very well could.

[Rockabilly]

Let's not act like the 2005 team was due to solely KW's genius. Wasn't it his Plan C or D after several other moves he wanted to make fell through?

 

 

our championship team was due to KW putting an awesome team together... Most of the players on that team was because of KW

[Kyyle23]

Let's not act like the 2005 team was due to solely KW's genius. Wasn't it his Plan C or D after several other moves he wanted to make fell through?

 

Any way you say it, Plan A, B, C, or D are all KWs plans. 2005 wasnt solely because of his genius, this much is true, the other part was players execution and coaches preparedness.

[Rockabilly]

and whos to say that KW wont sign Buehrle this is all part of negoations.... Im so sick that people on this board change their minds so dam quick about something...

 

Alot of people here wanted to get rid of MB last year when he pretty much tanked the season...

[RME JICO]

He'd have no kind of trade protection for the rest of the 2007 season. Any NTC he receives in an extension would kick in at the beginning of '08.

Which makes this whole NTC sticking point really odd. Technically, KW could still trade MB this season even with a full NTC for the contract extension. So obviously KW was looking to move MB within the next 2.5 years and he didn't want the NTC to block his ability to do that.

[WCSox]

He'd have no kind of trade protection for the rest of the 2007 season. Any NTC he receives in an extension would kick in at the beginning of '08.

 

He couldn't have worked a NTC into the remaining portion of this year's deal? Contracts are ammended/restructured all of the time.

Edited July 1, 2007 by WCSox

[Whitewashed in '05]

If the NTC clause was indeed the deal breaker then Buehrle has the right to say no. How would it look if a player gives his team a hometown then trades him? That would not look good on the team at all. Infact, if that were to happen, no player would be willing to give the sox a hometown discount. The discount is for the sox not anyone KW wants to trade him to.

 

If we end up not resigning Buehrle, I better not hear about Boras players in the draft next year.

 

Now if this whole thing is BS, then KW better be ready to ship him and Count out of town.

[iamshack]

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.

 

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).

Edited July 1, 2007 by iamshack

[Soxfest]

Anyone besides me tired of smugass KW mouth every time he speaks.......I loathe KW always have.

[iamshack]

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.

[WCSox]

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.

 

+1,000,000

 

I don't know what's more ridiculous: Mark supposedly accepting $70 million LESS in guaranteed money than Barry Zito or the belief that Kenny Williams has the final say in large contract negotiations.

 

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).

 

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?

Edited July 1, 2007 by WCSox

[iamshack]

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.

[WCSox]

I'm fairly certain that you cannot void a contract in the middle of the season.

 

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.

[iamshack]

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.

[jackie hayes]

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.

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).

[iamshack]

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.

Edited July 1, 2007 by iamshack

[WCSox]

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.

 

Exactly, since Mark would be getting something and not giving up anything in return.

 

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 could be built in were he to be traded prior to the inception of the terms of the extension.

 

That would be another way to do it.

 

Then again, it's a moot point because the Sox never intended to re-sign Mark and Mark isn't going to sign for a paltry 4/56, NTC or not. Everything we're hearing from these "sources" through the media is complete BS.

Edited July 1, 2007 by WCSox

[Rowand44]

I honestly can't believe the only hold up in this deal is a stinkin no trade clause, there has to be more to it than that. If not, there is something completely messsed up with this organization. Buehrle is a 10 and 5 guy in 2010 anyways, correct? So in other words the hold up on this freakin deal is cause Kenny wants the flexibility to trade Mark for two seasons? Why the hell would we be trading him in the first two years of a four year deal anyway?

 

Something isn't right here, and Kenny is really starting to get on my bad side(I know it's his worst nightmare ) I really used to be a huge fan of his but not anymore.

[29thandPoplar]

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 1, 2007 -> 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I honestly can't believe the only hold up in this deal is a stinkin no trade clause, there has to be more to it than that. If not, there is something completely messsed up with this organization. Buehrle is a 10 and 5 guy in 2010 anyways, correct? So in other words the hold up on this freakin deal is cause Kenny wants the flexibility to trade Mark for two seasons? Why the hell would we be trading him in the first two years of a four year deal anyway?

 

Something isn't right here, and Kenny is really starting to get on my bad side(I know it's his worst nightmare ) I really used to be a huge fan of his but not anymore.

 

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.

[Rowand44]

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.

My bad, I haven't been around too much lately so I missed that.

[iamshack]

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.

[jackie hayes]

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.

Link?

 

There's a Buster Olney quote from last year re Andruw Jones, which said his 10-5 rights would kick in on Aug 15 or 16 -- exactly 10 years after his debut. And I've heard a couple times in the press that Buehrle's 10-5 rights would commence in the middle of the season. I believe the .078 would mean 78 days (and 170-some constitutes a full year, per the CBA), not 7.8% of a season. That would mean he would cross the 10-year mark in the middle of 2010. Where does it say the rights don't begin until the next season?

[Chisoxfn]

Link?

 

There's a Buster Olney quote from last year re Andruw Jones, which said his 10-5 rights would kick in on Aug 15 or 16 -- exactly 10 years after his debut. And I've heard a couple times in the press that Buehrle's 10-5 rights would commence in the middle of the season. I believe the .078 would mean 78 days (and 170-some constitutes a full year, per the CBA), not 7.8% of a season. That would mean he would cross the 10-year mark in the middle of 2010. Where does it say the rights don't begin until the next season?

Contrary to popular belief, 10 and 5 rights DO kick in the middle of the season and Buehrle will become eligible for those 10 and 5 rights at some point during the 2010 season.