Why Ken Williams won't give a no trade clause to Mark Buehrle
More on the Sox refusal to give Buehrle a no-trade clause:
"As soon as you do that, everyone who comes through the door to the negotiating table is going to be expecting the same. Whatever free agents you go after, they will also be expecting the same treatment. Now, having said that, I can completely understand -- and I talked to [White Sox chairman] Jerry [Reinsdorf] about that today -- we completely understand him wanting and requesting it, and it's not really a matter of us not desiring to do it completely. It's a matter of business practice and how that's going to affect the next day, the next player I attempt to sign, future free agents down the line. The ramifications just are... Boy, they could turn you into a team you're not going to enjoy seeing," said Williams.
After Buehrle's camp rejected the team's offer on Friday, Williams put in a personal call to the left-hander to explain the no-trade provisions the team was prepared to offer and how the White Sox were not planning to pull a sign-and-trade with one of the top commodities on the open market. Williams added how the White Sox have not heard back from Jeff Berry, Buehrle's agent, since the offer was turned down. When contacted on Monday night, Berry gave the impression of how his side is standing firm with the full no-trade desire.
"Mark is willing to forego free agency and has made no secret of his desire to remain in Chicago. In return, he simply wants assurance that he will stay with the Sox for the next four years," said Berry.
What does Mark say? Look inside.
0 recs |
59 comments
Comments
Why not give Mark a "limited" no trade
Of course, you'd have to make sure the details didn't get to the media, otherwise it would become to obvious that this was just a transparent attempt to save face.
Feel free to rip this idea to shreds as it is kind of lame.
by rhythm on Jul 3, 2007 1:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
NTC
This particular contract is a steal for the Sox and is likely to be viewed as below "market value" for the next four years. Reinsdorf is a successful businessman (even if he is cheap) and I'm sure he knows that sometimes you have to take risks.
The Sox should stick their neck out for Mark and give him the NTC.
by BoKnows on Jul 3, 2007 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and something else
Whereas a no extension trade can give you Gomes from the Mets, an extension trade can give you Milledge and Pelfrey.
Can someone explain this to me?
by The Wizard on Jul 3, 2007 1:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
you're believing too much
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Get Creative Kenny!
by onlythebulls on Jul 3, 2007 2:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Contract question.
Yes, I feel like this is a really stupid question to ask too.
by defensive indifference on Jul 3, 2007 2:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
stuff always leaks
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it's not officially anyone's business then?
by defensive indifference on Jul 3, 2007 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the contract itself?
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would it be so painful to keep him here....
This setting a bad precedent is just a bad argument. All players have their own tailor made deals. They could say yes or no to whatever they want to in any future contract negotiations.
Just give it to him and solve one piece of the puzzle so you can move on to fixing the other 7 or 8 problems with the team.
by White Sox Randy on Jul 3, 2007 2:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
spoken like someone who doesn't negotiate
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so what?
it's like saying, "well, you gave that guy X amount of dollars, so i should get the same," which of course agents and players always do, but that doesn't mean they get what they want.
by Ryno on Jul 3, 2007 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course it doesn't mean they get what they want
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually
Can you suggest any books / strategies? I'll probably change jobs in the future, so any input is welcomed.
by rhythm on Jul 3, 2007 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
here's some to start with
getting past no
getting to yes
they'll introduce you to the basics and some strategies. each of these, if i recall right, have a bibliography in them for further reading.
by larry on Jul 4, 2007 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many mlb contracts
And its real easy to say pay him 14 million and fix the other 7 or 8 problems.
by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially...
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dammit.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed about the bad precedent argument
in general, it sounds like the sox have these strict rules about overpaying free agents and not giving NTCs and 3-year deals for pitchers that will conspire to keep them mediocre unless they get every mid-level free agent exactly right and significantly improve the farm system.
what a frustrating season.
by Ryno on Jul 3, 2007 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That doesnt makes sense Ryno
by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not about spending money
With the failure of the farm system to produce significant major league talent in the last ten years (other than Buehrle himself and maybe half-credit for Crede), how will we ever get enough good players to contend? Hope for another 2005 where 6 different guys had career years on the cheap? I'll cherish that season forever but it was something of a fluke.
by Ryno on Jul 3, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't a fluke...
Now what to do about the next 78 years...
by DeeDubs24 on Jul 3, 2007 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Bad Precedent Argument"
by BoKnows on Jul 3, 2007 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's funny...
The Red Sox's policy is that they don't grant "no-trade" clauses to individual players, but they will grant a "no-trade" clause to a class of players. In the case of Jason Varitek, that class of players was something like "32 year old catchers who sign a four year extension after 8 years with the team will receive a no-trade clause." In the case of Matsuzaka the clause went something like "all Japanese pitchers acquired through the posting process and signed to six year contracts will receive a no-trade clause."
I still think that's a ridiculous policy, but if it could bridge the gap between Kenny and Buehrle, I say they should implement something similar, like "all left handers drafted and signed by the organization who sign their second extension at the length of four years will receive a no-trade clause."
by Stealfirstbase on Jul 3, 2007 2:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Red Sox policy
The situation with Buehrle is different -- the Red Sox are willing to give new players a NTC, they just don't want Manny getting one. The White Sox are trying to prevent future signees from expecting a NTC. (And maybe they don't want to upset guys who signed without a NTC -- but it won't affect their contracts, in any case.)
by jackie hayes on Jul 3, 2007 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why jackie hayes?
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure if I know what you mean
by jackie hayes on Jul 3, 2007 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's what i meant
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll find out if KW is a competent GM after this
Get rid of MB and start seeing empty seats at the Cell. Great job, KW. You put together a great bullpen and now you are dragging this mess out.
by LVSoxFan on Jul 3, 2007 2:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
the fans can shove it
by hscs on Jul 3, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
by defensive indifference on Jul 3, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who was it...
You can argue whether or not Ken Williams should bring back Buehrle from a baseball perspective, but he should NOT do it because the fans want it to happen. Most of the fans don't know shit about baseball.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone agree...
by stanchar on Jul 3, 2007 3:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm beyond caring...
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone believe this load of bullshit?
Besides, what big free agents do the Sox ever sign anyways? OH NOES, we better not give Buehrle a NTC or else Aaron Rowand will ask for one in the offseason as well. That's the whole joke with Kenny's comments. What top free agent have the Sox signed since Albert Belle in 1997?
by SSH2005 on Jul 3, 2007 3:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
How do you define...
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I take a stab at it...
That's all I got.
by DeeDubs24 on Jul 3, 2007 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
only PK was a free agent
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wells and Colon...
I honestly don't know how to answer this question without a definition of "top free agent".
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not SSH, but
I can't think of any off the top of my head since Belle.
by Ryno on Jul 3, 2007 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm just curious
we seem to have had pretty good success with players off the proverbial scrap heap - lofton, dye, AJ, valentin, iguchi. i'd say these guys have done about as well as the players pined after, especially when one considers the money saved and used elsewhere. this year will likely be our first year under .500 since 1999. our organization has done something right over this time.
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ramifications
And the NTC does tie KW's hands. If the Red Sox come to KW and say we'll give you Dice K and Beckett for Buehrle, you can't take it. It just pulls people off of the market-- which increases the value of those who are on the market-- everybody else. So the MLBPA and player agents would generally be in favor of NTC's.
This business is driven by the market. If you want to sign a free agent and 3 other teams are willing to give a NTC, you'll be giving it too or you'll be pulling your offer off the table (or leaving it there unaccepted).
Does anybody know any recent players in MB's situation? Did they get NTC's when they re-upped? That's the market we are dealing with here.
FWIW, I'd like to see MB get the NTC and stay w/ the Sox.
by ruffster on Jul 3, 2007 3:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Will Buehrle situation hurt future negotiations?
Also, with Konerko taking less money to stay here than he could have gotten with the Angels a season ago, and now Buehrle giving a huge hometown discount, the Sox seem like a team that players want to stay on once here. On the flipside, there are some teams that have money but it seems as much as they throw it at guys, players just don't want to sign with them (the Orioles come to mind first). Could the Sox become one of these teams, at least for the immediate future?
by Julio Sham on Jul 3, 2007 3:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why
Some organizations have policies period. Not a big deal. On the Yankees you can't wear a beard. Oh I guess no one wants to go there because...... just silly.
Saying this is a litmus test of whether he is a good gm is showing you have no concept of judging a gm.
by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think what people are saying is
by Ryno on Jul 3, 2007 4:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Again
All this other "clutter" is people pissed that he may not sign Buerhle. Very few even answer the question legitimately whether it makes sense. Im not saying it doesn't but because the fans want it is horseshit.
Hell I wanted a lot of players that ended up sucking.
by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ryno, I am in synch with your logic
If you covet a guy you make exceptions to the rule. "The law may be an ass", attorney folk, but it does allow for exceptions in extraordinary situations. The question here is, is Mark extraordinary? THAT's a discussion worth having. IMO, if you are ever going to reward someone who is the "anti-Pods" (i.e. set your watch by him, always comes to play, answers the bell, and all other cliches) with talent, a great kid, AND has contributed mightily to the only WS title in 88 years, well by God this just might be that situation.
by winningugly on Jul 4, 2007 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bogus
You mean, like the way JD was told "We won't negotiate during the season?"
Now, I realize that Jermaine's health is an issue, but once again, to hide behind some imaginary rule that says "If we do it for one, we do it for all," is just total BS. They've made exceptions before (anyone can look back and say, "Well, you signed Albert Belle to a lot"), and clearly by thinking about signing a pitcher to more than a 3-year-deal, they're making an exception to their own rule now.
I don't buy this for a second. With the discount Buehrle is offering them, they can EASILY tell any other player who asks, "Yes, if you go below market value, we'll consider a no-trade clause." That's a good way to get a player who wants to stay to stay cheaply.
The whole thing stinks of them wanting to sign & trade him, Mark wanting a guarantee that that won't happen, and them not budging.
by madopal on Jul 3, 2007 6:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Creativity Needed
For example, if traded, his remaining contract doubles in dollars and additional player option years kick in. Or MB gets a 10 million dollar bonus if traded.
Not too many teams would come calling if they had to cough up a $10 million dollar bonus and take on a $24 million dollar a year contract that just had 4 years added to it.
by phillips on Jul 3, 2007 6:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Sox aren't saying they WON'T trade him.
If they "load the contract with clauses" then if their plans change, then they're stuck making huge concessions.
by ballyb on Jul 3, 2007 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But then,
by ballyb on Jul 3, 2007 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, a question.
by ballyb on Jul 3, 2007 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone mentioned the names before
Fernandez, 79 wins with Sox, 28 wins after being traded at the age of 26
Alvarez, 67 wins with Sox, 35 wins after being traded at the age of 27
McDowell, 91 wins with Sox, 36 wins after being traded at the age of 28
Baldwin, 79 wins with Sox, 10 wins after being traded at the age of 29
Current pitchers in the age "window":
Buehrle, 102 wins with Sox, 28 yrs old
Garland, 88 wins with Sox, 27 yrs old
I like the Phillips idea, just word the contract in such a way that it basically becomes a no-trade clause. KW has to know about this, and his unwillingness to so something creative just shows what he intended to do with Mark from day one.
by RME JICO on Jul 3, 2007 6:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i'd just point out one thing that may be salient
by larry on Jul 3, 2007 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Williams says...
How would he describe the 2007 edition? A barrel of fun?
by DrBox on Jul 3, 2007 7:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
KW is full of shit
well then you say, how many games have you won for this franchise Mr. Hotshit FA, is it over 100?
no?
How many games have you won for this organization in the postseason? How many have you saved?
zero?
ok, yeah, you dont get the no-trade clause.
simple as that.
MB is the best trading chip this team has.
Thats the truth. But he is also going to be the best FA starting pitcher if they dont lock him up. Young durable lefty starters dont grow on trees.
by Gus on Jul 3, 2007 8:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 






















