South Side Sox: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: World Soccer Digest for Soccer Fans!

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:

During Williams' long talk with the media, he was asked a question on the mind of many fans. With Buehrle's importance to the organization, both as a player and representative in the community, why couldn't the White Sox extend the full no-trade clause in this special case? Basically, would this one exception cause a problem in future free agent negotiations? Williams explained how that maneuver could present a major issue with future high-impact players.

"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.

If they don't want to give Mark a no trade clause, give him more money. Like Jim said Kenny wants "the moon and the stars."

What does Mark say? Look inside.

Star-divide

[Toni Ginnetti]:

"No matter what happens, they will always hold a special place in my heart. But I don't think I've made my last start here. I'm 100 percent sure I'll make my start on Saturday. If you think this is the end, I don't feel that way."

0 recs  |  Comment 59 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Why not give Mark a "limited" no trade
and limit the teams he can be traded to down to the only other one he has mentioned playing for, the Cardinals, for the first two years. You would essentially be giving him what he wants and not giving a full no trade clause at the same time.

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.

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Jul 3, 2007 1:49 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

NTC
Kenny Williams argument, which makes sense in principal, is that a no-trade clause sets a risky precedent for future negotiations.

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
I can't understand how the "3 month rental" thing, applies here. IF they are going to trade Buehrle, why not let the buyers negotiate an extension and thus get a better return? No way we pay Mark in the offseason, if we won't pay him now.

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
of course the sox will give a window to whomever makes a legit offer. what's the point of announcing it ahead of time?
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Get Creative Kenny!
Here is what ESPN's Buster Olney said on his chat the other day: Talked to about 10 people in the game over the last 24 hours and not one of them -- not one -- thinks the White Sox are making the right call by refusing to give Buehrle the no-trade clause. Given what the market is for pitching, four years and $56 million is an incredible bargain, and they should just give him the no-trade clause, or come up with some way around this sticking point (like guaranteeing a $5 million bonus if he's traded, or something like that).

by onlythebulls on Jul 3, 2007 2:00 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Contract question.
Are player contracts made public after they're signed?   Or could they give him a no-trade clause and...not tell anybody?

Yes, I feel like this is a really stupid question to ask too.

Out-underacheiving the other guy.

by defensive indifference on Jul 3, 2007 2:08 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

stuff always leaks
considering this is such an important - and talked about - clause, it's doubtful every person with knowledge would be able to keep their mouth shut.
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

the contract itself?
i've never seen a complete one released. the team and player are usually pretty upfront about the terms, though, especially regarding money and important clauses.
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would it be so painful to keep him here....
for 3 more years ? He automatically gets it in the 4th year anyway. Unless they are planning to trade him why wouldn't they give it to him.

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
it's a hell of a lot better to tell someone across the table "no, we never do that and never will" than have a situation where you say "yes, we did it for him, but that was a special case." the other side will always be able to come back and tell you why this is exactly the same situation as your special case.
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

so what?
doesn't it fundamentally come down to whether the other side is willing to do a deal without a NTC or not?  if you're firm that you're not giving one, they'll have to make that decision no matter how much they bitch about the fact that buehrle got one in the past.

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
all the time. it's about negotiating dynamics. i'm not going to give a seminar on negotiating here and i'm sure no one is that interested anyway.
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

actually
I'd like to learn more about negotiation.

Can you suggest any books / strategies? I'll probably change jobs in the future, so any input is welcomed.

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Jul 3, 2007 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

here's some to start with
beyond winning
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.

Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 4, 2007 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How many mlb contracts
Have you negotiated? More than anything precedent matters in Sports contracts with agents. You can argue they maybe should let go of that way of thinking but its not a flawed argument.

And its real easy to say pay him 14 million and fix the other 7 or 8 problems.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Especially...
when it's not you're money that you're throwing around.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dammit.
"Your", not "you're".  I hate that.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 3, 2007 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed about the bad precedent argument
it's not like it's a legal precedent that would automatically carry over to subsequent signees.  most big time free agents are going to want a NTC whether Buehrle gets one on this contract or not.  it's something you can handle on a case-by-case basis.  so what if a guy's agent says, "well, you gave Buehrle a NTC."  the sox can say, "well, those were different circumstances."  will a particular free agent's decision making process on whether or not he'll sign with the Sox if they don't give him a NTC really be impacted by the fact that Buehrle got one in the past?  either the guy will accept not having a NTC or not.  Buehrle having one is irrelevant.

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
They have their rules to maintain and stay ahead of a ridiculous marketplace. You make it sound like spending money guarantees winning. Its a Larry pointed out. Its easier to say we never have, never will.
"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's not about spending money
I'm satisfied with the team's payroll.  It's the philosophy that I don't get.  If they're not willing to sign Buehrle to a below market deal because they don't give NTCs, and they're not willing to pay typical free agent salaries because they're outrageous (and, I agree, they are outrageous) who are they ever going to get but mediocre journeyman, washed up veterans, and reclamation projects?  If you don't make any concessions to the players whatsoever, you'll only ever end up with the quality of player who isn't good enough to demand that much.  Great.

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...
They had this system is place for about 80 years, eventually it would all work out in one season.

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"
Why do free-agents wait for the best available player to sign?  So he sets the market or precedent for every other free-agent.  It's logical and understandable argument.

by BoKnows on Jul 3, 2007 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's funny...
I always thought that the Red Sox were ridiculous in their policy, which I'll explain later, and yet here is Kenny Williams espousing the same type of thinking.

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
is mostly due to Manny Ramirez.  He had a clause in his contract saying that he got the same no-trade protections that the Red Sox gave to anyone else in a new contract.  That's why they came up with these odd rules.

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?
i've wondered this for a while. gotta be a backstory.
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure if I know what you mean
The name?  JH was a second baseman for the Sox in the 30s.  He lost his sight after a cinder fell into his eye during an exhibition game against the Cubs at Wrigley Field.  Since I was also a weak-hitting second baseman when I played, and because his story gives every Sox fan another good reason to hate that team to the north, it seemed to be the perfect fit.

by jackie hayes on Jul 3, 2007 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's what i meant
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

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
All of the sources are saying that MB's bid is more than generous.  If KW doesn't jump on it, especially after the fans have clearly spoken, we realize that the future of this franchise is depressing as long as KW is the GM.  

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
Boone Logan's right about most of 'em.

by hscs on Jul 3, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol
Boone Logan being the thinking man that he is...
Out-underacheiving the other guy.

by defensive indifference on Jul 3, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who was it...
that said, "if you listen to the fans, you end up sitting with them."

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

amen
And I'll add to it that I admit I don't know all that much about baseball, but I still have an opinion ;)
GO SOX!

by rhythm on Jul 3, 2007 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Anyone agree...
That Ozzie should have let Logan pitch to Patterson to lead off the ninth?

by stanchar on Jul 3, 2007 3:18 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm beyond caring...
whether the Sox win or lose this season, but bringing in Jenks to start the ninth was classic push-button management.

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?
The fact is that the Sox want the flexibility to be able to trade Buehrle.  If they wanted to keep Buehrle for all four years, they would give him the damn NTC.

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

I take a stab at it...
Bartolo Colon, Paul Konerko, and David Wells.

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
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wells and Colon...
were acquired via trade.

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 would guess he means an All-Star caliber player.  Someone in the top 5 in the league at his position (or, say, a top 25 pitcher).  Also, since he obviously knows the Sox signed Konerko, I'm assuming he means a new player rather than a re-signed Sox free agent.

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
do you think that's necessarily a bad policy? signing high priced free agents like you describe usually ain't worth the money.

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.

Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ramifications
KW is kind of right and kind of wrong about this ramifications of the NTC. Each contract is individual, it can contain anything the parties want. Giving MB a NTC doesn't mean anybody else he signs gets it.

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?
I understand KW's thinking that by not accepting the NTC because it will hurt future negotiations, but I can't help but think that not-accepting the NTC will hurt negotiations as well.  With all other things ($$, chance of a championship) being relatively equal, why would a player choose to join a team that acts this way towards it's players?  Wouldn't they choose a team that has a history of treating it's players, especially a player such as Buehrle, bettter?  If the White Sox won't make Buehrle feel special, there's no way they're going to make a new signee feel special.  Other teams will though.

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
Cuz they won't give a damn NT clause? What is it with you people. A free agent that negotiates with the Sox will just know they don't give no trade clauses. That's it. They are not "treating" Mark B bad. Why do people keep saying that? Where is it written that if you don't give him all this money its disrespect? Kenny's position is in regard to future free agents contracts - period.

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.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think what people are saying is
If you don't give lots of years, or lots of money, or no-trade clauses, and you don't extend current players with reasonable salary demands who are playing well and want to stay, what is a player's incentive to ever choose the White Sox over another team that probably offers at least one of the above?

by Ryno on Jul 3, 2007 4:57 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Again
Let me just say I would sign Mark at that rate. But I'm not in the negotiating table. The Sox position on pitchers (Which by the way MOST seem to neglect acknowledging is a very SOUND policy) has nothing to do with a hitter free agent. Kenny has been consistent in what he wants. He has NEVER said I will not sign a top tier free agent. Never.

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.

"Find out what you are doing wrong and STOP doing that."

by Tdogg on Jul 3, 2007 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ryno, I am in synch with your logic
throughout this post.  If the market dictates a no-trade in order to get a top guy, so be it.  As far as negotiating a contract, the guy you're looking across the table is the guy you're looking at across the table - not his predecessor.  We're not talking Supreme Court precedents here.

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
So, they're not willing to set precedents, otherwise players will be figuring there's a double standard.

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.

"It's not what you achieve, it's what you overcome. That's what defines your career." - Carlton Fisk

by madopal on Jul 3, 2007 6:07 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Creativity Needed
Heard Steve Phillips on ESPN Something actually making an intelligent comment.  As briefly mentioned in a post above, you simply load the contract with clauses that make trading MB unattractive to other teams.

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.
They're only saying they DON'T PLAN 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,
he maybe should be compensated to get back the home field discount.

by ballyb on Jul 3, 2007 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also, a question.
Any chance that last off-seasons CRAZY contracts for mediocre pitchers was, in fact, an aberration. And that 4 yrs. / $56 million for Mark is the MARKET RATE this off season?

by ballyb on Jul 3, 2007 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Someone mentioned the names before
Pretty amazing to see the drop-off after these guys left the Sox:

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
you've got three pitchers in there who were, by today's standards, absolutely abused. for example, more than doubling a young pitcher's innings pitched in one season (alvarez). 250+ innings (mcdowell, fernandez). as for baldwin, well, he was just not a very good pitcher.
Yeaaah. I'm gonna need you to go ahead and provide me with an official press release on that. OK? Great.

by larry on Jul 3, 2007 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Williams says...
"The ramifications just are... Boy, they could turn you into a team you're not going to enjoy seeing"

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
"Whatever free agents you go after, they will also be expecting the same treatment."

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.

next years slogan better be "these kids can play."

by Gus on Jul 3, 2007 8:26 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Chicago White Sox.
Start posting about the White Sox »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Beckhamwp-2_small
My Evening With Jake Peavy
Frank_thomas_small
Do The Right Thing
Georgia1_small
Beckham is not only good, but classy
Deadhorse_small
White Sox Minor League Update: I just want to say one word to you - just one word.... 'prospects'.
Stash1_small
Buerhle might wanna take a drive down Lake Shore Drive next slump

Recent FanPosts

Img_0161_small
This is probably old but whatevs, Twins get new uniforms
Small
Three way deal for Gonzalez?
Belle-thomas_small
Will we all be disappointed this offseason
Aroldis_chapman_small
A letter from a Cuban fan inside Cuba
Dead_horse_4_small
Why the nickname bacon sucks and why you should all stop using it.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Top Ten BR sponsorships

Recent FanShots

OPS hearts Dick Allen
Tim Lincecum Hearts WHIP, Tells Greinke To Pound FIP
ESPN - OTL: Field of Schemes?
Zack Greinke hearts FIP
Beginning Wednesday, street light banners commemorating a series of special events in Chicago are going on the auction block for charity.

Some of the banners were shown off Tuesday, including those featuring Pres. Barack Obama both before and after his election.

A White Sox World Series Championship banner, signed by pitcher Mark Buehrle, is also being sold, as is a Blackhawks playoff banner signed by Denis Savard and Stan Mikita.

The bidding starts at 12 p.m. Wednesday at Daley Center. Money raised goes to help the Chicago Anti-hunger Federation and the Greater Chicago Food Depository.
John Danks is a MLB scout
Yankees' key to financial success
Buehrle wins Gold Glove
Dotel & Dye are Type A Free Agents

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS

South Side Sox on Facebook

Managing Editor

Thecheatsmoking_small The Cheat

Editors

Deadhorse_small larry

Sealab_murphy_small colintj

Scenemissingsss_small thecip

Dog_small homesickalien

Omar_small U-God

Authors

Headerrock_bigger_small shaftr

17258_0003_small The Actual El Guapo