Sox refuse new no-NTC offer by Mark Buehrle

by RME JICO on Jul 7, 2007 9:09 PM CDT

Mark Buehrle was willing to go forward and make a deal with the Chicago White Sox that didn't include a no-trade clause, but his overture was rejected.

The White Sox had offered Buehrle a four-year, $56 million deal, and Buehrle had insisted on a full no-trade clause. According to a source familiar with negotiations, the White Sox asked for possible solutions to the impasse. Buehrle's side suggested a new structure, without a blanket no-trade clause -- a four-year, $56 million deal, and if Buehrle was traded, then a $17 million player option for 2012 would kick in. This way, if Buehrle were traded, then his deal would get closer to his current market value; five years and $73 million is equal to what Roy Oswalt got with the Astros last fall.

But the White Sox turned down the proposal, and continue to market Buehrle aggressively. Buehrle threw eight scoreless innings Saturday, and as he walked off the field after the top of the eighth, he waved his cap -- perhaps for the last time with the White Sox.

*****

Update (wiz): Mark Buehrle's agent Jeff Berry, says 'final overtures were rejected':

"Mark loves playing for the White sox and has the utmost respect for everyone in the organization. In an effort to bridge the contractual impasse, we offered a sensible alternative to a full no-trade clause. Those final overtures were rejected and at this point, Mark hopes for resolution prior to the start of the second half," Berry said.

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

Tweet Comment 50 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Douchebags

I feels strongly about 3 things for next year:

Ichiro!
Buehrle needs to be on our team.
Erstad/Pods, et. al. need to be gone.

As said in Braveheart, "I'm dying....but I've lived long enough to see you become the man you are (JR). I'm a happy man."

by winningugly on Jul 7, 2007 9:18 PM CDT reply actions

What are the Sox thinking?

Larry suggested I try rationality rather than over-reacting yesterday, and I'm giving it a shot. So, I ask calmly, why do the Sox not want to keep Mark? They will only sign him to a deal in which the can flip him for a big payoff. It seems likely they don't want him on the team. Three possibilities:

They think Mark will be a bad pitcher very soon.
They think Gavin Floyd will be a good pithcer very soon.
They plan on going after a very pricey free agent and need payroll room.

I don't think any of those are likely to come to fruition, but what do I know. In any case, the Sox must have some plan. I don't know what it is. But I'm pretty sure I don't like it.

by hitlesswonder on Jul 7, 2007 9:53 PM CDT reply actions

kenny has his eyes on some kc fireballers...

by The Wizard on Jul 7, 2007 9:54 PM CDT up reply actions

hmmm

# They think Mark will be a bad pitcher very soon.
- why sign him for 4yrs 56M then?

# They think Gavin Floyd will be a good pithcer very
soon.
- uh, check the box score from 7/6/07, KW

# They plan on going after a very pricey free agent and need payroll room.
- what's albert belle doing these days? didn't he get a hip replacement or something?

KW doesn't want Buehrle, wants to flip him for something else.

maybe dan wright can be the #5 starter next year.

by ruffster on Jul 7, 2007 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions

i would suggest

first that it isn't necessarily gavin floyd they think will step in but one of floyd, gio, or take your pick. they're probably right on that one but, of course, that doesn't mean having another good pitcher isn't also a good idea.

one of the reasons i didn't partake in the discussions about how you could get creative with the deal to work around having a no-trade is because such workarounds would have a similar effect as a no-trade - i.e., very much limiting the market for any potential MB deal. adding $17 million to that contract - or any contract, for that matter - certainly causes it to be a potentially much more onerous deal. so long as MB remains a premiere pitcher, a $17 million player option year doesn't look too bad. if he doesn't, well, the sox would need to send a hell of a lot of money with him to get some team to take him on. and it would limit the teams that he could go to because they wouldn't want the extra year, at any price let alone $17 million.

at any rate, i would have done this deal about two weeks ago. but this "final offer" doesn't seem all that different from what came before it.

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 8, 2007 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions

They need both Floyd and Gio to step in

I think the Trib blog listed the 2 possible rotations for next season that Williams is targeting:
Vazquez, Garland, Danks, Floyd, Gio or
Buehrle, Garland, Danks, Floyd, Gio

I think the supposition that 2 pitchers will be moved is true. I also think either rotation is pretty far from playoff quality.

In any case, I agree the $17M option isn't the same as Buehrle acquiescing. But I still just get the feeling that the Sox would have made this work by now if they really wanted Mark back. So I'm wondering why they don't.

by hitlesswonder on Jul 8, 2007 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions

Bizarre....

This doesn't make any sense.

Trade Garland if you must (whose contract expires next year); trade Vasquez if you must.

by DrBox on Jul 7, 2007 10:02 PM CDT reply actions

KW/Mark are secretly conspiring

Mark has agreed to take one for the team since the season is over. He will spend the second half of the year with another club while we get a package of young talent in his departure. Then in the offseason, he will sign a contract with the White Sox very similar to the one discussed over the past two weeks. Next season we will still have Mark signed to a reasonable contract, but in addition to him, we will have 2-3 talented prospects which will fuel our resurgence to the top.

;)

by 3E8 on Jul 7, 2007 10:07 PM CDT reply actions

That would be awesome...

but sadly, we all know that's not the case.

by Stealfirstbase on Jul 7, 2007 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Larry.

Legal or not?

by ballyb on Jul 8, 2007 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't think so but IANAL

let's wait for the SSS legal team!

by The Wizard on Jul 8, 2007 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions

i would imagine that's against MLB rules

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 8, 2007 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions

A bad move

So, it's hard to remove bias from considering if the Sox should move a player I like. But, I really think that trading Buehrle upsets me because it seems like a very bad move. I don't see how the Sox come out with a better team over the next 3 years by moving him as opposed to Garland. You could move Garland, get a better return (I know, he got shelled Fri. but still) and have Buehrle signed to a below-market deal.

by hitlesswonder on Jul 7, 2007 10:12 PM CDT reply actions

Horsesh#t

If they're not trading him for some teams top three prospects they need to keep him. Dump Contreras, trade Vazquez, trade Garland, but keep Buehrle.

This is nonsense.

If they screw this up, I'll never buy another ticket.

by Stealfirstbase on Jul 7, 2007 10:22 PM CDT reply actions

Well...

Losing Buehrle is going to be tough, but I'm sick of all this back and forth bullshit. Every day something 'new' is coming out and I just want this to be over with -- a trade, a resigning, whatever it is.

I still think the Dodgers or Mets make the most sense -- prospect wise, both teams have what the Sox need, and that's an overabundance of young guys. From the Dodgers I'm asking for Kemp and Billingsly -- if Dye needs to be included to make it a two-for-two deal, so be it.

This situation isn't comparable to the Garcia trade. I'm pretty confident in saying Buehrle is going to be the biggest impact player moving in the next month.

Basically what I'm saying is it's time for a "Fucking A!" trade, a deal that saves our organization from 2008 on.

Unreal expectations? You betcha!

by CWSKeith on Jul 7, 2007 10:28 PM CDT reply actions

Kemp and Billingsay for 3 months of Buehrle?

I don't see it

ps. I say 3 months cause mark said he won't sign an extension but will enter free agency if traded

by The Wizard on Jul 7, 2007 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions

But why do that...

Maybe you could get Kemp and Billingsley for Garland (CA guy, signed through 2008) and have Buehrle signed below market for 4 years. When Garland is just going to leave after 2008 anyway. It makes no sense unless the Sox are planning on a complete firesale (unlikely) and I'm not sure it makes sense then even.

by hitlesswonder on Jul 7, 2007 10:37 PM CDT up reply actions

I love this idea...

but I'd ask for Laroche and Hu (or Ellbert) instead.

by Stealfirstbase on Jul 7, 2007 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Rediculous

That is all there is to say. Buehrle compromised by taking fewer years, less money AND no trade protection and Kenny still won't sign him! I'm convinced that Kenny never intended to sign Buehrle in the first place.

Onlythebulls

by onlythebulls on Jul 7, 2007 11:25 PM CDT reply actions

He doesn't throw 95mph

Kenny only knows one thing - pitchers that can throw mid to upper 90s - we all saw what that got us in the pen this year. Was undecided on renewal for next year... not any more.

White Sox baseball, the kids are still learning to play

by Brush Back on Jul 8, 2007 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions

Like Ozzie said...

"I dont even care anymore"

Why is Kenny playing mind games? It's plain and simple that you sign "Bargain Buerhle," it's impossible to sign a player who never gets injured and of his caliber for that price, plus the fact that Garland will not give a hometown discount next year. Good Pitching is so hard to find and keep....Whatever, let's get it over with already!

by ckimcircles on Jul 8, 2007 2:01 AM CDT reply actions

As alluded to above,

IMO Williams is waiting to see what he can get for Buehrle. This team is in dire straits position player wise. Top player(s) / prospect(s) + $14 million more payroll flexibility could go a long way to improving next year and beyond.

If the trade doesn't yield sufficient returns, Mark will be extended.

In the situation the Sox are in, Williams wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't see what he could get for MB.

by ballyb on Jul 8, 2007 7:41 AM CDT reply actions

Right...

"If the trade doesn't yield sufficient returns, Mark will be extended" and this source is coming from?

by ckimcircles on Jul 8, 2007 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions

I prefaced the comment with IMO.

by ballyb on Jul 8, 2007 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions

It's Not Kenny! It's

"Nobody comes to the ballpark to see a pitcher pitch a shut out. They all come to see home runs"

Jerry Reinsdorf to Jack McDowell during McDowell's 1994 contract negotiations.

I think Williams is getting more flak than he deserves (not that he doesn't deserve some.) But creeping in the shadows of US Commiskey Park is a man who could, if he really wanted to, make this happen.

Chip Ramsey

by chipramsey on Jul 8, 2007 7:58 AM CDT reply actions

Mark's agent

saying "final overtures" means Williams needs to make a decision--trade or re-sign him.

That the sox are taking this NTC to this extreme is ridiculous. They can always point to Mark being a unique player, who won them a world series and been their best pitcher for years.

This is a petty move and shows the sox to be a small time club. Not signing Mark will push back the re-tooling and make this a rebuilding club for 2008 and the next few years.

by cfisk72 on Jul 8, 2007 10:17 AM CDT reply actions

The way the market for starting pitchers is going

who'll scoff at an extra year @ $17mil in 5 years from now?

didn't we see mediocre pitchers get $10mil years deals the past winter?
in 5 years mediocrity would cost $15-20 mil

by The Wizard on Jul 8, 2007 11:59 AM CDT reply actions

i don't think the market will inflate that much

as for who will scoff at it, probably 20-25 teams.

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 8, 2007 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions

re

as for who will scoff at it, probably 20-25 teams.

you say 20-25 teams in 5 years, yes?

by The Wizard on Jul 8, 2007 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions

right

keep in mind, most teams aren't looking to acquire high-priced pitching unless they're contending. and, while the free agent "market rate" for starting pitching of average quality is at about $10-11 million, most teams aren't in that market.

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 8, 2007 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions

But it's not a $17 million a yr. contract

Remember Kenny only has that 18 mos window to trade Buerhle. So if the contract is $14 million a yr. Kenny would be attempting to trade a 4 yr. $59 million dollar contract (including the option). In the '08-'09 offseason that figures to be a tradeable contract barring injury. I don't think that changes the potential trading partners at all. They'll be the same kinds of teams as this year and the same kinds of teams that would have traded for Buehrle with 3 yrs. and $42 million left on his contract. Teams like Boston, Yankees, Mets, Braves, etc.

The option year might cost KW some talent in return since he'd no longer be trading a bargain contract, but a closer to market rate contract. But that's really Buerhle's point. He doesn't want to sign below market an then be traded to a team that he would have gotten more money from if he was a free agent.

KW needs to either take the deal or extract a king's ransom from somebody. For me a King's Ransom is a ready to play in MLB positon player with star potential and pitcher who could start within the next year (Kemp, Kershaw or Milledge, Pelfrey). If he can't get that then take the deal

by bhoov on Jul 8, 2007 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions

right

i'm talking about how this provision is tantamount to a NTC. you pretty much named the 5ish teams that would be interested in taking on such a contract. however, this isn't a free agent signing - those teams would also have to pay the price in prospects. and, if MB is the premier pitcher we all think he is, that price would be steep. conversely, if he sucks, we're going to be sending a hell of a lot of money along with him.

at any time, the real market for a pitcher who costs as much as MB is about ten teams - because the others aren't willing to take on the salary and give up the prospects. this $17 million clause limits that even more. even if you buy that MB is going to be good for the next few years, $17 million for an age 33 season is still steep.

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 8, 2007 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions

You must have loved

the Cubs' Alfonso Soriano deal.

by ballyb on Jul 8, 2007 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions

not sure i get what you're saying

if i'm reading you correctly, that was an albatross contract without the NTC they gave him. however, if they win now, no one on the north side will care that he isn't and won't be worth it.

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 8, 2007 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions

17 million for an age 33 is still steep.

If the $17 million for Buehrle at 33 is steep, you gotta love $17 million for Alfonso at 40(?).

by ballyb on Jul 8, 2007 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions

oh yeah

like i said, albatross. what makes it worse is that they keep wasting him in the leadoff spot. i know, i know. lineup construction ain't all that important in the grand scheme. but some of those leadoff home runs would sure look better if someone (or some more) was on base ahead of him. having him leadoff games and have couple ABs behind a pitcher is just a bit off.

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 8, 2007 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't agree

I think it's the same teams that it would be without the option. You are just going to get less talent in return. It's definitely different than a NTC. For example, let's say Buehrle being the country boy that he is decides he doesn't want to go to New York. With a NTC he doesn't go to New York. With theo

ption that's not a problem. Now I don't know that he'd do that, but neither do you. That's the problem with a full NTC, you're at the complete whim of the player. Not so with the option.

by bhoov on Jul 8, 2007 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions

okay

i guess i just don't see a team like the braves taking him on. nyy, bosox, nym, LA - sure. but some of the teams in the next tier? ponying up, at minimum, $38 million for 2.5 seasons of MB, is going to scare off lots of teams, especially if they're looking for immediate help in a pennant run, as would be the likeliest trade scenario.

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 8, 2007 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions

btw, robothal said the same yesterday

[kr]

The White Sox have rejected a suggested compromise from pitcher Mark Buehrle, making it possible the 28-year-old left-hander could break off negotiations entirely, according to a major league source.

by The Wizard on Jul 8, 2007 12:04 PM CDT reply actions

Change site name to Fire Kenny Williams

I thought KW was untouchable. Get ready for another Garcia for Floyd/Gonzalez.

I'm surprised teams haven't been clamoring for Alex Cintron or Mack. Those were two other great pickups.

By the way, Ichiro is not coming here. KW will not pay the $$$ needed.

This MB situation is a crying shame. Again I ask: Where will the wins come from?

by LVSoxFan on Jul 8, 2007 12:58 PM CDT reply actions

So you're saying

the upcoming trade is gonna be a huge win because we'd be trading a pitcher who is going to have a 5.90 ERA and wind up on Dr. Andrews operating table for the AA strikeout leader and a project.

I would be so happy if KW could pull off a trade as good as that. In fact trade Buehrle immediately if it's gonna wind up like that trade.

by bhoov on Jul 8, 2007 1:10 PM CDT reply actions

by the way

can we get an update on that SOS diary you wrote?

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 8, 2007 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Sure

If we can get an update on your "what worries you most about the Sox" diary wherein you opine that the Sox would score enough runs to win and that the bullpen would be improved.

by bhoov on Jul 8, 2007 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions

already got that update

pretty much everyday for the last two and half months.

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 8, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions

except

for the part where you admit you were wrong!

by bhoov on Jul 8, 2007 2:38 PM CDT reply actions

i thought that was implict

in my criticism of your SOS of schedule argument. we were fucked then - largely because of our bullpen and an entirely inept offense. by the time you posted that diary, i'd already given up on the pen being any good and had likely said as much - i certainly have since. and the offense had already done in our season before the pen even got involved. i'd certainly given up on the season because there's no way we were turning it around. we had waaaaay more shit going on with this team than SOS issues.

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 8, 2007 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Unlike you I have no problem admitting

that I was wrong. I was completely wrong about the SOS helping the sox win more games. Somehow I think that implicit admissions of being wrong are the only kind we're getting out of you.

by bhoov on Jul 8, 2007 2:51 PM CDT reply actions