Something I see from many people is that we should extend Burnes.
The argument is, well we have different owners and we think they will spend and the team can afford to do it on occasion, with Burnes being the type of guy you do that for.
Another argument, which I have made in the past, is that when your team has so many cheap/high surplus value players for so many years that you can take advantage of that by signing a larger deal that perhaps you normally wouldn’t sign. This is kind of the same effect as a star QB on a rookie contract.
However, even if you have those things going for you, is that reason to sign a contract that is very likely to blow up in your face over the long haul?
For me, if Burnes was 2-3 years younger, I would really consider the long term deal even though I hate them for a pitcher but if you told me I could get 2-3 CY caliber years and 2-3 good years, I would the take 2-3 mediocre or worse seasons and just treat them as a sunk cost.
But at age 30, I’m not sure you can get those 4-6 really good years out of him.
That combined with the injury risk would cause me to pass on extending Burnes or signing him as a FA.
I don’t think ownership would change how I would look at these things and I’m fairly confident it won’t change Elias either.
Please note that I’m not talking about extensions for pre arb guys in this thread. This is talking the merits of larger FA (or walk year) contracts.