Corbin Burnes quote re: extension vs free agency

[Matt Bennett]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

That doesn't mean Rubenstein will spend mid-market. We just don't know! 

23 minutes ago, interloper said:

An extension is not in the cards. Period.

You are saying two different things. 

[clapdiddy]

7 minutes ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Thoughtful extensions to players who are early in their career seems like a reasonable strategy for this club. Burnes is gunning for a Gerrit Cole level of compensation or even more. I'm not convinced that is good value for a team that has multiple young  players who make up it's core. It will be very interesting to see how the pitching prospects mature over the next 2-3 years. It will also be fun to watch Burnes pitch this year. 

Pitching is volatile.  Locking position players up is a safer move.  I have no issues with pitchers on a 3 or 4 year deal, but I think you tie up too much money on anything longer than that.   

Edited February 2 by clapdiddy

[interloper]

5 minutes ago, Matt Bennett said:

You are saying two different things. 

I am saying three main things:

1. Based on Elias' previous remarks and tendencies as a GM, it's safe to assume that his preference is not to use his limited payroll resources on an aging pitcher commanding years and dollars that are at the absolute top of the market. Paying premium and having to beat all the other large market teams. Highly doubtful that's what he wants to do.

2. Burnes himself has said an extension would have to be an amount that blows him (and Boras) away. Therefore, an extension is not in the cards, period. Not just for us, but for any team that acquired him. It's just extremely, extremely unlikely.

3. The trade for Burnes tells us nothing about Rubenstein. It just doesn't. I hope he frees up money for extensions to Adley and the like, and that payroll creeps back toward $150, but we simply don't know about any of that yet. 

Edited February 2 by interloper

[AdamK]

No part of me expects CB to be an Oriole after this season.

Some parts of me are still hopeful that we can keep Adley and Gunnar, but this is essentially delusion because I don't want to think about the alternative right now.

 

Delusion or not, I still expect the team to try their damnedest to keep a team together where cost, value and flexibility overlap.

 

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, oriolediehard said:

Burnes already stated that he would consider signing 200 -  250 mil. So the O's know what needs to be done.

Where did Burnes say that?

If I’m Burnes, right now I wouldn’t extend unless I got an offer that blew me away.  Now, it he’s here for three months, loves it here, and sees nothing but pennant contention for the nrxt 7 years if he stays, maybe he’s a little more eager to sign up.  But there’s very little advantage to him to signing with a team he was traded to but doesn’t know yet.   

[CaptainRedbeard]

17 minutes ago, oriolediehard said:

Burnes already stated that he would consider signing 200 -  250 mil. So the O's know what needs to be done.

Where did he say that?

Not saying he didn’t, but I haven’t seen it. Boras was asking for 9/270 for Snell so I would think it would be well beyond that for Burnes, who has had zero injury issues and pitches a ton of innings, unlike Snell.  

[RichmondOsFan]

Seems like even if new ownership is willing to up the annual payroll to 150M+, they're going to want/need to spend most of that additional money on extending our young stars - and will have a better chance of doing so, based on relationships these guys have developed with their teammates and the community, than with newer Boras additions looking at imminent free agency.

[Matt Bennett]

21 minutes ago, interloper said:

They traded for him in 2017 and Elias was with the Orioles in 2018. Try again. 

2017 is before 2018. 

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, Matt Bennett said:

2017 is before 2018. 

I'm saying Elias wasn't there for the vast majority of Verlander's Astros tenure. And besides, he wasn't even the GM, nor are these two owners the same people. It's pretty iffy ground to stand on to say that Elias the Assistant GM in charge of scouting and player development had much at all to do with the Astros acquiring Verlander, much less deciding to pay him a bunch of money. 

[Matt Bennett]

17 minutes ago, interloper said:

I am saying three main things:

1. Based on Elias' previous remarks and tendencies as a GM, it's safe to assume that his preference is not to use his limited payroll resources on an aging pitcher commanding years and dollars that are at the absolute top of the market. Paying premium and having to beat all the other large market teams. Highly doubtful that's what he wants to do.

2. Burnes himself has said an extension would have to be an amount that blows him (and Boras) away. Therefore, an extension is not in the cards, period. Not just for us, but for any team that acquired him. It's just extremely, extremely unlikely.

3. The trade for Burnes tells us nothing about Rubenstein. It just doesn't. I hope he frees up money for extensions to Adley and the like, and that payroll creeps back toward $150, but we simply don't know about any of that yet. 

I reject your assumption. Elias shouldn't be held accountable for comments when he was operating under the condition of a poor owner, in relative terms, who was selling the team. The environment has changed. The ceiling has changed. What fans should expect out of ownership has changed. 

I'm just not sure what previous culture you're referring to. The Astros spent money and continue to spend money on significant multi year commitments. 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

Since Burnes is from Bakersfield, California, went to college in the Bay Area, and has spent his whole career so far in Milwaukee I'm going to assume he loves crabs, Old Bay, the Ravens, the National Aquarium, and is pressing hard for Boras to wrap up an exceptionally team-friendly extension with the O's right now.

[Matt Bennett]

1 minute ago, interloper said:

I'm saying Elias wasn't there for the vast majority of Verlander's Astros tenure. And besides, he wasn't even the GM, nor are these two owners the same people. It's pretty iffy ground to stand on to say that Elias the Assistant GM in charge of scouting and player development had much at all to do with the Astros acquiring Verlander, much less deciding to pay him a bunch of money. 

You are the one that brought up the Astros, as if he is beholden to every philosophy and strategy used there while he was employed. 

[interloper]

1 minute ago, Matt Bennett said:

I reject your assumption. Elias shouldn't be held accountable for comments when he was operating under the condition of a poor owner, in relative terms, who was selling the team. The environment has changed. The ceiling has changed. What fans should expect out of ownership has changed. 

I'm just not sure what previous culture you're referring to. The Astros spent money and continue to spend money on significant multi year commitments. 

 

And I reject your assumption of the new owner coming in ready to throw around bags of money, or that Elias only makes this trade if he thinks he can extend Burnes, or that Elias had anything to do with how the Astros spent money in the years since he's been gone. 

[interloper]

Just now, Matt Bennett said:

You are the one that brought up the Astros, as if he is beholden to every philosophy and strategy used there while he was employed. 

My whole premise of the OP is based on Elias' philosophy and strategy as the Orioles GM. His actions speak for themselves, and his words do, too. 

To the extent Rubenstein augments Elias' strategy, I will wait and see. It's too early to know anything yet. This is a trade that is well within Elias' MO as GM under Angelos. 

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, Matt Bennett said:

I reject your assumption. Elias shouldn't be held accountable for comments when he was operating under the condition of a poor owner, in relative terms, who was selling the team. The environment has changed. The ceiling has changed. What fans should expect out of ownership has changed. 

I'm just not sure what previous culture you're referring to. The Astros spent money and continue to spend money on significant multi year commitments. 

 

I don’t think we should analogize to the Astros much.  You’re right that the situation has changed and our expectations have changed.  However, I don’t expect the Orioles to eventually spend what the Astros recently have.  The Astros had $407 mm in revenue last year, compared to $264 mm for the Orioles.  Their break-even point on payroll is significantly higher than ours.  And, the Astros have been pretty choosy about their long term commitments.  Extend young players?  Yes.  Hand out relatively short but high-dollar FA contracts to pitchers?  Yes.  5-7 year deals to FA pitchers?  Nope.