Corbin Burnes quote re: extension vs free agency

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Maybe he makes the transition from a power guy to a finesse guy rather seamlessly. I doubt it but you never know. 
 

I’d do 4/120 but I know he wouldn’t go for that. 

Sure he may still be very good throwing 93 and we are potentially in a different financial mindset than we ever have been but I still tend to doubt Elias would do it anyway.

[TradeAngelos]

7 hours ago, interloper said:

I agree that it's likely the Orioles increase overall payroll. I just don't think it means they are suddenly breaking the bank for the very top of the starting pitching market, or that Elias wants to do that. And I just don't think the Burnes trade is evidence of that financial shift just yet because it's only adding a 1/$15 contract to this year, and Elias has surely been working on this trade long before Rubenstein was official. 

The culture I referred to from Elias' days in the Astros organization was more about his drafting and development culture, analytics, and finding the right time to pull the trigger on a trade for a TOR SP. The Astros have more spending power than that Orioles have and that allows them to occassionally spend on guys, but that's been more about Crane than it has been about Lunhow or Elias. 

Anyway, let's agree to disagree and move on. I'm just as excited about Rubenstein and Burnes as you are, the only difference is I'm taking a more wait-and-see approach to everything. If our payroll is going to increase somewhat, I can think of many better ways to spend it than blowing it all on a SP in his age 30-37 years. 

It's the new OWNER not the TRADE that makes people think hey maybe we aren't going to be 29th in payroll anymore!  Maybe you can get that through your thick skull, but probably not after reading 5 pages of this stuff. I have never heard such complete nonsense from one person. On and on and on oh yeah we just going to be throwing money all over the place!!!  No one EVER said anything of the sort, but you have to make s#$%^ up to try to back up your ridiculous arguments that are based on absolutely nothing that almost no one agrees with. We get it, you think the payroll should stay at 100m forever, and ANYTHING above that is just not even worth entertaining because it will never happen. You must be fun at parties. I and most of this fanbase are going to choose to believe that maybe....just maybe a new owner will actually not steal money from the fanbase anymore, and maybe just sign ONE premium pitcher, not go on a wild west spending spree that will never end! I'm just so glad you are here to keep us all in line and make us realize that absolutely nothing has changed, when in fact everything has changed. 

 

 

 

 

 

[interloper]

28 minutes ago, TradeAngelos said:

It's the new OWNER not the TRADE that makes people think hey maybe we aren't going to be 29th in payroll anymore!  Maybe you can get that through your thick skull, but probably not after reading 5 pages of this stuff. I have never heard such complete nonsense from one person. On and on and on oh yeah we just going to be throwing money all over the place!!!  No one EVER said anything of the sort, but you have to make s#$%^ up to try to back up your ridiculous arguments that are based on absolutely nothing that almost no one agrees with. We get it, you think the payroll should stay at 100m forever, and ANYTHING above that is just not even worth entertaining because it will never happen. You must be fun at parties. I and most of this fanbase are going to choose to believe that maybe....just maybe a new owner will actually not steal money from the fanbase anymore, and maybe just sign ONE premium pitcher, not go on a wild west spending spree that will never end! I'm just so glad you are here to keep us all in line and make us realize that absolutely nothing has changed, when in fact everything has changed. 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow dude, relax.

[Tony-OH]

If Burnes has a good year, he will be a great test for the new ownership.

[interloper]

36 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

If Burnes has a good year, he will be a great test for the new ownership.

To sign him? Only like 5 teams could realistically throw down 7/$300 or whatever he's going to get. I expect Rubenstein to spend, but I'm not expecting full Cohen.

[Billy F-Face3]

I'm predicting the Dodgers or the Giants will make an effort at trying to sign Corbin Burnes if we can't extend him next offseason. He's probably been thinking about going back to the West Coast with a big bag in his bank account for several years now. (Based on his comments about testing the free agent market for his value and getting to choose where he plays.)

[Frobby]

13 minutes ago, interloper said:

To sign him? Only like 5 teams could realistically throw down 7/$300 or whatever he's going to get. I expect Rubenstein to spend, but I'm not expecting full Cohen.

It’s not an intelligent way to spend $300 mm even if Rubenstein would agree to fund it.  There are many better ways to spend it.  

[interloper]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s not an intelligent way to spend $300 mm even if Rubenstein would agree to fund it.  There are many better ways to spend it.  

Yeah I'm not sure it's the thing I want to test ownership with. I certainly hope and expect them to spend more than Angelos, despite what TradeAngelos incorrectly thinks I said, but not in that way.

Edited February 3 by interloper

[Frobby]

Just now, interloper said:

Yeah I'm not sure it's the thing I want to test ownership with. I certainly hope and expect them to spend more then Angelos, despite what TradeAngelos incorrectly thinks I said, but not in that way.

Well if you mean spend more than JA has been spending the last few years, the answer is duh yes.   If we’re talking about whether they’ll meaningfully exceed our payroll’s past peak for any serious period of time, that’s an open question.  

[interloper]

18 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Well if you mean spend more than JA has been spending the last few years, the answer is duh yes.   If we’re talking about whether they’ll meaningfully exceed our payroll’s past peak for any serious period of time, that’s an open question.  

I just think there's a middle ground of: extending some guys, signing a reasonable pitcher contract (think Montgomery as a top ceiling, but more likely E-Rod level), and just overall being comfortable taking on salary in trades, etc. That to me is the first test of this ownership group. Can we simply extend a guy... Let's start there haha.

People want to jump from nothing to an expectation of signing Burnes and I just don't understand the leap I guess. It could happen, sure, but how much can Rubenstein command from his ownership group? I don't know! Maybe a lot, maybe not much. So many unknowns. But Burnes as the test for this group doesn't seem right to me. 

Edited February 3 by interloper

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, interloper said:

I just think there's a middle ground of: extending some guys, signing a reasonable pitcher contract (think Montgomery as a top ceiling, but more likely E-Rod level), and just overall being comfortable taking on salary in trades, etc. That to me is the first test of this ownership group. Can we simply extend a guy... Let's start there haha.

People want to jump from nothing to an expectation of signing Burnes and I just don't understand the leap I guess. It could happen, sure, but how much can Rubenstein command from his ownership group? I don't know! Maybe a lot, maybe not much. So many unknowns. But Burnes as the test for this group doesn't seem right to me. 

Well, I agree with you there.  But I think the really top end pitching contracts turn out extremely poorly 3 times out of 4

[Tony-OH]

9 hours ago, interloper said:

To sign him? Only like 5 teams could realistically throw down 7/$300 or whatever he's going to get. I expect Rubenstein to spend, but I'm not expecting full Cohen.

Perhaps not, but let's face it, the payroll is going to be pretty low for awhile until Adley/Gunnar/Bradish/GRod need to be resigned/extended (which they probably won't do either). 

I think it's unknown how much of a splash he wants to make or how Rubenstein will spend yet. We don't know what this market is able to support salary wise because we've been Angelosed for so long. 

I do think we are a small-mid market area, but MLB is flushed with TV money and the Orioles get their healthy share that mostly have gone into the Angelos family's coffers. Why else would a team be valued at $1.7 Billion if it wasn't making a lot of money and have the capability to make a lot of money?

I expect Burnes to test the free agency market and most likely the Orioles will be outbid by LA or NY, but with new owners, I now give the Orioles an outside shot to keep him. Something prior to the ownership change was not even remotely a possibility. 
 

[Sports Guy]

Until this Hader signing, the Astros hadn’t given a deal more than 3/60 and that was Abreu last year. 

I expect that Elias will operate similarly. I don’t think he would sign Burnes to the deal he wants even if Rubenstein would.

I used to say that Elias was perfect for Angelos because they could field a competitive team without spending money but the reality is all owners would love that. The difference is, Rubenstein is likely willing to spend at least some money and add that last guy needed or extend players or whatever. (Peter Angelos did this too)

The goal should be to carry payrolls in the 100-150M area and the range largely depends on arb raises and things like that.

I don’t care how much money you have to spend, paying arb prices for middling at best players is a waste. @Frobby likes to talk about how it’s not easy to find a 1.5-2 WAR guy and I don’t really disagree with that but I also think that you can do it and that should be the goal.  Paying Mountcastle, for example, 8+M for his production just isn’t something we should do. Hell, I don’t think anyone should but plenty will. 
 

I will always believe that stars and scrubs is the way to build a roster, no matter the sport. These middling guys just rarely work out. Give me the star level, core guys and the cheap players. 
 

 

[Nite]

Listening to his recent interview where he doubled down on wanting to test free agency he kept mentioning getting to pick where he plays.

Quick Google and he's from S California. So I believe he has in his mind going to LA or SD if possible. However he did also say that he's never been to Baltimore (other than 3 days in a hotel in '22 when the Brewers were in town) so if he and the family love it then maybe he changes his mind about testing free agency. 

[CaptainRedbeard]

Stating the obvious, but the primary reasons that big pitcher contracts don’t work out are (1) injuries and (2) loss of effectiveness with age, primarily from declining velo. 

Burnes has a lot of factors pointing in the right direction on both of those. He’s been exceptionally durable. He’s also one of the elite pitchers with spin, and spin ages very very well, and decreases the importance of velo. 

His velo and overall effectiveness have been declining year over year. If you think that trend will continue he is a terrible extension candidate. But in the second half last year, he morphed his slider into a sweeper and he put up phenomenal numbers again. His Stuff+ has not declined at all despite the eroding velo. And he could still throw more breaking balls, particularly to RH batters, closer to Bradish’s pitch mix, for example. Burnes was still very cutter heavy even with the new sweeper. 

I think you want to see second half 2023 Burnes over a full season that reverses the trend his overall numbers are on before you give him a mega contract. Would also be best to make sure his velo is not declining too precipitously. That’s convenient because he’s not signing an extension before then anyway. But I think there’s a good chance that we see a rebound from Burnes that bucks the overall trend line he’s been on since his Cy Young year, with some adjustments to his pitch mix.