Extend Burnes

[Bemorewins]

14 minutes ago, Sanfran327 said:

Does a 5/200 contract concern you for Burnes?

I guess we would have to define "concern". If we are talking about having to pay him during a season where he is injured. Then I would say that is a very high probability, but that is the cost of doing business in 2024 in MLB.

Almost all pitchers get hurt these days, that is just a fact. But what is also true is that Burnes is the best starting pitcher in the organization. And we are much better with him than without him.

IMO whether we give Burnes that level contract is one thing. But if not then who? We are going to have to pay good players (resigning some of our own and/or signing others). (I'm not saying that you are personally doing this.) But I think it is a fantasy to expect us to maintain a team with multiple WS runs capabilities and not pay anyone top level dollars (and accept the risk that comes along with that).

[Sanfran327]

53 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

I guess we would have to define "concern". If we are talking about having to pay him during a season where he is injured. Then I would say that is a very high probability, but that is the cost of doing business in 2024 in MLB.

Almost all pitchers get hurt these days, that is just a fact. But what is also true is that Burnes is the best starting pitcher in the organization. And we are much better with him than without him.

IMO whether we give Burnes that level contract is one thing. But if not then who? We are going to have to pay good players (resigning some of our own and/or signing others). (I'm not saying that you are personally doing this.) But I think it is a fantasy to expect us to maintain a team with multiple WS runs capabilities and not pay anyone top level dollars (and accept the risk that comes along with that).

All pitching contracts come with a certain degree of injury concern. Some less than others (I happen to think Burnes is in the less risky category). Beyond that, I'm curious what Tony or anyone else thinks of a 5/200 proposal for Burnes. 5 years is not a long time. It also syncs up well with the rookie contracts our young stars are on. I don't think we know quite enough about DR's financial situation as it pertains to running an MLB team just yet, but we all have some degree of assumption that his pockets are quite deep. I don't think that deal is terribly cumbersome considering what you'd get in return on the field.

Only conversation left to have is whether or not the duration gets it done for him, or if you need to slightly lower the AAV and extend out the term with more overall dollars. And ownership's comfort level with years and dollars beyond 5/200 if it means closing the deal. It's not exactly unheard of to pay a player beyond his prime for what he's going do for you during that prime. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, DirtyBird said:

Bradish just had a 2.2 inning, 5 run outing, and is coming off a forearm issue that forced him to miss much of the spring. I'd say I am concerned about his upcoming start, especially since his turn in the rotation is still TBD.

I’m not very concerned.  His command was off and he got a couple of bad breaks that got his pitch count high early.  He will bounce back quickly IMO.

[DirtyBird]

44 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m not very concerned.  His command was off and he got a couple of bad breaks that got his pitch count high early.  He will bounce back quickly IMO.

I don’t have any concerns about him if he’s healthy either.

I think pretty much every really bad start we’ve had this season has been followed by injury news though.

[Rbiggs2525]

7 hours ago, DirtyBird said:

I’m going to guess “no”, since he caught on Sunday. It would be very telling if he does. I don’t think it would be a good management decision to do that at this point in the season.

Looks like I was right.

[DirtyBird]

4 minutes ago, Rbiggs2525 said:

Looks like I was right.

Yep. Not a good look.

[Allan Bryant]

19 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Speaking in the abstract, I'd rather trade for an ace who has 2-3 years left on his contract than sign one for the 5/200+ it'll take.

You listed two options to acquire Ace SP , each option has its positives and negatives.  Free agency is very expensive $ but you don’t lose your players. Trading is cheaper $ but it cost you players for an Ace . Which is better/ best option is a case by case basis.  We do need an Ace if we lose Burnes 

[EddeeEddee]

12 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So your response is to question the metric?

It's rWAR, as I said in the original post, Baseball Reference's flavor. Fangraph's version would be less generous to pitchers, with the top five over that period less valuable, at 28-34. And not that I want anyone to use Win Shares, but that's significantly less generous to pitchers than even fWAR. Essentially every major modern value metric shows elite pitchers as less consistently good/valuable than the top non-pitchers.

But even if they're somewhat less valuable, they're still going for 8-10M per win, so a top starter will get $200-300M or more despite high injury risk, which leads to high performance risk. 6.5 of the top 10 contracts ($/year) are for pitchers. And all of those pitchers have missed time due to injury.

WAR is not meant to be used to compare pitchers to hitters in any meaningful way.  And it's not meant to be used to determine compensation.  Supply and demand determines compensation.  There are far fewer available aces around than there are hitters hitting consistently above, say, an .800-.850 OPS.  

Yes, pitchers are more prone to injury, but the appeal of Burnes is his lack of an injury history.  But even several aces who did eventually get injured, like Sabathia and Verlander, showed they could come back and still pitch at a high level.  It's a risk worth taking for the best pitchers, which is why the best teams take this risk and it pays off so often.  Sure they don't all work out, but teams take the risk for a good reason.

The risk with giving the big contracts instead to the position players is that they so often descend into mediocrity after only a few years or less.  Too many to name but Manny Machado and Giancarlo Stanton are a prime examples of this.  Their now measly production could much more easily be replaced by a much cheaper player.  Ace level starting pitching is more difficult to replace.

For every Mookie Betts there are so many more regretful big contracts given to position players whose skills suddenly.  And injury is a risk with elite long-term contract position players as well, not only an issue for pitchers. 

I would not argue the Mike Trout contract was not worth it (though many would), but I would argue the contracts for Kershaw, Verlander, Sabathia, Greinke, Mussina, etc. were necessary because really no cheaper options could really replace their production, despite injuries for some of them.

[EddeeEddee]

On 6/2/2024 at 1:56 PM, Moose Milligan said:

Count me as nervous about the decline in K rates too. 

True, I guess that is the main concern about Burnes.  Even if it's determined Burnes is too risky because of decline in K rates, I still believe the Orioles -- barring the team suddenly producing great pitchers in the minors -- will need to target one or two top free agents starters in the near future.

[dystopia]

3 minutes ago, EddeeEddee said:

True, I guess that is the main concern about Burnes.  Even if it's determined Burnes is too risky because of decline in K rates, I still believe the Orioles -- barring the team suddenly producing great pitchers in the minors -- will need to target one or two top free agents starters in the near future.

Good luck finding one better than Burnes.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, EddeeEddee said:

WAR is not meant to be used to compare pitchers to hitters in any meaningful way.  And it's not meant to be used to determine compensation. 

Actually, that's exactly what it's meant for, to compare value across different types of players and different types of contributions. It's to put everything, hits, homers, steals, fielding, pitching, on the common baseline of wins.

Tom Tango and Rally and the others who developed WAR specifically were doing it (or at least one of the main goals was) to help determine value for contracts. I have had conversations with them on this very topic. See posts #236 and 240 here.

Edited June 5 by DrungoHazewood

[IPlayGM]

12 hours ago, EddeeEddee said:

True, I guess that is the main concern about Burnes.  Even if it's determined Burnes is too risky because of decline in K rates, I still believe the Orioles -- barring the team suddenly producing great pitchers in the minors -- will need to target one or two top free agents starters in the near future.

The more I watch Burnes pitch, the more I think that some of this decline in K rate is on purpose. He seems to attack weak contact a lot, especially earlier in the AB. But when he needs a K, he is still very capable of getting one. I’d love for someone to ask him about that, he just seems like a next level guy who is so comfortable with his stuff that he is trying to get you out quickly and weakly.

[sportsfan8703]

How many borderline pitches has Burnes missed this year?  Even most of his misses are close and nasty. The defense helps. But the dude is a horse. A pitcher. An Ace. 

7 IP 1 ER seems like it’s expected. He’s dominant. 

[Aglets]

This thread makes me a little bit sad.  Burnes has made it pretty clear that he is going to test FA.  I just don't see a path.  Are people gonna then blame Elias or Rubenstein for not extending him before he leaves?  

[Rbiggs2525]

I think with Burnes you could look at pitchers like Rivera and Jansen who aged well with the cutter. Maybe his strikeout numbers will not be outstanding but results will be good. The Phillies just gave Aaron Nola a big contract and his numbers have decreased recently. My major concern is the contract for a pitcher usually goes to age 37-38 season. You could trade him after year 3 or 4 but there is some risk in that.