Extend Burnes

[interloper]

2 minutes ago, Orioles Jim said:

 

Either Elias got lucky (so far), or they have some data that predicts if a guy will remain healthy. 

Cease has been great this year, too. 

I think it's key to find SPs before they hit their first FA year.

[Malike]

3 minutes ago, interloper said:

Either Elias got lucky (so far), or they have some data that predicts if a guy will remain healthy. 

Cease has been great this year, too. 

I think it's key to find SPs before they hit their first FA year.

I think the bigger takeaway is don't sign pitchers after the season starts and expect them to pitch well after having no spring training.

[interloper]

4 minutes ago, Malike said:

I think the bigger takeaway is don't sign pitchers after the season starts and expect them to pitch well after having no spring training.

Yes, definitely. 

[MarCakes21]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I’d give Burnes whatever the heck he wanted. Here’s how good Burnes is, he’s the 2nd betting favorite for the AL CYA and people act like he could be doing more. That’s how good he is. 

He’s the first of the extension pieces that needs to happen. Gunnar 2. Adley 3. 

I think all 3 need to happen, 1 a/b/c.  However, you can make Burnes a 4 year deal that's steep (4 for $150) and let the real money for Gunnar/Adley show up when that deals done.  Many have been saying this, but there's no reason you can't take on an extra $40/yr in payroll while the other guys are cheap if you want to compete.

And to this initial posts point, we need the pitching help across the board.  You'll have to pay for it somewhere.

[OriolesMagic83]

21 minutes ago, Orioles Jim said:

 

Montgomery signed a 2 year deal w/ an opt out, right?  I guess he won't be opting out.  I would definitely be looking to sign him to a rebound deal.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 hours ago, tntoriole said:

So what team will spend the money? Dodgers? Yankees? Rangers?   If it is not a good idea from a baseball standpoint , why would other teams do it? 

Because "good idea from a baseball standpoint" means very different things to different teams with different resources. A team with $650M in annual revenues has far different risk profiles they're willing to take on than a team with $250M in annual revenues. 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I’d give Burnes whatever the heck he wanted. Here’s how good Burnes is, he’s the 2nd betting favorite for the AL CYA and people act like he could be doing more. That’s how good he is. 

He’s the first of the extension pieces that needs to happen. Gunnar 2. Adley 3. 

So what happens when the O's sign Burnes to a 8/300 deal, then Gunnar and Adley each want 10/250 to extend, then eventually you have to pay Westburg and Cowser, and everyone is going to want Holliday here through 2040, and you look up and the O's still have 30-40% of the revenues of the Yanks and Dodgers but the fans want them to have 80% of their payrolls?

Oh, and then Burnes tears his UCL and misses 18 months and then has another half year where he's not the same, and then before you know it he's 35.

Edited June 3 by DrungoHazewood

[foxfield]

On 6/2/2024 at 9:36 AM, Big Al said:

Considering our shallow starting pitching pool, should we put on a full court press to extend Corbin Burnes?

It’s a definite probable no for me. I don’t say that to split hairs.  So let me explain. 
 

There is no way that the Orioles come out on an investment like the one it will take to extend Burnes. But would I, given his age and the likelihood of injury?  No. 
 

Unless….I was prepared to spend twice that or more to land another pitcher on top of Burnes. The idea being if you’re in you’re in. 
 

I cannot speak to the finances of the new ownership but the only way I would purchase someone like Burnes would be to buy 2 in hopes of having one. While still knowing the advantage if you have both and the risks of both are hurt. 
 

Could the Orioles afford $600M? I don’t know.  Should any team?  No. But we live in a world where the Dodgers are spending Billions. 

[Just Regular]

Notwithstanding age and position, I think I'm still on Team Adley for priority 1.

One of the management talking points is around avoiding the risk of "creating complacency" when a ballplayer good enough to rate it gets their forever fortune.

I think the other side of that being too stingy is "creating resentment" in your labor force.

Burnes is an interesting cat as he's taken some actions that real world illustrate how created resentment looks in the cliches only constrained world of ballplayers and clubs interacting with media.

I think Elias/Sig modeling a healthy respect for the opportunity Burnes has just about earned himself might help even if they know today their recommendation to ownership is an aggressive chase that already has the green light.     Information how Burnes fares the next 4-5 months is valuable, especially how his stuff plays against the best of the best once he's 30.     Fun fact ALCS Game 7 could fall 10.22.2024 precisely on Burnes' 30th birthday.

  

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Otter said:

You'd rather give a huge contract extension to a pitcher in his 30s over a 22 year old SS who some may argue is the best player in the game right now??

It really shouldn’t have to be either/or.  Plenty of teams have more than one big contract.    Four of Burnes’ years would be before Gunnar is being paid at FA prices.  

However, if you start talking about multiple extensions of young players instead of just Gunnar, then I do think choices have to be made as to whether spending on Burnes would preclude that.  
 

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, foxfield said:

It’s a definite probable no for me. I don’t say that to split hairs.  So let me explain. 
 

There is no way that the Orioles come out on an investment like the one it will take to extend Burnes. But would I, given his age and the likelihood of injury?  No. 
 

Unless….I was prepared to spend twice that or more to land another pitcher on top of Burnes. The idea being if you’re in you’re in. 
 

I cannot speak to the finances of the new ownership but the only way I would purchase someone like Burnes would be to buy 2 in hopes of having one. While still knowing the advantage if you have both and the risks of both are hurt. 
 

Could the Orioles afford $600M? I don’t know.  Should any team?  No. But we live in a world where the Dodgers are spending Billions. 

You mean making billions.

[foxfield]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You mean making billions.

No. I didn’t. Owners are making money. My post had nothing to do with that at all. 

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, foxfield said:

No. I didn’t. Owners are making money. My post had nothing to do with that at all. 

The Dodgers are making mint off the Ohtani deal.  There was a reason teams were willing to match it.

[foxfield]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The Dodgers are making mint off the Ohtani deal.  There was a reason teams were willing to match it.

Not disputing this at all. You inserted it into the intent of my post. I said it wasn’t what I meant and had no part of what I was speaking about. Your point regarding the income of owners however remains unchallenged. 

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So what happens when the O's sign Burnes to a 8/300 deal, then Gunnar and Adley each want 10/250 to extend, then eventually you have to pay Westburg and Cowser, and everyone is going to want Holliday here through 2040, and you look up and the O's still have 30-40% of the revenues of the Yanks and Dodgers but the fans want them to have 80% of their payrolls?

Oh, and then Burnes tears his UCL and misses 18 months and then has another half year where he's not the same, and then before you know it he's 35.

So I'm guessing you are against a Burnes deal? 

I wouldn't go over a 5 years deal, but I would be for a 5-year or less deal because the payroll should still be manageable over that time.