Snell vs Burnes

[Hallas]

If I had to flip a coin for them at those deals I'd be happy with either.

 

But if you made me pick I'd probably take Burnes.  He's younger and I prefer people that don't walk a lot of guys.

[Moose Milligan]

I’d go for Snell cause that’s who SG wants and I’m avoiding the argument. 

[Jagwar]

I really don't want Snell. Doesn't seem that durable. Burnes is younger and has made 28-33-32-32 starts the last 4 years. 

Question: Can the O's give Burnes a qualifying offer?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Jagwar said:

I really don't want Snell. Doesn't seem that durable. Burnes is younger and has made 28-33-32-32 starts the last 4 years. 

Question: Can the O's give Burnes a qualifying offer?

Of course they can, and will.

That was why I mentioned the draft pick earlier.

[sportsfan8703]

Even a “down year” for Burnes, like some perceived,  was still good enough for 2nd in the CYA and 8 IP of 1 ER ball in the playoffs. 

We have a good relationship with Burnes. We know how to load manage him. 

Perfect partnership. Perfect dude to pair with our young bats. 

[waroriole]

Burnes. He’s two years younger, and more dependable but still has less mileage on his arm. The drop in K rate does give me pause, but Snell’s injury history gives me a lot more pause. 

[Sports Guy]

I agree that this is close for all the reasons that have been stated.

I Give the slight edge to Snell because of stuff, Ks and the swing and miss.

The idea that he’s a lefty only matters so much because Burnes is elite vs lefties.

I don’t like 6 years for Burnes but I would give him 4 or 5 for 35-40M a year, so adding the 6th year and lowering the AAV wouldn’t be terrible.

 

[jabba72]

Snell only pitched 104 innings this year and turns 32 this offseason. Free agent pitching is a premium, but thats not exactly a great candidate for a $140m deal. I'll go with Burnes, even if he has his own risks.

[Sports Guy]

Just now, jabba72 said:

Snell only pitched 104 innings this year and turns 32 this offseason. Free agent pitching is a premium, but thats not exactly a great candidate for a $140m deal. I'll go with Burnes, even if he has his own risks.

Snell also signed very late in ST..that effected his IP

[Too Tall]

Both are a risk but I'd take the 4 year 140 mil risk first and cross fingers. Plus I like the balance he gives to our rotation. But, I'd be happy with either cause it ain't my money. 

[Sports Guy]

Btw, the answer of “do both” is the actual correct answer but we know that won’t happen.

But they could do both and the payroll would still be under 150M.

The issue I think the team would have is the payroll long term with those 2 contracts on the team.

[backwardsk]

I don’t think these offers land either one of them, honestly.

Snell wants to stay on the West Coast. He’ll get something in the same neighborhood from SF, SD, LAD, and:or Seattle and stay out there. The only scenario that I see him coming East is if Cohen goes crazy on the years.

Someone is going to offer Burnes more years, so even if the AAV is better in this offer the total money will be too much to pass up.