Corbin Burnes Contract Talks (or lack thereof)

[MrTPlush]

I mean honestly, who cares. We all know what is going on here, it is exactly like Josh Hader. We know we can't afford to pay him and he is going to get dealt. I don't even want him for a 'discount'. We have done that twice and it has not worked either time. Hopefully Yelich will continue to marginally produce like Braun did so it is merely a bad contract and not a total trainwreck. The Brewers are going to cast him off and it quite honestly could happen this offseason. 

We all knew any realistic dreams of signing Burnes longterm died the second Yelich was handed a deal. Something tells me Burnes was probably approached back in the 2018-2020 time range, back when it was a reasonable thing to afford. Once he had his 2021 season our chances were pretty much dead. I can't imagine we can afford a hometown discount, even that would likely be pushing $30mil a year. 

I really don't see a problem not even approaching him. The Brewers probably don't want to spend the money and know he is a big trade chip to refill the farm...just like Hader. Do we really need to be dropping $25mil a year on Burnes into his 30s? We don't have the payroll to fill a team with aging players taking up $50mil+ of our payroll. We can't field a strong competitive team with him making $6.5mil, not sure how we will do that if he makes nearly 5x that.

[adambr2]

6 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

I’m sure Corbin Burnes is willing to listen to offers…at market prices. 
 

I’m equally sure the Brewers are not going to pay a pitcher 30-35 million dollars a year or more. 
 

If you don’t have money to afford a Mercedes, does it make any sense to go to the showroom and ask about financing?

 

 

Yes, it absolutely does. Perhaps this is part of the problem. Maybe our FO is looking at our players as material assets and needs to look at them more as human beings. 

Whatever your budget is or isn't for Corbin Burnes, the best pitcher in your franchise history has at least earned the right for you to communicate with him and tell him your intention and direction. Can David Stearns or Matt Arnold not carve out some time to sit down with Burnes? Simply say "Hey, Corbin, we appreciate you and would love to discuss your future here. We'd love for you to be here a long time, but we want to be transparent and straightforward about what we can offer you. Because we're forced to be budget conscious in a small market and you're still several years away from free agency, we aren't able to offer anything comparable to the free agent value for your caliber of a player. "

"We'd be happy to buy out the rest of your arbitration years at "X" amount of dollars and tack on two team options of $30M each with $5M dollar buyouts." (or whatever they're comfortable offering, this is just an illustration.)

"If that's a direction you would consider, we'd be happy to discuss it further. If that isn't something you have any interest in, we'd be happy to continue to go year to year with you. Please understand that the time may or may not come when we have to consider trading you prior to losing you in free agency if we feel that the compensation isn't something we can pass up on. Until then, know you're appreciated here." 

 

Simple. Easy. The right thing to do. Keeps the player from a confused look in interviews wondering, "Why haven't they discussed an extension with me?" I don't care who the player is, don't just assume they know they're out of your price range and leave it at that. Communicate. 

[NBBrewFan]

Didn't we just have an offseason with a lockout where there was little time to discuss anything because they weren't talking.  Am I confusing the offseasons? Is he stating that the Brewers management followed the owners/mlb instructions not to negotiate with any player during the lockout?  

[Axman59]

8 minutes ago, NBBrewFan said:

Didn't we just have an offseason with a lockout where there was little time to discuss anything because they weren't talking.  Am I confusing the offseasons? Is he stating that the Brewers management followed the owners/mlb instructions not to negotiate with any player during the lockout?  

You are correct. From December 2, 2021 until the lockout ended the Brewers were not allowed to talk to Burnes or his rep. Basically the entire offseason.

 

I think this story is a non-story.

[adambr2]

The 49 days between that elapsed between the Brewers season ending and the lockout beginning was not a sufficient amount of time for them to communicate with Burnes on any long-term extension possibilities?

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, adambr2 said:

The 49 days between that elapsed between the Brewers season ending and the lockout beginning was not a sufficient amount of time for them to communicate with Burnes on any long-term extension possibilities?

Both sides of the MLBPA and owners had a healthy dose of cold feet before the lockout. Could the Brewers have extended him? Sure, probably? Is it a little bit interesting they didn’t? Given the circumstances, not really. Everyone knew the lockout was coming but no one knew how long it would last or what baseball would look like afterward. And coming back from over a year of covid weirdness in general, it’s not surprising many teams erred on the side of caution heading into December 2021. 

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Both sides of the MLBPA and owners had a healthy dose of cold feet before the lockout. Could the Brewers have extended him? Sure, probably? Is it a little bit interesting they didn’t? Given the circumstances, not really. Everyone knew the lockout was coming but no one knew how long it would last or what baseball would look like afterward. And coming back from over a year of covid weirdness in general, it’s not surprising many teams erred on the side of caution heading into December 2021. 

I am not trying to say "we should have extended Corbin Burnes."

I am trying to say "we should have clearly communicated our future plans/offers for Corbin Burnes to Corbin Burnes. 

Whether we had any intent whatsoever of making a competitive offer, what kind of offer we might be comfortable with within the limitations of a small market budget, etc, Judging by his comments, we didn't. 

We can do better by the best pitcher in our franchise history than throwing up our arms and saying "we can't afford him anyway, so why bother talking?"

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, adambr2 said:

I am not trying to say "we should have extended Corbin Burnes."

I am trying to say "we should have clearly communicated our future plans/offers for Corbin Burnes to Corbin Burnes. 

Whether we had any intent whatsoever of making a competitive offer, what kind of offer we might be comfortable with within the limitations of a small market budget, etc, Judging by his comments, we didn't. 

We can do better by the best pitcher in our franchise history than throwing up our arms and saying "we can't afford him anyway, so why bother talking?"

That’s all very fair. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

We can do better by the best pitcher in our franchise history than throwing up our arms and saying "we can't afford him anyway, so why bother talking?"

Burnes is under team control through his age 29 season, for two more seasons if they want at whatever the salary arbitration process allows.  From an organizational management point of view, why in the world should the Brewers offer up any sort of contract extension to a pitcher that will be on the wrong side of 30 when his 1st bite at free agency hits when they're already having to pay Yelich's mega extension forever?  Burnes has had a very average 2nd half of the season by his standards, still good but not elite - I sure wouldn't want to be paying an early 30's Burnes with a ~4.25 ERA $25M a season to pitch 150 innings in Milwaukee.

My question in all this is, why would McCalvy wait until now, mid September 2022, to randomly ask Burnes this question for an article that's supposed to be based on the 1 yr anniversary of a team no-hitter that Burnes was a part of?

[wiguy94]

20 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

My question in all this is, why would McCalvy wait until now, mid September 2022, to randomly ask Burnes this question for an article that's supposed to be based on the 1 yr anniversary of a team no-hitter that Burnes was a part of?

He's trying to get clicks and he has done a fantastic job at it over the last month with the Lauer, Cain, and Burnes articles.

[UpandIn]

11 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

All this is a bunch of nonsense.

I agree. The idea that a player with three years left of team control is going to get full market value...that is ABSOLUTELY nonsense. How about 4 years left? They also get full market value? 

In what world does a player sign an extension years away from Free Agency and NOT take less money than they would if they were due to become a Free Agent? This is like...basic, basic stuff here. 

11 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Did Burnes say he would give up additional years for an extension, no. Did Burnes say he would sign a team-friendly deal, no. Does Corbin Burnes likely feel he should have been paid more money to this point based on his performance in '18, '20, and '21? Absolutely.  Every player complains about the salary structure for pre-arbitration eligible players.

1-No, a contract was never offered or discussed.
2-No, a contract was never offered or discussed.
3-It's impressive how you can tell me exactly how Corbin Burnes FEELS about...literally every issue. You KNOW how he feels about the prospect of a contract extension...despite him stating in an incredulous tone that the Brewers never even approached the Cy Young winner about an extension. 

But sure...plenty of players complain about the salary arbitration pay structure. Which is why you see SOME players take that first guaranteed payday. 

That's MAYBE why you approach the 26 year old and simply ask if he'd be interested in a contract extension that would guarantee him well over 100M. 

11 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Frankly, we don't know if Burnes is willing to give the Brewers additional years, or take less money than he could earn as a free agent to stay with Milwaukee. But the Brewers need one of those if not both to be affirmatives in order for an extension to make any sense for them. 

Who ever suggested otherwise?

11 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Moreover, with regards to Jimmy Nelson its apples and oranges. He suffered a catastrophic arm injury that has nearly ended his career (50 IP since that injury). Yes, there is a risk of injury going year to year, but the salary arbitration rules pretty much make it a given that players will earn more going year to year in arbitration, than selling off their arbitration eligible years up front. 

??? Do I need to cite a pitcher who suffered a shoulder injury due to pitching in order to convey the point that SOMETIMES pitchers choose the certainty of that first big contract? Is that point really lost because Nelson happened to hurt his shoulder on the bases?

And no, the arbitration rules do not make it "a given that players will earn more going year to year in arbitration than selling off their arbitration eligible years up front."

You think if they'd have signed Burnes to an extension prior to this season, it's a "given" he'd have earned less than 6.5? Seems unlikely...certainly not a "given."

11 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

 

With respect to Acuna, he was a 17 year old kid from a third world country when he turned pro, for a $100,000 bonus. Corbin Burnes was a college pitcher from southern California who got over a half million dollars to turn pro. That difference is likely your explanation why Acuna signed an upfront extension.

So...because Acuna Jr got 100K as a signing bonus and Burnes got 500K, THAT'S explains why Acuna Jr was willing to take the 100M dollar deal, but why Burnes wouldn't?

Ok...so how about Michael Harris? He was a 3rd round pick who got a larger signing bonus than Burnes. HE comes from a 1st world Country. Using your logic here, why would he sign that? I mean, 1st world Country, 500K signing bonus, starting off with a 5 WAR rookie season?

Lets look at past extensions for Brewers. 
Ryan Braun...top 5 pick. Signed for ~2.5M. If the driving force behind the Acuna Jr extension is the 100K signing bonus he got and the driving force behind Burnes NOT being willing to sign a contract extension is that he got all of 500K, why would Braun sign one? And then ANOTHER one?

 

And MY post was "all a bunch of Nonsense?" ?
Your rationalization for why the Brewers...who are STILL talking about re-signing "this group," namely Burnes, didn't even broach the subject of a contract extension is comical. 

[UpandIn]

5 hours ago, adambr2 said:

I am not trying to say "we should have extended Corbin Burnes."

I am trying to say "we should have clearly communicated our future plans/offers for Corbin Burnes to Corbin Burnes. 

Whether we had any intent whatsoever of making a competitive offer, what kind of offer we might be comfortable with within the limitations of a small market budget, etc, Judging by his comments, we didn't. 

We can do better by the best pitcher in our franchise history than throwing up our arms and saying "we can't afford him anyway, so why bother talking?"

EXACTLY. I think it's fair to say this is the best pitcher the Brewers have ever produced. 

It's not that they didn't sign him. It's that they didn't even talk to him and HE himself seems to be a bit confused about that. 

Also, this isn't like Hader. He was a closer who was going to make ~17M next year. Burnes is a legitimate ace who has 5 pitches and throws an upper 90s cutter.

Suffice to say I'm skeptical that the Brewers could have or would have come to terms with Burnes. I'm far more skeptical of Mark Attanasio's suggestions that the Brewers can extend Burnes moving forward(a statement he recently made). 

What I am certain about is that if you don't OFFER a deal with a hometown discount, you're not going to get one.

 

6 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Both sides of the MLBPA and owners had a healthy dose of cold feet before the lockout. Could the Brewers have extended him? Sure, probably? Is it a little bit interesting they didn’t? Given the circumstances, not really. Everyone knew the lockout was coming but no one knew how long it would last or what baseball would look like afterward. And coming back from over a year of covid weirdness in general, it’s not surprising many teams erred on the side of caution heading into December 2021. 

It's fair to ask why they didn't offer him a contract before the lockout. They still had time and teams have signed key players since the extension. 

As for erring on the side of caution, I'll just point to the Atlanta Braves. I don't know if any team has set themselves up better in terms of signing players to team friendly deals in Baseball history(since Curt Flood that is) than the Braves.

Albies, Acuna Jr, Harris, Olson, Riley...

 

 I also don't think Ryan Braun or Christian Yelich and their respective contract's should play any role in what you choose to do moving foward with a player. Braun's second extension always looked a little questionable, but neither contract informs what the Brewers should do moving forward. If the Brewers are lucky enough that say...Jackson Chourio or whomever...they develop into an MVP caliber player and they're willing to take an extremely team friendly deal. Do you not do it because Yelich' fell off out of nowhere? We should also note, Yelich contract is not a good one. It's also not quite as bad as people are inferring. It's 22M a year. Not a deal anyone would give him right now, but it's not like

You certainly didn't start extending 35 year old hitters because Molitor went on and had arguably his best seasons after the age of 35 when Bando ran him out of town.

I won't be mad when the Brewers can't extend him. 
I'll root for him when he signs with the Dodgers or we trade him. I'll still be a fan.

I am mad and frustrated that the Brewers made seemingly ZERO effort to even gauge his possible interest.

 

Would we ever sign a guy like Acuna Jr or Michael Harris to a contract for 100M or 72M dollars when they're 21 or so and OBVIOUS stars? Or will we just say, "why would a guy like that even bother," then wait until he's a year away from free agency, make an obviously unrealistic offer and do the, "welp, we tried."

 

I like this front office, I like Attanasio. Love the way they've built. I do have a big issue with this though. With ALL the cheap, position talent coming up right now, having that rotation anchor could be HUGE. 

[wiguy94]

22 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

Would we ever sign a guy like Acuna Jr or Michael Harris to a contract for 100M or 72M dollars when they're 21 or so and OBVIOUS stars? Or will we just say, "why would a guy like that even bother," then wait until he's a year away from free agency, make an obviously unrealistic offer and do the, "welp, we tried."

We signed Peralta and Ashby to those early deals that buy out a couple years of FA. I think the Brewers would try to do the same with young position players that show that promise (although it's hard to know because we haven't developed a legit position player since Lucroy). I will say I hope that Chourio doesn't have the same agent as Julio Rodriguez because I think it's far less likely the Brewers give out a contract like that.

[UpandIn]

5 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

We signed Peralta and Ashby to those early deals that buy out a couple years of FA. I think the Brewers would try to do the same with young position players that show that promise (although it's hard to know because we haven't developed a legit position player since Lucroy). I will say I hope that Chourio doesn't have the same agent as Julio Rodriguez because I think it's far less likely the Brewers give out a contract like that.

Sure, but we guaranteed 35.5 million total to those two players and got back a combined 15 years potentially(2 option years each). 15.5M to Peralta and 20 to Ashby. If they never pitched again, you could throw them in a trade and get out of that. 

Giving a guy who's got a year of production 100M guaranteed or 72M is a very different thing. 

Not EVERY deal we sign with a prospect has to be so overwhelmingly team friendly. I'd love it...as long as we signed more. But I don't get why either pitcher(Ashby especially given he's NOT from a 3rd world Country which plays a large role in it apparently and he comes from an upper middle class household)...they would have signed if they hadn't......well, ya know. 

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, UpandIn said:

Sure, but we guaranteed 35.5 million total to those two players and got back a combined 15 years potentially(2 option years each). 15.5M to Peralta and 20 to Ashby. If they never pitched again, you could throw them in a trade and get out of that. 

Giving a guy who's got a year of production 100M guaranteed or 72M is a very different thing. 

Not EVERY deal we sign with a prospect has to be so overwhelmingly team friendly. I'd love it...as long as we signed more. But I don't get why either pitcher(Ashby especially given he's NOT from a 3rd world Country which plays a large role in it apparently and he comes from an upper middle class household)...they would have signed if they hadn't......well, ya know. 

I still don’t get it. The Brewers throw around nickels like manhole covers, you should know this it’s been their m.o. for 30+ years. Yet, you’re upset for the Brewers not offering a pitcher a huge contract where there’s zero evidence it would have resulted in an agreement? 
 

Also, let’s not forget Burnes is paid to perform,  and the better he performs the more money he will make in MLB; that should be all the motivation he needs. Although perhaps he’s soft and being offered an extension would make him feel warm inside, even though he never said he’d do anything more than listen. 

[CheezWizHed]

As someone that manages people, I have regular touch points with my team to see how they are doing and what concerns they have.  Given some of the recent (supposed) communications gaffs of the Packers and Brewers, it makes you wonder if sports teams are missing that.  Especially among your key players.  

Just talking about extension doesn't mean you have to offer one... but at least you talk about it and level expectations.

[UpandIn]

28 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

I still don’t get it.

This much is very clear.

28 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

The Brewers throw around nickels like manhole covers, you should know this it’s been their m.o. for 30+ years. Yet, you’re upset for the Brewers not offering a pitcher a huge contract where there’s zero evidence it would have resulted in an agreement?

That's just a absurdly intellectually dishonest recap of my position.

My is ALMOST so stupidly simple that...I'm genuinely baffled how people DON'T understand it. Adambr seemed to understand it quite well. 

20 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Yes, it absolutely does. Perhaps this is part of the problem. Maybe our FO is looking at our players as material assets and needs to look at them more as human beings. 

Whatever your budget is or isn't for Corbin Burnes, the best pitcher in your franchise history has at least earned the right for you to communicate with him and tell him your intention and direction. Can David Stearns or Matt Arnold not carve out some time to sit down with Burnes? Simply say "Hey, Corbin, we appreciate you and would love to discuss your future here. We'd love for you to be here a long time, but we want to be transparent and straightforward about what we can offer you. Because we're forced to be budget conscious in a small market and you're still several years away from free agency, we aren't able to offer anything comparable to the free agent value for your caliber of a player. "

"We'd be happy to buy out the rest of your arbitration years at "X" amount of dollars and tack on two team options of $30M each with $5M dollar buyouts." (or whatever they're comfortable offering, this is just an illustration.)

 

So...does this really NOT make ANY sense to you?

 

But I'll reiterate...because SOMEHOW...despite ALL rationale, you CONTINUALLY misrepresent my VERY-VERY simple position. 

For a team that is STILL publicly talking about re-signing Corbin Burnes(see Mark Attanasio April 14th comments this year)...to not even ENGAGE in any type of feeling out process. To not get ANY type of idea of what it would take to re-sign him, THAT is my problem. 

Now this fictional strawman that you've created that I'm mad they didn't offer him and then sign him for a MASSIVE market level extension that you seem to believe despite literally ALL evidence to the contrary, players who have 3 years of arbitration left just do not get. 

That we didn't-even-talk to him about it. That is a failing on the front office and if you disagree, fine. Stop coming up with these asinine arguments that you assign to me, claiming I've made and then argue against that logic. 

For example;

36 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

 

Also, let’s not forget Burnes is paid to perform,  and the better he performs the more money he will make in MLB; that should be all the motivation he needs. Although perhaps he’s soft and being offered an extension would make him feel warm inside, even though he never said he’d do anything more than listen. 

What the hell are you even talking about here?

Yeah, I TOTALLY forgot that he was "paid to perform." Thanks ever so much for that insightful reminders. 

-Nobody said he "needs" any additional motivation.

-Nobody said that a contract extension would make him "feel warm and fuzzy inside." 

But...JUUUUST maybe...despite your instance that players with 3 years or arbitration get paid just as if they're on the open market, juuust maybe he was willing to sign a contract that would BOTH guaranteed him 100M+ dollars AND be team friendly and affordable. 

 

You're right though...the REAL problem is we want to make Corbin feel all "warm and fuzzy" inside because otherwise he just won't pitch well. That...and just maybe we'll lost the best pitcher we've ever developed without making ANY effort to sign him or even TALK to him about signing an extension. 

[UpandIn]

7 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

As someone that manages people, I have regular touch points with my team to see how they are doing and what concerns they have.  Given some of the recent (supposed) communications gaffs of the Packers and Brewers, it makes you wonder if sports teams are missing that.  Especially among your key players.  

Just talking about extension doesn't mean you have to offer one... but at least you talk about it and level expectations.

[adambr2]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

Also, let’s not forget Burnes is paid to perform,  and the better he performs the more money he will make in MLB; that should be all the motivation he needs. Although perhaps he’s soft and being offered an extension would make him feel warm inside, even though he never said he’d do anything more than listen. 

I don't know what kind of line of work you're in, but in mine and in many folks who I know, one of the most frustrating things in the job is having management that can't communicate effectively. 

Whether it be apathy or neglect or just plain poor communication skills, some managers are just terrible at communicating. 

It has nothing to do with Corbin being soft. Some of the best managers I've had as far as their technical skills were some of the worst at managing people. It's an important quality in any leadership role. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

I read the article that was the genesis for this thread, and thinking this is much ado about nothing and trying to read way too hard between the lines.  Is an organization supposed to constantly be asking its players and representation who are years away from free agency whether they want to discuss contract extensions?  I didn't see anything from Burnes or CAA indicating they've reached out to the Brewers directly to tell them "hey, let's talk about parameters for a contract extension if you're interested".  Why not?  Why hasn't CAA been calling Stearns every other week to try and get a discussion going for that?

To me the article should have been framed like "1 year ago Burnes was part of a Brewers team no-hitter, the first since the Nieves No-No, and since then the outlook of the organization at the MLB level for this current core of players has changed for the worse due to a disappointing playoff exit last fall an uneven 2022 season".  Turning its focus to why the Brewers didn't find time to try and negotiate a longterm contract extension for their Cy Young winner during an offseason that included a lengthy lockout (remember the Brewers still had JBJ's salary on their books for 2022 until the day before the lockout began) is just looking for controversy where there really isn't any.  Let's see what happens this offseason - it's likely the Brewers are going to have to choose one of their starters approaching free agency in a few seasons that are about to get expensive (Woody/Burnes) to try and extend (if they want to), and either send the other elsewhere via trade or take year to year until they leave as a free agent for more $.  We all know that, and I think the discussion should be if the Brewers even should try to retain one of them beyond the ages they currently have them under organizational control.

[KeithStone53151]

The Brewers obviously should do some sort of communication with him, but they also aren't going to start negotiating and hinting at a contract of maybe half what he's worth. They don't want to insult him, and he absolutely should be aware of our market size and the fact we already have a bad big contract on the books.

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

 

For a team that is STILL publicly talking about re-signing Corbin Burnes(see Mark Attanasio April 14th comments this year)...to not even ENGAGE in any type of feeling out process. To not get ANY type of idea of what it would take to re-sign him, THAT is my problem. 

That's it?! That's goofy. Of course, the team is going to say in the media that they want to sign him, that's PR and marketing of their brand. 

As mentioned previously. if both sides wanted an extension it would have been done already.

As pointed out elsewhere, since February of 2014, there have only been six extensions given to starting pitchers with between four and five years of service time, which is where Burnes will be this winter. None of those pitchers have a Cy Young award or stat sheet like Burnes. (LeBlanc, Kyle Hendricks, Mike Clevinger, Kyle Freeland, German Marquez). 

Like Paul Dolan told the Cleveland fans about Lindor "enjoy him". Most likely, Milwaukee never had any intention of signing Burnes to an extension. In fact, the whole small market team building model is premised upon keeping the prospect pipeline flowing by trading away star players on the cusp of free agency for  minor league talent. 

If you're upset about boilerplate comments the owner or front office make in the media about their players; have fun with that. 

[jerichoholicninja]

Burnes isn't resigning here. We won't and can't offer what he wants and the MLBPA doesn't want him to sign whatever we would offer anyway. 

[UpandIn]

16 hours ago, KeithStone53151 said:

The Brewers obviously should do some sort of communication with him, but they also aren't going to start negotiating and hinting at a contract of maybe half what he's worth. They don't want to insult him, and he absolutely should be aware of our market size and the fact we already have a bad big contract on the books.

You didn't have to give him "half his value," his value with 3 years left of team control was considerably less than the 35M number that's being thrown around here. 

[UpandIn]

17 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

That's it?! That's goofy. Of course, the team is going to say in the media that they want to sign him, that's PR and marketing of their brand. 

As mentioned previously. if both sides wanted an extension it would have been done already.

As pointed out elsewhere, since February of 2014, there have only been six extensions given to starting pitchers with between four and five years of service time, which is where Burnes will be this winter. None of those pitchers have a Cy Young award or stat sheet like Burnes. (LeBlanc, Kyle Hendricks, Mike Clevinger, Kyle Freeland, German Marquez). 

 

If you're upset about boilerplate comments the owner or front office make in the media about their players; have fun with that. 

No, that's most definitely not "it." You seem hell bent on taking a sentence and then somehow skewing that to derive some larger point while consistently missing the very, basic, simple...almost comically simple point. That Attanasio still wants to sign Woodruff and Burnes is not "IT," it's...as you said a publicity stunt. 

So that was ONE ancillary point and it's easier to ignore the kinda indisputable points being made and focusing on the parts that are easier.

Finally, I don't know why you're pointing out pitchers who were signed with 4-5 years of service time when...LITERALLY, this ENTIRE discussion is about where Corbin Burnes was LASTR YEAR with THREE years of service time. It's almost as if you're not getting the point(which...I've read your posts, I don't believe that it's) or you're being intentionally obtuse and ignoring the point.

Quote

As pointed out elsewhere, since February of 2014, there have only been six extensions given to starting pitchers with between four and five years of service time, which is where Burnes will be this winter. None of those pitchers have a Cy Young award or stat sheet like Burnes. (LeBlanc, Kyle Hendricks, Mike Clevinger, Kyle Freeland, German Marquez). 

Again...not that it matters as Burnes has 3 years of service time last year, but deGrom signed a contract extension coming off a Cy Young season and one of the most dominant seasons from at starting pitchers 

Still...I'm not sure what THIS has to do with anything. 

Quote

Like Paul Dolan told the Cleveland fans about Lindor "enjoy him". Most likely, Milwaukee never had any intention of signing Burnes to an extension. In fact, the whole small market team building model is premised upon keeping the prospect pipeline flowing by trading away star players on the cusp of free agency for  minor league talent. 

Cool. I don't know what that Paul Dolan's comments have to do with anything, but Cleveland offered Lindor a record setting extension, guaranteeing him over 100M dollars when he was 23...which would have broken records for players with his service time.

The RAYS just committed up to 223M dollars to Wander Franco. 

An organizational tendency is not an absolute rule. Ya know how I know that? 
Brewers offered Darvish 100M+
Brewers signed Yelich

Now Lindor turned down the deal. On the other hand, Jose Ramiez...he didn't, did he? No, he signed a 5 year contract extension with 2 team options. Then...he signed a 7 year 140M dollar contract extension. Why? Because he was already locked up.

I'm confused, is that "market value," for a player with 3 top 5 MVP finishes and has been worth 6.2 WAR PER full season since that 2017 extension? Because you're telling me that with 3 years left on his deal, Burnes would have cost 30-35M dollars...and it's just curious why so many players who sign while they're still under team control get less than FAs on the open market. Huh...maybe we'll never know the answer to that one...

 

17 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

If you're upset about boilerplate comments the owner or front office make in the media about their players; have fun with that. 

If you think THAT'S the point of contention...you very much struggling to grasp the point behind this thread. Which again, feels intentionally(I really WANT to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one).