Corbin Burnes Contract Talks (or lack thereof)

[Jopal78]

3 hours ago, UpandIn said:

 

 

Who the hell wants to emulate the Oakland model of team building? 

Playoffs six times in the last ten years;   11 times in the last 22 seasons while never spending more than 90 million in payroll.

Come on, don’t be obtuse. 

[nate82]

I don't think the Brewers are or ever were going to reach to Burnes for a contract extension.  If they were it would have been in 2018.  Right now at age 27 it doesn't make much sense for the Brewers to offer an extension or even to talk to Burnes about one.  If you are not going to be interested in doing a long term contract why approach someone asking about one?

I think some of you are missing the point that Burnes can also contact the Brewers and ask for an extension.  He hasn't so I don't believe he is all that insulted by not being approached.  To me this is not an issue.  The Brewers don't want to extend Burnes beyond his arbitration years and why would they talk to him about an extension that they are not interested in doing?  

[UpandIn]

45 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Playoffs six times in the last ten years;   11 times in the last 22 seasons while never spending more than 90 million in payroll.

Come on, don’t be obtuse. 

Obtuse? From you? Oof...the irony. You couldn't wrap your head around a pitcher POSSIBLY wanting financial security 3 years before free agency because the example I happened to use was Jimmy Nelson sliding back into 1st base as an example of injuries pitchers can suffer.

As for the As...last 8 full seasons, they've had 3 90 loss seasons(this one will almost certainly be a 100 loss season), they've had an 87 loss season and they've been in the bottom 5 of payroll...which now is apparently a good thing now as we're equally concerned with Attanasio's maximizing his revenue. That's what we're trying to build? They're in a constant tear down and rebuild cycle. 

Kina antithetical to the "more bites at the apple," ideology isn't in play all the sudden?

I guess then we'll be trading Burnes, Woodruff, Adames and preparing for a rebuild next year then, no? Then we really could be like the As...with a fan base that doesn't care, doesn't come out and support the team and isn't invested. Yup, all in on the As way of doing things...while fans bemoan a team that's 1.5 out of the playoff race and on pace to win "only" 88 games, I'm sure there'd be a lot of patience for those 90-100 loss seasons.

[UpandIn]

48 minutes ago, nate82 said:

I think some of you are missing the point that Burnes can also contact the Brewers and ask for an extension. 

Not missing that at all...as I've said several times...as have others. 

I happen to be more invested in how this organization operates and less interested in how Corbin Burnes agency operates.

 

But all these points were made on the 1st page by several others. 

51 minutes ago, nate82 said:

I don't think the Brewers are or ever were going to reach to Burnes for a contract extension.  If they were it would have been in 2018.

I don't follow this logic. You either do it when they're rookies or you just...throw your hands up and say, 'well, no point anyway.'

53 minutes ago, nate82 said:

The Brewers don't want to extend Burnes beyond his arbitration years and why would they talk to him about an extension that they are not interested in doing?  

They don't WANT Corbin Burnes in his prime seasons?

So Attanasio was lying about that? I'm struggling to see how the Brewers are BETTER off moving foward without Burnes as opposed to with him. 

I'm kinda in awe at how many people are genuinely arguing we(they) don't even WANT the Cy Young winner or...it'd probably be too expensive, so why bother anyway. 

The most valuable player you could have in a post-season series(arguably)...but, nah, pass. Why would you want keep a guy with 5 pitches who throws in the upper 90s and is one of the most dominant pitchers in the league?

[nate82]

54 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

I don't follow this logic. You either do it when they're rookies or you just...throw your hands up and say, 'well, no point anyway.'

If that is what you got out of that then sure you just throw your hands up and say, 'well, no point anyway.'  Which is not what I said at all.  I said the Brewers are not interested in an extension with Burnes and if they were it would have been in 2018 not because he was a rookie but because of his age.  Take a quick look at the age at which Peralta and Ashby signed theirs they are and were a lot younger than Burnes.  

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

They don't WANT Corbin Burnes in his prime seasons?

So Attanasio was lying about that? I'm struggling to see how the Brewers are BETTER off moving foward without Burnes as opposed to with him. 

I'm kinda in awe at how many people are genuinely arguing we(they) don't even WANT the Cy Young winner or...it'd probably be too expensive, so why bother anyway.

What Attanasio says and what the Brewers front office does are two different things.  Not sure why you are confused by this.  It is not that the Brewers don't want him it is that the risk of a pitcher being absolutely worthless in a year or two in their deal is far higher as they get closer to their age 30 season.  Burnes is too close to that age 30 season thus the risk is far to high for the Brewers to take on.  This is what we call being a small market team in MLB.  Small market teams can't take on these huge enormous risks.  If they go sour it ruins the franchise for a long time.  Just look at how the Yelich contract has hindered the Brewers.  

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

The most valuable player you could have in a post-season series(arguably)...but, nah, pass. Why would you want keep a guy with 5 pitches who throws in the upper 90s and is one of the most dominant pitchers in the league?

Nice strawman.  

You still haven't answered why the Brewers should come to Burnes with an extension offer if they are not even interested in doing one.  It is fairly obvious they just want to go year to year with Burnes.  I don't see why this is a problem.  The Brewers are not going to pay FA prices for a pitcher so again why should they come to Burnes with an offer?  If it is just optics then that is just dumb casual fan stuff.  

[UpandIn]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

If that is what you got out of that then sure you just throw your hands up and say, 'well, no point anyway.'  Which is not what I said at all.  I said the Brewers are not interested in an extension with Burnes and if they were it would have been in 2018 not because he was a rookie but because of his age.  Take a quick look at the age at which Peralta and Ashby signed theirs they are and were a lot younger than Burnes.  

So his age was the reason? He wasn't even 27 and a Cy Yong Winner. That makes absolutely zero sense. Also, MOST likely any contract signed by Burnes last year would have kept him under team control through roughly the same age Peralta and Ashby are under team control. So...that doesn't track at all. 

I ASSUMED the logic was sign them early, get them for 15.5M and if they don't pan out, it's not that big of a deal. Neither Ashby nor Peralta have to do much in order to have been worth extending and Peralta has already likely made that extension worth it.

But that's not even the argument you're making. You're strictly going on age. 

So what age do you no longer consider signing a player? If 26/27 is too old...that seems like a poor organizational philosophy. 

And I'm curious why 2018 was the only time they could have reasonably talked with him about a contract extension?

So no, that's not what you said, but that's the inference you continually make. Either sign them with less than 1 year of service time or not at all. Which is why I didn't quote you, but paraphrased what you said. But that's certainly the sentiment. 

I'm curious what you'll say when they talk to Woodruff about a contract extension...or Burnes for that matter as I'll just about guarantee they approach him with some type of extension now that it's a near given it's not affordable....at least if you listen to what Attanasio has said.

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

Nice strawman. 

How is that a strawman?

You LITERALLY said;

Quote

The Brewers don't want to extend Burnes beyond his arbitration years 

That's not a strawman, that's sarcasm, but you literally said they don't want to extend Burnes beyond his arbitration years(contrary to Attanasio's words...which have been pretty clear and effusive in his desire to extend Burnes, but not the Front offices actions...even the MOST minimal, basic, lowest possible expectations. Just communicating with him). 

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

 

You still haven't answered why the Brewers should come to Burnes with an extension offer if they are not even interested in doing one.  It is fairly obvious they just want to go year to year with Burnes.  I don't see why this is a problem.  

You still haven't offered proof they're "not interested in doing one," other than the fact that they simply DIDN'T approach talk to him about one last. The excuses ranged from, he'll get 10/400M, it was a short off-season with the lockout, they'll do it this year and now the "they're not interested," again, despite Attanasio saying they ARE interested. 

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

The Brewers are not going to pay FA prices for a pitcher so again why should they come to Burnes with an offer?  If it is just optics then that is just dumb casual fan stuff.  

Now THIS is a strawman. Burnes made 6.5M dollars this year. But the ONLY way they could sign him 3 years away from Free Agency...would be by paying him the same he'd make as if he was a FA RIGHT NOW.

 

I KNOW you know that's not how it works. 

Could you please give me an example of a player who with 3 years left of service time was paid FULL market value on a contract extension?

Did Mike Trout sign for full market value when he signed a 6/144M dollar extension with 3 years to go before free agency? Was that roughly what you think he'd have gotten on the open market?

That's not how it works, it's not how it's ever worked, I'm fairly certain having read your post you KNOW that's not how it works. Players sign so they get their first significant contract, they avoid the arbitration process and they give up a couple years of free agency in the process. It's worked that way for EVERY other contract extension signed by a player who was entering arbitration. But somehow in this ONE case, the only way we could have gotten an extension done was by paying Corbin Burnres as though he was a Free Agent NOW, and not three years into the future? Walk me through that logic? How you arrived at that despite...again, literally nobody else getting such a deal?

 

But lets say this was the case and they actually expected or asked for a 5 year 180M dollar contract despite 3 of those years being arbitration years and one of them worth 6.5M.

Well then at least you know the ask is entirely unreasonable. 

You know how you DON'T know if he's looking for a reasonable extension? IF-YOU-DON'T-ASK. 

[UpandIn]

1 hour ago, nate82 said:

What Attanasio says and what the Brewers front office does are two different things.  Not sure why you are confused by this.  It is not that the Brewers don't want him it is that the risk of a pitcher being absolutely worthless in a year or two in their deal is far higher as they get closer to their age 30 season.  Burnes is too close to that age 30 season thus the risk is far to high for the Brewers to take on.  This is what we call being a small market team in MLB.  Small market teams can't take on these huge enormous risks.  If they go sour it ruins the franchise for a long time.  Just look at how the Yelich contract has hindered the Brewers.  

A-There's only so many times you can say, "but Yelich got hurt." So what? So that means you don't sign anyone to extensions again?

B-Burnes was still 26 years old when he finished last season and he had 313 IP, had just come off a Cy Young season.

C-These contracts are ALMOST always deals that buy out the remaining arbitration years and then either 2 FA years, usually via team option with a buyout. 

So he'll hit Free Agency at 29. He's not a Running Back. There's no rule about signing a pitcher who's 30 years old. If ANYTHING we're seeing pitchers dominating well into their 30s and we're seeing HS pitchers getting Tommy John surgery. 

You're tying yourself up in knots here to argue that they shouldn't bother anyway because...he'd be 30 a year after he would have qualified for free agency. If that goes sour, it does not "ruin" a small market franchise for a long time. They either decline the option, pay him and he enters Free Agency with more than he was worth, or the Brewers have a pitcher on their books for two more years who MIGHT get hurt...

So then do you just never give anyone a large contract again? Or just someone who'll be 30-early 30s at the end of it?

It's also kinda funny one argument is the potential risk of injury WOULDN'T play into Burnes signing a contract extension that would guarantee him more money than he's made while the other is the risk of injury is SO high, the Brewers wouldn't want to do it. 

 

Either way, it kinda adds up to, 'The Brewers made the right call and I'm not going to entertain the notion that it's possible in any way that they didn't.'

Has this front office made ANY mistakes since Stearns took over? I'm just curious? Is it even possible for them to MAYBE, possibly make a bad call?

[brewers888]

Its completely inexcusable to me that that the Brewers never approached Burnes with an extension offer over the last few years. He is the best starting pitcher this organization has ever produced and he was probably affordable if we offered a good deal to him a couple of years ago before winning the Cy Young award. We certainly should have made an effort to get both and certainly at least one of Burnes and Woodruff signed long term.

At this point we more than likely missed our chance with Burnes but we certainly had the opportunity to try to get something done with him. The team should have offered him a good long term contract and if he said no at least we made an effort. No one would have blamed the team if they made a real attempt to sign Burnes long term but not even making that effort is what is infuriating. 

[wntrtxn21]

6 hours ago, brewers888 said:

Its completely inexcusable to me that that the Brewers never approached Burnes with an extension offer over the last few years. He is the best starting pitcher this organization has ever produced and he was probably affordable if we offered a good deal to him a couple of years ago before winning the Cy Young award. We certainly should have made an effort to get both and certainly at least one of Burnes and Woodruff signed long term.

At this point we more than likely missed our chance with Burnes but we certainly had the opportunity to try to get something done with him. The team should have offered him a good long term contract and if he said no at least we made an effort. No one would have blamed the team if they made a real attempt to sign Burnes long term but not even making that effort is what is infuriating. 

Exactly when should the Brewers offered an extension to Burnes? In 2019 he has an 8.82 ERA, allowed 13 hits/9, allowed 17 HRs in only 49 IPs, and had an 1.84 WHIP.  In 2020 he did much better, but they certainly aren't going to offer a big money extension based on one shortened season. He was great in 2021, but by that time he and his agent are looking for mega money and a long term contract.  

[torts]

On 9/18/2022 at 4:08 AM, UpandIn said:

Has this front office made ANY mistakes since Stearns took over? I'm just curious? Is it even possible for them to MAYBE, possibly make a bad call?

He TrAdEd HaDeR!

[UpandIn]

On 9/18/2022 at 11:21 AM, wntrtxn21 said:

Exactly when should the Brewers offered an extension to Burnes? In 2019 he has an 8.82 ERA, allowed 13 hits/9, allowed 17 HRs in only 49 IPs, and had an 1.84 WHIP.  In 2020 he did much better, but they certainly aren't going to offer a big money extension based on one shortened season. He was great in 2021, but by that time he and his agent are looking for mega money and a long term contract.  

Apparently 2018 was the only possible year they could have extended Burnes.

But this entire thread is about exactly when. Last year. They should have approached him after last year about an extension. 

And...yes, of course he would have wanted a long term contract. What sense would it have made to sign him to a 2 year contract extension if he had 3 years left?

5 years seems like it would have fit both sides pretty well. Burnes gets more money up front from arbitration, still hits FA with the shot at another...';Mega' contract that he and Johnny Depp could have gotten together and had a mega pint to celebrate...who's to say. 

I guess nobody now since it didn't happen.

[Axman59]

Burnes stunk tonight vs. the Mets. No way should he be extended. Go year to year with this guy.

[UpandIn]

10 hours ago, Axman59 said:

Burnes stunk tonight vs. the Mets. No way should he be extended. Go year to year with this guy.

I can't tell if this was supposed to be in blue...or not.

Of literally ALL the reasons to NOT re-sign him, surely...5 ERs vs the Mets isn't among them...right?

[Fear The Chorizo]

19 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

I can't tell if this was supposed to be in blue...or not.

Of literally ALL the reasons to NOT re-sign him, surely...5 ERs vs the Mets isn't among them...right?

One game, sure....but in all honesty Burnes' second half hasn't been anything close to as good as he pitched in 2020-2021 - still pretty good, but not dominant.

It would be a massive mistake to offer Burnes a market rate extension based on what he did in 2020-2021 without factoring in his 2019 and more importantly 2nd half of 2022.  At this stage I have every expectation they take things year to year with Burnes and either trade him at the deadline next year if they aren't competing or next offseason.  Similar path with Woodruff.

[MrTPlush]

On 9/16/2022 at 8:51 AM, brewcrewdue80 said:

I think the Brewers FO is at a crossroads with whom they are going pay up next. Not only is there Burnes, but Woodruff, Adames, Lauer, Houser, and even Tellez that you have to consider what amount of money and length can we do for such and such that we can work with such and such a deal? Maybe Ashby's extension is the result of missing out on Burnes Extension because of the results in 2019 vs believing in the stuff.

I'd also go with these 2 thoughts. Whom of Woody or Burnes do you trade vs extend? Well maybe they are waiting on which one goes down to injury first-TJ. Damaged goods is less value than the arm still working. Trade healthy-Extend the TJ(since it seems to boost pitcher performance)

Or maybe There's an offer for Burnes on the table that is forthcoming which make extension talks redundant. Why begin one putting Burnes on the -they want me long term thoughts- only to trade him away a few months later?

I think the trading of Woodruff or Burnes happens this offseason and the extension talks proceed with the one they keep.  

#1 They flat out can't afford Burnes. So whatever happens is pretty irrelevant on that front. It is just beyond reasonably realistic to think they could. Unless Burnes wants to take a hometown discount with a salary of about $20mil it just logistically can't work. Unless you want to watch a team lose 85+ games with Yelich and Burnes as the only two notable names.

#2 Woodruff might have made sense a year or two ago. Maybe we could have found common ground to get something a bit more team friendly that didn't require paying him till 37+. But I just can't see any situation where it would make sense for the Brewers now. Woodruff will be in his age 32 season after arbitration years. If you approached him I imagine he would want at least 6 years on a contract extension (that gets rid of remaining arby). I just don't see that worth the Brewers time just to have him in his mid 30s. He may be effective that long....many guys are, but that's a big risk. You would be throwing $50mil+ at Yelich/Woodruff in their mid 30s.

[UpandIn]

11 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

One game, sure....but in all honesty Burnes' second half hasn't been anything close to as good as he pitched in 2020-2021 - still pretty good, but not dominant.

It would be a massive mistake to offer Burnes a market rate extension based on what he did in 2020-2021 without factoring in his 2019 and more importantly 2nd half of 2022.  At this stage I have every expectation they take things year to year with Burnes and either trade him at the deadline next year if they aren't competing or next offseason.  Similar path with Woodruff.

I don't even know what the terms "market rate" mean in this context any longer. For some that's the same as he might get as a FA. In the context of this discussion, I'd assumed it meant...pitcher with 3 years of team control left.

And a "massive mistake?" He's not yet 28. went into last night with a 2.97 ERA and a 2.95 xFIP and...it'd be bad to keep him because in 11 post ASG starts his ERA is ALL the way up to...what, 4 something? Go back before that arbitrary deadline and he was pretty dominant the previous 5 starts, but that ASG.

 

It's a moot point point. The massive mistake was not having already attempted to re-sign him by now.

[UpandIn]

8 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

#1 They flat out can't afford Burnes. So whatever happens is pretty irrelevant on that front. It is just beyond reasonably realistic to think they could. Unless Burnes wants to take a hometown discount with a salary of about $20mil it just logistically can't work. Unless you want to watch a team lose 85+ games with Yelich and Burnes as the only two notable names.

#2 Woodruff might have made sense a year or two ago. Maybe we could have found common ground to get something a bit more team friendly that didn't require paying him till 37+. But I just can't see any situation where it would make sense for the Brewers now. Woodruff will be in his age 32 season after arbitration years. If you approached him I imagine he would want at least 6 years on a contract extension (that gets rid of remaining arby). I just don't see that worth the Brewers time just to have him in his mid 30s. He may be effective that long....many guys are, but that's a big risk. You would be throwing $50mil+ at Yelich/Woodruff in their mid 30s.

Pitchers who DO sign away 3(or 4 in your hypothetical) years of arbitration...they don't get paid ~30M per year on 6 or 7 year deals. 

They pretty much ALWAYS sign away the extension years with a couple of FA seasons. So that 6 year contract for Woodruff, that would make sense if it would have been signed 2 years ago...and then you'd be paying him until he was 34. 

Even if they signed Woodruff NOW...how do you imagine it'd be through age 37? He's still not 30 years old. You're giving him 7 years? 

Feels like the numbers and the length are being inflated as though their FAs and we're not bidding against 2-3 years of team service and only one team vs every other team in baseball. 

If not Burnes, when do you extend a pitcher? And sure, at this point, it's probably too expensive. Last year, maybe not. But is the argument that there are two options...early on and for an insanely team friendly contract like Peralta or Ashby or just never really bother to try regardless who it is and what they've done?

[MrTPlush]

16 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

Pitchers who DO sign away 3(or 4 in your hypothetical) years of arbitration...they don't get paid ~30M per year on 6 or 7 year deals. 

They pretty much ALWAYS sign away the extension years with a couple of FA seasons. So that 6 year contract for Woodruff, that would make sense if it would have been signed 2 years ago...and then you'd be paying him until he was 34. 

Even if they signed Woodruff NOW...how do you imagine it'd be through age 37? He's still not 30 years old. You're giving him 7 years? 

 

Sir, you need to go back and reread what I posted. You must have really skimmed or something...because everything you are saying is like you barely read more than a few selected words. 

"#2 Woodruff might have made sense a year or two ago. Maybe we could have found common ground to get something a bit more team friendly that didn't require paying him till 37+. But I just can't see any situation where it would make sense for the Brewers now. Woodruff will be in his age 32 season after arbitration years. If you approached him I imagine he would want at least 6 years on a contract extension (that gets rid of remaining arby). I just don't see that worth the Brewers time just to have him in his mid 30s. He may be effective that long....many guys are, but that's a big risk. You would be throwing $50mil+ at Yelich/Woodruff in their mid 30s."

[MrTPlush]

27 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

If not Burnes, when do you extend a pitcher? And sure, at this point, it's probably too expensive. Last year, maybe not. But is the argument that there are two options...early on and for an insanely team friendly contract like Peralta or Ashby or just never really bother to try regardless who it is and what they've done?

Well, again, there really isn't any option because they extended Yelich. I would guess a team friendly deal for Burnes would be about the same yearly average as Yelich, which is $26mil. We just can't afford that...unless you want to do what I mentioned before and be a sub .500 team. Because filling the rest of the roster at that point is going to be mission impossible.

I'm guessing the Brewers would have floated the idea had Yelich never signed an extension...or maybe not. They may not be interested dropping massive money on a pitcher regardless.

[UpandIn]

21 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

Sir, you need to go back and reread what I posted. You must have really skimmed or something...because everything you are saying is like you barely read more than a few selected words. 

"#2 Woodruff might have made sense a year or two ago. Maybe we could have found common ground to get something a bit more team friendly that didn't require paying him till 37+. But I just can't see any situation where it would make sense for the Brewers now. Woodruff will be in his age 32 season after arbitration years. If you approached him I imagine he would want at least 6 years on a contract extension (that gets rid of remaining arby). I just don't see that worth the Brewers time just to have him in his mid 30s. He may be effective that long....many guys are, but that's a big risk. You would be throwing $50mil+ at Yelich/Woodruff in their mid 30s."

Sir, I read your post, I'm responding to it. 

Yes, a year or two ago so we wouldn't have to pay him through age 37. 

He's 29 years old. So how long would a contract extension that takes him through age 37 right now have to be? Doing the math, NOW it'd be 7-8 years. You seeing a lot of pitchers getting 8 year contracts when having the last couple years of their arbitration bought out? Because it seems like it's generally their arbitration years with a couple of FA years at a discounted figure so they can hit free agency again while ALSO having the benefit of getting that first significant contract. Yet when it comes to the Brewers pitchers, it's paying them until their 37 and it's paying them market rate and that's current FA numbers? 

you imagine he'd want 6 years, then, yeah, I understand that'd get rid of arbitration years. There's no situation in which that doesn't get rid of the arbitration years. 

21 hours ago, MrTPlush said:

Well, again, there really isn't any option because they extended Yelich.

I could have sworn you said the Yelich extension had "nothing to do" with a possible Burnes or Woodruff extension, no? 

Quote

 I would guess a team friendly deal for Burnes would be about the same yearly average as Yelich, which is $26mil. We just can't afford that...unless you want to do what I mentioned before and be a sub .500 team. Because filling the rest of the roster at that point is going to be mission impossible.

Yelich is signed for 22Million a year with deferred money, not 26. But how exactly would extending Burnes leave you with no option but to have a sub .500 team? You don't have an entire farm system worth of players coming up who'll be on THEIR pre-arbitration and arbitration deals over the next six years?

The Rays, Cleveland, Miami, Seattle, they're all managing to compete with payrolls ~70-20M cheaper than ours, but we couldn't possibly field a competitive team moving forward if we'd paid Burnes? 

You realize their revenue is going UP by more than Yelich's contract alone, right? That the Brewers past payroll isn't set in stone as their indefinite payroll numbers. 

The idea that there was "no option" to extend Burnes last year because of Yelich? So I guess the next 8 years you just kinda throw your hands up and it doesn't really matter if you produce aces or not, you don't even try to sign them because...well, Yelich.

It's kinda curious how they were able to try and pay Darvish 125M after signing Cain to an 85M dollar deal just 3 years ago, but now, with increased revenues, not possible. Can't do it. 

 

Ok. 

[MrTPlush]

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

I could have sworn you said the Yelich extension had "nothing to do" with a possible Burnes or Woodruff extension, no? 

Yelich is signed for 22Million a year with deferred money, not 26. But how exactly would extending Burnes leave you with no option but to have a sub .500 team? You don't have an entire farm system worth of players coming up who'll be on THEIR pre-arbitration and arbitration deals over the next six years?

The idea that there was "no option" to extend Burnes last year because of Yelich? So I guess the next 8 years you just kinda throw your hands up and it doesn't really matter if you produce aces or not, you don't even try to sign them because...well, Yelich.

It's kinda curious how they were able to try and pay Darvish 125M after signing Cain to an 85M dollar deal just 3 years ago, but now, with increased revenues, not possible. Can't do it. 

That definitely was not me.

Sure...we could trade Woodruff, Adames, Tellez, Williams and role with a bunch of pre-arby top prospects. The majority will likely be total flops and chances are zero of them get near their ceiling. So yes, you could fit in Burnes at that point, but you will have some pretty large issues moving forward. 

Well, the reality is they either don't think they can afford him while still fielding a competitive team or don't want to extend him at all. That really is your only explanation for never asking him about an extension. We saw the same thing with Hader. 

2018 the payroll was low, no large long term contracts, arbitration was in good shape then and the short term future. The financial outlook was also much better before COVID happened and now attendance struggles. 

[clancyphile]

It's very disappointing, but not surprising to hear this re: Burnes.

The time to offer the deal was in the 2020-2021 offseason, IMO. He had put stuff together.

The best option would be to try to do something akin to Bobby Bonilla. Bonilla should have also been the template for Yelich, too. Lots of deferred money paid out over 20-25 years.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

11 minutes ago, clancyphile said:

It's very disappointing, but not surprising to hear this re: Burnes.

The time to offer the deal was in the 2020-2021 offseason, IMO. He had put stuff together.

The best option would be to try to do something akin to Bobby Bonilla. Bonilla should have also been the template for Yelich, too. Lots of deferred money paid out over 20-25 years.

I honestly cannot believe that someone is taking what is quite possibly the most ridiculed and ridiculous contract in professional sports history, and wants to use it as a template for future deals. We're talking about a deal that continues to be ripped on every year on the date that the Mets have to cut a big check to a guy who has been retired for 22 years. I know you are an "outside the box" kind of thinker, but IMO, this is a clear miss.

[clancyphile]

35 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

I honestly cannot believe that someone is taking what is quite possibly the most ridiculed and ridiculous contract in professional sports history, and wants to use it as a template for future deals. We're talking about a deal that continues to be ripped on every year on the date that the Mets have to cut a big check to a guy who has been retired for 22 years. I know you are an "outside the box" kind of thinker, but IMO, this is a clear miss.

Given the present realities of baseball's economic system, the Brewers will have to take risks to keep elite-level talent of one sort or another.

You can pick one player getting $25-30 million a year, or you can Bonilla a couple and see the payroll take relatively modest hits for two decades down the line, where $5 million is relative peanuts, the way salaries continue to escalate.

I'd rather do the Bonilla, because a World Championship probably brings much more for the franchise.

Unless you can magically get Milwaukee an extra $150 million a year in revenue to match the Dodgers, Yankees, etc.

[Playing Catch]

I'm no economist, but aren't deferred payments always better for the payer due to inflation?