What does a Burly extension look like?

[ecleme22]

It's fair to say that AB has been 1) streaky as a hitter and 2) not a great defensive player.

For this reason, I just let his three more years ride out. Maybe trading him next offseason.

Also, it's not like he had an eye-popping OPS. Just barely over .800.

[renostl]

It's fair to say that AB has been 1) streaky as a hitter and 2) not a great defensive player.

For this reason, I just let his three more years ride out. Maybe trading him next offseason.

Also, it's not like he had an eye-popping OPS. Just barely over .800.

This easily plays out another year or never.
It's not a bad thing to let the roster gain clarity
with Walker, Gorman, Donovan, Nootbaar either.
A season may gain that.

[ecleme22]

It's fair to say that AB has been 1) streaky as a hitter and 2) not a great defensive player.

For this reason, I just let his three more years ride out. Maybe trading him next offseason.

Also, it's not like he had an eye-popping OPS. Just barely over .800.

This easily plays out another year or never.
It's not a bad thing to let the roster gain clarity
with Walker, Gorman, Donovan, Nootbaar either.
A season may gain that.

Right, for all we know, a number of other players might be vying for 1b.

Also, you ride out the contract and AB posts a sub .760 ops next year, he is a lot easier to move then if he has 4/40 left on the deal.

[riff raff]

Lots of if, buts, and conjecture, but... the guy gets better every year. He can hit.
Popular player. Seems like a guy we should keep. Same w Donovan btw.

[Jatalk]

I’m not thinking extension

[greyhawk]

A burly extension to me is closer to DeJong or Craig in terms of risk and reward --- i would also pass

[Mort Gage]

If Wetherholt is strong out the gate you push for a long-term extension after the season, maybe even halfway through. If Winn had built on his offensive performance from '24 he would be close to a no brainer, though a case could still be made. Herrera maybe if he stays healthy and finds a position because the bat is there. Outside of that I would not extend complementary players in their late 20s. Maybe if they already had several established stars but that infrastructure is not there yet. This was the only team without a 3 WAR player last year, and the first Cardinal team since 1903 without one.

[mattmitchl44]

If they were serious about extending him, I'd offer 4 yrs. guaranteed + 1 or 2 team option years.

The 4 guaranteed yrs. take him through his age 30 season, with team options for age 31 and age 32. And he's nowhere near Soderstrom. Soderstrom was 3.4 fWAR player at age 23, Burleson was a 2.1 fWAR player at age 26.

I'd be like, 4 yrs./$30-$35 million, plus 1-2 team options at $14-$16 million each.

I was way off, MattMitch. Contracts aren't my forte. At least I'm learning.

FWIW - if I were scoping it out, I'd do it this way.

Burleson is estimated (Cot's) to get ~$3 million in ARB-1 for 2026. If he keeps producing 2.X fWAR seasons (he was 2.1 fWAR in 2025, and his upside is somewhat capped by his positional and defensive limitations), maybe he gets ~$6 million in ARB-2 and ~$9 million in ARB-3 (figuring in some salary inflation). If he hits FA in 2029 with a four year track record of 2.X fWAR seasons, maybe he gets a 2 yr./$35 million deal (again figuring in some inflation).

So the Cardinals could go year-to-year for probably about 3 yrs./$18 million, plus be looking at a say 2 yr./$35 million bill to re-sign him, total of about five years/$53 million. Burleson could get a little better, maybe up to 3.x fWAR, but neither he nor the Cardinals are likely going to think he's going to take off and be an All-Star level 4.X fWAR player.

If the Cardinals could expect to have him for 5 yrs./$53 million without taking any long term risk right now, they would have to get some concessions in terms of total dollars to offer him a guaranteed multiyear deal right now. So getting him for, say, 4 yrs./$30 million plus an option year for $15 million would price them in at 5 yrs./$45 million, an $8 million savings for taking the long term risk right now.

If Burleson remains a solid 2.X fWAR player, the Cardinals get a little win; if he can improve a bit and be a 3.X fWAR player for a few years, they get a bigger win; but if he drops to a 1.X fWAR player, they take a little loss (vs. being able to decide to maybe just non-tender him at some point). So from a risk-reward standpoint, 4 yrs./$30 million + 1-2 option years at $14-$16 million per is probably fair to both Burleson and the team.

[3dender]

I think it looks like a unicorn, or leprechaun, or dragon, or some other mythical creature that has zero chance of existing in reality.

Cause locking yourself into a slow 1B/DH who doesn't hit for power and is 2ish WAR... i.e. losing all of that positional flexibility for a low-.800 OPS hitter, is not something winning teams do. The Josh Naylor contract is not gonna end well, and Naylor is a lot better than Burleson.

[mattmitchl44]

I think it looks like a unicorn, or leprechaun, or dragon, or some other mythical creature that has zero chance of existing in reality.

Cause locking yourself into a slow 1B/DH who doesn't hit for power and is 2ish WAR... i.e. losing all of that positional flexibility for a low-.800 OPS hitter, is not something winning teams do. The Josh Naylor contract is not gonna end well, and Naylor is a lot better than Burleson.

Nobody is giving Burleson 5 yrs./$92.5 million. More like about half of that.

With his low K% and some ISO power to back it up, I'd expect Burleson's offensive skills to age pretty stably through his prime. He'll never be a great player, but his floor as a reliable average stater is probably solid.

[3dender]

I think it looks like a unicorn, or leprechaun, or dragon, or some other mythical creature that has zero chance of existing in reality.

Cause locking yourself into a slow 1B/DH who doesn't hit for power and is 2ish WAR... i.e. losing all of that positional flexibility for a low-.800 OPS hitter, is not something winning teams do. The Josh Naylor contract is not gonna end well, and Naylor is a lot better than Burleson.

Nobody is giving Burleson 5 yrs./$92.5 million. More like about half of that.

With his low K% and some ISO power to back it up, I'd expect Burleson's offensive skills to age pretty stably through his prime. He'll never be a great player, but his floor as a reliable average stater is probably solid.

I know, it was just an example of why those contracts for those types of players are not good. There are other drawbacks not factored into the contract/WAR amount, namely the loss of basically your most useful positional flexibility for a guy who is not a lineup cornerstone. I'm not sure I'd want my team signing even Naylor for the Burleson value you laid out.

You lock down those positions for no-defense no-run guys who are elite hitters, like a Soto or a Devers... not for 120 wRC+ guys.

[Basil Shabazz]

It seems like he is an example of a player that you should just ride out the arb years with. Not worth 5/75, won't take 5/55. Plus, his age puts him in a situation where he may only have one shot to capitalize on a multi-year deal. He'll be 30 when he hits free agency, and if he continues his production may be able to seek a worthwhile 4 to 5 year deal then.

[TXCardsFanX]

No

Too soon

Just now ARB eligible

Not a FA until 2029

Hit better in 2025 but career .235 .272 .335 .606 vs LHP

No reason to rush, let's see how he handles being a F-T 1st baseman and how he hits vs LHP in 2026.

Agreed!
He doesn't offer positive defense or baserunning. His bat was decent, but replaceable in 2024. His bat last year was good, but not all-star level.
He's a good bat to have in the lineup, but not some sort of superstar we need to lock-up. Maybe he can be really good at 1B? He wasn't that great last year at 1B.

[mattmitchl44]

I think it looks like a unicorn, or leprechaun, or dragon, or some other mythical creature that has zero chance of existing in reality.

Cause locking yourself into a slow 1B/DH who doesn't hit for power and is 2ish WAR... i.e. losing all of that positional flexibility for a low-.800 OPS hitter, is not something winning teams do. The Josh Naylor contract is not gonna end well, and Naylor is a lot better than Burleson.

Nobody is giving Burleson 5 yrs./$92.5 million. More like about half of that.

With his low K% and some ISO power to back it up, I'd expect Burleson's offensive skills to age pretty stably through his prime. He'll never be a great player, but his floor as a reliable average stater is probably solid.

I know, it was just an example of why those contracts for those types of players are not good. There are other drawbacks not factored into the contract/WAR amount, namely the loss of basically your most useful positional flexibility for a guy who is not a lineup cornerstone. I'm not sure I'd want my team signing even Naylor for the Burleson value you laid out.

You lock down those positions for no-defense no-run guys who are elite hitters, like a Soto or a Devers... not for 120 wRC+ guys.

For where the Cardinals are, I'm not sure I would worry too much about his exact profile. They are going to need to have some high floor/low ceiling guys on the roster that they can count on to provide a bit of excess value and Burleson just may be one of the guys they have access to where they can lock that in for a few years.

Ultimately, even if they want to upgrade later, his contract is likely going to be tradable at the right price point.

[3dender]

I think it looks like a unicorn, or leprechaun, or dragon, or some other mythical creature that has zero chance of existing in reality.

Cause locking yourself into a slow 1B/DH who doesn't hit for power and is 2ish WAR... i.e. losing all of that positional flexibility for a low-.800 OPS hitter, is not something winning teams do. The Josh Naylor contract is not gonna end well, and Naylor is a lot better than Burleson.

Nobody is giving Burleson 5 yrs./$92.5 million. More like about half of that.

With his low K% and some ISO power to back it up, I'd expect Burleson's offensive skills to age pretty stably through his prime. He'll never be a great player, but his floor as a reliable average stater is probably solid.

I know, it was just an example of why those contracts for those types of players are not good. There are other drawbacks not factored into the contract/WAR amount, namely the loss of basically your most useful positional flexibility for a guy who is not a lineup cornerstone. I'm not sure I'd want my team signing even Naylor for the Burleson value you laid out.

You lock down those positions for no-defense no-run guys who are elite hitters, like a Soto or a Devers... not for 120 wRC+ guys.

For where the Cardinals are, I'm not sure I would worry too much about his exact profile. They are going to need to have some high floor/low ceiling guys on the roster that they can count on to provide a bit of excess value and Burleson just may be one of the guys they have access to where they can lock that in for a few years.

Ultimately, even if they want to upgrade later, his contract is likely going to be tradable at the right price point.

Rare disagreement with you. This is a production profile that is readily available every year in FA for $8-12M a year at most, if you can't produce it internally (which they very much should be able to do in the next 2-3 years). There's just no great reason to make the commitment from the team perspective.

[mattmitchl44]

I think it looks like a unicorn, or leprechaun, or dragon, or some other mythical creature that has zero chance of existing in reality.

Cause locking yourself into a slow 1B/DH who doesn't hit for power and is 2ish WAR... i.e. losing all of that positional flexibility for a low-.800 OPS hitter, is not something winning teams do. The Josh Naylor contract is not gonna end well, and Naylor is a lot better than Burleson.

Nobody is giving Burleson 5 yrs./$92.5 million. More like about half of that.

With his low K% and some ISO power to back it up, I'd expect Burleson's offensive skills to age pretty stably through his prime. He'll never be a great player, but his floor as a reliable average stater is probably solid.

I know, it was just an example of why those contracts for those types of players are not good. There are other drawbacks not factored into the contract/WAR amount, namely the loss of basically your most useful positional flexibility for a guy who is not a lineup cornerstone. I'm not sure I'd want my team signing even Naylor for the Burleson value you laid out.

You lock down those positions for no-defense no-run guys who are elite hitters, like a Soto or a Devers... not for 120 wRC+ guys.

For where the Cardinals are, I'm not sure I would worry too much about his exact profile. They are going to need to have some high floor/low ceiling guys on the roster that they can count on to provide a bit of excess value and Burleson just may be one of the guys they have access to where they can lock that in for a few years.

Ultimately, even if they want to upgrade later, his contract is likely going to be tradable at the right price point.

Rare disagreement with you. This is a production profile that is readily available every year in FA for $8-12M a year at most, if you can't produce it internally (which they very much should be able to do in the next 2-3 years). There's just no great reason to make the commitment from the team perspective.

We'll disagree on the point that you can sign reliable 2.x fWAR players for $8-$12 million a year. We know that fWAR averages to $8-$10 million per year in the FA market. So I would expect highly reliable 2.x fWAR players to be more like $15-$20 million a year (basically why Naylor got what he did).

Naylor was 2.7, 2.3, 3.1 fWAR over the last three seasons and Seattle is likely betting on him being at that consistent level for at least four of the next five seasons, so he got $18.5 million AAV