What does a Burly extension look like?

[rockondlouie]

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.

Bingo TXC

There is no player they need to rush into what could be another bad extension.

The ONLY player on the 2026 roster who may warrant an early extension, after his second season, is JJW if he turns out to be a star.

[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.

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

Yastremzski just signed for 2yrs/$23.5M, averages 2 WAR/yr
Miguel Rojas just signed for $5.5M, 8 WAR over the last 5 years
Ryan O'Hearn just signed for 2yrs/$29M, averaging 2 WAR/yr
Cedric Mullins just signed for $7.5M, almost 9 WAR over last 4yrs

So yeah just this year we're seeing a range of like $6M to $14.5M, weighted toward the lower end of that range. And 3/4 of these guys are more dynamic players than Burleson, who don't lock up your easiest position to fill.

These guys are available every offseason and they're not particularly hard to identify or sign. It would be foolish to lock one up just because you developed him and/or don't want to "worry" about that spot.

[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

Yastremzski just signed for 2yrs/$23.5M, averages 2 WAR/yr
Miguel Rojas just signed for $5.5M, 8 WAR over the last 5 years
Ryan O'Hearn just signed for 2yrs/$29M, averaging 2 WAR/yr
Cedric Mullins just signed for $7.5M, almost 9 WAR over last 4yrs

So yeah just this year we're seeing a range of like $6M to $14.5M, weighted toward the lower end of that range. And 3/4 of these guys are more dynamic players than Burleson, who don't lock up your easiest position to fill.

These guys are available every offseason and they're not particularly hard to identify or sign. It would be foolish to lock one up just because you developed him and/or don't want to "worry" about that spot.

Respectfully, I think we disagree over who is a reliable option to give you 2.X fWAR.

Yastrzemski is going to be age 35 next year, and Rojas is going to be age 37. That raises serious questions about whether they can be anywhere close to as good as they were in 2025 (FG projects Yas for around 1 fWAR in 400 PA and Rojas for around 0.5 fWAR in 200 PA).

O'Hearn is going to be age 32 and is projected for a little over 1 fWAR in about 500 PA, although I'm more bullish on him than that. Mullins at age 31 get the best projection at a little over 1 fWAR in about 450 PA, mostly because of his additional baserunning value.

Of all those guys, O'Hearn is the one, IMO, who comes closest to being what looks like a reliable option to give you 2.X fWAR - and not surprisingly he got $14.5 million AAV.

Yes, you can sign guys who you speculate MIGHT give you 2.X fWAR, but have significant bust potential (like the above) for your $8, $10, $12 million a year. But that's not the same as a high floor option that you should feel confident WILL give you 2.X fWAR.

[ecleme22]

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.

Oh my god this is so convoluted for a player who had an .801 OPS /1.8 WAR last year.

You:
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.
Also You:
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.


All this [shirt] goes out the window if AB posts a .734 OPS like he did in 2024.

The play is to go YEAR TO YEAR. If he has a down year in 2026, he can still easily be traded. If he has a great year in 2026, he can still be easily traded (like Donovan this offseason) for mlb-ready talent/mlber.

Not every Cardinal needs to be here for a decade. We can move on.

[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.

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

Yastremzski just signed for 2yrs/$23.5M, averages 2 WAR/yr
Miguel Rojas just signed for $5.5M, 8 WAR over the last 5 years
Ryan O'Hearn just signed for 2yrs/$29M, averaging 2 WAR/yr
Cedric Mullins just signed for $7.5M, almost 9 WAR over last 4yrs

So yeah just this year we're seeing a range of like $6M to $14.5M, weighted toward the lower end of that range. And 3/4 of these guys are more dynamic players than Burleson, who don't lock up your easiest position to fill.

These guys are available every offseason and they're not particularly hard to identify or sign. It would be foolish to lock one up just because you developed him and/or don't want to "worry" about that spot.

Respectfully, I think we disagree over who is a reliable option to give you 2.X fWAR.

Yastrzemski is going to be age 35 next year, and Rojas is going to be age 37. That raises serious questions about whether they can be anywhere close to as good as they were in 2025 (FG projects Yas for around 1 fWAR in 400 PA and Rojas for around 0.5 fWAR in 200 PA).

O'Hearn is going to be age 32 and is projected for a little over 1 fWAR in about 500 PA, although I'm more bullish on him than that. Mullins at age 31 get the best projection at a little over 1 fWAR in about 450 PA, mostly because of his additional baserunning value.

Of all those guys, O'Hearn is the one, IMO, who comes closest to being what looks like a reliable option to give you 2.X fWAR - and not surprisingly he got $14.5 million AAV.

Yes, you can sign guys who you speculate MIGHT give you 2.X fWAR, but have significant bust potential (like the above) for your $8, $10, $12 million a year. But that's not the same as a high floor option that you should feel confident WILL give you 2.X fWAR.

I see your point, I just don't think it's worth locking yourself into that type of player, at that much more money, just for increased certainty of 0.5-1 more WAR per year. While low-to-medium risk, it's also very low reward. Whereas looking for one of the always available vets is kinda the inverse: low-risk, low-to-medium reward.

[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.

Oh my god this is so convoluted for a player who had an .801 OPS /1.8 WAR last year.

You:
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.
Also You:
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.


All this [shirt] goes out the window if AB posts a .734 OPS like he did in 2024.

The play is to go YEAR TO YEAR. If he has a down year in 2026, he can still easily be traded. If he has a great year in 2026, he can still be easily traded (like Donovan this offseason) for mlb-ready talent/mlber.

Not every Cardinal needs to be here for a decade. We can move on.

Well, of course it depends on how confident the Cardinals are that Burleson's production from 2025 is a reliable indicator of his production going forward.

As noted, 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.

And, again, I only want to offer him four guaranteed years - through his age 30 season - with 1 or 2 team option years on top of that.

Any extension for any young player that both sides are going to agree to will have some risk-reward balance for both sides. As noted, IMO, 4 yrs./$30 million + 1-2 option years at $14-$16 million per is probably fair to both Burleson and the team.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

That's an expensive tool. No. Unless he suddenly discovers consistent power. He may not be a Cardinal next year anyway. This isnt Mos Cardinals anymore. If Bloom had a good offer for him he gone. We have to start thinking bigger.

He hit 21 HRs in 152 games 2024 and 18 HRs in 139 games last year, so he’s been pretty consistent so far. However, and I have been a Burleson hater for awhile now, I think there’s a decent chance he could kick the power up a notch. He seems like he’s worked really hard to get where he is now, so I’m not going to rule it out.

Does that mean I want to rush to extend him? No, I don’t think so, but if he does kick it up a notch next season, I think it’s definitely worth discussing.

But yeah, if Bloom got a really good offer for him, I’d definitely be willing to deal him.

[AnExParrot]

That's an expensive tool. No. Unless he suddenly discovers consistent power. He may not be a Cardinal next year anyway. This isnt Mos Cardinals anymore. If Bloom had a good offer for him he gone. We have to start thinking bigger.

You just ruined little Shady's Christmas! Agreed on thinking bigger. He is a 2WAR player max IMO. Hope I am wrong and Shady is right with his "Next Joey Votto" thinking. Highly doubt I am wrong though.

You could be wrong and Shady will definitely be wrong on his Votto silliness.

[3dender]

That's an expensive tool. No. Unless he suddenly discovers consistent power. He may not be a Cardinal next year anyway. This isnt Mos Cardinals anymore. If Bloom had a good offer for him he gone. We have to start thinking bigger.

He hit 21 HRs in 152 games 2024 and 18 HRs in 139 games last year, so he’s been pretty consistent so far. However, and I have been a Burleson hater for awhile now, I think there’s a decent chance he could kick the power up a notch. He seems like he’s worked really hard to get where he is now, so I’m not going to rule it out.

Does that mean I want to rush to extend him? No, I don’t think so, but if he does kick it up a notch next season, I think it’s definitely worth discussing.

But yeah, if Bloom got a really good offer for him, I’d definitely be willing to deal him.

If he kicks his power up in a sustainable way, he's no longer a 2-2.5 WAR player, he's a 3-4 WAR player. So yeah that'd be a completely different discussion and certainly an option worth entertaining.

[mattmitchl44]

Does that mean I want to rush to extend him? No, I don’t think so, but if he does kick it up a notch next season, I think it’s definitely worth discussing.

For Bloom, or any other GM, I think this is just a ruthless numbers game.

IMO, Bloom has to project:

- What do I think "best estimate" Alec Burleson looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?
- What do I think Alec Burleson reaching his "ceiling" looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?
- What do I think Alec Burleson hitting his "floor" looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?

Taking all those possibilities into account, what do I think Alec Burleson's production value is over the next four years?

If that is Burleson's production value, how much will I have to pay for it by going year-to-year (plus eventually having to pay a FA season)?

Finally - will Burleson agree to a four-year deal now that is enough below my going year-to-year estimate that it makes sense for the team to give him that guaranteed four-year deal?

Long term winning poker players aren't winners because they consistently win an inordinate number of big pots. They are consistent winners because they use their edge in playing skill to win an inordinate number of small pots. A baseball GM needs to be the same way. Winning "small pots" by finding some value in a Burleson extension, Herrera extension, etc. - even if they aren't the flashy "big pots" of a Pujols extension - still will make you a winner over the long term.

[rockondlouie]

Tyler Soderstrom

23 yrs old

25 HRs
93 RBI's
.276 .346 .474 .820
126 wRC+

Now that's the kind of young player I can get behind buying out his ARB and some free agent years.

When the Cardinals have a player of this caliber, then I'll be on-board w/the early extension.

Right now they have NO ONE in that time zone.

I. Hererra might get there this season if he stays healthy.

JJW could put up that kind of a slash (better BA/OB%) w/fewer HR's & RBI's but more SB's so he too could be a candidate after his second full season.

I'm fine letting all the other current rostered Cardinals going to ARB.

JMO

[ecleme22]

Does that mean I want to rush to extend him? No, I don’t think so, but if he does kick it up a notch next season, I think it’s definitely worth discussing.

For Bloom, or any other GM, I think this is just a ruthless numbers game.

IMO, Bloom has to project:

- What do I think "best estimate" Alec Burleson looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?
- What do I think Alec Burleson reaching his "ceiling" looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?
- What do I think Alec Burleson hitting his "floor" looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?

Taking all those possibilities into account, what do I think Alec Burleson's production value is over the next four years?

If that is Burleson's production value, how much will I have to pay for it by going year-to-year (plus eventually having to pay a FA season)?

Finally - will Burleson agree to a four-year deal now that is enough below my going year-to-year estimate that it makes sense for the team to give him that guaranteed four-year deal?

Long term winning poker players aren't winners because they consistently win an inordinate number of big pots. They are consistent winners because they use their edge in playing skill to win an inordinate number of small pots. A baseball GM needs to be the same way. Winning "small pots" by finding some value in a Burleson extension, Herrera extension, etc. - even if they aren't the flashy "big pots" of a Pujols extension - still will make you a winner over the long term.

Bloom has to project:
- I have Burleson under contract for three more years. Cool. Though he is a nice player at times, there are more important things to worry about than Alec freakin' Burleson, and making sure he's on the team an extra year.
- I may trade him next offseason.

Funny how Mattmich is all about trading Donovan (which I agree with), then when it comes to Burleson (who only differs in years of control by one year), Matt is talking about 4-6 year extensions.

About poker: a few ppl last April were saying "Cards were dumb for not extending Noot!" How would that 'small pot' have worked out...

[mattmitchl44]

Does that mean I want to rush to extend him? No, I don’t think so, but if he does kick it up a notch next season, I think it’s definitely worth discussing.

For Bloom, or any other GM, I think this is just a ruthless numbers game.

IMO, Bloom has to project:

- What do I think "best estimate" Alec Burleson looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?
- What do I think Alec Burleson reaching his "ceiling" looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?
- What do I think Alec Burleson hitting his "floor" looks like over the next four years and how probable is that Alec Burleson?

Taking all those possibilities into account, what do I think Alec Burleson's production value is over the next four years?

If that is Burleson's production value, how much will I have to pay for it by going year-to-year (plus eventually having to pay a FA season)?

Finally - will Burleson agree to a four-year deal now that is enough below my going year-to-year estimate that it makes sense for the team to give him that guaranteed four-year deal?

Long term winning poker players aren't winners because they consistently win an inordinate number of big pots. They are consistent winners because they use their edge in playing skill to win an inordinate number of small pots. A baseball GM needs to be the same way. Winning "small pots" by finding some value in a Burleson extension, Herrera extension, etc. - even if they aren't the flashy "big pots" of a Pujols extension - still will make you a winner over the long term.

Bloom has to project:
- I have Burleson under contract for three more years. Cool. Though he is a nice player at times, there are more important things to worry about than Alec freakin' Burleson, and making sure he's on the team an extra year.
- I may trade him next offseason.

Funny how Mattmich is all about trading Donovan (which I agree with), then when it comes to Burleson (who only differs in years of control by one year), Matt is talking about 4-6 year extensions.

About poker: a few ppl last April were saying "Cards were dumb for not extending Noot!" How would that 'small pot' have worked out...

You're trading Donovan now, in part, because it's less likely that you can get an extension done with him at a significantly team-favorable price point. The team has significantly less leverage now that Donovan has already had his ARB-1 year and will sign his guaranteed ARB-2 deal before ever having to see the field again. Burleson is just going to ARB-1.

And whether you are playing "big pots" or "small pots", you are never going to win every one of them. But there are a lot more opportunities to play "small pots" than "big pots", so you can aggregate a lot of value if you are winning an inordinate number of your "small pot" player signings, even if you don't win all of them.

[ScotchMIrish]

1. Would you entertain a Burly extension?
2. If so, how does he compare to Tyler Soderstrom?

Tyler Soderstrom just got a 7-year $86m extension with an AAV of $12.3m. He has bonus provisions and an 8th-year club option that could add another $45m to the deal. Soderstrom is 3 years younger, had one more year of team control before the extension, and plays much better defense.

Is Burly 3/4 of the player Soderstrom is? If so, would a 5-year $50m extension with a one-year club option and incentives totalling another $25m get Burly interested? Is that too much to invest in an Alec Burleson?

Soderstrom is an absolute bargain at that AAV. Burleson has shown steady improvement which is what you want to see at that age. I'd give him 5 or 6 years at Soderstrom's AAV. He will be a 3/4 hitter in the 2026 lineup. We could save money with arbitration but then he is gone at 29 years of age. He is worth keeping.

[Basil Shabazz]

1. Would you entertain a Burly extension?
2. If so, how does he compare to Tyler Soderstrom?

Tyler Soderstrom just got a 7-year $86m extension with an AAV of $12.3m. He has bonus provisions and an 8th-year club option that could add another $45m to the deal. Soderstrom is 3 years younger, had one more year of team control before the extension, and plays much better defense.

Is Burly 3/4 of the player Soderstrom is? If so, would a 5-year $50m extension with a one-year club option and incentives totalling another $25m get Burly interested? Is that too much to invest in an Alec Burleson?

Soderstrom is an absolute bargain at that AAV. Burleson has shown steady improvement which is what you want to see at that age. I'd give him 5 or 6 years at Soderstrom's AAV. He will be a 3/4 hitter in the 2026 lineup. We could save money with arbitration but then he is gone at 29 years of age. He is worth keeping.

With all due respect, a 3/4 hitter in the Cards 2026 lineup doesn't mean Burly is an MLB 3/4 hitter. In a very good lineup Burly is batting 6/7.

[ScotchMIrish]

1. Would you entertain a Burly extension?
2. If so, how does he compare to Tyler Soderstrom?

Tyler Soderstrom just got a 7-year $86m extension with an AAV of $12.3m. He has bonus provisions and an 8th-year club option that could add another $45m to the deal. Soderstrom is 3 years younger, had one more year of team control before the extension, and plays much better defense.

Is Burly 3/4 of the player Soderstrom is? If so, would a 5-year $50m extension with a one-year club option and incentives totalling another $25m get Burly interested? Is that too much to invest in an Alec Burleson?

Soderstrom is an absolute bargain at that AAV. Burleson has shown steady improvement which is what you want to see at that age. I'd give him 5 or 6 years at Soderstrom's AAV. He will be a 3/4 hitter in the 2026 lineup. We could save money with arbitration but then he is gone at 29 years of age. He is worth keeping.

With all due respect, a 3/4 hitter in the Cards 2026 lineup doesn't mean Burly is an MLB 3/4 hitter. In a very good lineup Burly is batting 6/7.

Regarding an extension the question is whether his improvement will continue. There has been a linear progression. Do you think he will stall at his 2025 numbers?

We are apparently being forced to trade Donovan because we didn't extend him and now can't afford to keep him.