What does a Burly extension look like?

[Ronnie Dobbs]

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.

No, that’s not what is happening.

[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...

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.

Actually not extending Noot does count as ‘winning.’

And not extending AB and, instead, trading him next offseason for an mlb ready asset could be ‘winning’ too.

[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.

Actually not extending Noot does count as ‘winning.’

And not extending AB and, instead, trading him next offseason for an mlb ready asset could be ‘winning’ too.

Or extending him and trading him is a possibility. He could have even more trade value if under an extended contract than he would have not being under an extended contract.

Again, it all depends on what your projection is for him.

[ScotchMIrish]

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.

No, that’s not what is happening.

And then what do you think is happening?

[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...

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.

Actually not extending Noot does count as ‘winning.’

And not extending AB and, instead, trading him next offseason for an mlb ready asset could be ‘winning’ too.

Or extending him and trading him is a possibility. He could have even more trade value if under an extended contract than he would have not being under an extended contract.

Again, it all depends on what your projection is for him.

The only way AB with an extended contract would have more value would be if he suddenly became a much better player than what he’s shown his first four years.

Which is ridiculous to bet on.

[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.

Actually not extending Noot does count as ‘winning.’

And not extending AB and, instead, trading him next offseason for an mlb ready asset could be ‘winning’ too.

Or extending him and trading him is a possibility. He could have even more trade value if under an extended contract than he would have not being under an extended contract.

Again, it all depends on what your projection is for him.

The only way AB with an extended contract would have more value would be if he suddenly became a much better player than what he’s shown his first four years.

Which is ridiculous to bet on.

It depends on what extended contract he'd sign for.

To use the hypothetical extreme example, if he'd sign for the ML minimum for four years, obviously you sign him and it makes him more valuable.

If he'd sign for $2 million AAV for four years, obviously you'd sign him and it makes him more valuable.

Etc.

Until you get up to some price point where it isn't a certainty and you have to think harder about whether it is worth it.

But there is no universe in which there is absolutely NO extended contract that it would make sense for the team to sign him to. The question is whether in this universe there are contract terms that would make sense to both the team and Burleson simultaneously.

For any legitimate ML player, the reflexive reaction of "I'd NEVER sign him to an extension now!" if never the right answer - it is always entirely price dependent.

[Ronnie Dobbs]

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.

No, that’s not what is happening.

And then what do you think is happening?

It has nothing to do with not being able to afford him.

[Talkin' Baseball]

We'll have to wait and see what Kyle Tucker gets.

[alw80]

It would look pretty similar to Josh Naylors contract.

[craviduce]

We'll have to wait and see what Kyle Tucker gets.

Mookies Betts had under .740 OPS last year.

[zuck698]

We'll have to wait and see what Kyle Tucker gets.

Mookies Betts had under .740 OPS last year.