ecleme22 wrote: ↑02 Dec 2025 11:21 am
mattmitchl44 wrote: ↑02 Dec 2025 03:51 am
ecleme22 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2025 20:04 pm
Sounds super easy until they turn into Piscotty or DeJong.
So why do it?
No reason to unless you're obsessed with maybe saving a little money.
You go ahead and believe in Burleson for another 4-5 years.
Yes, the whole point is for the team to save $5-$10 million a year on a 2+ fWAR player vs. what it would otherwise cost them if they had to go buy that guy on the FA market. It's OK to do that. If you then develop another prospect in a couple of years that could take his place, you have trade value (either the prospect or Burleson) that you can potentially use as part of a package trade for players who can fill holes on your roster rather than having to buy them as expensive FAs.
And, as I've already said, you have to do your homework and trust your evaluation of a player like Burleson. If you believe, based on what you know about how you've seen him develop that he'll likely be a 2+ fWAR player going forward and a consistent part of your starting lineup, you lean toward extending him. If you think his 2+ fWAR season in 2025 at age 26 as he enters his prime was a fluke and he's unlikely to repeat that level of production going forward, I'd lean toward trying to "trade high" on him right now.
Funny how really the only homegrown Cards position player who has had real sustained, uninterupted success in the last 10 YEARS is Donovan. Every other, player has regressed or been injured. (Winn is only two years in so I don't count him just yet).
So just looking at the clarity of hindsight, the only position player since 2014ish that may have been successfully extended is Donovan.
And as it stands... Donovan has two years left, is due to make a low 5.4mil in arbitration in 2026, and will be a FA at 30 years old.
Donovan's salaries:
2023: 728K
2024: 757K
2025: 2.850mil
2026: 5.4 mil (projected)
But if it were you, you would've said after, say, the 2022 season, "let's lock him up" and given him 7 year/42mil deal, which would keep him here for 2 more years after FA.
Now let's say in arbitration in 2027 he gets 10mil and the Cards keep him! We would've had him for 5 years, spent a total of just under 20mil, and are parting with him at 30 years old.
So why extend him? We have JJ about ready to take his place, are getting prospects for him and he cost us less than 5mil during his ENTIRE Cards tenure if he's traded now...
Sorry to butt in,
I think that Donnie is the kind of player you can do this with for a multitude of reasons.
For one, in the above example, you would have the player for 2 more seasons. His 30 and 31 seasons
at that. Those are usually good, and his replacement will not play for free and could be less productive.
A weaker team. Both he and JJ easily coexist. Players like BD or shorts stops aren't locked to one position
a fact that is increasing his TV today.
You extend players when you see them as part of a good team. Donovan may have a neutral value once
he starts making that $10+M in the example, but he may also still be a productive part of decent teams
even if he is hitting in the #7 or #8 spot in the lineup. Which would make him still a player of value
if a trade is indeed needed/wanted. Peak value absolutely not, but the team got peak play on the
field where it really counts. That's why we watch the team play.
Nice discussion with slightly different opinions is great. I kind of think extensions on what many
of us see as players that should be able to be replaced from within the organization makes some
sense. They still fall into normal productive seasons. The costs are such that any team
that wants them won't blink. They are players that wouldn't be QO, so even with a decreased
return in a trade it is better than zero. I am also biased to those mid-level vets. IF teams don't
have them they're looking for them even the $300M teams.
All said, I do think extensions should be very few.
