I'm not sure they can afford Burnett and stay under the cap. As much as Ruben has said they are keeping salary around last year's figures despite the cap increase, I have them already at about $170M against the cap. This includes variables like the benefits cost and salary estimates for 40-man roster guys who aren't on the 25-man.

Last year they entered the season about $5-$7M below the cap, and that's probably what is needed for all the in-season minors to majors shifting that takes place, plus wanting some flexibility to add someone midseason.

I don't see them wanting to give Burnett any more than $12M-$14M, and to me that's a big IF based on their public comments. Hopefully those comments are just posturing. But, if they give him $12M-$14M, we're getting close to the territory in which they probably have to offer a 2nd year...and that's getting close to a deal we wouldn't want anyway.

SHUT UP IT'S HAPPENING!!!!


J/K, that was a well-reasoned post, LastTrain. I don't think I'd want to go two years.

Obviously I'd rather go one year, and it sounds like Burnett would, too. But if it's two (at a lower AAV) or nothing, I do it.

No matter how you feel about it, they've committed to wringing another year from the core and spending up toward the cap, so it makes no logical sense NOT to get significantly better at #3 starter, solidifying your rotation, if you can. And there's no better fit than Burnett when you consider the cost (draft pick, long-term deal, and/or prospects).

If we're awful this year, you're probably looking at a firesale anyway, in which case Burnett's 2015 contract is meaningless. If we're contenders and he's pitching well, you're glad to have him next year. In that case Adams ($7M) and Kendrick ($8M) would be off the books and you'd still have two rotation spots for MAG, Biddle, and Boner. Rollins could very easily be off the books in either case as well.

Pittsburgh probably can't outbid the Phillies for Burnett. Baltimore is out. If he goes to Washington, ok--that's a better team and closer to his home. But it seems like they're tapped.

If adding Burnett for $15m or so really pushes them up against the cap, the easy solution is to trade Kendrick, as a straight salary dump if necessary. Burnett>Kendrick by more than Kendrick>Pettibone or Gaudin.

if they can land burnett or at the very least make it believable that they're serious about bringing him in, that signals to me that they really do believe this team can contend (which i don't know is a good thing either) and that they're not necessarily a bunch of lying, soul-crushing fuckbags. this is one move i was hoping they'd make so hooray boobies for all!

dajafi wrote:If adding Burnett for $15m or so really pushes them up against the cap, the easy solution is to trade Kendrick, as a straight salary dump if necessary. Burnett>Kendrick by more than Kendrick>Pettibone or Gaudin.

i think it would be better to trade jberry and frandsen right away, and adams (eating half his contract) the moment he looks plausibly healthy.
dump kendrick if/when m.a.g. turns out to be good.

Between Amaro and Jordan talking MAG down a bit and them apparently promising Hernandez a rotation spot, I think MAG is bullpen bound either way. So trading Kendrick is a risk. I'd still do it for Burnett to boost upside

Yep, based on the lukewarm comments on him and the restructured deal in the first place that was significantly lower that the original, I have zero expectations on MAG. Bring me red ass Burnett!

my cousin mose wrote:if they can land burnett or at the very least make it believable that they're serious about bringing him in, that signals to me that they really do believe this team can contend (which i don't know is a good thing either) and that they're not necessarily a bunch of lying, soul-crushing fuckbags. this is one move i was hoping they'd make so hooray boobies for all!

Hamels, Lee and Burnett would, at least, make things interesting this year, especially if Mag is any good.

The "good" Kyle Kendrick (i.e., 2012-13 KendricK, not the horrible pre-2012 Kendrick) has been worth 2.9 WAR combined in 12-13. Good for 64th out of 72 qualifiers.

Kendrick is completely fungible. Goodbye. Gaudin can fill those innings if needed.

phillies are 62-63 in games started by hamels and lee the last two years. :/

ReadingPhilly wrote:phillies are 62-63 in games started by hamels and lee the last two years. :/

performing better than the the team win pct in the same span

Trent Steele wrote:The "good" Kyle Kendrick (i.e., 2012-13 KendricK, not the horrible pre-2012 Kendrick) has been worth 2.9 WAR combined in 12-13. Good for 64th out of 72 qualifiers.

Kendrick is completely fungible. Goodbye. Gaudin can fill those innings if needed.

forgot about gaudin. and lincoln too. ok. i'm down with dumping kendrick. lee-hamels-burnett-pettibone-hernandez is a mighty fine rotation if p-bone is healthy and siera is right about hernandez, and gaudin-lincoln-mag is a much more promising set of backups than what we had last year after halladay, lannan, and pettibone went down.

by the way, though rubes is very, very wrong to keep suggesting that the howard and halladay and adams injuries (and papelbon and rollins?) were bad luck last year, we did get a whole bunch of truly bad luck injuries to younger players piled on top of that. the brown, revere, lannan, and pettibone injuries really hurt... in my mind those about cancel the pythagorean luck factor that so many harp on. of course, without all the extra built in injury risk of the old stars, any good luck will stretch a lot further. which is what rubes doen't get.

I don't think you can call an injury to Dom Brown as unexpected anymore.

Also, Trent, while I'm completely on your side in the dump Kendrick - 64 out of 72 seems misleading. 72 qualifiers means on average a little less than 2.5 of the 5 starters on a team are going to qualify. There's value there in being one of those. Especially when the truly awful get removed from being able to qualify (Survivorship bias).

sydnor wrote:I don't think you can call an injury to Dom Brown as unexpected anymore.

Also, Trent, while I'm completely on your side in the dump Kendrick - 64 out of 72 seems misleading. 72 qualifiers means on average a little less than 2.5 of the 5 starters on a team are going to qualify. There's value there in being one of those. Especially when the truly awful get removed from being able to qualify (Survivorship bias).

Yes, you have to qualify to be ranked and if you are awful you won't qualify.

No in the sense they are probably 15 pitchers that are much better than Kendrick bur didn't qualify that because they weren't full time starters in 2012, so the numbers overstate his performance in that regard.

I get that he's functional but almost all of his value is tied up in his health and ability to take the ball. That's worth something. It's not worth much.

i really hate the braves, cardinals, and red sox

That chart makes Rube's recent quotes about the Red Sox being a fairly "old" club fucking hilarious

yeah but their top prospect is named Xanadu Boogers

Woody wrote:That chart makes Rube's recent quotes about the Red Sox being a fairly "old" club fucking hilarious

found it

http://articles.philly.com/2014-01-29/s ... al-manager

"Was Boston a fairly old team last year? They did fairly well. They weren't a young team. They had older guys."