Why The Pirates Should Trade For A.J. Burnett

Maybe they shouldn't now if Yankees are being like this.

New York is insistent on getting the “right players” in a Burnett trade, tweets Marc Carig of the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Carig’s source notes that this is “not a give away” of Burnett, and says that the two sides intend to keep working toward a deal

by BigB2323 on Feb 13, 2012 11:03 AM EST reply actions

We'll see where this ends up

I feel like this is just posturing by the Yankees. They know the Pirates want the guy, but they don’t HAVE to trade him. If they say things like this, then make the trade, they can say that they got the guys they wanted, even though they may be low level C prospects. I think if they pull the trigger too quickly it looks more like a pure salary dump. We’ll see, I guess.

by Wizard of Woz on Feb 13, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions

i think bud has to give his blessing.

the amount coming off the books vs. the luxury tax

by karreemofwheat on Feb 13, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

Good point

This would be a great way for them to avoid some luxury taxation.

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass

by glass0941 on Feb 13, 2012 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

This has been brought up before

but the Yankees, unlike the Pirates, own the media in their town and they really use that to their advantage. The team wants it put out there that the Yankees are making a baseball-motivated move and not just a salary dump. I can’t blame them for this. Nobody likes salary dumps (even teams with $200M payrolls). My guess is that the Pirates will wind up paying $12M over 2 years (six mil per season is not bad for 200 decent innings) and give up a prospect that you have heard of, but don’t really care about losing.

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 11:53 AM EST up reply actions

I dont understand

the idea that the Yankees want to avoid the appearance that they’re simply dumping salary. Why should they care if their fans think they are trying to get rid of a bloated contract? From my understanding, Burnett is almost universally loathed by Yankee fans, so they will likely see his departure as a great thing, and the fact that the Yankees have to pay off a huge chunk of his remaining salary is just the cost of getting rid of a guy they don’t want.

The point about using the media is a good one though, but I think the real angle would be that the Yankees want to make it appear as if the Pirates aren’t offering enough. If they can get all the talking heads saying that the Pirates are being unreasonable or that the Pirates need to offer more money and some real prospects that might pressure the Pirates to up the ante. I don’t actually think it would work, but who knows.

by gorillagogo on Feb 13, 2012 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

Dumping salary

is the same thing as the team waving a white flag and saying ‘we give up!’ this contract is killing us and we were stupid for signing it! If the Yankees could get back one of the underperfoming Q’s (Miller or Latimore for example) they could could at least claim that they made a baseball move and not a financial one…

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 12:51 PM EST up reply actions

I really think

you’re taking this too seriously. Everyone knows the Yankees were stupid for signing the deal. Yankee fans know that the team doesn’t need to get rid of the contract to make ends meet. I think it’s pretty well established that the Yankees primary motivation is to eliminate or at least reduce the amount they owe for the luxury tax. I think the new CBA dictates that teams pay progressively higher rates the longer they are above the luxury tax threshold, so if the Yankees can get under for one year they can go right back over it the next year as a first time offender.

by gorillagogo on Feb 13, 2012 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

As my best friend (A Yankee fan) put it...

“Dude, I’ll trade you Burnett for you guys eating his salary and a pack of cigarettes.”

www.stealingfirstbase.com

by Nate Rose on Feb 13, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions

and so would the Yankees, but no one is going to take anything close to $33m

by Mr. E on Feb 13, 2012 5:30 PM EST up reply actions

heck with that

I’m not eating a pack of cigarettes. Nasty.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 13, 2012 10:23 PM EST up reply actions

You know,

a rotation where McDonald is your worst starter (Morton, Karstens, Bedard, Burnett) starts to look pretty damn good.

Get. It. Done.

by bucdaddy on Feb 13, 2012 11:45 AM EST reply actions

Id say JMac is your number 3

Karstens is probably your worst because of his stuff, and he’s the most likely to come back to earth… Just my opinion though.

by BigB2323 on Feb 13, 2012 11:51 AM EST up reply actions

i tend to agree with that

But is Karstens a bad 5th starter? Not at all! I think he’s in the middle of how good he was last year and how replacement level he was before that. I think he’ll surprise some ppl this year because everyone expects such regression out of him. His arm will be stronger and more ready to go as a starter. This goes for Jmac and Morton too. Lots of reasons to be encouraged.

Our rotation overall IMO (with the addition of Burnett bc i think that definitely happens)
would prob grade as league average in NL (this isnt necessarily a horrible thing). We lack clear cut aces but we don’t have any dead weight either or weak points. We also have some room for upside prob more so than a lot of rotations.

by Mingy on Feb 13, 2012 12:26 PM EST up reply actions

I'm personally not a big believer in Karstens

if the Burnett deal gets done and nobody in the rotation gets hurt, I have a feeling that Brad Lincoln will have replaced Karstens in the rotation by mid-late May…

by KentuckyPirate on Feb 13, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

I think McDonald will be our best pitcher this season.

by bolton on Feb 13, 2012 3:07 PM EST up reply actions

I think the addition of Burnett would give us at least five completely unpredictable starters.

Not actually affiliated with whygavs.

by WHYG Zane Smith on Feb 13, 2012 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

i got all tingley

by white angus on Feb 13, 2012 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

This is why I generally like FanGraphs

They also had an excellent piece on the Josh Hamilton story when that was out a while ago, regarding people keeping the proper perspective on who he is outside of baseball. Well written, well thought out, and I basically agree. Let’s do it.

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass

by glass0941 on Feb 13, 2012 11:51 AM EST reply actions

I said this over there

but don’t think I – or anyone else, although God knows what’s all been said in 1,000 comments on this topic – have said it here:

Burnett would be here in 2013 as well. And in 2013, his marginal 3 wins (we hope) actually could be the difference between also-ran and contender, or contender and champion.

Players who figure to be regulars by July 1, 2013:
Marte
Sanchez (fingers crossed)
Cole

Guys who could help out at some point in 2013 (possibly by being traded to fill holes):
Grossman
Mercer
Taillon
various pitchers currently in AA and AAA

That’s a lot of talent arriving (10 wins? 15 wins?), and adding 3 wins to it could really put the team over the top. No way to know what the division will look like by then, but I don’t see the Cubs coming together that quickly, nor do I think the Brewers, with their weak farm system, will be any stronger. Which leaves us with the aging Cards and the Reds. Certainly no reason to think that we need 95 wins.

by JRoth95 on Feb 13, 2012 12:15 PM EST reply actions

Fair points

If the Cards can stay healthy in 2013, they could have an elite staff with Wainwright and Carpenter (assuming they age well), along with Shelby Miller probably making an impact. I don’t see the Reds retaining half of what they have right now, and although the Cubs have infinite resources, we’ll see what Theo wants to do. From my perspective, he’s not gonna go huge next winter.

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass

by glass0941 on Feb 13, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions

81 wins

If Burnett is acquired, and manages to have a solid year, the Bucs have a shot at ending the losing streak before it hits 20. That’s an 11 game improvement from 2011, which featured a 15 game difference from 2010.

Not reaching 20 seasons of consecutive losing would be huge for the organization, and everyone who has supported this team over many difficult seasons. The Orioles, at 15 or 16 losing seasons, would be the ones taking the heat. It would be so refreshing to read any story about the Bucs without seeing the embarrassing record near the top of the article.

Getting this monkey off the back of this franchise, so the page is turned is absolutely crucial moving forward toward respectability and contention.

by SteelStealth on Feb 13, 2012 12:32 PM EST reply actions

Speaking of Trades MLBtheShow12 Screen shot offers this one lol

by BigB2323 on Feb 13, 2012 1:47 PM EST reply actions

Haha

I saw that one a few weeks ago on Operation Sports and my immediate reaction was, “I guess I’ll be raising Pedro’s attributes.”

by King Oskar on Feb 13, 2012 2:46 PM EST up reply actions

haha thats ugly, a RP no less

by BigB2323 on Feb 13, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

teams pay progressively higher rates the longer they are above the luxury tax threshold

I keep reading people making this comment. It was my understanding that teams had until 2015-16 to get under that threshold. Unless of course I’m misremembering(apologies to Mr. Clemens).

by Enchinga on Feb 13, 2012 2:31 PM EST reply actions

Isn't this a done deal yet?

Geesh…let’s get to liking/hating how much we are going to pay Burnett and how much we liked/hated the prospect(s) we gave up.

Thanks…

by Brakeman8 on Feb 13, 2012 2:34 PM EST reply actions

This has prob been said before

But i think this move not getting done would piss off yankee fans more than pirate fans so the media exposure would turn out to be a bad thing

by tbote123 on Feb 13, 2012 2:44 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Fair point

But Jon Heyman has tweeted it’s still likely to get done. He says we’ll pick up 13-15 million, plus give up 2 non-roster guys. Which leaves a lot of generalities to it.

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass

by glass0941 on Feb 13, 2012 4:55 PM EST up reply actions

Awesome! A little bit of news before I log-off for the day!

Good to know it’s still looking like a go!

I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson

by Cheap Beer on Feb 13, 2012 4:58 PM EST up reply actions

the amount appears nondecreasing

hmm

by BurgherKing on Feb 13, 2012 5:10 PM EST up reply actions

more money means less than-less than stellar prospects going the other way

by white angus on Feb 13, 2012 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

2 prospects

do we even have 2 completely non-interesting guys? I mean, I guess I wouldnt be upset if Zac Foster and Noah Krol headed to NY, but I suspect it’s much more likely to be guys like Calvin Anderson and Evan Chambers. I’d want to eat less than 13M for those guys.

by BurgherKing on Feb 13, 2012 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

Not Sure Why We Didn't Just

keep Maholm for about the same money we’ll be giving to Burnett. He’s younger, healthier, a lefty, and wouldn’t have cost ANY prospects.

Unless someone thinks Burnett is suddenly going to regain his form of several years ago pitching for a non-contender.

by MazHOF on Feb 13, 2012 3:25 PM EST reply actions

He’s younger, might be healthier, a lefty, ~~and~~ wouldn’t have cost ANY prospects, might have been more expensive and has lower upside

Fixed that for you.

by BurgherKing on Feb 13, 2012 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

You really think...

a 35 year old pitcher with a history of major arm problems has more upside than Maholm??? Maholm was an adequate SP for the Bucs. I don’t see Burnett putting up better numbers.

To white angus – how do you know Maholm wouldn’t have taken a 2 year deal worth around 12 million to return? He signed with the Cubs – not a contender!

by MazHOF on Feb 14, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions