Scale of 1-5 (5 being great, 1 being awful) how do you rate the Burnett signing?
| 5 |  69 (20.72%) |
| 4 | 167 (50.15%) |
| 3 | 74 (22.22%) |
| 2 | 13 (3.90%) |
| 1 | 10 (3.00%) |
333 votes | 12 featured comments
If there's only one "1" vote at the end of this, it's me.
Condolences, Mike. I'm at a "3" for now - if this leads to Chacin being dealt for the likes of Gomes, I'll be moving up... if it leads to Bush being dealt for the likes of Mench, I'll be joining you.
Is anyone else not sure how much better the Jays will be next year, even with the signings and some potential trades? I'm concerned that buying won't necessarily work (see Rangers, Texas; Phillies, Philadelphia; or Mets, New York) and that Rogers will have a big payroll and less fans than previously (disappointments are worse at the box office than teams which every win is a bonus and people view them as improving).
I wish we had these polls when Hinske, Koskie and Batista signed their contracts. Right now Mike G is the only one that can say 'I told you so' if this contract turns out to be a bad one.
I'm with you on Mench, Jonny. He hit .254/.317/.452 on the road last year. Man, that ballpark in Texas.
On a related note, here are Hank Blalock's splits from 2005: home - .297/.361/.534; road - .231/.276/.335. Wow.
if this leads to Chacin being dealt for the likes of Gomes, I'll be moving up... if it leads to Bush being dealt for the likes of Mench, I'll be joining you.
Same here. If a bat comes along later, I'll maybe go to a 4. If the lineup from last year remains, I'm falling down to a 2. We'll know by Opening Day, I suppose.
I gave it a "2".
Am I excited that the Blue Jays landed a top Free Agent? Yes.
Do I think this is a good signing? No.
Am I excited that the Blue Jays landed a top Free Agent? Yes.
Do I think this is a good signing? No.
Yeah, I'm with King Ryan and gave it a 2.
Is it good we got 2 out of the 3 top free agents we were targeting? Yes.
Were we targeting the right FA at the right price? Maybe not.
Essentially, I feel (intuitively) without doing the numbers that each of the contracts (BJ and AJ) is about a 50/50 deal. There is about a 50% chance that it will be a slight overpay and nothing too bad will happen (by which I mean we get at least 4 seasons worth of pitching at least 3 of which are excellent for our money). But there is a 50% chance the deals are disasters (by which I mean we get nothing for the last two seasons of the contract).
How bad of a disaster and how bad the overspending will be is yet to be seen. The other big gamble is on the future economics of the game. If players salaries continue to go up at about 10% a year and if the Jays team annual salary budget in 2008-2010 is $100+m then the overspending and the disaster case can much better be handled. If we were to go back to a $50m payroll come 2008-2010 then even if BJ and AJ in those years pitched like they did last year we may be in trouble.
Is it good we got 2 out of the 3 top free agents we were targeting? Yes.
Were we targeting the right FA at the right price? Maybe not.
Essentially, I feel (intuitively) without doing the numbers that each of the contracts (BJ and AJ) is about a 50/50 deal. There is about a 50% chance that it will be a slight overpay and nothing too bad will happen (by which I mean we get at least 4 seasons worth of pitching at least 3 of which are excellent for our money). But there is a 50% chance the deals are disasters (by which I mean we get nothing for the last two seasons of the contract).
How bad of a disaster and how bad the overspending will be is yet to be seen. The other big gamble is on the future economics of the game. If players salaries continue to go up at about 10% a year and if the Jays team annual salary budget in 2008-2010 is $100+m then the overspending and the disaster case can much better be handled. If we were to go back to a $50m payroll come 2008-2010 then even if BJ and AJ in those years pitched like they did last year we may be in trouble.
I'm one of the many in the "4" camp.
Looking at it from all angles it is interesting. We got a solid starter who could be a #1 in exchange for money and a 3rd round draft pick. Some financial flexibility is lost, but it also frees up Batista and/or Lilly to be traded. 5 would be if he was a 3 year deal for under $30 million, ie: a steal. 3 would be if he was a middle of the road pitcher signed for middle of the road money.
I tend to go with signing star quality for big bucks and letting the mediocre go free unless they are very cheap. IE: I'd sign A-Rod at $25 million but not someone like, oh, Hillenbrand at $5 million. To me, Burnett could be star quality, thus worth the bucks (4 full seasons, all above 100 in ERA+). Esteban Loaiza though should be mediocre and not worth it.
Looking at it from all angles it is interesting. We got a solid starter who could be a #1 in exchange for money and a 3rd round draft pick. Some financial flexibility is lost, but it also frees up Batista and/or Lilly to be traded. 5 would be if he was a 3 year deal for under $30 million, ie: a steal. 3 would be if he was a middle of the road pitcher signed for middle of the road money.
I tend to go with signing star quality for big bucks and letting the mediocre go free unless they are very cheap. IE: I'd sign A-Rod at $25 million but not someone like, oh, Hillenbrand at $5 million. To me, Burnett could be star quality, thus worth the bucks (4 full seasons, all above 100 in ERA+). Esteban Loaiza though should be mediocre and not worth it.
I voted 3. He alone makes the team better but more inflexible in future offseasons.
The big factor is what dominos now fall. Who else will be added, and who may be subtracted, from this team?
The big factor is what dominos now fall. Who else will be added, and who may be subtracted, from this team?
I hear you guys on the financial flexibility issue - but look at it this way:
If the Jays signed him for 3 or 4 years would you be worried? Not likely. Well, JP will almost certainly be able to trade AJ or BJ after 3 or 4 years for some pretty good players (see Billy Beane a la Mulder and Hudson). In fact, rather than lose them for nothing as free agents - he is likely just do that.
The real issue therefore is not flexibility, it is risk - that AJ or BJ will suffer a major injury or substantially lose effectiveness. Then they are big millstones around JP's neck. If they can fling it up there in the mid 90's someone will always trade for them.
If the Jays signed him for 3 or 4 years would you be worried? Not likely. Well, JP will almost certainly be able to trade AJ or BJ after 3 or 4 years for some pretty good players (see Billy Beane a la Mulder and Hudson). In fact, rather than lose them for nothing as free agents - he is likely just do that.
The real issue therefore is not flexibility, it is risk - that AJ or BJ will suffer a major injury or substantially lose effectiveness. Then they are big millstones around JP's neck. If they can fling it up there in the mid 90's someone will always trade for them.
I voted 3 and took the easy way out. However, my feeling is that at the end of the contract, it will likely be a 5 or a 1. This is a risk, one that may pay off handsomely or be a huge dead weight in the budget. We'll see.