- This topic has 62 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Which is fine with me. Whatever the market pays.
I don’t see the big reason to move Burleson out of RF so fast. He seems good out there. Second half here and in Memphis will answer a lot of these questions.
PadsFS, Burleson will be fine in either RF or 1B in the Cardinals lineup next season. As long as he keeps hitting, consistently. He’s probably a fairly high level DH if that’s where he ends up. However, Burly seems to prefer a defensive position in the lineup. Frankly, I don’t feel he has come close to peaking, as yet, as a hitter. I know some probably get tired of me talking about Burleson. But his production and enthusiasm are so refreshing to me as a Cardinals fan. However, I’ll try to slow down on the Burly posts. lol
AdM, just curious, what are your “high standards” for Gorman and Walker? And how do you rate their potential/production compared to Burleson. Who seem to be far more critical of. Would Burleson even be lineup, right now, if you were “running the show”?
KCB, there’s been as lot of rent free stuff going around with others, too, for the last couple years. It’s kind of like Brian indicated. Just ignore if it’s not to another poster’s liking/standards. Brian has things under control here. But it sometimes got nasty elsewhere. The Cardinal Nation is so refreshing, conduct-wise.
My poor posting skills were evident in this other attempt. Let me try again. AdM, just curious, what are your “high standards” for Gorman and Walker? Both, highly-acclaimed 1st round picks.And how do you rate their potential/production compared to Burleson’s. You seem to be far more critical of Burleson than Gorman and Walker. Would Burleson even be in the lineup, right now, if you were “running the show”?
At the risk of rewarding yet another entirely pretextual new thread that turns out to be just more “Burly-bait”:
Burleson is not “fine” defensively. Last year, he was at -6/-4 fielding RAA (FG/BR) in just 493.1 innings. That’s not good. This year, he’s at -2.3/-2 in just 357.1 innings. Also not good. Simply put, he is slow (11th percentile in statcast sprint speed) and therefore has poor range, and that isn’t going to change.
The best argument for Burleson at 1B is the one you’re not making: cost–he’s cheap (for now) per unit of production. Given his defensive and positional value, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that he lands somewhere in the 115-120 OPS+ range, he’d be roughly a 2 WAR player, which is the benchmark for an average MLB starter. Normally, that wouldn’t be good enough at 1B for a playoff caliber team, but Burleson will only cost around $800K next year, so in that scenario he’d generate about $15mm of surplus value (approx. $16mm of FA mkt value of production minus about $1mm in salary), which the Cardinals could then redeploy toward other areas of potentially greater need.
Said differently, an average starter making $800k is inherently valuable, until he reaches arbitration and becomes more expensive. Even if he winds up being less than a 115-120 OPS+ type hitter, he’ll be a below-average starter, but will still have meaningful surplus value (for now) because of his low cost.
which the Cardinals could then redeploy toward other areas of potentially greater need.
Cardinals will most likely be cutting payroll next year due to decreased ticket sales/concessions.
Cardinals will most likely be cutting payroll next year due to decreased ticket sales/concessions.
All the more reason to take advantage of / arbitrage the surplus-value of a pre-arb player. I’m talking about the allocation/use of surplus value, not raw payroll dollars. 2 WAR from Goldschmidt cost $13mm per win, whereas 2 WAR from Burleson cost $400k per win.
I’m talking about the allocation/use of surplus value
There is no “surplus value” if the money is not reallocated to shore up other parts of the team.
I agree – Burleson is likely our 1B next year, due to the fact he will be making the minimum, and the Cardinals are unlikely to invest in the position.
Forget the war. Forget the salary. Who do you want to play first base tonight? Goldy or Burly? You can’t have both in the lineup. Which do you want?
There’s a lot of room to maneuver between $26mm (Goldschmidt’s salary), $16mm (the FA mkt value of 2 wins), and $800k (Burleson’s salary), it’s not a purely binary payroll decision. If we define surplus value as the delta between the FA mkt value of production and a player’s current salary, then there is “surplus value” in various parts of the roster irrespective of the overall team payroll. Payroll is at least partly fungible: the Cardinals could theoretically save $25mm ($26mm minus $800K) at 1B next year and still get similar production, going from a significant deficit at that position to a significant surplus. They could then pocket all of that savings, or they could use some percentage of it to address other areas of need and pocket the rest (and still reduce overall payroll).
If one thinks Burleson is a 2 WAR player going forward (I think the jury is still out), then swapping out Goldschmidt for Burleson creates a lot more flexibility next year, all else equal.
If we define surplus value as the delta between the FA mkt value of production and a player’s current salary, then there is “surplus value” in various parts of the roster irrespective of the overall team payroll.
The difference in our statements is that I base my statements in economics, you base them on what you learn on baseball sites.
Next season. install Burleson at 1B. Use the saved Goldschmidt money on another much needed quality starting pitcher. It’s a no-brainer.
Use the saved Goldschmidt money on another much needed quality starting pitcher. It’s a no-brainer.
All 5 multi-million dollar pitchers are back next year, and the Cardinals are likely decreasing payroll next year as a result of decreased revenue this year.
Not to mention, Gray’s salary goes up quite a bit next year.
The difference in our statements is that I base my statements in economics, you base them on what you learn on baseball sites.
Seriously? What are you talking about? In the scenario we’re discussing, the Cardinals are going to save a net $25mm at 1B alone–do “economics” tell you that they must pocket either 100% or 0% of the savings, with no other options in between? Apparently, you are convinced the Cardinals are going to dramatically reduce payroll next year. That’s fine. But alternative scenarios where they pocket something other than a perfect 100% of the savings are also based in “economics,” they just use different assumptions. The real difference in our statements is I don’t pretend to know with certainty where the Cardinals will set their payroll next year.
LACF said:
All 5 multi-million dollar pitchers are back next year…
That is possible but not a given. The team has 2025 options on Lynn and Gibson. We don’t know where the two pitchers will be at the end of this season (health and performance) and if the team will pick up the options.
Arenado’s contract: 2025 – $32M ($5M paid by Rockies)
2026 – $27M ($5M paid by Rockies)
2027 – $15M
I think Arenado is tradeable.Next year’s infield: 1B Burleson
2B Gorman
SS Winn
3B Donovan
This may lack that ‘veteran’s presence’. But it sheds $53M of payroll ($27M, Arenado and $26M, Goldschmidt)mudville. Donovan is so solid in LF. It’s hard to move him from there. Though he is very steady at some other defensive positions, too. Don’t count Saggese out at 2B or 3B by next season. He has a lot of natural hitting ability with some “pop”.
I do not think Arenado’s contract is tradeable unless we eat a chunk of the contract or give up a valuable prospect with him. If Arenado isn’t playing up to par for the money he is earning and the Cards don’t want him, why would another org willingly take on that money? Other owners aren’t going to be charity for the Cards and take $27 million while also giving up a player for him. Arenado would have to be playing at a level that is closer to justifying his cost, and if he is, then the Cards also have no reason to trade him.
Probably have to pencil in Walker for the OF next season. That puts the OF potential at Walker, Donovan, Edman, Siani, Nootbaar, Carlson, Burleson, Scott, and Koperniak.
If they move Burleson to 1B, as I suspect they will, it leaves only 2B open. As Gscottar said, that leaves 2B as an open competition between Edman, Gorman, and Donovan.
Defensively it is Walker. He was absolutely horrendous in the OF at first, but improved thoughout the year. He looked decent out there early this year and still looks like he could improve more and be average defensively. Walker is very athletic while Burly is not at all. Unfortunately Burly doesn’t look to have much room to improve out there.
Bccran’s list is quite optimistic. I’m pretty sure Carlson will be traded. We were too aggressive with Scott and he looks lost in AAA so I wouldn’t count on him. Koperniak may be a decent backup OF, but will probably be depth. Burly likely needs to be 1B/DH full time.
I see 5 OFs on the roster being in contention next year. Donovan, Siani, Nootbaar, Edman, Walker. I could see all 5 making the roster, but with Donovan or Edman not being a starter, but a very valuable super util or even full time 2B. Probably too early to have an idea anyway as we need to how players develop this year and see what we can obtain in the off-season.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.