1. Jason @ IIATMS said...

    In order for the Yanks to be “burned”, they will have to feel pain over a bad contract.  Show me once when a bad contract has prevented them from doing something they want. 

    If you drop a $20 bill on the ground and don’t notice it until later, you might be angry about it but you’re not changing your financial planning as a result. 

    That said, I’m still surprised that a 46 year old got a 2 year contract.  I need to keep working on my knuckleball since I have a bunch of years left in my eligibility.

  2. Craig Calcaterra said...

    Adam: yes, it’s a serious post.  Why do you think it isn’t?  My view is that Moyer will come closer to justifying a two year deal than Burnett will to justifying a five year deal.  Your mileage may vary, but if so, tell us why.

    Jason: point taken, so maybe “burned” is the wrong word in the Yankees’ case.  On an objective level, however, I think Moyer earns his keep better than Burnett does.

  3. Adam said...

    I think a 32 year old with elite stuff and one serious arm injury 5 years ago has a much better chance at being successful over a 5 year period than a 46 year old that throws 52 MPH does over 2 years.  Call me crazy.

  4. Craig Calcaterra said...

    You’re not crazy, Adam. You may actually be right.  I just have a gut feeling about Burnett (really scientific, I know).  That’s why they play the games.

  5. Matt said...

    When you’re a little older you’ll know the fun part is that Jamie Moyer will be 48 in two years, which is very important to all those who will be 47 in two years.

  6. Aaron said...

    For all the talk of the Yankees unlimited resources, they certainly seem to have their limits. Otherwise, Tex would be locked up, wouldn’t he?

  7. APBA Guy said...

    APBA Guy-

    I’ll dispense with the collective moaning in the Bay Area over Furcal going to the Braves to actually address the subject of Craig’s post.

    Yes, the post is pure speculation based on subjective belief. So what?

    At some level, we all agree that unless you are a Yankees fan, you hate them because they are rich and successful. They absolutely can afford to have Burnett pitch an average of 16 starts a year and 100 innings at a 4.40 ERA over the next 5 years. That’s way more than they got from Carl Pavano.

    What was their alternative?

    1) Go with Hughes, Kennedy & Igawa. Tried that.
    2) Sign Derek Lowe. When last seen in the American League East, he was effective, not dominating, and is going to be 36 this year while wanting 3-4 years on a deal.
    3) Trade or sign a second tier free-agent starter. If they missed bats like Burnett they wouldn’t be second-tier.

    The Yankees can afford the risk. Burnett’s stuff is electric. The risk is how many games he’ll start. That’s why they are keeping Hughes and Kennedy. They are plan B.

    To use a Bay area example, look at how the A’s dealt with Rich Harden. They waited till he was healthy, relatively, and traded him to a “big” club. The A’s could not afford to have $ 9M unproductive dollars on the payroll. The Cubs could. When Harden pitched for the Cubs, he was brilliant. The gamble worked for them. Last year.

    The Yankees will look at Burnett just like the Cubs did at Harden. It’s a risk, but the upside is tremendous, and they can afford the downside.

  8. Preston said...

    Burnett’s stuff is electric, by all accounts, but his performance has never lived up to it.  His best single season ERA+ was 122 (in 2002), good but hardly ace material, and his career ERA+ is 111 (ditto).  At age 32, that’s not likely to improve over the next 5 seasons, so don’t get your hopes up about that tremendous upside.  He’s a #2 or 3 who makes you think he should be a #1 at times (and of course the Yankees can afford to pay him like a borderline #1).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>