Rather than signing Burnett, the Yankees could have grabbed Mark Teixeira, or likely any two of Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell or Milton Bradley.

Tex would cost 50% more per season than Burnett, and be locked up 3 or 4 years longer. And the Yankees aren't getting *two* of Dunn, Burrell and Bradley for $16 million.

Tex would cost 50% more per season than Burnett, and be locked up 3 or 4 years longer.

Really? $24 million per season? Seems like he'll get a longer commitment, but it's hard to imagine he gets more per season than CC.

And the Yankees aren't getting *two* of Dunn, Burrell and Bradley for $16 million.

I'll take this bet. And none of them are signing for five years, either.

or likely any two of Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell or Milton Bradley

But A.J. Burnett seems to be a return to the unsuccessful late-1980s New York model, of overpaying veterans whose success is questionable at best.

AJ Burnett is not Ed Whitson, Andy Hawkins or Dave LaPoint.

I disagree with your premise. Signing Dunn and Burrell to compete with Nady, Damon, Matsui and possibly Posada is what the Yankees of old would have done. Pitching is a real need for the Yankees, and like Burnett or not, they filled it. Signing players similar to the ones they have and letting it sort itself out in spring training would make the Yankees guilty of stockpiling good talent that they don't need. It would also make the clubhouse a disaster, and maybe force their hands on trades they don't want to make.

There's also nothing to preclude the Yanks from now getting one of Burrell or Dunn to help out. As has been noted elsewhere, their payroll has not exceeded last year's.

This leaves Burnett as a hugely overqualified fifth starter. But with Pettitte now 36 and Wang and Chamberlain coming off of injuries, the Yankees needed to guarantee innings on the back end of the rotation, not gamble on high-risk excellence.

Of course if Burnett peforms as the Yankees hope that he will---which isn't beyond the realm of possibility---he's a lot better than a "fifth starter." Knock the signing for the injury risk, or knock it for not using the money for Teixeria, but the problem with the "innings eaters" that the Yankees have been throwing out there lately is that way too often by the time they're finished with their meal the Yanks are out of the game.

It may be a case of overreaction to last year, but it's clear that the Yankees are stockpiling starting pitchers as never before, for the very defensible reason that while three (or four) of them have ace-like qualities when they're fully healthy, not one of them has both the track record and the body type to put him in the True Ace quality. Hence the hedging of the bets with the stockpiling strategy, which includes Pettitte, Hughes and Kennedy. As is often said, you can never have enough good pitching.

AJ Burnett is not Ed Whitson, Andy Hawkins or Dave LaPoint.

We shall see. He very well may be Carl Pavano.


I disagree with your premise. Signing Dunn and Burrell to compete with Nady, Damon, Matsui and possibly Posada is what the Yankees of old would have done.

We'll agree to disagree. Dunn is far beyond the offensive player Nady, Damon or Matsui will be- and similar defensively to Matsui in particular.

Of course if Burnett peforms as the Yankees hope that he will---which isn't beyond the realm of possibility---he's a lot better than a "fifth starter." Knock the signing for the injury risk, or knock it for not using the money for Teixeria, but the problem with the "innings eaters" that the Yankees have been throwing out there lately is that way too often by the time they're finished with their meal the Yanks are out of the game.

I've knocked it for all of these reasons. It's not clear to me which innings eaters you are referring to here.

Welcome to your 1980's Yankees!

Starring CC Sabathia as Bill Gullickson...AJ Burnett as Rick Reuschel...and Markanny Ramixiera as Dack Winclark.

We'll agree to disagree. Dunn is far beyond the offensive player Nady, Damon or Matsui will be- and similar defensively to Matsui in particular.

We're not really in disagreement on that point. Your argument was that two of Dunn, Bradley, or Burrell would be better than Burnett. That's what I don't agree with. Is there any reason that the signing of Burnett would prevent them from signing Dunn?

He very well may be Carl Pavano.

They aren't similar, so I don't know why so many people think this is an astute comparison.

Which rotation would you rather have:
NYY: SABATHIA, WANG, JOBA, BURNETT, PETTITTE
BOS: LESTER, BECKETT, MATSUZAKA, WAKEFIELD, ?? (Buckholtz,
TB: KAZMIR, SHIELDS, GARZA, PRICE, SONNANSTINE

Before looking at stats, projections etc... we can agree that all three teams have very good rotations. Boston has to worry a little though. Wakefield isn't getty any younger, and they probably need to sign a 5th starter. Lowe would be very helpful, especially since his 2009 infield defense would be much better than the 2004 Red Sox defense he had.

He very well may be Carl Pavano.

They aren't similar, so I don't know why so many people think this is an astute comparison.

keith law's take on it:

I've seen Burnett compared to Carl Pavano by fans, but the comparison doesn't hold. Pavano was more injury-prone at the time he signed with the Yankees than Burnett has been; Pavano had shoulder or elbow trouble in just about every season of his career until he rattled off two straight healthy years with Florida. Pavano also had nowhere near Burnett's raw stuff, nor his ability to induce strikeouts or ground balls. It is, of course, possible that Burnett's tenure with the Yankees will resemble Pavano's; pitchers do get hurt, and Burnett has some affinity for the trainer's room. But Burnett brings an upside to the table that Pavano never did: that of a shutdown No. 1 starter who, in the Yankees' rotation, will always be pitching in the spot of a No. 2 or 3 starter

I think the Yanks would have been better off with Teixeira as their lineup is aging and the one player who isn't older is coming off a miserable season but I am surprised at all the hate at signing Burnett. The Yankees have the money to spend, have good options to replace Burnett if he gets hurt in Kennedy and Hughes, and Burnett doesn't seem all that different from Beckett to me.

But Burnett brings an upside to the table that Pavano never did: that of a shutdown No. 1 starter who, in the Yankees' rotation, will always be pitching in the spot of a No. 2 or 3 starter

So he could be Pavano.

Or he could be like another 32 year old hard throwing righty with a history of inconsistent performance and injuries. That guy with the bloody sock. (I don't really think he'll be that good..but it's certainly possible).

Is there any reason that the signing of Burnett would prevent them from signing Dunn?

Sure- assuming they have a ceiling on how much they are willing to spend. It better addresses a key need, and does so for likely less money and fewer years.

pitchers do get hurt, and Burnett has some affinity for the trainer's room. But Burnett brings an upside to the table that Pavano never did: that of a shutdown No. 1 starter who, in the Yankees' rotation, will always be pitching in the spot of a No. 2 or 3 starter

I think this is a fair point from Keith. Frankly, Pavano isn't the best comp, in my opinion. The best comp is Darren Dreifort. You do not spend that kind of money, and guarantee five years, for a guy with Burnett's injury history- especially when better options are out there, you have young pitchers you can use instead in one rotation spot (rather than three), and you have offensive needs you can and should address with that money.

Or he could be like another 32 year old hard throwing righty with a history of inconsistent performance and injuries. That guy with the bloody sock. (I don't really think he'll be that good..but it's certainly possible).

Schilling, of course, had far more success on the field and staying on the field than Burnett.

Keith Law's opinion on Burnett needs a fuller disclosure of some sort, I think.

Dreifort doesn't seem particularly accurate either

Burnett has 5 or 6 seasons that are better and more durable than anything Dreifort did.

He's a gamble, but a gamble I think the Yankees can afford to make.

I don't get all the Burnett-hating, he's a perfectly cromulent pitcher with excellent K rates. So he's getting a lot of money, but with the crap pitchers getting 10-12 million a year one can hardly say he's overpaid.

Burnett has 5 or 6 seasons that are better and more durable than anything Dreifort did.


At the time of his signing for five years, Dreifort had three seasons with more than 178 IP. Burnett, at the time of his signing, had three seasons of greater than 178 IP. Dreifort also had the advantage of doing it in his three most recent years, while for Burnett, it happened over a period of seven years. Also, Dreifort was four years younger.

So he's getting a lot of money, but with the crap pitchers getting 10-12 million a year one can hardly say he's overpaid.

The $16 million is problematic. The five years is INSANE.

Dreifort had 3 seasons in a row in the 185 IP ball-park with ERA+ of 101, 90, 105

Burnett has had 5 seasons in a row where he's averaged about 175 IP per year with ERA+ of 112, 115, 115, 119. 105

I've always thought age was a lot less important in evaluating pitchers...are pitchers more likely to break down over 32-37 than 28-33?

I say this as a Jays fan that loves to mock as many Yankee moves as possible, but this one is far from terrible, considering the Yankees financial position.

EDIT: reversed age groups there

At the time of his signing for five years, Dreifort had three seasons with more than 178 IP. Burnett, at the time of his signing, had three seasons of greater than 178 IP. Dreifort also had the advantage of doing it in his three most recent years, while for Burnett, it happened over a period of seven years. Also, Dreifort was four years younger.

Dreifort was also coming off of three years with ERA+ of 101, 90, and 105, with worse strikeout and walk rates than Burnett, despite pitching in an environment which was more favorable. Burnett, despite the distance between the years, also had three seasons above 200 IP, and well above Dreifort's career best.

The $16 million is problematic. The five years is INSANE.

Oh god yes.

But Burnett brings an upside to the table that Pavano never did: that of a shutdown No. 1 starter who, in the Yankees' rotation, will always be pitching in the spot of a No. 2 or 3 starter

I've seen this in a few places and I don't see where it comes from. Burnett's a good pitcher but his career best ERA+ is 122 and he's never been top 10 in ERA+. The last time an AL Champ had an ERA+ 122 or below was 1997. He's a good to very good pitcher, but I would define a "shutdown No. 1 starter" a lot more tightly than this definition. (and this isn't a shot at just Keith, I've seen this theory espoused in many places)

The best comp is Darren Dreifort.

This is ###### crazy.

the Yankees needed to guarantee innings on the back end of the rotation, not gamble on high-risk excellence.

It's not clear to me which innings eaters you are referring to here.

I think the second observation is probably a better one than the first. If you assume that the Yankees were going to sign a starting pitcher and not an outfielder, I don't think the guy who "guarantees innings on the back end of the rotation" is out there.

Again, leaving aside the big question of "did they need more pitching, or should they have gone after a hitter", I don't think much better than AJ was to be had.

Of course if Burnett peforms as the Yankees hope that he will---which isn't beyond the realm of possibility---he's a lot better than a "fifth starter." Knock the signing for the injury risk, or knock it for not using the money for Teixeria, but the problem with the "innings eaters" that the Yankees have been throwing out there lately is that way too often by the time they're finished with their meal the Yanks are out of the game.

I've knocked it for all of these reasons. It's not clear to me which innings eaters you are referring to here.

Oh, I dunno. Take your pick of any semi-desperation fourth and fifth starter that they Yankees have had over the past few years: Ponson, Rasner, Igawa, Wright, Brown, Chacon (who did have one great run), Pavano, Leiter, etc.

The point isn't that these guys ate all that many innings. It's that they were so bad (or injury prone) that to compare them to Burnett you'd have to assume that he's going to blow a gasket of some sort.

And maybe he will. But his upside is way above any of those I've mentioned, with the possible exception of Brown, who was unquestionably of ace-like potential, but who also was 39 when the Yankees signed him.

I am surprised at all the hate at signing Burnett. The Yankees have the money to spend

You just answered your own question. They're the only team that feels it can afford the risk at that price, and that ability to throw that kind of money at uncertainty galls an awful lot of people, mostly Communists.

The $16 million is problematic. The five years is INSANE.

Just out of curiosity, what's the Yankees' projected revenue over the next five years, compared to the rest of the league?

I don't think the guy who "guarantees innings on the back end of the rotation" is out there.

And who are these dependable "fifth starters" / "innings eaters," anyway? Almost by definition you're talking about pitchers who are never more than two or three bad starts from being dropped from the rotation. And with pitchers like that, even if they can put in their innings, much of the time in doing so they've pitched you right out of a game.

A true "innings eater" in the positive sense is a pitcher who can consistently pitch into or through the sixth, and allow no more than three or maybe four runs on average, and do it every fifth day on a predictable basis.

But such pitchers barely exist. And to the extent that they do, they're either good pitchers having a mediocre year (Mussina 2004 / 2005 / 2007) or they're pitchers with little potential upside who are always being replaced by others just as erratic (see that list of Yankees in my post above).

But Burnett brings an upside to the table that Pavano never did: that of a shutdown No. 1 starter...
I've seen this in a few places and I don't see where it comes from. Burnett's a good pitcher but his career best ERA+ is 122 and he's never been top 10 in ERA+...

Did you miss the word "upside"*?

Burnett has great stuff, Pavano didn't, if Burnett had a year where he put everything together it would be a much better year than when Pavano really did put everything together (2004).

If Burnett was an established "shutdown No. 1 starter" you wouldn't be talking about that as his upside.

* I am amused by people who IMHO mi-use "upside", you know the people who in 2008 would refer to Darin Erstad's upside as being 2000- that Erstad no longer exists, and a zillion nagging injuries later is never ever coming back. Back when the Mets traded for suMO Vaughn, a bunch of MSM writers wrote of suMo's "upside"- he had none, he was old, injured and out of shape, more than few AAAA lifers had more upside at that point.

Dreifort was also coming off of three years with ERA+ of 101, 90, and 105, with worse strikeout and walk rates than Burnett, despite pitching in an environment which was more favorable.

This doesn't reflect his huge injury risk, which is my biggest problem with the deal. No one is arguing that Burnett isn't a good pitcher when healthy.


Oh, I dunno. Take your pick of any semi-desperation fourth and fifth starter that they Yankees have had over the past few years: Ponson, Rasner, Igawa, Wright, Brown, Chacon (who did have one great run), Pavano, Leiter, etc.

These are not innings eaters. Derek Lowe, for instance, or Jason Marquis, for the very poor man's version, are innings eaters.

Again, leaving aside the big question of "did they need more pitching, or should they have gone after a hitter", I don't think much better than AJ was to be had.

I see it very differently- especially if the question is, "How am I most likely to get return on my $82 million?"

For the record, I am in no way taking issue with the Yankees spending money, as my hugely positive take on signing Sabathia for twice what Burnett got should make clear.

Howard, if the money was even, would you rather have Burnett or Oliver Perez for the next 5 years?

Oh, I dunno. Take your pick of any semi-desperation fourth and fifth starter that they Yankees have had over the past few years: Ponson, Rasner, Igawa, Wright, Brown, Chacon (who did have one great run), Pavano, Leiter, etc.

These are not innings eaters.

You mean that they weren't successful innings eaters. But you didn't know that at the time of their signings. Every one of them (except Chacon) performed below expectations, both in quality and in durability.

Derek Lowe, for instance, or Jason Marquis, for the very poor man's version, are innings eaters.

I'd love to get Lowe, too, but the problem is that the sort of "innings eaters" that we'd all love to have don't come at "innings eaters" prices. Calling Derek Lowe (122 career ERA+, 131 in 2008) an "innings eater" raises the bar to an almost comical level. You know damn well Scott Boras isn't going to see him that way, and no team is going to get him at any "fifth starter" price, either.

Burnett has great stuff, Pavano didn't, if Burnett had a year where he put everything together it would be a much better year than when Pavano really did put everything together (2004).

That 2004 is less Pavano "putting it all together" so much as "giving up an uncharacteristically low percentage of HR."

You know, I keep looking at Burnett as a guy that has the potential to be great if he puts it all together, and then I remember that he's entering his 11th ML season at age 32. It might just be that this is the guy, a pitcher who will average between 150-200 innings of 105-115 ERA+ when he's healthy, and is more likely than the average pitcher to miss time based on his injury history. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it's sure better than a 5th starter, but it's "bad" for the amount and length of the contract he got unless the Yankees get lucky.

2008 seems fairly uncharacteristic for Burnett's career, with the most innings of his career, a dramatically high K-rate, and a relatively low HR-rate. I don't see Burnett as enjoying the OF defense or the dimensions of his new park. This seems very much like a case of signing a guy for his best-case scenario, which usually leads to buyer's remorse.

If you have to pick one of them for the next five years, would you feel more comfortable with Burnett or Javier Vasquez? I think Vasquez is the better pitcher.

But Burnett brings an upside to the table that Pavano never did: that of a shutdown No. 1 starter who, in the Yankees' rotation, will always be pitching in the spot of a No. 2 or 3 starter

I keep hearing this, but don't see the evidence. Burnett has all of three shutouts since 2003. How is that "shutdown No. 1 starter" stuff? And how is that stuff evident in his seasonal totals? Burnett has never had an ERA+ above 125. For his career it's 111. I just picked a season's worth of game logs from the wonderful BBRef, at random. It's 2007. Burnett had all of one game with a game score over 70. Really, he's Jack Morris, only far, far less durable.

This doesn't reflect his huge injury risk

Please tell me what you base this on.

I'm tired of posting about how few pitchers have more IP or starts than Burnett over the last 1/2/3/4 years.

If you are basing a prediction of future durability on past durability, Burnett is no worse than average and probably above-average in terms of durability. Take quality and quantity together and he's been around the top 30 starters in baseball over the last 1/2/3/4 years.

There is no reason I can see to think that Burnett is any greater injury risk than your standard starting pitcher. And given what we know about the health record of pitchers with a huge number of innings at a young age, I wouldn't be surprised if his injury risk is lower than Sabathia's.

Ahh well, once more into the breach:

number of 2008 Yanks starters with more starts than Burnett 2008: zero
number of 2008 Yanks starters with more IP than Burnett 2008: zero

number of 2008 Yanks starters with more starts than Burnett 2007-2008: one (Pettitte)
number of 2008 Yanks starters with more IP than Burnett 2007-2008: one (Pettitte)

number of 2008 Yanks starters with more starts than Burnett 2006-2008: Pettitte & Mussina
number of 2008 Yanks starters with more IP than Burnett 2006-2008: Pettitte & Mussina

number of 2008 Yanks starters with more starts than Burnett 2005-2008: Pettitte & Mussina (barely)
number of 2008 Yanks starters with more IP than Burnett 2005-2008: Pettitte & Mussina (barely)

If only those two guys were younger and/or not retired.

Wang 2006-2008: 512 IP, roughly 120 ERA+
Burnett 2006-2008: 522 IP, roughly 112 ERA+

The main differences not shown being K-rate (Burnett's favor), current injury (Burnett's favor) and age (Wang's favor by 3 years if it matters).

Now if you want to argue that 5-year or longer deals for any pitcher are likely a bad idea, I'll happily agree. That a 5-year deal for Burnett is substantially worse than one for other pitchers, I'll disagree.

Why would Burnett's signing prevent the Yankees from also signing Teixeira AND Manny/Dunn/whoever? The only thing preventing that would be if they raised their operating margin objective massively from the past few years.

Of course if Burnett peforms as the Yankees hope that he will---which isn't beyond the realm of possibility---he's a lot better than a "fifth starter."

Some quarters might go nuts at this, but why not use him as such. It may suit the nature of his injuries, and a 115 ERA+ in the fifth spot is worth what? Three wins over a typical rotating Torch-O-Matic fifth spot?

I'm also puzzled by the five years--I didn't read the doubtlessly fine artice, but is it remotely possible the Yankee's really had to go that particular distance?

edit: I missed this:

Did you miss the word "upside"*?

Burnett has great stuff, Pavano didn't, if Burnett had a year where he put everything together it would be a much better year than when Pavano really did put everything together (2004).

If Burnett was an established "shutdown No. 1 starter" you wouldn't be talking about that as his upside.

This is the way mothers speak of their thirty year old sons who are still living at home and have part time jobs and spend a lot of time on the internet. At some point potential manifests itself as more than potential or it's merely wishful thinking. You're not a genius with electronics because of that one time it took you ninety seconds to fix the toaster.

But Burnett brings an upside to the table that Pavano never did: that of a shutdown No. 1 starter...
I've seen this in a few places and I don't see where it comes from. Burnett's a good pitcher but his career best ERA+ is 122 and he's never been top 10 in ERA+...

Did you miss the word "upside"*?

Burnett has great stuff, Pavano didn't, if Burnett had a year where he put everything together it would be a much better year than when Pavano really did put everything together (2004).

Nope, didn't miss it, I just don't see "upside" as being particularly relevant. This isn't a 27 year old still finding his way, this is a 32 year old with over 200 MLB starts. He's the pitching equivalent of Torii Hunter. Hunter has a relatively nice swing, great athletic tools, but he's never had a .300/.370/.550 season and expecting him to do that is just as unlikely as expecting Burnett to put up a 140 ERA+.

AJ's upside is probably a 33 start season with an ERA in the mid 3s, good but not exactly dominant. In fairness he doesn't have nearly the downside of injury/performance that Pavano gave and those comps are equally as foolish.

Of course if Burnett peforms as the Yankees hope that he will---which isn't beyond the realm of possibility---he's a lot better than a "fifth starter."

Some quarters might go nuts at this, but why not use him as such. It may suit the nature of his injuries, and a 115 ERA+ in the fifth spot is worth what? Three wins over a typical rotating Torch-O-Matic fifth spot?

Obviously you use him as you see fit, which should roughly match how he's pitching at any given point. Once the season gets going without the off days, it's not going to make much difference, anyway. So much of this depends not only on Burnett, but on the effectiveness of the other four starters, and trying to predict whether he'll produce like an ace (as he did every time he faced the Yanks and Boston) or a chump is a fool's game. You make adjustments as the season evolves. If only we had tomorrow's newspaper today.

Nope, didn't miss it, I just don't see "upside" as being particularly relevant. This isn't a 27 year old still finding his way, this is a 32 year old with over 200 MLB starts.

That's a mistake. Pitchers don't have the same predictable aging pattern as hitters.

Pitchers can peak at 21 or 27 or 33 or 37. Stuff matters a lot more than age.

To further the point that has been raised by a few others: What other pitchers have achieved a period of sustained success after the age of 32 that was significantly better than anything they had done prior to age 32?

In the 2004 offseason, the Yankees signed Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano; Carl for a year longer and for more money.

Wright got into 43 games, while Pavano got into 27. I'd still argue that Pavano was the more valuable member of the team; Wright's propensity for short, disastrous starts often strained the bullpen while putting games out of reach in the fourth inning. Personally, in baseball, I'd rather have a "he's good when he pitches" guy when the other choice is a "bad-good-bad" start guy.

To further the point that has been raised by a few others: What other pitchers have achieved a period of sustained success after the age of 32 that was significantly better than anything they had done prior to age 32?

Jamie Moyer. Warren Spahn?

To further the point that has been raised by a few others: What other pitchers have achieved a period of sustained success after the age of 32 that was significantly better than anything they had done prior to age 32?

Try this guy on for size sometime.

What other pitchers have achieved a period of sustained success after the age of 32 that was significantly better than anything they had done prior to age 32?

Dazzy Vance comes to mind, as does Mike Cuellar, although Cuellar's best year was actually 1966 in Houston. But this is a question for the historians.

I think Burnett's "upside" was last year, and if he's pretty near that in, say, 3 of the 5 years, and he makes some good post-season contributions if/when the Yankees are in the post-season during his contract, the Yankees will be OK with it. He doesn't have to turn into Roger Clemens to make this a good signing.

I agree with Jay Jaffe, though, in that if I were the Yankees I would be a little leery of the fact that Burnett is no longer pitching for a contract. Sure, it may be that Burnett is a true warrior and his IP totals for '06, '07 and '08 are not tied to that. But that is not the rep the guy has. Like I said in one of the 78 other Yankee off-season threads, Burnett is the JD Drew of pitching: talented, valuable, but a little fragile, considered to be a little bit of a malingerer in some quarters, simultaneously overrated and underrated.

But, I think Andy is right. Cashman wants to have viable SP options coming out of his ass, and he can afford to.

Ultimately I don't know if Burnett is a good signing or not, but I do know this: if he's healthy, he will probably be overpaid, but not TOO much.

Let's say Burnett is getting $3 to $4MM more per year than what he should be getting: that's what the Yanks are paying Igawa not to pitch for them.... (at least for the next 3 years - and yes, I know Igawa's name has come up in trade discussions with the Brewers).

I don't think Yankee fans (of which I'm one) are TOO upset about money being wasted on Igawa's salary, so I fail to see why I should be all sorts of concerned about Burnett getting an extra $3 to $4MM per year.

(BIG PROVISO - If Burnett proves to be the second coming of Pavano injury wise, this contract would definitely be the pits).

Jamie Moyer. Warren Spahn?

Spahn had a great season at 26 and from 28 to 31 performed at about the same level as he did for the remainder of his career.

Moyer was the first guy I thought of as well, but he did put up a 130 ERA+ at 30 (in only 150 innings though). Post age 32, he had a lot more years where he pitched at about that level in more innings, but he never really got much better than that.

Howard, if the money was even, would you rather have Burnett or Oliver Perez for the next 5 years?

That's an interesting question. Not a relevant one, because what Burnett got is more than what Oliver Perez is currently asking for and won't get, but an interesting one. The guy who is five years younger without the injury history is enticing to me, the innings in 07-08 are close and so are the ERA+ marks.

One thing for certain: I'd want Perez for what he ends up getting far sooner than Burnett for what he ends up getting.


If you are basing a prediction of future durability on past durability, Burnett is no worse than average and probably above-average in terms of durability.

Walt, he's been above 165 innings, which is not by anyone's standard a full season, 4 times in his career by age 32, and posted ERA+ marks of 104, 122, 115 and 105 in those seasons. I have no reason to believe that either his full-season performances will improve, or that he's likely to have more of them after age 32 than before. While some pitchers have improved with age, they are notable because THEY ARE THE EXCEPTIONS.

Wang 2006-2008: 512 IP, roughly 120 ERA+
Burnett 2006-2008: 522 IP, roughly 112 ERA+

Is your point that because Burnett has pitched slightly more than a pitcher who missed more than half a season in 2008 and a month in 2007, that he's a good risk not to be injured? No one here is advocating signing Wang to a five-year, $82 million deal, but at least with Wang he's younger. But comparing him to the 2005-2008 Yankee rotation is pointless- none of those guys are a good idea to sign for five years, $82 million either!

Put it this way: if you're so happy with Burnett's health, Walt, would you take the last five years as your next five? That's an average of 170 innings, only two healthy seasons in five. ERA+ of 115 and 105 in the healthy years. And you're paying $16 million for the privilege per year. Of course, that's assuming he's just as healthy in age 32-26 as he was 27-31- and just as effective.

I'd love to get Lowe, too, but the problem is that the sort of "innings eaters" that we'd all love to have don't come at "innings eaters" prices.

But you can get Lowe, it appears, without having to go the fifth year. For the right per-year price, you might get him for three. So while he's older than I'd like, you'd minimize the long-term commitment, and make it to a pitcher who has displayed the ability to throw full seasons consistently.

I think what it comes down to is that for all the discussions at the margins, a pitcher who hasn't stayed healthy with any consistency through age 32 is a terrible bet to stay healthy after age 32. No one is saying it CAN'T happen. I just wouldn't want to bet five years of money that can be used on far likelier ways to help my team.

Ultimately I don't know if Burnett is a good signing or not, but I do know this: if he's healthy, he will probably be overpaid, but not TOO much.

And I think the Yankees, should Burnett be healthy for the duration of his contract, should have no cause for complaint. It's the staying healthy part that seems unlikely to me.

What other pitchers have achieved a period of sustained success after the age of 32 that was significantly better than anything they had done prior to age 32?

Jason Schmidt was 30 when he broke out, but he's the guy I think of when I think of Burnett's potential upside.

I think what it comes down to is that for all the discussions at the margins, a pitcher who hasn't stayed healthy with any consistency through age 32 is a terrible bet to stay healthy after age 32. No one is saying it CAN'T happen. I just wouldn't want to bet five years of money that can be used on far likelier ways to help my team.

You may be right about this, Howie, but the beauty of it is that they've still got plenty of money left over to go after whomever they want.

You may be right about this, Howie, but the beauty of it is that they've still got plenty of money left over to go after whomever they want.

If this is true, then obviously the paramets change. But it sure doesn't sound like they have room to add, say, Teixeira and Manny, or Teixeira and Dunn. The latter would be my preference.

In other words, there appears to be some either/or here, and the Yankees seem determined to keep payroll around $180 million. So $16 million is a big chunk of that, even in The Bronx.

But it sure doesn't sound like they have room to add, say, Teixeira and Manny, or Teixeira and Dunn.

Why would this team want to add a high priced DH? Dunn isn't that good (barely, if at all better than Matsui) and Manny is old and bizarre. I don't think the Yanks wanted to add a DH on top of Tex and I don't think it's a good idea. If they ever finalize the Cameron thing, then Tex at first is more than enough. I'm not thrilled about Burnett, but I'm happier about this signing then I would be about giving big money to Manny or to signing Dunn on top of Tex. If Tex goes elsewhere and Dunn is a consolation prize, that's something else.

Dunn isn't that good (barely, if at all better than Matsui)

Really?

Dunn OPS+ 2007: 136 in 152 games
Dunn OPS+ 2008: 129 in 158 games

Matsui OPS+ 2007: 123 in 143 games
Matsui OPS+ 2008: 108 in 93 games

Dunn is six years younger, not coming off of two knee surgeries, and was far better last season in roughly twice as many games.

Are there any credible reports that the Yankees are even players in the Teixeira sweepstakes? My biggest issue with the Burnett signing (other than the fact he's not really good OR really durable but is being paid like he is) was that I was afraid it would prevent the Yankees from pursuing Tex.

Dunn is six years younger, not coming off of two knee surgeries, and was far better last season in roughly twice as many games.

And when Matsui is healthy, he consistently produces ~120 OPS+s in the AL (he spent the first half of the year being the Yanks second best hitter before the knee finally caught up with him). Which is a little less that what Dunn is going to give you. And Matsui has a much better work ethic and attitude than Dunn so it's not really even a tough decision for me. If the choice is Matsui for one year at 13 mil or Dunn at 4 or 6 for what ever he signs at (12-16 I would guess), I'll take the "risk" on Matsui rather than waste a lot of money and a long term contract on a redundant DH. If the Yanks are looking for a first baseman, then you sign Dunn, you don't sign both Dunn and Tex, that's a horrible waste of resources.