Where will top pitching prize Burnes land in free agency? Let's debate
Hot Stove season won’t start for a while, but it’s never too early to begin speculating on the futures of high-profile free agents who, after the World Series, will hit the open market.
MLB.com gathered for a roundtable discussion about one of the top pitchers headed for free agency – Orioles right-hander Corbin Burnes.
Alyson Footer, moderator/editor: Corbin Burnes’ pending free agency is shaping up to be one of the most intriguing storylines of the upcoming offseason. He has been spectacular at the top of the rotation for the Orioles in his walk year -- other than a little bit of a hiccup over a couple of starts in August. We’re going to examine several teams that might have a chance to sign him. But let’s do a pop quiz. Quick -- what’s the first team that pops into your mind as the front-runner to sign him? Go!
Mark Feinsand, senior national reporter: Orioles. At least they better be.
Jake Rill, Orioles beat reporter: Mets.
Anthony DiComo, Mets beat reporter: Orioles spring to mind first. But that's inertia.
Footer: Let's start with the Orioles. I have read varying perspectives on this. One theory is they won't be able to come up with the money their competitors will have to offer.
Feinsand: David Rubenstein is still in the honeymoon phase for a new owner. The Orioles finally acquired the ace they sorely needed, so to let him walk over money would be a shame. Burnes is such a good fit with that team, it seems like a perfect guy to give a big contract to. And with so many young players who won’t get PAID for at least 3-5 years, it would seem to fit well into their payroll structure.
DiComo: Well, that's the problem with Baltimore. The Orioles rarely go top-market to sign guys, and Burnes is clearly the best pitcher we've seen on the open market in a bit. I just think you can never count out a player's previous employer, except in very rare cases. And if the O's make a deep October run? Maybe the two sides bond even more.
Feinsand: If the Orioles let him walk over money, fans will not be happy. Unless, of course, another owner (Steve Cohen, for example), just overwhelms Burnes with an over-the-top offer.
Rill: Well, the O's haven't signed a single free agent to a multi-year deal since Mike Elias became general manager in November 2018. If they're going to bring back Burnes, that will obviously have to change, because Burnes is going to land a big multi-year deal from some team -- and unless there's a substantial shift in mindset, that isn't going to be the Orioles.
But they should have much more financial flexibility than in the past. Rubenstein has publicly stated he'll be yielding to Elias on baseball decisions, and it's quite possible he'll be willing to hand out some big checks moving forward. Of course, Elias may caution Rubenstein when it comes to multi-year contracts, opting to instead operate the way he always has. Money is no longer the issue it once was, though.
Feinsand: I get what Jake is saying, but…
It’s possible that Elias hasn’t signed any multi-year free agents because he didn’t think the Orioles were ready to win. Now that we have seen them contend for two straight seasons, it’s time. Think about what the Cubs and Astros did during their rebuilds. Jon Lester in Chicago, Justin Verlander in Houston. If you’re going to win, you need to spend at some point. Elias has done a brilliant job creating this young core, but now that he has his ace, he needs to do whatever it takes to keep him in Baltimore.
If Paul Skenes was in the Orioles’ system, they’d have a replacement waiting. But he’s not -- and they don’t.
Rill: I agree with Mark that the O's will need to spend money at some point. But I'm not sure a seven- or eight-year deal for Burnes is how Elias will want to allocate those funds. They're going to need to sign their young superstars (Adley Rutschman, Gunnar Henderson, Jackson Holliday, etc.) to extensions at some point. They also will need to pay up to keep Anthony Santander, if they hope to do so. I think they already feel confident in the rotation mix for next year, with Zach Eflin and Grayson Rodriguez leading the charge and Kyle Bradish ideally returning in the second half. They have other solid options and can explore the mid-tier free-agent market and potential trades for a boost.
Feinsand: So front-load Burnes’ deal so that it’s not such a huge hit by the time the youngsters are signing extensions. Assuming they do that, of course. Also, with Scott Boras as his agent, you have to assume there’s going to be an opt-out clause in whatever deal Burnes signs.
Footer: This season could end up worst-case scenario for Elias, too -- they made the big trade to get Burnes, he was spectacular, then they get bounced early from the playoffs again and Burnes signs elsewhere.
Feinsand: When teams acquire a star player one year from free agency, it gives them an opportunity to see how that player fits into the clubhouse, the city, with the coaching staff, etc. Burnes and the Orioles have been a perfect pair -- at least from the outside -- and if he leaves, Elias will be back out there looking for an ace. And those aren’t easy to find.
Besides, are Cohen and the Mets going to spend for Soto AND Burnes?
Rill: It would certainly make sense to bring back Burnes, and if I was running the O's front office (I'm not), I think it could be a wise investment. But it would truly surprise me to see such a significant shift in free agency mindset in the first Rubenstein-led offseason. It's still up to what Elias wants to do, and I don't think he sees a mega-deal for Burnes as the move to make this winter. Of course, this all depends on just how much Rubenstein is willing to spend. If he's ready to dish out a lot of mega-deals in the future, then sure, start with this one. It's just hard to envision what this offseason will look like for Baltimore when it has the potential to be so different from years past.
Footer: Even if the O’s do turn out to be the front-runners for Burnes, they'll have competition. Let's discuss the Mets, who have the owner with the deepest pockets and a propensity to make the biggest splash. Are they the O's biggest competitor here? Weird to think it would be the Mets over the Yankees here.
Feinsand: The Mets and Yankees could be going to war over Soto and Burnes this winter, but only if Gerrit Cole opts out and leaves the Bronx (which I don’t think will happen). If Cole stays, I think the Yankees will spend their money to re-sign Soto -- or to replace him.
If Cole leaves, then anything is possible.
Ironically, the Yankees would probably love to see Burnes sign with the Mets. That would get him out of the AL East, and perhaps put a dent in the Brinks truck everybody expects the Mets to back up for Soto.
DiComo: So, I get the knee-jerk reaction that Burnes will be a free agent, and the Steve Cohen-owned Mets have a lot of money, ergo, the Mets will sign Burnes. I just don't consider it an inevitability for two reasons. One, Soto is out there, and I think the Mets are going to be more motivated to try to sign him. Generational position players don't grow on trees, and while the Mets are certain to face super-stiff competition there, I think Soto makes a lot of sense for them. (As for signing two players to huge nine-figure contracts, that's a lot even for the Mets. They're already over the CBT every year.)
Two, David Stearns has never invested major free-agent dollars in a pitcher, ever. Like, literally ever. Now, most of that track record was earned in Milwaukee, where Stearns operated with a small payroll. But he did seem to prefer the route of trading for starting pitchers or signing them to short-term deals, and he did the exact same thing his first year in New York (most notably with Luis Severino and Sean Manaea). I think Stearns understands that even great starting pitchers can be tenuous assets, and Burnes is no exception -- plenty of folks out there are concerned about his rapidly diminishing strikeout rate, for example.
It's a long way of saying that while I would never count out the Mets on Burnes, and I'm certain they'll have plenty of conversations about him, I do think Stearns would love to rebuild his rotation the same way he did this year -- by finding diamonds in the rough. Burnes is a diamond, but he's hardly in the rough.
Feinsand: Once again, I see what Tony is saying, but ...
Stearns knows Burnes as well as he knows any pitcher out there. If there’s one guy he may feel comfortable spending big on, it could be his former Brewer. And after watching the Dodgers sign Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamamoto last winter, I will never say never regarding a team like the Mets signing two nine-figure deals in the same offseason.
DiComo: Fair enough, and this is a unique offseason for the Mets, who are going to lose more than 500 of their rotation innings to free agency. They need to replace those somehow, and Burnes would make that a whole lot easier. Plus, as Mark mentions, Stearns has a longstanding relationship with Burnes and Cohen has a great rapport with Boras. It's absolutely a fit on paper. I'm just saying the Mets may be more motivated to look at other areas of the market -- i.e. Soto.
Rill: From an Orioles perspective, again, I don't know exactly how much Rubenstein's O's will be willing to spend. But if in any scenario they get into a bidding war with Cohen's Mets, I don't envision it going in Baltimore's favor. That's the biggest reason why I feel the Mets are a clear front-runner over the Orioles in this conversation. We know what Cohen has the potential to do; we don't know that about Rubenstein.
Feinsand: Someone has to be willing to spend. Unlike the “big” free agents last winter, Burnes doesn’t have the flaws that some of those players did.
Footer: Jake -- you think it'll come down to the length of the contract? Elias comes from the Astros regime, which famously does not sign hugely long-term contracts. It's hard for me to envision them going to seven, eight years, knowing the last few could backfire. I wonder if it's not dollars as much as it is years, that might be the sticking point?
Rill: I absolutely think length of contract will play a big factor. This is, after all, a guy who is hesitant to sign players to deals that are two or three years in length. That's a significant jump to all of a sudden ink a guy to a seven- or eight-year deal. I believe if the O's could get Burnes on a shorter deal (maybe four or five years), then they'd be more likely to pay up and increase the average annual value. But Elias is not the type of GM to show that type of long-term commitment to free-agent players.
Feinsand: Again, I don’t know if we truly know what Elias is willing to do. He’s never been in this position before -- contending team, open window to win, new ownership.
Elias’ years as GM to this point were almost all as a rebuilding team with no reason to sign players to multi-year deals. That’s no longer the case.
DiComo: I just want to reiterate that while Cohen is uber-rich, his strategy of spend, spend, spend didn't work out for him two offseasons ago -- and last year, he reined it in a bit. This winter will go a long way toward us knowing how serious Cohen is about getting under the highest CBT tier. He has said multiple times he would like to. But if the Mets sign, say, two out of three of Soto, Burnes and Alonso, they're probably not going to dip under it for a long time.
Feinsand: We’re focusing on these two teams with good reason, but Burnes is the type of player that will surely draw interest from a bunch of teams.
I think the Red Sox could be a team to watch. The Boston fan base is getting a bit restless. And we’re going to hear a lot about the Cubs being a potential match, as well, especially with Craig Counsell in the manager’s office.
DiComo: I think the Cubs are interesting. They have a solid enough rotation coming back with Shota Imanaga, Justin Steele and Jameson Taillon, so I'm not sure how motivated they'll be. Add a true ace to that mix in Burnes, and they instantly become a legit World Series contender.
Rill: I also believe that Burnes going to Boston could make a lot of sense. The Sox already have a solid rotation, and adding Burnes to the top of that staff would create quite a formidable group.
DiComo: My stock answer on the Red Sox is, "I'll believe it when I see it." They just haven't landed a true top-tier free agent in so long.
Footer: That thud you just heard was me positioning myself on the Tigers’ bandwagon. Any chance they jump into this, or nah?
Feinsand: Nah. I could see GM Scott Harris try to sign Justin Verlander to a homecoming, finish-your-career-back-in-Detroit kind of deal, but the Tigers seem to be in the spot the Orioles were in two years ago. All signs pointing in the right direction, but still a year away.
Footer: But if they're a year away and they sign Burnes for six/seven, then that makes sense to do it, no?
Feinsand: The Tigers would certainly be interesting. But if Detroit is going to drop nine figures on a pitcher, I think it will be to extend Tarik Skubal, not bring in another top arm
Footer: Do both!
Feinsand: Signing Burnes AND extending Skubal would be very costly. We’ll see if the next generation of ownership in Detroit is ready to make such a commitment to two players like that.
If you make me pick a non-Baltimore/New York team to watch, I’d have to go with the Cubs. Or the Dodgers, just because they sign everybody every year.
DiComo: My other usual disclaimer is, "never count out the Dodgers." They're not the most obvious fit at this point, but, well, never say never.
Footer: Let's close this out by listing your top four contenders to sign Burnes, in order.
Feinsand: 1. Orioles, 2. Mets, 3. Cubs, 4. Yankees (if Cole opts out), 5. Dodgers (if Cole stays with NYY)
DiComo: 1. Orioles, 2. Cubs, 3. Mets, 4. Dodgers
Rill: 1. Mets, 2. Cubs, 3. Orioles, 4. Yankees
I came in here with the Mets as my front-runner, and I still think that's the case. Tony made a convincing case for the Cubs, and I could see that happening. As for the O's, I still don't think there's an extremely high likelihood of it happening, but I also want to wait and see how this ownership group operates in offseason mode.