checkmate

burnett to the jays, per tuesday's toronto globe and mail:

so, now what? first of all, lay off brian walton. the guy has been taking a beating in all the chat rooms for having posted ? prematurely, and inaccurately ? late on sunday night that the cards were on the verge of landing aj burnett. he apparently made the exact same mistake in 2004 vis-vis renteria, and people are drenching the guy in bile. nasty, nasty stuff.

we are all frustrated: the cardinals came up short again, and again the team must fill its roster holes under difficult circumstances ? little trade leverage and a shriveling free-agent market. the fans need a punching bag, and walton would seem to richly deserve that honor. but keep in mind that several mainstream reporters had much the same story (based on their own sources) as walton did. just a few hours after walton?s story went up, joe strauss said on bernie?s radio show that burnett "was the cardinals? to lose"; geoff baker of the toronto star filed a story at noon yesterday describing how "word flowed through the lobby of the Wyndham Anatole Hotel ? site of baseball's annual winter meetings ? that Burnett was about to sign with the St. Louis Cardinals". granted, walton alone reported certain details ? eg, that burnett was en route to st louis for a physical ? that proved to be wrong, and he used the phrase "agreed to terms," an extremely unfortunate (and unwarranted) choice of words. but if it?s fair criticism to say that walton failed to exercise proper journalistic restraint, it?s also fair to say that anybody who accepted his report uncritically failed to read with the proper degree of skepticism ? particularly since walton?s premature renteria report in ?04 is apparently so notorious.

also in walton?s defense, something important changed on monday morning, 10 hours after he posted his article: the blue jays finally offered the guaranteed 5-year deal that burnett and his agent had sought for so long.

that changed the whole dynamic of the negotiations; if brian?s article was 80 pct true when he posted it, the blue jays? offer rendered it 0 pct true. but the offer came ex post facto; can?t blame walton for not knowing about it in advance.

like a lot of observers, i was slow to pick up on the significance of the 5th-year guarantee ? which was really stupid, since i wrote a whole post about it over the weekend. i convinced myself that the burnett team considered toronto?s offer a mere bargaining chip, something with which to wheedle a 5-year deal out of jocketty. if the cards simply wait out burnett?s bluff, i believed, their 4-year-plus-vesting-5th offer will probably suffice. i wasn?t the only one with that opinion, but it looks pretty foolish in retrospect.

i do not know brian walton, and i?m not suggesting that he should receive a free pass here. he screwed up, and hence he?s fair game. but keep it in perspective. don?t hold walton solely responsible for the fact that you had your hopes raised and then dashed. we were excited not because of what brian wrote but because we knew that as of last wednesday night the cardinals had the best offer on the table ? an advantage they held until about noon on monday ? and that burnett wanted to play in st louis. when the jays came in with a better offer, the cardinals had the chance to match it; they chose not to.

questions:

1. should the cardinals have caved in and guaranteed the 5th year?
2. how do they get their needs met?

if i were in charge, i would have guaranteed burnett 5 years. the way the market is going, 5 yr / $50 is not an outlandish deal. to quote myself,

i?d also say this: of all the pitchers on the market, only one is a potential postseason difference-maker: burnett. those who now remain reek of that #3-starterness that serves the cardinals very well in the regular season but leaves them disadvantaged in october pitching pairings. add in the fact that the cardinals have a) a new stadium; b) a new revenue stream from their radio deal; c) about $30m in play money from the new tv deal; and d) two consecutive postseason paydays, and i think the cardinals flat cheaped out. if you?re not willing to overspend a little now, then when? and it?s not as if a 5-yr guarantee would have violated some law of nature ? nor even a law of sabermetrics. if the cards? final offer was really 4 yr / $45m, as the globe+mail article suggests, then what on god?s green earth held them back from offering 5 yr / $50m? or 5 / $52m?

insurance, per the post dispatch. in-flipping-surance. toronto's got sabermetricians calling the shots; the cards have got actuaries . . . .

nonetheless, this decision can easily be redeemed if jock makes wise use of the dollars set aside for burnett. which brings us to the second question: what would a wise use look like? i see a range of options:

1. modified plan A: sign an accomplished starting pitcher, then trade marquis for an outfielder or bullpen help
2. plan B: trade marquis but don?t allocate large $$$ on a fifth starter; fill the slot from within the organization or off the free-agent scrap heap
3. plan C: keep marquis and buy outfielders / 2b / relievers at retail on the free-agent market

i?ll be taking these in turn as my schedule permits ? and assuming jocketty doesn?t move more quickly than i do.

Update [2005-12-6 11:24:22 by lboros]: by the way, there is non burnett content!!! directly below, if you haven't seen it