Is AJ Burnett Worth a Five-Year Deal?

Just don't give him an opt-out clause.

With Sabathia only available to the big-market teams, AJ Burnett has become the next in line for the big deals. It seems as though people like him more than Derek Lowe. You can chalk that up to age and perceived belief in "stuff", but Lowe will get his due. Anyway, lots of teams are interested in Burnett and a contract with an annual salary of $15-16M will scare off some bidders, but there will be plenty of teams still in line (Braves, Phillies, Angels, Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles, Nationals). With all of those teams able to pay the salary, the number of years becomes the next important part of the contract. Burnett's agent has stated that Burnett wants 5 years, and with a market where lots of teams are involved, someone will give Burnett the 5 year/$75-80M deal he covets. But should they?

At age 32 (next season), no one really believes Burnett will be worth it, but let's face it, no big-ticket free-agent really is worth the years and dollars they usually get. You pay for the first few years and hope to God that they are still serviceable for the last year or two. It's just understood, so stop thinking you'll get your player for the right price and amount of time. You have to add on the extra year to make sure you get him for the next 3 years (the years you would like to give him). So let's stop the generic "No pitcher is worth it" argument.

As for his talent, no one will deny Burnett could be an ace, especially for an NL team. If you're an AL team, he could be an ace, but he's more of a no.2, which is just fine thank you. His career FIP is 3.75, and it was a career-best 3.45 last season. That probably goes down in the NL, but as he ages, it will go back up. Do you want a mid-3 pitcher?

His K/9 is a very good 8.36, and his last two seasons have seen his rate climb to 9.56 and 9.39, which is pretty awesome. For the counter-part BB/9, Burnett has a pretty high 3.71 career mark that has been better the past two seasons (3.59 and 3.50) but not much better.

Was he just really lucky or unlucky last season? Well, his BABIP was .328 (unlucky), his LOB% was 70.5 (normal), and his HR/FB was 9.6% (normal but a little low), so his 4.04 ERA was really too high.

Even better for Burnett is that he is a ground-ball pitcher with a career 1.67 GB/FB and it was 1.52 last season. Ground-ball pitchers are more likely to age well considering they get guys to hit the ball into the ground. If you get a lot of fly balls, you start giving up more runs when that fastball loses a tick or two as guys can react better. Burnett is of the former.

Teams also like power-pitchers, and Burnett was fifth in average fastball speed with a 94.3 mph. That will start to drop, but he should be able to hold it for the next few years. At 36, he won't be able to, but we don't really want to worry about the future do we?

So, we know Burnett is a good pitcher, but I think we all knew that. It's the injuries that keep Burnett from getting $100M this winter. But we can't really predict injuries. I've always thought that if the X-rays and PET scans and MRI's and whatever the hell else people use come back clean, then you just have to go with it. Anyone can get hurt. However, I found an interesting pattern with Mr. Burnett. In 2001, he pitched 173.1 IP and then 204.1 the following season. That's a difference of 31 IP (remember the 30 IP rule?). The next two seasons saw him pitch 23 and 120 IP. The year after, he pitched 209 IP (+82 IP). Now, I realize the rule talks about being under 25 and under 30 innings from a previous career high, but it can't be good to go up 80 IP. That's a lot more work. It turns out it was as he only threw 135.1 IP the next season. He went u to 165.1 the next season (+30). That enabled him to throw 221.2 IP this past season as one of the only Blue Jays not affected by injuries. But, that was a 56.1 difference. Again, that seems a bit high for any pitcher to just throw the next season. Does that mean he's going to get hurt? Well, history and patterns say it's a good possibility, but do we really know? Has he reached the point in his career that he can make the jump and his arm withstand it? This was a more incremental increase than past increases, so maybe it will be okay.

So is he worth five years? Well, obviously not, but he is worth the $15-16M a season. That has to be the main question. He should be able to pitch well for the first three seasons (through age 34), and I'm betting there's at least one good season in the 35-36 range. Is it better to give Lowe a four-year deal knowing he'll be 40 at the end? I'd rather have Burnett who's still in a good time in his career. Lowe should decline and probably fairly rapidly whereas Burnett should decline but slowly. For giving the two essentially the same contract, go for Burnett, which is apparently what teams are doing. If you really want him, give him that fifth year.