Washington Nationals Sign LHP Sean Burnett To 2-Year/$3.7M Dollar Extension Acc. To Washington Post's Adam Kilgore.

Washington Post writer Adam Kilgore's reporting this morning that the Washington Nationals and left-handed reliever Sean Burnett have agreed on a two-year extension worth $3.7M dollars. The 28-year-old reliever acquired along with Nyjer Morgan in a June '09 deal with Pittsburgh, collected 8.9 K/9 last year in a relief role, and is expected to be an important part of the 2011 Nats' bullpen with Tyler Clippard and Drew Storen.

over 1 year ago Patrick Reddington 30 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A $3.7m investment in jauntiness

I like this a lot. Burnette was the most consistent guy out of the bullpen in August and September last year and will be a key arm for the next few years.

by The Herndon Kid on Dec 23, 2010 9:34 AM EST reply actions

Payroll sheet updated

Current payroll is at an estimated $51.5 million.

This buys out Burnett’s final years of arbitration. I’m not surprised that this deal got done so quickly from his perspective either, considering his comments after he lost his arbitration hearing last year.

I plan on expanding the payroll sheet to include at least 2012 and 2013 when I get back from Christmas travel.

by dc Roach on Dec 23, 2010 9:35 AM EST reply actions

We'll appreciate that

It’s a real service!

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Dec 23, 2010 9:43 AM EST up reply actions

Just wondering

How was the Nats pen last year? I used to play the Dibble drinking game when I watched some of the games on MASN. Seems to me like they should get new guys, not keep the same bums around, even cheap bums.

by IggesRule13 on Dec 23, 2010 10:11 AM EST reply actions

Nats pen was probably best part of the team last year. Capps, Burnett, Storen, Peralta were effective all year. Clippard had a great start and overall had a pretty good year. Nats pen is one of their assets, and I hope that they consider dealing from that to improve the team because they seem to have prospect depth with recent moves. They are adding Collin Balester this year who was very strong out of the bullpen after he was called up late in the year and has plus stuff.

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Dec 23, 2010 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

starters vs. bullpen

2010 stats

Starting staff:
4.61 ERA (#14 in NL)

Relievers:
3.35 ERA (#4 in NL, #6 in MLB)

Overall pitching:
4.13 ERA (#10 in NL)

by dc Roach on Dec 23, 2010 10:24 AM EST up reply actions

There you go.

Thanks much.

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Dec 23, 2010 10:25 AM EST up reply actions

Not only that, you’ve got to believe there WAR was higher than you’d expect for that ERA given they probably had to pitch more innings due to the poor rotation.

The wait for 10/7 begins. This man is focused. Are you?

by souldrummer on Dec 23, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions

I actually pulled the WAR numbers with the ERA but didn’t post them cause it was less impressive.

Starting: #13 in NL, Relivers: #5 in NL, Total: #13 in NL

I’m guessing the WAR is lower because it didn’t result in as many wins and saves.

by dc Roach on Dec 23, 2010 10:29 AM EST up reply actions

I remember reading that the Nats were either 1st or 2nd in IP by relievers

And that’s not even counting the “Miss Iowa” start :-)

by d_c_guy on Dec 23, 2010 10:37 AM EST up reply actions

good point :)

545.2 innings for #1!

vs. 421 for that mediocre Phillies bullpen

by dc Roach on Dec 23, 2010 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

Damn

Guess adding Harper and some other pop in 2012, + strasburg should be a decent year.

I can’t wait for harper to get to Hbrg.

by IggesRule13 on Dec 23, 2010 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

Peralta non-tender

made absolutely no sense. Makes me unable to go all in on in Rizzo we trust…

by William.Hatheway on Dec 23, 2010 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

eh, he wasn’t THAT good, and the Nats have a ton of BP guys, and a ton more in the system.

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Dec 23, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions

Why it made no sense

is because he is now signed for just one year for only $900,000, while we have just read how Burnett went for twice the years and cash. And while they have lots of BP guys, a large proportion of those “tons” are guys you’d much rather sit versus a proven quality guy when the game leverage is high. Finally, it does seem to make sense for the Nat’s to offer good BP arms for Garza, since Tampa needs them while that would allow us to hold onto more valuable pieces. Not saying it could happen, but that is the sort of thing that having one more good BP arm for nothing would allow us to consider without negative consequence.

Think he wouldn’t be a really valuable trading chip? This is a year when Benoit (one year younger and not much better) got 3/16.5. That’s right, triple the years, six times the salary… for just hundereds of thousands of dollars above the minimum, I’d say Peralta would have been a very good value for this team.

So it’s more than just his ability, though even there, while I agree he isn’t the second coming, he was one of their best last year by any metric… the one caveat being, of course, that that was – at 34, no less – a career year, so I’m not saying that is proof of anything. That said, though, if you look closer you will see that he has actually — and fundamentally — changed as a pitcher, which means that it is quite possible he will remain much more like the ’10 iteration than the previous ones (those changes would be steadily increasing K/9 to go with his usually very good BB/9, and a new changeup that is defined by much more vertical movement than is the league average.

Anyway, despite the length of the above, I’m not all hot and bothered — it was just fun to look up — but I do think it’s fair to look beneath the surface and question the sort decisions management makes, even small ones…

by William.Hatheway on Dec 23, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

He wanted 2 years, or more than 1,000,000

Rizzo said no way. Kilgore had a good article on it

by jeff550 on Dec 23, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions

Better than the Phillies

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Dec 23, 2010 10:35 AM EST up reply actions

Great Signing

Sean Burnett is largely underrated and could be an elite setup man, though I don’t think he has the stuff to be a closer as it is oft said that the ninth inning is a different game.

by GetThatCurlyW on Dec 23, 2010 10:16 AM EST reply actions

I just don't believe this and I think that relying on a set closer is one of the stupid mental things that a team does that hurts a team.

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Dec 23, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions

I don't agree. There's nothing more frustrating than having an all-around good

team, good defense, good offense and good starting pitching only to not have a guy that you can count on to shut the game down and slam the door on the opposing offense. When you have an elite closer on your team it is deflating for the opposing team knowing that you need to face the guy in the 9th. Trust me, there is nothing more frustrating than playing a fantastic game only to have it slip away in the ninth.

Patiently waiting for "next year" since 1971.

by Princess Jazzy on Dec 23, 2010 10:41 AM EST up reply actions

I don't think the Sox or Yankees would agree

If you have an elite closer it is a great weapon. Now, not sure that anyone can claim the Nats have one yet, but Storen has a shot.

by The Herndon Kid on Dec 23, 2010 10:42 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

Intellectually, I agree

But every time a team tries “closer by committee” it always seems to work out badly. I understand the principle of going with matchups/the hot hand/etc, and with the idea that sometimes you want your “best” guy in the 7th inning because that’s when the game hangs in the balance.

It may simply be a psychological barrier for the pitchers in the bullpen (who seem to prefer a set role rather than uncertainty), or there may be another reason. Whether its because players are conditioned to react differently (“there must be a closer who pitches the 9th!”) or due to more basic factors. Nature or nurture, it doesn’t seem to work out well in hte long run.*

*Of course, when you have a closer and it doesn’t work out, you promote another closer. When run a BPC and things go wrong, the structure gets attacked.

by d_c_guy on Dec 23, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions

Oh I thibnk is is a mental block both on the part of the bullpen pitchers and the managers, to quote someone else “the save stat has set baseball back 20 years”

Aim for the head baby Jesus

by Doncosmic on Dec 23, 2010 10:50 AM EST up reply actions