Over the course of the next couple of months, we might end up looking at this question for a number of players. Winn, Walker, Burleson, Rodriguez. This seems a natural outcome of having a bunch of young players, especially those entering their arbitration-eligible years.
Which takes us to the first discussion point when looking at a potential extension for Alec Burleson. This off-season, Alec is arbitration eligible and will be getting his second bite at the arbitration process this winter. Exact time TBD, depending on CBA machinations. Last spring, I wrote an article asking this same question about JJ Wetherholt. That article dissected what typical pre-arb extensions looked like and anticipated what JJ’s might look like. With Burleson, since he is arbitration-eligible already, we have to look at another class of extension contracts, which are notably quite different than pre-arb extensions. Alec fits in this class called, shockingly, arbitration avoiding extensions.
As I looked over the history of arbitration-avoiding extensions, I had a few observations pop up. One, the frequency of these extensions seems to have abated over the last few years. Right after the last CBA (spring, 2022), teams were hot to sign arbitration avoiding extensions with 19 extensions signed in 2022 (most right after the CBA was ratified) and another 23 in the 2022-2023 off-season (data from Sportrac). In the last three years, that number has tapered off noticeably to 10 (2024), 3 (2025) and 6 (2026).
I created a spreadsheet showing the last 2 years, thinking it is most relevant, but also digestible. I looked back as far as 2021 and really didn’t see many variations, other than volume.
| Signed | Player | Tm | Pos | Age | YRS | FA Yrs | Plyr Opt | Club Opt | Committed | AAV | Disc. AAV | NPV Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Crochet | BOS | SP | 25 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | $170,000,000 | $28,333,333 | $20,704,812 | $124,228,872 |
| 2025 | Raleigh | SEA | C | 28 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | $105,000,000 | $17,500,000 | $15,266,384 | $91,598,303 |
| 2025 | Kirk | TOR | C | 26 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | $58,000,000 | $11,600,000 | $10,238,085 | $51,190,426 |
| 2025 | Perdomo | ARI | SS | 24 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | $45,000,000 | $11,250,000 | $12,165,551 | $48,662,205 |
| 2025 | Rasmussen | TBR | SP | 29 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $8,500,000 | $4,250,000 | $4,106,516 | $8,213,031 |
| 2026 | Baz | BAL | SP | 26 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | $68,000,000 | $13,600,000 | $12,002,042 | $60,010,212 |
| 2026 | Rooker | ATH | DH | 29 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $60,000,000 | $12,000,000 | $10,844,837 | $54,224,184 |
| 2026 | Garcia | KCR | 3B | 25 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | $57,500,000 | $11,500,000 | $10,166,990 | $50,834,950 |
| 2026 | Pasquantino | KCR | 1B | 28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $11,100,000 | $5,550,000 | $5,397,165 | $10,794,330 |
The reasons for arb-avoiding extensions appear to vary. Of course, there are handful of situations where it is clear both player and team are basically getting an early sign on the players’ first bite at free agency – Crochet with Boston, Raleigh with Seattle, Kirk with Toronto and Perdomo with Arizona fit into this group. High value players signing the high-value contracts. These teams had players approaching that goldilocks moment of trade value (4.5 years service time) and they want to lock up the player and avoid the pressure of trading them at peak value or risk losing them for nothing or a steep discount.
A second reason for arb-avoiding extension is … to avoid the arbitration process itself, without buying out FA years. Pasquantino fits this mode, as does a previous contract with Tommy Edman (one of StL’s arb-avoiding extensions). Drew Rasmussen of Tampa fits, too. I write this even as I watch him price himself out of Tampa with a stellar game against the, ahem, Guardians, but also likely guarantee they take his option and flip him in July. Such is the life of a player on a churn team.
My first look at Alec Burleson is … does he neatly fit either category? The second category is likely just a personal preference and since he has not gone through the actual arbitration process, we don’t know his feelings about that. So, unknown.
On the first category, is he a player the Cardinals will want to lock up? His goldilocks value point is coming up and would be the trade deadline during the 2027 season. A key question here revolves around whether the Cardinal’s believe they have adequate talent to replace him if he were to depart 1) as a free agent following the 2028 season or 2) in trade before that time, likeliest to happen July, 2027? Interestingly, the Cardinals do have a couple of MLB players (Walker, Herrera) with valuable bats and limited defensive prowess that might be viewed as good fits for first base. They also have a couple bat-first prospects rising in the minors (Deniel Ortiz, Jack Gurevitch) who might factor into their thinking, as well.
Probably the tougher question is around the cost relative to the value. While he is arguably the Cardinal’s best overall hitter, he is not an elite hitter overall and has some serious platoon-split disadvantage when facing left-handed pitching, finishing the 2026 season with an OPS of 51 against LHP.
Another factor in an extension decision is age. Burly is entering his age 28 season and his first free agent year will be his age-30 season. While not unheard for hitters to retain offensive prowess into their thirties, one has to wonder if the Cardinals are eager to pay full FA wages for this hitter’s age 30 and 31 seasons (arb-avoiding extensions typically buy out 2 years of free agency, rarely more, and even then only for younger players with more prime years coming).
If all these considerations come up positive and the Cardinals and Alec Burleson come to agreement, what might it look like? Interestingly, very few first basemen are signed to arb-avoiding extensions. Since the last CBA, I could only find four such characters. Darin Ruf, Matt Olson, Yandy Diaz and Vinnie Pasquantino. Ruf and Pasquantino were not free agency buy-outs, so they fit neatly in the arb-only extension group, which I don’t think is a good comp for Burleson’s case. Matt Olson might be viewed as a different caliber of player, befitting the 8 yr/$168m contract he received from the Braves. I don’t view this as a good comp, either.
That leaves Yandy Diaz in the comp pool (since 2022). Some of the attributes fit. He was a bit older, though, signing at age 31. Not defensively strong. A really good hitter, without necessarily elite power tool, but a really solid hitter. I can see the comp. Now, his contract was back in the post-2022 CBA heyday, and was 3 years/$24m guaranteed, plus a club option for a fourth year at $12m. Does that fit? May be a little low by today’s standard and also may be discounted a bit more heavily due to Diaz’ advanced age at time of signing (he was a late bloomer).
Diaz’ 4 seasons were scheduled to pay out at $6m – $8m – $10m – $12m (option). For comparison, Burly’s 2nd year of arb-eligibility is expected to payout around $8.3m (as compared to Diaz’ 2nd year arb salary of $6m). If I assume the difference is inflation (plus an age discount), a similar Burleson extension (done before the 2027 season) could look like 3-year/$36m guaranteed ($10m – $12m – $14m) with a $16m option on the end, taking him through his age-31 season.
I found another comp in Brent Rooker, although it is not a great comp. The AAV I proposed above matches up at $12m/yr but Rooker signed for 5 years and his power is in the next tier up (or maybe the stadium he plays in is next-tier down, I dunno). As well, the A’s appeared to have other motivations for this sign that the Cardinals probably don’t match. Can we see the Cardinals going here, either in years or in total dollars?
Would a deal somewhere between 3yr/$24m and 5yr/$60m make sense to both parties? It leaves Burly with another bite at the free-agency apple coming into his age-32 season. He seems destined for Philly or New York (Yankees), in my view. The total guaranteed amount of such a contract wouldn’t be burdensome to the Cardinals and unlikely to become an albatross, something a risk averse organization prizes.
Discuss.
