A.J. Burnett...Injured?

by historypeats on Mar 18, 2006 9:32 PM EST Comment 21 comments

From ESPN.com:

"The Toronto Blue Jays might have lost one of their expensive new pitchers before the season even starts.

A.J. Burnett hurt his pitching arm Saturday and left Toronto's 8-4 loss to the Boston Red Sox after throwing one pitch in the second inning.

The right-hander signed a $55 million, five-year contract with the Blue Jays during the offseason after going 12-12 with a 3.44 ERA for the Florida Marlins in 2005.

Blue Jays manager John Gibbons motioned to the area above and below the inside of his right elbow when describing where Burnett's problem was.

"He went to get an MRI and check it out. It could be his forearm, and it could be his elbow. We don't know," Gibbons said. "He has had that elbow reconstructed in the past, so he knows his body."

Burnett was a key piece of Toronto's offseason overhaul. The Blue Jays also added closer B.J. Ryan for $47 million over five years, and traded for slugger Troy Glaus and first baseman Lyle Overbay.

"When he went to his neck and said, 'I'm done,' I knew we needed to take him out of the game," Blue Jays pitching coach Bran Arnsberg said. "Hopefully, we don't have anything to worry about, but it would be a huge loss for us -- a No. 2 starter on a major league club."

When pressed for more specifics about the injury, all Arnsberg would say is, "I'm not at liberty to speak about that. That's what I have been instructed and that's what I am going with."

Gibbons called it a big blow to the team if the injury is serious.

'It would be big if it's something serious. We are hoping it's not," Gibbons said. "Even if it's not something serious, it's going to set him back a little bit anyways. We're pulling for the kid, but if it's something serious we have got to make adjustments like we did last year. But it would definitely be a big blow.'"

What does this mean for the Jays? Will a young arm break camp with the big club that wasn't expected to before? Should they? Who should make the rotation if Burnett is out for a while? And does this news open up Ricciardi to more criticism?

0 recs | Comment 21 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Response

I don't get why it would open the GM to criticism. Pitchers get hurt, a lot. Burnett hasn't shown lingering effects of TJ surgery, and he's been pitching on a regular schedule from what I understand this spring. I'd blame bad luck above anything and everything else.

From the kind of responses I've seen from team officials thus far, it sounds like the team is bracing for a worst case situation.

My guess is that Dustin McGowan would take Burnett's place, because the team doesn't really have very much time at all to give a fair tryout to various candidates and McGowan has already spent enough time with the big league team to have a reasonable chance of success.

by mrkupe on Mar 18, 2006 9:58 PM EST reply actions

you've got to give ricciardi SOME blame

Burnett is a guy everyone recognized as an elevated injury risk. His start totals for the past five years were 27, 29, 4, 19 and 32. I mean, congratulations on the 32, but that's not the kind of guy I want to give five years (or $55 million).

by whichthat on Mar 19, 2006 12:51 AM EST up reply actions

MRI Negative

mlb.com is reporting that the MRI was negative for any structural damage to Burnett's elbow.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 18, 2006 10:41 PM EST reply actions

Good

Burnett is one of my favorite pitchers. He's just plain fun to watch when healthy.

by limozeen on Mar 19, 2006 1:34 AM EST up reply actions

Dreifort

Does the Burnett signing remind anyone else of Darren Dreifort? My friend and I were talking about the similarities when Burnett was first signed...I hope I'm not right about it.

by BenB on Mar 19, 2006 1:48 AM EST reply actions

Not really

At least Burnett was good, when he's been healthy. Dreifort didn't even have that much going for him.

by aCone419 on Mar 19, 2006 4:08 AM EST up reply actions

Dreifort

was every bit as good AJ, injuries prevented him from showing it. It's a rare pitcher that is drafted and goes straight the majors - Dreifort was one. His stuff was just as good.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Mar 19, 2006 7:57 AM EST up reply actions

no way

Dreifort never had an ERA below 4 as a starter. One year of relief his era was 2.86. Other than that he was a league average starter.

(After pitcher tells GM he will pitch half of the games, complete them and they will all be QS)The GM has an orgasm and a heart attack at the same time.-Shamus

by ohad on Mar 19, 2006 9:25 AM EST up reply actions

Right...

Fine.

At least Burnett "performed well," when he's been healthy. Dreifort didn't even have that much going for him.

Better?

by aCone419 on Mar 19, 2006 8:19 AM EST reply actions

Dreifort

From a raw talent standpoint, Dreifort was every bit as talented as AJ. His stuff was as good and his secondary pithes were better than Burnett's. The only thing that kept Dreifort's numbers down were the injuries - which plaqued him even when he was pitching. Dreifort's talent was enough to get him his own 55 mil deal - 5 years ago. Say what you want about the numbers - the talent itself was AT LEAST equal to Burnett's.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Mar 19, 2006 10:39 AM EST reply actions

well

i don't remember Dreifort enough to comment about his stuff, but better than high 90's fastball along with a low 90's cutter and a hammer knucklecurve?

(After pitcher tells GM he will pitch half of the games, complete them and they will all be QS)The GM has an orgasm and a heart attack at the same time.-Shamus

by ohad on Mar 19, 2006 10:54 AM EST up reply actions

Dreifort

was the "the shit" until he just couldn't stay healthy. I really like Burnett's fastball a tick better, but Dreifort's breaking ball a LOT more.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Mar 19, 2006 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

dreifort

dreifort was filthy as hell. his stuff was like nintendo, bouncing all over the place. his fb had such wicked movement on it and it was still coming in around the mid 90s. his slider was almost like a split, bottom just drops when it crosses homeplate.

dreifort had some of the best pure stuff in the majors during his prime. he just couldnt put it together because of all his injuries and surgeries.

by npurcell on Mar 19, 2006 4:12 PM EST up reply actions

Dreifort

I know I thought Dreifort was just going to kill the Giants for many years. I don't like to see a player injured, but if it's going to happen, it made this Giants fan breath a little easier.

by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 19, 2006 4:31 PM EST up reply actions

Dreifort

I wasn't comparing their stuff...Dreifort signed a fat 5 year deal only to get injured every year. Burnett has already had some injuries, but still got a fat 5 year deal of his own.

by BenB on Mar 19, 2006 4:32 PM EST reply actions

They are

comparable in both cases IMO, I just thought that the idea of Dreifort being "average" needed to be cleared up.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Mar 19, 2006 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

his PERFORMANCE was average

Do you really wanna give a guy $11M a year based on "stuff"? Normally, salaries are earned by virtue of what one accomplishes on the field.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Mar 19, 2006 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

Salaries

No, normally salaries are earned based on a team's estimate of a player's future value. At least in the Curt Flood era.

by igreen01 on Mar 19, 2006 5:48 PM EST up reply actions

right...

...which, in turn, is largely based on what they've accomplished on the field... not entirely, I grant you... but to a very large extent, and especially when the people being compared are the same age.

What exactly are we arguing about here? If you agree that Dreifort was a bad contract, then we agree, don't we? I dunno why it's especially relevant that you felt Dreifort had more raw talent, if you still don't think it should have translated into a comparable contract.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by Mean Dean on Mar 19, 2006 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

Didn't say

didn't say that I agreed w/ the deal - Burnett's or Dreifort's. And yes, "stuff" will get a pitcher quite the haul when it's contract time. Pitchers (more so than hitters) get paid partly because of how projectable they are in the FA market. Arbitration is more based on what they have done. Burnett has a history w/ major injury, with lifetime numbers below .500, a so-so WHIP, decent K/9 and K/BB at about 2:1. Not overly impressive for a 55 mil deal. Dreifort was the same way, but didn't have as much statistical history. He got paid for his raw talent/promise.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Mar 19, 2006 5:57 PM EST up reply actions