Corbin Burnes Trade Thread

[SF70]

4 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

Why at least that? Year after year we see the Dodgers take pitchers and get them to perform at a high level at the MLB level. 

I don't think they need "at least" half a regular season, certainly not 1-2 years of big league development.

Dustin May threw ~45 innings in AAA. 
Walker Buehler threw 36 AAA innings and a little over 100 total. 
Kershaw skipped AAA altogether outside of rehab assignments. 

If you dominate at AA and AAA and then come into camp and throw well...why send them back down?

All of those pitchers arrived earlier than Miller, Stone or Pepiot would...if they break camp with the MLB team...and I expect all three will. 
 

And Buehler mis-season 2024 or even 2025? He should be back by the end of next season, not 2 1/2 years. 

I'm not arguing that Burnes doesn't help them out immensely, but you're painting as dire a picture as humanly possible for a team that continually churns out once ace after another. 

Tyler Anderson;
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/anderty01.shtml
Andrew Heaney
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/heanean01.shtml
 

 

Kershaw is quite the unicorn, being statistically the best starter of this century. And look how long it took Burnes, Woodruff and Peralta to establish themselves as starters. 1-2 years is absolutely a reasonable timeline. Look at Ashby, and his stuff is nasty. Starters take time.

[Brewcrew82]

1 minute ago, Robocaller said:

Why did you have the Brewers come out behind on every one of those trades? While I might question some of the trade values on BTV, Burnes isn't one of them.

Those are the basic trade structures I wanted to highlight. Additional filler prospects may be included. And not every trade comes out even value-wise. 

[Robocaller]

2 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Those are the basic trade structures I wanted to highlight. Additional filler prospects may be included. And not every trade comes out even value-wise. 

I didn't have issue with any particular one of those trades, just that you didn't have us come out ahead on any of them.  I mean, using the BTV site is just a game to play, Why not play games where we "win?"

 

[Brewcrew82]

1 minute ago, Robocaller said:

I didn't have issue with any particular one of those trades, just that you didn't have us come out ahead on any of them.  I mean, using the BTV site is just a game to play, Why not play games where we "win?"

 

I really don't know. I'm a cautious fan, I guess. lol 

[Robocaller]

2 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I really don't know. I'm a cautious fan, I guess. lol 

Embrace Conan's wisdom. :-)

 

[UpandIn]

3 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Kershaw is quite the unicorn, being statistically the best starter of this century. And look how long it took Burnes, Woodruff and Peralta to establish themselves as starters. 1-2 years is absolutely a reasonable timeline. Look at Ashby, and his stuff is nasty. Starters take time.

That's...ONE of the pitchers I mentioned. 

And Ashby struggled with his command in the minors just like he has at the big league level. Pepiot dominated at the MLB level last year, Stone dominated at AA and...really has nothing left to accomplish in the minors.

Buehler as I said threw about 100 IP in all of the minors and was an ace by 23. 
Urias threw 84 innings in AAA. 
May threw 46 innings in AAA.

The Dodgers do NOT leave their starters in AAA very long. And it's not just Kershaw. 

[SF70]

1 minute ago, Brewcrew82 said:

I really don't think the Dodgers are going to remove Gonsolin from their rotation because he's pitched poorly in not even 15 postseason innings. He was injured late in the year, yes, but he certainly didn't get "torched" like you claim. And during the rest of the time he was a top 5 Cy Young candidate...

Kershaw is coming back and will throw around 130 sub 3.00 ERA innings. 

May was injured after 6 starts, but that was due to a sore back and had nothing to do with his TJ recovery. Indications are that he should be all systems go by spring training. He probably has the most potential of anyone in their rotation right now. 

Urias is really really good. Their ace. Good for 180 innings, sub 2.50 ERA. Not much else to be said about him.

A signing of one of the top 3 free agent pitchers immediately forms one of the best 1-2 punches in the game. Rodon or DeGrom especially. No team will be able to outbid them. 

And then they could easily sign one of the "lesser" free agent pitchers, like Bassitt, Quintana, Eovaldi, Anderson, etc. Pepiot, Miller, and Stone forming additional depth in the majors and at AAA. 

So, no, they don't "need Burnes". 

They do if they want to actually win a WS.

Mays best case is still limited innings. We all know how talented he was prior to blowing-out his UCL, but not everyone’s stuff comes all the way back, just look at Thor.

Kershaw still has elbow concerns and 130 innings seems like a high estimate to me.

Gonsolin is a good regular season starter, but does have an injury history now.

Lots of question marks for a team with mounting pressure to win a WS with a 162 game regular season.

 

[SF70]

7 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

That's...ONE of the pitchers I mentioned. 

And Ashby struggled with his command in the minors just like he has at the big league level. Pepiot dominated at the MLB level last year, Stone dominated at AA and...really has nothing left to accomplish in the minors.

Buehler as I said threw about 100 IP in all of the minors and was an ace by 23. 
Urias threw 84 innings in AAA. 
May threw 46 innings in AAA.

The Dodgers do NOT leave their starters in AAA very long. And it's not just Kershaw. 

Ashby dominated in ‘21, regressed some in ‘22. Pepiot’s SR’s have him with  average to below average control, and because of that say he’s at risk of being a multi-inning bullpen arm. A starter that doesn’t need a year or two of big-league development is more the outlier.

[Brewcrew82]

2 minutes ago, SF70 said:

They do if they want to actually win a WS.

Mays best case is still limited innings. We all know how talented he was prior to blowing-out his UCL, but not everyone’s stuff comes all the way back, just look at Thor.

Kershaw still has elbow concerns and 130 innings seems like a high estimate to me.

Gonsolin is a good regular season starter, but does have an injury history now.

Lots of question marks for a team with mounting pressure to win a WS with a 162 game regular season.

 

No, they literally DON'T. They won 111 games this season, for goodness sakes, and were easily the best team in baseball. They lost in the NLDS, yes, but we all know the postseason largely a crapshoot. And it was actually their offense and bullpen that was largely responsible for their exit. 

Thor is not a good comparison for May. May is only 25 and has no injury history other than Tommy John surgery. Thor had numerous injuries before Tommy John surgery and had already been showing signs of reduced effectiveness. May's innings will be limited, of course, but he'll be a key part of their rotation. 

Neither is 130 innings is a "high estimate" for Kershaw. That's literally about what he's pitched the last two seasons. 121.2 and 126.1, if you want to get technical. 

If Gonsolin has an "injury history", it's not damning. He'll be just as good as he always is when he pitches. 

DeGrom/Rodon, Urias, Kershaw, Gonsolin/May, is a World Series-winning rotation. Don't try to tell me differently. What they could really use is signing Edwin Diaz, to go with resigning Trea Turner. 

[SF70]

2 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

No, they literally DON'T. They won 111 games this season, for goodness sakes, and were easily the best team in baseball. They lost in the NLDS, yes, but we all know the postseason largely a crapshoot. And it was actually their offense and bullpen that was largely responsible for their exit. 

Thor is not a good comparison for May. May is only 25 and has no injury history other than Tommy John surgery. Thor had numerous injuries before Tommy John surgery and had already been showing signs of reduced effectiveness. May's innings will be limited, of course, but he'll be a key part of their rotation. 

Neither is 130 innings is a "high estimate" for Kershaw. That's literally about what he's pitched the last two seasons. 121.2 and 126.1, if you want to get technical. 

If Gonsolin has an "injury history", it's not damning. He'll be just as good as he always is when he pitches. 

DeGrom/Rodon, Urias, Kershaw, Gonsolin/May, is a World Series-winning rotation. Don't try to tell me differently. What they could really use is signing Edwin Diaz, to go with resigning Trea Turner. 

“Don’t try to tell me differently.”

Okey Dokey, have a good rest of the evening.

[UpandIn]

24 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Ashby dominated in ‘21, regressed some in ‘22. Pepiot’s SR’s have him with  average to below average control, and because of that say he’s at risk of being a multi-inning bullpen arm. A starter that doesn’t need a year or two of big-league development is more the outlier.

Well...then the Dodgers develop a lot of outliers. 

[Brewcrew82]

6 minutes ago, SF70 said:

“Don’t try to tell me differently.”

Okey Dokey, have a good rest of the evening.

Yes, that's the sort of thing that needs to be said when you try to tell people that a 111 win team "needs" Corbin Burnes to win a World Series. We're not that stupid. 

[UpandIn]

8 minutes ago, SF70 said:

“Don’t try to tell me differently.”

Okey Dokey, have a good rest of the evening.

I mean...c'mon...do you really disagree? In that scenario, you the #4 is a guy with a sub 3 ERA his first 3 years OR a guy who in his first season as a full time starter put up a 2.14 ERA. Urias is an ace on most staffs. deGrom is an ace on maybe every staff of the last 20 years...

And...as YOU'VE argued, they have a slew of guys who'd be middle relievers. 

DeGrom/Rodon, Urias, Kershaw, Gonsolin/May

That's not counting on bringing any of their other FA's back, it's not counting on any of their AAA/MLB pitchers stepping in...and it's also not factoring in that no team develops pitching as well as the Dodgers. 

They could still WANT Burnes. They wanted Taylor despite having Seager...but they were the best team in baseball this year and their rotation would be better in this scenario.

[SF70]

2 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Yes, that's the sort of thing that needs to be said when you try to tell people that a 111 win team "needs" Corbin Burnes to win a World Series. We're not that stupid. 

Don’t you think the Dodgers are feeling pressure to win a 162 game championship season World Series?

I do. 106 games, 111 games, on and on, but no WS title outside of the pandemic “season”.

Burnes is frigging from LA for goodness sakes, grew up a Dodgers fan. Don’t you think they probably believe they can extend him? 

A Burnes acquisition won’t preclude them from signing a Diaz or improving their bullpen or adding a Judge or Correa or anyone they really really really want.

Once the LAD find out Burnes is in play, I’m guessing their desire to acquire Burnes would be quite high.

[SF70]

10 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

I mean...c'mon...do you really disagree? In that scenario, you the #4 is a guy with a sub 3 ERA his first 3 years OR a guy who in his first season as a full time starter put up a 2.14 ERA. Urias is an ace on most staffs. deGrom is an ace on maybe every staff of the last 20 years...

And...as YOU'VE argued, they have a slew of guys who'd be middle relievers. 

DeGrom/Rodon, Urias, Kershaw, Gonsolin/May

That's not counting on bringing any of their other FA's back, it's not counting on any of their AAA/MLB pitchers stepping in...and it's also not factoring in that no team develops pitching as well as the Dodgers. 

They could still WANT Burnes. They wanted Taylor despite having Seager...but they were the best team in baseball this year and their rotation would be better in this scenario.

Urias is an ace. So would deGrom IF (big IF) he was signed, but still would have injury concerns. Kershaw is another year older, and gets hit in the postseason by good hitting teams. 

Gonsolin is a good regular-season starter, but wilts in the postseason. May should be stronger next season, but will have his innings limited.

What if the Dodgers don’t really want to spend money on a 40 year old Verlander, who for whatever reason also wilts in the WS. 

Maybe they also don’t want to pay Rodon for 6-7 years with his injury history.

 

 

[Brewcrew82]

21 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Don’t you think the Dodgers are feeling pressure to win a 162 game championship season World Series?

I do. 106 games, 111 games, on and on, but no WS title outside of the pandemic “season”.

Burnes is frigging from LA for goodness sakes, grew up a Dodgers fan. Don’t you think they probably believe they can extend him? 

A Burnes acquisition won’t preclude them from signing a Diaz or improving their bullpen or adding a Judge or Correa or anyone they really really really want.

Once the LAD find out Burnes is in play, I’m guessing their desire to acquire Burnes would be quite high.

There’s such a big difference between “‘needing” a player and “wanting” a player. This is totally the later case, despite what you’re trying to tell us. The Dodgers winning only one World Series during this run has more to do with the fact that it is really friggen hard to win a World Series, no matter how good you’ve been in the regular season. To this point, the astros, who have been every bit as good as the dodgers, only have one World Series win. 

Of course, the Dodgers can acquire Burnes and sign Turner, Diaz, etc. But they can also sign Rodon/DeGrom, sign those guys, AND keep their prospects.

Also, Burnes isn’t from LA. He’s from Bakersfield, which is halfway between Fresno and LA. He was also a Jared Weaver-era Angels fan, not a Dodgers fan. 

[Brewcrew82]

4 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Urias is an ace. So would deGrom IF (big IF) he was signed, but still would have injury concerns. Kershaw is another year older, and gets hit in the postseason by good hitting teams. 

Gonsolin is a good regular-season starter, but wilts in the postseason. May should be stronger next season, but will have his innings limited.

What if the Dodgers don’t really want to spend money on a 40 year old Verlander, who for whatever reason also wilts in the WS. 

Maybe they also don’t want to pay Rodon for 6-7 years with his injury history.

 

 

You’re just doing everything you can to avoid admitting you’re wrong, aren’t ya….

What if the Dodgers don’t want to decimate their top 10 prospect list to acquire Burnes?

See. Two can play this game….

[UpandIn]

8 minutes ago, SF70 said:

Urias is an ace. So would deGrom IF (big IF) he was signed, but still would have injury concerns. Kershaw is another year older, and gets hit in the postseason by good hitting teams. 

Gonsolin is a good regular-season starter, but wilts in the postseason. May should be stronger next season, but will have his innings limited.

What if the Dodgers don’t really want to spend money on a 40 year old Verlander, who for whatever reason also wilts in the WS. 

Maybe they also don’t want to pay Rodon for 6-7 years with his injury history.

 

 

He's been a starter ONE season. 

Buehler should be back by the end of next year. 

They've got the best BP in baseball probably(Craig Kimbrel didn't make their post-season roster). 

Maybe they don't want to do a lot of things. I'll bet one of those is giving up a ton of prospects, including at least 3 top 10 for Burnes. I'd prefer a Dodgers package for him. They don't make those types of trades. Even when they pull off big trades, they manage to keep the premier talent(Ruiz traded, kept Cantaya)...

They traded for Mookie Betts. They took back David Price and gave up Verdugo and Jeter Downs who couldn't hit .200 this year in AAA.

So...yeah, I'm all for trading Burnes to the Dodgers. But as I've said from the start, I don't think they're going to be interested in trading FOR Burnes enough to make it work. 

And again, maybe to get 4 legit prospects, we go back to a truly desperate team. SD. 

Merrill, Lesko, Snelling, Rosario and Mazur. Maybe they get something back in addition to Burnes, but...the Dodgers are too smart to package 3 or 4 players who should be impact players in the next year most likely. But hopefully not. Hopefully in a move of irrational stupidity, they tell Friedman what to do...who knows.

I do think saying a 111 win team that won the WS 2 years ago NEEDS Burnes is...a little hyperbolic. Especially considering their budget. 

[UpandIn]

17 minutes ago, Brewcrew82 said:

There’s such a big difference between “‘needing” a player and “wanting” a player. This is totally the later case, despite what you’re trying to tell us. The Dodgers winning only one World Series during this run has more to do with the fact that it is really friggen hard to win a World Series, no matter how good you’ve been in the regular season. To this point, the astros, who have been every bit as good as the dodgers, only have one World Series win. 

Of course, the Dodgers can acquire Burnes and sign Turner, Diaz, etc. But they can also sign Rodon/DeGrom, sign those guys, AND keep their prospects.

Also, Burnes isn’t from LA. He’s from Bakersfield, which is halfway between Fresno and LA. He was also a Jared Weaver-era Angels fan, not a Dodgers fan. 

I agree...mostly. Except for the distinction about him being an Angels fan. He's from the area. Meaning he'd be able to live close to home...his friends and family could come and watch him regularly.

If the Dodgers want him, let them take on Yelich and his deal. We'll pay 4M annually(I don't actually believe that'll happen). 

Then WE can go and pay for Eovaldi and Bassitt on short deals, lock up Woodruff and count on the young players.

[wiguy94]

3 hours ago, UpandIn said:

That's...ONE of the pitchers I mentioned. 

And Ashby struggled with his command in the minors just like he has at the big league level. Pepiot dominated at the MLB level last year, Stone dominated at AA and...really has nothing left to accomplish in the minors.

Buehler as I said threw about 100 IP in all of the minors and was an ace by 23. 
Urias threw 84 innings in AAA. 
May threw 46 innings in AAA.

The Dodgers do NOT leave their starters in AAA very long. And it's not just Kershaw. 

I wouldn't say Pepiot dominated. He had a 5.42 FIP, 6.69 BB/9, and 26.4% GB-rate in his 36 MLB innings last year. The results were good with the 3.47 ERA but the underlying numbers were very far from dominant which to me means he had a lot of good fortune with his super limited sample size.

[UpandIn]

4 minutes ago, wiguy94 said:

I wouldn't say Pepiot dominated. He had a 5.42 FIP, 6.69 BB/9, and 26.4% GB-rate in his 36 MLB innings last year. The results were good with the 3.47 ERA but the underlying numbers were very far from dominant which to me means he had a lot of good fortune with his super limited sample size.

You're right. He was overpowering, but lacked command. Very good K rates, low BA against, induced soft contact. 

Definitely didn't dominate, but I'd say his performance indicates he's going to be a very productive MLB pitcher. 

[SF70]

6 hours ago, UpandIn said:

He's been a starter ONE season. 

Buehler should be back by the end of next year. 

They've got the best BP in baseball probably(Craig Kimbrel didn't make their post-season roster). 

Maybe they don't want to do a lot of things. I'll bet one of those is giving up a ton of prospects, including at least 3 top 10 for Burnes. I'd prefer a Dodgers package for him. They don't make those types of trades. Even when they pull off big trades, they manage to keep the premier talent(Ruiz traded, kept Cantaya)...

They traded for Mookie Betts. They took back David Price and gave up Verdugo and Jeter Downs who couldn't hit .200 this year in AAA.

So...yeah, I'm all for trading Burnes to the Dodgers. But as I've said from the start, I don't think they're going to be interested in trading FOR Burnes enough to make it work. 

And again, maybe to get 4 legit prospects, we go back to a truly desperate team. SD. 

Merrill, Lesko, Snelling, Rosario and Mazur. Maybe they get something back in addition to Burnes, but...the Dodgers are too smart to package 3 or 4 players who should be impact players in the next year most likely. But hopefully not. Hopefully in a move of irrational stupidity, they tell Friedman what to do...who knows.

I do think saying a 111 win team that won the WS 2 years ago NEEDS Burnes is...a little hyperbolic. Especially considering their budget. 

Ok, maybe they don’t “need” Burnes, but no team in baseball needs to win the WS as much as this team, no matter how random the MLB postseason is.

And it wouldn’t be 4 prospects back, it would be 3. 

[SF70]

6 hours ago, Brewcrew82 said:

You’re just doing everything you can to avoid admitting you’re wrong, aren’t ya….

What if the Dodgers don’t want to decimate their top 10 prospect list to acquire Burnes?

See. Two can play this game….

No, just trying to point out the Dodgers have issues next season with their rotation, especially once the postseason gets here.

And a prime-aged ace, without an injury history would help the Dodgers move through the playoffs, which I’m guessing is Friedman’s focus this offseason.

 

[UpandIn]

1 hour ago, SF70 said:

Ok, maybe they don’t “need” Burnes, but no team in baseball needs to win the WS as much as this team, no matter how random the MLB postseason is.

And it wouldn’t be 4 prospects back, it would be 3. 

So you're going Vargas, Miller and Stone?

1 hour ago, SF70 said:

No, just trying to point out the Dodgers have issues next season with their rotation, especially once the postseason gets here.

And a prime-aged ace, without an injury history would help the Dodgers move through the playoffs, which I’m guessing is Friedman’s focus this offseason.

I agree they have a need. I don't agree they NEED Burnes given how they develop pitchers, how they can identify pitchers.

Tyler Anderson 2.57 ERA on his 5th career MLB team Never had a career of 4.86 the past 5 years.
Andrew Heaney 3.10 ERA on his 4th career MLB team career ERA or 4.56.

They identified something on both pitchers spin rates that they thought they could maximize his value. 

You get Urias back to be your #2, Gonsolin can be a #3...Kershaw is a #2/#3 and pitched very well in the WS Title they won, and they've got ~100M to spend. I really do think they're more inclined to go out and sign Verlander to that Bauer type deal than trade 3 players who could play big roles next year.

And I take your point about pitchers needing time to develop, but the Dodgers, by virtue of their depth, have the benefit of stockpiling pitchers in the minors and they're SO deep in the rotation and in the pen, both middle relief and end of the BP..

 

But the larger point is...when is the last time the Dodgers gave up a package of prospects like the one we'd be looking for in return for Burnes?

Their last two trades of consequence, Betts they paid so they didn't have to give up that type of trade value.
Scherzer and Turner-They got those two almost comically cheap. The one pitcher they got there didn't have a grade over 50 across the board. And Ruiz...who looked like a nice prospect, but not in the league of Miller or Vargas.  

 

So in summary, yeah, I'm sure they'll want Burnes. I'm not sure they'll give up what it takes to get him. I think the Dodgers would prefer to spend money rather than prospects...and if they DO trade prospects, I don't know that I trust the Brewers to trade for the right ones. The prospects the Dodgers trade for are just...NEVER their best. 

And now they've got this crop that's been top 6 the past two years...elite talents, maybe the core of their organization moving forward. 

But give up Vargas, Miller and....Stone or Pepiot(especially when they've refused to part with Miller and Pepiot...or Stone, I can't recall, but they were rebuffed in trade requests)...that may not mean everything, but it also suggests they like them a lot, and now they're MLB ready.

 

We'll see how this plays out, but I think Friedman prefers to use the MASSIVE pocket book he's got(which is only getting bigger) and use FA to for the significant additions and then use the farm to build around them. 

 

That's how you win 323 games over the last 3 full seasons and 1 World Series. 

Now the Yankees or the Mets or a couple of teams who aren't run as well or who aren't as patient with player development, I can see them giving up what we'd want for Burnes. Particularly the Mets. 

But I also don't think they'll trade him this year. 

[SF70]

18 minutes ago, UpandIn said:

So you're going Vargas, Miller and Stone?

I agree they have a need. I don't agree they NEED Burnes given how they develop pitchers, how they can identify pitchers.

Tyler Anderson 2.57 ERA on his 5th career MLB team Never had a career of 4.86 the past 5 years.
Andrew Heaney 3.10 ERA on his 4th career MLB team career ERA or 4.56.

They identified something on both pitchers spin rates that they thought they could maximize his value. 

You get Urias back to be your #2, Gonsolin can be a #3...Kershaw is a #2/#3 and pitched very well in the WS Title they won, and they've got ~100M to spend. I really do think they're more inclined to go out and sign Verlander to that Bauer type deal than trade 3 players who could play big roles next year.

And I take your point about pitchers needing time to develop, but the Dodgers, by virtue of their depth, have the benefit of stockpiling pitchers in the minors and they're SO deep in the rotation and in the pen, both middle relief and end of the BP..

 

But the larger point is...when is the last time the Dodgers gave up a package of prospects like the one we'd be looking for in return for Burnes?

Their last two trades of consequence, Betts they paid so they didn't have to give up that type of trade value.
Scherzer and Turner-They got those two almost comically cheap. The one pitcher they got there didn't have a grade over 50 across the board. And Ruiz...who looked like a nice prospect, but not in the league of Miller or Vargas.  

 

So in summary, yeah, I'm sure they'll want Burnes. I'm not sure they'll give up what it takes to get him. I think the Dodgers would prefer to spend money rather than prospects...and if they DO trade prospects, I don't know that I trust the Brewers to trade for the right ones. The prospects the Dodgers trade for are just...NEVER their best. 

And now they've got this crop that's been top 6 the past two years...elite talents, maybe the core of their organization moving forward. 

But give up Vargas, Miller and....Stone or Pepiot(especially when they've refused to part with Miller and Pepiot...or Stone, I can't recall, but they were rebuffed in trade requests)...that may not mean everything, but it also suggests they like them a lot, and now they're MLB ready.

 

We'll see how this plays out, but I think Friedman prefers to use the MASSIVE pocket book he's got(which is only getting bigger) and use FA to for the significant additions and then use the farm to build around them. 

 

That's how you win 323 games over the last 3 full seasons and 1 World Series. 

Now the Yankees or the Mets or a couple of teams who aren't run as well or who aren't as patient with player development, I can see them giving up what we'd want for Burnes. Particularly the Mets. 

But I also don't think they'll trade him this year. 

Lots of valid points you make, especially with Friedman holding his best prospects, but we’ll see what happens this offseason and if he’s maybe feeling a tad more pressure to build a postseason team vs a regular season team, and if that’s how he feels, Miller, Stone and Vargas won’t trump Burnes in the playoffs of ‘23.