And he conveniently left out 2010 when citing "the last 3 seasons"...
I guess 174 IP and an ERA+ of 187 doesn't fit the meme.
I guess 174 IP and an ERA+ of 187 doesn't fit the meme.
Who's Your choice for Sox Top of the Rotation Ace?
- Thread starter bankshot1
- Start date
geoduck no quahog said:
2010 is four (five, if you count 2014 as "last season") seasons ago.
So, not sure how that is a complaint. It is also an outlier in terms of ERA+ and all the periphs point to the ERA being outlandishly low compared to how he actually pitched.
I wonder if the Sox figure that if they make the playoffs, it will be because one of the pitchers currently on the roster has become the sort of ace that carries them.
Saints Rest said:
But how many of the guys on the roster can really be ace like? Buchholz. Maybe Porcello. I don't really buy it. I think it's a matter of staying in the race until the deadline and making a move depending on where things are.
Yes a successful season is often built on a team getting solid performances from most of their regulars and then hitting on a couple of outlier great seasons; perhaps this is the hope here. But the Red Sox starting five has four pitchers whose ERA+ fell between 63 and 91 last year, and a fifth guy (Porcello) who had four straight years putting up an ERA+ <100 before having a very good 2014. There is actual reason for optimism for each individual pitcher, but getting average to above average performances from all five would require a lot of luck.Rudy Pemberton said:
I think at this point the logical move is to wait until June, get a better read on the team as a whole and the young players/prospects in particular (figuring out who has value and is relatively expendable; e.g. it wouldn't surprise me if Cecchini and Bradley have more value in June than they have now), and then trade for a more predictably good pitcher.
The issue is obviously that even though Clay and Jedi have been ace-quality for stretches, you can't count on either of them to be that guy. Yes, of course, some luck and health and timing could make them into that guy again, but nobody counts on those things. Years past we've always had a Lester, Becket, Schilling, Pedro, etc... that could be more projectable as a top of the rotation guy with normalized luck even.... although I never felt comfortable with Lester nor Becket as a true ace at the beginning of a season. They all had too many middling seasons themselves.
The guy who gives me the most hope for a normalized luck, stable health season is Porcello. He seems like a horse and a guy who's past numbers could end up better than Lester's in the near future and definitely in the long term (years 4+ beyond '15). I'd like to see the Sox try to lock him up at a discount.... now. Not wait to see how he turns out and let him price go up as I'm almost positive it will. He's the only guy there that I see as a stable (or the most stable) bet going forward to develop into a top rotation guy.
Any of the group obviously could.... but there's been too much variables and/or not enough info to try for future predictions.
That said, I don't feel that Hamels, Lester, or Shields is that. Zimmerman, Cueto and Scherzer* are the only guys out there that I'd lay out big money for with some confidence.
edit- *that are available/soon to be available...
The guy who gives me the most hope for a normalized luck, stable health season is Porcello. He seems like a horse and a guy who's past numbers could end up better than Lester's in the near future and definitely in the long term (years 4+ beyond '15). I'd like to see the Sox try to lock him up at a discount.... now. Not wait to see how he turns out and let him price go up as I'm almost positive it will. He's the only guy there that I see as a stable (or the most stable) bet going forward to develop into a top rotation guy.
Any of the group obviously could.... but there's been too much variables and/or not enough info to try for future predictions.
That said, I don't feel that Hamels, Lester, or Shields is that. Zimmerman, Cueto and Scherzer* are the only guys out there that I'd lay out big money for with some confidence.
edit- *that are available/soon to be available...
Even for a premium Boras client, this is getting fairly late for Scherzer. Not that he hasn't signed, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a solid rumor, any offer made, etc....
I wonder if he's not getting the bites he wants or the market he expected isn't there.
I wonder if he's not getting the bites he wants or the market he expected isn't there.
If the Yanks aren't BS'ing and they are out on him, it's tough to envision Boras finding his pot of gold. Also not a good year to take a one year, 30 million type pillow contract with Price, Cueto et al on the market next winter.snowmanny said:
Jon Heyman article - Boston #1 possible spot for Sherzer. I say we break the threshold for him.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24920869/nine-possible-spots-for-max-scherzer-star-fa-without-a-team-or-a-rumor
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/24920869/nine-possible-spots-for-max-scherzer-star-fa-without-a-team-or-a-rumor
BeantownIdaho said:
Hmmmm, biggest Boras mouthpiece has an article citing the Red Sox as the most likely spot for a big money Boras client to land. Yup, all signs point to the Red Sox having a massive interest.
BeantownIdaho said:
I could see Scherzer signing a deal like that. But it wouldn't be the Sox offering it. They wouldn't go past $23M a year for Lester, but they're going to go $28M per for Scherzer? Highly doubtful.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Why? He's better than Lester with less mileage.
Sox have a good working relationship with Boras despite the negative perception this board has. Max is a classic power RHP; his popup/flyball tendencies make him a solid fit in Fenway with a big CF-RF and (probably) good outfield defense.
I think the Sox might do 6/168. Don't lose their pick and plenty of payroll coming free next winter in Vic, Napoli, etc....and they'd have all of their surplus pitching prospects to fill holes as needed.
foulkehampshire said:
Why? Because everything they've done this off-season points to not getting pulled into a bidding war for a Boras client, and it's a lock that there will be a bidding war for him. They immediately moved from losing out on Lester to more than filling out their rotation with value acquisitions. They certainly can do with an upgrade the caliber of Scherzer, but all their actions in the last month scream that they're not sitting around waiting to pay top dollar for it.
Bradford says it well:
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Other then a need to tie some "master plan" together with a nice paper bow, i'm not as sold we should be looking at this in such absolute terms. The Sox went into this off season with the entire rotation looking like a hot mess. We didn't need to *not* sign Lester for all of those value acquisitions to still make a lot of sense.
If the bidding stays at 6 years i see us being in on Max. There are still some potential outs to be found if slimming down the 2015 payroll to accommodate is that much of an accompanying issue too.
Big "if" there though, of course. Hard to see Max/Boras not being all in on at least 7 years after already turning down the 6/144 last spring.
MikeM said:
I don't disagree with this, but part of me thinks that if they get Lester, one of those acquisitions (I'm guessing Masterson, but maybe Miley) probably doesn't happen. Most of us here were thinking that the plan was Lester (or another "ace") + one other starter, with Buchholz, Kelly, and some amalgam of RDLR/Webster/Workman/Ranaudo/Barnes/etc would be the rotation in 2015. With Lester out of the picture, they got three starters to go with Buchholz and Kelly, pushing the youngsters to 6th starter status.
If they were still in a position of having that amalgam of youngsters in the 5th slot, I'd buy into them having a serious interest in Scherzer. Since they're not, I think they're fine with eventually finding their ace at their price, which isn't market rate on a 6+ year deal to anyone over the age of 30.
I really wouldn't be surprised if Max ends up getting a similar deal to what he rejected last year. If they Dodgers and Yankees aren't in on him - who's really going to shell out 200 mil? Maybe some dark-horse team will swoop in unexpectedly like the Nationals did on Werth a few years ago.
Yeah that sounds like it's meant to bait the Yankees.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Hmmmm, biggest Boras mouthpiece has an article citing the Red Sox as the most likely spot for a big money Boras client to land. Yup, all
signs point to the Red Sox having a massive interest.
I agree with RedHawks' assessment that the Sox have assembled a rotation based on value picks, but doesn't that make it a bit more likely they'd take a close look at Scherzer? As of now rotation consists of two ARB-eligibles (Miley, Porcello), one pre-ARB (Kelly), and Buchholz (13m) and Masterson (9m). Also, Masterson and Porcello are free agents next winter, and Buchholz may have a short leash. Scherzer makes some sense, particularly after next season.
I think the acquisition of Miley would have happened even if we signed Lester. Miley's cost-certainty would have been an even greater asset after giving Lester $135M. We probably would not have signed Masterson, however. I think we still would have traded for Porcello given the redundancy of Cespedes in the OF. In fact, I'm generally impressed at Cherington's work this off-season. We didn't have any leverage prior to our recent acquisitions and yet still made out with solid deals.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Well said ! I like the "at their price" qualification. It's conceivable that their future "ace" is already in the organization. However, if not, their fallback plan will likely be getting someone like Syndergaard (if they project him that highly) in exchange for their surplus of young assets even ahead of sacrificing such talent for a stretch run ace on an expiring contract like Cueto. Scherzer himself was acquired by the Tigers in exactly this way - so they just need to be patient. It might well be someone with a 9-11 W-L record and a .4.12 in the NL like Scherzer:
http://www.examiner.com/article/diamondbacks-to-trade-max-scherzer-to-detroit
The Tigers acquired 3.94 ERA Anibal Sanchez from the Marlins in a similar heist:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8193121/detroit-tigers-acquire-omar-infante-anibal-sanchez-miami-marlins
This is why both Miley and Porcello are somewhat intriguing. They aren't the classic hard throwers but could be good for years to come, particularly for what it cost the Sox. The future ace for the Sox might not have the track record when acquired but, at some point, another organization will tire of waiting for a younger pitcher with the stuff of an ace to emerge and, hopefully, the Sox will be there to pounce on another team's impatience. It's the same reason why some didn't like the trade of DLR and Webster for Miley but the Sox couldn't afford to wait any longer for them to fulfill their potential. The next Sox ace is most likely to be acquired in a similar trade where the change of scenery will do the trick.
The Boomer said:
It is possible this is true. My optimism is tempered by history. Here is a list of home-grown Red Sox starters who put together two consecutive years of 20 starts and an ERA+>120 since John F. Kennedy was elected president:
Jon Lester (2008-2011; 144, 139, 134, 124)
Roger Clemens (1986-1992; 169, 154, 141, 132, 211, 165, 174)
Bill Monboquette (1961-1962; 122, 124)
Now there have been some good years thrown in there from Bill Lee, Bruce Hurst, Aaron Sele, Clay Buchholz, etc.. but a guy who is capable of maintaining performance and health is a real rarity.
Edit: I realize you were also talking about Porcello and Miley, who fit different criteria. You are probably right that it's more likely one of them, specifically Porcello - who has demonstrated a year of very good performance and several years of health - than it is one of the prospects.
snowmanny said:
I agree. These days, you can no longer trade for Cueto, Zimmerman or their equivalent at the deadline, so close to free agency, and expect them not to go out on the market and go elsewhere. Porcello, who is essentially the meaningful return for Lester, is a little younger and, because the Sox will have him for this entire upcoming season, have a chance to retain him if they project his continued development before he enters his prime. Though he is less proven, he might actually be more worth a contract comparable to what Lester got for the next 6 years given the organization's demographic preference to avoid overpaying aging veteran pitchers for too long.
It is also why, with a strong inventory of prospects, they might be able to trade for their next ace. Rose and Pavano for Pedro was the ultimate example of how to make this happen. For example, assuming that the A's decide that they need to cash in Sonny Gray, a package with Owens, one of their stud lottery tickets and another major league ready prospect (Cecchini would be attractive to the A's who have a deficit at 3B) plus other useful considerations might be tough to beat. However, the timing for this is probably too soon since he is unlikely to be available until closer to his first arbitration eligibility 2 years from now in 2017. By then, some of the Sox's upper level inventory might prove they are keepers or lose some of their hype value along the lines of DLR and Webster.
Nevertheless, less proven but promising prospects become available in trade every year. The A's acquisition of Heaney from the Marlins has the potential to be another one of those kinds of trades. Somebody we haven't thought about yet might ultimately become their target for future ace.
And they don't have a deficit at third. Brett Lawrie was the major piece they got back when shipping Donaldson out. If the Red Sox are getting Gray from them, the A's are going to insist on Mookie Betts. He fits their needs much better than Cecchini and has the kind of name recognition they'd need to have coming back if they were to move their best pitcher. It's probably a whole lot more likely that Gray stays put, though.
[quote name="The Boomer" post="5812379" timestamp="
"Though he is less proven, he might actually be more worth a contract comparable to what Lester got for the next 6 years given the organization's demographic preference to avoid overpaying aging veteran pitchers for too long."
Porcello better have a great year to get a contract comparable to Lester.
"Though he is less proven, he might actually be more worth a contract comparable to what Lester got for the next 6 years given the organization's demographic preference to avoid overpaying aging veteran pitchers for too long."
Porcello better have a great year to get a contract comparable to Lester.
The Boomer said:
Salazar is probably the closest comparison to Scherzer during his Arizona days, but there's very little possibility that the Indians trade him. Eovaldi's a different kind of pitcher, but he was available and not for very much. I'm sure the Sox did their due diligence on him and decided to pass. I wonder why. Giuess we'll see next year.
From earlier reports it seems maybe the Sox were looking at Dallas Keuchel as that type of guy. The Astros are the right type of organization to target for sure.
Re: Snod's point, I'm sure Oakland would want Betts back for Gray, but would Beane take something else? Is it possible to construct a deal where Oakland gets its pick of one of our MiLB pitchers plus Coyle and Marrero (almost ready MIs, filling need) for Gray? Or a SP, one of those two MIs, plus Devers or Margot (higher upside, younger guy)?
I believe the A's could be tempted to move Gray if the return included Owens, Marrero, a Raunado/Barnes/Workman and Devers or Margot. That is a lot of prospect capital moving in a deal of this magnitude, but if the Red Sox seek a cost controlled potential ace, there are only a handful of names that fit the description, and Gray is one of them. I think this kind of package might just get it done. I don't know that I see a bunch of names around the league of players I'd consider in this class of pitcher (Salazar? Cobb? Stroman? Cashner? T. Ross?Archer?McHugh?) who are playing for a team that would be willing to make the very bold move of trading said player. The A's always seem to zig when others are zagging, so it probably is worth the investigation. BC almost certainly has canvassed the league top to bottom and gone down the road described here with lots of teams, so perhaps these ideas have already been worked through and rejected, either because the Sox thought it would be too much to give up, or because the team in question would turn it down. For the record, I'd move Owens, Marrero, Devers OR Margot and one of Raunado/Barnes/Workman to get most of the guys I listed.
Devizier said:
Even though he doesn't issue alot of walks, Eovaldi is far from polished and is more of a thrower, kind of like a young Beckett but without the quality of secondary pitches. He has little trust in his changup or curveball, and when hitters get 2-3 looks of a two-pitch guy, they tend to know whats coming. Eovaldi is quite vulnerable when he can't locate either his fastball or slider.
It's a reasonable short-term plan given the realities of the 2014 FA market, with only a couple of aces available. I suspect that the stocking up on mid-rotation arms is just biding time until next winter move. This is, with a couple of exceptions, a pretty young team, and they have time to wait a year on their ace rather than getting into a bidding war with the Dodgers and Yankees over Scherzer.Minneapolis Millers said:
One thing I do like about this approach is that the guys they brought in are all workhorse type pitchers that will allow them to maximise bullpen impact. Miley's three year average is 199.2 innings, Masterson's four year average is over 180, even with the injury last year (for the preceding three years the average was over 200), while Porcello's four year average (part of that spent as the Tigers' 4/5 guy) is 185. This should keep the bullpen fresh for the long haul. Come next winter they can cut ties with Buchholz and make a move on the much richer pitching market.
nighthob said:
There is a reason most of the annual "we'll spend next winter" talk, this off season surrounding the likes of Cueto/Zimmerman, always tends to stop short on speculating the actual money it's likely to take. That is, when such a total is not otherwise being low ball estimated for the sake of putting a positive spin on the possibility. Regardless if we spend this winter or next, or the one after that...there is no avoiding the bidding war on viable looking top of the rotation starters in free agency. The faces and names may change, but the accompanying "shit that is a lot of freaking years" concern/argument is pretty much guaranteed to be constant.
Generally speaking, i have been fairly happy with what Ben has done overall this winter. That said, some of which was dependent on the follow up moves that were going to be made. When Pablo Sandovol was inked to his $100m deal, people were lining up to claim that such a move would have zero impact on our search for an ace. Yet a falling short $20m from matching a 6 year offer to Lester and the possibility we won't be even be extending Max a 6 year offer latter, a challenge to that claim is beginning to feel like fair game imo.
I mean i get and mostly agree where people like The Boomer are coming from here. But for me there needs to be more acknowledgement that the potential trades they speak of are the rare exception rather then the rule, and where that money you "save" by avoiding the 6 year on a pitcher boogie man actually ends up going. In this new era where we can't just fall back on the possibility Lester has a big year i guess this all is just starting to feel a little backwards imo. As in if you are going to take the big risk route, you suck it up and pony up the extra dough for the FA ace, while instead applying the surrounding "on our own terms" logic to the third base situation this winter. Even if it means you might "miss the boat" on an the opportunity to throw $100m at Pablo in the event you fall short on Lester/Max.
Well, factor in Greinke's opt out, Cueto, Zimmerman, Price and the presence of guys like Latos, Samardzija, et al and it's more of a buyer's market next winter. In a perfect world we'd sign Scherzer, but the reality of there only being two front line starters on the FA market this winter drove Lester's price to the brink of $26 million per and Scherzer's going to top that. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing Boston take a flyer on Cliff Lee (if he's healthy) to solidify the rotation in the short term.
On the other hand, don't you think there's some merit, if any, in the FO establishing a total budget and not wanting to exceed it? If they said "Okay, we have $350M this off-season to allocate to all of our needs", wouldn't the singing of Sandoval lessen the amount left over for pitching? It seems plausible to me. I would imagine they'd get more hung-up over giving an extra year or two to Lester as opposed to allocating an extra $20M over the life of the contract.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with any of that. Although i am left a little confused here on why your own statement "because that's the only thing that matters - AAV committed in relation to the luxury tax" alone isn't backing up the presented "spending more on X leaves less to spend on Y" principle. I mean beyond the overly-simplified analogy used, we both agree that there is a generally predictable "soft budget" in play every year, right? At least to an extent that nobody was or is rationally expecting the Sox to fix the roof, buy a new tv, and then take the vacation while walking out of this winter (or next) with a $250m payroll.
The Sox went into this off season's roster rebuild/retool with glaring holes at both third base and the top of the rotation. They paid the high free agency premium to fill one, while (assuming they do not offer Max a 6 year deal, which admittedly could still happen) arguably conceding any realistic possibility of being competitive on the other. In that a choice was made, and a prioritizing "where-and-when-to-splurge" philosophy was laid out. If you agree with that philosophy as it relates to the players that were available...great. But there are always alternative roads Ben could have explored or taken in this process. I see no logical reason here why one would isolate Pablo's 5 year $100m contract out of the equation, especially in a manner that suggests it as being completely irrelevant in context to present and future roster building.
Questioning the supporting logic as it adds up as a whole there isn't "mongering" either.......it's questioning the supporting logic as it adds up as a whole. Without the option to check a none of the above box, i'd have preferred to see Ben pass on Pablo and be a little more aggressive on the Lester/Max fronts. Even that included the possibility a little more budget crunching would need to be done, or we still lost out on both players to 7 year deals. Taking the 6 years to a pitcher bullet or running out in traffic to get hit by the Panda van? I'll take my chances with the bullet and a different subject title on this thread. For me, it's really that simple.
Because the implication of what you said before is that the Red Sox could or would have offered Lester more if they hadn't signed Sandoval for what they did, not that, in your opinion, they should have offered Lester more, which doesn't appear to depend on what they're paying Sandoval from what we know about how they operate.
This is a big sidebar, we may wish to split it off. Here's my observation -- some teams do have a "pool of money" approach, allocating a fixed number of dollars to fill needs, with less consideration given for individual player value. A good example of this in action is the Dodgers and the Punto trade. Or the Yankees before the luxury tax. If you have those kinds of resources, it's a fine strategy.
The factor that hasn't been considered in these discussions is the Red Sox position relative to the luxury tax. For 2015, according to the most recent accounting, the Sox have already exceeded the limit, and will be considered "over the threshold" for 2015 even if they don't sign a single additional player. I use this article for the basis for that claim:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2014/12/money_matters_updating_the_red_sox_payroll_as_2015
If sitting out the rest of the offseason and ignoring guys like Scherzer and Shields is indeed the Sox preferred strategy, it should be pointed out that it doesn't matter how much you exceed the threshold for future penalty purposes, only that you have done so. Now, the overage amount is subject to the tax percentage for the first year-I believe it is 17.5%-but that wouldn't scare the Sox away from signing another big ticket free agent this offseason-provided that they are projecting to be under the threshold for 2016. Going over the threshold for a single year isn't nearly as impactful as exceeding it in multiple consecutive years, as the tax penalty on the overage escalates quickly. Because they have a lot of money coming off the books for 2016 (Napoli, Victorino, potentially Buchholz (options for 16-17) and Mujica), which may mean that they could stay under the threshold for the 2016 season, even if they exceed it for 2015, avoiding the tax escalation for exceeding the threshold for consecutive seasons. I do believe the Sox are taking this into account, and that if they are already assured of being over for 2015, now would be the time to add to the payroll, knowing that a big ticket acquisition this year would be offset by the money coming off the books for 2016. The 4 players listed above save around 45 mil (Nap-16, Vic-13, Buchholz-12, Mujica-5), meaning a 30 mil/per deal for Scherzer, or adding a Shields or Hamels at 22 mil per would fit in under that level. Just food for thought, but I do believe the Red Sox intend to make a push at adding another large ticket item on the mound this offseason, and the luxury tax situation factors very significantly into that decision.
This is how the tax rate will be calculated for clubs above the threshold in 2013 through 2016:
So, for example, if a team had a total payroll of $190 million in 2013 and they didn’t pay any tax the year before, they would be assessed a 17.5% tax over the $12 million (190 - 178) excedent, for a total of $2.1 million. If they had paid for the first time in 2012, they would have paid 30% (11.7 million),
Interestingly, though, avoiding the luxury tax for just one year resets the team’s tax rate.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2014/12/money_matters_updating_the_red_sox_payroll_as_2015
If sitting out the rest of the offseason and ignoring guys like Scherzer and Shields is indeed the Sox preferred strategy, it should be pointed out that it doesn't matter how much you exceed the threshold for future penalty purposes, only that you have done so. Now, the overage amount is subject to the tax percentage for the first year-I believe it is 17.5%-but that wouldn't scare the Sox away from signing another big ticket free agent this offseason-provided that they are projecting to be under the threshold for 2016. Going over the threshold for a single year isn't nearly as impactful as exceeding it in multiple consecutive years, as the tax penalty on the overage escalates quickly. Because they have a lot of money coming off the books for 2016 (Napoli, Victorino, potentially Buchholz (options for 16-17) and Mujica), which may mean that they could stay under the threshold for the 2016 season, even if they exceed it for 2015, avoiding the tax escalation for exceeding the threshold for consecutive seasons. I do believe the Sox are taking this into account, and that if they are already assured of being over for 2015, now would be the time to add to the payroll, knowing that a big ticket acquisition this year would be offset by the money coming off the books for 2016. The 4 players listed above save around 45 mil (Nap-16, Vic-13, Buchholz-12, Mujica-5), meaning a 30 mil/per deal for Scherzer, or adding a Shields or Hamels at 22 mil per would fit in under that level. Just food for thought, but I do believe the Red Sox intend to make a push at adding another large ticket item on the mound this offseason, and the luxury tax situation factors very significantly into that decision.
This is how the tax rate will be calculated for clubs above the threshold in 2013 through 2016:
- 17.5% if the team didn’t exceed the tax threshold in 2012
- 30% if the team exceeded the tax threshold in 2012 and paid 20%
- 40% if the team exceeded the tax threshold both in 2011 and 2012, meaning they paid 30% in 2012
- 50% if the team exceeded the tax threshold in the last few years and they paid anything over 40%
So, for example, if a team had a total payroll of $190 million in 2013 and they didn’t pay any tax the year before, they would be assessed a 17.5% tax over the $12 million (190 - 178) excedent, for a total of $2.1 million. If they had paid for the first time in 2012, they would have paid 30% (11.7 million),
Interestingly, though, avoiding the luxury tax for just one year resets the team’s tax rate.
I think you are forgetting the revenue sharing rebate they would get by staying under the LT threshold. These savings would dwarf any other LT considerations. However, Henry (or LL) have said this rebate would not be of the magnitude they originally believed/forecasted and that this was a consideration for exceeding the tax threshold for one year.jasvlm said:
This is a point I did not consider, you are correct. I'm not sure how much it would influence their decisions about the 2015 season, but since they are already over the threshold for 2015, making a big splash addition like Hamels or Scherzer is more attractive in light of the luxury tax situation. I wonder if BC is laying in the weeds with regards to Shields, Scherzer or Hamels, hoping the price might drop before making a strike. There will be more free agent starters on the market after 2015 (Price, Cueto, Samardizja, etc.), but the reality is that this luxury tax situation probably informs the Sox situation in terms of making a large addition to the payroll, likely a starting pitcher, as much as any other current factor.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
@Papelbon's Poutine
I'd like to think I'm fair and reasonable, therefore I must admit that your post convinced me (though, honestly, I posed the question as more of a devil's advocate-type of thing). Still, you're absolutely correct. Why I considered MikeM's initial point is because I found it hard to explain the actions of the FO. They gave $200M to Hanley and Pablo, then balked at adding an extra $20M for Lester. Which I found odd given that, at the time, we were desperate need of pitching. Some might say our rotation still needs work, depending on how much you value the acquisition of an "ace-like" pitcher (that's been debated ad nausem).
But yes, it seems like the FO placed a do-not-exceed value on Lester. Again, very odd to me since I'd rather overpay in AAV instead of duration. Granted, I'm the type that would have been happy to give Lester 4/$120M in order to maximize his productive years as much as possible. Still, its good that they're showing restraint. As odd as it may sometimes seem... at least to me.
I'd like to think I'm fair and reasonable, therefore I must admit that your post convinced me (though, honestly, I posed the question as more of a devil's advocate-type of thing). Still, you're absolutely correct. Why I considered MikeM's initial point is because I found it hard to explain the actions of the FO. They gave $200M to Hanley and Pablo, then balked at adding an extra $20M for Lester. Which I found odd given that, at the time, we were desperate need of pitching. Some might say our rotation still needs work, depending on how much you value the acquisition of an "ace-like" pitcher (that's been debated ad nausem).
But yes, it seems like the FO placed a do-not-exceed value on Lester. Again, very odd to me since I'd rather overpay in AAV instead of duration. Granted, I'm the type that would have been happy to give Lester 4/$120M in order to maximize his productive years as much as possible. Still, its good that they're showing restraint. As odd as it may sometimes seem... at least to me.
pdub said:
This assumes that Ben hadn't already made significant progress toward completing each of the three moves that followed Lester signing with the Cubs, which is silly. The fact that he had three starters signed so quickly after Lester had made his decision is a pretty good indication that Cherington had gotten close to pulling off all three of those moves and that rather than feel desperate at that moment, he probably felt pretty good about his options.
I'm not so sure that, at a time where the baseball pendulum is swinging back more in favor of pitchers, that Porcello can't be their future ace:
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/three-things-the-red-sox-will-do-for-rick-porcello/
He is in some fairly good company, in terms of possible comparables including, in my dreams, Greg Maddux:
Similar Pitchers
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
Most Similar by Ages
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Hold mouse over #'s to see names[/SIZE]
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/three-things-the-red-sox-will-do-for-rick-porcello/
He is in some fairly good company, in terms of possible comparables including, in my dreams, Greg Maddux:
Similar Pitchers
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
- Phil Hughes (976)
- Kyle Kendrick (970)
- Scott Baker (963)
- Mark Clark (947)
- Gavin Floyd (946)
- Homer Bailey (944)
- Curt Young (943)
- Armando Reynoso (939)
- Jose Contreras (937)
- Ian Kennedy (936)
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
- Jon Garland (942)
- Greg Maddux (940) *
- Alex Fernandez (938)
- Larry Christenson (931)
- Ray Sadecki (930)
- Brett Myers (928)
- Rick Wise (927)
- Steve Avery (927)
- Dontrelle Willis (926)
- Storm Davis (924)
Most Similar by Ages
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Hold mouse over #'s to see names[/SIZE]
- Bullet Joe Bush (986) [SIZE=.875em] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C[/SIZE]
- Virgil Cheeves (975) [SIZE=.875em] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C[/SIZE]
- Lindy McDaniel (948) [SIZE=.875em] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C[/SIZE]
- Jeremy Bonderman (954) [SIZE=.875em] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C[/SIZE]
- Brett Myers (945) [SIZE=.875em] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C[/SIZE]
- Jon Garland (942) [SIZE=.875em] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C[/SIZE]
Although sinkerball pitcher Jon Garland is most comparable, his velocity is nothing like Porcello's:
http://mlbscoutingreports.com/2013/04/17/jon-garland-40/
Porcello is more comparable to Joe Kelly, who has better velocity:
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2014/12/chasing_the_ace_newly-acquired.html
Kelly's average fastball velocity is even higher than Porcello's, so don't count him out either:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/joe-kellys-numbers-and-joe-kellys-numbers/
Of course, Kelly's closest comparables aren't generally as good as Porcello's:
Similar Pitchers
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Hold mouse over #'s to see names[/SIZE]
http://mlbscoutingreports.com/2013/04/17/jon-garland-40/
Porcello is more comparable to Joe Kelly, who has better velocity:
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2014/12/chasing_the_ace_newly-acquired.html
Kelly's average fastball velocity is even higher than Porcello's, so don't count him out either:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/joe-kellys-numbers-and-joe-kellys-numbers/
Of course, Kelly's closest comparables aren't generally as good as Porcello's:
Similar Pitchers
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
- Chris Archer (987)
- Zack Wheeler (980)
- Gerrit Cole (980)
- Shelby Miller (974)
- Tip O'Neill (974)
- Dan Marion (974)
- A.J. Griffin (974)
- Walter Clarkson (973)
- Harry Moran (972)
- Bud Tinning (972)
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Compare Stats to Similars[/SIZE]
- Pascual Perez (985)
- John Stuper (984)
- Dave Frost (982)
- Bob Carpenter (980)
- Jack Kralick (978)
- Roger Craig (978)
- Pat Jarvis (977)
- Roberto Hernandez (975)
- Ray Washburn (975)
- Bubba Church (974)
[SIZE=.875em] View Similar Player Links in Pop-up
Hold mouse over #'s to see names[/SIZE]