Dombrowski: SP likely from FA. Which should we sign?
- Thread starter nvalvo
- Start date
That statement is self-contradictory. If trading for Fernandez after signing Greinke were imperative in the minds of management, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SIGNED GREINKE and would most likely have turned to Cueto rather than trade the entirety of the top ten prospects list for Fernandez.
Jayson Stark takes stock of the Cueto market:
Johnny Cueto: If we were taking nominations for the free agent most likely to turn into this winter's Ervin Santana, Johnny Cueto would be an excellent nominee. In fact, I did take those nominations this week. And Cueto emerged as the runaway winner. Any time a guy turns down an offer like six years, $120 million (as Cueto did from Arizona) and then finds that all the most likely landing spots have just disappeared on him (as Cueto has), here's the problem: He gets a number in his head that causes him to start counting money he never had. So unless a team like the Dodgers shocks the world and steps up into that price range, Cueto could be out there a long, long time this winter, waiting for someone to say the magic words, "$121 million." If that's the over/under, nearly everyone I surveyed took the under. And, in some cases, way under. So happy holidays, Johnny. I hope Santa drops a nine-figure check under your tree. Or your Christmas might not be as merry as you were thinking two weeks ago.
Johnny Cueto: If we were taking nominations for the free agent most likely to turn into this winter's Ervin Santana, Johnny Cueto would be an excellent nominee. In fact, I did take those nominations this week. And Cueto emerged as the runaway winner. Any time a guy turns down an offer like six years, $120 million (as Cueto did from Arizona) and then finds that all the most likely landing spots have just disappeared on him (as Cueto has), here's the problem: He gets a number in his head that causes him to start counting money he never had. So unless a team like the Dodgers shocks the world and steps up into that price range, Cueto could be out there a long, long time this winter, waiting for someone to say the magic words, "$121 million." If that's the over/under, nearly everyone I surveyed took the under. And, in some cases, way under. So happy holidays, Johnny. I hope Santa drops a nine-figure check under your tree. Or your Christmas might not be as merry as you were thinking two weeks ago.
"Why not?" I'm glad Dombrowski knows the answer to that question. No thank you at that cost.
Plus, the extra pitcher left unnamed by the Marlins official was probably Espinoza.
That sounds like a bad fantasy trade offer. Let's counter with Pablo Sandoval, Josh Rutledge, Stephen Wright, Brandon Workman, and Bryce Brentz
That was coming from a Marlins official. On what planet do these guys live? I'm not sure the Sox would trade Betts straight up for Fernandez - I wouldn't
I don't watch the Sox on TV a lot, but Gammons managed to track down a weird picture of EdRo (via BBRef).
That doesn't sound so bad, if Marlins official is outlining the players who they could form a deal around, rather than listing all the players that would need to be in a deal. Remove Mookie and it starts to seem less unhinged.
Then again, they put that Red Grooms monstrosity out in CF, so they really are probably thinking that Mookie & EdRo & Christian & more seems reasonable...
That doesn't sound so bad, if Marlins official is outlining the players who they could form a deal around, rather than listing all the players that would need to be in a deal. Remove Mookie and it starts to seem less unhinged.
Then again, they put that Red Grooms monstrosity out in CF, so they really are probably thinking that Mookie & EdRo & Christian & more seems reasonable...
The Marlins also spent more on the fish tanks for their new stadium than they pay all but two guys on their roster. The fish are just there to be seen, barely pay attention to the game, and don't even buy concessions. They're like the worst stereotype of Florida pro sports fans, except they haven't been caught with meth yet. You think that franchise cares about being rational?
Just read something about Cueto wanting to come to Boston and it was his #1 choice. I wonder if this is just his agent trying to pull Boston into the race and see how flexible Cueto would be financially.
Let's test that theory. 1 year, $25m. Let's see just how bad he wants to be a member of this team
I'm not a Panda hater, but if we do wind up moving him I'd love to see Cueto brought in. I don't see how it happens without moving that contract though and then we need to cover 3b.
If any team is willing to absorb all of Porcello's contract, which looks to be about market rate, I would love for the Sox to offer Cueto 6/121, with the sixth year being a team option.
He also doesn't cost a draft pick like Price.
Can't find it now for whatever reason, but earlier this offseason there was a report about Dombrowski and other members of the Sox' front office shaking their heads in bewilderment over how much money Johnny Cueto was going to get. I read that as more of an indictment of Cueto than of the market, though I suppose I could be wrong. In other words, Cueto can say whatever he wants about pitching here; I don't think DD is interested.
EDIT: Found the quote. "maybe Johnny Cueto even as every mention of him to Red Sox officials elicits disbelief at how much money he’ll make"
EDIT: Found the quote. "maybe Johnny Cueto even as every mention of him to Red Sox officials elicits disbelief at how much money he’ll make"
Last edited:
Yeah, every year we think a player overplays his hand and then some owner comes out if the blue and offers him a mint. Prince Fielder didn't sign until late January. Cueto will get his.
First off, if the 6th year is a team option, you arent really offering 6/121, you're really offering 5/101 or whatever.
Second, your two statements are quite contradictory. How can 4/82.5 for Porcello be "market" if Cueto is only worth 5/101? One has a career ERA+ of 96; the other 122.
Well this is theoretical for sure. It is operating under the assumption that Cueto would take less than market to play for the Red Sox, since per his agent, he really wants to play for Boston. As another poster theorized, offer him a 1-year deal with a high AAV and see if he bites. Do I think Cueto would take a massive discount? No, but would he take 6/121 after rejecting 6/120? Maybe. And maybe it isn't a team option but an option that exercises if he pitches a minimum of innings in year 5. Some sort of protection for injury in the last year of his deal would make sense from the Red Sox side. Would Cueto bite?
As for Porcello, look at what Samardzija got this offseason (5/$90). Similar stats last year and Samardzija is almost four years older than Porcello. I understand the counter argument to that is Porcello has never had a season like Samardzija had in 2014 but factoring in the age difference, there's a good argument that Porcello is at the market rate. Looking at it another way, when Porcello's contract expires, he'll still be younger than Samardzija is now.
As for why anyone would take Porcello when they could sign Cueto themselves, it's a decent point. Again you have to look at age, contract length--although if it's a team option for Cueto in year 6, 1 year difference isn't huge--and injury risk over the course of the deal. If another team believes in Porcello's 2nd half performance, I think it's possible that they would value Porcello over Cueto going forward, especially if a team is worried about Cueto's arm holding up.
I personally do not like Porcello and really like Cueto, so swapping them out would be make this offseason an absolute dream. But in all likelihood, that's what this Porcello-Cueto idea is: Just a dream.
I was thinking (dreaming?) about this the other day. If we hadn't extended Porcello, what would his market be right now? Less/more/same as what we signed him to? I think the market would have put him somewhere between J.A.Happ (Porcello's better)/Chen (same AAV?) and Samardzija (comparable, as suggested above?)/Cueto (Porcello not as good). I don't think he would have got a 6 year offer. At 5 years, I don't think he would have hit $20M/AAV. His best option might have been a 3 year, high AAV deal that let's him hit FA again at a relatively young age. Or a 1-year pillow deal.
The idea of trading Porcello (assuming no subsidy necessary) to turn his money into Cueto is intriguing, but a 6-year deal for Cueto makes me very nervous. I really don't see him staying healthy for 6 years. And there's some not inconsequential performance-in-the-AL East risk, too, given his pedestrian numbers with KC.
Yeah, whether you consider it market rate or slightly over, I've got more confidence betting on Porcello earning his paycheck for the next four years (ages 27-30) than I would on Cueto earning his for anywhere from four to six years (ages 30-33/35). And that's before considering that Cueto has already had some elbow issues crop up. Cueto might have the higher ceiling, but he carries a lot more risk.
In that case, let's seal that bromance with a Pillow Package: Cueto takes a one-year, Fun with Pedro in Boston Deal for $10M, and Pedro gets $2M to play Yoda and hang out with Johnny all season, dispensing wisdom during his BP sessions, etc. Really, who says no??
You may have to speak with his agent, since he's signing a 6/$130M with the Giants.
None of us should be surprised that a guy who reportedly turned down 6/120 didn't have better offers in the making.
None of us should be surprised that a guy who reportedly turned down 6/120 didn't have better offers in the making.
You can add Mike Leake at 5 years, $80 million to the list of contracts signed this offseason that are worse than Rick Porcello's extension.
Yes, I was critical of the Porcello extension but now that we are onto 2016 it's better evaluated in the context of the actual alternatives. I mean, I'd take Zimmerman (5/110) over Porcello (4/82.5) but they aren't identical contracts, especially when you throw in the draft pick, so who even knows if they would have considered him without Porcello on the roster. And who knows what Porcello would have received this off-season....I sort of doubt 4/82.5 but I'm not sure.
Presumably if they hadn't extended Porcello they'd get a pick when he walked, so the comparison is Porcello for 4/82.5 vs. Zimmermann for 5/110 minus their pick plus a pick from whomever signs Porcello. I'd take option B everyday. But the biggest X factor is that Zimmermann supposedly only wanted to be in the midwest and maybe he took less to make that happen.
Fangraphs is making the case that Leake could be worth his contract because his offense (6th in wRC+ as a pitcher and 3rd in batting WAR) as well as his good D (6th in DRS at his position), makes him worth more than the typical 2 WAR pitcher - closer to 3. I didn't think the contract was that overpriced - he's just thoroughly unexciting and being paid close to market rate.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-to-justify-the-cardinals-mike-leake-contract/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-to-justify-the-cardinals-mike-leake-contract/
Leake has fielded between 40 and 56 balls a season since being in MLB. If fWAR shows that that can be worth half a win, then it's just another example of why it's a flawed stat.
I expect he'd have gotten more. He and Samardzija have performed pretty much the same over the past few years; about league average in 2012 and 2013, career years in 2014, and well below expectations last season. Samardzija accumulated less WAR in those years and is 4 years older, but managed 5/90. I think Porcello could have easily topped that this offseason.
I think over-relying on FIP skews things sometimes. It's nice to balance the weaknesses of fipWAR with ra9WAR, imo.
Previous 3yrs average fipwar and ra9war:
Leake (28): 2.4, 2.6, 2.7
Porcello (26): 3.0, 2.5, 1.9
Samardzija (31): 1.9, 4.1, 1.9
Previous 3yrs average fipwar and ra9war:
Leake (28): 2.4, 2.6, 2.7
Porcello (26): 3.0, 2.5, 1.9
Samardzija (31): 1.9, 4.1, 1.9
Yeah, I was thinking the Leake deal was evidence that they overpaid Porcello. Those last numbers confirm it.
It's still close though. They paid to keep the deal short and bought the option that he'd repeat his 2014 and be worth a ton. Porcello's solid finish and the signing of Price to take the pressure to be an ace away from his shoulders are both good bets on a bounce back.
It's still close though. They paid to keep the deal short and bought the option that he'd repeat his 2014 and be worth a ton. Porcello's solid finish and the signing of Price to take the pressure to be an ace away from his shoulders are both good bets on a bounce back.
What's actually interesting about this off-season is that Porcello can turn this contract into a decent one if he just replicates his second half. The contracts being handed out are nuts. I think trying to make him something he wasn't caused the slow start.
When I heard about the flirtation with Greinke, I thought he was a bad fit for Boston. His struggles with anxiety and depression almost ended his career. Since Boston can be a brutal place even for players without those issues, I'm not surprised by this.
I'm not knocking Greinke in the slightest. To the contrary, I admire him tremendously for being able to do what he's done.