I'll be able to watch the show this afternoon, and it will be fun to see their reaction to the Porcello contract.
"They gave Ace money to a #3, but, a year ago, they offered #3 money to an Ace!"
And, of course, if Porcello pitches well the next 5 years, in 2019, Mazz will counter with, "The Red Sox pulled that one of their ass!"
In fact, the most significant discussion, should be what's been expressed in the Porcello thread -- Paying for projected performance instead of rewarding past performance. How reliable can a team expect it's projections to be? And what is an acceptable hit/miss percentage? One thing we do know is that big money, long-term contracts to 30+ "Aces" almost always results in an overpay, so the Red Sox should be commended for taking a different approach.
But the bias amongst the "casual" fans (that make up most of the audience for sports-talk radio) is always going to be paying for the big name as well as to what that pitcher will do in year 1 of the deal. The Sox might have been able to sign David Price for $182 mil/7years for his 29-35 years, and as Mazz would point out they'd have one of the best pitchers in baseball for just $5 million more per year than what they just paid Porcello. Of course, that totally distorts the argument, which is what Felger and Mazz are so good at.