Porcello: to pay or not to pay?

Minneapolis Millers · Feb 12, 2015

In another thread at one point earlier this offseason, we had some discussion about this. If Porcello's New England connections predispose him to considering an extension offer, the Sox could try to sell him on a short years deal. I initially thought something along the 4/$60M might be reasonable; that article tells me it might need to be more like 4/$72M. That's solid money per year and not so long that he couldn't hit the market again at a still youngish 31. I doubt the team would try to lock him up for more years on an extension. They'd likely see how he does this year, let him hit FA with a QO, and see where negotiations go at that point, while maintaining the option of going after one of the other, better SP FAs.

If I were Ben, I'd check in on an extension but I wouldn't get too hung up on it. There's a chance our own prospects could be knocking loudly on the door next season, if not later this year.

Niastri · Feb 12, 2015

Depends on the pitchers on the farm. If one of them looks like he is going to be an ace, they tale the QO pick and go with the young stud in '16.

No need to rush into extensions with pitchers considering the talent the Sox have on the farm right now.

Snodgrass'Muff · Feb 12, 2015

The only pitcher they have in the minors who is close to major league ready and has even an outside shot at being an ace is Rodriguez. It's highly unlikely that they will be feeling like they have a good bet for a true number one coming out of the minors this time next year. They currently have Buchholz, Miley and Kelly under control for next season. That's a lot of risk and I'd argue that Porcello is by far the most reliable starter on the 25 man right now, so locking him up puts them in a much better position next winter.

In the other thread I suggested buying out Porcello's arb year this year and going 5/100 from here through 2019. With Shield's signing for much less than expected, I think I'd probably come down to either buying out his arb year and going 4/80 through 2018 or not buying it out and tacking 4/80 on to the year of control they have. That's as high as I'd go, so if you can get him for 4/72 or something, yeah, I think you have to do it.

67WasBest · Feb 12, 2015

Niastri said:
Depends on the pitchers on the farm. If one of them looks like he is going to be an ace, they tale the QO pick and go with the young stud in '16.

No need to rush into extensions with pitchers considering the talent the Sox have on the farm right now.

This! So much talent coming, it's prudent to know more of what they already have before they block anyone with a pricey extension.

SydneySox · Feb 12, 2015

I mean... when do they 'know what they already have'?

August?

May?

I'm not sure what that means.

Rasputin · Feb 12, 2015

I'm with the wait and see camp with an inclination to sign him, but not because we're waiting to see what we get from Owens and Rodriguez, but to see what we get from Buchholz and Kelly. If Buchholz has another terrible year, he might just be done and the Sox can refrain from picking up his option and move on. Meanwhile, Joe Kelly has had a grand total of 48 starts in the majors.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, the Sox are in a position to get a pitcher at the trade deadline. If that happens, it will effect what the team wants to do with Porcello.

P'tucket rhymes with... · Feb 12, 2015

67WasBest said:
This! So much talent coming, it's prudent to know more of what they already have before they block anyone with a pricey extension.

We have quantity on the farm, very little in the way of pencil-him-in-for-the-front-of-the-rotation quality.

And, not to pick on you personally, I have no idea why people worry about stud prospects/rookies being "blocked." With a hypothetical extension to Porcello, they're not going to let Cy Owens rot on the farm if Porcello doesn't pan out as hoped. This organization has the resources to stick with their five best starters, regardless of what they might be making.

snowmanny · Feb 12, 2015

Porcello might get $100Million if he has a good year since he'll be a young free agent. But there are likely to be a number of free agent pitchers looking for big contracts (Samardzija, Cueto, Zimmerman, Price, Gallardo, Latos, maybe Masterson, Fister) - and one team will have likely blown their pitching budget on Hamels. It's really hard to know how many teams will be opening their wallets and where Porcello will land on the list of desirable options.

The Boomer · Feb 12, 2015

Niastri said:
Depends on the pitchers on the farm. If one of them looks like he is going to be an ace, they tale the QO pick and go with the young stud in '16.

No need to rush into extensions with pitchers considering the talent the Sox have on the farm right now.

Rodriguez, Owens and Johnson are reminding me of the last trio of quality lefties who the Sox developed into quality major league starters at about the same time: Hurst, Tudor and Ojeda. Clemens, their contemporary, was a once in a generation pitcher for the Sox. Even so, that group contended but never won a championship. Miley might make one of this contemporary trio expendable if there is a way to get a future possible righty ace. Porcello fits to balance the rotation. $100 million spent on him will be worth it at a time when older more proven free agent aces sign for as much as twice this. Salary inflation has made him worth more than Lackey and Beckett when the Sox signed them but Porcello is younger and, with a careful past developmental workload up to now, is a reasonable wager for both future improvement and continued health. Trying to lock up pitchers like him (and Miley) into their early 30's and then not overspending to keep them after that age is a discernible strategy for Cherington. I expect to see Cherington attempt to follow this pattern for as long as this plan works.

67WasBest · Feb 12, 2015

SydneySox said:
I mean... when do they 'know what they already have'?

August?

May?

I'm not sure what that means.

What I meant was;, what developmental gains has an offseason of maturation and training done for the higer rated prospects? Has it pushed them into a safer projection?

What do we have with Porcello and Masterson? Have they struck lightning in a bottle and are they forecasting at the higher projections? Or do they look more pedestrian, and mandate an upgrade to the rotation? Will both thrive in the Boston clubhouse?.

Why the rush to do anything? The team projects as tops in the AL East already. I just think it wiser they make their choices with a more complete data set That will be known in a few short months, and before the trading deadline; so if a move must be made, they have the funds, and talent to do what is required. With so much talent on the cusp of emerging, it's worth that wndow to obtain a clearer picture, particularly so because of the present roster construction.

67WasBest · Feb 12, 2015

P'tucket said:
We have quantity on the farm, very little in the way of pencil-him-in-for-the-front-of-the-rotation quality.

And, not to pick on you personally, I have no idea why people worry about stud prospects/rookies being "blocked." With a hypothetical extension to Porcello, they're not going to let Cy Owens rot on the farm if Porcello doesn't pan out as hoped. This organization has the resources to stick with their five best starters, regardless of what they might be making.

I care not a lick about blocked prospects; as far as I'm concerned, a prospect must force his way into he lineup, not have a spot reserved for him. My focus is on maximized value, whether that be in Boston, or in trade with another team.

I'm asking this question of those on the board; Is a fully ready prospect, at whatever ceiling they reach, worth more as known commodity than as an emerging prospect? I think yes, and that forms part of my philosophy on where the Sox are presently. There is no acute need, and that affords the luxury of patience.

If we weren't already favored to win the division, and we did not have the silly depth they have, then sure, I'm all for filling a hole; I just don't see the hole as large as others may see it.

MikeM · Feb 12, 2015

Snodgrass'Muff said:
In the other thread I suggested buying out Porcello's arb year this year and going 5/100 from here through 2019. With Shield's signing for much less than expected, I think I'd probably come down to either buying out his arb year and going 4/80 through 2018 or not buying it out and tacking 4/80 on to the year of control they have. That's as high as I'd go, so if you can get him for 4/72 or something, yeah, I think you have to do it.

I was among those in the previous thread stating i didn't see much realistic upside in rushing into a scenario that saw us extending Porcello at a market rate of $20m/per. Post-Shields signing does make it a second look though imo.

While we tend to obsess more then most over age, that's only going to push the needle so far in high end free agency. With the probability chance being fairly decent that he would/could post up a season where he likely wouldn't even sniff a $20m/per salary next winter, i guess i could see Porcello taking the early security offer of 4/75 the better pitcher had to settle with on the open market. The big sell on our end being the commitment years are kept down.

P'tucket rhymes with... · Feb 13, 2015

MikeM said:
I was among those in the previous thread stating i didn't see much realistic upside in rushing into a scenario that saw us extending Porcello at a market rate of $20m/per. Post-Shields signing does make it a second look though imo.

While we tend to obsess more then most over age, that's only going to push the needle so far in high end free agency. With the probability chance being fairly decent that he would/could post up a season where he likely wouldn't even sniff a $20m/per salary next winter, i guess i could see Porcello taking the early security offer of 4/75 the better pitcher had to settle with on the open market. The big sell on our end being the commitment years are kept down.

He doesn't really need "early security;" his arb settlement for 2015 puts him at roughly $36 million for career earnings thus far.

He's been a 3 win/season guy over the past three years, and he'll be pitching in front of the best defense he's ever played with. Not sure why there's a "fairly decent" chance he's going to diminish his value much below his established value of $20-21m per year.

It's also not at all clear that Shields is "the better pitcher" going forward. They actually had very similar seasons last year (Shields xFIP 3.56, fWAR 3.7; Porcello 3.68/3.1). Given the age disparity, I'd guess 4/75 is the absolute floor for a deal. I wouldn't blame the Sox a bit for not wanting to throw that at him before he's ever thrown a pitch--who knows, you might be right about him putting up a lousy season--but he's only going to get more expensive if that doesn't happen. That's less about Porcello and more about what $20m buys these days.

MikeM · Feb 13, 2015

P'tucket said:
He doesn't really need "early security;" his arb settlement for 2015 puts him at roughly $36 million for career earnings thus far.

He's been a 3 win/season guy over the past three years, and he'll be pitching in front of the best defense he's ever played with. Not sure why there's a "fairly decent" chance he's going to diminish his value much below his established value of $20-21m per year.

It's also not at all clear that Shields is "the better pitcher" going forward. They actually had very similar seasons last year (Shields xFIP 3.56, fWAR 3.7; Porcello 3.68/3.1). Given the age disparity, I'd guess 4/75 is the absolute floor for a deal. I wouldn't blame the Sox a bit for not wanting to throw that at him before he's ever thrown a pitch--who knows, you might be right about him putting up a lousy season--but he's only going to get more expensive if that doesn't happen. That's less about Porcello and more about what $20m buys these days.

The early security is in the form of getting more money then he otherwise will in the event he puts up a similar stat line to his 2010-13 seasons. Last season is hardly an "establishment value".

We can also speculate the hypothetical X War = Y Dollars all day, but at the end of the day a mid-4'ish era year won't net him $20m/per in free agency next year. He wouldn't even even get close that imo.

P'tucket rhymes with... · Feb 13, 2015

MikeM said:
The early security is in the form of getting more money then he otherwise will in the event he puts up a similar stat line to his 2010-13 seasons. Last season is hardly an "establishment value".

We can also speculate the hypothetical X War = Y Dollars all day, but at the end of the day a mid-4'ish era year won't net him $20m/per in free agency next year. He wouldn't even even get close that imo.

What are you talking about? His xFIP values over the past three years is are 3.89, 3.19 and 3.68. His aggregate WAR puts him in very good company.

But if you're using ERA as the metric to determine his value, I don't think there's a discussion to be had here.

Minneapolis Millers · Feb 13, 2015

There's always downside risk for the player, too. The Indians and Masterson couldn't agree on a 3 year extension last offseason, differing over the annual amount (reportedly $14m v $17m). I thought the team should have gone to 3/$51m; given Bailey's deal, Masterson's proposal seemed reasonable. And yet, he got dinged up, tanked, got traded, and is with us on a much cheaper 1 year deal.

Porcello might prefer stability and certainty to rolling the dice. Boston might prefer a 4 year extension for a good not great SP to waiting to see what FA offers. But if talks stall at 6 or 7 years and $100m plus, the team might as well wait.

MikeM · Feb 13, 2015

P'tucket said:
What are you talking about? His xFIP values over the past three years is are 3.89, 3.19 and 3.68. His aggregate WAR puts him in very good company.

But if you're using ERA as the metric to determine his value, I don't think there's a discussion to be had here.

I'm not using ERA as a metric to determine Porcello's value as much as i am simply pointing out that pitchers putting up those type of 2010-13 stat lines do not get paid $20m/per in free agency. Something i don't see changing by next winter.

He'd be more likely to get the early Edwin Jackson treatment at that point imo. Younger then the other free agents and enough potential signs under the hood to peak some interest, but the overall sexiness factor needed on the surface to push the bidding war to an elite level just wouldn't be there. Especially if/when he's being surrounded by a strong group of alternative choices.

P'tucket rhymes with... · Feb 13, 2015

Fangraphs weighs in on Porcello.

LondonSox · Feb 14, 2015

P'tucket said:
Fangraphs weighs in on Porcello.

Ummm. Thanks? Did you read the opening post??? Like at all?

P'tucket rhymes with... · Feb 14, 2015

LondonSox said:
Ummm. Thanks? Did you read the opening post??? Like at all?

Oops. My bad. Caught up in the last few posts and lost track of where we started.

benhogan · Feb 14, 2015

This is easy.

Sox ask Porcello if he wants an extension now, if Porcello wants a Homer Bailey/Matt Cain type extension, we PASS.

Then we see how Miley, Buchholz, Kelly do this season.

We see if any of the AAA pitchers step up (Owens, Rodriquez, Johnson, Barnes).

We see what is available at the trade deadline.

We see what is available in free agency next off-season.

We see how Porcello handles the Boston/AL East pressure cooker of being a top of the rotation pitcher.

Sox only sign him to an extension now If he is willing to take a discount (say $15MM/yr) for guaranteed years (say 5 years).

theapportioner · Feb 14, 2015

If I were Porcello, I could certainly understand taking a wait and see approach for a team he hasn't even stepped on the field for. Unless the Sox blow him away with an offer, which they won't.

The Boomer · Feb 14, 2015

theapportioner said:
If I were Porcello, I could certainly understand taking a wait and see approach for a team he hasn't even stepped on the field for. Unless the Sox blow him away with an offer, which they won't.

With a glut of good pitchers likely to test free agency next winter, there could be more than a single Shields trying to find a destination, at team friendly prices, before the musical chairs are all occupied when the tunes stop. While the Sox jumped in quickly to secure Sandoval and Ramirez, because of need and a greater demand for good hitters, they might wait and see how the pitching market plays out next winter to choose a free agent if it is a needed at the time. Buchholz, Porcello and Masterson could all leave after this season. Unless the 3 lefty amigos plus Barnes are ready to back holdovers Kelly and Miley, I could see how Cherington could follow the same strategies to fill out his rotation next winter that he just followed this off season. If none or only some the AAA pitchers are ready to step up to Boston next season, trades and bargain signings of devalued but high upside free agents allow them to maintain maximum flexibility. Long term commitments to pitchers, other than your own cost controlled farm system successes, are likely to fail. Unless, because of favorable age and other factors, you can lock up competent major league pitchers like Miley and possibly Porcello for their prime years of production, I will expect a repeat of the strategies followed this off season where they have needs.

YTF · Feb 15, 2015

Call me crazy, but I'd like to see the guy throw perhaps a pitch or two for the Sox. If what's been written is true about him being happy to be close to family in the northeast, then is it unreasonable to for the team and player to take a little time to see how he settles in?

The Boomer · Feb 15, 2015

Here is some confirmation for my opinion above about why the Sox seem to purposely avoid acquiring pitchers who make it to free agency:

Is the roster candy worth it to their teams? Or merely a status symbol?
"They are difference-makers. They are special talents. Usually there are only 10 to 12 of these in the game, and they give you something that no one else has," said agent Scott Boras, who negotiated the deals for Kevin Brown, Barry Zito and Scherzer. "A lot of teams have a lot of pitchers, but few teams have a true No. 1."
Only three pitchers have won World Series rings after signing nine-figure contracts: CC Sabathia with the New York Yankees, and Zito and Matt Cain with the San Francisco Giants. The rest find their finances sated but their ambitions starved.
The $100 million pitchers have combined to average a 12-9 record and 3.39 ERA during the first four seasons of their deals, according to STATS. During the remaining years, they fell to a 7-7 record and 4.43 ERA.
Durability decreases dramatically, with the group averaging 205 innings in first seasons, 178 by the third year and 132 by the fifth.
Justin Verlander was 124-65 and 30 years old when he signed his big deal with Detroit in March 2013. He is 28-24 since, slowed by core muscle surgery before the 2014 season.
"I don't think that there's anyone that looks at long-term contracts for pitchers that are older and thinks that all of them are going to be years of investment that are at the highest rate," Detroit Tigers president Dave Dombrowski said. "You expect some type of decline and adjustment that takes place."
http://www.dailyprogress.com/million-dollar-arms/article_ec53ff78-935b-5605-9355-3f6f1f363909.html

[SIZE=12.0036001205444px]Am I correct that the Sox have never paid $100 million for a pitcher? Beckett and Lackey came closest, as best I recall, and we all know how those signings turned out. Hamels makes sense because of age and length but not in exchange for top prospects. Porcello also makes sense because of his age and careful previous usage. They might need to overpay a bit for someone who will be solid second tier but maybe never a true ace. However, if the Sox don't sign him this spring, his price will probably only go up too high for their taste if Porcello's last season was only a preview of what is to come.[/SIZE]

Tito's Pullover · Feb 15, 2015

The Boomer said:
[SIZE=12.0036001205444px]Am I correct that the Sox have never paid $100 million for a pitcher? Beckett and Lackey came closest, as best I recall, and we all know how those signings turned out. [/SIZE]

Pedro's extension totaled $92 million if you count the 7th year option.

soxhop411 · Apr 5, 2015

@WEEI: Red Sox, Rick Porcello agree not to talk contract during season http://t.co/pIuFjigbOp

PHILADELPHIA — While the announcement that Jon Lester and the Red Sox would not be negotiating a contract during the 2014 season was presented in a fairly formal fashion a year ago, the same can’t be said regarding similar news involving Rick Porcello and his new team.
Porcello confirmed to WEEI.com that he has told the Red Sox he prefers not to talk contract during the upcoming regular season. A team source confirmed that the organization has agreed that negotiations should wait until season’s end.

“I don’t want any distractions when we start the season,” the pitcher said. “I just want to focus on pitching.”

While Porcello preferred not to comment on if contract talks had been ongoing throughout spring training, a major league source did confirm there had been some discussions throughout March. While it isn’t known if an offer was made by the club, the source did confirm that recent dialogue led to a better understanding of where each side stood.

Porcello: to pay or not to pay?

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Concierge

A dash of cool to add the heat

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Concierge

Concierge

Member

Member

Member

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

Member

Robert the Deuce

Member

Granite Truther

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Lol boo ALS

news aggravator

Member