Also, let's hope that Porcello's and Buchholz's contracts are countered with league minimum salaries from guys like Owens, Rodriguez, and Johnson.
nighthob said:I mean essentially this means that they have Porcello for five years and $95 million. That's more than fair for a Lackeyesque starter. What the hell is there to bitch about?
And Miley through 2018RedOctober3829 said:Great job to lock him up early. Would've been over $100 million with a good season. Now him and Buchholz guaranteed for the next 3 seasons if they want.
Join us in 2015. SP make significantly more money now than they did in 2005.mikeford said:HAHAHAHA wow that is such a colossal overpay
#1 starter money for a #3.
Bad.
In fairness Porcello's past performance has been pretty good. However he's been sharing a rotation with Scherzer, Price, Sanchez, and Verlander. In a normal rotation he's more than good enough as a #2 starter.curly2 said:Wow, we always talk about how free agent contracts pay for past performance, not future performance. Past performance definitely doesn't justify the dollars, but hopefully the Sox are right about the expected future performance.
And it's amazing for Porcello that he can cash in again at 31.
Red(s)HawksFan said:This is Homer Bailey money. Perfectly reasonable. I'm high on Porcello...this could turn into a steal of a deal for a good pitcher's age 27-31 seasons.
Hank Scorpio said:
Well, the worry is that he might not be a Lackeyesque starter. While his ERA+ has improved over the past four seasons, he was below average for four years before last season... 85 > 87 > 93 > 96 > 116. Could be on the verge of breaking out, could be a middling, replaceable starter.
foulkehampshire said:Porcello was putting up very good numbers behind a terrible defense in 2014 until he hit a bit of a wall in September.
First 180 IP:
3 CG, averaging close to 7 IP a start, 3.05 ERA.
I guess we'll have to see if that guy can show up for 32 games a year over the next 5 years.
Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.nvalvo said:$20 isn't #1 money anymore. Recent deals to #1 pitchers include:
This deal is much shorter than those, covers younger years, and is cheaper on an AAV basis. I'd say this is paying him to be a #2 type, and hoping that he has ace upside as he enters his prime.
- Lester's 6/$155 ($26 per)
- Scherzer's 7/$210 ($30 per, although there's some deferred money)
- King Felix' 7/$175 ($25 per)
- Verlander's 7/$180 ($26 per)
- Kershaw's 7/$215 ($31 per)
- edited to add: Sabathia's 5/$122 ($24 per)
Minneapolis Millers said:I doubt they'll spend this on Porcello AND get Cueto/Zimmermann etc next year. If they get Sonny Gray or similar in trade, fine, but I worry what this does to our vaunted flexibility moving forward. I don't like paying top dollar for second tier talent.
chrisfont9 said:He will be with the Sox for his age 26-30 years. I think this is the point of the deal: if you're going to overpay on the market, try and get these age years rather than 30+. It's kind of interesting, considering there isn't really a proper "market" for guys this age, given how few of them are available.
Yeah this move adds a ton of stability. 4 starters locked in now with youngsters coming, and the flexibility to rent an ace if the right deal presents itself.Red(s)HawksFan said:
+ Miley too.
And Kelly...and Rodriguez and Owens and Johnson and Barnes. Lots and lots of potential for a very solid rotation for the next few years.
Hank Scorpio said:
Well, the worry is that he might not be a Lackeyesque starter. While his ERA+ has improved over the past four seasons, he was below average for four years before last season... 85 > 87 > 93 > 96 > 116. Could be on the verge of breaking out, could be a middling, replaceable starter.
ivanvamp said:Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.
Hank Scorpio said:
Well, the worry is that he might not be a Lackeyesque starter. While his ERA+ has improved over the past four seasons, he was below average for four years before last season... 85 > 87 > 93 > 96 > 116. Could be on the verge of breaking out, could be a middling, replaceable starter.
ivanvamp said:Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.
Our friends in NY paid $175MM for 7yrs of Tanaka.nvalvo said:
$20 isn't #1 money anymore. Recent deals to #1 pitchers include:
This deal is much shorter than those, covers younger years, and is cheaper on an AAV basis. I'd say this is paying him to be a #2 type, and hoping that he has ace upside as he enters his prime.
- Lester's 6/$155 ($26 per)
- Scherzer's 7/$210 ($30 per, although there's some deferred money)
- King Felix' 7/$175 ($25 per)
- Verlander's 7/$180 ($26 per)
- Kershaw's 7/$215 ($31 per)
- edited to add: Sabathia's 5/$122 ($24 per)
Very nice, but I'm a little concerned with the journalistic integrity of that site...Corsi said:
It's closer to 8m per win but what is the proper going rate $/win supposed to be?PrometheusWakefield said:At $7m per win he doesn't need to improve to justify the deal, he only needs to repeat for us to get our money's worth.
And I think he'll improve. Great move.
mikeford said:It's closer to 8m per win but what is the proper going rate $/win supposed to be?
8m/win seems like a bad return on investment to me.
Hank Scorpio said:
Well, the worry is that he might not be a Lackeyesque starter. While his ERA+ has improved over the past four seasons, he was below average for four years before last season... 85 > 87 > 93 > 96 > 116. Could be on the verge of breaking out, could be a middling, replaceable starter.
foulkehampshire said:Porcello was putting up very good numbers behind a terrible defense in 2014 until he hit a bit of a wall in September.
First 180 IP:
3 CG, averaging close to 7 IP a start, 3.05 ERA.
I guess we'll have to see if that guy can show up for 32 games a year over the next 5 years.
diehard24 said:Maybe I'm just stuck on the wrong numbers, but if he continues to give up more than a hit an inning and strike out less than six, I don't see him as a #3, and would consider him to be overpaid.
Fangraphs says 2.7 and that is who I trust on those matters.Hank Scorpio said:
He was a ~3~4 win pitcher (depending on who you trust) last year, so based on last season, he's well worth the contract.
Porcello isn’t a dominant strikeout artist. He doesn’t have amazing “stuff” that gets featured via GIFs. Though he’s only 25 years old, he isn’t seen as part of an exciting new crop of pitchers. He isn’t flamboyant, he doesn’t say crazy things to the press. On the surface, Rick Porcello is boring.
But do you know what else Rick Porcello is? A top-25 starting pitcher. Since 2012, he’s been the 24th best pitcher by WAR and ranks 25th so far this season. He doesn’t walk many, he keeps the ball on the ground and in the ballpark. He may not have the dazzle of a Jose Fernandez (RIP), but he’s a vey effective pitcher in his own right. And he may be getting more effective.
mikeford said:Fangraphs says 2.7 and that is who I trust on those matters.
diehard24 said:Maybe I'm just stuck on the wrong numbers, but if he continues to give up more than a hit an inning and strike out less than six, I don't see him as a #3, and would consider him to be overpaid.
He is legitimately young enough to improve, and certainly has the stuff, but it's hard for me to believe they aren't banking on better numbers from him going forward.
ivanvamp said:Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.
Then compare it to Boston infield and you then know why Sox are high on him.foulkehampshire said:Hard times for a sinkerballer to make a living with Detroit's infield. Take a look at the defensive stalwarts they've trotted out there since Porcello broke into the league.
foulkehampshire said:
Hard times for a sinkerballer to make a living with Detroit's infield. Take a look at the defensive stalwarts they've trotted out there since Porcello broke into the league.
The difference between RP and the contracts you cite is the length. RP's is shorter than all of theirs. Looks even better for the Sox.nvalvo said:I think you're No-True-Scotsmanning this a bit. Some said this deal is #1 money, I returned with more expensive deals given to #1s. But now these guys aren't "real" #1s, but rather "proven aces." So how many #1s are there?
For the sake of argument, some other recent high-end FA signings to include would be Wainwright (5/$97.5, $20 per), Cain (6/$127, $21 per), Tanaka (7/$155, $22 per), Greinke (6/$147, $24 per), Hamels (7/144, $21 per), Cliff Lee (5/120, $24 per), Jered Weaver (5/$85, $17 per), and John Lackey (5/$85, $17 per).
Extensions to Bumgarner, Kluber, Sale, and Ventura aren't comparable — and, for that matter, Buchholz — because they were signed well before FA.
diehard24 said:
Fair enough. Admittedly, I have a bias against sinkerballers with low K rates. Including Derek Lowe.
foulkehampshire said:
Roy Halladay had a 6.6 K/9 in the AL.
While we are on the subject of fangraphs.Hank Scorpio said:From last May, but interesting:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-underappreciated-and-evolving-rick-porcello/
RedOctober3829 said:The difference between RP and the contracts you cite is the length. RP's is shorter than all of theirs. Looks even better for the Sox.
diehard24 said:
He is legitimately young enough to improve, and certainly has the stuff, but it's hard for me to believe they aren't banking on better numbers from him going forward.
Yeah. It will work or it won't. But given the trends in his performances and pitching contracts over the past two years, you can't dismiss the deal as some crazy overpay.DrewDawg said:
That's EXACTLY what they are doing.
If they are confident in their scouts and coaches then I prefer that than paying for past performance.
Ugg you are absolutely right. Add on the obnoxious radio crowd/talking heads that will inevitably ignore the term being two - three years less, 82 mill v 130- 155 mill difference, and the age difference.moondog80 said:Shaughnessy's column tomorrow, and every time Porcello pitches poorly for the next 5 years:
"But they didn't pay Jon Lester!!!!!"
You don't think that's coming tomorrow morning? Shank has had the article ready since the deal was announced.moondog80 said:Shaughnessy's column tomorrow, and every time Porcello pitches poorly for the next 5 years:
"But they didn't pay Jon Lester!!!!!"
moondog80 said:Shaughnessy's column tomorrow, and every time Porcello pitches poorly for the next 5 years:
"But they didn't pay Jon Lester!!!!!"