Red Sox signed Porcello to four year deal. 4/82.5M

[RedOctober3829]

Also, let's hope that Porcello's and Buchholz's contracts are countered with league minimum salaries from guys like Owens, Rodriguez, and Johnson.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

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?

 
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.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

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.

And Miley through 2018

 

[rembrat]

HAHAHAHA wow that is such a colossal overpay 
 
#1 starter money for a #3. 
 
Bad.

Join us in 2015. SP make significantly more money now than they did in 2005.

 

[nighthob]

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.

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.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

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.

 
Bailey was 28 and had a 95 ERA+ over 853 innings when he signed the deal. Porcello is two years younger and has a longer and better track record in the AL. Given what Ervin Santana got at age 32, Porcello's is a relatively reasonable contract. If his downside is a #3 over those 4 years, it's not a bad gamble.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
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.

 
Anybody who can pitch more than 190 IP of league average ball in the AL is not very replaceable.

 

[curly2]

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. 

 
Yeah, I had just looked up his splits from last year. He really fell off a cliff in September. I would think (hope?) the Sox know the reason for that and aren't concerned about it.

 

[ivanvamp]

$20 isn't #1 money anymore. Recent deals to #1 pitchers include:
 

• 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)

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.

Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.

 

[DJnVa]

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.

 
It's not top dollar. You need to change your expectations.

 

[nvalvo]

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.

 
Thanks for the correction. This was also clearly one motivation behind the Sandoval deal, and it was a reason I expected them to pursue Heyward. 
 
The goal is to have the bulk of the roster be established major leaguers in their 20s. 

 

[bosockboy]

 
+ 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.

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]

 
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.

 
Thing is...those four years were age 23-24-25-26.  The only pitchers putting up consistent 100+ ERA+ at those ages are the Kershaws and King Felixes of the world. 

 

[Jnai]

Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.

 
Most people in baseball use "#1" and "proven ace" interchangeably.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

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.

 

[DJnVa]

 
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.

 
He was 21 years old for the first year you mentioned there. 
 
His FIP the last 3 seasons (ages 23-25) is 3.70.

 

[foulkehampshire]

Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.

 
Lester was coming off some mediocre/okay seasons and Max only had basically 2 years of being a #1 type guy. Whats your conditions for "proven"? 
 
I mean, we were debating even the thought of resigning Lester after 2013. It was looking pretty clear that his best years were behind him.

 

[benhogan]

 
$20 isn't #1 money anymore. Recent deals to #1 pitchers include:
 

• 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)

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. 

Our friends in NY paid $175MM for 7yrs of Tanaka.

 

[chrisfont9]

 

 

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/rick-porcello-boston-red-sox-contract-extension/
 

Very nice, but I'm a little concerned with the journalistic integrity of that site...

 

[mikeford]

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.

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.

 

[canderson]

A young, inning-eating, ground-ball inducing workhorse that would've been a 2/3 on most staffs last year locked up for five years with a fair AAV as contracts will continue to escalate?

Ben's been on fire and Henry's all-in on spending for future perfomance. If you aren't in favor, or at least OK, with this deal you're probably rooting for the wrong franchise.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

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.

 
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.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

 
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.

 
And Lackey was barely better through the same age, while he had the advantage of pitching to minor leaguers in his age 20-22 seasons, unlike Porcello in the numbers you're citing.

 

[diehard24]

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.
 

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. 

 

[theapportioner]

The editorial was actually a nice inside look at the Sox's coaching, preparation, and culture. Maybe Porcello signs the same deal with the Phillies, but it was cool to see the Sox's operation having a positive impression on someone who just arrived here.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

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.

 
Take a look at Derek Lowe's numbers when you have a chance. 

 

[mikeford]

 
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.

Fangraphs says 2.7 and that is who I trust on those matters.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

From last May, but interesting:
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-underappreciated-and-evolving-rick-porcello/
 

 
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.

 

[Jnai]

Fangraphs says 2.7 and that is who I trust on those matters.

 
Fangraphs WAR for pitchers is based on FIP. Porcello is a groundball pitcher.

 

[foulkehampshire]

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.
 

 
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. 

 

[nvalvo]

Those aren't just #1 starter contracts. Those are proven ace contracts.

 
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). 
 
This deal covers more desirable years than all of those deals, with the notable exception of Tanaka. 
 
Extensions to Bumgarner, Kluber, Sale, and Ventura aren't comparable — and, for that matter, Buchholz — because they were signed well before FA. 

 

[RedOctober3829]

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.

Then compare it to Boston infield and you then know why Sox are high on him.

 

[diehard24]

 
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. 

 
Fair enough. Admittedly, I have a bias against sinkerballers with low K rates. Including Derek Lowe.

 

[RedOctober3829]

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.

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.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
Fair enough. Admittedly, I have a bias against sinkerballers with low K rates. Including Derek Lowe.

 
Roy Halladay had a 6.6 K/9 in the AL.

 

[diehard24]

 
Roy Halladay had a 6.6 K/9 in the AL.

 
Yes, but with an obscenely low BB rate and lower H/9. And a rare case, no?

 

[Lowrielicious]

From last May, but interesting:
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-underappreciated-and-evolving-rick-porcello/
 

While we are on the subject of fangraphs.
 
This piece from February this year discusses what Porcello would be worth on the FA market:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/rick-porcellos-upcoming-enormous-payday/
 
First paragraph:
"The other night on Twitter, I put out one of those early-February thoughts that can’t really be properly explained in a mere 140 characters: Rick Porcello is going to make more than $100 million next year, and people are going to freak out about that."

 

[brandonchristensen]

I should have been a pitcher...

 

[nvalvo]

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.

 
Exactly. Retaining Lester would have cost pretty much twice this much total money.

 

[DJnVa]

 
 
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.
 

 
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.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

After the defensive clinic Pedroia put on today, I choose to envision him running to the phone and banging this out in about 20 minutes.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
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.

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.  

 

[moondog80]

Shaughnessy's column tomorrow, and every time Porcello pitches poorly for the next 5 years:

"But they didn't pay Jon Lester!!!!!"

 

[jimbobim]

Shaughnessy's column tomorrow, and every time Porcello pitches poorly for the next 5 years:

"But they didn't pay Jon Lester!!!!!"

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.  
 
Almost preferable he didn't sign for 70 mill the media would have giggled with throwing around the comparison.  
 
EDIT
See it's this type of deliberate ignorance that pisses me off from Edes 
 
In a spring in which a regular theme is that the Red Sox are lacking an ace, they will be paying Porcello like one.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12632334/rick-porcello-boston-red-sox-agree-four-year-extension

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

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.

 

[Merkle's Boner]

This deal makes me think the FO is fairly confident that either Owens or Rodriguez, or both, can be cheap parts of the rotation for the next few years.

 

[rodderick]

Shaughnessy's column tomorrow, and every time Porcello pitches poorly for the next 5 years:

"But they didn't pay Jon Lester!!!!!"

 
Can't wait for CHB and other distinguished members of Boston sports media to compare the Porcello deal to the Lester 4/70 offer tomorrow.

 

[soxhop411]

This is surprising

@GordonEdes: Porcello becomes the highest-paid pitcher in Red Sox history per ave. annual value, and the 19th contract for a pitcher with an AAV of $20m

 

[soxhop411]

@JMastrodonato: Porcellos contract does not have an opt-out, nor any protection in case of major injury (the Lackey clause), per industry source.

 

[Toe Nash]

Fine with the money but are we sure that we're getting his prime years? He has been in the league since he was 20 and I don't think that pitchers have a nice 27-30 peak like hitters do. They're more all over the place.
 
He seems consistent but i wouldn't expect improvement. If he keeps around the 3.5 FIP they should be happy.