No reason for a younger pitcher, with a healthier track record, to agree to a "Lackey clause" or an opt-out on a deal that ends before he turns 31. Silly to even expect it as a possibility.soxhop411 said:
Red Sox signed Porcello to four year deal. 4/82.5M
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Essentially 95M for 5 years (AAV 19M/year): ages 26-30
Some comps mentioned above:
Kershaw $31M/year: ages 26 - 32
Scherzer $30M/year: ages 30 - 36
Lester $26M/year: ages 31 - 36
Verlander $26M/year: ages 27 - 36
Hernandez $25M/year: ages 27 - 33
Sabathia $24M/year: ages 28 - 35
Greinke $24M/year: ages 29 -34
Lee $24M/year: ages 32 - 36
Tanaka $22M/year: ages 25 -31
Cain $21M/year: ages 25 - 32
Hamels $21M/year: ages 28 - 34
Wainwright $20M/year: ages 32 - 36
Porcello $19M/year: ages 26 - 30
Weaver $17M/year: ages 29 - 33
Lackey $17M/year: ages 31 - 36
This signing stands out among those, except for Kershaw, Cain and Tanaka (and Tanaka has financial equivalency issues)
I don't know what a pitcher's theoretical "best years" are, but the list cited by others includes pitchers aging 1 to 6 years more than Porcello before the contract is complete.
Some comps mentioned above:
Kershaw $31M/year: ages 26 - 32
Scherzer $30M/year: ages 30 - 36
Lester $26M/year: ages 31 - 36
Verlander $26M/year: ages 27 - 36
Hernandez $25M/year: ages 27 - 33
Sabathia $24M/year: ages 28 - 35
Greinke $24M/year: ages 29 -34
Lee $24M/year: ages 32 - 36
Tanaka $22M/year: ages 25 -31
Cain $21M/year: ages 25 - 32
Hamels $21M/year: ages 28 - 34
Wainwright $20M/year: ages 32 - 36
Porcello $19M/year: ages 26 - 30
Weaver $17M/year: ages 29 - 33
Lackey $17M/year: ages 31 - 36
This signing stands out among those, except for Kershaw, Cain and Tanaka (and Tanaka has financial equivalency issues)
I don't know what a pitcher's theoretical "best years" are, but the list cited by others includes pitchers aging 1 to 6 years more than Porcello before the contract is complete.
The free agent market is paying roughly $6M / WAR. For reference, Porcello was worth 8 fWAR over the past three seasons.
If you assume modest inflation, and even a slight uptick in his performance over ages 27-30, it's pretty easy to justify this deal. If he breaks out, like some have predicted based on pedigree, this is a bargain.
Great signing, IMO.
If you assume modest inflation, and even a slight uptick in his performance over ages 27-30, it's pretty easy to justify this deal. If he breaks out, like some have predicted based on pedigree, this is a bargain.
Great signing, IMO.
Or Wright? Or Johnson? With so many options coming up they have to figure on 1-2 of these guys making it.Merkle's Boner said:
I am floored that Porcello was willing to sign for so few years, though the AAV is about what I expected he'd demand. This is a guy that wanted to make sure he got filthy rich before going after fabulously wealthy. He's a free agent again at 30, which is still plenty young enough to get a 6-$155 deal I guess.
Nothing to complain about here. Worst case non-injury scenario you get John Lackey circa 2014, which is perfectly good production regardless of what you're paying. Best case you get James Shields. Me likey.
Nothing to complain about here. Worst case non-injury scenario you get John Lackey circa 2014, which is perfectly good production regardless of what you're paying. Best case you get James Shields. Me likey.
CouchsideSteve said:
With the major difference that he's a starting pitcher, a profession that essentially asks you to go out and try as hard as you can to injure your arm every fifth day and hope you fail to do so, and so signing him a year away from free agency adds considerable injury risk. If he were a free agent *right now*, I'd think that this was a very good deal, for exactly the reasons you and others in this thread have given. When you discount for the possibility of major injury, it probably looks a little bit more fair. I'm in favor of the deal, and I think the most likely scenario is that it ends up being a bargain. But the reason it's a bit lower is because pitching careers can essentially end at any moment. Giving an extension like this to a hitter very rarely results in a 100% writeoff (Ryan Howard being the notable recent exception), but there's a much more real chance of that happening with a pitcher. And IMO that's the reason this ends up being a fair deal, and one in which the median result will be very favorable for the Sox, but in which the Sox are taking most of the risk.
I think this indicates, at the very least, that the team is deadly serious about the age range they'll invest in with starting pitching. They knew Lester as well as anyone else, and while they bid competitively, I think they drew a line across which they wouldn't go. Now, Porcello comes less expensively than Lester, but is also far less accomplished. The Sox have to be convinced that Porcello is the guy they want to build the rotation around, mainly because he's been healthy and he'll be under 30 while he's pitching for most of this contract. I agree that some of the comments in this thread suggest that the front office is convinced that at least one of the young guns (Wright, ERod, Owens, Johnson) will claim a rotation slot, and perhaps even 2 of those 3. I also don't rule out leveraging one of those assets to acquire a free agent to be (Cueto?) for 2015. Still, a nice move to insure some continuity in the rotation.geoduck no quahog said:
I'm not saying it's a bad deal, but I hate when a guy gets basically market rate a year or more before the deal even starts. Even if you want to say he's worth $21m per year, Boston has all of the risk for the next twelve months before the deal even starts. The relatively short length helps mitigate that, but essentially they just gave him 5/95 a year before he hit FA.
glennhoffmania said:
The issue is if he has a good-to-great year and hits free agency, there's no way he's only taking a 4 year deal. Probably more like 6-7, considering his age.
And if the expectation is that he'd have commanded 7/150 or similar after a good year this season, this is a below market deal. I posted earlier that this is Homer Bailey territory, and his deal came a year before free agency too. And Porcello is two years younger when signing his deal.glennhoffmania said:
I think it's probably a fair contract for both sides, each assuming risk.
Red Sox risk - Porcello has already peaked, and he falls off a bit compared to his last few years.
Porcello risk - He actually does put it together and foregoes a huge payday in an largely empty FA field next year.
I'm not 100% sure it's a risk the Red Sox had to take at this point, but I assume some kind of synergy between Porcello and Farrell and that they wanted to bring some stability after the last couple of years. In other words, not strictly a budget decision.
Red Sox risk - Porcello has already peaked, and he falls off a bit compared to his last few years.
Porcello risk - He actually does put it together and foregoes a huge payday in an largely empty FA field next year.
I'm not 100% sure it's a risk the Red Sox had to take at this point, but I assume some kind of synergy between Porcello and Farrell and that they wanted to bring some stability after the last couple of years. In other words, not strictly a budget decision.
smastroyin said:
Is this assuming that all the FA-to-be's all sign extensions this year?
Coming off contract at the end of the year:
Price
Zimmermann
Cueto
Iwakuma
Kennedy
Just curious what you mean by the bolded. The FA field is Price, Zimmerman, Cueto, Samardzija, etc.smastroyin said:
As has been mentioned, next offseason is going to see a glut of top end free agent pitchers (Price, Shark, Cueto, Zimmerman, Latos, Fister are all top-30 in cumulative fWAR 2012-2014), nevermind the second tier guys like Kazmir, Buehrle, Iwakuma, Kennedy, etc. I think part of the Sox' willingness to offer this contract right now is the expectation that a stupid amount of money is going to get spent on free agent starters next year and the market rates are going to take a big jump.
Yikes, an error.
But, thinking of demand, if Porcello shows he is a "number 1" in Boston, there is still far more demand than supply. Even among those guys, the only team that won't be immediately looking for some sort of replacement if they move on is the Reds.
But, thinking of demand, if Porcello shows he is a "number 1" in Boston, there is still far more demand than supply. Even among those guys, the only team that won't be immediately looking for some sort of replacement if they move on is the Reds.
DrewDawg said:
Right, so they're getting him for a year or two less since he's a year away. Maybe that makes it a push, but I don't think that makes it a clearly Sox-sided deal.
Red(s)HawksFan said:
I suppose so, but the idea of Porcello getting 7/150 doesn't sound right to me. When you look at the numbers it wouldn't be crazy, but it's a little hard for me to wrap my head around.
diehard24 said:
Through 25:
Porcello: 10 H/9, 0.9 HR/9, 2.2 BB/9, 5.5 K/9
Halladay: 9.3 H/9, 0.8 HR/9, 3.3 BB/9, 6.3 K/9
glennhoffmania said:
If Porcello doesn't get injured and continues on his upward trajectory this coming season, some team would have overpaid him for 6 seasons at $120 million or more next winter. Zimmerman, Cueto and Price will each command at least $150 million or more for at least 6 seasons. As is likely with Lester, those contracts will not be bargains during those last 2 or 3 seasons. Sox management is gambling more on talent they project to improve (or at least not decline) during their prime years of production. Pedroia, Castillo, Miley and now Porcello fit into this new reality. Rather than overpaying and reacting to market forces, the Sox are setting the market for the value of projectable and improving but not quite proven talent in its prime. This is where organizational scouting proves its worth. Any fan can tell you how good Giancarlo Stanton, Lester and Scherzer are. Only truly gifted scouts can predict whether relatively unproven talents like Moncada, Castillo and Porcello will star and improve in the future.
mt8thsw9th said:
Fair enough, though he certainly more highly regarded for his potential at that age. To some degree, that is my point. They have to be betting on improvement, however slight, if they are paying an AAV of $20M+.
The AAV is high, but at the cost of fewer years. It's probably a bit of a slap in the face to Lester though that they gave him more than their initial offer to him last spring.
Part of the problem is the expectation that the Red Sox have a magic formula though. I don't think they do. Plenty of teams are plenty of smart. What the Red Sox have is money which gives them larger opportunity. But the idea that teams can be so much smarter than everyone else is really a red herring in the modern game. Yes there are still some GMs that are dumb, but most are making fairly rational decisions even if we here at SoSH don't necessarily agree with the way they have assigned the risk in getting to those decisions. That's cool, room for disagreement all around. And it doesn't mean they don't need to keep front office and scouting talent, in fact it reinforces that they need to because that is the way to keep up in the rat race. Now, it doesn't mean that they aren't going for a strategy and executing it, but that's different than this whole idea that they have cornered the market on some inefficiency.
Anyway, the point remains. The Red Sox will pay Rick Porcello $95 million over the next 5 years. They don't need him to produce $150 million in value to make it a good signing. I'm still not sure, given the huge value of information and the Red Sox ability to absorb paying extra in a year if they had to that I would have taken this particular risk, but that is probably what makes it fair.
Anyway, the point remains. The Red Sox will pay Rick Porcello $95 million over the next 5 years. They don't need him to produce $150 million in value to make it a good signing. I'm still not sure, given the huge value of information and the Red Sox ability to absorb paying extra in a year if they had to that I would have taken this particular risk, but that is probably what makes it fair.
glennhoffmania said:
Did anyone think Lester was going to get his deal this time last year?
Obviously there is risk involved, but aren't these the kind of deals they should be making? Any pitcher at anytime can blow their elbow out. We know they aren't going to be throwing money at the top FA, and of those guys all but Price I believe have had times of durability concern. Can it be argued that it is a 2-4 million too much a year? Sure, but we are only talking about 1-2% of the overall payroll.
First, who gives a shit what Lester thinks or feels about this deal?HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Second, the fact that Porcello is five years younger than Lester is a major factor in why the Sox are doing this deal and balked at paying Lester what he commanded. It can't be ignored.
canderson said:
That, or a year from now we can be left questioning whether in such a super aggressive approach to paying for future performance...........we ended up (borderline obsessively) overvaluing youth in that process.
Same opinion on this that i had day of the trade. People are over-hyping Porcello's current market position going in to next year barring a Cy Young'ish type season imo. This is a potential overpay we'd of been better off taking a wait-and-see stance on. If that meant paying more latter with a better and hands-on understanding on what we can expect to be paying for...so be it.
Second paragraph could very very easily have been written 12 months ago regarding Jon Lester.MikeM said:
ivanvamp said:
They are. #1 and Ace are interchangeable words. #1 does not refer to "the guy who starts the first game."
Kevin Goldstein, back when he was an internet baseball writer: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16769
What I said was absolutely correct.
ivanvamp said:
I don't want to derail the thread here, but as KG says, it's an industry term. "Ace" is what most baseball people mean when they say "#1". I don't know how you can think they're wrong. It's vocabulary.
Based on how they approached Lester, I don't think the Sox were ever going to go all in on a full FA pitcher. It's not as sexy and doesn't make for great message boarding , but the Sox are sticking with a disciplined strategy that aims at upside.Minneapolis Millers said:
The relatively short length is the reason he is getting basically market rate. If he wanted a 5 or 6 year deal, he would have gotten $16-18 AAV (if the Sox would have even gone out that far). He gives up the extra years, the Sox pay up a bit hoping he meets expectations and stays healthy, and he gets to be a FA again at 31. Everybody wins in the deal.glennhoffmania said:
This is a good deal. It's not a steal for the Sox, and it's not an overpay. They paid market rate early to avoid paying market rate for extra years by letting him hit the market. It makes sense for both sides, gives the Red Sox one less question to answer this coming winter and Porcello financial security for the rest of his life. I don't see what's not to like about it. Count me as one who is pretty happy with the news.
Absolutely. I assume the Red Sox have already set the budget for starters over the next few years and that Porcello fits nicely into those figures. It makes it win-win for both sides.
It also looks like the Sox are going to stick to their guns about not overpaying for aging arms, and spread that money around to more, less risky, personnel. 20M sounds about right for a young proven pitcher to be under control for the next 5 years.
It's a lesser Hamels, without a trade, but Hamels without giving up a stud is also in that same ballpark.
It also looks like the Sox are going to stick to their guns about not overpaying for aging arms, and spread that money around to more, less risky, personnel. 20M sounds about right for a young proven pitcher to be under control for the next 5 years.
It's a lesser Hamels, without a trade, but Hamels without giving up a stud is also in that same ballpark.
I like the philosophy behind this type of signing, but I'm not sure that the 2015 Red Sox still won't require a Hamels type addition in order get the prize.
I think the hope is they have assembled enough talented arms that a prospect dump isn't going to be required to tune the roster to make a run in October. The Sox are willing to wait to see what the current 5 do, and get some additional development time for the prospect arms. A mid-season dominating arm or two from the farm would certainly be welcome additions and change the roster math.
Also, I'm hoping closer doesn't move to the top of the shopping list.
I think the hope is they have assembled enough talented arms that a prospect dump isn't going to be required to tune the roster to make a run in October. The Sox are willing to wait to see what the current 5 do, and get some additional development time for the prospect arms. A mid-season dominating arm or two from the farm would certainly be welcome additions and change the roster math.
Also, I'm hoping closer doesn't move to the top of the shopping list.
Jnai said:
Because I see a difference, and I'm perfectly fine if I'm in the minority on this (wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last). You can be a #1 starter on a team - a guy that team looks at as their best pitcher, the one they'd rather have get the ball in a big game, etc. - but clearly not be an "Ace", a guy who is in the CYA conversation.
In other words, saying that Porcello is not getting paid like a #1 and then citing the contracts of the elite of the elite pitchers (who have hit FA at least once) is a little unfair to the conversation. People were citing Clayton Kershaw's contract (to highlight that this is a good deal for Porcello), for crying out loud, as if the two are in any way remotely comparable pitchers.
Look at the pitchers making more than him, per the list cited above:
Kershaw $31M/year: ages 26 - 32
Scherzer $30M/year: ages 30 - 36
Lester $26M/year: ages 31 - 36
Verlander $26M/year: ages 27 - 36
Hernandez $25M/year: ages 27 - 33
Sabathia $24M/year: ages 28 - 35
Greinke $24M/year: ages 29 -34
Lee $24M/year: ages 32 - 36
Tanaka $22M/year: ages 25 -31
Cain $21M/year: ages 25 - 32
Hamels $21M/year: ages 28 - 34
Wainwright $20M/year: ages 32 - 36
Porcello $19M/year: ages 26 - 30
I mean, Kershaw, Scherzer, Felix, Verlander, Lester, Sabathia (before he got old and bad), Greinke, Lee....goodness, these guys are - or were, when they signed their contracts - the very definition of "Ace" in every way. Total studs. I'd hesitate a little to put that label on Lester, but his postseason success obviously factored in huge with him.
Porcello's resume doesn't touch those guys'. Perhaps he'll be worth it - I sure hope so, and I am glad he's on the team and look forward to him pitching for the Sox. But man, he's definitely getting #1 money. He's #13 on that list. Is he really the 13th best SP in baseball?
What is this? Of course you can be "the guy that gets the ball on opening day" and not be "an ace". I posted an article that describes that very thing sourced with actual people in baseball written by a guy who is now a scouting director for a major league team. The term for that guy that takes the ball on opening day but isn't an ace is not a "#1". It's vocabulary, man. If you want to have your own vocabulary, you can have your own vocabulary, but it's going to be much harder to talk to you about baseball.
To the general point: no, he's definitely NOT getting #1 money.
Of the people on that list who are close:
Tanaka's contract above doesn't include the posting fee
Cain signed in 2012
Hamels signed in 2012 and anyway is on a 6/144 contract, and not $21M/yr
Wainwright is a clear outlier who signed a team friendly deal and also, you know, had TJS the year before his deal
Essentially everyone else on that list is making significantly more money (20%/yr), got more years, and is selling a huge chunk of their non-prime at a premium price. Everyone close signed three years ago. At least let's evaluate the deal for what it is.
To the general point: no, he's definitely NOT getting #1 money.
Of the people on that list who are close:
Tanaka's contract above doesn't include the posting fee
Cain signed in 2012
Hamels signed in 2012 and anyway is on a 6/144 contract, and not $21M/yr
Wainwright is a clear outlier who signed a team friendly deal and also, you know, had TJS the year before his deal
Essentially everyone else on that list is making significantly more money (20%/yr), got more years, and is selling a huge chunk of their non-prime at a premium price. Everyone close signed three years ago. At least let's evaluate the deal for what it is.
ivanvamp said:
I think you're asking the wrong question. What would you rather have: The last two years of any of those contracts -- or Porcello's age 29 and 30 years plus the difference in salary to spend on something else? Even if Porcello is just the pitcher we saw last year, I'll take the latter, with the possible exception of Kershaw, or maybe Felix.
What your list really says to me is that, if you want a pitcher who matches your definition of "total studs" and you didn't develop him yourself, you are likely to going to have to buy some late-career seasons at a premium price, which is a really dangerous thing to do. The Red Sox are trying to build a strong rotation without doing that, and this Porcello deal, to me, represents excellent execution of that strategy.
I'm in the pro-signing camp. But what gives some people pause gives me some pause too. I mean I get and embrace the pro-signing arguments about Porcellos' age, his general improvement year to year, not paying a premium for years that likely will be mediocre at best (does anyone NOT think Lester's contract is going to look bad in the outer years?), and the changing market. All in, I like the deal and am glad Porcello will be in Boston for his prime years. But the fact remains that this is in some ways a bet on the future and the pitcher showing that he will continue to improve. Porcello has been good, even really good, but his numbers have never been eye popping and he's never looked dominant for a consistent period of time.
To me, this is also a bet on the Sox ability to evaluate talent and project future performance. I'm OK with that. I think they know what they are doing. Hell, while there are obvious differences, the Moncada and Castillo signings are in the same general camp, so they better be good at projecting the future. But I think those who are somewhat lukewarm or think this is an overpay have a basis for their comments. I don't share their negativity but I do understand it.
To me, this is also a bet on the Sox ability to evaluate talent and project future performance. I'm OK with that. I think they know what they are doing. Hell, while there are obvious differences, the Moncada and Castillo signings are in the same general camp, so they better be good at projecting the future. But I think those who are somewhat lukewarm or think this is an overpay have a basis for their comments. I don't share their negativity but I do understand it.
I love this deal and fully agree with Snod's 'not a steal, not an overpay' line of thinking. To me, this is exactly how a large-market club should operate. Too many people simply think '$200 million payroll = play in big-time FA sandbox', but to me the smart clubs know that it also means being able to easily absorb the risk in deals like this one.
I like having solid pitchers like him and Miley anchoring the rotation for now while we see what we have on the farm. I'm also hoping that their advanced metrics see something in Porcello that they really, really like and that he truly will be a 1 or 2 starter over the deal.
I like having solid pitchers like him and Miley anchoring the rotation for now while we see what we have on the farm. I'm also hoping that their advanced metrics see something in Porcello that they really, really like and that he truly will be a 1 or 2 starter over the deal.
Question for the anti-signing camp: at what price/years would you have extended Porcello at? To me anyway, the deal is at about the threshold where it's worth making. If the Sox are so optimistic about Porcello's next 5 years, I would've considered adding on an additional year to the contract, too.
glennhoffmania said:
Nor was the trade for Porcello a "Sox-sided deal" That's the point. Good GMs are trying to make good deals and trades, not "win" them. Cherington truly does not care if Cespedes hits 85HRs this year, as long as Porcello gives them what they expect.
All longish term deals are bets on future performance. The Sox are betting on their evaluation of future performance of a guy who maynot be at his peak. The Cubs, for example, are betting on the location of a cliff for a guy who is at his peak.
The difference in eras make the difference between the two pitchers MUCH greater than the raw numbers. Halladay's 4.11 ERA through his age 25 season was good for a 115 ERA+. Porcello's career ERA+ with his 4.03 ERA is 98.mt8thsw9th said:
Additionally, Halladay was promising, was abjectly bad in 2000, was sent down, and then came back and was great. He basically just had one terrible year which skewed his stats. Porcello has been kind of the same for a while...improving slightly but no years that were more than above-average.
In short, this may be a good deal and Porcello may improve some, but it's an asinine comparison.
Edit: And more to the point, we are in an ALL TIME HIGH era for K rates. Halladay's K rate looks a lot better in context. Porcello's is well below-average. He needs good infield defense, which he'll hopefully get, at least on the right side of the infield.
What I like about the approach of focusing on pre-30 players is that it somewhat reduces the need for evaluation and projection. Rather than trying to gamble on which player is going to buck aging/injury trends and deliver value into their mid/late 30s, they're focused on players with a better chance of maintaining or increasing their value. You'll generally have more success going with the trend than in picking exceptions, with the downsides being a relative lack of 'proven performance', and the fact that players in that range are less freely available (so you've got a smaller pool to start with, and will probably need to give up something besides cash just to have the opportunity to bring them in).TheoShmeo said:
I don't think this derail is particularly relevant to the porcello deal, but for what it's worth, here's how I've reconciled these two viewpoints. If you were to release all starting pitchers and then assign them to teams randomly... the top 15 pitchers have a better than 50% chance of ending up on a team where they're the best SP. The #16 SP has a 50% chance of going to a team with one of the top 15 guys (thus being a #2) and a 50% chance of going to a team without them (thus being a #1). So, the top 15 guys have a better chance of being the staff "ace" than not, guys 16-3x are more likely to be #2s (I haven't bothered to figure out where this cutoff puts #2 vs #3). I think that "top 15" classifier generally "feels" about right for who is a true #1/ace type.ivanvamp said:
joe dokes said:
I've made no comment about the trade so I'm not sure what you're getting at. My only point was that I thought some people were a little too excited about this extension and thought it was more team-friendly than it really is. How many homers Cespedes hits is completely irrelevant to what they just committed to Porcello. It's not a terrible deal, but I don't see how it can be viewed as a great one either.
CoRP said:
The really mindblowing thing is that Clay Buchholz is the oldest starter on this team.