SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox just extended Porcello, through the 2019 season
|
Post by mredsox89 on Apr 7, 2015 0:06:18 GMT -5
Unless you look deep into Porcello, it obviously looks like a rough contract, which I feel is what most casual fans see, a 4.30 career ERA, 5.5 k/9, etc.
But based on all of the above, and the fact that he's really entering his prime, coming off his best season of his career, and still only 26, I really like the deal. I mean I don't see a ton of upside value wise, but if he continues to put up 2.5/3ish WAR seasons BR or FG, it's market value at worst. And everything points to him moving more towards his FIP with significantly better IF defense, better OF defense, likely a better catcher/pitch framer, etc.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 7, 2015 3:20:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Apr 7, 2015 6:39:34 GMT -5
Fair enough. I'm not sure how far we'd have to go for me to be comfortable (not that it matters), but I can't believe the Sox aren't betting on improved performance, however slight, given the AAV of this deal. Your not wrong....there is a very clear bias among the majority of posters on this website for the front office. What I like about this deal is that both sides seemed to give respect to the other side by compromise/reward This coming from the guy he actually stated a month or two ago in an earlier thread that he has an anti-management perspective in general, whether it be the Red Sox or IBM. I actually think the majority of posters are willing to criticize the FO - Ben or whomever - when warranted. But they're also willing to give kudos when kudos are due. The fact is, this ownership group has brought Red Sox nation 3 World Series championships in the past 14 years (and one hell of an exciting 2003), something the Sox hadn't seen in the previous 86 years. They also have (and generally have had) a strong farm system, so it hasn't been done by gutting the farm system. So to the degree that there is any bias towards ownership/management, it's because fans (especially those old enough to remember the many years of heartache) have a certain amount of trust that this ownership knows what it's doing - for the most part. But there were many voices of criticism when they hired Bobby V. There have been criticisms of the handling of the John Lester contract situation. Etc. It's just hard to find too much fault with the Porcello contract when you focus on his most recent years (other than the ones when he was rushed to the majors at age 20 and wasn't really ready for another 2-3 years), his durability, the level of defense of where he was playing and where he is now, and the fact that he'll be under contract for his age 26-30 years. There's risk in every contract for a pitcher at this level, but this seems like a reasonable risk.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 7, 2015 6:48:59 GMT -5
A "clear bias for front office" comes from things like this: www.theplayerstribune.com/rick-porcello-boston-red-sox-contract-extension/What Rick Porcello is saying here is "this place is so much better than in Detroit". It almost has to be taken this way because he didn't think he was going to be interested in an extension when he was traded here. The front office has created this environment. Oh and also provided us with the #2 farm system and probably #1 system for under 25 players. If you're not happy with the front office now, you never ever will be. Maybe you'll never be happy with anything.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 7, 2015 7:02:53 GMT -5
Lest I be accused of front office bias for liking this deal, here's what I wrote on Dec 12 2014 in the "2014-2015 offseason thread": forum.soxprospects.com/post/122282/threadAlso, a win turned out to cost closer to $8m than $7.5m this offseason. So by my analysis, done way before the extension talks even started, this is a strongly below-market-value deal for less years than I thought it would take. So I hope I can call this deal "awesome" without being accused of bias.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 7, 2015 7:12:44 GMT -5
In Bradford's defense, pretty much everyone reported that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 7, 2015 7:51:18 GMT -5
Lest I be accused of front office bias for liking this deal, here's what I wrote on Dec 12 2014 in the "2014-2015 offseason thread": forum.soxprospects.com/post/122282/threadAlso, a win turned out to cost closer to $8m than $7.5m this offseason. So by my analysis, done way before the extension talks even started, this is a strongly below-market-value deal for less years than I thought it would take. So I hope I can call this deal "awesome" without being accused of bias. What's really crazy to me is that the people complaining about the front office are most likely complaining about them not spending money on pitching and now here we are complaining about that. That's probably an over-generalization.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Apr 7, 2015 8:30:11 GMT -5
I understand the risk to this contract; conversely there is risk in every contract.
What I absolutely LOVE about this deal is the Sox are paying a guy trending upwards for his 27-30 seasons INSTEAD of paying guys for 5-7 years in their 30's in the hopes they still pitch like they are...well...Rick Porcellos age.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 7, 2015 8:35:59 GMT -5
The thing with this contract is that you don't really need excess value at the front of it because there shouldn't be any decline at the end of it. Very little chance of this not being a good deal, relatively speaking. This extension really makes the Lester > Cespedes > Porcello trades look a lot better. They were already pretty decent.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 7, 2015 8:57:37 GMT -5
Very little chance of this not being a good deal, relatively speaking. Well, it's a pitcher. One TJ surgery and you lose 25% of the value of a 4-year contract. But otherwise, yes.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 7, 2015 9:10:44 GMT -5
Very little chance of this not being a good deal, relatively speaking. Well, it's a pitcher. One TJ surgery and you lose 25% of the value of a 4-year contract. But otherwise, yes. This is the only worry I have, though Porcello isn't really the typical TJ type of thrower. I'd actually have preferred a longer contract for a guy this young. Would be great to have him through age 33.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 7, 2015 9:12:45 GMT -5
Very little chance of this not being a good deal, relatively speaking. Well, it's a pitcher. One TJ surgery and you lose 25% of the value of a 4-year contract. But otherwise, yes. That's the relatively speaking part. You can't avoid that with any pitcher.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Apr 7, 2015 9:26:33 GMT -5
With regards to nothing: I always wonder what the process is for putting out one of these athlete-written articles. Using Porcello's article as an example, does he actually write the article and work with an editor to finalize the product? Or does he just feed the information to some other writer who then spins it out? In other words, exactly how much of the creative process is fed and driven by Porcello himself?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 7, 2015 9:30:11 GMT -5
With regards to nothing: I always wonder what the process is for putting out one of these athlete-written articles. Using Porcello's article as an example, does he actually write the article and work with an editor to finalize the product? Or does he just feed the information to some other writer who then spins it out? In other words, exactly how much of the creative process is fed and driven by Porcello himself? www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/sports/athletes-finding-their-voice-in-derek-jeters-digital-venture.html
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Apr 7, 2015 9:34:44 GMT -5
With regards to nothing: I always wonder what the process is for putting out one of these athlete-written articles. Using Porcello's article as an example, does he actually write the article and work with an editor to finalize the product? Or does he just feed the information to some other writer who then spins it out? In other words, exactly how much of the creative process is fed and driven by Porcello himself? www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/sports/athletes-finding-their-voice-in-derek-jeters-digital-venture.htmlHey, much appreciated. That answered my question and then some.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 7, 2015 9:35:17 GMT -5
In Bradford's defense, pretty much everyone reported that. They also weren't wrong he signed before the season. Maybe that was the impetus for getting it done before the first pitch.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 7, 2015 9:40:30 GMT -5
This is a good deal for both sides. Porcello just set himself for life and gets another crack at a big contract if he performs well in a market that should have even higher salaries than now.
This is a guy with an underrated skill set that doesn't get paid for very often. He's not a Josh Johnson type who's going to keep racking in 10m (give or take) per for 3 years after he's proven over and over again he can't be healthy. If Porcello blew out his elbow this year he'd get a crap contract to try to prove it because he doesn't strike guys out or have the upside (in most people's minds) which drives his price down for those who do value him.
For the team they take on the risk that he's plateaued or hit his peak and if he has then he's probably a slight over pay, but who cares he's 26 that's a lower chance especially considering that makeup.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 7, 2015 11:47:45 GMT -5
Overall I like the deal, it seems fair. Porcello get's a good AAV and free agency at age 30, Sox don't have to over commit on the years to a pitcher.
I will say, with all the spending the Red Sox have made recently, they may be limited some of their options going forward. They must be comfortable will the youth talent they have to fill out the roster for cheap in the future. As of now, we have 113M committed to 9 players for 2016, Porcello, Sandoval, Hanley, Pedroia, Castillo, Craig, Uehara, Miley and Hanigan. This doesn't count Ortiz's + Buchholz options, or Napoli's and Masterson's free agency (Victorino too), along with arbitration eligible, Kelly, Tazawa, Ogando, Nava, Varvaro, and Ross. They will be mostly cheap given their value, but a conservative guess is those 6 will cost at least another 10M.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Apr 7, 2015 11:57:49 GMT -5
its going to be difficult to acquire a frontline SP and stay under the $185M threshold next year.
Not a given that this is their goal, of course.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,414
|
Post by ianrs on Apr 7, 2015 12:07:24 GMT -5
I also really like the deal given market price. And, like chavo said, Porcello is still only 26, just entering his prime. We just locked up 4 of his best seasons at a reasonable rate.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Apr 7, 2015 12:57:36 GMT -5
Cole Hamels would have cost 114M over the same time frame including this year, and required one of Betts or Swihart. Would you trade Porcello, Betts, and 20M for Hamels?
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 7, 2015 13:08:07 GMT -5
It is interesting that Kopech has been assigned to Greenville at the age of 18. If he does well, he could approach the majors when he is not much older than Porcello was when he hit the Show. I like the deal. I think Porcello is going to be a very solid pitcher for the Sox and will win some big games in the future. Very smart of the Sox to lock him up now.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 7, 2015 13:08:58 GMT -5
its going to be difficult to acquire a frontline SP and stay under the $185M threshold next year. Not a given that this is their goal, of course. I think this extension might obviate the need to acquire a frontline SP next year. Porcello, Buchholz (option), Miley, and Kelly are all under control next year, and the Pawtucket guys should be in a position to compete for that last spot. Of course, if this year's rotation falls flat, that might change, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Even if injuries or poor performance change the picture, they might be more interested in the mid-tier guys (Fister, Iwakuma, Leake, etc.) than the top-tier guys (Price, Cueto, Greinke, Zimmermann, Samardzija). In general, next year's team projects to look a lot like this year's team. The only significant free-agents-to-be are Napoli, Victorino, Masterson, and Mujica, and Napoli is really the only one of those without a ready-made replacement in the wings (and even there, there's Craig and the possibility that the Red Sox offer him the QO and he accepts). Even in 2017, the only major free agents are Uehara and Tazawa (both Ortiz and Buchholz have team options that offseason as well). It sure looks like Cherington is banking on this present core to be that "next great Red Sox team" he keeps talking about.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 7, 2015 13:18:45 GMT -5
Porcello, Buchholz (option), Miley, and Kelly are all under control next year, Just because Buchholz is good this year doesn't mean he won't be terrible next year. Also Kelly still hasn't given me any reason to believe in him, but oh well, we'll see...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 7, 2015 13:22:02 GMT -5
I'm actually with mgoetze. Without the benefit of seeing what he does this year, which could change things in either direction (loses job before year is up, or solidifies it with a great year), I'd project he'll need to fight Owens, Rodriguez, and Johnson off to keep his rotation spot.
|
|
|