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 soxfan06 on Apr 6, 2015 19:26:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 6, 2015 19:32:04 GMT -5
The short article Porcello wrote was terrific...it really struck me how enamored he was of the organization, and he comes across as a thoughtful, professional person but also just a good guy...exactly who you'd want on the team. This is a coup for the Sox, locking him up for his prime. I don't even see the AAV as particularly high, given what he did last year, his age, and the trend. I do think the deal has more of a chance to be bad for him than for the Sox, but I love that he showed a clear commitment to the organization, and winning, rather than grasping for every dollar. There are some (nameless) who talk a good game about all of the stuff that matters, but in the end go for the green. Hugely excited for Porcello to be here for five seasons.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 6, 2015 19:43:24 GMT -5
Interesting little fact from that article: Rick Porcello is six months younger than last year's NL ROY (DeGrom) and two years younger than both of the top two finishers in the AL ROY (Abreu and Shoemaker). The more I think about this deal, the better it is. If Porcello doesn't improve at all, this is about what he's worth. So if he improves, the Sox make out on the deal. What's not to like about that for a player entering his late 20s? Granted, there's the inherent risk with any pitcher, yadda, yadda, yadda ...
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 6, 2015 19:59:51 GMT -5
Love this move from the Sox perspective, but it's also a really interesting move by Porcello and his agent. If he rode the season out and stayed healthy he could've gotten 7+ years at his age. A bit of a gamble (if you can call picking up $82M a gamble) but he could be losing out on an extra $50M-70M.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Apr 6, 2015 20:03:07 GMT -5
Basically this amounts to a 5 year $101M deal. This years free agent market is going to be chalk full of pitchers from David Price to Johnny Cuteto. Though Porcello lacks the pedigree of many of these pitchers, he was by far the youngest pitcher in this years free agent class. Most likely, this deal will be decried by members of the media who will wonder out loud why they chose to give an unproven pitcher $100M, while allowing a proven World Series pitcher in John Lester walk away. But you pay for the expected future, not past glory and hopefully there are enough members of the media who realize that. The bet that Porcello's next five years will be at least as good as Lester's next five at about 80% of the cost, seems to be a strong one.
So let me say this now, even if this doesn't work out, this is a guy they had to get signed.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Apr 6, 2015 20:06:21 GMT -5
The more I think about this deal, the better it is. If Porcello doesn't improve at all, this is about what he's worth. So if he improves, the Sox make out on the deal. What's not to like about that for a player entering his late 20s? I respectfully disagree, and realize I'm not in the majority in my thinking. I can only hope they are betting on his age and stuff. I just don't see a pitcher that gives up over 9 hits per 9 and strikes out less than 6 per 9 as being a legit #3 or better on a playoff contender.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Apr 6, 2015 20:12:34 GMT -5
Basically this amounts to a 5 year $101M deal. This years free agent market is going to be chalk full of pitchers from David Price to Johnny Cuteto. Though Porcello lacks the pedigree of many of these pitchers, he was by far the youngest pitcher in this years free agent class. Most likely, this deal will be decried by members of the media who will wonder out loud why they chose to give an unproven pitcher $100M, while allowing a proven World Series pitcher in John Lester walk away. But you pay for the expected future, not past glory and hopefully there are enough members of the media who realize that. The bet that Porcello's next five years will be at least as good as Lester's next five at about 80% of the cost, seems to be a strong one. So let me say this now, even if this doesn't work out, this is a guy they had to get signed. Where are you getting 5/$101? This is basically a 5 year/$95M deal. AAV of $19M
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Apr 6, 2015 20:13:38 GMT -5
Groundball pitchers give up hits, you need to get over that. They are ridiculously less harmful than FB or LD.
Type AVG ISO wOBA GB .239 .020 .220 LD .685 .190 .684 FB .207 .378 .335
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Apr 6, 2015 20:22:25 GMT -5
Groundball pitchers give up hits, you need to get over that. They are ridiculously less harmful than FB or LD. Type AVG ISO wOBA GB .239 .020 .220 LD .685 .190 .684 FB .207 .378 .335 Plus he will be playing with a better infield defense than he had in Detroit. Nice move by bc.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Apr 6, 2015 20:30:52 GMT -5
5 homers and Buchholz with an ace-quality outing to open the year, now a good deal to lock Porcello in (AAV a bit high but I never thought he'd sign for less than 5 years), Red Sox Cloud 9 day!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 6, 2015 20:36:52 GMT -5
If you haven't all read this, it should be required reading for Red Sox fans. We have great owners.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Apr 6, 2015 20:38:26 GMT -5
Groundball pitchers give up hits, you need to get over that. They are ridiculously less harmful than FB or LD. Type AVG ISO wOBA GB .239 .020 .220 LD .685 .190 .684 FB .207 .378 .335 Well, I don't, really, but what does this even mean, defining pitchers purely in one of these buckets? Let's stick to Porcello's numbers. I don't believe Porcello is without value. But I believe the value of this contract is for that of a #3 or perhaps #2 starter. I don't believe, regardless of the tactics used to achieve them, that a pitcher who consistently puts up 9/2.5/5.5 per nine innings is a #3 or #2 of a playoff contender. Not regularly anyway. My hope is that they are banking on upside. I don't believe the deal is a disaster if those numbers hold, but I certainly would think we can get better value on *similar* numbers for the money.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 6, 2015 20:40:22 GMT -5
Groundball pitchers give up hits, you need to get over that. They are ridiculously less harmful than FB or LD. Type AVG ISO wOBA GB .239 .020 .220 LD .685 .190 .684 FB .207 .378 .335 Well, I don't, really, but what does this even mean, defining pitchers purely in one of these buckets? Let's stick to Porcello's numbers. I don't believe Porcello is without value. But I believe the value of this contract is for that of a #3 or perhaps #2 starter. I don't believe, regardless of the tactics used to achieve them, that a pitcher who consistently puts up 9/2.5/5.5 per nine innings is a #3 or #2 of a playoff contender. Not regularly anyway. My hope is that they are banking on upside. I don't believe the deal is a disaster if those numbers hold, but I certainly would think we can get better value on *similar* numbers for the money. No need to exaggerate the walk rate in your favor. Over 3 K/BB with a 3.5-3.6ish FIP is pretty #2ish. There is also the upside of having far better pitch framers not included in his previous #s with the possible explanation that low ball pitchers would get even more ground balls with a better pitch framer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Apr 6, 2015 20:46:34 GMT -5
And just think, if they hadn't signed Julio Lugo, he'd have been here the whole time.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Apr 6, 2015 20:55:03 GMT -5
Well, I don't, really, but what does this even mean, defining pitchers purely in one of these buckets? Let's stick to Porcello's numbers. I don't believe Porcello is without value. But I believe the value of this contract is for that of a #3 or perhaps #2 starter. I don't believe, regardless of the tactics used to achieve them, that a pitcher who consistently puts up 9/2.5/5.5 per nine innings is a #3 or #2 of a playoff contender. Not regularly anyway. My hope is that they are banking on upside. I don't believe the deal is a disaster if those numbers hold, but I certainly would think we can get better value on *similar* numbers for the money. No need to exaggerate the walk rate in your favor. Over 3 K/BB with a 3.5-3.6ish FIP is pretty #2ish. There is also the upside of having far better pitch framers not included in his previous #s with the possible explanation that low ball pitchers would get even more ground balls with a better pitch framer. Sorry, 2.2 is his career average. I'm off by .3. Mea culpa. A clear #2 then. Sounds like Jake Peavy* to me. *Edit: An exaggeration, sure, but you're taking the lowest bar on each metric, which demonstrates competence. And I grant that. I just don't see the value of his numbers to be as high as you and others do.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Apr 6, 2015 20:59:39 GMT -5
No need to exaggerate the walk rate in your favor. Over 3 K/BB with a 3.5-3.6ish FIP is pretty #2ish. There is also the upside of having far better pitch framers not included in his previous #s with the possible explanation that low ball pitchers would get even more ground balls with a better pitch framer. Sorry, 2.2 is his career average. I'm off by .3. Mea culpa. A clear #2 then. Sounds like Jake Peavy to me. You are acting like the type of contact given up doesn't matter, though. He is a groundball pitcher who doesn't give up HRs. You can't get a full picture of him just by using the numbers you are using.
|
|
|
Post by jhenrywaugh, prop. on Apr 6, 2015 21:05:34 GMT -5
Sorry, 2.2 is his career average. I'm off by .3. Mea culpa. A clear #2 then. Sounds like Jake Peavy to me. You are acting like the type of contact given up doesn't matter, though. He is a groundball pitcher who doesn't give up HRs. You can't get a full picture of him just by using the numbers you are using. 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.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Apr 6, 2015 21:17:17 GMT -5
Basically this amounts to a 5 year $101M deal. This years free agent market is going to be chalk full of pitchers from David Price to Johnny Cuteto. Though Porcello lacks the pedigree of many of these pitchers, he was by far the youngest pitcher in this years free agent class. Most likely, this deal will be decried by members of the media who will wonder out loud why they chose to give an unproven pitcher $100M, while allowing a proven World Series pitcher in John Lester walk away. But you pay for the expected future, not past glory and hopefully there are enough members of the media who realize that. The bet that Porcello's next five years will be at least as good as Lester's next five at about 80% of the cost, seems to be a strong one. So let me say this now, even if this doesn't work out, this is a guy they had to get signed. Where are you getting 5/$101? This is basically a 5 year/$95M deal. AAV of $19 Yes you are right....I misread the deal as five years 89 when in fact it's 82.5 making the total 95 over five years. The rest of my post still stands.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 6, 2015 21:48:14 GMT -5
You are acting like the type of contact given up doesn't matter, though. He is a groundball pitcher who doesn't give up HRs. You can't get a full picture of him just by using the numbers you are using. 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 Hence the higher AAV for a shorter deal. While the market would clearly pay Porcello this AAV if he had even an average 1 year run with the Sox this year.....there is a real risk that this could be an overpay for this type of pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 6, 2015 22:36:48 GMT -5
This extension is a great capper to a great opening day. As others have pointed out, this is a fair deal for both sides. If Porcello capitalizes and pitches well over the next four years, he goes to the free agent market at 30 years old with a chance of getting a Jon Lesterish type of deal - elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Sox get cost certainty for what will most likely be the best four years of Porcello's career.
It's a lot of money over a short time, but it's not "ace" money. Not when "aces" are getting 25 - 30 million/year these days.
I wouldn't think this precludes the Sox from taking on another big starting pitcher salary although I don't think the Sox will be the team that signs a free agent starter to a seven year $175 million deal.
They got Buchholz for two more years if they want him, Miley for three more years beyond this one, Porcello thru 2019, with Kelly tied up, and the three lefties on the way. The shape of the Red Sox rotation has been stabilized.
This on a day where Hanley Ramirez reminded me so much of Manny Ramirez, Pedroia had his old quick swing back, Buchholz did a fair impersonation of an ace, and Mookie was Mookie.
I've already had more fun in 2015 than I have had in all of 2014.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 6, 2015 22:39:08 GMT -5
The more I think about this deal, the better it is. If Porcello doesn't improve at all, this is about what he's worth. So if he improves, the Sox make out on the deal. What's not to like about that for a player entering his late 20s? I respectfully disagree, and realize I'm not in the majority in my thinking. I can only hope they are betting on his age and stuff. I just don't see a pitcher that gives up over 9 hits per 9 and strikes out less than 6 per 9 as being a legit #3 or better on a playoff contender. He had a 3.43 ERA in 200 innings in front of THE WORST defensive infield in baseball (three years running). Here's a great article that discusses what Porcello would have done, and could be expected to do, with a team that can catch and throw the ball: www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/three-things-the-red-sox-will-do-for-rick-porcello/Fwiw, he's 26...again, as pointed out above, younger than DeGrom. He's also exceptionally durable. In cherry-picking the numbers you're ignoring the most basic counterpoints: while his h/9 is high, he doesn't walk many people at all. It is also artificially elevated due to errors extending innings and increasing hit totals (there's no "EHA", but if there were, his totals would be a lot lower with even an average defensive team). So his WHIP is solid, if not yet outstanding. He is just entering his prime. He specifically pitches to contact. Lower K rates are generally a "bad sign," but the goal of the game for a pitcher is to get outs, and go deep in games (as a starter). Strikeouts are fascist. They're also not economical. And Porcello's rate stats (ERA, SIERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9) are all headed in the right directions. He is an **excellent** bet to be an even better pitcher than last year, when, with a real defense, he arguably may have had an ERA under 3. According to B-R, Porcello's #2 career comp is Greg Maddux. That's good company. Better catching, better defense, better game-calling, improving pitch selection and command. All portend Porcello being, if not a #1 very soon, at least a very solid 2.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Apr 6, 2015 22:48:32 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree, and realize I'm not in the majority in my thinking. I can only hope they are betting on his age and stuff. I just don't see a pitcher that gives up over 9 hits per 9 and strikes out less than 6 per 9 as being a legit #3 or better on a playoff contender. He had a 3.43 ERA in 200 innings in front of THE WORST defensive infield in baseball (three years running). Here's a great article that discusses what Porcello would have done, and could be expected to do, with a team that can catch and throw the ball: www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/three-things-the-red-sox-will-do-for-rick-porcello/Fwiw, he's 26...again, as pointed out above, younger than DeGrom. He's also exceptionally durable. In cherry-picking the numbers you're ignoring the most basic counterpoints: while his h/9 is high, he doesn't walk many people at all. It is also artificially elevated due to errors extending innings and increasing hit totals (there's no "EHA", but if there were, his totals would be a lot lower with even an average defensive team). So his WHIP is solid, if not yet outstanding. He is just entering his prime. He specifically pitches to contact. Lower K rates are generally a "bad sign," but the goal of the game for a pitcher is to get outs, and go deep in games (as a starter). Strikeouts are fascist. They're also not economical. And Porcello's rate stats (ERA, SIERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9) are all headed in the right directions. He is an **excellent** bet to be an even better pitcher than last year, when, with a real defense, he arguably may have had an ERA under 3. According to B-R, Porcello's #2 career comp is Greg Maddux. That's good company. Better catching, better defense, better game-calling, improving pitch selection and command. All portend Porcello being, if not a #1 very soon, at least a very solid 2. This says most of what I wanted to, but I just wanted to add one more thing: It makes no sense to use career numbers to measure Porcello's likely future value because it weighs his recent good seasons equally with those years when the Tigers rushed him to the majors before he was ready.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 6, 2015 22:49:26 GMT -5
Groundball pitchers give up hits, you need to get over that. They are ridiculously less harmful than FB or LD. Type AVG ISO wOBA GB .239 .020 .220 LD .685 .190 .684 FB .207 .378 .335 Plus he will be playing with a better infield defense than he had in Detroit. Nice move by bc. *Dramatically* better infield defense. And better OF defense. And, since the low strike accounts for about 75% of the increased area of the strike zone between 2007 and now, excellent pitch framing will probably steal him a call or three every game. Seems small, but there's a dramatic difference in BA between 2-1 and 1-2, and more than a few of those stolen strikes are going to save runs.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 6, 2015 22:56:47 GMT -5
He had a 3.43 ERA in 200 innings in front of THE WORST defensive infield in baseball (three years running). Here's a great article that discusses what Porcello would have done, and could be expected to do, with a team that can catch and throw the ball: www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/three-things-the-red-sox-will-do-for-rick-porcello/Fwiw, he's 26...again, as pointed out above, younger than DeGrom. He's also exceptionally durable. In cherry-picking the numbers you're ignoring the most basic counterpoints: while his h/9 is high, he doesn't walk many people at all. It is also artificially elevated due to errors extending innings and increasing hit totals (there's no "EHA", but if there were, his totals would be a lot lower with even an average defensive team). So his WHIP is solid, if not yet outstanding. He is just entering his prime. He specifically pitches to contact. Lower K rates are generally a "bad sign," but the goal of the game for a pitcher is to get outs, and go deep in games (as a starter). Strikeouts are fascist. They're also not economical. And Porcello's rate stats (ERA, SIERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9) are all headed in the right directions. He is an **excellent** bet to be an even better pitcher than last year, when, with a real defense, he arguably may have had an ERA under 3. According to B-R, Porcello's #2 career comp is Greg Maddux. That's good company. Better catching, better defense, better game-calling, improving pitch selection and command. All portend Porcello being, if not a #1 very soon, at least a very solid 2. This says most of what I wanted to, but I just wanted to add one more thing: It makes no sense to use career numbers to measure Porcello's likely future value because it weighs his recent good seasons equally with those years when the Tigers rushed him to the majors before he was ready. Excellent point...he was a full-time starter in the majors at 20 (!!) Even the best prospects, other than a Jose Fernandez or Doc Gooden or Bob Feller, don't stick until 22-23 usually. Plus, Porcello came up originally in a small strike zone era with juiced players and no low strike calls, in front of a weak (though not truly horrendous, as it has been the last three years) defense. Look at the trend, not the catch-all career numbers, and it's hard not to get excited. Low HR rate, high GB rate, and very real positive results last year *explained by a change in pitch use and pitching style*, meaning it's wasn't random.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Apr 6, 2015 23:56:05 GMT -5
The Tigers were also among the teams that used the shift the least last year despite the fact that Porcello is the perfect guy to use the shift for.
There are a lot of things pointing to an uptick in performance.
|
|
|