Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[cp176]

Of course they have a budget CP. They have always been willing to spend, despite some people calling them tight, but they do operate within a budget.

 

What do you think their budget limitations might be? I think that they of course have some sort of budget. You and I can't imagine what it might be though. Let me say again that I am happy to be a Red Sox fan but if you think that there is some sort of spending restraint being shown I guess that is your opinion. I don't care what they do really with their money but personally I think that there will be bigger fish to come that they will be going after. They will win and if it takes money to do it they have shown a great deal more willingness to do it than I ever thought they would.

[iortiz]

Terrible?

 

Haha sorry for mixing it with Spanish. In Spanish terrible is atroz, horrible, malo. Translating, it is atrociuos, horrible, awful.

[Spudboy]

I had read yesterday morning, before this deal was announced, that the Sox and Porcello had agreed to hold off on extension talks until the end of the season. I am guessing that the rush was that Porcello stated that he would not discuss contracts during the season. So, if the deal was not done now, it would not be discussed again until the end of the season.

 

At that time, Porcello's stock might be a lot higher than it is now. If Porcello pitches well, you can almost bet he would be getting more than 4 years. This is something that the FO wants to avoid, if possible.

 

Yes, it's a risk, but IMO, a good risk to take. I'm guessing that Porcello will pitch well enough to be worth the contract. This is also one less thing Ben has to worry about next offseason.

 

Too much common sense. Knock it off.

 

I'd rather the pump 20 mil a year into Porcello than say, Shields. And I have always liked Shields. He's (Porcello) young and very good. This is a risk like all other big $ contracts. It also may be a real bargain relative to what free agent arms will be going for very soon. And one more thing, there is not an inexhaustible supply of quality arms about to hit the market. The Sox just landed one. I'm glad that they did.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Spudboy

[sk7326]

What do you think their budget limitations might be? I think that they of course have some sort of budget. You and I can't imagine what it might be though. Let me say again that I am happy to be a Red Sox fan but if you think that there is some sort of spending restraint being shown I guess that is your opinion. I don't care what they do really with their money but personally I think that there will be bigger fish to come that they will be going after. They will win and if it takes money to do it they have shown a great deal more willingness to do it than I ever thought they would.

 

There is a budget yes, but it is a choice. I don't think they are tight but they do have valuations they want to stick with. But in terms of "budget" it is really about how much of John Henry's money does he want to commit vs whether anybody can keep the lights on.

[Palodios]

Given the $ that they have been throwing around, i don't see how you can say that they won't be in play for the top free agent pitchers on the market next year. If the youngsters don't come along quickly, I think that they absolutely will.

 

The Red Sox haven't thrown money at a FA pitcher since Lackey in 2009. Yet, they've signed Crawford, Agon, Hanley, Panda, Victorino.

 

Their eyes are big on finding a Sale/Fernandez/Harvey/Gray type, but we'll see how that goes. If they go for a free agent pitcher, it is probably Strasburg in 2016, who will hit free agency at 28 years old.

[iortiz]

Here's an interesting article from last month: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/rick-porcellos-upcoming-enormous-payday/

 

 

The other comparison I keep thinking about is Mark Buerhle. The Marlins paid 56 million (plus a 19 million dollar option) for a 32 year old with low strikeouts and an ERA around 4.00.

 

iOrtiz, I distinctly remember you and I agreeing that he was probably going to be worth it, despite that he was only a #2/3 at best. Surprise surprise, Buerhle is 36 and is chasing his 200th win in the majors.

mmm... I think they are very different animals Pal. MB had several years with very solid ERA numbers below 4.

 

2001 3.29

2002 3.58

2004 3.89

2005 3.12

2007 3.63

2008 3.79

2009 3.84

2011 3.59

2012 3.74

 

...and last year he posted a very solid ERA, 3.39. Seems like we weren't wrong in wanting him.

Here's a very solid track record and a tendency for a true No. 2-3.

 

On the other hand when you see Porcello's numbers, aside 2013, they are garbage.

 

2010 4.92

2011 4.75

2012 4.59

2013 4.32

 

Those are No 5-7 numbers.

 

My take in this signing is that they do not want to s*** the bed like they did with Lester, but cmon, this is Rick f***ing Porcello we are talking about, sure a young but unproved pitcher. If you want to overpay a young guy like José Fernandez, Kershaw, Teheran, etc. it is understandable, but again, this guy has to prove at least two more years that 2013 was not a fluke year (I tend to think this) in order to earn this kind of money.

 

They basically based this signing in one year, oh and because he is young. As I said, I do not see a 5 ERA pitcher as he once was, but I do not see a 3.5 ERA pitcher either. IMO He is going to be no more than a 4.0 ERA pitcher (No. 4 type), reason why I think this contract is terrible (spanish haha).

[sk7326]

Porcello's career has been marked by shaky BABIPs and FIPs which trend below his actual ERAs. He has generally played in front of bad defensive teams. Ground ball rates have been excellent and he has been trending positively generally. It will be interesting.

[Kimmi]

What do you think their budget limitations might be? I think that they of course have some sort of budget. You and I can't imagine what it might be though. Let me say again that I am happy to be a Red Sox fan but if you think that there is some sort of spending restraint being shown I guess that is your opinion. I don't care what they do really with their money but personally I think that there will be bigger fish to come that they will be going after. They will win and if it takes money to do it they have shown a great deal more willingness to do it than I ever thought they would.

 

The Sox spent a lot this year because they were willing to go over the luxury tax limit for one year. The penalty for exceeding the limit is not very costly as long as the Sox get back under it next year. In the majority of years, their budget limit will be $189 million. They have shown that they are willing to pay more for younger players, but not willing to do so for older players.

[iortiz]

Porcello's career has been marked by shaky BABIPs and FIPs which trend below his actual ERAs. He has generally played in front of bad defensive teams. Ground ball rates have been excellent and he has been trending positively generally. It will be interesting.

 

Hopefully you are right sk.

[Kimmi]

Porcello is also durable and is likely to give the team close to 200 innings each year. That in itself has some value.

[iortiz]

Porcello is also durable and is likely to give the team close to 200 innings each year. That in itself has some value.

Sure, but at 4.0 ERA (IMO) and 20 M/Y?, no thanks.

[GomesBeard]

Porcello's career has been marked by shaky BABIPs and FIPs which trend below his actual ERAs. He has generally played in front of bad defensive teams. Ground ball rates have been excellent and he has been trending positively generally. It will be interesting.

 

Buehrle's BaBIP is about 20 points lower than Porcello's. Good thing is that 2014 was his best year - most innings pitched, most wins (and most losses, too), lowest ERA at 3.43, lowest WHIP, and BaBIP under .300.

[OriginalUsername]

As someone who has watched Porcello and the Tigers a lot, I would say I would not pay him that much. It seems to almost be a running theme with Porcello. After another season of being a mediocre back of the rotation starter, fans would say he's still only 23, or 24, or 25. I would say at age 26 it is time to prove yourself. Porcello seemed really interested in playing in Boston. It may have been better to let this season play out, make a qualifying offer, and re-sign him. I doubt he would have left.

 

Porcello tends to get gassed after 100 pitches and fades quickly in games. Farrell will have to understand he is not a 120 pitch per game pitcher. He also doesn't have a great variation between his fastball and off speed pitches. The Tigers have generally had poor defensive teams but Doug Fister pitched well in front of that defense being a pitch to contact, ground ball pitcher. It seems like Porcello also has the tendency to unravel quickly. If it's in the 5th or 6th inning and he's given up a couple hits in a row, have to get him quick.

[Palodios]

mmm... I think they are very different animals Pal. MB had several years with very solid ERA numbers below 4.

 

On the other hand when you see Porcello's numbers, aside 2013, they are garbage.

 

The Red Sox are banking hard on projections. They probably looked at his 2013 numbers (180 IP, 4.30 ERA) and figured that even if he performed to that level he would still be worth the money.

 

This is a team that paid 13m/year for Dempster, 9 million for Masterson, 15m/year for Daisuke, and 17m/year for a mix of great and downright awful years from Lackey/Beckett.

[seabeachfred]

I'm just not sure why they did this so soon. We keep how he was a victim of poor defense in Detroit, but isn't a pretty pitcher friendly ballpark? Why not wait a half a dozen starts to see how his stuff plays at Fenway. Also, this contract provides a context for how unrealistic the Red Sox first offer to Lester was. The Red Sox lock down Miley without him throwing a pitch for us and then they do the same for Porcello, but they let the big fish off the hook? I am not quite sure that I get that strategy. Locking down Buchholz early was not exactly the best strategy. That contract has not returned a lot of value.

 

Just a guess Ted, but when Lester said after the WS in '13 that he would be more than willing to give the Red Sox a home town discount to stay in Boston, Pruney decided to see just how much of a discount he would give and sent his hatchet man Lucchino with that insulting four year $70 million offer. Yes, Larry the Lip said it was only a "starting point" but was it? Did the two amigos actually believe that Jon would settle for something like that instead of simply ignoring it and taking it as a total betrayal and even a bigger insult? We may never know....we just know that the front office screwed that one up and now we are looking for a solid No. 1 type starter and to get it will cost us plenty. And let's not kid ourselves---we can really use one.

[iortiz]

I'm just not sure why they did this so soon. We keep how he was a victim of poor defense in Detroit, but isn't a pretty pitcher friendly ballpark? Why not wait a half a dozen starts to see how his stuff plays at Fenway. Also, this contract provides a context for how unrealistic the Red Sox first offer to Lester was. The Red Sox lock down Miley without him throwing a pitch for us and then they do the same for Porcello, but they let the big fish off the hook? I am not quite sure that I get that strategy. Locking down Buchholz early was not exactly the best strategy. That contract has not returned a lot of value.

 

Hard to dispute this.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm just not sure why they did this so soon. We keep how he was a victim of poor defense in Detroit, but isn't a pretty pitcher friendly ballpark?

 

Detroit is actually rated as a hitter's park, with a factor of 102 for 2014 and 105 cumulative.

[a700hitter]

Detroit is actually rated as a hitter's park, with a factor of 102 for 2014 and 105 cumulative.

How does that compare with Fenway?

[OriginalUsername]

Fenway was 104 last year. Comerica is pretty neutral. Fenway ranked 3rd in terms of hitter parks in MLB and Comerica 10th. Edited April 7, 2015 by OriginalUsername

[cp176]

There is a budget yes, but it is a choice. I don't think they are tight but they do have valuations they want to stick with. But in terms of "budget" it is really about how much of John Henry's money does he want to commit vs whether anybody can keep the lights on.

 

 

I think that you are right- their spending is more of a choice than what a normal human would call a budget. The signing of Porcello really should come as no surprise. 20 mil. maybe a little too much. We will have to wait and see about this one. I think that it is common logic and not common sense that they would do what they could do to sign a healthy 26 year old who stands a chance to pitch a lot of innings. I don't think that this signing will limit them at all when it comes to signing the best of they young ones coming on the market next year.

[sk7326]

I think that you are right- their spending is more of a choice than what a normal human would call a budget. The signing of Porcello really should come as no surprise. 20 mil. maybe a little too much. We will have to wait and see about this one. I think that it is common logic and not common sense that they would do what they could do to sign a healthy 26 year old who stands a chance to pitch a lot of innings. I don't think that this signing will limit them at all when it comes to signing the best of they young ones coming on the market next year.

 

When we talk affordability, we are discussing two considerations:

 

1. Is the cost-benefit analysis favorable?

2. Do we have the money?

 

A real world example: I got an estimate to put a second floor on my starter home. It was $X and would increase the house's value by $3X. So CLEARLY it is a good financial move - if I could actually afford the $X (which I can't). The Red Sox basically do not have to worry about the second consideration, and can ALWAYS stretch for a bonanza.

[cp176]

The Sox spent a lot this year because they were willing to go over the luxury tax limit for one year. The penalty for exceeding the limit is not very costly as long as the Sox get back under it next year. In the majority of years, their budget limit will be $189 million. They have shown that they are willing to pay more for younger players, but not willing to do so for older players.

 

Makes sense don't you think - youth vs old. If they are able to sign the best young free agent pitcher on the market within the next year or two I don't think that they will see 189 million as something standing in their way. I would never suggest what they might spend in the majority of years but I do think that they are proving that they are willing to spend whatever it takes. That is my opinion. Yours seems to be that they are using some financial common sense when it comes their signings. We don't agree on this one. That 's ok - might guess is that you are as happy as I am that you a Red Sox fan.

[cp176]

When we talk affordability, we are discussing two considerations:

 

1. Is the cost-benefit analysis favorable?

2. Do we have the money?

 

A real world example: I got an estimate to put a second floor on my starter home. It was $X and would increase the house's value by $3X. So CLEARLY it is a good financial move - if I could actually afford the $X (which I can't). The Red Sox basically do not have to worry about the second consideration, and can ALWAYS stretch for a bonanza.

 

I am fairly certain that they go through this process before laying out the loot so to speak. I think that it looks good and may make many of the financial decisions look as though they are actually justifiable but as you kind of said - When the rubber hits the road they probably are going to make a play for whoever they really want regardless of the budget - the luxury tax - or what might look to some as simple common sense. They certainly are addressing needs with their signings but the money spent certainly doesn't look like a major issue . I think that it is a good time to be a Red Sox fan.

[Kimmi]

Sure, but at 4.0 ERA (IMO) and 20 M/Y?, no thanks.

 

 

I think he will be able to hold his ERA under 4. Cabrera and Fielder are two of the worst defenders in the league. When Detroit traded Fielder and moved Miggy to first, Porcello's ERA went down. xFIP is a better predictor of future ERA than ERA is.

[User Name]

As someone who has watched Porcello and the Tigers a lot, I would say I would not pay him that much. It seems to almost be a running theme with Porcello. After another season of being a mediocre back of the rotation starter, fans would say he's still only 23, or 24, or 25. I would say at age 26 it is time to prove yourself. Porcello seemed really interested in playing in Boston. It may have been better to let this season play out, make a qualifying offer, and re-sign him. I doubt he would have left.

 

Porcello tends to get gassed after 100 pitches and fades quickly in games. Farrell will have to understand he is not a 120 pitch per game pitcher. He also doesn't have a great variation between his fastball and off speed pitches. The Tigers have generally had poor defensive teams but Doug Fister pitched well in front of that defense being a pitch to contact, ground ball pitcher. It seems like Porcello also has the tendency to unravel quickly. If it's in the 5th or 6th inning and he's given up a couple hits in a row, have to get him quick.

 

I lived in Michigan for a significant portion of Porcello's Tigers career and watched a ton of his starts. Other than the stamina issue, I very much disagree with your assessment. Mostly on accounts of the bad D greatly affecting him more than Fister, who you unfairly used as a comparable. Fister isn't as extreme a groundball pitcher and generally had a better K rate.

 

Porcello pretty much pitched below his peripherals on a yearly basis in Detroit, and there has to be a reason for that. Other than terrible defense, what exactly can logically be the reason for this anomaly? I'm not saying he's going to be a #1 here, but he'll certainly be better than solid.

[Kimmi]

Makes sense don't you think - youth vs old. If they are able to sign the best young free agent pitcher on the market within the next year or two I don't think that they will see 189 million as something standing in their way. I would never suggest what they might spend in the majority of years but I do think that they are proving that they are willing to spend whatever it takes. That is my opinion. Yours seems to be that they are using some financial common sense when it comes their signings. We don't agree on this one. That 's ok - might guess is that you are as happy as I am that you a Red Sox fan.

 

 

The Sox will have some money to spend next year and still stay under that luxury tax. Napoli and Victorino are both coming off the books. It's possible they can afford one of the top free agent pitchers.

 

As far as going over the luxury tax in successive years, I would have to look up the exact penalty rates again, but after the 2nd year of going over, the revenue sharing penalty, which is where they would take a big hit, also kicks in. I don't see them going over the tax limit regularly, without first resetting it.

[User Name]

Sure, but at 4.0 ERA (IMO) and 20 M/Y?, no thanks.

 

Your opinion in this case means nothing, considering how you're ignoring anything positive regarding Porcello statistically because "you don't like him". Get out of here.

[Northern Star]

I had read yesterday morning, before this deal was announced, that the Sox and Porcello had agreed to hold off on extension talks until the end of the season. I am guessing that the rush was that Porcello stated that he would not discuss contracts during the season. So, if the deal was not done now, it would not be discussed again until the end of the season.

 

At that time, Porcello's stock might be a lot higher than it is now. If Porcello pitches well, you can almost bet he would be getting more than 4 years. This is something that the FO wants to avoid, if possible.

 

Yes, it's a risk, but IMO, a good risk to take. I'm guessing that Porcello will pitch well enough to be worth the contract. This is also one less thing Ben has to worry about next offseason.

 

I'd buy your argument if they weren't dishing out $20mil per now, at the front end. How high could his value reasonably be expected to climb? They have overpaid now, instead of waiting and seeing how he will do and then, OK, you want to keep him, you still have to overpay anyway.

 

I'm surprised by the timing, and don't like the money. Every time the Sox seem to do something smart, they turn round and do something that's questionable at best.

[Northern Star]

 

Porcello tends to get gassed after 100 pitches and fades quickly in games.

 

um, wat? And exactly how many pitches do you expect your starter to throw?

[Northern Star]

A 700 wrote: that contract has not returned a lot of value.

 

What's the last significant contract to a pitcher that DID return a lot of value?