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

[Divinity]

My logic is terrible? I have made two points that people have railed against, but have yet to put a dent in, because they are fact:

 

1. The Red Sox have established a new market rate for #2/3 starters by paying Porcello an AAV of $20 million on a long term contract.

 

 

So because one team paid one #2-3 starter like an Ace the rest of the league will follow suit? Does that mean all #1 starters will be getting long term $30 million AAV contracts now like Kershaw's?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Divinity

[iortiz]

So because one team paid one #2-3 starter like an Ace the rest of the league will follow suit? Does that mean all #1 starters will be getting long term $30 million AAV contracts now like Kershaw's?

 

I do not see teams drinking that Kool aid, sorry, paying 20 M for No. 3s in the mid-term.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the Porcello debate has been boiled down to two basic points of disagreement.

 

1) The pro-Porcello-deal side says the increased AAV of $20 million is offset by the relatively short length of the deal.

 

2) The pro-Porcello-deal side says if he pitches as well as he did in 2014 for the 4 years of the deal, it will be a good value contract.

[Kimmi]

After a lot of research all people could find was a couple of #2 guys making $20 million at the back end of backloaded contracts. I have seen no example of #2/3 pitchers getting long term contracts with AAV's of $20 million. So, it looks like the Red Sox have established a new market level for #2/3 pitchers.

 

Porcello has always been no higher than a number 3 on his own team and in only 1 year in his 6 year career did he perform better than a number 3. So, he will have to improve his performance going forward to justify his contract.

 

I think them's the facts.

 

The point that you seem to be ignoring over and over again is that the Sox opted for a higher AAV for fewer years. That is not setting a new market. Had the Sox given Porcello $20 mil and 6 years, then perhapswe could say that they were establishing a new market.

 

The argument that Porcello has only been a number 3 on his team is just silly. I haven't looked at every team's starting rotation from last year, but it's likely that he could have been a #1 on another team. You can't call a guy a #3 pitcher overall because he was a #3 on his team.

 

And again, Porcello does not have to improve to be worth his contract. He has to maintain what he did last year. If he improves, which is the likelihood, then he will be worth more than his contract.

[a700hitter]

I think the Porcello debate has been boiled down to two basic points of disagreement.

 

1) The pro-Porcello-deal side says the increased AAV of $20 million is offset by the relatively short length of the deal.

 

2) The pro-Porcello-deal side says if he pitches as well as he did in 2014 for the 4 years of the deal, it will be a good value contract.

 

I am not arguing whether it will be a good deal or not. I have merely staed two facts about the deal. Whether the deal turns out to be a good value is a fact yet to be determined.

[a700hitter]

The point that you seem to be ignoring over and over again is that the Sox opted for a higher AAV for fewer years. That is not setting a new market. Had the Sox given Porcello $20 mil and 6 years, then perhapswe could say that they were establishing a new market.

 

The argument that Porcello has only been a number 3 on his team is just silly. I haven't looked at every team's starting rotation from last year, but it's likely that he could have been a #1 on another team. You can't call a guy a #3 pitcher overall because he was a #3 on his team.

 

And again, Porcello does not have to improve to be worth his contract. He has to maintain what he did last year. If he improves, which is the likelihood, then he will be worth more than his contract.

A. I have not ignored the shorter term of years, but that doesn't lower the AAV to below $20 per year. No other #2 is getting that over a contract of a similar length.

 

B. 2014 was his best season in a 6 year career. He would have to improve on his career numbers to earn this contract.

[a700hitter]

I do not see teams drinking that Kool aid, sorry, paying 20 M for No. 3s in the mid-term.

 

It does give the agents for pitchers a target to use in negotiations.

[Kimmi]

Aside Kim, Most of the members think that Porcello is a #3, although he had a #4/5 role with the Tigers.

 

In each of the last 3 years, Porcello has been in the top 60 (closer to the top 40) in WAR. That makes him a #2 pitcher in terms of WAR. Last year, he was also a #2 in terms of ERA. While his ERA was not good in 2012 or 2013, he was also hurt by his defense. (FTR, ERA is not my choice of stat here because of factors beyond a pitcher's control.)

 

If you are going to hold to your standards of what a #1 and #2 pitcher are, then you are trying to tell me that there are only about 15 number 1 pitchers and 15 number 2 pitchers in MLB, and that goes against the whole concept of ranking the pitchers as 1 through 5.

[Kimmi]

Palmer is still a headcase. He is the main analyst on the O's broadcast and a bit tough to take. Unlike Remy, Palmer never shuts up. The other O's TV broadcasters will privately tell you that Palmer thinks the broadcasts are all about him. He does know pitching though and if you can tolerate the other stuff, you can learn a lot.

 

I really used to enjoy listening to Palmer up until 2 or 3 years ago. Like you said, he knows pitching and you can learn a lot from him. Recently though, he has become a little snooty, for lack of a better word. And his sidekick, Thorne, has always been insufferable. It's miserable for me to have to listen to the O's broadcasts.

[Kimmi]

A. I have not ignored the shorter term of years, but that doesn't lower the AAV to below $20 per year. No other #2 is getting that over a contract of a similar length.

 

B. 2014 was his best season in a 6 year career. He would have to improve on his career numbers to earn this contract.

 

A. No, but other #2 are getting 5 or 6 year deals in the $17/18 mil range, which is an equivalent market.

 

B. In the past 3 years, Porcello has posted WAR values of 2.7, 2.8, and 2.7. I think that is a better gauge of where Porcello is in terms of moving forward than his career WAR is.

[a700hitter]

I think the Porcello debate has been boiled down to two basic points of disagreement.

 

1) The pro-Porcello-deal side says the increased AAV of $20 million is offset by the relatively short length of the deal.

 

2) The pro-Porcello-deal side says if he pitches as well as he did in 2014 for the 4 years of the deal, it will be a good value contract.

Bells, I am not anti this deal. I was surprised that they gave him the deal so early and I am surprised that Ben set a new market level. He has not done that during his tenure. I have repeated this over and over. I am not anti the Porcello deal. That is what you think I am. IMOn he is the only positive that this staff has going for it. Don't you remember that I have wagered a case of beer that Porcello will have an ERA under 4? Would I do that if I was anti the Porcello deal?

[a700hitter]

A. No, but other #2 are getting 5 or 6 year deals in the $17/18 mil range, which is an equivalent market.

 

B. In the past 3 years, Porcello has posted WAR values of 2.7, 2.8, and 2.7. I think that is a better gauge of where Porcello is in terms of moving forward than his career WAR is.

None of this changes the facts that I stated.

[Kimmi]

None of this changes the facts that I stated.

 

But your "facts" are pointless in this debate about Porcello's contract.

[a700hitter]

But your "facts" are pointless in this debate about Porcello's contract.

I just stated some facts which people have been trying their darndest to refute, but they have been unsuccessful. Why all the effort if the facts are pointless. Sounds like surrender.

[iortiz]

In each of the last 3 years, Porcello has been in the top 60 (closer to the top 40) in WAR. That makes him a #2 pitcher in terms of WAR. Last year, he was also a #2 in terms of ERA. While his ERA was not good in 2012 or 2013, he was also hurt by his defense. (FTR, ERA is not my choice of stat here because of factors beyond a pitcher's control.)

 

If you are going to hold to your standards of what a #1 and #2 pitcher are, then you are trying to tell me that there are only about 15 number 1 pitchers and 15 number 2 pitchers in MLB, and that goes against the whole concept of ranking the pitchers as 1 through 5.

Sorry Kim, it is not my standard. Porcello is not a no. 2 by any means... Not yet. Look at FG chart. He is nothing but a "solid" arm, not even a good one. Again you are mixing oranges with apples... and pears. 1. Your sample is too short. 2. A top 60 doesn't make you a very good pitcher (No. 2). 3. A very good pitcher doesn't depends that much on his defense, since well, he can get outs by himself.

 

Nevertheless, If you think that he is already a No. 2, it's fine Kim, but I think you are the only one.

[Kimmi]

I just stated some facts which people have been trying their darndest to refute, but they have been unsuccessful. Why all the effort if the facts are pointless. Sounds like surrender.

 

Your argument was that Ben was establishing a new market with his contract to Porcello. Clearly, he is not, regardless of what the AAV of the contract might be. Your "fact" of a $20 mil AAV is pointless when the number of years is not taken into consideration along with it. That's not surrender you're hearing on my part. That's victory.

[Kimmi]

Sorry Kim, it is not my standard. Porcello is not a no. 2 by any means... Not yet. Look at FG chart. He is nothing but a "solid" arm, not even a good one. Again you are mixing oranges with apples... and pears. 1. Your sample is too short. 2. A top 60 doesn't make you a very good pitcher (No. 2). 3. A very good pitcher doesn't depends that much on his defense, since well, he can get outs by himself.

 

Nevertheless, If you think that he is already a No. 2, it's fine Kim, but I think you are the only one.

 

Simple question. How many #1 pitchers do you think there are in baseball today?

[a700hitter]

Your argument was that Ben was establishing a new market with his contract to Porcello. Clearly, he is not, regardless of what the AAV of the contract might be. Your "fact" of a $20 mil AAV is pointless when the number of years is not taken into consideration along with it. That's not surrender you're hearing on my part. That's victory.

 

Whatever, you say Kimmi. There have been many 4 year contracts in the last several year and none have gotten an AAV of $20 million plus. Your argument is a rationalization of a fact.

[User Name]

I don't think neither a700 nor iortiz understand what a "fact" actually is, or a standard for that matter.

[mvp 78]

I don't think neither a700 nor iortiz understand what a "fact" actually is, or a standard for that matter.

 

Fact!

[a700hitter]

Such a dick. Check that -- 2 dicks.

[iortiz]

Simple question. How many #1 pitchers do you think there are in baseball today?

 

I'm not sure Kim, I have to check out but I think almost all teams have one who at least proved being one (recently/constantly) and have the potential of keep doing that, or an arm who has the stuff to become one. Unfortunately I do not see that profile in this team.

[Bellhorn04]

Whatever, you say Kimmi. There have been many 4 year contracts in the last several year and none have gotten an AAV of $20 million plus.

 

Now this I have to question. Which pitchers, or even players, in Porcello's age group have gotten 4 year contracts in the last several years?

[User Name]

The problem with looking for a comparable for Porcello is that most pitchers don't get a shot at FA during their age-26 season. That was a very positive factor for Porcello.

[a700hitter]

Now this I have to question. Which pitchers, or even players, in Porcello's age group have gotten 4 year contracts in the last several years?

Bells, Didn't you already acknowledge the new market level? Are you looking to disagree with yourself?

[Bellhorn04]

Bells, Didn't you already acknowledge the new market level? Are you looking to disagree with yourself?

 

Seriously? My agreement was on the AAV, not the length of the deal. I said the length of the deal was Below Market.

[Kimmi]

I'm not sure Kim, I have to check out but I think almost all teams have one who at least proved being one (recently/constantly) and have the potential of keep doing that, or an arm who has the stuff to become one. Unfortunately I do not see that profile in this team.

 

Then my next question would be, what is your WAR requirement for a pitcher to be a #1?

 

What about a #2?

[User Name]

Don't bother. iortiz doesn't actually understand WAR, nor does he understand the numbers discrepancy between hitters and pitchers. You are talking to a wall here.

[a700hitter]

Seriously? My agreement was on the AAV, not the length of the deal. I said the length of the deal was Below Market.

 

Okay. Below market? Seriously?

[iortiz]

Then my next question would be, what is your WAR requirement for a pitcher to be a #1?

 

What about a #2?

 

I already shared you the chart several times.