The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread

[Northern Star]

Except if Porcello had pitched well and then left as a free agent, this board would be all over Ben for not locking him up during ST when they had the chance.

 

I for one wouldn't. You don't hand out a $20mil/year extension to a middle of the rotation guy before he's made a single pitch for you.

[Northern Star]

Also, we're stuck going over and over the same tired arguments here. Can't wait for the games to start so we have something else to talk about.

[Kimmi]

Also, we're stuck going over and over the same tired arguments here. Can't wait for the games to start so we have something else to talk about.

 

Hence, the "dead horse".

 

Real games start tomorrow! Not Sox, of course, but a full slate on baseball on tap.

[a700hitter]

Except if Porcello had pitched well and then left as a free agent, this board would be all over Ben for not locking him up during ST when they had the chance.

There you go speaking for others again -- and in hypothetical situations.

[Spudboy]

There you go speaking for others again -- and in hypothetical situations.

 

And the Sox would have still had the ability to over pay him in the off season. By signing him prematurely they prevented the bidding but took the risk of the over pay anyway.

 

This is just poor business strategy at best. And metric have little to do with it.

[a700hitter]

And the Sox would have still had the ability to over pay him in the off season. By signing him prematurely they prevented the bidding but took the risk of the over pay anyway.

 

This is just poor business strategy at best. And metric have little to do with it.

They didn't get hm at a discount. They actually set a new pay level for #4 starters. A number of similar pitchers, who had better years than Porcello in 2015, signed for less money than Porcello's extension.

[mvp 78]

Except if Porcello had pitched well and then left as a free agent, this board would be all over Ben for not locking him up during ST when they had the chance.

 

But the reality is that he didn't pitch well. Your point is just guess work.

[User Name]

And the Sox would have still had the ability to over pay him in the off season. By signing him prematurely they prevented the bidding but took the risk of the over pay anyway.

 

This is just poor business strategy at best. And metric have little to do with it.

 

That's actually untrue. It's a calculated risk that pays off often. In fact, we're already deeming Porcello as a sunk cost, when he hasn't thrown a regular season pitch earning the extension money. Remember John Lackey?

[User Name]

They didn't get hm at a discount. They actually set a new pay level for #4 starters. A number of similar pitchers, who had better years than Porcello in 2015, signed for less money than Porcello's extension.

 

Yet similar comps such as Leake and Shark got similar money and more years.

[Spudboy]

That's actually untrue. It's a calculated risk that pays off often. In fact, we're already deeming Porcello as a sunk cost, when he hasn't thrown a regular season pitch earning the extension money. Remember John Lackey?

 

You may be right about this kind of move in general but I believe otherwise in this instance.

 

And yes, I remember Horseface sucking here for about two years and then having surgery. He was a #1 for the Angels for several years ( if not an "Ace" ).

 

I liked the Lackey deal from the start. Porcello is not Lackey. And may never be.

 

I'm guessing that you are calling me on the big contract the Sox gave Lackey who dramatically under achieved at the binging of the deal.

 

I remember Drew under performing to some extent when the Sox paid him big bucks. Eventually he earned his contract, no? Lackey and Drew had been among the better players at their positions IIRC. Porcello had not.

 

You defended Drew then. Be consistent.

[a700hitter]

Yet similar comps such as Leake and Shark got similar money and more years.

In any regard, signing Porcello early was no coup, and it really had very little possibility of being a big coup. His stuff just isn't there to be anything more than a #4/5 guy. It just isn't there.

[jung]

In any regard, signing Porcello early was no coup, and it really had very little possibility of being a big coup. His stuff just isn't there to be anything more than a #4/5 guy. It just isn't there.

 

How can it possible be a coup when you gave the guy all the money he was ever going to get in FA and them some....BEFORE FA! That is not a coup. Porcello was probably nervous waiting for the ink to dry on that one!

Edited April 2, 2016 by jung

[Palodios]

Porcello's contract is signed. It was a lot of money. The guy who signed it is gone. We've established who on TS liked the deal, and who didn't.

 

I like Porcello's chances of being a solid #3/4 moving forward. If Price pitches like Price, and someone steps up as a #2, we'll probably be fine with him Porcello in the middle of the group for now.

[jung]

His stuff could be there if he gets his Sinker back again. it will likely never be a pitch Porcello can throw as often as he threw it earlier in his career but it is unfortunately for him the only pitch he has that he can pitch off of. So he does not have to go back to where he was years go throwing 35-40% Sinkers. But one good one an outing is not going to get it done either. He is helpless without being able to throw off of it. Maybe he just needs the warmer weather to roll around for him to throw it regularly. But by warm I mean around the ASB if last year is any indication.

[User Name]

In any regard, signing Porcello early was no coup, and it really had very little possibility of being a big coup. His stuff just isn't there to be anything more than a #4/5 guy. It just isn't there.

 

But it could have been a good value. Guys with his skillset are going for more years at similar money. It's the extra years they were trying to avoid.

[a700hitter]

But it could have been a good value. Guys with his skillset are going for more years at similar money. It's the extra years they were trying to avoid.

It could end up being market value, but there was no rush to pay the full list price on the guy.

[User Name]

You may be right about this kind of move in general but I believe otherwise in this instance.

 

And yes, I remember Horseface sucking here for about two years and then having surgery. He was a #1 for the Angels for several years ( if not an "Ace" ).

 

I liked the Lackey deal from the start. Porcello is not Lackey. And may never be.

 

I'm guessing that you are calling me on the big contract the Sox gave Lackey who dramatically under achieved at the binging of the deal.

 

I remember Drew under performing to some extent when the Sox paid him big bucks. Eventually he earned his contract, no? Lackey and Drew had been among the better players at their positions IIRC. Porcello had not.

 

You defended Drew then. Be consistent.

 

I am defending both deals. I liked the Porcello deal then, and have defended it consistently, my post clearly states that I think Porcello can still earn his money, just like Lackey (and Drew, who I always defended too). I am being nothing if not consistent.

[User Name]

It could end up being market value, but there was no rush to pay the full list price on the guy.

 

That's in the eye of the beholder, and he still has to pitch during the actual contract for us to know whether they overpaid or not. In the end, they saved on years either way. Even with a crappy platform season it's unlikely he wouldn't have gotten five years from someone (if at a lower AAV) just like Shark did. It's market dynamics.

[mvp 78]

But it could have been a good value. Guys with his skillset are going for more years at similar money. It's the extra years they were trying to avoid.

 

Oh boy. Theoretical good value really gets meexcited.

[User Name]

Oh boy. Theoretical good value really gets meexcited.

 

Calm down there buddy. Your missus probably has a headache anyways, so stop rubbing your nipples, it's creeping me outl.

[Bellhorn04]

The Porcello extension is the deadest horse of all. There's nothing more that can possibly be said.

[Kimmi]

And the Sox would have still had the ability to over pay him in the off season. By signing him prematurely they prevented the bidding but took the risk of the over pay anyway.

 

This is just poor business strategy at best. And metric have little to do with it.

 

No, it's not poor business strategy. It's actually very smart business strategy, which is why teams are often locking up players before they hit free agency.

 

Of course there is always risk involved. It's not blind risk though, it's calculated risk. Porcello pitched poorly last year which makes the move seem really bad, but if Porcello just pitches at career norms, which there was no reason to believe he couldn't when he was given the extension, the extension looks very good.

 

I am of the opinion that if you know you want to keep a player, you should always try to extend him before he hits free agency.

[Kimmi]

They didn't get hm at a discount. They actually set a new pay level for #4 starters. A number of similar pitchers, who had better years than Porcello in 2015, signed for less money than Porcello's extension.

 

Porcello's extension was not based on his 2015 performance, it was based on 2014. And if you compare the contracts that pitchers received based off of his 2014 numbers and age, you will see that Porcello's extension was not bad at all.

[Kimmi]

But the reality is that he didn't pitch well. Your point is just guess work.

 

Of course, and every extension and signing ever made is based off of guess work.

 

You know darn well that what I'm saying is true.

[Kimmi]

In any regard, signing Porcello early was no coup, and it really had very little possibility of being a big coup. His stuff just isn't there to be anything more than a #4/5 guy. It just isn't there.

 

Since Porcello has yet to pitch a day of a 4-year contract, you don't know whether it was a coup or not. He had a bad year last year. But to say that he can't be more than a #4/5 guy is laughable.

[Kimmi]

The Porcello extension is the deadest horse of all. There's nothing more that can possibly be said.

 

Thank goodness for real baseball starting tomorrow.

 

That said, I am sure that this topic will be revisited many more times in the next 4 years.

[mvp 78]

Of course, and every extension and signing ever made is based off of guess work.

 

You know darn well that what I'm saying is true.

 

Your argument is based in fantasy land and not real life. The fact of the matter is Porcello didn't have a long track record of being a top pitcher. He was good for one year. The extension was done too early, plain and simple.

[mvp 78]

The question is: if they didn't extend him, would you have signed him for the contract this offseason after his 2015 performance?

 

That's far more relevant than saying "what if he pitched well."

[a700hitter]

Since Porcello has yet to pitch a day of a 4-year contract, you don't know whether it was a coup or not. He had a bad year last year. But to say that he can't be more than a #4/5 guy is laughable.

He has no track record of being anything more than a #4/5 starter in 7 full major league seasons. To expect him to turn into a top of the rotation guy at this juncture is laughable.

[iortiz]

I think Kim still owns me her sig in that regard LOL