Sox Pitching Staff Discussion

[a700hitter]

He is a 4 ERA pitcher who will give you 200 innings. That is something we need. It is 4th starter caliber -- not #1 or 2 caliber performance. And there was not need to lock up this caliber of pitcher for 4 years and $82.5 million. Every year those types of guys change teams. There is no need to lock up a lot of future payroll to retain them.

[User Name]

The rotation sure would look way worse without Porcello right now though.

[FredLynn]

I can understand why a Red Sox fan would be pleased with the selection of Jason Groome but I questioned the suggestions that the lefthander would be in Boston "in 2-4 years."

 

I humbly provided the MLB experience of all high school pitchers taken in the previous four MLB drafts. Groome faces long odds of pitching at the MLB level within four years.

 

But again I understand why a Red Sox fan would be pleased with the Groome pick just as this Seattle fan is pleased with the Mariners' selection of college outfielder Kyle Lewis with the preceding pick at No. 11. As Groome dropped from No. 1 in the MLB.com draft projection to the No. 12 pick, Lewis dropped from No. 3 to the No. 11 pick:

 

http://m.mlb.com/prospects/2016?list=draft

 

Whereas Groome dropped in part because of signability issues, Lewis apparently had no signability issues, inking at slot value and taking batting practice at Safeco Field before Saturday evening's game. Perhaps Lewis dropped because of talent issues, but Lewis, who succeeded Andrew Benintendi as Baseball America's College Player of the Year, still drew rave reviews on draft day. Prospect guru Jim Callis of MLB.com wrote:

 

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/183086774/mlb-draft-pick-by-pick-selections-analysis

 

The Red Sox face an interesting task of signing Groome, who significantly increased his leverage by committing to a junior college instead of to Vanderbilt. Groome will demand top dollar that will far exceed the slot amount at No. 12. If the Sox don't meet his demands Groome will play a year at the junior college and return to next year's draft. If the Red Sox meet his demands the Sox will need to reduce their offers to other draft picks or face substantial penalties.

 

I don't doubt that teams with higher draft picks were scared off by Groome's anticipated demands and his option to re-enter next year's draft.

 

I offer this not because I think Seattle drafted a better player than Boston did. I offer this because although I am pleased with the Mariners' pick I am not making any outlandish projections.

 

Let's hope that someday Groome and Lewis are teammates on the American League All Star Team ... but that's a hope, not a projection.

 

I agree with you that getting overly excited about drafting (not even signing, although I don't think that will be as tough to do as if say, Seattle had drafted him) a 17 year old child represents irrational exuberance. There have been way too many failures...draftees who just didn't work out. Lets see where he is in 3-4 years.

[a700hitter]

The rotation sure would look way worse without Porcello right now though.

I agree. And because of the big hole in the middle of the rotation, we really need him. He is a Bronson Arroyo type guy in that he takes the ball every 5th day and will give you 200 innings year in and year out. We traded Arroyo and never went after him when it came time for him to get a long term contract. With Porcello, they felt the need to lock up a #4 starter for 5 years. I just don't get it. imo, there are always guys like him who are available each year. You don't build your staff around a guy like him.

[Jack Flap]

Porcello's ERA is down to 3.81 and his WHIP is 1.08. He's the second best pitcher on the team right now. If he can pitch like this for the next few years, his contract will be well worth it.

 

It's a shame his really strong outing yesterday ended up being overshadowed by the errors and other gaffes.

[mvp 78]

He is a 4 ERA pitcher who will give you 200 innings. That is something we need. It is 4th starter caliber -- not #1 or 2 caliber performance. And there was not need to lock up this caliber of pitcher for 4 years and $82.5 million. Every year those types of guys change teams. There is no need to lock up a lot of future payroll to retain them.

 

I agree that it's 4th slot in the rotation caliber.

 

I agree that we didn't need to lock him up before last season.

 

I was just stating that he's the 2nd best guy in the rotation this year and that he has a chance to earn the contract.

[mvp 78]

I agree. And because of the big hole in the middle of the rotation, we really need him. He is a Bronson Arroyo type guy in that he takes the ball every 5th day and will give you 200 innings year in and year out. We traded Arroyo and never went after him when it came time for him to get a long term contract. With Porcello, they felt the need to lock up a #4 starter for 5 years. I just don't get it. imo, there are always guys like him who are available each year. You don't build your staff around a guy like him.

 

I agree. The same can be said for not needing to pick up Buchholz's option. There were a bunch of other guys available and it is quite evident that the Sox need new blood in this rotation.

[a700hitter]

I agree with you that getting overly excited about drafting (not even signing, although I don't think that will be as tough to do as if say, Seattle had drafted him) a 17 year old child represents irrational exuberance. There have been way too many failures...draftees who just didn't work out. Lets see where he is in 3-4 years.

He's a 17 year old who is about 4 or 5 years away from Fenway under ideal circumstances. It would be interesting to see how different the Red Sox roster will be when and if he makes it to Fenway. By then XB might be gone or maybe Betts. Who knows? I really can't get too excited about drafting or signing a HS kid.

[a700hitter]

I agree that it's 4th slot in the rotation caliber.

 

I agree that we didn't need to lock him up before last season.

 

I was just stating that he's the 2nd best guy in the rotation this year and that he has a chance to earn the contract.

Oh, I agree. After Price and Wright, I look forward to Porcello's starts. I was just adding my own commentary, not disagreeing.

[a700hitter]

I agree. The same can be said for not needing to pick up Buchholz's option. There were a bunch of other guys available and it is quite evident that the Sox need new blood in this rotation.

The whole "no-brainer" analysis aside, the Red Sox needed to move on from Buchholz simply because the one certainty that he provides is that you have to scramble to replace him every June or July. They needed to move on and get another Porcello type who could take the ball every 5th day. It is no wonder to me that Seattle preferred Miley or Buch. Miley takes the bump every 5th day and you can pencil in his numbers at the beginning of the season and he will come close to meeting those numbers at the end of the season. With Buch in your rotation, you know that you have to make another acquisition during the season to replace him -- and that is always expensive.

[S5Dewey]

The whole "no-brainer" analysis aside, the Red Sox needed to move on from Buchholz simply because the one certainty that he provides is that you have to scramble to replace him every June or July. They needed to move on and get another Porcello type who could take the ball every 5th day. It is no wonder to me that Seattle preferred Miley or Buch. Miley takes the bump every 5th day and you can pencil in his numbers at the beginning of the season and he will come close to meeting those numbers at the end of the season. With Buch in your rotation, you know that you have to make another acquisition during the season to replace him -- and that is always expensive.

 

Not disagreeing at all. However, the thing that made Buch attractive is that by the time he goes on the DL he may be 12-0. Unfortunately this year he's going to be closer to 2-10 And that's if he gets 12 decisions, which is unlikely.

Not knowing what was going to happen to him this year, I actually saw picking up his option as a good thing. He could have realistically been our #2 - #3, be 9-3, go on the DL in July and we could pick up rental at the deadline to finish the season if we were still in the race. If the rental could get us 9 more for half of a $20M - $24M contract, where else do you get 18 (or so) wins for $18M- $20M?

 

...and if we weren't still in the race in July it wouldn't matter that Buch was on the DL!

[Bellhorn04]

Porcello's 2016 numbers are those of a #3 starter at worst. A #3 starter is by definition an average starter. Porcello has an ERA+ of 116, so it's 16% better than league average when taking Park Factor into account.

[a700hitter]

Porcello's 2016 numbers are those of a #3 starter at worst. A #3 starter is by definition an average starter. Porcello has an ERA+ of 116, so it's 16% better than league average when taking Park Factor into account.

He is not a top of the rotation pitcher, but he makes top of the rotation money. How many career 4 + ERA pitchers make make $20 + million on long term contracts.

[mvp 78]

He is not a top of the rotation pitcher, but he makes top of the rotation money. How many career 4 + ERA pitchers make make $20 + million on long term contracts.

 

They were trying to read the tea leaves and assume that signing Porcello ahead of time would save money in the long run. They only did this since they screwed the pooch with the Lester negotiations. Not a good look, imo.

 

I'm just filled with such sadness because I know in my heart of hearts that they are going to pick up Buchholz's option again...

[User Name]

The way the market's going, Porcello may very well end up being worth his contract. Remember, the extension kicked in this year. If he ends up posting similar numbers to what he's doing now, he'll end up a bargain compared to the likes of James "He is still ace" Shields, Jered Weaver, Homer Bailey, Matt Cain, Anibal Sanchez, among others. Some of them because of ineffectiveness, some because of injury. But let's be fair and judge Porcello by what he does during the contract he's being measured against.

[Spudboy]

They were trying to read the tea leaves and assume that signing Porcello ahead of time would save money in the long run. They only did this since they screwed the pooch with the Lester negotiations. Not a good look, imo.

 

I'm just filled with such sadness because I know in my heart of hearts that they are going to pick up Buchholz's option again...

 

 

Oh joy. More no-brainess.

[sk7326]

He is a 4 ERA pitcher who will give you 200 innings. That is something we need. It is 4th starter caliber -- not #1 or 2 caliber performance. And there was not need to lock up this caliber of pitcher for 4 years and $82.5 million. Every year those types of guys change teams. There is no need to lock up a lot of future payroll to retain them.

 

There have been exactly 20 pitchers who have turned out more innings since Porcello has had a full time job. His stats line up roughly with guys like Gallardo, Buehrle, RA Dickey, Ervin Santana. Red Sox clearly are not paying discount for him - but the contract far more likely than not is going to turn out "okay".

[a700hitter]

The way the market's going, Porcello may very well end up being worth his contract. Remember, the extension kicked in this year. If he ends up posting similar numbers to what he's doing now, he'll end up a bargain compared to the likes of James "He is still ace" Shields, Jered Weaver, Homer Bailey, Matt Cain, Anibal Sanchez, among others. Some of them because of ineffectiveness, some because of injury. But let's be fair and judge Porcello by what he does during the contract he's being measured against.

Or his contract will end. In either case, it will be over and that will be a good thing. There was just no bargain in signing him to this deal, not then, not now.

[User Name]

Not a bargain, but if it ends up as "good" or "ok", that's certainly not the disaster some are making it out to be.

[a700hitter]

Not a bargain, but if it ends up as "good" or "ok", that's certainly not the disaster some are making it out to be.

I never said that it was a disaster, just that this money could have been better spent elsewhere-- like on retaining Lester.

[moonslav59]

The whole "no-brainer" analysis aside, the Red Sox needed to move on from Buchholz simply because the one certainty that he provides is that you have to scramble to replace him every June or July. They needed to move on and get another Porcello type who could take the ball every 5th day. It is no wonder to me that Seattle preferred Miley or Buch. Miley takes the bump every 5th day and you can pencil in his numbers at the beginning of the season and he will come close to meeting those numbers at the end of the season. With Buch in your rotation, you know that you have to make another acquisition during the season to replace him -- and that is always expensive.

 

I'm not trying to argue that Buch is some sort of iron man- clearly he is not, but he is actually not as fragile as many seem to portray him as being. Including minor league starts, here are the total GS'd by Buch since 2006:

 

06 24 (minors only)

07 27 (including 3 MLB)

08 26 (15 MLB)

09 32 (16 MLB)

10 29 (28 MLB)

11 14 (all MLB)

12 30 (29MLB)

13 18 (16 MLB)

14 28 (all MLB)

15 18 (all MLB)

16 14++ (all MLB)

 

If you cherry pick 2011 as the starting point of your sample size, you could claim that Buch has not had more than 18 starts in 3 of his previous 5 seasons before 2016, but I would say that 60% is a sure bet he pitches just half a season.

 

One could cherry pick from 2007 to 2010 and point out that Buch never started less than 26 starts in that 4 year stretch.

 

Overall, since 2008, Buch has never had less than 14 professional basbeall starts in any given season. From 2008-2015 (8 seasons), Buch has started 26 or more times 5 times (63%). He's started 28 or more games in 4 of his last 7 seasons.

 

Look, I'm not happy with Buch's 2016 performance, and I was as frustrated as everyone else when he went down with an injury last year (and 2013 & 2011), but he's shown he can pitch 27+ starts often enough that I don't think it's a slam dunk observation to think he's a cinch to get hurt every year.

 

I was in favor of giving him the option, because even Buch at 14 games (the good Buch) is worth $13M at today's FA prices, and the chance he might give us 26+ starts was not out of the question. I also have noted in other threads that Buch has had 2 of MLB best ERA- seasons in the past 40+ years. The hope that he can still pitch like that was the tipping point in my opinion to keep him around another year. I also mentioned it was worth offering the option, even if we ended up trading him. That option is probably gone now, unless we pay part of his contract.

 

I am still clinging to the hope that Buch will regain his old form and give us a strong half season, but I'm not at all confident it will happen.

 

[moonslav59]

I want to add that I realize Buch has not put together a good ERA- and 26+ starts since 2010, so I get that taking on his option was a gamble, but he has had a good ERA= in 5 of his last 8 seasons, including 2 of the last 4. He's not too removed from his historic 2013 season, albeit shortened as it was.

[mvp 78]

You could also just say that Buchholz has only pitched over 115 innings 3 times in the MLB. Yuck. Why do I care about MiLB starts?

[moonslav59]

On Porcello, out of 47 AL starters who qualify for the leader boards...

 

ERA- Leaders

1) 48 Wright

19) 88 Porcello

30) 106 Price

 

It's sad to note that you have to go down to 30 IP to get an American League sample size of starters to 75 (15 teams x 5 starters). THis is one method of seeing how our pitchers ranke in terms of being an average 1 starter, 2 starter, 3 starter and on and on.

 

ERA- rankings

1) Wright 48

2) Salazar 53

(The guy many said was not #1 material when I suggested we trade for him)

8) Quintana 63 (another starter many felt was not "ace material")

10) Zimmerman (To be fair, a SP'er I thought was over-rated)

26) Carrasco (another suggested trade candidate of mine)

29 Porcello (in theory- a low number two in the AL)

32) Kluber

33) Verlander

40) Iwakuma

42) Price

44) Latos (recently DFA'd)

62) S Gray

63) W Miley

69) Buchholz

71) A Sanchez

 

So, in theory, Wright is the top #1 SP in the AL, Porcello is a bottom number 2, Price a bottom number 3, and Buch a near bottom number 5.

If Kelly had enough IP, he'd be at the bottom of the barrel as one of the very worst #5s.

[Spudboy]

I never said that it was a disaster, just that this money could have been better spent elsewhere-- like on retaining Lester.

 

And / or Lackey.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Or his contract will end. In either case, it will be over and that will be a good thing. There was just no bargain in signing him to this deal, not then, not now.

 

The Sox extended Porcello through his prime years (27 through 30) at reasonable money & at team friendly years. I'm sure they figured that he would improve some as he entered his prime and with guys like Homer Bailey getting 100+ million on the open market, it was well worth the risk at the time. This contract could still very well end up being a great deal for Boston.

[User Name]

I never said that it was a disaster, just that this money could have been better spent elsewhere-- like on retaining Lester.

 

I did not single you out specifically for that reason. But iortiz, among others, have whined that contract into oblivion. Besides, they could have extended him, then used the money that went into the fat piece of s*** on another pitcher. Now there's a contract that's impossible to defend or salvage.

[User Name]

The Sox extended Porcello through his prime years (27 through 30) at reasonable money & at team friendly years. I'm sure they figured that he would improve some as he entered his prime and with guys like Homer Bailey getting 100+ million on the open market, it was well worth the risk at the time. This contract could still very well end up being a great deal for Boston.

 

Pretty much.

[mvp 78]

I did not single you out specifically for that reason. But iortiz, among others, have whined that contract into oblivion. Besides, they could have extended him, then used the money that went into the fat piece of s*** on another pitcher. Now there's a contract that's impossible to defend or salvage.

 

Oh, but they've tried to defend it.

[Kimmi]

He is a 4 ERA pitcher who will give you 200 innings. That is something we need. It is 4th starter caliber -- not #1 or 2 caliber performance. And there was not need to lock up this caliber of pitcher for 4 years and $82.5 million. Every year those types of guys change teams. There is no need to lock up a lot of future payroll to retain them.

 

It made good sense to lock Porcello up before he hit free agency, for reasons that have already been debated ad nauseam. Unfortunately, he had a bad first year with us, which makes the move look bad. But that is only with hindsight glasses on.