iortiz

mmm... So? What's your point? I have never correlated WAR with ERA. What I said is that neither 2.5 WAR pitcher nor 4.3 ERA pitcher are making and won't make 20 M like the guy you are presenting.

Yup but still a 2.5 WAR (new school) or 4.3 ERA (old school) track record pitcher is not making/will make 20 M.

/=or

Exactly, the thing is that we do not have a #1 nor #2. Listen, if the strategy had been sign/trade/keep/farm a bunch of Mastersons (as they did) AND sign a #1 and #2 this team would have been really nice even if that had meant not bringing Panda. Thing is that they put all their chips on the O, reason why I said at the beginning of the season that this team was very unbalanced to the point and reason why I started this thread.

Porcello wouldn't be even a concern to me. Also, if he keeps posting those numbers (his track record 4.3 ERA/2.5 WAR) I do not see teams in a rush to lock him out, do you?. As I said, my strategy for #3-5 would be signing a bunch of low risk (cheap)/high reward pitchers rounding them with some prospects from the farm and/or arms via trades. My real concern would be trying to sign a true No1 and a true No2 like Lester and Shields type, like last offseason.

haha I already said my offer.

... more to my favor, As I said, I think I could find a ~2.5 WAR/4.3 ERA player cheaper and without committing big bucks/Ys.

Thing is that I would never, ever lock out a No 3-4 type since out there always are plenty of options year after year. On the other hand if Porcello were willing to sign a 1 Y contract in 2016, and if he keeps posting something around 4.3 ERA, I would pay no more than 15 M and probably less.

Thing is that you just can not take your projection/Ys out of the equation. Again, if you want a guy who can provide you in a year basis something around ~2.5 WAR, out there are vasty of options every year to cover those numbers and cheaper without commit tons of money. Figure out at BBR. On the other hand if you want a guy who has attached a track record around 4-5 WAR and durable (Lester type), it will be very difficult to find out in the first place, and if you find him, you have to pay and commit big bucks and Ys.

LOL!, I just did Pal. On the other hand, if you want me to tell you what is going the market offer for a guy who has a profile around 2.5 WAR and 4.3 ERA, I do not think the market were willing to pay 20 M, not even close for this profile. It will depend on the new projection (for this profile), years, players available, budget, needs, etc.

Well, It depends on the scenario I project. If the projection (which I think it will be) were his WAR tendency (2.5) and ERA career numbers (4.3), I wouldn't lock him out in the first place. In that scenario I would wait and see what the market suggests for an arm with that profile at the end of the season.

I think that the right question should be what numbers do you want? If you want a potential arm who can provide you a ~2.5 WAR/4.3 ERA, the possibilities out there are vasty year after year without paying 20 M and committing 80 M. Also, Let me put it this way, if he posts what his track record suggests this year (~2.5 WAR, 4.3 ERA) I do not see any team in a rush to throw 80 M at him. As I said, the Red Sox are pretty sure that this guy is going to improve reason why they wanted lock him out early.

Durability + excellence through 6 Y+ is pretty rare to see in baseball specially at pitching. Lester, Shields, Papelbon, etc. are examples of those rare specimens, reason why even at early 30s, the age is not that big concern compared with those good arms who arguably are even slightly better than the names I presented but are not durable like some named by Divinity. My guess this is why the Cubs paid what they paid for Lester. The problem or the big question with Porcello to justify this contract is: is he already at his prime? or his prime is about to come. If the answer is yes for the question No.1, there's no way in hell I pay 20 M for a mid-rotation guy who is going to keep his track record or his improvement is not going to be that much (~2.5 WAR). On the other hand if the answer is yes for the second one (3-4 WAR player), it makes a lot of sense regardless the strategy behind (defence, young, etc.). My guess in this case the Red Sox paid for the second one.

Still isn't enough to call it trend, Bell. On the other hand, in terms of WAR, there's a trend, he is nothing but a 2.7 WAR at best in the last three years (included the last one when he posted a 3.5 ERA). That trend suggest me that he is going to be around those numbers (No. 3 type) reason why I offered a public bet (to make it interesting). No one posting a track record of 2.7 is making/will make 20 M for the next 4 Y given the DR%, reason why he needs to improve to justify this contract.

Wonder where in the hell is Emmz. I miss her. Could have been a great trio of girls around here.

Lester has posted several years No. 1 type numbers in terms of ERA, WAR, etc. and furthermore where those numbers count... In POs .On the other hand, one year of good performance do not make it a trend.

Yup. Lester needs in terms of WAR something around 4-5 and Porcello 3-4.

FG uses a DR% of 4. Bell brought a DR% around 7, then he ran a cash flow around 5%. All those DRs% won't likely cover the salary inflation even at Y #4 of his contract since the AVV is too high for a mid-rotation guy who has a contract which is not that long, unless he improves his suggested track record.

Porcello's performance was better than the last one. Hopefully he keeps this way.

Sweet! I have him in my fantasy team.

1. I pay for what happened which likely suggest me what will happen when a guy still has enough gas in his tank. Not otherwise. You do not pay for a track record of mediocre numbers, hoping excellence just because he is young. Look at Papelbon, pretty similar case at the time (excellence + durability) and still like the good wines, posting ridiculous ERAs and saving bunches of games AND Still Durable as I projected. 2. I just showed you his numbers, why do you refuse to accept that he is a True No.1 and still relatively young and at his prime. You think he is not a bargain? Fine!, Please name 5 pitchers who are making less money with his track record AND durability at 30 or less. I'll wait. 3. A DR% below 2 digits doesn't justify high AVV for mid-term contracts for mediocre pitchers, sorry, mid-rotation guys like Porcello unless he improves, say at 3-4 WAR range (No. 2 type). That's the drum I've been beating, nothing more, nothing less, reason why I offered a public bet (for fun). Engineering Economics apply regardless the industry when cash flow is on the table. This is why I say you do not understand the time value of money; you just don't. I do not mean it as an insult either.

Plus, another "intangible" is that he was already proved in this environment.

Yeah! Whata show this guy must have been. I will check Juan, Spud.

He has 2 Y of 5+ WAR (ace type), two more 4+ (No. 1), and one around in the middle of 3-4 (No. 2 type) at 200+ IP in all of those Ys. That's a pretty good sample of what this guy is capable of. In my book this mean proved No. 1. arm. How many of that list has this track record AND his durability?. Sure, he had a couple of "down" years posting WARs around 2.5+, (No. 2 type in Kimmi's book LOL!) but putting in context, those numbers are Porcello's best numbers and who is making 80+. The other fact is that he posted his best numbers just last year, which suggest that he is a very good shape and still in his prime, so the age is not a concern. As I said, Durabilty + excellence through 9 Y begining your 30s is pretty rare to see. So, 155 M given the market + his track record sounds like a bargain to me.

Pretty cool how Tiant used to make his delivery to the plate.