Kimmi

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.

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.

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.

Exactly!

Also, maybe the Sox are banking on Porcello having a lot of upside based on comps of the last 4 pitchers who had 20 plus starts in their age 20 season: Jose Fernandez, Kershaw, King Felix, and Greinke.

lol

I'm not sure how you are establishing your rankings for #1s and #2s. Porcello was tied for 38th in WAR. He was 35th in ERA. He was 24th in innings pitched. If there are 150 starting pitchers, then I would consider the top 30 to be #1s, the next 30 to be #2s, and so on. Porcello was a #2 pitcher last year. Perhaps your standards are too high for what a #1 and #2 pitcher are. There just aren't as many of those pitchers in baseball as you think there are. By your standards, there aren't that many teams that have a #1 and a #2 pitcher on their staffs.

Besides Porcello, there are currently 3 other pitchers who will be making $20 mil in 2016. The 3 are Matt Cain, CJ Wilson, and Jered Weaver, who were all paid based on their past performance. All were given contracts that will take them into their early to mid 30s. Matt Cain - After having an ERA 2.79 and a WAR of 3.8 in 2012, he was given a $127.5/5 yr deal. In 2013, he had an ERA of 4.00 and a WAR of 1.7. In 2014, he had an ERA of 4.18 and a WAR of 0.0. He has yet to pitch in 2015. CJ Wilson - After having an ERA of 2.94 and a WAR of 4.7 in 2011, he was given a $77.5/5 yr deal. Granted, not as much as Porcello's but that was also 4 years ago. In 2012, 13, and 14, he had ERAs of 3.83, 3.89, and 4.51 and WARS of 2.5, 3.5, and 0.9, respectively. Jered Weaver - After having an ERA of 2.41 and a WAR of 5.9 in 2011, he was given a $85/5 yr deal. In the following 3 years, he had ERAs of 2.81, 3.27, and 3.59 with WARs of 3.3, 2.6, and 1.8. In a very small sample this year, his ERA is 6.29 and his WAR is -0.3. Some of those numbers are not bad, but the decline in very obvious. Out of the 4 pitchers making roughly the same amount next year, who is likely to have the best season? My money is on Porcello.

Thank you VA. Patience is a prerequisite for becoming a teacher. I often think adults require more patience than kids do. LOL

I read that Wil Nieves was recently DFA'd by the Padres. I don't know much about him, but my understanding is that he's another weak hitting, solid defensive back up catcher. I wonder if the Sox will have any interest.

Let's continue the Palodios mojo!!! Go Sox!

Farrell said that he has seen some better at bats from Craig, and he's going to keep him in the line up to see where Craig can go with it. Good for him. I know he's been frustrating to watch (but frankly, so has the rest of the lineup), but I still believe he can be a very good hitter if he can get some consistent at bats.

Take out Porcello's one bad outing, and he has a 2.91 ERA.

Another interesting topic for debate is the idea of protection in a lineup. Players certainly seem to think it exists. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-does-lineup-protection-exist/ However, the idea of "lineup protection" is another one that is largely a myth. While evidence does exist that pitchers will pitch differently to a batter that is "protected", evidence does not exist to suggest that it does the batter any good. If line up protection does exist, it would be from the batters hitting in front of someone, not from the batters hitting behind him.

Yes, it is. They will start hitting, and scoring runs like they're supposed to.

The more of your posts I read, the more I like you.

^^ This.

For all of the talk of how bad our pitching is, as of now, I am far more frustrated and disappointed in our offense. The offense has to start producing, it's as simple as that. The pitching is what it is. They will have their decent starts, and they will have their implosions. I expected that. The offense was supposed to be the best in the league. They are not holding up their end of the bargain. Scoring when they are down by 8 or more runs doesn't count. When our starting pitcher holds the opposition to 3 runs or fewer, we should win. especially against pitchers like CC and Eovaldi. The announcers said on Sunday night that our 2-6 hitters were a combined .188 with RISP. What kind of crap is that? This is far too reminiscent of 2014, which is the reason why the FO focused on offense this offseason. Get your act together boys. Being swept by the Yankees at home when we missed their two best SPs and we got solid starts in 2 out of the 3 games is inexcusable. Our recent swoon is on the offense, IMO, not the pitching.

I honestly have no clue as to who might be available. I'm not talking about a starting catcher. I'm talking about a veteran backup similar to what Hanigan was supposed to be. Surely, there must be a team willing to trade one somewhere.

The entire rotation has underperformed its peripheals. The should start to settle down here soon. I know it's hard to put any faith in Buchholz to come around, but it's just so difficult to understand why he can't pitch to his potential, especially when we've seen those flashes of brilliance.

Such an easy concept, and yet, so difficult for some to understand.

It's amazing how great Sox players become once they leave the Sox. LOL And I have to say, I misjudged Jacko. I gave him too much credit. Jacko, you disappoint me.

Well said.

I always appreciated Salty's work ethic and his commitment to his pitchers. He understood what his top priority was. That said, this pitching staff needs a defensive oriented catcher, and Salty is not one. That said, the depth at catcher is now sparse, and the Sox really need to pick up a veteran catcher, "just in case". I don't think Salty is the guy, but to rely on Swihart and Leon with no Plan B (or are we now down to Plan D?) would be a bit remiss on the part of the FO.

Also, over the past 10 years, the average number of pitchers per year with a WAR of 5 or higher is 10.