Red Sox signed Porcello to four year deal. 4/82.5M
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I know. Crazy. Seems like he was in Pawtucket only a couple of years ago.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Sox are definitely taking the young pitcher route. Clay and Masterson are only just 30 and everyone else is a lot younger. Contrast that with the '04 team. Wake and Schilling were in their late 30s, Pedro was only 32 but that was an old 32 in retrospect. Lowe would have been the old man of this roster.
I think this is where the disconnect is. The Sox will be paying him the equivalent of an elite pitcher that signed a contract 3 years ago. However, that number is a lot less than what the elite free agent pitchers will earn in the upcoming offseason.ivanvamp said:
Jnai said:
However well-established it may be, the vocabulary is stupid, and not just because it's always stupid to have two terms of art that mean the exact same thing.
Saying "the Sox don't have an ace" suggests the team made a conscious decision to use limited resources in other areas; saying "the Sox don't have a #1 starter" suggests they overlooked a critical need when they were putting together the roster. One sentence invites thoughtful discussion; the other invites WEEI callers to get angry. Obviously, we should choose to use the terminology that invites thoughtful discussion.
I feel like we need a GIF of Ben Afleck in his huckster suit that replaces him shouting "retainer" with "Inflation!"
We all need to recalibrate our internal sense of what we feel a player is worth; the Sandoval signing had many of the same comments, and my unrigorously researched opinion is that the nice round $20M mark is the stumbling block. Manny's contract & AAV still stands as a benchmark for comparison that feels relevant (to me) but objectively it's not.
We all need to recalibrate our internal sense of what we feel a player is worth; the Sandoval signing had many of the same comments, and my unrigorously researched opinion is that the nice round $20M mark is the stumbling block. Manny's contract & AAV still stands as a benchmark for comparison that feels relevant (to me) but objectively it's not.
I think that any comp that goes back before 2013 is irrelevant unless you're doing something to account for inflation. Whole different market back then.
Once you get rid of all those comps, who are you left with? How about James Shields, ages 33, 34, 35 and 36, for $75 million. Comparable quality pitchers but ours is way younger and signed for almost the same money. It seems to me if you think Porcello is overpaid, you must also think Shields is overpaid, in which case it seems to me like you're real gripe is with the market and not with Porcello.
The thing I like best about this signing is I've thought for months now that the Red Sox were exploiting the falling strike zone by grabbing pitchers like Porcello, and this extension suggests to me that they recognize that another year of improvement could put Porcello in another category of elite that could price him out of Boston. Now we don't need to worry about that!
Once you get rid of all those comps, who are you left with? How about James Shields, ages 33, 34, 35 and 36, for $75 million. Comparable quality pitchers but ours is way younger and signed for almost the same money. It seems to me if you think Porcello is overpaid, you must also think Shields is overpaid, in which case it seems to me like you're real gripe is with the market and not with Porcello.
The thing I like best about this signing is I've thought for months now that the Red Sox were exploiting the falling strike zone by grabbing pitchers like Porcello, and this extension suggests to me that they recognize that another year of improvement could put Porcello in another category of elite that could price him out of Boston. Now we don't need to worry about that!
This post echoes what Mike Petriello wrote in February regarding a Porcello extension, where he used Matt Cain and Homer Bailey as comps.PrometheusWakefield said:
ivanvamp said:
You need to inflation-adjust some of those contracts.
Here, I did it for you. Let's assume 5% inflation per season, which is conservative.
32.6 Kershaw
30.6 Lee
30.0 Scherzer
29.2 Sabathia
28.7 Verlandez
27.8 Greinke
27.6 Hernandez
26.0 Lester
24.3 Cain
24.3 Hamels
23.1 Tanaka
21.0 Wainwright
20.7 Weaver
20.0 Porcello
19.3 Lincecum
18.8 Shields
18.5 Sanchez
18.4 Bailey
17.9 Wilson
16.8 Buerhle
That might be a bit of a stretch. Last 3 years, Shields has put up a 121 ERA+ over 683 IP, whereas Porcello's at 101 ERA+ over 558. Of course, that ignores the fact that the Sox are paying for prime, not decline; but I think that approach (vs the normal mindset of paying top dollar for 'proven' talent that's likely to decline) is one of the stumbling blocks that people have to liking this deal, along with OCD SS's point about 20 being a big round number.PrometheusWakefield said:
Interestingly (read trivial, not meaningful), Shields' age 24-25 was very similar to Porcello's: 108 ERA+ over 339 IP for Shields, 106 ERA+ over 381 IP for Porcello.
EricFeczko said:
Good article, and much more helpful and relevant than comparisons to guys like Shields, who were actually free agents. As I said yesterday, the part I always struggle with is how much of a discount should be expected when an extension is signed. Maybe it isn't worth as much as I thought it should be.
But why would you use ERA+? It's been mentioned again and again that Porcello is a groundball pitcher that pitched with a horrible Detroit defense behind him. Shields 2012-2014 FIP/xFIP was 3.51/3.51, Porcello's was 3.71/3.59.BarrettsHiddenBall said:
ivanvamp said:
ivanvamp said:
ivanvamp said:
As others have touched on, these contracts exist in an evolving market that heads one one direction... up. So adjusting for inflation, at the very least, is important. The other important factor is that value doesn't exist in a vacuum, even in an individual year. What a player is worth to one team is not the same as what they might be worth to another. The Red Sox could have, potentially, seen Buchholz, Porcello and Masterson walk next year. They'd be in the same boat as this past winter and would still be feeling pressure to sign an ace. Now, they're looking at Buchholz and Masterson as potential walk candidates, and if Buchholz is good this year, just Masterson. Porcello, as a 26 year old guy with a floor of "mid rotation" has a ton of value to a Red Sox team that has a lot of question marks in the rotation right now, and would have even more this coming winter.
Additionally, if Masterson walks, with the money they have coming off the books, they can absolutely afford a market rate contract for an ace, should they decide one of the available names is worth the investment.
I'm a huge fan of paying for a guy's prime rather than his post-prime seasons. Porcello admittedly had a lot more miles on his arm than other guys his age.
It's been said over and over again, but you can't underestimate how bad Detroit's defense has been, and how much that hurts a guy like Porcello, who relies on the defense behind him. Porcello's future production may in part depend on the maturation of Xander Bogaerts, and Panda's ability not to go full bear.
This is just a thought: is Porcello less of an injury risk than some other pitchers, too? Seems like his pitches aren't high stress.
It's a good deal: not a GENIUS one, just one the Red Sox are going to try to squeeze the most out of with good defense and Vazquez. And its a deal that won't cripple the payroll if it doesn't work out.
It's been said over and over again, but you can't underestimate how bad Detroit's defense has been, and how much that hurts a guy like Porcello, who relies on the defense behind him. Porcello's future production may in part depend on the maturation of Xander Bogaerts, and Panda's ability not to go full bear.
This is just a thought: is Porcello less of an injury risk than some other pitchers, too? Seems like his pitches aren't high stress.
It's a good deal: not a GENIUS one, just one the Red Sox are going to try to squeeze the most out of with good defense and Vazquez. And its a deal that won't cripple the payroll if it doesn't work out.
I give this deal two thumbs up. Porcello doesn't need to get any better than he was last year to be more than worth this extension. Last year he put up a 3.43 ERA and 3.67 FIP with a 116 ERA+ in 204.2 IP, at age 25, with a creaky infield defense behind him. If he stays the same guy he was last year, putting up 200 IP with those same numbers, we will be very happy with him for the next five years.
If that had been his first full season in the majors, coming after a dominant minor league career, people would be talking about how he is one of the best young pitchers in the game. Instead of dominating the minors, he spent his early 20s in the majors, putting up ERAs over 4, so he doesn't "seem" like a very good pitcher.
Instead of being the prospect we've been tracking since he was drafted in the first round, and following through the minors and waiting impatiently for him to finally get to Boston, after following his progress through the system with excellent numbers and glowing scouting reports, and then seeing him break through and establish himself last year with a 116 ERA+ in over 200 IP in his first full season in the majors, he is that guy from Detroit who has been around a while and never looked that great and who has a career ERA of 4.30.
If you replace his age 21-24 numbers in the majors with dominant minor league seasons instead, he would "seem" like a much better, much more exciting pitcher.
So basically, the perception of how good he is has been damaged badly because he was too good to be pitching in the minors and was instead in the majors at a very young age.
This contract may not work out, but IMO it is a great percentage move that makes a lot of sense when his age is considered. Every pitcher signing is a gamble, but I am glad the Red Sox are at least trying to pay for the future rather than the past.
If that had been his first full season in the majors, coming after a dominant minor league career, people would be talking about how he is one of the best young pitchers in the game. Instead of dominating the minors, he spent his early 20s in the majors, putting up ERAs over 4, so he doesn't "seem" like a very good pitcher.
Instead of being the prospect we've been tracking since he was drafted in the first round, and following through the minors and waiting impatiently for him to finally get to Boston, after following his progress through the system with excellent numbers and glowing scouting reports, and then seeing him break through and establish himself last year with a 116 ERA+ in over 200 IP in his first full season in the majors, he is that guy from Detroit who has been around a while and never looked that great and who has a career ERA of 4.30.
If you replace his age 21-24 numbers in the majors with dominant minor league seasons instead, he would "seem" like a much better, much more exciting pitcher.
So basically, the perception of how good he is has been damaged badly because he was too good to be pitching in the minors and was instead in the majors at a very young age.
This contract may not work out, but IMO it is a great percentage move that makes a lot of sense when his age is considered. Every pitcher signing is a gamble, but I am glad the Red Sox are at least trying to pay for the future rather than the past.
That's a fair point; you could add "his value is (to-date) partially theoretical and dependent on acceptance of DIPS" as another stumbling block.Rustjive said:
Pitcher A (24 yrs old) 177 IP 7.22 K/9, 2.14 BB/9, 0.92 HR/9, 55.3 GB%, 3.53 FIP, 3.19 xFIP, 2.8 WARThe Gray Eagle said:
Pitcher B (24 yrs old) 219 IP 7.52 K/9, 3.04 BB/9, 0.62 HR/9, 55.9 GB%, 3.46 FIP, 3.47 xFIP, 3.1 WAR
Pitcher A is Rick Porcello 2013.
Pitcher B is Sonny Gray 2014.
And of course, defense, ballpark, Avila is a lousy pitch framer, etc.
I think the mild head-scratcher for me is that it seems debatable whether Porcello could have commanded a 5/95 deal on the open market if he had become a FA this past winter. So the Sox are not only anticipating improvement in runs-allowed results thanks to their defense and their strike-stealing catchers (hopefully a largely unchanged factor with Leon subbed for Vazquez), but they are arguably anticipating by a year the impact of this improvement on Porcello's value. It almost seems like they must be expecting Porcello to improve so much that by next winter he wouldn't be available for this price. That sounds like fun.
It depends on the situation. For pitchers waiting for their first big payday (see the Ventura and Kluber extensions), it's a big freaking discount. But besides being only one year from FA, Porcello's also already pretty much set for life already -- including 2015 he'll have earned ~$30m in his career. Waiting a year and taking the chance of an injury is still a risk that could cost him millions upon millions; but it's entirely possible that those are millions that he'll never spend himself anyway. Also, as others have noted, the discount could come in the form of reduced years, rather than reduced dollars (though in this case, you could argue that the 4-year duration is to Porcello's benefit, since he gets to hit free agency after his age 30 season).glennhoffmania said:
glennhoffmania said:
I think the bolded is what I was talking about. Ultimately, I think the GMs or fans looking for "great deals" -- whether trades or contract signings (that's where the trade mention came from) -- are either going to be less successful GMs or disappointed fans. Its a fair deal. (as it was a fair trade). My biggest concern is whether Porcello will be a good pitcher. Given the current $$$ environment, the contract is a fair one for a good pitcher. There are very few "great deals" in the sense of "wow....we just signed a guy who is very likely to give us much more than we paid for over the duration of the contract." (not using hindsight here)
In the end either teams usually overpay for what they are pretty sure will be declining out years, or they pay what looks like an overpay *now* for what they expect to be consistent prime years without a dropoff.
Is it really that debatable? With all the caveats about WAR in place, a 2.7 WAR pitcher in a $6m/WAR environment is worth a shade over $16m. Account for inflation (6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8) and the resulting fair value is $18.9m/year. This is with no performance improvement, which should be more likely than any regression over Porcello's ages.Savin Hillbilly said:
Is it debatable just because of the comparison with Shields? We can try to ignore age but it really does matter - while Shields could represent a greater value in 2015 at $18.75m compared to Porcello at $19m, it's probably going to be hard to say that in 2018 when he's 37. In that case, it's just a matter of perception. Shields looks like a better deal now but the cost is hidden in the form of his latter years.
joe dokes said:
I agree with all that, and the bolded is my biggest worry as well. Getting excited about signing a guy for his prime years is nice, but he better be pretty good during those prime years to be worth the money. Younger doesn't always mean better.
Another issue is the point that's been made that he relies on his defense, and he'll see an improvement over the Detroit infield. That's true today, but in two years we don't know what Boston's infield will look like. Pedroia could be a step slower, Sandoval could be a DH candidate, and Bogaerts may never become an above average SS.
glennhoffmania said:
Ben Buchanan at OTM made a similar point: this (and the Wiley deal) are effectively a commitment to strong IF defense as a roster-building approach for the next five years. It's a big bet on Bogaerts, too.
glennhoffmania said:
Heated agreement. The team has foregone some real risks of older pitchers at their peak (more years and $$$ committed, age/age-related injury & decline) for some other risks of the younger pitcher (performance simply may not materialize for a number of reasons). I like the theory . . .
The four years is the part I'm happy about. He would get probably 7-8 on the open market considering his age.
The money? Its not a huge bargain but its not a severe overpay.
The money? Its not a huge bargain but its not a severe overpay.
A very nice aspect of this deal is that it got done. OK, that sounds rather simple. And it is.
But what I am driving at is that I think it's a real benefit for Porcello and the Sox that they will not be dealing with a key member of this year's team in a contract season. That story line often takes on a life of its own and that Lester's contract remained unresolved arguably loomed over and cast a pall on the 2014 season from the get go.
It's nice to have that storyline behind us. Now we get the "is Porcello really worth all this money?" storyline but I think that's a lot less of a killjoy.
But what I am driving at is that I think it's a real benefit for Porcello and the Sox that they will not be dealing with a key member of this year's team in a contract season. That story line often takes on a life of its own and that Lester's contract remained unresolved arguably loomed over and cast a pall on the 2014 season from the get go.
It's nice to have that storyline behind us. Now we get the "is Porcello really worth all this money?" storyline but I think that's a lot less of a killjoy.
I would argue this deal avoids both.joe dokes said:
At $19M (I know, $12.5M this year and then $20.5M or so the next 4 years) Porcello is in the price brackets of guys like Lackey and Anibal Sanchez when they signed their FA contracts, when adjusted for inflation. Porcello's last three seasons compare very well with both of their three years prior to getting their deals. Sanchez got his deal heading into his age 29 season, Lackey got his heading into his age 31 season. Porcello is heading into his age 26 season.
The 2013 and 2014 Rick Porcello, with a non-shitty defense behind him, is worth $19M in today's SP market. The fact that he's only 26 and therefore more likely to stay healthy and/or to improve substantively is the big value here.
No declining out years and if he doesn't improve at all but shows up and throws 180+ innings a season over the next five he's worth the contract. Meanwhile if he went into the FA market after this season as a 27 year old in 2016 he would likely have gotten at least 6 years with a very similar AAV for simply repeating 2013 and 2014.
The Sox didn't win big. Neither did Porcello. They both locked in security for the median outcome of Porcello being a mid 3's FIP guy over the next 5 years. I'm sure the real appeal to the Sox is that the deal is 5 years and doesn't go beyond age 30. I'm sure for Porcello that is part of the appeal as well, hitting FA in time for a double dip second big money contract at that point. The odds Porcello takes the next step are about equal to the odds he breaks down/forgets how to pitch, both sides are hoping for but not relying on the first of those outside the middle outcomes.
[quote name="Lowrielicious" post="5970579" timestamp=
Is this assuming that all the FA-to-be's all sign extensions this year?
Coming off contract at the end of the year:
Price
Zimmermann
Cueto
Iwakuma
Kennedy[/quote]
Don't forget Greinke's probable opt out.
Is this assuming that all the FA-to-be's all sign extensions this year?
Coming off contract at the end of the year:
Price
Zimmermann
Cueto
Iwakuma
Kennedy[/quote]
Don't forget Greinke's probable opt out.
Naysayers seem to forget how hard it is to find reliable innings eaters. If you can put together a rotation with 4 guys who pitch 180 or more IP you are in the playoff hunt. Beacuse with the odd exception, guys can't get to 180IP unless they pitch pretty well. Given his age, his history and his style, Porcello is about as much of a sure thing for this as any pitcher in baseball. If he improves, this is gravy. At this number, this club can still afford a mega-deal for youngish ace (Zimmerman, Cueto?) if they can get their hands on one. All deals for pitchers have risk, but this seems pretty low.
I do dread the, "but he's not a $20MM pitcher Mike" comments after every 6 inning, 3 run performance.
I do dread the, "but he's not a $20MM pitcher Mike" comments after every 6 inning, 3 run performance.
Rustjive said:
I don't see how people don't like this deal. If Porcello stays where he is,the contract is fair. And if he does get injured, all he has to do is improve a little bit for the Sox to get close to full value out of him.
The odds of the Sox getting 75% or more of this contract have to be enormous. Which I suspect is one of their goals going forward.
People nitpicking this deal could really use a lesson in expected value. It's so much better to be over-paying $3-4 million/year to a guy who can provide 150-170 average innings than be paying $25 million / year to a guy whose arm just fell off.
kieckeredinthehead said:
That's a very oversimplified and incorrect way of looking at it though. It your only two choices are the ones you mentioned then sure, option A is much better. But the reason you sign the $25m per year guy is that you hope he provides significantly more value than a guy like Porcello, such as Sabathia for a few years, Felix, Kershaw, etc. Would you trade Porcello for Felix straight up right now?
glennhoffmania said:
It's oversimplified because people complaining about this contract in the thread seem to have no actual understanding of variance. The fact that you're citing Sabathia as an example of a better contract than Porcello's is evidence of that.
kieckeredinthehead said:
I cited Sabathia because you made a statement that Porcello's deal is better than paying $25m for a guy whose arm just fell off, as if that's a given. I didn't say his contract was better than Porcello's. I said there are guys who make top dollar who don't become worthless so it's not one extreme or the other. But if you'd rather assume that anyone who isn't doing backflips over this deal must be less informed than you then feel free to do so.
I asked an honest question- would you rather have Felix or Porcello today? Yes, there's more risk with Felix since his contract is much more expensive and he's older. That's the whole point of risk/reward, and the potential reward with Felix far exceeds that for Porcello.
glennhoffmania said:
You're just proving my point that you don't understand the basics of probability. Here's quick lesson:
In this example, Porcello is the blue line and let's say James Shields is the red line. You pay for the mean (or median) value of the probability of performance, not the best-case scenario. I'd be happy to draw Felix in here, too - of course I'd rather have him than Porcello. Because the expected value is so much higher. The variance in performance for guys in their mid-30s is obviously so much higher than late 20s that it makes the overall possible value of their contract lower than the best possible outcome. John Henry has presumably taken an introductory statistics course.
I don't understand the question. Felix signed a $24M+ team-friendly contract in 2013 (age 27-33) after signing a 5 year arb-avoidance deal in 2010 (age 24-28),
His salaries comped to Porcello's age are:
Hernandez
26: $18.5M
27: $19M
28: $22M
29: $24M
30: $25M
31: $26M
32: $26M
33: $27M
Porcello
26: $12.5M
27: $20M
28: $20M
29: $21M
30: $21M
31:
32:
33:
Felix is a much better pitcher at a bigger contract re-negotiated in 2013.
His salaries comped to Porcello's age are:
Hernandez
26: $18.5M
27: $19M
28: $22M
29: $24M
30: $25M
31: $26M
32: $26M
33: $27M
Porcello
26: $12.5M
27: $20M
28: $20M
29: $21M
30: $21M
31:
32:
33:
Felix is a much better pitcher at a bigger contract re-negotiated in 2013.
Never mind. Not worth continuing this pissing match. The ignore button is more appropriate. Carry on.
At some point you have to live with uncertainty. The body's physical peak is the same for pitchers and hitters; if some pitchers get smarter or hone their mechanics later, so be it.Toe Nash said:
Porcellos 4 yr run based bWAR
2011-0.2
2012-1.5
2013-2.4
2014-4.0
Looks like a clear upward trajectory, but can we expect it to continue?. Porcellos 4 year FIP based fWAR says no.
2011-2.1
2012-2.7
2013-2.8
2014-2.7
Not a lot of variance there. As FIP based WAR is somewhat better predictive than runs alone, its likely Porcello will be a 2.7 WAR pitcher over the next 4 years, making 7.6 million/WAR. Basically market rate, perhaps more so due to the 1 year earlier commitment, but thats offset by the lower number of years.
The wild card here is that Porcello moves to a much better hitting division and will face an increase in his quality of opposition. There is also some concern on my part that was was willing to leave a bunch of money on the table. Not showing a lot of confidence in himself. Reminds me of Josh Becketts last extension.
If he does not improve, there is not much surplus value to the signing. In fact factoring in the loss of Cespedes and a compensation pick its a bit of a loss. If he declines due to the tougher offenses he will face, the loss is greater, but hardly crippling. Limited upside and downside IMO.
I am ok with the deal so long as it does not limit financial flexibility to acquire an ace this year or next.
2011-0.2
2012-1.5
2013-2.4
2014-4.0
Looks like a clear upward trajectory, but can we expect it to continue?. Porcellos 4 year FIP based fWAR says no.
2011-2.1
2012-2.7
2013-2.8
2014-2.7
Not a lot of variance there. As FIP based WAR is somewhat better predictive than runs alone, its likely Porcello will be a 2.7 WAR pitcher over the next 4 years, making 7.6 million/WAR. Basically market rate, perhaps more so due to the 1 year earlier commitment, but thats offset by the lower number of years.
The wild card here is that Porcello moves to a much better hitting division and will face an increase in his quality of opposition. There is also some concern on my part that was was willing to leave a bunch of money on the table. Not showing a lot of confidence in himself. Reminds me of Josh Becketts last extension.
If he does not improve, there is not much surplus value to the signing. In fact factoring in the loss of Cespedes and a compensation pick its a bit of a loss. If he declines due to the tougher offenses he will face, the loss is greater, but hardly crippling. Limited upside and downside IMO.
I am ok with the deal so long as it does not limit financial flexibility to acquire an ace this year or next.
I have a couple of quick points-Sampo Gida said:
1. I think the hope is that as Porcello enters into his prime his fWAR will increase---its an assumption, but not an unreasonable one. I realize that he's already had several years in the majors, so he might be who he is, but if we try to project hitters as improving as they hit their physical primes, I don't think its unreasonable to hope a pitcher will as well.
2. Your point about him leaving too much money on the table as a negative doesn't quite pass the smell test to me. So you're saying that you'd be happier with the extension if the Sox were paying him more, because then he would be leaving "less money on the table"? I understand your point, but I think its wobbly.
Another question, for those who know more than me:
Has anyone ever delved into whether GB pitchers have their FIP number suffer more as a result of poor fielding than other types of pitchers? If a guy has to pitch to more batters per inning as a result of substandard defense, I could see it gradually increasing his HR and BB rate (as he has to face more batters), though I suppose you could argue that he should also get a proportional increase in strikeouts. Still, I feel like the effects of facing more batters (and throwing more pitches) might disproportionatly affect guys with low K rates, if nothing else than by the effects of facing guys multiple times through the order. Just a thought.
FIP ignores the groundball tendency of Porcello altogether. Clearly the Red Sox are using something closer to xFIP, which would reward Porcello's GB rate, in offering this contract. If I recall, his xFIP consistently beats his FIP.
Both FIP and xFIP are regression equations So, the constants in the equations are calibrated so that a pitcher with mean values of K, BB, and HR rates and GB rates for xFIP will project to have the mean ERA. Hence, the constant is calibrated to the effect of an average defense on ERA. That means a pitcher with a bad defense is more likely to have his xFIP look better than his ERA. I don't think it means you should expect their xFIP itself to improve.
Both FIP and xFIP are regression equations So, the constants in the equations are calibrated so that a pitcher with mean values of K, BB, and HR rates and GB rates for xFIP will project to have the mean ERA. Hence, the constant is calibrated to the effect of an average defense on ERA. That means a pitcher with a bad defense is more likely to have his xFIP look better than his ERA. I don't think it means you should expect their xFIP itself to improve.
Rustjive said:
Are those caveats about WAR genuinely in place though? I mean it seems the people challenging any claim that this was an overpay, despite the fact that he sorely sticks out as an non-established asset in comparison to other $20m/per pitchers, are leaning pretty freaking heavily on it to make their counter argument.
To answer your question though yes, it's very debatable imo. If you take the possibility off the table that Ben (who seems to have the biggest hard on in the room lately for paying above and beyond top dollar for sub-30 potential) outbids himself, i can't see Porcello getting that contract on the open market this past winter. Shields ends up getting the larger contract there because quite frankly he's the better pitcher, and more often the not the instant gratification factor involved in that arguable goes a lot further in context to why teams are dipping in the higher end market to begin with (especially when in the end the house is always going to win anyway. In an attempt to "beat" the system, we essentially are just currently trading off one rather equally high risk approach for another).
Not getting why some are insisting this is some indicator that the Sox won't still be spending big money on a starter next winter either. If anything, this just makes me question how much of a priority getting back under the cap for 2016 is really going to be. With the very real possibility that this staff will still project to need a serious shot in the arm next winter, i doubt they are already conceding the possibility of a temporary surrender following yet another disappointing season.
The reason Porcello doesn't get Shields' contract this past offseason is because of his age. The big difference to me is that there is little likelihood Shields is going to outperform his contract and a much bigger likelihood he completely underperforms his contract (because of age and injury) while Porcello is the opposite. I'm sure the Red Sox have run detailed numbers on all of this.
Signing top-tier free agents who are over 30 generally means that teams are hoping they stay at or close to a top level of performance, which most don't do.
Signing mid-20s players have a different risk but has more upside. Also, as I've said in other threads, other than pitchers they draft, if we assume there are 20-ish "number 1" starters in baseball, how many of them ar going to be available to sign with respect to their age 26 to age 30 seasons? Not many I presume.
MikeM said:
Shields was strung along through most of his free agency winter until Preller swooped in to make him another big ticket acquisition for suddenly generous San Diego. Teams are generally smarter in trying to avoid paying too much of those extra years for aging free agent pitchers. Nevertheless, they give in to temptation every winter to repeatedly escalate the price for proven starting pitching. The trend for most teams to lock up their young talent by buying out arbitration and early free agency years is making those players more costly to acquire. Nevertheless, Cherington somehow transforming his final 2 months of Lester's control (while foregoing the opportunity to extend him for 6 more years at $155 million) into much younger Porcello for his prime 5 years of production at $95 million was nothing less than alchemy. This leaves him with a theoretical $60 million down payment (not spent for Lester) to acquire a Hamels type (if not Hamels himself) contract if one comes on the market. Of course, the best case scenario will be that one or more from among Rodriguez, Owens, Johnson and Barnes will allow Cherington to bank this extra theoretical money to more cost effectively bolster some other future organizational need. Their discipline in refusing to overpay for aging older pitching is likely to continue and I will be surprised if the Sox go after Zimmerman, Price or Cueto. Swapping Owens and others in the minors not named Swihart, Betts, Rodriguez and Moncada for Sonny Gray or a younger pitcher like him who another team can't afford to extend in free agency seems much more likely. This is essentially the strategy Cherington pursued in acquiring Porcello.
Plympton91 said:
Porcello's xFIP only beat FIP in 2013. All four other years are very close.
On defense, hopefully better defense will help Porcello but his career BABIP isn't particularly high, .310 and last year it was .298. How low do we expect good defense to put his BABIP?
It's a decent contract but I would've waited to see everyone's performance this year. Just because a pitcher signs for their 25-30 seasons, does not mean that those will be their best seasons. I'd prefer to assess Buchholz, Masterson and Porcello after the season and in context of how Kelly and Miley perform.