It’s a quiet morning around the game, so let’s conduct a quick poll.
The Red Sox just agreed to rather an unusual contract with starter Rick Porcello, who had been set to hit the open market after this season. Still just 26 years old, the righty has been a steady presence for several years. But while he has shown some signs of breaking out, and did put up a career-best 3.43 ERA while topping 200 innings last season, Porcello has yet to establish himself as more than a solid, middle-of-the-rotation arm.
Nevertheless, Boston bet on Porcello’s ability to deliver value through his late twenties, buying four free agent years for a $82.5MM guarantee. That’s quite a significant average annual value for a pitcher with Porcello’s track record, but is offset by the fact that the team bought his age-27 through age-30 campaigns.
That trade-off is not often seen, as most pitchers look to score the lengthiest contracts they can, and Porcello almost certainly could have found more years. But it also makes sense: the deal’s structure means that the Red Sox will be relieved of obligations into Porcello’s decline phase, while he in turn will have a chance to hit the market at a reasonably young age.
Somewhat notably, James Shields signed with the Padres for four years and $75MM earlier in the offseason. That’s not insignificantly lower than Porcello’s guarantee, but is still in the same ballpark. Shields, of course, has been one of the game’s best and most durable arms for some time. But he also signed that deal to run through his age-36 season.
Had the Red Sox preferred, perhaps they could have signed Shields to approximately the same deal they gave Porcello, which would have had the added benefit of inserting the former into their rotation this year. Obviously, Boston did not believe that to be a wise investment, in part due to their assessment of Shields’ fit at Fenway and his ability to produce as he ages.
So, will the club regret betting on an arguably less-talented, inarguably much younger arm? Was the Porcello extension a wise investment of the club’s resources?
Why is this contract so unusual after all, Jeff?
Short duration for a really young pitcher about to become a free agent.
Which is within Red Sox policy isn’t it?
That the contract fits Boston’s policy is separate from how unusual the deal is in the current free agent landscape.
But almost everybody thinks RS paid too much.
It’s not often you see a team literally overpay to take years off the end of the deal. That’s what makes it unusual.
Over $20mil AAV for a pitcher who hasn’t yet shown he can be relied upon as an ace is an overpay at the moment. Porcello could very well make this look like a bargain in a couple of years but so far he’s only got two above average seasons out of his first six. Plus Porcello’s numbers pitching in BAL, BOS, NY and TOR are mediocre at best and Boston paid him like a #2 who’s a near sure thing.
I’m not sure they have a “policy,” per se, but it fits their MO.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t unusual to see such a contract. In part, it’s just unusual because Porcello himself is unusual.
Anyway, not sure I understand your comment – I’m not criticizing the deal, just pointing out several aspects of it and asking readers their opinions.
Sorry Jeff, I was not trying to make a point against your opinion just did not feel at the time that this contract was unusual. Red Sox wanted to pay the money and Porcello was happy to take it which makes two sides happy. That’s why I don;t see any unusual in this. Probably I made too much of a deal of this “unusual” you used after all, sorry about that. 🙂
It’s all good!
I just mean unusual in relation to the “current free agent landscape,” as the above commenter put it — i.e., the deal is something of a different type of contract model. That holds true even though, as you say, both sides obviously felt comfortable with the arrangement.
With Price, Zimmerman and possibly Greinke hitting the market this winter, RP was wise to take this deal.
Thats why i feel they could have left 10 million off the deal.
It was a good investment in that the guy is young and locked up until a favorable age for Boston. I think the biggest topic of debate is the dollar amount he rakes in a year, which seems to be a compromise for more years. Personally, I like it more for the player than the team, particularly because he hasn’t had the real type of breakout season to justify the money he makes, that’s a lofty paycheck for a mid-rotation caliber arm, but who am I to tell a GM how to do his job?
Don’t forget the money paid in the last few years market.
Definitely a player friendly deal here. He’s worth maybe $7mil a year at best. If you can’t succeed in a place like Detroit with the offense and pitcher friendly park they have, what makes you think they’ll be an Ace in the dinky place they call Fenway?
7 million? Really? He just got 12.5 in arbitration. So he’s worth at least 12.5. Fangraphs has him at a value of 20.2 last season and 20.5 the season before based on fWAR. 7 million for a starting pitcher would be CJ Wilson or Kyle Kendrick level. Porcello is far superior to those guys.
I agree the 7 million per year figure is definitely low for what you get from him, he’s an effective arm with age on his side. However, 20 million also seems considerably high, regardless of what the metrics dictate he should be payed, unless there’s some level of consideration into what he could potentially be as opposed to what he is.
I don’t think the Red Sox would have offered it unless they saw him continuing to improve. As a matter of fact Cherington spoke to just that. It doesn’t really matter though, because if he brings you 3 fWAR a season, which he’s come pretty close to the last two years, that’s what it costs on the free market.
I don’t particularly love fWAR as the sole point of dictation on a player’s value on the FA market, I think other metrics/factors should be factored in if we’re going that route,but that’s a separate discussion I suppose. Long story short, if he doesn’t turn into something more within this contract, I don’t think this deal will look great in a few years, but it fits the BoSox model of business, so if it works for them right now, so be it.
Even if he pitches like he did in 2012, I don’t think there will be a point where this contract is a horrible overpay. I doubt it ever looks like a bargain, but it’s never going to be an albatross.
Much less likely to be albatross, for sure. If they need to move the contract, they should be able to adjust it to market at that time and not absorb the entire remainder.
Oh, it will absolutely never be an albatross, agreed, it’s still low enough of an investment that it won’t burn the BoSox regardless, it just may not be perceived to be a great value should he not improve upon what he’s done.
I don’t think it needs to be a great value. Not every deal has to be won, sometimes you just have to pay extra to keep a player you want so he doesn’t reach free agency.
And I think that’s got to be a factor when discussing this, because Boston clearly wanted the guy and payed for that factor, which could tip the scale a bit in some opinions. You make a fair point that not every deal has to represent a great value, but you want it to at least stand up as a fair-to-good value. As things sit, it’s a fair deal because of the perceived upside, but it could fall either way going forward.
I can believe that.
Baseball is about winning, not getting the best value.
The poll asked about value, therefore this discussion has been about value.
Still, the complaint on signing “older” players is that you are paying them for what they have already done. In this case, the Red Sox are paying him for something he may never do, because they “project” it.
It will likely be the contract that all other pitchers point to when its their turn.
As cheap as Boston has become on the FA market (not the international), it could prevent them from signing Cueto, Zimmerman, etc. Although most seem to agree they don’t really fit Boston’s model anyway. So that might me a moot point.
I can’t see them making a legit offer to either of those guys. It’s funny that a team that has spent over 300 million in the past 6 months is now cheap. They’re not giving out 7 year deals, but I don’t think you can employ the word cheap.
It’s not that they are cheap, but their actions seem to demonstrate a distinct aversion to signing LT deals with TOR pitchers. Maybe they are on to something, time will tell.
Let me know when one of those deals works out and we can talk about long term deal for TOR arms after 30.
You are preaching to the choir on this one. It used to be that for every Sandy Koufax, there were a dozen TOR pitchers that faded back towards the pack with age, performance-wise. Today, the risk seems a lot higher.
Yup. Have to find a way to develop them yourself or trade with someone who can. Another Beckett or Pedro deal would be helpful. Getting a TOR arm out of ERod, Barnes, Johnson or Owens would work too. Signing a 200 million dollar 7 year deal for a guy who may be productive for half the contract if you’re lucky? Not so much.
How exactly would Detroit’s offense help Porcello succeed? And who called him an ace?
Scoring runs allows a pitcher to stay in games when he gives them up. It also helps in the W column which impresses in arbitration, which helps his salary.
Because he’s a groundball pitcher, so the expansive outfield in Detroit does him little good, and he pitched most of the last few years with Cabrera at the hot corner, statue Jhonny Peralta at SS, aging journeyman Ramon Santiago at 2b, and terrible defender Prince Fielder at 1b… aka the worst infield defense in baseball for most of his career.
This was a HUGE win for Porcello. Had one of the best offenses behind him in Detroit and still couldn’t shine. Over $20 million a year for an average pitcher? He can have 4 horrible years and not sign with another team and still be set for life. Big market teams LOVE overpaying for mediocre talent…..
He also had one of the worst defenses (and is a ground ball pitcher) behind him and that is what matters the most to a pitchers era. A strong defensive alignment especially in the infield, plus a mid tier offense will make Porcello look better to the era and win-loss experts. His value compared to the age seasons of similar pitchers through 25 is pretty high (Jon Garland, Greg Maddux, and Alex Fernandez) and the fact his era has gone down since his rookie season at 20.
The Tigers had a bad defense during the 2 years with Prince Fielder. But the other years featured some very good defensive players in the infield. 2 out of 6 years were bad, not all 6.
4 of the 6 were bad with -22 defensive run below average or worse. 10-14. and that coincides with his good rookie and mia second year. then with the bad years of no defense he had to work harder as a maturing pitcher. with fielding average defense it shows his era if you want to go that way at 4.06, 3.93, 3.53, 3.67. Those show he could be well worth his salary.
That same defense didn’t seem to hurt another ground ball pitcher by the name of Doug Fister.
Fister had an ERA of 3.57 in his 2 full seasons with Detroit, than dropped to 2.41 with Washington.
He got better 🙂
No, he didn’t
Sure he did 😛
With a starting pitcher, it’s a little more tolerable. Even if he is only a middle of the rotation starter the whole 4 years, if he takes his turn and goes out there and plays, you can still slot another pitcher or two above him. No so much with a position player. If he is better than that, then it’s a great deal.
77-64 lifetime, Mid-4’s ERA, 1.4 WHIP….$20 mil a year? Yeah, that’s a bad deal!
We’re quoting W-L records to evaluate pitchers now? Am I stuck in 1998?
It applies because his record was on winning teams. Not mentioning it at all would put us in fantasyland.
I had no idea that a pitcher’s W-L record mattered when gauging that pitcher’s performance. Oh wait, that’s because it doesn’t matter. Like..at all.
I notice you didn’t pick apart using the WHIP, however.
Using WHIP is fine, even good. Using WHIP from 2010-2012 when he was 21, 22, and 23 years old is misleading. Don’t you think his 1.28 and 1.23 WHIPs these last two years carry a little more weight?
If a starting pitchers W-L record is based, not on his performance, but the teams, shouldn’t it reflect the teams W-L record over the time period? That should make it an appropriate point of reference when comparing it to the teams overall performance. I would think any “one year aberration” of the offence not scoring for him, or the bullpen blowing leads, would be offset over his 5 years in Detroit. If his record outperforms the teams, that would say as much as if it underperforms the team.
Wins and losses matter a lot. Pitchers who win end up on All Star teams and in the Hall of Fame. Pitchers who lose a lot end up as grocery store clerks.
Money just doesn’t go as far as it used to. If Porcello duplicates his last season he’ll be worth 20.2 next season not even allowing for the increased cost of free agent pitching on the market. Is Porcello an Ace? No. Will he dominate the opposition? No. Will he give you 200 innings or fairly consistent pitching, with an ERA, FIP and xFIP under 4? Most likely. That’s what 20 million buys you nowadays.
He’s only thrown 200+ innings one season. His next highest were 182 and 177 and those two were not spectacular years.
Oh well if he only throws 180 the deal is horrible. He’s thrown between 170-200 for his whole career and started at least 30 games for the last 4 years (in 2010 4 of the start were in AAA). He’s consistent and reliable.
A big part of the reason he only threw 200 innings one time was because he was young and the fifth starter until last year. His start was skipped a lot. He was never on the DL. Context is important.
My point still stands, he only has thrown more then 200+ innings once. His arm has only logged 200 or more innings one season.
You gave a fact. What was the point? Because he only pitched 200 innings once by age 25, the Red Sox should not expect 200 innings from ages 26 to30?
My point is that Victoria said he’s good (consistence) for 200 innings. Doing it once is not consistent, I’m not saying he will never do it again, I’m saying he has never done it consistently. Is that what you are implying? Do you know what consistent means?
For me, it’s an overpay, but not the same kind of stunner that was the Scherzer deal. I’m not comparing these two players, but it also seems less likely to become a problem later.
When you have one of the best farms in the majors, you probably have a good grasp of scouting. Let’s use that scouting to pay for future as opposed to past performance. If his stats were trending down the last 3 years… then I’d say it was a bad signing, but an upward trend heading into his prime years on a short term deal? Sign me up.
I think that was the exact thinking when BJ/Melvin Upton signed his contract. Unfortunately, scouts and projections can be wrong.
This overpriced extension is a risky bet on youth and potential. For this price?? The Sox could’ve brought in a better pitcher after the season, and netted the draft pick when Porcello moved on. This is a terrible signing.
What better pitcher were they getting for 4 years at 80MM? Anybody better is gonna get a long-term commitment with AAV totals higher, or equal to.
Betting on youth and potential, there might not be a better pitcher for that price. Speaking on what he’s done so far?? He’s not worth that price. Coming somewhere in the middle?? You can do just as well, and for less of the financial commitment.
Only SP that comes to mind is Iwakuma and he is questionable.
Yup, that was my exact thought as well. Maybe Fister too.
It is a good extension, but a yes or no answer doesn’t really justify the question IMO. Was is a fantastic, or great extension? No, because the dollars were too great. Was it a good extension? Yes, because it gives Boston additional security for next year’s rotation, while betting on potential and youth. Anybody that doesn’t know baseball would just assume the answer to be no in this scenario as the traditional stats accompanied with the high salary figure would make it seem bad. However, it is far from a terrible, or bad signing. It is at least mediocre, and better than that IMO.
The Red Sox feel he has an upside and the Red Sox are willing to overpay for players.
Unfortunately, every time a team does an overpay, players use that contract in arbitration, and then it becomes the norm. How much pricier is that ace that Boston needs going to be, now? Doesn’t matter if its by trade or free agent. Boston just made Hamels contract look even better than Philly could have.
Since the question was phrased; “…was it a GOOD contract, and the choices were only yes and no, I had to vote no. It wasn’t good, but had there been a middle ground answer, I would have selected that, because it’s also far from the worst.
Ditto.
I think it’s a good deal for both sides. Porcello leaves some money on the table in potential duration, but is guaranteed a life-changing security. The Red Sox have cash in abundance, so, even if they have just purchased “fully priced” it’s irrelevant. I don’t think this deal could have been prudently made by a mid-market or small-market team, because it’s too much for the expected return in comparison to the dollars you have to allocate to the rest of your roster.
It will be pointed to by every arbitration pitcher in year 5, so essentially the Red Sox just became the first to pay the new “full price.”
Tanaka seems like a worse investment so far. He broke down faster than Daisuke.
People find it weird because Sox ovepaid a guy in his 20s, but we in Boston find it weird that other teams are overpaying aces in their 30s so you can watch their declining years.
good point.
Whats worse? Paying an Ace who may/probably decline in the future, or pay a mid rotation starter like the Top of Rotation arm he may/probably never become?
Paying 180M for a 31 year old or 80M for a 26 year old? It’s a straightforward decision.
A 31 year old Scherzer or a 26 yr old Andy Oliver? No, its not as straight forward as their ages alone.
If you get 200 innings from him each year, he is worth the money.
This is exactly the type of contract the Red Sox should be giving out. The advantage they have is in $, not in years. They can’t afford to give guys more years, but they can afford to give guys higher AAV. This is an overpay, but it’s a different type of overpay than a normal free agent signing.
Normal free agents see an overpay in the back end, where their performance is expected to dwindle. This is an overpay in the sense that if Porcello continues to pitch the way he has historically, he is not worth $20MM/year (though that’s debatable). The difference in my mind is that there is a much better chance that Porcello, at age 26, still has his best seasons ahead of him, ones where he unquestionably is worth $20MM/year, than there is of a pitcher in his mid to late 30s being worth $20MM/year.
So basically, are you willing to overpay in years, but not necessarily in dollars, on a pitcher over 30, or in dollars, and not in years, on a pitcher at 26? I give the contract an A+. This is why the Red Sox are one of the best run orgs in baseball. They aren’t afraid to get creative to stay competitive.
Greene appears to be a replica of Porcello at 1/20th the price this year and 1/40th the price next year. They are the same age. Greene is under control until 2021, after Porcello’s massive contract is over. Dombrowski is a genius at getting pitchers at the right time… Scherzer, Fister, Anibal… all A+ moves. Greene looks like another victory for the Detroit scouts.
two starts does not a season make.
Pretty close to 50/50 Greene v. Porcello… in terms of who will be the better pitcher the next 4 years when you factor in Comerica v. Fenway.
We shall see.
Greene’s career ERA is 3.14. Porcello’s BEST YEAR was 3.43 (4.30 ERA in his 6+ year career overall).
not really comparable. Porcello was in the Majors at 20.
You are right. Porcello has a lot of “tread on his tires”… advantage Greene then?
Greene’s tread was in the minors. I’m sure he tried just as hard.
Greene hasn’t even pitched 100 innings in his career. His ERA is irrelevant. Not to mention he’s older than Porcello too.
Can you point to any single 100 inning window in Porcello’s entire career that was as good as Greene’s start has been? You have 6+ years of stats to look at.
Who will have a better ERA/WHIP/FIP this year? I say it is Greene.
You are right, he is older than Porcello… by a grand total of 40 days. You think that makes a difference?
Shane Greene career FIP-: 89. Rick Porcello 2013 FIP-: 89. That wasn’t difficult at all. Introduce yourself to league/park adjusted statistics and get back to me. And yes, age makes a difference. One guy is 26 with less than 100 MLB innings to his name, another guy has an actual track record. But I’m sure Greene is the next big thing, just like Robbie Ray.
Funny. Congrats, you found one window in a 6+ year career with ONE stat where Porcello is comparable to Greene.
Of course Porcello will be paid 20X Greene this year and 40X Greene next year. If Greene is even 90% of Porcello, it is far better investment. Thing is, I believe Greene is BETTER than Porcello even with the microscopic salary v. a massive overpay.
… And I am not going to argue with someone who believes that being 40 days older is a big deal. I do think having that many pitches in the major leagues makes Porcello’s arm older than his chronological age. Perhaps the reverse of Scherzer’s “young arm”.
Yeah he got Robbie Ray at the right time too!
Robby Ray turned into Shane Greene…. by the transitive property, it worked.
I think the way to analyze the contract is by calculating the cost per WAR. I’m not as immersed in the WAR stat as some others, but I thought I remember somewhere that the essential “cost” of a WAR is somewhere between $4-$5 million dollars. Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. For arguments sake, let’s just say a WAR is worth $4.5 million. If he’s getting $82.5 million, then the Sox are hoping to get 18.33 WAR out of him over 4 years – which comes to an average of just under 4.6 WAR per season. His best season so far was worth 4.0 WAR. He’s young so there’s room for improvement. How much improvement and for how long? I guess that’s the ultimate risk the Sox are taking. On the surface it sounds like a big overpayment, but I think if you look at it as cost/WAR, it puts things in better perspective. I do still think it’s an overpayment, because I’m personally not sure that Porcello can put up 18+ WAR over the next 4 years. But not as huge of an overpayment as some folks who hear that a #3 starter is getting $20 mil/year and think it’s outrageous. However the Sox are saving themselves from a longer albatross contract, so that clearly definitely weighed in on their decision. I wish the Phillies could combine the Red Sox financial reasoning with the Cardinals overall ownership/team management…
Your estimate is low. For the 2014 season, Dave Cameron at Fangraphs estimated that the market rate for 1 win was $6-7MM, so we can assume that it’s at least as much for 2015. If we are to estimate this conservatively and say $6MM/Win, Porcello would need to put up 13 and 2/3rds wins over the next 4 years, or an average of 3.4 WAR each season. Between him being 26, and the fact that this is not adjusting for inflation, I think it seems perfectly reasonable to believe Porcello will perform up to his contract.
Source: fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cost-of-a-win-in-the-2014-…
If the Yankees gave Porcello $20mm…
this guy had one good season and struggled towards end of season, and still got $ 20 million unreal he doesn’t even strike guys out the often
Rick Porcello will be making more than Pablo Sandoval.
Sandoval, who has three world series rings, an MVP trophy, and a BAA over .340 in the postseason
People think giving a #4 pitcher 20M per year is a good investment? No, I’m not saying that in light of his recent body of work because it’s an incredibly small sample size. I’m saying it due to his track record. If Porcello is worth 20, how much are guys like Kershaw and Felix worth, 50?
how bout now