Is the actual rotation the worst in the last 10 Y?

[iortiz]

I call ********. No way any of this is true!!!! Apologize to iOrtiz! He said that there were no #2 or #3 making $20. mil.!!!!!

 

Apologize accepted, although it is not exactly what I said haha.

[SoxHop]

In Porcello's case, another huge payday, which is the point. Think about it slowly. Most of these guys are getting their last shot at a long-term, big-money deal. They are winding down physically and lack motivation. Porcello can be a FA at age 30, and then absolutely get a truly ridiculous long-term deal. If motivation's what you're looking for, then this is another aspect of the deal that makes sense for both sides.

 

This is the number one aspect I think. And from 26 to 30 you are at your prime physically, and are learning to pitch.

 

Those players who sign their last big contract at 30ish...... are just pitching out their contact and already hit the payday. It takes a special type of personality to want to be great, and pitch to achieve greatness after they are mid thirties. How's this....... I don't think Lester is that kind of person.

 

How motivated would you be at 26 with an agent telling you you could make 200 mil in 4 to 5 years, compared to the person that already has 200 mil and is adding to that pile.

 

There is some huge incentive to be in shape, study the game, listen to the coaches, and perform every night.

 

I guess we felt overpaying for incentive was worth it........... I can't argue with incentive.

[SoxHop]

Well, As bell said everything has been said about Porcello. Time to let the numbers talk. Now... What about the rest of the rotation? Seems like Masterson is improving. Miley at this point is a total mystery to me IDK what can we get from him. Buch is a lost cause. I had high hopes on Kelly but I'm not sure anymore.

 

Masterson is becoming the problem..... Buch is a problem, Kelly is becoming a problem.......quickly............. and Miley is on the fence if he wants to be a problem or not...

[SoxnCycles]

Masterson is becoming the problem..... Buch is a problem, Kelly is becoming a problem.......quickly............. and Miley is on the fence if he wants to be a problem or not...

 

Right now, the offense is a problem.

 

One would expect an offense, like this one is supposed to be, to help out once in a while.

[a700hitter]

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.

 

After a lot of research all people could find was a couple of #2 guys making $20 million at the back end of backloaded contracts. I have seen no example of #2/3 pitchers getting long term contracts with AAV's of $20 million. So, it looks like the Red Sox have established a new market level for #2/3 pitchers.

 

Porcello has always been no higher than a number 3 on his own team and in only 1 year in his 6 year career did he perform better than a number 3. So, he will have to improve his performance going forward to justify his contract.

 

I think them's the facts.

Edited May 7, 2015 by a700hitter

[sk7326]

Other pitchers in Porcello's cohort the last 3 seasons

 

2014: Justin Verlander, Chris Tillman, John Lackey, We-Yin Chen, Alex Cobb, Zack Wheeler

2013: Ervin Santana, Jorge De La Rosa, John Lackey, Julio Teheran, Kris Medlen, Andy Pettitte, Shelby Miller

2012: Jeff Samardzija, Matt Moore, Jon Lester, Ryan Vogelsong, Chris Capuano, Yovani Gallardo, Tim Hudson

 

Porcello has always never been higher than a number 3 on his own team - then again, in 1971 Dave McNally was a #4 starter.

[Bellhorn04]

After a lot of research all people could find was a couple of #2 guys making $20 million at the back end of backloaded contracts. I have seen no example of #2/3 pitchers getting long term contracts with AAV's of $20 million. So, it looks like the Red Sox have established a new market level for #2/3 pitchers.

 

Porcello has always been no higher than a number 3 on his own team and in only 1 year in his 6 year career did he perform better than a number 3. So, he will have to improve his performance going forward to justify his contract.

 

I think them's the facts.

 

Yes and no. Porcello vs. Homer Bailey:

 

Porcello - higher AAV-yes, a new level for AAV.

Bailey - 6 years vs. 4 years for Porcello.

Bailey - $105 million vs. $82.5 million for Porcello.

 

Also (not that it means much, but you brought it up) Porcello is a number 1 on his own team now.

[a700hitter]

Other pitchers in Porcello's cohort the last 3 seasons

 

2014: Justin Verlander, Chris Tillman, John Lackey, We-Yin Chen, Alex Cobb, Zack Wheeler

2013: Ervin Santana, Jorge De La Rosa, John Lackey, Julio Teheran, Kris Medlen, Andy Pettitte, Shelby Miller

2012: Jeff Samardzija, Matt Moore, Jon Lester, Ryan Vogelsong, Chris Capuano, Yovani Gallardo, Tim Hudson

 

Porcello has always never been higher than a number 3 on his own team - then again, in 1971 Dave McNally was a #4 starter.

You really mixed and matched a lot of guys that don't belong in the same class bsaed on 1 years performance. I don't think that is very useful information when it comes down to building rosters or offering contracts.

 

Also, Dave McNally was not the 4th starter on the 1971 Orioles. He was a CY Young contender in those years. Teams don't name their number 4 starter as their opening day starter. Your comment about McNally is dead wrong.

[sk7326]

You really mixed and matched a lot of guys that don't belong in the same class bsaed on 1 years performance. I don't think that is very useful information when it comes down to building rosters or offering contracts.

 

Also, Dave McNally was not the 4th starter on the 1971 Orioles. He was a CY Young contender in those years. Teams don't name their number 4 starter as their opening day starter. Your comment about McNally is dead wrong.

 

behind Cuellar, Palmer and Dobson ... that would make him their #4 ... you're the one that chose not to normalize for team. Using your logic it took John Smoltz 5 years to break out past being merely a #3 starter.

[a700hitter]

Yes and no. Porcello vs. Homer Bailey:

 

Porcello - higher AAV-yes, a new level for AAV.

Bailey - 6 years vs. 4 years for Porcello.

Bailey - $105 million vs. $82.5 million for Porcello.

 

Also (not that it means much, but you brought it up) Porcello is a number 1 on his own team now.

You have already agreed with me on this. Proving that another GM almost gave away as big of on AAV to another #2/3 pitcher doesn't change the fact that it is only "almost" as big. Will the Porcello deal turn out right where the Bailey contract blew up in the GM's face? We will have to let it play out. It couldn't go worse than the Bailey deal. Keep in mind that although Porcello is young, he has already put a lot of miles on his arm. He has been taking the ball every 5th day for 6 years. I think that needs to be factored in.

[a700hitter]

behind Cuellar, Palmer and Dobson ... that would make him their #4 ... you're the one that chose not to normalize for team. Using your logic it took John Smoltz 5 years to break out past being merely a #3 starter.

He wasn't their #4 starter. McNally was their #1, possibly their #2. Did you watch those Oriole teams?

[cp176]

I have to weigh in now. Please indulge me. I know that you know the game. I remember those Baltimore pitching staffs of old. Porcello might have been able to help them in the bullpen. What start do you think Dave Mcnally would have gotten with Porcello's Tigers?

[cp176]

I have to weigh in now. Please indulge me. I know that you know the game. I remember those Baltimore pitching staffs of old. Porcello might have been able to help them in the bullpen. What start do you think Dave Mcnally would have gotten with Porcello's Tigers?

 

pretty sure you know this 700 but my post was meant for SK.

[a700hitter]

pretty sure you know this 700 but my post was meant for SK.

Yep.

[a700hitter]

McNally was usually their opening day starter and in the post season, Weaver went to McNally in either game 1 or game 2 to start the post season. Cuellar and McNally were Weaver's money guys despite his mancrush on Palmer. Dobson was a one year wonder and he was the clear # 4 on that staff. To answer CP's question to SK, Porcello is not even as good as Tom Phoebus from their 1969 club. Didn't he no-hit us in the 60's -- maybe '67?

[sk7326]

McNally was usually their opening day starter and in the post season, Weaver went to McNally in either game 1 or game 2 to start the post season. Cuellar and McNally were Weaver's money guys despite his mancrush on Palmer. Dobson was a one year wonder and he was the clear # 4 on that staff. To answer CP's question to SK, Porcello is not even as good as Tom Phoebus from their 1969 club. Didn't he no-hit us in the 60's -- maybe '67?

 

Who was comparing Porcello to McNally? You were the one who used the fact that Porcello was not one of the Tigers top 2 starters as a basis to bleat about him. I brought up McNally (or Dobson, or Palmer) for the exact same reason. To use that fact without acknowledging the rotation from whence it came is silly.

[a700hitter]

Who was comparing Porcello to McNally? You were the one who used the fact that Porcello was not one of the Tigers top 2 starters as a basis to bleat about him. I brought up McNally (or Dobson, or Palmer) for the exact same reason. To use that fact without acknowledging the rotation from whence it came is silly.

And you were wrong about McNally. He was clearly the #1 or #2 on that team as Porcello was clearly the #3 on the Tigers. Rotation and adjustment for team aside. I acknowledged that there was merit that his results were better than a #3 in 2014, but he didn't pitch better than a #3 in his other 5 full seasons, no matter what rotation he was in.

 

Here's my post again, and I will stand by it as fact after these many days of debate and research:

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/17131-Is-the-actual-rotation-the-worst-in-the-last-10-Y?p=952922&viewfull=1#post952922

Edited May 7, 2015 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

He wasn't their #4 starter. McNally was their #1, possibly their #2. Did you watch those Oriole teams?

 

My recollection was that McNally and Palmer were co-number ones.

 

That rotation was the best that I ever saw.

[iortiz]

Aside Kim, Most of the members think that Porcello is a #3, although he had a #4/5 role with the Tigers.

 

Just for the record. I wouldn't be against Porcello if he were supposed to fill a #3 role at the right price. IMO the Sox have bet a lot hoping that this guy could climb 1 or 2 steps upstairs while taxing him some pressure to a guy who has never been in that role. Sure, they have their reasons (young, defense, etc), but in the end his profile suggests me that he will always depend from the guys behind him, reason why I think he will stay at best on what his track record suggests.

 

Anyways, as I said in the offseason, I would have used Panda, Porcello (wouldn't make him an extension like that) and HR money to assemble a rotation like this:

 

Lester

Shields

Porcello

Masterson

Buch, and/or whoever else you want.

 

Betts

Pedroia

Papi

Napoli

Vic

XB

Castillo

WM

Vasquez

 

Sure the offense doesn't look as good as it is right now, but rounding them with some good utility players and prospects like Holt, Nava, etc could have been good enough to score above AVG.

 

Anyways, let's see if FOs's strategy works out.

Edited May 7, 2015 by iortiz

[Bellhorn04]

Aside Kim, Most of the members think that Porcello is a #3, although he had a #4/5 role with the Tigers.

 

And a #1 role with the 2015 Red Sox.

[iortiz]

And a #1 role with the 2015 Red Sox.

 

Yup since the other guys are mediocre.

[User Name]

iortiz and a700, your logic is terrible.

 

And the whining about the contract is still stupid.

 

Higher AAV in order to shorten the contract length. Why is this so difficult to understand? We're not reinventing the wheel here.

[Spudboy]

The topic bores me.

 

I am one who hates all big $$$$ contracts. Yet I can see why the Sox made this deal. It makes sense for all parties.

 

Maybe one has to be a scientist to realize this is not rocket science.

[a700hitter]

My recollection was that McNally and Palmer were co-number ones.

 

That rotation was the best that I ever saw.

Palmer was a headcase that they have said that only Weaver could motivate. In those years, Weaver always tapped Cuellar and McNally before going to Palmer. It was an unbelievable staff, although Gibson and Carlton were a pretty good tandem. So were Marichal and Gaylord Perry ,and McClain and Lolich and Seaver, Koosman, Gentry and Ryan weren't bad either.

[a700hitter]

And a #1 role with the 2015 Red Sox.

Because the other 4 guys are a pair of 4's and a pair of 5's.

[Elktonnick]

Palmer was a headcase that they have said that only Weaver could motivate. In those years, Weaver always tapped Cuellar and McNally before going to Palmer. It was an unbelievable staff, although Gibson and Carlton were a pretty good tandem. So were Marichal and Gaylord Perry ,and McClain and Lolich and Seaver, Koosman, Gentry and Ryan weren't bad either.

 

Palmer is still a headcase. He is the main analyst on the O's broadcast and a bit tough to take. Unlike Remy, Palmer never shuts up. The other O's TV broadcasters will privately tell you that Palmer thinks the broadcasts are all about him. He does know pitching though and if you can tolerate the other stuff, you can learn a lot.

[iortiz]

iortiz and a700, your logic is terrible.

 

And the whining about the contract is still stupid.

 

Higher AAV in order to shorten the contract length. Why is this so difficult to understand? We're not reinventing the wheel here.

 

This is why I think you don't understand how time value of money and cash flow works.

 

BTW other than you, no one is whinning. It is not an insult.

[a700hitter]

My logic is terrible? I have made two points that people have railed against, but have yet to put a dent in, because they are fact:

 

1. The Red Sox have established a new market rate for #2/3 starters by paying Porcello an AAV of $20 million on a long term contract.

 

2. Porcello has been a #3 or worse on his team every season. He pitched better than a #3 only in one year of his 6 year career. He will have to improve his performance to validiate his current contract.

Edited May 7, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

This is why I think you don't understand how time value of money and cash flow works.

 

BTW other than you, no one is whinning. It is not an insult.

A discussion with him is considered whining if you disagree with him. He is always obnoxious and belligerant.

[iortiz]

A discussion with him is considered whining if you disagree with him. He is always obnoxious and belligerant.

 

I think it has been a very interesting debate and we can agree or disagree, but as long as I recall all has been about baseball. This is exactly how the s*** up starts.