Schadenfreude wrote:Michael Bradley wrote:I think Porcello is underrated. His ERA's have been misleadingly high prior to 2014, he hasn't had any serious injury issues (as far as I know), and they locked him up through age 30. Definitely an overpayment in AAV, but he's a good pitcher.
It is an overpay (he's yet to clear 3 fWAR in a year), but ~$20-21m a year no longer #1 money, particularly when it's a player's age 27-30 years getting bought out. We've gotten to the point where, if he's merely a good third starter, it isn't terrible value relative to what starters go for in free agency.
Buying free agent pitchers/extending fifth-year service starters: not even once, folks. Let's lock Hutch up to an extension yesterday.
The argument about what 20m buys now is valid, but there's a flipside to premium contracts that you really shouldn't waste those slots on less than supreme talents. Even the Sox and Yanks only have room for so many 20m players. Investing those salaries in Rick Porcello is hamstringing, although BOS, I'm sure, feels very confident in their ability to dump if necessary after successfully going that route en mass twice in the last few years.
I also very much dislike the downside when you're buying a guy in this range. Look at Homer Bailey as exhibit A. When you pay absurd prices for Scherzer or Lester, most of your potential downside is still a guy giving you a chance to win (a 1-2 WAR type starter, definitely not worth the money). When you do it for a 2.5-3WAR type and they regress, you're back to replacement value and you're Zito-ed for a half a decade barring the Dodgers (or mind-blowing this year the Padres) deciding to bail you out. The fact he's young helps, but age is hardly an impermeable barrier against regression.
I do very much like that they held it to 4 years. I can't see the year it would've taken for him to substantially beat the AAV in the open market, but he assuredly would've beat it on term. 6/120 or 7/130 was probably his upside in UFA if he gets a 3WARish season in the books.
