Porcello getting a major league deal

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 14, 2007 8:20 AM CDT in News

The Tigers are reportedly on the verge of signing Rick Porcello to a major league contract worth $7.7 million.

As I said at draft time, the main problem with Porcello wasn't the money, it was his desire for a major league contract, since a major league deal means he has to stick for good at the major league level by age 22. As a point of reference, if Eric Hurley had signed a major league deal when he was drafted, he'd be out of options after this year and would have to stick on the major league roster from 2008 on.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Porcello.

The 2009 Verlander.

Obviously you're not a golfer.

by chief on Aug 14, 2007 8:15 AM CDT 0 recs

Except Verlander was 3 yrs older, and in college

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Aug 14, 2007 8:35 AM CDT up 0 recs

Justin Verlander

He had proven himself against much higher quality hitters and was three years older. There's really no comparison.

by rangeressary on Aug 14, 2007 8:48 AM CDT up 0 recs

There isn't

but if you will recall, the Verlander pick was a highly scrutinized one, with all of the top pitchers who were available and the feeling that he had work to do on his delivery (ahem, Beavan). And I'll be darned if he didn't come out with the best pitcher from the draft.

by zywica on Aug 14, 2007 8:50 AM CDT up 0 recs

I completely agree with what you're saying...

Verlander is a stud. Dombrowski is a genius. I completely agree about those two points. I also completely agree that Verlander was the best pick of one of the best first rounds (pitching wise) in years, including Hughes, Hurley, Sowers, Tankersley, Street, Bailey, and of course Thomas Diamond.

My point was simply that Verlander wasn't a good comparison. I mean, Verlander was a surefire stud with a college pedigree who went 2nd overall.

by rangeressary on Aug 14, 2007 8:58 AM CDT up 0 recs

Well

The Tigers would have picked him 2nd if they had the 2nd pick, right. Porcello was almost widely considered the best of a strong crop of high school arms.

I think there are parallels between the two. He's Josh Beckett probably. The problem with him is his demands for a big league contract.

by badradiorules on Aug 14, 2007 12:29 PM CDT up 0 recs

Well

Even after considering the Hurley comp, I think it's a good signing.

It's not very objective of me, but if Dombrowski's up for this contract the kid sounds like a sure thing...

by hightowersmith on Aug 14, 2007 8:25 AM CDT 0 recs

That's kind of my attitude

I don't fault the Rangers for not doing it, primarily because of the mlb contract aspect, but that Dombrowski just added another potential super stud. Like you said, with his track record of evaluating pitchers, you're inclined to just mark this up as another win for him, despite that crazy contract.

by zywica on Aug 14, 2007 8:36 AM CDT up 0 recs

Dombrowski

was he behind Sleeth and Baugh?

"Don't ever cross that hater TheDirkatron. His black heart sneers at reconciliation..." -Brian Thomas

by thedirkatron on Aug 14, 2007 9:14 AM CDT up 0 recs

Sleeth

Dombrowski's first #1 pick as GM for Detroit, yah...

Kid utterly hit a wall in AA. College pitcher, strange.

by hightowersmith on Aug 14, 2007 9:48 AM CDT up 0 recs

Baugh was before him

Sleeth was his pick, blew out his arm after they tried to adjust his mechanics. He had really nasty stuff though.

by zywica on Aug 14, 2007 5:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yah

And I'm not blaming him for Sleeth, either.

Sleeth illustrates my point though... Sometimes shit just happens with pitchers, no matter how good an evaluator you are.

Or at least I think that was my point.

It's late.

"Don't ever cross that hater TheDirkatron. His black heart sneers at reconciliation..." -Brian Thomas

by thedirkatron on Aug 15, 2007 12:09 AM CDT up 0 recs

well

Let the floodgates open. This has to be the contract that everyone is waiting for. I bet/hope that a lot of players get signed today.

Are you wearing a grocery bag? I have misplaced my pants.

by i hit straight ball very much on Aug 14, 2007 8:45 AM CDT 0 recs

7.7 million

That's actually not too far off his initial demand of 10 million and a major league deal. That's rather surprising that the Tigers gave in that much.

He might be worth it, and that team sure knows how to evaluate pitchers, but it's still a rather big risk.

by rangeressary on Aug 14, 2007 8:51 AM CDT 0 recs

big risk

Which risk is bigger?
7.7 mil on Porcello (for what 4-5 years)
OR
30 mil on Padilla (3 years)

by Brandon Wilson on Aug 14, 2007 9:15 AM CDT up 0 recs

Exactly

When compared to some of the major league contracts signed (5 years/$65 million for CHP, anyone?) the draft dollars seem much less risky.

One minor leaguer who pays off, and gives you 6 years of below market performance pays for a lot of busts.

by DJCahill on Aug 14, 2007 9:24 AM CDT up 0 recs

Well

I do like this mentality for justifying draftee contract demands.

But diminishing Padilla's accomplishments, even such as they are, is a little much.

Do you really not expect Padilla to bounce back or, at worst, find a bullpen role, before his contract is up?

I like the Porcello kid and I like the contract, but he's got a long way to go before he throws a ML pitch, something Padilla's done a few thousands times in his ML career already.

by hightowersmith on Aug 14, 2007 9:59 AM CDT up 0 recs

I don't expect Padilla

to ever be a consistent front of the rotation pitcher due to his mental approach. Sometimes I think he'd rather plunk a batter to show how macho he is than win a game.

by DJCahill on Aug 14, 2007 10:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

Significant Risks

You were probably being sarcastic, but I'm going to answer it like it's a real question.

Porcello may never pitch in a major league game. That's a real possibility that you have to consider based on history.

I've written diaries before on the less than pleasant results that usually come from drafting a high school pitcher in the first round (under a third will ever make the majors, and only around 13% will ever be considered good major league pitchers). So if you want to know why I consider it a risk you can look those up (sorry, but it would be way too long to writeup as a comment). The Hardball Times has also done a few really good analyses of the risks of drafting high school pitchers. You should check them out if you get a chance.

I will make this comparison. Since most of us would agree that Porcello is the best high school pitcher in the draft, let's look at high school pitchers that were taken first in the draft for a comparison. The #1 high school pitchers are usually drafted in the top five picks in their respective drafts, with only J.M. Gold (1998) not being taken in the top 10. That should be a relatively fair comparison, right?

Of the #1 high school pitchers taken in the drafts from 1990-2004:

Only seven (of the 15) have ever pitched an inning in the major leagues.
Only five broke the 100 IP barrier.
Only Josh Beckett, Kerry Wood, and maybe John Danks someday will ever be considered above average pitchers.

So even if they are considered the top high school pitcher in the draft, there is a very good chance that they will not make the majors. Is that really worth a 7.7 million dollar risk and a spot on the forty man roster? Maybe...but it's still a pretty big risk.

So would I rather sign a league average pitcher (Padilla has a career 101 ERA+) to a 3 year - 30 million contract than take a risk on Porcello? Probably, since 10 million's probably going to be about the going rate for a #3-4 starter after this offseason. But that's me and I almost always value actual production over potential. Others think differently and both approaches have been shown to work at the major league level.

by rangeressary on Aug 14, 2007 11:16 AM CDT up 0 recs

risk vs reward

Generally, I agree with your approach of paying for performance not for unknown. I like productivity just as much as you do.

The issue here is whther paying the current market prices (i.e. overpaying) for mediocrity is more or less risky than overpaying for potential.

By your analysis 2 out of 15 top HS pitchers have become ace material. So by my calculation signing 4 Porcello types (which one should be able to do for the money guaranteed to Padilla) gives you a 45% chance to have an ace. Spending that money on Padilla gives you what? A 50% chance to have a slightly above pitcher (with a 50% chance of a slightly below average pitcher). Now the downside with a Padilla-type may not be as bad (although Padilla is testing that theory), but the upside is also absent. Given that I'd prefer a 45% chance at an ace.

The bigger issue is that you won't have an opportunity to pick a Porcello type every year (although your analysis of the drafts assume that the top HS pitcher is a Porcello type).

by Brandon Wilson on Aug 14, 2007 2:08 PM CDT up 0 recs

If I may pose a question to the board..

With this year's complete re-stocking of the minors system, do you think that will give JD and Hicks some opportunity to take a high priced flyer on a Porcello type contract in next year's draft?

We all know the object of this year's draft was to re-stock the system. Now with the Latin kids, and the kids in lower levels looking good, can the Rangers afford to risk signing a guy to a big contract in the hopes he becomes the next Verlander yet not be hamstrung if he turns out to be the next Van Poppel?

I know you can never let up on the gas when it comes to keeping your farm stocked, but I think if Alvarez comes out and says he wants a Major league contract and won't sign for anything less than $10 mill we are in a position where we don't have to shy away.

Yeah, well at least I'm housebroken.

by HypoLuxa on Aug 14, 2007 9:00 AM CDT 0 recs

Alvarez

My hope is he has astronomical demands. He's going to have to drop past a few teams.

Right now the ones ahead of the Rangers are no shrinking violets. SF has cash, and it even looks like the Devil Rays will go over $10m on Price this year. And they're like 6 games ahead for the #1 2007 pick. Pittsburgh I'm less worried about than Cinci...

by hightowersmith on Aug 14, 2007 9:13 AM CDT up 0 recs

Really?

I hadn't heard 10mm+ on Price.

I agree SF is a scary problem, but TB, Cincy and Pitt don't really scare me.

"Don't ever cross that hater TheDirkatron. His black heart sneers at reconciliation..." -Brian Thomas

by thedirkatron on Aug 14, 2007 9:16 AM CDT up 0 recs

Well

It's speculative...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?p=200

Price, the Vanderbilt lefthander who was Baseball America's College Player of the Year and the consensus top prospect, always figured to exceed the top deals from the 2006 draft ($5.45 million to the Tigers' Andrew Miller, the seventh overall pick, and $5.25 million to the Royals' Luke Hochevar, the top choice). Price and agent Bo McKinnis reportedly were seeking a major league deal in the $8 million range, and Porcello's deal could push Price's worth closer to $10 million.

by hightowersmith on Aug 14, 2007 9:44 AM CDT up 0 recs

Of course we'd do that

Alvarez is a no-brainer:

He's a college player.
He's a position player.
We did it before, w/ a lesser talent.
And when we did do it, it worked out pretty well.

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Aug 14, 2007 9:14 AM CDT up 0 recs

Who are you alluding to...

...on #3?

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 14, 2007 9:18 AM CDT up 0 recs

Marky Mark

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Aug 14, 2007 9:38 AM CDT up 0 recs

Ah

I think Teixeira was more highly regarded than Wieters, coming into the draft.

by Adam J. Morris on Aug 14, 2007 9:39 AM CDT up 0 recs

I was referring to Alvarez, though

Isn't he supposed to be better?

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Aug 14, 2007 9:43 AM CDT up 0 recs

Alvarez

Ok i should've known not to throw Alvarez out there as he's a no-brainer, but what about a guy like Matusz(sp) or Smoaker? If they wanted a major league contract at higher than 7.7 mill do you think the Rangers are in the position to take a flyer or do you think JD is going to stay the course and draft the less risky and less upside guy with the 1st rounder?

Yeah, well at least I'm housebroken.

by HypoLuxa on Aug 14, 2007 9:41 AM CDT up 0 recs

Matt Harvey

Callis says prolly not...

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/draft/?p=198#comment-377

Not looking good on the Angels getting Harvey. I'd be surprised if that happened.
Posted by Jim Callis | August 14, 2007 at 9:27 am |

Matt Harvey sounds like the John Nash of the first round. I think he just wants to go drink beers in college a few years... Dude was not ready to turn pro.

by hightowersmith on Aug 14, 2007 9:52 AM CDT 0 recs