porcello reportedly close to signing

by dmb60614 on Aug 14, 2007 11:02 AM EDT Comment 21 comments

baseball america is reporting that rick porcello is close to signing a $7.7 million deal with the tigers. the reported deal would break the record for highest guarantee ever given to a high school player (josh beckett received $7MM in 1999). assuming the reports are true, do you think the cardinals should have drafted porcello over kozma?

Poll

should the cards have ponied up the cash for porcello?

yes--he is worth

35 votes

no--that contract is crazy

84 votes

119 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not at $7.7 M

if that also is the first shoe to drop, then the Cardinals won't be far behind upping their offer to Russell. Teams were waiting for someone to break the MLB dictated embargo on how much to give the draft picks. Once someone stepped over the line, the rest would rush to follow.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Aug 14, 2007 10:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

This is good for STL's chances of signing Russell. I'm hoping the reason they haven't yet is bc of respect for Selig's embargo and not bc they don't want to pony up...

10-time World Champs!

by TheFranchise9 on Aug 14, 2007 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Think you may

be right. Once one team crosses that line in the sand, others will rush to follow. Will that lead to big signing bonuses similar to the kind of contracts we see thrown at free agents in the off-season?

by cardsgirl95 on Aug 14, 2007 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not sure

i'm not sure how good it is for the cards. maybe russell sees the big dollars and decides he'll wait another year to try to better his draft position.

by dmb60614 on Aug 14, 2007 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually....

you're on to something. BA reports in their latest issue that MLB has put the pressure on teams not to exceed the slot money, but MOREOVER, if they are going to exceed it, wait until the last possible moment. The rationale being exactly what cardsgirl said in her first line.

BA also contends that most of the first rounders have deals and the teams are just waiting until close to the deadline to announce them.

by Brock20 on Aug 14, 2007 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No prospect is worth 8M

The talent is just too hard to predict. It's insane to give a bonus on the order of the salary of a solid major league contributor to a kid that may or may not ever reach the major leagues.

by Valatan on Aug 14, 2007 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Uhh

Yes they are. While the flame-out rate is ridiculous, how much are Verlander, Je. Weaver, Lincecum, Andrew Miller, Phil Hughes, Matt Cain, Carmona, Kazmir, Hamels, Wainwright, Reyes, James Shields, King Felix, Gorzellany, Snell etc etc worth? 10-18 million a year? Replace any of those guys with a free agent and you are spending minimum 30 million to get their production which costs nothing for the first 3 years and then you get them basically half price for the next 3. They are saving their respective teams conservatively 45 million if they are even half decent for the 6 years under team control. If it's even 1 out of 6 that a player becomes mediocre for 6 years...in this market...it's still fair value for 7 mil. And that's cutting corners.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Aug 14, 2007 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not costing nothing

it's costing 8M just to sign them. With a reasonable probability of being a total flame out. Not to mention that you're spending MLB free agent money NOW, to get a player a minimum of two years from now, who may struggle mightily when they hit the big club.

Almost all of those guys who aren't named Verlander and Wainwright went through a year of struggling before they came into their own. And this is still ignoring the insane flame out rate. I would never sign a amateur pitcher at that rate. And the only hitter I'd sign would have to be a Griffey-sized lock.

by Valatan on Aug 14, 2007 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Irrelevant

And you are ignoring the large flameout rate of established MAJOR leaguers. Just from this year: Dream Weaver, Suppan, Padilla, Zito, Eaton, Igawa, Mulder, Mussina, Schmidt, Kipper, Woody Williams, on and on all have pretty much sucked and most are getting paid 10+ million. Rookie pitchers tend to suck yes, but major league FA's aren't exactly a lock themselves. Just being a warm body and the ability to throw the ball at the plate has a price these days.

And it's not ignoring the attrition rate of getting nothing back. I said if a prospect has a 1/6 shot of being DECENT for the better part of 6 years, they are worth their money on that probability alone. Even if they flame out the other 5 times, that's still worth it. All the while ignoring the possibility that they are Verlander good, ignoring the possibility of being just a #5 type, ignoring that you can recoup some of that investment by putting a guy in the pen. Porcello is a pretty special prospect in that if he makes it, he probably isn't going to be just decent, so he's actually worth considerably MORE than 7 million in reality.

The fact that the payoff is 2 years down the road is also irrelevant. The Tigers have gone out the past few years and signed these big guys and have amassed a ton of ready or soon to be ready cheap value by doing so. Hell, 40% of their rotation is made of these guys.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Aug 14, 2007 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The payoff being down the road is hardly irrelevan

That's money that cannot collect interest, or go to anything until the player pans out. It's the reason why teams ask players to backload contracts. Money in hand now is simply worth more than money on hand down the road. Not to mention requiring these players to start out on the 40 man before they've had one AB of professional ball puts a lot of pressure on teams to rush them to the majors.

We're not there yet, but we're quickly getting to the point where the perceived value of a hot prospect is so high that it's going to make no sense for a team to not trade them, especially given the fact that the (predicable) flameouts of several of the MLB pitchers you mentioned is likely going to cause a pretty sizeable market correction with the 2008 FA signings. It's the difference between investing in venture capital and in blue chip stocks. The latter cost you more, and aren't as likely to give you a huge return on your investment, but they are also waaaay more likely to not lose you money.

by Valatan on Aug 14, 2007 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Time value of money yeah yeah

On a major league deal like Porcello's I'm guessing it's structured so the NPV is more like 5-6 mil anyway so that is why I say it's irrelevant and not worth discussing. The marginal amount of money between paying him the 2 years of his contract before his actual performance vs paying later isn't even on the radar for an entity the size of a MLB franchise.

But all that needs to be said is that players drafted don't get to their true market worth because they only have one team with which to negotiate. Every drafted player (besides Samardzija and Matt White pretty much) has been paid LESS than what they are worth. That's how the system is set up fair or not.

I agree with you that teams are very much overvaluing future assets (prospects) over current possibilities of winning a WS. But that is again irrelevant to this discussion of whether Porcello's value is at/below 7 mil.

And yes I also agree that a Major League deal is probably not the best idea for a HS'er as he has to make the team in 3 years, but if the Tigers scouting staff feels that he's good enough to do that, I'll trust their recent track record.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Aug 14, 2007 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oop

Plus the fact that the free agent market seems to increase at ~10% each year means 2 years down the road his value has also increased if he makes it.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Aug 14, 2007 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best post in a while

Also the reason I have never been a big advocate of spending big $$$ on FA pitching. Buy your big bats and draft lots of cheap pitching and roll the dice. Just make sure you have an organization that excells at teaching and hope enough pan out to give you a average or better rotation.

by DriverZn on Aug 14, 2007 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think people understand..

The contract is 7.7 mil OVER 4 years + whatever his bonus is. He'll be on the major league roster for those years, too. It's about 2 million a year + maybe a 4 mil signing bonus, so he will cost them about 3 million each year for the next 4 years.
Not too bad.

by KeepOnRolen on Aug 14, 2007 5:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

There is a sizeable chance he NEVER makes a MLB roster in 4 yrs. This is not a college pitcher, this is a high school pitcher, which makes his flame out chances even higher. I'd check the amount of high school pitchers drafted in the 1st round vs how many of them actually make the majors before claiming that paying 3 mill a year to someone with no track record a smart decison.

by FunkeeC on Aug 14, 2007 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He..

Has a major league contract.

by KeepOnRolen on Aug 14, 2007 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also doesn't it effect his arbitration/options

Because he is on the roster doesn't it start his arbitration clock running even sooner. I thought this was the same complaint that many people had with the Samardjia contract. The money wouldn't even be that bad if you didn't have to give him a major league contract.

by OCCardsFan on Aug 14, 2007 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

The only significant difference between a standard minor league deal and Major League contract are: Major puts you on the 40 man roster meaning your option years start day one. Most of the guys who get ML deals this is hardly worth mentioning as they are the cream of the crop and make it for good within the 3 years. 2nd difference is you spread the money out over 4-5 years and can include incentives. Arbitration and free agency are not affected.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Aug 14, 2007 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeahbut...

I believe this year will count as one of his option years, leaving only two left. As a right-handed, high school pitcher he's the riskiest animal out there. This guy has to be able to hold a spot on an active roster by April 1, 2010 or the Tigers will find themselves in a fix. Even if he sticks his development will almost certainly have been screwed with...

Ease LaDunketty out gently, thank him profusely, and... Hire Antonetti!!!

by guayzimi on Aug 14, 2007 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could be wrong, depends on how they wrote it

But I would probably bet that the clock on the option years doesn't start till next year. But I don't know for sure.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Aug 14, 2007 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Personally,

I do think that Porcello's going to be worth this contract. I would definitely have reservations about the whole four year thing, but I would probably still do it. The potential payoff for a player of this kind of talent is just too great to pass up.

In general, I would vastly prefer the Cardinals go to more of a draft philosophy that resembles the Tigers or the Yankees. Look at the Yankees' signing of Joba Chamberlain. They took the highest potential payoff guy, paid him the money he wanted, (regardless of MLB's gnashing of teeth) and look at what they have now. The kid's ready to contribute at the major league level, barely more than a year since he was drafted. Or look at the Tigers themselves. In the 2004 draft, the Padres backed off their top rated players with the No. 1 overall pick. Instead of ponying up the money for a Verlander or a Stephen Drew, they took Matt Bush. Now look at what they've got going on. Bush has failed at the the position they drafted him, and they're trying to turn him into a reliever. The Tigers took Verlander. Look at the rotation they have right now; it's only going to get better with Porcello.

The whole paradigm of drafting safe bugs me in general. Want to know why? Look no further than the Cardinals' own draft pick in 2004. His name is Chris Lambert.

Take the player you believe in and pay him. Any other approach is, in my ever so humble opinion, doomed to fail.

To hell with your spoiled baby! I need those shoes!

by the red baron on Aug 15, 2007 8:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs