Liking Porcello as an acquisition would depend on the payment. He's just not the proven or skill with upside level that I'd even consider giving up Hultzen. Maurer? I don't know. Under Maurer I'd have an easier time considering.
My preference would be to roll with what they've got. Yesterday I heard Wedge on the radio, being asked about acquiring a starter, he talked about the difficulty of acquiring a starter and the idea that they'd be willing to watch someone take their lumps with the club. He said everybody has to go through that at some point and that it brings their timetable forward. I'm paraphrasing, but those points somewhat surprised me and he was only asked about getting another starter. The talk about younguns was otherwise unprovoked.
Porcello for now isn't a horrible idea. We'd be trading ideally from strength and he'd solidify the back end for a few months at least. If he does step forward or just maintain and is blocking a ready stud from a callup he'd still be tradeable. If we traded pitching/2b for a couple months of security and got back an OF (thinking the new top prospect in the OF) and change at the deadline, that sounds pretty good to me. No guarantees it would work out like that, but...it seems inauthentic to sign a guy to a multiyear deal with the thought that chances are pretty good you're looking to trade them in a few months. I don't see that distinction with having traded for them in the first place. Not that it really matters.
So what's the cost?
.
006. Do you know what that MEANS? - Clive Owen, ominously
Yes. It means you are one short of zee Big Time. - Steve Martin, Pink Panther
.
=== The GOOD ===
I've got to admit that Porcello physically looks like he's on the verge of taking a Doug Fister plateau leap, or could be, conceivably. For starters (heh) check him on this video rat cheer. Don't those tall, overhand, angled, located pitchers kinda remind ya?
...........
Bullet two on the Plateau Leap Talking Points:
| Year | K/9 |
| RADKE NUMBER | 5.6 |
| Porcello, 2009 | 4.7 |
| 2010 | 4.7 |
| 2011 | 5.1 |
| 2012 | 5.5 |
The Radke number being Ron Shandler's rule of thumb: when a finesse guy's K's get near 6, he can become a star. For a little while.
Let me put the above chart in English: objectively speaking, Porcello is the very definition of a Doug Fister type on the verge of a bustout.
Dr. D don't say that he buys in. He just works here, passing along the info-tainment as it hits his monitor. That's what rotisserie baseball and Bill James 1995 Player Handbooks were invented for in the first place: finding K trends exactly like the one above. And here you've got one that is 0.1 K shy of the big time.
.........
Bullet three: Porcello actually throws a straight change that looks great at times, real great. It's not clear to me why he doesn't throw it more, for more swingthroughs.
And he USED to have a wipeout hammer -- the Tigers demanded that he stop throwing it, and focus on groundballs. (Thank you, Jim Leyland.) It's completely feasible that Porcello could find his curve again, and then what?
The seeds are certainly there for an offspeed game that moves several yards forward. Porcello has been pretty decent, just throwing the sinker.
Jim Leyland is probably Dr. D's least fave manager, from a results standpoint, and it's entirely possible that he's been a pair of cement overshoes for the drowning Mr. Porcello. We mean it in a good way.
Seriously, this is just the kind of change-of-scenery candidate who could return a Gil Meche-style bounty with a new org. Porcello's approach has been unnecessary, and it's been extreme, and it's been very questionable. There could be a different pitcher in there somewhere. Doug Fister had 5.3 strikeouts in 2009 and there was a totally different pitcher lurking behind the facade of "pitching to contact."
.........
Bullet four: Porcello just gained a bunch of velocity. Which, eerily enough, is just what Doug Fister had done right before we flushed that 6'8" piece of sewage.
.
=== Dr's R/X ===
1. He shares James' disdain for the pitcher template. He'll try to breathe through his mouth while cleaning this saber spill.
2. Dr. D also loathes the idea of blocking this entire barn full of truly premium pitching talent with a meatball who gets 5 K per game. The intersection of 1. and 2. here would appear to make the non-Porcello a no-brainer.
3. Porcello as a concept --- > would be a win-now attitude, a statement that we don't have two months to wait. Wow, we haven't seen any of that this winter, huh ... guess we know what's coming next.
4. As journeyman finesse pitchers go, Rick Porcello is as good as it gets. With upside.
The Fister Scenario is not at all farfetched here. (You know what we mean -- a good fraction of Fister. Nobody's going to be Doug Fister; that ship has sailed.) Gotta get the yakker goin', or at least crank the Erasmo change from 15% to 25% plus.
The kid has been trying to hit bats. Dr. D would be intrigued by the Porcello v2.0 that was attempting to miss them.
.
Take yer pick,
Dr D
.
Comments
If Morse gets 120+ games in left field, it might be nice to have an extra guy besides Iwakuma that can keep the ball on the ground 65% of the time.
I found an article discussing it on Bleacherreport
" Could some combination of Ryan, Ackley and Wells get a deal done with the Tigers? All three probably would."
Haha...no thanks.
" Another player that would likely interest Detroit—perhaps even straight-up for Porcello—is reliever Tom Wilhelmsen."
That's a little more entertainable, as a thought. I think the relief core may be better equipped to replace a closer at the start than the starting options filling out 5 spots solidly in April. It moves all the relievers up a spot too though. I'm pretty certain there will be relievers sent down that other teams would be happy to open their season with. Still would rather keep it all and deal with growing pains. If Detroit needs someone off our 25 man, I don't think we need Porcello.
OK, Porcello is only 24, with 4 fulltime MLB years behind him. Fister didn't find his way up until he was 25.
But I think what that really shows is that we ought to use the Big Three in Safeco pronto. Porcello had 24 A+ starts and then 4 AAA starts and then he was pitching to Jeter and Hamilton. Oh...in those AAA starts he gave up 24 hits in 28 innings, K'ing 19 and walking 10. He weren't that great, as they say.
BTW, Porcello's H/9 keeps going up: 9.3, 10.4, 10.4, 11.5. Fister's has gone down: 9.3, 9.8, 9.0, 8.7.
OK, the age gap exists, true. But Porcello isn't Fister and it's not much better of a bet that he will be the next Fister than it is that Beavan will be. OK, Beavan's K rate is only 4.0, but he walks one guy less per/9 than Porcello and gives up 2 hits less.
And if you're betting that Porcello would be magnitudes better than Hultzen or Paxton this year (were they given the chance) then I'm all over that bet.
Can we get him for Furbish and Carp? Good enough then. I'm not shiping Paxton or Hultzen for him. Probably not The Bartender or Capps, either.
Porcello's grass is lushly green (to those that see it that way) only because its over the fence.
moe
and the Mariners still have a bunch of money, plus he is likely looking for a 1 year deal to rebuild value.
Maybe give Morse, Ibanez, and Saunders some arbitrary range numbers ... the same for the infielders ... and come up with an estimate as to how much such a defense would skew Vargas' ERA north and Porcello's ERA south...
And/or the calculation for Porcello's ERA in front of the M's infield vs Tiggers'... would be a good front page article ...
Are 2-player subsets included in the definition of "some combination" of a 3-player set? :- )
The three-player package, say for Smyly and Castellanos :- ) would be interesting because I've never noticed a team trade away its starting DP combo before. Maybe they'd want our C and CF in the deal.
Schneider or Omogrosso?
...of the internal debate. 'cause that of course is what G has been saying.
I had a December hot stove, with Zduriencik, on in the background in my office the other day and he characterized Hultzen and Paxton as "whether they come North, or it's a month, or it's two months, or three months."
We guessed the Mariners way wrong last year, partially on their own signals, but this year it sounds like either Hultzen or Paxton is a good spring away. Let's see, is the Super Two no longer a factor under the current rules?
And if I were going to make that deal, I'd have to REALLY like Porcello's chances to make a career transition. Different people would have different projections about that.
Maybe they want Furbush and Wells rather than Furbush and Carp? Then they've got a good clean kill on Porcello for Fister :- )
On this site, we talk a lot about Civics vs. Stars vs. Scrubs, and I have no doubt that it is a useful paradigm in fantasy ball. But I think roster construction in the real world has some nuances that directly affect our view of players like John Jaso and Rick Porcello.
At the star level, we have both Ferraris, tempermental and prone to problems, requiring careful handling, and the S-class Mercedes AMG, suitable for a family vacation but with 90% of the Ferrari's performance. Think Hamilton vs. Felix.
At the lower levels, we have more of a variety. All prospects are, by definition, capital gains plays. If they grow and perform, great, but some will not. JackZ and TomMac are more successful than most at finding gems in the sand. At the other end are the fillers. Think Olivo. You sign them to fill a spot until you can find something better, preferably on a short contract. No one expects anything but what they've done before. They're a checking account - available, but they really don't make you money, they're just an expense for convenience.
Now it gets interesting, and is, I think, where the GM earns a lot of HIS value. Acquiring players by trade has become a game of WAR in the blogs. But is it? If the Ms trade for a player, is he one that will bring us a championship? Baseball is so complex, it really takes close to 20 of your 25 roster to be really good to speak of championships. But what if fills a key position moderately well at a reasonable price, like Aubrey Huff on the 2010 Giants. Then he's the epitome of a Civic. If you signed him as a free agent, he plays well, and he leaves after 2-3 years, you got your money's worth. Jack signs a few of these "on spec" each year, some pay off, some (FIGGINS!) don't. But what if you traded for him?
This is where I think trade analysis sometimes falls down. If a team is faced with losing players due to roster crunches, is there a way out? One way is to trade for lower prospects in the hope that your squeezed players (think Carp, Wells, and Kelley) are of enough value to another team that you can get back either younger capital gains players that COULD exceed the value of the guys you are giving up (think trading Kelley, Triunfel and Liddi for Dominic Brown), or by trading for someone I will call a "Value Store". This is a Civic-type player who will help your team at a decent level, a few WAR, if you will, but is not a real star. But he is someone, that, unless he is hurt, has about the same value to other teams. Think Vargas, Jaso, Morales, Morse, ...even Cliff Lee. This is where I think JackZ also excels. He gets guys whose value maybe isn't great, but has some upside and little downside. Sometimes he knows that the Safeco environment will help (Vargas), sometimes they're guys buried behind Stars on the Depth Chart (Gutierrez), sometimes they're guys with a limited, but niche-filling skill-set (Jaso). Once in a long while something much better pops up (Lee, Buhner), but you don't count on it.
All this is leading to say, yes, I can understand someone not wanting Rick Porcello. I can especially understand not wanting him on your fantasy team. But if he could be obtained for players who are redundant to us, even if one of the players is pretty valuable, and was able to improve his performance pitching in front of a better infield defense (a la Vargas pitching in Safeco), then he would be of value to the Ms. My real point is, though, that he STORES that value because he's still arb-eligible for 2 more years. Therefore, if Paxton or Hultzen are ready by mid-year, he has the probability of bringing back as much as was expended, and if he has improved, and a team in contention needs a starter, could be worth substantially more. I would think calculations like these are what is driving any consideration by the Ms. If he can pitch better than Noesi, and as well as Beaven, then we should try to get him for some of our over-stock. Even if it cost Wilhelmsen, we have a good number of young, but proven relievers, and a couple of old warhorses in the stable, too. If they want Wells back to solve their balance issues, I'd be more cautious and would say a prayer for Guti's health, but still would make that move - because when we go to the kids, he WILL have value.
I just wouldn't want to include Ackley or Ryan at all. Ryan, maybe later this summer. Wells is worth considering as a part, but the outfield defense is very thin here already. I'm pretty much against trading from the 25 man for Porcello but there's a few in the bullpen behind Wilhelmsen, Capps and Pryor that wouldn't hurt much. Trading for Porcello could in retrospect be a downgrade before ever considering the cost. I'm pretty happy with the idea of Beaven and Paxton at the end of the rotation, but can understand others preferring the security of a Porcello.
Ryan, Ackley and Wells for Porcello sounds like"the worst trade in Mariners history" much more so than the reported Upton deal or the Morse acquisition.
While I cannot tell you precisely what ERA Porcello would have with the 2013 Mariners vs. Vargas...I can tell you this:
DNRA+ (remember what that is...defense neutral run average...which accounts for the impact of park and team defense by ruling out the things a pitcher cannot control (the base defensive and park context) and counting the things he can control (his own delta from other pitchers on the same team on ball in play events plus the DIPS numbers)...for Vargas and for Porcello:
VARGAS:
2009: 93
2010: 89
2011: 99
2012: 105
Porcello:
2009: 98
2010: 94
2011: 102
2012: 109
Porcello has been the better pitcher compared to Vargas. It's disguised by the fact that:
a) Vargas pitches in the msot extreme pitcher's park in the AL - a park that is extreme in precisely the way that Vargas needs it to be (kills fly balls and increases team DER)...and the Mariners have prioritized outfield defense
and
b) Porcello pitches in a neutral park with some of the worst team defenses in the AL, and they're bad in the worst possible way (their outfeilders have traditionally been playing deep to cut off XBH but giving up lots of singles on flares and their infields have been atrocious and getting progressively worse.
In fact, someone else here pointed out that Porcello's hit rate has been climbing. That is actually a non-sequitor. The Tigers have gone from having an infield that included one competent fielder, two below average fielders and a gold glove contender (Inge 3B) to an infield with two lead gloved statues and two below average, aging middle infielders (Cabrera, Fielder, Peralta and a cast of journeymen at second). Porcello is not really getting more hitttable. His K rate and K/BB have been improving, his groundball rate is stable, and his line drive percentage is stable excluding 2012, which may or may not be a fluke.
His SwS% is rising slowly, and very quietly, he's improving the results (run values) on his 4-seam fastball and his sinker (which used to be HORRID and are now average) while holding the strong values he gets from his hammer slider and straight change. So...I dont think you can really claim that the league is booking him unless that line drive rate doesn't come back down...that's the only bad number I found.
And he's not likely to start the year healthy...so it doesn't make sense to spend money on him.
we have about 3 too many good relievers as it is.
Wilson, if I'm not mistaken, is expected to come back to MLB levels around late May so it would be a gamble, but if you didn't want to lay the mantle of closer on Capps or Pryor too quickly, he's an option. Of course they didn't hesitate too much with Wilhelmsen...
" Another player that would likely interest Detroit—perhaps even straight-up for Porcello—is reliever Tom Wilhelmsen."
In that case, just start Wilhelmsen.
We seem to recognize needs, and players like Porcello that might meet those needs. But right now, it looks like far better solutions are already in-house, whether any of the kids or the Bartender. I'd only go for Porcello by dealing from abundance: Carp, Saunders, Guti, Wells, or Thames, and excess bullpen arms not named Pryor, Capps, or Wilhelmsen. I might give up a minor league arm like Carraway or Maurer. If that's not enough, Grumpy is right: just Start the Bartender.
There's a few that I can see. Getting some time for one of them to start out the year they either do well, ok, or poorly. If its well, then the harm is mostly just monetary and losing the year. In any other case they probably have another to bring up that looks ready and give whoever was with the club a specific thing or 2 to work on, pause the clock again and get and experience to another.
There may be something to somewhat staggering their clocks in that worst case scenario that they're never sent down again. Not that losing a year is a good thing even then. I could easily say that one of them likely gets traded between now and year 7 anyway with logic to back it up, but planning that far out is futile. One of themcould get injured too, or 3 more prospects blaze on up in a couple years. Focusing on 6 or 7 years out just doesn't make sense to me. I understand it being a consideration but it shouldn't be the consideration.
It makes sense to me to ignore the clock for one if they make it 2+ months looking like they belong or switch out if they need time to work on specifics in AAA.
Would seem like a no-brainer, wouldn't it? Good catch Dr. G.
The inertia against "gambles" like that is huge in MLB ... but Zduriencik has shown himself gutsy many times in the past, such as with Ackley at 2B...
After one of em showed what he can do in the Bigs. There's no room for 4 plus Erasmo behind Felix. Ideally he takes Paxton. As a Boras client he's not gonna sign long term anyways.
But I hadn't thought about agents.
The way I see it is this team shouldn't trade any of them at this point unless its bringing back a Stanton or someone at that very upper level of offensive player. Zduriencik said the other day about trading Felix "I've got lots of prospects, why would I need yours". That's still going to be true in a year or two. There's very little that this team doesn't have within a couple years away. Maybe an elite leadoff hitter, but I have trouble identifying any of those in the game right now. Now that we've got MOTO going into this season I think the need there will be lessened a bit to where the bar will be higher for what an upgrade is. That's assuming there's development between Smoak, Saunders, Seager and Montero mainly, but its hard to imagine all 4 stagnating this year. Stanton may be the only player potentially available that's a clear upgrade for the middle of the lineup once the season has played out, whereas this year even a Swisher type was. That doesn't mean they can't improve the #6 or #7 spot, just that it's not going to feel so necessary to make that move as it did to legitimize the lineup this year.
Moving forward I have no concerns that there will be difficulty adding an arm or 2 every year. It really looks like they'll be constantly on the "pitching surplus" lists and at the same time have less needs elsewhere on the field with added maturity to the core that's here and more position players getting opportunities as they mature as well. I felt there was some desperation to do a particular thing this year, where I don't think it will get to that depth of need anymore for a long time in this franchise. With this pipeline it's hard to imagine it ever getting there again with anything.
So if they decide to trade a pitcher in the next couple years, it should be because there are too many to use or because it's helping acquire rare talent maybe even both.
I'm excited for the season to start, more so than in a long time.
If you compare the RF/9 in 2012 of the principal IF's, Seattle vs. Detroit, there is a decided advantage for Seattle. Cabrera, Peralta and Infante/Santiago got to 11.21 balls/game. Seager, Ryan and Ackley got to 12.02 balls/game. So a ground ball pitcher like Porcello might expect near.y 1 extra play made behind him. Down goes his H/9.
Remember though, that Ryan creates 1/2 of the Seattle/Detroit difference (He gets to 4.55 vs. 4.14 for Peralta). Ryan is here for only 1 year (likely), so some of that delta disappears. Porcello looks better that way, I will admit.
Anyway, such numbers are in Porcello's favor were he to make Safeco home. Still, I'm not sending a Big Three guy to Detroit for him.
moe
And he grew up, not surprisingly, a Mariners fan. Named Randy Johnson as his idol. Sounds to me as if this is where he wants to be. Boras is a consideration, but if Paxton wants to stay that's probably what happens.
Chances are that it's Walker who gets overpriced in 8 years anyway. That's a long time out to be planning anything though.
Also Romero grew up a Yankees fan, idolizing Jeter. He said there's a video of when he was a kid being asked by cousins what he wanted to be growing up. He said "a professional baseball player" so they asked what team he wanted to play for. He said "Seattle Mariners". Aaron Goldsmith said it would be really cool to put that video up on the new screen when he makes his MLB debut.
Wow. Ryan really is a beast... am I reading that right? He saves ~ 65 outs per year over someone like Peralta? Before even accounting for the number of balls hit his way?
Based on Matt's and the other arguments above, I'm coming around on Porcello. Even for Wilhelmsen straight up.
Especially if that's what it takes to keep Noesi off of the club.
(Cumulative total of Starters at 2nd Base, Shortstop, and 3rd Base)
UZR: 19.5 vs. 0
DRS: 31 vs. -5
For the Tigers, I just combined the 3 guys with most innings at 2nd and rounded up to 0.
Rick Porcello has a .124 point gap in Opponent's OPS with vs. without a runner on 1st. He has a 3.1 K/BB Ratio and 13.4 K% with none on vs. a 1.65 K/BB Ratio and 10.1 K% with a runner on 1st. If you could field an upper tier infield behind Porcello, who knows how much the cumulative benefit would be? It's not just allowing 1 less hit per game, it could be that 1 gimme hit doesn't result in Porcello pitching more poorly from the stretch and allowing 2 more.
Taking all that into account. Where does his spot come from? Trading Iwakuma or Ramirez later this year our next offseason? Trading one of the four top pitchers?
Before adding Porcello our 2014 rotation looks something like:
1 Felix
2 Iwakuma
3 Paxton
4 Ramirez
5 Hultzen
Beaven, Maurer, Carraway, Noesi, Walker etc. already don't fit, without a trade of someone in front. Maybe Ramirez goes to long relief to fit Walker or something like that.
I'm not saying he wouldn't be a good acquisition but the commentary on the pluses seem to revolve around his long term upside. That he'd be a Vargas type solid inning eater for a few years. If so, something has got to give. There's no need on the team for a starter, it would just be a luxury that they could regret in about a month. What happens then if they paid well for Porcello and Hultzen Paxton and Maurer are all looking good and ready. To feel secure that if you prefer to send all of them down you have a stop gap? For a couple months? Just doesn't seem worth it to me.
There's 2 spots not locked up in the rotation. There's Beaven, Bonderman, Paxton, Hultzen, Maurer, Walker, even Noesi if he's improved. 7 pitchers for 2 spots sounds pretty decent. That also leaves the remaining 5 probably filling out Tacomas rotation. They make this trade and it's probably 6 for 1 spot. Assuming they move one of them to get Porcello.