ofahn wrote:I also think Porcello would benefit from working with a C like Matt Wieters.
Didn't even think of that... and as you said that's on top of putting him in front of a great infield defense and working with Rick Peterson.
ofahn wrote:The Tigers are all in for this year. If they decided that Porcello was a question mark then they would have brought in someone else that wasn't. It also gave them a solid trade chip to look for a SS or a closer.
Agreed! Tigers are in "win now" mode and a proven closer (especially with their mediocre bullpen) is much more important to them than a young SP who has plenty of room to grow but MAY be an issue for them in 2013. I think they would prefer a low ceiling but stable veteran for their 5th spot over the high upside but not very stable Porcello.
The O's on the other hand could definitely use a young high upside SP with their not so high upside and not so young rotation. If Porcello pans out he could be a mainstay in the rotation for years to come, if not then the O's have some decent SP options to replace him (not many with high ceilings under age 25 though). And of course there's the O's spectacular bullpen depth that has plenty of potential closing options which makes it all possible.
I'll throw out some quotes from the Morosi article I like.
"At the moment, Porcello is probably the best fifth starter in baseball – considering his potential (still young at 24) and the Tigers’ pitching depth. Porcello is coming off an unspectacular season, 10-12 with a 4.59 ERA. But his numbers would improve with a better defensive infield – which the Orioles have, with the likes of Hardy and Manny Machado.
Porcello is three seasons away from free agency, Johnson only two. Porcello has averaged a little more than 170 innings per year over his major-league career. Johnson logged just under 70 in 2012, within the normal range for a closer on a winning team.So, Porcello figures to throw more than 500 innings before becoming a free agent. Johnson might offer only 140. Put another way: Johnson, with less than one-third of Porcello’s expected workload, would need to pitch pretty spectacularly over the next two seasons in order to be more valuable than a theoretically improved Porcello
I think we can all agree Jim Johnson is a better closer than Porcello is as a starter but starters on average are more valuable than relievers.
I think we can agree to disagree on this one and I certainly wouldn't be upset if the O's keep Johnson because it is nice to have a stable presence in the back of the bullpen (the anti-Kevin Gregg) that also allows the other relievers to stay in their slots. I would just prefer Porcello.