How much importance should Ben place on getting an "Ace" for the 2015 Sox as they stand right now?

[TheoShmeo]

We have a thread dedicated to who folks want in the ace role.
 
We have public statements by Ben Cherington and John Farrell regarding their solid five starters and how aces often emerge from such groups.  The Baltimore example was cited earlier this year with respect to the ability to compete without a clear cut leader of the staff.
 
Whether that's smoke screen or real is yet to be determined.  And, of course, it may not be binary as they may really want an ace but only at their price.
 
We also have a general sense that the Sox would like to pry Cueto or Zimmerman loose from their respective teams, and are considering signing Shields.
 
At this point in the off season, with the Sox current configuration of starters and trade chips, how important do you think it is that Ben obtain a clear, top of the rotation starter?
 
Clarification: When I say "at this point in the off season," what I really mean is at some time before opening day 2015.  I was trying to emphasize what the Sox have right now in the way of starters, depth in the system at starter and trade chips as they consider whether to make a move for an ace.
 
Clarification 2: In response to BC's good point below in Post 9, please assume going forward that you can "protect" your top two prospects regarding question two.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

At this point in the offseason, I don't think it's hugely important. If we're in contention next year, though, then I definitely want a top guy added next summer for the playoffs.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Important, but not imperative. I want them to remain patient and try to land a top talent at a good price. No need now to overpay in $$ or prospects. In the right deal I'd include 2 top prospects of the top 6-8 in the system but not likely from the top 3.

 

[JimD]

Whether that's smoke screen or real is yet to be determined.  And, of course, it may not be binary as they may really want an ace but only at their price.
 

 
I believe it *is* a smoke screen, and that they do indeed want an ace but only at their price.
 
In response to the second poll question, I based my answer on the current crop of top starters who are rumored to be available.  I'd be willing to part with a top prospect for a Zimmermann or Cueto if the Sox were allowed a window to attempt to negotiate an extension before pulling the trigger.  Otherwise, no.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Considering how good a good Clay Buchholz can be, I said no to both questions.

The Sox have the pieces to acquire an "ace" at the deadline if they need one, but there's no reason to sell off the better pieces from the upper minors right now. And there's even less reason to gut the most promising kids from the lower minors.

Much as with Fister, I don't think the Tigers valued Porcello highly enough, and I'd rather the Sox lock him up instead of locking in a starter like Hamels who's paid full market rate already.

And I think Miley was a steal.

 

[IpswichSox]

I don't think Ben is pursuing the depth model one through five versus an ace because he's identified an inefficiency that no one else has stumbled upon. All things equal, my sense is he would want an ace to lead the staff. The question is at what cost? If the cost is prohibitive in dollars or prospects, then the model of depth throughout the staff (or whatever we're calling it) becomes more attractive. So I don't think Ben is making a judgment in the abstract. Instead, circumstances are pushing him in one direction.

 

[grimshaw]

I just believe it makes way more sense to acquire an ace now than during the season so they don't lose out on the QO.  I don't think the Red Sox would necessarily poop out what the O's did for Miller at the deadline, but the competition would be pretty fierce and they would have less than half a season for the rentals.  The chances of them getting a better prospect back in the draft than one of the two they dealt is pretty strong.  I think that is an overlooked factor when these types of deals are made before the season begins.
 
4 of the top 10 ten prospects on Soxprospects are Cecchini, Johnson, Barnes and Ranaudo (?).  Of course most of us would deal two or three of them even for a non ace.  It would take at least Owens as a top prospect + one or two of those guys for actual "ace" types.
 
I would pay that price for Zimmerman or Cueto.  If it were substantially more than that, then I believe they are better off running with what they've got. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Timing is key as far as I'm concerned.  I don't think it's important to get an "ace" this winter and certainly don't want to see them trade top prospects to do it.  However, I can't say they should stand pat with what they have if it turns out the staff is good but not quite good enough to win in October.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Voted for "Important" for the first question. But "No" for the second as you can't "put aside the identity of the prospects".
 
The only realistic "Ace" trade possibilities are Hamels, Cueto and Zimmerman. I wouldn't trade any of Betts, X or Swihart  in a deal for any of these guys. I would consider Owens or Margot however - but only in Hamels case. 
 
The problem with waiting for the trade deadline is that prices are probably going to be a lot higher as there are fewer options and teams are more desperate. 

 

[Pedro 4 99MVP]

I voted for extremely important. Not that I think every team in contention needs an "ace" because that term is hard to define, but I voted that way because I do not trust Masterson at all. He looked awful last year, and I know he is blaming a knee injury, but we will see. Gammons also mentioned that the knee injury didn't last all year, and he was worse with St. Louis at the end of the year than he was earlier when his knee was supposedly the problem. Also, with the exception of 2013, he has always struggled against lefties. I hope I am wrong and he pitches like 2013, but I don't have a good feeling about him for those reasons. Get an ace, start Kelly in the bullpen because Masterson has been "singed to be a starter", and when/if Masterson flops, move Kelly back to the rotation. There is also the scenario where Kelly is part of the trade because the other team wants a ML ready SP plus prospects. 
 
I also voted yes on the 2nd question, even though there is no way I want to trade Betts or Bogaerts, and I can't think of a reason to trade Swihart either. However, to acquire Hamels, Zimmerman, or Cueto, I would be willing to deal Owens and another piece (Marrero, Devers, Margot, depending on the other team's needs).

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I voted "Important, but not crucial" and "no".
 

 
At this point in the offseason, I don't think it's hugely important. If we're in contention next year, though, then I definitely want a top guy added next summer for the playoffs.

 
...sums up my thoughts exactly.
 
I would not trade Betts or Bogaerts, period. And if I'm moving Owens and/or Swihart, I want years of control and not a two month rental.
 
I might pay a bit more for that ace now rather than July, more so for the possibility of draft compensation than for his services in April through July. But I wouldn't pay substantially more.

 

[shepard50]

Another good solid 200 i.p. pitcher? Possibly. An ace, as in Scherzer or Hamels, not at the price in money or prospects they will most likely demand.
 
The whole notion of an ace is so overrated and under defined that it's just annoying to try to debate. It's as bad as the Closer sentiment. It's not an actual position, as much as a concept. As a team, you have to cover about 1450 innings of defense over the regular season. With injuries and blowouts you can use 7-12 good starters easily. I am more concerned with the average performance you will get over those 1450 innings then the high end blips of one starter.

 

[benhogan]

Have we entered the 'rotation by committee' era, instead of defined #s on the starters?
 
My biggest concern is come playoff time, but maybe Farrell goes with the most productive pitcher or hot hand, other then being shoe horned into a pre-determined #1/ACE?
 
OR
 
The Sox acquire an ACE in June/July, which is my preferred solution.  Count me as a tad curious about Cueto's innings pitched last season, and would like to see how he pitches in April/May after 240+ innings in 2014.  Don't want to buy a bottle of Opus One and then find its 'corked' after opening it.
 
Its not important if we obtain an ACE in the winter, so go with what we have (Porcello, Miley, Buchholz, Masterson, Kelly) and assess the situation during the course of the season.
 
If we get an ACE like Scherzer - pop the champagne, I'm not going to complain, its John Henry's $$$.  I just don't see the Sox doing that after the Lester negotiation process.
 
ALSO It will be intriguing to see what develops at Pawtucket this spring - Henry Owens, Eduardo Rodriquez, Brian Johnson, Matt Barnes - are all young/growing and could show up with an extra 1-2 mph on their fastballs.  Let them compete for the first eventual call up.

 

[grimshaw]

Looking at an ace as the key to a short playoff series is not what I'm factoring in when determining who to acquire.
 
I'm defining "ace" as a 5+ WAR pitcher or one who is very likely going to be 3-4 WAR more than their weakest starter and could subsequently have a trickle effect to the bullpen.  There are no other 3-4 WAR upgrades around the diamond that would be easily obtainable .  Do they need an ace?  That's obviously up for debate.  Acquiring one is going to improve the team the most on paper.  It could be a complete dogfight for that playoff position where those extra wins could make all the difference.  I would just as soon expend the resources to do so, since this is how their organization has been built.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Like several others I voted "Important but not crucial" and "no." I almost voted "not important" just to express my visceral hatred for the word "ace." But I do think it would be valuable to add somebody at the top of the rotation. I don't think it's life-or-death--I think the team can compete with the rotation it's got--but it would make us really formidable.
 
As for prospects/young MLers I would give up for such a pitcher:
 
Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart are off limits
I would give up one of: Owens/Johnson/Rodriguez/Devers/Margot
Plus one of Cecchini/Coyle/Marrero
Plus one or more of basically anybody else
 
If the pitcher in question still has more than one pre-arb year left (e.g. Gray) or is locked up long-term at a below-market rate (e.g. Sale) I would consider giving up two rather than one from the second group.

 

[foulkehampshire]

I'm starting to wonder if they'll stand pat and see what the next few months bring. 
 
If Masterson and Buchholz perform the Sox could be okay heading into the trade deadline, which at that point they can trade for a 3 month rental of somebody like Cueto to shore up a potential playoff rotation. If they suck, no need to trade for anybody - at that point the Sox will be out of contention anyways. Plug in some guys from AAA (Owens, Barnes, Rodriguez) and get them some valuable innings at the MLB level before 2016; see what they have internally before making a splash on a very pitching rich FA class. 

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

There are no guarantees in life, let alone starting pitching.  But when we say "ace," I think most of us mean someone who:
- is reasonably likely to throw 210+ innings.  A "horse."
- is likely to give us an ERA+ of 120 or better.  A quality horse.
For some, "ace" also includes:
- has some demonstrated success in pennant races and/or the playoffs.  "Clutchness."  This last one is up for debate, I know, but it's one reason Theo went after Schilling.  Other players look up to those guys.  They help take the edge off things.  It's the "I got this" factor that we can't easily quantify but shouldn't therefore simply dismiss. 
 
Anyway, a guy like this can be helpful throughout the season.  Save the bullpen.  Stop extended losing streaks.  Mentor younger starters.
 
So given the chance, I'd like to see Ben get an "ace."  But not at any price.  And not necessarily in the next week.  There's time.

 

[EricFeczko]

There are no guarantees in life, let alone starting pitching.  But when we say "ace," I think most of us mean someone who:
- is reasonably likely to throw 210+ innings.  A "horse."
- is likely to give us an ERA+ of 120 or better.  A quality horse.
For some, "ace" also includes:
- has some demonstrated success in pennant races and/or the playoffs.  "Clutchness."  This last one is up for debate, I know, but it's one reason Theo went after Schilling.  Other players look up to those guys.  They help take the edge off things.  It's the "I got this" factor that we can't easily quantify but shouldn't therefore simply dismiss. 
 
Anyway, a guy like this can be helpful throughout the season.  Save the bullpen.  Stop extended losing streaks.  Mentor younger starters.
 
So given the chance, I'd like to see Ben get an "ace."  But not at any price.  And not necessarily in the next week.  There's time.

Though these are relatively broad terms for defining an ace, these arbitrary cutoffs are precisely why I agree with Savin re: the term "ace".  I'm also going to subsitiute a criteria here because I don't like ERA+; let's look at pitchers with an ERA- of 80 or lower. Based on these criteria, Derek Lowe was the ace of the red sox staff in 2002 and not Pedro Martinez. Josh Beckett was not an ace for the red sox in 2007, and Jon lester has only pitched like an ace in two seasons (2008 and 2014).
 
Furthermore very few pitchers meet both criteria. In 2014, 17 pitchers threw more than 210 innings. of these, only 7 had an ERA- of 80 or better. Your definition of an "ace" would mean that only seven pitchers last year would be considered aces. As of right, now, none of the seven are available (Max Scherzer had an ERA- of 81).

 

[joe dokes]

Though these are relatively broad terms for defining an ace, these arbitrary cutoffs are precisely why I agree with Savin re: the term "ace".  I'm also going to subsitiute a criteria here because I don't like ERA+; let's look at pitchers with an ERA- of 80 or lower. Based on these criteria, Derek Lowe was the ace of the red sox staff in 2002 and not Pedro Martinez. Josh Beckett was not an ace for the red sox in 2007, and Jon lester has only pitched like an ace in two seasons (2008 and 2014).
 
Furthermore very few pitchers meet both criteria. In 2014, 17 pitchers threw more than 210 innings. of these, only 7 had an ERA- of 80 or better. Your definition of an "ace" would mean that only seven pitchers last year would be considered aces. As of right, now, none of the seven are available (Max Scherzer had an ERA- of 81).

 
Following up on this.....I think "ace"  -- even more so than "closer" is often a job title --, rather than a skillset. But even putting that aside, by definition, (any definition, it doesn't really matter), there are relatively few "aces."  So their cost is disproportionately high, compared to the many, many more pitchers who are "good," "pretty good" or "really good."  It is with that in mind that I voted 'no.'  The cost -- in terms of $$ or talent -- seems to be based on the label, not what's in the bottle.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Though these are relatively broad terms for defining an ace, these arbitrary cutoffs are precisely why I agree with Savin re: the term "ace".  I'm also going to subsitiute a criteria here because I don't like ERA+; let's look at pitchers with an ERA- of 80 or lower. Based on these criteria, Derek Lowe was the ace of the red sox staff in 2002 and not Pedro Martinez. Josh Beckett was not an ace for the red sox in 2007, and Jon lester has only pitched like an ace in two seasons (2008 and 2014).
 
Furthermore very few pitchers meet both criteria. In 2014, 17 pitchers threw more than 210 innings. of these, only 7 had an ERA- of 80 or better. Your definition of an "ace" would mean that only seven pitchers last year would be considered aces. As of right, now, none of the seven are available (Max Scherzer had an ERA- of 81).

Jordan Zimmerman had an ERA- of 73, and for those of us who have left ERA on the scrap heap with wins and saves his FIP- was 72. Admittedly, you have to include his postseason innings to get to 210 innings last year but his post-season clutchness is quite clear. He is, quite clearly, the best pitcher available and it isn't all that close. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

Much as with Fister, I don't think the Tigers valued Porcello highly enough, and I'd rather the Sox lock him up instead of locking in a starter like Hamels who's paid full market rate already.

 

 
This was my feeling all along until Lester signed and the rumors of what Scherzer will get started coming out.  Hamels doesn't seem to be market rate anymore.

 

[Pilgrim]

The only thing I really feel strongly about is the "wait till midseason" idea. We know a guy like Cueto is a big improvement, and we know it's going to cost a lot. So why pay a huge ransom for 80ish innings instead of just doing it now?

 

[Hoplite]

 
I believe it *is* a smoke screen, and that they do indeed want an ace but only at their price.
 
In response to the second poll question, I based my answer on the current crop of top starters who are rumored to be available.  I'd be willing to part with a top prospect for a Zimmermann or Cueto if the Sox were allowed a window to attempt to negotiate an extension before pulling the trigger.  Otherwise, no.

 
You win a prize for being the only poster to spell Jordan Zimmermann correctly. There was a Jordan Zimmerman, but he pitched 8 innings for the Mariners in 1999.

 

[phenweigh]

It's tough to interpret "Putting aside the identity of the prospects for the moment, would you give up two of the bigger chips in the system to get an ace?"  I said no, but if the purpose of "bigger" was to eliminate the top tier of Betts, Swihart, etc, the I would have answered yes.  In other words, I really do need the identity of the prospects involved to answer the question.
 
I did answer "Important", as I think an ace is needed to be one of the favorites to win the world series, rather than a team with a very good chance to be a playoff team that wouldn't be expected to go deep.  That could be done as a deadline deal, but I suspect that would be an option that would cost more in prospects than trying to get it done before the season starts.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

 
Furthermore very few pitchers meet both criteria. In 2014, 17 pitchers threw more than 210 innings. of these, only 7 had an ERA- of 80 or better. Your definition of an "ace" would mean that only seven pitchers last year would be considered aces. As of right, now, none of the seven are available (Max Scherzer had an ERA- of 81).

 
Just for for fun, those seven "aces" are:

Felix Hernandez
Johnny Cueto
Jon Lester
Corey Kluber
Adam Wainwright
Julio Teheran
Jeff Samardzija

And the following don't count as aces under the criteria:

Clayton Kershaw
Chris Sale
David Price
Max Scherzer
Sonny Gray
Cole Hamels
Madison Bumgarner
Stephen Strausburg
Jordan Zimmermann
James Shields
Zack Greinke

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

EricF: You are correct about 2014.  Of course, I started by dismissing the notion of obtaining a guarantee and used words like "reasonably likely" to describe the underlying sentiments - if not the specific, absolute, mandatory objective measure - of "ace"-ness.  In fact, my point, perhaps incompletely made, is that whatever the precise measures you select, it's the characteristics they are trying to measure (durability, quality, reliability) that, in sum, define what most mean by "ace." 
 
Using ERA-, Clay Buchholz would look like an ace if you simply isolated his -42 in 2013.  But most people wouldn't look at just one season (even if it had been a full season) and dismiss the player's other seasons to determine whether the player is or is not an "ace." 
 
Pedro's perceived lack of durability was a frequent talking point used to diminish his greatness, yet 7 times in the 10 years spanning 1996-2005, he exceeded 210 innings pitched in the regular season.  So, no, if you looked only at 2001, he wouldn't have met any strict innings requirement to be an "ace."  But that wasn't my intended point.  If you looked at the previous 5 years, most people would have concluded that, yeah, Pedro's an ace.
 
In the bigger picture, the Sox should impose their own criteria for deciding who they'd like to front the rotation, and I suspect that durability, quality, and reliability (or at least safe projectability) would be underlying factors in their analysis.  And that process might only identify a dozen potential trade targets.  That's ok.  If they're going to give up serious assets to acquire the guy, I want the stud to be really good/elite, not just likely to be marginally better than Porcello/Miley.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

The only thing I really feel strongly about is the "wait till midseason" idea. We know a guy like Cueto is a big improvement, and we know it's going to cost a lot. So why pay a huge ransom for 80ish innings instead of just doing it now?

 
Because it is likely to cost a lot less then, as opposed to now.

 

[Rovin Romine]

There's been a lot of talk about a theoretical "playoff rotation" as opposed to a regular season rotation that nets you a post-season berth.  
 
I have a couple of issues with that.  First, not all "aces" are equal when it comes to the post season.  Clearly there are a few pitchers who have carried entire squads in the post season - usually those guys are league leaders (with some step-it-up guys) who throw complete games and spare the bullpen so the bullpen can then be used to support weaker starters.  I don't know if a "short innings ace" like Pedro became is all that useful to a team with a thin bullpen.  The idea being you still have to use the bullpen in Game 1 of any given series, unless it's a blowout - which wouldn't be "caused" by a short innings ace anyway.   
 
The other thing I usually think odd is the idea that in a playoff rotation your #1 must be matched up against the other guy's #1.   Maybe if we're in a post season with a bunch of good to average starters opposing a club with a lights-out #1 guy, we punt Game 1 and put our most effective starter into Game 2.  I know the idea is that your best guy should pitch the most innings, but what if your most effective starter just isn't a guy you think will be good on super short rest for a hypothetical Game 7?  Sure there are a lot of variables, but sometimes depth plus a hot hand is better than a top-loaded rotation.  See, generally, the 90s Sox.  (Meaning Pedro plus the four dwarfs had a lot of post-season trouble against good offensive teams).

 

[grimshaw]

  Sure there are a lot of variables, but sometimes depth plus a hot hand is better than a top-loaded rotation.  See, generally, the 90s Sox. 

See Bruce Hurst in 1986 who almost Bumgarner'd the Mets.
Clemens was so-so in his Sox playoff career and just had the one win.

 

[Rovin Romine]

See Bruce Hurst in 1986 who almost Bumgarner'd the Mets.
Clemens was so-so in his Sox playoff career and just had the one win.

 
When Hurst left for SD, I was crushed (as a kid.)  He was one of my favorite Sox players.  He was on fire in '86.  He could do no wrong after that.
 
However, we should say that Bumgarner "Martinez'd" the Royals.  Obviously if you have a rubber armed ace who can also come in for relief, it's a potent thing.  I don't think we can trade for a guy like that though.  

 

[OCD SS]

 
This was my feeling all along until Lester signed and the rumors of what Scherzer will get started coming out.  Hamels doesn't seem to be market rate anymore.

I still feel that way. As I said in the other thread you're going to be paying for Cole's decline, but you're betting on Porcello aging into his prime during the deal.

Ideally I'd like to see the Sox talk to him about a long term deal when they talk about this year's contract. I wonder if they could get him in the McCarthy/ Ervin Santana range

 

[phenweigh]

 
Because it is likely to cost a lot less then, as opposed to now.

I thought prevailing opinion is that a premium was paid at the deadline.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I thought prevailing opinion is that a premium was paid at the deadline.

 
I think it would vary from year to year, depending on the balance of buyers and sellers at the trade deadline. There may be more or less demand for a starter at the deadline, but there's also the matter of draft compensation.
 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I think it would vary from year to year, depending on the balance of buyers and sellers at the trade deadline. There may be more or less demand for a starter at the deadline, but there's also the matter of draft compensation.
 

 
I think the change in the rules regarding this has probably had a major impact. In the past, you could trade for two months of a guy and know that even if the gamble didn't pay off in the short run, at least you would get a pretty decent prospect out of it. Now there's no consolation prize: if the trade target doesn't get you a championship or at least a postseason berth, you get bupkis out of the deal. That ought to change the equation considerably.

 

[grimshaw]

There isn't any guarantee anyone of impact is going to be available at the deadline anyhow.
We're not even sure if the Reds are in rebuilding mode or if they are still trying to be competitive.  They had to move payroll, but could still be in contention.
If they are fading in July, then yes, but no guarantee.
 
My guess with Zimmermann is that they are only moving him for major leaguers, whether if be in that trade or a separate one.  It's pretty unlikely they would do that during the season if they know they can get more now.

 

[Rasputin]

I thought prevailing opinion is that a premium was paid at the deadline.

 
One has to consider that one of the prime targets is put on the market by a guy who is almost universally decried as demanding too much who will, come the deadline, be facing the prospect of having a rebuilding team come out of the deadline having traded no established players for prospects for the second year in a row.
 
If he does that, he should really be fired. He's going to want prime prospects. We would rather take cash. If someone is willing to pay those prime prospects, let 'em. I'm not.

 

[smastroyin]

They don't need an ace.  They may not even need another pitcher at this point, if they really plan on Masterson in the rotation.
 
The big problem is that they could have used an ace intead of Masterson.  I guess now they could use an ace instead of Buchholz.  Regardless, the point is not that they necessarily need a top of rotation starter, the point is that it would be nice if they had a little less risk.  Put it this way:
 
Miley:  Upside:  Lester level number 1 starter (I'm serious).  Maybe 5% chance he gets there?.  Median:  Decent number 2.  Worst (assuming healthy):  Back of the rotation innings eater
Porcello:  Upside:  Number 2 starter.  Median:  Decent number 3.  Worst: Back of the rotation innings eater. 
Buchholz:  Upside:  Legitimate top 10 starter in the AL.  Median:  Capable rotation starter.  Worst case:  Complete disaster.  The confidence level is wide with this one.
Kelly:  Upside:  Decent number 3.  Median:  Back of the rotation innings eater.  Worst:  Bullpen
Masterson:  Upside:  Number 2 starter.  Median:  Back of the rotation innings eater.  Worst:  Lots of really crappy innings with lefties hitting like Ted Williams off of him. 
Workman:  Upside.  Back of the rotation.  Median:  Good bullpen arm.  Worst:  Bad bullpen arm.
Owens:  Upside:  Number 2 starter.  Median:  Good AAA starter with a couple of decent MLB starts.  Worst:  Terrible AAA year.  No help.
 
There is also a chance you could get some help from Wright, Johnson, Rodriguez, or Barnes (in order of 2015 MLB floor)
 
That on the surface seems like enough, but having a good with number 1 upside and number 3 downside sure would make the rest of them look better.
 
Obviously these are not scientific rankings, I'm just making the point.  There is quite a wide variance of outcomes from the back of the rotation.  If the Sox don't sign anyone, you can probably live with this rotation, assuming good performance from the bullpen and offense.  Then you can make an upgrade move depending on who is or isn't showing anything in the first half of the season.  This is similar to what Theo was going for in 2005 (after letting Pedro go and knowing Schilling wasn't going to be ready for opening day)...except he didn't upgrade at the deadline and the bullpen was terrible.

 

[mauf]

The FO may be willing to blow through the CBT threshold in 2015, but I think we all agree they won't go over two years in a row.
 
As a practical matter, the Sox have roughly $102mm committed to 8 players in 2016 -- about $79mm (by AAV) in long-term contracts with Sandoval, Ramirez, Pedroia, Castillo, Uehara, and Craig, plus options on Ortiz ($10mm) and Buchholz ($13mm) that are likely to be exercised. 
 
On top of that, Miley, Tazawa, Kelly, and Nava will be arb-eligible. Nava might be gone by then, but the other three will get significant raises -- especially Kelly, who currently makes peanuts.
 
Then, several of the guys coming off the books after 2015 will need to be re-signed or replaced -- including Napoli ($16mm in 2015), Porcello ($12.3mm est), Masterson ($9.5mm) and Mujica ($4.75mm). Only Victorino ($13mm) looks like dead money that we'll simply be shedding.
 
The Sox could afford to add an "ace" who's signed for 2016 to the mix, but doing so would use up most of the payroll flexibility they would otherwise have next winter, to say nothing of the cost in talent for the non-Shields options. With five competent SPs already in the fold, I don't think adding any of those guys will move the needle enough to be worth it.

 

[smastroyin]

Though these are relatively broad terms for defining an ace, these arbitrary cutoffs are precisely why I agree with Savin re: the term "ace".  I'm also going to subsitiute a criteria here because I don't like ERA+; let's look at pitchers with an ERA- of 80 or lower. Based on these criteria, Derek Lowe was the ace of the red sox staff in 2002 and not Pedro Martinez. Josh Beckett was not an ace for the red sox in 2007, and Jon lester has only pitched like an ace in two seasons (2008 and 2014).
 
Furthermore very few pitchers meet both criteria. In 2014, 17 pitchers threw more than 210 innings. of these, only 7 had an ERA- of 80 or better. Your definition of an "ace" would mean that only seven pitchers last year would be considered aces. As of right, now, none of the seven are available (Max Scherzer had an ERA- of 81).

 
And ERA+ of 120 would equate to an ERA- of 83 (all things being equal, which of course they typically aren't), so Max would qualify.  It doesn't really change your point, but when you are sitting here talking about the difficulties of precision, let's at least not confuse people by just picking round numbers unless we are going to really specifically state that we are doing that.

 

[lxt]

Vote "Not important" & "Yes". Yes for the right pitcher (Plenty of names to fill in here). They have enough to enter the season and see how things hold up. There is depth to provide a filler in case one of the starters goes down, just can't do it or simply fades away. Come the All-star break if the Sox are truly contending then possibly make a move. There will be competition as many teams will be looking for that one last rental to make the push. However, the Sox will be deep in talent and money and will likely be in a good position.
 
I'm not a big fan of rental pitchers. I'd want to trade for someone I can immediately go into extension conversations with. The "ace" title is not essential. A solid pitcher who is having a great year may have all that is needed to be the playoff "ace".

 

[grimshaw]

 
 
The big problem is that they could have used an ace intead of Masterson.  I guess now they could use an ace instead of Buchholz.  Regardless, the point is not that they necessarily need a top of rotation 
 
Obviously these are not scientific rankings, I'm just making the point.  There is quite a wide variance of outcomes from the back of the rotation.  If the Sox don't sign anyone, you can probably live with this rotation, assuming good performance from the bullpen and offense.  Then you can make an upgrade move depending on who is or isn't showing anything in the first half of the season.  This is similar to what Theo was going for in 2005 (after letting Pedro go and knowing Schilling wasn't going to be ready for opening day)...except he didn't upgrade at the deadline and the bullpen was terrible.

That 2005 team was weird but they somehow managed to make it back to the post season.  They had Wakefield, Arroyo and  then Schilling coming back.  They added three mid-level starters (actually 2 mid level and one coming off injury) Wells, Clement, and Wade Miller.  Wells did about what you expected, Clement was solid and Miller didn't work out.

The bullpen was definitely poor (Embree went in the shitter, Mantei bombed and Foulke was totally gassed from the year before), but Schilling was probably the biggest downer and never really made it back.  At least this time around, they aren't praying on old and brittle pitchers.

 

[ivanvamp]

In 2013 the Red Sox won a World Series on the backs, fe a pitching standpoint, of two starters who had eras of 3.75 and 3.52, but who pitched great in the postseason. Plus a bullpen that was incredible.

Except in the postseason, there is no way the Sox can be considered to have possessed an "ace" starter in 2013.

Of course, that all changed in the postseason. But other guys besides true aces have pitched well in postseasons. Who's to say that the Red Sox couldn't win a WS with three starters putting up eras in the mid 3's and a terrific bullpen?

 

[TheoShmeo]

Ivanvamp, anything is possible.
 
But focusing only on the Sox recent WS winning seasons:
 
- in 2004, they had a clear top of the rotation starter -- Schilling -- during the regular season, and that guy was was outstanding in the post season in every start but one; he was the leader of the staff all year and gave them a clear, stand out starter; and of course they had a little guy named Pedro in the mix
 
- in 2007, they had Josh Beckett, who was a top of the rotation starter all season and was totally dominant in the post-season; I daresay not many World Series winning pitchers have enjoyed regular and post seasons that were as impressive as Beckett's 2007
 
- in 2013, Lester had monthly ERAs and W-L* as follows: March April: 3.11, 4-0; May 3.92 2-2; June 7.62 2-2; July 3.13 2-2; August 2.97 2-2; Sept Oct 2.57 3-0; and he was of course dominant in the playoffs
 
Now it's true that Lester wasn't a dominant, top of the rotation starter for the entire season, but he was great out of the gate and at the end, and he was again the clear top of the rotation guy in the playoffs.
 
This doesn't mean that the Sox need to have such a starter throughout the season in 2015.  And three years does not prove a point.  But in recent Sox title seasons, they have had the benefit of such a pitcher for two of the seasons and in the third, they had someone like that to help set the tone up front, in the late season home stretch and in the playoffs.
 
* I appreciate that there are more and better metrics.  Lester's stats are linked. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=lestejo01&year=2013&t=p

 

[Wake's knuckle]

For a young, cost-controlled ace... sure, open up the farm system. For Hamels? Naaaah.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Ivanvamp, anything is possible.
 
But focusing only on the Sox recent WS winning seasons:
 
- in 2004, they had a clear top of the rotation starter -- Schilling -- during the regular season, and that guy was was outstanding in the post season in every start but one; he was the leader of the staff all year and gave them a clear, stand out starter; and of course they had a little guy named Pedro in the mix
 
- in 2007, they had Josh Beckett, who was a top of the rotation starter all season and was totally dominant in the post-season; I daresay not many World Series winning pitchers have enjoyed regular and post seasons that were as impressive as Beckett's 2007
 
- in 2013, Lester had monthly ERAs and W-L* as follows: March April: 3.11, 4-0; May 3.92 2-2; June 7.62 2-2; July 3.13 2-2; August 2.97 2-2; Sept Oct 2.57 3-0; and he was of course dominant in the playoffs
 
Now it's true that Lester wasn't a dominant, top of the rotation starter for the entire season, but he was great out of the gate and at the end, and he was again the clear top of the rotation guy in the playoffs.
 
This doesn't mean that the Sox need to have such a starter throughout the season in 2015.  And three years does not prove a point.  But in recent Sox title seasons, they have had the benefit of such a pitcher for two of the seasons and in the third, they had someone like that to help set the tone up front, in the late season home stretch and in the playoffs.
 
* I appreciate that there are more and better metrics.  Lester's stats are linked. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=lestejo01&year=2013&t=p

 
The thing with both 2007 and 2013 is that in neither year did they enter the season where the guy who emerged as the "ace" was clearly expected to do that from day one of spring training.
 
Beckett was coming off a disappointing and generally mediocre 2006.  The only other guy on that staff who was generating any kind of buzz was Matsuzaka, but I don't think anyone expected him to be otherworldly (and those that did were disappointed).
 
And in 2013, Lester was coming off an up and down 2012 that had plenty of people debating whether it was a blip or the start of his decline.  And Lackey was coming off TJ surgery which had followed his disastrous 2011, so no one was looking at him as a top of the rotation guy either.
 
Point being, the "ace" the team wants/needs in 2015 could very well emerge from the guys they have now.  Miley, Buchholz, Masterson and Porcello have all shown flashes of being the kind of pitcher that leads a staff through a season and post-season.  Maybe 2015 is the year that it really clicks for one or more of them and they have themselves a 2013 Lester or 2007 Beckett kind of year. Frankly, I'd settle for a couple 2013 Lackeys.

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
The thing with both 2007 and 2013 is that in neither year did they enter the season where the guy who emerged as the "ace" was clearly expected to do that from day one of spring training.
 
Beckett was coming off a disappointing and generally mediocre 2006.  The only other guy on that staff who was generating any kind of buzz was Matsuzaka, but I don't think anyone expected him to be otherworldly (and those that did were disappointed).
 
And in 2013, Lester was coming off an up and down 2012 that had plenty of people debating whether it was a blip or the start of his decline.  And Lackey was coming off TJ surgery which had followed his disastrous 2011, so no one was looking at him as a top of the rotation guy either.
 
Point being, the "ace" the team wants/needs in 2015 could very well emerge from the guys they have now.  Miley, Buchholz, Masterson and Porcello have all shown flashes of being the kind of pitcher that leads a staff through a season and post-season.  Maybe 2015 is the year that it really clicks for one or more of them and they have themselves a 2013 Lester or 2007 Beckett kind of year. Frankly, I'd settle for a couple 2013 Lackeys.

This is a very fair point.
 
On the other hand, both Beckett and Lester were arguably more foreseeable "ace" candidates than anyone in the Sox current stable based on what they had done earlier in their careers.  This does not override your point, I know. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This is a very fair point.
 
On the other hand, both Beckett and Lester were arguably more foreseeable "ace" candidates than anyone in the Sox current stable based on what they had done earlier in their careers.  This does not override your point, I know. 

 
I'd argue that Buchholz, as much as everyone wants to get down on him, has demonstrated enough that an "ace" season out of him wouldn't be out of the blue.  His biggest problem has been health/durability...an issue that Beckett had in spades through his early (and late) career.  The only real "ace" sense that Beckett brought was due to his post-season performance in 2003. His performance between that and 2007 was just as hit or miss as Buchholz has been...some high highs and some low lows.

 

[smastroyin]

That 2005 team was weird but they somehow managed to make it back to the post season.  They had Wakefield, Arroyo and  then Schilling coming back.  They added three mid-level starters (actually 2 mid level and one coming off injury) Wells, Clement, and Wade Miller.  Wells did about what you expected, Clement was solid and Miller didn't work out.

The bullpen was definitely poor (Embree went in the shitter, Mantei bombed and Foulke was totally gassed from the year before), but Schilling was probably the biggest downer and never really made it back.  At least this time around, they aren't praying on old and brittle pitchers.

 
Yeah, this kind of makes my point though.  Theo went into the season with these guys, which was fine.  They were carried by their superb offense (which later turned into superb performance from Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz) and by the time the trade deadline rolled around, Theo was still betting on these guys not hitting their downside risk.  That was a team that lost the AL East on a tiebreaker and at the ASB was already showing it could use a rotation upgrade - which they didn't go out and get.  Now, I'm not here to re-write history or pine about a "lost season" or what-have-you, I'm just making the point - right now the Red Sox are carrying a team with a significant amount of risk in the starting rotation.  If, on July 15, the offense is chugging along and the Sox are in the division lead, but the rotation looks shaky, I hope Ben and co. will have the opportunity and wherewithal to upgrade.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I'd argue that Buchholz, as much as everyone wants to get down on him, has demonstrated enough that an "ace" season out of him wouldn't be out of the blue.  His biggest problem has been health/durability...an issue that Beckett had in spades through his early (and late) career.  The only real "ace" sense that Beckett brought was due to his post-season performance in 2003. His performance between that and 2007 was just as hit or miss as Buchholz has been...some high highs and some low lows.

 
Is there a good website that tracks player injuries and DL stints?   IIRC, Clay's had stomach issues with the painkillers for his arm, back issues, neck issues, and recently he underwent surgery for his knee.  https://twitter.com/RedSox/status/517045643970224128
 
Given his somewhat fluky history, I'm not sure there's any clear way to mitigate future injury risk.   That said, if it were possible, I'd gladly trade going with a #5 for the first couple of months in exchange for a healthy Buchholz for the final couple of months.   

 

[JimD]

- in 2004, they had a clear top of the rotation starter -- Schilling -- during the regular season, and that guy was was outstanding in the post season in every start but one; he was the leader of the staff all year and gave them a clear, stand out starter; and of course they had a little guy named Pedro in the mix

 
Of course, 2004 was far from a prototypical example of an AceTM pitcher stepping up huge and carrying the Sox to October glory.  Schilling's heroics are legendary but he put the team into a hole in game 1 of the ALCS and needed his teammates to get them to a game 6.  Pedro was good but not great in the ALCS, getting outdueled by Jon Lieber in game 2 and giving up the lead in game 5.