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

[Minneapolis Millers]

I don't know.  I'm pretty sure when the Sox traded Ramirez and Sanchez for Beckett and Lowell's contract, they thought they were getting a budding ace.  True, he had not yet had a dominant season, but he was young and the signs were there when healthy.  They signed him to a nice extension in mid-2006.  I mean, you can't go sign or trade for an ace every year.  Entering 2007, they thought/hoped Beckett would front that rotation, as something more than the best #3 pitcher on the staff.  (So, maybe trading for Sonny Gray now would be akin to getting Beckett in 2005.)
 
Does anyone think the same way about any current SP on the Sox?  Yes, Buchholz has shown flashes of dominance, but I wouldn't bet on him throwing 200 innings.  I can see Porcello repeating last year's numbers but not likely improving on them.  Miley has upside, but Beckett-2007-level upside?  I don't see it.

 

[Kull]

Like Schilling in '01, Beckett was a power pitcher who dominated the Yankees in the '03 World Series. That was no small part of the thinking which led to each acquisition. And its similar to my thinking on Hamels. Get the (relatively) cost controlled guy now and set your rotation for years to come. Prospects come and go, and the board will have a completely different set of binkies to foam at the mouth over in 2 years. Unlike top prospects, affordable top of the rotation starters are rare as hen's teeth.

 

[foulkehampshire]

Does anyone think the same way about any current SP on the Sox?  Yes, Buchholz has shown flashes of dominance, but I wouldn't bet on him throwing 200 innings.  I can see Porcello repeating last year's numbers but not likely improving on them.  Miley has upside, but Beckett-2007-level upside?  I don't see it.

 
I could see Porcello doing better. He could give up less hits with a good defense behind him, which would naturally lead to longer outings. Porcello was very efficient last year; his pitch count never exceed 115 and he pitched into the 7th inning 18 times last year. Not to mention the 3 CG shutouts.

 

[brandonchristensen]

With the recent WS win, the team has a ton of rope for me. Right now I wouldn't mind another "not great" season watching the kids develop.

The risk you run, however, is they all flame out and you have no good players or chips to help acquire them. It's tough, but I would really hate to lose our top 5.

 

[phenweigh]

I don't know.  I'm pretty sure when the Sox traded Ramirez and Sanchez for Beckett and Lowell's contract, they thought they were getting a budding ace.  True, he had not yet had a dominant season, but he was young and the signs were there when healthy.  They signed him to a nice extension in mid-2006.  I mean, you can't go sign or trade for an ace every year.  Entering 2007, they thought/hoped Beckett would front that rotation, as something more than the best #3 pitcher on the staff.  (So, maybe trading for Sonny Gray now would be akin to getting Beckett in 2005.)
 
Does anyone think the same way about any current SP on the Sox?  Yes, Buchholz has shown flashes of dominance, but I wouldn't bet on him throwing 200 innings.  I can see Porcello repeating last year's numbers but not likely improving on them.  Miley has upside, but Beckett-2007-level upside?  I don't see it.

I wouldn't single out any single SP on the current staff, but I think the chances that one of them has a top of the rotation season are pretty decent.  Has there been a study of the typical standard deviation of any of the projection formulas that are available?  It seems that could be used to calculate the chances of somebody on the current staff reaching "ace level" WAR or ERA+ (whatever measure and ace level makes reasonable sense).

 

[Devizier]

Not especially important, but the Sox have little room to make more improvements to their roster at this point. Getting an elite pitcher to bump someone like Kelly from the rotation is a relatively easy way to significantly bolster the roster. I suppose they could upgrade catcher or first base, but that kind of talent is much rarer and more valuable. It's not like the Sox are going to be able to acquire Posey or Goldschmidt. Pitching, on the other hand, is relatively abundant.

 

[twothousandone]

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. 

Which goes back to the "define an ace" argument. I know this is debateable, but I suspect many here wold agree that what we generally consider an "ace" is, indeed a power pitcher -- one who can win several games during a season pretty much on his own, suspect defense and weak hitting be damned. A 12+ K, nothing but weak fly balls, pulled in the eighth only because the Sox are up 5-0 kind of guy. (Had it been 1-0 or 0-0 they stay in the game.) 
 
Neither Porcello or Miley seem like that kind of guy, to me. Miley had three "shut-outs" last year, one with four hits over seven innings, one with seven hits over 6.2 innings, one with eight hits over 6.2 innings. That, to me, doesn't scream "ACE," but (as McCarthy's contract may highlight) it costs half as much as what I'd consider an ace. With a good defense and a good offense, a team can make hay with a pitcher like that.
 
Now Porcello had three legit shut-outs last year, with 3, 4 and 3 hits over nine innings. (Four hits, no Ks on July 1.) I'm glad the Red Sox have each of them, and I'd like to see them get another pitcher who be universally be considered "better" than they are. But I can wait for that.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Which goes back to the "define an ace" argument. I know this is debateable, but I suspect many here wold agree that what we generally consider an "ace" is, indeed a power pitcher -- one who can win several games during a season pretty much on his own, suspect defense and weak hitting be damned. A 12+ K, nothing but weak fly balls, pulled in the eighth only because the Sox are up 5-0 kind of guy. (Had it been 1-0 or 0-0 they stay in the game.) 
 
Neither Porcello or Miley seem like that kind of guy, to me. Miley had three "shut-outs" last year, one with four hits over seven innings, one with seven hits over 6.2 innings, one with eight hits over 6.2 innings. That, to me, doesn't scream "ACE," but (as McCarthy's contract may highlight) it costs half as much as what I'd consider an ace. With a good defense and a good offense, a team can make hay with a pitcher like that.
 
Now Porcello had three legit shut-outs last year, with 3, 4 and 3 hits over nine innings. (Four hits, no Ks on July 1.) I'm glad the Red Sox have each of them, and I'd like to see them get another pitcher who be universally be considered "better" than they are. But I can wait for that.

 
Whereas Scherzer pitched the first and only CGSO of his career in 2014. This "ace" definition sure is hard to pin down.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I'm not a sabermetrics guy.  Unlike a dolt like the CHB, however, I have a healthy respect for sabermetrics and am at times in awe of the posts here along those lines.
 
But my definition of an "ace," in the context of the Sox going out and getting one at some time before or during 2015, is highly and intentionally imprecise.
 
It's not exactly a "you know him when you see him" test, but I'm talking about a guy who (a) clearly stands above the other pitchers in the rotation (except in a rare Schill-Pedro or Schill-Johnson type situation) and (b) can be expected to give the Sox an excellent chance of winning virtually every time out.   
 
Beckett, Schilling, Pedro and Lester were all aces in Boston under that definition at various times.   

 

[Hoplite]

Both of these questions were highly subjective based on what you consider an "ace" to be and what you consider our "bigger chips" to be. I would love for us to go out and sign Max Scherzer to a reasonable contract or trade for Cole Hamels without giving up Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart. But barring those unlikely circumstances, I do like the idea of Shields. As explained in other threads, I like his leadership and I like that he'd improve the bullpen through lowering their work load and allowing us to move Kelly there, where his peripherals have been much better than in the rotation.
 
We'd clearly be a better team if we added another top of the rotation starter (I consider Porcello to already be one). But it's not the end all be all. In 2013, our best starting pitcher had a 3.75 ERA and similar peripheral based metrics. He was also the only member of the staff to reach the 170 innings pitched mark. But the overall quality of our team was superior to anyone else. No one had our combination of staring pitching, relief pitching, hitting, defense and baserunning that year.

 

[JimD]

I'm not a sabermetrics guy.  Unlike a dolt like the CHB, however, I have a healthy respect for sabermetrics and am at times in awe of the posts here along those lines.
 
But my definition of an "ace," in the context of the Sox going out and getting one at some time before or during 2015, is highly and intentionally imprecise.
 
It's not exactly a "you know him when you see him" test, but I'm talking about a guy who (a) clearly stands above the other pitchers in the rotation (except in a rare Schill-Pedro or Schill-Johnson type situation) and (b) can be expected to give the Sox an excellent chance of winning virtually every time out.   
 
Beckett, Schilling, Pedro and Lester were all aces in Boston under that definition at various times.   

 
Clay Buchholz was certainly that guy for the first ten weeks of 2013.