Starting pitching depth entering season

This is not to refute your argument (which I believe particularly pertains to the end of the season as the pennant race heats up), but I will say one thing: This year represents a departure of sorts from the previous seasons in that to begin the year our 6th, 7th, and 8th options in the rotation are all prospects. Does this signal greater faith in this particular group of prospects? I think so to a degree. To be clear, I understand this doesn't mean we won't decide to pick up a vet sometime between now and September, but I do think the fact that we don't have a Capuano, Aceves, or Aaron Cook on standby to start the season, means something about the front office's faith in our AAA depth. I trust the office treats each pitcher as an individual entity and predicts their performance in the majors independent of previous successes/failures, as opposed to thinking in absolute terms (e.g. "we don't trust unproven starters at pivotal moments in the season").

I'm not sure we should expect the Red Sox to act as they have in the past for a number of reasons:

1. Steeper aging curves. Older players seem to "hold" their value less well than a decade ago, making trades of younger for older players more problematic.

2. Multiple wild cards: My father learned to watch baseball in an era in which the average team had a 10-12.5% chance of making the post-season, but a 50% chance of being the champions if they did. I grew up with teams having a 14-17% of making the post-season and a 25% of winning it all if they did. Today the average team has a 33% chance of playing in the post-season and a 6-12% chance of being champions if they do. It no longer makes sense to trade six years of a young player for a couple years of an older one.

3. Although a large number of prospects fail, this is accounted for in the cost of acquiring veterans, and present wins are more highly valued than future wins. Since John Henry bought the team, the value (expressed in bWAR) of prospects traded for veterans has exceeded that of the acquired veterans by almost 2.5 to 1 (and is still growing). No doubt someone in the analytic heavy FO has determined this.

4. The Red Sox strategy over the past decade has been a bit of a mixed success. While the team has succeeded by the most important metric, winning three championships in thirteen years (under present ownership), it has only made the playoffs seven of those years and won the division outright twice (they also tied once). For a team that has drafted as well as the Red Sox and has their resources, that is less dominant than one might expect.

I think the current Red Sox strategy is to build a team that can go on a four to six year run in which they dominate the division. From a position stand point, they have the mix of not-too-old veterans (Pedroia, Ramirez, Sandoval, and arguably Castillo); on-the-cusp youngsters (Bogaerts, Betts, Vasquez, Swihart) and high ceiling on the horizon talent (Devers, Margot, Moncada) to pull this off. In addition, they have a number of other additional assets, some of which may end up having considerable value (Craig, Cecchini, Marrero, and maybe Coyle and Victorino). On the pitching side, it is a bit fuzzier, but they do have the makings of a solid back-end (Kelly, Miley), the enigmatic but talented Buchholz, a talented AAA rotation which has a reasonable chance of yielding at least one and possibly two mid-rotation starters and some bullpen help, and the financial wherewithal to sign one of the ace pitchers available after this season (David Price?).

My guess is that they will stand pat with the team they have. If they are contenders come July, they will look to acquire a rental pitcher packaging some of the valuable but extra pieces and maybe a couple younger wild cards, and then sign one of the top of the rotation guys headed into 2016.

At least that's what I hope they do.

The only "point" Verducci makes that holds water with me is the second bullet. A few years ago I investigated the teams that had a combination of 5 starters pitch at least 800 innings. I forget how strong the correlation was, but the majority of those teams made the playoffs that season.

There are plenty of "proven aces" in the division: it just depends on your definition of "ace" and whether you think they'll be healthy or not.

This is an interesting moment in organizational depth in that, at least from the projected rosters, there doesn't look like a single legit MLB starter on the projected AA roster never mind one who could make that big jump to AAA success this year, and - Trey Ball not withstanding - not much more in High A either (although Stankiewicz might grow up to be a #5 starter one day if everything breaks right). Given the construction of the current MLB roster, not only will they need to find some legitimate solutions in 2016 with the potential of least two and possibly three starters leaving after this year, if more than one MLB starter hits the DL or have to miss a start or two at the same time this year - something that has happened enough in the past to be a legit concern - it could get very, very ugly.

Only if they reverse course and decide to pay for pitching through the nose, either in cash for one of these 30 and over free agents, or by giving up one or more of their top 3 prospects. And Even a1/2 year rental is likely to be gone at the end of the season, too. After this AAA class, which may give you 2 MLB #5-type starters next year (and maybe the potential for some improvement toward #4 or even #3 starter ability in peak years after that), there's pure nothing for 2-3 years. Kind of disconcerting with so many win now position players on the roster.

And even if we're talking just the depth to cover a starter injury for this year, there's not a lot of margin for error to begin with. They may have the AAA bodies to cover a starter injury, but whomever comes up will likely be a step or three down from whomever he is replacing, no matter who might be injured.

Well this is not the argument you've been making. You called people nuts at the possible point these kids were pitching down the stretch under any circumstance that had any remote likelihood of occurring, if they were in a race.

Now you're saying well they could if the cost to acquire a starter is more than they are willing to pay OR if one of these kids pitches really well before the deadline. Which really are legitimately possible outcomes and is all anyone else was saying. There are others as well but Christ this conversation could've ended before it started.

It's fine that you believe that, but again, it all hinges on your evaluation of the current crop of Pawtucket pitchers, and a significant majority of scouts and analysts think each guy is better than you've rated them above.

Another note: guys who project to be mid-rotation starters at their peak will not necessarily pitch worse in their rookie years than they would at their peak. There is fairly strong evidence that pitchers do not peak like position players do and are as good at age 23-25 as they are at age 27-29. If you think Rodriguez projects to be a #3 pitcher at his peak, it's probably an exaggeration to say that he'll only pitch like a #5 in his rookie year.

Just curious, who has better starters waiting in AAA? Serious question because I can buy that the starting 5 carries excessive risk. I'm just not sure what you expect for depth. There aren't many prospects better than Owens and Rodriguez in AAA. And if they aren't prospects, they aren't going to be better than #5s or they would get major league jobs.

I continue to think Owens is vastly overrated but even so, almost all the professional scouting I read on him says he's a #3 ceiling guy - nice but nothing to build a rotation on.

Toronto has Norris, Mets have Syndergaard, White Sox Rondon, Wash has Roark (and Giolito who could likely make a mid-year jump from AA to MLB), Angels have Heany.I'm sure there are a few others (Oakland always seems to have one of two of those guys who come out of nowhere).

Part of the point is, the Sox have is mostly 5s and a couple potential 3s who won't reach that projection anytime soon. That is a kind of depth but it's nothing to build a division leading rotation on unless the outlier that was the 2014 Orioles is suddenly a sacrosanct standard. This year's fragile rotation aside, there will have to be some sort of organizational re-evaluation soon about long term deals for pitchers, or of trading of an elite prospect or two for a younger controllable elite guy, unless they want to continue with mediocre starters and a offense that is weighted toward win now players. There's back end depth here, which has its value, but the quantity is weighted toward mediocrity. Fine if you want to play 162 games. Not so great if you want to win a division.

Fair enough. I'm thinking "now" equals next 0-4 years with Sandoval, Pedroia, Hanley, Ortiz, and to a lesser extent Craig, Napoli and, though I think he's a playoon guy now, Victorino.

If the rotation for the next couple or three years, without a major move, looks like a 3 and a bunch or 4/5s (with Buchholz being anywhere from a 1 to a 5 on a goven day) you're wasting those position players. It's basically another iteration of Toronto without Norris or Stroman, or those Texas teams that never had any pitching.

Two points and a remark:

1. It can take a while for a young pitcher to build up his chops and reach full potential, and
2. Where and when does that young pitcher get to do that?

Short of buying up every 7 year 150+ million dollar contract for a 30+ year-old that comes along, having a nice set of minor league options sure looks fine to me.

I know it's tough in a Big Media Market^© what with all the writers on every struggle like dung beetles on a fresh bolus. But don't these guys have to be given a chance at some point? We're talking about a roster in AAA that has four guys knocking on the door.  The idea that they have to be kept down on the farm because this Big Media Market^© team won't be able to thrive in the short window it has, is pure silliness. Even sillier is sticking everyone into some bin with the 5 label on it. No one knows what they've got because none of them, outside of Wright, has even gotten a shot.

And just in case no one has caught on, the buildout of the Next Great Red Sox Team^© has proceeded apace. Will the rotation have issues? Let's try an easier question. What rotation anywhere, now and looking off as far into the future as you want, doesn't and won't?

I'd love to have them give Wright, Rodriguez, Owens, or Johnson a look see when the need arises, and it will. I hope they send young guys out there, sink or swim. That's what it's all about.

I consider it less a trade-off than a strategy.  They obviously don't like the market values for the FA starting pitcher...they don't normally trade what they consider their valuable prospects for starting pitching (yes, most teams don't want to part with good arms)...add in that they have had a pretty poor record on starting pitching development and I think they have chosen this path.

I am in agreement with all that think this staff has considerable downside.  Not only are we lacking big arms at the front of the rotation..the bullpen is also replete with soft tossing command guys.  It could get very ugly.