No, I Mean What Is an Ace REALLY Worth?

Back to baseball for a moment ...

Last week, after the Chicago Cubs signing of Jon Lester, the former star lefty of the Boston Red Sox, I wrote a piece on the value of such long, expensive contracts.  My thesis at the time was really about how such contracts don't pan out for older players, particularly pitchers, and that the Red Sox valued him at one figure, and the Cubs at a much higher one, presumably based on a balance of need and expectation that was higher on the North Side of the Second City than in the Hub.

I neglected a whole perspective on the Lester deal that has now happened, and the expected deal for Max Scherzer, the other ace starter, which as yet hasn't happened as we await the annual dance between 30 clubs and agent Scott Boras's free-agent player for the year.

That perspective was sharpened by the realization that the Red Sox have constructed a rotation of five pitchers -- Clay Buchholz, Wade Miley, Justin Masterson, Rick Porcello and Joe Kelly -- whose expected performance, were they to pitch to their expected level, would be at the same time remarkably similar and similarly unremarkable.  Each is an experienced major-league starter with success in the majors.

That's not to say that they're not very good; they are indeed very good starters.  We think of those who are aces as "#1s" in a five-man rotation; so by that description the Red Sox have five "#3s".  This is distressing to a lot of fans clamoring for an "ace", but the more I think about it from a team gestalt perspective, the less I care, and here's why.

Let's say for a minute that the Red Sox were to sign Max Scherzer to something like what he wants, $25 million a year for 6-7 years.  Set aside what I wrote before about the expectation that the contract's last few years would likely be expensive and non-productive.

Scherzer would replace one of the five "#3s" the Red Sox have in the rotation.  Say it is Wade Miley for argument's sake.  Miley would then be moved to the bullpen as the long reliever and spot starter.  Scherzer goes into the rotation in the #1 position.  The pitcher who was in the bullpen in the long reliever/spot starter role (currently a minimum-salary rookie like Brandon Workman or Anthony Ranaudo) either goes to the minors or shifts to a late-inning reliever and replaces a different rookie who goes to the minors.

The movement of the other pitchers in the food chain is of very little moment as far as effect on the team's wins in 2015.  The real impact is felt in the rotation, where Scherzer is in and Miley is out.  Given that, we have to look at deciding whether signing Scherzer is worth it on the surface, because -- and here is the perspective thing -- to sign Scherzer is to place a $25 million per year value not on Scherzer, but on the difference between the expected performance of Scherzer and the expected performance of the pitcher he replaces, i.e., Wade Miley.  

If the Red Sox had a rookie penciled in to the fifth spot in the rotation, then Scherzer's value to the team would be pretty much the "absolute of his value".  That is, he would be replacing a replacement-level player, and the cost of his contract would be weighed only against his own expected performance.  But he isn't!  If your fifth-spot starter (the "#5") is of the same quality as a typical #3, as Miley is, then you have to ask yourself if the additional team wins expected, by raising the quality of one position in the rotation from Wade Miley to Max Scherzer, is worth $25 million in 2015.

If Scherzer pitched every day, there might be an argument.  But he will start only 33 games in 2015 assuming he is healthy.  I agree that if you could flip a switch and turn Miley into Scherzer tomorrow, you would do it.  But to pay $25 million for the privilege of doing so, and commit to doing the same for $25 million for seven years, knowing that the difference between a very good starter and an excellent starter is not really all that much, well, it seems fiscally irresponsible.

An ace is worth not what he performs, but how much better he performs than the starter he replaces.  If it is I, I'll take the five more easily-replaceable #3s and apply my revenues to improving the quality of the guys in the field playing 162 games.

Of course, my business card doesn't say "GM" on it.  At least not yet :)

Copyright 2014 by Robert Sutton