The Need For An "Ace"

Personally, this entire mess started earlier today with Ken Rosenthal's false rumor about a Victor Martinez and Cliff Lee trade.

Jon Weisman had a great comment about Rosenthal's failure as a journalist.

The middle of today's game came with a distraction in the form of FoxSports.com gossip Ken Rosenthal passing along a typical unsubstantiated and ultimately false rumor involving a Dodgers-Indians trade for Cliff Lee. Listening to guys like Rosenthal try to give us the inside dope is like listening to my kids explain why they should get more time playing with their new Webkinz. They will say anything.

That started off another round of talk among fans about how badly the Dodgers needed any "ace", even if it wasn't Halladay. It was just fans talking though, so I figured the insanity would subside eventually.

Unfortunately for me, I came home from baseball today and was met with three articles begging the Dodgers to acquire an "ace".

Bill Shaikin starts off the trio of fail.

The Dodgers say they won't trade Clayton Kershaw or Chad Billingsley. We say they ought to swallow hard and consider trading Billingsley to the Toronto Blue Jays if needed to get the Halladay deal done.

This is the same guy who suggested trading Russell Martin a while back, and though I thought that rumor was ridiculous as well, it made a lot more sense than what he's suggesting now.

Trade Billingsley for Halladay? I don't get how that is a clear upgrade.

If the Dodgers are in a pennant race, then including Billingsley in a package for Halladay does not address the very real issue of depth in the starting rotation.

But if the Dodgers are bound for October -- as history suggests -- then depth is not as much of a concern as lining up Halladay to face Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday during the playoffs in St. Louis, or Chase Utley and Ryan Howard in Philadelphia.

What? So even though it's not a significant upgrade, the Dodgers should still do the trade because pitchers have to face tough hitters in the postseason? Wow.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure Roy Halladay has to face those same hitters as well. It's not like they just bow to him in fear and give up.

And Halladay would come with a contract that expires in 2010. McCourt loves short-term contracts, particularly for pitchers. What could be better than an elite pitcher on a 14-month contract?

Uh...an upper echelon pitcher who won't make anywhere near Halladay's money until he's a free agent? I'm pretty sure that qualifies.

There is no better fan service than presenting the World Series to your fans. There is no better way for the Dodgers to enhance their chances of bringing the World Series back to Dodger Stadium after 21 years than by trading for Halladay.

Dear Mr. Shaikin,

I don't believe we've met before, but I thought I would be the first to inform you that trading for one player guarantees nothing in the playoffs. I know that seems like an obvious point to anybody with common sense, but apparently you didn't get the memo.

Thanks for your time,

Reality

Seriously though, I didn't dislike Shaikin at all before his two "omg we have to trade for Halladay or we're doomed" articles, but now I think he's a moron.

Next up on the hit list is old reliable, Bill Plaschke, who was admirably reserved until now.

In baseball, as in poker, the best hand never appears until the final card, and although the Dodgers are loaded, they desperately need that one and only flip that will complete them.

Yeah, an ace.

Can somebody define this "ace" word for me? I always ask, but nobody seems to be able to tell me exactly what they mean by it.

Fans and media commonly say that they "just know", but usually the people who say that don't look like they've touched a baseball in their lives, so how would they "just know" in the first place? I really don't get it.

In my opinion, the term "ace" is now completely subjective, and it has become an utterly meaningless word. It's essentially baseball's version of glittering generality.

There is nobody who will take the mound on a chilly fall night and refuse to leave until morning. There is nobody who will grab the ball in October and refuse to give it up until November.

There is no Cole Hamels, no Josh Beckett, no David Wells.

This is ironic to me, because Cole Hamels wasn't Cole Hamels until he got the chance to be a star last year. Hamels was finally healthy, and he put it all together at the right time.

I do wonder if Plaschke would trade Billingsley for Hamels right now, because I wouldn't. Is Hamels an "ace" now, even though he's struggling? You tell me.

Seven of the last 11 world champions began the World Series with a winning performance of at least seven innings from their aces.

Chad Billingsley can be guaranteed to do that? After melting down in the last championship series? After averaging 6 1/3 innings per start in the more relaxed regular season?

Once again, that word "ace" is dumb as hell.

Does Plaschke realize that since Billingsley averages 6 1/3 innings, he commonly goes further than that? Does he understand math at all? That's sorta basic.

So far this season, Billingsley has made 21 starts. He has gone 7 innings or more in 10 of them. He has gone 6 innings or more in 18 of them. Hell, he's only had 1 game where he's gone less than 5.

Billingsley didn't melt under the pressure either. He dominated a righty heavy Cubs team and struggled against a lefty heavy Phillies squad. I'm not shocked.

They are a pitching staff that can lead the Dodgers to the league's best record, but you know what that guarantees them? Ask the other best teams from the last 15 years, and duck, as only one of them actually won a World Series.

Exactly, nothing is guaranteed in the postseason.

Lots of teams have traded for an "ace" during the season, and hardly any of them have come away with a World Series trophy.

Roy Halladay? Cliff Lee? Jarrod Washburn? Whatever it takes, here's hoping Colletti can figure out a way to do it.

Washburn is an "ace" now? Hahaha. Glorious.

By the way, neither Lee nor Halladay has a single postseason appearance. Not one. Yet these guys are supposed to be a sure bet to turn in Orel Hershiser-esuqe magic? Right.

No, you don't trade Kershaw and, even though it's tempting, you don't trade a 24-year-old Billingsley.

And, yes, it's tough to sell anyone on prospects when most scouts believe that most great Dodgers prospects are already at the major league level.

But, hey, this is an organization that somehow acquired Manny Ramirez for nothing, so surely there is something they can figure out.

Plaschke's master plan is basically to have some team throw their "ace" into our lap. As if a Manny Ramirez type of situation happens commonly or something.

It makes me want to write an article called "The Dodgers Need Albert Pujols Or Else" and have my conclusion be "I don't really have an answer of how to get him, but it'll work out eventually".

These people get paid to write.

I've never heard of Helene Elliott before, but she contributes to this mess as well.

I don't think I need to break it down because it's pretty much more of the same old arguments, except she includes a lot of quotes from players, which is somehow supposed to make her opinion justified.

I don't get that logic either. Players want to trade away prospects for an upgrade to the current team? Wow, that's really shocking news.

Yes, having Roy Halladay would be nice, but the reality is that acquiring him or some other "ace" guarantees the Dodgers absolutely nothing. Yes, i've said it before many times, but I felt compelled to say it again. Hopefully this is the last time I have to discuss it, because i'm starting to feel like a broken record myself.