But isn't 30 a pretty arbitrary number by which to pronounce a player as "aging"? I mean, Beckett won't even turn 30 until May 15. Is it really the case that, once the clock strikes midnight on 5/15, Beckett will suddenly start hurtling down a steep decline in skill and durability?

I just think we tend to exaggerate the risks and effects of aging, especially as it pertains to guys in the their early 30s. And you HAVE to sign "older" guys if you want to be in the FA market at all. FAs are by definition older than guys who are just coming up or guys in their arbitration years. Maybe there's a higher risk of decline due to aging, but there's also something to be said for acquiring players who have proven they can perform at the highest levels year after year.

I commented on your first piece and I will comment hear again. Lackey and Beckett as a comparison really do not work at all. Check out the totals from the past three seasons

K/9
Beckett-8.67
Lackey-7.15

WAR
Beckett-16.8
Lackey-11.5

xFIP
Beckett-3.34
Lackey-3.93

K/BB
Beckett-4.51
Lackey-3.21

Beckett has been a top five SP over the past three years and one can make a very resonable case he has not even peaked yet. If I can see this then I am sure the Sox can see the same numbers. If they can lock him up for the next 4-5 seasons at anything close to what Lackey got they probably got a steal.

@BD: The list of pitchers who have sustained excellence over an extended period of time well into their 30's consists of a really elite group. The chances of having two on the same team are small. And so the question becomes, do you want Beckett and Lackey or do you want, say, Casey Kelly to fill in for Beckett and take a run at Pujols or Mauer? It's a matter of allocating finite resources.

@Mike Ketchen: I don't disagree with your Beckett/Lackey comp. I thought my "tick better" remark was adequate but if not, it's probably just semantics. I agree that Beckett's the superior pitcher.

But that still doesn't change my point, that Lackey's presence makes a Beckett extension challenging/risky.

"The list of pitchers who have sustained excellence over an extended period of time well into their 30's consists of a really elite group. "

I think the reason this list is so small is because there are so few pitchers who have "sustained excellence over an extended period of time," PERIOD. The question is, if you have such a "sustained-excellence" pitcher, and he is 30 years old, how great is the risk that his skills/durability will erode over the next 5-6 years?

I seriously doubt you could prove that a 30-year-old elite starter, with a track record of success similar to what Beckett has, is at a big risk of decline over that 5-6 year period. By "big risk," I mean relative to the risk that any ballplayer faces over that period.

If the "sustained-excellence" 30-y.o. pitcher isn't at any particularly great risk of rapid skill decline, then really what you are worried about is just the inherent risk of handing out another long-term contract. Those ARE risky, of course, but without them, you are automatically excluding from your roster most of the proven, elite players in the game.

Just for fun, I thought I would check out who the 30-32 year old "elite" pitchers were in 2002 to see how well they fared as they aged deeper into their 30s. However, there were only 11 starters in that age cohort to begin with, and only one of them could reasonably be said to have enjoyed "sustained excellence" up to that point in his career: Pedro Martinez. FWIW, Pedro was terrific for 4 seasons (through 2005) before dropping to a 4.48 ERA in '06. Pedro, of course, is just one guy, and I don't think his example proves anything one way or the other. But I suspect that, if you looked at the actual careers of elite, veteran pitchers aged 30-32 -- admittedly a small group -- and see what THEY did in up to age 35-37, you would find that plenty of them continued to perform at a high level well into their 30s.