Is it still too early, John Lackey apologists?

Can we go ahead and question if this $82.5 million contract is a complete and utter disaster?

The apologists have been pretty clear in their defense of Lackey, who in his last start put up an Aron Garcia line (4 IP, 10 hits, eight runs) in a spot where the Red Sox needed him to be -- at the very worst -- an innings-eater. (You might remember this start came the day after the 13-inning game vs. Anaheim that ended at 2:45 a.m. If not, go back and read the Twitter feeds of the beat writers, who acted as if they were stuck in a mine in Chile instead of a warm press box, stuffing their faces with soda, cookies and popcorn while checking their fantasy teams and sending each other snarky emails about other media members.)

The defense of Lackey goes something like this: Why do you care about the money? You aren't signing the checks. And sure, he's not an ace, but you can do a hell of a lot worse than John Lackey as your No. 3 or No. 4 starter.

Well, we are now about to witness the 40th start of the John Lackey Era for the Sox on Wednesday in Toronto (should be 41, but they skipped one of his starts, always a good sign for the highest-paid pitcher in franchise history). I don't think "small sample size" applies any longer. And here's what the Red Sox have received for the $23 million or so they've paid Lackey to date:

A 16-15 record (same as Brandon "The Murderer" Melendez, a man who isn't exactly one of our finest MMA performers).

An ERA of 4.76, or the same career ERA as the immortal Chris Holt, who pitched for the for the Astros from 1996-2000 and the Tigers in 2001 before pulling a Mr. Baseball and taking his talents to Yokohama. Holt's record was 28-51 and he made $3.57 million in career, or about what Lackey makes in six starts. 

The Red Sox signed Lackey with the knowledge that he probably wasn't going to win (or even really challenge) for a Cy Young in any year of his contract. It was a clear overpay at the time, but they tried to sell us on the idea of a sure thing. This wasn't going to be Pedro Martinez circa 2000, but it wasn't going to be Matt Clement. Durability, 200+ innings a year, high teens in wins and ERA in the mid-to-high 3.00's and security that a "big-game pitcher" would be on the mound when it mattered. That was the definition.

Let's look at it another way: Lackey's WHIP in his 39 starts with the Sox is 1.46. Matt Clement's WHIP in 44 starts with the Red Sox was 1.46. 

So far -- and I've seen nothing to suggest it's going to change -- John Lackey's Red Sox career can accurately be defined as this:

Matt Clement Redux.

And that's not even being fair to Clement, who wasn't the same pitcher after being hit in the head by a Carl Crawford liner (no, really, he used to hit liners) in July of 2005. Clement was never going to be great -- his ERA was 4.43 at the time of the Crawford liner -- but he fell off a cliff after, posting a 6.61 ERA in 12 starts in 2006 before getting shut down for the season with a torn labrum and rotator cuff that never again allowed him to pitch. 

No such misfortunate has fallen on Lackey. No excuses for what we have seen over the last 13 months. He's been the sure thing the Sox were expecting, an absolute portrait of consistency. Consistently Clement-esque.

Of the 43 AL pitchers who threw enough innings to qualify for the ERA title last year, Lackey ranked 34th. (He was paid more than the top five finishers in the AL in ERA -- Clay Buchholz, Trevor Cahill, Jered Weaver, Dallas Braden and Felix Hernandez -- combined.) WHIP? He finished 36th. 

OK. It happens, right? Tough adjustment to the AL East, everyone has a down year, maybe some lousy luck, all that stuff. 

Well, now we are nearing the middle of May in 2011 -- again, sample sizes are getting close to fair, I think -- and guess where Lackey ranks out of the 56 AL pitchers eligible for the ERA title? That would be 56th. WHIP? 55th -- thank you, Kyle Davies (making $3.2 million).

Forget the contract for a second. Lackey to this point has been lousy value if they had signed him to a two-year, $5 million deal. He's been the worst starting pitcher in the American League since he joined the Sox. The reality is that they would have been better off keeping Tim Wakefield in the rotation -- how much worse than the very worst pitcher in the AL could Wakefield be, and at a fourth the cost? -- and using the $82 million somewhere else. And that's why the contract matters.

For Sox fans, Lackey has lost all currency in just a year and a month. They don't care that he led the AL in ERA in 2007, or won a World Series in 2002. That's 50 sports lifetimes ago. Gone, even, is the respect for the guy who shut down the Sox in Game 1 of the 2009 ALDS. There is no expectation when he steps on the mound. He's just another pitcher.

And I think -- at 39 starts and counting -- we've seen enough to know that it's not going to change.