So, what now?

Back on July 23, it was written here that the Red Sox were presented with a make-or-break stretch, one that would either see their entrenched top-of-the-rotation pitchers carry them through a pennant race or put them in late-summer discomfort.

Jon Lester had just hit his low point, having given up 11 runs to the Blue Jays. The Red Sox were licking their wounds after being swept by Toronto. And the team as a whole was still covered in mediocrity, standing at .500.

Well, late-summer discomfort has won out.

In the 16 games that have passed by, the Red Sox are 7-9 and now find themselves in a deeper hole than ever, six games back in the loss column in the wild card chase. 

And as for that make-or-break designation thrown the way of Jon Lester and Josh Beckett, the duo that was going to have to help carry this team ...

Lester seemingly has fixed many of his lingering issues, holding opponents to a .212 batting average in innings 1-5 over his last three outings, a dramatic improvement over the .439 clip he had totaled during the same innings in his previous three starts.

Still, at the end of the day, the improvement hasn't translated into what the Red Sox need the most -- domination and wins. In his last three starts Lester is 0-2 with a 4.79 ERA. 

And then there is Beckett.

After his five-inning, eight-run outing Wednesday against the Rangers, the righty has allowed 65 runs this season over 19 starts. It is the exact total he gave up in 30 outings last season. In fact, through his first 19 appearances in '11, Beckett was 9-3 with a 2.07 ERA, having allowed a total of 29 runs. 

But of all the numbers, these continue to be the most important when diagnosing the situation: 15-27. That is the record with Lester and Beckett pitching.

This was not how the Red Sox plan was supposed to take shape.

The blueprint was one some of the more financially robust teams have attempted to execute: invest heavily in the starting rotation so there won't be a reliance on free agency or rookie growing pains for a healthy stretch of seasons. The Phillies have done it, as have the Angels.

For the Red Sox that meant committing to Lester, Beckett and John Lackey through the '14 season (technically, through 2013 with a club option for 2014 on Lester), while eventually throwing Clay Buchholz into the long-term mix with a contract that could keep him under team control through '17.

It was a plan hatched to kick off the '10 season, when Beckett signed a four-year, $68 million extension. That piggy-backed Lackey's five-year, $82.5 million deal, signed after the '09 campaign, and a five-year, $30 million extension given to Lester. Add in Daisuke Matsuzaka's contract and the Red Sox had committed to paying $137.125 million for the rotation's foundation (excluding Buchholz) from 2010-12. That's an annual average of just more than $45.7 million per season.

It hasn't exactly worked out.

During the past three seasons, Red Sox starters have totaled a 4.47 ERA, which is 23rd in the major leagues. Lester, Beckett, Lackey and Matsuzaka have combined to go 101-84 with an ERA identical to all Sox starters during the past three seasons (4.47) -- worse than the major league average ERA for starters from '10-12 of 4.13 (and 4.28 ERA in the American League).

So, we'll ask again … What now?

Lester? His health seems good, the production appears to be coming back to some degree and his luxury tax hit for 2013 is just $6 million. Unless the Red Sox get blown away by an offer, the lefty appears to be staying put for the time being.

The issue with Beckett -- both in terms of extracting the kind of results seen for most of '11 and for a stretch earlier this season, along with potential trade value down the road -- is health. Teams would be more likely to view the 32-year-old in a favorable light, even with the downturn in results, if not for issues involving Beckett's shoulder, back and thumb. The first step in regards to dealing with the future of the pitcher is to identify the status of all of these health concerns. The question is if that sort of identification can be made prior to this coming offseason.

If the Red Sox do want to partake in some rotation turnover, perhaps it will come down to which pitcher -- Beckett or Lackey -- the team wants to sell low on. It is an interesting question to ponder whether teams would value the prospect of two more years of Beckett, or a pitcher in Lackey who will be entering '13 with ample recovery time from Tommy John surgery (and carrying an attractive club option for a major league minimum for the '15 season).

Matsuzaka figures to be gone after this season, while Buchholz appears to be an affordable anchor going forward. (The emerging staff ace makes $5.5 million in '13, $7.7 million in '14 and $12 million in '15 before heading into a pair of club options for $13 million and $13.5 million).

Felix Doubront and Franklin Morales have offered at least middle-of-the-rotation promise.

The challenge for the Red Sox would seem to be identifying, and securing, baseball's most prized commodity -- a top-of-the-rotation, controllable starter in some sort of deal. Going the high-priced free agent starter route doesn't figure to be an option for the foreseeable future (don't hold your breath for Zack Greinke), and perhaps the closest thing the farm system has to elite starting promise resides in Single-A in the form of Matt Barnes (now with High-A Salem) and Henry Owens (in Single-A Greenville).

It is a dilemma the Red Sox weren't banking on facing when diving into '10, just like the Phillies couldn't have possibly believed their dream rotation -- which will have three pitchers make a combined $64.5 million next season -- would be 24th in wins and 19th in ERA.

Judging by its current lot in life, an uncomfortable audible might be on the horizon for this Red Sox starting staff.