Hugh2

agree, I'd do this trade all day. I have to believe something else is going the twins way, I would say a lower level prospect outside the top ten but after the past year with DD I don't feel safe making those predictions anymore. Still, I don't think it would take much more if the Twins are looking for salary relief.

Santana's IP the last 5 years: 228 2/3 178 211 196 108 Buchholz IP the last 5 years: 82 2/3 189.1 108 170 113 Santana is on pace for about 180 IP this year. Consistency goes a long long way, There's been less variation in his numbers as well where Clay has had a couple really good runs and then been absolutely awful at times. If healthy, Santana is a much much better option in the back of the rotation for a reasonable cost.

In hindsight they aren't exciting, but that's the problem with baseball, no one has a crystal ball and everyone is right/wrong at times in hindsight. They both had red flags but had really good potential too. You make that trade multiple times and sometimes you end up with a really really good pitcher. The fact that they were afterthoughts from being able to dump Crawford and Beckett, and that allowed us to go out and sign Drew, Victorino, and Napoli and win a WS makes it an overall great trade in hindsight. In a parallel universe somewhere, Crawford might of bounced back with Beckett and the Drew/Victorino/Napoli tandem skips their 2013 performance and goes right to 2014 and it's the worse trade in a long time.

Well I know how I'm spending my morning. http://news.soxprospects.com/2016/07/podcast-ep-102-groome-signs-dave-deals.html

Kopech didn't throw 98-100 MPH....he was sitting 98-100 MPH. Easily could have been zero ER's with better control. The first run was a guy who scored who was put on base be a HBP. In the 4th he walked a batter, still had a guy at 1B after a fielders choice who scored on a single after advancing following a Wild pitch and a passed ball. But his stuff was easily electric. This guy might have a floor (within reason of making it to the majors) of a closer and a ceiling of an ACE.

But ERA means everything....like wins and average.

If Moncada is playing first base for us next year I will eat my underpants. But it's a shame what happened to Sam Travis. He's not exciting enough to plan into next year but he was doing enough this year to get a shot. It would have been nice to see him get a call up and see what he could do at the MLB level. But between Moncada's athleticism and Shaw having a better glove at 1B I'd be hedgin my bets on a Shaw/Moncada 1B/3B rather than the other way around. I wouldn't mind trading one of Shaw or Hanley either with the one staying playing with Moncada at the corners. I know it may sound like blasphemy to some to trade Shaw but packaged with the right prospects he could bring back a really good starter. Hanley might not bring back the same value, but his play has made him movable in my opinion so that should be an option as well if it can free up some money.

Yeah....right after I hit enter I regretted putting him in with those two. Lester and Beckett were good that year, both had horrible Septembers as did the entire pitching staff.

No he wasn't perfect but he is about as good as you can get as a G.M. I also don't think that Bedard trade was that bad. The Sox had Becket, Lester, and Lackey at the top of the rotation and they really just need a guy to fill out the rotation.

Well Theo helped to build 3 championship teams here, and he's still responsible for a lot of the product that is on the field today. And then he went to Chicago and completely turned that organization around. Also, sometimes you can make the right move that doesn't work out in your favor. Eric Gagne looked like a great move in 2007, only problem is the guy completely laid an egg when he got here. Of course it didn't matter at the end of the day because the team he put together was still good enough to win the world series in 2007.

What did you expect the last several years??? aside from 2013 (when we won the world series) when were we ever in a position to buy under Ben C???

I think his biggest risk at this point is the injury risk. You just don't know how an 18 year old will handle the workload of making 32 starts a year. But in terms of pure stuff and a fell for pitching, he appears to be very far ahead of the curve for someone his age.

I would have been fine with declining Clays option and signing another pitcher last year. Of course, I wanted one of Lester/Schezer the year before which would have made that unnecessary.

Fair enough, and if that is the case then I suppose I'm guilty. I was happy with the Price signing but I thought someone would step up to fill out the rotation. I didn't forsee the injury and step back Erod would take either. However with that logic I do want to take credit for stating the Sox needed a RHH infielder who can hit lefties. Aaron Hill was a great pick up that fills a need on this team, but to be my own critic.....pitching is and has been a much bigger need.

You need balance, you really do and I think DD is fairly good at maintaining that balance. You're right though, some people want to just blindly unload the future to win now. At times, I think I've been too far on the other end of that spectrum, and I admit that. Although there is one thing that scares me. As good as a track record that DD has, that has to be an indictment on his scouting department as well. There are a lot of scouts and personnel that do the leg work that ultimately go into the decision making. The Sox really liked Espinoza, but if he does turn into a stud I hope he stays in the N.L. West.

Teams also have budgets, we were over the cap and the market was thin. It's a lot easier to go out and get another starter if you have more space, which is something the team might have done if they didn't make such blunders recently as Panda, and Castillo. We all got opinions though and it's easy to take credit when we are right and vanish when we are wrong. But things easily could have gone the other way, making the F.O. looking like geniuses. Yes I suppose it was a mistake however, taking the side of "you can never have enough pitching" has never exactly failed anyone.

Yes, and DD has a great track record at making trades too. Now if he can only go out and trade Mookie Betts for Matt Kemp!!!

I agree, some guys do great and are known to jump on the first pitch. A lot of other great hitters spend their entire career taking the first pitch. These guys have a plan, and they stick to it, as they should.

Taking a first pitch strike isn't completely un useful if you know the strike is coming. There is something to be said of getting a look at a pitchers delivery, their angle, and timing. Some of the best hitters almost always take a first pitch, I'm not going to nit-pick someones approach because we get shut down from time to time. You will never see an offense, even a legendary one that isn't going to get beat from time to time. Last night was just not our night....it's as simple as that.

There is an element of chance to all this as well. You can do everything right and some guys just won't develop, and sometimes you get more than you should. To an extent we got lucky that all of Bogaerts, Betts, and JBJ panned out. With honorable mentions to Vasquez, Shaw, and Barnes, I also wouldn't close the book yet on Swihart and Owens. But one thing to consider when evaluating the narrative that we haven't been able to develop pitching in a while is we have not had a blue chip pitching prospect in our system that was the equivalent to a position player prospect like Bogaerts and Betts. Also, high end, cost controlled pitching is the rarest commodity in baseball. Throw in a hint of luck/chance and the Sox aren't exactly in an unfamiliar position. A lot of teams have had these issues as well. I think prospects like Espinoza and Groome are different than the pitching prospects they've had in the past, which ultimately still doesn't guarantee success but conversely the past shouldn't be an excuse to just trade all these guys away. I think Kopech is kind of in-between, I don't think he's the same guy as Espinoza and Groome but he might be a step up from the prospects we've had in the past from Barnes to Owens.

It's also being reported that when the Sox rejected an Espinoza for Hill trade the A's countered with a deal that didn't involve Espinoza.

That is kind of the same complain on against Ben Charrington when the 2014 team failed. It was effectively the same championship team plagued with under performance. Of course, Ben C. doesn't have the lengthy track record of success that DD has.....but he does have a ring.

The problem is you can't make hindsight decisions, you don't know exactly what prospect is going to boom or bust. Some guys might have more red flags than others like zero power (cecchini) or way too many strike outs (Middlebrooks). Sometimes things like K/BB can be more predictive than other stats in the minors but some guys will always come exceed expectations (Travis Shaw) and many will become exactly who everyone thought he would (Bogaerts). I do agree that Owens was never untouchable, and I never understood the talk of him being a front line starter. I think people were just get excited from his stats, and scouting minor league stats is a poor way to evaluate talent (especially for pitchers). Espinoza, in terms of pure talent, stuff, mechanics, delivery etc etc was probably the best bet we had at having a front line starter in a long time. Now that in no way means he can't be a complete bust. I think a better way of looking at it would be to envision prospects as high probability lottery picks (as in higher than 1 in a million) where Espinoza has a million dollar pay out and someone like Owens has a 100K payout.

You mean, hope they got it right with Pomeranz?

True, we don't really know for sure. But generally speaking in any type of negotiation you don't start with your best price. Oakland isn't going to ask us for the minimum they'd be willing to take just like we aren't going to start with our best offer. Although I do ponder if DD came to the Padres with a larger offer than he normally would to avoid going to the deadline where the market could turn one way or another. They may have got Pomeranz for a bit less then, but after today with Hill going down....the price could have been higher actually. Kind of like how Groome was asking for 4 million plus, Sox apparently at some point offered 3.5 (above slot) and settled for 3.65 million. Let me put it this way, I'm pretty sure that the Sox and the A's as well as most MLB teams are better at negotiating than this guy.