Hugh2

Yes it's pretty confusing with the same first and last name and even middle names that are only a couple letters off. I do believe Alexander was considered the better prospect and still may but Alejandro definitely closed the gap between the two of them. He might of been higher in some teams eyes, perhaps he was their preference.

If you exclude their rookie seasons because they were both 22 year olds who spent time in the minors then Santana has average about 60 IP more than Clay per year. That is about 1/3 a season, and is significant.

If they didn't make the Ziegler trade it would be funny to see Luis Basabe, next to Luis Basabe. Probably.

In their defense I think they have a good system of slapping a projection with a ceiling/floor ranking. For example they have Groome at a 6 with a (3-7) range, but when you actually read the scouting reports they often use the terminology "potential to be" when saying a guy is likely going to be this or that. A lot can happen from now and into the future.

I also heard that it was confirmed on multiple guns. Wasn't just one gun, still pretty insane....how fast is the changeup? 92 MPH???

And only being able to pitch a partial season drastically reduces his value as a starter.

This is the one thing people are missing with him. Yes, he hit 105 the other day but him throwing 100 MPH wasn't exactly new information. We've already known he has the plus fastball but he still needs to develop his secondaries and improve his command, without much more development he might end up better suited for the pen. However we aren't anywhere near there yet, he has reportedly cleaned up his delivery and given the improvements he's made with his time in the system it's not unreasonable to project he can make those adjustments. But he still has to do it!!!

Although it does seem like they been more cautious with slapping the 7 or 8 on prospects lately. They had no problem slapping an 8 on the 2-8 scale on Bogaerts when he was in A ball and it's not like they got burned by him. The only prospect who I think really burned them in recent years (or at least the most) was Will Middlebrooks, but they will tell you he headlined a much weaker system. If Will Middlebrooks was 4-5 years younger when he was #1 on the site....my guess is he'd probably be in the 5-6 range on the site now.

Well it is a prospect site, they tend to focus on their guys more. Sometimes podcasts do go more in depth into MLB players but remember they don't have a MLB scouting team so the information there is going to be likely what we all have access too. In terms of all their guys being "2nd division starters" I'd argue that more often than not prospects are nothing more than that. Right now they have 4 players projecting to be impactful everyday players, with 3 more having that kind of ceiling. This doesn't mean more guys aren't there, there was a time when Mookie Betts and Xander Bogaerts weren't on anyones top 20 and didn't really have any projections. Projecting prospects is an inexact science. What I like about Soxprospects is their honesty, you'd expect them to be homers but sometimes they are more cautious with their guys than other organizations. I remember they were more down on Lars Anderson than most others in the industry, and they never projected Owens to be anything more than a #4 maybe #3 starter. I don't think they are any better than BA, BP, or anyone else but the reason I trust them so much is the simple fact that they have more eyes, more often on our guys than anyone else with the obvious caveat of the teams scouts. They are usually pretty fair, and sox fans who like to follow the minors are lucky to have a resource like them.

4 of the 5 best ERA seasons? Yes if you include Clays first season when he started 3 games, and the other 3 seasons where he started 14, 16, and 18 games. Out of those seasons where he had a good ERA in only one of them he started a substantial amount of games when he threw 28. Clay has a career ERA that is .16 under Santana. They are nowhere even close to being the same pitcher, Santana has 2X the amount of innings pitched and it only looks close if you go back several years because for the first time in his life he missed substantial time. So unless your argument is that Santana is now going to be an injury risk....I don't see where else this conversation needs to go. Santana > Clay....and it's not really that close.

Santana has almost double, as in almost 1000 more IP than Buchholz in just 2 more years in the league. That gap doesn't look as extreme because if you only go back a few years Santanas 2015 and 108 IP weight heavily on his average. But here's the thing in his 12 year career Santana has a very good track record of staying healthy and staying in a rotation, he got hurt one year and looks healthy again. Meanwhile, Buchholz has a season like that every other year. I honestly don't even think it's close, Santana is easily worth his contract and Clay is worth nothing at this point. I honestly am inclined to not believe this rumor because the Twins could probably do much better. If there is a trade where Santana is price and the big piece is Clay then that is about as close to a no brainer as you get to make.

Exactly, there is real tangible value in a guy who can stay healthy and in the rotation. Clay hasn't been barely been able to stay healthy, and he hasn't been healthy and good in a very long time. Clay has made more than 18 starts 2 times since 2010 and even then he only made 28 with 173 IP. Those two years he started more than 18 games in 2012 and 2014 he was horrible. His ERA/FIP/ERA+ was 4.56/4.65/92 and 5.35/4.01/75 This year he is sporting a 5.91/6.03/76 Pretty much every year Clay has either been injured 1/2 the year or a disaster in the rotation. You can not really stress enough the type of value of having consistency brings to a rotation.

I do agree that a 3 year recent sample size can be more telling than a 6 year. One caveat to the "larger the sample the better" rule is the longer you go out the more likely you are including good stats to a guy who is declining, or stats when he started out and struggled while he's in his prime. However, as with everything, context is needed. That one year Santana was hurt weighs down a 3 year sample size more than a 6 year and besides that one half season missed Santana has a remarkedly better track record than Clay. If Santana could be had for Clay, that's as about as easy a yes as you can get. I suspect it would take a bit more but Santana is an easy upgrade over Clay.

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.