Papelbon: The next Rodger Clemens?

[RedSoxVT92]

Yes this is a very big comparison but Papelbon has very good talent. If given the chance I think he will do fantastic. His fastball is very comparable to that of clemens in that it has that late life to it. It may be too early to tell but his potentiol looks great. I just wanted to see what others think.

[TheKingofKings]

Yes this is a very big comparison but Papelbon has very good talent. If given the chance I think he will do fantastic. His fastball is very comparable to that of clemens in that it has that late life to it. It may be too early to tell but his potentiol looks great. I just wanted to see what others think.

I think you are judging his Potential too HIGH and should wait 2 or 3 more seasons to make such a big comparison , SORRY !!!:(

[YOUgodofwalks]

Clemens is the best pitcher of our time and one of the best of all time, IMO, and I know I have heard many other who agree. I really hope he can be that good so he can help the Sox, but give him at least one full season of starting then re-evaluate.

[VTSoxFan]

It does seem a bit early yet, but I have heard others make the same comparison. I have also heard him compared to a young Tom Seaver.

Let us hope he lives up to his potential and these glittering predictions!

[efin98]

The consensus around Boston in the media is that he is on track to be a future Clemens, but what he needs to prove that is starts. I doubt he will get that shot this year, I think he's bound for the bullpen with Tim Wakefield until someone gets injured.

Next year is his moment in the spotlight, this year he simply breaks the ice.

[DoubleX]

I don't care how much potential Papelbon or any young pitcher might have, it's a ridiculous comparison. Clemens is arguably the greatest pitcher to ever play, and that is not a label or a comparison that you can just give to some youngster based on potential. It takes a lot more than potential to reach the heights that Clemens has reached and history has shown how easily a pitcher can become derailed, either by injury or nerves or immaturity or something else.

Papelbon is rated by Baseball America as the 37th best prospect in baseball right now. He is ranked behind 9 other pitchers, including another pitcher in the Red Sox organization - Jon Lester. So does that mean there are at least 10 potential Roger Clemenses in the making? Papelbon isn't even considered the best pitching prospect in his own organization, let alone baseball, let alone being considered the next Roger Clemens (or Tom Seaver).

[efin98]

I don't care how much potential Papelbon or any young pitcher might have, it's a ridiculous comparison. Clemens is arguably the greatest pitcher to ever live, and that is not a label or a comparison that you can just give to some youngster based on potential. It takes a lot more than potential to reach the heights that Clemens has reached and history has shown how easily a pitcher can become derailed, either by injury or nerves or immaturity or something else.

Papelbon is rated by Baseball America as the 37th best prospect in baseball right now. He is ranked behind 9 other pitchers, including another pitcher in the Red Sox organization - Jon Lester. So does that mean there are at least 10 potential Roger Clemenses in the making?Papelbon isn't even considered the best pitching prospect in his own organization, let alone baseball, let alone being considered the next Roger Clemens.

It depends on what the comparisons are being based on.

A few have made the comparison based on his mechanics and pitching style, others on his reliance on the K. From guys who know Clemens inside and out having covered his rise from a prospect to the dominating pitcher, I'd take alot of stock in that comparison- they actually know of what they speak.

[DoubleX]

It depends on what the comparisons are being based on.

A few have made the comparison based on his mechanics and pitching style, others on his reliance on the K. From guys who know Clemens inside and out having covered his rise from a prospect to the dominating pitcher, I'd take alot of stock in that comparison- they actually know of what they speak.

It's one thing to say his mechanics or his build or his moxy or some individual characteristic are similar to Clemens (there is actually a pitcher in the Yankees organization that has been given that comparison as well - Phillip Hughes), but to say at this point he's the second-coming of arguably the best pitcher ever, is a tremendous stretch. It's not that easy, and I can't see how Papelpon can be said to be a best-pitcher ever in the making when he's not even considered the best pitching prospect in baseball or in the Red Sox organization.

[efin98]

It's one thing to say his mechanics or his build or his moxy or some individual characteristic are similar to Clemens (there is actually a pitcher in the Yankees organization that has been given that comparison as well - Phillip Hughes), but to say at this point he's the second-coming of arguably the best pitcher ever, is a tremendous stretch. It's not that easy, and I can't see how Papelpon can be said to be a best-pitcher ever in the making when he's not even considered the best pitching prospect in baseball or in the Red Sox organization.

Like I said, it depends on what the comparisons are based on. With the Red Sox that comparison is not taken lightly and not thrown around unless it is meant, especially among the media.

[DoubleX]

Like I said, it depends on what the comparisons are based on. With the Red Sox that comparison is not taken lightly and not thrown around unless it is meant, especially among the media.

I feel like I've heard the comparison tossed out there a few times before while I was living in Boston. Well if people are taking this seriously, then people are getting way ahead of themselves and will almost surely be disappointed. There have been a lot of pitchers throughout the years, a lot, and there has only been one Roger Clemens. I think it's extremely presumptuous to say that at this point in his career, Papelbon even has a remote chance of being on par with Roger Clemens when all is said and done. And I'll say the same thing about any young pitcher that is being given such comparisons with any degree of seriousness.

[VTSoxFan]

I wonder, when Clemens was coming up in the system, did people say he was going to be the next Nolan Ryan, and were others scoffing at that? ;)

Time will tell.

[DoubleX]

I wonder, when Clemens was coming up in the system, did people say he was going to be the next Nolan Ryan, and were others scoffing at that? ;)

Time will tell.

I can tell you one thing - Nolan Ryan was no Roger Clemens. :)

If people want to make the comparison, that's fine, but the chances of Papelbon having a career anywhere close to Roger Clemens are probably much less than 1%.

[leecemark]

--Clemens is a once in a generation, if not once in a lifetime pitcher. The odds are very long against anyone being "the next Roger Clemens". Every year somebody is the next all time great (pick one). 99.9% of the time they don't even come close. If I was a Sox fan I'd just be hoping he is a solid starter for now and maybe an All Star in the future. He needs to actually accomplish something and show he can repeat that something before its anything short of ridiculous to compare him to Clemens.

[CuriousBoston]

I had a chance to see him first appearance Fenway. I was sold. He's ready to be a starter. I've got a really good feeling about him being a "franchise" pitcher. Note: he has younger twin brothers, now pitching at the University of North Florida.

In real life, it is too early to make this decision, perhaps call him a possible, but seeing him at Fenway decided it for me there. A group of us were comparing him to Clemens very quickly. (And hopefully.)

I like Clemens. I like Clemens in the twilight. One, two, three more "Clemens" in Boston?:clapping

[FlashGordon]

I can tell you one thing - Nolan Ryan was no Roger Clemens. :)I certainly hope that is tongue in cheek. Had Nolan Ryan played for better teams over his career, he'd probably have at least one Cy Young :crazy and certainly more than 1 ring to his credit. In his time with the Angels alone, he pitched 4 no-hitters and was the A.L. strikeout leader 7 times. Clemens has 2 20K outings, but no no-no's while Ryan had 7 over his career. What's more, to catch Ryan's strikeout record, the Rocket would have to rack up 6 more 200+ K seasons. I could go on, but then I'd have to invoke pitchers like Walter Johnson.

[Mattingly]

Who is this "Rodger" Clemens that's spoken of here? :D :p

Anyway, I think we'd need to ask in 20 years if Papelbon is the next William Roger Clemens. :crazy

Right now, I think that lacking some crystal ball, we can only compare him to Clemens at the same age.

[efin98]

Who is this "Rodger" Clemens that's spoken of here? :D :p

Anyway, I think we'd need to ask in 20 years if Papelbon is the next William Roger Clemens. :crazy

Right now, I think that lacking some crystal ball, we can only compare him to Clemens at the same age.

That's the exact comparisons I've heard from the media- he's Clemens at the same age.

[Mattingly]

That's the exact comparisons I've heard from the media- he's Clemens at the same age.
What are the media comparisons you've seen? NESN? Globe? Herald? WEEI?

If you have any links, that would be great.

I'm guessing you missed my pointing out that "Roger" was misspelled "Rodger" in this thread. Hey, Yankee fans have to be good fer summin' in here. :p :crazy

Seriously, I'll edit my comparison, since Rocket started in 1984 at age 21; Papelbon had only 1 season at age 24, an age by which that Clemens was already in his 4th season.

I think we'd have to compare by the number of years played.

[pesky6]

Whoa there, folks. Let's not get too carried away here. I think Pap has a lot of potential, but the last thing he needs is us and the freakin Boston media starting to compare him to the likeness of Clemens or Seaver. The kid's got enough to worry about just being in Boston.

[Mattingly]

Whoa there, folks. Let's not get too carried away here. I think Pap has a lot of potential, but the last thing he needs is us and the freakin Boston media starting to compare him to the likeness of Clemens or Seaver. The kid's got enough to worry about just being in Boston.
Would you compare Pap's 2005 season (his first) against Roger's 1984 season (Roger's first)?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/papeljo01.shtml
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
2005 24 BOS AL 3 1 17 3 0 0 4 0 34.0 33 11 10 4 17 34 3 1 148 2 0 2.65 4.40 166 1.471
http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml
Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP IBB BK ERA *lgERA *ERA+ WHIP
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+---+---+-----+-----+----+-----+
1984 21 BOS AL 9 4 21 20 5 1 0 0 133.3 146 67 64 13 29 126 2 4 575 3 0 4.32 4.16 96 1.312

[DoubleX]

I certainly hope that is tongue in cheek. Had Nolan Ryan played for better teams over his career, he'd probably have at least one Cy Young :crazy and certainly more than 1 ring to his credit. In his time with the Angels alone, he pitched 4 no-hitters and was the A.L. strikeout leader 7 times. Clemens has 2 20K outings, but no no-no's while Ryan had 7 over his career. What's more, to catch Ryan's strikeout record, the Rocket would have to rack up 6 more 200+ K seasons. I could go on, but then I'd have to invoke pitchers like Walter Johnson.

Ryan's ERA+: 115

Clemens' ERA+: 143

That's a world of difference. It's not even close.

You say Ryan may have one 1 Cy Young? Maybe 2? Clemens has brought home 7. Clemens has also finished in the top 5 in Cy Young voting 10 times. Ryan only 5 times, and only once as high as 2nd (Clemens has finished that at least that high 8 times).

If you want to award Ryan tons of bonus points on strikeouts, then you should also probably penalize him for also being the career leader in walks allowed, by almost an incredible 1000 walks over the next guy (Steve Carlton), and almost 1300 more than Clemens has allowed.

How about times leading the league in ERA? Ryan did it twice, and one of those was the strike year of 1981. Clemens has done it 7 times. Clemens has also finished in the top 5 in ERA 12 times. Ryan only 5 times.

Clemens also has an MVP award and another 3rd place finish. Ryan never finished better than 14th in the MVP voting (Clemens finished higher than that 8 times).

We can move on to WHIP. Ryan led the league twice, finished in the top 5 five times, and does not rank in the top 100 all-time in WHIP. Clemens has led the league three times, ten times in the top 5, and is sixth all-time in WHIP.

Ryan was a tremendous and very dominating pitcher, especially in 7 specific games, but over his career, or even the span of a season, he is nowhere near Clemens' level, and IMO, is probably one of the most overrated pitchers ever.

Clemens has a good argument for best ever, Ryan sits probably around 20 (the best I can actually see him is 18th, and I can see good arguments for him dropping to 22nd at best).

So you know what the difference between Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens really is? Ryan could dominate games, Clemens could dominate seasons.

[KCGHOST]

At this point in his career Clemens had won 60 games. Papelbon is at 3. No comparison nor any reason to make a comparison.

[Mike D.]

The comparision is asking a lot...but what thrills me is that the Sox finally have a group of solid pitching prospects. After Clemens, the Sox went a LONG time without developing any pitchers of merit, with the best of the lot being probably Sele and Pavano. In between, there was a bunch of guys who were prospects almost by default, not by talent.

Now we have Papelbon and Leister, plus a bunch of other young arms...both in the pen and the rotation. What a great place to be. This regime is everything the previous ones weren't...being smart about getting and keeping picks (offering arbitration to guys you know will walk, etc), making smart choices in the draft, and hanging onto the bulk of your young talent.

The next few years in Boston are going to be a lot of fun to watch, that's for sure!

[Captain Cold Nose]

The name I remember hearing in regards to a young Clemens was Seaver, not Ryan.

[pesky6]

At this point in his career Clemens had won 60 games. Papelbon is at 3. No comparison nor any reason to make a comparison.

I don't understand what you mean, unless you're talking about where they were at their respective age. So you're going to penalize Pap because he came up at a later age than Clemens? After one season, Clemens won 9 and Pap 3. That's a 6 game difference.

Again, I'm not ready to compare the two, but at least take what I said into consideration.

[Edgartohof]

So you're going to penalize Pap because he came up at a later age than Clemens?

I wouldn't nessecarily penalize Pap for it, but I sure give Clemens props for being ready for the bigs THREE year earlier than Papelbon, and if they are going to be compared to each other, then yes, age does play a factor. I haven't seen Pap pitch, so I dont' have much to go on, other than a minute stat line where he pitched 30+ innings. He pitched them very well, but that is only 30 some odd innings, not 100, 200, 1,000, let alone nearly 5,000.

Few will ever be as good as Clemens, few will shine as bright, and few will last as long, but if Pap is one of those few, then were are all in for a special treat, but even if he doesn't live up to those expectations, he could still be a great pitcher, it's just that the bar is set REALLY high when comparing him to Clemens.

[KCGHOST]

I don't understand what you mean, unless you're talking about where they were at their respective age. So you're going to penalize Pap because he came up at a later age than Clemens? After one season, Clemens won 9 and Pap 3. That's a 6 game difference.

Age, as any scout or performance analyst will tell you, is a killer issue. Clemens was able to get to the bigs at age 21 and had moderate success. Papelbon didn't reach that the bigs, for whatever reason, until he was 24. That is a big, big, deal. Through age 24 Clemens had 105 appearance, 104 starts, and 766 IP's. Papelbon has 17 appearances, 3 starts, and 34 IP's.

Anybody who can look at those numbers and say Papelbon is the next Clemens is not engaging in rational thought. Hoping Papelbon is pans out as a good pitcher is fine, but thinking he is on a path to be as good as Clemens is a gross disregard for the information at hand.

[DoubleX]

Any Sox fans know what the word is on Jon Lester? Baseball America actually rates him higher than Papelbon, but he is not projected to impact the Sox until 2007.

[RedSoxVT92]

Any Sox fans know what the word is on Jon Lester? Baseball America actually rates him higher than Papelbon, but he is not projected to impact the Sox until 2007.

Jon Lester was picked in the 2nd round (57th overall) of the 2002 draft. Last year in AA portland he posted a 11-6 record, 2.61 ERA and 163 strike outs in 26 games with 148.1 innings. He apparently has very good control. The scouting report says that his fast ball can go to the mid 90's, very good change up and a 11 to 5 curveball. He's on the 40 man roster right now. One of our top pitching prospects.

[FlashGordon]

Ryan was a tremendous and very dominating pitcher, especially in 7 specific games, but over his career, or even the span of a season, he is nowhere near Clemens' level, and IMO, is probably one of the most overrated pitchers ever.

Clemens has a good argument for best ever, Ryan sits probably around 20 (the best I can actually see him is 18th, and I can see good arguments for him dropping to 22nd at best).

So you know what the difference between Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens really is? Ryan could dominate games, Clemens could dominate seasons.As someone who grew up idolizing Clemens, I have no intention of arguing that Nolan Ryan is better than the Rocketman. That said, given the entire pantheon of pitchers to ever take the mound and those with talents that flamed out much too early, I still say arguing that Nolan Ryan is nowhere near Clemens' league is a bit too skewed and lacks some perspective. A man doesn't stay in the game for as long as Ryan because he is a perennial "also ran".

I do agree that Roger Clemens is something special and any time someone tries to draw comparisons with him, especially at the beginning of a career, there is little more at work than wishful thinking. Still, one can draw parallels to certain aspects of his role in the game without necessarily trying to lay claim to the entire package. If Papelbon's pitching style reminds some in the media of the young, cocky Roger Clemens, trying to twist such comparisons into an early prediction of monolithic greatness belies the fact that at one time, Roger Clemens was an unknown quantity who rested on his laurels to the point that he was branded "in the twillight of his career." He's had ups and downs, although certainly many more ups.

I don't believe that anyone is trying to claim that Papelbon, or Nolan Ryan for that matter, collectively represents a rival to Clemens' iconic legacy. Nolan Ryan certainly draws comparisons regarding durability over the long haul and represented a steady presence in the rotation. He holds many achievements that Roger doesn't, even if the balance is tipped in Clemens' favor. He deserves to stand head and shoulders above the crowd for his accomplishments and shouldn't be lightly shrugged off because he isn't Roger Clemens.

[pesky6]

Age, as any scout or performance analyst will tell you, is a killer issue. Clemens was able to get to the bigs at age 21 and had moderate success. Papelbon didn't reach that the bigs, for whatever reason, until he was 24. That is a big, big, deal. Through age 24 Clemens had 105 appearance, 104 starts, and 766 IP's. Papelbon has 17 appearances, 3 starts, and 34 IP's.

Anybody who can look at those numbers and say Papelbon is the next Clemens is not engaging in rational thought. Hoping Papelbon is pans out as a good pitcher is fine, but thinking he is on a path to be as good as Clemens is a gross disregard for the information at hand.

Of course age is a killer issue, and if a player gets brought up before he's ready, then it's going to kill him. There's a reason why Pap wasn't brought up until he was 24. I don't see why it's such a big deal. You also have to remember that Clemens pitched for Texas and wasn't in the minors for very long.

Like I've already said, it's unfair to compare Pap to Clemens, but certainly not because of where they were in their respective careers by age 24.

[DoubleX]

As someone who grew up idolizing Clemens, I have no intention of arguing that Nolan Ryan is better than the Rocketman. That said, given the entire pantheon of pitchers to ever take the mound and those with talents that flamed out much too early, I still say arguing that Nolan Ryan is nowhere near Clemens' league is a bit too skewed and lacks some perspective. A man doesn't stay in the game for as long as Ryan because he is a perennial "also ran".

I do agree that Roger Clemens is something special and any time someone tries to draw comparisons with him, especially at the beginning of a career, there is little more at work than wishful thinking. Still, one can draw parallels to certain aspects of his role in the game without necessarily trying to lay claim to the entire package. If Papelbon's pitching style reminds some in the media of the young, cocky Roger Clemens, trying to twist such comparisons into an early prediction of monolithic greatness belies the fact that at one time, Roger Clemens was an unknown quantity who rested on his laurels to the point that he was branded "in the twillight of his career." He's had ups and downs, although certainly many more ups.

I don't believe that anyone is trying to claim that Papelbon, or Nolan Ryan for that matter, collectively represents a rival to Clemens' iconic legacy. Nolan Ryan certainly draws comparisons regarding durability over the long haul and represented a steady presence in the rotation. He holds many achievements that Roger doesn't, even if the balance is tipped in Clemens' favor. He deserves to stand head and shoulders above the crowd for his accomplishments and shouldn't be lightly shrugged off because he isn't Roger Clemens.

My point was that a lot of people automatically assume that Ryan is at the very top of all-time pitchers. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, he is, but he's probably a good 15-20 spots behind Clemens in the all-time rankings and that makes a huge difference. I think most people automatically assume Ryan is among the 5-10 best, and that's why I think he's generally overrated. I don't mean to slight Ryan, great pitcher, extremely dominant, but he was no Roger Clemens. That is just my opinion, but it also one that seems to be commonly held on these boards in the history and hall of fame sections.

[FlashGordon]

My point was that a lot of people automatically assume that Ryan is at the very top of all-time pitchers. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, he is, but he's probably a good 15-20 spots behind Clemens in the all-time rankings and that makes a huge difference. I think most people automatically assume Ryan is among the 5-10 best, and that's why I think he's generally overrated. I don't mean to slight Ryan, great pitcher, extremely dominant, but he was no Roger Clemens. That is just my opinion, but it also one that seems to be commonly held on these boards in the history and hall of fame sections.It is worth noting that around here, Roger Clemens is as much remembered for the last 4 years in a Red Sox uniform (over which he never won more than 11 games and twice finished the year with an ERA over 4.00) as he is for his 20 K outings. Not to mention that he had developed a reputation as a man who could pitch well during the regular season, but could never seal the deal in big games, especially post-season.

It's also worth noting that between 1972 and 1977, Ryan threw 20+ CGs per season 4 TIMES, including back-to-back years of 26 CGs (1973-74). Over that same 2 year period, he started 80 games, pitched 658 2/3 innings, and still had an ERA of 2.88 and from 1971 to 1991 he started fewer than 26 games in a single season only once--21 games in 1981. It would be interesting (if only from an academic perspective) to imagine what kind of career he could have had if he had the kind of bullpen support throughout that Roger has had. But that will always be the "what if" discussion that would have to invite comparisons with Satchel Paige, for example.

[DoubleX]

It is worth noting that around here, Roger Clemens is as much remembered for the last 4 years in a Red Sox uniform (over which he never won more than 11 games and twice finished the year with an ERA over 4.00) as he is for his 20 K outings. Not to mention that he had developed a reputation as a man who could pitch well during the regular season, but could never seal the deal in big games, especially post-season.

It's also worth noting that between 1972 and 1977, Ryan threw 20+ CGs per season 4 TIMES, including back-to-back years of 26 CGs (1973-74). Over that same 2 year period, he started 80 games, pitched 658 2/3 innings, and still had an ERA of 2.88 and from 1971 to 1991 he started fewer than 26 games in a single season only once--21 games in 1981. It would be interesting (if only from an academic perspective) to imagine what kind of career he could have had if he had the kind of bullpen support throughout that Roger has had. But that will always be the "what if" discussion that would have to invite comparisons with Satchel Paige, for example.

I say again:

Ryan's ERA+ 115

Clemens' ERA+ 143

It's night and day. Sure bullpen help and fewer innings would have helped Ryan to a degree, but it's very unlikely he'd be able to make up that much ground.

Also, it's not like Ryan was a huge exception in terms of the amount of innings and complete games he was throwing. He was a product of his time. Seaver, Blyleven, Perry, Niekro, Palmer, Jenkins, Hunter, Lolich, Sutton, Tiant, John, Kaat, Blue, they all pitched lots of innings during their primes with lots of complete games, so Ryan really wasn't some kind of special exception.

If you're judging Clemens by only his last four years in Boston, then you've missed appreciating a true great. As for his postseason woes, he has struggled at times, but in the World Series, when the stakes are the highest, his ERA is 2.37 in 50 IP. That's pretty darn impressive on the highest stage.

Instead of distracting from this thread anymore, which should be about Papelbon and Clemens, I'll start a new thread in the History section just for Clemens and Ryan. That way we can also up the conversation to more of the board.

[ricky151]

.Papebloom does not deserver to be mentioned in the same sentence as Clemens. The kind of young kids coming out that you would even think of mentioning with Clemens are guys with so much young talent like, Felix Hernandez, or Josh Beckette, Mark Prior, Kerry Wood before they entered the majors. Lets not get to carried away I ranked the best young starters that have 1 year or less experience and Papebloom is not on the list I afraid

1. felix hernandez
2. mat cain
3. fansico lariano
4. zack duke
5. justin verlander


sorry no papebloom on the top five,,, i hope you were kidding about clemens

[DoubleX]

.Papebloom does not deserver to be mentioned in the same sentence as Clemens. The kind of young kids coming out that you would even think of mentioning with Clemens are guys with so much young talent like, Felix Hernandez, or Josh Beckette, Mark Prior, Kerry Wood before they entered the majors. Lets not get to carried away I ranked the best young starters that have 1 year or less experience and Papebloom is not on the list I afraid

1. felix hernandez
2. mat cain
3. fansico lariano
4. zack duke
5. justin verlander


sorry no papebloom on the top five,,, i hope you were kidding about clemens

Some nice choices there.

Here's how Baseball America ranks pitching prospects going into this season (in parentheses is their overall ranking among all prospects). (Here's also a link to the Baseball America Rankings (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/060223top100c.html)):

1) Francisco Liriano - Twins (6th Overall)
2) Chad Billingsley - Dodgers (7th Overall)
3) Justin Verlander - Tigers (8th Overall)
4) Matt Cain - Giants (10th Overall)
5) Jon Lester - Red Sox (22nd Overall)
6) Bobby Jenks - White Sox (24th Overall)
7) Scott Olsen - Marlins (34th Overall)
8) Joel Zumaya - Tigers (35th Overall)
9) Mike Pelfrey - Mets (36th Overall)
10) Jonathan Papelbon - Red Sox (37th Overall)
11) Homer Bailey - Reds (38th Overall)
12) Philip Hughes - Yankees (39th Overall)
13) Anibal Sanchez - Marlins (40th Overall)
14) Anthony Reyes - Cardinals (41st Overall)
15) Mark Rogers - Brewers (44th Overall)
16) Adam Loewen - Orioles (45th Overall)
17) Adam Miller - Indians (47th Overall)
18) Dustin McGowan - Blue Jays (48th Overall)
19) Jason Hirsh - Astros (52nd Overall)
20) Craig Hansen - Red Sox (54th Overall)
21) Scott Elbert - Dodgers (55th Overall)
22) Edison Volquez - Rangers (56th Overall)
23) Jered Weaver - Angels (57th Overall)
24) John Danks - Rangers (59th Overall)
25) Troy Patton - Astros (62nd Overall)
26) Jonathan Broxton - Dogers (63rd Overall)
27) Dustin Nippert - Diamondbacks (67th Overall)
28) Cole Hamels - Phillies (68th Overall)
29) Yusmeiro Petit - Marlins (69th Overall)
30) Jeff Niemann - Devil Rays (70th Overall)
31) Thomas Diamond - Rangers (72nd Overall)
32) Gio Gonzalez - Phillies (73rd Overall)
33) Jason Hammel - Devil Rays (79th Overall)
34) Josh Johnson - Marlins (80th Overall)
35) Hayden Penn - Orioles (81st Overall)
36) Mark Pawelek - Cubs (85th Overall)
37) Ricky Romero - Blue Jays (87th Overall)
38) Cesar Carrillo - Padres (88th Overall)
39) Nick Adenhart - Angels (90th Overall)
40) Glen Perksin - Twins (91st Overall)
41) Anthony Lerew - Braves (93rd Overall)
42) Tom Gorzelanny - Pirates (95th Overall)
43) Chris Volstad - Marlins (97th Overall)
44) Chuck James - Braves (98th Overall)
45) Anthony Swarzak - Twins (100th Overall)

Don't know why Hernandez and Duke aren't included, I guess they're already considered Major Leaguers, otherwise they'd both be in the top 5 of pitchers, pushing Papelbon back to 12th among young pitching prospects.

[pesky6]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I didn't notice anyone (except for the poll mentioned by the thread starter) who suggested that Pap is the 2nd coming of Roger Clemens. Why is everyone's panties in a bind over this?

[DoubleX]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I didn't notice anyone (except for the poll mentioned by the thread starter) who suggested that Pap is the 2nd coming of Roger Clemens. Why is everyone's panties in a bind over this?

Because that's part of the fun on these type of boards - making a big deal about nothing for the sake of discussion/argument? :)

[SoxSon]

Because that's part of the fun on these type of boards - making a big deal about nothing for the sake of discussion/argument? :)

Yes, but I think pesky has a point on this one. Something here strikes a special kind of nerve. Those poo-pooing the idea are doing so with some bitter gusto. ("Bitter gusto" is actually nice with a fine merlot.)

[Mattingly]

Yes, but I think pesky has a point on this one. Something here strikes a special kind of nerve. Those poo-pooing the idea are doing so with some bitter gusto. ("Bitter gusto" is actually nice with a fine merlot.)
You people are getting way too fancy. My simple reply to this question is the same as when the Mets said they had some "Japanese Greg Maddux" on the way. Sounds nice, but how often do you get luck like that?

For comparing to Clemens, he's arguably the finest product out of the Boston farm, arguably even against "Cy 511" himself.

That said, the answer would be a simple "no", taken with a pair of walking shoes to the next thread in Red Sawx Nation. :D :p

[DoubleX]

For comparing to Clemens, he's arguably the finest product out of the Boston farm, arguably even against "Cy 511" himself.

If you want to get technical Mattingly, Young was actually a product of the Cleveland Spiders. He played 9 seasons when then, then 2 with the Cardinals, before he had his 8 with the Sox. He also probably wasn't a farm system product since teams didn't really have minor league affiliates back then. :)