Gene Honda Civic Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 Also, Bradford is in fact a stud. He is an awesome specialist, and thats exactly his role. So what if lefties smack him? Having bradford in our 'pen right now would be a helluvan upgrade over say shingo or wunsch or jackson... just read the book, look at his stats. Dont pass judgements about people or things before you know the whole story. Reddy, get off of Billy Beane's knob -- Shingo as a righty specialtist, has rigthies hitting at a .091 clip against him, with an OPS of .221 Bradford as a righty specialist, has righties hitting at a .276 clip against him, with an OPS of .704 Clearly Bradford is the guy those obscure stats tell me is more valuable. Bradford is even being paid more money than is Shingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 I dont see how he can be overrated if his team is been on top of the league in a small market city for the last 3-5 years... He is not overrated but he has three of the top pitchers in the American League. If he was a genius or even a great GM he would have gotten out of the first round of the playoffs by now. His teams will beat mediocore teams to death and lose to comparable or weaker teams in the playoffs. Didn't his team lose to the Twins a couple of years back? He has three guys that would be our number one, it is much easier to lose guys like Tejada, Giambi and Foulke when you have Mulder, Zito and Hudson. I think anyone that agrees to have a book written about how great they are has a bit of little mans disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 At the time, Foulke needed to go. I was at the game 2 years ago when Foulke blew it against the Yankees at home. I beleive it was 4-1 Sox, and Foulke blew it. That basically ended the season, and it was time for a change. The Koch deal looked good at the time, and like SouthSide said, we got Cotts, which could end up being HUGE. Not a horrible trade. I dont think there is anyway in hell Foulke would have been here now anyway. absolutely it was time for Foulke to have a new home - without regards to right or wrong, sometimes it just is better for a player to move on to a new team and Foulke's time was then. For his sake, for ours. I love discussions of Bradford. He played a key role in our losing Game 1 of the 2000 playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 there's nothing any GM can do to WIN the playoffs, a GM's job is to get to the playoffs, end of story, it's the teams job from then on out, because at that point stats are irrelevant because anyone can do anything. This being the case, Beane is a great GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I personally think Beane is overrated. And I read Moneyball. I just don't take everything I read as gospel. The point that was made about the 3 stud pitchers is a valid one, but he's about to run out of time with those guys. They'll be hitting the arbitration-free agent years soon. Now, will Harden and Blanton be able to step in and fill those slots? That remains to be seen. People used to complain about KW's overseeing of the clubhouse and dugout. Well, Beane's and egotistical control freak based on what Moneyball portrayed him, if you read between the lines. Chad Bradford has been decent to very good over the course of his tenure with the A's, but Olivo has a chance to be the AL starting All-Star catcher for the next 5 years. I'll take that potential over what Bradford has accomplished with Oakland. For the record, Moneyball was written by Michael Lewis (I think I have his name right) and not Billy Beane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 He's not called Billy Caesar for nothing, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzietheairedale Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 You mean, a one-year rental of Keith Foulke. KW screwed up by not checking into the health of Koch's arm, for sure, but if we get the 2001-2002 version of Koch when the trade was made, then we're probably in the playoffs last year, and we have at least one more win so far this season. Closers aren't worth what the Red Sox paid Foulke, and that's why KW traded him away. Are you serious? Foulke's numbers last year were 9-1, 2.08 ERA with 43 saves. This year so far he is 1-0, 0.60 ERA with 5 saves. He is worth every dime the Red Sox are paying him. We have Foulke last year, we win the division. Who knows how far we go into the playoffs. I would give up Cotts and Koch for the division last year any day. I can't believe anybody would try to justify giving up Keith Foulke because we got Neil Cotts. Neil Cotts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Are you serious? Foulke's numbers last year were 9-1, 2.08 ERA with 43 saves. This year so far he is 1-0, 0.60 ERA with 5 saves. He is worth every dime the Red Sox are paying him. We have Foulke last year, we win the division. Who knows how far we go into the playoffs. I would give up Cotts and Koch for the division last year any day. I can't believe anybody would try to justify giving up Keith Foulke because we got Neil Cotts. Neil Cotts? You aren't understanding the arguement. Foulke wouldn't have resigned here. Getting Cotts and Koch for a one year rental is worth it. KW wouldn't have paid that much for a reliever, not to mention the length of the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Are you serious? Foulke's numbers last year were 9-1, 2.08 ERA with 43 saves. This year so far he is 1-0, 0.60 ERA with 5 saves. He is worth every dime the Red Sox are paying him. We have Foulke last year, we win the division. Who knows how far we go into the playoffs. I would give up Cotts and Koch for the division last year any day. I can't believe anybody would try to justify giving up Keith Foulke because we got Neil Cotts. Neil Cotts? Keith Foulke has 5 saves, and a .60 ERA, and he makes 3.5 million this year. Jose Mesa has 9 saves, a .79 ERA, and makes $800,000. And that is why you don't give closers huge contracts, it's unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Jose Mesa has 9 saves, a .79 ERA, and makes $800,000. He's still around and that effective?! Go Joe! (Just hope he sucks if/when the Sox are up against him lol.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzietheairedale Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 You aren't understanding the arguement. Foulke wouldn't have resigned here. Getting Cotts and Koch for a one year rental is worth it. KW wouldn't have paid that much for a reliever, not to mention the length of the contract. No you aren't understanding the argument. I'm talking about last year. Having Foulke last year would have won the division for us. I will take the division (and possibly the pennant) and give back Cotts' future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzietheairedale Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 Keith Foulke has 5 saves, and a .60 ERA, and he makes 3.5 million this year. Jose Mesa has 9 saves, a .79 ERA, and makes $800,000. And that is why you don't give closers huge contracts, it's unnecessary. As far as this year, we'll wait and see. My suspicion, however, is that Joe Table will be sitting at home in October with the last place Pirates and Foulke will very possibly be playing in the first World Series game in Boston in 80 years. Will he be worth 3.5 million then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 No you aren't understanding the argument. I'm talking about last year. Having Foulke last year would have won the division for us. I will take the division (and possibly the pennant) and give back Cotts' future. We would not have signed Foulke. Period. There is no point in making the arugement that Foulke would have won us the division, as much as their is in saying Bonds, Tejada, Schilling, and Gagne would have won us the division, because they all had the same chances of being on this team, none. Foulke wasn't going to be here because he burned his bridges with management, and he wanted a big long extension. And you weren't just speaking of 2003, because you mentioned his 2004 stats and what the Red Sox were paying him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 No you aren't understanding the argument. I'm talking about last year. Having Foulke last year would have won the division for us. I will take the division (and possibly the pennant) and give back Cotts' future. I completely agree that you play for now, and worry about the future later, but the Sox thought they were making a lateral move, quality-wise, by getting Koch. I've said that KW dropped the ball by not looking deeper into Koch's arm health, but if you could get one closer for 2-3 years plus a minor league starter in exchange for a closer for one season, and a crap catcher(didn't Mark Johnson get sent over in that deal?), wouldn't you pull the trigger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzietheairedale Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 We would not have signed Foulke. Period. There is no point in making the arugement that Foulke would have won us the division, as much as their is in saying Bonds, Tejada, Schilling, and Gagne would have won us the division, because they all had the same chances of being on this team, none. Foulke wasn't going to be here because he burned his bridges with management, and he wanted a big long extension. And you weren't just speaking of 2003, because you mentioned his 2004 stats and what the Red Sox were paying him. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. Foulke was traded to the As with 1 year left on his contract. He would have played for the Sox last year. I agree he may not have stayed here this year, but who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 As far as this year, we'll wait and see. My suspicion, however, is that Joe Table will be sitting at home in October with the last place Pirates and Foulke will very possibly be playing in the first World Series game in Boston in 80 years. Will he be worth 3.5 million then? You can't use that as evidence that Foulke is worth the money he got. The Red Sox are more likely to go to the Series because their WHOLE TEAM is good. Remember, they were only a few outs away from going last season, and that's when they had no real closer at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzietheairedale Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 You can't use that as evidence that Foulke is worth the money he got. The Red Sox are more likely to go to the Series because their WHOLE TEAM is good. Remember, they were only a few outs away from going last season, and that's when they had no real closer at all. That's EXACTLY my point. :banghead If they had the same team last year and came up short because "they had no real closer at all", isn't it worth 3.5 million dollars more to go to the World Series? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 FYI the Foulke contract. This year he cost them $4.5 million-$3mil in salary plus $1.5 in a signing bonus. But it is the next few years that get very expensive. Foulke's contract guarantees him $20.25 million if the deal ends after three seasons. He gets a $1.5 million signing bonus, $3 million next season, $7 million in 2005 and $7.25 million in 2006. The Red Sox have a $7.5 million option for 2007 with a $1.5 million buyout. If the team elects to give him the buyout, Foulke gets a $3.75 million player option. The option would become guaranteed if Foulke finishes 45 games in each of the first three seasons or a total of 95 games in 2005 and 2006, and if he finishes at least 53 games in 2006, the price increases to $7.75 million. The option also becomes Foulke's at $7.75 million if he finishes in the top five in Cy Young Award voting in any of the first three seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 That's EXACTLY my point. :banghead If they had the same team last year and came up short because "they had no real closer at all", isn't it worth 3.5 million dollars more to go to the World Series? The reason they blew it last year had NOTHING to do with their lack of a defined closer. And we all know how Foulke handles big games against the Yankees........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzietheairedale Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 The reason they blew it last year had NOTHING to do with their lack of a defined closer. And we all know how Foulke handles big games against the Yankees........ I looked up the stats... Foulke converted 43 of 48 save opportunities last year. Kim, Lyon and Timlin had the majority of save opportunities for the BoSox and converted 27 of 37. There were another 8 blown saves by others on the staff. The BoSox ended up 6 games out of first place. Sounds to me like the reason the BoSox gave Foulke all that money was because they thought that the lack of a closer had EVERYTHING to do with why they failed last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 And we all know how Foulke handles big games against the Yankees........ If Koch, Shingo and Politte could hold Yankees down, I think Keith will manage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Socks Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Back to Uribe................... I said in ST that Uribe would win the shortstop job in one month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 If Koch, Shingo and Politte could hold Yankees down, I think Keith will manage. Foulke never could seem to nail down the BIG games when he was with us. I don't expect that to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Foulke never could seem to nail down the BIG games when he was with us. I don't expect that to change. Simply not true. Unless one thinks May games against the Yankees are "big". What was his record against the Indians in 2000 and 2001? I remember him blowing a game in Minnesota in 2001 simply because rangeless wonder Konerko failed to field 2 infield bouncers in the 9th...He ended up with 42 saves in 45 chances and a low ERA and whip. In 2002 he was Kennified, in exile basically. Still had a pretty damn good season. He was again stellar with Oakland, made an All-Star game. No, he wasn't Gagne, Wagner or Rivera, but he was one of the TOP 5 closers in baseball in the last 4 years. Boston couldn't be happier with him right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Back to Uribe................... I said in ST that Uribe would win the shortstop job in one month. Oh yeah? How did you know? Did you flip a coin or something? Because he put up a 285 OBP in 2002 and a 295 OBP up last year. I'd say that he pretty much came out of nowhere, and when people say that they somehow knew in that "I Told You So" type of manner, I think of that "Real Men Of Genius" commercial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.