June 10, 200421 yr Sorry to call you out on this but the Foulke trade is still not a bad trade for 2 reasons: 1) We would of lost Foulke anyway so we would be in the same boat regardless. 2) We got Neil Cotts out of it, who will settle down to be solid out of the pen again and will end up being a good starter for us in the future, hopefully this next spring. Koch might suck but in the big picture this trade won't turn out to be so bad. Calling you out in return, but not in a mean way. This trade basically cost us the AL Central crown last year. So, yes, it was a VERY bad trade,
June 10, 200421 yr Sorry to call you out on this but the Foulke trade is still not a bad trade for 2 reasons: 1) We would of lost Foulke anyway so we would be in the same boat regardless. 2) We got Neil Cotts out of it, who will settle down to be solid out of the pen again and will end up being a good starter for us in the future, hopefully this next spring. Koch might suck but in the big picture this trade won't turn out to be so bad. The Foulke trade IS a bad trade for the two reasons you just gave: 1) The Sox SHOULD have re-signed Foulke - I don't know how you know that we COULDN'T. 2) So far, Cotts has done nothing to justify giving up on Foulke. A good question would be "Would you trade Cotts and Koch for Foulke today"? The obvious answer is yes, yes, yes. Hell, I'd throw Crede in for good measure.
June 10, 200421 yr The Foulke trade IS a bad trade for the two reasons you just gave: 1) The Sox SHOULD have re-signed Foulke - I don't know how you know that we COULDN'T. 2) So far, Cotts has done nothing to justify giving up on Foulke. A good question would be "Would you trade Cotts and Koch for Foulke today"? The obvious answer is yes, yes, yes. Hell, I'd throw Crede in for good measure. I agree with you on this one, Ozzie. Good post.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.