PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus' thoughts on the trade...


MarkEdward
12-03-2002, 04:32 PM
Under the Thome stuff (don't know if this has been posted yet):

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20021203daily.shtml

What a bad trade.

ode to veeck
12-03-2002, 04:40 PM
Keith Foulke rules. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise -- the line that he "was a closer who lost his job for most of the year" overlooks entirely the fact that he was taken out of the role not because he sucked, but because he had a couple of bad outings in a row and his manager was stupid.


I can't disagree with this article on its rating of JM's abilities, but the author's way off the mark cause Foulke was taken out of the role because he sucked, not just a couple of bad outings, try more like 8-10 real scary outings and 5-6 outright disasters.

I'll miss Foulke cause he was a class act, but for me his 2nd half numbers are pretty meaningless, he wasn't closing and the season was over three times over (need we be reminded of Choice's great 2nd halfs)

jeremyb1
12-03-2002, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Under the Thome stuff (don't know if this has been posted yet):

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20021203daily.shtml

What a bad trade.

we've become a wipping boy for the bp people for obvious reasons. i don't think there's anyway oakland decides to start foulke. they already have a number of strong starters and a void at closer now. it will be intersting to see their analysis about why they dislike koch so much. i don't think he's better than foulke but i'm not sure he's terrible or anything. overrated maybe.

kermittheefrog
12-03-2002, 04:53 PM
I think the Sox have earned their spot as BP whipping boy. It hurts to care so much about a team so FRIGGIN CLUELESS. I wanna punch a hole in my wall.

oldcomiskey
12-03-2002, 05:57 PM
Im sorry but I dont see this trade as awful---Keith while a GOOD closer isnt the best---neither is Koch---but my point being Foulke wasnt going to be our closer for long anyway---let him start for Oakland and watch him get shelled after 2 innings like he did here...the damn idiot who wrote the column doesnt know of what he speaks---Jesus guys--youre on Manuel for leaving him in longer than an inning--then agreeing with a morn about him being a good starter----I dont see it--and I still say Boomer did his job here--exept for the blowup about Frank--dont even try to tell Me that Burly and Garland make huge strides without him and Alomar

Zednem700
12-03-2002, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
Im sorry but I dont see this trade as awful---Keith while a GOOD closer isnt the best---neither is Koch---but my point being Foulke wasnt going to be our closer for long anyway---let him start for Oakland and watch him get shelled after 2 innings like he did here...the damn idiot who wrote the column doesnt know of what he speaks---Jesus guys--youre on Manuel for leaving him in longer than an inning--then agreeing with a morn about him being a good starter----I dont see it--and I still say Boomer did his job here--exept for the blowup about Frank--dont even try to tell Me that Burly and Garland make huge strides without him and Alomar


Umm, there is a big difference between being ready to pitch an inning or more everyday, and having to pitch five or more every 5. For this reason it is foolish at best to use Keith's long outings as a reliever to prove that he couldn't cut it as a starter. Once again, look at Lowe.

I am willing to guarantee that B and G would have done well without fat man and the injured catcher. I really don't believe the, veteran leaders teaching the young guys how to pitch, garbage. Major league players have had access to years of top notch coaching. I can't see how that stuff is less important that a veteran who tells the youngster to "pitch tough" and "never give up." It seems laughable.

Oh yeah and anyone who thinks Sandy Alomar jr. helped B and G develop is on crack. Cleveland didn't develop a single solid young pitcher wih Alomar behind the plate despite plenty of tries. If a catcher really helps a pitcher pitch better (and there is almost no evidence of this) than why didn' Alomar use this skill earlier in his career? Did he learn this skill only after smoking the magic veteran leader pipe weed with boomer and royce?

jeremyb1
12-03-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
Umm, there is a big difference between being ready to pitch an inning or more everyday, and having to pitch five or more every 5. For this reason it is foolish at best to use Keith's long outings as a reliever to prove that he couldn't cut it as a starter. Once again, look at Lowe.

I am willing to guarantee that B and G would have done well without fat man and the injured catcher. I really don't believe the, veteran leaders teaching the young guys how to pitch, garbage. Major league players have had access to years of top notch coaching. I can't see how that stuff is less important that a veteran who tells the youngster to "pitch tough" and "never give up." It seems laughable.

Oh yeah and anyone who thinks Sandy Alomar jr. helped B and G develop is on crack. Cleveland didn't develop a single solid young pitcher wih Alomar behind the plate despite plenty of tries. If a catcher really helps a pitcher pitch better (and there is almost no evidence of this) than why didn' Alomar use this skill earlier in his career? Did he learn this skill only after smoking the magic veteran leader pipe weed with boomer and royce?

also if you look both garland and buehrle tended to throw better games when johnson was catching instead of alomar.

34 Inch Stick
12-04-2002, 10:06 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I very well may be, but didn't Colon and Nagy develop during Sandy's time. In addition, Wright was developing before he was injured. I agree that the arms were great and there may be no correlation between his presence and their development but he was there.

oldcomiskey
12-05-2002, 06:01 PM
proof enough for you I hope---look guys HES GONE--so is Ray Ray--I suppose you want JB back as well

ChiSoxBobette
12-05-2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Under the Thome stuff (don't know if this has been posted yet):

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20021203daily.shtml

What a bad trade.
Who is this writer Billy Beanes girlfreind, Keith Foulke rules come on, everytime the guy went out there early last year he was lit up. I'm pretty tired of hearing about billyboy beane, I know our G.M. is a goof and I know the Sox did'nt have the year that was expected of them , but what have the A's done and now there going to be a better team by getting rid of Billy Koch and getting Keith Foulke, Koch was one of the A.L.'s best releivers last year and has a pretty good fast ball Foulke has a trick pitch that everyone in the A.L. finally found out that all they had to do was lay off it. maybe Mark Johnson will lead the A's to the world series. Like I said if the flubs had made this deal every Sox fan would be moaning that we did'nt get Billy Koch and every flub fan would be lining up to get their world series tickets. Whoever the guy is you can bet he's not a White Sox fan and is in love with beane, who in my opinion dumping all of these players because of salaries and then thinking he's going to catch lightning in a bottle every year well as in the past with our White Sox doing that finally catches up with you.

GO WHITE SOX

oldcomiskey
12-05-2002, 09:06 PM
First of all I want to explain something to you.. One is the media is a bunch of butt kissers--you live in CHICAGO and you dont know this--everytime I hear buck jr--it makes me want to vomit---him and Mccarver--who USED to be pretty good kissed Barry Bonds on the lips--it makes me sick

I told you once--HE IS GONE--live with it

hold2dibber
12-05-2002, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
Foulke has a trick pitch that everyone in the A.L. finally found out that all they had to do was lay off it.

Foulke's post-All Star Break ERA was less than 1.00.

Tragg
12-05-2002, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Under the Thome stuff (don't know if this has been posted yet):

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20021203daily.shtml

What a bad trade.

Foulke is a better pitcher statistically than Koch. Then Kenny Williams includes extra players and can't even negotiate the extra players he gets in return. He's an incredibly weak negotiator and a poor judge of talent: aka an incompetent.

Jerry_Manuel
12-05-2002, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Foulke's post-All Star Break ERA was less than 1.00.

Good for him.

He was used well and it worked out for him.

Now he will be back in the closer's role, and will have the pressure back on him. Hope he has fun seeing a lot of Seattle, Texas, and the World Champs.

Ventura23Fan
12-06-2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Hope he has fun seeing a lot of Seattle, Texas, and the World Champs.

Keith's combined ERA over the last four years against those teams is 2.81. Koch's combined ERA over the last four years against those teams is 4.68.

RichH55
12-06-2002, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
Foulke is a better pitcher statistically than Koch. Then Kenny Williams includes extra players and can't even negotiate the extra players he gets in return. He's an incredibly weak negotiator and a poor judge of talent: aka an incompetent.


OK...let me ask this: If you take both Foulke and Koch out of the trade, how does that deal look to you? Granted we only know one of the minor leaguers so far, but I'm willing to bet we come out ahead on the 2nd end of the deal

kermittheefrog
12-06-2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
OK...let me ask this: If you take both Foulke and Koch out of the trade, how does that deal look to you? Granted we only know one of the minor leaguers so far, but I'm willing to bet we come out ahead on the 2nd end of the deal

Why are you so obsessed with the non-closer guys involved in this deal?

RichH55
12-06-2002, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Why are you so obsessed with the non-closer guys involved in this deal?


Well the Koch-Foulke part of the deal has been discussed ad nausem....Not a whole lot new to be said about it...but when people start making a big deal of Johnson being gone or Valentine being gone, I try to put it into perspective....plus the kids we are getting from oakland interest me, and I like to know what the other options are out there

kermittheefrog
12-06-2002, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
Well the Koch-Foulke part of the deal has been discussed ad nausem....Not a whole lot new to be said about it...but when people start making a big deal of Johnson being gone or Valentine being gone, I try to put it into perspective....plus the kids we are getting from oakland interest me, and I like to know what the other options are out there

Neal Cotts is interesting but because he's a pitcher he's unlikely to succeed. The other guy we get will likely be a stiff. Johnson is a useful player and I honestly think Valentine has a better shot at appearing in the majors than Cotts.

fuzzy_patters
12-06-2002, 03:44 PM
Neal Cotts is interesting but because he's a pitcher he's unlikely to succeed. The other guy we get will likely be a stiff. Johnson is a useful player and I honestly think Valentine has a better shot at appearing in the majors than Cotts.

Joe Valentine is a minor league relief pitcher and, in the world according to Kermit, is unlikely to succeed. Mark Johnson is a weak armed catcher who can't hit, aka a stiff.

I find it interesting that you believe Cotts is less likely to appear in the majors than Valentine. Yet, in another thread you posted that minor league relievers are a bigger risk than minor league starters. Ins't Cotts a starter and Valentine a reliever?

Oh wait, that's right, if the Sox did it, it must have been wrong. To hell with consistent thought. Too bad we can't take back the Eyre for Glover trade.

WinningUgly!
12-06-2002, 03:53 PM
I'd love to see the A's grant Foulke his wish and see if he can start. Foulke's wanted to start for years and he's got the stuff to do it.
The only part I agree with is that "Foulke's wanted to start for years".
If Beane can get a Derek Lowe v2002-style performance out of Foulke he'd have baseball's best rotation by far next year, even if it read Hudson-Zito-Mulder-Foulke-Bower. Even if he doesn't, Foulke's going to be a significant upgrade on Koch in the closer role, which is the safe decision.
Zumsteg thinking Foulke has the stuff to start is bad enough...thinking he could be the next Derek Lowe is laughable. I don't think Foulke is an upgrade for the A's at closer, but it could be an overall upgrade for the A's bullpen. KF is capable of pitching a lot more innings than Koch & can give them an occasional 2-3 innings of solid relief. I'd much rather see Koch taking the ball in the 9th for my team, though.

jeremyb1
12-06-2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Joe Valentine is a minor league relief pitcher and, in the world according to Kermit, is unlikely to succeed.

why is one poster's viewpoint here being taken as fact? the reason minor league relievers are ussually less successful is because major league relief prospects are often used as starters to get them more innings in the minors. there is nothing about minor league relievers that makes them inherently less likely to pitch successfully in the majors its simply that the best pitchers are ussually placed in a starting role in the minors.

if kris honel is used as a reliever next season that doesn't mean he's suddenly a worse prospect. royce ring our first round pick who's pitching in relief isn't a lesser prospect that a starting pitcher drafted in the 10th round just because he's a reliever.

the argument that valentine isn't any good because he pitched in relief in the minors is atrocious. the a's, arguably the best organization in baseball, have stated they feel that he's is a much higher quality prospect than most minor league relievers and have tabbed him their likely closer of the future.

fuzzy_patters
12-06-2002, 11:39 PM
why is one poster's viewpoint here being taken as fact? the reason minor league relievers are ussually less successful is because major league relief prospects are often used as starters to get them more innings in the minors. there is nothing about minor league relievers that makes them inherently less likely to pitch successfully in the majors its simply that the best pitchers are ussually placed in a starting role in the minors.

I agree with you. My post was meant to be sarcastic. It should have been teal.

kermittheefrog
12-07-2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Joe Valentine is a minor league relief pitcher and, in the world according to Kermit, is unlikely to succeed. Mark Johnson is a weak armed catcher who can't hit, aka a stiff.

I find it interesting that you believe Cotts is less likely to appear in the majors than Valentine. Yet, in another thread you posted that minor league relievers are a bigger risk than minor league starters. Ins't Cotts a starter and Valentine a reliever?

Oh wait, that's right, if the Sox did it, it must have been wrong. To hell with consistent thought. Too bad we can't take back the Eyre for Glover trade.

Here's how I see it. Valentine is about the same age as Cotts but a level ahead and has better stuff so he's more likely to at least have a short career. But relief pitchers are made not born. He's still not a big loss.

Because Cotts is a starter he has a better chance of being a significant asset if he has a career. However since he's a level behind he's less likely to see the majors.

fuzzy_patters
12-07-2002, 12:29 AM
Here's how I see it. Valentine is about the same age as Cotts but a level ahead and has better stuff so he's more likely to at least have a short career. But relief pitchers are made not born. He's still not a big loss.

I agree on your relief pitchers are not born comment. What do you know about the two pitchers' relative degrees of "stuff"?

kermittheefrog
12-07-2002, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I agree on your relief pitchers are not born comment. What do you know about the two pitchers' relative degrees of "stuff"?

I've read scouting reports.

wsi
12-08-2002, 07:00 PM
Wow. Any one who thinks Mark Johnson is a weak armed catcher is an idiot. Granted he does not excell at this, no one could in his position with pitchers like Ritchie(slowest wind-up in the game)How do you measure weather or not a catcher has a cannon anyways...stolen bases to throw outs? johnson: 42,24
paul: 20,3... Changes on the field arent enough to produce a winner for our team. Only changes in the management.

fuzzy_patters
12-09-2002, 12:07 PM
Wow. Any one who thinks Mark Johnson is a weak armed catcher is an idiot.

Trading Johnson to allow Olivo to start is like trading Johnson for Olivo. Anbody who doesn't think Johnson is a weak armed catcher compared to Olivo is an idiot.

wsi
12-09-2002, 08:37 PM
Yes, if Olivio plays up to expectation then its all good.
*Yes, if the Sox are smart enough to play Olivio over Paul.
*Yes, if Olivio gets some good advice and coaching.
*Yes, if Olivio gets a real catcher to help ease him into the majors.
Too many ifs.
*Denotes a factor that relies within the management, which means the best decision wont be made.