PDA

View Full Version : Kermy's "Another Kenny Blunder!"


WinningUgly!
12-11-2002, 09:21 PM
Great job on the article (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2080), as usual Kermit.

I agree with you on a lot of the points you made, including saves being an over-rated stat. I also agree that Foulke could be a better reliever than Koch...but not a better closer. Yes, saves are over-rated, but not all together worthless. Not all guys have what it takes to close games out. Foulke only has two 30+ save seasons in his career vs. Koch's four in a row.

Maybe a better example of an over-rated stat would be Keith Foulke's 2002 era of 2.90? One hundred percent garbage time! It wasn't until August 2nd, that he finally managed to get his era under 4.

Foulke appeared in 19 games from August 2- September 26. In those 19 games, 10 were "out of reach games" (up or down by 4 runs or more). 9 were against weak teams mailing it in (3 vs. KC, 2 vs. TB, 2 vs. CLE, 1 vs. DET & 1 vs. TOR). As much as JM is ripped for his "tinkering", he did a great job of setting Foulke up to succeed in pressure free situations down the stretch.

I'm not sure I'd lump this deal in with some of KW's other blunders.

idseer
12-11-2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
Great job on the article (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2080), as usual Kermit.

I agree with you on a lot of the points you made, including saves being an over-rated stat. I also agree that Foulke could be a better reliever than Koch...but not a better closer. Yes, saves are over-rated, but not all together worthless. Not all guys have what it takes to close games out. Foulke only has two 30+ save seasons in his career vs. Koch's four in a row.

Maybe a better example of an over-rated stat would be Keith Foulke's 2002 era of 2.90? One hundred percent garbage time! It wasn't until August 2nd, that he finally managed to get his era under 4.

Foulke appeared in 19 games from August 2- September 26. In those 19 games, 10 were "out of reach games" (up or down by 4 runs or more). 9 were against weak teams mailing it in (3 vs. KC, 2 vs. TB, 2 vs. CLE, 1 vs. DET & 1 vs. TOR). As much as JM is ripped for his "tinkering", he did a great job of setting Foulke up to succeed in pressure free situations down the stretch.

I'm not sure I'd lump this deal in with some of KW's other blunders.

i agree here. i think there are things about a 'closer' that requires something extra. and as good as KF is (was) i don't think he ever had that extra. call it attitude or whatever. i think koch does have it.
in any event only time will tell now. i think all the arguments have been made.

Daver
12-11-2002, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


I'm not sure I'd lump this deal in with some of KW's other blunders.

This was a pure money move,there is no question on that,KW traded Keith ,and his soon to be FA status,for Koch,and his three years of arbitration status,the only gambling done here is whether the two players to be named later equal what Johnson and Valentine had in value,and I highly doubt they will in the long run.I have no problem with seeing Valentine go for a prospect of close to the same value,but giving away a decent catcher for an unknown quatity was a mistake for a club that has no depth at that position.

Tragg
12-11-2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by daver
This was a pure money move,there is no question on that,KW traded Keith ,and his soon to be FA status,for Koch,and his three years of arbitration status,the only gambling done here is whether the two players to be named later equal what Johnson and Valentine had in value,and I highly doubt they will in the long run.I have no problem with seeing Valentine go for a prospect of close to the same value,but giving away a decent catcher for an unknown quatity was a mistake for a club that has no depth at that position.

At least he didn't acquire one of the worst hitters in baseball history or get us an average pitcher for 2 top prospects. In the world of kenny williams, I can't get terribly upset about this.

voodoochile
12-11-2002, 10:18 PM
Koch also has something Foulke does not - the ability to shut down a team when he comes in with the bases juiced. He is a closer more so in the classic sense of the word. Foulke is a modern day closer who can get the final 3 outs when he is inserted in to start the ninth of a close game that his team is winning. I would hesitate to bring him in with the bases juiced and nobody out and the Sox needing a K. Koch on the other hand is that type of closer. Yes, I know that is subjective and I know it is anecdotal evidence, but it is also how I feel. I know someone on this board was arguing this exact point when we used to argue about whether KF was a true shutdown closer in the classic sense. I didn't initially get it, but I understand what they were talking about now...

There is also those 3 years of arbitration to talk about. Besides, I don't think the Sox could have offered Foulke less than $4.8M in 2004 based on his $6M contract next year, so they would have been stuck signing him to a big contract for 2004 regardless of his performance in 2003 or watching him walk away.

Maybe it isn't a perfect trade, but it isn't like the Sox got completely crushed. They did get the 2002 Rolaids Relief Man of the Year winner. Now if JM will just use him in that role, even if he struggles occasionally...

longshot7
12-11-2002, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by daver
This was a pure money move,there is no question on that,KW traded Keith ,and his soon to be FA status,for Koch,and his three years of arbitration status.

Two things - 1) I think Koch will get a significant raise through the arbitration process, so I don't think it's really that much of a money move.
2) the other thing is Koch's favor, for Kermit and other early naysayers, is that he played in a much stronger division than Foulke. Try getting those save totals against the Angels, Mariners, and Rangers as opposed to the Royals, Tigers, and Indians.

I don't think people should be bashing this trade yet, until we see how both players react during the season. Officially, for me, it's a wait-and-see.

joecrede
12-11-2002, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by longshot7
I don't think people should be bashing this trade yet, until we see how both players react during the season. Officially, for me, it's a wait-and-see.

I won't fault Kenny if Koch doesn't produce because unlike his D. Wells and Ritchie deals I think the reason behind this one is sound. It comes down to having Koch for three years v. Foulke for one.

jeremyb1
12-12-2002, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
Great job on as usual Kermit.


i agree it was a pretty good article but you fail to mention the number one kw said he pulled the trigger on the deal which is the number of years left before koch reaches free agency vs. foulke. also, i still don't think it sufficient to dismiss valentine solely because of his role in the minors. clearly there can be exceptions to the rule especially for a player that would've been the 8th best prospect in our system and a player that oakland, arguably the best organization in baseball, considers a potential closer in the future despite his minor league role.

MisterB
12-12-2002, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Koch also has something Foulke does not - the ability to shut down a team when he comes in with the bases juiced. He is a closer more so in the classic sense of the word. Foulke is a modern day closer who can get the final 3 outs when he is inserted in to start the ninth of a close game that his team is winning. I would hesitate to bring him in with the bases juiced and nobody out and the Sox needing a K. Koch on the other hand is that type of closer. Yes, I know that is subjective and I know it is anecdotal evidence, but it is also how I feel. I know someone on this board was arguing this exact point when we used to argue about whether KF was a true shutdown closer in the classic sense. I didn't initially get it, but I understand what they were talking about now...

For what it's worth...

'00-'02, Bases Loaded :

Koch - 31 ab, .323/.364/.516, 2 bb, 5 k, 2 hr
Foulke - 31 ab, .290/.343/.323, 1 bb, 7 k, 0 hr

baggio202
12-12-2002, 02:31 AM
i dont buy the 3 years for 1 theory because if koch has a similiar season to last year then it will be his 2nd year being eligable for arbitration, and 5 years of 30 or more saves...i think that will put him in the 8 - 9 million range for '04 and we will end up trading him instead of paying him..this is just KW making a trade and not being bright enough to think it through all the way..

we could sign him to a long term deal , which seems to be in KW's plans , but i dont think thats a smart move for koch...with all the rumblings from players leaving this organization and in some cases ones that are still here i think he would want to go through a season and see whats up before commiting..regaurdless of what he says in the papers..downside for koch on that is if he gets injured this year he could lose alot..but he can also take out a one year insurance policy with lloyds of london if thats his only worry..

as far as the trade goes i kinda agree with daver...the trade of closers is kind of a wash so this comes down to johnson and valentine for cotts and ????...we lose in that deal right off the bat because like daver and others have said eventhough johnson is nothing special we are too thin at catcher to just give a serviable one away...in the long it will be 5 or 6 years before we can even evaluate the players we got because they are 2-3 years away from amking the team...

gheez daver...we agree on a williams move...kinda scary

oldcomiskey
12-12-2002, 06:26 AM
I dont mean to jump off the Kermie bandwagon here---He is one of the many here that know of what they speak--but is this infatuation with Mark Johnson----if you cant beat out Josh Paul........see what I mean

hold2dibber
12-12-2002, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
I dont mean to jump off the Kermie bandwagon here---He is one of the many here that know of what they speak--but is this infatuation with Mark Johnson----if you cant beat out Josh Paul........see what I mean

Huh? He did beat out Josh Paul.

bc2k
12-12-2002, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Huh? He did beat out Josh Paul.

I think he's talking about the 2000 playoff roster.

jeremyb1
12-12-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
i dont buy the 3 years for 1 theory because if koch has a similiar season to last year then it will be his 2nd year being eligable for arbitration, and 5 years of 30 or more saves...i think that will put him in the 8 - 9 million range for '04 and we will end up trading him instead of paying him..this is just KW making a trade and not being bright enough to think it through all the way..

we could sign him to a long term deal , which seems to be in KW's plans , but i dont think thats a smart move for koch...with all the rumblings from players leaving this organization and in some cases ones that are still here i think he would want to go through a season and see whats up before commiting..regaurdless of what he says in the papers..downside for koch on that is if he gets injured this year he could lose alot..but he can also take out a one year insurance policy with lloyds of london if thats his only worry..


that's the key to the deal in my mind is where is the money coming from to pay koch. has kw convinced reinsdorf to spend more money for a "quality closer" like koch or are we still operating on the same low budget as before and therefore being forced to spend 8 million on koch next year or deal him? if this deal is going to tie our hands in the future its an even bigger mistake. maybe if we're lucky we can fleece someone else with koch in the future. if our overall budget is the same with or without koch, i'd would've much rather just deal foulke for prospects or position players if we couldn't get a starter, make glover or marte the closer, sign mike timlin for 1 or 2 million to bolster the pen, and then pay someone like trachsel, byrd, or daal the remaining 4 million.

Zednem700
12-12-2002, 12:27 PM
The idea of a guy "knowing" how to close is complete and total crap. The way closers are used today is a joke. It all started with Tony Larussa and his use of Eck. Before then closer types would pitch multiple innings, come in during the real ccrucial moments, etc. The whole idea of bringing in your best reliever only during save situations is moronic, bring him in during the most crucial moments, two men on in a one run game, not bases empty in the ninth inning with a three run lead. I am willing to guarantee that today teams blow leads in the ninth just as often as they did fifty years ago. There were no "closers" then and yet they managed to be just as good as today. Why people are so in love with the save boggles my mind. Any serious look a the game would show that they're more or less worthless.

Oh yes in response to the comments on Koch pitching in a tougher division. That's true, but its also true that his home park is a great pitcher's park while Comiskey has turned intoa real hitter's park since the renovations.

WinningUgly!
12-12-2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
The whole idea of bringing in your best reliever only during save situations is moronic, bring him in during the most crucial moments, two men on in a one run game, not bases empty in the ninth inning with a three run lead.
Koch ended up with 11 wins last season, to go along with his 44 saves, so he was not only used in save situations.