PDA

View Full Version : This is pointless


Bmr31
08-13-2001, 12:44 PM
I dont think you guys will ever understand the difference between a good closer and a good pitcher. Obviously, the sox brass agrees with me or theyd give keith the 8 million. Afterall, a good closer is worth that, correct? Keith foulke is an excellent setup man, thrown in the closer role. The sox do not have a better option, at this point. They know as well as i do, keith shouldnt be closing games, especially big games.

Paulwny
08-13-2001, 12:52 PM
Now that this is settled, lets get back to the Royce/Jose issue.

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:00 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paulwny
Now that this is settled, lets get back to the Royce/Jose issue. [/QUOTE


Oh dont be so sure. These guys were the same guys who ripped me for saying the sox have an average team. Most are in denial about the sox and about keith. Its okay. I know the truth, and if they thought with their heads and not their hearts, theyd agree with me. The problem is, they dont think with their heads, when it comes to the sox, or we wouldnt still be seeing all these posts about the sox making the playoffs.

voodoochile
08-13-2001, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I dont think you guys will ever understand the difference between a good closer and a good pitcher. Obviously, the sox brass agrees with me or theyd give keith the 8 million. Afterall, a good closer is worth that, correct? Keith foulke is an excellent setup man, thrown in the closer role. The sox do not have a better option, at this point. They know as well as i do, keith shouldnt be closing games, especially big games.

Okay, if that is how much a good closer is worth, by that definition there is one in the league... Rivera... Sounds like everyone is in the same boat... Which means if you have a guy who fits into the topend of the second tier of "closers" (like Keith does) then you hold onto him and let him work. Seems obvious to me, but maybe I am nuts. I do think the Sox will have other options a s time goes forward, but right now he is the best option the Sox have and there aren't many better options available.

Question for you, BMR...

Who would you like to see closing the games for the Sox?

You can even talk about FA's this year. I would be curious to hear your ideas...

Bmr31
08-13-2001, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Okay, if that is how much a good closer is worth, by that definition there is one in the league... Rivera... Sounds like everyone is in the same boat... Which means if you have a guy who fits into the topend of the second tier of "closers" (like Keith does) then you hold onto him and let him work. Seems obvious to me, but maybe I am nuts. I do think the Sox will have other options a s time goes forward, but right now he is the best option the Sox have and there aren't many better options available.

Question for you, BMR...

Who would you like to see closing the games for the Sox?

You can even talk about FA's this year. I would be curious to hear your ideas...


Who would i like closing for the sox? Right now? umm keith foulke? Did i ever say we had a better option? I think i said Keith was not a good closer. And YES, baseball is lacking stud closers right now. I never said baseball was not. Why am i always challenged to defend things i did not say?

Joel Perez
08-13-2001, 01:38 PM
I mentioned a few days ago that Keith Foulke is a shade below Mariano Rivera's class.

The only difference IMO is the MPH. And the rings. And the experience level.

He doesn't have the MPH that other closers have, but 62 saves in the last two years is not shabby. He consistently throws 89-91 MPH every time, plus his changeup is one of the best in the leagues.

He's only been a full-time closer for the last 2 1/2 years. A couple more years like this, he'll be in the elite status group.

voodoochile
08-13-2001, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31



Who would i like closing for the sox? Right now? umm keith foulke? Did i ever say we had a better option? I think i said Keith was not a good closer. And YES, baseball is lacking stud closers right now. I never said baseball was not. Why am i always challenged to defend things i did not say?

Why do you feel you were being attacked? I was merely pointing out something and asking for your oppinion. It seemed to be a part of the topic that had not been covered and, IMO, needed clarification. Sometimes we start discussing something (as a board or group) and fail to discuss the alternatives or what position the rest of the league is in in regards to the discussion. That's all I was trying to point out, that there is a lack of (by your definition) "good" closers. Thus the whole discussion came down to semantics. Most of the posters are willing to look around the league and say, "Keith is one of the best available, so we should be happy we have him." You are looking for more. In he end that seems to me to be what the discussion boiled down to. This no one is wrong when we look at the discussion is looked at from all sides. Two different arguments were occuring...

BMR: Foulke is the best we have, and not bad by league standards, but is not what we should be looking for. We need a "good" closer (read: HOF potential) (not trying to put words in your moouth, merely interpreting what I have read) ala Rivera, Eckersly, Gossage, etc.

People arguing with BMR (VC included): Foulke is one of the best in the game currently, and hence is already a "good" closer.

In the end, both sides really agree. I don't think that anyone here would argue that if the Sox could get a Dominent closer along the lines of what you were talkling about, that the Sox should pass it up. I may be wrong, but I doubt that anyone thinks Foulke is the equiviant of an Eckersley, but I may have just opened another can of worms...

Randar68
08-13-2001, 03:04 PM
Well said VC, I think you hit the nail on the head.....

Moses_Scurry
08-13-2001, 03:07 PM
I personally wouldn't pay Rivera 8 million, but what do I know! I'm just a scientist! He's definitely up there when it comes to closing, but if the Yanks lost him, I'm sure Stanton could do the job. I think the most I'd pay a closer is 4 or 5 mil and I wouldn't sign one to any more than a 2 or 3 year deal. There is no guarentee that a closer will be good consistently for many years. Look at Thigpen for the prime example. The guy is untouchable one year and then terrible every year after. The Sox probably could have gotten some awesome talent in a trade for him immediately after his 57 save season. There will always be a Roberto Hernandez waiting in the wings!

Paulwny
08-13-2001, 03:14 PM
I agree about the $$$, King George in NY wasn't happy either. If Foulke goes to arbitration he'll come close to $8mil. I don't think JR will keep Foulke if he has to pay him that much.

voodoochile
08-13-2001, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
I agree about the $$$, King George in NY wasn't happy either. If Foulke goes to arbitration he'll come close to $8mil. I don't think JR will keep Foulke if he has to pay him that much.

This is one of the main problems with arbitration. The system does not weight the positions at all. As a result, if you are a top of the line closer, you can command as much as a top of the line starter (or close there to). It is all based on what stars make in this and other sports. If you can successfully argue that you are a star, you will get paid star money, regardless of whether your postion warrents the money or not. Look for things to get a lot worse if arbitration continues. Nelson's contract with Seattle was a record for a setup man/short reliever ($4.5 million?) So, top of the line setup men will now be able to claim they too are worth tha much. It starts to really become ridiculous. Owners with infinite pockets don't care, and just want to win, so they spend whatever they want and the rest of the teams are left hanging out to dry. Wouldn' IROD have a valid case for being paid AROD money (or close to it) in arbitration?

It's an old horse, and well beaten, but MLB needs real revenue sharing, a salary cap and maximum individual salaries, otherwise it willl forever remain the haves and havenots...

Paulwny
08-13-2001, 04:01 PM
A story I heard before Ripken broke the record and became a household name, a ss(name escapes me) went to arbitration and wanted Ripken $$$ because his stats that year were higher then Cal's. The team argued that Ripken was an Oriole all star and a drawing card that was the reason for his large contract.


MLB owners had agreed with the union that arbitrators would not be baseball people. The arbitrator awarded the ss a large amount of $$$, the arbitrator had no idea who Cal Ripken was.

MLB owners are stupid.

oldcomiskey
08-13-2001, 06:13 PM
if its so pointless--let it go--youre wrong---the rest of the board knows it-----