PDA

View Full Version : Foulke Throws The High Hard One...


DrCrawdad
02-09-2003, 10:25 PM
http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/5817.jpg

chicagosports.com (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-030209sox,0,4989030.story?coll=cs%2Dhome%2Dheadlin es)

...And in what appears to be a veiled criticism of Thomas, Foulke spoke of the Sox's unpleasant clubhouse atmosphere.

"A lot of things that went on there should have been stopped, and it wasn't," Foulke said. "That was kind of the demise of the team.

Bmr31
02-09-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/5817.jpg

chicagosports.com (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-030209sox,0,4989030.story?coll=cs%2Dhome%2Dheadlin es)

I am not surprised at all, i thought it was common knowledge that Frank is a clubhouse cancer.

WinningUgly!
02-09-2003, 10:35 PM
Catcher Mark Johnson, who also was dealt to Oakland in the December deal for Billy Koch, said Foulke should not have been demoted.

"When Frank Thomas goes through an 0-for-20 slump, you don't take him out," Johnson said. "You work through it."

Thomas was moved down in the order several times. Even though he struggled at times, Frank was the best option for the Sox at DH. The same can't be said fo Foulke as closer. Marte & Osuna both pitched their ways into earning a share of the closing duties along with Foulke.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-09-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/5817.jpg

chicagosports.com (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-030209sox,0,4989030.story?coll=cs%2Dhome%2Dheadlin es)

I don't get it. Greenstein claims "what appears to be a veiled criticism of Thomas" but offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Foulke that hints that Frank was being singled out. I guess Greenstein expects his readers to just take his word on it?

Sorry, folks. That's lousy journalism. If Teddy has something to share, share it. This is worse than whispering rumors into 200,000 ears.

...and I'm so surprised the editors at the Cubune would let this happen in their sports section!

MRKARNO
02-09-2003, 10:39 PM
Foulke is just bitter because the Sox actually found someone better than him. Poor Keith crying because he got traded to a great team and complaining about the Sox like every former player it seems now these days.

WinningUgly!
02-09-2003, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I don't get it. Greenstein claims "what appears to be a veiled criticism of Thomas" but offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Foulke that hints that Frank was being singled out. I guess Greenstein expects his readers to just take his word on it?

Sorry, folks. That's lousy journalism. If Teddy has something to share, share it. This is worse than whispering rumors into 200,000 ears.

...and I'm so surprised the editors at the Cubune would let this happen in their sports section!

Yeah the only mention of Frank comes from the MJ quote, which was more in defense of Foulke than a shot at Thomas. Very weak.

baggio202
02-09-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!
Yeah the only mention of Frank comes from the MJ quote, which was more in defense of Foulke than a shot at Thomas. Very weak.

i was thin king the same thing...who's to say foulke wasnt talking about lofton and the cancer sitting i nthe clubhouse watching movies instead of being at BP???...or any number of other wierd that have gone on the past two years...hell he could be talking about KW and his spies in the clubhouse too....

jeremyb1
02-10-2003, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
i was thin king the same thing...who's to say foulke wasnt talking about lofton and the cancer sitting i nthe clubhouse watching movies instead of being at BP???...or any number of other wierd that have gone on the past two years...hell he could be talking about KW and his spies in the clubhouse too....

no one talked about frank being a problem in the clubhouse in ‘00. frank’s not perfect but you have to be pretty nasty to singlehandedly kill the clubhouse. i think that eliminating lofton and probably durham and alomar (ughh) in the second half helped our chemistry a great deal. i think there are almost always fewer problems when you have a young club. some veterans such as valentin or eldred in ‘00 can be helpful but a lot of them, even if they aren’t bad guys, are more demanding and don’t appretiate playing baseball for a living that much since they’ve been doing it longer.

duke of dorwood
02-10-2003, 09:00 AM
He could have been referring to Clayton too. And I dont believe he should have been set up guy til September. I believe the manager was following instructions by keeping him in the middle innings.

hold2dibber
02-10-2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I don't get it. Greenstein claims "what appears to be a veiled criticism of Thomas" but offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Foulke that hints that Frank was being singled out. I guess Greenstein expects his readers to just take his word on it?

Sorry, folks. That's lousy journalism. If Teddy has something to share, share it. This is worse than whispering rumors into 200,000 ears.

...and I'm so surprised the editors at the Cubune would let this happen in their sports section!

You took the words right out of my mouth. What a crock of crap - I sure hope this is the kind of shoddy work we're going to get from Greenstein as the beat reporter this year.

Cheryl
02-10-2003, 09:33 AM
Oh **** Mr Greenjeans anyway. How can any of you read anything that pissbag writes?

EnricoPallazzo
02-10-2003, 12:50 PM
When a team underachieves thereis bound to be alot of grousing in the clubhouse. Guys like Lofton and Clayton don't help the situation, and Thomas behaves like a 5 year old. Also, Rip Van Manuel is not exactly Braveheart when it comes to rallying the troops. None of this will be a problem as long as they are winning. Konerko and Valentin are natural leaders and winning will afford them the opportunity to lead.

Mammoo
02-10-2003, 12:57 PM
If the White Sox had gotten nothing in return, it would be a good trade.

Guys that belittle their team after they leave are gutless. Mark Johnson is lucky to be wearing a big league uni given his performance in Chicago.

...and who needs a closer whose best pitch is a change up? He got by for a while but batters have caught on to him.

Harry Teinowitz can fly to Oakland to visit his good friend "Foulkie" from now on!!!

Thank You, Billy Beane!

Iguana775
02-10-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
If the White Sox had gotten nothing in return, it would be a good trade.


hey mammoo! you the same mammoo from cbfans.com?

hold2dibber
02-10-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
...and who needs a closer whose best pitch is a change up? He got by for a while but batters have caught on to him.


As is evidenced by his sub-1.00 ERA in the second half last year?

Foulke You
02-10-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I don't get it. Greenstein claims "what appears to be a veiled criticism of Thomas" but offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Foulke that hints that Frank was being singled out. I guess Greenstein expects his readers to just take his word on it?

Sorry, folks. That's lousy journalism. If Teddy has something to share, share it. This is worse than whispering rumors into 200,000 ears.

...and I'm so surprised the editors at the Cubune would let this happen in their sports section!

I agree 100% with the above statement. Did we miss some smoking gun statement where Foulke called out Frank? No. Foulke was just stating what everyone already knew from last year and that was there was no chemistry on the 2002 team until late August. Heck, anyone who read the weekly comments in the Southtown could tell you that. It shows that, whenever possible the Cubune will take potshots at Frank.

upnorthsox
02-10-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo

...and who needs a closer whose best pitch is a change up? He got by for a while but batters have caught on to him.




Yeah it would've sucked having Trevor Hoffman throw that changeup thru those 352 career saves of his for us

OfficerKarkovice
02-10-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by upnorthsox
Yeah it would've sucked having Trevor Hoffman throw that changeup thru those 352 career saves of his for us

Keith Foulke has never been, and will never be, near the level of a closer that Trevor Hoffman has been over the entirety of his career.

hold2dibber
02-10-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by OfficerKarkovice
Keith Foulke has never been, and will never be, near the level of a closer that Trevor Hoffman has been over the entirety of his career.

I would disagree that Foulke has never been near the level of closer that Trevor Hoffman. It is plain to see for anyone that Foulke was, from '99 - '01, absolutely at the same level as Hoffman.

But that wasn't the point; the post in question suggested that a closer can't be a good closer if his best pitch is a change-up. Hoffman (as well as Foulke) has proven that to be total b.s.

Mammoo
02-10-2003, 02:32 PM
I guess it comes down to what you want from a closer. I prefer to have a guy come in throwing heat; Goose Gossage, Al Hrabosky, Troy Percival, Billy Koch, Lee Smith, Bobby Thigpen. There have no doubt been successful closers that were of the "junk" variety.

The '59 White Sox utilized Gerry Staley and Turk Lown in just that way.

There are times when you just need a strike out and I'll take my chances with Billy Koch, thank you very muchly!!!

hold2dibber
02-10-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
I guess it comes down to what you want from a closer. I prefer to have a guy come in throwing heat; Goose Gossage, Al Hrabosky, Troy Percival, Billy Koch, Lee Smith, Bobby Thigpen. There have no doubt been successful closers that were of the "junk" variety.

The '59 White Sox utilized Gerry Staley and Turk Lown in just that way.

There are times when you just need a strike out and I'll take my chances with Billy Koch, thank you very muchly!!!

I couldn't care less if the closer is throwing nothing but underhand ephus (sp?) pitches as long as he gets hitters out with 'em; if he pitches as well as Foulke did during his time here, you can't complain with those results.

baggio202
02-10-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo


There are times when you just need a strike out and I'll take my chances with Billy Koch, thank you very muchly!!!

foulke 490 ip - 458 k's
koch 305 ip - 265 k's

if you need a strike out...you got a better chance of getting it with foulke...

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I couldn't care less if the closer is throwing nothing but underhand ephus (sp?) pitches as long as he gets hitters out with 'em; if he pitches as well as Foulke did during his time here, you can't complain with those results.

Let me predicate everything I'm about to say with this important caveat: the most important attribute for a closer is to get hitters out. In the big scheme of things, nothing else much matters. Foulke has been amongst MLB's best in this department most of the last three seasons.

Having said that, there is a very practical reason why you would prefer your closer's out pitch be heat rather than a finesse pitch. If he is your closer, by definition he is pitching in the ninth inning. This is the ultimate "make it or break it" inning for a trailing opponent's offense. Thus they are far more likely to take risks to score runs. The most obvious risk is to put runners in motion and attempt steals.

It goes without saying that fastballs reach the catcher faster than off-speed stuff, thus helping cut down on the potential success of any aggressive tactics the opposition might try. I believe this is why the Sox wanted to use Foulke as a set-up man, leaving Howry as closer back in 1999. Naturally Howry sucked (see the first paragraph above) so the Sox had no choice but to try Foulke in the closer's role--which I believe he did quite well.

maurice
02-10-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Having said that, there is a very practical reason why you would prefer your closer's out pitch be heat rather than a finesse pitch. If he is your closer, by definition he is pitching in the ninth inning. This is the ultimate "make it or break it" inning for a trailing opponent's offense. Thus they are far more likely to take risks to score runs. The most obvious risk is to put runners in motion and attempt steals.

That argument also would favor lefty closers over, say, Billy Koch.

Mammoo
02-10-2003, 04:13 PM
Year S/O's
1999...123
2000...91
2001...75
2002...58

Note: Innings pitched per season went down but so did the S/O ratio.

LongDistanceFan
02-10-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by maurice
That argument also would favor lefty closers over, say, Billy Koch. '


i personally think the trade was unnecessary and for me foulke was the better closer. however the prospect we gave up and the ones we recieved will make or break this trade. i would preferred to have kept valentin. but this kid cotts may be something nice.