PDA

View Full Version : Keith Foulke


basilesox
10-28-2004, 02:51 AM
If you would have told me two years ago that Keith Foulke would be on the mound throwing the final pitch of the World Series, I would have been completely ecstatic.

Watching how impressive Foulke has been this postseason, I mentioned to a friend that I couldn't believe that we missed on this guy. That we actually thought he wasn't one of the best closers in the game. My buddy told me that he was just reading about the "Foulke-Koch" deal in Moneyball. I had bought Moneyball two months ago, but hadn't had time to finish reading it. So I picked it up and started reading about how "Kenny Williams" got screwed out of Ray Durham (and 2 1st round draft picks they would have received for him when he left in FA) for Jon Adkins. I ended up reading the book for two hours and I became very depressed.

I have never been one to hate on Kenny Williams before, but this book makes the White Sox Front Office look downright "ignorant" when it comes to judging talent, especially when it dedicates a whole chapter to Chad Bradford. For the first time I am starting to fear the bad judgements that most likely lie ahead......because "history almost always repeats itself."

idseer
10-28-2004, 03:25 AM
If you would have told me two years ago that Keith Foulke would be on the mound throwing the final pitch of the World Series, I would have been completely ecstatic.
if you'd told the white sox that two years ago ... would they have traded him anyway? :smile:

Jjav829
10-28-2004, 09:41 AM
If you would have told me two years ago that Keith Foulke would be on the mound throwing the final pitch of the World Series, I would have been completely ecstatic.

Watching how impressive Foulke has been this postseason, I mentioned to a friend that I couldn't believe that we missed on this guy. That we actually thought he wasn't one of the best closers in the game. My buddy told me that he was just reading about the "Foulke-Koch" deal in Moneyball. I had bought Moneyball two months ago, but hadn't had time to finish reading it. So I picked it up and started reading about how "Kenny Williams" got screwed out of Ray Durham (and 2 1st round draft picks they would have received for him when he left in FA) for Jon Adkins. I ended up reading the book for two hours and I became very depressed.

I have never been one to hate on Kenny Williams before, but this book makes the White Sox Front Office look downright "ignorant" when it comes to judging talent, especially when it dedicates a whole chapter to Chad Bradford. For the first time I am starting to fear the bad judgements that most likely lie ahead......because "history almost always repeats itself."Don't let it get to you. The whole book is devoted to making Billy Beane look like the man who reinvented baseball. I read the entire book and it didn't change my mind on the Sox front office. I can't say I ever really agreed with taking Royce Ring, so Moneyball didn't change my mind on that. We ended up getting a good young catcher for Chad Bradford, and we later used that catcher to bring in a front line starter.

Moneyball has some interesting stuff in it, but you have to remember who it is being written for. Michael Lewis wrote the book to glorify Beane's way of general managing so everything is going to have an A's bias.

SoxFanTillDeath
10-28-2004, 09:55 AM
Don't let it get to you. The whole book is devoted to making Billy Beane look like the man who reinvented baseball. I read the entire book and it didn't change my mind on the Sox front office. I can't say I ever really agreed with taking Royce Ring, so Moneyball didn't change my mind on that. We ended up getting a good young catcher for Chad Bradford, and we later used that catcher to bring in a front line starter.

Moneyball has some interesting stuff in it, but you have to remember who it is being written for. Michael Lewis wrote the book to glorify Beane's way of general managing so everything is going to have an A's bias.

Besides, I think B-Beane got screwed for chad bradford. I am a huge Olivo fan (probably president and only member of his fan club, but oh well), and I don't see how bradford was worth it for the A's. But whatever...Billy Beane is the "god" of baseball GM's, despite the fact that he hasn't done anything ever in the playoffs and never even made it to the postseason this year. If he was the GM in Chicago he'd be ripped just as much as KW is now.

JKryl
10-28-2004, 10:04 AM
Basilesox stole my idea for a thread starter. Good for him. I'm happy that Folke finally made it. Hopefully, the rest of the Whitesox world will wish him well too, with a hope that the rest of the team will follow shortly. (Hopefully, they'll still be wearing their current Whitesox uniforms when it happens.)

See Kenny, JR, this is how it's done! :bandance::bandance::supernana::bandance::bandance :

SoxFan78
10-28-2004, 10:16 AM
Good for Foulke. It was nice seeing him on the mound for the final out, he's a part of history now.

SoxFanTillDeath
10-28-2004, 10:24 AM
I'd love for Foulke to have an awesome career. He's a great pitcher. I was very sad to see him go. He had seemed to snap out of his funk over the last month or so of his tenure here, but apparently Sox brass though he was done. Oh well, nothing can be done about that now, but congrats to Keith.

BTW Nice sig SoxFan78.

Hangar18
10-28-2004, 10:35 AM
To tell the truth, I didnt think Id have as hard a time as I did last nite
watching the 9th inning. Seeing Foulke up there on the big screen,
was very very very bittersweet ......... He shouldve been getting the White Sox a World Series Title. One of the Biggest Mistakes in a Long Series of
Jerry Reinsdorf Mistakes ..............:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:



:reinsy
" Hangar Hangar Hangar, your forgetting one thing .........
Look at the Money We Saved by avoiding Arbitration!!"

Irishsox1
10-28-2004, 10:42 AM
Bille Bean is such a frickin' genius that his A's didn't make the playoffs this year, like the White Sox. Enough with Chad Bradford!! The guy is a bullpen submarine pitcher for cris sakes!! The White Sox got Miguel Olivo for him and then traded Miguel for Freddy Garcia. No matter how Billy Beane and his writer spin it, the White Sox got the better of the deal. The Billy Koch trade was a great trade before Billy Koch left his fast ball in Oakland. Sometimes trades, or free agent signings don't work out, just ask Billy Beane when his closer Arthur Rhodes turned out to be a bust. Billy Beane is not a genius.

Rocky Soprano
10-28-2004, 10:42 AM
Congrats to Foulke! :gulp:

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 10:45 AM
Bille Bean is such a frickin' genius that his A's didn't make the playoffs this year, like the White Sox. Enough with Chad Bradford!! The guy is a bullpen submarine pitcher for cris sakes!! The White Sox got Miguel Olivo for him and then traded Miguel for Freddy Garcia. No matter how Billy Beane and his writer spin it, the White Sox got the better of the deal. The Billy Koch trade was a great trade before Billy Koch left his fast ball in Oakland. Sometimes trades, or free agent signings don't work out, just ask Billy Beane when his closer Arthur Rhodes turned out to be a bust. Billy Beane is not a genius.
HERESY!!! Arthur Rhodes was a great closer, he just ran into some bad luck!!! You know it's true because if he wasn't a great closer, he never would have been targeted by the A's.

soxtalker
10-28-2004, 11:02 AM
Besides, I think B-Beane got screwed for chad bradford. I am a huge Olivo fan (probably president and only member of his fan club, but oh well), and I don't see how bradford was worth it for the A's. But whatever...Billy Beane is the "god" of baseball GM's, despite the fact that he hasn't done anything ever in the playoffs and never even made it to the postseason this year. If he was the GM in Chicago he'd be ripped just as much as KW is now.

Bradford helped the A's for a couple of seasons; he's pitched quite well. IIRC, Oakland had plenty of catching in their system, and Olivo still had a long way to go. So, each side could view the trade as desirable from its own perspective.

The interesting part of the Bradford trade to me is that the Sox organization probably did not recognize the value of Bradford. IIRC, the implication in the book was that the Sox didn't think much of his unorthodox pitching style. Now, granted, that's the perspective of Beane/Lewis, but it makes some sense. Beane bases his decisions largely on a set of statistics. Those indicated that Bradford had considerable value. The Sox seem to be more of a classic organization, basing their decisions on assessments of people within the organization. Same thing with Foulke. The Sox seemed to place a lot of value on having a classic fast-ball closer. (Maybe Koch/Shingo has changed that thinking a bit.) The Sox Foulke/Bradford evaluations strike me as being rational decisions for people who have been in baseball for a long time. But it also looks like evaluations made by the Sox organization need to be modified/impoved -- and that may involve changes to both process and people.

fquaye149
10-28-2004, 11:04 AM
christ, this site is starting to become a top-40 radio station.

i think i've heard this same ashlee simpson song 15 times in the past hour.

JKryl
10-28-2004, 11:16 AM
christ, this site is starting to become a top-40 radio station.

i think i've heard this same ashlee simpson song 15 times in the past hour.
Amen. Why can't people stick to the thread?:bandance: :supernana: :bandance:

gosox41
10-28-2004, 01:06 PM
Bradford helped the A's for a couple of seasons; he's pitched quite well. IIRC, Oakland had plenty of catching in their system, and Olivo still had a long way to go. So, each side could view the trade as desirable from its own perspective.

The interesting part of the Bradford trade to me is that the Sox organization probably did not recognize the value of Bradford. IIRC, the implication in the book was that the Sox didn't think much of his unorthodox pitching style. Now, granted, that's the perspective of Beane/Lewis, but it makes some sense. Beane bases his decisions largely on a set of statistics. Those indicated that Bradford had considerable value. The Sox seem to be more of a classic organization, basing their decisions on assessments of people within the organization. Same thing with Foulke. The Sox seemed to place a lot of value on having a classic fast-ball closer. (Maybe Koch/Shingo has changed that thinking a bit.) The Sox Foulke/Bradford evaluations strike me as being rational decisions for people who have been in baseball for a long time. But it also looks like evaluations made by the Sox organization need to be modified/impoved -- and that may involve changes to both process and people.
I remember hearing about how the White Sox management had a love affair with power pitchers. They still seem to. If that's the case, they weren't high on Bradford.



Bob

jabrch
10-28-2004, 01:11 PM
Watching how impressive Foulke has been this postseason, I mentioned to a friend that I couldn't believe that we missed on this guy. That we actually thought he wasn't one of the best closers in the game. My buddy told me that he was just reading about the "Foulke-Koch" deal in Moneyball. I had bought Moneyball two months ago, but hadn't had time to finish reading it. So I picked it up and started reading about how "Kenny Williams" got screwed out of Ray Durham (and 2 1st round draft picks they would have received for him when he left in FA) for Jon Adkins. I ended up reading the book for two hours and I became very depressed.

I have never been one to hate on Kenny Williams before, but this book makes the White Sox Front Office look downright "ignorant" when it comes to judging talent, especially when it dedicates a whole chapter to Chad Bradford. For the first time I am starting to fear the bad judgements that most likely lie ahead......because "history almost always repeats itself."
I haven't memorize Moneyball verbatim, but if I remember correctly, that section never really mentioned the pending rule change that was in the drafts o the new agreement that was going to eliminate FA compensation. So KW was looking at that thinking he'd be getting Adkins - much more than the nothing that he'd get after the new CBA. The rule got changed late in a draft - and that ended up being unfortunate for us. But for Moneyball, and for Sox fans to blame KW for a bad move because he got Adkins (instead of the nothing he figured he'd get) is silly and ignorant of the facts that were left out of the book.

gosox41
10-28-2004, 01:16 PM
I haven't memorize Moneyball verbatim, but if I remember correctly, that section never really mentioned the pending rule change that was in the drafts o the new agreement that was going to eliminate FA compensation. So KW was looking at that thinking he'd be getting Adkins - much more than the nothing that he'd get after the new CBA. The rule got changed late in a draft - and that ended up being unfortunate for us. But for Moneyball, and for Sox fans to blame KW for a bad move because he got Adkins (instead of the nothing he figured he'd get) is silly and ignorant of the facts that were left out of the book.
I thought the book addressed this. Beane believed that if the players were to go far a luxury tax of some sort everything else will stay the same as that was be far the biggest issue. Both GM's gambled. KW lost. No surprise there. But it really wasn't a gamble for Beane. He got an All Star second baseman and half his salary while giving up a 24 year old AAA pitcher coming off a shoulder injury.

It was a risk for KW. He traded an All Star second baseman for essentially nothing. IMHO, he should have saved face and held on to Durham until Beane upped his offer. Worst case is Durham plays out the year and he goes for nothing. Adkins isn't much better then nothing.


Bob

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 01:18 PM
I thought the book addressed this. Beane believed that if the players were to go far a luxury tax of some sort everything else will stay the same as that was be far the biggest issue. Both GM's gambled. KW lost. No surprise there. But it really wasn't a gamble for Beane. He got an All Star second baseman and half his salary while giving up a 24 year old AAA pitcher coming off a shoulder injury.

It was a risk for KW. He traded an All Star second baseman for essentially nothing. IMHO, he should have saved face and held on to Durham until Beane upped his offer. Worst case is Durham plays out the year and he goes for nothing. Adkins isn't much better then nothing.


Bob
IIRC, elimination of comp picks was agreed upon, and it was in the final wording of things around the internationalization of the draft that problems came up and at the 11th hour, they decided to leave things as they were.

So at the time of the trade, there was no reason to think that there would be comp picks and every reason to think that they would be eliminated. Both sides were in agreement on them, so how was KW to guess that that would change?

gosox41
10-28-2004, 01:23 PM
IIRC, elimination of comp picks was agreed upon, and it was in the final wording of things around the internationalization of the draft that problems came up and at the 11th hour, they decided to leave things as they were.

So at the time of the trade, there was no reason to think that there would be comp picks and every reason to think that they would be eliminated. Both sides were in agreement on them, so how was KW to guess that that would change?
It still doesn't mean KW should just take anything he can get for him. He did a poor job here. Durham had more value then that, especially if the Sox paid some of his salary.

Just because a deal is out there doesn't mean the GM should bite on it. In this deal he came off to me as a sucker

Good thing KW isn't my realtor. I wouldn't get market price for my house, but he might sell it quickly.


Bob

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 01:53 PM
It still doesn't mean KW should just take anything he can get for him. He did a poor job here. Durham had more value then that, especially if the Sox paid some of his salary.

Just because a deal is out there doesn't mean the GM should bite on it. In this deal he came off to me as a sucker

Good thing KW isn't my realtor. I wouldn't get market price for my house, but he might sell it quickly.


Bob
That all assumes that there was more of a market for Durham. I dont' recall there being many suitors for him at the time, but that's a recollection of rumors, I could be wrong.

I'd guess KW shopped Ray Ray around, unless you really believe he just took the first offer he got (which IMO is not a great assumption). It seems likely that the choices were Adkins or nothing (since comp picks were not going to be around). Sure, KW could have held onto Ray and hoped that someone came along with a better offer, but if there wasn't much interest in him originally, I't's hard to beleive that woudl have changed significantly.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 02:00 PM
It was a risk for KW. He traded an All Star second baseman for essentially nothing. IMHO, he should have saved face and held on to Durham until Beane upped his offer. Worst case is Durham plays out the year and he goes for nothing. Adkins isn't much better then nothing.


Bob
No - he traded a FA to be, who he knew he wasn't going to resign, for a pitcher who was well regarded with upside. It all depends on your spin. I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between. But say Adkins (when the deal was made) isn't much better then nothing is not accurate Bob.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 02:01 PM
It still doesn't mean KW should just take anything he can get for him. He did a poor job here. Durham had more value then that, especially if the Sox paid some of his salary.


Bob
No - he did not have more value than that. Do you really think that if there was more value that Williams wouldn't have taken it? Do you really think he took the first deal that came up? He got young pitcher with a high cieling. That's a lot more than you are giving him credit for...and appearantly the most out there for him to get.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 02:04 PM
Good thing KW isn't my realtor. I wouldn't get market price for my house, but he might sell it quickly.

Bob
Good think Bob isn't my realtor. He'd price my house at 29,000,000 and tell me to turn down the 13,000,000 offer and the 12,000,000 offer cuz he can get me more. Then, when I have to sell, after waiting 2 years for Bob, I'll be stuck getting 129,000. KW would have had me an offer for 240,000 that I could have taken 2 years ago.

Thanks for nothing Bob. :)

balke
10-28-2004, 02:05 PM
I thought this was a Foulke thread, not a BB v. KW. how many threads of this are there? Just like the KW bash started yesterday = recycled crap.


Billy boy doesn't have Durham or Foulke anymore, and his relief got beat by the Angels, so they missed out on postseason play. He's lost many great players like Mcgwire, or Tejada, just to watch them become even greater players elsewhere. He sat out this October just like KW did. Some genius. Without his pitching staff, I couldn't name one player on that team that I'd want playing for the sox.

CubKilla
10-28-2004, 02:11 PM
Without his pitching staff, I couldn't name one player on that team that I'd want playing for the sox.
Chavez

doublem23
10-28-2004, 02:14 PM
Without his pitching staff, I couldn't name one player on that team that I'd want playing for the sox.
I'd take Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Bobby Crosby, and Eric Byrnes in a heartbeat.

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 02:23 PM
I'd take Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Bobby Crosby, and Eric Byrnes in a heartbeat.
Take your pick:
Player A: .239 / .319 / .426 with 7SB & 3CS

Player B: ..283 / .327 / .506 with 9SB & 11CS

Player C: .262 / .343 / .323 with 19SB & 7CS

A = Crosby, B = Uribe, C = Harris. Yes, Bobby's a rookie, but IMO he's already overrated because he's a Beanie. For the record, I'd take Dye but only because we don't have anything better, not because he's all that good. Chavez is the only guy really worth anything significant.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 02:27 PM
I'd take Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Bobby Crosby, and Eric Byrnes in a heartbeat.
You want to pay 14mm for Dye? You can have him. He's a FA - I bet he gets about 1/3 of that next year. And take a look at his numbers...I wouldn't want him at all. He's a shell of what he was in 2000.

I'd take Crosby - that's cool. Ditto for Chavez - even at his price.

You want Byrnes over Rowand? To me that's about a wash. Neither player is an impact player, but both perform well in their role.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 02:32 PM
Take your pick:
Player A: .239 / .319 / .426 with 7SB & 3CS

Player B: ..283 / .327 / .506 with 9SB & 11CS

Player C: .262 / .343 / .323 with 19SB & 7CS

A = Crosby, B = Uribe, C = Harris. Yes, Bobby's a rookie, but IMO he's already overrated because he's a Beanie. For the record, I'd take Dye but only because we don't have anything better, not because he's all that good. Chavez is the only guy really worth anything significant.
Take your pick Flight

Player A: .265 / .329 / .464 with 23 HR & 130 Ks in 530 ABs

Player B: .310/ .361 / .544 with 24HR & 17SBs & 91 Ks in 487 ABs

Player C: .283 / .347 / .467 with 20HR, 17SB and 111Ks in 569 ABs

A = Dye, B = Rowand, C = Byrnes... Anyone taking A or C?

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 02:41 PM
Take your pick Flight

Player A: .265 / .329 / .464 with 23 HR & 130 Ks in 530 ABs

Player B: .310/ .361 / .544 with 24HR & 17SBs & 91 Ks in 487 ABs

Player C: .283 / .347 / .467 with 20HR, 17SB and 111Ks in 569 ABs

A = Dye, B = Rowand, C = Byrnes... Anyone taking A or C?
Imagine that, we agree on something!

hitlesswonder
10-28-2004, 02:42 PM
You want Byrnes over Rowand? To me that's about a wash. Neither player is an impact player, but both perform well in their role.
Rowand may never have a year like 2004 again, I don't know. But last year he was an impact player. His .905 OPS was the best in the AL for centerfielders. In all of baseball, only Beltran and Edmonds (and maybe Burnitz) were over .900. Rowand edned up with 24 HRs, 38 2Bs, and a .310 avg (ranking 1st, 1st, and 2nd in the AL for CF) And he even had 17 SB (same as Baldelli and 2 behind Damon). If you compare him to all AL OFs, his OPS ranks him 5th (behind Ramirez, Guerrero, Sheffield, and Matsui). I don't want to sound too enthusiastic -- if I had to guess, I don't think he'll repeat what happened this year. But I'll take him over Byrnes.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 02:45 PM
Imagine that, we agree on something!
I don't think I have disagreed with a thing you have said since you got here.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 02:49 PM
Rowand may never have a year like 2004 again, I don't know. But last year he was an impact player. His .905 OPS was the best in the AL for centerfielders. In all of baseball, only Beltran and Edmonds (and maybe Burnitz) were over .900. Rowand edned up with 24 HRs, 38 2Bs, and a .310 avg (ranking 1st, 1st, and 2nd in the AL for CF) And he even had 17 SB (same as Baldelli and 2 behind Damon). If you compare him to all AL OFs, his OPS ranks him 5th (behind Ramirez, Guerrero, Sheffield, and Matsui). I don't want to sound too enthusiastic -- if I had to guess, I don't think he'll repeat what happened this year. But I'll take him over Byrnes.
Sure - that's all logical. The same can be said of Byrnes. He hit .263 with 12 HRs in 414 ABs in 2003 and .245 with under 100 ABs in 2002. Who knows if he will ever hit .285 again like he did last year? At age 28, neither are young to have their first full season in the game, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that either one of them is better than the other. In any case, if I had a choice between the two of them and Dye, Dye would be last by a long long long amount. Rowand would be #1. Byrnes would fall somewhere in the middle.

balke
10-28-2004, 02:56 PM
So the best we have is Joe Crede is worse than Eric Chavez... something coming into the season you might not have thought. Even after this suck-fest, I believe he has it in him to pull a Konerko next season.


The A's have nothing close to a FRank Thomas, Magglio ORdonez, Paul Konerko, or Carlos Lee.

Kenny Williams has given us some great players, and is supposedly working on getting us a "leader type" SS, and perhaps another Quality SP for next season. I like being a White Sox fan, and I'm glad we still have these fun ballplayers to watch at-bat. Sure, I'd like Mulder or Dotel on our team, but Garcia, Buerhle, Contreres, and possibly another good pitcher will be nothing to scoff at.

Both let go of Foulke, and it was stupid on both ends. Both let go of Durham, and that too is questionable (even though he might have wanted too much dough). But Kenny still has his true big guns, and might bring in some more. I don't see the A's going after Beltran or RJ this offseason, do you?

gosox41
10-28-2004, 03:10 PM
[QUOTE=jabrch]No - he did not have more value than that. Do you really think that if there was more value that Williams wouldn't have taken it? Do you really think he took the first deal that came up? He got young pitcher with a high cieling. That's a lot more than you are giving him credit for...and

How high of a ceiling does young Adkins have in your opinion?


Bob

gosox41
10-28-2004, 03:12 PM
Good think Bob isn't my realtor. He'd price my house at 29,000,000 and tell me to turn down the 13,000,000 offer and the 12,000,000 offer cuz he can get me more. Then, when I have to sell, after waiting 2 years for Bob, I'll be stuck getting 129,000. KW would have had me an offer for 240,000 that I could have taken 2 years ago.

Thanks for nothing Bob. :)
No, what KW would do is have you swap your house for another house in the area you liked. The other house would be flashier but the roof leaks, the foundation is cracked, and who knows what else. The peopel in that flashier house would be so anxious to get out they'd take you up in a second. But at least it looks good.


Bob :tongue:

gosox41
10-28-2004, 03:14 PM
I thought this was a Foulke thread, not a BB v. KW. how many threads of this are there? Just like the KW bash started yesterday = recycled crap.


Billy boy doesn't have Durham or Foulke anymore, and his relief got beat by the Angels, so they missed out on postseason play. He's lost many great players like Mcgwire, or Tejada, just to watch them become even greater players elsewhere. He sat out this October just like KW did. Some genius. Without his pitching staff, I couldn't name one player on that team that I'd want playing for the sox.
Crosby
Durazo
Swisher
Chavez

And like you said, most of his pitching staff.


Bob

gosox41
10-28-2004, 03:16 PM
You want to pay 14mm for Dye? You can have him. He's a FA - I bet he gets about 1/3 of that next year. And take a look at his numbers...I wouldn't want him at all. He's a shell of what he was in 2000.

I'd take Crosby - that's cool. Ditto for Chavez - even at his price.

You want Byrnes over Rowand? To me that's about a wash. Neither player is an impact player, but both perform well in their role.

So you wouldn't take Dye for $3-4 mill?


Bob

Flight #24
10-28-2004, 03:19 PM
So you wouldn't take Dye for $3-4 mill?


Bob
Sure, but that's not the point since Beane had him at a much higher $$$. I'd rate him similarly to Everett, slightly better, but not by much. Defintely worse than ARow or CLee.

hitlesswonder
10-28-2004, 03:23 PM
So the best we have is Joe Crede is worse than Eric Chavez... something coming into the season you might not have thought. Even after this suck-fest, I believe he has it in him to pull a Konerko next season.

The A's have nothing close to a FRank Thomas, Magglio ORdonez, Paul Konerko, or Carlos Lee.

I'd agree Beane's obviously the beneficiary of a lot of hype (and it's not like he doesn't make some bad trades, Lilly for Kielty was not good) and I don't think Williams is a bad GM or anything like that. But I have to disagree with that assessment of the positional players on the teams. Before 2004 Chavez had 4 seasons at the ML level with an OPS of .850 or more, Crede had 0. I think in the field the A's and Sox are very comparable. Durazo, Hatteberg (shockingly), Byrnes, and Kotsay all had very good years and are certainly comparable to Thomas (of last year, not career wise) Konerko, Lee, and Rowand. I'd actually take the Sox player in each case, but it's not like the Sox are a lot better. Plus, the whole comparison of the teams is skewed by not comparing pitching staffs. I'm all for not glorifying Beane and the A's, but I can't say I really think Williams is a better GM.

balke
10-28-2004, 03:49 PM
I'd agree Beane's obviously the beneficiary of a lot of hype (and it's not like he doesn't make some bad trades, Lilly for Kielty was not good) and I don't think Williams is a bad GM or anything like that. But I have to disagree with that assessment of the positional players on the teams. Before 2004 Chavez had 4 seasons at the ML level with an OPS of .850 or more, Crede had 0. I think in the field the A's and Sox are very comparable. Durazo, Hatteberg (shockingly), Byrnes, and Kotsay all had very good years and are certainly comparable to Thomas (of last year, not career wise) Konerko, Lee, and Rowand. I'd actually take the Sox player in each case, but it's not like the Sox are a lot better. Plus, the whole comparison of the teams is skewed by not comparing pitching staffs. I'm all for not glorifying Beane and the A's, but I can't say I really think Williams is a better GM.
Frank Thomas was on his way to an unbelievable season. He was carrying this team on his back with Maggs out (probably the weight is what broke his ankle). Hatteberg is not anywhere close to Frank Thomas pre-fracture.

But I'm not debating one better than the other like everyone else does. Just that the constant Beane crap is annoying and tripe. I hate his lineup, i like his pitching staff. Hopefully next season I LOVE the White Sox pitching staff, and the lineup is still packing some pop. Beane sat out just like we did this season. He's dropped the same players for the same reason. He builds a pitching team in a pitching park. He wouldn't work here. He would never spend the kind of money it takes to win in the Cell, cause you need sluggers. This was a Foulke Thread. Beane dropped Foulke too. Let's broadcast that on ESPN.

I also doubt Foulke makes us win last season. This team was good enough, they just gave up, flat-out. They would have looked amazing in the playoffs w/ Foulke, but I think they still don't get there. It was pathetic watching us crumble up and die like we did. I blamed Manuel, and I still feel we have Manuel's coaching style here in Ozzie. But that's yet another beaten to death topic.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 03:50 PM
[QUOTE=jabrch]No - he did not have more value than that. Do you really think that if there was more value that Williams wouldn't have taken it? Do you really think he took the first deal that came up? He got young pitcher with a high cieling. That's a lot more than you are giving him credit for...and

How high of a ceiling does young Adkins have in your opinion?


Bob
Not so high anymore...but you can only go based on when the deal was made.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 03:52 PM
Crosby
Durazo
Swisher
Chavez

And like you said, most of his pitching staff.


Bob
I wouldn't touch Durazo over PK. And Swisher? Who's he? Tell me what Swisher has ever done on the big league level? Come on... you are reaching.

jabrch
10-28-2004, 03:54 PM
So you wouldn't take Dye for $3-4 mill?


Bob
That's not what he cost for the past 3 years that Beane had him. And that's not what he wants for the next 3 years. Would you take A-Rod for 6mm? Sure... Would you take Frank for 1.5mm? Sure.

Come on Bob....lets keep this on a realistic leveled playing field.

batmanZoSo
10-28-2004, 04:07 PM
If you would have told me two years ago that Keith Foulke would be on the mound throwing the final pitch of the World Series, I would have been completely ecstatic.

Watching how impressive Foulke has been this postseason, I mentioned to a friend that I couldn't believe that we missed on this guy. That we actually thought he wasn't one of the best closers in the game. My buddy told me that he was just reading about the "Foulke-Koch" deal in Moneyball. I had bought Moneyball two months ago, but hadn't had time to finish reading it. So I picked it up and started reading about how "Kenny Williams" got screwed out of Ray Durham (and 2 1st round draft picks they would have received for him when he left in FA) for Jon Adkins. I ended up reading the book for two hours and I became very depressed.

I have never been one to hate on Kenny Williams before, but this book makes the White Sox Front Office look downright "ignorant" when it comes to judging talent, especially when it dedicates a whole chapter to Chad Bradford. For the first time I am starting to fear the bad judgements that most likely lie ahead......because "history almost always repeats itself."


They got rid of him because they weren't gonna be able to pay him after 03, so they got a then good Billy Koch who was signed for two years. It has nothing to do with talent evaluation.

1917
10-28-2004, 04:08 PM
Congrats to Foulke....but I have to admit, after a Subpar season, I was excited that we were getting Billy Koch, the Rolaids award winner, as were alot of Sox fans. Didn't work out as we know, but we can't bust on Kenny, he doesn't have a crystal ball in his office. Tell me you weren't excited about getting Koch 2 years ago and I'll call you a liar

Rocky Soprano
10-28-2004, 04:11 PM
Congrats to Foulke....but I have to admit, after a Subpar season, I was excited that we were getting Billy Koch, the Rolaids award winner, as were alot of Sox fans. Didn't work out as we know, but we can't bust on Kenny, he doesn't have a crystal ball in his office. Tell me you weren't excited about getting Koch 2 years ago and I'll call you a liar
I honestly wasnt. I love Foulke and knew the Sox were making a big mistake. Too bad I was right.

Man Soo Lee
10-28-2004, 04:13 PM
Not so high anymore...but you can only go based on when the deal was made.
Adkins had a 6.03 ERA at AAA Sacramento when the deal was made.

idseer
10-28-2004, 04:34 PM
Good for Foulke. It was nice seeing him on the mound for the final out, he's a part of history now.well soxfan ... we're all a part of history. :smile:

but seriously, i was one who was glad to see keith go originally, and it was short-sighted of me. it seemed he was going downhill (as so many good relievers do) and for the money he was going to demand PLUS tha fact he wanted to start, which made me feel he was going to become a disgruntled problem child, he just wouldn't be worth keeping around. add to that that koch looked like a great pickup at the time and i felt the move was more than justified.
i was dead wrong. and i'm extremely pleased for keith.

PaulDrake
10-28-2004, 04:35 PM
Congrats to Foulke....but I have to admit, after a Subpar season, I was excited that we were getting Billy Koch, the Rolaids award winner, as were alot of Sox fans. Didn't work out as we know, but we can't bust on Kenny, he doesn't have a crystal ball in his office. Tell me you weren't excited about getting Koch 2 years ago and I'll call you a liar Oh really?

www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=285196#post285196 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=285196#post285196)

Mickster
10-28-2004, 04:53 PM
Oh really?

www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=285196#post285196 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=285196#post285196)
This actually isn't a post you made when the trade happened. It is a post 1 year into the trade when everyone on this board wasn't happy with Kroch! :cool:

jabrch
10-28-2004, 05:01 PM
Adkins had a 6.03 ERA at AAA Sacramento when the deal was made.
He was coming off an injury. Gimme a break. He still was of more value to the team than what they expected from Durham, who was leaving as a FA and it was expected that we'd get no compensation for him.

Foulke29
10-28-2004, 05:21 PM
I'd like to thank all the little people for making this thread about me!

Foulke29
10-28-2004, 05:25 PM
I'd love for Foulke to have an awesome career. He's a great pitcher. I was very sad to see him go. He had seemed to snap out of his funk over the last month or so of his tenure here, but apparently Sox brass though he was done. Oh well, nothing can be done about that now, but congrats to Keith.

BTW Nice sig SoxFan78.My favorite pitcher to wear a White Sox uniform in my lifetime (I'm 32).

hitlesswonder
10-28-2004, 05:35 PM
Frank Thomas was on his way to an unbelievable season. He was carrying this team on his back with Maggs out (probably the weight is what broke his ankle). Hatteberg is not anywhere close to Frank Thomas pre-fracture..
I was actually going for a Durazo/Thomas comparison, and yes Thomas is better. I think the OPS's were .990 for Thomas and .910 for Durazo. So Frank is clearly better, but I was just debating the fact that Oakalnd didn't have position players "anywhere close" to what the Sox had. I am willing to give Williams the benefit of the doubt, but if you've read the board you'll have seen a bunch of threads about Williams wanting to get rid of Thomas. Since I don't know if it's true, I won't be critical but I'm not convinced Williams understands how valuable Thomas is and actually wanted him on the team.


He wouldn't work here. He would never spend the kind of money it takes to win in the Cell, cause you need sluggers. This was a Foulke Thread. Beane dropped Foulke too. Let's broadcast that on ESPN.

I think if Beane had more money to spend, he would spend it. The owner sets the budget. Beane's actually signed players to some significant deals (Dye and Long, both mistakes, although Dye was injured). And yes, I think Beane's belief that closers are easy to find cost the A's a trip to the playoffs this year. I also think that if Foulke were on the 2003 Sox they would have made the playoffs (except maybe for the fact that Manuel wouldn't use him as a closer, but Williams controls who manages the team too so he still wouldn't be blame free). Anyway, I'm not a Beane hagiographer by any means.

And since this is a thread about Foulke -- Keith, if you are still obsessed with the White Sox like Kenny Williams implied and so are reading this thread, congratulations on a great post-season :smile:

Man Soo Lee
10-28-2004, 05:48 PM
He was coming off an injury. Gimme a break. He still was of more value to the team than what they expected from Durham, who was leaving as a FA and it was expected that we'd get no compensation for him. I don't recall an injury at that time, but you may be right. In AA the previous year, Adkins had a 4.46 ERA with more hits than IP and about half of a strikeout per inning. Doesn't really suggest a high ceiling.

Here's a quote (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/020725durham.html) from the Baseball America analysis of the trade:
But no matter what spin is put on this transaction, Chicago got very little in return.
Adkins, 24, has intriguing stuff: a 90-94 mph fastball with good sink and a plus slider. He also throws a changeup and a splitter, which aren't as refined as his two best pitches. Despite his arsenal, however, the 1998 ninth-round pick out of Oklahoma State doesn't show consistent command in the strike zone and gets hits hard and often. In 97 innings at Sacramento, he gave up 139 hits and 33 walks, while striking out 76. He had Tommy John surgery in 1999 that kept him out of most of the following season.

hitlesswonder
10-28-2004, 06:04 PM
I don't recall an injury at that time, but you may be right. In AA the previous year, Adkins had a 4.46 ERA with more hits than IP and about half of a strikeout per inning. Doesn't really suggest a high ceiling.

I probably shouldn't be commenting on this, because I have no idea what the market for Durham was that year. But we're talking about a couple of months of Durham DH'ing for the A's, with draft pick compensation not being assured at the end of the season. How much more could Williams have got? Beane got lucky that he got the draft pick (does anyone know who they drafted with the pick?). I think Adkins numbers were probably below average for a major league middle reliever last year. But he made it to the majors, and had a few decent outings. I don't see the trade as a being really one-sided.

Foulke29
10-28-2004, 06:26 PM
I think Adkins numbers were probably below average for a major league middle reliever last year. But he made it to the majors, and had a few decent outings. I don't see the trade as a being really one-sided.
Agreed!

:keith
Can we go back to talking about me please?

MarkEdward
10-29-2004, 01:57 AM
I probably shouldn't be commenting on this, because I have no idea what the market for Durham was that year. But we're talking about a couple of months of Durham DH'ing for the A's, with draft pick compensation not being assured at the end of the season. How much more could Williams have got?From what I remember, the Braves were in the market for a 2B midway through the '02 season, but your point is mostly right- few teams were looking for a 2B.

Beane got lucky that he got the draft pick (does anyone know who they drafted with the pick?).I'm pretty sure he took Omar Quintanilla with the compensation pick. Quintanilla hit .314/.370/.480 for high-A Modesto and .351/.419/.521 for AA Midland. He's not a top prospect, but probably better than any SS the Sox have in their organization, and he's probably the best player from what looks to be a poor A's draft class of 2003.

LAWSfan
10-29-2004, 02:12 AM
One fact that is overlooked in this is that Beane let Foulke go too!!! But if Beane was so good why did he let Foulke go? Yeah yeah he doesn't have the money.

Then he made a terrible mistake by thinking Rhodes would be the closer then tried to get Dotel who wasn't able to get it done in Houston.

jabrch
10-29-2004, 06:47 AM
he's probably the best player from what looks to be a poor A's draft class of 2003.

HERESEY....Billy Beane doesn't have terrible drafts. You undervalue what Beane knows is right because you are biased towards what you see. A smart GM would know the value of Omar Quintanbialailiaa.

PaulDrake
10-29-2004, 09:36 AM
This actually isn't a post you made when the trade happened. It is a post 1 year into the trade when everyone on this board wasn't happy with Kroch! :cool: All I can tell you is that I wasn't lying when I made that post. I hated the trade from the gitgo. Koch, even in his best year was never the equal of Foulke. Not every Sox fan danced a jig when KW went out and got Koch. Believe it. 1917 flat out called anyone a liar if they claimed to not like the trade. Not true. "Excited" about getting Koch? No way.

soxtalker
10-29-2004, 09:51 AM
All I can tell you is that I wasn't lying when I made that post. I hated the trade from the gitgo. Koch, even in his best year was never the equal of Foulke. Not every Sox fan danced a jig when KW went out and got Koch. Believe it. 1917 flat out called anyone a liar if they claimed to not like the trade. Not true. "Excited" about getting Koch? No way.

I agree. I still remember an Oakland fan posting here right after the trade. His warnings were ominous -- and, unfortunately, he may have erred on the optimistic (for us) side.

Flight #24
10-29-2004, 11:01 AM
All I can tell you is that I wasn't lying when I made that post. I hated the trade from the gitgo. Koch, even in his best year was never the equal of Foulke. Not every Sox fan danced a jig when KW went out and got Koch. Believe it. 1917 flat out called anyone a liar if they claimed to not like the trade. Not true. "Excited" about getting Koch? No way.
IMO, the trade was basically 1 year of a better player for 2 years of a slightly worse player, something that's not that uncommon in baseball. If Koch had pitched somewhere between Koch of 2002 and say Jose Mesa, he'd have gotten 30+ saves and been fine (although still being worse than Foulke). Instead, he turned into the reliever version of Jaime Navarro, which is somewhat confusing since to my knowledge, he hasn't had any significant arm injury (and I believe he's been checked out a bunch), but has lost 5-8MPH of fof his fastball.

gosox41
10-29-2004, 05:07 PM
I wouldn't touch Durazo over PK. And Swisher? Who's he? Tell me what Swisher has ever done on the big league level? Come on... you are reaching.
Am I? Maybe Swisher will be a bust and maybe he'll be a star. He has the tools to be a good, solid ballplayer. I don't expect him to have his best year right away, but I'd take him in a second long term. Move Rowand to right, Swisher to CF, and Lee in LF. He's cheap with a relatively high ceiling.

Maybe Rowand and Swisher together can carry Borchard's jock strap.


Bob

gosox41
10-29-2004, 05:09 PM
That's not what he cost for the past 3 years that Beane had him. And that's not what he wants for the next 3 years. Would you take A-Rod for 6mm? Sure... Would you take Frank for 1.5mm? Sure.

Come on Bob....lets keep this on a realistic leveled playing field.
Wasn't it you who said he'd be lucky to get 1/3 of the $14 mill he got last year? Maybe it's more b/w $4-5 mill. but I think he's worth slightly less.

And we weren't talking of the A's of 3 years ago or else I'd have more names of players I'd take from those teams. The question was who would I take off the 2004 A's. And for $3-4 mill. I'd take Dye.


Bob

Man Soo Lee
10-29-2004, 06:15 PM
IMO, the trade was basically 1 year of a better player for 2 years of a slightly worse player, something that's not that uncommon in baseball. If Koch had pitched somewhere between Koch of 2002 and say Jose Mesa, he'd have gotten 30+ saves and been fine (although still being worse than Foulke).
The problem with that theory is that KW paid the "worse player" like the "better player". The Sox could have had Foulke in 2003 (for the same price) and then replaced him with the $6+ Mil they spent on Koch in '04.

jabrch
10-29-2004, 07:46 PM
Wasn't it you who said he'd be lucky to get 1/3 of the $14 mill he got last year? Maybe it's more b/w $4-5 mill. but I think he's worth slightly less.

And we weren't talking of the A's of 3 years ago or else I'd have more names of players I'd take from those teams. The question was who would I take off the 2004 A's. And for $3-4 mill. I'd take Dye.


Bob
Dye wasn't making 3-4mm. And even if he did, he wouldn't have been worth it this year.

Flight #24
10-29-2004, 10:13 PM
The problem with that theory is that KW paid the "worse player" like the "better player". The Sox could have had Foulke in 2003 (for the same price) and then replaced him with the $6+ Mil they spent on Koch in '04.
Not really. The Sox could have had Foulke for the same price this year, plus 2 more at 7+mil. Instead the Sox ensured that they had a closer for this year, and that they'd have payroll flexibility at the end of the year, when coincidentally, Maggs hit FA.

Man Soo Lee
10-30-2004, 12:52 AM
Not really. The Sox could have had Foulke for the same price this year, plus 2 more at 7+mil. Instead the Sox ensured that they had a closer for this year, and that they'd have payroll flexibility at the end of the year, when coincidentally, Maggs hit FA. I wasn't referring to Foulke's free agent contract. The Sox included cash in the trade with Oakland to equalize the 2003 salaries. So, they paid the same amount for the "slightly worse player".

The $6+ Mil given to Koch for 2004 would have been enough to sign one of the handful of closers that were free agents last year rather than settling for the "slightly worse player".

I would agree that having Koch under their control beyond 2003 was part of the motivation for the trade, but I don't buy the argument that the Sox considered Foulke the better pitcher. I think they considered Koch an elite closer and paid him like one. Unfortunately, it turned out even worse than most critics of the trade would have predicted.

Tragg
10-30-2004, 01:25 AM
I have never been one to hate on Kenny Williams before, but this book makes the White Sox Front Office look downright "ignorant" when it comes to judging talent, especially when it dedicates a whole chapter to Chad Bradford. For the first time I am starting to fear the bad judgements that most likely lie ahead......because "history almost always repeats itself."
Well, there was a money aspect to it as well.

But the fact is he blew a save or 2 in the concrete in Minny and Manuel decided he belonged in middle relief; what can you say?