It's not Keith Foulke that's the problem-we could be talking about anyone. It's these little comments dispersed here and there. The insinuations. The comparisons. Damon is always willing to engage the media... but Keith Foulke is not. Is this such a bad thing? What I'm trying to figure out here is where the line gets crossed between simply dealing out criticism for a player's performance and using the 'pen' as a way to get back at an athlete that isn't an open book in front of the media. Is not being candid with the media justification for the continued jabs? Seriously? Can we just let it go? I think we've all had long enough to figure out that Keithe Foulke (like sure anyone else for that matter) doesn't enjoy being confronted with questions about why he had a bad game, or whatever else the problem du jour may be. It's gotten to the pointwhere it's almost a game now-where he's approached just so somebody can make a comment about what his reaction is. And if there's even just the smallest hint of his displeasure, they seem to delight in pointing this out.
I agree with her wholeheartedly.
You can see it happening--whatever insidious machine is at work in Boston, whether it's the press, the fans, the city, a combination...every so often it seems to feel the need to kick into gear, loom ominously over the city for a few months, and eat a ballplayer alive.
It got Roger. It got Nomar. It got Pedro. Now it seems to be coming for Foulke.
What is this darkness even the lusted-after World Series couldn't shake? It is a curse--just not of a Bambino.