Lets hope Halladay is a playoff stud like Lee

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

How the heck are they not better than last year?? Polanco is a upgrade over Feliz and Halladay is a slight upgrade over Lee

Also we need to sign Chan Ho Park and Durbin.. big time.

The bolded isnt necessarily true.

Why would you feel the need to sign Park and Durbin? They are easily replacable.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The bolded isnt necessarily true.

Why would you feel the need to sign Park and Durbin? They are easily replacable.

Polanco is a gold glover who is a better offensive player than feliz.

Halladay is Halladay, though Lee is great too.

Park and Durbin were our two best bullpen guys last year IMO.. especially Park. If we replace them with guys just as good that is okay, though I really want them both signed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Polanco is a gold glover who is a better offensive player than feliz.

Halladay is Halladay, though Lee is great too.

Park and Durbin were our two best bullpen guys last year IMO.. especially Park. If we replace them with guys just as good that is okay, though I really want them both signed.

Polonco was a gold glove 2nd baseman. And honestly a gold glove is hardly an accurate measure of a players defensive worth versus others at his position. Polanco also is a singles hitter with no power at a power position. Feliz is far from Arod but his defense at third was as good as anyone in the NL and he did have some power. It not only is a lateral move but Polanco is going to be 34, he isnt getting better.

Park and Durbin are barely replacement level guys. They were the 11th and 15th best pitchers on the staff last year using VORP as a measure. They could get younger, cheaper guys to do just as well as those 2.

[Cannon Shell]

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/200...illies_18.html

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I Don't get it. If they had paid Lee the 9 mil, then they had Hamels, Lee, and Halliday possible for the World Series. They were competitive for it all in 2009 with just Lee pitching well. Chances are 2 out of those 3 above starters would be pitching well in the 2010 World Series. That's all they needed. All I can think of is they were concerned about the chemistry going bad (too much expected from them etc.)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I Don't get it. If they had paid Lee the 9 mil, then they had Hamels, Lee, and Halliday possible for the World Series. They were competitive for it all in 2009 with just Lee pitching well. Chances are 2 out of those 3 above starters would be pitching well in the 2010 World Series. That's all they needed. All I can think of is they were concerned about the chemistry going bad (too much expected from them etc.)

The only logical explanation seems to be they are just cheap

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only logical explanation seems to be they are just cheap

seattle got lee ?

they might be tough next year?

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The only logical explanation seems to be they are just cheap

In the end, they gave up a ton of prospects to get Lee and a ton of prospects to get Halladay. As an Indian fan, I think they gave up very minimal amounts to get Lee, but what do I know. I think it's still simply a case of trying to get some of those prospects back. That's it. Cheapness is certainly also involved, they're simply gambling Halladay is enough this year to get them back to the World Series. The postseason is a crap shoot anyway. They had zero chance to sign Lee. Evidently Lee wants Sabathia money. I'm not sure who will give him that. Lee was the big winner. He has a much better chance to put up good numbers with Seattle as his home park rather than Philly despite the presence of a DH. I can honestly see both sides to should the Phillies have traded Lee argument. Sometimes being cheap can work.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

In the end, they gave up a ton of prospects to get Lee and a ton of prospects to get Halladay. As an Indian fan, I think they gave up very minimal amounts to get Lee, but what do I know. I think it's still simply a case of trying to get some of those prospects back. That's it. Cheapness is certainly also involved, they're simply gambling Halladay is enough this year to get them back to the World Series. The postseason is a crap shoot anyway. They had zero chance to sign Lee. Evidently Lee wants Sabathia money. I'm not sure who will give him that. Lee was the big winner. He has a much better chance to put up good numbers with Seattle as his home park rather than Philly despite the presence of a DH. I can honestly see both sides to should the Phillies have traded Lee argument. Sometimes being cheap can work.

Dont believe that crap that they are feeding everyone about those propects. There is no valid theory that I know of that says Lee being traded helps them win the WS this year. If they got back a blue chip guy and Amaro said I couldnt pass on him, I could see it. But they got 3 question marks.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Did I hear correctly? Lee said the Phils told him to not believe the rumors. Then, 24 hours later, Reuben called him, and told him he was traded?

[declansharbor]

As mentioned, the Polanco for Feliz swap at third is an offensively upgrade only. Feliz was a friggn wall at the hot corner last year, I can't imagine Placido making those plays at the same %...What it does do though, is it puts a runner on base more often which generates even more runs, sometimes disguising the hole(s) at the back end of the rotation.


As for the Halladay/Lee move, it was a matter of timing. Personally, I think Amaro jumped the gun a bit here. I would've waited, chanced it and let Lee increase/decrease his value during this upcoming year. Amaro tried to sweep it all under the rug in one big fell swoop. There's no way they could spin it to the fans if they were leading the division mid-season and traded Lee for minor league prospects, only to get beat in the postseason by a team that shells the roto. The brass pulled the Lee trade out at the only time that it could be semi-justified, the day they land a top 2 arm in the league like Halladay. It would be tough for them to showcase a lineup of Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Happ, Hole, only to dismantle it around the deadline. They didnt want us fans to think that it was possible to have such a potent team.

Whether it was cheap, or to 'restock the farm', I'm not a huge advocate of the deal. Not at this present moment. It was a slight move upwards, but the hole at the end remains. I wouldn't count on the bullpen too much next year. I guess they are attempting to generate more runs to dim the glare-ski.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont believe that crap that they are feeding everyone about those propects. There is no valid theory that I know of that says Lee being traded helps them win the WS this year. If they got back a blue chip guy and Amaro said I couldnt pass on him, I could see it. But they got 3 question marks.

Well, evidently that is the market value for Lee. The Indians got crap for him, and the Mariners didn't give away any top ones either to get him. For as good as he's pitched the last two years, he's not fetching much in the way of prospects. They got 3 question marks back for the 4 they gave up to get him. I don't know how organizations operate with regards to their minor league systems.

There is no valid theory on that trading Lee would help them win the World Series. However, baseball is strange. By what theory, after 2008 could you have said Hamels would have a sub par year and Lidge would absolutely stink in 2009 and the Phillies would still make it back to the World Series?? I simply look at my Cleveland Indians. All the good years Lee had with them, they never made the playoffs in any of them. The year Lee stunk to high heaven and couldn't even make the post season roster, they had a 3-1 lead in the ALCS

[Smooth Operator]

Some excellent points, Cannon



They could've come up with a way to keep this guy (Lee) and had a dream rotation going into the season, but they cheaped out … which is why they'll probably never beat NY or Boston in the Series…

[horseofcourse]

I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to the team who's last 3 years are: 2007, division champion...2008 World Series Champion...2009 National League Champion.

Their resume the last 3 years exceeds both Boston and the Yankees. They've each won one, and the Phillies are the only of the 3 to have been to 2.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to the team who's last 3 years are: 2007, division champion...2008 World Series Champion...2009 National League Champion.

Their resume the last 3 years exceeds both Boston and the Yankees. They've each won one, and the Phillies are the only of the 3 to have been to 2.

They all even. No one cares or remembers who went to the World Series and lost.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

They all even. No one cares or remembers who went to the World Series and lost.

That's simply not true. Are you seriously telling me any general baseball fan has no clue or inkling who lost the 1975 World Series?? Really?? Or who lost the 1986 World Series?? Really?? The losers of those Series' are as much of baseball lore as the winners. You need to go watch James Earl Jones' speech in Field of Dreams again. (without a loser, noone wins.)

[Smooth Operator]

How bout the last 50 or 60 years, horseofcourse?

How does the Phils record match up with NY over that time period?



ROOKIE call by Amaro


NY would've found a way...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

How bout the last 50 or 60 years, horseofcourse?

How does the Phils record match up with NY over that time period?



ROOKIE call by Amaro


NY would've found a way...

How does ANY team match up with NY in the past 50 or 60 years you fucl<ing douchebag.

Good job by NY to get the best pitcher in baseball signed for under market value for the next four years huh booth?

You are a fucl<ing moron.

Have fun comparing the Phils to the most successful organization in sports (gosh it hurt writing that). No **** NY would have found a way. Their ownership has no concept of a budget.

I as much as anyone wish we still had Lee. I am very thrilled with Halladay. You are just a dumbass Booth. How the fucl< did you latch on to Philly and USC?

[Smooth Operator]

LMAO


Nothing better than getting under your skin and watching you go off, Antichrist32

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Well, evidently that is the market value for Lee. The Indians got crap for him, and the Mariners didn't give away any top ones either to get him. For as good as he's pitched the last two years, he's not fetching much in the way of prospects. They got 3 question marks back for the 4 they gave up to get him. I don't know how organizations operate with regards to their minor league systems.

There is no valid theory on that trading Lee would help them win the World Series. However, baseball is strange. By what theory, after 2008 could you have said Hamels would have a sub par year and Lidge would absolutely stink in 2009 and the Phillies would still make it back to the World Series?? I simply look at my Cleveland Indians. All the good years Lee had with them, they never made the playoffs in any of them. The year Lee stunk to high heaven and couldn't even make the post season roster, they had a 3-1 lead in the ALCS

The theory that pitchers are fragile and you can never have too many of them