View Single Post
05-01-2010, 10:29 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Amateur Hour View Post
Yes, Roy is better than Cliff, but that's not the issue here. Why couldn't they carry Lee and Halladay? Money? That reason went right out the window with the Howard contract and what might be a Werth extension, so don't even give me that ****. Besides, you're baseball fan, right? If so, I shouldn't have to tell you that pitching is WAY more valuable than offense. I don't give a flying **** if extending Howard was a PR move. Isn't the objective to win? If so, that money the team gave to Howard would have been much better spent on a front-line starting pitcher. There, I said it. The way I see it, the Phillies pretty much lied to everyone's face when giving their reasoning in trading Lee. They most certainly could have had both Lee and Halladay if they desired. I can no longer be convinced otherwise. I consistently find myself hoping Phillies management doesn't botch their personnel decisions in such a way that I become disillusioned with them the way I have with the Eagles front office. I'd really hate for that to happen.

I live in a house with three Red Sox fans, and they hold Amaro in the same regard that they do Andy Reid -- no, that's not a good thing -- for dealing Lee away instead of unleashing a Halladay-Lee-Hamels monster on the NL. And don't even get me started on how keeping Lee would have eased the pressure on Hamels, instead of basically wagering the whole season on him immediately regaining his 2008 form. That just infuriates me even more.
How do extensions that start in 2011 and 2012 factor into this year's budget? That deal was done in large part to save a couple bucks this year.

CantSeeColors is offline