Monty kills the Halladay hard on

by **stevelxa476** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 22:46:41

mozartpc27 wrote:
scottdg wrote:I never knew the Phils were close to getting Randy Johnson in '93.

:?:

AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kruk has mentioned it a couple of times now. I think he said before that the sticking point, and I could be wrong, was the Phils didn't want to give up Ben Rivera and Tyler Green.

by **CFP** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 22:46:47

Heyman's Twitter was probably hacked. There was no way it was real.

by **Bucky** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 22:49:35

CFP wrote:Heyman's Twitter was probably hacked. There was no way it was real.

VIVA LA MACHINEGUNFUNK, MOTHER#(#(#(ER!!!!!

by **CFP** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 22:54:10

Although the post was expanded into a mini-article on SI.com, so Heyman wasn't hacked, he was duped.

by **WilliamC** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 22:54:23

stevelxa476 wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
scottdg wrote:I never knew the Phils were close to getting Randy Johnson in '93.

:?:

AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kruk has mentioned it a couple of times now. I think he said before that the sticking point, and I could be wrong, was the Phils didn't want to give up Ben Rivera and Tyler Green.

Looking back Thomas probably made the right decision. That trade would have killed us for up to seven years to come.

by **uncle milt** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 22:59:26

ek wrote:manuel wants to go for it

Charlie Manuel made his case for getting Halladay.

"I think that we're definitely in a window, that period where we definitely have a chance to compete every year and have a chance to win every year," he said. "I think that with all the talent that we've got, we need to put some more pieces around it. I think if we can do that, that'll make us better.

"I think any time you put a team together -- I'm definitely not here to do any other job but manage their team -- but I'd say that the best possible team you can put on the field in the Major Leagues is what you want. And if you can always upgrade it or always put better talent on the field, why not do it?"

yes, please!

by **VFB** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:02:43

boner!

by **GMAN** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:02:45

It's all posturing. The Phils want him badly and will likely get him.

by **Bakestar** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:06:31

FTN wrote:well they said Amaro was in Clearwater. So there to see Brown.

by **bleh** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:26:27

Bakestar wrote:
FTN wrote:well they said Amaro was in Clearwater. So there to see Brown.

He wants to make sure he's bad enough to trade

by **traderdave** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:29:41

FTN wrote:i could kill a man

TraderDave is gonna have to choke a b*tch if this keeps up much longer. Frankly I am getting close to the camp that says if we can do the deal WE want great; if JP insists on top price plus I think we just move on and take our chances with Lopez and Pedro.

by **td11** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:34:54

that potential mets deal was hilarious. i tried to explain to my dad that they had allegedly turned down this offer of four turds for doc. he asked if the prospects were any good and i said the best one is f-mart. he looked confused. then i said, "mets not top-10, belly flop" and we shared a laugh.

by **philliesphhan** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:42:20

stevelxa476 wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:
scottdg wrote:I never knew the Phils were close to getting Randy Johnson in '93.

:?:

AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kruk has mentioned it a couple of times now. I think he said before that the sticking point, and I could be wrong, was the Phils didn't want to give up Ben Rivera and Tyler Green.

I'm glad I only found out about this potential deal recently and not in 1993. That would have been devastating.

by **slamjim** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:44:12

Bakestar wrote:
FTN wrote:well they said Amaro was in Clearwater. So there to see Brown.

Maybe he is there to see Pedro pitch tomorrow?

by **FTN** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:46:06

Maybe hes there to see how he feels about Brown being the guy in our top 3 that we hold onto

by **karn** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:49:40

One on one interviews with Drabek and Brown to see which can handle being the chosen one. LOVE IT

by **mcare89** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:54:27

I think the Mets trade rumor thing is encouraging, because it pretty much cements that Heyman's source is either Ricchardi or somebody very close to Ricchardi.

I mean, it just makes too much sense.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:54:34

that quote doesn't dampen my boner at all

by **hoya** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 23:59:07

mcare89 wrote:I think the Mets trade rumor thing is encouraging, because it pretty much cements that Heyman's source is either Ricchardi or somebody very close to Ricchardi.

I mean, it just makes too much sense.

Really? Why would would you float a rumor that the Mets wouldn't even give you four piles of shit?

by **truth142** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 00:18:45

hoya wrote:
mcare89 wrote:I think the Mets trade rumor thing is encouraging, because it pretty much cements that Heyman's source is either Ricchardi or somebody very close to Ricchardi.

I mean, it just makes too much sense.

Really? Why would would you float a rumor that the Mets wouldn't even give you four piles of $#@!?

Cocaine's a hell of a drug

Archived

Monty kills the Halladay hard on