FTN wrote:The biggest problem from the anti-Halladay camp is that people seem to view it as a black/white decision; trading Halladay = punting the future.

And that couldn't be further from the truth. I made two very lengthy posts detailing why its not true, but it seems people just continue down the "mortgaging the future to get Halladay" path. Its such a dumb argument.

it's a falsely dichotomous non mutually exclusive situation!

FTN wrote:The biggest problem from the anti-Halladay camp is that people seem to view it as a black/white decision; trading Halladay = punting the future.

And that couldn't be further from the truth. I made two very lengthy posts detailing why its not true, but it seems people just continue down the "mortgaging the future to get Halladay" path. Its such a dumb argument.

You may find this hard to believe, but I didn't read your two lengthy posts. So there's that. I don't think we are necessarily mortgaging the future. As I tried to say, and most likely failed, I think it would be narrowing our margin for error, which is undoubtedly true.

And to turn this around. Getting Halladay doesn't win us two more world series titles either. They still have to be won on the field. I wrote several lengthy posts mentioning why it doesn't necessarily win us a WS title, but people keep acting like it's automatic. It's not and it's dumb to think so.

FTN wrote:The biggest problem from the anti-Halladay camp is that people seem to view it as a black/white decision; trading Halladay = punting the future.

And that couldn't be further from the truth. I made two very lengthy posts detailing why its not true, but it seems people just continue down the "mortgaging the future to get Halladay" path. Its such a dumb argument.

Exactly. That's why I keep saying we should have a filter on the site so his name comes up: "Halladay, plus two draft picks."

Monkeyboy wrote:

FTN wrote:The biggest problem from the anti-Halladay camp is that people seem to view it as a black/white decision; trading Halladay = punting the future.

And that couldn't be further from the truth. I made two very lengthy posts detailing why its not true, but it seems people just continue down the "mortgaging the future to get Halladay" path. Its such a dumb argument.

You may find this hard to believe, but I didn't read your two lengthy posts. So there's that. I don't think we are necessarily mortgaging the future. As I tried to say, and most likely failed, I think it would be narrowing our margin for error, which is undoubtedly true.

And to turn this around. Getting Halladay doesn't win us two more world series titles either. They still have to be won on the field. I wrote several lengthy posts mentioning why it doesn't necessarily win us a WS title, but people keep acting like it's automatic. It's not and it's dumb to think so.

Would either of you be offended if I reveal that I have read neither of your lengthy posts?

I want this all to be over. Any resolution that doesn't have us trade D-Brown, I can live with, any trade where we keep Brown and Drabek is cause for a naked party.

Sounds like Rube is gonna get The Hammer and maybe Qualls. Glad to see he's taking care of bidness while Riccardi plays with himself.

kruker wrote:I want this all to be over. Any resolution that doesn't have us trade D-Brown, I can live with, any trade where we keep Brown and Drabek is cause for a naked party.

This.

MB, it's just that we don't know what the margin for error is. We do know getting Halladay greatly improves the team now, and for playoff matchups, and for two years, and then two draft picks will come back if they don't sign him. We just don't know what the prospects will do, and if it's a solid shot at the WS, or lessening the margin of error by a bit, then go for it.

Say the Phils do keep the prospects. What happens when they find themselves in a similar position 5 years from now? Wait again? When is the right time, if not when you're knocking on the door after being there the night before?/ptk

The Dude wrote:MB, it's just that we don't know what the margin for error is. We do know getting Halladay greatly improves the team now, and for playoff matchups, and for two years, and then two draft picks will come back if they don't sign him. We just don't know what the prospects will do, and if it's a solid shot at the WS, or lessening the margin of error by a bit, then go for it.

Say the Phils do keep the prospects. What happens when they find themselves in a similar position 5 years from now? Wait again? When is the right time, if not when you're knocking on the door after being there the night before?/ptk

Not enough punctuation marks and missspellings?!?

whitten

Could be worse. We could be on a board about a team that is 9 GB, has choked the playoffs away 2 straight years, and which has just been "rumored" to have turned down a trade for Halladay that was obviously fugazi because the your team's prospects sucks such balls that it was not even remotely feasible.

snakster wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

FTN wrote:The biggest problem from the anti-Halladay camp is that people seem to view it as a black/white decision; trading Halladay = punting the future.

And that couldn't be further from the truth. I made two very lengthy posts detailing why its not true, but it seems people just continue down the "mortgaging the future to get Halladay" path. Its such a dumb argument.

You may find this hard to believe, but I didn't read your two lengthy posts. So there's that. I don't think we are necessarily mortgaging the future. As I tried to say, and most likely failed, I think it would be narrowing our margin for error, which is undoubtedly true.

And to turn this around. Getting Halladay doesn't win us two more world series titles either. They still have to be won on the field. I wrote several lengthy posts mentioning why it doesn't necessarily win us a WS title, but people keep acting like it's automatic. It's not and it's dumb to think so.

Would either of you be offended if I reveal that I have read neither of your lengthy posts?

nope, I find it impossible to read everything on the site, even though people sometimes act like you should somehow keep up with everything.

"Well, we're getting a #2 starter back in three weeks, so we view that as our stretch run acquisition".

Monkeyboy wrote:well, I was the main person saying we shouldn't make the move right before your post, so I figured it was directed at people who share my opinion. I didn't think it was directed at ONLY me. Either way, it's a dumb observation to believe someone's opinion on one or two issues means they are risk aversive.

I assume you now realize Doc's comment was a reference to the common "I'll give my left one if/to ..." and not a comment aimed at a particular opinion. To be fair, woulda helped if he had included the word "left".

Doc, it appears it's going to take four, not one.

That sounds more like it; I mean, come on people, Kendrick is pretty close to worthless right now. Why would he be part of a Halladay deal?

he wouldn't be, he'd be part of a nats deal

mozartpc27 wrote:That sounds more like it; I mean, come on people, Kendrick is pretty close to worthless right now. Why would he be part of a Halladay deal?

I think more likely a Willingham or Qualls deal, but never forget that we are dealing with JP Ricciardi. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't overemphasize JP's predilection for stupidity.

The Dude wrote:he wouldn't be, he'd be part of a nats deal

I don't think Kendrick could get you back 3/5 of their starting rotation. The Nationals! Seriously, Kendrick sucks. No one witha brain would give anybody anything of value for him.

July 31, plus the arbitration deadline date in december is the most exciting time for me. WOO

mozartpc27 wrote:

The Dude wrote:he wouldn't be, he'd be part of a nats deal

I don't think Kendrick could get you back 3/5 of their starting rotation. The Nationals! Seriously, Kendrick sucks. No one witha brain would give anybody anything of value for him.

They're going after Willingham