by smitty » Wed Jul 24, 2013 18:28:06
Shore wrote:If we are in contention, if we are potential buyers, we should bring up Galvis or Hernandez. It won't impact their development to not play every day for 2 weeks.
If we are sellers, leave them alone and call up mini fart.
by smitty » Wed Jul 24, 2013 18:29:51
by bleh » Wed Jul 24, 2013 18:34:28
by Grotewold » Thu Jul 25, 2013 07:07:30
by bleh » Thu Jul 25, 2013 07:13:20
Wednesday on the team’s official Website, an advertisement promoting next week’s three-game series against the Giants featured a picture of Utley. Two of those games come after the trade deadline. Would the Phils use a player they were planning to trade to promote a series that comes up right after the trade deadline? Doubtful.
by Grotewold » Thu Jul 25, 2013 07:16:38
by Roger Dorn » Thu Jul 25, 2013 08:19:38
by Grotewold » Thu Jul 25, 2013 08:30:12
Roger Dorn wrote:Nate Schierholtz is having a pretty good season, .277/.334/.521 with 13 homers. Why didn't we tender him a contract again?
by rolex » Thu Jul 25, 2013 08:51:01
bleh wrote:Wednesday on the team’s official Website, an advertisement promoting next week’s three-game series against the Giants featured a picture of Utley. Two of those games come after the trade deadline. Would the Phils use a player they were planning to trade to promote a series that comes up right after the trade deadline? Doubtful.
hard to refute concrete evidence like that!
An Utley extension would really take the sting off this mediocre season though, and I do think he'll be extended soon.
by ReadingPhilly » Thu Jul 25, 2013 09:00:02
by Soren » Thu Jul 25, 2013 09:00:29
ReadingPhilly wrote:praying for a peralta suspension
by Trent Steele » Thu Jul 25, 2013 09:24:04
Grotewold wrote:Roger Dorn wrote:Nate Schierholtz is having a pretty good season, .277/.334/.521 with 13 homers. Why didn't we tender him a contract again?
Would have cost @ $2.5M on top of Nix's $1.35M to tender Nate and dump Nix. Which it certainly appears they should have.
by Grotewold » Thu Jul 25, 2013 09:25:17
Trent Steele wrote:Especially since they are going to end up paying Delmon about $2m anyway to take the ABs that Scherholtz would have taken.
by Trent Steele » Thu Jul 25, 2013 09:25:47
by Woody » Thu Jul 25, 2013 09:31:33
Grotewold wrote:Trent Steele wrote:Especially since they are going to end up paying Delmon about $2m anyway to take the ABs that Scherholtz would have taken.
Yeah, another mistake was not seeing Nate as a mostly-everyday OF. But I can't blame them too bad for that. The Giants didn't, either, and I didn't really have a strong feeling there
by Grotewold » Thu Jul 25, 2013 09:51:47
Woody wrote:Grotewold wrote:Trent Steele wrote:Especially since they are going to end up paying Delmon about $2m anyway to take the ABs that Scherholtz would have taken.
Yeah, another mistake was not seeing Nate as a mostly-everyday OF. But I can't blame them too bad for that. The Giants didn't, either, and I didn't really have a strong feeling there
What's it like to wake up everyday with sunshine blazing out of your butthole
by CalvinBall » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:17:33
by BigEd76 » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:23:37
bleh wrote:Would the Phils use a player they were planning to trade to promote a series that comes up right after the trade deadline? Doubtful.
hard to refute concrete evidence like that!
by RichmondPhilsFan » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:38:50
Trent Steele wrote:Grotewold wrote:Roger Dorn wrote:Nate Schierholtz is having a pretty good season, .277/.334/.521 with 13 homers. Why didn't we tender him a contract again?
Would have cost @ $2.5M on top of Nix's $1.35M to tender Nate and dump Nix. Which it certainly appears they should have.
Especially since they are going to end up paying Delmon about $2m anyway to take the ABs that Scherholtz would have taken. Maybe a 2 win difference so far + whatever limited trade value Schierholtz might have.
It wasn't a catastrophic mistake by any means, but it was a silly, unnecessary one triggered by the even stupider Nix signing.
by Grotewold » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:55:32
