| 0 |
Subject: Phils get Blanton
Posted by: blue hen
- [30311814] Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 18:40
Phillies have acquired Joe Blanton. I am going to go on record right now saying that this will prove to be a bad idea. |
| 1 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 18:45
|
Link?
Who did they give up?
|
| 2 | barilko6
ID: 1419198
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 19:05
|
That sucks, because this most likely ends any interest they might have had in AJ Burnett, who us Jays fans would have loved to unloaded.
|
| 3 | barilko6
ID: 1419198
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 19:06
|
For a link, you can go to Rotoworld.
|
| 4 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 19:53
|
Cardenas can rake. Nice move by the A's.
Perhaps Blanton will be partially helped by being new to the NL and facing NL lineups. He's no stud but a reliable 4th.
|
| 5 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 20:30
|
Looks like the only P they have left to trade is Street.
|
| 6 | Khahan
ID: 486552412
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 07:41
|
Of course this is the bad idea. This seems to be the Phillies way. Go after mediocre pitching and praise it as a great move. Fits right into what they've done since the days of Ed Wade.
|
| 7 | blue hen
ID: 30311814
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 10:59
|
Is Blanton all that different than Adam Eaton? Why didn't Gillick go after Harden if "the Cubs were bidding against themselves." The Phils obviously had players the A's wanted.
Cardenas is decent and Outman was going to be great. The A's get even MORE pitching. Obviously, we couldn't have given them Golson, which was my preference.
Re 5: I think Duchscherer is going to be next. Man, the A's are good.
|
| 8 | SB
ID: 106371920
Sat, Jul 19, 2008, 21:41
|
Gillick has been no better than Wade. Shocked to hear myself say that, but it's true.
|
| 9 | blue hen
ID: 30311814
Mon, Jul 21, 2008, 10:01
|
Now wait a minute. Gillick has been unacceptable, but Wade was MUCH worse.
I do like the Lidge and Werth deals. Some of the others, not so much. But Ed Wade did nothing except overpay for Thome and then trade him for 50 cents on the dollar. The Wagner deal worked out a bit, but they treated him badly and it ended badly. Fortunately, the Mets are getting a worse Wagner than we had.
|
| 10 | judy
Sustainer
ID: 7771722
Mon, Jul 21, 2008, 14:20
|
I think that should have kept Happ up.
Blanton's stats aren't too good, BUT the change of scenery worked
for Lidge.
The PROBLEM with the Phillies is that they can't hit -- they have
really wasted Cole's efforts this year. (Of course, Cole is on my
team...)
|
| 11 | SB
ID: 106371920
Mon, Jul 21, 2008, 20:53
|
The Thome deal looks bad in hindsight but everyone was ecstatic about it when it happened. Same can be said of the Kevin Millwood trade. Wade made some good moves, mostly bad ones. Same can be said for Gillick. At the end of the day, both suck.
|
| 12 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 09:20
|
I just read where Philly was in serious talks with Colorado for Brian Fuentes AND Matt Holliday. But since they obtained Blow Blanton those talks with Colorado have ended.
Gee, firm up your bullpen and add Matt Holliday to your roster. Or Upgrade to Adam Eaton v2.0. Take your pick.
|
| 13 | blue hen
ID: 30311814
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 12:55
|
Exactly. That's very lame. I bet we could've gotten Jeff Francis too.
|
| 14 | Razor
ID: 545172413
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 13:56
|
Why would the Rockies trade Holliday?
|
| 15 | blue hen
ID: 30311814
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 14:41
|
That's what I said, but those rumors have definitely been on the table. He's going to get expensive pretty soon.
|
| 16 | Khahan
ID: 1065339
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 14:55
|
Rumors of the Rockies trading Holliday have been around since spring training. In the offseason I heard rumors of him possibly going to Boston. I've heard (more recently) that Philly was interested). I remember hearing other rumors involving Holliday but forget which teams.
|
| 17 | SB
ID: 106371920
Tue, Jul 22, 2008, 18:18
|
Boras represents Holliday so they know he's not going to be around for very long.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|