Cliff Lee

MaTH716 · #1 12-14-2010, 10:32 AM

Honestly, who gives a s.hit where they fall as far as history goes. It only thing that matters is how many rings they are able to win. Look at that Braves staff, as good as they were they only ended up with one ring.

randallscott35 · #2 12-14-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Honestly, who gives a s.hit where they fall as far as history goes. It only thing that matters is how many rings they are able to win. Look at that Braves staff, as good as they were they only ended up with one ring.

slotdirt · #3 12-14-2010, 10:36 AM

Jealousy? WHo's jealous? I just think it's silly to say they have the best rotation ever before they've even thrown a pitch in the 2011 season. Moreover, by no empirical evidence whatsoever could one say that this is close to the best rotation ever. And if you think Roy Oswalt has another 5-7 years left in him, I have a some farmland in Manhattan to sell you.

Antitrust32 · #4 12-14-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Jealousy? WHo's jealous? I just think it's silly to say they have the best rotation ever before they've even thrown a pitch in the 2011 season. Moreover, by no empirical evidence whatsoever could one say that this is close to the best rotation ever. And if you think Roy Oswalt has another 5-7 years left in him, I have a some farmland in Manhattan to sell you.

your going all Riot - like saying things I didnt say.

On paper, this rotation is UP THERE with the best ever. One of. on Paper.

yeah Oswalt sure looked run down throwing a 1.74 ERA with the Phillies.

We have him for this next year, and an option for the year after. You think he's going to decline so much in that time? Keep your farmland.

horseofcourse · #5 12-14-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Honestly, who gives a s.hit where they fall as far as history goes. It only thing that matters is how many rings they are able to win. Look at that Braves staff, as good as they were they only ended up with one ring.

Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Bumgarner have more rings than Halladay, Oswalt, and Lee. Infinitely more. Thanks for making my point. So you are admitting the Giants as they stand have a better rotation currently. And you're stating Hamels is the Phils top starter simply because he has a "ring". The "rings" argument is always pretty silly I think.

Antitrust32 · #6 12-14-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Bumgarner have more rings than Halladay, Oswalt, and Lee. Infinitely more. Thanks for making my point. So you are admitting the Giants as they stand have a better rotation currently. And you're stating Hamels is the Phils top starter simply because he has a "ring". The "rings" argument is always pretty silly I think.

The rings are all that matters.

He wasnt saying that the best rotation ever is based off rings. He was saying it doesnt matter if you have the best rotation ever if you dont win the rings. he's right.

horseofcourse · #7 12-14-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

The rings are all that matters.

He wasnt saying that the best rotation ever is based off rings. He was saying it doesnt matter if you have the best rotation ever if you dont win the rings. he's right.

It's all good. Lee didn't win a ring in 2009 with the Phils, but he was certainly by far the best pitcher that post season and it's not even debatable. Just because he didn't win a "ring" that year doesn't diminish in my mind what he did. I still say that right now, a Giants fan can certainly argue that they currently have the best rotation in the NL even with the Phils signing of Lee. The old man of the Giants 4 is Sanchez at 28. 3 of the Phillies 4 are all over 30.

Antitrust32 · #8 12-14-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

It's all good. Lee didn't win a ring in 2009 with the Phils, but he was certainly by far the best pitcher that post season and it's not even debatable. Just because he didn't win a "ring" that year doesn't diminish in my mind what he did. I still say that right now, a Giants fan can certainly argue that they currently have the best rotation in the NL even with the Phils signing of Lee. The old man of the Giants 4 is Sanchez at 28. 3 of the Phillies 4 are all over 30.

when you root for a team, the only thing that matters is championships. I dont think that means individual accomplishments dont mean anything, they are nice. Obviously, because Halladay was stuck on the Blue Jays 95% of his career & didnt get a ring, doesnt mean that he hasnt had a HOF career to this point.

But I'd rather have a WS 2010 ring than a 2010 cy young award (Halladay)... as a fan.. any day. I would bet that Halladay would trade his award for a ring also.

horseofcourse · #9 12-14-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

when you root for a team, the only thing that matters is championships. I dont think that means individual accomplishments dont mean anything, they are nice. Obviously, because Halladay was stuck on the Blue Jays 95% of his career & didnt get a ring, doesnt mean that he hasnt had a HOF career to this point.

But I'd rather have a WS 2010 ring than a 2010 cy young award (Halladay)... as a fan.. any day. I would bet that Halladay would trade his award for a ring also.

I'm a Cleveland fan. Championships? Really? I am thrilled Lee signed with Philly. Everything I read was that he was gonna take the most money, period. The union is not gonna be happy he did this, but I think it is outstanding he shoved it in NY's face. Outstanding.

Antitrust32 · #10 12-14-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I'm a Cleveland fan. Championships? Really? I am thrilled Lee signed with Philly. Everything I read was that he was gonna take the most money, period. The union is not gonna be happy he did this, but I think it is outstanding he shoved it in NY's face. Outstanding.

I'm a Philly sports fan who was born in 1983... I share your pain and praise a higher power for 2008.

Antitrust32 · #11 12-14-2010, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

It's all good. Lee didn't win a ring in 2009 with the Phils, but he was certainly by far the best pitcher that post season and it's not even debatable. Just because he didn't win a "ring" that year doesn't diminish in my mind what he did. I still say that right now, a Giants fan can certainly argue that they currently have the best rotation in the NL even with the Phils signing of Lee. The old man of the Giants 4 is Sanchez at 28. 3 of the Phillies 4 are all over 30.

Halladay and Let Timmy Smoke are a wash

Lee > Cain ( I think Cain is way better than Sanchez)

Hamels & Oswalt > Sanchez and Bumgardner (sp?)

but Giants have a great rotation, and any of those guys can certainly shut down any team on any night... proven in the playoffs.

As for what rotation would be better in 2018? Yeah I'll go with Giants.

horseofcourse · #12 12-14-2010, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Halladay and Let Timmy Smoke are a wash

Lee > Cain ( I think Cain is way better than Sanchez)

Hamels & Oswalt > Sanchez and Bumgardner (sp?)

but Giants have a great rotation, and any of those guys can certainly shut down any team on any night... proven in the playoffs.

As for what rotation would be better in 2018? Yeah I'll go with Giants.

I'd take the Phils rotation without question, but the Giant fan has an argument. They had an under 2 ERA in September and still took it to the last day against the Padres last year. That's how bad the offense they carried was. And in postseason they did it very, very well. Sanchez was best in the league in hits per 9 innings last year. Bumgarner is intriguing.

MaTH716 · #13 12-14-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, Bumgarner have more rings than Halladay, Oswalt, and Lee. Infinitely more. Thanks for making my point. So you are admitting the Giants as they stand have a better rotation currently. And you're stating Hamels is the Phils top starter simply because he has a "ring". The "rings" argument is always pretty silly I think.

To me as a fan I couldn't care less where history has my teams/players (in any sport) ranked. All I care about is championships.

The Patriots were 2 minutes away from being maybe the best team ever, guess what, they are nothing more than a footnote now.

Antitrust32 · #14 12-14-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

To me as a fan I couldn't care less where history has my teams/players (in any sport) ranked. All I care about is championships.

The Patriots were 2 minutes away from being maybe the best team ever, guess what, they are nothing more than a footnote now.

werent you one of the guys busting my balls about my McNabb opinion?

5 NFC championship appearances... 0 super bowls?

interesting..

Dahoss · #15 12-14-2010, 11:13 AM

Did PG1985 steal Uncly's log in? I know Uncly isn't saying the best ever, she's saying one of. But I agree with Slotdirt, I have already heard from three friends of mine who are Phillies fans that said it's the best ever.

What is the rush to proclaim things the best ever nowadays?

Antitrust32 · #16 12-14-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Did PG1985 steal Uncly's log in? I know Uncly isn't saying the best ever, she's saying one of. But I agree with Slotdirt, I have already heard from three friends of mine who are Phillies fans that said it's the best ever.

What is the rush to proclaim things the best ever nowadays?

slot dirt started it

honestly I really wanted to argue the Braves thing & have been talking modern history on paper. I dont know a ton about pre 80's baseball & I know there have been better rotations in the complete history of MLB.

the next few years will work themselves out... I'm extremely happy to be in the spot we are in though.

Bigsmc · #17 12-14-2010, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Did PG1985 steal Uncly's log in? I know Uncly isn't saying the best ever, she's saying one of. But I agree with Slotdirt, I have already heard from three friends of mine who are Phillies fans that said it's the best ever.

What is the rush to proclaim things the best ever nowadays?

How ironic to read this on a horsey board, of all places.

RockHardTen1985 · #18 12-14-2010, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

How ironic to read this on a horsey board, of all places.

He cant keep me off his mind, even in this time of being ignored.
I know it hurts him.

MaTH716 · #19 12-14-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

werent you one of the guys busting my balls about my McNabb opinion?

5 NFC championship appearances... 0 super bowls?

interesting..

What was your opinion? I think the guy was a warrior with the Birds who never had any weapons. Look what happened when he finally got a reciever, they went to the Super Bowl.

But refresh my memory.

Antitrust32 · #20 12-14-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

What was your opinion? I think the guy was a warrior with the Birds who never had any weapons. Look what happened when he finally got a reciever, they went to the Super Bowl.

But refresh my memory.

you thought i was crazy for being thrilled we traded McNabb and thinking we'll be better with out him.

Granted the whole Mike Vick thing is different than me talking about Kolb... but I'll still take Kolb over McNabb any day of the week, and twice on Sundays... and so would every GM in football (especially the redskins)

I would bet lots of $$ that if McNabb was the qb, we would have lost our past two games. With McNabb, you know the team isnt going to come back. He was a very good qb up until 2005. ups and downs since then.. and overrated. but he is certainly someone you do not want to count on come crunch time, which is why we never got a SB. We had plenty of opportunities against the Pats.

I mean, the Skins benched him with 2 mins left and a 1 possession game.. for Rex Grossman. If that doesnt make my case than nothing will.