Who wins the World Series? [Archive] - Guitar Discussion Forum

Tig

October 24th, 2010, 01:02 AM

Twas a shame the Phils lost......but you can't win if you don't score runs and they squandered too many chances tonite. My heart and colon need a vacation from all of the Phillies playoff dramas.

I feel ya'! The Phillies are my second favorite team and I was disappointed with their performance several times in this series against the Giants. Howard finally started hitting this game, but if he did better in the previous games, we'd be going to the 7th.

While I don't follow the Rangers closely, I still like them to win the World Series. Beating the Yankees wins them huge points in most people's book. (sorry, DVM!) Nolan Ryan has had a positive influence and it shows. Besides, my neighbor's oldest son just got signed with one of their minor league teams as a pitcher, so our street is backing the Rangers even more than usual.

R_of_G

October 24th, 2010, 07:07 AM

When I don't care one way or another for either team I typically root for the National League team because NL ball is significantly more interesting than AL ball, just witness how many of the NL games came down to the final out while the AL games were all blowouts except the one. Also, Tim Lincecum looks like Mitch Kramer from Dazed & Confused and that's one of my favorite films, so the Giants have that going for them as well. Giants in 6 games.

marnold

October 24th, 2010, 05:36 PM

Well, if Cliff Lee keeps pitching like Cliff Lee . . . there's no way the Gints can hit enough to beat him three times. I'd like to see the Rangers, but honestly I don't really care and probably won't watch more than a handful of innings.

Coming back from the Green Bay Gamblers hockey game on Friday, I was listening to the Yanks/Rangers game on ESPN Radio. I was reminded that listening to a baseball game is better than experiencing it in any other way.

riverrick

October 24th, 2010, 07:46 PM

Well I'm a Dodger fan...so gotta go with Texas!!!

Tig

October 24th, 2010, 09:14 PM

Tim Lincecum looks like Mitch Kramer from Dazed & Confused and that's one of my favorite films
He reminds me of actor Jackie Earle Haley.

http://sox4life13.mlblogs.com/tim-lincecum-keith.jpghttp://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/b/breaking-away-190-75.jpghttp://www.bobkestrut.com/images/19792007.jpg
http://msp150.photobucket.com/albums/s84/weirdrox/JackieEarleHaley.jpg
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:UkQfJOirMMSUDM:http://msp150.photobucket.com/albums/s84/weirdrox/JackieEarleHaley.jpg&t=1)

vroomery

October 24th, 2010, 11:39 PM

haha i'm basically a genius. I believe I was intending to say 4-2. That adds up right? k good.

markb

October 24th, 2010, 11:49 PM

WORLD SERIES?? Which countries are taking part again? :D

Eric

October 25th, 2010, 04:35 AM

Yeah, I don't care. I'm glad/sorry it's over for the Phillies, but as I read through the responses, I realized that I truly do not care at all about the World Series.

sunvalleylaw

October 25th, 2010, 06:44 AM

I guess I am picking SF. For no other reason than I like the city, and can remember when the earthquake hit during one of their games. Not very "sport fan" reasons, but there you go.

Bloozcat

October 25th, 2010, 07:08 AM

I don't care either way, and I doubt that I'll watch any of it. If it came down to the Yankees vs. the Phillies I would have watched, but not these two teams. Since I'm really not much of a baseball fan anymore it takes two teams that I like for me to care about watching. As is I'll watch any football over this. But, that's just me. I'm sure that ardent baseball fans will watch.

I have a feeling that this series is going to be a low market share draw for TV. While MLB claims publicly that it's good for baseball for two smaller market teams to be in the series, privately they're dreading a low viewership series.

sunvalleylaw

October 25th, 2010, 07:13 AM

Hmm, it is because it is not someone vs. the Yankees that I am interested.

R_of_G

October 25th, 2010, 07:25 AM

While MLB claims publicly that it's good for baseball for two smaller market teams to be in the series, privately they're dreading a low viewership series.

Definitely. They want the largest audience they can get regardless of the public spin they put on it.

But, one thing I actually do like about this matchup as a Yankees' fan is that I don't ever need to entertain those who spew the "I hate baseball because the Yankees buy all the championships" theory ever again in my life. In both the ALCS and NLCS the smaller-market/smaller-payroll team won. Maybe the Yankees and Phillies bought the players to allow them a chance to contend, but the championship series showed definitively that high-priced talent doesn't equal wins, all summed up perfectly by each series ending when the $100+ million dollar power hitters (Rodriguez and Howard) struck out looking instead of swinging their bats.

Tig, I can definitely see the Jackie Earl Haley thing, but I'm still gonna have to go with Wiley Wiggins (aka Mitch Kramer) to play Lincecum in the movie. :)

http://intershame.com/img/weblog/tim_lincecum_mitch_kramer.PNG

They even have similar pitching motions.

Jx2

October 25th, 2010, 08:05 AM

Im really hoping this series follows a similar path of the 1991 series between the Braves and Twins. I beleive this was the best world series of my era and the most underated series of all times. Both the Braves and the Twins went from first to last to make it to the series. Both teams had a solid mix of young rising stars and cagy veterans. And both teams had hall of fame talent. I beleive Kirby Puckett is the only one in right now though. However we all know Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine will be as well. Also during that span Jack Morris was one of the top pitchers in the game. The 7 game series had 5 one run victorys and 3 games went extra innings including a 10 inning shutout thrown by Jack Morris to seal the deal for the Twins in game 7. I think the reason this series doesnt get the attention I feel it deserves is because so many of the stars of the day didnt materalize into hall of fame players outside of the pitching. When you look at 99% of the greats moments of world series history like so much of baseball history its around historic home runs. If you read up on this series you see names like Gene Larkin, Chili Davis, Terry Pendalton, Lonnie Smith, Mark Lemke and David Justice. Not exactly Reggie Jackson, The Mick, Ruth, Bench, Rose etc.

Im drawing comparison of this series to the 91 series because who really saw these 2 teams here during spring training? I think everyone was expecting the Angels to catch the Rangers at some point, and I dont think to many are surprised the Giants was in the hunt but with the lack of hitting stars on their roster I dont think anyone expected them to win the NLCS. I think the Rangers have the potential to have some historic names in baseball how historic who knows, in the early 90's a player like David Justice looked to be headed towards a HOF caliber career as well as Ron Gant. But injurys and some bad decisions off the field killed that. The Giants outside of some nasty arms starting games and a nasty closer really remind you alot of the bad news bears. I mean Cody Ross NLCS MVP? Pedro "Kung Fu Panda" Sandoval on the bench for the majority of the series. And a slews slew of where are they now? And a catching phenom.

I really hope this series goes 7 and is close even with potential almost certain down tv ratings. It might not be good for ratings but it is good for the true fans of the game. Especially if your favorite team is a smaller market team. Even though its kinda hard to really grasp Texas as a small market team the way they attacked players via trades. SF is small market but lets see what this does for resigning guys like Sanchez, Cain, Wilson and others.

sunvalleylaw

October 25th, 2010, 10:50 AM

Definitely. They want the largest audience they can get regardless of the public spin they put on it.

But, one thing I actually do like about this matchup as a Yankees' fan is that I don't ever need to entertain those who spew the "I hate baseball because the Yankees buy all the championships" theory ever again in my life. In both the ALCS and NLCS the smaller-market/smaller-payroll team won. Maybe the Yankees and Phillies bought the players to allow them a chance to contend, but the championship series showed definitively that high-priced talent doesn't equal wins, all summed up perfectly by each series ending when the $100+ million dollar power hitters (Rodriguez and Howard) struck out looking instead of swinging their bats.

I will admit an anti Yankee bias, but no hate. My opinion is associated with a good rivalry or a good team to shoot for, not "I hate baseball because . . ." I will admit I resented for years some of the trades that followed the first memorable, and still most memorable, season in baseball over in Mudville (Seattle) where I was raised. See interesting article about the 1995 season, and how it turned a Yankee fan into a Mariner fan here: http://1995mariners.com/2008/04/22/how-a-yankees-fan-became-a-mariners-fan/ 2001 was a good year too, but not a good year to finish that season, due to the tragic events in New York.

It hurt to see some of that team get traded away, and hurt a lot to see players go ultimately to the Yankees because Seattle could not afford it. (Tino directly, A-Rod via the Rangers for example that I can recall) But the Yankees are always a good team to shoot for. I am personally glad that someone else is contending for the Series this year. It cannot always be the same teams, or there might as well not be a league.

Eric

October 25th, 2010, 10:59 AM

When it comes to big-market/small-market dynamics in baseball, I will echo what I once heard somewhere on talk radio: it's about sustainable success.

Huge payrolls do not guarantee that other teams will never find success, but they are the only proven way to have continued success in major-league baseball. Sure, the champions from year to year vary quite a bit, but if you look at the final four (or all 8, for that matter) every year, you tend to see the usual suspects.

The big payrolls keep teams successful and squeeze out the borderline teams. I think that's the real issue with an uncapped league.

duhvoodooman

October 25th, 2010, 11:07 AM

Doubt that I'll watch that much of it, but I'm pulling for the Rangers. I enjoyed their aggressive playing style, and Josh Hamilton really is an incredible human interest story. Having that Cliff Lee guy doesn't hurt their chances, either.

As for my Yankees, well....their elimination neither surprised nor bothered me all that much. They hadn't played well in a couple of months--the starting rotation was full of question marks (deservedly so, in retrospect), and moving runners & coming up with the timely hit had been a problem all year. Actually, I thought the Twinkies would take 'em out in the first round. How badly had they been playing? If the season had started on Aug. 1, the Yankees would have finished LAST in the AL East. Pretty pathetic for that line-up/payroll!

Jx2

October 25th, 2010, 11:18 AM

Ive been involved in alot of topics about a salary cap. Even wrote a small article on my pov for baseball diegest online. When I coved the Reds for a short time this summer. The biggest problems with installing a salary cap is
1. the players union.
2. how do you honor exsiting contracts into the sytem?
I think it could be done but I dont think it ever will be it took mlb decades to get away from the old system and envolve free agency and that was with like of the infamous Curt Flood situation and high profile names such as Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale threating to sit out of baseball if not granted free agency. So with that said baseball is what it is. I think the late mid to late 90's Mariners squad is a classic example of why the game isnt as popular as it once was. Another fine example would be the now disfunct Montreal Expos. I wont include Randy Johnson because they traded him while he was still a prospect who needed some work. But they had the likes of Pedro Martinez, Larry Walker, Vlad Guerrero, Moisus Alou amoung others. Also while maybe not as high proflie names the Pittsburg Pirates is almost like another AAA club. As soon as a player develops and gets close to free agency they are traded away for more prospects. I think thats part of the reason why the NFL is so popular compaired to MLB even with free agency. Granted with the NFL rosters over twice the size of MLB rosters(not counting 40 man or even minor leagues). If your team lose's a key peice your team normaly still has the same idenity. Prime example here look at SF in the late 90's. They let Joe Montana go and steps in Steve Young and they continue to play SF style football with alot of key peices there for several more years. Im a Steelers fan since Bill Cowher replaced Chuck Knoll, just one of those things. And I love watching good linebackers. Ive seen several but the team even with several defensive coordinators always have that. Not till the Bettis retired and Ben developed did they start to deviate from running the football. But as a Reds fan, I rember the 1990 Reds like it was yesterday. But since those days Ive seen guys like the Nasty Boys be replaced by a who's who of closers. For decades the Reds had 2 shortstops(concepcion and larkin) since they traded Lopez after a All-Star season they have had a revolving door there. Little things like that I beleive is what fans identify a team as. And really MLB as a whole has gotten away from that. There is already rumors that Philadelphia could start dispanding this team with Werth not getting resigned and either Rolling and/or Utley gone the next season. With only 25 man rosters untill teams are able to give their fans solid product on the field that they can relate to over several years I think baseball with suffer. Thats one reason I think while the Yanks are a love/hate team. The tv ratings are normaly so good. You already know half the roster for the next several years. What will be intresting is how they handle Jeter. And what happens when he and Arod retire. There is only a handfull of stars that carry the hype of a Jeter can NY find or sign another?

Jx2

October 28th, 2010, 10:34 PM

2 games in the book and who saw this? Im not shocked SF has a 2-0 lead in the series, but what 21 runs in 2 games WOW! I did pick Tx but the reason Im not shocked is because SF plays a team game. They dont have a Pujols, Arod or even a Josh Hamilton. They do have pitching....and they play the game how its suppose to be with from what I can see not a single indiviual player on that team. SF kinda reminds me of the Bad News Bears, and if they made another remake, Linecum could have a staring role.

Tig

October 28th, 2010, 10:50 PM

SF has impressed the heck out of the baseball world and shut up the doubters.

I'd like a more competitive series, and Texas can deliver that, but they better hurry up! I'd hate to see another Astros-like sweep... :thwap

sunvalleylaw

October 28th, 2010, 10:53 PM

Go SF!! Let's hear it for the City by the Bay!

p6NHCwHVHdY&feature=related

R_of_G

October 29th, 2010, 07:13 AM

If nothing else, the first two games have quieted all the talk about what a genius manager Ron Washington is. Leaving in a pitcher who throws 12 balls out of 13 pitches in an 8th inning when you have a solid closer in Feliz not even warming up in the bullpen is not a genius' move. Leaving Vladimir Guerrero's bat out of a World Series game is not a genius' move. The Rangers are aggressive as baserunners and credit to Washington for encouraging that, but it seems like the rest of his strategy is to let things play out and hope for the best which is fine during a 162 game season, not a best of seven series.

Oh, and let's see if Cliff Lee pitches game four. He's never pitched on three days' rest before. Word is that he doesn't want to. If that's the case, I'm done hearing about my Yankees pursuing him. Ace pitchers do what needs to be done for the team no matter what it is. Sabathia, Halladay, Price all pitch on three days' rest when their team needs them.

Eric

October 29th, 2010, 09:21 AM

Oh, and let's see if Cliff Lee pitches game four. He's never pitched on three days' rest before. Word is that he doesn't want to. If that's the case, I'm done hearing about my Yankees pursuing him. Ace pitchers do what needs to be done for the team no matter what it is. Sabathia, Halladay, Price all pitch on three days' rest when their team needs them.
Rumors around Philadelphia last year were that Lee did want to pitch on short rest in the WS last year, so that's interesting to hear.

Jx2

October 29th, 2010, 09:31 AM

There's no way to know what would of happened. But I dont think benching Vlad was a mistake. The guy looked lost in game committing 2 costly mistakes in the OF. And the way Cain was pitching there is no way to say if Vlad could of sparked that offense if he was in the game.

I do agree Feliz should of pitched. Washington said that he was all nervous and shaky in previous post season appearances. I think throwing him into game 2 would of be more ideal then saving him for a potential closing situation. See if he had calmed those nerves yet. 1 thing for sure he couldnt of done any worse.

R_of_G

October 29th, 2010, 12:21 PM

And the way Cain was pitching there is no way to say if Vlad could of sparked that offense if he was in the game.

No way to know for sure, obviously as there never is, but Vlad is a proven commodity at the plate, much more so than David Murphy. If I had to bet on one of them to come through, it'd be the one who hit .300 with over 100 RBI again this year.

Jx2

October 29th, 2010, 12:36 PM

I dont disagree with you, just tryin to see it from Mr. Washingtons pov.

R_of_G

October 29th, 2010, 01:41 PM

The next two games (possibly three if the Giants don't sweep) will make it significantly easier for Washington as he can use Vlad in his normal DH role in the American League stadium.

That reminds me, I can't stand the 2-3-2 format. The old 2-2-1-1-1 was significantly better. Then again, when home field advantage is determined by the results of the All-Star Game, the format of the WS is a lesser issue anyway. That will always bother me. What does the All-Star Game have to do with the records of the teams in the World Series? Talk about making the regular season meaningless.

Eric

October 29th, 2010, 01:48 PM

That reminds me, I can't stand the 2-3-2 format. The old 2-2-1-1-1 was significantly better. Then again, when home field advantage is determined by the results of the All-Star Game, the format of the WS is a lesser issue anyway. That will always bother me. What does the All-Star Game have to do with the records of the teams in the World Series? Talk about making the regular season meaningless.
The regular season is definitely not meaningless, unless you want to discount making the playoffs, seeding, and selecting your schedule throughout the playoffs.

I think that it actually makes the all-star game have some level of significance, which is good, since it's pretty much the only sport that does anything like that. It does seem sort of unfair to the teams playing in the WS, but it seems fine to me.

Jx2

October 29th, 2010, 06:59 PM

I think its a shame to and also miss the old format. The All-Star game is suppose to be a exhibition...If your going to award the winning league home field advantage might as well count those stats as well. I think all its really done has made it where a handfull of players each year wont play. And while that might not matter to some, guys like Arthur Rhodes waited a long time to get a invite. I cant recall off the top of my head if he got in the game or not. But that shouldnt be a issue. Again its a exhibition game, all MLB needed to do was make it where in case of a tie game you can re-enter each player x-amount of times, and keep a few emergency reserves around or reward a handfull of The Futures Game those spots. I mean in the history of the all star game only one game ended in a tie. So, its not like these guys would play every year. And it be kinda neat getting a sneak peak on some guys. And of course I mean this would do away with the winner taking home field advantage.

R_of_G

October 29th, 2010, 11:05 PM

The regular season is definitely not meaningless, unless you want to discount making the playoffs, seeding, and selecting your schedule throughout the playoffs.

I think that it actually makes the all-star game have some level of significance, which is good, since it's pretty much the only sport that does anything like that. It does seem sort of unfair to the teams playing in the WS, but it seems fine to me.

All-Star Games are supposed to be insignificant exhibition games. If the spots on the All-Star teams were voted on by players, I'd put more stock in it, but they're not true All-Star games as the majority of spots are voted on by fans. I'm glad other sports don't handle the home-field advantage situations in their championships in such a manner. Obviously in the NFL it doesn't matter because the Super Bowl site is determined prior to the season anyway, but I can't imagine it'd sit well with fans for the NBA or Stanley Cup Finals to begin in the city representing the conference that won an exhibition game, not the city whose team had the better record.

I liked the way the NFL handled it in years past, putting the Pro Bowl after the Super Bowl so it could just be ignored and not interrupting the entire season for it as they do in other sports. The worst two days in sports are the day before and the day after baseball's All Star game as there's guaranteed to be no sports on tv.

sunvalleylaw

October 29th, 2010, 11:13 PM

Plus the NFL way, they don't risk injury for the real games.

R_of_G

October 30th, 2010, 07:14 AM

Plus the NFL way, they don't risk injury for the real games.

Exactly, which is why I don't understand the move they made last year to put the Pro Bowl the week prior to the Super Bowl. All that does is make it more likely that any players selected from the two Super Bowl teams won't play in the game because few players would risk injury in a meaningless game when the title is on the line the next week.

Jx2

October 30th, 2010, 08:43 AM

Exactly, which is why I don't understand the move they made last year to put the Pro Bowl the week prior to the Super Bowl. All that does is make it more likely that any players selected from the two Super Bowl teams won't play in the game because few players would risk injury in a meaningless game when the title is on the line the next week.

I think it will be moved back after the SB in due time. All its going to take is say 7-10 players from each SB participating team having to be replaced in the last second. Plus I could also see other guys and potential replacements skipping out of the game if they lost the conference championship by a close margin.

I think the NFL moved it because there was complaints about the 2 weeks before the SB. Some felt it should just be 1, and the NFL thought it might be a solution.

Im 33 years old, have not missed a Super Bowl since the Bears/Pats...but Id guess Ive only seen a handfull of pro bowl games. As a youngster I couldnt wait for the All-Star game. In recent years though not so much. And since we are talking about All-Star games......How come the likes of Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn gets special roster considerations in their final year, and Griffey gets nothing? I know he retired before the game, but come on...Griffey to many 30-35 year olds was our generations Willie Mays. Ripken and Gwynn was like a Brooks Robinson and Tony Perez.

Jx2

November 1st, 2010, 09:25 PM

Very nice job by SF. Congrats to the team. Personaly it was nice seeing Renteria possibly end his career on this note. I rember him as a young upstart for the Florida Marlins. And one thing I do enjoy about the World Series is it give a guy like Renteria a chance to shine and go down in history. Alot of really great maybe not HOF caliber players win WS MVP's...guys like Pat Borders, Pedro Guererro, Jose Rijo.

Eric

November 1st, 2010, 09:38 PM

Yeah, I barely paid attention to this series, but I for one didn't think the Giants had it in them. Good for them, I suppose.

What bands are from San Fran, anyway? Journey and Metallica are the only ones that spring to mind...

Jx2

November 1st, 2010, 09:49 PM

Here's a link from wikipedia....for those who dont want to click on the link I'll name the highlights that I see.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bands_from_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area

Big Brother & The Holding Company
Chris Issak
Counting Crows
Dead Kennedys
Faith No More
Flipper(Nirvana Fans???)
Greatful Dead
Huey Lewis & The News
Santana
Sammy Hagar
Testament
Third Eye Blind
Train

AFI
CCR
Green Day
Machine Head
MC Hammer
Operation Ivy/Rancid
Primus
Too Short

Smash Mouth
The Doobie Brothers

Eric

November 1st, 2010, 09:52 PM

sunvalleylaw

November 1st, 2010, 10:00 PM

You left of MC Hammer, The Pointer Sisters and these guys who should not be forgotten:

ePIImGMjn_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePIImGMjn_8

Congrats to the Giants!! I am glad they won, and in a convincing fashion!

R_of_G

November 2nd, 2010, 07:28 AM

A rather incomplete list as it left off one of the greatest bands ever from that or any other city...

ZYrz5y1mW5U

Also, what kind of list of San Francisco bands includes Train and Smashmouth but leaves out Jefferson Airplane, Steve Miller Band, Quicklsilver Messenger Service and Moby Grape? A weak one.

Jx2

November 2nd, 2010, 07:43 AM

Jeff. Airplane was on the list, I just didnt list them. Im sure that list is incomplete though I think any google search would turn up a list with several bands left off though.

R_of_G

November 2nd, 2010, 07:49 AM

I could see leaving off the Airplane (especially as I don't like them) but leaving Sly & the Family off of any list of SF bands is a crime against music history. :poke

sunvalleylaw

November 2nd, 2010, 02:05 PM

Back to the baseball, I am glad to see this team pull this off. It is even better that the ace pitcher is a University of Washington grad.

A very influential teacher in my life (English, Literature) was also our high school baseball coach. He was a Yankees guy through and through, and would go on forever about the tradition of their style of uniform, their dress code, etc., when teams were going away from pin stripes, allowing longer hair, etc. While I respected his opinion on a lot of things, give me the long haired scrappers. As long as they also bring the ethic and the effort, I would much rather root for the supposed misfits. Congrats SF Giants!

R_of_G

November 2nd, 2010, 05:55 PM

While I respected his opinion on a lot of things, give me the long haired scrappers. As long as they also bring the ethic and the effort, I would much rather root for the supposed misfits. Congrats SF Giants!

Though I loved Mr. Steinbrenner and felt fortunate to have him as owner of my favorite team, the one thing I never supported was his whole hangup on a player's appearance. Like you, I really only care how they perform on the field. I'd rather have a team of scraggly looking winners than clean-cut also-rans.

Jx2

November 2nd, 2010, 05:59 PM

Does this years lineup remind anyone of the John Kruk era of Phillies? Especially with all those beards, and even Lincecum's "smoken it up" comment.

sunvalleylaw

November 2nd, 2010, 06:12 PM

Yeah, maybe a little. And there was always Randy "The Big Unit" Johnson's mullet.

And interestingly, the Big Unit threw one right over Kruk's head one time way back when.

piebaldpython

December 14th, 2010, 12:51 PM

The Phightin' Phils signed Cliff Lee today. So, we have a sparkling 4 man rotation of Lee, Halladay, Hamels and Oswald. Things are lookin' good for my Phils.

R_of_G

December 14th, 2010, 01:17 PM

The Phightin' Phils signed Cliff Lee today. So, we have a sparkling 4 man rotation of Lee, Halladay, Hamels and Oswald. Things are lookin' good for my Phils.

No doubt that is a tough rotation to face. It will be interesting to see how it works out for the Phillies and Red Sox, the two teams it can be said to have "won the off-season" so far to see if that translates to post-season success.

It worked for the Yankees in 2009 (adding CC, Burnett and Teixeira) and obviously worked for 1997 Marlins "Rent a Champ" team, but other than that, it doesn't always seem to work out.

I know I wouldn't want to have to face the Phillies' rotation.

Jx2

December 14th, 2010, 01:23 PM

kidsmoke

December 14th, 2010, 01:33 PM

Looks like a Red Sox Phillies World Series :poke

Jx2

December 14th, 2010, 01:33 PM

Looks like a Red Sox Phillies World Series :poke

You say that now but who predicted a SF-TX WS this year?

Eric

December 14th, 2010, 01:40 PM

Anyone know how long Oswalt is signed for? Personaly I think the Phil's still only have a 2-3 year window to add another ring or two. Mostly based on age. JRoll has already started to show some decline and Utley, and Howard have faced injurys. Health will be the key. But the same thing can be said about any team one full of 30 year old vet's or 27 year old rising stars. Im not knocking the Phils I am a Reds fan honestly but if the Reds cant return to the post season the Phils is a team I enjoy watching would love love to see beat the Yanks, Sox or Rangers.
I agree. It's far from a sure thing, but really good pitching helps a ton. I'd say the Phils could still use some bullpen help, maybe even at closer.

Utley in particular...not so sure how much he has left. It hasn't looked good in recent years. Howard I think is good to go, but he can't do it alone.