Rollins to the Dodgers

bluewatertrader

New member
806
5.00 star(s)
Phillies trade 38 year old Jimmy Rollins to L.A. Dodgers unclear who the Phillies got in return
 

katester44

Active member
1,256
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
A couple of minor leaguers..nothing special.

As a Phillies fan, sad to see him go...but it should have happened a couple years ago. They need to start over, wouldn't bother me if they dumped everyone on that roster of any type of value - Hamels, Papelbon, Howard, Ruiz, Utley..send them all packing.
 

mm1sub

Active member
2,738
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
A couple of minor leaguers..nothing special.

As a Phillies fan, sad to see him go...but it should have happened a couple years ago. They need to start over, wouldn't bother me if they dumped everyone on that roster of any type of value - Hamels, Papelbon, Howard, Ruiz, Utley..send them all packing.

I think mot of these guys are 5 and 10 guys so they have to agree to the trade. Rollins for sure had to agree to it. Philadelphia does need to try and get rid of these guys and start over. But that is easier said than done. Some of these guys were a big part of the title in 2008. As an Indians fan I would give up anything to have atitle. If just one title meant being bad for the next 30 years I would take it.
 

bluewatertrader

New member
806
5.00 star(s)
Sweet cream on an ice cream sammich the Dodgers are going nuts at the Winter meetings

Dodgers trade Matt Kemp/Tim Federowicz to the Padres for Yasmani Grandal Joe Wieland Zach Eflin
Dodgers trade Dee Gordon/Dan Haren to the Marlins for Andrew Heaney Enrique Hernandez Chris Hatcher
Dodgers trade Andrew Heaney to the Angels for Howie Kendrick
Dodgers trade A bag of balls 2 bats and a catchers mitt to the Mariners for the white chalk stuff to line the infield with and a years supply of Seattle Coffee
 

katester44

Active member
1,256
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
I think mot of these guys are 5 and 10 guys so they have to agree to the trade. Rollins for sure had to agree to it. Philadelphia does need to try and get rid of these guys and start over. But that is easier said than done. Some of these guys were a big part of the title in 2008. As an Indians fan I would give up anything to have atitle. If just one title meant being bad for the next 30 years I would take it.

I understand that they would have to agree to it, but would think most would if being dealt to a potential contender.

Completely agree on taking one title if it means bottoming out for quite some time. As a Philadelphia fan (with many friends from Cleveland), I can sympathize with your pain. It has been debated in threads here before - would you rather have your team finish in second place for ten straight years...or win a title every ten years, but be in dead last the other nine. Sign me up for the title and dead last.
 

mm1sub

Active member
2,738
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
I understand that they would have to agree to it, but would think most would if being dealt to a potential contender.

Completely agree on taking one title if it means bottoming out for quite some time. As a Philadelphia fan (with many friends from Cleveland), I can sympathize with your pain. It has been debated in threads here before - would you rather have your team finish in second place for ten straight years...or win a title every ten years, but be in dead last the other nine. Sign me up for the title and dead last.

If you were a fan of the New England Patriots you would feel differently. That is what I cannot understand about the people who live in this area and root for New England. They see we have been good every year. When you say you have not won a Super Bowl in 10 years all I hear is that it is okay. At least we win 10 games every year. It is something that I will never understand.
 

valediction

New member
71
5.00 star(s)
It's because at least you have the CHANCE, and in sports there are no guarantees. We've all seen the teams that limp into the playoffs and win it or go very deep. Repost your question as 'without knowing the end result, would you rather be a low seed in the playoffs every year for 10 years, or the #1 seed one year and miss the playoffs the other 9 years?' and see what people say.
 

mm1sub

Active member
2,738
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
It's because at least you have the CHANCE, and in sports there are no guarantees. We've all seen the teams that limp into the playoffs and win it or go very deep. Repost your question as 'without knowing the end result, would you rather be a low seed in the playoffs every year for 10 years, or the #1 seed one year and miss the playoffs the other 9 years?' and see what people say.

Would you rather be the New England Patriots and win 10 games every year and have a chance in the last ten years and end up with nothing or be the New York Giants and maybe not have a chance every year during the last ten years but have 2 rings to show for it? That was my point.

Which team would YOU rather be?
 

katester44

Active member
1,256
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
It's because at least you have the CHANCE, and in sports there are no guarantees. We've all seen the teams that limp into the playoffs and win it or go very deep. Repost your question as 'without knowing the end result, would you rather be a low seed in the playoffs every year for 10 years, or the #1 seed one year and miss the playoffs the other 9 years?' and see what people say.

If the question is reworded to having a chance, than obviously you don't want your team in last place, because last place won't make the playoffs.

But I stand by my original statement - if you are guaranteed 2nd place every year OR you are guaranteed a championship every 10th year, but the other nine years you are guaranted last place - sign me up for a championship every 10 years. 2nd place doesn't get you a parade down Broad Street.
 

valediction

New member
71
5.00 star(s)
Sure, but it's just as possible to win seven World Series as it is one in that time span. In the hypothetical world, any outcome is possible.
 

mm1sub

Active member
2,738
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
Sure, but it's just as possible to win seven World Series as it is one in that time span. In the hypothetical world, any outcome is possible.

I am just curious. Which team do you consider more successful over the last ten years? The Patriots or the New York Giants?
 

katester44

Active member
1,256
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
Sure, but it's just as possible to win seven World Series as it is one in that time span. In the hypothetical world, any outcome is possible.

Exactly, however in this particular hypothetical scenario you have only two potential outcomes:
Outcome A - your team finishes in 2nd place every year from now until eternity.

Outcome B - your team wins a championship every 10th year, and for the other 9 years finishes dead last.

No Outcome C, no changing the parameters, you can choose only A or B.
 

valediction

New member
71
5.00 star(s)
Would you rather be the New England Patriots and win 10 games every year and have a chance in the last ten years and end up with nothing or be the New York Giants and maybe not have a chance every year during the last ten years but have 2 rings to show for it? That was my point.

Which team would YOU rather be?
The Patriots. They've won 1 in the last 10, the Giants have 2, but the Patriots won 2 of the last 3 before that. I'd rather have the chance every year, because sports are NOT hypothetical, so I'd rather have a chance of winning every year than no chance 90% of the time and a good chance the other 10%.
 

mm1sub

Active member
2,738
5.00 star(s)
Staff member
The Patriots. They've won 1 in the last 10, the Giants have 2, but the Patriots won 2 of the last 3 before that. I'd rather have the chance every year, because sports are NOT hypothetical, so I'd rather have a chance of winning every year than no chance 90% of the time and a good chance the other 10%.

Then I guess we will disagree. I would say the Giants. Maybe because the teams I root for have never won. The Buckeyes title in 2002 is the only title I have. If the Browns could win one title I would not care if they ever won again.

Great conversation by the way!!!!
 

valediction

New member
71
5.00 star(s)
I have the Twins in 1987 and 1991, thankfully. Other than that, the Vikings, 0-4 in Super Bowl and that 1998 season where our only missed field Goal all season kept us from the Super Bowl, the Timberwolves, who not only struggle constantly (except for that Kevin Garnett in his prime run), but can't even get a top draft pick (our high was #3 overall in the Shaq/Alonzo Mourning draft) in spite of being one of the two or three worst teams many years.
 

Jaybo374

Active member
446
5.00 star(s)
Exactly, however in this particular hypothetical scenario you have only two potential outcomes:
Outcome A - your team finishes in 2nd place every year from now until eternity.

Outcome B - your team wins a championship every 10th year, and for the other 9 years finishes dead last.

No Outcome C, no changing the parameters, you can choose only A or B.
As a long time Red Sox fan, I can tolerate the last place finishes of 2012 and 2014 because of the Series wins in 2004, 2007 and 2013. Up until 10 years ago, I was convinced that I would never see it happen. Now that I have seen it twice, the Sox can not even whiff the Series for 20 years and I'd be happy and still watch them everyday.

That being said, I'd take Outcome B.
 
Top