Roy Oswalt’s Demand

Roy Oswalt is having a nice season. He’s started nine games while averaging about seven innings per outing. For his efforts, he has a 3.28 xFIP and an even flashier ERA to show. All of which is noteworthy and praiseworthy, but the real reason attention is being paid to Oswalt has to do with his actions off the field. Earlier today, Oswalt requested a trade from the Houston Astros. The club he’s spent his entire career with and the club the has the 32-year-old under contract for a total of $15M this season, $16M next season, and holds a club option on Oswalt worth $16M as well.

If Oswalt’s talent were the only measure that mattered, the takers would be lined up out the door trying to land him. The problem is his contract. That’s a lot of money for a pitcher who hasn’t topped four wins in a season since Craig Biggio and Morgan Ensberg were still his teammates. Assuming that the new team would pay Oswalt about half of this year’s money and 100% of next season’s, plus the $2M buyout in favor of the club option, that’s more than $25M. And if the new team keeps Oswalt for 2012, then that number skyrockets to nearly $40M.

Simply put: Oswalt is being paid like he can still be expected to be one of the game’s elite pitchers and that’s simply not a safe bet. Moving that contract for a good return on his talent is going to be a chore for Ed Wade, although the San Diego Padres proved such a move is possible. Of the recent high-priced starting pitchers to be traded, only Jake Peavy’s current contract had more annual money remaining than Oswalt’s. The Padres even had the unfortunate break of Peavy missing most of the season and holding a no-trade clause. Somehow, they got the White Sox and him to agree to a deal, and thus ridded themselves of his three-year, $52M deal.

Scott Kazmir was owed nearly $34M over three years and the Rays didn’t receive an elite prospect in return for him last August. Cliff Lee only had a season and $9M remaining when the Indians (and then Phillies) traded him. Even Roy Halladay was owed less money ($15.75M) than Oswalt will make next season when the Blue Jays traded him to the Phillies this past winter. Those contracts look cost efficient when stacked next to Oswalt’s, and those were for two of the game’s absolute best arms.

It’s going to be an interesting and probably pun-filled few stretch leading to the trade deadline for Houston.




Print This Post



69 Responses to “Roy Oswalt’s Demand”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. OremLK says:

    He’s on pace to have a resurgent, approximately 5-win season, and you only have to go back to 2004-2007 to find a stretch where he posted an average win value over 5.

    On top of that, even though he’s had a couple of down years in 2008 and 2009, he was still worth his contract according to WAR. Even if you could only expect ~3.5 wins out of him, you have to remember that the value of a marginal win is higher for a team in contention… especially when it comes to ace starting pitchers, who provide additional value in the playoffs since they can start more frequently at that time.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Stud pitchers put fannies in the seats.

      Worth looking into attendance data. I don’t have numbers to back it up, but I’m sure Mets fans for would be more inclined to come out to he park if Oswalt was pitching, rather than whatever Joe Whoshisface is being thrown out today.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • joser says:

        “Stud pitchers put fannies in the seats.”

        Not really, or at least not much. I buy tickets and go to games based on pitching matchups, but I’ve found I’m in a distinct minority. Part of the problem is that you can’t buy ticket packages for a pitcher’s starts, so you have to buy them ad-hoc based on how the rotation works out. And part of the problem is that “Chicks dig the long ball.” It’s just easier to get people excited about the chance to see an offensive outburst any day of the week than a dominating pitching performance one day in five.

        Stud hitters put fans in seats much more than stud pitchers. How many people does Adam Wainwright draw vs Pujols? There are a few “name” pitchers that draw a following to every game they start (Pedro and Randy and Roger in their heydays; Santana in his; Lincecum and Ubaldo and Roy and Felix and Geinke etc today). But I just don’t see Oswalt is in that tier.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • OremLK says:

        “I just don’t see Oswalt is in that tier.”

        He is in Houston, and he likely would become so in whatever city was traded to.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jason B says:

        No. Oswalt is a good pitcher. He is no Lincecum or Halladay, regardless of who he’s pitching for.

        (Not that there’s any shame in that.)

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. opisgod says:

    So, does Oswalt start hanging breakers in his starts now?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. airlifting says:

    while peavy’s not exactly working out; the white sox merely gave up four warm bodies.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • AInquisition says:

      I wouldn’t go that far, Richard’s a serviceable starter, and Poreda could still amount to something.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • MikeS says:

        So until Poreda does become something, they picked up a guy who’s a #1, 2 or 3 starter (depending on who you ask) for a #4 or 5 starter, a good prospect and two warm bodies. And of course, payroll flexibilty.

        Ignore the money for a minute. Kenny Williams gets blasted for a lot of moves and like any GM, not everything he does works out the way he thinks it will. But name three guys he’s traded away that make a White Sox fan look and say “how’d we let that guy get away?” John Rauch? Brandon Allen? Chris Young? Aaron Rowand? It’s pretty hard to find anybody who qualifies as unreplaceable. None of them have turned into even Joe Nathan.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Gina says:

    the mets are going to offer jose reyes.
    wade’s going to turn it down.
    everyone’s going to be confused.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • OremLK says:

      Why would the Astros want Reyes? His contract ends this year ($11M club option for 2011) and the Astros aren’t going to contend until at least 2012. They need prospects.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Asfan says:

    How about trading Berkman?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • quincy0191 says:

      I don’t think it’s a question of either/or so much as a question of both or none. Drayton McLane has a reputation for not wanting to rebuild, so there’s a good chance neither one of them is going anywhere, but if he finally agrees to let Wade put this club out of its misery I would imagine both players are gone.

      Given the Astros streakiness, I think by mid-June to early July we’ll know if they can even pretend to be in the race, and if they can’t I think McLane will let Wade loose on the trade market.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. bballer319 says:

    Hate to say it but the Phillies will need another live arm in the rotation (probably) so it makes sense on the surface…sort of. And the Ed Wade connection oozes with possibilities there, considering Houston is where Phillies go to die…it’s only right to return the favor (Feliz, Michaels, Myers, etc).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Gina says:

      If they trade for Oswalt it will make the trading of Lee even more dumbfounding.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • quincy0191 says:

      As weird as it is to say Philly needs rotation help considering the Halladay acquisition and Hamels’ semi-resurgence, I agree with you. The back end of their rotation isn’t great, and the bullpen doesn’t help matters. On the other hand, I seriously doubt they have the money for Oswalt, which means they’d have to entirely deplete their system to get Houston to pay all of Oswalt’s contract, and they weren’t willing to do that to keep Lee (as Gina pointed out), which would make doing it now very strange. You also have to consider Happ’s return as providing them with a solid #3 starter, so I don’t know if they would even want Oswalt.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Zack says:

      Seriously, the Astro’s didnt promise to contend? What kind of horse-shit response is that?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Rondo says:

      I don’t think the Phils will invest in another pitcher at the tune of 15mm a year. The only guy they may go after is if Pedro wants to pitch for them again for a half year. Think back to 08 when they used Hamels, Myers, Blanton, and Moyer…

      Now they have Halladay, Hamels, Blanton, and Moyer (or Happ if he is healthly). Their starting pitching hasn’t been a problem so far this year, if anything, the only shaky part of that team is their bullpen.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. OzzieGuillen says:

    I hate trade demanders with a passion. Nowhere in Roy’s contract does it say the Astros must be contenders for Roy to remain satisfied with his contract. In fact, it says quite the opposite. Roy has a no-trade clause, which was basically a promise from the Astros not to screw him over with a deal to a team he didn’t like. Now he’s screwing them over by forcing them to deal him. Well done Roy. You are a selfish jerk.

    -5 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • B N says:

      Whatever. Nowhere in Roy’s contract states that he can’t ask for a trade when the team is going nowhere and is unlikely to go anywhere during his term there. He’s still out there putting on his best show, so be glad. I’m fine with a guy asking for a trade, so long as he keeps putting everything on the field. Manny Ramirez did that basically every single year he was on the Red Sox, and we were fine with just ignoring him until he started dogging it. Roy is just saying he’d like to play on a team that’s in contention again before he retires. Is that so wrong?

      Even better, it’s NOT selfish for Roy to be traded. Him being traded when he’s playing this well is easily the best thing that could happen to the Astros. If they can get a decent return for him, they can actually begin a long overdue rebuilding process. In some ways, him asking for a trade might even help his trade value somewhat. Rather than teams suspecting the Astros are trying to move Oswalt because they’re worried about his arm or his age or whatever, teams know why they’re testing the waters. And the Astros can always hold onto him anyways, so they still have solid leverage.

      So what’s the problem here?

      +5 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Gina says:

        There’s also the fact it’s not like teams are all that loyal to players. If the Astros were strained for cash and Oswalt didn’t have a NTC do you think they wouldn’t dump him to the highest bidder whether that team was a contender or not?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • quincy0191 says:

        @Gina:

        No, I don’t think they would dump him to the highest bidder, and I think they actually are strained for cash; they’ve got a $100M+ payroll that’s producing an 80-win team (and that assessment is generous), which means they can’t take on salary to push them into contention like a typical borderline team would or could. And the Astros do have a pretty good track record of loyalty; they locked up Berkman and Biggio and Oswalt long-term, and I think they’re one of the few teams that really makes an effort to keep their homegrown stars.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • OzzieGuillen says:

        Yes, I believe it is wrong to ask to be on a contender. He gave up that flexibility when he signed the long-term deal. If he just wanted to play for a winner, then he should have signed one-year deals and moved to the best team available each season. If you sign a long-term commitment for big money then you don’t get to pick your team halfway through the deal. You live with your decision, be thankful for the job security, and work hard to get the team back on track.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • cpebbles says:

        80 wins is a “generous” assessment of this Astros team? 63 wins would be pretty generous.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • B N says:

        “He gave up that flexibility when he signed the long-term deal.”

        No, he didn’t. It’s a free country and he can say what he wants. Unless his long term deal also states: “And I will never ask for a trade, not ever.” then he can ask for a trade. He didn’t give up that option. What he did give up was the ability to change teams directly, rather than by request.

        Manny Ramirez pre-2008 is a great comparison. He asked for a trade EVERY YEAR for like 3 years. And every year the Red Sox checked if they’d be able to get a good return on him, didn’t see it, and kept him. And in that period, they basically won 2 World Series titles riding him. Tough cookies for Manny, no? He was in a long term deal.

        That is what Oswalt gave up. The ability to sign as a free agent somewhere. That’s it. He also gave up the ability to refuse to play games (unless he retired). He didn’t give up the option to ask management for a trade.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • ElJimador says:

      Whatever Oswalt’s motivations he’s doing the Astros a favor. The fact is they should have blown up that team after their world series run in 2005 but where everyone else can see an aging core continuing to decline and not be replenished by maybe the worst farm system in baseball the past several years, the owner has continued to live in this fantasyland where they are always just a second half run away from another title chance. What’s sad to me is that it takes a demand from a guy like Oswalt to finally slap some reality upside the guy’s head and force him to do the right thing. Because now I think he definitely will be traded, and without this shove I don’t know that he would have been. They might have just decided that holding on to a popular player to keep a few more fannies in seats on the days he pitches was better than the best offer, which would suck for Astros fans who want to see the team possibly win again sometime in the next few years as much as it would suck for Oswalt.

      And BTW the Astros have shopped Oswalt a couple times since he signed his current deal (to the Orioles for Tejada and to the White Sox). So if the contract with its no trade clause isn’t some sacred document to the team why should it be to Oswalt?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • B N says:

        Amen. Any vet with business sense should be asking the Astros for a trade, except maybe Berkman who seems likely to retire after the season. It would be good for the player and good for the long term health of the team.

        And amen about teams not showing loyalty to players, either. Players need no trade clauses for just that reason with long term deals. Otherwise, Oswalt might be stuck in a deal with who knows what team. I remember when the Red Sox extended Bronson Arroyo for like a 3 year deal where Arroyo took a big hometown discount. The Red Sox traded him before he even pitched a single game, for Willy Mo Pena. Ouch.

        So I don’t see the issue for that either way. Players and teams both stay within their contracts. If you want the other guy to follow the rules, get it in writing.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Circlechange11 says:

    An injury in the starting rotation can radically change how teams view O’s contract. My guess is someone will make a play for him, June and July are on their way.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • quincy0191 says:

      No question there will be serious interest; $25M+ over a year and a half is clearly a significant commitment, but Oswalt’s been a superstar in the past and he’s shown the ability to bounce back from a couple bad years. Teams pay a boatload more in both years and dollars for much less certainty than Oswalt would give them, and I don’t think it’s even going to require an injury so much as a GM realizing that Oswalt could be the missing piece.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Gina says:

        Yeah but the question isn’t just the cost in dollars, it’s how much a team will give up in terms of prospects for that cost. Plenty of teams would be willing to take on the money owed. Very few, if any, would be willing to take on all the money owed AND give up a significant prospect package.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. quincy0191 says:

    I think finding out where Oswalt will go if he’s traded is a simple matter of determing A) who can afford him, B) who needs him, and C) who has the prospects to get him.

    The A exclusions are low-budget or teams who have maximized payroll: Marlins, Cubs, Phillies (arguable, but I doubt they can go much higher than the current $140M), Dodgers (without the McCourt divorce they’re probably a serious player), Mets, Reds, Brewers, Athletics, Rangers.

    The B exclusions are teams that don’t need rotation help or are rebuilding clubs: Pirates, Royals, Braves, Cardinals, Blue Jays, Mariners, Giants, Indians, White Sox, Orioles, Rays, Diamondbacks, Rangers (included here also because I think they won’t pick up Oswalt half because they can’t and half because they are upgrading through their system).

    The C exclusions are teams that simply couldn’t compete prospect-wise: Angels, Nationals (though they could be a dark horse with all their rotation problems), Tigers (similar story to the Nats, though).

    This leave five teams: Yankees, Red Sox, Padres, Rockies, and Twins.

    The Rockies and Twins probably won’t be big players, because they sort of fit on all three lists, but they don’t. They probably have the prospects, and they probably have the payroll space, and they could probably use the rotation help, but that’s a lot of probably. Neither have bad rotations, but both are contending clubs who could be/have been seriously derailed by poor performance or injury.

    The Yankees and Red Sox obviously have to be considered. I think NYY is a very likely landing spot; they always have the money for an acquisition, their system isn’t terrible enough to be unable to handle the brunt of a trade, and Vasquez and Burnett haven’t exactly performed to expectations. The Yankees always seem to be a team that doesn’t need to get better, but does anyway. Similar story for the BoSox; they’ve got a very solid rotation that isn’t performing well, they have no fear of spending money, and they have the chips to grab Oswalt. Neither team needs Oswalt, but could very well get him just because.

    The Padres are the most interesting club to me. Their payroll has been cut in half from two years ago, so they clearly have the capacity to pay Roy; revenue streams don’t fall that fast. Their farm system has been restocked through trades and the drafts, and they could pick him up. But, you say, shouldn’t he be under the B exclusion? Well, 2012 may have come early for San Diego, because they’re in first place. And it’s only May, but if they’re still sniffing a berth in a month, upgrading from Wade LeBlanc/Kevin Correia/Jon Garland might be a nice idea, not to mention the benefit Oswalt would get from Petco’s dimensions and the Friars’ defense. It’s weird, and I don’t think they’ll get him, but San Diego seems like an awfully appropriate destination for Oswalt.

    /essay

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BX says:

      I really like the Padres as a good idea, especially if they are willing to assume Oswalt’s entire salary.

      Middle infield (namely 2B) and starting pitching are the two big areas for upgrade.

      He won’t cost a ridiculous amount of prospects for a team to acquire if they’re not asking Houston to pay any of Oswalt’s salary. Oswalt-Latos-Richard-Garland-Correia/Leblanc would look pretty nice.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • anonymous says:

      good analysis. according to the minnesota star tribune, the twins may be interested in acquiring oswalt.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jason B says:

        I could see that. The cost (in terms of prospects) shouldn’t be *too* exorbitent, given the high-dollar contract that someone is willing to step in and clear off the ‘Stros books. And that would really solidify the Twins’ grip atop the AL Central and give their rotation a more postseason-ready look. I mean, Baker, Slowey, etc are nice pieces, but don’t really strike much fear into a deep NYY or TB lineup that they would likely face in October.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. max says:

    It may be a lot of money for a guy like Oswalt, but for many teams, he could be exactly what they need to give them that small advantage down the stretch. A veteran like Oswalt who knows how to go deep into games is very valuable. If a team already has 1-2 solid SP’s, Oswalt would be a great asset. Without doing any extensive research, it would seem to me that teams like Colorado, Detroit, Atlanta, Seattle, Anaheim, and Texas are some teams that would get the most benefit in the 2010 season with the addition of Oswalt. All of those teams could find themselves right in the middle of the pennant race two months from now, and at that point, trading some prospects (which Houston needs) for Oswalt could end up being a great decision.

    Then again, one of those teams could just sign Jarrod Washburn, without giving up too much money and/or prospects.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. JayCee says:

    The Astros need infielders. Beckham is an obvious target. Oswalt may be worth Beckham.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jason B says:

      The Astros need *everything*. C, 2B, SS, 3B, SP are just so, so weak. Berkman is fine when he’s healthy but he’s following the “Chipper Jones china doll” career arc at this point. Lee is also fast approaching the end of his useful life as a lineup centerpiece. Is there any team with fewer young, cheap building blocks to construct either a lineup or pitching staff around?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Matt says:

    typo: “That’s a lot of money for a pitcher who hasn’t topped four wins in a season since…”

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Matt says:

    Nevermind, I now realize that you meant WAR.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Sam says:

      I agree this is confusing phrasing. My first thought was wins as in win-loss. I know that wins are the worst stat ever and all that, but I still think this is better phrased as “That’s a lot of money for a pitcher who hasn’t been been worth more than four wins in a season since..”

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. BX says:

    If I were the Houston Astros, I’d call the Texas Rangers up, offer to eat however much of Oswalt’s salary necessary to get a deal done with all the ownership hoopla, and get my hands on those awesome pitching talents in the Texas farm system.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • joser says:

      And if you were Nolan Ryan, what would you say in response to such a phonecall?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BX says:

        Something that probably shouldn’t be posted here.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • OremLK says:

        Nolan Ryan likes Roy Oswalt, you’d have to think he would at least consider it, especially if the Astros are paying a lot of the salary. The Rangers wouldn’t trash the farm system, I’m sure, but they might give up a pair of top prospects and some grade C filler.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • philkid3 says:

      If I’m the Texas Rangers, unless you want second tier prospects and/or want to eat most of the contract, I tell you know.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. BX says:

    If I had to very wildly predict where Oswalt was at by the deadline, I’d say Mets though, and I’d see it happening very soon, before the Mets fall out of contention.

    And, since the Mets probably have payroll issues, Jennry Mejia is involved, and the Astros are picking up some of Oswalt’s 2010 salary.

    Minaya’s also supposedly on the hot seat, so a “save the job” type move could very easily happen.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Gina says:

      Why would Oswalt waive his NTC for the mets?

      Plus, as a mets fan, as far as most of us can tell Omar’s been stripped of most of his authority to make payroll affecting moves. He had to have every contract offer pre-approved by Jeff Wilpon during the off-season and with the mets continuing to lose revenue it doesn’t seem likely they’d be willing to take on the money owed to Oswalt unless they could send back a bad contract, and our bad contracts are too bad for anyone to take. Especially since we’re going to be in an insane payroll squeeze in the next two years with a lot of escalating contracts.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. mike says:

    I don’t understand – hasn’t topped 4 wins in a season since Craig and Morgan were teammates? I think I’m misunderstanding something, since he had 17 wins in 2008 and 8 in 2009. I can definitely see the Yankees shipping Vazquez (who does so much better in the NL) off to Houston & throwing some extra cash in the deal, for Roy.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • joser says:

      “Wins” in this context (and generally here at Fangraphs) refers to Wins Above Replacement, not the (mostly useless and often misleading) traditional pitcher’s “Win” stat. Consult the WAR column in Oswalt’s stats; for more on how WAR works, see the articles here

      +6 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • bflaff says:

        +1 for being helpful.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bronnt says:

        The instant I saw it in the article, my thoughts was “Should have just said WAR, because even here, people will get wins confused with pitcher wins.”

        Something for the writers to consider-it sounds convenient to discuss a guy’s value added by quickly saying wins, which seems reasonable, but WAR is enough of a staple of this site that no one needs to look it up. Using it instead of the word “win” reduces the confusion of less-frequent visitors.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. Gina says:

    I think a lot of people are missing the point, it’s not just assuming the money it’s assuming the money AND giving up prospects. Plenty of teams would take Oswalt as a salary dump, but I can’t think of many for whom it would make sense to take on the salary and give up legit prospects, considering how much teams value cheap production now. There’s not many teams where the edge he might give them would be enough to justify it, and who can afford the salary.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. Circlechange11 says:

    I was thinking my redbirds would be possibly interested.

    1. Carp, Wain, and O is a formidable playoff trio.
    2. It’s insurance for the Carp injury that will come this year or next.
    3. Stl would not have to face Oswalt 4 times this year.
    4. Stl’s championship window may be open for just 1-2 more years.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Gina says:

      They just committed 18 million to Holliday and have an extension to Pujols looming, who’s price just went through the roof with the stupid Howard contract. I don’t see how they could afford to take on Oswalt’s 16 million. They’d have like half their payroll going to three guys.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • OremLK says:

        The Astros would never trade Oswalt to St. Louis anyway, I’m sure McLane has delusions about contending in the next couple years.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • ambill10 says:

      I think the Cardinals would have to at least inquire about Oswalt since Penny and Lohse are both injured now and Lohse has been bad since he signed an extension. What are Houston’s biggest needs? The Cardinals have a 2B prospect in Daniel Descalso that might interest Houston. I wonder how much salary the Cardinals would be willing to take on? Oswalt’s deal isn’t that bad and DeWitt may be willing to open the wallet to make a run at the World Series before the window closes on Pujols. Even if the Cardinals re-sign him, Pujols won’t be this good forever. Also, Oswalt’s deal isn’t that long-term at this point so it is not a long-term issue in terms of Pujols getting extended necessarily.

      The injury bug has to make St. Louis more interested than they were before this weekend. The real question is whether or not Houston would even consider dealing him to the Cardinals.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • SLH says:

      +1

      Cards haven’t exactly been shy about making a play for some awfully big names in trades in the past (mcGwire, Holliday, Mulder, etc.) True, payroll may be a LARGE issue here (esp with Pujols next contract lurking), but I can certainly see them making a big push to wind another trphy

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. Circlechange11 says:

    Also Cin is going to get a boost when Volquez returns in July

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  20. Franco says:

    Yeah, I don’t see any team besides the Yanks or Red Sox willing to trade even second tier prospects AND take Oswalt’s full salary. Maybe the Angels too if they play well in June.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jason B says:

      Would they involve Brandon Wood? The shine is off that apple a little…seems like he really needs a fresh start/change of scenery.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  21. Circlechange11 says:

    As for the Cards budget and upcoming Pujols contract, I was speaking from the tone of some other posts that Hou may eat a large part of Oswalts money … But even then Stl isn’t likely to have 3 mega contracts.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  22. Steven Gomez says:

    One other thing to note is that it’s not the Astros initiating the movement to trade Oswalt, but Oswalt himself. It’s possible the Astros might not want to deal him for various reasons: Maybe they think they can build a winner in 2011 (yes, I know, haha) and with Oswalt under contract through next year he’d be a key cog in a playoff run… among many other plausible scenarios. Also, he’s their biggest chip, and one he’s spent, he’s gone and all the value that’ll remain is whatever you get for him. They would want the return to be massive to justify dealing him.

    This isn’t to say they wouldn’t be open to dealing Oswalt, but chances are possible this could be similar to the old Chuck LaMar Devil Rays situation, where they’ll put a super-high price tag on him because he’s their big star and they feel they’re under no obligation to move him. And if/when the deadline passes and he’s still in Houston, they can at least say they tried to deal him but there wasn’t a deal available, even if that was because they set the bar for a deal so high that no team was willing to pay the price.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • SLH says:

      After reading this post, I have to agree this is probably the most likely scenario BY FAR

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • B N says:

      I agree. I’m pretty sure the Astros will drop by ball by demanding too much for Oswalt, fail to move him, and Wade will lose his job in a year or so. Not that I blame Wade entirely, as I’m pretty sure the ownership is telling him not to blow up the team while also restocking and slashing payroll. But still.

      Though I hope I’m wrong. Would be nice to see everybody win, rather than everybody lose.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  23. Circlechange11 says:

    I would like Stl to inquire about him. There’s likely no other team that’s well aware of what he can do.

    One of the peeved I have with my redbirds is their tendency to try depend a little too much on lesser starters and bullpen guys. Duncan is great, but it would be nice to acquire a pitcher that did not require the Midas Touch in order to provide value.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  24. Jon BRS says:

    I don’t think the Red Sox are even in the picture to acquire Oswalt. Maybe Wandy Rodriguez, but not Oswalt.

    They already have Lester($3.75m), Beckett($12m), Lackey($18m), Dicek ($8m), Clay B (mlb minimum?) under contract for what with Wakefield filling in for the injuries and to give some guys a break in the rotation, already about $50m for their starting pitching. Remember the Sox are in a “bridge” year and they are very reluctant to give up anything of future value for today’s success when today’s success is far from a sure thing. From what everyone says, the Sox are the 3rd best team in the AL East and only 2 of them can make the playoffs. They need a bat more than they need another SP to commit $16m/yr to. Keep in mind they have a LOT of money coming off the books at the end of this year so that they can upgrade their positions of weakness, which does not include the starting rotation.

    I don’t think they’d want some $70m committed to SP when the 5 at the top of the rotation are already good to great and the playoffs rotation will not need to include Oswalt.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *