Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Oswalt interested in the Sox?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
26 replies to this topic

#1 TheGoldenGreek33

  • 1859 posts

Posted 24 April 2008 - 10:43 PM

Oswalt said if the Astros approached him with a trade proposal, he'd consider it. He didn't specify which teams he'd go to, but it's unlikely the Yankees would be on the short list. The Red Sox, Braves and Cardinals would probably interest him.


Source: MLB.com

It's pure speculation, but it begs an interesting question. Should the Sox be open to the idea and what's the most they should be willing to give up?

#2 templeUsox


  • SoSH Member


  • 6418 posts

Posted 24 April 2008 - 10:52 PM

I might be willing to part with David Pauley and a used jock-strap to get Oswalt. The truth is, he's a diminutive pitcher with a lot of miles on his arm whose has seen his rates progressively decline for several years now. He's locked into big money for a long time and he's coming from the National League. Justin Masterson is better than him right now.

#3 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16318 posts

Posted 24 April 2008 - 10:52 PM

He doesn't seem to think he's on the trade market

Roy Oswalt laughed when asked about rumors he was interested in waiving his no-trade clause.

Peter Gammons had raised the possibility on ESPN's "Baseball Tonight," with the Yankees being the likely destination for Oswalt. "I don't know where he's getting that from. That came out of left field somewhere. I don't know if he just brought it up or if he heard it from somewhere. I don't know where he got it," Oswalt said.

And he's got 4 more years including this season left on a 5 year $73 million contract extension. And he's 31 now and his walk rate jumped up last year while his K rate slid just a bit.

#4 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17528 posts

Posted 24 April 2008 - 10:54 PM

Source: MLB.com

It's pure speculation, but it begs an interesting question. Should the Sox be open to the idea and what's the most they should be willing to give up?


There shouldn't be anything stopping him. Ideally you hope it could get done with prospects that are not named Justin, Clay, or Jacoby. He has a much better contract than what Santana was asking for. Why the hell do Astros want to trade him?

He is about 14 million for the next 5 years and as sure of bet to get 200 IP as there is in the MLB.

Edited by TomRicardo, 24 April 2008 - 10:57 PM.


#5 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 8757 posts

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:17 PM

There shouldn't be anything stopping him. Ideally you hope it could get done with prospects that are not named Justin, Clay, or Jacoby. He has a much better contract than what Santana was asking for. Why the hell do Astros want to trade him?


It's not really clear if he has a better contract than what Santana was asking for. I wouldn't be shocked if Oswalt were to translate unusually poorly to the AL. I'd rather have Santana's contract than Oswalt's on the Red Sox books.

#6 Oil Can Dan

  • 4799 posts

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:26 PM

I might be willing to part with David Pauley and a used jock-strap to get Oswalt. The truth is, he's a diminutive pitcher with a lot of miles on his arm whose has seen his rates progressively decline for several years now. He's locked into big money for a long time and he's coming from the National League. Justin Masterson is better than him right now.

Do you mean more valuable going forward or better than him in terms of the 2008 season? Because I may be able to see the former but I really can't see the latter.

#7 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17528 posts

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:52 PM

It's not really clear if he has a better contract than what Santana was asking for. I wouldn't be shocked if Oswalt were to translate unusually poorly to the AL. I'd rather have Santana's contract than Oswalt's on the Red Sox books.


How is ~14 million for 5 years (until he is 36) not better than ~23 million for 6 (until 35)? Unless you are saying Santana is nearly twice as valuable as Oswalt which I think is a hard statement to make. I would say Oswalt is and will be more valuable than Pettitte and will probably give you what Pettitte does now. Pettitte makes 16 million which I doubt many people here would call a bad contract.

Oswalt for anything other than Buchholz, Ellsbury, or Masterson would be a steal. There is no reason for the Astros to dump the guy.

#8 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 8757 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 12:01 AM

How is ~14 million for 5 years (until he is 36) not better than ~23 million for 6 (until 35)? Unless you are saying Santana is nearly twice as valuable as Oswalt which I think is a hard statement to make. I would say Oswalt is and will be more valuable than Pettitte and will probably give you what Pettitte does now. Pettitte makes 16 million which I doubt many people here would call a bad contract.


I think Santana is nearly twice as valuable as Oswalt.

#9 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 23269 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 12:29 AM

I think Santana is nearly twice as valuable as Oswalt.


OK, then Pauler and two used jock straps.

I think the Red Sox "interest" would be limited to being involved to negate any Yankee move. Then again, Ed Wade is the Astros GM now ...

#10 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6809 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 07:05 AM

How is ~14 million for 5 years (until he is 36) not better than ~23 million for 6 (until 35)? Unless you are saying Santana is nearly twice as valuable as Oswalt which I think is a hard statement to make.


I don't want to put words in Bowiac's mouth, but I think if you look at it from a standpoint of the dollars spent for a marginal win, you could make a case for the money spent on Santana to be on the Red Sox would be a better investment than a lesser sum to absorb Oswalt. Of course this ignores the respective talent required to acquire either of them, which could easily tip the scales in the other direction.

I would say Oswalt is and will be more valuable than Pettitte and will probably give you what Pettitte does now. Pettitte makes 16 million which I doubt many people here would call a bad contract.


Except that a large chunk of Pettitte's value comes from the fact that he's on a short term contract. 4 more years of Oswalt declining might be hard to stomache.

Oswalt for anything other than Buchholz, Ellsbury, or Masterson would be a steal. There is no reason for the Astros to dump the guy.


Well, I can see them looking at their farm system and what the A's have done and thinking that Beane might be on to something. But who knows which way Wade will jump? This is probably Gammons just pulling things out of his hat rather than having a legitimate scoop.

#11 Flynn4ever

  • 514 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 07:24 AM

There was a time when I thought Oswalt might be the most automatic win in baseball (and I certainly took the NL into account with that, he showed me a lot less against the White Sox) and that time was about three to four years ago. Right around that time, I also thought that Eric Gagne was the most automatic save in baseball. I'm not the statistician that many SoSH are, but the career arc seems eerily similar here (and no, I'm not taking likely PED use into this equation.) I hope we, and Theo, can take the 'move on, nothing to see here' approach at this point in time.

#12 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17528 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 07:25 AM

I think Santana is nearly twice as valuable as Oswalt.


So you are predicting Santana will have a 2.00 ERA with 220 IP this year? Or are you saying that Oswalt who never had a major injury will age gracefully or at least as gracefully as Santana? Santana is not twice as good as Oswalt now. We are talking a usual difference of between 70 - 80 VORP and 65 - 75 VORP. Oswalt is a very good pitcher, he has had a WARP3 of 9.1, 8.7, 8.0. or about 7.5 wins better than a replacement pitcher the last three seasons. Santana has had 8.8. 9.6, 8.6 or about 7.6 wins better than a replacement pitcher. So unless Santana finds a way to double his production, no he is not twice as value and it is not even close.

#13 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10833 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 07:54 AM

So you are predicting Santana will have a 2.00 ERA with 220 IP this year? Or are you saying that Oswalt who never had a major injury will age gracefully or at least as gracefully as Santana? Santana is not twice as good as Oswalt now. We are talking a usual difference of between 70 - 80 VORP and 65 - 75 VORP. Oswalt is a very good pitcher, he has had a WARP3 of 9.1, 8.7, 8.0. or about 7.5 wins better than a replacement pitcher the last three seasons. Santana has had 8.8. 9.6, 8.6 or about 7.6 wins better than a replacement pitcher. So unless Santana finds a way to double his production, no he is not twice as value and it is not even close.


I'm not following this.

First off, using your numbers, how is Santana's 3 year average of about 9 WARP3 only .1 wins better than Oswalt's 3 year average of 8.6? He's cranking out an extra .4 a year using your own numbers here, isn't he?

But second, don't you have the wrong numbers?

When I check Santana's BP card, I see his last three WARP3s at 9.6, 11.1, and 9.4 -- and the three year cut off avoids Santana's previous 12.3 WARP3 season.

Oswalt is at 9.1, 8.7, and 8.0 WARP3, and his fourth year previous is 8.2, which is good, but still 4 behind Santana.

Santana's 3 year WARP3 average is 10.03 (and his four year average is 10.6 WARP3)
Oswalt's 3 year WARP3 average is 8.6 (and his four year average is 8.5 WARP3).

Third, someone doesn't have to have twice the numbers in order to produce twice the value. It's a pretty obvious point when you think about the talent distribution in baseball.

From where I sit, Santana is two years younger, has a much better strikeout record in a harder league, and averages almost 2 WARP3 per year more than Oswalt. I'd much rather have his contract than Oswalt's. Oswalt will be good, but he's going to suffer a lot translating to the AL. The trend in his strikeout record is particularly worrying. Santana's k-rate held steady or rose in his age 26-28 seasons; Oswalt's has consistently declined.

Posted Image

(2008 is meaningless at this point, but fangraphs doesn't seem to have a way to select year ranges.)

Have I missed something? It's possible -- I have pneumonia.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 25 April 2008 - 08:08 AM.


#14 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 8757 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 08:20 AM

So you are predicting Santana will have a 2.00 ERA with 220 IP this year? Or are you saying that Oswalt who never had a major injury will age gracefully or at least as gracefully as Santana? Santana is not twice as good as Oswalt now. We are talking a usual difference of between 70 - 80 VORP and 65 - 75 VORP. Oswalt is a very good pitcher, he has had a WARP3 of 9.1, 8.7, 8.0. or about 7.5 wins better than a replacement pitcher the last three seasons. Santana has had 8.8. 9.6, 8.6 or about 7.6 wins better than a replacement pitcher. So unless Santana finds a way to double his production, no he is not twice as value and it is not even close.


There are three issues at play here, both of which work against Oswalt.

1. These stats were put up in different leagues. Santana has been dominant in the AL. Oswalt has been in the NL. There really has been a massive difference between the two leagues, especially with regards to quality of the hitters.

2. I think Santana is likely to age better than Oswalt, due to the differences in K rate, and the nontrivial hit that Oswalt's peripherals took last year as compared to 2006 and prior.

3. Value is nonlinear. You don't need to put up twice the VORP to be twice as valuable.

PECOTA for instance projects Oswalt to be worth $50.5M over the next 5 years, as compared to Santana being worth $117.3 over the next 6. That's nearly double the average annual value.

#15 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17528 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 08:48 AM

There are three issues at play here, both of which work against Oswalt.

1. These stats were put up in different leagues. Santana has been dominant in the AL. Oswalt has been in the NL. There really has been a massive difference between the two leagues, especially with regards to quality of the hitters.

2. I think Santana is likely to age better than Oswalt, due to the differences in K rate, and the nontrivial hit that Oswalt's peripherals took last year as compared to 2006 and prior.

3. Value is nonlinear. You don't need to put up twice the VORP to be twice as valuable.

PECOTA for instance projects Oswalt to be worth $50.5M over the next 5 years, as compared to Santana being worth $117.3 over the next 6. That's nearly double the average annual value.


Wait so an extreme groundball pitcher like Oswalt is going to age worse than a hard throwing SO/FB pitcher like Santana? Also a massive difference between leagues? You honestly think Santana is going to put up Pedroeque numbers in the NL?

Those PECOTA numbers are beyond pointless. Oswalt market value is well beyond his contract. Gil Meche is worth 5 / 50 on the open market.

Why the hell wouldn't the Sox want an extreme groundball pitcher who puts up 200+ IP? Groundball pitchers have always done better in the AL East. 4.00 ERA with 200+ IP for 14 million a year would be a steal in today's market.

#16 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27058 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 09:00 AM

1. These stats were put up in different leagues. Santana has been dominant in the AL. Oswalt has been in the NL. There really has been a massive difference between the two leagues, especially with regards to quality of the hitters.


I'm really not sure I buy this at all, although it's turned into gospel. More HR were hit in the NL last year, I believe 4 of the top 5 offenses were in the NL, and there seems to be a pretty big influx of young offensive talent in the NL. Now, it gets really hard to determine whether the offense in the NL is related to worse pitching, of course, but I don't think the difference in leagues is really that extreme.

Ultimately, I think there's as much top offensive talent in the NL than in the AL, if not more.

Oswalt's interleague numbers are about the same as his overall numbers, for what little that is worth.

Regardless, I think Oswalt would likely cost more than Santana did given his contract status (although he'd surely want to renegotiate).

#17 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 8757 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 09:19 AM

Wait so an extreme groundball pitcher like Oswalt is going to age worse than a hard throwing SO/FB pitcher like Santana? Also a massive difference between leagues? You honestly think Santana is going to put up Pedroeque numbers in the NL?


No, I think Santana is good for like a 3 ERA in the NL. I just think Oswalt projects to around a 4 or so in the AL.

Oswalt is also not an extreme groundball guy. He's at around 50/50 groundball/flyball, which is on the groundball side of things for pitchers, but isn't in the Wang/Lowe camp either.

Those PECOTA numbers are beyond pointless. Oswalt market value is well beyond his contract. Gil Meche is worth 5 / 50 on the open market.

I agree Oswalt would get more on the open market. That's not the question however. It's what he's worth to the Red Sox.

Why the hell wouldn't the Sox want an extreme groundball pitcher who puts up 200+ IP? Groundball pitchers have always done better in the AL East.


Not being snarky, but do you have any evidence for this? Real question - I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'm really not sure I buy this at all, although it's turned into gospel. More HR were hit in the NL last year, I believe 4 of the top 5 offenses were in the NL, and there seems to be a pretty big influx of young offensive talent in the NL. Now, it gets really hard to determine whether the offense in the NL is related to worse pitching, of course, but I don't think the difference in leagues is really that extreme.


It's become gospel because it's been studied, in a variety of ways, all of which to my knowledge have reached the same conclusion. I agree the gap is narrowing, but as far as the numbers put up from '04-'07, the narrowing gap doesn't mean much.

#18 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27058 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 09:52 AM

The studies I have seen are focused pretty heavily on interleague play results, though, and I don't think that's a great way to measure the differences in the leagues due to the variability of the schedules (one division playing the opposite division, etc) and all that.

Even with pitchers batting, 7 of the top 10 teams in OPS were NL teams in '07. 4 of the top 5 HR hitting teams were NL teams. NL hitters had a better line than AL hitters; and that

19 of the top 25 HR hitters in '07 were NL players.

I guess it just seems like a really hard thing to definitively measure. In '05 and '06, the AL held a ten 10 percentage point in slugging on the NL, but the leagues were dead even last year (.423). As of right now, the bulk of the young offensive talent in MLB is in the NL.

#19 bowiac


  • I've been living a lie.


  • 8757 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 10:18 AM

The studies I have seen are focused pretty heavily on interleague play results, though, and I don't think that's a great way to measure the differences in the leagues due to the variability of the schedules (one division playing the opposite division, etc) and all that.


MGL's study for instance wasn't based on interleague play results. It found a differential of the same size as the others.

#20 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17528 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 10:46 AM

No, I think Santana is good for like a 3 ERA in the NL. I just think Oswalt projects to around a 4 or so in the AL.


I agree with this. I also think 5 years of 4.00 ERA / 900+ IP ball in the AL East is worth 75 million.

Oswalt is also not an extreme groundball guy. He's at around 50/50 groundball/flyball, which is on the groundball side of things for pitchers, but isn't in the Wang/Lowe camp either.


This is just wrong. I was off saying extreme groundball pitcher as he is not Lowe or Wang but Oswalt is 60/40 where Wang and Lowe are 70/30 and 80/20 respectly.


I agree Oswalt would get more on the open market. That's not the question however. It's what he's worth to the Red Sox.


Why? The Red Sox have to compete on the open market. There is zero chance the Red Sox can get a player of his caliber on the open market at how much he is getting paid. He will 31 at the end of the season and has been a top five pitcher in the NL for five years. You are telling me you could get someone like that for 60 million over 4 years? There is zero chance. He is only a year older than Santana.

This guy is worth the money because it is extremely undermarket. Anyone that thinks this guy would not be a good pitcher on the Red Sox is insane. Would he be a Cy Young contender for four more years? Probably not. Would he be more a more than solid 2/3 in the AL East. Absolutely. Is Lowrie, Bowden, and Lester a package worth getting such a pitcher? Absolutely. Would the Astros take that package ... depends how cash strapped/retarded Wade is? I am not sure why he would trade the franchise player.

#21 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10833 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 12:40 PM

Wait so an extreme groundball pitcher like Oswalt is going to age worse than a hard throwing SO/FB pitcher like Santana?

Pretty much any study of pitcher longevity ever done suggests the answer to this is "yes", as far as I know, especially once the extreme groundball hyperbole is corrected.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 25 April 2008 - 12:41 PM.


#22 Crazy Puppy

  • 1762 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 12:56 PM

The Astros' beat writer from the Houston Chronicle chimes in:

I know Oswalt better than any player on that club. That's not to say I know him tremendously because you never really, really know the players. But I'd put my working relationship with this guy against anybody in America.

Believe what you want, but I'll tell you there are three teams he'll accept a trade to, and those teams aren't in New York. They aren't the Yankees. They aren't the Mets.

They are the St. Louis Cardinals, Atlanta Braves and Boston Red Sox.

Even then, though, the Astros would have to admit they're not going to contend and then ask him to leave before he takes a trade. Oh, and he also would demand to remake the contract and get the type of money Johan Santana got from the Mets. There's the truth for you.

Link

#23 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13293 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 01:10 PM

There are three issues at play here, both of which work against Oswalt.



#24 RSN Diaspora


  • molests goats for comedy


  • 4981 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 01:12 PM

The Astros' beat writer from the Houston Chronicle chimes in:

[...]
Even then, though, the Astros would have to admit they're not going to contend and then ask him to leave before he takes a trade. Oh, and he also would demand to remake the contract and get the type of money Johan Santana got from the Mets. There's the truth for you.
[...]


Herein lies the rub. Oswalt has to benefit from waiving a contract term negotiated in his favor. For some players, the chance to go to a contender is reason enough to do so. For someone like Oswalt, who, given the length of his current contract, probably doesn't have another big payday left, I doubt the ring will be enough of an incentive. If we could get him for his current deal without giving up Buchholz, Ellsbury, or Masterson, then I'd be all about it. But if he wants to significantly tie up payroll that could be better invested elsewhere, then the idea gives me pause.

#25 amarshal2

  • 2564 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 01:31 PM

This is just wrong. I was off saying extreme groundball pitcher as he is not Lowe or Wang but Oswalt is 60/40 where Wang and Lowe are 70/30 and 80/20 respectly.


I used the GB% data provided by www.thehardballtimes.com. To be fair to Tom, this isn't the same as GO/FO but at least it ends the discussion.

I used 4 years of data (2004-2007) and did a weighted average based on IP.

Wang: 62.1%
Lowe: 64.6%
Oswalt: 48.2%

Oswalt averaged 228 IP/year over this time. That's both a good thing and a bad thing.

edit: as I tried to say above but Josh pointed in more detail below, the difference between the two appears to be in the type of stats used.

Edited by amarshal2, 25 April 2008 - 01:48 PM.


#26 Joshv02

  • 1380 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 01:42 PM

THT data includes LDs. Tom isn't using LD%. Weighting THT data by non SO/BB/HR batter faced, Oswalt has a 48.4% GB% (with a 20.2% LD% and a 31.4% FB%). That is a 1.54:1 GB:FB ratio, which is about the same as Tom's 60/40 split.

League average is about 45%. So, Oswalt is very slightly an above average GB pitcher over the past 4 years - but, he is more of (~50%) a GB pitcher the last three (and the first 30 innings of 2008).

Edited by Joshv02, 25 April 2008 - 01:50 PM.


#27 Arock78

  • 1953 posts

Posted 25 April 2008 - 01:49 PM

Herein lies the rub. Oswalt has to benefit from waiving a contract term negotiated in his favor. For some players, the chance to go to a contender is reason enough to do so. For someone like Oswalt, who, given the length of his current contract, probably doesn't have another big payday left, I doubt the ring will be enough of an incentive.


Maybe, but if no team were willing to renegotiate with him, that means the choice is only between going to a contender and staying on a lesser team. Obviously, all things being equal, there's still a good reason to accept a trade.

If his contract means his last chance at a big payday, he probably knew that when he signed it. If there's competition for his services, then maybe a team will work with him on that. If not, his only negotiating chip is if a team thought they really needed him to contend.

Edited by Arock78, 25 April 2008 - 01:50 PM.