Baseball reporters have been saying all year that Roy-O is losing something and is "not the same pitcher he was." I think this is their way of lowering expectations in terms of what the Astros should expect to get back in any trade. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always suspicious when the "national" types say that Oswalt is in decline because they usually have some kind of agenda (i.e. hoping that their favorite team can get him on the cheap). We have two articles this weekend talking about Roy's displeasure with the Astros (and Cooper) one in the Chicago tribune and another mention by Buster Olney. There was even an article in SI.com (Heyman) saying that the Astros might be looking to move pieces. 1) Rogers - Tribune 2) Olney 3) Heyman So far, all we've heard from Roy is that if the mgmt. comes to him asking to waive his no-trade clause, he'd be open to it, but only if they bring it up as something that would help the team going forward. My thinking is that unless Uncle D gets back a King-sized ransom, he'll probably balk at any deal to move Roy (remember the three-way between Baltimore and Texas that was rumored a couple of years back). Personally, I think that they'll try to hold down the fort and see if they can't get themselves in a position to maybe add a (small) piece and make a late-season run again. I just don't like that the vultures are already in position to try and dictate when the Astros move their best pieces.
Of course that is what Roy says publicly. Roy is a veteran. If he hates Cooper and wants to be traded, he knows not to say it publicly.
True, but if he thinks the team around him is good enough to compete, and the only thing holding them back is Cooper, wouldn't it make more sense to try and get him removed/replaced than switching teams? I have no doubt that he's tired of the "we need Roy to pitch like Roy" comments (this past week wasn't the first time that Coop has said something like that). But I think that he and Berkman know that this team is capable of making second-half runs. So much so, that I think it's kind of ingrained in their psyche that that's how it's always going to be. I remember reading a quote by Berkman last year pretty much stating the old Garner line of "we need to get ourselves over .500 and see where everyone else is and make a run from there." Which suggests that they'll look to fix themselves first - play better - then see what they can do to make up the ground lost in the first half of the season. I hate the mindset, but I think success in the past begets a certain way forward in the future. If some of the reports that are coming out are to be believed and some of the Astros veterans are saying it's either Coop or me, I think the business decision for McLane is pretty simple, you keep the sacred cows and you replace the head man. There's no way McLane wants to hear Cooper get booed at home (a la Jimy Williams) if the fans think he's the reason Roy-O's not in H-town anymore.
That may very well be what is happening behind the scenes. Making it public would be a mistake. The entire "if mgmt came and asked, I would waive my no trade" was in direct response to a question from reporters regarding a hypothetical trade. Roy also said that he would waive the clause if the Astros thought that was going to be better for the ballclub. That he would not want to stand in the way of the team improving. Roy has never stated that he wants to be traded. He answer a reporter's stupid question. Cooper will be gone long before Oswalt.
White sox offer for Peavy was nice. If you could get the same thing for Oswalt, I would likely do it. Phils need starting pitching bad and I would try to get 2 from Kyle Drabek, Joe Savery, and Jason Donald from them for Oswalt.
It could also be because he's giving up more hits, more HRs, more walks, more runs, and all around not pitching as well. Often, when pitchers do that, people say they are losing something... Reporters don't get together to create a hidden national agenda to screw the Astros.
Considering that the ChiSox refused to even discuss Beckham in the Peavy talks, why in the world would they do so for Oswalt?
They said the same kind of things last year - second half provided a return to vintage Oswalt. I'm hoping that proves to be the case again this year.
I would not want to see Oswalt or Berkman traded ever from The Astros, they are the new Bagwell and Biggio of the team. Let them retire here, everybody else on the team is tradable.
This might sound glib, but I've come to expect that Drayton will always make the wrong decision, when it comes to rebuilding this team, always.
Absolutely - in which case, the reports that he's missing something would be wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that's there's a rational reason for them suggesting he's losing something, as opposed to some kind of national conspiracy to lower his value and screw over the Astros.
Not glib, just dumb. I suppose that all the decisions that led to the World Series a few years ago were the wrong ones, too. I'm far from a Drayton apologist, but we've been pretty darn successful under his watch. He is the best owner the Astros have ever had, make no mistake.
http://blogs.chron.com/baseballblog/archives/2009/05/oswalt_will_not.html May 31, 2009 Oswalt will not accept trade to Chicago White Sox Although the Chicago White Sox have had a special assistant to the general manager at the Astros' last two series, you can put an end to any speculation about Roy Oswalt accepting a trade to the White Sox. Because Bill Scherrer, a special assistant to White Sox GM Kenny Williams, has been at the Astros' last two series, there has been quite a bit of speculation nationally regarding the possibility of Oswalt landing with the White Sox a few weeks after Oswalt's good friend Jake Peavy refused a trade to the White Sox. Oswalt isn't talking publicly about any trade speculation, but the Chronicle has learned that Oswalt would invoke his no-trade clause if the White Sox attempted to acquire him. Oswalt has a no-trade clause, and if he ever waived it to go play in Chicago it would be with the Cubs and not the White Sox. Because of the recent turmoil surrounding Cecil Cooper, some national media, without even talking to Oswalt, have insinuated that he wants out of Houston. One report even claimed Oswalt was upset that the Astros didn't try to acquire Peavy. As some of you will remember, this winter I reached Peavy on Oswalt's cell phone when they were on a hunting trip. During that phone interview Peavy admitted that he'd embrace a trade to the Astros, promising to discuss trade talks for the first and last time of the winter that time. Peavy remained mum the rest of the winter until he got to spring training. Would Oswalt love to have Peavy in Houston? Absolutely. But it is irresponsible and a flat out lie for anybody to write that Oswalt wants out of Houston because he's upset that the team didn't acquire Peavy. In this blog on Thursday, I wrote about Scherrer being in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh watching the Astros. I didn't write about it in the paper because I was assured by a top National League official who would know that the Astros and White Sox weren't in any trade talks. That can always change, but I'm writing this blog just to make clear that Oswalt isn't going to accept a trade to the White Sox. So before folks continue to speculate on Oswalt, cross the White Sox off that list. Now, if the Cubs or St. Louis Cardinals call, I would expect him to say yes right away if the Astros approach him and ask him to do it to help the franchise rebuild for the future.
Bolded emphasis - mine. Nice find, although I'm not sure if I'm on shakier ground with JdJO, lol. I guess my initial post was aimed at protecting "one of our own," but I think it's irresponsible for the national scribes to put this kind of talk out there. As it did when there were "talks" of Purpora trading Oswalt to Baltimore, it could start drive a wedge between the player and mgmt. That time, it took an extension with a FULL no-trade clause to soothe the hurt feelings. Even Jason Stark has a blurb in his latest R&G that says a scout thinks Roy-O could use a change of scenery because Roy "has lost his edge" and would benefit if he went "to a more competitive team." And Stark is usually pretty fair when it comes to the Astros. We need Footer, or someone, to come out with an article with an interview with Roy-O so he can get some stuff off his chest and maybe clear the air a little bit kinda like this one.
Well, as long as we're employing surmise and conjecture to determine what Roy Oswalt is thinking, let me add this: if he really is tired of Coop saying "we need Roy to pitch like Roy," the only adequate solution is for him to pitch like Roy. Compared to the baseline he's established over his career, he flat-out sucks this year. He's being regularly outpitched by Wandy Freaking Rodriguez, for crying out loud. I'm ready to see those two produce something in the first half for a nice, refreshing change. Like they did when they built the mammoth reputation they now enjoy, whilst producing like Redding and Ward instead of Oswalt and Berkman.
Do some athletes get called out by their managers/coaches from time to time, sure. The question is, is this an effective way for Coop to approach the situation? Unless he's perfectly happy with his extension and his job security, I've got to think that if it comes down to him or Roy, management is going to side with Roy. Why not keep trying to provide cover for his guy - like Charlie Manual is doing for Lidge? From the article, "I think his stuff is there," Manuel said. "I think it's just a matter of him making more quality pitches and cutting down on his walks and things. I think his stuff will play out over 162 games. That's what makes him a good closer. His stuff will play out. Will he blow some games? He had a perfect year last year. ... How was he going to top that? He had to have some letdowns this season. That's baseball." Manuel understands that. That is why he is sticking with Lidge. "I think about treating him right," Manuel said. "I think he deserves a chance to work it out." If I were Oswalt, and if Coop had come out and said something like that, I'd take it a whole heck of lot better than "he needs to be Roy." Sure, dismiss it as conjecture or whatnot, but the bottom line is, managing people is an art form, each person needs to be managed differently. If you want to endear yourself to your players, you should know when to push and when to sit back. If Roy was out there giving it less than maximum effort, not putting in the work between starts, not preparing, etc., then yeah, you pull him aside and talk with him. Don't take your complaints to the media when you're upset - that's not communicating, well, unless your Phil Jackson... I do agree with you that it'd be nice if the Astros didn't dig themselves a hole every year to try and climb out of with (near) record second-half runs. I said it earlier in this forum that I think Lance probably thinks this is just the way it works since they've been doing this Jekyll and Hyde thing for sometime now.
didn't mean to defend whether or not Coop should say whatever he says (though I'm not sure he's "taking it to the media" so much as simply answering matter-of-factly whatever question was asked). Just stating that Roy's biggest beef, at least seems to me, should be with his own (lack of) performance.
