[NBC] The Rangers are working hard to get Roy Oswalt

Why does it make more sense to trade a boatload of top prospects for a Cy Young winner when it's a near certainty that the Cy Young winner will leave in free agency? I can understand if Lee were the only real option available, but we all know that is not the case here.

 

Excellent post and one I wholeheartedly agree with. Internet analysts routinely overvalue prospects because everyone wants to believe that some young kid with a blazing fastball or unparalleled bat speed is the second coming of Sandy Koufax or Ted Williams, and we're now living in an electronic world where everyone chatters at length about these Next Big Things. Where the careers of GMs, scouts, and managers live and die by the decisions made with regards to these prospects, internet baseball whizzes suffer no accountability moments. They are free to engage the echo chamber about why one team's farm system sucks balls, rendering every decision the dumbest ever. When their pessimistic hyperbole is later proven wrong (see, i.e., Randy Wolf, LaTroy Hawkins, Brett Myers, Jeff Keppinger, etc), few words are ever written challenging said "experts" about what they said at the time those moves were made.

 

This is incredible. You've called someone out for making a silly statement and you apparently don't realize that Roy Oswalt HAS PITCHED AGAINST AMERICAN LEAGUE TEAMS!?!?!

Good lord, dude. Go look at baseballreference.com before you continue spouting b.s. like this.

Roy Oswalt has a career 3.47 ERA in interleague play, which is just barely above his career 3.22 ERA. Yeah, I think it's safe to say that he will do fine in the AL. The switch isn't nearly the hurdle you believe it to be.

 

I just want to note that in interleague play, 1/2 the time there's no DH. If you factor that in, his ERA in AL parks would likely be in the 3.7-3.8 range. And consistently throwing to DHs cause more fatigue in pitchers as they go through the lineup.

I don't think Oswalt will have problems pitching in the AL. But his stats will definitely take a dip.

 

His stats may dip from his career averages but I'd argue that the divergence would be rather insignificant when you factor in the increased RS he will enjoy if he pitched with that Ranger lineup behind him. Oswalt has pitched ten seasons at an elite level. His performance is not a function of pitching in the National League. We're talking about a pitcher who has the fourth-best ERA among all active pitchers, the fourth-best W-L percentage, and the seventh-best WHIP, and yet this rubbish about Oswalt supposedly not being able to pitch at the same level in the American League persists. That argument is just based less on reality than casual perception. Roy Oswalt has pitched his entire career as an underrated pitcher, and the responses in this thread--from people who ostensibly are fans of the Houston Astros--only serve to illustrate that point.

C

 

Btw his career ERA in AL parks is 3.66.

And for those of you who think he's been injured a lot, I have to ask if you've bothered to look at his IPs throughout his career. He's average 222 IPs to Cliff Lee's 215. Yeah, he's had some issues with his hip/back but nothing that's kept him out for a prolonged period. For every minor DL stint you can point at as an argument against Oswalt, I can point to Cliff Lee's abdominal issues and his terrible 2007 season when he got sent down to AAA. Oswalt has never had anything close to that.

By any objective measure the difference between Oswalt and Lee is not the vast gulf some have made it out to be. Lee is certainly better right now, but if I'm a Ranger fan then I'm not so sure I'd want a half-season rental of Lee when I can get 1.5-2.5 seasons of Roy Oswalt to anchor my rotation.

 

That's great for Ranger fan. For Ranger ballclub, which is in bankruptcy and who's attempt to sell is a mess, having a guy who you can pay a few million to has major advantages over a guy who you have to pay more to this year and have to pay $15MM to next year.

 

One thing I haven't seen on these boards about Lee is the fact that both teams are in the AL West. I saw that the Rangers' GM commented that it won't be an issue, but I'm honestly not so sure that isn't posturing, just as I'm not sure that Drayton will eat salary in anything but a sweetheart deal.

To explain, imagine in the Randy Johnson trade, if Randy Johnson had come from the Cardinals. Imagine then, that Randy Johnson leaves after a quarter season, and for the next however many years having to see Freddy Garcia, Carlos Guillen, and John Halama playing for the Cards, and being perpetually reminded that you gave up three solid major league players in exchange for half a season, especially if it ends, as it did for the 'stros, with a disappointing loss instead of a visit to the World Series.

Or imagine if the Red Sox had made the Larry Andersen trade with the Yankees. Can you imagine the crap the team would get for trading Bagwell to the pinstripes? For like the next 15 years, Sox fans would have a major hatred of their front office. Red Sox fans to this day b**** about having traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees, even though nobody is left alive who remembers it.

Those sort of thins become an albatross around the neck of a GMs legacy, and it is a thought that terrifies most GMs. And from the other side, the GM has to wonder if the team sending you the prospects would send you prospects that they believed in for that reason. And since the team sending you the prospects has seen them up close, you wonder if they know something you don't.

There are a whole bunch of political issues which would be involved in trading for Lee that wouldn't be there as much for the Astros. I'm not saying that this makes a difference in the Rangers wanting to pursue either Lee or Oswalt, but it does make finalizing a deal for Lee much more of a psychological game for a GM.

There might be enough trouble that that the would do better looking at one of the second tier guys available.

 

If the principals are to believed with what they've been saying recently, then it's established that the new ownership group is more than willing to take on additional payroll to improve the team's chances at postseason success.

Thus, we're right back at the original question of whether it's better to trade a boatload of prospects for a half-season rental OR trade a similar package of prospects for an elite starting pitcher under club control for the next 1.5 seasons with a club option for the final year of the contract.

If the Rangers braintrust chooses Option A, that will come at a cost of approx. 3-4 mm for Lee's remaining salary, 3-4 top prospects, and a hole in the rotation for the 2011 season. That leaves them right back where they started--NO STAFF ACE, not to mention the certain loss of two or three promising arms from their system. How much money do you think it's gonna cost them next year when they're still looking for that stud pitcher? Their window of opportunity to contend is now and the foreseeable future so there's a very good argument to be made that this rent-a-horse strategy is not the ideal answer. If you're gonna go for it, go all the way and maximize your chances.

If the braintrust chooses Option B, they will be on the hook for the remainder of Oswalt's 2010 salary, his 2011 salary, and the two million dollar buyout if they choose not to exercise the club option on the 2012 season. That's a total commitment of about 23 million dollars, but it also buys the team at least 1.5 seasons of Oswalt and two possible playoff runs. That might sound like a lot of money in the current economic climate, but it wouldn't saddle the new ownership group economically for the long-term future and it's cheaper than many of the deals of we've seen go down in the last two seasons. (i.e. Peavy, Santana, Sabathia, Zambrano, Burnett, Lackey, Lowe) How much do you think a Roy Oswalt commands on the open market for a 1-yr deal? 10 million? Absolutely. 12 million? No doubt. 15 million? Hmmmm. Maybe, maybe not, depending on how he finishes the season. (And we know he's historically a second-half pitcher). Point is, he's worth the money and the Rangers would be getting a better return on the price paid in prospects and salary. They'd have Roy starting many more games than they'd have Lee. Lastly, everyone is assuming the worst about Oswalt, so let's assume the upside instead. What if the change of scenery rejuvenates him and he excels? The Rangers would get that final year at the same annual salary.

Roy Oswalt would give the Rangers are very good chance to go further than they've ever gone before. If that happens, he pays for himself. Just like Roger Clemens did for Drayton McLane.

 

Three at-bats per start against a guy who hits better than a pitcher? Really? It's not like they lob slow-pitch underhand to pitchers when they bat. "*Whew* the pitcher is up, now I can throw my FB at 75 rather than 91!" I don't believe it causes more fatigue in the least.

 

The DH is often times one of the best hitters on the team. It makes a big difference.

 

What does this have to do with his pitching? His win-loss record would get better, but not his performance.

I don't get it. I didn't say Oswalt will become a lesser pitcher in the AL. I simply that his stats will take a dip. What's wrong with saying a pitcher will put up worse stats by pitching against tougher hitters?

Isn't that, I don't know, common sense?

 

Yeah, but right now, the sale is at least partly in doubt. Or if nothing else, it has been delayed at the very minimum. So the question is whether whoever is controlling the Rangers now (is it in MLB receivership? I'm not sure) are going to be allowed to make moves on the assumption that the sale will go through.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2010/06/breaking_news_federal_bankrupt.php

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7_q42vn6pVMhH1hb5mnOMtAOJgD9GII4RG2

 

• The DH is more often than not middle-of-the road among the hitters on the team.
• It's generally three at-bats or less for a starter.
• As such, I think you overestimate the difference it makes.