If the two options are 25 year old Matt Kemp, or a 24 or 23 year old AA "top prospect" who has never played a game in MLB, and is a year or two away (and potentially could "bust"), there is a case to be made for Kemp. Kemp has a significant amount of service time, but he is proven and is only about a year older than some of the "prospects". He isn't an old man. There seems to be perverse thinking that if the team doesn't lose 100 or more games for a couple of years, then they will have half-assed rebuilding - that they very act of losing games will insure that they will get better. This isn't the NBA, where you lose games and get the #1 overall pick, and pick up a "sure thing" superstar to build around. The last #1 overall the Astros had was kicked out of town for being a whiny diva and being completely unproductive to boot. Of course, the issue would probably be that the Dodgers wouldn't be interested in trading a proven starter. But from the Astros perspective, all things being equal Kemp has some advantages over someone one year younger who has never seen an MLB inning.
The Dodgers would be the stupid team in that deal. The odds of a prospect being better than either Loney or Kemp is not all that great. Both players are under control until 2013. If you can get either for Oswalt, I think you do that deal. I'm sure the Dodgers laughed at Ed Wade when he asked for either guy though.
the odds of a prospect being better than oswalt is even smaller. why even trade him in that case? and who cares about 2 years of club control? we'd have to give matt kemp a carlos lee contract in 2013 in order to keep him. is that something you want to commit to? and loney and kemp are on 2 opposite ends of the spectrum. as Major mentioned, a 1st baseman who barely breaks 10 hr's/season has little value in today's game anyhow. the dodgers would trade loney for oswalt in a heartbeat.
If I didn't have to work, I'd look up any of the many posts expressing the sentiment over the past six months that the Astros need to start losing; that the very act of winning games is destroying their chances to rebuild. I believe one of the several posters in love with that idea is also obsessed with having a chance to draft Anthony Rendon of Rice. I find it difficult to believe that you read these forums regularly and haven't seen any of the posts by the handful of posters advocating this position. Check the "MLB Draft" thread and the "Roy Oswalt asks for a trade" thread from the beginning if you really honestly haven't seen any of them. tl;dr You can think that if you want, if you don't mind being wrong.
well, you picked an odd time to bring it up since it's completely inconsistent with anything said in this thread and especially my post that you were responding to.
Correct, but you are saying you would rather have all prospects rather than something that might actually help you at the major league level. I don't see why you can't have both. If the Astros are paying a good chunk of Roy's deal, they should be getting both. It almost sounds like team's sense that the Astros are the desperate team and are low balling them accordingly. I don't agree that the market for Oswalt increases in the off season. You are more likely to get Roy to approve a trade now when that team is in contention as opposed to the off season when there are still 162 games to be played.
, Why would the Astros be desperate? We have what they want, 'Stros got nothing to lose. If we don't trade Oswalt we have an ace and if we do trade him we get top young prospects. But maybe teams think since Oswalt wants out, the Astros want to trade him as soon as possible. I hope Dan Haren gets traded to the Yanks and the Astros keep their demands of top prospects, teams would start to give in but if teams think they can get Oswalt for a couple of players like the Cards offer, we'll keep him gladly
I would guess Oswalt has one more year with the Astros at the most. The team is already going to let Berkman walk for basicly nothing. (not that they have a choice). They won't be in contention next season. It would seem to make sense that you would want to get something in return for your best player. I think the market for Oswalt gets no better than right now.
The reason you want a prospect is that this team needs to go into rebuilding. Both Kemp and Loney will be free agents within a few years, so unless the Astros are aiming to win now, they aren't going to be around when the Astros are ready to start winning again (or they'll be paid a ton as free agents, which the Astros could do without trading for them). The point of prospects is that you've got a longer time frame to extract value from them.
If you are the Dodgers, would you trade Kemp AND a top-tier prospect for Oswalt? That doesn't help them now or in the future.
Diamndbacks traded Haren to Angels for Joe Saunders, Patrick Corbin, Rafael Rodriguez and a player to be named http://twitter.com/extrabaggs/status/19525019650#
Why the hell would they want Joe Saunders? Probably good news for the Astros front -- another good SP off the market and not to the Yankees/Dodgers/Cards/Phillies.
I agree. Haren was a stud the last 3 seasons but this season he hasn't been at that same level. Cliff Lee is on another level but I think Oswalt and Haren are pretty close when it comes to value. So the package the Diamondbacks should be a pretty good idea what the Astros should expect. Hopefully as the deadline gets closer, some desperate team overpays for Oswalt.
What do we know about those two prospects? Saunders might just have been a throw-in since the Angels wouldn't need him anymore and the DBacks may just need a starter to throw into the rotation for the rest of the season.
