« WJAB Radio Appearance | Main | Odds and Ends: Crisp, King, Sweeney »

Stark's Latest: Oswalt, Tejada, Upton, Burrell

By Tim Dierkes [April 25, 2008 at 8:12am CST]

Check out the latest column from ESPN's Jayson Stark.

Stark talked to one exec who believed the Astros' baseball people might consider a Roy Oswalt trade, but owner Drayton McLane never would.
The exec also questioned whether the Astros would've given up a bounty of five players to acquire Miguel Tejada if they'd known the player's true age.
Stark implies that the Upton brothers are eyeing big bucks and aren't likely to sign extensions.
Stark's sources believe the Phillies will offer Pat Burrell something like two years and $14MM. He'll probably want significantly more than that.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e55211ca9a8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stark's Latest: Oswalt, Tejada, Upton, Burrell:

Comments

What do you think it would take for the Yanks to get Oswalt?

Posted by: maximumpotential | April 25, 2008 at 08:15 AM

LOL the Yanks are in every discussion. Truly amazing. As the article stated, they lost a few guys for Tejada so they'll probably want a few guy in return for Oswalt. It should be a win-win situation for both teams.

Posted by: BraveNewWorld | April 25, 2008 at 08:27 AM

An Oswalt discussion probably wouldn't start unless Joba or Hughes are mentioned and Joba would be more likely. Kennedy would not headline the deal. Add onto that Tabata or Jackson, Horne, and probably a reliver, Ramirez or Ohlendorf. Point being if Oswalt lifts his no trade clause then the price tag skyrockets, this isn't a limited market like with Santana. I seriously don't see it happening.

Quick question for anyone, does anyone else think the Yanks will gamble and sign Burrell in the offseason? They'd lose their first round pick to the Phillies but if they let Abreu, Giambi, and Moose walk, they get probably 1 or 2 first round picks from whoever signs Giambi and Abreu, and a couple of supplemental picks. Not to mention they'd have the money to offer Burrell say 3-4yrs 15-16M

Posted by: start_wearing_purple | April 25, 2008 at 08:30 AM

Houston beat writers have pretty much dismissed the idea of Oswalt to the Yankees, because he would not approve a trade there.

Posted by: Tim Dierkes | April 25, 2008 at 08:49 AM

I'm hoping the Mets snag Burrell for LF next year. I'm not sold on Pagan in a starting role.

Posted by: stellar | April 25, 2008 at 08:57 AM

I wouldnt count on Giambi and Moose being type A free agentc.

Posted by: nrmax88 | April 25, 2008 at 09:31 AM

(1) Let's be clear. This Oswalt thing is re-beating of last season's dead horse regarding his trade provision. Unless I've missed something, there is no report that he's been recently approached.

(2) Even if there was such a report, it fails the sniff test. Why accumulate all of these veterans over the winter, only to essentially give up on any pennant chance after 20 games?

Especially, why would you do that in a division where 82 wins is likely going to compete for a playoff spot?

Now, on the other hand, it makes total sense for the club to have a giant sell-off in July if circumstances dictate... but that's far, far down the road. And don't look now, but our guys are finally starting to regress toward the mean in terms of hitting. We can only hope that our pitching continues to overachieve, but that remains an open question.

Posted by: _sturt_ | April 25, 2008 at 09:41 AM

completely agree with sturt.

trading oswalt after everything that happened over the winter would be extremely...confusing to say the least.

not to mention, the offense just started clicking the the rest of the rotation actually hasn't been bad.

Posted by: Ya Hote Ta | April 25, 2008 at 09:52 AM

This process of suggesting that Oswalt or any pitcher for that matter is worth a handful of top 50 prospects is crazy. I'm down on Hughes lately (stuff just doesnt look that same) so maybe I'd consider him and a lower mid-tier but really, why the hell would any team give up Joba, Austin Jackson or Tabata, and Horne for a soon to be over the hill SP with tons of innings on his arm when they could just sign a free agent.

Posted by: finite24 | April 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM

He included Olendorf too. So he thinks Oswalt is worth Joba, Austin Jackson or Tabata, Ohlendorf, and Horne. That just sounds insane to me and I'm not even basing that on the presumption that any of those guys will be anything more than ML average players at their respected positions. Why wouldn't they just pay for a free agent rather than give away cheap talent AND pay. And if more and more teams stopped doing that, then quality pitchers would actually make it to free agency.

Posted by: finite24 | April 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM

From what I've read Oswalt would only approve a trade to three teams.

So not only are the Yanks not in on this, it is a limited trade much like Santana.

Oswalt isn't the pitcher Johan is, and it seems he may be on the decline. With that said I think you can expect a similar package to what the Twins were offered for Santana. I don't think Oswalt warrants a Bedard-type haul.

Posted by: GoBoSox420 | April 25, 2008 at 11:07 AM

finite, I should have be more clear, that's where the Astros would likely open the bidding. Top young pitcher, top young hitter, an intriguing arm that could be anywhere from a #3 pitcher to a spot starter, and a reliver who could go either way.

BoSox, the big difference between Johan and Oswalt was the Twins were more or less forced to trade to a limited market. Astros on the other hand don't have to trade Oswalt unless they feel like it. Add to that Oswalt is only 30 and has pitched more than 210 innings every year since 2001. The only sign of decline is he was a little wild last year which could be an anomaly.

Posted by: start_wearing_purple | April 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Oswalt is so much better than Bedard.

He is more durable, more proven, and roughly the same age without any major arm problems.

Bedard was amazing last year (when he pitched). But just look at Oswalt's stats - the guy is a total stud.

And as for signing a FA pitcher instead of trading for Oswalt ... who exactly are you shooting for? CC? Are you ready to drop 7/120 on a pitcher who is struggling mightly, has serious weight issues, and who also has a ton of miles on that arm? Plus you lose your 1st round pick.

Who else is out there that would equal the impact of an Oswalt? No one.

Posted by: bjsguess | April 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM

I mean I'm just hesitant about dumping the farm for any pitcher, especially one over 30. Not that it's a huge deterrent, but his K rate is trending downward iirc. And he's pitching in the NL, so you have to expect somewhat of an era bump if he moved to the AL.

I'm all in favor of trading for the guy, obviously for the right price. The other thing is, it's hard to predict a trade of prospects a year from now. The sox have a glut of b level prospects in a/aa, who knows where their value will be a year from now.

I don't think Oswalt nets more than Bedard though.

Posted by: GoBoSox420 | April 25, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Oswalt would most likely be a happy medium between Johan and Bedards deals. Bedard was more expensive because he had 2 years left on just Arb. Years. While Johan had to be signed to a huge deal before he'd approve of a trade.

Think Ellsbury, Lowrie and a couple minor league pitchers.

But if he does get dealt I really think he'd end up being a Brave. Something along the lines of SP C.James, OF Brandon Jones and a couple minor league players.

Posted by: XD23 | April 25, 2008 at 11:37 AM

"Especially, why would you do that in a division where 82 wins is likely going to compete for a playoff spot?"

No. It will take at least 88 to win that division.

"Oswalt would most likely be a happy medium between Johan and Bedards deals."

Yes. And Oswalt is a better value, in my opinion, than Bedard is. Bedard has only had a better season than Oswalt like once, right? And he never pitches 200 innings, where Oswalt is just a solid #1, period. Bedard has huge upside, but isn't the solid, sturdy #1 that you know you are getting with Oswalt.

Posted by: Aduncaroo | April 25, 2008 at 11:55 AM

XD23, considering the Astros have their outfield pretty much set with Bourn, Pence, and Lee, I'm betting a Red Sox deal would more likely be Buchholz, Lowrie and if the Sox are very lucky, they'll hold onto Masterson, Anderson, and Kalish. But likely Anderson or Masterson would be part of the deal.

Posted by: start_wearing_purple | April 25, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Purple... you're overvaluing Oswalt, or any pitcher to be traded for that matter. Why wouldn't the Sox or Yanks just wait and sign a free agent? Maybe you'd get a team to panic if say, their 3 young arms prove to be more mediocre than expected, but even then, its an extremely shortsighted move. Oswalt or any top tier SP isn't worth much more than the hall the Twins got for Santana. Anyone who pays more than that is being overly myopic with their planning.

Posted by: finite24 | April 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM

In other words, the Yankess shouldn't have entered the season with three rookie pitchers with IP caps. That doesn't mean they should go out and find a short-sighted solution. I MIGHT trade Hughes and not much more for Oswalt if I felt he wasn't going to be anything more than a #3 SP (I'm starting to think that). But if a team asked for Joba, Austin Jackson, Horne, and Ohlendorf I'd tell them no thanks and that'd be the end of the discussion. If the Stros' can get that from someone else, good for them but any team who comes close to matching that asking price should fire their GM and start over.

Posted by: finite24 | April 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM

actually johan and oswalt have very comparible career stats...the only place johan really has any edge is strikeouts.

roy has pitched more innings with less walks and a lower era than johan, as well as 20 more wins.

johan has a lot more strikeouts, a lot less hits, but also has given up more homeruns than oswalt has.

you could go either way. johan is left handed, is 1.5 years younger and pitched in the AL his whole career until now, so i could see why he'd be the sexier choice. but very, very comparible.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4280
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=4575

Posted by: Ya Hote Ta | April 25, 2008 at 12:41 PM

FYI, there isn't a player in baseball for which I'd trade a package of that caliber. Players get paid what they are worth ($ paid = value added) so when you add to that the fixed cost of a prospect package, their cost will far exceed their value.

Posted by: finite24 | April 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM

finite, pitchers of Oswalt's caliber simply are fairly rare to hit FA anymore.

Of the recent would be free agents or soon to be free agents of top caliber: -Santana was traded and signed an extension
-Beckett signed an extension
-Bedard was traded to a team who can afford to extend him
-Halladay kept signing extensions
-Burhele signed an extension
-Haren was traded after he was cheaply extended
-Webb signed an extension
-Peavy signed an extension
-Zambrano signed an extension
etc. etc. etc.

Ok I know I was reaching on a few of those but my point is still quality like Oswalt on the FA market is rare nowadays. And though CC might disprove my point I'll maintain my belief Oswalt overall is and will be better.

But really the biggest FA pitcher signings that have been meant to seriously shift the balance in power in a division in the last couple of years have been Pettite, Schmidt, Zito, Burnett, Pedro, Lily, and a couple of others. None of them are of Oswalt's level currently.

My point is simply this, you either grow or trade for your best pitchers now. A few gems come along every now and then on the FA market, but they could easily be overhyped (cough cough Zito sucks). So a couple of A prospects and B prospects makes sense for a proven ace. And again, since the Astros are not pressured to sell, they can set the price as high as the Moon. It doesn't mean anyone would bite, but some panicking team might. Also remember, prospects are just that, no garuentteeing they'll work out.

Posted by: start_wearing_purple | April 25, 2008 at 01:31 PM

I heard something this morning about a possible firesale in San Diego if the offense does not get it in gear soon. Considering the fact that the Padres offense sucks this is likely going to happen. I would think that Peavy is the only one that would not get traded of the pitchers. But both Young and Mad Dog could more than likely be had.
Neither is an ace, but both are good pitchers that could help some teams in contention.
As for our Vets, I don't see them being moved for much, since they can't hit and most are older.

Posted by: AirmanSD | April 25, 2008 at 01:34 PM

Purple-

More SP would become free agents if more teams would stop being so short-sighted. Most teams (three-fifth's of teams?) can't afford to extend top tier SPers and if teams would stop trading their farm systems AND unloading boatloads of $$$ in the process, those players would hit the wire. And if that doesn't happen, fine. Take advantage of the inefficiencies of the market and focus on offense with that free agent $$$ while holding on to your SP prospect.

Posted by: finite24 | April 25, 2008 at 02:01 PM

"But if he does get dealt I really think he'd end up being a Brave. Something along the lines of SP C.James, OF Brandon Jones and a couple minor league players."

And then you woke up and remembered this is the real world, not Atlanta Brave Homer Town. That is a laughable offer, unless the 2 minor leaguers are Heyward and Lillibridge. A back end of the rotation starter with control issues, and a decent OF prospect that strikes out a ton as the centerpieces of a deal of deal for pretty much the best starter in the NL. I dont think so.

Posted by: nrmax88 | April 25, 2008 at 02:37 PM

"Purple... you're overvaluing Oswalt, or any pitcher to be traded for that matter. Why wouldn't the Sox or Yanks just wait and sign a free agent? Maybe you'd get a team to panic if say, their 3 young arms prove to be more mediocre than expected, but even then, its an extremely shortsighted move. Oswalt or any top tier SP isn't worth much more than the hall the Twins got for Santana. Anyone who pays more than that is being overly myopic with their planning."

Listen, I hear you, I really do, but you're wrong. These are the going rates for top starting pitching, and when it is affordable it increases the value even more. I am one of the Met fans that wanted nothing at all to do with trading for Santana given all the Mets holes and their already weak system, and now my biggest fears as a Met fan have come true, they have big holes and questionmarks, an overpaid, old roster, and basically no ammo to improve this team in any significant way, although that is a story for a different post. I understand what you are saying, and I even agree with it, but the fact is teams will be willing to give up these hauls for top starting pitching, meaning that these big packages of good prospects really are not overvaluing the veteran player much, because that is what the market is for SP, it was shown 3 times this winter, and there is no reason to think teams wont be willing to pay this type of price if Oswalt does become available later in the season, whether or not you or I see it as the responsible thing to do.

Posted by: nrmax88 | April 25, 2008 at 02:43 PM

So let other teams pay this market price. And the more teams take that approach, the more the market mechanism will drive that price down until its where it should be. There are plenty of teams who have GMs who are rejecting the old model. So while there may always be some myopic team out there willing to pay that price, the day may come where they won't have anyone to bid against to drive the price up. We saw that with Santana and if a few more teams smarten up, we'll see it again.

Posted by: finite24 | April 25, 2008 at 03:09 PM

"And then you woke up and remembered this is the real world, not Atlanta Brave Homer Town. That is a laughable offer, unless the 2 minor leaguers are Heyward and Lillibridge. A back end of the rotation starter with control issues, and a decent OF prospect that strikes out a ton as the centerpieces of a deal of deal for pretty much the best starter in the NL. I dont think so."

haha... this is what i was thinking and i am a braves fan... chuckie is a number 4 AT BEST and b jones hasn't proven anything yet (and has looked quite overmatched against big league pitching)

a deal for oswalt would have to include heyward, lilibridge, and probably two of our best pitching prospects (say a jo jo reyes, cole rohrbrough, or tommy hanson)

which would completely gut our system and leave us in bad shape in the next two years when all the old guys either retire or start breaking down

no thanks

Posted by: dudetheplayer | April 25, 2008 at 03:59 PM

Aren't the Braves near maxed out on their budget?

Posted by: tmar | April 25, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Stark's Latest: Oswalt, Tejada, Upton, Burrell

TrackBack

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Post a comment

Top Stories

Search MLBTR

MLBTR Features

Recent Posts

MLBTR Mailing List

Rumors By Team

Monthly Archives

Live Chats


Home Contact About Advertise Archives Widget Twitter RSS Usage