The revolving door of starting pitching kept spinning today as the Phils made another surprise move, reaching for a hot-handed right-hander.
Vance Worley had his contract selected from Double-A Reading and Andrew Carpenter, after pitching in an emergency role for the fallen Jamie Moyer last night, was optioned back to Triple-A. Worley, 22, was 9-4 with a 3.20 ERA in 19 starts (112 1-3 IP) for Reading. He has pitched 17.0 consecutive scoreless innings over his last two outings, which included his first professional shutout, a three-hitter on July 9 against Harrisburg. Worley was named the Phillies' Minor League Pitcher of the Week today. His last start came Sunday: eight shutout innings against Trenton. Worley, a third-round selection in the 2008 draft, was viewed before the season as a second-tier prospect due to a 7-12 (5.34) final mark over a full season at Double-A, but he's still young. He is a sinker/slider type who has been successful at keeping the ball down.
Jack: Supposing Upton feels like running on any given day, that is.
Posted by: GTown_Dave | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:32 PM
Jack needs something to find fault with.
Posted by: Bedrosian's Beard | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:32 PM
****This is a dominant philopsphy is virtually every Phillies trade. That is why it is so hilarious that some of the dimmer bulbs here actually think that Amaro truly dealt Lee because he thought the team would be better off with 3 prospects than having Halladay-Lee-Hamels.****
THIS
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:34 PM
I don't see a problem with the 2012 option at all. Oswalt has 30 starts in 6 straight seasons.
Posted by: DH Phils | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:34 PM
"The Stark article specifically says that Singleton and Cosart are off the table."
I distinctly recall that Kyle Drabek was off the table too.
Posted by: bay_area_phan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:34 PM
Jack - Upton's got a reputation as a loafer who's uncoachable. Not sure we want to add that to the clubhouse right now.
RE: Oswalt's option demand...not sure why the Phils are balking heavily. If they could sign Oswalt as a FA tonight to a 3 year, 41 million dollar deal I'd think they'd jump at it. That's essentially what they'd be doing.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:34 PM
Stark is saying now that he thinks the 2012 guarantee will blow up the deal.
Posted by: Bridoc10 | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:35 PM
NEPP: Because guaranteeing 16 million to ANY pitcher 2 years ahead of time is a really risky thing to do, that teams generally don't like to do if they don't have to.
When the Cubs signed Carlos Zambrano, he was 26 and in the midst of winning 18 games, a year after winning 16, and 3 straight years of under 3.50 ERA. Looked like a pretty sure bet, right? Well, 3 years later its a disaster and an albatross.
I understand Zambrano is a headcase, Oswalt is not, etc. All I'm saying is that Oswalt WITH the option/buyout for 2012 is a whole lot more valuable than Oswalt with the option already exercised. That should be pretty obvious.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:36 PM
Clout: If the Lee move was actually about money, as you claim, how could RAJ get permission from the owners to take on Oswalt?
Posted by: Bay Slugga | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:37 PM
Jack, I agree with you generally but Zambrano isn't the best example here. Not really comparable to Oswalt.
BAP, Drabek was off the table last Summer, yes. Was he traded last Summer?
Posted by: Sophist | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:38 PM
****Because guaranteeing 16 million to ANY pitcher 2 years ahead of time is a really risky thing to do, that teams generally don't like to do if they don't have to.****
So if Roy Oswalt came to the Phillies this fall and said "I'll sign with you ONLY if you give me a 2 year, $32 million deal" You'd think this is a bad idea?
I'm very happy you're not our GM. Comparing him to Zambrano is a pretty weak attempt to make it look bad. Its TWO YEARS...not five.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:38 PM
Chris: No, they're not just signing Oswalt to a 3-year, 41 million deal. Because they're also giving up Happ, Mathieson and another prospect.
And clearly, they're saying no to doing both of those things. And frankly I don't blame them.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:39 PM
What do we do if this deal falls through? Vastly overpay for Haren?
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:39 PM
What I don't understand - if Oswalt already has that in his contract (2012 guarantee) and hes traded, contracts are automatically transferred unless re-negotiated. I do not see how Phillies can say no to 2012 guarantee.
Posted by: fljerry | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:39 PM
@Chris in VT
Good thing our Coach doesn't coach, shouldn't be any confict
Posted by: Pat | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:39 PM
Stark: Down to Haren (expensive) or Sheets (gettable), if Oswalt deal falls through.
Posted by: Bridoc10 | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:40 PM
clout - It just seems like the Phils' ownership looks at the short-term (Holy crap, we're going to be 6 mil over budget! Trade Lee now! Say it's to re-stock the system or something, we don't care).
Then the season starts to blow up in front of them (We're not going to have the extra playoff money? Our sellout streak's in jeopardy? Crap, trade for Oswalt, just make sure you dump Werth's salary on someone too. Say it's to re-stock the system or something, we don't care).
What happens after the season when they're over budget again? Will it be time to trade Hamels to "re-stock the system?" Who knows...the logic of the whole scenario astounds me.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:41 PM
To me it seems like the Phillies would be posturing right now to give up lesser prospects if they have to take on the 16mil for 2012. They would be assuming much more risk and likely could theoretically say we'll give you 3 C prospects instead of 2 A's or something along those lines.
I wouldn't be suprised if the deal still happens but the prospect haul for Houston diminishes...
Posted by: CZ | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:41 PM
How did Rube NOT anticipate this demand by Oswalt...pretty much everyone with half a brain has mentioned that Oswalt would likely want this to happen for the past month now. Its not like it came out of left field. Is Rube that stupid?
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:41 PM
NEPP: All I'm saying is that if I were Amaro, I'd tell the Astros that if Oswalt insists on the option being exercised, they're going to get lesser prospects in return.
I think it's pretty obvious that the team having flexibility for 2012 is worth something, and removing that flexibility should affect how much they're willing to pay for Oswalt.
That's just simple business.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:41 PM
Sorry to keep coming back to this, but r00b is really balking at taking on another year of a contract? Really? Like, really really?
I'm dumbfounded by this concept. TMac realizing how poor of a broadcaster he is & resigning as a result sounds more plausible than the Phillies' GM not wanting to pick up an available option year early.
Posted by: GTown_Dave | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:41 PM
sophist: I thought he was off the table in winter too. At least that was what I recall reading in the early reports.
Posted by: bay_area_phan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:42 PM
I'd feel much more confident about guaranteeing Oswalt's option year if he were 38.
Posted by: Jbird | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:42 PM
Stark gives the Oswalt a 30% chance of happening.
Posted by: Bridoc10 | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:43 PM
Amaro could just be playing hard ball in order to reduce Houston's demands.
Posted by: Sophist | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:44 PM
Bay: Because they have serious money coming off the books next year and they'll just have to pay Oswalt his full salary for 1 year. That's why his insistence on the 2012 option being picked up is a deal killer. They don't want to pay him beyond 2011.
Posted by: clout | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:44 PM
@NEPP - "Is Rube that stupid?"
Ruben is a Stanford educated, (self) certified GENIUS. If you don't believe it, just ask him.
This is how one achieves a patented smug look.
Posted by: Willard Preacher | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:44 PM
Do we know that Rube didn't anticipate this? Could he be posturing to drive down the prospect request?
Posted by: Bedrosian's Beard | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:44 PM
I cant wait to see Jake Westbrook's first start as a Phillie.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:45 PM
I can sort of understand why a team would be leary about signing onto an additional year for a pitcher who will be 35. It seems sort of a funny thing to balk at, though, from the guy who gave a 2-year deal to a 45-year old player, a 3-year deal to a 36-year old player, and multiple 2-year deals to players in their mid-30s.
Posted by: bay_area_phan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:45 PM
Jack - Are you REALLY balking at trading Happ/Mathieson/and an A-Ball prospect for Roy Oswalt? That looks like a steal, especially because the Phils will have him signed to a reasonable, short-term deal.
Happ - pitched over his head last year and has been hurt this entire season.
Mathieson - Stuck in AAA as the Phils don't trust him at the ML level, and has already had 2 TJ surgeries.
A-Ball Mystery Prospect - The washout rate for players at that level is insanely high. There's a MUCH higher chance this player never even sees AAA, let alone the MLs, than that he fulfills his "projected value."
Let's be serious here.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:46 PM
Bed's Beard: I would certainly hope so.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:46 PM
CZ, I'm with you. I don't think that the option year bothers them. They are likely using it as a chip to lessen the prospect hit.
Posted by: Phil Smiles | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:46 PM
I love when people take public statements/reactions/leaks from front office personnel at face value, as if there was any logical reason for them to be honest.
Posted by: DH Phils | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:46 PM
Except for Brown, most of the Phillies' good prospects are in the "low minors"
Posted by: Jbird | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:46 PM
It's a 2 1/2 year deal. That's a problem? Jamie Moyer got a 2-year deal. Joe Blanton got a - I don't recall how long a deal, but it had to be 2 or 3 years. I understand they are cheaper than Oswalt. That's because they aren't as good. OTOH, if you compare Oswalt's 16 mil to the sum we're paying for Halladay - Again, I forgot the figure, but it's no more than that, correct? - If we're paying less for Halladay than we'd be paying Oswalt, or the same, then I can see how it would seem a bit steep.
However, a decision needs to be made as to whether this organization prefers mediocre/inconsistent pitchers, or whether they are willing to dole out the cash for pitchers they can count on (barring unforeseens).
And as to BAP's point earlier today that the team may be shifting from mediocre pitching and outstanding offense to a team that relies primarily on pitching....I like that, too. Except this team then needs to make sure they manufacture runs, not wait for a big inning that never comes.
Posted by: GBrettfan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:47 PM
so far it seems to me that RAJ will be blamed if:
A) he agrees to guarantee the $16 mil for Oswalt in 2012;
B) the trade fails because he didn't "foresee" Oswalt asking for the $16 mil; or
C) anything else at all happens.
Posted by: zachsan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Couldn't Rube contractually agree to exercise Oswalt's option, so long as certain performance marks (e.g., at least 28 starts in 2011) are met in 2011? If he makes it through 2011 healthy and performing well, why on earth would they not want to keep him for 2012, aside from money concerns?
Oh.
Posted by: cjp | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:48 PM
**** can sort of understand why a team would be leary about signing onto an additional year for a pitcher who will be 35****
Technically it will be his Age 34 season as he wont be 35 till late August 2012. Not ancient by any means...especially for a top starter.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:48 PM
rbillingsly - ...good god! what is it good for?
for what it's 'werth', a friend of mine has a friend who works for the phils. he said that haap is injured and needs surgery.
of course, his cousin's friend's brother in law has a nephew who works with the astros and he said that ed wade is not, in fact, yurtle the turtle. so there's that...
Posted by: Conshy Matt | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:49 PM
Contracts coming off the books after 2011 (2011 salary)
Ibanez ($12M)
Rollins ($8.5M)
Hamels ($9.5) but final arb year
Madson ($4.8M)
Baez ($2.75M)
Schneider ($1.6M)
Gload ($1.6M)
Cot's has $86.9 committed pre arb.
Posted by: Sophist | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:49 PM
Hang on a second. We've been absolutely CLAMORING for a Werth trade, in order to free up a spot for Dom Brown. So, this all starts as a Werth rumor, then the old "bait and switch" somehow pulls Werth out and we focus solely on what its going to take to get Oswalt?
Wow, Rube is a master manipulator. He's been all about getting another starting pitcher. The Moyer injury was perfect timing for Rube!
So, does this mean no Dom Brown any time soon?
Posted by: Willard Preacher | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM
Stark quotes BaseballAmerica: "there is no team in baseball with more talent in A ball than the Phillies"
Also, Domonic Brown has started in left for two straight games now.
Posted by: jason.tp | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM
My position on Oswalt depends on what we give up but I don't really see his age as a problem.
Posted by: Marley | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM
cjp: The point is that IF. If Oswalt gets injured and/or is ineffective next year, the Phillies want the flexibility to let him go for 2 million.
Obviously, your contigency idea would be great, but of course it's superfluous, because Oswalt wants it exercised precisely so that he's still guaranteed 16 million even if he meets none of those benchmarks.
I don't blame him, and I also don't blame the Phillies for wanting to keep the option.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM
Pedro WILL NOT pitch this year...he may try to come back in 2011 though.
That makes for a sad panda.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM
If Amaro can get somebody to overpay for Happ, it will be a success. Happ + filler for Oswalt sounds pretty good. Obviously, we could throw in something better than filler for Haren.
If Amaro sells low on Werth for some middling prospects, that will be a disaster. I love Dom Brown as much as the next guy, but I do think that Brown's value in 2010 is as Ibanez's replacement, not as Werth's.
Posted by: sifl | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:52 PM
I do find it interesting that there's interest in Happ when he hasn't even pitched an inning of big league ball since his injury and extended rehab. Why is he desired now of all times? Isn't there a big "Freddy Garcia" red flag flying?
Posted by: Willard Preacher | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:53 PM
GBrettfan: Blanton will turn 30 this off-season, & is signed for '11 & '12 at $8.5 million per season. Halladay is 33 years old, & is signed through '13 at $20 million per season, w/ a vesting option for '14 at $20 million.
Posted by: GTown_Dave | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:53 PM
I'm sure teams will line up for Pedro in 2011. Retire, Pedro!
Posted by: Bedrosian's Beard | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:53 PM
**** Why is he desired now of all times? Isn't there a big "Freddy Garcia" red flag flying?***
Well, this is Ed Wade we're talking about. Granted, Happ doesn't have the no-hitter that Bud Smith was able to point at but still...
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:54 PM
"The point is that IF. If Oswalt gets injured and/or is ineffective next year, the Phillies want the flexibility to let him go for 2 million."
So the Phils should only offer 1-year deals to everyone from now on? Why'd they sign Blanton to a long-term deal and buy out his arbitration years if they're using this logic? Or Vic? Or Ruiz? Or Hamels? Arbitration specifically gave them the flexibility to let them go...
Posted by: Chris in VT | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:54 PM
My senile uncle just informed me that Pat Burrell and Tim Lincicum are being fitted for Phillies Uniforms as we prepare to trade Werth to them straight up.
Posted by: Cipper | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:54 PM
i think jayson werth has just been pat burrell in a beard this whole year.
Posted by: jason.tp | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Jack: well, the one difference (I think) between what I'm proposing and what would be the case if the option isn't exercised with the trade is that the Phils would *be required* to pay out the $16M in 2012 for Oswalt if he stayed healthy, instead of them having the option to not pay that even if he stayed healthy and kept performing. In the end, though, you're probably right that it would be superfluous (at least, I hope it would be). You're certainly right that it's smart for Oswalt to take advantage of this situation to try to get that optioned picked up now. I'm not so sure how smart it is for the Phils to really hold the line on keeping the option, but it certainly makes sense for them to try to exact some concessions from HOU for giving it up.
Posted by: cjp | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Bed's Beard: Why should Pedro retire? I want Pedro and Rickey to keep playing baseball until they fall over dead on the field.
Posted by: Jbird | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:57 PM
jason.tp - The Clearwater and Lakewood teams are apparently stacked.
But A ball's all projection and hope. We find out if they're legitimate prospects when they hit AA, usually.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Chris in VT - i think that's posturing. rube can use that sticking point as leverage to reduce the package. guessing, of course, but on the face of it, as you said it doesn't seem to make sense.
Posted by: Conshy Matt | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Here's an interesting way to look at Oswalt as compared to keeping Cliff Lee.
Is keeping Lee (cost $8M) for 1 season and holding onto Happ-Mathieson-prospect more valuable than having Oswalt for 2 seasons (cost $31M + $2M buyout) AND getting Ramirez, Gillies, Aumont while giving up Happ-Mathieson-prospect?
Posted by: clout | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:57 PM
Chris in VT: I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.
The point isn't that the 2012 year is a total deal-breaker. The point is that they should pay less in prospects for a guaranteed 2012 than in a deal where they have the option for 2012.
How is this a controversial point at all? That's just common sense.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:58 PM
If Rickey were signed by us, he'd probably still have given us more offense than Juan Castro did. And he could probably still steal 30 bases if given 600 ABs.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:58 PM
If Happ/Mathieson/and someone like Gose gets you Oswalt I do that in a heartbeat.
The trick then is what happens with Werth. If they are asking for Upton or Davis that means Amaro is setting the bar high or he plans on just keeping him and riding out the season. He needs to keep that price high. If the Rays really want Werth- they'll make the deal.
Posted by: The Truth Injection | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:59 PM
clout - I'm guessing a bunch of people are going to tell you that you should factor in the 2 draft picks on the "keeping Lee" side of the ledger.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 04:59 PM
Zolecki (via Twitter): "Tonight's Lineup @ STL: Polanco 3B, Victorino CF, Francisco LF, Howard 1B, Werth RF, Rollins SS, Ransom 2B, Ruiz C, Blanton P."
Posted by: GTown_Dave | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:00 PM
Actually, I screwed that up. It would be Oswalt for 1.5 seasons and the cost would be $23M + $2M buyout.
Posted by: clout | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:00 PM
I have no idea what the deal is with Oswalt, but I have to say I am VERY VERY glad the Phils are being so hard line with Werth.
I think RAJ got the reputation as a bit of a boob after the Lee trade and teams are going to low ball him for Werth if they can. (Well, you can't have Wade Davis, but you CAN have this handful of magic beans....)
Maybe once the trade deadline gets closer, they realize RAJ is serious and maybe decide to actually make a good offer.
Or maybe not. Either way we still get the draft picks.
Posted by: Heather | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:00 PM
Chris: Except you also get 2 draft picks when Oswalt walks, assuming they offer arb.
Posted by: clout | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:01 PM
"Blanton will turn 30 this off-season, & is signed for '11 & '12 at $8.5 million per season. Halladay is 33 years old, & is signed through '13 at $20 million per season, w/ a vesting option for '14 at $20 million."
Thank you, GTown! I knew someone would fill in the blanks for me!
It's not that I don't understand the Phillies position at all, if it's a true rumor. I do get it. But by the same token, they've given 2 and 3 year deals to pitchers before. Is Oswalt worth almost twice the price of Blanton? I don't know, but he's definitely a better pitcher.
Posted by: GBrettfan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:01 PM
****Is keeping Lee (cost $8M) for 1 season and holding onto Happ-Mathieson-prospect more valuable than having Oswalt for 2 seasons (cost $31M + $2M buyout) AND getting Ramirez, Gillies, Aumont while giving up Happ-Mathieson-prospect? ****
Let's see, carry the 7, divide by π, multiply by the sum of the circumferences of both spheres...
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:01 PM
clout: Which side are you saying is better?
Posted by: The Truth Injection | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:01 PM
Jack - You're right, but I was basing my argument on your statement:
"Chris: No, they're not just signing Oswalt to a 3-year, 41 million deal. Because they're also giving up Happ, Mathieson and another prospect.
And clearly, they're saying no to doing both of those things. And frankly I don't blame them."
I guess that's an argument to try to discount the trade package you send to Houston, but IMO that's already a discount price for a #1 starter. Everyone thought that Rube fleeced the Indians for Lee last year, but they got A LOT more value than this potential Oswalt trade.
Posted by: Chris in VT | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:02 PM
Seth Everett was on a local station apparently minutes ago and said:
-Oswalt deal close to dead, as Astros are demanding Dom Brown in exchange for them paying any salary. Phils need them to pay some as they're getting very close to the luxury tax. Amaro absolutely will not trade Brown.
-Haren will not be traded because of the interim GM
-Phils do not like Carmona or Westbrook. Says it looks like they'll end up getting Sheets for a minimal prospect price.
I didn't hear the appearance and got this off the MLBTR message board so not sure of the validity of it all.
Posted by: The Truth Injection | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:03 PM
Dom Brown?!? Go F yourself Ed.
close to the luxury tax...no we're not. We'd have to add nearly $30 million to do that. Total BS.
Oh well.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:05 PM
Amaro has to hold on to Dom Brown, and the Astros know that. Well, I suppose they could have Ibanez, Vic, and Francisco out there. But good for Amaro for holding onto Domonic!
Posted by: GBrettfan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:05 PM
For us to get 2 draft picks, don't we have to offer arbitration for Werth. Suppose he agrees to arb, phils may be paying 15 mil or somewhere around there.
Posted by: fljerry | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:06 PM
If it came down to the option year in 2012...Rube is a complete and utter ass who should be fired tomorrow.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:06 PM
I look forward to December where we trade Singleton, Cosart and Gose for Oswalt.
Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:07 PM
Chris: Well, I think you're short-changing Happ somewhat, but I see what you're seeing.
Either way, I can still somewhat understand the team balking at 3/41 for Oswalt right now. The only salaries they have committed in 2012 are big ones--Howard, Utley, Halladay, Blanton, Victorino, Polanco. That's a lot of money right there--I think like 90 million.
Presumably Brown provides one cheap player, but they're going to need another OF, a SS (presumably Rollins, which won't be cheap), paying Hamels in his last year of arbitration, a closer, some other bullpen guys, and a back end of the rotation.
You can understand the thought of keeping some financial flexibility going into that year, given the amount of needs they will have, and not a lot of top prospects who appear likely to be ready for 2012.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:08 PM
Oswalt doesn't make any sense to me. He comes out and says he really really wants to be traded.
Honestly, this is the only real chance he's gonna get, and now he's balking and demanding his option be picked up before he'll even think about it?
Uh....that makes little to no sense there, Roy. Enjoy the rest of your career in cellar-dweller Houston.
Posted by: Heather | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:09 PM
The sickening sinking sensation in my stomach tells me the Phillies are going to acquire Ben Sheets, give up too much in the doing, & proceed to sign him to a Blanton-like extension that we will all begin to regret almost immediately. Additionally, Werth will remain w/ the Phillies for the rest of '10, & Dom Brown will be stuck in LV until 1 Sept.
Posted by: GTown_Dave | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:10 PM
fljerry: There is no way Werth accepts arbitration. Even with his slump, he's going to sign a guaranteed contract worth at least 60 million dollars.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:12 PM
Seth Everett is an idiot.
clout, without thinking too much, I'd rather have Oswalt for 3/$39M (or whatever) and Ramirez-Gillies-Aumont than Lee for 1/$9M and Happ-A+ prospect.
For all Vic's struggles, he's hitting .323/.374/.586 against lefties. Garcia is nasty, though. Same with Rollins. Has a .381 OBP against LHP this year.
Posted by: Sophist | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:12 PM
I really really don't like Ben Sheets unless we can get him for magic beans. Honestly, Oswalt made sense because he'd potentially be here for 2 more years. But is Sheets really gonna put us over the top this year? I say no.
Posted by: Heather | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:12 PM
Heather: Yeah, there's certainly some inconsistency between Oswalt's words & his actions. But I can see why he's doing it. He sees this as an opportunity to not only get out of Houston, but to leverage the situation into another year of guaranteed payment. He probably figures that either the Phillies will meet his demand or some other team will come along and do so. And he's probably right.
Posted by: bay_area_phan | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:18 PM
"He probably figures that either the Phillies will meet his demand or some other team will come along and do so. And he's probably right."
I'm not convinced that another team will do so, at least at the trade deadline. Maybe in the offseason. There's not a lot of teams right now who want to pick up salary like that and really want SP. We would be one of them. Can't think of too many others. The Yankees could, but won't, the Mets don't have the money, the Red Sox SP is not their most pressing need...where else does Oswalt think he's going?
Either Oswalt is having second thoughts about demanding to be traded or he's taking a big big risk in thinking other offers are going to come out of the woodwork.
Posted by: Heather | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:24 PM
Yo, new thread.
Posted by: CJ | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:27 PM
We are going to regret trading J Happ for a long, long time. Oswalt will be with us, what, 2 years? Three? Happ is going to be a reliable starter for 5 or 6 years, and he'll beat the Phils like a damned drum every time he faces them.
Posted by: philwynk | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:37 PM
TTI: "clout: Which side are you saying is better?"
If Oswalt pitches to career norms, then I'd take Oswalt for 1.5 years plus the Mariners' prospects assuming the cost for Oswalt isn't higher than we think.
Keep in mind, as good as Lee is, given the injuries and lack of ofefnse this year I'm not sure he could put us over the top. And, next year, he's gone. This way, you start fresh with a trio of Halladay-Oswalt-Hamels and hope to have fewer injuries.
Posted by: clout | Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 05:54 PM