Jul 20, 2010, 5:30 PM EST
That’s the world from Ken Rosenthal, who says that the Astros’ efforts to make a deal for Roy Oswalt are being thwarted by:
- Money. We knew this, of course. Oswalt is owed about $6 million more this season and $16 million in 2011;
- Oswalt: Rosenthal suggests that Oswalt is getting cute with his no-trade clause, and that the teams he will or will not agree to be traded to is a “moving target.” and
- The front office: Ed Wade is trying to “hit a home run” in terms of prospects, while not being all that willing to kick in any money in the deal. Those two concepts don’t really go together.
Is it just me, or does it sound like no one in Houston is all that hot to deal Oswalt? Oswalt made the trade demand to kick all this off, but since then I haven’t gotten the sense that he really wants to go. If he did, he’d be less fussy about the no-trade, right? The Astros, it seems, would love to keep the guy around. It’s like they’re shopping him simply because a critical mass of people have said they should be.
And that critical mass is not really wrong. But if neither the team nor the player have their hearts in it, why bother?
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 111
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 41
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 368
- Blue Jays sign Dayan Viciedo to a minor league deal 8
- Chris Sale will be sidelined for three weeks with foot fracture 11
- Aramis Ramirez says 2015 will be his last year 33
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (368)
- If addiction is an illness — and it is — Josh Hamilton shouldn’t be suspended (308)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (111)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (85)