Skip to content

Roy Oswalt wants a multi-year deal

Nov 3, 2011, 9:33 AM EDT

oswalt getty Getty Images

Roy Oswalt’s agent told Jon Paul Morosi that Oswalt wants to sign a “long-term” contract. This winter.  Hurm.  Depends what he considers “long-term” I suppose.

Oswalt is still effective when he pitches — he had a 3.69 ERA and a 93/33 K/BB ratio in 139 innings in 2011 — but he’s got back problems and back problems are red flags for pitchers. Especially pitchers in their mid-30s.

He’s certainly not an Erik Bedard/Rich Harden level gamble, and potentially elite pitching is always pretty damn valuable when it hits the market, but Oswalt is still something of a gamble.  Can you commit three years to this guy?  If so, can you do it without it being somewhat incentive-laden?

Maybe we should ask the Rangers. They’re likely going to need a C.J. Wilson replacement. And while I haven’t seen any of the speculators speculatin’ it yet, it makes all kinds of sense for Oswalt to return to the state of Texas, does it not?

  1. Jonny 5 - Nov 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM

    I have a question. Why would the Rangers let Wilson go when they were in on Lee, and they were rumored to be in on CC if it went that far? Everyone speaks of CJ as if he was already gone. I could actually see Roy going to Texas and CJ Wilson staying. Why do most people assume CJ’s out the door?

    • halladaysbiceps - Nov 3, 2011 at 9:51 AM

      I think they believe that Wilson will get more money elsewhere. But, I agree with you, Jonny. I think the Rangers hold on to Wilson. If they had the coin to offer Cliff Lee the money he was looking for, it will cost them 30 million less to sign Wilson. I think he stays.

      • uyf1950 - Nov 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM

        I think he stays in Arlington as well. I guess the consensus of opions that I’ve read is that the Rangers are the leading player in the Darvish sweepstakes if he gets posted. If that’s the case they may not opt to sign Wilson long term for probably in the $80 to $90M range for at least 5 years. Just my opinion. That plus they just renewed Lewis. They may figure 2 of the 3 is enough. We’ll see I guess. The longer this goes on though the more likely he is to sign with someone else. Do the Lee negotiations draw any comparisons?

      • halladaysbiceps - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:00 AM

        I can’t see any Lee comparisons with negotiations, just for the fact that Wilson is not even in the same league talent-wise as Lee. Somehow, I don’t see any crazy bidding war for Wilson’s services.

      • uyf1950 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:03 AM

        halladay…, I was pretty much just referring to the fact that the longer the negotiations go on the more likely he is to sign somewhere else. Talent wise there is no comparison between the 2. But it is possible you could see say 3 teams bid up is price if he stays on the market until the Winter meetings. Just a guess.

      • halladaysbiceps - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM

        uyf1950,

        Oh, definitely. I don’t see Wilson signing anywhere until after the Winter Meetings. Cliff Lee didn’t sign until Dec. 14th. Usually, the high priced guys don’t start signing until Dec.

        I don’t necessarily think the longer a guy waits to sign the less likely he is to return to his old team. I just think they do it to drive up the price. Call it a gut feeling, but I think Wilson stays.

      • uyf1950 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:15 AM

        halladay…, a question that comes to mind is you wonder how interested Texas really is in resigning him longer team? I haven’t read any rumors that there were closed door meetings during the exclusive period, etc… In fact the only thing that I have preety much read is that CJ Wilson would like to stay in Texas. I’ve read anything about Texas ownership reciprocating the feeling. I don’t know maybe they aren’t that interested in keeping for the years and money he’s probably going to get from someone.

      • uyf1950 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM

        pardon the typo’s. It should read “..signing him long term…”

      • halladaysbiceps - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:26 AM

        uyf1950,

        I think how Texas is treating CJ Wilson is how the Phillies are treating Jimmy Rollins. Let him go out to the open market, see what it is, what he’s worth and come back to the Rangers with a figure. The Rangers don’t want to overpay for him, like the Phillies don’t want to overpay for Rollins when they don’t have too.

        Didn’t the Yankees tell Jeter to do the same thing last year before they resigned him?

      • uyf1950 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:36 AM

        Yes, they did with Jeter, but I’m not sure Jeter is a fair analogy with CJ Wilson as to how the negotiations will play out. My guess and it’s only that is that if CJ starts to field offers from other teams the Rangers “if” they want to keep him will wind up paying more for him then they would have had they signed him before. Again that’s just my opinion. That was never going to be the case with Jeter and the Yankees.

    • elpendejo59 - Nov 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM

      I’m assuming it’s because Jon Daniels anticipates him getting paid like a #1, when his talent level really is more like a #2 or #3, and doesn’t want to pay him as such. I think it being a weak free agent class this year really is going to help C.J. get paid.

  2. halladaysbiceps - Nov 3, 2011 at 9:48 AM

    Roy Oswalt and his agent must be smoking some good Kentucky Grass if he thinks he’s going to get a long-term deal from anyone. I don’t even think the Lloyds of London would insure Oswalt’s back.

    • hank10 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:01 AM

      Any contract he gets should stipulate he cannot, under any circumstance, operate heavy machinery while clearing trees from tornado damage. One of the perks of having a multi-million dollar contract is the ability to hire anyone you want to do the heavy lifting.

  3. uyf1950 - Nov 3, 2011 at 9:56 AM

    About Oswalt again my guess is the most he’s going to get is a 2 year deal. The only question is is that in Philly or somewhere else?

    • Jonny 5 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM

      I like Oswalt. But I’d rather they keep Vance Worley than sign Oswalt. If I were Amaro, Oswalt would walk, and Worley would stay. I am not, and can not join the “Trade Worley and Brown” crowd. Brown could be trade bait, but Worley starting at his salary is worth 2 Dom Browns imo.

      • mikedi33 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM

        Disagree. I see Worley as no more than a #5. Remember Kendrick and Happ both had great rookie years too. Worley does not have the stuff to sustain it. Sell high on him. Too early to give up on Brown.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

        Kendrick never looked as good as Worley first of all. And Happ’s stats such as BABIP told us he’d decline by a good margin. Worley on the other hand has a BABIP that tells us he’s right around where he should be actually, and he shows he may decline but by much less than Happ did. xFIP is another where Worley just blows Happ away. I like FIP and xFIP and they tell me Worley is well above average.

      • phillyphreak - Nov 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM

        I was one of the people expecting Worley to regress after his first few starts but he didn’t. Some regression still could come (maybe a rise in his HR/FB rate) but we won’t have a good idea until after next season. His BABIP is probably helped by his defense being above average (his BABIP was 0.281 vs league average of 0.288 for all qualified starters- Worley didn’t qualify so grain of salt needed. All data from FanGraphs). I’ve also heard some people say that his stuff is deceptive- I don’t know if it is but hitters usually will catch up to deception. So we should come back to this next season.

        I think it’s pretty obvious that he’s better than Happ though. He won’t ever be a 1 or 2, but maybe his ceiling is a decent 3 or 4.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM

        Phillyphreak, I can’t disagree with you on any point there besides one. Let’s not pigeonhole any pitcher this early in his career. IMO, he’s shown nothing but promise. I’d rather say he can be anything from a #1 to a total flop and end up working construction for the rest of his life rather than say he’s a decent #3-4 pitcher tops. Stats tell a story of what happened, and can give us an idea of what’s to come. They never tell the future. Pick a number of HOF pitchers and look at their early career numbers. I just picked Nolan Ryan out of the air.
        He pitched his first full season in 1968 and guess what? Very similar numbers. Except Vance walked less guys.

      • phillyphreak - Nov 3, 2011 at 12:28 PM

        Jonny 5- I don’t think I’m pigeonholing anyone. I’m going on what I see when I watch him and what some scouts have said. I think Keith Law said he doesn’t see Worely being more than a 4. Is being a 3rd-4th starter a bad thing? I don’t think so.

        For point of reference Worley had 87.4% contact rate and a 6.4% swinging strike rate this past year. In Halladay’s first season in 2002 he had a 80.4% contact rate and a 9.6% swinging strike rate. I think this doesn’t really mean anything in the grand scheme of things because one season can be a small sample but he (Worley) probably needs to miss more bats to be a true 1 or 2.

        I don’t see his stuff being that of a 1 or 2, but like I said we should come back to this after next season.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 3, 2011 at 12:45 PM

        “He won’t ever be a 1 or 2, but maybe his ceiling is a decent 3 or 4.”

        Pigeonholed

        He’s not a Roy Halladay type of pitcher, not many people are. There are 30 #1 starters not as good as Halladay.

      • phillyphreak - Nov 3, 2011 at 1:04 PM

        3, 4, 5. There are three places he could wind up that aren’t 1 or 2. Just because I don’t think he has the stuff to be a 1 or 2 doesn’t mean I’m saying he’ll be a 5. THAT would be pigeonholing him.

        You’re right in that comparing him to Halladay is slanted, but if you want to say he has the potential to be a 1, then it’s fair to compare him to 1s. Other 1s SwSt % in their first full season: Kershaw (8.7%), Lincecum (10.3% ), Greinke (if you think he’s a 1, 8.2%), Verlander (8.1%), Sabathia (8.8%), Lee (8.8%), Felix (8.9%). It’s obviously not the be all and end all, but it’s interesting at least.

        Truth be told, every team doesn’t have a true ace now anyway. So are there really 30 #1s. Maybe. I think you can make a case for at least 30 #2s and lots more 3s. But in my opinion the term ace is thrown around to easily now.

      • Jonny 5 - Nov 3, 2011 at 1:16 PM

        Absolutely the term “ace” is thrown around too often. And sure, putting Worley in an Astros Uniform is different from putting him in a Phillies uniform. I’m not trying to over analyse your post. It just annoys me when people don’t give other people a fair shot at proving themselves before hanging a label on them. I definitely don’t think Worley will ever be mentioned in the same category as the #1′s you mentioned either, but that’s not saying he doesn’t have the potential to become a #1 pitcher somewhere. And he can always get better too. Which would be awesome. One thing is for sure, and I think we can both agree on. He’s well worth his pay check by a long shot.

      • phillyphreak - Nov 3, 2011 at 1:41 PM

        I’ll agree with that Jonny5. I like watching him pitch.

  4. WhenMattStairsIsKing - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM

    I’m going to go a little crazy here and say he goes to Baltimore for 3 years, 35 million.

  5. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM

    Marlins if Javy bolts? With their new stadium and JJ a big fat question mark, they are going to want some high-end pitching. I think Oswalt could be had cheaply enough to make sense, even if it means 3 years.

  6. spudchukar - Nov 3, 2011 at 11:41 AM

    Do not count the Cards out of the equation. His buddy is Berkman.

  7. Francisco (FC) - Nov 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

    My own gut feeling is that Oz is gone. It’s not like Oz is old, 33 isn’t bad, it’s the injury history.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Three legends off to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Tulowitzki (3218)
  2. R. Howard (3092)
  3. C. Headley (2917)
  4. H. Ramirez (2774)
  5. Y. Puig (2710)
  1. M. Trout (2614)
  2. B. Belt (2544)
  3. C. Lee (2383)
  4. H. Street (2283)
  5. J. Soria (2229)