A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
https://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/
You don't seriously believe that do you?taxman wrote: Free agent value and marginal wins per dollar have ZERO to do with in-season trades.
The guy's been arguing for 50 pages that we need to trade a top 50 prospect and whatever else it takes for the privilege of paying Roy Oswalt $16 million per season. Of course he does.InvincibleCakeEater wrote:You don't seriously believe that do you?taxman wrote: Free agent value and marginal wins per dollar have ZERO to do with in-season trades.
Do you think that the Cards might go and get Roy Oswalt? If not, why not?
-- Keith C., Park Hills, Mo.
So let's get right to it. When you ask whether they might, the answer is yes. They might. If you ask whether they will get the deal done, however, it's uncertain at best.
The obstacles are manifold. The Astros are reportedly reluctant to deal Oswalt, a franchise icon, within the division. The Cardinals are reluctant to commit eight figures to yet another starting pitcher in 2011 and potentially '12 as well. And a talent matchup is no guarantee. The Cardinals have starter prospect Shelby Miller, but it would be tough to deal Miller even for Oswalt, and then there's not a lot else immediately ready down on the farm.
Still, it's clear that Oswalt would love to pitch in St. Louis. And as a player with full no-trade protection, that matters. He could veto any deal to a place he doesn't want to go, and there's pretty much no way he'd veto a deal to the Cardinals. And the Cards would love to add a starter of Oswalt's caliber.
So on one hand, it's fair to say the chatter is real. There's interest. But if I had to say one way or another, my guess is that on Aug. 1, Oswalt will not be wearing a Cardinals uniform.
That's a fair statement, but doesn't really get at the crux of my point.cpebbles wrote:A $100M payroll team being paid market value is a .500 team.vinsanity wrote:So they are are both getting paid their market value, but I don't think it makes them equally valuable.
Spoken from a guy saying that given their contracts, Brendan Ryan and Roy Oswalt are interchangeable.cpebbles wrote:The guy's been arguing for 50 pages that we need to trade a top 50 prospect and whatever else it takes for the privilege of paying Roy Oswalt $16 million per season. Of course he does.InvincibleCakeEater wrote:You don't seriously believe that do you?taxman wrote: Free agent value and marginal wins per dollar have ZERO to do with in-season trades.
Well, not quite - Pedro Martinez, had he signed a month ago, might have had an impact on whatever pennant race he found himself in. The other guys still unsigned at this point, perhaps less so.taxman wrote: No impact player is available via free agency during the season.
That's not a fair analogy. Let's bump the expensive car up to 350K, just to get the scales closer. The $350K car isn't paid off, the AStros are paying something like $6000/month for the 350K car. The 10K car isn't paid off either, the Cardinals are paying something like $150/month for the 10K car. So....if you want to trade, there is a large price difference. And, if you made the trade, you would just trade the note payments and the car; you wouldn't trade the cars, payments and then force the Cardinals to give up a Rolls Royce in the making....vinsanity wrote:
If I go out and pay $10K for a $10K car, and you pay $50K for a $50K car, if I said hey wanna trade straight up, would you? Each is worth exactly it costs to keep it. The expensive one is probably nicer, more dependable and more likely to last longer. But it costs more to use per month.
It's a worthy discussion, lots of people have opinions on Oswalt, the trade deadline, and value of prospects in general. There's no need to be rude, nor should ya 'adios' an entire forum over one debate. Stay!taxman wrote: I had stayed on here under the impression that there were knowledgeable Cardinal fans. Looks like I was wrong. Adios.