Oswalt > Carmona/Heredia

by Tribe Alive on Feb 11, 2012 12:41 PM EST

Am I the only one that doesnt understand why the Indians arent releasing Carmona and signing Oswalt? Not only is Oswalt a million times better than Carmona but he would be around the same price as Carmona! The comparison between the two isnt even close! Carmona is essentially our worst pitcher while Oswalt would challenge to be our BEST pitcher. Plus, at the same time, this would allow us to release Carmona with no consequences at all. I am sorry but Kevin Slowey IS NOT the answer. We already missed on Beltran, Pena, etc. Let's make some kind of splash to significantly improve this team. Am I crazy here? What am I missing? Please explain...

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Presumably Oswalt wants to play elsewhere. Athletes, like normal people, have thoughts and feelings and aspirations. But unlike you and me, their contracts are guaranteed, at least in MLB. Although Fauxberto is in a unique situation, getting DOWOP’d (day off w/o pay) while this mess is sorted out, the Tribe appears to be maintaining the status quo for the time being.

by jhon on Feb 11, 2012 12:52 PM EST via mobile reply actions

I understand Oswalt might not want to play here. He already said he didnt want to play for the Pirates. But, right now the only people even mentioned as suitors are the Red Sox and St. Louis. I really think we should offer him. He cares about Fauxberto and his feelings or contract. From what I understand, his contract isnt guaranteed because it wasnt even him signing the contract!!!!! He has been a terrible pitcher since 2007. That’s four seasons of bad…

by Tribe Alive on Feb 11, 2012 12:57 PM EST up reply actions

Well, if Oswalt has said that he doesn’t want to play for the Indians, then they have probably talked to the man. In fact, the Indians could have potentially made a call to every warm, FA person this season not named Fielder or Pujols.

Also, the Indians aren’t voiding the contract for two reasons. It isn’t entirely clear (from very law-knowledgeable people here) whether they can or not. Also, they could still use a serviceable 4th or 5th starter, which Fausto fits the bill.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Feb 11, 2012 1:58 PM EST up reply actions

There were several other teams mentioned as Oswalt suitors before he narrowed his choices down to St. Louis and Boston. (And possibly Texas though they’ve said its unlikely.) The Indians were one of the teams mentioned early on in the process until Oswalt formally told them he wasn’t interested.

"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl

by world dictator on Feb 11, 2012 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

!!!!!

My watch is broken... it's stuck on Tribe Time
#suckitLaw

by Turkmenbashi on Feb 11, 2012 8:06 PM EST up reply actions

Just because he performed and signed under an alias doesn’t mean he didn’t sign the contract.

Nice try.

by Jay on Feb 11, 2012 9:16 PM EST up reply actions

I’d void it if it were legally possible.

Why would you continue to do business with an employee who operated in bad faith*?

- Yes, I am aware of the poor Latin American sob story angle, which I am sympathetic to, but he’s already made much more money than he would have if he had been truthful.

by emd2k3 on Feb 12, 2012 12:49 AM EST up reply actions

I guess I just don’t see any part of the contract as being in bad faith.

Clearly he meant to honor the agreement to the best of his ability.

by Jay on Feb 12, 2012 3:00 AM EST up reply actions

Especially given the nature of the contract. With year by year options, you’re not locked in to the inevitable demise of an older pitcher.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Feb 12, 2012 3:10 AM EST up reply actions

Isn’t lying about his age not negotiating in good faith? How is that different than lying on a resume?

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 12, 2012 10:03 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, this is my point.

by emd2k3 on Feb 12, 2012 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

Taken by itself, sure, that’s negotiating in bad faith.

Taken in the actual context, what reasonable alternative did he have?

Also, are you sure they didn’t let the club know?

by Jay on Feb 12, 2012 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

What is the difference between this and George O’ Leary?

by emd2k3 on Feb 13, 2012 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

I think the O’Leary situation was even less serious.

In any event, who cares what the difference is?

by Jay on Feb 13, 2012 3:27 PM EST up reply actions

Taken in the actual context, what reasonable alternative did he have?

What’s the context that makes this not a lie and not important to the negotiation? Taking out the (arguable) moral stance that in this case lying was ok, his reasonable alternative was to not lie about his age. That seems pretty simple to me.

Also, are you sure they didn’t let the club know?

This is a far more interesting question, and one I do not know the answer to.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Feb 13, 2012 6:16 PM EST up reply actions

I’d LOVE to sign Roy, BUT he stated that he was not interested in Cleveland about 2 weeks ago. He stated that He wanted texas or St. Louis, or MAYBE back to Philly. I have no link, but I belive it was his agent on twitter…Saw it on the unmentioned sight..

by AdaminFL on Feb 11, 2012 3:22 PM EST reply actions

There is no real connection between the two players. I’m sure we’d take Oswalt and dump Fauxberto if it were that simple. I’m sure we’d sign Oswalt outright if that were an option.

by Jay on Feb 11, 2012 9:17 PM EST reply actions