Q. The philosophy here has always been to be good enough to compete for a spot in the playoffs and then hope to get hot at the right time. The Roy Oswalt trade seems to be a bit of a departure from that since, with Roy Halladay and Cole Hamels, getting to the postseason was already a realistic possibility. Was there a conscious change in approach that triggered a move that seemed designed to try to win another World Series?
A. I still believe that will be the goal going forward. Obviously the appeal [in Oswalt] is that he gave us a stronger opportunity in postseason this year, if that's what you're referencing. There's no question about that.
But I think it also was a statement that he's part of the club next year and possibly the following year, you know? Any move we make, today and tomorrow is the equation. What does this do for us now? And what does it do for us going forward? And, clearly, [Oswalt] has exceeded expectations. I mean, Roy was enjoying a solid year but not getting much support [in Houston]. So, numbers-wise, you look and it and say, 'OK, he's a pitcher who is in his 30s and is this a sign?' And from what we've seen, he could pitch another half a dozen years. From the way he's thrown for us. Time will tell.
I don't think we've consciously changed. This is where it's always difficult to talk about what-do-you-plan-to-do? Last year at this time we certainly expected Cliff Lee to be on the club all year. We didn't think we could convert Cliff Lee to Roy Halladay. So the situation is always fluid and you end up making decisions based on what happened in the intervening time. And one thing that happened to us was that we weren't the offensive club in the first half that we expected to be. So maybe we'd better have a little more pitching. I don't think there's any other way to say it.
