PDA

View Full Version : Sun Times Article: Carlos Quentin for Carl Crawford trade dead in the water.


Rockabilly
12-08-2009, 10:09 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1926536,CST-SPT-sox08.article would love to see Crawford on the Sox

Rockabilly
12-08-2009, 10:29 AM
Crawford would have to sign extension with us before I would make this trade.

kittle42
12-08-2009, 10:52 AM
Man, that would have been sweet.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 10:53 AM
Pass. Would need more than Crawford.

chisox616
12-08-2009, 10:55 AM
Giving up on CQ a bit early aren't we? For a season of Crawford? I dunno about this one, I think it's just Kenny saying "Hey, Pods, we're not waiting on you".

asindc
12-08-2009, 10:57 AM
Giving up on CQ a bit early aren't we? For a season of Crawford? I dunno about this one, I think it's just Kenny saying "Hey, Pods, we're not waiting on you".

KW might not be waiting on Pods, Pods might be waiting on KW. And I assume that KW would not make this deal without signing Crawford to an extension.

munchman33
12-08-2009, 11:27 AM
Giving up on CQ a bit early aren't we? For a season of Crawford? I dunno about this one, I think it's just Kenny saying "Hey, Pods, we're not waiting on you".

Whille I would NOT do this trade, value-wise this trade is even, if not leaning toward our favor. Carlos has some serious injury questions, whether or not we want to admit it.

soltrain21
12-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Giving up on CQ a bit early aren't we? For a season of Crawford? I dunno about this one, I think it's just Kenny saying "Hey, Pods, we're not waiting on you".

Maybe the Sox aren't "waiting" for Pods' price to drop, maybe they just don't want him on the team at all.

Gammons Peter
12-08-2009, 11:48 AM
Jenks would be part of this non-deal too, that way its a money wash.

soxinem1
12-08-2009, 12:12 PM
Pass. Would need more than Crawford.

More than Crawford? Maybe more than TCQ if I'm TAM.

Give up an established run producer with speed for an injury-plagued, average-defensive LF who has never played a full season?

MtGrnwdSoxFan
12-08-2009, 12:22 PM
More than Crawford? Maybe more than TCQ if I'm TAM.

Give up an established run producer with speed for an injury-plagued, average-defensive LF who has never played a full season?

...who has shown that he can hit for MVP-type numbers when healthy and would be under their control for four more years?

It's high-risk, high-reward. TAM is looking for a guy that can mash, and TCQ is one of the best if healthy. Also, maybe Crawford has told TAM that he will not sign an extension with them, so that's why they're trying to get what they can for him.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 12:31 PM
More than Crawford? Maybe more than TCQ if I'm TAM.

Give up an established run producer with speed for an injury-plagued, average-defensive LF who has never played a full season?

The sox are big time losers in this trade if Jenks is involved, and really even if he isn't. The overall quality of the team would be greatly downgranded. I realize bobby is making a lot of money this year, but giving away one of the games top 15 relievers is not the way to improve an average bullpen. If the sox don't want him pitching in the ninth, fine, but don't just throw him into this already lopsided deal. Crawford does not do the sox all that much good if cq is no longer on the team. I can't believe people are even considering this as a good deal for the sox.

Dibbs
12-08-2009, 12:50 PM
We need more power. I love Crawford, but don't think this is the answer.

Rockabilly
12-08-2009, 12:54 PM
We need more power. I love Crawford, but don't think this is the answer.


this teams needs speed & defense. We will have at least 6 guys in the lineup that can hit 20-25 home runs.

Konerko
Rios
Beckham
Teahen
DH
Alexei

Sargeant79
12-08-2009, 01:07 PM
this teams needs speed & defense. We will have at least 6 guys in the lineup that can hit 20-25 home runs.

Konerko
Rios
Beckham
Teahen
DH
Alexei

I'd feel better if you had one guy who could hit 35 too. Quentin will do that as long as he's healthy. It sounds like it's a moot point since this trade isn't happening, but I wouldn't have liked it if it were just TCQ for Crawford straight up.

SkeetSkeetAmit
12-08-2009, 01:16 PM
I'd imagine if it was TCQ and Jenks getting traded to TAM, we would want Crawford and Upton in return.

kobo
12-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Crawford for Quentin is a steal for the Sox, as long as they could sign him to an extension. I don't understand why anyone would be against that deal. Sure, if Jenks is thrown in as well that it becomes lopsided, but I'll take Crawford over Quentin in a heartbeat. I don't have faith that TCQ will ever stay helathy for an entire season, and none of us know how he's going to rebound from his injury last season. He looked good the last couple weeks of the season, but I'm not convinced he'll stay healthy and put up the numbers he did in 08.

JermaineDye05
12-08-2009, 01:23 PM
I'd imagine if it was TCQ and Jenks getting traded to TAM, we would want Crawford and Upton in return.

I'm sorry, but what is TAM? I assume you meant Tampa Bay (TB).

SkeetSkeetAmit
12-08-2009, 01:28 PM
I'm sorry, but what is TAM? I assume you meant Tampa Bay (TB).



Meh, people said TAM earlier, I just ran with it.

Sargeant79
12-08-2009, 01:28 PM
I'd imagine if it was TCQ and Jenks getting traded to TAM, we would want Crawford and Upton in return.

We would probably also have to throw in one of Flowers, Hudson, Danks, or Viciedo (plus maybe even a lower level prospect), but that would probably be a little closer to even value for both teams, IMHO.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
12-08-2009, 01:34 PM
I'm sorry, but what is TAM? I assume you meant Tampa Bay (TB).

[Enter "Captain Nitpick"]

Technically, either is correct. "TB" is the more accepted abbreviation, but I've seen it abbreviated to "TAM" or even "TBR".

I've seen SF and SD abbreviated to "SFO" and "SDG". So it's all a matter of personal style.

[Captain Nitpick, away!]

Anyway, it wouldn't be a bad deal if we only give up Quentin and can get Crawford signed to an extension. Crawford would give us a legitimate 50-SB threat, gets on at a good clip, and could provide a lot more opportunities for run-scoring ABs. He does the little things we need, and has a bit of pop too.

I'd love this deal.

JermaineDye05
12-08-2009, 01:37 PM
[Enter "Captain Nitpick"]

Technically, either is correct. "TB" is the more accepted abbreviation, but I've seen it abbreviated to "TAM" or even "TBR".

I've seen SF and SD abbreviated to "SFO" and "SDG". So it's all a matter of personal style.

[Captain Nitpick, away!]

Anyway, it wouldn't be a bad deal if we only give up Quentin and can get Crawford signed to an extension. Crawford would give us a legitimate 50-SB threat, gets on at a good clip, and could provide a lot more opportunities for run-scoring ABs. He does the little things we need, and has a bit of pop too.

I'd love this deal.

I guess I'm a bit nitpicky because I'm used to caps representing two different words whereas TAM is just capitalizing the first three letters of Tampa which just seems a bit nonsensical.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 01:40 PM
More than Crawford? Maybe more than TCQ if I'm TAM.

Give up an established run producer with speed for an injury-plagued, average-defensive LF who has never played a full season?
Keep in mind the financial considerations. For the Sox, they absolutely need Quentin's bat and have room to put him at DH and let him thrive.

I'd much rather just sign a similarly defensive inclined outfielder (think Randy Winn), put TCQ at DH and target a young guy like Seth Smith to play LF.

PalehosePlanet
12-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Keep in mind the financial considerations. For the Sox, they absolutely need Quentin's bat and have room to put him at DH and let him thrive.

I'd much rather just sign a similarly defensive inclined outfielder (think Randy Winn), put TCQ at DH and target a young guy like Seth Smith to play LF.

Not to mention that Q's, Smith's and Winn's annual combined salary would be less than Crawford's for the next couple of years.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 03:34 PM
Keep in mind the financial considerations. For the Sox, they absolutely need Quentin's bat and have room to put him at DH and let him thrive.

I'd much rather just sign a similarly defensive inclined outfielder (think Randy Winn), put TCQ at DH and target a young guy like Seth Smith to play LF.

While the outfield defense would be improved, the sox would really struggle to score runs with those two in the line-up. I really hope that KW fills the LF/RF and DH holes with something MUCH better than that.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 03:36 PM
While the outfield defense would be improved, the sox would really struggle to score runs with those two in the line-up. I really hope that KW fills the LF/RF and DH holes with something MUCH better than that.
Seth Smith is a good hitter.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 03:46 PM
Seth Smith is a good hitter.

He had a solid season in a part-time role. I wouldn't put him in the line-up and expect him to produce like the corner outfielder we need.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 03:56 PM
He had a solid season in a part-time role. I wouldn't put him in the line-up and expect him to produce like the corner outfielder we need.
The corner outfielder we need will cost us what Seth Smith won't.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 03:58 PM
The corner outfielder we need will cost us what Seth Smith won't.

You're right, and it will also cost us the division if we leave that production up to Seth Smith.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 04:11 PM
You're right, and it will also cost us the division if we leave that production up to Seth Smith.
I mean, if you want to **** on Seth Smith, who is an all-around solid player with above average offensive production and similar defense, be my guest. I'd bet on him to be more valuable (cost-wise) than Carl Crawford in the future.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 04:14 PM
I mean, if you want to **** on Seth Smith, who is an all-around solid player with above average offensive production and similar defense, be my guest. I'd bet on him to be more valuable (cost-wise) than Carl Crawford in the future.

I am not saying he isn't a good player, because that's just wrong. I am saying that he doesn't fill our need, especially along with Randy Winn. If the Sox sign Matsui for dh (or another big bat), then Seth Smith is a much more attractive option to fill out the outfield.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 04:23 PM
I am not saying he isn't a good player, because that's just wrong. I am saying that he doesn't fill our need, especially along with Randy Winn. If the Sox sign Matsui for dh (or another big bat), then Seth Smith is a much more attractive option to fill out the outfield.
I would be confident with a lineup of:

Ramirez
Smith
Beckham
Quentin
Pierzynski
Konerko
Teahen
Rios
Winn

Tragg
12-08-2009, 04:28 PM
We need Quentin's power. No Thome, no Dye, declining Konerko.
Crawford would be a rent, right? Way too much for a rent.

CWSpalehoseCWS
12-08-2009, 04:44 PM
We need Quentin's power. No Thome, no Dye, declining Konerko.
Crawford would be a rent, right? Way too much for a rent.

But if the Sox could extend Crawford (doubtful)? Quentin has been hurt the last two years and has yet to have a season where he is completely healthy.

KRS1
12-08-2009, 04:56 PM
How does Seth Smith even enter this conversation? Why the hell would the Rockies move the guy?

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 05:49 PM
How does Seth Smith even enter this conversation? Why the hell would the Rockies move the guy?
A name I threw out there as an alternative to Crawford. Why would they move him? A logjam in the outfield. They probably think they could roll with Fowler/Gonzalez/Spilborghs or Young or Hawpe. If the Sox approached with the right package they'd let Smith go.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 06:00 PM
I would be confident with a lineup of:

Ramirez
Smith
Beckham
Quentin
Pierzynski
Konerko
Teahen
Rios
Winn

That's bold, very, very bold.

I think they could possibly win the AL central with that line-up, simply because it is going to suck again, especially after Detroit began their firesale today. But, we sure would be wasting our great rotation because that line-up won't do squat in the playoffs.

Not to mention that Alexei has not even been mentioned as a leadoff possibility.

Craig Grebeck
12-08-2009, 06:01 PM
That's bold, very, very bold.

I think they could possibly win the AL central with that line-up, simply because it is going to suck again, especially after Detroit began their firesale today. But, we sure would be wasting our great rotation because that line-up won't do squat in the playoffs.

Not to mention that Alexei has not even been mentioned as a leadoff possibility.
I guess I just don't see how subtracting Quentin and adding Crawford could possibly make this team better.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 06:07 PM
I guess I just don't see how subtracting Quentin and adding Crawford could possibly make this team better.

I couldn't agree more.

This was my first post:

The sox are big time losers in this trade if Jenks is involved, and really even if he isn't. The overall quality of the team would be greatly downgraded. I realize bobby is making a lot of money this year, but giving away one of the games top 15 relievers is not the way to improve an average bullpen. If the sox don't want him pitching in the ninth, fine, but don't just throw him into this already lopsided deal. Crawford does not do the sox all that much good if cq is no longer on the team. I can't believe people are even considering this as a good deal for the sox.

Goose
12-08-2009, 06:08 PM
[Enter "Captain Nitpick"]

Technically, either is correct. "TB" is the more accepted abbreviation, but I've seen it abbreviated to "TAM" or even "TBR".

I've seen SF and SD abbreviated to "SFO" and "SDG". So it's all a matter of personal style.

Those are airport codes, no? Chicago is ORD, so that is not an abbreviation in any way for Chicago.

Pablo_Honey
12-08-2009, 06:36 PM
I guess I just don't see how subtracting Quentin and adding Crawford could possibly make this team better.

Crawford is more likely to perform as expected than Quentin - better defense (although a bit overrated), more speed, better health, better contact rate. After the wrist injury and the whole plantar fascitis or whatever it is called, Quentin's health is very questionable and he doesn't have enough track record at MLB level to be declared "MVP caliber" yet. Worst case scenario, he could turn out to be a one-year phenom. Not saying I want Crawford on this team. He's too costly and we want power not speed.

KMcMahon817
12-08-2009, 07:22 PM
Crawford is more likely to perform as expected than Quentin - better defense (although a bit overrated), more speed, better health, better contact rate. After the wrist injury and the whole plantar fascitis or whatever it is called, Quentin's health is very questionable and he doesn't have enough track record at MLB level to be declared "MVP caliber" yet. Worst case scenario, he could turn out to be a one-year phenom. Not saying I want Crawford on this team. He's too costly and we want power not speed.

Carlos has hit 57 home runs and drove in 156 in 830 at bats over the past two seasons. I am not quite ready, nor should anybody else be ready to give up on him quite yet.

Let's see what next season brings.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
12-09-2009, 01:02 AM
Those are airport codes, no? Chicago is ORD, so that is not an abbreviation in any way for Chicago.

I've seen "SFO" and "SDG" as abbreviations on ESPN Mobile.