PDA

View Full Version : Carl Crawford, what will it take?


BanditJimmy
11-08-2006, 12:08 PM
I know this has been discussed, but what will it take to get him?

Is there a way to get him with out giving up McCarthy?

Would a package of Fields, Broadway, & Sweeney get it done?

What do you guys think.

IMO, he is the only "difference maker" out there that the Sox can get for the top of the order. Perhaps the only guy where I would not mind mortgaging the future for.

Domeshot17
11-08-2006, 12:11 PM
I think the deal would have to be Bmac PLUS cotts PLUS Sweeney or Fields PLUS Rogowski

WizardsofOzzie
11-08-2006, 12:12 PM
Personally i think there's no way the deal gets done without Mccarthy.

julio-cruz
11-08-2006, 12:51 PM
No way that Williams trades McCarthy. Maybe not even Broadway-- depending on the organizations estimate of his "ceiling".Young cheap pitching (excellent as well as mediocre talent) is the prized possession. I think that many teams are reluctant to ship their best pitching this year after the trades that happened last off-season; as well as the Joe Nathan trade. The boston trade that sent Annibal Sanchez and Hanley Ramirez to the Marlins for an often injured/gopher-ball NL pitcher Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell. The Cubs were also fleeced in the off-season for Juan Pierre.
Getting a third team involved would make the most sense. Trading Garcia or Vazquez to team such as the Mets. Then the Mets sending Pelfrey or other top prospect to Tampa Bay. But again, Williams most likely will dangle Garcia for more pitching prospects. Even 4th starts are getting above market rates.

Bump34
11-08-2006, 01:57 PM
Not to play GM... but from what I am hearing... IF the Rays were to trade Crawford it would not be for "prospects"... It would have to be for players that could help the Rays now and for the next couple of seasons...

QCIASOXFAN
11-08-2006, 01:59 PM
Personally i think there's no way the deal gets done without Mccarthy.
If thats what it takes so be it I say. Crawford is an amazing talent.

PicktoCLick72
11-08-2006, 02:04 PM
The Charlotte Knights

Gammons Peter
11-08-2006, 02:27 PM
Fingernails on a blackboard
Fingernails on a blackboard
Fingernails on a blackboard
I love that sound :)

sox1970
11-08-2006, 02:41 PM
Vernon Wells, what will it take?

Lip Man 1
11-08-2006, 04:32 PM
Toronto wants young pitching and an outfielder for him from what I understand.

Lip

Craig Grebeck
11-08-2006, 04:50 PM
Vernon Wells, what will it take?
Way more than what he's worth.

PennStater98r
11-09-2006, 01:01 PM
Way more than what he's worth.

I disagree... especially if we're talking Brian Anderson + a young pitcher.

Wells is a GG OF that could hit 45 HR while playing CF in US Cellular.

FedEx227
11-09-2006, 02:33 PM
I'm in the mindset that the Rays don't want more prospects but rather guys who can help them this year.

With that being said Vazquez for Crawford straight up :D:

palehozenychicty
11-09-2006, 03:00 PM
I disagree... especially if we're talking Brian Anderson + a young pitcher.

Wells is a GG OF that could hit 45 HR while playing CF in US Cellular.

KW, however, rarely goes after players in a walk year if he doesn't believe that he can sign them. Wells is a good player, but is he worth an open-market figure? I doubt it.

Gammons Peter
11-09-2006, 03:15 PM
I'd give anything for Crawford or Wells

JohnTucker0814
11-09-2006, 03:30 PM
Id rather give anything for Ichiro... I don't think Crawford is comfortable in the lead off spot... I think I remember reading something on here in the past (I'm either too busy or too lazy to search) regarding Crawford saying he doesn't like to lead off? Now that I just typed that maybe it was that he didnt' want to play CF. Anywho... put Ichiro in CF, BA in LF... Ichiro leadoff... now that I would give up whatever to get...

Gammons Peter
11-09-2006, 04:03 PM
No, you wouldn't bat Crawford leadoff. You bat him third, he would be the best hitter on the team.

oeo
11-09-2006, 04:55 PM
No, you wouldn't bat Crawford leadoff. You bat him third, he would be the best hitter on the team.

:rolleyes:

Have you forgotten about these guys named Jermaine Dye, Jim Thome, and Paul Konerko? Yeah, those guys suck.

Crawford could/would definately lead off.

The Immigrant
11-09-2006, 05:09 PM
Crawford could/would definately lead off.

Crawford would be better in the 2-hole, provided someone else can lead off (a healthy Podsednik or Dave Roberts, for instance). His power would be wasted in the leadoff spot. Then move Iguchi to the 6th spot to provide a little speed behind Thome and Konerko. :drool:

oeo
11-09-2006, 06:09 PM
Crawford would be better in the 2-hole, provided someone else can lead off (a healthy Podsednik or Dave Roberts, for instance). His power would be wasted in the leadoff spot. Then move Iguchi to the 6th spot to provide a little speed behind Thome and Konerko. :drool:

My point was that he can be a very good leadoff hitter. And I would expect he would be if we somehow got him. There are quite a few leadoff hitters that hit 15-20 HRs a year. Plus we have power throughout our lineup, it's not as if we need power; it's all over.

Podsednik wasn't healthy? He had surgery, so it's quite possible that he will never have the basestealing ability that he had. That's still no excuse for why he can't get on base. And the guy's career has been so inconsistent, who knows if it's worth the risk bringing him back next year. Will he be the good one or the bad one?

And just say no to Roberts.

fusillirob1983
11-09-2006, 08:36 PM
Crawford would be better in the 2-hole, provided someone else can lead off (a healthy Podsednik or Dave Roberts, for instance). His power would be wasted in the leadoff spot. Then move Iguchi to the 6th spot to provide a little speed behind Thome and Konerko. :drool:

Obviously Crawford is an upgrade over Anderson, but is that your assumption, that the Sox are getting rid of Anderson?

Domeshot17
11-09-2006, 09:27 PM
I think the point people are missing is with Crawford, the main line of thinking with him is he has not even come close to his ceiling. The guy is the next vernon wells, maybe better. He has a chance to be a 330-35-120-30 stolen base 40 double 15 triple hitter. You wont get that leading off. You might come close in the 2 hole. I love carl crawford, but if we are going to give up the farm for him, and it will cost the entire farm, you best be making sure you are hitting his cieling and not leveling at his floor

I would be happy if you got him, then moved Pods, got a Pierre, someone in CF who can lead off, hit Crawford 2 3 or 6, and let him really grow into the hitter he can be.

Gammons Peter
11-09-2006, 10:41 PM
:rolleyes:

Have you forgotten about these guys named Jermaine Dye, Jim Thome, and Paul Konerko? Yeah, those guys suck.

Crawford could/would definately lead off.

Did I say those guys suck. No, I didn't. Crawford is not a lead off hitter.

spiffie
11-10-2006, 01:10 AM
Did I say those guys suck. No, I didn't. Crawford is not a lead off hitter.
Of course he's not. What good would a guy who looks to be heading towards a 300/360/520 line with the ability to steal lots of bases at a 85-90% success rate do as a leadoff man? He'd screw it up by knocking himself in too many times with those ****ing solo home runs, and we all know it's better to get a man on first than a run scored from your leadoff man.

oeo
11-10-2006, 09:33 AM
Did I say those guys suck. No, I didn't. Crawford is not a lead off hitter.

You said Crawford would be the best hitter on the team. That is not true...there are a lot of good hitters on our team, and all three named above are.

Crawford can lead off, and if he were to come here, he would lead off. How can you say he's not a leadoff hitter? He can do everything a great leadoff hitter can do, plus a bunch more. The guy is very talented, he can hit in multiple spots in the order, including leading off.

Gammons Peter
11-10-2006, 10:11 AM
You said Crawford would be the best hitter on the team. That is not true...there are a lot of good hitters on our team, and all three named above are.

Crawford can lead off, and if he were to come here, he would lead off. How can you say he's not a leadoff hitter? He can do everything a great leadoff hitter can do, plus a bunch more. The guy is very talented, he can hit in multiple spots in the order, including leading off.

Wrong. Crawford would be the best hitter on the the team.
Konerko! Ha, please, not even close

wulfy
11-10-2006, 10:14 AM
Ricky Henderson in his prime had pretty good power and is the model leadoff hitter. Nearly 300 career homers to go with a .401 OBP.

Sox Fan 35
11-10-2006, 10:50 AM
Wrong. Crawford would be the best hitter on the the team.
Konerko! Ha, please, not even close

You can't be serious.

Crawford: .292/.326/.434

Konerko: .283/.353/ .496

Crawford does have a better average but Konerko gets on base more and hits for more power than Crawford.

oeo
11-10-2006, 10:56 AM
Wrong. Crawford would be the best hitter on the the team.
Konerko! Ha, please, not even close

That must really be Peter Gammons.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is with Konerko, but if you've ever watched the guy (not sure if you have, Peter), he's one of the most underrated hitters in the game (and you're proving that point as we speak).

Gammons Peter
11-10-2006, 11:10 AM
That must really be Peter Gammons.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is with Konerko, but if you've ever watched the guy (not sure if you have, Peter), he's one of the most underrated hitters in the game (and you're proving that point as we speak).

Yeah, I've "watched the guy" I've watched him hit .234 in 03. Followed by .277, .283 and I've watched him hit into a ton of double plays and clog the bases.
There is not one Major League General Manager in baseball that wouldn't trade Konerko for Crawford in a heartbeat.

CWSpalehoseCWS
11-10-2006, 11:57 AM
Obviously Crawford is an upgrade over Anderson, but is that your assumption, that the Sox are getting rid of Anderson?

I thought the Marlins were interested. It just might be worth it to get some of their pitching prospects, though I'd rather have Anderson play next year with the Sox.

oeo
11-10-2006, 12:54 PM
Yeah, I've "watched the guy" I've watched him hit .234 in 03. Followed by .277, .283 and I've watched him hit into a ton of double plays and clog the bases.
There is not one Major League General Manager in baseball that wouldn't trade Konerko for Crawford in a heartbeat.

Clogging the bases and hitting into double plays has nothing to do with his hitting ability. Crawford has speed, which of course he can use to turn those double plays into only a fielder's choice, and can steal bags.

Crawford has a lot of talent, and he can do a lot of different things for you, but he's not a better hitter than Konerko. That's what this argument is about, not about who is faster. If you give Konerko Crawford's speed, he could put up the same batting average and less double plays. And even without that speed, he still had a better average and OBP this year.

Craig Grebeck
11-10-2006, 01:22 PM
Yeah, I've "watched the guy" I've watched him hit .234 in 03. Followed by .277, .283 and I've watched him hit into a ton of double plays and clog the bases.
There is not one Major League General Manager in baseball that wouldn't trade Konerko for Crawford in a heartbeat.
Last five seasons OPS+/RC-27
Base Clogger
123/6.41
85/3.85
123/6.64
136/7.24
135/7.53

Speedy Messiah
75/3.57
77/4.06
101/5.42
111/5.57
111/6.07

Crap, Konerko's better.

Yes, Crawford is a good player, and appears to be getting better every season, but the cost is WAY too high.

soxinem1
11-10-2006, 07:36 PM
http://www.fast-rewind.com/backtoschool1.jpg

Question: Now where will these trade proposals work for Carl Crawford?

Answer: How 'bout Fantasyland?

ChiSoxGirl
11-11-2006, 01:53 PM
... I think I remember reading something on here in the past (I'm either too busy or too lazy to search) regarding Crawford saying he doesn't like to lead off?

I was listening to The Score this afternoon and Chris Singleton was a guest some time around 1:15p. The host asked him that if he could play GM, who would we he acquire and gave him a list of names- Carl Crawford was among the names (can't remember the others). Singleton said that while he thinks Crawford would be an excellent fit on the team, he distinctly remembers Crawford not wanting to lead-off when he was a teammate of his in Tampa Bay. I guess Piniella had him leading off and it just wasn't working out well at all.

Think of it this way. If someone asked you to do something you didn't like or want to do, chances are you wouldn't put forth the effort to carry out the task to the best of your ability. With this likely being the case, I just don't see Crawford on the team. The last thing KW or Ozzie wants or needs is a guy who's not going to go out there and give it his all.

monkeypants
11-11-2006, 02:48 PM
I was listening to The Score this afternoon and Chris Singleton was a guest some time around 1:15p. The host asked him that if he could play GM, who would we he acquire and gave him a list of names- Carl Crawford was among the names (can't remember the others). Singleton said that while he thinks Crawford would be an excellent fit on the team, he distinctly remembers Crawford not wanting to lead-off when he was a teammate of his in Tampa Bay. I guess Piniella had him leading off and it just wasn't working out well at all.

Think of it this way. If someone asked you to do something you didn't like or want to do, chances are you wouldn't put forth the effort to carry out the task to the best of your ability. With this likely being the case, I just don't see Crawford on the team. The last thing KW or Ozzie wants or needs is a guy who's not going to go out there and give it his all.

I heard this interview too. It was with part time host Lou Canellis (sp?). While Singleton did say that Crawford doesn't like batting leadoff, let's keep in mind what team he was playing on while batting leadoff. When a guy of Crawford's talent is playing on a crap team, I don't doubt him wanting to bat in the 2, 3, or 4 spot instead of playing the smaller role at the leadoff position. If he were to be traded to the Sox, I would think that he'd get with the program and realize that his skills are most important to the leadoff spot.

One thing that annoyed me with this interview was Lou Canellis' selective hearing or him trying to make something bigger than it really is. Lou asked Singleton out of the candidates of Podsednik, Dave Roberts, Juan Pierre, or Crawford, who would he like to see leadoff for the Sox? Singleton replied that it would be Crawford because he played with him and knows about his ability and potential. Singleton then says that Crawford didn't like batting leadoff but would do so if asked. The interview ended and went to a commercial break. When Canellis came back, he mis-stated what Singleton said and claimed that Crawford "hated batting leadoff" and that he wouldn't be willing to bat in that position.

Plus, earlier in the show, Canellis was sipping on the Rowand juice saying that he didn't think Anderson was going to be any better than Crash, and didn't acknowledge that Rowand in his first few years had similar bad numbers at the plate. He then went on to say that there are rumors that Philly is considering trading Rowand back to the Sox. I've never heard these rumors before so I have to assume that it is wishfull thinking on his part.