Insider Rumor Mill

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Haha, I feel you man. Your a good poster, so no hard feelings. Though just looking at Owens numbers to Perez and saying he's a better hitter.. I wouldn't say that.. not at all, but it's all moot though cause of the hate. And it's always nice to know how I (or anyone) can rile you up now. Just bring the name Fernando Perez in a discussion or post, and KHP will let you have it.

Owens had that year where he hit like .330 or something in Birmingham after the Sox got him, and his K rate wasn't as high. But I agree overall that Owens blows and you could make an argument about a lot of guys being better hitters than them. And maybe Perez is one of those. Owens does suck pretty hard.

 

Yeah, I like you too SoxAce, so please don't do that to me. Fernando Perez puts me in a bad mood. For me, seeing a Fernando Perez trade idea is like getting cut off in traffic and having to slam on my brakes, and then after my honking and yelling, the guy turns off at the next exit with his middle finger hanging out the window and pointing at me.

 

[bmags]

can i get a cliffs notes on this page.

[WCSox]

Dude, you change what your argument is based on whenever I successfully shoot down your old points.

 

You don't "shoot down" anything. Instead, you compare incomparable trade scenarios and ignore my claims that they're invalid.

 

Not that you've read my posts carefully or anything, but my argument has been consistent: Competitive teams tend to not trade All Star-caliber players for young, inexperienced players who are projected to have little immediate impact. In other words, if the Rays are going for it next year, they would be hard-pressed to trade a good defensive left-fielder who puts up a .350 OBP, steals 50-60 bases a year, and hits with some power for a couple of 23-year-old middle relievers.

 

What YOU keep ignoring is that Holliday brought back SOLID YOUNG TALENT, which you claim Crawford is not worth. Will you please address that?

 

In both cases, the team that dealt Holliday didn't appear to be a contender at that point (the Rockies last November and the A's in late June of this year). The SOLID YOUNG TALENT that you speak of here didn't necessarily have to be immediate-impact talent (Huston Street was obviously able to contribute right away, but was battling injuries for the past two seasons, lost the closer position, and was becoming expensive) . On the other hand, if the Rays are going to deal Crawford this year while trying to contend for a pennant at the same time, my argument is that the Rays are going to want a higher-impact player for 2010, not young guys who will contribute two years down the road. Do you understand the distinction now, or do I have to explain it another four or five times?

 

And while you are at it, will you address why the A's acquired Holliday from the Rockies in the first place? Since you are so adept at deciding what a team's plans are, as you have done so well with the Rays, why did a cellar-dwelling young Oakland team which was clearly rebuilding go out and acquire Holliday from the Rockies? Why would they trade away two very good prospect and a struggling closer for 1 year of Holliday ("Crawford doesn't FIT into the Royals' plans, so trading away a stud like Soria who is under team control for three more years for one year of a $9M player would be monumentally stupid for the Royals," is what you stated). Why oh why did the A's do that? How monumentally stupid of them! The Royals or no other organization would do something like that!

 

Did you see how incredibly bad the A's offense was in 2008? Frank was their second-best hitter, and he wasn't coming back. Besides Frank, they had ONE player with an OPS of over .733. Trading for Holliday also allowed them to dump Huston Street, who had already lost the closer spot and whose production and health were falling off the table as he was in early arbitration.

 

The acquisition of Holliday allowed the A's to address a desperate need (power) and allowed them to move a soon-to-be costly player that they don't need anymore (Street). Holliday is also a high-profile slugger, and players like that tend to help sell season ticket packages (remember, he was acquired last November). On the other hand, the Royals don't desperately need a LF. They have a guy named David DeJesus who put up a nifty .781 OPS this year and costs $5.4 million less than Crawford. With Soria currently under a three-year contract at under $3M/year, he obviously has a lot more value than Crawford under his current contract (1 year left at $9M). OBVIOUSLY, the Royals would be incredibly stupid to deal Soria for one year of an expensive player that they don't need when they could likely deal Soria to a team like Philly or Anaheim for a really nice package of prospects that they could use.

 

What did the Rays trade Scott Kazmir for last year, by the way?

 

Apparently you didn't notice that Kazmir got paid $6M this year to put up a 5.92 ERA and 1.54 WHIP in TB.

 

For someone who claims to have no idea what the Rays plan is, you sure seem to know exactly what they will be demanding in return for Crawford, should they decide to trade him. You have devoted your entire argument to trying to explain the nuances of trading from what their position is, even though later you admit you don't know what that position is.

 

I at least consider what their plan MAY be. You, on the other hand, completely ignore the concept of "fit" and propose incredibly illogical trades like Crawford-for-Soria.

 

The reason I continue to ignore these parts of your argument is because they are irrelevant and I was hoping you would pick up on that.

 

And instead, you argue that the non-contending Indians trading Mark DeRosa for a young middle reliever is in some way comparable to the contending Rays trading Crawford.

 

Finally, you keep mentioning that a guy like Chris Perez isn't going to have a big role in the playoffs for a team. How can you say this, considering all the young relief arms we have seen over the years make huge impacts in the playoffs? Bobby Jenks? A young KRod back in 2002? Jose Arrendondo for the Angels last season? Adam Wainright for the Cardinals back in 2006? This happens nearly every year in the playoffs. Not to mention the fact that a few young arms could go a long way for the Rays by simply allowing them to move their more veteran arms back into the later innings. I dunno, I'd rather have two very nice young arms to slot into my bullpen who cost very little than one Bobby Jenks, whether I am a contending team or a non-contending team.

 

It's unlikely that Perez would have an immediate impact, as he'd likely see minimal use as a middle reliever. And if you're a GM, you sure as hell don't trade a guy a proven talent like Crawford to find out if Perez can close for you.

 

The Cardinals traded for Wainwright THREE YEARS before he became an impact player. K-Rod was signed by the Angels as an amateur FOUR YEARS before he played in the bigs. Arredondo was signed by the Angels and was in their farm system for FOUR YEARS before he played in the bigs. And, of course, Kenny acquired Jenks off the scrap heap. Of these four, only Wainwright was dealt for an impact player (J.D. Drew), and that was with the Cards coming off of a 3rd-place finish and not expecting to use Wainwright any time soon (which they didn't). Of these four, only Jenks was an immediate-impact player, and the only reason that he was brought up was because the Sox were desperate for a closer. But there's no way that Kenny would've traded anything of value for Bobby, due to his alcohol problem and surgically-repaired elbow. Kenny got lucky... very lucky. These are all nice stories, but would not be comparable to a contending Rays trading Crawford for a young, unproven arm (or a couple of young, unproven arms).

 

IF the Rays are willing to take half a step back and retool for the long run, I can definitely see them trading Crawford for a package of younger arms who may not help them compete this year. I would agree with you there. BUT if the Rays are trying to win again next year, they would almost certainly want somebody who is at least close in value to Crawford and could contribute immediately. In that scenario, I don't think that the market is as good as you seem to believe.

Edited October 9, 2009 by WCSox

[elrockinMT]

Wise actually isn't a bad reserve. He's fast and isn't a bad fielder.

 

He has shown he can at least handle that much and I am impressed with his fielding and arm

[SoxFan1]

Wise just opted for Free Agency.

[ThunderBolt]

Wise just opted for Free Agency.

Why? Does he really think he'll have a better chance anywhere else but here?

[iamshack]

You don't "shoot down" anything. Instead, you compare incomparable trade scenarios and ignore my claims that they're invalid.

 

Not that you've read my posts carefully or anything, but my argument has been consistent: Competitive teams tend to not trade All Star-caliber players for young, inexperienced players who are projected to have little immediate impact. In other words, if the Rays are going for it next year, they would be hard-pressed to trade a good defensive left-fielder who puts up a .350 OBP, steals 50-60 bases a year, and hits with some power for a couple of 23-year-old middle relievers.

 

 

 

In both cases, the team that dealt Holliday didn't appear to be a contender at that point (the Rockies last November and the A's in late June of this year). The SOLID YOUNG TALENT that you speak of here didn't necessarily have to be immediate-impact talent (Huston Street was obviously able to contribute right away, but was battling injuries for the past two seasons, lost the closer position, and was becoming expensive) . On the other hand, if the Rays are going to deal Crawford this year while trying to contend for a pennant at the same time, my argument is that the Rays are going to want a higher-impact player for 2010, not young guys who will contribute two years down the road. Do you understand the distinction now, or do I have to explain it another four or five times?

 

 

 

Did you see how incredibly bad the A's offense was in 2008? Frank was their second-best hitter, and he wasn't coming back. Besides Frank, they had ONE player with an OPS of over .733. Trading for Holliday also allowed them to dump Huston Street, who had already lost the closer spot and whose production and health were falling off the table as he was in early arbitration.

 

The acquisition of Holliday allowed the A's to address a desperate need (power) and allowed them to move a soon-to-be costly player that they don't need anymore (Street). Holliday is also a high-profile slugger, and players like that tend to help sell season ticket packages (remember, he was acquired last November). On the other hand, the Royals don't desperately need a LF. They have a guy named David DeJesus who put up a nifty .781 OPS this year and costs $5.4 million less than Crawford. With Soria currently under a three-year contract at under $3M/year, he obviously has a lot more value than Crawford under his current contract (1 year left at $9M). OBVIOUSLY, the Royals would be incredibly stupid to deal Soria for one year of an expensive player that they don't need when they could likely deal Soria to a team like Philly or Anaheim for a really nice package of prospects that they could use.

 

 

 

Apparently you didn't notice that Kazmir got paid $6M this year to put up a 5.92 ERA and 1.54 WHIP in TB.

 

 

 

I at least consider what their plan MAY be. You, on the other hand, completely ignore the concept of "fit" and propose incredibly illogical trades like Crawford-for-Soria.

 

 

 

And instead, you argue that the non-contending Indians trading Mark DeRosa for a young middle reliever is in some way comparable to the contending Rays trading Crawford.

 

 

 

It's unlikely that Perez would have an immediate impact, as he'd likely see minimal use as a middle reliever. And if you're a GM, you sure as hell don't trade a guy a proven talent like Crawford to find out if Perez can close for you.

 

The Cardinals traded for Wainwright THREE YEARS before he became an impact player. K-Rod was signed by the Angels as an amateur FOUR YEARS before he played in the bigs. Arredondo was signed by the Angels and was in their farm system for FOUR YEARS before he played in the bigs. And, of course, Kenny acquired Jenks off the scrap heap. Of these four, only Wainwright was dealt for an impact player (J.D. Drew), and that was with the Cards coming off of a 3rd-place finish and not expecting to use Wainwright any time soon (which they didn't). Of these four, only Jenks was an immediate-impact player, and the only reason that he was brought up was because the Sox were desperate for a closer. But there's no way that Kenny would've traded anything of value for Bobby, due to his alcohol problem and surgically-repaired elbow. Kenny got lucky... very lucky. These are all nice stories, but would not be comparable to a contending Rays trading Crawford for a young, unproven arm (or a couple of young, unproven arms).

 

IF the Rays are willing to take half a step back and retool for the long run, I can definitely see them trading Crawford for a package of younger arms who may not help them compete this year. I would agree with you there. BUT if the Rays are trying to win again next year, they would almost certainly want somebody who is at least close in value to Crawford and could contribute immediately. In that scenario, I don't think that the market is as good as you seem to believe.

 

Now that you have argued points that not only have absolutely nothing to do with any argument made in this thread previously, maybe you can review what this entire conversation was about in the first place. Again, it was not about what contending teams do. It was not about what non-contending teams do. It was not about how long it takes a relief pitcher to become major league ready from the time they are brought into an organization. It was, and I have been trying to maintain it to be about what level of value Carl Crawford has on the trade market. I contend he has more value than Bobby Jenks. You claim he does not.

 

Apparently the fact that you think young, talented bullpen arms would be of no interest to them is diverting the conversation, while I think young, talented bullpen arms would be of more interest to them than Bobby Jenks. So there is where you are going off on one course and I onto another.

 

Let's leave it here - I think the Rays, should they desire bullpen help, would much rather have young, talented, cheaper arms than Bobby Jenks. They have enough veteran playoff-tested arms in that bullpen now to "protect" these younger kids if need be, even though I don't believe that to be the case. I have given examples of such arms or other such young talent that has indeed been traded for players of lesser or similar value to Crawford. You have chosen to twist that into why or how the players were acquired, or what the trading teams were thinking or trying to accomplish, when the sole reason those examples were mentioned is to prove that such arms or other young talent can be had on the trade market for players with little time left on their current deals.

 

These are the only points I have chosen to prove, and I feel I have presented my arguments well. Meanwhile, we've been diverted and mislead down all kinds of other paths because of these irrelevant side arguments you've been making, probably because you know you have lost the main arguments.

[WCSox]

Now that you have argued points that not only have absolutely nothing to do with any argument made in this thread previously, maybe you can review what this entire conversation was about in the first place. Again, it was not about what contending teams do. It was not about what non-contending teams do. It was not about how long it takes a relief pitcher to become major league ready from the time they are brought into an organization. It was, and I have been trying to maintain it to be about what level of value Carl Crawford has on the trade market. I contend he has more value than Bobby Jenks. You claim he does not.

 

You continue to be blind to the fact that "value" does not rule all and that "fit" is a major consideration in a trade. You can't evaluate a trade intelligently without considering both factors.

 

Let's leave it here - I think the Rays, should they desire bullpen help, would much rather have young, talented, cheaper arms than Bobby Jenks. They have enough veteran playoff-tested arms in that bullpen now to "protect" these younger kids if need be, even though I don't believe that to be the case. I have given examples of such arms or other such young talent that has indeed been traded for players of lesser or similar value to Crawford. You have chosen to twist that into why or how the players were acquired, or what the trading teams were thinking or trying to accomplish, when the sole reason those examples were mentioned is to prove that such arms or other young talent can be had on the trade market for players with little time left on their current deals.

 

These are the only points I have chosen to prove, and I feel I have presented my arguments well. Meanwhile, we've been diverted and mislead down all kinds of other paths because of these irrelevant side arguments you've been making, probably because you know you have lost the main arguments.

 

I love how you say "let's leave it here" and then devote two more paragraphs to taking my arguments out of context and attacking my motives. Stay classy.

Edited October 9, 2009 by WCSox

[iamshack]

You continue to be blind to the fact that "value" does not rule all and that "fit" is a major consideration in a trade. You can't evaluate a trade intelligently without considering both factors.

 

 

 

I love how you say "let's leave it here" and then devote two more paragraphs to taking my arguments out of context and attacking my motives. Stay classy.

 

I think "fit" takes a lot lesser role in this than you think. I think there are SEVERAL teams that would find a way to "fit" Carl Crawford into their everyday lineup. This goes back to what Jayson Stark said. Carl Crawford would not be a "hard player to move," as he claims Jenks would (even though I disagree with him).

 

As for my level of classiness, WC, if this was the first time I had seen you pull this trick, I would have maybe kept some of my comments to myself, or possibly if it had even been the first time you had pulled it on me. But you're fairly famous in these parts for pulling just this very trick, and engaging in these debates that go on and on and on, because you manage to tweak your argument everytime you realize it's been defeated. I admire your passion, but just because you take veiled shots at me instead of my obvious ones at you certainly does not make you any more classy than me.

[ThunderBolt]

Guys, simmer down. We're talking hypothetical trades, not life or death.

[iamshack]

Guys, simmer down. We're talking hypothetical trades, not life or death.

Oh, we know that. There is just a certain level of frustration and feistiness that comes along with typing out a long passage and then feeling like the other person misunderstood it or completely ignored it. I think both of us feel that a bit...

[WCSox]

I think "fit" takes a lot lesser role in this than you think. I think there are SEVERAL teams that would find a way to "fit" Carl Crawford into their everyday lineup. This goes back to what Jayson Stark said. Carl Crawford would not be a "hard player to move," as he claims Jenks would (even though I disagree with him).

 

I should've bowed out of this conversation when you argued that Crawford-for-Soria is a legitimate trade.

 

As for my level of classiness, WC, if this was the first time I had seen you pull this trick, I would have maybe kept some of my comments to myself, or possibly if it had even been the first time you had pulled it on me. But you're fairly famous in these parts for pulling just this very trick, and engaging in these debates that go on and on and on, because you manage to tweak your argument everytime you realize it's been defeated. I admire your passion, but just because you take veiled shots at me instead of my obvious ones at you certainly does not make you any more classy than me.

 

You've spent the past couple posts telling me that you've "shot down" or "defeated" my arguments. (The fact that you felt the need to tell me this shows that you clearly haven't.) And when I finally call you on it, you accuse ME of taking veiled shots at YOU. How sad.

 

Making the distinction between a contender and a non-contender's motives in a trade isn't "tweaking" an argument. It's accounting for another factor in a relatively complex decision-making process. I've even given credit to some of your arguments while making this distinction. But apparently you're more interested in attacking my motives than reaching a compromise at this point.

 

[scenario]

can i get a cliffs notes on this page.

 

The CliffNotes version...

 

A couple of posters suggested that Fernando Perez in the Rays organization might be a good pickup.

 

KHP thinks he sucks and invoked the names of DeWayne Wise and Brian Anderson to make his point.

 

And in general, the level of testosterone in the thread is above average high today.

Edited October 9, 2009 by scenario

[iamshack]

I should've bowed out of this conversation when you argued that Crawford-for-Soria is a legitimate trade.

 

 

 

You've spent the past couple posts telling me that you've "shot down" or "defeated" my arguments. (The fact that you felt the need to tell me this shows that you clearly haven't.) And when I finally call you on it, you accuse ME of taking veiled shots at YOU. How sad.

 

Making the distinction between a contender and a non-contender's motives in a trade isn't "tweaking" an argument. It's accounting for another factor in a relatively complex decision-making process. I've even given credit to some of your arguments while making this distinction. But apparently you're more interested in attacking my motives than reaching a compromise at this point.

 

WC, if you'd like to change the argument to whether the Rays would accept younger relief arms for Crawford, that is another argument entirely, one which I have resisted getting into, as you know. If you remember, I said earlier that I thought the Rays might want a guy like Thornton instead of Jenks, or to take it even farther, a few young, cheap relief arms. At that point you claimed Crawford would not get that on the trade market. I then attempted to list trades where it has indeed happened. You then got into the motives of the teams involved in those trades, sometimes contradicting your own argument, such as the A's trading for Holliday when he was due to make several million dollars and they were nowhere near having a chance to compete. Then the entire argument got messy with mentions of competing teams, non-competing teams, salary dumping, selling season tickets, etc. For the most part, you simply tried to discredit the trades I mentioned as invalid examples because of the particular scenarios involved in them.

 

Can we just stay on point here? Why would the Rays want Jenks? They do have other veterans that have closed before. Simply because they are in a position to compete doesn't mean they wouldn't want two young relief arms. Nearly every bullpen in the league starts out the season with undefined roles, and gradually evolves as the season progresses. I also mentioned in this thread I thought the Rays would want a catching prospect. Simply because the Rays are in a position to compete doesn't mean they will demand impact MLB players, as that would probably defeat the purpose of trading Crawford in the first place - saving money.

 

I just think the Rays would have a lot more interest in a package of Flowers and some of our other young arms than for Bobby Jenks. I guess that is what it boils down to. You obviously disagree.

[WCSox]

Can we just stay on point here? Why would the Rays want Jenks? They do have other veterans that have closed before. Simply because they are in a position to compete doesn't mean they wouldn't want two young relief arms. Nearly every bullpen in the league starts out the season with undefined roles, and gradually evolves as the season progresses. I also mentioned in this thread I thought the Rays would want a catching prospect. Simply because the Rays are in a position to compete doesn't mean they will demand impact MLB players, as that would probably defeat the purpose of trading Crawford in the first place - saving money.

 

Why do you automatically assume that the motive for dealing Crawford would be a salary dump? They didn't get poorer by winning the pennant last year and dumping Kazmir's salary this summer. And if the Rays want young players, they lose Crawford's draft picks if they deal him.

 

Getting back to your question about Jenks, he would be a two-year rental to strengthen their pen. It's possible that they move Howell (who has about half a season's closer experience) to setup or want him in a left-handed specialist role (like Thornton has been for us). The rest of their bullpen isn't all that impressive (Dan Wheeler, Lance Cormier, Randy Coate) and the former and latter are on the wrong side of 30. Dealing Jenks for Crawford would also save them about $2M next year.

 

Then again, it's also possible that they have supreme confidence in Howell and the rest of those guys and that they have no interest in Jenks. But it would be remiss of Kenny to not pick up the phone and inquire.

 

I just think the Rays would have a lot more interest in a package of Flowers and some of our other young arms than for Bobby Jenks. I guess that is what it boils down to. You obviously disagree.

 

Yeah, OBVIOUSLY...

 

Flowers would be another good potential fit for Tampa Bay, as he's close to ML-ready. Not sure that Kenny wants to part with him, though.

 

For Christ's sake, read my posts.

Edited October 9, 2009 by WCSox

[southsider2k5]

The CliffNotes version...

 

A coupled of posters suggested that Fernando Perez in the Rays organization might be a good pickup.

 

KHP thinks he sucks and invoked the names of DeWayne Wise and Brian Anderson to make his point.

 

And in general, the level of testosterone is the thread is above average high today.

 

Welcome to the off season where talk moves from statistics to hypotheticals!

[Big Daddy Kool]

This is by far the best post in this thread. I love how it got no responses because it insulted the masses. I'm with you on this one dude.

This pitching staff is too special to not spend 100 Million. If we overspend and field the correct team, the attendence spike when we start 35-10 will surely pay for these players.

And it starts with Bobby in the back.

 

 

Yea that was spot-on. Only those Pale Hose organization knows their budget. Everything else is a fantasyland guess.

[witesoxfan]

Yea that was spot-on. Only those Pale Hose organization knows their budget. Everything else is a fantasyland guess.

 

alternatively, if the Sox go above and beyond their budget, and the team comes out poor or injuries strike, the 2010 White Sox become the 2009 Mets

[iamshack]

Why do you automatically assume that the motive for dealing Crawford would be a salary dump? They didn't get poorer by winning the pennant last year and dumping Kazmir's salary this summer. And if the Rays want young players, they lose Crawford's draft picks if they deal him.

 

Getting back to your question about Jenks, he would be a two-year rental to strengthen their pen. It's possible that they move Howell (who has about half a season's closer experience) to setup or want him in a left-handed specialist role (like Thornton has been for us). The rest of their bullpen isn't all that impressive (Dan Wheeler, Lance Cormier, Randy Coate) and the former and latter are on the wrong side of 30. Dealing Jenks for Crawford would also save them about $2M next year.

 

Then again, it's also possible that they have supreme confidence in Howell and the rest of those guys and that they have no interest in Jenks. But it would be remiss of Kenny to not pick up the phone and inquire.

 

 

 

Yeah, OBVIOUSLY...

 

 

 

For Christ's sake, read my posts.

 

Certainly was never assuming Crawford would be a salary dump, however, if they did trade him, they would most likely want to acquire young, cheap players so they could afford to offer contracts to Pena and some of their other young players. Otherwise, I don't know why they would want to deal Crawford in the first place, as he is not overpaid, Upton has looked shaky and inconsistent at the plate, and they can't be sure what Desmond Jennings is going to provide them. I just don't see why you would want to basically swap salaries of an everyday player who is above league average at just about everything he does for someone that might pitch 60 innings for them at a just below league average clip.

 

As for Flowers, sorry, I'm trying to hit your main points here, I can't remember every minor point you've made, as this debate has been all over the place for two days now. You've certainly glossed over many of my minor points as well.

 

All in all, I think Crawford has more value than you do, and that is what it boils down to. Fair enough.

[Balta1701]

alternatively, if the Sox go above and beyond their budget, and the team comes out poor or injuries strike, the 2010 White Sox become the 2009 Mets

Frankly, I don't know if we'll ever see a convergence of injuries like that again.

[elrockinMT]

Wise just opted for Free Agency.

 

 

Adios, but he gave it his all when here. That's why the let BA go isn't it? Effort or lack of it?

[WCSox]

Certainly was never assuming Crawford would be a salary dump, however, if they did trade him, they would most likely want to acquire young, cheap players so they could afford to offer contracts to Pena and some of their other young players. Otherwise, I don't know why they would want to deal Crawford in the first place, as he is not overpaid, Upton has looked shaky and inconsistent at the plate, and they can't be sure what Desmond Jennings is going to provide them. I just don't see why you would want to basically swap salaries of an everyday player who is above league average at just about everything he does for someone that might pitch 60 innings for them at a just below league average clip.

 

Most likely because proven closers (and consistent bullpen arms in general) have a lot of value and don't exactly grow on trees. In addition, the Rays have a "meh" bullpen that could use some improvement.

 

As for Flowers, sorry, I'm trying to hit your main points here, I can't remember every minor point you've made, as this debate has been all over the place for two days now. You've certainly glossed over many of my minor points as well.

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

Your Flowers idea certainly has merit, though. Dioner Navarro can't hit for crap and will be entering his second year of arbitration. Flowers is pretty much ready for the bigs and it's not much of a stretch at all to think that he could outdo Navarro's career .676 OPS at about 1/5 the cost next year. That said, given A.J.'s age and contract situation (and the Sox's current offensive situation), I don't see Kenny dealing Flowers unless he's really blown away with a great offer. (Ultimately, I don't see Jenks going to TB either.)

 

All in all, I think Crawford has more value than you do, and that is what it boils down to. Fair enough.

 

Yeah, more or less. But as I said before, there are all sort of factors out there that can drive unequal trades (e.g., Rowand/Thome). It'll be interesting to see what happens to both Crawford and Jenks this winter (or next summer).

Edited October 9, 2009 by WCSox

[qwerty]

There was some legitimate discussion in this thread. I like to see that.

[iamshack]

Most likely because proven closers (and consistent bullpen arms in general) have a lot of value and don't exactly grow on trees. In addition, the Rays have a "meh" bullpen and that could use some improvement.

 

 

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

Your Flowers idea certainly has merit, though. Dioner Navarro can't hit for crap and will be entering his second year of arbitration. Flowers is pretty much ready for the bigs and it's not much of a stretch at all to think that he could outdo Navarro's career .676 OPS at about 1/5 the cost next year. That said, given A.J.'s age and contract situation (and the Sox's current offensive situation), I don't see Kenny dealing Flowers unless he's really blown away with a great offer. (Ultimately, I don't see Jenks going to TB either.)

 

 

 

Yeah, more or less. But as I said before, there are all sort of factors out there that can drive unequal trades (e.g., Rowand/Thome). It'll be interesting to see what happens to both Crawford and Jenks this winter (or next summer).

 

"Proven closers" are overrated, but that's an entirely different argument altogether. I don't even believe 95% of MLB managers use their closers effectively.

 

As for Flowers, agreed, he's not going anywhere unless part of a much bigger deal than Crawford, in my opinion.

 

Finally, the factors you have listed just don't really apply much in this case, in my opinion, of course. That's why I continued to ignore most of them. The Rays don't need to "dump" Crawford in the traditional sense because he still has value, even with the current contract he has. They also don't necessarily need to get players that will make an immediate impact, as they have more talent than they know what to do with over there. The Rays are in, and have been in, a very special situation where they have the talent in the organization to do almost anything they want with their veterans, sans take on a monster contract - finances have always been the only thing holding them back - and they have taken major strides there even. So to me, they can trade him for whatever they deem is the best return, which I highly doubt is a very expensive closer coming off a down year.

 

 

[WCSox]

Finally, the factors you have listed just don't really apply much in this case, in my opinion, of course. That's why I continued to ignore most of them. The Rays don't need to "dump" Crawford in the traditional sense because he still has value, even with the current contract he has. They also don't necessarily need to get players that will make an immediate impact, as they have more talent than they know what to do with over there.

 

I'm not saying that they need to trade Crawford or that Jenks (or Flowers) would be the best fit for them. And I agree that they can sit back and watch events unfold before making a decision on Crawford and Upton. (I don't think that they're serious about trading the latter right now anyway.)

 

But the seemingly unlimited supply of talent that they have will not last forever. Before you know it, contracts will run out and some of their younger talent will be commanding a ton of money in their upcoming arb-eligible years. If I'm running that team and they're mired in 3rd place playing .500 ball in July, I'm definitely on the phone shopping Crawford. You can't rest on your laurels in this game, especially when you're a small-budget team in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox.