WCSox

QUOTE (3E8 @ Oct 11, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) Thome's offensive value has dropped precipitously over the last 3 years. If it continues into next season, I don't know if he'll even provide surplus value with a $5M contract Thome put up an .847 OPS this year. Even if that drops to .810 next year, he'll still be a good value at $5M.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2009 -> 09:13 AM) At about half or less of his former salary, I am interested. Yeah, I'd welcome Thome back at $6M with an option for a second year. He'd be an excellent "bridge" player, and much cheaper than Abreu.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 10:46 PM) See, I tend to think the opposite. I think if they resign Pods it's because we're trying to avoid spending big. I think they have realized they can't just throw anyone into the spot like they did this year, but at the same time, the money just isn't there to acquire someone that's going to make $8 million + on the open market. My guess is the younger kids are going to be used to save money in the bullpen, Dotel, and possibly Jenks will be gone, we'll have an OF of Rios/Quentin/Pods (or some other vet that is serviceable), and the same basic infield and catching situation. Given this, Kenny re-signing Pods to a one-year $5M deal would preclude them from giving Jenks a one-year deal at the $7M or so he'd command. Maybe we disagree on this, but I think re-signing Pods at the expense of Jenks would be a really bad idea. We need bullpen help BAD, and Bobby's a lot better at what he does than Pods is at what he does. And if you're convinced that Jenks is done (as some do), spending that money on a halfway decent OPS guy for the middle of the lineup still makes more sense than spending on a leadoff hitter with Getz already on the roster. I'll spend on a good bullpen arm and somebody to replace Thome/Dye before I even begin to worry about the leadoff spot.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 10:21 PM) Yeah, who knows what Pods will do in 2010. My guess is he returns to being a productive player again and posts a line slightly lower than his line this year. Honestly, in the NL, I think he's probably a more valuable asset to have, but my feeling is he will have a few AL suitors, including ourselves. As for the economy, I certainly was not claiming that all is well and good. But last offseason hit very shortly after the economy really crashed and there was major panic in the air. I am sure I don't need to explain that to you. I think a lot of teams were really frightened as to just how deeply this would affect their revenues, and were extremely cautious about expanding or even taking on any new payroll expenditures because of the uncertainty. Now that a year has passed, and owners can see there will be fans that show up, they will still buy merchandise and concessions, and the League is still in pretty good shape in terms of television revenue, they can continue to operate without any major deviation from normal practices. Sure, they are going to watching their bottom line a bit more than 2-3 years ago, but I don't believe there will be an overreaction like there was last offseason. Yeah, I pretty much agree. If the Sox DO end up re-signing Pods, it'll probably be because JR & Co. are allowing Kenny to spend big next year, and that would be a good thing.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 06:14 PM) I'll take a .412 slugging % out of my leadoff hitter all day long. And for what it's worth, Podsednik did say he has a new workout program that has managed to keep him much healthier than he used to be (but of course he is going to say that going into FA). As for this concept of Bobby Abreu's contract being some kind of baseline for every other veteran player's worth - that is just a huge pile of horses***. Let's all face it...the Bobby Abreu situation last offseason was a fluke. It was an overreaction to a disasterous economy, the belief that Abreu couldn't possibly continue to knock in runs like he has been doing for his entire career, and a lack of liquidity in the trade market because of contracts inked in more prosperous years. However, the "panic" about the economy is largely gone. While owners will continue to be more thrifty with their payroll budgets, their purse strings will not be tied as tightly as last offseason. Secondly, Abreu has proven that there is value to be had in veteran certainty. Owners and General Managers are going to recognize this and pay up. While some GM's might try and play the Abreu at $5 million card, the agents are going to laugh, as are the players, because they know other GM's are not going to be the guy who passes on the next Bobby Abreu at $5 million. Podsednik hit .303 out of the leadoff position last year. He managed to avoid injury. Good leadoff hitters are difficult to find. There will be Chone Figgins suitors that miss out and ultimately give Podsednik half the years and half the money and think they got a relative bargain. First and foremost, the Sox need a high OPS hitter in the middle of the lineup and bullpen help. Their payroll last year was under $95 million, attendance is down from last year, and they've already committed $71 million to next year (and that doesn't include the arbitration-eligible players). While the option of bringing Pods back to lead off for one more year has merit, paying him $5 million to either DH or play crap defense in LF makes little sense unless the Sox increase their payroll substantially next year. Especially considering that the Sox need to spend in two other, more important areas first. What also makes little sense is the assumption that Pods will repeat this year's numbers because of some newfangled workout program that will automatically erase his recent history of injuries and mediocrity at the plate. I'm not saying that he CAN'T achieve his 2009 numbers again, but paying Pods $5 million to find out seems like a hell of a gamble to me. Especially when there are much cheaper options both outside (Crisp) and inside (Getz) the organization. In case you hadn't heard, 9.8% (and rising) of America is currently out of work, and I'm pretty sure that they won't be standing in line to buy season tickets this winter. The Fed has also injected trillions of dollars of liquidity into the banking system over the past year, which will inevitably lead to inflation, devalue the dollar (China has already complained about this), and could quite possibly trigger a second recession. I don't know what this winter's contracts will look like, but I'm pretty sure that most GMs will be spending more like they did last winter than they did in the winters of 2006 and 2007. "Panic" or not, the economy is still in really bad shape and there's no light at the end of the tunnel yet.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 01:34 PM) The way they have been babying Buerhle the last couple of years(I know he's still getting 200+ innings) it has to make you wonder if they think he is about ready to fade, plus he gets $14 million a year and Ozzie made it a point that he may be the #4 guy next year. It may be a PR nightmare but baseball genius to move him out and fill a few other spots. At some point next season, AJP and Buerhle become 5/10 men. I don't see how they've been "babying" Mark, but you make a good point here. I think that we've seen his best, and I don't foresee him putting up another season like 2005 again (even a repeat of 2007 may be a stretch). Considering the development of Floyd, Danks, and Hudson and the fact that Peavy's now in the mix, it doesn't make much sense to continue to pay our 3rd or 4th best pitcher $14M/year. If the Sox are out of it in July, I'd definitely shop him for a good young hitter and a couple of other prospects.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 03:23 PM) The 2009 Scotty Pods was much improved over the 2005-2008 versions. His approach--esp. when he was behind in the count-- of just hitting balls on the ground to get IF hits, and being more aggressive at the plate, taking strong cuts at 2-0, and 3-1 pitches instead of watching them go by, will play well in 2010. The 2009 Scotty Pods had a lower BB/K ratio and essentially the same OBP as the 2005 Scotty Pods. The only noticeable improvement was more power, and a .412 SLG isn't exactly something to get excited about. You're also operating under the premise that Pods will essentially repeat 2009 in 2010. It's possible, but I think that it's unlikely, given his age and his unremarkable 2006, 2007, and 2008 numbers. I also disagree with your interpretation of the market. Abreu signed for $6M last year, but Pods is suppose to get $5M in what will be a similar market? I don't think so. Look at it this way: the Sox told Dotel's $6M ass to take a hike when he asked for a contract extension. And they need a decent middle relief arm a lot more than they need Pods. I'd rather have that extra $5M to spend on Jenks, Thome, or somebody whose at least close to the league average at their position. I also don't think that Pods' OBP will be much higher than Getz' next year, and Getz will cost 1/10 as much.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) Just what the Sox need more question marks. Put a rookie behind the plate, have him call pitches (because the bench does not with the White Sox) and tell him they need him to hit. Then spend $5-6 million on a guy who everyone know will get hurt. AA and the big leagues is a big difference. Let Flowers work his way into playing, don't throw the kitchen sink at him right away. He's really still a baby and he has some more growing pains he will have to work through. Just say no to Nick Johnson. Agreed that A.J. is infinitely more valuable to the Sox than Nick Johnson would be. I'd be surprised if Johnson lasted 100 games.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) You have to wonder if they will try to trade AJ. I love AJ as much as everybody else and think he is great for the organization, but trading him could get some decent return and it would free up space to sign somebody like nick johnson. I guess it would depend if the organization is sold on Flowers and if they think he could start next year. I know AJ has a partial no trade clause, but i'm not sure what teams it blocks him from. I'd think that A.J. is less tradeable than the average position player. Part of his value is his relationship with the pitching staff. If you deal him to another team, he'll be out the door as a free agent by the time that he and his new staff become comfortable with one another. Plus, the Sox are absolutely desperate for offense right now, and A.J. has become better with the bat over the past couple of years.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 10:20 AM) Pods supposedly changed his offseason workouts, and he didn't have an injury this year. With him seeing less time in the OF and more at DH, that would give him more rest and lessen the chance of injury. His $5 mill. salary wouldn't bust the sox budget. That depends on what the Sox are willing to spend this year. If the budget is $90M, spending $5M on Pods would be a really bad idea. If the budget is $110 M, it might not be a terrible idea. I'm assuming that the former budget is more likely. Even if it's not, I still think that the Sox can do better value-wise than a guy who will be 34 next year, gets hurt easily, can't play defense, can't hit for power, has a bad SB%, and has averaged a mediocre .326 OBP over the past four seasons. Given Pods' age and long injury history, I don't see a change in off-season workouts having much of an impact on his long-term durability. Agreed that Crisp (or Thome) would be much more doable than Figgins or Abreu, who will both cost a lot. Assuming that he's healthy, I'd rather go with one year of Crisp than one year of Pods. The age and salary difference would be favorable. I don't see the Sox dealing Konerko, especially for a less productive hitter like Loney. If they did, they'd have to have somebody like Abreu or Dunn already penciled into the lineup.

QUOTE (beck72 @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) Pods should be able to get a $5 mill. type deal this offseason, from some team. IMO, that's worth it for the Sox if he can duplicate his 2009 offense. If the sox play him mostly at DH, and only let him steal bases when he's given the steal sign, then he's more likely to stay healthy for the entire season and not kill them on the bases. IF Pods can stay healthy for an entire season and put up an OBP of .350 again, I agree that he'd be worth $5M. But I doubt that both of those things are going to happen. I agree about Getz. Giving him another year to develop a the #9 spot would be idea. But, man, if I have an extra $5M sitting around, it's going to Jenks or Abreu first. Another option would be trying to trade for Crawford, but I'm sure that TB would want Hudson or Flowers, so that's probably not going to happen. As it stands right now, the Sox already have $71M committed to salary next year, and that doesn't include the one-year deals that will have to be doled out to Danks, Quentin, and (possibly) Jenks. Given that, the massive hole in the middle of the lineup, and the money that will have to spent to round out the 25-man roster, the Sox would literally need another $100M+ payroll to be able to afford Pods at $5M.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 09:03 PM) This sounds like insurance in case Rios Getz tanks hard. The only thing that Pods brings to the table is enough speed and a high enough OBP to lead off. Even if Rios hits .220, he'll still be playing CF. Given how happy Abreu reportedly is in Anaheim and how happy they've been with him, I'd sa that he's a long shot to sign with the Sox. QUOTE (beck72 @ Oct 10, 2009 -> 05:06 AM) I wouldn't mind paying Pods $5 mill. for one year with a 2nd yr team option/ buyout clause to be the regular DH and playing some LF. I just don't want him in the OF fulltime or stealing bases. Just get on base and hit in the lead off spot. I don't see better options out there for the sox that make sense hitting #1. There's no freaking way that I pay Pods that much. Especially with the need for another high OPS bat in the middle of the lineup and our bullpen in relatively bad shape. I'd rather use that money to over-pay Abreu or over-pay Bobby for one more year. I'd much rather give Getz a shot at leading off (at least he doesn't get picked off or thrown out 1/3 of the time) and play Kotsay or Nix in LF.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 05:36 AM) So pretty much we have to find a whole new bullpen in between Carrasco and Thornton if we trade Jenks. Yeah, that doesn't help make the case. Yeah, I agree with this. The prospect of our 7th and 8th inning options bring T-Pain and Linebrink next year is downright scary. Yeesh. Give Bobby a one-year deal and see how things shake out over the fist half of next year. If he bounces back and the Sox play well, all is good. If he continues to decline, DFA him and move Thronton into the closer spot. If he pitches well but the Sox are down in the dumps in July, trade him for a couple of bullpen arms.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 01:35 PM) 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.

QUOTE (LVSoxFan @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) As far as Jenks goes, I think the consensus here is we should have shipped him at the beginning of THIS season, when he was still at peak value. What's typically left out in this argument is that Bobby was coming off of two very good seasons last winter. Given that context, I imagine that many of the same people would've gone apesh*t last November if Kenny dealt him then. Maybe, maybe not. Bobby was much worse in '06 than he was this year, and I don't think that his conditioning was a problem in '07 and '08. I agree with Cowley about Rios.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 12:42 PM) 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. 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).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 11:07 AM) 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. Yeah, OBVIOUSLY... QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 05:01 PM) 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.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 05:44 PM) I'm saying that Ricciardi ended up with egg on his face because he got so much bad press for having to give away Rios because of the contract. Maybe. But he WAS able to dump Rios, and he may end up looking like a genius in another year or two. QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 06:40 PM) I think his stalemate with pretty much everyone in regards to Halladay helped his termination as well. I agree that this was a major factor. His stubbornness in the Halladay negotiations was downright illogical. The other big blows were B.J. Ryan and the horrible contract he gave to Wells.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) 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. QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 09:42 AM) (Seriously, 99-1 he'll be back next year). Sadly, I agree.

Thanks for that catch, Dewayne. Good luck elsewhere.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 08:21 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 06:40 PM) WC, let's look back to the beginning of this discussion. I am arguing that Crawford has more value than Bobby Jenks. I am arguing that the Rays can acquire a younger, cheaper, or better arm(s) for him. You began by arguing that they could not, then you have morphed your argument into what contending teams will do versus non-contending teams, about when it is the best time to do so, etc. My point is that Crawford has more worth than Bobby Jenks, despite going into a last year of his deal, an option year we assume the Rays will pick up, and that should the Rays decide to, that they can trade him for younger arms under control for much longer, or better arms than Bobby. I'm not sure what you are doing anymore. It isn't just about value. It's also about fit, and you've been ignoring this point all day. Your post about trading Crawford for Soria is a perfect example. 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. IF the Rays decide that they're willing to take a step back in the short-term next year for the long-term then, yes, trading Crawford to a contender for a package of prospects is doable. HOWEVER, I see no evidence that the Rays aren't going to make a playoff run next year. If they are indeed going for it, they won't trade Crawford for prospects, or any young pitcher who won't help them substantially (at least as much as Crawford) down the stretch. That's what my argument is predicated on: the Rays contending. Again, you fail to account for FIT. The A's dealt Holliday in part because they were out of contention this year. If the Rays are still in contention next year, they're most likely not going to trade Crawford for the type of players that the A's got in return for Holliday. (Using your own "value" argument, Huston Street is nowhere near Holliday.) Not only are you comparing a contenting/non-contending trade scenario again, but you're highly overrating Chris Perez. He's a nice young pitcher and all, but isn't going to be a massive impact guy on a playoff team right now. And again, this trade is in no way applicable to a potential Crawford trade. Do you think that the Rays would give up Crawford for somebody of Perez's caliber? If you say yes, you'd be contradicting your own "value" argument again. I agree that the Rays could get young, cheap, quality arms for Crawford. But there are very few of these guys who would have a huge impact for the Rays immediately. The Rays would only trade for such a package IF they decided to take a half step back next year and retool for the long-term. And that's certainly possible. But, again, I don't see any evidence of that happening right now. I really wish that you would read my posts more carefully. I never claimed that the Rays absolutely NEEDED to trade Crawford this winter. In fact, I suggested (twice) that they might wait until June or July to see where they are in the standings before making a move. If they're playing under .500 in mid-July, they could probably get an excellent package of prospects for Crawford because almost every contender and contender-wannabe would be interested in him. I also agree that Upton has a lot to do with it (and they may deal HIM instead, for all we know). And, yes, I agree that the Rays could probably do better than Jenks. But like I said many, many hours ago, Kenny wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't at least approach them with the idea. The thing is that because we don't know what their "plan" is, we can't determine what the best "fit" for that plan would be. If it's contending, the "fit" for that plan will be a lot different than it would be if they decide to retool. Your posts seem to completely gloss over this very important distinction.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 03:32 PM) Yeah, this is my guess as well. They don't really have a catcher of the future there yet (that I am aware of, anyways), and so they would probably like to replace Navaro and add an arm or two and perhaps even a 1b prospect in case they are unable to resign Pena. 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.