iamshack

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 04:08 PM) Crawford wouldn't net a monster price, but he'd demand probably Flowers and a good arm or two (Torres, Nunez, Marquez, other minor leaguers) and a throw in reliever (Wassermann?) 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.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 03:37 PM) My mistake regarding the Giants. The Rockies were definitely dumping Holliday, though. It's also a young, relatively unproven relief arm that isn't exactly the most crucial piece of their bullpen. And because that's all they were willing to deal, they got Mark DeRosa in return, not a higher-tier player like Crawford. You're also comparing unlike scenarios here. The Indians were down in the dumps this year and were more than willing to trade a good veteran player for a young, relatively inexperienced pitcher. The Rays aren't in that situation. The Rays would be incredibly dumb to trade an All Star-caliber player like Crawford for a good-but-not-great potential setup guy like Perez while they're in the middle of a pennant race. Like I said before, it's a lot harder to trade one year of Crawford because (1) your trade partners are limited to contenders and (2) the Rays themselves are contenders and, thus, will want a ML-ready player in return. Contenders tend to prefer to trade younger, peripheral talent (like Perez) and acquire high-impact veteran talent. This is why contending teams tend to not trade with each other as often. Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It'll be a lot easier to move Crawford to a contender mid-summer when (1) the contending team will be on the hook to take a lot less of his salary and (2) that team will have more urgency to trade for such a player. I think that the Rays probably will wait until June or July to deal Crawford. Because if they're out of it by then, they'll have a larger pool of suitors and have a chance of getting a better long-term package. Now we can definitely agree there. The Rockies got Carlos Gonzalez, Houston Street, and starting pitcher Greg Smith for Holliday. I'm not sure what your argument here is. The Indians getting a good young arm back for DeRosa only backs my point up - that good young relief arms can be had - even for one year of a player, and in this case, a lesser player. Trading a more accomplished player will bring back more young talent, not less. So what are you trying to say there? As for moving Crawford midseason, I don't doubt that is a move they consider, but that does not mean the field will expand at that point. Prior to the season, most GM's think their team can contend coming into the year, especially if they were to add a player of Crawford's caliber. I think the chances of getting a few very good young arms is just as good prior to the season as at the deadline. Do you think if the Rays offered the Royals Crawford for Soria and another solid arm in their system, that they would consider it? I do. Do you think if they offered him to the Giants, the Giants would consider it? I do. I think there are plenty of teams out there willing to move good young arms on a chance at Carl Crawford for a year. Keep in mind, this guy signed an extension in Tampa when they stunk. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he would sign another deal with whatever team acquires him. There is value in that as well.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) The Giants, Braves, and Rockies were dumping salary and were not necessarily expecting to compete this year. I don't see that being the case with the Rays, who are just one year removed from an AL pennant and still have a very competitive team. Mark DeRosa isn't in Carl Crawford's league, salary- or talent-wise. The best comparison here is Wallace for Holliday, and that was a mid-season (only half of Holliday's salary) move with the Cards (1) clearly able to win the division and (2) desperately needing a #4 hitter to protect Pujols. The selling team almost always gets more in return mid-season, because all of the pressure is on the contending team looking to add. Yeah, there will. But, as I said before, if the Rays are trying to get into the playoffs again next year (which they almost certainly are), they're probably going to want ML-ready talent in return. And the only teams who would trade for one year of Crawford would be competing themselves, and would be less likely to give up ML-ready players. That's most likely going to limit the market for Crawford. Hell, we're facing the same problem with Jenks. Why trade a perfectly good closer away for prospects and weaken our bullpen right after we spent a ton of money on Peavy and Rios, and are obviously trying to win next year? I'm not sure if you are arguing my point or your own here. The Giants were dumping salary so they traded one of their better pitching prospects for Freddy Sanchez? No they weren't. They were trying to win the Wild Card or the NL West. They took on salary, they didn't dump it. I didn't even bring up the Rockies, did I? Again, in regards to DeRosa, not sure who's point you are arguing, your own or mine. DeRosa isn't in Crawford's league, and yet he netted the Indians a very good relief arm. Despite having a lower salary than Crawford, he still cost the Cardinals $3 million to acquire and a bullpen arm that they could certainly use right now in the postseason. As for Holliday, he's costing the Cardinals about $7 million for 3 months, and they gave up first round talent, arguably one of the best hitters in the entire draft, who they would have controlled for 6 seasons. So are you arguing that the return might be greater for the Rays if they keep Crawford until the deadline next season and then deal him? I suppose that could be true, but it doesn't really support your point much. Again, I'll just agree to disagree. I think we both have some legitimate arguments to make, and which of us is correct probably revolves around information neither of us can possibly know. We'll just have to wait and see...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 01:46 PM) I don't see many GMs dealing two of their best pitching prospects for the privilege of paying Crawford $9M and watching him walk next winter. If Crawford had a couple of years left on his deal or cost half as much, I'd be more inclined to agree. Well, first of all, I didn't say two of their best pitching prospects. I said two good relief arms. Secondly, these kind of trades are made all the time. The Giants traded Tim Alderson for Freddy Sanchez earlier this year. The Cardinals traded their #1 prospect from 2008, Brett Wallace, for a half-year of Matt Holliday. The Cardinals also traded Chris Perez, one of their better relief arms, for Mark Derosa. The Braves traded Elvis Andrus, Salty, Neftali Feliz, etc for Teixeira, whom they knew they would keep at the most, 1.5 years. They dealt him for much less to the Angels in 2008. Certainly not saying that things haven't changed over the last few years, but there will still be pitching rich organizations which would be interested in acquiring Crawford in the right deal.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 01:29 PM) Somebody like Poreda, perhaps. But I don't see them getting much more in return. One year of Crawford at $9M isn't exactly a steal. Plus, if the Rays are trying to win now, waiting two years for a pitching prospect to develop into a ML closer isn't the best route to go. I agree that it may be a long shot, given the competition. But don't you agree that Kenny should at least inquire? It's not exactly an unfair offer. I will agree to disagree. I think the market for Crawford is stronger than you believe. That being said, I am sure if he is made available, Kenny will inquire. I also know if I were a Rays fan, and Jenks was the return they got for Crawford, I would be mighty ticked off.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) Bobby has a few things going for him that Thornton does not: He has several successful years under his belt as a closer, he can throw something other than a fastball for a strike, and he's never struggled like Thornton has in the past. That doesn't necessarily mean that Bobby would be a more effective closer than Thornton, but he has a better pitching skill set and more positive history on his side. Thornton's current contract also makes him worth a lot more than Crawford. Teams give up "a few young stud relief arms" for multiple years of Jake Peavy, not one year of Carl Crawford. There's no way that a GM trades away somebody like Dan Hudson or Phil Hughes for one year of Crawford. You may be right, but it can't hurt to ask. In fact, Kenny wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't inquire. Well, when I say young relief stud arms, I didn't mean young arms that project to be starters. You managed to use a few fairly extreme examples there. But perhaps "stud arms" is a bit too much. Perhaps "young relief arms with great stuff" would be better. Are you telling me that there are not teams out there that would trade two young relief arms for Crawford? I disagree...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) Dan Uggla anyone? What type of talent would it take to get him? I thought about this too. I don't think it would take a ton to get him, but probably 1 of your better prospects and a few B level guys. Then he is going to cost you $7-8 million. My only worry is he is exactly the sort of guy we have already had around here...another slugging hitter with mediocre OBP. I'm not sure the organization is going to want to pony up the prospects and money when they seem to really like our platoon situation at 2b.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 12:10 PM) The can use a closer more than they could use another OFer. It might not be the best that they can get for Crawford, but it might be the move that improves them the most for next year. Well, they do have Desmond Jennings in waiting, but simply because acquiring Jenks is one way they can improve, certainly does not mean it the best way to improve. Think about it this way...who would you rather have, Matt Thornton or Bobby Jenks? Why would they not just demand Thornton instead of Jenks? And to take that even further, you don't think there are any young, dirt cheap closers in waiting that are available elsewhere? You don't think there are 15 other teams that would love to have Crawford and have a few young stud relief arms they would give up? I just don't think offering Jenks for Crawford would interest the Rays at all, considering all the other teams that will have interest should he be made available.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 11:53 AM) I agree with this. If Kenny has decided that he wants to part ways with Jenks, Thornton is a much better option than over-paying for an aging FA closer. If I'm Kenny and I've already decided that Thornton is my closer next season, I offer Bobby to the Rays for Crawford straight-up. It's only one year of Crawford, but it provides us with a legit leadoff hitter/impact player immediately and buys another season to allow Getz to raise his OBP at the bottom of the order. If Getz improves, he can move to the leadoff spot in 2011. If not, we have the option of giving Crawford a long-term deal or letting him walk and pursuing somebody else on the FA market. I wouldn't mind Abreu as our DH next year, but I'm hesitant to give a multi-year deal to a guy at his age, after he's been on a slow decline for years. If the Rays want to move Crawford because they aren't interested in paying him $10 million this year, I have a hard time believing they want to do so in order to acquire a high-priced closer coming off a poor year. My guess is that if the Rays do move Crawford, they would be hoping to get back young arms and a catching prospect.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 10:11 AM) Its not difficult to understand. Its just weird that you are agreeing with the author, but you think you are disagreeing. He says he's hard to move, you say he's easy to move but hard to get good value for. Those are the same damn thing. I give up. Stark is saying Jenks would be "hard to move." In fact, he stated he would be the most difficult player to move on the Sox roster. What that implies is exactly what KHP is saying - that Kenny would either have to assume some of his salary in any trade, or to non-tender him. That is what is generally meant in baseball by saying "hard to move." I don't believe that will be the case here. I agree with KHP that Jenks would in reality be easy to move. If Kenny called up every GM in baseball the day after the World Series, and told them all "Bobby Jenks is available," I am certain he would get several offers which included decent prospects and did not ask that the White Sox pick up any of his salary. Kenny could then trade him that day if he wanted to. "Hard to move" is when you are calling every GM there is and trying to sell them on your player. You are making concessions, like throwing in half or more of his salary. You are throwing in another player that team likes as well to make it worth their while. THAT, in my mind, is "hard to move." And that is not the case with Bobby Jenks (at least I don't think it is). So I don't think KHP is agreeing when he thinks he is disagreeing. I think he is pointing out a subtlety in phrases here that somewhat drastically differs from what Jayson Stark is saying.

Where is the $10 million to sign Abreu going to come from? My guess is we are already starting off 2010 about $5-8 million in the red...

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) Hell no on Teahen. He made $3.575M this year and is due for another raise through arbitration despite hitting .271/.325/.408. IMO he's a borderline non-tender candidate. Teahen would be a great addition to a team like the Yankees because of his versatility, but he makes far too much money for a Sox bench player, and I'd have no interest in starting him anywhere. Even if he were to return to third and move Gordo to 2b?

I was thinking maybe we might take a look at Aki Iwamura, as he will probably be given his walking papers this year. He can play 3b and 2b, can leadoff or hit second, etc. However, after looking at the numbers, it's probably not worth it to break up the Getz/Nix platoon, other than that it may allow you to combine 3 roster spots into 2 or 2 roster spots into 1. Another possibility would be trading for Mark Teahan, who I think is very valuable simply because of his versatility. I'm with Jeremy though...as much as I'd like to move Beckham to second, there aren't many options available at third, and the organization seems to be very happy with him at third.

I think we need to see an entire season from Peavy in the AL before we can really make a case for either. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion about Gordo.

Just was thinking how that game we took from the Twins in our last game in the dome is forcing this playoff. I hate the Twins. Go Kitties...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 07:28 AM) Wow. Another reason why this organization is so much fun to follow...

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) That's nice. I like Peavy/Buehrle/Danks/Floyd a lot more. And that Hudson guy...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) I'm not saying he is, I'm attempting to use a reasonable metaphor. I'm just saying, if the guy already has a problem, and you're the one encouraging it, yes, that guy has a problem, but you're still a scumbag for encouraging it. Ahh, well, I have a feeling a lot of young guys have these kind of problems in MLB. I have a feeling our own manager has these sorts of "problems," if you want to refer to them as that...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) Even with that report...put it this way...do you want to be the guy buying more drinks for an alcoholic? Whoa, let's not paint the guy as an alcoholic now. He's 26, makes 8 figures, and plays professional baseball for a living. You're bound to get into a little trouble now and again with that combination of circumstances...but we have nowhere near enough information to brand the guy an alcoholic...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) I wonder, if guys from our team were somehow encouraging this...whether that might reflect badly around the league on our guys I was thinking along the same lines, except more in terms of if Ozzie was encouraging it...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) Sounds sadly stereotypical of the pro athlete marriage. The pro athlete marriage? How about most marriages involving people in their mid-twenties?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 11:55 AM) It's unfortunate she's in such terrible movies or else I'd see a lot more of her. Are you saying "Vacancy" was terrible? Honestly, Nothing But the Truth is pretty good....her, Matt Dillon, Alan Alda, and unfortunately, David Schwimmer.

Ozzie really, really hates the Tigers... Is it time to start considering whether he is double agent for the Twins?

Yeah, no argument from me here. In fact, I made this same statement about two weeks ago to a buddy of mine. Anyone seen the movie "Nothing But the Truth"? She spends most of the movie without makeup and with her hair in a very basic style and it shows just how incredibly beautiful she is. Truly remarkable woman. Great song in that video as well...

QUOTE (ROC Sox Fan @ Sep 25, 2009 -> 04:19 PM) Is Broadway still even in the Mets system? Yeah, I saw him in mop-up duty a week or so ago...