Not sure if major beatwriters have reported or not. We all know we have a major need in the outfield that hasn't been addressed and Crawford is a guy the Sox have liked. The move also would be payroll neutral. If Crawford really is getting healthier, might not be a bad get, although I would still think we'd need to have money come over as well. I think Danks sadly, has more trade value then CC.

 

The question I ask is, if we are going for it, and we can pull this deal off, thus staying relatively payroll neutral, could the Sox next plan be upgrading the Sox D at 3B by jumping in on Headley? I've long said we should stay away from him cause of his back issues, but if you are going for it and the Sox like his medical records, etc, there is no denying Headley's defensive skill-set and bat would be major upgrades at 3B. A lot of this all hinges on what JR and ownership are comfortable with from a payroll perspective, but you could do that and stay under 110M, potentially.

 

That said, you'd have to go toe-to-toe with the Yanks again and I presume they will be very aggressive with Headley now.

 

PS: I still think Ethier makes far more sense, but either way, Dodgers need to send substantial cash for it to make sense for Sox.

As long as there is something to offset the end years, I am OK with it.

The Dodgers wouldn't eat enough money to make the move entirely payroll neutral, but they would have to eat some.

 

Danks is owed $28.5M

Crawford is owed $62.2M

 

The difference is $33.7. Somewhere around half that amount may be the right figure.

 

Dayan would have to be involved somehow as well. I really like the idea of Crawford but no clue how we'd make this work.

Who on the score was reporting this?

I'd rather Ethier or Kemp, but I could possibly get on board with this.

 

I think I'd rather they just pay Melky though.

The Dodgers wouldn't eat enough money to make the move entirely payroll neutral, but they would have to eat some.

 

Danks is owed $28.5M

Crawford is owed $62.2M

 

The difference is $33.7. Somewhere around half that amount may be the right figure.

I'd need more than that, to be honest.

The Dodgers wouldn't eat enough money to make the move entirely payroll neutral, but they would have to eat some.

 

Danks is owed $28.5M

Crawford is owed $62.2M

 

The difference is $33.7. Somewhere around half that amount may be the right figure.

I don't know if you do that deal without getting something like 20+M back. I suppose Viciedo could go as well, which moves a little bit more in payroll. I still don't think Alexei is necessarily off the table, I think the key is what the Sox feel they could get for him. There is a lot of time left in the off-season and Hanh / Kenny still have bullets and payroll as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know if you do that deal without getting something like 20+M back. I suppose Viciedo could go as well, which moves a little bit more in payroll. I still don't think Alexei is necessarily off the table, I think the key is what the Sox feel they could get for him. There is a lot of time left in the off-season and Hanh / Kenny still have bullets and payroll as far as I'm concerned.

I just don't see anyway that the Sox move Alexei at this point.

Who on the score was reporting this?

Don't remember...but I think a few posters were talking about it in one of the other main threads so I created this as I thought it was at least deserving of its own thread (vs. being burried within the massive Robertson / Shark threads.

Eew...No thanks. Crawfords profile does not fit the Cell well at all.

So if you trade Danks, leaving Sale-Shark-Q at the front of the rotation, you now have to fill two slots with some combo of Noesi, Beck, and/or someone you acquire in the meantime. That is a steep drop-off. Rodon can be a 4th, but they are making it sound like he's in the pen to start (or AAA). The other considerable pitching prospects (Montas, Danish, Adams, etc.) are not ready, and the guys between like Recchia are not likely to be much more than #5 guys. You have no room for error. You'd need to find another starter, maybe a McCarthy or someone like that. I don't think you want to go into 2014 Opening Day with Beck, Recchia or anyone else at that level in the rotation if it can be avoided. Both may be more ready later, but neither are now IMO.

 

Don't remember...but I think a few posters were talking about it in one of the other main threads so I created this as I thought it was at least deserving of its own thread (vs. being burried within the massive Robertson / Shark threads.

 

Alright I was just wondering. Definitely an interesting development

So if you trade Danks, leaving Sale-Shark-Q at the front of the rotation, you now have to fill two slots with some combo of Noesi, Beck, and/or someone you acquire in the meantime. That is a steep drop-off. Rodon can be a 4th, but they are making it sound like he's in the pen to start (or AAA). The other considerable pitching prospects (Montas, Danish, Adams, etc.) are not ready, and the guys between like Recchia are not likely to be much more than #5 guys. You have no room for error. You'd need to find another starter, maybe a McCarthy or someone like that. I don't think you want to go into 2014 Opening Day with Beck, Recchia or anyone else at that level in the rotation if it can be avoided. Both may be more ready later, but neither are now IMO.

 

I think they are still going to meet with Masterson

So if you trade Danks, leaving Sale-Shark-Q at the front of the rotation, you now have to fill two slots with some combo of Noesi, Beck, and/or someone you acquire in the meantime. That is a steep drop-off. Rodon can be a 4th, but they are making it sound like he's in the pen to start (or AAA). The other considerable pitching prospects (Montas, Danish, Adams, etc.) are not ready, and the guys between like Recchia are not likely to be much more than #5 guys. You have no room for error. You'd need to find another starter, maybe a McCarthy or someone like that. I don't think you want to go into 2014 Opening Day with Beck, Recchia or anyone else at that level in the rotation if it can be avoided. Both may be more ready later, but neither are now IMO.

I think if you move Danks, you are looking at adding a vet starter on a 1yr deal. We also have Rodon so some of this also depends on that.

So if you trade Danks, leaving Sale-Shark-Q at the front of the rotation, you now have to fill two slots with some combo of Noesi, Beck, and/or someone you acquire in the meantime. That is a steep drop-off. Rodon can be a 4th, but they are making it sound like he's in the pen to start (or AAA). The other considerable pitching prospects (Montas, Danish, Adams, etc.) are not ready, and the guys between like Recchia are not likely to be much more than #5 guys. You have no room for error. You'd need to find another starter, maybe a McCarthy or someone like that. I don't think you want to go into 2014 Opening Day with Beck, Recchia or anyone else at that level in the rotation if it can be avoided. Both may be more ready later, but neither are now IMO.

All depends on what they want to do with Rodon. We could always ask Brett Anderson to make 5 starts.

I think if you move Danks, you are looking at adding a vet starter on a 1yr deal. We also have Rodon so some of this also depends on that.

 

I like the idea of using Danks to get Ethier and money from LA and then signing Masterson to a 1yr buy low deal with maybe a 2nd year option.

And if possible ship Viciedo with Danks to LA

Still wouldn't be surprised if an Alexei trade to the Dodgers is coming.

Still wouldn't be surprised if an Alexei trade to the Dodgers is coming.

 

Just gonna throw it out there that I would then find all of our moves terrible, as our infield would have to be league worst.

Still wouldn't be surprised if an Alexei trade to the Dodgers is coming.

I would be extremely surprised by that. Like I would experience a brief bout of incontinence.

I concur with the skepticism of moving Alexei, now that the front office is clearly "all in" this season. We just traded Semien, L. Garcia is black hole, offensively, you all seem confident that Diaz is not

an option and Sanchez is really not a SS. Until you can come up with a solid defender at SS, to replace Ramirez, it just wouldn't be feasible. If they really want to try M. Johnson at 2ND, they wouldn't

dare stick a poor fielding SS on the other side of the bag. That would indeed be completely unacceptable as a double play combination, for a serious contender.

 

Nevertheless, the Dodgers do want to move some of that outfield depth, which is really more of a logjam. If they could actually use Danks, then maybe something could materialize. Frankly, the

only part of this potential match up with L. A. as a trading partner is that they have way too many outfielders and the Sox need one. Beyond that, I don't really see a fit

With Samardzija added and Semien subtracted, it no longer makes sense to move Alexei.

I like the idea of using Danks to get Ethier and money from LA and then signing Masterson to a 1yr buy low deal with maybe a 2nd year option.

And if possible ship Viciedo with Danks to LA

 

That would indeed be wonderful. However, I can't believe that the Dodgers would include cash in that deal. Do they even really want Danks?

Why wouldn't a straight up, Ethier for Danks trade be reasonable for the Sox? I doubt that L. A. would do that deal, but if so, that would be

very enticing, from our view point.

With Samardzija added and Semien subtracted, it no longer makes sense to move Alexei.

Well, not directly, but there are still plenty of cases where it could make sense in the right deal.

Give us 25 million too and I'm in.