Angels & Sox looking at Crawford

RockRaines · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 09:36 AM)

Vazquez is a head case. No thank you. Keep Garland for '06. TB would want a few players that are garunteed for 3 to 4 years down the road.

He would fit in well on this team then, with a couple of cancers.

AnthraxFan93 · December 6, 2005

Trade Garland for Crawford, then pick up Vazquez

<{PO S T_S NAPBAC K }>

I would do it, but I highly doubt we have enough prospects to pull off both.

heirdog · December 6, 2005

Crawford's comment that "What Chicago did was bush league" is pretty much the thought of everyone outside the white sox circle. To those that don't really care, they got a chuckle out of the campaigning but to the die-hards, it was seen as a "tacky" or "bush league" move. I could care less as a white sox fan and i am glad that pods got on with the campaign. We didn't get a lot of pub ever so we had to stir it up ourselves. Now, we are champs and hopefully won't have to do it again.

So I don't think you can say that Crawford has a bad attitude based off his comment. In fact, judging by his reaction, he seems like a guy that would barrel someone over at 2nd base just to get back at the outfielder that knocked our catcher out of a game. These are the kind of guys we want. He is a warrior and a competitor.

I say give them Fields, Owens/Sweeney/Anderson and Tracey for Crawford. He costs big bucks but he is a bonafide superstar in the making with speed, power and competitive drive and he is 23 or 24.

Chisoxfn · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 05:54 AM)

The main thing on this is the Garland situation. The Trib sounded like there are still negotiations. If he is locked up long term I could see McCarthy being moved. I would want more than Crawford though, that is for sure.

If Garland is not going to sign long term I think he could be moved especially in a three way deal.

Another issue is that it sounded like the Sox have thought of using a 6 man rotation due to the WBC.

They won't move McCarthy cause he's the lone starter that will be cheap for the next couple years (and will be a total bargain if he continues to develop). Considering what they will be paying the other 4, its kind of necessary and helpful for them to have that youngster in the 5th spot that can pitch.

Chisoxfn · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 07:36 AM)

Vazquez is a head case. No thank you. Keep Garland for '06. TB would want a few players that are garunteed for 3 to 4 years down the road.

Vazquez is average.

YASNY · December 6, 2005

Everyone keeps saying they won't move BMac. I sure as hell hope everyone is right.

southsider2k5 · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 12:36 PM)

Everyone keeps saying they won't move BMac. I sure as hell hope everyone is right.

There is no reason to do so. There is no need that the White Sox have that is important enough as to give up your top prospect. Anything the Sox are going to do from here on out is going to be window dressing, and nothing resembling remodeling.

Dick Allen · December 6, 2005

The White Sox aren't going to trade BMac, especially after they see what pitchers are getting this offseason. He is going to be cheap for several years. They are going to need that to be able to address other areas. On the other hand, if TB really would do a Crawford/Fields deal, which I find impossible to believe, KW should be stitching Crawford's name on the back of a White Sox jersey himself.

Edited December 6, 2005 by Dick Allen

ZoomSlowik · December 6, 2005

Put me on the list of guys that would love this trade if we pull it off without giving up B-Mac (can't see them trading him). I like Crawford a lot. He's pretty good with the bat, has decent pop, phenomenal speed, and from what I've seen is a very good fielder. He hasn't played that much in center of late, but he obviously can cover a lot of ground with his speed and has a decent arm. You'd like him to take a few more walks, but I can live with a .330 clip out of the 2-hole with his other talents. I'd imagine it'd really cost us to acquire him however, and pitching prospects would be key.

Edited December 6, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

AnthraxFan93 · December 6, 2005

Vazquez is average.

<{PO S T_S NAPBAC K }>

Several things come to mind..

1. He is locked up for the next 3-4 years..With Jose a FA next year. We would at least know that we have 4 pitchers for 07 barring injuries.

2. Was last year a fluke for Garland, or did he turn the corner? I want to beilve that he turned the Corner..But, I still have about 25% doubt.

Becuase my boss came in I forgot the others.

Kalapse · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 01:10 PM)

Several things come to mind..

1. He is locked up for the next 3-4 years..With Jose a FA next year. We would at least know that we have 4 pitchers for 07 barring injuries.

2. Was last year a fluke for Garland, or did he turn the corner? I want to beilve that he turned the Corner..But, I still have about 25% doubt.

Becuase my boss came in I forgot the others.

Vazquez is signed through the '07 season. That's 2 years not 3-4.

beck72 · December 6, 2005

I mentioned this a few weeks back. Crawford was signed by the old leadership team. Baldelli was signed by the new group. For a team loaded with prospects, Crawford could be available if they can fill multiple holes. Guys like Fields and esp. Rogowski are expendable

beck72 · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 02:30 AM)

But if we got Crawford, Kenny would need to get rid of some payroll, maybe in the deal with Tampa. Marte? El-Duque?

KW could trade with other teams. It's not like these guys are w/o value. Maybe not to TB but to others

beck72 · December 6, 2005

The angels wouldn't trade Santana. With Byrd and Washburn gone, Santana is our BMac--untouchable

Balta1701 · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(beck72 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 12:54 PM)

The angels wouldn't trade Santana. With Byrd and Washburn gone, Santana is our BMac--untouchable

His name ahs come up repeatedly in the Manny talks....they sure don't want to trade him, but that doesn't mean that if it comes down to Santana versus Manny they won't bite.

SoxFan1 · December 6, 2005

Quick note and I am not sure if this has been mentions but we all know it is the Angels not the Angles right?

Edited December 6, 2005 by SoxFan1

bighurt574 · December 6, 2005

It's going to take a lot more than a few mid-tier prospects to get Crawford. The Sox had to give up Carlos Lee to get Podsednik, and Crawford, IMO, is a step above Podsednik. I'm sure the Yankees or Cubs would bid pretty high to get him in CF. Still, if KW somehow pulls it off, this would be the move of a very impressive offseason. His contract at $5-$6 million per for a player of his calibre entering his prime is a steal.

dmbjeff · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 04:13 PM)

Quick not and I am not sure if this has been mentions but we all know it is the Angels not the Angles right?

the angles are WWE star Kurt Angle's new tag team...jk

dmbjeff · December 6, 2005

if we could trade fields and duque for crawford, i say lets do it

Rowand44 · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(dmbjeff @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 04:18 PM)

if we could trade fields and duque for crawford, i say lets do it

Hehe, well....duh.

southsideirish · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 10:20 PM)

Hehe, well....duh.

<{PO S T_S NAPBAC K }>

Just a question. Who plays CF then? I can't see Pods in CF. He was awful when I have seen him out there before.

Rowand44 · December 6, 2005

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Dec 6, 2005 -> 04:26 PM)

Just a question. Who plays CF then? I can't see Pods in CF. He was awful when I have seen him out there before.

I'm sure Crawford would. Crawford is one hell of a left fielder, I'm not sure how good of a cf he is but I'm sure he'd play center here cause Kenny has said that Pods is best left where he is right now.

hi8is · December 6, 2005