fathom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 From everything I've been told within the Tampa organization, Crawford's not going anywhere. Ideally, they want him in LF, Rocco in CF, and Delmon in RF....with Gomes at DH. Gathright is the most likely guy to get traded....but he's awful. Crawford, in my opinion, isn't a very likely option to get traded to the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) GARLAND CANNOT BE TRADED. HIS CONTRACT INCLUDES A NO TRADE CLAUSE THIS YEAR. (maybe if I put it in caps, people will realize it) He can't be traded without his approval. Contreras had a no-trade when he was dealt to the White Sox. That said, I think there's only a couple of places Garland would be willing to go, and I doubt Tampa would be on that list. I also doubt Tampa would want his contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) As long as the X is not Brandon McCarthy, I agree. Brandon is a major leaguer who is on our team. He doesnt qualify as X. But the fields, owens, rogowskis, haegers etc etc etc all qualify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(beautox @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 07:43 PM) Truthfully i think having a lack of a Complete CF is killing us, Mackowiak got hot with his bat, but sucks in CF, and Anderson is amazing with the Glove but is out matched at the plate at this moment its a catch 22(and not the ska band). I couldn't agree more with this paragraph. Even though our relief is weak, we still can win a lot of games with Jenks, Cotts, Thornton, and McCarthy being solid pitchers. However, the CF has to be out there every game, and it's just a terrible position for us right now. QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 07:46 PM) But the fields, owens, rogowskis, haegers etc etc etc all qualify. Only Fields has real trade value out of that group of guys. Fields, Broadway, and Sweeney are our main 3 minor leaguers right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) GARLAND CANNOT BE TRADED. HIS CONTRACT INCLUDES A NO TRADE CLAUSE THIS YEAR. (maybe if I put it in caps, people will realize it) Actually all a no-trade clause means is that he can refuse any trade, not that he can't be traded... but feel free to carry on in all-caps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSHAWKS Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(beautox @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) honestly i don't know off the top of my head, but LTP sends his regards from Miami. If you move Klingman out, our friend in Miami will go along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) I couldn't agree more with this paragraph. Even though our relief is weak, we still can win a lot of games with Jenks, Cotts, Thornton, and McCarthy being solid pitchers. However, the CF has to be out there every game, and it's just a terrible position for us right now. I seriously think the lack of use and lack of a "role" has been whats killing McCarthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 03:51 PM) Actually all a no-trade clause means is that he can refuse any trade, not that he can't be traded... but feel free to carry on in all-caps. Do you really think he would accept a trade to Tampa Bay? Or anywhere outside of Chicago besides possibly Anaheim? He's not going anywhere this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(beautox @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 07:55 PM) I seriously think the lack of use and lack of a "role" has been whats killing McCarthy. He's better suited for the starting spot, especially with his "feel" pitches (changeup and curve). It was one of the main reasons the Sox should have looked to trade Garland this offseason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) He's better suited for the starting spot, especially with his "feel" pitches (changeup and curve). It was one of the main reasons the Sox should have looked to trade Garland this offseason. i agree do you know who we can all this blame this on....The Count's Agent, for dicking around both him and the sox. If he would've signed the deal before Garland, Garland's ass would've been long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(beautox @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 07:58 PM) i agree do you know who we can all this blame this on....The Count's Agent, for dicking around both him and the sox. If he would've signed the deal before Garland, Garland's ass would've been long gone. Well, I'm not going to be Mr. Pessimist, and say that at least we have Contreras signed for 3 more years. As long as he can stay healthy, we'll have a lot of success with him on the mound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beautox Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 i am Contreas > Garland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(Felix @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) Do you really think he would accept a trade to Tampa Bay? Or anywhere outside of Chicago besides possibly Anaheim? He's not going anywhere this year. Now that is a totally different statement. You first said he COULDN'T BE TRADED, which is completely different from isn't likely to accept a trade. The first is a gross misrepresentation of the facts if done intentionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitewashed in '05 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Giving up McCarthy would be stupid and Fields looks to be coming along very nicely. With that said he just signed a huge ass contract a while ago (in years) so I don't see why they would trade him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(Whitewashed in @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 03:17 PM) Giving up McCarthy would be stupid and Fields looks to be coming along very nicely. With that said he just signed a huge ass contract a while ago (in years) so I don't see why they would trade him. Fields may turn out to be a great player but Crawford already is one. And we could win the Workd Series THIS year with him. McCarthy on the other hand is an already proven (somewhat) comodity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winninguglyin83 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 How about Rogowski, Owens and a pitcher. Tampa needs a first baseman to replace Travis Lee. Rogowski can hit (without power), command the strike zone and even run a little. throw in another pitching prospect and maybe Class A infielder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinningUgly85 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 QUOTE(Sox1422 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Crawford has a great contract and the D-Ray's outfield is crowded. He should become available by the trade deadline. What do you think it would cost the Sox to get him? From what I hear the Rays want young pitchers. I don't think BA is that big of a problem, Im more worried about our pitching and Juan Uribe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 He is not gonna get traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5649680 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 To get Crawford, it would take Fields, Rogowski, Ray Liotta, and Charlie Haeger [maybe Sean Tracey instead]. That's a deal I could live with. That is only if Crawford could play CF on a regular basis. BTW any one know how many games he's played in CF? To get a young guy like Crawford in his prime locked up for a few years, to go with the sox pitching, that'd be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenryan Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Crawford and Rocco will NOT be on the tradiing block. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Yeah, this sounds like pretty desperate stuff. The DRays do have a bunch of outfielders, but Gathright's got zilch for power, and so far in his ml career he's basically just a good pinch runner. Who knows if Baldelli will remain healthy? They have 4 spots (of+dh), and 2 outfielders who've shown consistent production at this level. Why would they trade one now? Even if Young comes up and Baldelli plays the rest of the year, they can just bench Gathright. Then if they hit on Dukes as well, they can make a decision over the offseason. Anyone who knows the DRays system -- is there some reason they wouldn't be able to shift one of the outfielders to 1b, like every other team in the majors does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 QUOTE(beck72 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 08:02 PM) To get Crawford, it would take Fields, Rogowski, Ray Liotta, and Charlie Haeger [maybe Sean Tracey instead]. That's a deal I could live with. That is only if Crawford could play CF on a regular basis. BTW any one know how many games he's played in CF? To get a young guy like Crawford in his prime locked up for a few years, to go with the sox pitching, that'd be worth it. I dont think it would take a 4 for 1 deal to get Crawford, unless the Sox get into a bidding war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Ryan (Springfield) What would it take one of those outfielder-starved teams to entice the D-Rays into moving Carl Crawford? Any chance at all? JERRY CRASNICK Ryan,The Rays didn't trade Lugo and Huff over the winter because they couldn't get enough in return. If they're goiing to deal Crawford, they would want the moon in return. There aren't many teams that could meet their asking price. I think it's a major longshot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 That's probably true. I doubt the Sox could even come close unless they dealt McCarthy, which would be pretty dumb. Someone like the Dodgers, Diamondbacks, or Angels could come up with a solid collection of prospects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.