Let's Rekindle the Crawford Talks

[Sox1422]

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/whitesox.asp?id=245089

 

They talk about McCarthy for Crawford near the bottom of the article.

 

Get it done.

[Rowand44]

No.

[Sox1422]

No.

You got anything to back up your opinion? Crawford is only 25, is an all around player, and is the exact kind of hitter the Sox need in the lineup. McCarthy is still unproven and to tell you the truth he didn't look all that great last year.

[Rowand44]

You got anything to back up your opinion? Crawford is only 25, is an all around player, and is the exact kind of hitter the Sox need in the lineup. McCarthy is still unproven and to tell you the truth he didn't look all that great last year.

McCarthy is way too valuable for this team. He's allows us to drop 8-10 mill in payroll, he will be one of our best starters in 07 and he's the only real good young starting pitcher we have. Crawford is a very good player but Brandon McCarthy is too valuable to this franchise.

[RockRaines]

You got anything to back up your opinion? Crawford is only 25, is an all around player, and is the exact kind of hitter the Sox need in the lineup. McCarthy is still unproven and to tell you the truth he didn't look all that great last year.

Hmmm.

 

Last year as a starter 1-1 3.86 ERA. From that sample size you determine he doesnt look that great?

He is probably one of the most valuable pieces of the rotation going into next year based on his age, his talent and his cost. Please convince me otherwise.

[ZoomSlowik]

If we trade B-mac for Crawford, we're stuck paying our rotation, Konerko, and Thome about $70 mil next year, plus then we could lose Buehrle and Garcia after next year. That's not going to cut it.

 

we have to keep B-Mac, that gives us a lot more financial flexibility. It'd be hard for him to pitch worse than a few of our guys did last year, and he'll do it at a much cheaper price.

 

I'd love to have Crawford, but B-Mac is a must. I don't see how we'd get him without Brandon being involved unfortunately.

[Flash Tizzle]

I wish I could locate the Crawford thread and copy/paste my thoughts.

 

But, because I'm too lazy -- and Rowand has already mentioned one of my points -- I'll say this: anyone evaluating talent and constructing a winning ballclub should favor SP over an OF. Even one as talented as Crawford. Offensive production can be compensated across a diamond.

 

Honestly, if Williams trades Crawford for McCarthy (among other pieces) it'll be obvious to me Guillen runs the show. No reasonably intelligent GM can look at our rotation and minor league system, then think to themself -- "well, trading McCarthy for an OF seems about right. Even though the White Sox system has possible LF replacements, and there's practically no one reliable to fill in for the current starters once they reach FA."

Edited November 1, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[Felix]

No, for the reasons already stated in this thread. You don't give up pitching for hitting, it's that simple.

[fathom]

I'd trade McCarthy for Crawford in a heartbeat. Crawford has Hall of Fame potential, and McCarthy isn't a "can't miss" prospect. Considering we're scouting young pitchers around baseball, I'll take my chances with KW finding some young arms for this team.

[Flash Tizzle]

I'd trade McCarthy for Crawford in a heartbeat. Crawford has Hall of Fame potential, and McCarthy isn't a "can't miss" prospect. Considering we're scouting young pitchers around baseball, I'll take my chances with KW finding some young arms for this team.

So the rotation remains the same then, right?

[Jimbo's Drinker]

I believe Crawfordis the overall best player in baseball, 5 wonderful tools. Yes on that trade in a nanosecond.

[RockRaines]

I'd trade McCarthy for Crawford in a heartbeat. Crawford has Hall of Fame potential, and McCarthy isn't a "can't miss" prospect. Considering we're scouting young pitchers around baseball, I'll take my chances with KW finding some young arms for this team.

There is more of a chance of us finding young Of'ers and FA of'ers than finding a cheap, young, good starting pitcher. When you factor in the team's financial flexibility and the barren landscape of available FA pitchers, you dont trade BMAC.

[fathom]

There is more of a chance of us finding young Of'ers and FA of'ers than finding a cheap, young, good starting pitcher. When you factor in the team's financial flexibility and the barren landscape of available FA pitchers, you dont trade BMAC.

 

One of the reasons I wouldn't panic at the sight of a McCarthy trade is that I don't feel like Ozzie is a big fan of him. In a perfect world, I would have loved to see McCarthy starting for the Sox in 2006. However, our organization really screwed up that situation last year, and now I wouldn't mind cashing in McCarthy's stock when it's still very high. I would never suggest trading McCarthy for an above average MLB player. The only two guys who I would be willing to give him up for, who are possible guys on the market, are Crawford and V. Wells.

Edited November 1, 2006 by fathom

[jphat007]

There is more of a chance of us finding young Of'ers and FA of'ers than finding a cheap, young, good starting pitcher. When you factor in the team's financial flexibility and the barren landscape of available FA pitchers, you dont trade BMAC.

 

If we hold off trading for a guy like Crawford, I surely hope BMAC is better than he was last year. I think that will be the case, but I don't buy the coming out of the bullpen argument. Hopefully he gets a little movement on that straight as an arrow fastball, or locates 100x better than last year or he is gonna be much like last year, and then his stock is gone. I think BMAC can get to where everybody thinks he can, but he surely isn't a lock. We don't know what he is going to do next year. You have a pretty good idea what Crawford is going to do next year, and the years after that, and it is pretty awesome.

 

In other words, I hope we are not looking back next year at this time saying, "Man, I wish we would have traded BMAC for Crawford."

 

All that said, I think BMAC can get there. Here's to hoping he does.

[Chisoxfn]

McCarthy is way too valuable for this team. He's allows us to drop 8-10 mill in payroll, he will be one of our best starters in 07 and he's the only real good young starting pitcher we have. Crawford is a very good player but Brandon McCarthy is too valuable to this franchise.

What if we than dealt Garcia for Pelfrey and Heilman (not saying it will happen, but if it did) and also got Crawford for McCarthy. Now I realize we think highly of McCarthy here but I could see Pelfrey being as good (if not better) plus Heilman would have a shot at competing at the 5th spot (along with Pelfrey) and I think Heilman would be happy as long as he had a fair chance at the job (plus if he fails we have him as a swingman in the pen which would be awesome).

 

I'd be very happy with Crawford in LF at the top of the lineup (either 1 or 2) and Pelfrey in the rotation as opposed to Bmac (with Heilman around).

 

Heck, even if we couldn't get Heilman and instead got another prospect (or a different reliever) I would have on problem with the move.

 

No, for the reasons already stated in this thread. You don't give up pitching for hitting, it's that simple.

I have zero problem with it. You put Crawford in a major market and we are talking about one of the premiere all around outfielders in the game. This guy has a good deal of power, can hit for avg, and has loads of speed all while playing a VERY VERY good LF (and he's capable of playing CF). I'll make this deal and find a way to move another one of our starters for a top notch pitching prospect that we can insert into the rotation (than get ourselves a vet swingman as depth).

 

So the rotation remains the same then, right?

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. The only concern is that financially it doesn't make sense, but who are we to say that the Sox couldn't do it and than make changes later on. I know it isn't there MO, but if we continue to win the club will continue to draw plus they get an additional 5 million (estimate) from the new press box seating.

 

And lets not forget that this team can always swing guys later on or swing a guy in our rotation for another guy or even extend the contract of someone. There are still tons of options even if we move Brandon and a worse case of bringing back last years starting 5 is something every other team in baseball (maybe sans the A's) would be more than happy with.

 

There is more of a chance of us finding young Of'ers and FA of'ers than finding a cheap, young, good starting pitcher. When you factor in the team's financial flexibility and the barren landscape of available FA pitchers, you dont trade BMAC.

We are talking about a guy thats a potential hall of famer in the future. I dont' think people realize how good this guy is. He's stuck in Tampa so yes I'd give up a top prospect (albeit a pitching one and one that I think has a chance to be very good) for a potential 25 year old hall of famer who is already playing at an all star level.

[Adam G]

You got anything to back up your opinion?

Pitching > hitting [/thread]

[RockRaines]

If we hold off trading for a guy like Crawford, I surely hope BMAC is better than he was last year. I think that will be the case, but I don't buy the coming out of the bullpen argument. Hopefully he gets a little movement on that straight as an arrow fastball, or locates 100x better than last year or he is gonna be much like last year, and then his stock is gone. I think BMAC can get to where everybody thinks he can, but he surely isn't a lock. We don't know what he is going to do next year. You have a pretty good idea what Crawford is going to do next year, and the years after that, and it is pretty awesome.

 

In other words, I hope we are not looking back next year at this time saying, "Man, I wish we would have traded BMAC for Crawford."

 

All that said, I think BMAC can get there. Here's to hoping he does.

He started 2 games last year and had a sub 4 era. Thats all we have to go off of his performance last year.

 

BMAC is more valuable because he is a pitcher, its harder to find good pitchers for his price. Why do you think TB would be willing to give up "a potential hall of famer" for BMAC? Because BMAC is worth that price.

[sircaffey]

He started 2 games last year and had a sub 4 era. Thats all we have to go off of his performance last year.

 

BMAC is more valuable because he is a pitcher, its harder to find good pitchers for his price. Why do you think TB would be willing to give up "a potential hall of famer" for BMAC? Because BMAC is worth that price.

 

Where was it written that TB would trade Crawford for BMAC?

[Chisoxfn]

He started 2 games last year and had a sub 4 era. Thats all we have to go off of his performance last year.

 

BMAC is more valuable because he is a pitcher, its harder to find good pitchers for his price. Why do you think TB would be willing to give up "a potential hall of famer" for BMAC? Because BMAC is worth that price.

Honestly I don't think TB would make that deal straight up, but they are Tampa Bay and they have certain financial restraints that force them to making what I'd consider dumb moves.

[CanOfCorn]

No thanks, I'll take the relative uncertainty of Brandon over Crawford. But, if we could offer some other package for Crawford...I'm all for it.

 

Young cheap pitching should never be traded for offense...unless it's Boone Logan for Pujols.

[Rowand44]

Jas, a trade for Pelfrey would make things more interesting here but still I'd want to keep both Pelfrey and Brandon and find a lead off hitter else where. You know how I feel about Brandon and I think if you could put Brandon and Pelfrey in the same rotation for years to come you have a pretty nice start there with your pitching staff.

Edited November 1, 2006 by Rowand44

[GoSox05]

I think Bamc is gonna have a chance to win 15-20 games for a long time. Pitching is always more important than hitting. espically nowadays.

[Allsox]

No. Offense wasn't the problem this yr, inconsistent pitching was. Plus, BMac gives the Sox some financial room for '07 and beyond. Carl Crawford's a great player but pitching wins World Series titles.

[BobDylan]

There is more of a chance of us finding young Of'ers and FA of'ers than finding a cheap, young, good starting pitcher. When you factor in the team's financial flexibility and the barren landscape of available FA pitchers, you dont trade BMAC.

 

Yea, but seriously, how many hitters does this league have that are year in and year out outstanding lead-off hitters? Podsednik was invaluable to the team in the first half of 2005. Starting pitching is pretty damn valueable, but people around here make it seem like McCarthy is Rollie Fingers. He's a mid-rotation starter at best, and frankly, it's not that difficult to go out on the market and get a mid-rotation starter. Championship caliber teams come but they don't stay. Brandon McCarthy isn't going to make the difference (spare me the crap of how he'd have gotten the team into the post-season last year) but Carl Crawford can...especially for an offense that was pretty one dimensional down the stretch. I'm all for keeping McCarthy, but not at the expense of a 2nd championship in 3 years. Teams always have to rebuild somewhere down the line, might as well take the rings while you can get 'em.

Edited November 1, 2006 by BobDylan

[BobDylan]

Your right. It's not hard to give 6 or 7 million to a Ted Lilly, Vicente Padilla, or Jeff Suppan type. Just give them the money. Someone will this off-season.

 

However, we dont have to, because we have a guy in McCarthy that can at least put up similar, if not better numbers than those names mentioned above, but for a $400,000.

 

For a team that has 99 million locked into 12 players right now, McCarthy is almost invaluable.

 

How much purpose does McCarthy serve in 2007? He's going to be in the back end of the rotation and he's coming off of a terrible season (like many of the 2006 Sox pitchers). 2-3 years down the line it's likely that Contreras won't be here, Garcia won't be here and Vazquez won't be here. That's a hell of a lot of money to free up right there. Yes, the Sox have a lot of money tied up right now, but when the going gets tough, there's always a team out there that will take on a bad contract for a chance at the ring.

Edited November 1, 2006 by BobDylan