Rays to trade Upton or Crawford

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I disagree. The Sox are in desperate need of a .350+ OBP leadoff hitter and a better defensive outfield. Crawford addresses both needs and steals 50+ bases per year. Rios and Alexei are never going to get on base enough to lead off and Getz has yet to show that ability either.

 

The problem with guys like Abreu and Matsui (and Thome) is that you're getting these on the down-slopes of their careers. Abreu obviously still has some left in the tank, but his OPS+ has fallen over the past five years and is currently at a "meh" 113. Crawford, on the other hand, is in the prime of his career and will do a lot more for the Sox over the next 3-4 years than somebody like Abreu.

In Crawford's 8-year career he has only gotten on base at a .350+ clip twice (.355 in '07, .367 in '09) and has a career .335 OBP. Getz's OBP this year is .324 in his rookie season, but that is weighted down by batting average. Getz's OBP is 63 points above his AVG in his rookie season, and in his minor league career his OBP is 76 points higher than his AVG. Meanwhile, CC in 2009, in arguably the best year of his career, has an OBP 59 points above his average while his career OBP is only 40 points above his average. The point I'm making here is that if Chris Getz hits for a higher average than .262 in his second season, which I would say is very likely, Getz should get on at least as much as Crawford does, and going forward, Getz would be the better bet for a higher OBP than Crawford. Getz's career shows that it is anything but an anomaly for him to get on at such a rate above his batting average while Crawford's 2009 season is probably a career year for him unlikely to be replicated in 2010.

 

Crawford's career SLG% is .435 and the highest he has ever slugged is .482, with most of that "power" coming from the use of his legs (all those triples add up). So cleary he's not a legitimate power threat. He's still much better here than Getz will ever be.

 

Crawford's SB percentage this year (78.7%) isn't even as good as Chris Getz's SB% this year (89.7%). CC's career SB% is 81.9% however but given Getz's ability as a baserunner I think Getz could come near that too. Getz's minor league SB% (68.8%) is not nearly as good, but that is deceptive considering on how few occasions they had him run. Obviously they didn't want him to hurt himself running the bases which is why he only made 80 attempts in 379 games (far, far lower than what would be normal in the Majors for a player who can run as well as Getz).

 

Looking at Chris Getz's rookie season, his P/PA average is 3.80 vs. 3.76 for the veteran Crawford. So Getz already is working pitchers harder than Crawford is and pitchers are still going right at Getz being a rookie.

 

Beyond that, Crawford doesn't exactly have a cannon for an arm, and he doesn't exactly get the best reads out there either, so I can't see him being as good in CF as Rios, much less better. We'd be moving Rios to RF to weaken CF and accommodate Crawford which takes value away from Rios because his production is a lot more valuable out of CF.

 

The question is this: WHY is Carl Crawford worth about $9.6M of a very limited payroll AND 2-3 good prospects more than Getz as a lead-off man? Because I can't see one reason at all. In fact, I'd bet that Getz gets on base and steals with a better percentage than Crawford does next year and he also plays 2B just as well as Crawford would play CF.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Also, I wouldn't be in favor of giving 2 years guaranteed to either Matsui or Abreu and if we had to I would rather have a vesting option.

 

And Matsui and Abreu are both getter because they can hit for legitimate power and they get on base a lot more. They would be middle of the order hitters instead of a lead-off man. Look, I love speed and contact too, but we can't just run out a lineup of fast guys. That's not going to work. Giving $10M to Crawford would be a terrible idea IMO, but giving up prospects on top of that would be even worse. At best, Crawford would be a luxury we cannot afford with so much money committed to other players.

[son of a rude]

In Crawford's 8-year career he has only gotten on base at a .350+ clip twice (.355 in '07, .367 in '09) and has a career .335 OBP. Getz's OBP this year is .324 in his rookie season, but that is weighted down by batting average. Getz's OBP is 63 points above his AVG in his rookie season, and in his minor league career his OBP is 76 points higher than his AVG. Meanwhile, CC in 2009, in arguably the best year of his career, has an OBP 59 points above his average while his career OBP is only 40 points above his average. The point I'm making here is that if Chris Getz hits for a higher average than .262 in his second season, which I would say is very likely, Getz should get on at least as much as Crawford does, and going forward, Getz would be the better bet for a higher OBP than Crawford. Getz's career shows that it is anything but an anomaly for him to get on at such a rate above his batting average while Crawford's 2009 season is probably a career year for him unlikely to be replicated in 2010.

 

Crawford's career SLG% is .435 and the highest he has ever slugged is .482, with most of that "power" coming from the use of his legs (all those triples add up). So cleary he's not a legitimate power threat. He's still much better here than Getz will ever be.

 

Crawford's SB percentage this year (78.7%) isn't even as good as Chris Getz's SB% this year (89.7%). CC's career SB% is 81.9% however but given Getz's ability as a baserunner I think Getz could come near that too. Getz's minor league SB% (68.8%) is not nearly as good, but that is deceptive considering on how few occasions they had him run. Obviously they didn't want him to hurt himself running the bases which is why he only made 80 attempts in 379 games (far, far lower than what would be normal in the Majors for a player who can run as well as Getz).

 

Looking at Chris Getz's rookie season, his P/PA average is 3.80 vs. 3.76 for the veteran Crawford. So Getz already is working pitchers harder than Crawford is and pitchers are still going right at Getz being a rookie.

 

Beyond that, Crawford doesn't exactly have a cannon for an arm, and he doesn't exactly get the best reads out there either, so I can't see him being as good in CF as Rios, much less better. We'd be moving Rios to RF to weaken CF and accommodate Crawford which takes value away from Rios because his production is a lot more valuable out of CF.

 

The question is this: WHY is Carl Crawford worth about $9.6M of a very limited payroll AND 2-3 good prospects more than Getz as a lead-off man? Because I can't see one reason at all. In fact, I'd bet that Getz gets on base and steals with a better percentage than Crawford does next year and he also plays 2B just as well as Crawford would play CF.

Because stealing bases has s*** to do with what a good leadoff hitter is. OBP is by far the most important stat for a leadoff man. Crawford's OBP is more than .40 points higher than Getz'.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Because stealing bases has s*** to do with what a good leadoff hitter is. OBP is by far the most important stat for a leadoff man. Crawford's OBP is more than .40 points higher than Getz'.

Read the rest of the post please. Getz's OBP% is only lower because he's hitting .262 as a rookie, and even still, Getz's OBP is only 11 points lower in his rookie season than Crawford's is in his career. You're comparing a career year from Crawford to a rookie season of Getz and using it to justify $10M in added expenses and the trading of top prospects. That's not something a smart organization should be doing.

[WCSox]

In Crawford's 8-year career he has only gotten on base at a .350+ clip twice (.355 in '07, .367 in '09) and has a career .335 OBP.

 

Recent stats are more relevant, especially when you're looking at a player who began his big-league career at age 20 and was playing full-time at age 21. Crawford's OBP steadily increased over his first three years as a full-time player. His most recent years...

 

2006: .348 OBP, 58 SB (at age 24!)

2007: .355 OBP, 50 SB

2008: .319 OBP, 25 SB in 109 games (injured after the ASB, played hurt down the stretch and into the playoffs)

2009: .367 OBP, 59 SB

 

Clearly, Crawford is good for roughly a .350 OBP and 50 SB per year right now.

 

Getz's OBP this year is .324 in his rookie season, but that is weighted down by batting average. Getz's OBP is 63 points above his AVG in his rookie season, and his career minor league, his OBP is 76 points higher than his AVG. Meanwhile, CC in 2009, in arguably the best year of his career, has an OBP 59 points above his average while his career his OBP is only 40 points above his average. The point I'm making here is that if Chris Getz hits for a higher average than .262 in his second season, which I would say is very likely, Getz should get on at least as much as Crawford does, and going forward, Getz would be the better bet for a higher OBP than Crawford. Getz's career shows that it is anything but an anomaly for him to get on at such a rate above his batting average while Crawford's 2009 season is probably a career year for him unlikely to be replicated in 2010.

 

Crawford will likely replicate an average of 2006, 2007, and 2009 next year, which is pretty good for a leadoff hitter.

 

I've always liked Getz, but I still see little evidence that he'll be able to get on base as much as Crawford. And if he does, it'll likely be a few years from now, when Buehrle and possibly other key players are no longer on the roster. If the Sox are in "win now" mode and have a shot at Crawford, I say go for it.

 

Crawford's SB percentage this year (78.7%) isn't even as good as Chris Getz's SB% this year (89.7%). CC's career SB% is 81.9% however but given Getz's ability as a baserunner I think Getz could come near that too. Getz's minor league SB% (68.8%) is not nearly as good, but that is deceptive considering on how few occasions they had him run. Obviously they didn't want him to hurt himself running the bases which is why he only made 80 attempts in 379 games (far, far lower than what would be normal in the Majors for a player who can run as well as Getz).

 

Getz's stolen base percentage is indeed impressive and it's a strong argument for him. But it's also based on a relatively small sample size and will likely decrease somewhat over time (as his minor league numbers indicate).

 

Beyond that, Crawford doesn't exactly have a cannon for an arm, and he doesn't exactly get the best reads out there either, so I can't see him being as good in CF as Rios, much less better. We'd be moving Rios to RF to weaken CF and accommodate Crawford which takes value away from Rios because his production is a lot more valuable out of CF.

 

No, Crawford would play LF (he's already indicated that he doesn't want to play CF) and Rios would stay in CF. Quentin would move to RF. Crawford is a massive upgrade over Quentin/Pods in LF.

 

The question is this: WHY is Carl Crawford worth about $9.6M of a very limited payroll AND 2-3 good prospects more than Getz as a lead-off man? Because I can't see one reason at all.

 

Dumping Jenks' salary would pay for 2/3 of Crawford's yearly contract. I don't know if Crawford is "worth" $9.6M per year, but the bottom line is that he provides the Sox with several skills that the current roster cannot bring to the table. These include the ability to lead off, the ability to provide an OBP of .350 or higher (Paulie is the only other one of the roster who does it routinely), the ability to steal 50 bases, and a significant defensive upgrade in LF.

 

In fact, I'd bet that Getz gets on base and steals with a better percentage than Crawford does next year and he also plays 2B just as well as Crawford would play CF.

 

This sounds more like wishful thinking. Getz has in no way demonstrated that he'll be able to hit as well as Crawford over a full season (or well enough to beat out Nix, for that matter). I also doubt that Getz will steal as many bases as Crawford next year. Entrusting next year's leadoff spot to Getz seems dubious at best.

 

If I have the ability to trade for Crawford AND get him to sign an extension without dealing Hudson, I do it. Getz is a nice player and all, but he's no Carl Crawford.

Edited September 28, 2009 by WCSox

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Recent stats are more relevant, especially when you're looking at a player who began his big-league career at age 20 and was playing full-time at age 21. Crawford's OBP steadily increased over his first three years as a full-time player. His most recent years...

 

2006: .348 OBP, 58 SB (at age 24!)

2007: .355 OBP, 50 SB

2008: .319 OBP, 25 SB in 109 games (injured mid-season, played hurt down the stretch and into the playoffs)

2009: .367 OBP, 59 SB

 

Clearly, Crawford is good for roughly a .350 OBP and 50 SB every year.

 

 

 

Crawford will likely replicate an average of 2006, 2007, and 2009 next year, which is pretty good for a leadoff hitter.

 

I've always liked Getz, but I still see little evidence that he'll be able to get on base as much as Crawford. And if he does, it'll likely be a few years from now, when Buehrle and possibly other key players are no longer on the roster. If the Sox are in "win now" mode and have a shot at Crawford, I say go for it.

 

 

 

Getz's stolen base percentage is indeed impressive and it's a strong argument for him. But it's also based on a relatively small sample size and will likely decrease somewhat over time (as his minor league numbers indicate).

 

 

 

No, Crawford would play LF (he's already indicated that he doesn't want to play CF) and Rios would stay in CF. Quentin would move to RF. Crawford is a massive upgrade over Quentin/Pods in LF.

 

 

 

Dumping Jenks' salary would pay for 2/3 of Crawford's yearly contract. I don't know if Crawford is "worth" $9.6M per year, but the bottom line is that he provides the Sox with several skills that the current roster cannot bring to the table. These include the ability to lead off, the ability to provide an OBP of .350 or higher (Paulie is the only other one of the roster who does it routinely), the ability to steal 50 bases, and a significant defensive upgrade in LF.

 

 

 

This sounds more like wishful thinking. Getz has in no way demonstrated that he'll be able to hit as well as Crawford over a full season (or well enough to beat out Nix, for that matter). I also doubt that Getz will steal as many bases as Crawford next year. Entrusting next year's leadoff spot to Getz seems dubious at best.

 

If I have the ability to trade for Crawford AND get him to sign an extension without dealing Hudson, I do it. Getz is a nice player and all, but he's no Carl Crawford.

Let's look at the last 4 years for Crawford then. Over the last 4 years CC has gotten at a rate of 43 points above his AVG, then 40, then 46, then 59. The average of those 4 numbers is 47. Meanwhile, Getz as a rookie has gotten on at 63 points higher than his BA and his minor league career shows that is no aberration as it is even higher than that and is consistent from year to year.

 

The point is that Crawford has to hit over .300 every year to get on a .350 clip because Getz walks more than Crawford does. He always has and I believe he always will. At his current rookie rate, Getz only needs to hit about .285 to get on at a .350 clip. I'd say that in the future, starting next season, Getz is definitely going to be a .285 hitter, and not only that, but he'll have seasons where he's around .300 as well. I obviously don't have a Major League track record to go by here because this is Getz's rookie season, but I just see him as a .280-.290+ hitter every year because of his ability to work counts, make contact, fight off tough pitches, and use his speed. If Getz improves to his minor league rate, then he will only have to hit about .275 to get on at a .350 clip, meaning if he hits .290 (which again I see as very possible for him) then he could get on at around a .365 clip. You also mentioned Crawford's development and battling injuries, well Getz is developing and has also battled injuries this year like CC did last year.

 

I'm saying that Getz is a good bet to get on just as much as Crawford and steal with a similar percentage as Crawford or better. Crawford will always hit for a higher average and will always have more power, and he'll always steal more bases over the course of a season even if he has a lower percentage, but the difference between the two players out of the lead-off spot is not worth $9.6M in my eyes, not even close to it.

 

As for trading Jenks, if we did that, I'd want the money saved to go towards a middle-of-the-order hitter because I believe that is currently our greatest weakness on offense. I think we have enough speed and contact as it as and now we need some more thunder.

[BigSqwert]

...and now we need some more thunder.

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showuser=7364

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showuser=7364

lol

[WCSox]

I agree that Getz *might* eventually be a solid leadoff hitter, but it's way too early to tell. Crawford is an overwhelmingly safer option, and I don't think that Getz's ceiling is anywhere near Crawford's current skill set. The point about Crawford's salary is a good one, and a reasonable point of contention. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

I think we have enough speed and contact as it as and now we need some more thunder.

 

I'd like a better mix of both. We've been too heavy on the "thunder" side over the past few years and the lack of a balanced offensive approach has let us down in two of the past three seasons.

 

At the very least, if we MUST go with more "thunder," we need to avoid aging players like Abreu and Matsui.

 

[SoxAce]

Let's look at the last 4 years for Crawford then. Over the last 4 years CC has gotten at a rate of 43 points above his AVG, then 40, then 46, then 59. The average of those 4 numbers is 47. Meanwhile, Getz as a rookie has gotten on at 63 points higher than his BA and his minor league career shows that is no aberration as it is even higher than that and is consistent from year to year.

 

The point is that Crawford has to hit over .300 every year to get on a .350 clip because Getz walks more than Crawford does. He always has and I believe he always will. At his current rookie rate, Getz only needs to hit about .285 to get on at a .350 clip. I'd say that in the future, starting next season, Getz is definitely going to be a .285 hitter, and not only that, but he'll have seasons where he's around .300 as well. I obviously don't have a Major League track record to go by here because this is Getz's rookie season, but I just see him as a .280-.290+ hitter every year because of his ability to work counts, make contact, fight off tough pitches, and use his speed. If Getz improves to his minor league rate, then he will only have to hit about .275 to get on at a .350 clip, meaning if he hits .290 (which again I see as very possible for him) then he could get on at around a .365 clip. You also mentioned Crawford's development and battling injuries, well Getz is developing and has also battled injuries this year like CC did last year.

 

I'm saying that Getz is a good bet to get on just as much as Crawford and steal with a similar percentage as Crawford or better. Crawford will always hit for a higher average and will always have more power, and he'll always steal more bases over the course of a season even if he has a lower percentage, but the difference between the two players out of the lead-off spot is not worth $9.6M in my eyes, not even close to it.

 

As for trading Jenks, if we did that, I'd want the money saved to go towards a middle-of-the-order hitter because I believe that is currently our greatest weakness on offense. I think we have enough speed and contact as it as and now we need some more thunder.

 

Very good post and I agree 100% as I've previously stated (early pages in the thread 1 and 2) that I think Crawford is a very overrated player. Hell I'd rather get the lazy, swing and miss B.J. Upton who I know whose potential is enormous not to mention knows how to draw a work (Has had one of his worst walk rates this year (52 BBs), and it's still better than what Crawford has put up his entire career in a season!), steal, and has a couple of .370+ OBP years under his name not to mention is only 25 and cheap. I'm still betting TB would get more for him though.

Edited September 28, 2009 by SoxAce

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I agree that Getz *might* eventually be a solid leadoff hitter, but it's way too early to tell. Crawford is an overwhelmingly safer option, and I don't think that Getz's ceiling is anywhere near Crawford's current skill set. The point about Crawford's salary is a good one, and a reasonable point of contention. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

 

 

I'd like a better mix of both. We've been too heavy on the "thunder" side over the past few years and the lack of a balanced offensive approach has let us down in two of the past three seasons.

 

At the very least, if we MUST go with more "thunder," we need to avoid aging players like Abreu and Matsui.

I agree that as it stands right now, Crawford is the safer bet. Crawford is always going to be a better player than Getz so I don't want it to sound like I'm saying Getz is better.

 

I also like the idea of going younger for a bigger bat which is why I've been pimping the idea of trading the whole farm for Adrian Gonzalez. But the problem is that a lot of players available or expected to be available (Prince and Holliday namely) are Borass clients and we know that's not happening. Then we've got Jason Bay, but there's no way the Red Sox are getting outbid by the White Sox for his services, at least not in this universe. Maybe in a parallel one. And when you look at the free agent market, the best bats out there that the Sox could reasonably be expected to target are way up there in age. You could trade for Luke Scott, but he'll cost a lot in terms of talent and still will make a lot in arb, so that's probably not the best idea because we'd be giving up a lot and we wouldn't be getting anything close to an elite player. I'd love to trade for a guy like Andre Either, but I don't see the Dodgers moving him at all. There just isn't a lot out there.

 

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. My guess is that the Sox aren't going to have a lot of money to play with over the offseason and in fact I wouldn't be entirely shocked if we went into 2010 with about a $95M payroll with very large salaries committed to several players. And it's not like I don't like Crawford, but I think we need to look for the most economical solutions. Dealing Jenks and Paulie however would free up some money, but I can't see us trading Paulie without taking on another bad contract or eating salary. Linebrink's $5M in 2010 and $5.5M in 2011 really complicates matters.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Very good post and I agree 100% as I've previously stated (early pages in the thread 1 and 2) that I think Crawford is a very overrated player. Hell I'd rather get the lazy, swing and miss B.J. Upton who I know whose potential is enormous not to mention knows how to draw a work (Has had one of his worst walk rates this year (52 BBs), and it's still better than what Crawford has put up his entire career in a season!), steal, and has a couple of .370+ OBP years under his name not to mention is only 25 and cheap. I'm still betting TB would get more for him though.

I would absolutely love to have BJ Upton but I doubt TB trades him. They have to think Upton is due for a rebound, and if he has one, Upton would command a ton. They're the Rays so eventually I see them shipping Upton out, but it'll be for a major haul. Crawford should be the one traded since he's the future free agent, but they're going to ask a lot for him. The cost of Crawford will not only be one year of Carl Crawford, but also a 1st round pick in 2011 and a supplemental first rounder in 2011, so that is going to be a very high price.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[WCSox]

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. My guess is that the Sox aren't going to have a lot of money to play with over the offseason and in fact I wouldn't be entirely shocked if we went into 2010 with about a $95M payroll with very large salaries committed to several players. And it's not like I don't like Crawford, but I think we need to look for the most economical solutions. Dealing Jenks and Paulie however would free up some money, but I can't see us trading Paulie without taking on another bad contract or eating salary. Linebrink's $5M in 2010 and $5.5M in 2011 really complicates matters.

 

Like I said earlier, dumping Jenks' 2010 salary would pay for most of Crawford's 2010 salary, so it wouldn't really be a massive increase in 2010 payroll. But the overall value of an extended contract for Crawford would be significant.

 

I agree that there's no way that we trade Paulie. We need his OPS. I'm pretty sure that Ethier and Gonzalez aren't going anywhere, and we'll easily get outbid for Bay. Hell, we might be forced to put Nix into the every-day lineup next year and hope that his per-game power numbers from this year translate into 20-30 HRs next season.

 

[striker]

The problem with getting Crawford is that you have the same problem in 2010 as you did in 2009, you get a runner on base ('09=Pods) but you can't get him in. Our production in the#3 and #4 slots in the lineup were pathetic. With 6 games left we have ZERO players with 90 RBI! 90!! Not 120, not 110, not 100 but 90! That is horrible. How many times did we have runners in scoring position with less than 3 outs and couldn't get them in? On 3rd base and less than 2 outs and we couldn't get them in? The production on this team sucked. I'm glad Thome is gone. I'm looking forward to Dye leaving and I hope Konerko gets dealt. If Konerko stays I hope he's batting 5th because he sucked and #4.

 

I agree that the money that could be spent on Crawford would be better spent on our #3 or #4 hitter, whoever that ends up being.

 

My favorite Sox cleanup hitter to this day is still Julio Franco. He never hit in that spot before and knew how to get the job done. He only made $1mil too I think.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

The problem with getting Crawford is that you have the same problem in 2010 as you did in 2009, you get a runner on base ('09=Pods) but you can't get him in. Our production in the#3 and #4 slots in the lineup were pathetic. With 6 games left we have ZERO players with 90 RBI! 90!! Not 120, not 110, not 100 but 90! That is horrible. How many times did we have runners in scoring position with less than 3 outs and couldn't get them in? On 3rd base and less than 2 outs and we couldn't get them in? The production on this team sucked. I'm glad Thome is gone. I'm looking forward to Dye leaving and I hope Konerko gets dealt. If Konerko stays I hope he's batting 5th because he sucked and #4.

 

I agree that the money that could be spent on Crawford would be better spent on our #3 or #4 hitter, whoever that ends up being.

 

My favorite Sox cleanup hitter to this day is still Julio Franco. He never hit in that spot before and knew how to get the job done. He only made $1mil too I think.

Agree with all this, and I loved Julio Franco when he has here. That 1994 team was a force to be reckoned with and if it hadn't been for the strike would could have had a title that year. Other than 2005, that was the best Sox team I have ever seen.

[WCSox]

The problem with getting Crawford is that you have the same problem in 2010 as you did in 2009, you get a runner on base ('09=Pods) but you can't get him in. Our production in the#3 and #4 slots in the lineup were pathetic. With 6 games left we have ZERO players with 90 RBI! 90!! Not 120, not 110, not 100 but 90! That is horrible.

 

Beckham, Quentin, and Paulie would be hitting behind Crawford. Those guys have been known to drive in runs.

 

The problem with this team isn't an inability to drive in runs. It's that the runs are being driven in by an aging lineup that can't do it consistently. If you sign a guy like Abreu or Matsui, you run the same risk of this player tanking like Dye did this year, or having a down year like Dye did in '07, or an injury-plagued year like Konerko had in '08.

 

I agree that a traditional high-OPS #4 power hitter would be the best fit for the Sox. But who is actually going to be available? I'd love for the Sox to sign Jason Bay this off-season. But that's not going to happen. I'd love for them to make a deal for Adrian Gonzalez. That's not going to happen either. But Crawford might actually be available for the right price right now. And if the Sox can get a solid OBP guy who can lead off (a spot that's been a black hole for several years now) and steal a crapload of bases, I say go for it. They can sign a power hitter next winter, or dangle Hudson for a guy like Ethier in July.

Edited September 28, 2009 by WCSox

[Dick Allen]

The TB beat writer says there's very little chance they trade Crawford and most likely won't trade Upton either because of his low value but high potential.

[Jordan4life_2007]

The TB beat writer says there's very little chance they trade Crawford and most likely won't trade Upton either because of his low value but high potential.

 

I don't believe for a second he has low value. At his age/cost/potential he would command a pretty hefty haul.

[WCSox]

I don't believe for a second he has low value. At his age/cost/potential he would command a pretty hefty haul.

 

Have you looked at his numbers this season? He's hitting like Chris Getz. They'd be smart to wait until he bounces back from shoulder surgery and has a better year, where they'll be able to get a lot more for him.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

Have you looked at his numbers this season? He's hitting like Chris Getz. They'd be smart to wait until he bounces back from shoulder surgery and has a better year, where they'll be able to get a lot more for him.

 

GMAB. Don't compare Upton and f***in' Getz. Yeah, I'd wait to see if he bounces back. But I think even if they decided to trade him this offseason they would get a nice haul.

[ThunderBolt]

GMAB. Don't compare Upton and f***in' Getz. Yeah, I'd wait to see if he bounces back. But I think even if they decided to trade him this offseason they would get a nice haul.

Haven't you heard? Grinderness>Better than 5-tool potential

 

[Balta1701]

The TB beat writer says there's very little chance they trade Crawford and most likely won't trade Upton either because of his low value but high potential.

Holding on to both of them, blocking the ready prospect, and winding up only with 2 draft picks when Crawford walks next offseason is silly. That's how the Rays go from being a really good team to being an average team.

[WCSox]

GMAB. Don't compare Upton and f***in' Getz.

 

Yeah, it would be really silly of me to compare f***in' Upton to f***in' Getz...

 

B.J. Upton this year: .238 BA, .308 OBP, .670 OPS

 

Chris Getz this year: .261 BA, .324 OBP, .670 OPS

 

But I think even if they decided to trade him this offseason they would get a nice haul.

 

They would be incredibly dumb to trade him when he's hitting like Chris Getz, as they'd almost certainly get more next winter.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

Yeah, it would be really silly of me to compare f***in' Upton to f***in' Getz...

 

B.J. Upton this year: .238 BA, .308 OBP, .670 OPS

 

Chris Getz this year: .261 BA, .324 OBP, .670 OPS

 

 

 

They would be incredibly dumb to trade him when he's hitting like Chris Getz, as they'd almost certainly get more next winter.

 

Don't be such a stat whore. Do you really think we could get anything worth a damn if we traded Getz? If the Rays traded Upton they'd get a killing.

[ThunderBolt]

Getz has 2 bombs, 18 db's an 2 3b's, and. Upton has 10 bombs, 31 db's and 3 3b's. See the difference?

Edited September 29, 2009 by Thunderbolt