Insider Rumor Mill

[iamshack]

The can use a closer more than they could use another OFer. It might not be the best that they can get for Crawford, but it might be the move that improves them the most for next year.

Well, they do have Desmond Jennings in waiting, but simply because acquiring Jenks is one way they can improve, certainly does not mean it the best way to improve. Think about it this way...who would you rather have, Matt Thornton or Bobby Jenks? Why would they not just demand Thornton instead of Jenks? And to take that even further, you don't think there are any young, dirt cheap closers in waiting that are available elsewhere? You don't think there are 15 other teams that would love to have Crawford and have a few young stud relief arms they would give up?

 

I just don't think offering Jenks for Crawford would interest the Rays at all, considering all the other teams that will have interest should he be made available.

[iamshack]

Dan Uggla anyone? What type of talent would it take to get him?

I thought about this too. I don't think it would take a ton to get him, but probably 1 of your better prospects and a few B level guys. Then he is going to cost you $7-8 million. My only worry is he is exactly the sort of guy we have already had around here...another slugging hitter with mediocre OBP. I'm not sure the organization is going to want to pony up the prospects and money when they seem to really like our platoon situation at 2b.

[WCSox]

Well, they do have Desmond Jennings in waiting, but simply because acquiring Jenks is one way they can improve, certainly does not mean it the best way to improve. Think about it this way...who would you rather have, Matt Thornton or Bobby Jenks? Why would they not just demand Thornton instead of Jenks?

 

Bobby has a few things going for him that Thornton does not: He has several successful years under his belt as a closer, he can throw something other than a fastball for a strike, and he's never struggled like Thornton has in the past. (Are you convinced that Thornton will continue to shine if you take Coop out of the picture? I'm not. He was terrible in Seattle.) That doesn't necessarily mean that Bobby would be a more effective closer than Thornton, but he has a better pitching skill set and more positive history on his side.

 

Thornton's current contract also makes him worth a lot more than Crawford.

 

And to take that even further, you don't think there are any young, dirt cheap closers in waiting that are available elsewhere? You don't think there are 15 other teams that would love to have Crawford and have a few young stud relief arms they would give up?

 

Teams give up "a few young stud relief arms" for multiple years of Jake Peavy, not one year of Carl Crawford. There's no way that a GM trades away somebody like Dan Hudson or Phil Hughes for one year of Crawford.

 

I just don't think offering Jenks for Crawford would interest the Rays at all, considering all the other teams that will have interest should he be made available.

 

You may be right, but it can't hurt to ask. In fact, Kenny wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't inquire. They DO need a closer, so it's not like it's ridiculous fit for them.

Edited October 8, 2009 by WCSox

[iamshack]

Bobby has a few things going for him that Thornton does not: He has several successful years under his belt as a closer, he can throw something other than a fastball for a strike, and he's never struggled like Thornton has in the past. That doesn't necessarily mean that Bobby would be a more effective closer than Thornton, but he has a better pitching skill set and more positive history on his side.

 

Thornton's current contract also makes him worth a lot more than Crawford.

 

 

 

Teams give up "a few young stud relief arms" for multiple years of Jake Peavy, not one year of Carl Crawford. There's no way that a GM trades away somebody like Dan Hudson or Phil Hughes for one year of Crawford.

 

 

 

You may be right, but it can't hurt to ask. In fact, Kenny wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't inquire.

 

Well, when I say young relief stud arms, I didn't mean young arms that project to be starters. You managed to use a few fairly extreme examples there. But perhaps "stud arms" is a bit too much. Perhaps "young relief arms with great stuff" would be better.

 

Are you telling me that there are not teams out there that would trade two young relief arms for Crawford? I disagree...

[kitekrazy]

You absolutely trade Jenks for prospects if the haul is right. It’s not out of the question to have a go with Hudson in a set-up role

 

I'm not sure I would put much faith in that.

 

[WCSox]

Well, when I say young relief stud arms, I didn't mean young arms that project to be starters. You managed to use a few fairly extreme examples there. But perhaps "stud arms" is a bit too much. Perhaps "young relief arms with great stuff" would be better.

 

Are you telling me that there are not teams out there that would trade two young relief arms for Crawford? I disagree...

 

Somebody like Poreda, perhaps. But I don't see them getting much more in return. One year of Crawford at $9M isn't exactly a steal. Plus, if the Rays are trying to win now, waiting two years for a pitching prospect to develop into a ML closer isn't the best route to go.

 

I agree that it may be a long shot, given the competition. But don't you agree that Kenny should at least inquire? It's not exactly an unfair offer.

 

[iamshack]

Somebody like Poreda, perhaps. But I don't see them getting much more in return. One year of Crawford at $9M isn't exactly a steal. Plus, if the Rays are trying to win now, waiting two years for a pitching prospect to develop into a ML closer isn't the best route to go.

 

I agree that it may be a long shot, given the competition. But don't you agree that Kenny should at least inquire? It's not exactly an unfair offer.

 

I will agree to disagree. I think the market for Crawford is stronger than you believe.

 

That being said, I am sure if he is made available, Kenny will inquire. I also know if I were a Rays fan, and Jenks was the return they got for Crawford, I would be mighty ticked off.

[daggins]

Looking at the Rays as they stand, they'd probably want Flowers + some for Crawford.

[southsider2k5]

Well, when I say young relief stud arms, I didn't mean young arms that project to be starters. You managed to use a few fairly extreme examples there. But perhaps "stud arms" is a bit too much. Perhaps "young relief arms with great stuff" would be better.

 

Are you telling me that there are not teams out there that would trade two young relief arms for Crawford? I disagree...

 

Two relief arms, or a proven closer. There is a big difference there when you are team trying to get back to the World Series.

[WCSox]

I will agree to disagree. I think the market for Crawford is stronger than you believe.

 

That being said, I am sure if he is made available, Kenny will inquire. I also know if I were a Rays fan, and Jenks was the return they got for Crawford, I would be mighty ticked off.

 

I don't see many GMs dealing two of their best pitching prospects for the privilege of paying Crawford $9M and watching him walk next winter. If Crawford had a couple of years left on his deal or cost half as much, I'd be more inclined to agree.

 

[Balta1701]

Two relief arms, or a proven closer. There is a big difference there when you are team trying to get back to the World Series.

If the 2 arms work out, then that can put you a lot closer to the series than 1 closer. (Wow, look at the use of the word closer there). Anyway, Look how the Dodgers won their game yesterday if you want to see the value of Middle Relief.

[iamshack]

I don't see many GMs dealing two of their best pitching prospects for the privilege of paying Crawford $9M and watching him walk next winter. If Crawford had a couple of years left on his deal or cost half as much, I'd be more inclined to agree.

Well, first of all, I didn't say two of their best pitching prospects. I said two good relief arms. Secondly, these kind of trades are made all the time. The Giants traded Tim Alderson for Freddy Sanchez earlier this year. The Cardinals traded their #1 prospect from 2008, Brett Wallace, for a half-year of Matt Holliday. The Cardinals also traded Chris Perez, one of their better relief arms, for Mark Derosa. The Braves traded Elvis Andrus, Salty, Neftali Feliz, etc for Teixeira, whom they knew they would keep at the most, 1.5 years. They dealt him for much less to the Angels in 2008.

 

Certainly not saying that things haven't changed over the last few years, but there will still be pitching rich organizations which would be interested in acquiring Crawford in the right deal.

[WCSox]

Well, first of all, I didn't say two of their best pitching prospects. I said two good relief arms. Secondly, these kind of trades are made all the time. The Giants traded Tim Alderson for Freddy Sanchez earlier this year. The Cardinals traded their #1 prospect from 2008, Brett Wallace, for a half-year of Matt Holliday. The Cardinals also traded Chris Perez, one of their better relief arms, for Mark Derosa. The Braves traded Elvis Andrus, Salty, Neftali Feliz, etc for Teixeira, whom they knew they would keep at the most, 1.5 years. They dealt him for much less to the Angels in 2008.

 

The Giants, Braves, and Rockies were dumping salary and were not necessarily expecting to compete this year. I don't see that being the case with the Rays, who are just one year removed from an AL pennant and still have a very competitive team. Mark DeRosa isn't in Carl Crawford's league, salary- or talent-wise. The best comparison here is Wallace for Holliday, and that was a mid-season (only half of Holliday's salary) move with the Cards (1) clearly able to win the division and (2) desperately needing a #4 hitter to protect Pujols. The selling team almost always gets more in return mid-season, because all of the pressure is on the contending team looking to add.

 

Certainly not saying that things haven't changed over the last few years, but there will still be pitching rich organizations which would be interested in acquiring Crawford in the right deal.

 

Yeah, there will. But, as I said before, if the Rays are trying to get into the playoffs again next year (which they almost certainly are), they're probably going to want ML-ready talent in return. And the only teams who would trade for one year of Crawford would be competing themselves, and would be less likely to give up ML-ready players. That's most likely going to limit the market for Crawford. Hell, we're facing the same problem with Jenks. Why trade a perfectly good closer away for prospects and weaken our bullpen right after we spent a ton of money on Peavy and Rios, and are obviously trying to win next year?

Edited October 8, 2009 by WCSox

[Jerksticks]

Maybe J.R. needs to take a chance and go a little over the mystery budget everyone seems to know about.

 

 

This is by far the best post in this thread. I love how it got no responses because it insulted the masses. I'm with you on this one dude.

This pitching staff is too special to not spend 100 Million. If we overspend and field the correct team, the attendence spike when we start 35-10 will surely pay for these players.

And it starts with Bobby in the back.

 

[iamshack]

The Giants, Braves, and Rockies were dumping salary and were not necessarily expecting to compete this year. I don't see that being the case with the Rays, who are just one year removed from an AL pennant and still have a very competitive team. Mark DeRosa isn't in Carl Crawford's league, salary- or talent-wise. The best comparison here is Wallace for Holliday, and that was a mid-season (only half of Holliday's salary) move with the Cards (1) clearly able to win the division and (2) desperately needing a #4 hitter to protect Pujols. The selling team almost always gets more in return mid-season, because all of the pressure is on the contending team looking to add.

 

 

 

Yeah, there will. But, as I said before, if the Rays are trying to get into the playoffs again next year (which they almost certainly are), they're probably going to want ML-ready talent in return. And the only teams who would trade for one year of Crawford would be competing themselves, and would be less likely to give up ML-ready players. That's most likely going to limit the market for Crawford. Hell, we're facing the same problem with Jenks. Why trade a perfectly good closer away for prospects and weaken our bullpen right after we spent a ton of money on Peavy and Rios, and are obviously trying to win next year?

 

I'm not sure if you are arguing my point or your own here. The Giants were dumping salary so they traded one of their better pitching prospects for Freddy Sanchez? No they weren't. They were trying to win the Wild Card or the NL West. They took on salary, they didn't dump it.

 

I didn't even bring up the Rockies, did I?

 

Again, in regards to DeRosa, not sure who's point you are arguing, your own or mine. DeRosa isn't in Crawford's league, and yet he netted the Indians a very good relief arm. Despite having a lower salary than Crawford, he still cost the Cardinals $3 million to acquire and a bullpen arm that they could certainly use right now in the postseason.

 

As for Holliday, he's costing the Cardinals about $7 million for 3 months, and they gave up first round talent, arguably one of the best hitters in the entire draft, who they would have controlled for 6 seasons. So are you arguing that the return might be greater for the Rays if they keep Crawford until the deadline next season and then deal him? I suppose that could be true, but it doesn't really support your point much.

 

Again, I'll just agree to disagree. I think we both have some legitimate arguments to make, and which of us is correct probably revolves around information neither of us can possibly know. We'll just have to wait and see...

[rockren]

I doubt it. I don't know anyone who would ever PAY for ESPN Insider. I'm slowly but surely starting to hate ESPN. Mike and Mike and "The Herd" are unbearable....

 

When you and 15 other people pay for it...it's pretty much free.

 

[Steve9347]

When you and 15 other people pay for it...it's pretty much free.

Or if you have a subscription to their magazine, which is 10x better than anything else ESPN produces.

[WCSox]

I'm not sure if you are arguing my point or your own here. The Giants were dumping salary so they traded one of their better pitching prospects for Freddy Sanchez? No they weren't. They were trying to win the Wild Card or the NL West. They took on salary, they didn't dump it.

 

My mistake regarding the Giants. The Rockies were definitely dumping Holliday, though.

 

Again, in regards to DeRosa, not sure who's point you are arguing, your own or mine. DeRosa isn't in Crawford's league, and yet he netted the Indians a very good relief arm. Despite having a lower salary than Crawford, he still cost the Cardinals $3 million to acquire and a bullpen arm that they could certainly use right now in the postseason.

 

It's also a young, relatively unproven relief arm that isn't exactly the most crucial piece of their bullpen. And because that's all they were willing to deal, they got Mark DeRosa in return, not a higher-tier player like Crawford.

 

You're also comparing unlike scenarios here. The Indians were down in the dumps this year and were more than willing to trade a good veteran player for a young, relatively inexperienced pitcher. The Rays aren't in that situation. The Rays would be incredibly dumb to trade an All Star-caliber player like Crawford for a good-but-not-great potential setup guy like Perez while they're in the middle of a pennant race.

 

Like I said before, it's a lot harder to trade one year of Crawford because (1) your trade partners are limited to contenders and (2) the Rays themselves are contenders and, thus, will want a ML-ready player in return. Contenders tend to prefer to trade younger, peripheral talent (like Perez) and acquire high-impact veteran talent. This is why contending teams tend to not trade with each other as often.

 

As for Holliday, he's costing the Cardinals about $7 million for 3 months, and they gave up first round talent, arguably one of the best hitters in the entire draft, who they would have controlled for 6 seasons. So are you arguing that the return might be greater for the Rays if they keep Crawford until the deadline next season and then deal him? I suppose that could be true, but it doesn't really support your point much.

 

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It'll be a lot easier to move Crawford to a contender mid-summer when (1) the contending team will be on the hook to take a lot less of his salary and (2) that team will have more urgency to trade for such a player.

 

I think that the Rays probably will wait until June or July to deal Crawford. Because if they're out of it by then, they'll have a larger pool of suitors and have a chance of getting a better long-term package.

 

Again, I'll just agree to disagree. I think we both have some legitimate arguments to make, and which of us is correct probably revolves around information neither of us can possibly know. We'll just have to wait and see...

 

Now we can definitely agree there.

Edited October 8, 2009 by WCSox

[rockren]

Or if you have a subscription to their magazine, which is 10x better than anything else ESPN produces.

 

Yeah the magazine is ok. It isn't a very "polished" magazine and can often times be rather useless like most ESPN products...but for paying less than $5 a year it's worth it.

[Quin]

Crawford wouldn't net a monster price, but he'd demand probably Flowers and a good arm or two (Torres, Nunez, Marquez, other minor leaguers) and a throw in reliever (Wassermann?)

[iamshack]

My mistake regarding the Giants. The Rockies were definitely dumping Holliday, though.

 

 

 

It's also a young, relatively unproven relief arm that isn't exactly the most crucial piece of their bullpen. And because that's all they were willing to deal, they got Mark DeRosa in return, not a higher-tier player like Crawford.

 

You're also comparing unlike scenarios here. The Indians were down in the dumps this year and were more than willing to trade a good veteran player for a young, relatively inexperienced pitcher. The Rays aren't in that situation. The Rays would be incredibly dumb to trade an All Star-caliber player like Crawford for a good-but-not-great potential setup guy like Perez while they're in the middle of a pennant race.

 

Like I said before, it's a lot harder to trade one year of Crawford because (1) your trade partners are limited to contenders and (2) the Rays themselves are contenders and, thus, will want a ML-ready player in return. Contenders tend to prefer to trade younger, peripheral talent (like Perez) and acquire high-impact veteran talent. This is why contending teams tend to not trade with each other as often.

 

 

 

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It'll be a lot easier to move Crawford to a contender mid-summer when (1) the contending team will be on the hook to take a lot less of his salary and (2) that team will have more urgency to trade for such a player.

 

I think that the Rays probably will wait until June or July to deal Crawford. Because if they're out of it by then, they'll have a larger pool of suitors and have a chance of getting a better long-term package.

 

 

 

Now we can definitely agree there.

 

The Rockies got Carlos Gonzalez, Houston Street, and starting pitcher Greg Smith for Holliday. I'm not sure what your argument here is.

 

The Indians getting a good young arm back for DeRosa only backs my point up - that good young relief arms can be had - even for one year of a player, and in this case, a lesser player. Trading a more accomplished player will bring back more young talent, not less. So what are you trying to say there?

 

As for moving Crawford midseason, I don't doubt that is a move they consider, but that does not mean the field will expand at that point. Prior to the season, most GM's think their team can contend coming into the year, especially if they were to add a player of Crawford's caliber. I think the chances of getting a few very good young arms is just as good prior to the season as at the deadline.

 

Do you think if the Rays offered the Royals Crawford for Soria and another solid arm in their system, that they would consider it? I do. Do you think if they offered him to the Giants, the Giants would consider it? I do. I think there are plenty of teams out there willing to move good young arms on a chance at Carl Crawford for a year.

 

Keep in mind, this guy signed an extension in Tampa when they stunk. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he would sign another deal with whatever team acquires him. There is value in that as well.

[iamshack]

Crawford wouldn't net a monster price, but he'd demand probably Flowers and a good arm or two (Torres, Nunez, Marquez, other minor leaguers) and a throw in reliever (Wassermann?)

Yeah, this is my guess as well. They don't really have a catcher of the future there yet (that I am aware of, anyways), and so they would probably like to replace Navaro and add an arm or two and perhaps even a 1b prospect in case they are unable to resign Pena.

[WCSox]

The Rockies got Carlos Gonzalez, Houston Street, and starting pitcher Greg Smith for Holliday. I'm not sure what your argument here is.

 

They were dumping Holliday's salary. All three of those guys are under team control and not terribly expensive. Street has had injury problems over the past two seasons and lost the closer spot in Oakland last year.

 

The Indians getting a good young arm back for DeRosa only backs my point up - that good young relief arms can be had - even for one year of a player, and in this case, a lesser player. Trading a more accomplished player will bring back more young talent, not less. So what are you trying to say there?

 

For some reason, you can't wrap your head around the idea that most contending teams aren't going to trade a borderline-stud player for a prospect or another young, unproven, non-impact player. Mark DeRosa is not on the same level as Carl Crawford (not even close) and the Indians weren't contenders this year. You're making an apples-and-oranges comparison here.

 

Do you think if the Rays offered the Royals Crawford for Soria and another solid arm in their system, that they would consider it? I do.

 

Why in the hell would the Royals, who won't be contending for another 2-3 years, want one year of Crawford at $9M? That doesn't make any sense.

 

Keep in mind, this guy signed an extension in Tampa when they stunk. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibility that he would sign another deal with whatever team acquires him. There is value in that as well.

 

Unless Crawford signs an extension as a part of that trade, there's no way in hell the Royals do that deal. The Royals will not give up a young, cheap stud like Soria for a one-year rent-a-player and hope that he signs a long-term deal.

Edited October 9, 2009 by WCSox

[WCSox]

Yeah, this is my guess as well. They don't really have a catcher of the future there yet (that I am aware of, anyways), and so they would probably like to replace Navaro and add an arm or two and perhaps even a 1b prospect in case they are unable to resign Pena.

 

Flowers would be another good potential fit for Tampa Bay, as he's close to ML-ready. Not sure that Kenny wants to part with him, though.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Crawford wouldn't net a monster price, but he'd demand probably Flowers and a good arm or two (Torres, Nunez, Marquez, other minor leaguers) and a throw in reliever (Wassermann?)

Marquez a good arm? he's in the gutter value-wise right now and is at the very most a throw-in for filler. Torres has maybe some marginal value, same with Nunez, but none of those three are worth much. And, even though I'm as big a fan or Wassermann as there is on this board, Ehren isn't even on the 40. He's got near-zero value in trade. So basically, you are trading Flowers straight up for Crawford, and that won't get it done.

 

If you are right though, and Flowers + shrapnel would do it, then I'd be all for it.