White Sox targeting Carl Crawford

[Milkman delivers]

I'm so tired of seeing this argument back and forth. Does anyone honestly not understand both sides of this f***ing argument yet?

 

It just ends up being the same things said back and forth, from both sides, in countless threads throughout the site.

[Leonard Zelig]

I'm so tired of seeing this argument back and forth. Does anyone honestly not understand both sides of this f***ing argument yet?

 

It just ends up being the same things said back and forth, from both sides, in countless threads throughout the site.

Welcome to soxtalk!

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm so tired of seeing this argument back and forth. Does anyone honestly not understand both sides of this f***ing argument yet?

 

It just ends up being the same things said back and forth, from both sides, in countless threads throughout the site.

 

Nope, I don't understand the side in which giving up Hudson for Jackson was a good move. Not saying I wouldn't have traded Hudson at all. But for career mediocrity? Failure on KW's part.

[Milkman delivers]

Nope, I don't understand the side in which giving up Hudson for Jackson was a good move. Not saying I wouldn't have traded Hudson at all. But for career mediocrity? Failure on KW's part.

 

You don't agree with the logic, but you obviously have to know what the arguments are. They are the same each time, and it just keeps getting stated and stated, over and over, day after day, week after week, etc.

[BigSqwert]

You don't agree with the logic, but you obviously have to know what the arguments are. They are the same each time, and it just keeps getting stated and stated, over and over, day after day, week after week, etc.

[bigruss]

You don't agree with the logic, but you obviously have to know what the arguments are. They are the same each time, and it just keeps getting stated and stated, over and over, day after day, week after week, etc.

I don't try to bring it up when possible, but the trade is relevant to everything in this offseason because of the financial standpoint of the organization.

 

Plus, people still don't seem to understand the ramifications of the move, and firmly believe that it must've been right because Kenny made the move. I'm sorry, that's bulls*** and people should get called out for it. It's one thing to have faith in your org's leadership, it's another to not even think of the ramifications.

 

And as usual, I will point out that I wasn't against trading for Jackson, but the price we paid which ended up in this argument.

[Milkman delivers]

I don't try to bring it up when possible, but the trade is relevant to everything in this offseason because of the financial standpoint of the organization.

 

Plus, people still don't seem to understand the ramifications of the move, and firmly believe that it must've been right because Kenny made the move. I'm sorry, that's bulls*** and people should get called out for it. It's one thing to have faith in your org's leadership, it's another to not even think of the ramifications.

 

And as usual, I will point out that I wasn't against trading for Jackson, but the price we paid which ended up in this argument.

 

For what it's worth, I completely agree with your side of the argument.

 

The problem is that there are only like four threads in PHT that have had discussions in them since the end of the season, and this argument is making me want to stop reading those last few that exist.

[nitetrain8601]

I was stating that you have to not only look at their projectability but also how many years of service they have under a team's control to judge value. Of course not every prospect pans out, but not every MLB player pans out too and Edwin had just as much as risk as anyone if he would ever be more than a 5th starter for a full season.

 

Even if Jackson proves to be able to pitch in the 3.5 ERA area he still has to greatly outproduce Hudson not only next year but for future years with the Sox because Hudson is under contract for the next 6 years. Even if Jackson is stellar next year, Hudson would still give the Sox a 3/4 starter for 5 plus years of being cheaper than Jackson in his 1.25 seasons here. So not only is it about talent, but its in terms of how long you have that talent and what you are paying them.

 

So if Jackson pitches like an ace next year(even if we don't resign him), and Hudson pitches with a 4.5ERA in the NL West, the trade was still a dumb one? Really? Cas I fail to see that. Because fact is, if Hudson has an ERA of 4.25 over the course of the next 5 or 6 years, Jackson doesn't have to do squad to justify the trade as long as he's better. Know why? Because you can get 4.25ERA's pretty easily off the scrapheap.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Daniel Hudson doesn't have the raw talent Edwin Jackson has, nor does he have the MLB experience (including playoff race and playoff game experience) that Edwin Jackson does. The trade was made because winning is the No. 1 priority here, and that is because it has to be. There's a reason Hawk has to make weather-based excuses for the fans all year, and it's because the fans only show up to see winning. If the Jackson move helps put us over the top in 2011 then the benefits of that deal could far outweigh Daniel Hudson's likely contributions for the Sox over that period, because winning in 2011 affects the 2012 opening payroll, and potentially the availability of funds over the 2012 trade deadline, and maybe even the 2013 payroll as well.

 

And lastly, if Hudson turns into a consistent world beater then Hudson has fooled just about everyone on the planet save for a few Tyler Flowers-trumping Sox fans, including the brass of such organizations as the Milwaukee Brewers, the San Diego Padres, and the Washington Nationals, who all collectively laughed at Kenny's Hudson-headed trade proposals. And those are just the ones we know about.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

BTW Carl Crawford is a complete waste of money. DO NOT WANT.

[GREEDY]

Here is a fairly fresh thought:

 

Is it possible that Carl Crawford's defensive value is overrated because the Rays played him in Left Field?

 

LF is notoriously the position where old, slow, bad outfielders go to die.

 

Yes, Crawford gets fantastic marks for his defense, but is it partially because he is being compared to the worst of the worst? If Crawford played CF or RF where would he rank?

 

Another tidbit is that Crawford was second to Brett Gardner in UZR (and most defensive statistics), third was Juan Pierre. Now, to my eye Juan had a great year in LF; BUT most everyone here knows that Juan is overall a poor defender.

 

The fifth best LF? Alfonso Soriano! The seventh best LF? Scotty Pods....

 

Is Crawford really that special of a defender? Or is he just the best of the worst?

Edited October 17, 2010 by GREEDY

[Dick Allen]

Did you hear what Gammons had to say? Supposedly the Red Sox are going after Crawford, but may bat him down in the order thinking it will appeal to him as he really doesn't feel like stealing 70 bases anymore. Its too much of a beating. The more I read about Crawford, the more I think giving this guy $100 million is going to be regrettable. He's a great player, but will probably fade like Tim Raines. Still very useful, just not worth what he's going to be paid.

[Eminor3rd]

There's zero chance we get Crawford. He's going to go for $17m+ over 5 years. The Angels and Yankees will outbid us by a landslide.

 

And Beane LOVES Barton, no way he is available for Quentin.

 

And you don't stick one of the best defensive LF in the game in RF so Juan Pierre can play there. It's more likely Rios goes back to RF and Crawford to CF, but that isn;t ideal either. It's not a fit for what it would cost.

[joeynach]

There's zero chance we get Crawford. He's going to go for $17m+ over 5 years. The Angels and Yankees will outbid us by a landslide.

 

And Beane LOVES Barton, no way he is available for Quentin.

 

And you don't stick one of the best defensive LF in the game in RF so Juan Pierre can play there. It's more likely Rios goes back to RF and Crawford to CF, but that isn;t ideal either. It's not a fit for what it would cost.

 

I think the Giants could easily sign crawford, they have no real outfield depth and they really lack a top of the order hitter. Their outfield is basically Rowand in CF thru 2012 and then nothing. Andres Torres sucks and Pat Burrell is a free agent. Your telling me they couldnt use Crawford there and then plug him and Freddy Sanchez in for the top of the order. Plus they will have some $$ to spend this offseason as well.

Edited October 19, 2010 by joeynach

[Jordan4life_2007]

I think the Giants could easily sign crawford, they have no real outfield depth and they really lack a top of the order hitter. Their outfield is basically Rowand in CF thru 2012 and then nothing. Andres Torres sucks and Pat Burrell is a free agent. Your telling me they couldnt use Crawford there and then plug him and Freddy Sanchez in for the top of the order. Plus they will have some $$ to spend this offseason as well.

Lol@Torres sucks. He might've been the best value player in baseball this year. A 6 WAR for a guy that made less than half a million dollars.

[witesoxfan]

Lol@Torres sucks. He might've been the best value player in baseball this year. A 6 WAR for a guy that made less than half a million dollars.

 

That was a ridiculous and ignorant comment. Torres is one of the biggest reasons that team is in the playoffs.

 

Beyond that, one might think the Giants have learned a thing or two about giving out big deals to free agents, considering they made the playoffs with Zito off the roster and Rowand on the bench, but maybe not, considering Sabean is still their GM.

[Jordan4life_2007]

That was a ridiculous and ignorant comment. Torres is one of the biggest reasons that team is in the playoffs.

 

Beyond that, one might think the Giants have learned a thing or two about giving out big deals to free agents, considering they made the playoffs with Zito off the roster and Rowand on the bench, but maybe not, considering Sabean is still their GM.

They've been lucky as hell that they've been able to mask those horrible contracts with the likes of.Huff, Torres, Burrell, and Uribe. You could probably throw Bumgarner and Wilson in there.

[knightni]

Torres was great this year.

[witesoxfan]

Since a few people seemed pretty determined that the Yankees were going to make an offer, here's this

 

A source told Mark Feinsand of the New York Daily News that the Yankees aren't expected to pursue either Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth this offseason.

"We are better with Crawford, but at that price?" a team source said. "I'm not sure it's that good of an upgrade." The Yankees already have Curtis Grandson, Brett Gardner and Nick Swisher under team control for next season, so they will likely focus their efforts on upgrading their starting rotation. Of course, we can never say never with the Yankees.

 

and why would they? Gardner is a monster, they just traded for Granderson, and Swisher has been a damn nice bat for them. They like to keep that DH spot open to rotate some players WHO ARE ACTUALLY GOOD OFFENSIVELY, so I don't see where Crawford would have ever fit into the equation.

[southsider2k5]

Since a few people seemed pretty determined that the Yankees were going to make an offer, here's this

 

 

 

and why would they? Gardner is a monster, they just traded for Granderson, and Swisher has been a damn nice bat for them. They like to keep that DH spot open to rotate some players WHO ARE ACTUALLY GOOD OFFENSIVELY, so I don't see where Crawford would have ever fit into the equation.

 

And if the Yankees don't jump in, his price could drop a lot.

[witesoxfan]

And if the Yankees don't jump in, his price could drop a lot.

 

ehh I don't think so. The Red Sox and Angels are going to be in on him pretty heavily, and both of those teams are willing to drop a dime or three.