A question about the Carl Crawford trade?

Quick answer

I would make that trade if I were the Angels (Aybar is mere surplusage there - Cabrera is signed for another 2 years, and there are other guys who can play short as well), but I wouldn't if I were the Rays. If they do make that trade, I imagine that they'd look to trade Lugo, put Aybar on the major league roster, release Tomas Perez, and consider moving Upton to 3B or OF. My guess is that the Rays would be holding out for one more player out of that deal though, either McPherson or Kotchman.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Jun 15, 2006 1:13 PM EDT reply actions

i dont see

them dealing crawford, wouldnt be a good sign to their other young players (since he was just recently extended). . . . you have a link or anything on a potential deal?

by SoCalSoxFan on Jun 15, 2006 1:13 PM EDT reply actions

They're all over the place

look it up on google news yourself. Supposedly, the Angels, Rockies and Tigers have all made offers for Crawford recently, but unless the Tigers are willing to ante up Verlander or Zumaya, the Angels are the only one they're probably taking seriously. Friedman is on the record saying that he'd need to be "overwhelmed" to trade Crawford, and Santana plus Aybar just isn't all that overwhelming.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Jun 15, 2006 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions

yeah

i guess rotoworld is citing the LA times, but Aybar isnt included. . .Angels need more of a power bat IMO

by SoCalSoxFan on Jun 15, 2006 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

If I were the DRays, I think is getting ...

... pretty close. In our fantasy world of prospects you would hope, from the DRAY's perspective, to get Wood instead of Aybar, but this move makes too much sense IF, and it's a big one,if the Rays think Santana is a long term answer.

I'm still fascinated the Rays haven't traded Huff, moved Cantu to 3B and put Upton in the Show at whatever posittion makes sense. Personally, I would try him at 2B for the rest of the year in the majors and just see what happens. Upton could be HOF if he could handle 2B.

Crawford if a VERY talented player, but how much better is he than DYoung, Dukes and Upton one year from now?

Paul Householder, Gary Redus, Tommy Lawless, Duane Walker ... prospects rawk!

by design28 on Jun 15, 2006 1:18 PM EDT reply actions

?is this real?

I can see it from both sides, and it makes sense. For the DRays, this would solidify BJ's move to the outfield (or, preferably, 2B, although there has been no movement in that direction). Since Gomes isn't going to play the field for the rest of the year (due to injury), it also opens up a slot for Dukes, first, then Delmon. Now, what to do with Gathright, Hollins, etc.?

For the Angels, Crawford is Bane's type of guy, a speed-power outfielder who makes contact. It still creates clogs, though, with Rivera, Erstad, GA & Vlad filling in 3 or 4 spots.

by Azteca on Jun 15, 2006 1:23 PM EDT reply actions

This baffles me

Carl Crawford is still young, still cheap, and improving every year.
Why would the Rays trade him for unproven commodities in the hope that those unproven guys and the Durham Bulls might maybe hopefully be as good as Crawford?

Within a year or two, CC might be the best overall player in the game and we're talking about moving him for Ervin Santana?

DYoung, Dukes, and Upton have proven absolutely nothing. Crawford is already an all-star. Why have your franchise act as a farm team for the rest of MLB? The Rays should be building around that guy, not moving him.

I just don't understand this over-fascination with prospects. It makes me want to go on an Allen Iverson-type rampage about "prospects" rather than "practice".

by Athletic Supporter @ Minor League Ball on Jun 15, 2006 1:30 PM EDT reply actions

CC

Within a year or two, CC might be the best overall player in the game and we're talking about moving him for Ervin Santana?
I think the chances of him becoming the best overall player in the game are about as good as Ervin winning a Cy young. . . not a nock on CC, but Ervin is a stud and is young

by SoCalSoxFan on Jun 15, 2006 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Response

Ervin Santana can become a very impressive number two or three starter with the D-Rays, and Aybar(havent read much about him) can start at short. They are taking offers for Crawford knowing that his value is still very high, they have an incredible amount of outfielders(Young, Dukes, Baldelli, Gathright, Gomes) who all could start. The Angels desperately need to get another outfielder since Garrett Anderson has crumbled before their eyes and Vlad is not having a Vlad season. The Angels also have some good depth in the pitching department, and have plenty of young talent to replace Santana and Aybar with. It seems like a win-win IMO. Young has proven nothing on the major league level, but nobody has been hyped up this much since A-Rod so he must be worth something. Upton was compared to a young Derek Jeter at one point(sadly does not have the glove to match). Dukes..well not enough info to give you on Dukes

by T for Jose Tabatha on Jun 16, 2006 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Response

Ervin Santana can become a very impressive number two or three starter with the D-Rays, and Aybar(havent read much about him) can start at short. They are taking offers for Crawford knowing that his value is still very high, they have an incredible amount of outfielders(Young, Dukes, Baldelli, Gathright, Gomes) who all could start. The Angels desperately need to get another outfielder since Garrett Anderson has crumbled before their eyes and Vlad is not having a Vlad season. The Angels also have some good depth in the pitching department, and have plenty of young talent to replace Santana and Aybar with. It seems like a win-win IMO. Young has proven nothing on the major league level, but nobody has been hyped up this much since A-Rod so he must be worth something. Upton was compared to a young Derek Jeter at one point(sadly does not have the glove to match). Dukes..well not enough info to give you on Dukes

by T for Jose Tabatha on Jun 16, 2006 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Twins need to trade for Crawford

They have the pitching, they have a need for a corner OF, and they have the prospects to pull it off.

Something like:

Scott Baker and Anthony Swarzak, maybe throw in Kyle Lohse (salary paid) because he's still fairly young and better than Seth McClung.

If the D-Rays want future pitching, they'd be better off with this deal than anything the Angels could give.

by limozeen on Jun 15, 2006 1:36 PM EDT reply actions

get the F outta here

Scott Baker and Anthony Swarzak???

I really need some of whatever a lot of you are smoking.

The Twins would have to offer a package of Baker, Garza, Moses, and maybe another guy to get CLOSE to matching Crawford's value. And I'd still take the Angels offer over that one.

Or just put Francisco Liriano in the discussion.

I don't see why the Rays would trade Carl Crawford unless their getting a sure-fire superstar in return at another position.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions

gotta agree with yAk

That Twins package you listed is crap compared to the Angels package. Santana is electric. Meanwhile Baker has slim margin for error, Lohse is poop on a stick, and Swarzak is both very far from the majors and not terribly likely to be an impact pitcher.

Still, i don't deal Liriano for Crawford either...

In Billy We Trust

by I Love Oakland As on Jun 15, 2006 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Twins

I think the Twins could put together a good package for Crawford (without including Santana or Liriano), but I agree that the package you just started with is woefully inadequate, and to be frank, it would probably deplete the Twins' rotation too much to pull the trigger. Baker, Bonser and Durbin or Neshek would make a lot of sense, or Bonser, Garza and Perkins makes sense, but those don't make much sense from a Twins perspective. That's mortgaging off quite a bit of the future there.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Jun 15, 2006 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

wow

That's an awful lot of love for a corner outfielder with a career line of .290 / .323 / .425

I think Crawford is a nice player, and I know he's exciting, but isn't this the epidome of trading a strength (outfield) for a weakness (starting pitching)

Crawford is not an "elite" player, regardless of where he is picked in fantasy basebakk drafts

That said, I'm not sure Baker and Swarzak is enough.

And Liriano for Crawford... jebus, heck no!

by Jgaztambide on Jun 15, 2006 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Well part of it is

That hes not really a corner OF.

Secondly hes the type of player that offensive stats are going to underrate since his biggest strength is that hes so well rounded and adds value in all categories. Beltran-ish in a way.

Also, hes still real young and should continue to improve atthe dish.

But yeah the Twims "offer" suggested is a joke.
How about I offer you Jorge Cantu, Wade Davis and Seth McClung for Mauer?
Whats that you say? Ridiculous? Yeah, just as rediculous

by nms on Jun 15, 2006 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Crawford is 25....

Carl has also improved every single year he's been in the league. Looking at career numbers are silly because he came into MLB when he was 22 years old. You guys expect way, way too much from players under the age of 25.

by Athletic Supporter @ Minor League Ball on Jun 15, 2006 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions

wow

Career line? The guy is 25 years old.
He's also arguably the best left fielder in the AL.
He's also signed to a team-friendly long-term contract.
He's also getting better each season statistically.
I haven't even mentioned his speed.

Scott Podsednik was traded for Carlos Lee.
Crawford is OBVIOUSLY better than Podsednik and much more valuable.

Unless the Rays get a player or package of players that surpass a value of a guy like Carlos Lee, they don't need to pull the trigger on any deal.

Baker and Swarzak is a joke. That kind of package is barely adequate for Rocco Baldelli including his injury concerns.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

Re:

I can buy the youth argument, as well as the "he's improving every year" argument, cuz both are true.

"Scott Podsednik was traded for Carlos Lee.
Crawford is OBVIOUSLY better than Podsednik and much more valuable.

Unless the Rays get a player or package of players that surpass a value of a guy like Carlos Lee, they don't need to pull the trigger on any deal."

You can't judge one deal on another one. That's what has gotten the Devil Rays in trouble in the past, no? When they ripped off the Mets for the Zambrano / Kazmir deal, they expected to get elite talent for non-elite players. Or at least that's what had happened the last couple of years when Namoli and co were still around.

This isn't about Pods for Lee, it's about Crawford for __ player or players.

by Jgaztambide on Jun 15, 2006 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Pods for Lee

Salary dump.

by limozeen on Jun 15, 2006 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

market value

Other deals set the market value. This is everyday business.

Saying that Crawford is a non-elite talent is stupifying to me.

The main point that isn't being discussed is that the Rays DO NOT NEED to trade Carl Crawford. Crawford is in demand and the Rays have the bargaining power. The last thing the Rays need to do is get desperate to trade one of their best players just for the sake of trading.

The Rays need to trade an outfielder, true. But that outfielder doesn't need to be Carl Crawford. I'm sure the Rays would like that the outfielder traded ISN'T Carl Crawford.

So unless a magnificent offer comes along.. you don't make the trade.

None of these offers listed are magnificent offers.

I'm sure the Rays could trade Damon Hollins for a Swarzak type talent.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Re:

"Other deals set the market value. This is everyday business"

Stupid deals do not set market value. If they did, Zambrano / Kazmir would have halted the entire trade market for all time. One deal does not a market make. Also, remember that a lot of the Lee deal was a salary dump (as noted above by the person who first responded to my post)

"Saying that Crawford is a non-elite talent is stupifying to me."

Crawford could develop into a special player, but speed, to me, does not make a special player. he doesn't have power, he doesn't have patience. he has good contact skills. But I am from a school of thought that devalues stolen bases. Crawford is certainly exciting to watch, but there are at least a dozen outfielders I would rather have than Crawford, if not more.

"The main point that isn't being discussed is that the Rays DO NOT NEED to trade Carl Crawford."

I absolutely agree there. But unfortunately, the Rays DO NEED to acquire some decent starting pitching. Maybe I am more optimistic on Santana than others here and that's why we're disagreeing on the value. I know as a Sox fan, I would be terrified at the prospect of facing Santana and Kazmir together for the next 5 years. Crawford? Nice player, but he doesn't scare me by any means.

"The Rays need to trade an outfielder, true. But that outfielder doesn't need to be Carl Crawford. I'm sure the Rays would like that the outfielder traded ISN'T Carl Crawford."

I'm sure they would like that. But they're not going to get elite pitching talent by giving up players like Gathright or someone like Baldelli who hasn't played baseball in a year and a half. As they say, you've got to give up value to recieve value.

"None of these offers listed are magnificent offers."

Not the swarzak / Baker one, certainly not that one. But Santana? I dunno, again, maybe I'm more bullish on him than everyone here, but that guy excites me.

by Jgaztambide on Jun 15, 2006 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Ervin Santana

Sure, the Rays need good pitchers on the staff.

But Crawford has the chance to be a great player and is already a good player.
You say he doesn't have power... but he's on pace to hit over 20HR this season.
You say he doesn't have discipline... but his K/BB ratio is under 2.
He would easily eclipse 100 RBI if placed in the 3/4 slot in the lineup. The guy had 80 RBI from the 1/2 slots last year with a bunch of guys who struggled to get on base.
So you take a guy who can hit .300 with 100R, 20HR, 90RBI, and just throw in the 60SB for fun since you don't care about them. And you're telling me that isn't a star. And this isn't his upside, it's his present capability.

What's Ervin Santana? At best a #3 pitcher on any contending team. The only reason he looks so valuable in a trade with the Rays is because the Rays pitching is horrible and he would be their 2nd/3rd best starter.

As I said before, I'd take my chances trading another OF besides Crawford and getting a #3 pitcher in return.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Crawford

"You say he doesn't have power... but he's on pace to hit over 20HR this season."

20 HR would have placed Crawford 33rd for outfielders in the entire major leagues last season. As he stands right now, he's tied for 42nd among all major league outfielders in homers

"You say he doesn't have discipline... but his K/BB ratio is under 2."

His 16 BB this year place him 62nd among all major league outfielders this season, tied with the ever-patient Wily Taveras. His 27 BB last season put him tied for 93rd among all outfielders. That's atrocious

"He would easily eclipse 100 RBI if placed in the 3/4 slot in the lineup. The guy had 80 RBI from the 1/2 slots last year with a bunch of guys who struggled to get on base."

I'm not a fan of the RBI stat, and would rarely if ever judge a player by it.

"and just throw in the 60SB for fun since you don't care about them."

For his career, he's stolen at a rate of 81.5%, which is just barely above the threshhold where stealing bases and getting caught stealing actually add runs to your teams total. This is why SB are overrated: because you're so impressed by how often they steal that you lose sight of how many outs you've given away. But still, he is above the threshold, so his SB's do add runs to the Drays, just not as many as the "60 SB" aestetichally pleasing number would lead you to believe.

"What's Ervin Santana? At best a #3 pitcher on any contending team."

Maybe that's what he is right now, but he's pitched only 213 innings in the majors. You have been harping on what Crawford can become, so why can't we talk about what Santana can become? Santana is still only 23. Again, it seems like you don't think highly of Santana's projectablity, whereas I'm rather fond of him.

by Jgaztambide on Jun 15, 2006 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions

SB threshhold

is typically 67% or so. 81% is actually very good. Take a look at career SB percentages and you'll see.

by sabernar on Jun 15, 2006 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks

For some reason, I always think the threshold is 77% instead of 67%. it's one of those mental blocks. Anyways, thanks for catching that.

by Jgaztambide on Jun 15, 2006 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions

For the record...

Julio Lugo did NOT struggle to get on-base last season. He hit .295 with a .362 OBP batting mostly leadoff in front of Carl Crawford.

Also, I find it strange that you can overvalue a player like Crawford and undervalue a player like Santana. You say "#3 on a contending team" like it's a bad thing. That a good OF like Crawford is worth more than a good SP like Santana. Plus, you have turned this debate into a comparison between Santana and Crawford. Lest we forget that Erick Aybar has been included in the rumored trade.

*This message brought to you by The Church of Cole Hamels and Latter Day Lefties*

by QuixoticQuasiQuandary on Jun 15, 2006 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

tough trade

to judge if you play any 5x5 fantasy ball. Crawford is a star in fantasy circles, and will remain one for the next 5-7 years. The power/speed combo makes him invaluable.

But in real ball, he hasn't proven he can command CF (his Rate2 from LF this year is a subpar 88), his on-base skills are suspect, and his power is still a work-in-project.

By VORP, he's not having a particularly star-like 2006: he ranks 5th among LFers in the AL, a full win behind Swisher & Manny, but also behind Catalanotto & Reed Johnson. Granted, last year he ranked 3rd (well-behind Manny & Hideki) even with that .329 OBP, and in 2004 6th. As a young player, he has value, and the Angels recognize that, but he's not the star fantasy owners make him to be.

The problem, of course, is that in Ervin Santana's young career, there have been a lot of questions about his health & durability. In August 2004, he was shut down for the winter due to tendinitis, and last year he saw a massive upswing in innings-pitched, a bright red-light for young guns. If the DRays are going to jump at him, I hope they have copious notes on his medical history.

I think Ervin & Aybar are both future stars, and I think this deal makes a lot of sense from the DRays pov. If the DRays could also get the Halos to through in someone like that fireballer in A-ball (Arrendondo-sp?), I think it's great for the up-&-coming franchise.

by Azteca on Jun 15, 2006 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I just want to mention here...

As the happy owner of Crawford in a couple of sabermetric leagues, I'd juts like to testify that he's a star in any format, including real life, because of all those doubles and triples, the budding long-ball threat and the excellent steals success rate. Look, the guy hits a single and chances are he's standing on second or third BEFORE the next batter is done. Magic Santana has very good upside, but I don't think it's as high as Crawford's. If I'm the Rays I'd rather have CC then any single other player under contract, I believe. So I'd look to deal Baldelli for a starter first...

by igreen01 on Jun 15, 2006 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions

stolen bases

If you want to even attempt to place value on SB's... check out his Total Bases for a season and treat a SB like a BB in the terms that it counts for 1 total base.

Based on his 2005 numbers, he would have 375 total bases on the season (TB + BB + SB).

In comparison with other outfielders in baseball in 2005, let's see how they stack up:

451 Jason Bay
427 Bobby Abreu
411 Adam Dunn
410 Manny Ramirez
409 Miguel Cabrera
406 Andruw Jones
395 Brian Giles
387 Gary Sheffield
384 Grady Sizemore
382 Pat Burrell
381 Chone Figgins
377 Hideki Matsui
377 Ichiro Suzuki
375 Carl Crawford
371 Carlos Lee
368 Vladimir Guerrero
353 Cliff Floyd
348 Luis Gonzalez
347 Shawn Green
345 Johnny Damon
345 Jim Edmonds
342 Vernon Wells
335 Coco Crisp
330 Juan Pierre
314 Carlos Beltran
292 Ken Griffey

This would make him 14th overall in his age 24 season. Not elite by any means, but definately just a step away from being elite.

If he keeps up his current pace in 2006 and gets the same amount of AB's as last season, he would have 396 total bases which would have ranked 7th last season among OF's. This is not factoring in his early season shoulder injury which clearly affected his power numbers. I expect him to pass the 400 mark this season if healthy. That is elite status in my eyes.

He's still getting better as a baseball player and he's really not that far from being one of the best players in the game.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions

interesting idea

but things like vorp & EqA already take baserunning into account. In all, I think Crawford's going to level out well below a free-swinger like Vlad or a walk-machine like Abreu (which is not really criticism) but still very useful & exciting. His EqA the last five years, from 2002-2006, where .260 is league average: .231/.245/.270/.281/.278. Noteworthy, though, is that Davenport has him peaking as a star (if not superstar) in a few years, at .305. (Vlad & Abreu, in contrast, peaked at about .330.)

Like I said, perhaps the biggest knock against Crawford is that, in Baldelli's 1 1/2 year absence, he did not take control of the outfield and shift to center. His numbers in LF are below average this year, even if his career Rate2 in LF is 105. If he joins the Halos, he'll immediately shift to CF, I'd imagine....and in a few years, we'll have to check back.

by Azteca on Jun 15, 2006 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions

also

Also, as far as VORP goes, dude started the year with a bum wrist and then missed some time. The power didn't show up until mid-May. Let's check those vorp numbers come September.

by igreen01 on Jun 15, 2006 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions

A little tongue-in-cheek

Mainly because I don't think that Santana/Aybar is a decent haul for Crawford.

by limozeen on Jun 15, 2006 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

If i were both teams i would do it.

the rays get santana to go behind kazmir in their rotation. This will also open up a spot in the OF for Young in the OF.

as for the angels they get OF to replace the aging and often injured garrett anderson. plus the angels can give up say an aybar since they have brandon wood.

brad

by bwinter99 on Jun 15, 2006 2:01 PM EDT reply actions

Christmas Wish

Sox Trade - David Wells and prospect for Carl Crawford.

Please Santa?

by ChrisRef19 on Jun 15, 2006 2:16 PM EDT reply actions

What

What would the sox do with crawford right now.

He would be nice if we package out Nixon in a three team deal with maybe the Angels.

by jbg3004 on Jun 15, 2006 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah...

I was going to write Wells and Nixon, but like Nixons bat some times. A three way would make sense, but not sure TB would trade to someone in their division, or trade for Wells... but it would be good.

by ChrisRef19 on Jun 15, 2006 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions

This must be a joke, right?

Wells and a prospect for Crawford, and you are wondering what the Red Sox would do with Crawford? I think the Red Sox would find a way to use him.

I don't care who the prospect is, the trade's bad (horrendous, actually) just because a guy who will probably never pitch again is included.

by jc3 on Jun 15, 2006 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Only

if the prospect is Jesus Christ himself.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Jun 15, 2006 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Thus, the three-way

But isn't he in Oakland's system? We know him better as Daric Barton. ;)

by drjayphd on Jun 15, 2006 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions

not enough

I still do not think that is enough for Crawford.

What has Santana proven in the majors. He has shown that he has electric stuff, but so has a lot of people in baseball. Until he turns it into results he is not in the same league as crawford.

by jbg3004 on Jun 15, 2006 2:23 PM EDT reply actions

Re:

"What has Santana proven in the majors. He has shown that he has electric stuff, but so has a lot of people in baseball. Until he turns it into results he is not in the same league as crawford."

See, that's sort of the problem. If you wait for Santana to prove he's an electric starter, then you won't be able to get him, because no one is going to trade a 23-year old stud starting pitcher who is cost controled.

So basically it's a tough position to be in. You need the pitching but you're unsure if the pitcher will work out and You'd rather go with the known (and improving) commodity that is Crawford. But if you don't acquire pitching, you're going nowhere.

I guess you rely on the scouts and hope you don't regret your decision later, but this is one of those really tough decisions for GM's.

by Jgaztambide on Jun 15, 2006 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Why not trade Dukes, Young, et al..

Crawford is proven, long-term, and could be the cornerstone of the franchise.

Why not trade Young and his attitude to some prospect-frenzied organization? The premium placed on prospects could make the Rays almost immediately competitive and they would still have an embarassing wealth of young talent.

by Athletic Supporter @ Minor League Ball on Jun 15, 2006 2:33 PM EDT reply actions

What confusion?

I don't personally understand anyone's confusion in this matter. Anaheim needs help. The DRO needs help. Jgaz hit the nail on the head. The is a simply a situation where the DRO has more OFs than SPs; and vice versa for Anaheim. The success of Jered Weaver makes it imperitive that the Angels bring in a bat at the expense of an SP.

I like Santana a lot, but Crawford could become the next Garrett Anderson (probably better). Santana pairs with The Kazmanian One to continue the foundation of pitching that Tampa is building. Aybar and Upton both have positional issues, but this allows flexiblity within the DRO to allow both players to develop. This trade has to get done.

Cole Hamels has spoken! (Well, not really, but I know he would agree with me.)

*This message brought to you by The Church of Cole Hamels and Latter Day Lefties*

by QuixoticQuasiQuandary on Jun 15, 2006 2:34 PM EDT reply actions

A real Twins package for Crawford

Decent arms package could be made from these choices:

One of:
Garza, Perkins, Slowey

One of:
Baker, Durbin, Bonser

One of:
Swarzak, Morlan, Waldrop

I think any combo of three on this list would beat Santana/Aybar, especially because the Rays are out for high ceiling arms. There's not a pitcher on this list who profiles lower than a #3 ceiling.

by limozeen on Jun 15, 2006 2:35 PM EDT reply actions

I like

But I wouldn't say there isn't a pitcher with lower than a #3 ceiling....a couple of those guys strike me as #4 / #5 guys unless they continue to project.

That said, I do think the Rays would take a Perkins/Bonser/Swarzak (or Harben) combo over Santana and Aybar. I saw someone above say they think both will be stars, and I have to disagree. Aybar looks like a potentially above-average SS, but probably no better than a Julio Lugo / Orlando Cabrera type (and quite possibly short of that), while Santana reminds me a lot of that frustrating type of pitcher who goes through a whole career flashing brilliance while alternating between getting injured and losing his control. The Rays already have an abundance of those guys (E-Jackson, Waechter, McClung). Santana's probably a bit better than the three I just mentioned, but there's a significant risk that that's where he ends up for the long-term. If you're going to gamble on pitching, it's best not to have all your eggs in one basket like that.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Jun 15, 2006 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Couldn't agree more.

Seems like you've got very realisitic expectations on CC's trade value. Crawford isn't a future Bobby Abreu...he's not a top 10 player outside of fantasy and probably never profiles to be because his strike zone judgment just isn't elite. But he is a great player and will garner a ridiculous return because of his age, contract, and skill set.

Like you, I really don't understand how Santana and Aybar is a better package than the three pitching prospects that the Twins could send.

Whether they will or not remains to be seen, but Crawford seems like the kind of guy that the Twins would target: Young, athletic, cornerstone type with a reasonable contract.

by limozeen on Jun 15, 2006 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Rays

would laugh at those twins packages IMO.

And comparing Santana to McClung, Jackson, and Waechter isn't very close. McClung brings heat but doesn't have command or more than 2 pitches. He needs to be a reliever IMO. Jackson has zero control and will be a bust. I hope not but think that is where he is headed. Waechter doesn't have the stuff.

you also talk about Santana going back and forth from having control. He is known for good control. And has two fantastic pitches. He just needs time to refine his changeup and more importantly to get composure. He sucks away from home even in good parks.

by pedrophile on Jun 15, 2006 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions

trade him

I think the Rays should jump on any deal that nets them good, young starting pitching in exchange for someone like Crawford, who is the type of player that lots of teams overrate because of his speed (and possibly his 'intangibles'). Look at his numbers - they're not particularly good. He plays a good OF, but I don't think it's good enough to offset his low OPS. Sure he's young, but he's been in the majors for a while and his numbers aren't really improving by the leaps and bounds that you'd like to see.

The Rays screwed up by not trading Gaithright this preseason when his value was at its peak. Now they didn't trade him and he's sucking big time. They should pull the string on the Crawford trade sooner rather than later and get some good pitching in exchange. The Rays have people who can step into the OF for him so they won't really miss him much.

by sabernar on Jun 15, 2006 2:37 PM EDT reply actions

Wow

I'm amazed by how much people overvalue Crawford. Much as people overvalued Coco Crisp. And they're very similar players.

Crawford is not a star and probably never will be.

You trade Crawford for Aybar and Santana and a third pitching prospect right now makes some such sense -- both short term and long term.

Move Lugo for more pitching help.

Upton moves to second for now. Aybar goes to short. Cantu to third.

Dukes plays left. Baldelli center. Young right.

Gomes DHs.

First is a question. Maybe you ask for Kotchman from the Angels instead of a second pitcher.

That's the line up for 06 and probably 07.

Let Baldelli reestablish himself next year. Then trade him.

Move Upton to center. And fir Longoria in at second or third.

Once Breignac is ready in 08/09 trade Cantu.

by Montreal97 on Jun 15, 2006 3:00 PM EDT reply actions

Doesn't work like that

You can't just play musical chairs with guys and put them where you please.

Upton would still be a defensive liability at 2B and has never played there. Then you move him to CF later after making him learn a new position?

Once Brignac is ready trade Cantu... why? Brignac doesn't play 2B.

I agree with some of the moves, but some are pointless and unnecessary.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions

a lot of people...

...have suggested BJ move to 2B, because the majority of his errors this year have been the throwing sort. But, of course, that would involve time for learning, and would delay Upton's return to the majors even further. Like I mentioned previously, it doesn't look like it's going to happen, but it wouldn't be a horrible idea.

by Azteca on Jun 15, 2006 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Plus

the second biggest reason for the throwing errors (after the mental part) is that his footwork is horrible. 2B would just exacerbate that.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on Jun 15, 2006 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Why not?

Upton obviously can't play short.

And we're moving to the easy end of the defensive spectrum.

Maybe he won;t stick at second but its worth a try.

Its not like players like Yout and Soriano are worse for switching positions or Garciaparra, or Banks, or Youklis or Figgins.

We put too much stock in this whole "learning a new position" thing. Some might not be able to do it, but the vast majority of middle infielders can move the outfield without much trouble. Its not like we're asking them to catch.

And you have plenty of time to teach Brignac a new position. He's still in A ball -- and also not going to stick at short because of defense.

Maybe it doesn't work. But a team like Tampa should be thinking creatively instead of letting their talent rot away from under them. Being old and conservative isn't going to get them anywhere.

by Montreal97 on Jun 15, 2006 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

funny

I find it funny that you claim the Rays should basically give up on guys fixing their fielding errors who are 19-21 years old.

Most guys who play shortstop at ages 19-21 commit a ton of errors. Sure, they commit more than usual, but they are still learning baseball and getting comfortable at the position.

To say that they need to switch and will never be good at it is a bit premature.

Upton is running out of time at SS, but Brignac has time to stick at SS although most see his future at 3B.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Crawford

Here's an article done by a guy on Raysbaseball.com that makes at least a decent arguement that CC was worth more runs than Manny Ramirez.

http://www.raysbaseball.com/JW-CrawfordComparison.shtml

He's good, and I think you're signifigantly undervaluing him.

"Chuck Lamar, you're fired"- Stuart Sternburg.

by Tyler on Jun 15, 2006 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Addendum

D-Rays will be fitting the Red Sox in 09 for the division.

It'll be the D-Rays great lineup against Beckett, Lester, Papelbon, Hansen, Madson, Bard and Buckholz.

Great rivlary. Hitting vs. Pitching. Can't wait.

by Montreal97 on Jun 15, 2006 3:02 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed...

TB vs. BOS in the race for the East. NY will be buying old injured players or trading their young tallent for guys like Eric Milton, Eric Gagne, AJ Burnett and others.

by ChrisRef19 on Jun 15, 2006 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Keep dreaming

The Yankees are going nowhere. You actually think that with their resources that they are going to fall off so quickly? Also, if Cashman actually gets to make the decisions, they won't be trading off the young guys as fast as you want to make it seem.

If Hughes & Tabata are as good as they seem to be, and they can get some fairly quick contributions from Kennedy and/or Chamberlain, all they'll need to do is add some FA pitching and maybe another bat in the OF and they'll be fine.

by jc3 on Jun 15, 2006 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Curveball!

"You actually think that with their resources that they are going to fall off so quickly?"

I think that the Yanks can't depend on their financial resources in the long term, and I think they've recognized this.

The latest CBA brought in Revenue Sharing, as well as a luxury tax, and depending on who you ask, both of those things could increase in the coming CBA. What they both have in common is that they decrease the advantage that financial resources bring.

5 years ago, you would never have seen the Brewers lock up sheets longterm or the Twins lock up Santana. We've seen a decrease in impact free agents who hit the market, and that doesn't bode well for the Yankees to continue their trend of acquiring / signing allstars.

Teams are going to have to build from the inside moreso than they have in the past. The Yanks have realized this (or at least Cashman has), thus their refusal to part with young players.

And this will only grow in importance if we start to move closer to a hard cap or harder luxury cap fines, or increased revenue sharing, etc.

by Jgaztambide on Jun 15, 2006 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Just

remeber all those great Yankee teams in the 80s and early 90s.

Those financial resources certainly bought them a lot of championships then.

by Montreal97 on Jun 15, 2006 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

back then...

...their payroll wasn't 3x league average.

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jun 15, 2006 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Dreamers

Dreamers all. Those packages are jokes.

If the D-Rays are stupid enough to trade Crawford AND further clog their infield situation, they can go ahead and do so...but he's the only one of their outfielders I wouldn't move. The Durham Bulls guys in the pipeline, if they both end up being sensational (odds are against it), would be nice to have in addition to Crawford and Gomes as a DH. That means all of the dead wood - Gathright, Hollins, Baldelli - needs to get moved. Maybe keep Baldelli, but there's no reason Gathright or Hollins belong on that roster.

Crawford's a terror on the basepaths, plays excellent defense, is experienced but still young, and has improved each season. The only knocks on him are power and injuries, but the injuries aren't catastrophic and his power will probably end up nudging 20 HRs, which won't be bad if power numbers ever come back down to normal in the years to come. Finally, he's got a great contract. If I'm the D-Rays, he's the face of my franchise, along with Kazmir - neither of those guys should be available unless you're getting a SUPERSTAR. Baker and trash for Crawford, jeez...

by historypeats on Jun 15, 2006 3:43 PM EDT reply actions

Santana/Morales for Crawford

Would be good for both sides.

DRays get a #2 pitcher and a 1st baseman both needs both young and cheap with huge upside.

Angels get a STUD young outfielder.

Erstad can play 1st or outfield and DH, Anderson OF DH, Kotchman if ever healthy is your 1stbaseman of the future

As an A's fan I do not want Crawford in the AL west, that guy is flat out good and if they hit him in front of Vlad his numbers will be off the charts.

"Win or Lose, Still Drink Booze"

by Bud Light @ Minor League Ball on Jun 15, 2006 4:06 PM EDT reply actions

Rays

I don't see how Morales is much of an improvement, if any, over Wes Bankston for the Rays.

If the Angels want Crawford, they should throw out Santana and Kendrick as the first 2 names and maybe add a swap of minors prospects.

In my mind that is the kind of deal that is equal to Crawford and a prospect from the Rays who isn't major league ready yet (Houser, Barratt)

The Angels get a cheap long-term contract with Carl Crawford, free up space for Jered Weaver, and can decide whether Kennedy or Aybar is their future at 2B.

The Rays get instant pitching help, free up an outfield spot for Young/Dukes, and can move Cantu back to 3B for Kendrick to play 2B.

Having said that, I doubt the Angels would offer Kendrick. If they offer Santana, Wood, and Shell/Saunders for Crawford, then I think the Rays have to seriously consider that offer.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Crawford...

I'm not sure why people think he's a superstar, and granted this is just from the perspective of a fantasy player. But...

He is 44th overall in the AL in OPS (sandwiched between Overbay and Wilkerson), 19th in OPS for AL OFs (Damon and Wilkerson), and 4th in LF OPS (between Ibanez and Wilderson). Not exactly exclusive company there.

Including both minors and majors

He's never walked more than 36 times in a season.
He's never hit more than 15 homers.
He's never slugged over 500 or had an OBA over 400.
He's had just one 800 ops season (on the nose last year)

His value to our league is based in his runs and RBIs, and since he's not particularly good at getting on base, that's more a product of his lineup than his talent.

Granted, he's 25, but unless he finds significant power and gets his HR total up to 25-30 (he's on pace for 19 this season, by far his best), and his walks to 60+, I just don't see him as an elite type player.

by beastball on Jun 15, 2006 4:51 PM EDT reply actions

I think he's just short of elite

But with Crawford, you have to look at the whole package.

He's improving every aspect of his offense and is just 25 years old. His K/BB is slowly approaching acceptable levels, and his IsoD is getting into above-average range. For a toolsy speedster, his power has improved every year.

He's got great defensive range and an acceptable arm. He could be a plus defender at every outfield position.

He's a terror on the basepaths.

He's a .290 career hitter.

There's nothing that he's bad at, just nothing besides stealing bases that he's fantastic at. He's overrated because of the fantasy contingent, but he's very valuable because he's one of those guys who does everything well.

by limozeen on Jun 15, 2006 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions

But...

He doesn't do everything well. And maybe this is just the fantasy guy in me speaking. He hits for an ok average (over 300 once) and he's good on steals.

But in order to become elite, he needs to get his average over 300 and keep it there, double his homeruns, and double his walks, then I'd count him as an elite type player. But that's a tall order for any player.

I'm not saying CC is terrible or anything, but you're really relying on projection over production. Based on his production, he's not elite. Granted he is 25, but that's enough to have a track record, its not like the guy is a 21 year old rook.

I have my doubts that he'll ever walk much. I recall a thread on this site about BB rate, and how if a player hasn't shown the ability to walk around 22-23, then it just doesn't happen for them.

He could improve his homerun totals, but I just don't think he'll be able to do that enough. I think he'll peak around 20.

Now a 300-20 with 475 slug, 350 OBA, and 40-50 steals is no slouch, but I wouldn't consider him to be elite.

by beastball on Jun 15, 2006 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions

agreed mostly

I did say he's just short of elite, BTW.

Scale of 1-10 (5 average):
Speed: 10
Stealing: 10
Range: 10
Average: 9
Power: 7*
Arm: 6
K/BB: 5*
IsoD: 4*

The asterisks are where he has made significant progress over the years, and where I think he's got some projection left. Really, IsoD is the only place he's below average. Everything else is consistently good to great.

He's not an elite player. He's just really, really good.

by limozeen on Jun 15, 2006 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Also...

It really just depends on your definition of elite. Like I think of Manny or Vlad as elite. Crawford isn't to that level...yet, but if he makes significant improvements in power and walks, then he could be.

by beastball on Jun 15, 2006 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions

for clarity's sake

He doesn't turn 25 until August.

I think he is improving the walk rate, showing much more power and I don't think he's nearly maxed out yet. I still doubt he turns into an elite player, but wouldn't be surprised if he turned into a top 15 type in the next 3 years.

by ultxmxpx on Jun 15, 2006 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Crawford

"He's never walked more than 36 times in a season."
This season he's projected out to draw 41 walks.
"He's never hit more than 15 homers."
This season he's on pace to hit 21 HRs.
"He's never slugged over 500 or had an OBA over 400."
Excluding April, he has a .530 SLG.
He's had just one 800 ops season (on the nose last year)
He has a .809 OPS and excluding June, again, he has a .882 OPS.

He's breaking those fairly low standards you set.

by ultxmxpx on Jun 15, 2006 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not saying he won't exceed those levels...

I'm just saying he hasn't. Breaking is one thing, broken is another. Also, I didn't set those levels, he did.

The levels I set were double his current career high in homers (15 to 30) and walks (36 to 72), and repeat a 300+ average, then I'll call him an elite OF.

His onpace situation is one thing now, and it was something completely different just a few days ago before his 2 HR game, and it was different 4 weeks ago when he only had 1 HR.

Point being, projections are not production.

Also, you can slice and dice anyone's statistical record to make it look better than what it is, but the overall numbers are what they are.

I'm not rooting for or against CC, but just saying, given what we know about his major and minor league history, and his current production, he's not elite...yet.

by beastball on Jun 15, 2006 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes,

I see.

by ultxmxpx on Jun 15, 2006 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions

OPS

The Crawford skeptics keep pushing OPS, but as BP's Joe Sheehan (I think) has recently acknowledged with regards to Jose Reyes, OPS seriously undervalues guys who can end up at 3B on any single. You add the power and the improving batter's eye and Crawford's a big difference maker for the next 5 years.

by igreen01 on Jun 16, 2006 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Imagine

If he had been in AAA 2 years ago, AA year before that, A ball before that, ect

Instead he was a big leaguer all that time. He hit 260/290/371 in the bigs at 20. Imagine what he would have done in the California League or college baseball then. Instead he was a big leaguer.
He'd one the the top handful of prospects in baseball-if not the top position player prospect in the game-if he had been in th eminors until last year.
And you guys would be talking about his value being untradable.
Lastings Milledge and Elijah Dukes couldn'tve held his jock.

This happens so often here, that a young taking his lumps in the bigs is derided for decent performance but a 23 yo blasting away in Mobile is widely lauded.

How much better did you guys want him to perform from 20-23? If he had done the things you guys are blasting him for not doing (walking 60 times, hitting .300 multiple times, hitting 25+ HRs, OBPing 360, slg 500) at those ages he'd be on a Hall of Fame course and there would be NO chance of the Angels or anyteam getting him for anything less than Pujols, MCab or Wright and even then maybe not.

Instead hes been a solid or better big leaguer from 20-23

He would have

by nms on Jun 15, 2006 6:23 PM EDT reply actions

oops

those last 2 lines were supposed to be deleted

by nms on Jun 15, 2006 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions

How about

Crawford for B. Wood and Adenhart?

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on Jun 15, 2006 6:41 PM EDT reply actions

not as bad an offer as others i've seen

but i'd still pass.

by nms on Jun 15, 2006 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't understand...

why they waited until now and didn't try and trade him at the begining of the season when Boston was desperately seeking a CF.

by rwperu34 on Jun 15, 2006 7:09 PM EDT reply actions

Being I'm his #1 fan...

Two words:

Elijah Dukes

I figure they were planning on Delmon being a fixture in their outfield, and could manage Bald, Delmon and CC. But I think that since Dukes has emerged as arugably the best minor league OF, that he's kinda forced his way into their thinking.

However, who do you trade? Delmon and Dukes are damaged goods in the eyes of the market because of their off-field questions. Bald is coming off an injury, so his at a low point. Meanwhile, CC is on pace to surpass his career high in homers and walks, and is having a good season and is signed to a reasonable contract. He's got the most current trade value.

And considering Gomes, Dukes, Lugo, Cantu, Delmon, Bald, and Upton, their offense seems good enough. They need arms, so it would just make sense to pass off CC if they can get some impact arms, who are close to ready, coming back.

by beastball on Jun 15, 2006 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree

And I agreed even more in January when the Red Sox were looking for a CF and had some ML ready arms (Paplebon, Hansen, Arroyo) plus Andy Marte.

Even without the emergence of Dukes, they were looking at Gaithright, Baldelli, and Young in the OF. They could have moved Gomes or Huff out to left if they wanted Gaithright to be a 4th OF. This would give more options with Upton. There is no way they can move him to the OF without a trade. A trade also makes it easier to get him time at 2b/3b or ss and move Lugo to one of those positions.

This is a very obvious move for the Devil Rays. It's too bad for their fans that they understand nothing about the markets for players.

by rwperu34 on Jun 15, 2006 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions

pitching

They need pitching. Not only do they have plenty of IF they just drafted another in the 1st round.

I would say Santana and either Adenhart or Arredondo.

by pedrophile on Jun 15, 2006 7:09 PM EDT reply actions

Deal Gomes

Over CC. His value, and performance, isn't going to get any higher

by nms on Jun 15, 2006 9:33 PM EDT reply actions

I've brought that up

I mentioned that Gomes may be the better trade option for the Rays.

His value isn't going to get any higher than it is this year. He occupies the DH spot which will open up the roster for 4 starting OF's (Crawford, Baldelli, Young, Dukes).

It also opens the possibility of moving Upton to DH sometimes if his fielding becomes too serious of an issue in the future.

Gomes is blocking the DH spot from anyone else in the lineup and I'm of the opinion that a DH is a valuable spot for teams. You can rest tired players, ease the workload on injured players, and make defensive switches.

The only problem with trading Gomes is that he is clearly one of the emotional leaders of the club and a huge fan favorite. Not to mention he hasn't hit arbitration yet, so he is still getting paid minimum which greatly benefits a small market team like the Rays.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Also

his big league performance is out ofline with his minor league performance and, thoughhes more athletic than hes given credit for, hes a walk-and-homer slugger alredy. Not a guy thats going to age well most likely.
Hes reached (exceeded?) his upside none of Tampas other OFs have and most of them have upside greater than Gomes' so youre not going to get burned really. What you see is what he is, which is a good ballplayer but not nessecarily a build yourteam around him type. Crawford is

by nms on Jun 15, 2006 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't necessarily agree

His performance is much in line with his minor league performance.

He had huge power numbers at every stop in the minors and increasing walk rates at every stop.

He gained a lot of weight which added to his power numbers.

I agree that he's more of a walk and homer type guy. He's basically Richie Sexson (the good version, not the 2006 version).

His value should be nearly equal to Crawford for clubs looking for an impact bat and he may actually be a better option for the Angels who are supposedly looking for a "right-handed power bat" according to their GM. The only problem with Gomes is that he probably won't play for an NL team due to not having the DH spot open and I'm sure a lot of teams question his fielding (which is better than advertised).

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 15, 2006 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Gomes

But Gomes is the prototypical DH, much more so than Crawford, Baldelli, Young, Dukes, and Upton. Having one of those five as the DH takes a lot of value away from the player. That type of player would be much more valuable for another team that'll play them in the OF.

by ultxmxpx on Jun 16, 2006 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Normally true

But when you consider that the majority of these guys are more valuable at the plate than in the field, you make the sacrifice of individual value for team value.

Putting any of them at DH on a rotating basis would be best for the TEAM, not the player. Baseball is a team sport and that should always be the primary focus.

Getting the bats of Dukes, Young, and Upton in the Rays lineup is far more important than getting their individual value up by giving them an everyday spot in the field. All of them would still be everyday players but would switch off on the DH spot occasionally. It could also lessen the impact of Upton's inconsistent defense at SS while giving the outfielders regular rest from the field.

The DH spot has been made into a handicapped position by most teams by placing a big bat with no defense there. When that player can be replaced with a bat that is just as valuable to the team and the new player also has defensive abilities, there is no reason to keep the guy who can't play the field. Gomes at DH everyday just prevents anyone else from DH'ing a game and if they can't play the field that day or are tired from the everyday grind, their bat has to be removed completely from the lineup.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Jun 16, 2006 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions