Carl Crawford

[RichHillIsABeast]

The Kazmir trade was awful for different reasons, Zambrano is a terrible pitcher.

 

True, but you still don't see top tier SP prospects traded often. Crawford isn't good enough to take the risk.

 

Miguel Cabrera? Yes. Carl Crawford? No.

 

The D-Rays aren't getting Veal or Hill for Crawford. No way, no how. Baseball history is pretty conclusive on how much elite pitching prospects are valued by the people who actually make the decisions.

 

If anything, prospects have become even more valuable in recent years. Beane wasn't able to deal Zito, was he? The Angels wouldn't move their prospects for that crucial bat for a playoff push this season...and their system is stacked with upper echelon talent. They who can most afford to part with prospects didn't. What does that tell you about the likelihood of the Cubs dealing the cream of our crop?

[Guest]

Now that I think about it, if you are going to go with an outfield of Murton, Pie and Crawford, it probably would be best to put Pie in RF even though value-wise you would want him CF. His arm is much better suited for RF and Crawford doesn't have much of a throwing arm.

 

Man, a lot of ground could be covered between those two. After checking the numbers, Pie's power could certainly still develop the way Crawford's has. Pie's power numbers equal or surpass Crawford's in the minors and their ages and levels are pretty comparable.

 

Food for thought.

 

once the lineup is set, you put the players in the best defensive alignment possible. the players value doesn't change.

[CubsWin]

this reminds me of when people didn't want to trade patterson for beltran.

How is this comparable to that? Hill is showing us he is for real. Since August 1st, he has gone 6-3 with a 2.58 ERA. In 69.2 IP, he has struckout 71 while walking only 19 and allowing just 48 hits for a WHIP of 0.96.

 

Pie and Crawford are very similar. Pie is just 4 years behind him and likely will be ready sometime next season to join the Cubs. Hill would be rather difficult to replace. Pie is almost a Crawford clone. I agree that he hasn't done what Crawford has done yet. But I disagree with anyone who claims that he isn't a safe bet to come close.

 

No way I trade Hill for Crawford.

[soccer10k]

Does anyone want to trade a pitcher with top of the rotation stuff for a CFer? Are you serious? We have a CF option coming up in Pie. He is not a RFer. What a waste.

 

Our rotation is problematic enough without tearing another hole in it.

 

Are you kidding? Crawford would be fixture for the better part of decade. At 25 he's already one of the top outfielders in the game.

 

There is no guarentee that Pie will make it. And he'd have to go a long way to make to the level that Crawford is at already. Crawford is the proverbeal 5-tool player.

 

If Pie does make it the Cubs can move Crawford to either corner position.

 

They want a top of the rotation starter. That means a #1 or #2 starter. Which give you more wins? Not the position player, that's for sure. We don't have someone who can step in and fill that #2 spot if Hill or whoever is dealt. There are CF options out there that only cost us money and don't unplug one hole in the damn to fill another. Are they as good as Crawford now or in the long term? No, but the net effect on the team is more wins w/o Crawford (as the team stands today).

 

I like Crawford, no doubt. His obp is a little low, but he has other skills that make up for it. His CS% is very acceptable as is his defense. He has affordable club options through 2010 i believe. I wouldn't cry too much if we swapped the likes of Hill (and some other middle prospects) for Crawford b/c that's ok for the long term future as Gallagher, Veal, and Pawalek are on the way. OK long term move for a 100 million team. Poor move for 2007 and Hendry's clock is ticking. I doubt Hendry gets Crawford for the current asking price.

 

Pie will make it. Whether or not he reaches is ceiling is debateable, but barring some freak injury (same could happen to Crawford) he'll be in the bigs soon enough.

 

You don't see top pitching prospects moved much. Remember Kazmir? That went real well. I threw Hill's name out there, but more likely it's Veal who gets moved (Younger, probably higher ceiling).

 

Veal for Delmon Young? Done.

 

You don't know if Pie will make it because he's not even in the bigs yet. Crawford has made it already. If the Cubs acquired him it would give Pie another year to mature in the minors. Going into the 2008 season, Jacque would be in the last year of his contract making him easier to trade if necessary. If the Cubs can get Crawford for a decent price, they should by all means do it.

[RichHillIsABeast]

It's not about Pie vs. Crawford.

 

It's about trading an elite pitching prospect (or Hill) for Crawford.

 

What do you gain?

 

Crawford's production less whoever is in CF (Pie, stopgap, Pierre, etc)

 

What do you lose?

 

An elite pitching prospect (i.e. good chance of reaching #2+ potential).

 

 

 

Crawford's excess production over whoever is in CF isn't worth a front of the rotation starter. It's not even close.

[CubsWin]

Now that I think about it, if you are going to go with an outfield of Murton, Pie and Crawford, it probably would be best to put Pie in RF even though value-wise you would want him CF. His arm is much better suited for RF and Crawford doesn't have much of a throwing arm.

 

Man, a lot of ground could be covered between those two. After checking the numbers, Pie's power could certainly still develop the way Crawford's has. Pie's power numbers equal or surpass Crawford's in the minors and their ages and levels are pretty comparable.

 

Food for thought.

 

once the lineup is set, you put the players in the best defensive alignment possible. the players value doesn't change.

Of course, it doesn't. That's not how I'm using value in that sentence. I'm simply responding to some posters who earlier in the thread were saying that Pie's value (as in trade value or ability to be worth his contract or ability to produce runs) is best served by him playing CF largely due to his bat and current lack of SLG. And I agree, at least for the next few seasons. His power has a chance to develop to where he could post a near .900 OPS.

 

But, yes, clearly once the line-up is set...

[soccer10k]

It's not about Pie vs. Crawford.

 

It's about trading an elite pitching prospect (or Hill) for Crawford.

 

What do you gain?

 

Crawford's production less whoever is in CF (Pie, stopgap, Pierre, etc)

 

What do you lose?

 

An elite pitching prospect (i.e. good chance of reaching #2+ potential).

 

 

 

Crawford's excess production over whoever is in CF isn't worth a front of the rotation starter. It's not even close.

 

But you're still not trading a proven #2 starter. You're trading a prospect (i.e. a player that may or may not pan out and become a good/great player) and not a proven player. Crawford is a proven player.

[CubsWin]

You don't know if Pie will make it because he's not even in the bigs yet. Crawford has made it already. If the Cubs acquired him it would give Pie another year to mature in the minors. Going into the 2008 season, Jacque would be in the last year of his contract making him easier to trade if necessary. If the Cubs can get Crawford for a decent price, they should by all means do it.

True, no one knows if Pie will make it or not. But given his age (21), his level (AAA) and his production .283/.341/.451 on the year, .323/.373/.538 post All-Star break, he is a pretty darn safe bet to come close to Crawford-type production in the bigs and certainly has the ability to surpass it.

[CubsWin]

It's not about Pie vs. Crawford.

 

It's about trading an elite pitching prospect (or Hill) for Crawford.

 

What do you gain?

 

Crawford's production less whoever is in CF (Pie, stopgap, Pierre, etc)

 

What do you lose?

 

An elite pitching prospect (i.e. good chance of reaching #2+ potential).

 

 

 

Crawford's excess production over whoever is in CF isn't worth a front of the rotation starter. It's not even close.

 

But you're still not trading a proven #2 starter. You're trading a prospect (i.e. a player that may or may not pan out and become a good/great player) and not a proven player. Crawford is a proven player.

I agree. I'm willing to trade a prospect with a ceiling of being a #2, but I'm not willing to trade Rich Hill right now.

[soccer10k]

You don't know if Pie will make it because he's not even in the bigs yet. Crawford has made it already. If the Cubs acquired him it would give Pie another year to mature in the minors. Going into the 2008 season, Jacque would be in the last year of his contract making him easier to trade if necessary. If the Cubs can get Crawford for a decent price, they should by all means do it.

True, no one knows if Pie will make it or not. But given his age (21), his level (AAA) and his production .283/.341/.451 on the year, .323/.373/.538 post All-Star break, he is a pretty darn safe bet to come close to Crawford-type production in the bigs and certainly has the ability to surpass it.

 

Who says you have to get rid of Pie to get Crawford though? Why couldn't you have both on the team?

[RichHillIsABeast]

It's not about Pie vs. Crawford.

 

It's about trading an elite pitching prospect (or Hill) for Crawford.

 

What do you gain?

 

Crawford's production less whoever is in CF (Pie, stopgap, Pierre, etc)

 

What do you lose?

 

An elite pitching prospect (i.e. good chance of reaching #2+ potential).

 

 

 

Crawford's excess production over whoever is in CF isn't worth a front of the rotation starter. It's not even close.

 

But you're still not trading a proven #2 starter. You're trading a prospect (i.e. a player that may or may not pan out and become a good/great player) and not a proven player. Crawford is a proven player.

 

It's not that simple. You evaluate a certain player's potential for reaching his potential and what that potential ceiling is.

 

How much the Cubs value the likes of Veal and Pawalek is unknown by us, but if Hill is any indication, they are untouchable unless someone of Miguel Cabrera's calibre is available. Hill was widely rumored to be untouchable this last offseason.

 

Veal is a better prospect than Hill ever was and he's younger.

[CubsWin]

You don't know if Pie will make it because he's not even in the bigs yet. Crawford has made it already. If the Cubs acquired him it would give Pie another year to mature in the minors. Going into the 2008 season, Jacque would be in the last year of his contract making him easier to trade if necessary. If the Cubs can get Crawford for a decent price, they should by all means do it.

True, no one knows if Pie will make it or not. But given his age (21), his level (AAA) and his production .283/.341/.451 on the year, .323/.373/.538 post All-Star break, he is a pretty darn safe bet to come close to Crawford-type production in the bigs and certainly has the ability to surpass it.

 

Who says you have to get rid of Pie to get Crawford though? Why couldn't you have both on the team?

No one is saying that I know of. Certainly not me. I just laid out my argument for why having an OF of Murton, Pie and Crawford would be a good thing for years to come.

 

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't trade Hill for Crawford because trading Hill would leave a gaping hole in a rotation that already has a lot of holes while not acquiring Crawford would be felt a lot less because, in Pie, the Cubs have someone a lot like him on the horizon.

 

But I'm all for trading for Crawford. Just not giving up Hill to do it.

[CubsWin]

It's not that simple. You evaluate a certain player's potential for reaching his potential and what that potential ceiling is.

 

How much the Cubs value the likes of Veal and Pawalek is unknown by us, but if Hill is any indication, they are untouchable unless someone of Miguel Cabrera's calibre is available. Hill was widely rumored to be untouchable this last offseason.

 

Veal is a better prospect than Hill ever was and he's younger.

Its important to remember that those rumors about Hill being "untouchable" have been debunked a couple of times already. And I'm not certain that Veal is expected to perform at the big league level the way Hill has over the last two months. Not many pitchers can maintain an ERA under 3, including probably Hill. But right now, Hill is doing exactly that in the bigs while Veal has yet to pitch a game at the AA level.

 

Veal is younger and can still solve his control problems. But I remember reading about Hill when he was in A ball that if he could solve his control problems, the sky was the limit for him. He was a high risk, high reward type prospect. And, at the moment at least, he appears to be paying off.

 

Veal will likely pay off, too, down the road, but I disagree that he clearly has the higher ceiling. And he certainly has a lot further to go to prove himself at the big league level. Veal is a great prospect and I would prefer not to trade him either. I would try to deal Gallagher before Veal, but Crawford is a very good offensive player and the Cubs are going to have to give up someone good if they are to get him.

[NorthsideAvenger]

So the question is:

 

If Hendry recieved a phone call from the Devil Rays and is told that they are interested in moving Carl Crawford and are interested in three pitchers; Veal, Gallagher, and Hill. The DRays say they would trade Crawford for one of them (if they want two of them, they would have to include somebody like Brignac or even Joel Guzman) and a 2nbd tier solid prospect like Carlos Marmol or Juan Mateo? Anybody interested, or think Hendry might be interested?

[muntjack]

If we're selling the farm, call Florida first, please.

[Balsa]

So the question is:

 

If Hendry recieved a phone call from the Devil Rays and is told that they are interested in moving Carl Crawford and are interested in three pitchers; Veal, Gallagher, and Hill. The DRays say they would trade Crawford for one of them (if they want two of them, they would have to include somebody like Brignac or even Joel Guzman) and a 2nbd tier solid prospect like Carlos Marmol or Juan Mateo? Anybody interested, or think Hendry might be interested?

 

I'd do it in a heartbeart for Veal and Marmol. Hell, I'd throw in Mateo too, if negotiations stalled. I think Hendry would too.

[HoopsCubs]

Here's a quick look at Crawford's contract:

 

2007 - $ 4.00M

2008 - $ 5.25M

2009 - $ 8.25M team option (with $2.5M buyout)

2010 - $10.00M team option (with $1.25M buyout)

 

 

Incidentally, picking up the 2009 and 2010 options buys his first 2 years of free agency eligibility.

 

There is not anything to dislike about acquiring his contract. Where do we sign up?

[jmajew]

I would like to think a package of Gallagher, Cedeno, and Marmol would get us Crawford. The D-rays need a SS and they get a Pitcher who could help them next year in Marmol and a pitcher who has top of the rotation potential.

 

Their OF is jammed with Baldelli, Crawford, Young, Gomes(eventhough he is pretty bad). So they will need to trade one of them. Gomes won't net them much and young is untradeable. Even if they decide to trade Baldelli I'd look at it. He is almost the same player as Crawford. Same average, OBP, SLG, the only difference being Crawford steal more bases.

[TheDude]

Here's a quick look at Crawford's contract:

 

2007 - $ 4.00M

2008 - $ 5.25M

2009 - $ 8.25M team option (with $2.5M buyout)

2010 - $10.00M team option (with $1.25M buyout)

 

 

Incidentally, picking up the 2009 and 2010 options buys his first 2 years of free agency eligibility.

 

There is not anything to dislike about acquiring his contract. Where do we sign up?

 

Exactly right.

 

Trading Hill or a similar prospect package for Crawford is a great idea. It gives a solid offensive production player at a discounted rate, which then allows the team to put out the money for a guy like Schmidt and have the flexibility necessary for Ramirez and another high-end bat.

 

Crawford also has the side benefit of making Pierre unnecessary.

 

Get it done Hendry.

[CuseCubFan69]

Isn't Tampa Bay one of the worst teams to deal with? Personally, I think they'll ask for quite a bit for Crawford.

[rawaction]

I agree that I probably wouldn't trade Hill for Crawford. The Cubs need offense, but the pitching isn't a strength like it used to be. Trading Hill would cause a huge hole in the rotation for 2007. Crawford would add offensive production, but that could be had, albeit more expensively, with Soriano, Lee, etc.

 

And again, I'm a huge Crawford fan. If they want Gallagher, Marmol, and Moore, it's done.

[TheDude]

I agree that I probably wouldn't trade Hill for Crawford. The Cubs need offense, but the pitching isn't a strength like it used to be. Trading Hill would cause a huge hole in the rotation for 2007. Crawford would add offensive production, but that could be had, albeit more expensively, with Soriano, Lee, etc.

 

And again, I'm a huge Crawford fan. If they want Gallagher, Marmol, and Moore, it's done.

 

But here's the thing - adding Crawford adds only 4 million for 2007, a cost made up by pursuing a couple 1 million dollar bench players (or cheaper) instead of some higher profile 2.5 million bench guys.

 

In other words, you can almost wash the salary of Crawford while adding an .850 OPS CF to your roster.

 

So adding Crawford could allow the team to also add Soriano and Schmidt, while retaining Ramirez.

 

The opportunity cost of losing Hill is worth it, IMO.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I agree that I probably wouldn't trade Hill for Crawford. The Cubs need offense, but the pitching isn't a strength like it used to be. Trading Hill would cause a huge hole in the rotation for 2007. Crawford would add offensive production, but that could be had, albeit more expensively, with Soriano, Lee, etc.

 

And again, I'm a huge Crawford fan. If they want Gallagher, Marmol, and Moore, it's done.

 

But here's the thing - adding Crawford adds only 4 million for 2007, a cost made up by pursuing a couple 1 million dollar bench players (or cheaper) instead of some higher profile 2.5 million bench guys.

 

In other words, you can almost wash the salary of Crawford while adding an .850 OPS CF to your roster.

 

So adding Crawford could allow the team to also add Soriano and Schmidt, while retaining Ramirez.

 

The opportunity cost of losing Hill is worth it, IMO.

 

What if you can't sign Schmidt or Zito? There are other teams out there with deep pockets, you know. I've never heard either of those players express interest in Chicago.

 

Then you're looking at a rotation of Zambrano and who else? Prior and Miller shouldn't be counted on at all. Our young uns need more time in the minors and shouldn't be viewed as anything other than #5 starters.

 

Crawford doesn't make your offense so overwelming that you can get away with one ace and a bunch of rookies. You don't make the playoffs with a rotation that barren.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I agree that I probably wouldn't trade Hill for Crawford. The Cubs need offense, but the pitching isn't a strength like it used to be. Trading Hill would cause a huge hole in the rotation for 2007. Crawford would add offensive production, but that could be had, albeit more expensively, with Soriano, Lee, etc.

 

And again, I'm a huge Crawford fan. If they want Gallagher, Marmol, and Moore, it's done.

 

But here's the thing - adding Crawford adds only 4 million for 2007, a cost made up by pursuing a couple 1 million dollar bench players (or cheaper) instead of some higher profile 2.5 million bench guys.

 

In other words, you can almost wash the salary of Crawford while adding an .850 OPS CF to your roster.

 

So adding Crawford could allow the team to also add Soriano and Schmidt, while retaining Ramirez.

 

The opportunity cost of losing Hill is worth it, IMO.

 

What if you can't sign Schmidt or Zito? There are other teams out there with deep pockets, you know. I've never heard either of those players express interest in Chicago.

 

Then you're looking at a rotation of Zambrano and who else? Prior and Miller shouldn't be counted on at all. Our young uns need more time in the minors and shouldn't be viewed as anything other than #5 starters.

 

Crawford doesn't make your offense so overwelming that you can get away with one ace and a bunch of rookies. You don't make the playoffs with a rotation that barren.

 

I'm not seeing how keeping Hill with that group somehow legitimizes the rotation.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I'm not seeing how keeping Hill with that group somehow legitimizes the rotation.

 

B/C it's far easier to fill in 3 holes than 4. Everyone needs starting pitching.

 

If you can't make the playoffs with a rotation of Z/Hill/?/?/?, then you're definitely not making it with a rotation of Z/?/?/?/?, especially when the bulk of those unknowns are going to be filled in with Free Agents.

 

Our rotation is barren, especially if Prior and Miller don't make their starts. Why make the problem worse by trading away a potential #2 making the league minimum? Crawford doesn't win you more games in CF than Hill does in the rotation (over their expected replacements).

 

Rotation depth gets you to the playoffs in the absence of a great offense (Crawford doesn't give us that). We need more SP, not less.