Carl Crawford

[jmajew]

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.

 

I think his point was that we shouldn't hurt our rotation so drastically by trading a pitcher who is as of right now our #2 for next year. At this point in time I would say Rich Hill has to be untradable, he has now "succeeded" at the major league level so he is no longer as big of a risk as Gallagher and Veal.

[CubinNY]

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.

 

Next to abuck I've been one of Hill's biggest supporters here. However, counting on him to be a top of the rotation starter next year is courting disaster.

 

I don't know if I'd trade Hill for Crawford, but I think it would be a fair trade. Next year Hill will be 27 and making his first full season in the majors. He's probably got about 4 or 5 years of career prime.

 

Crawford is almost a year and a half younger that Hill and will likely be a top outfielder for 7 to 10 years. Plus he is cheap. Getting him fills one hole and affords the Cubs any number of options including, Packaging Pie for young top of the rotation starter or spend big bucks on a top free agent starter.

[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.

 

Next to abuck I've been one of Hill's biggest supporters here. However, counting on him to be a top of the rotation starter next year is courting disaster.

 

I don't know if I'd trade Hill for Crawford, but I think it would be a fair trade. Next year Hill will be 27 and making his first full season in the majors. He's probably got about 4 or 5 years of career prime.

 

Crawford is almost a year and a half younger that Hill and will likely be a top outfielder for 7 to 10 years. Plus he is cheap. Getting him fills one hole and affords the Cubs any number of options including, Packaging Pie for young top of the rotation starter or spend big bucks on a top free agent starter.

 

Not all holes are the same size. A hole in the rotation (I wouldn't pencil in Hill at #2 either, but that's how barren our rotation is at this point) is much bigger than a hole in the OF, especially with Murton's improvement this season and Pie's impending arrival. A hole in our OF isn't that hard to fill with decent and/or cheap production. A hole in our rotation is hard to fill, both in terms of available decent arms and $.

 

I do like Crawford. I can't stress that enough, but the current state of our team will prevent us from acquiring him.

 

I'd do any of our young prospect SP except Hill/Veal for Crawford, but I doubt that is acceptable to TB. Crawford has a ton of value right now, especially with his contract status as it is.

 

I do agree with you that Hill for Crawford would be a fair trade, just looking at the two players. But when you consider how the rest of our team fills out, it's a move we should pass on given the opportunity.

 

I think it's far more likely to see a Veal for Crawford swap instead of Hill for Crawford for the reasons you just talked about.

[frostwyrm]

The Rays WILL get a young player of Hill's stature for Crawford, from the Cubs or whomever. Bear in mind we have to outbid 28 other teams. Offering a bunch of 2nd-tier prospects won't do it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

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.

 

You also aren't going to to make the playoffs without getting more offensive production either. We've put ourself in a position where we have to trade pitching because that's what we draft and develop. Crawford is a pretty elite young talent, so it's going to cost us the best of our young pitching. It's also being lost that trading for Crawford can make Pie expendable. What happens if we trade Hill for Crawford then ship Pie and, say Atkins to Florida for Anibal Sanchez?

[TheDude]

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.

 

The Cubs will have the money go 50 million on Schmidt. Chicago is a desirable place to play.

 

If you can't land Schmidt, then you use Pie as trade bait for a young pitcher to replace Hill.

 

The fact of the matter is this: the Cubs have one primary tradable commidity - young pitchers. If you want to improve the offense through trade, you have to deal some young pitching.

 

If you can land a cheap 25 year old highly productive player then you have to do it.

[Guest]

A hole in our OF isn't that hard to fill with decent and/or cheap production

 

Then why can the Cubs never do so?

[CUBZ99]

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.

 

The Cubs will have the money go 50 million on Schmidt. Chicago is a desirable place to play.

 

If you can't land Schmidt, then you use Pie as trade bait for a young pitcher to replace Hill.

 

The fact of the matter is this: the Cubs have one primary tradable commidity - young pitchers. If you want to improve the offense through trade, you have to deal some young pitching.

 

If you can land a cheap 25 year old highly productive player then you have to do it.

 

Not really, the Cubs young pitching has been an incredible flop this year. Granted they are young and this year will arguably be useful for their development, but there is no way you trade your second best pitcher for a position player.

 

Hendry should be looking at adding to the rotation not subtracting from it.

[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.

 

You also aren't going to to make the playoffs without getting more offensive production either. We've put ourself in a position where we have to trade pitching because that's what we draft and develop. Crawford is a pretty elite young talent, so it's going to cost us the best of our young pitching. It's also being lost that trading for Crawford can make Pie expendable. What happens if we trade Hill for Crawford then ship Pie and, say Atkins to Florida for Anibal Sanchez?

 

Oh, I agree. We're in a bad way. We need both offense and pitching to legitimately contend next season. We do have pitching in the pipeline, especially quality lefties. We need to trade some of that surplus. Pie is the position player we need more of, not less.

 

It's not being lost that getting Crawford makes Pie expendable. It's one of the reasons to avoid Crawford. We have cheap talent coming up in CF. All this org needs to do is show some patience and not try to save anyone's job (i.e. Hendry). Crawford just doesn't play the right position for us.

 

I don't think Pie and Atkins nets us Sanchez. Florida has no reason to move him and can get a decent CF prospect for less.

 

Pie will be a better player than Crawford, if minor league stats mean anything. Pie has posted better OPS at just about every level (at similar ages too) than Crawford. Pie has the better arm, is a better fielder, and has the better bat. Crawford does have the edge in basestealing, but Pie is improving markedly there and has plus-plus speed.

 

I'll wait for Pie and keep my elite pitching prospect (who is more likely Veal than Hill). All we have to do is show some patience. I really don't think we're that close to contending next season anyway.

[CuseCubFan69]

Say the Cubs did trade for Crawford, who would lead off? He isn't a high OBP guy and I doubt highly that a new manager would bat Murton leadoff. Unless the Cubs get an impact bat at SS or 2B I don't see them having a Cedeno/Theriot middle either so that might take away Theriot from the lineup .

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Say the Cubs did trade for Crawford, who would lead off? He isn't a high OBP guy and I doubt highly that a new manager would bat Murton leadoff. Unless the Cubs get an impact bat at SS or 2B I don't see them having a Cedeno/Theriot middle either so that might take away Theriot from the lineup .

 

Go get Durham and Schmidt/Zito.

 

Durham

Murton

Lee

Ramirez

Crawford

Barrett

Jones

Izturis

 

Z, Schmidt/Zito/trade target(Hudson?), Marshall/Marmol/Guzman/Mateo/Miller/Prior/Ryu/Gallagher are up for the last 3 spots.

[CUBZ99]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

[soccer10k]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

 

You conveniently left out the outfielder he would be replacing:

 

Pierre: .291/.330/.390/.720

 

Crawford is only 25 so there is the potential for him to improve even more and his OPS has improved every year.

[C.C.]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

 

It's an improvment if you add one more. Espically if he replaces Pierre.

[NorthsideAvenger]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=5035

 

Look at his career...He has IMPROVE his game tremendously since his debut. And while his OBP isn't great even this yr, I suspect he will continue to make improve in that area, especially if he play 81 of his games at Wrigley. And what is impressive is his career stolen base percentage of 82% (225 SB to 47 caught stealing and compare that to the Cubs CURRENT CF Pierre who is at 74% or 324 SB to 115 caught stealing). So, defensively both are about average at best, but Crawford is SIGNIFICANTLY better then Pierre (Looking back at it, I rather have traded Nalscon/Pinto/Mitre for Crawford and not Pierre) that this is not fair. Average/OBP are generally the same, but Crawford hits for more power---then again my grandmother hits for more power then Pierre-, and Crawford is 4 yrs younger, and will be significantly cheaper then Pierre.

 

Look, if Crawford becomes available---and not just a reporter gut feeling---I would hope Hendry does his best to get Crawford---especially with Pierre making it sound like he is targeting the White Sox as his next destination. In fact, outside of looking up ARam, I think Crawford should the #2 on Hendry's list of priorities.

[CUBZ99]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

 

You conveniently left out the outfielder he would be replacing:

 

Pierre: .291/.330/.390/.720

 

Crawford is only 25 so there is the potential for him to improve even more and his OPS has improved every year.

 

:oops: I saw him listed as a LF on his stat page. Even considering there is a spot for him to fit in the OF, would you trade Rich Hill for Jacque Jones? Considering how much everyone complains about how bad Jones is and how big of a waste of money he was, it is interesting to see everyone clamouring for a guy that actually puts up worse numbers(outside of SBs).

[RichHillIsABeast]

How is Crawford going to improve his OBP? He's going to magically start drawing more walks? He's going to do this as a Cub?

 

The only way Crawford is going to boost his OBP is by hitting over .300, which, hey, he could do. But he's not going to consistently put up OBPs over .350 from year to year.

[soccer10k]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

 

You conveniently left out the outfielder he would be replacing:

 

Pierre: .291/.330/.390/.720

 

Crawford is only 25 so there is the potential for him to improve even more and his OPS has improved every year.

 

:oops: I saw him listed as a LF on his stat page. Even considering there is a spot for him to fit in the OF, would you trade Rich Hill for Jacque Jones? Considering how much everyone complains about how bad Jones is and how big of a waste of money he was, it is interesting to see everyone clamouring for a guy that actually puts up worse numbers(outside of SBs).

 

Jacque will turn 32 in April of next year. He's not likely to improve his numbers. Crawford could still imporve. Obviously you don't know whether Crawford will improve or not but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

 

And no I wouldn't trade Rich Hill for Jacque Jones right now.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How is Crawford going to improve his OBP? He's going to magically start drawing more walks?

 

He just turned 25. Players that are as highly heralded as Crawford that break into the big leagues at his age are there for a reason. Look at Beltran for a comparison. Crawford isn't drawing as many walks as Beltran did at that stage, but Beltran still had a drastic improvement as he entered his prime. Crawford is known to have an outstanding work ethic, improving his IsoD significantly(to say, .070) is far from unrealistic.

[beowulf28]

How is Crawford going to improve his OBP? He's going to magically start drawing more walks? He's going to do this as a Cub?

 

The only way Crawford is going to boost his OBP is by hitting over .300, which, hey, he could do. But he's not going to consistently put up OBPs over .350 from year to year.

 

You don't know that, either. His OBP has steadily gone up since he's been on the D'Rays: .290 in 2002; .309 in 2003; .331 in '04 and '05; and .346 this year. It hasn't gone up dramatically, I guess, but with the exception of '04 and '05, it has gone up.

[NorthsideAvenger]

How is Crawford going to improve his OBP? He's going to magically start drawing more walks? He's going to do this as a Cub?

 

The only way Crawford is going to boost his OBP is by hitting over .300, which, hey, he could do. But he's not going to consistently put up OBPs over .350 from year to year.

 

You don't know that, either. His OBP has steadily gone up since he's been on the D'Rays: .290 in 2002; .309 in 2003; .331 in '04 and '05; and .346 this year. It hasn't gone up dramatically, I guess, but with the exception of '04 and '05, it has gone up.

 

IMO, that's a good trend.

[TheDude]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

 

You conveniently left out the outfielder he would be replacing:

 

Pierre: .291/.330/.390/.720

 

Crawford is only 25 so there is the potential for him to improve even more and his OPS has improved every year.

 

:oops: I saw him listed as a LF on his stat page. Even considering there is a spot for him to fit in the OF, would you trade Rich Hill for Jacque Jones? Considering how much everyone complains about how bad Jones is and how big of a waste of money he was, it is interesting to see everyone clamouring for a guy that actually puts up worse numbers(outside of SBs).

 

It is also worth repeating that Crawford puts up his numbers at nearly half the salary of Jones and probably at least half of what Pierre will seek, at least for 2007. You simply cannot ignore the production per dollar and the expected increase in productivity.

 

Hill is not a sure thing. He is probably going to be very good, but he could suffer a 2007 sophmore slump. I am sure that Hill would not be enough actually.

[Twiggy]

I would take Carl Crawford for CF and move Pie to a corner OF position in a few years. No doubt about it.

[CubColtPacer]

His stats. 303 BA/345OBP/480 SLG/825 OPS/56 SB/ 9 CS

 

The last two stats add up to a 86% success rate compared to Pierre's 74%.

 

 

Why does everyone think Crawford would make a difference on the Cubs? This year he is having a career year, and he wouldn't even be an improvement over the Cubs current OF's.

 

Crawford

 

.303 BA/.345 OBP /835 OPS

 

Jones

 

.287 BA/ .335 OBP/ .839 OPS

 

Murton

 

.298 BA/ .365 OBP/ .811 OPS

 

 

It seems like the Cubs already have 2 similar players in the OF.

 

You conveniently left out the outfielder he would be replacing:

 

Pierre: .291/.330/.390/.720

 

Crawford is only 25 so there is the potential for him to improve even more and his OPS has improved every year.

 

:oops: I saw him listed as a LF on his stat page. Even considering there is a spot for him to fit in the OF, would you trade Rich Hill for Jacque Jones? Considering how much everyone complains about how bad Jones is and how big of a waste of money he was, it is interesting to see everyone clamouring for a guy that actually puts up worse numbers(outside of SBs).

 

It is also worth repeating that Crawford puts up his numbers at nearly half the salary of Jones and probably at least half of what Pierre will seek, at least for 2007. You simply cannot ignore the production per dollar and the expected increase in productivity.

 

Hill is not a sure thing. He is probably going to be very good, but he could suffer a 2007 sophmore slump. I am sure that Hill would not be enough actually.

 

Crawford will make 4 million in 2007, Jones will make between 5 and 6 million-that's not nearly half of the salary of Jones. In 2008, they'll make about the same salary when Crawford's salary jumps to 5.25 million.

If he replaces Pierre in center though, he could be a definite upgrade-just as long as it is not at the expense of our starting pitching next year, because that's a spot we'll be even more desperate at.

[jmajew]

I'm sorry. I can't believe people are even debating on whether or not Crawford will be an upgrade next year. I have a serious man crush on Theriot but i'm not going to use him and say we sign Loretta. Loretta, Crawford, Lee, Ramirez, Jones, Murton, Barrett, Izturis is a drastic improvement.

 

Gallagher, Mateo/Marmol/Marshall, Cedeno/Moore should be able to net us Crawford.

 

Crawford will improve he is only 25. He may never be a superstar but no matter what if he stays at the same level he is at now he will be an extremely valuable chip for any franchise.