Crawford off the market

[Post Count Padder]

Carl Crawford-OF-Rays Dec. 2 - 10:52 pm et

 

A source told the Chicago Tribune that Carl Crawford was taken off the market with the Rays' move to trade Delmon Young.

 

That's no surprise. Crawford is under control for three more years, so the Rays have never been under any pressure to move him.

Source: Chicago Tribune

[erik316wttn]

Well crap.

[abuck1220]

good.

[SweetZombieJesus]

good.

 

Yup, because the Cubs could not use a good player like crawford.

[abuck1220]

good.

 

Yup, because the Cubs could not use a good player like crawford.

 

oh, they were just going to give him to the cubs? the cubs weren't going to have to give up, say, rich hill to get him? well, if that's the case, i take it back.

[SweetZombieJesus]

good.

 

Yup, because the Cubs could not use a good player like crawford.

 

oh, they were just going to give him to the cubs? the cubs weren't going to have to give up, say, rich hill to get him? well, if that's the case, i take it back.

 

I'm unsure if I'd give up Hill to get him.

 

Hill is a tad overrated. He's a above average pitcher but if he was in the AL he's not even in the discussion of top five or six lefties in the AL. In the NL he may very well be the best lefty not named Hamels. That alone tells you how weak the level of play is right now in the NL.

[Outshined_One]

I'd like to have Crawford, but I was worried the Cubs would have had to overpay to get him. Hill straight up for Crawford is an iffy proposition. So, I sincerely doubt it would have been just Hill going to the Rays from the Cubs.

[rawaction]

good.

 

Yup, because the Cubs could not use a good player like crawford.

 

oh, they were just going to give him to the cubs? the cubs weren't going to have to give up, say, rich hill to get him? well, if that's the case, i take it back.

 

I'm unsure if I'd give up Hill to get him.

 

Hill is a tad overrated. He's a above average pitcher but if he was in the AL he's not even in the discussion of top five or six lefties in the AL. In the NL he may very well be the best lefty not named Hamels. That alone tells you how weak the level of play is right now in the NL.

 

He's not in the AL, though, so what's the point of this?

[abuck1220]

good.

 

Yup, because the Cubs could not use a good player like crawford.

 

oh, they were just going to give him to the cubs? the cubs weren't going to have to give up, say, rich hill to get him? well, if that's the case, i take it back.

 

I'm unsure if I'd give up Hill to get him.

 

Hill is a tad overrated. He's a above average pitcher but if he was in the AL he's not even in the discussion of top five or six lefties in the AL. In the NL he may very well be the best lefty not named Hamels. That alone tells you how weak the level of play is right now in the NL.

 

um...that makes no sense.

[Keener98]

good.

 

Yup, because the Cubs could not use a good player like crawford.

 

oh, they were just going to give him to the cubs? the cubs weren't going to have to give up, say, rich hill to get him? well, if that's the case, i take it back.

 

I'm unsure if I'd give up Hill to get him.

 

Hill is a tad overrated. He's a above average pitcher but if he was in the AL he's not even in the discussion of top five or six lefties in the AL. In the NL he may very well be the best lefty not named Hamels. That alone tells you how weak the level of play is right now in the NL.

 

um...that makes no sense.

 

None at all. However that is a new one for people describing Rich Hills downfalls. Mental midget and such Ive heard, but never because he pitches in the NL.

[abuck1220]

i've also never heard anyone claim he's the second best lefty in the NL and, in the same breath, claim he's overrated.