Hey, look. Someone knows how to not be a dick. Thanks for your congenial approach however, I don't completely agree.
Lee's contract expires only one season before Crawford's. At that time, Lee will be 38 years of age and Crawford will be 35 with only one year remaining. The point is that in either scenario they'll have an aged ballplayer with a large and 'immovable' contract. A swap of Lee for Crawford would increase their burden by what? 1 year?
There are many different scenarios in which large and immovable contracts are made less burdensome and more moveable. Some of which are the inclusion of prospects and/or money. For example, if the Dodgers swallowed $5m a year, paying Crawford $15m per season becomes a lot more tolerable especially if he proves healthy, as metnitioned above. Additionally, the Phillies shed a $20m payment to an aging starter.
You could try to argue that a team would never increase their own burden on an outgoing player, just to take on an equally burdensome contract, but you would be trying in vain. The Dodgers just took Crawford in August as a caveat to get AdGon, proof positive that no one on earth can predict what they are capable of.
Again, I'm not arguing that this is a possibility, but it definitely is more of one than you and your pals are giving credit for.
Unlikely; Yes. Incomprehensible; No. Not even close.
Ok, you are brilliant and win, the dodgers can trade Crawford for Cliff Lee if they pay all of Crawford's contract for at least the next 3 years and trade the Phillies some elite prospects. So yes, its not "incomprehensible".. but then rename this thread "Certain Dodger posters open to living in Candyland"