Dodgers open to trading Andre Ethier

[OptiskeptSF]

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"

[old blue]

Hey. OptiskeptSF. Why the sudden interest in the Dodgers? Just curious

[spliff(TONE)]

Firstly, I don't believe dodgerman was actually making that specific suggestion more than he was offering a circumstance in which it could be feasible to trade Crawford.

Secondly, it seems you read that question with a facetious diction, though I believe Jeffy was asking it genuinely.

In either case your thick layer of sarcasm indicates that you do not deem the suggestion as "astute" in a 'logical' sense, and moreover, you think the suggestion is so laughable that the question posed by Jeffy couldn't possibly have been asked genuinely.

Curious; what about that suggestion is so 'illogical' that it should be met with such dissent?

Oh, I forgot... You ARE a Giants fan. Astute logic indeed, sir.

You really need me to answer what about the suggestion is so illogical? The poster mentioned trading Carl Crawford, owner of one of the absolute worst contracts in MLB (who also missed most of the '12 season and is currently recovering from a major injury), for one of the top pitchers in the game, Cliff Lee. Sure Lee makes even more money than Crawford, but he actually earns it. Not only that, but Crawford is under contract for more years than Lee. If Crawford didn't hit a brick wall after signing that albatross of a contract, this trade could make some sense if it filled needs for both teams involved. With how things are now though, there is zero chance of any Crawford for Lee trade going down; heck, there is zero chance of any Crawford for anyone trade going down at the moment.

I can only assume that the person who made the post I initially responded to doesn't know much about the inner workings of MLB, doesn't follow any teams other than the Dodgers, or he just had a total brain fart. Jeffy, on the other hand, knows the game well enough to realize everything I have just stated in this post. However, Jeffy is a moderator on this site so he is going to tip-toe around the conversation (to not hurt anyone's feelings) instead of being direct like myself.

[spliff(TONE)]

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.

First off, you are wrong on the contract lengths; Crawford's is two years longer than Lee's.

Secondly, you're still ignoring the fact that Crawford is an unknown quantity at this point. An unknown quantity that is also injured and making an obscene amount of money is a terrible combination. We all know that Crawford's game is based around speed and that speed doesn't age well. Whereas, Lee has still been consistently excellent in to his mid-30's (which isn't highly unusual for a starting pitcher). Even if Crawford was still at his peak game, I (as well as most people with a knowledge for the game) would still pick Lee to have a better chance of outperforming his contract. None of this is rocket science.

I know you don't like hearing this kind of stuff from a Giants fan, and that may be clouding your perspective here but yeah....it is what it is.

[Scully in 2012]

Lee > Crawford

[KempForMVP]

Everybody shut up and listen: Crawford is 31 years old and Cliff Lee is 34. Why would the Dodgers trade their $100 million dollar man for a declining pitcher who had an abysmal year last year? Also, Crawford is going in as the starting left-fielder for the Dodgers and if we trade him we will have a hole to fill. Sure, you say we can bring up Joc or Puig but they need to develop and still need time in the majors. And for the people saying "just sign Hamilton" why? Why sign an drug addict who's still recovering and would demand a $175 and above million dollar deal for 4+ years? I know the Dodgers can "take on significant money" but it is not worth it. Our new owners have put us in a great position to succeed now and for the future. Go Dodgers.

[SFrush90]

How did Cliff Lee have an "abysmal year"? And just because he's 34 doesn't mean he won't be effective.

[spliff(TONE)]

If that's not a troll account/post....I don't know what to say.

[SFrush90]

That's what I'm thinking as well.

[OptiskeptSF]

if that's not a troll account/post....i don't know what to say.

that's what i'm thinking as well.

STOP posting here giants fans!!!! You f*ckers are ruining candyland for us!!

[SFrush90]

(oh no post padding)

[Bleedinblueball]

um really lee had a pretty good year but I think crawford is going to be the steal of the dodgers - red sox trade. If he can get healthy he will have fun in LA with the group we have here Kemp, Ethier, Hanram, Dee, and the rest of the crew. He hits for average adds lots of doubles and triples in there, has the speed that goes with what were doing here really 40-50 swiped bases a year other that longoria who else backed him up in TB and dont say upton?

[spliff(TONE)]

STOP posting here giants fans!!!! You f*ckers are ruining candyland for us!!

Please don't banish me to Molasses Swamp.

[KempForMVP]

To you Giants fans: enjoy your World Series while you can, until you overpay a 37 year old Marco Scutaro who lifted your team into the playoffs and re-sign a worthless Angel Pagan. I'll gladly take the Dodger outfield over your Giant outfield anyway. In fact, I'll take the entire Dodger lineup over the Giants lineup. Ask any person that knows baseball: the Dodgers WILL be better than the Giants next year and will win the division.

[SFrush90]

Because that's what we were talking about

But why do you think Cliff Lee was "abysmal" this past season?