Dodgers open to trading Andre Ethier

[dodgerman887]

Crawford is nearly untradeable for atleast 2 years when some of that money comes off his contract

I still do not see as why he is untradeable for two years for example for contract like Cliff lees. When looking at the Phillies their outfield now without Pence and Victorino could benefit from someone like Crawford if he proves healthy. Especially if the Phillies miss out on Upton this winter. Dodgers need to add pitching depth with all the question marks in their rotation. The only solid pitchers we have in our rotation the dodgers keeping the entire season are Kershaw, Billingsley and Beckett and Billingsley a is question mark with injuries this upcoming season. The rest of the starters are in my opinion are tradeable.

[LASportsFan1996]

I still do not see as why he is untradeable for two years for example for contract like Cliff lees. When looking at the Phillies their outfield now without Pence and Victorino could benefit from someone like Crawford if he proves healthy. Especially if the Phillies miss out on Upton this winter. Dodgers need to add pitching depth with all the question marks in their rotation. The only solid pitchers we have in our rotation the dodgers keeping the entire season are Kershaw, Billingsley and Beckett and Billingsley a is question mark with injuries this upcoming season. The rest of the starters are in my opinion are tradeable.

It might work if you trade a bad contract fro a bad contract, like you say

[Jeffy25]

I still do not see as why he is untradeable for two years for example for contract like Cliff lees. When looking at the Phillies their outfield now without Pence and Victorino could benefit from someone like Crawford if he proves healthy. Especially if the Phillies miss out on Upton this winter. Dodgers need to add pitching depth with all the question marks in their rotation. The only solid pitchers we have in our rotation the dodgers keeping the entire season are Kershaw, Billingsley and Beckett and Billingsley a is question mark with injuries this upcoming season. The rest of the starters are in my opinion are tradeable.

Is the suggestion to trade Carl Crawford for Cliff Lee?

[spliff(TONE)]

You must be a Giants fan or a hater to be questioning such astute logic.

[Cracka2HI!]

Crawford will have to make it through a full season at least for anyone to trade for that contract. I believe his elbow was bothering when he was hitting as well. I can't remember a position player having this injury but if it was affecting his hitting it might not be easy to come back from. I really don't like the fact that we traded for Crawford. I thought we gave up enough in players to not have to add that salary. I think we should have been able to keep Webster for sure.

I know everyone thinks he's a toxic player but we could possibly get Josh Hamilton on a discount or at least less than max years. The Dodgers haven't cared about spending and I don't think they do, but that's not to say they are going to have a $25 million(tax included) player sit like Crawford would. They are married to Crawford's contract until he can prove it's worth acquiring. I think his contract is WAY worse than Ethier's.

[GibbyIsMyHero]

You must be a Giants fan or a hater to be questioning such astute logic.

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.

[blazer5]

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.

This is the way to handle it..GREAT post sir!

[blue bleeder09]

You must be a Giants fan or a hater to be questioning such astute logic.

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.

i dont think he is going to anwser you gibby hahahaha

[OptiskeptSF]

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.

Wow. You really have a gift to make a dumb thought sound very articulate.

There is no way anyone would ask a question like "your suggestion is to trade Carl Crawford for Cliff Lee?" genuinely. How you could think so is frightening.. Carl Crawford is arguably the worst contract in baseball at the moment. You would like to trade the Phillies the worst contract in baseball for a player like Cliff Lee, while expensive, is not very far from being worth his contract. Even if you added a lot of great prospects to sweeten the deal.. a sane GM would not consider it.

Read the sane Dodger poster under Spliff.. the only way anyone except for Colletti would consider taking on such a horrendous contract is at least have Crawford come back healthy and have a strong season. But even then.. no one will touch Crawford IMO. You're stuck with Crawford for the long haul.. go buy a jersey he ain't going anywhere(Just like Zito never did).

You could probably trade Crawford for Arod, but does Boston under the same contract still retain the rights to block a trade to the Yankees?

[OptiskeptSF]

This is the way to handle it..GREAT post sir!

I thought you knew better than to make Dodger fans look worse

[GibbyIsMyHero]

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.

Wow. You really have a gift to make a dumb thought sound very articulate.

There is no way anyone would ask a question like "your suggestion is to trade Carl Crawford for Cliff Lee?" genuinely. How you could think so is frightening.. Carl Crawford is arguably the worst contract in baseball at the moment. You would like to trade the Phillies the worst contract in baseball for a player like Cliff Lee, while expensive, is not very far from being worth his contract. Even if you added a lot of great prospects to sweeten the deal.. a sane GM would not consider it.

Read the sane Dodger poster under Spliff.. the only way anyone except for Colletti would consider taking on such a horrendous contract is at least have Crawford come back healthy and have a strong season. But even then.. no one will touch Crawford IMO. You're stuck with Crawford for the long haul.. go buy a jersey he ain't going anywhere(Just like Zito never did).

Wow. You really have a gift for jumping to conclusions to call people "dumb" without having a grasp on all the information.

Question; what exactly did I say that was dumb? I offered no bias to or against the suggestion in my question, nor my preface.

I guess it was too much to hope that you would've read the original suggestion yourself which, by the way, was that it could be possible within a two year time frame to relieve ourselves of the contract - more than enough time to satisfy the caveat of proving health which you require.

Additionally, within the stated time frame, Cliff Lee will have seen his 35th & 36th birthdays come and go.

Considering those two things, I now pose the question to you; what about that suggestion is so illogical that it should be met with such dissent?

And please try to keep in mind that I'm not arguing for this trade idea, I'd just like one of you to provide me with a clear understanding of why it is seemingly so incomprehensible?

[rcs15]

Teams don't usually swap massive contracts unless they are getting comparable players hoping for a 'change of scenery' stroke of luck, or unless one side is getting a slightly less horrible contract. Neither is the case in this situation, since not only does Cliff Lee's contract end before Crawfords(thus saves Philly no money) but Cliff Lee also provides much more value than Crawford.

Cliff Lee would have to sink to the depths of worst pitcher in baseball levels to only have the value of Carl Crawford. And if that happens then it raises the question why would you want him?


It's incomprehensible because there is literally nothing of value crawford would bring to an aging, declining team like the Phillies. They already have one immovable burden in Howard, they aren't going to be breaking down the door for another.

[old blue]

I thought you knew better than to make Dodger fans look worse

didn't understand one word did you lol

[GibbyIsMyHero]

Teams don't usually swap massive contracts unless they are getting comparable players hoping for a 'change of scenery' stroke of luck, or unless one side is getting a slightly less horrible contract. Neither is the case in this situation, since not only does Cliff Lee's contract end before Crawfords(thus saves Philly no money) but Cliff Lee also provides much more value than Crawford.

Cliff Lee would have to sink to the depths of worst pitcher in baseball levels to only have the value of Carl Crawford. And if that happens then it raises the question why would you want him?


It's incomprehensible because there is literally nothing of value crawford would bring to an aging, declining team like the Phillies. They already have one immovable burden in Howard, they aren't going to be breaking down the door for another.

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.

[Jeffy25]

fwiw, I was genuinely asking was the trade idea being brought up of Crawford for Lee.


Not that anyone is asking, but if Crawford can show he is still a 5 WAR player in 2013, then you have to think it could be possible next off-season.

But straight up, this off-season, I don't think there is anyway the Phillies would do that right now.