Case for Trading A-Rod to LA for Crawford

[sauronthepower]

Here is where I absolutely disagree. Crawford has had a significant injury to which he tried to rehab and failed. That being said, Arod has not had a full season since 2008. that's four years. With arod in his late 30's I'm beginning to think his isn't going to change. He injury side of this is the more interesting thing. I am about 70% certain that Crawford has more Abs left than Arod. More important he has more effective Ab's.

If the trade worked out for both teams, I like Crawford game better. He reason the Yankees did not advance is they have too many guys who hit HR. when you face better pitching home runs are hard to come by. Look at our successful campaigns, guys like Sojo, Vizcaino, Polonia end up doing something. Against good pitching you aren't going to see a many mistakes. When arod is bad he can't touch the ball, half his abs are strikeouts! How many close games did the Yankees play where a run in the bottom of an inning would win the game. Lead off Walk, SB, sacrifice and sac fly gets you a run. Too few guys on this team can do this! Crawford, Ichiro, Jeter are guys who can do this. Waiting for Ibanez to hit a HR isn't going to us far!

A

This is NOT just specific to this past postseason.

This has been going on for a decade now offensively.

[NYY09]

So who plays 3rd for the Yankees in this scenario?

Nunez?

[YANKSGUY]

Is it any different than ARod not being allowed to be traded without his permission for 7 years?

One has nothing to do with the other. One is a contract issue and I doubt seriously that it can be done. ARod not being traded is because he's a 10 - 5 player as per the MLB player agreement.

[bfrap]

If there is such a clause in Crawfords contract, it would not have been put in there by Boston, but by Crawford himself. It would Qualify as a limited No-Trade Clause and at any time Carl could waive that clause, just as A-Rod could waive his 10-5 rights. Thus, making it useless for what the Red Sox might have wanted to do if it was their idea.

Still, until Carl Crawford can prove that he can play at a level even close to Gardner's contract, I would not touch him. Since signing that monster deal, He has been horrible. Yes, most of that is due to injuries... but too many players have had their careers cut short for that very reason.

[Pinstripe power]

If there is such a clause in Crawfords contract, it would not have been put in there by Boston, but by Crawford himself. It would Qualify as a limited No-Trade Clause and at any time Carl could waive that clause, just as A-Rod could waive his 10-5 rights. Thus, making it useless for what the Red Sox might have wanted to do if it was their idea.

Still, until Carl Crawford can prove that he can play at a level even close to Gardner's contract, I would not touch him. Since signing that monster deal, He has been horrible. Yes, most of that is due to injuries... but too many players have had their careers cut short for that very reason.

no im pretty sure it was put in by boston. its not a no trade clause, its a different thing

[devildog]

I think Arod to Miami is a more realistic destination for him. Now if you can put a package
together with the main piece being Arod to the Marlins for G Stanton that would be sweet.

[bfrap]

no im pretty sure it was put in by boston. its not a no trade clause, its a different thing

Those are also not valid per the CBA or MLB rules. Any clause put in by Boston that would disallow LA from trading him to the NYY, with or without his permission are not allowed. It is called collusion! If it was a NTC, then he could not be moved without his permission, and those are legal. The commish would have rejected the deal on that alone. It was tried years ago, and deemed a violation then. Not by the commish, but by the arbitrators involved.

So, it either is a no-trade clause... OR, someone making something up.

Still, the NYY had no interest in him when he was a UFA. His contract was much bigger than his skills and numbers warranted, and he has spent the 2 seasons since battling injuries.... Explain to me how or why the NYY would or should have any interest now?

This is just someones idea, who hates A-Rod... to try and get rid of him... Well, A-Rod has out played crawford badly the last 2 seasons. Of course, so have most sept. callups since actually being on the field was enough to out play him this past season.

[Gandalf]

As Much as I want him traded i don't think this is a good deal

[JobaRules26]

Gandalf? How dare you stand up Ross and Chandler! You were supposed to hit up the strip clubs!

[Pinstripe power]

Those are also not valid per the CBA or MLB rules. Any clause put in by Boston that would disallow LA from trading him to the NYY, with or without his permission are not allowed. It is called collusion! If it was a NTC, then he could not be moved without his permission, and those are legal. The commish would have rejected the deal on that alone. It was tried years ago, and deemed a violation then. Not by the commish, but by the arbitrators involved.

So, it either is a no-trade clause... OR, someone making something up.

Still, the NYY had no interest in him when he was a UFA. His contract was much bigger than his skills and numbers warranted, and he has spent the 2 seasons since battling injuries.... Explain to me how or why the NYY would or should have any interest now?

This is just someones idea, who hates A-Rod... to try and get rid of him... Well, A-Rod has out played crawford badly the last 2 seasons. Of course, so have most sept. callups since actually being on the field was enough to out play him this past season.

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_r...ade-to-yankees

http://bronxbaseballdaily.com/2011/0...de-to-yankees/

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/carl_crawford/


you also need to look up the defiention of collusion, as this clause has nothing to do with it