Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium Member today for an ad-free experience. 

     

IGNORED

What about Carl Crawford?


wopphil

Recommended Posts

Hear me out. He is owed $44,000,000 over the next two years. He was an above average hitter in 2012, 2013, and 2014. In fact, he was excellent as recently as 2014 (albeit in less than a full season). He slipped last year, but still had a 95 OPS+ (much better than we got from our leftfielders).

Because the Dodgers are so far over the cap, any dollar they get another team to eat is $1.50 in their pocket. So if the ate $38,000,000 of the $44,000,000 owed Crawford, they actually save $9,000,000. In other words, they have incentive to eat a lot of money to move him.

Any takers for Carl Crawford on something like 2 years and $6-8 mil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Crawford is healthy, I'd take him on something amounting to $3 or $4 mil a year. Not because I think he is a great option, but because I think he can give league average production at a price that the Angels might be willing to pay. I have more faith in Crawford than Nava/Gentry, and I think Crawford offers some potential upside too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather get Fowler at 4/60. He'd profile nicely in LF and hitting in front of Trout, effect sky sliding Calhoun to the middle of the order.

It'd cost us a draft pick and 15 million a year, but the performance would be better and you'd get two additional years of control while he's still in his prime. There's also the off chance we trade CJ and end up very close to the tax, incurring a minimal penalty at all.

Crawford would require a prospect, is out if his prime and is a short term solution to what appears to be a long term problem. I'd rather just spend the money to solve it, especially if it comes in the form of a team friendly deal like it should with Fowler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't think the Dodgers would eat a lot of money to move Carl Crawford?

 

Nope.  Just like the Angels won't eat a lot of money to move CJ Wilson.

 

Which is a shame.  We need a 2b and LF.  Dodgers have too many MLB level 2B and LF'ers.  It should be a good match. But we don't have what the Dogs would want.  Money or prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather get Fowler at 4/60. He'd profile nicely in LF and hitting in front of Trout, effect sky sliding Calhoun to the middle of the order.

It'd cost us a draft pick and 15 million a year, but the performance would be better and you'd get two additional years of control while he's still in his prime. There's also the off chance we trade CJ and end up very close to the tax, incurring a minimal penalty at all.

Crawford would require a prospect, is out if his prime and is a short term solution to what appears to be a long term problem. I'd rather just spend the money to solve it, especially if it comes in the form of a team friendly deal like it should with Fowler.

 

The Angels situation is too dire to waste money on Fowler or Crawford. We need every draft pick we can get at this point. With Arte's line in the sand we are at most adding two quality (or just expensive) or three mediocre free agents the next three years. I don't like the idea of Fowler being one of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...