What about Carl Crawford?

[wopphil]

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?

[Erstad Grit]

We have nothing to offer. CJ Wilson is the only possible decent player whose salary would provide enough space and Dodgers already have 17 lefty SPs. 

[Ohtaniland]

Arte said no five years ago to Carl Crawford. I don't think he's changed his mind about him.

[Stradling]

Arte said no five years ago to Carl Crawford. I don't think he's changed his mind about him.

Actually you have that backwards and it led to Vernon Wells.

[gotbeer]

I don't think the Dogs care much about the cap.  Especially if it's just a $3 million difference.  If you were talking someone paying half his salary, then it would probably be of more interest.  Which is also a reason we won't get Ethier. 

[Stradling]

I thought the Dodgers were at the point where they were dollar for dollar in luxury tax.

[seenoevil]

yes!

 

[wopphil]

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.

[VariousCrap]

Damn....we fans have gotten desperate.

[ukyah]

if your facts are straight, then that's an inventive option. at this point, it would be an interesting acquisition.

[ettin]

*sticks fingers in ears* "I can't hear you la-la-la-la-la-la-la"

[Second Base]

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.

[laagamer]

I'd rather have Crawford out there. 

 

If we can't get Either, I'd take this in a heart beat. 

[gurn67]

It seems to me that the Arte is the only owner that enjoys trading for or signing guys with awful contracts and then pay them tens of millions of dollars to play for other teams. C.J. to the Rangers for some low level scrub and Arte picking up $18,000,000 of his contract seems more likely.

[wopphil]

I'd much prefer Eithier over Crawford, but I think Eithier has enough trade value to make himself too expensive for the Angels.

[nando714]

Get Cargo he's owed 37 m over 2 years

[Jay]

This is almost as good as the deal where we would get one year of Teixeira for free.

[wopphil]

This is almost as good as the deal where we would get one year of Teixeira for free.

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

[Jay]

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

 

I don't know maybe they will.

[zenmaster]

No x infinity.

[gotbeer]

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.

[Tank]

if crawford can still lead off and be effective, i'd give the doggies a call and see what they want for him.

[AngelsLakersFan]

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. 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

I'll take "What is NO!" for $500.00 Alex~

 

[Adam]

He's just old enough, just shitty enough and just expensive enough that Arte'll do it