Carl Crawford

by aet15 on Nov 2, 2006 5:42 PM EST

I'm sick of people saying the Crawford is not that good. Look at these numbers:

A .300 batting avg, 60 steals, 15 triples, 20 doubles, 15 HRs, 80 RBI (with the Devil Rays, mind you), and a .995 fielding percentage. He gets in that neighborhood in each of those catagories EVERY YEAR. He's only 25, and has played at least 150 games each year that he's been a starter. Not to mention, he plays both left and center. So we can plug him into left, and if we need him at center he can play that too. He's actually a left fielder, so those of you who want rasmus, what's wrong with having Rasmus AND Crawford in a couple years?

I don't see how he's not worth giving a shot at. This guy is a super star, and is just the type of player to compliment our slow, power hitters. He'd be a spark plug to this offense.

Then again, I must ask, is there any legitimacy for us going after him? Has anyone actually read that anywhere? Or is it just a dream that we all have?

Tweet Comment 38 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

pitching

the d-rays are open to dealing an outfielder. they have several (crawford, baldelli, young, & gomes and potentially upton and dukes). the price, as always, is young pitching. i dont think the cards can afford that price at the moment.

by dmb60614 on Nov 2, 2006 5:52 PM EST reply actions

exactly right

and Crawford's .300 average doesn't do much for me when he can only draw walks around 4-5% of the time. I think you can get 20HR out of a full year of Duncan with a better OBP than Crawford. The steals are tempting but it's not worth giving up Reyes or Wainwright when all you are adding is SB and better defense at the cost of several million dollars.

I think Crawford may be an allstar but I don't think he's a superstar. If he played CF all the time his numbers would be much more impressive but I just think he has some sigificant holes in his game.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 2, 2006 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

okay

He may be worse off in walking, but in 320 more at-bats he only had SIXTEEN more strikeouts. That's such better discipline. And if we're comparing walks, Crawford actually walked more times than Eckstein! So how would a .300 hitter, who steals 60 bases, rarely strikes out, and actually walks more than our current lead off hitter be a bad addition to the top of our order?

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 2, 2006 8:28 PM EST up reply actions

ugh

sixteen more strikeouts than Duncan. I forgot to put the name in there.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 2, 2006 8:28 PM EST up reply actions

you aren't talking about replacing eckstein

for Crawford. If Crawford could play SS then sure. If I was confindent in his CF skills I'd feel better about it. I'm not though.

And strikeouts don't really bother me like they do a lot of people. I'm of the persuasion that if your OBP is good then you can make your outs how you please for the most part. Productive outs mean something as does moving baserunners but Ks don't really horrify me for the most part.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 2, 2006 10:58 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not

But my point is, players who get a lot of at-bats and are good hitters don't necesairly draw a lot of walks.

K's are the least productive out possible. You're not even putting the ball in play. How do you know he's not making productive outs?

I don't see your argument at all. He's still got a solid OBP. His numbers aren't weak at all. Plus, HE'S 25! He still has room to grow from these stellar numbers. Read some of the other opinions below, they make good points as to why he would help too.

Check his numbers compared to all of our current outfielders. Yes, they're better than all of them.

Crawford isn't a CF, he's a LF. He'd play left for us, where he IS proven.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 2, 2006 11:52 PM EST up reply actions

OK maybe I haven't been clear enough

my argument is that players whose OBP is heavily dependent on AVG are more prone to bad flukey years when their BABIP drops. That's it. I wasn't making the case that he's not a good player. Just that he's more prone to bad luck than Jimmy who walks more.

I have other problems (which I seem to be largely alone on) with Crawford but the cheif one is that we can't afford as a team to trade young starting pitching (which is what the devil rays would want) for a LF when we can find one on the market who doesn't cost Reyes or Wainwright.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 3, 2006 12:03 AM EST up reply actions

Dude

His career avg. over five years is .292. That's not flukey. . .

Some of the best hitters don't walk much, unless they're intentionally walked, especially when they aren't power hitters. Look at the numbers on J. Reyes, Ichiro, Michael Young, and much more. They're all very comparible to Crawford on walks. You're overweighing a statistic that seriously isn't as important as you think. Walks aren't as critical as they sound. It's more important that you don't strike out and that you're patient at the plate. Power hitters like Pujols are a completely different story because pitchers pitch around them.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 3, 2006 12:41 AM EST up reply actions

Crawford is good yes

but he's not worth Reyes or Wainwright IMO. I've got nothing else to add to this conversation.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 3, 2006 1:44 AM EST up reply actions

walks are important

a walk is just as good as a hit, especially when you consider if crawford came he'd be hitting leadoff or second probably. so his job would be to get on base. OBP is a Much better stat to use than batting average for that reason.

and also, whats so wrong about striking out? its jut another out.

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Nov 3, 2006 9:51 AM EST up reply actions

ask the tigers

how many times did the cardinals make GOOD outs in the playoffs? making contact and moving guys over. or how many times did we score bc we put the ball in play and forced the Tigers to field their position. does a strikeout accomplish any of that?

i'm kinda in the middle on that argument. i wouldnt kick a guy off the team cuz he K'd 150 times if he hit .280 with 40 jacks and i certainly wouldn't NOT take a Carl Crawford bc he only walked 40 times.

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on Nov 3, 2006 9:54 AM EST up reply actions

Yes!

EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. It's a way overblown stat to look at, especially when you compare it to the other superstars of the league. Think the Mariners are complaining because Ichiro only walks 50 times a year? I doubt it! Strikeouts are the worst way to get out. When you strike out there is no potential to do anything. You're giving the team an out, not making them earn it.

Thanks, Franchise.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 3, 2006 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

a couple of things

Im not saying I wouldn't take crawford, I'd love to have him on the team. Im just saying that his .300 batting average can be misleading due to how little he walks. adam dunn's average is something like 50 points lower than crawfords, but dunn gets on base as much if not more than crawford. and for someone who would likely be hitting in front of pujols, getting on base is the key thing. something which crawford does OK, but not great. which is why I think it would be foolish to overspend for him.
the ability to draw walks shows you are able to make "good outs" as you say. if you're drawing walks, that means you are up there seeing pitches, making the pitcher work, etc.
if you're referring to the pitcher's errors in the tigers series, those are not good outs. grounding the ball out to the pitcher and having him throw it away is lucky, not good. and not something you should count on.
I understand your point about moving runners over, but I would guess that if there's a runner on second and 1 out, for example, a player isnt going up to the plate to hit a ground ball to move the runner over, hes going to the plate to get a hit. so thats a situation when a contact hitter would tend be able to help the team more with a bad at bat, because his bad at bat is a groundball that moves the runner over. but if that runner's on first, its the opposite, a strikeout is better than a ground ball. so sure, sometimes the contact guy is better to have at the plate, but the same can be said of a high walk high K guy. and in front of pujols, I'd rather have the guy whos going to have the best chance of getting on base / not grounding into dps.

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Nov 4, 2006 4:47 PM EST up reply actions

here's the problem

walks are just as determining of a factor in plate discipline as strikeouts. And he doesn't strike out much. No one wants to walk a guy like Crawford because they don't want to put him on base. If he gets on the base, he can kill your team running. The only reason Dunn, etc. have so many walks is because when there is any chance for a home run to hurt the opposing team, they pitch around him. A guy like Crawford they realize will hurt them just as much on the base paths so instead of an obvious decision, it's a case of "pick your poison." That's why he doesn't walk as much. He's a better hitter, that's just the fact. He produces more in key situations, and won't be pitched around nearly as much, giving him many more chances to do damage.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 4, 2006 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think Ks are as big a deal as walks

but let's assume that they are. Perhaps a more objective way to look at plate discipline is pitches per plate appearance. If he's not seeing many pitches, he's swinging early and that is generally not very good plate discipline. Crawford takes 3.54 P/PA which only ranks him at 132 in the MLB so I wouldn't be praising his plate discipline because it isn't that great.

What he does have is good contact skills which is something different than plate discipline but also holds down Ks.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 4, 2006 9:25 PM EST up reply actions

I feel

You're just trying to be objectionable to be objectionable. This kid is a rising superstar, to not go after him would be stupid. He gets better every year and is only 25 years old. If he was on the Red Sox or Yankees we'd be hearing about him everyday.

For him, we'd be giving up two guys who are his age and have only one season of experience under their belt, and it wasn't even a full season. I love Duncan, but after his hot streak, let's face it, he tapered off, and he's not a solid outfielder at all. And I love Reyes, and was even at the game where he threw the one hitter saying "This is our guy," but let's face it, he hasn't PROVEN HIMSELF to us. CARL CRAWFORD HAS. This guy is a bonafide rising superstar. Four seasons of quality / all-start calibur ball and getting better. You've chosen a nit-picking stat, blown it out of proportion (because walks aren't THAT big of deal, especially when players of his style get around the same number as him See: Ichiro, Jose Reyes) and are giving that as your reason why. Every player has a flaw, and if Crawford's flaw is that he only takes about 4 pitches per at bat before making contact and successfully having a .300 avg for every year of his carrer, then that's a flaw we should take! If it's because you just don't like the guy, please say it, because that honestly makes more sense at this point.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 4, 2006 10:20 PM EST up reply actions

per azruatar's post

i am not really sure how this spiraled to where it is now but i don't think azruatar is saying he doesnt think crawford is a good player, i think he has stated somewhere else that he would just rather see STL keep reyes and or duncan and use the extra money in a different way.

that is a much more valid reason to not pursue crawford than because the guy only takes four pitches and walks 40 times per year as a .300 hitting, 60 base stealing 25 year old.

in my eyes, crawford is worth it, but we don't all have to agree on that. it makes alot of sense to keep reyes and wainwright bc of their salaries and talent, but i think we gotta move lil dunc. when will his value ever be higher???

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on Nov 4, 2006 11:12 PM EST up reply actions

I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate

I don't think we can financially afford to trade away Reyes at this time. Even if Crawford is a superstar (of which I'm not convinced), I don't think it's in the teams best interest to have to try and sign another FA of Reyes' ability when he costs league minimum. If we were a pitching rich farm then go for it.

I'm not that high on Duncan but for league minimum, him hitting in front of Pujols for a full year is something that intrigues me.

Crawford is a good/great player. Superstar is not a term I throw around lightly. And I think there are some misconceptions about his skill set. He has skills and they are good ones but I don't think plate discipline is one of them.

Do I wish Crawford was on the team? Sure. Do I want to acquire Crawford at the cost of Reyes, Duncan and ohter prospects. No I don't.

Just because I disagree with you aet15 doesn't mean I'm just doing it to be obnoxious.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 5, 2006 12:38 AM EST up reply actions

damnit - that should say

I'm NOT just trying to play devil's advocate

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 5, 2006 12:40 AM EST up reply actions

haha

I was going to say "Well, that's what's bothering me!"

I see your point about Reyes, but that's where I disagree. I love Reyes, but since he was tooled with earlier, he really hasn't been the same and we have no proof that he'll be great. I hope he is! But it's a risk, like always, while Crawford isn't. Sure, there was game 1 in the playoffs, but other than that, no. What I think is so intriguing about Crawford is that he is so cheap and we'd be able to control his contract for another 3 (maybe 4, I don't know the numbers) years AND get him for a great deal. I'd have no problem with trying out Thompson at number 5 or bringing back Woody for a cheap price and a short stint to go along with Wainwright if it meant getting Crawford.

I think the problem is that Crawford plays for the D Rays so nobody realizes what he's like, but if you've ever followed TB baseball, you'll realize that this guy can be a star. Like I said earlier, if he was on a different team, his name would be much more of a household item. For instance, if he stole home with the Red Sox, everyone would know about it. But no, he just did it with the Devil Rays.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 5, 2006 4:38 AM EST up reply actions

I

don't think that we'll actually be able to get him. But I love this guy, he's one of my favorite non-Cardinal players and I think he's going to have a great career. How can anybody watch that clip of him stealing home and not just be in awe?

Now the story of a wealthy family who lost everything, and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together...it's Arrested Development.

by Bowen on Nov 2, 2006 9:18 PM EST reply actions

i've said it many times...

i'd have absolutely NO problem dealing Duncan AND Reyes for Crawford. He IS a super star, a difference maker and a big time impact player in the field, at the plate and on the base paths.

if the only knock you can come up with on the guy is a .348 on base clip (which by the way has increased all five seasons along with his OPS since he broke into the bigs), then I don't think that is much of a beef.

he isn't your typical lofton/roberts/lugo speedster either. the guy slugged .482 this year, 11 points higher than Edmonds. Not bad for a guy who plays gold glove D and swiped 55 bags every year.

sticking with that, crawfords .482 slugging was higher than all of duncan's professional totals except his half season 2006 during which he was protected against lefties the entire way.

now i don't know what crawfords salary is going forward, but it was only 2.6 mill this year. and i'm not dying to deal duncan and reyes, but if that would net crawford...man, how do you pass that up???

crawford (25), pujols (26) ... it'd be like thunder and lightning for the next decade.

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on Nov 2, 2006 9:36 PM EST reply actions

Yeah

I completely agree, and if you take in the fact that he doesn't strike out much, his OBP is even more of nothing to complain about.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 2, 2006 10:49 PM EST up reply actions

we need starting pitching

not a CF right now. We have Edmonds under contract (if we so choose) for effectively 7 million. If you get crawford and trade away two league minimum players that money has to come from somewhere. It doesn't make financial sense to me when we may have a long term CF option just a few years away in the minors.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 2, 2006 11:02 PM EST up reply actions

Okay

You can take Jason Schmidt. I'll gladly take Crawford along with a pitcher $5 mil cheaper than Schmidt.

And I've said it before, Crawford is a left fielder. Something that we DO need.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 2, 2006 11:59 PM EST up reply actions

Crawford has...

a pretty team-friendly contract... $4m next year, $5.25m in '08, then reasonable team options for '09 and '10 in the $8-$11m range.

He's a great player, but the Cardinals are not properly situated to get him. The D-Rays want young pitching, and while we have that, we also need it a lot more than other teams.

From what I've read, a number of teams can easily trump Reyes-Duncan. The Stros are ready with Hirsh-Pence, the ChiSox with Fields and one of their current starters (who could then be flipped)...

The Cards number one priority is starting pitching. They either need to bring Reyes back or package him with Duncan for a front of the rotation starter. I don't see how they can do anything other than that given their current situation.

by guayzimi on Nov 2, 2006 11:23 PM EST up reply actions

Trade...

Either way, I would just like to see a younger player. I'd love Schmidt, and I'd lvoe Carl. But I, like all of you I think, am sick of signing mid 30s guys. If we were going to trade Dunc+Reyes, make it for a young guy who will produce for 5 years, not an old fizzler from 35-40. That's all.

Schmidt will be 34 in 2 months. Crawford, 25. And as aforementioned, he can play LF, which we don't have right now.

Reyes will be good, and I think Duncan will be an average player. But with Pujols at 1B for years to come and Duncan's concrete hands + Jimmy's injuries + no current LF, Crawford isn't a bad move if a trade were to be made.

by DuncanDipper on Nov 3, 2006 1:47 AM EST reply actions

I for one don't care if...

the Cards sign old or young players.

A season of watching Miles-Luna-Belly has made me long for 36 year old Grudzalanek. Enc makes me wish Walker didn't retire. Duncan-Bigbie-Rodriguez evokes fond memories of Reggie Sanders. Molina's putrid .274 obp makes old man Mike Matheny look pretty good, etc etc etc...

by guayzimi on Nov 3, 2006 9:21 AM EST up reply actions

By the end of 2005

Walker was barely able to move. There is no way that Enc is an inferior defender to 2005 Walker, especially considering all the lost playing time that LW had while hurt.

He was one of my favorite players on that team, as he was clearly playing through injuries trying to help his team to the Series, for one last time.

But he just wasn't himself anymore, especially by the time the playoffs rolled around.

by Valatan on Nov 3, 2006 11:34 AM EST up reply actions

True...

and he wasn't that great in teh playoffs, but he did manage a good at bat against Brad Lidge in the 9th of Game 4 of the 2005 NLCS. He singled to right sending Pujols around to 3rd... That's the kind of thing Encarnacion is not really capable of. Good October pitching will shut him down.

A better plan is to take some risks on aging stars like Walker and Edmonds, muddle through the season, and hope they're reasonably healthy come October.

by guayzimi on Nov 3, 2006 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

Hmm

Can't we just not take either Enc or Walker? Is that an option? Let's go with super stud Carl Crawford, or if you're for the cheaper (in terms of what we'd have to give up) type, I'll take Delucci over Enc any day.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 3, 2006 3:20 PM EST up reply actions

or even

roberts over dellucci...

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on Nov 3, 2006 4:57 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

Yeah, Roberts and Eckstein would be a pretty pesky 1-2 punch at the top of the order.

Acquire Barry Zito!

by aet15 on Nov 3, 2006 6:29 PM EST up reply actions

nice combo

bat roberts 1 and eckstein 2. why?

1-eckstein can extend his at bats and give a speedy leadoff man more chances to run. a hit and run would also be an option regardless of the count.

2-eckstein is less apt to swipe a bag than roberts, making him a better fit for the 2 spot. STL's #2 man isnt going to be running much....unless we have Arod batting 4th and protecting Pujols...

Pujols For MVP!

by TheFranchise9 on Nov 3, 2006 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

guayzimi

The team you are longing for was swept in '04...

Face it folks Crawford is worth Reyes and Duncan. If this trade is made we get a steal. Tampa needs young pitching. We can offer them the winner of game one. Duncan is the add on. Duncan can play first base and dh. This might not be enough to pry away Crawford. I would be willing to add some lower minor league pitching ie: Adam Ottavino.

Crawford could lead off, but I like him in the two hole. This may reduce his steals, but I bet his rbi production goes up. Hitting in front of Albert will be a treat for him. I also would expect that his power numbers increase.

Being stranded in Syracuse, NY I see nothing but Yankee games. I have seen Crawford play alot.
If I had Jocketty's ear I would say "Go get him."

by nybirdfan on Nov 4, 2006 12:07 AM EST reply actions

I love the Ottavino

idea. It's pretty good, and i agree, it would take Dunc, and Reyes, and if TB would like it, I say pull the trigger, ASAP

by Dttl89 on Nov 4, 2006 1:51 PM EST reply actions

Crawford is

An impact player in a market that doesn't have many. A good defender, a good arm, great speed, and a good bat. He is the kind of guy that makes a diffence in every game he plays in. The cardinals are losing their long time center fielder, if not to free agency, than to injury, age, or eventual retirement. Without edmonds as his former self the outfield is pretty pathetic. He could be a franchise player just the way edmonds has been for the last several years. Players of his caliber don't come very often, and EVERY attempt needs to be made to aquire him this offseason.

by Hammondsbird on Nov 4, 2006 9:07 PM EST reply actions

I agree

Maybe its just a pipe dream we all have, but if there is any shot that we can get Crawford...we have to do it. This guy is simply a stud, and he comes with a very reasonable salary for a young player with his ability and potential. I would give up Reyes and Duncan in a second to get this guy. Crawford and Pujols would be a huge pair to build a lineup around for years to come.

"Your mom likes Albert Pujols" - Happy Joe

by fatbellyjefferson on Nov 7, 2006 10:48 AM EST up reply actions