Who Would You Rather Have Right Now? Vernon Wells or Carl Crawford?

[Glenbino]

Wells is owed $42 mil over the next two years and has a -.3 WAR for the two years he's been an Angel..

Crawford is owed $102.5 mil over the next five years by the Dodgers and dropped from a 6.6 WAR his last year in Tampa to a .4 WAR in his 161 games with the Red Sox before tearing his ACL..

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Crawford, without hesitation.

Wells is dust and can not contribute to winning baseball games. Crawford is probably finished as an elite player but I believe he can still be a competent contributer to a good team.

 

[Rudi]

Crawford, even though he is owed much more...atleast theres potential there that he could put up respectable numbers. Wells is awful.

 

[NAHSTE]

Crawford still has a non-zero chance of being useful ever again. Pretty tough call though, both are pretty bitter pills to swallow.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Wells...I get that shitty contract off the books much sooner.

I used to really like Crawford. Back in his real prime, there weren't many players like him...but the league has evolved and there are tons of guys who produce "prime Crawford"-like numbers and better.

But, not only is Crawford done, but the skill set that did make him "special" isn't so special anymore, nevermind the eroded skills due to age and injury. Ain't no way I want to carry a hundo around for five years for that guy.

I'll gladly pay Wells 42, tell him to kick rocks and buy a better player with the money I saved after two years. Might even be able to pawn him off for some low end prospects by the trade deadline of Year 2 while still willing to eat 99% of that brutal contract.

I'll still take Wells with the caveat of Crawford having something considered "above average" in one out of those five years.

Either way, I just want to get out of that contract ASAP.

 

[Villain]

Carl Crawford, as long as it means you get to have Adrian Gonzales.


Who comes along with Wells? Negative Napoli? :shotsfired:

 

[Glenbino]

Carl Crawford, as long as it means you get to have Adrian Gonzales.


Who comes along with Wells? Negative Napoli? :shotsfired:

This is a one-to-one comparison.. Teams and terms of acquisition are irrelevant.

Please refrain from trolling in the sports forums.

 

[Villain]

This is a one-to-one comparison.. Teams and terms of acquisition are irrelevant.

Please refrain from trolling in the sports forums.

Those are one-to-one trade comparisons and the Angels GM lost a job over it. The circumstances involving the way the contracts were acquired is completely relevant. I'm not even trolling.

:dealwithit2:

I don't want a ton of American League baseball so I haven't watch either one of these guys play much. I can look at their stats but I haven't taken the time like some of you and really learned the ins-and-outs of sabermetrics, etc. I get the jist but that's it (at least I admit it, unlike some of you guys on here slateman)

Anyways, if Crawford can be a productive doubles-and-triples, high on-base speed threat like he was in Tampa Bay - of course I want him. But we won't know how productive he can be until he comes back from his surgery in May. So with homer-tinted, optimistic glasses - I want Crawford.

Vernon Wells has shown zero production, no way do I want him.

:kanye:


It's also important to remember that Crawford's overpay hasn't been shown to be a drag on the Dodgers organization yet. Overpaying a baseball player only really matters if it keeps your team from being able to aquire other players.

 

[Glenbino]

Those are one-to-one trade comparisons and the Angels GM lost a job over it. The circumstances involving the way the contracts were acquired is completely relevant. I'm not even trolling.

:dealwithit2:

I don't want a ton of American League baseball so I haven't watch either one of these guys play much. I can look at their stats but I haven't taken the time like some of you and really learned the ins-and-outs of sabermetrics, etc. I get the jist but that's it (at least I admit it, unlike some of you guys on here slateman)

Anyways, if Crawford can be a productive doubles-and-triples, high on-base speed threat like he was in Tampa Bay - of course I want him. But we won't know how productive he can be until he comes back from his surgery in May. So with homer-tinted, optimistic glasses - I want Crawford.

Vernon Wells has shown zero production, no way do I want him.

:kanye:


It's also important to remember that Crawford's overpay hasn't been shown to be a drag on the Dodgers organization yet. Overpaying a baseball player only really matters if it keeps your team from being able to aquire other players.

Thread wasn't about the trade until you took it there.

For the record I voted Crawford. Vernon Wells is human excrement and his contract and the playing time it demanded in 2011 cost the Angels a playoff spot.

 

[Villain]

Thread wasn't about the trade until you took it there.

But the trades tell the whole story. Sure Carl Crawford has an awful contract and the Red Sox overpaid by a mile on him. That being said, I don't mind "having" him since he comes with Adrian Gonzales. That is relevant because that's why the Dodgers took on his contract.

For the record I voted Crawford. Vernon Wells is human excrement and his contract and the playing time it demanded in 2011 cost the Angels a playoff spot.

And the trade for him was absolutely retarded. Napster should've never been allowed to leave the Angels. It's almost impossible to find offensive production like that from a catcher - even if he does suck at defense. I think the Angels are a better team in '11 with him and Rivera - even though Rivera sucks too.

 

[Slateman]

Crawford. He still could have upside and/or produce like he did a couple seasons ago. Far less chance of Wells pulling that off

 

[ThomasTomasz]

Wells...I get that shitty contract off the books much sooner.

I used to really like Crawford. Back in his real prime, there weren't many players like him...but the league has evolved and there are tons of guys who produce "prime Crawford"-like numbers and better.

But, not only is Crawford done, but the skill set that did make him "special" isn't so special anymore, nevermind the eroded skills due to age and injury. Ain't no way I want to carry a hundo around for five years for that guy.

I'll gladly pay Wells 42, tell him to kick rocks and buy a better player with the money I saved after two years. Might even be able to pawn him off for some low end prospects by the trade deadline of Year 2 while still willing to eat 99% of that brutal contract.

I'll still take Wells with the caveat of Crawford having something considered "above average" in one out of those five years.

Either way, I just want to get out of that contract ASAP.

Agreed, I look at it from a contract perspective, and I wouldn't even try to rehabilitate the guy. Just let the deal run off and get rid of him. Crawford isn't going to be very productive going forward, especially three years into the deal. I know that the goal of this thread was to factor in just one player, but Gonzalez can't be ignored. The question with that is how do you value both players at their combined contractual obligations? I'd still take Wells.

 

[Villain]

I know that the goal of this thread was to factor in just one player, but Gonzalez can't be ignored. The question with that is how do you value both players at their combined contractual obligations? I'd still take Wells.

Really? Even if your team has what seems to be unlimited money?

 

[NAHSTE]

Even if your team has what seems to be unlimited money?

It is really dumb to believe that.

 

[Villain]

It is really dumb to believe that.

I don't, but they haven't shown where they are drawing the line. It's crazy.

 

[Woy]

Wells, just to get rid of the contract sooner like Larry said. The entire OF for St. Louis is blocked for the foreseeable future, so I rather just get Wells contract off the books instead of paying someone like Crawford who would be a 4th OF.

 

[NAHSTE]

I don't, but they haven't shown where they are drawing the line. It's crazy.

It's not just about how much you can spend, though the luxury tax does help curb that a bit, it's also about how many players you can carry. At the end of the day, no matter how much cash you spend, you still have the finite resource of roster spots to deal with. You are only afforded 40 players, and only 25 active. The ones you are paying the most money are usually stuck with you no matter what.

Enough bad contracts that can't be gotten rid of via trade will eventually cripple a team's ability to fill out a roster. And it's not like you can convince a guy with an outsized deal to play in the minors, so, you are forced to keep him on the 25, possibly blocking someone younger and better and cheaper. (Sound like anyone we know?)

:trouty:

 

[Kuzzy Powers]

2 years of Vernon Wells or 5 years of bum ass Carl Crawford? Ill take the shorter deal with the bummier player, just to get either the fuck away from my team.

 

[Villain]

It's not just about how much you can spend, though the luxury tax does help curb that a bit, it's also about how many players you can carry. At the end of the day, no matter how much cash you spend, you still have the finite resource of roster spots to deal with. You are only afforded 40 players, and only 25 active. The ones you are paying the most money are usually stuck with you no matter what.

I agree. That's the only time you'll hear me complain about a big contract (the situation where it prevents you from making a different move to improve a roster).

It still remains to be seen on whether a healthy Crawford can produce over the next few years or not. I hope he can.