The Red Sox should trade Kutter Crawford

[notin]

Crawford is in his first arb year with 3 arb years remaining.  He’s been worth 4.3 fWAR / 4.6 bWAR over the last two seasons, and is coming off a 33 start / 183 IP season.  Those 33 starts lead all of MLB.

BTV places his surplus value at $30mill.  While he is no longer a minimum wage earner, Crawford will have his appeal with nearly every team in MLB.  With a few holes to fill and the free agent market saturated with overpriced dreck, this might be a better solution.

Crawford did lead MLB in home runs allowed last year, but about one  third of ten came in a bad three start stretch after the All Star break.  
 

If the Sox can deal Crawford for a good defensive catcher (not a career BUC guy, either) and a good bullpen arm, they should do it…

[moonslav59]

I've never been as high on Crawford as some, as a SP'er. I'd like to see us add a solid SP'er and make Crawford our long guy/spot starter and keep Wink & Whitlock for the 1-2 IP guys for the 6-8th innings.

[notin]

Crawford is too good to waste in a long reliever role.  Long reliever is the White Flag of the bullpen.

I like him as a fifth starter.  But he might have more value as a trade chip…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Trade him now while he's at peak value, then sign him on a rehab contract after he gets hurt. Even if he doesn't make a comeback, the Riddlers in the front office will chalk up the expense as a win-loss leader -- the price they'd gladly pay for talent in the Crawford exchange:

new young player + WAR = Crawford draft bonus + minimum wages + "later bonus" to rehab instead of pitching - HRs allowed in non-existent second stint.

[Bellhorn04]

If we trade Crawford, from last year we'll have subtracted his 183.2 IP and Pivetta's 145.2 IP and added Crochet's 146.0 and Giolito's NIL.

I don't think it's a good idea, because Crawford has value as an innings eater, and by now we should now just how valuable that is.

I certainly support the idea of getting a better catcher and reliever... 

[moonslav59]

45 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

If we trade Crawford, from last year we'll have subtracted his 183.2 IP and Pivetta's 145.2 IP and added Crochet's 146.0 and Giolito's NIL.

I don't think it's a good idea, because Crawford has value as an innings eater, and by now we should now just how valuable that is.

I certainly support the idea of getting a better catcher and reliever... 

In theory, we'll be adding Giolito, too. Also, Criswell is an option from day one, and I don't think we viewed him that way, last winter. (Fitts, Priester and Dobbins, too.)

That being said, I still think the best FA out there, that can help us, is Burnes, with Crawford moving to the pen. Maybe adding Cutter to the pen would make the pen a little better than 2024's. That would leave a RHB and corner IF &  C defense as the next priorities.

[notin]

56 minutes ago, Bellhorn04 said:

If we trade Crawford, from last year we'll have subtracted his 183.2 IP and Pivetta's 145.2 IP and added Crochet's 146.0 and Giolito's NIL.

I don't think it's a good idea, because Crawford has value as an innings eater, and by now we should now just how valuable that is.

I certainly support the idea of getting a better catcher and reliever... 

The Sox can get an innings water through free agency easier than they can a catcher.

 

Of course if Crawford has all this value as an innings eater(which I agree with 100%), who should the Sox be bumping from the rotation for this new SP that many say we desperately need?

Innings eaters are less effective in part time/reserve roles…

[moonslav59]

Innings of mediocrity is a plus, but at some point, we need more plus innings from somewhere. 

I'd say he is better than most teams' 5th starter, so in that sense, he's not a net minus, but when you compare our top 4 SP'ers to the top 6-8 teams in MLB, we are not near the top 3-4..

With a pen and defense like ours, we can't go late into games up 3-2,  4-3 or 5 or 6-4.

[notin]

12 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Innings of mediocrity is a plus, but at some point, we need more plus innings from somewhere. 

I'd say he is better than most teams' 5th starter, so in that sense, he's not a net minus, but when you compare our top 4 SP'ers to the top 6-8 teams in MLB, we are not near the top 3-4..

With a pen and defense like ours, we can't go late into games up 3-2,  4-3 or 5 or 6-4.

Then fix the pen and defense.  Better defense will improve both the SP and the bullpen.

If the Sox actually sign Alex Bregman, that helps the defense immensely.  Or they could get a good defensive 3b back for Crawford, which is another option.  (They missed out on Isaac Paredes, who would have been so perfect for Fenway.)

[harmony]

We should not be unduly influenced by minuscule samples, but Kutter Crawford tossed five shutout innings in each of this poster's last two Red Sox games at T-Mobile Park in Seattle:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA202206120.shtml

 https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA202308020.shtml

Kutter Crawford has value.

[Randy Red Sox]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

If we trade Crawford, from last year we'll have subtracted his 183.2 IP and Pivetta's 145.2 IP and added Crochet's 146.0 and Giolito's NIL.

I don't think it's a good idea, because Crawford has value as an innings eater, and by now we should now just how valuable that is.

I certainly support the idea of getting a better catcher and reliever... 

are there any rehabbing catchers and relievers available?

[moonslav59]

22 minutes ago, notin said:

Then fix the pen and defense.  Better defense will improve both the SP and the bullpen.

If the Sox actually sign Alex Bregman, that helps the defense immensely.  Or they could get a good defensive 3b back for Crawford, which is another option.  (They missed out on Isaac Paredes, who would have been so perfect for Fenway.)

You don't have to talk me into improving the defense, especially 3B, where I have been suggesting Devers to 1B for years.

We can do that without trading Crawford. I'm not against trading Crawford for anything that helps the team. Since we need pitching, I'm hesitant to trade anyone who is better than our 13th best pitcher, unless the gain is better than that loss.

Weren't you the one who argues with me about not moving Crawford to the pen, of was that MVP? (Back when the talk was about who should go to the pen: Whitlock, Houck, Pivetta or Crawford.)

I'd really like a real 3Bman, and I'm still thinking Arenado might work, if the money doesn't keep us from adding a pitcher we still need (SP or RP.) Paredes would have been nice.  I'm not thrilled about paying $200M/7 for a .795 3Bman, but Bregman's D is a big plus and he hits lefties well. That solves 2 problems with one signing and may help fix teh 1B defense issue, if devers works out better than Casas on 1B D. I also think rotating Devers and Casas at 1B and DH would allow both to play 160 games not 150-155 by resting at DH.

Okay, so if the plan is to sign Bregman and trade Crawford and maybe Rafaela or Abreu for a better pitcher, fine. I'd rather sign Burnes, Scott or Hoffman, or maybe Flaherty & Estevez and move Crawford to the pen, but trading him for a defensive 3Bman or catcher could work, too. We could add Abreu or DHam to make teh return even sweeter, but that puts pressure on Anthony, Campbell or Mayer to come through, quickly. I like that risk.

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2 hours ago, Randy Red Sox said:

are there any rehabbing catchers and relievers available?

You can bet your sweet ebay there's a Red Sox front officer or three with a hotline alert that tases them through their phones whenever an MLB player is DFAed or put on waivers.

They probably even have similar apps for all levels of the minors when kids get sent home.

(I have one when my ceramic beer mug is almost empty, but it's not AI; it's MyEyes)

[Behindenemylines]

The rule is don't trade starting pitching unless there is a plan in place  to replace the pitcher moved. With that said, if the Sox are going to make a run at the AL East then Crawford is either the #5 starter, or a piece in the bullpen, or moved to fill another hole in the roster. Don't trade Crawford until  Burns, Buehler, or Flaherty is signed.

[moonslav59]

I'll trade anyone and everyone, if teh return is greater. Equal is fine, too, if we fill a greater need area.

Right now, our needs are pitching, pitching, catcher, pitching, RHB. 

I'm fine with trading Crawford, if the deal upgrades one of these areas by as much as it downgrades our pitching staff with the loss of Crawford.

I've never been as high on Crawford as some, here, but he's a good 5th starter and probably a very good long man/spot starter, too. The HRs are a major concern, and I'm not sure he can continue to allow so many of then with no men on base, going forward. He worries me.

I could see deals like this: Crawford + Abreu for a better pitcher.

Crawford + DHam for a better pitcher or a RHB and or a catcher.

The only guy I'm really "for trading," just for the sake of trading and not really looking for anything in return, is Yoshida, and even with him, I think it's best we wait and hope he gains value by getting healthy and producing for a while. I'd rather have Casas and Devers share DH duties and play 1B as little as possible. With Devers, no 3B, except when our FT 3Bman needs a rest.

[notin]

3 hours ago, Behindenemylines said:

The rule is don't trade starting pitching unless there is a plan in place  to replace the pitcher moved. With that said, if the Sox are going to make a run at the AL East then Crawford is either the #5 starter, or a piece in the bullpen, or moved to fill another hole in the roster. Don't trade Crawford until  Burns, Buehler, or Flaherty is signed.

The Sox will have 10 starting pitchers on the 40 man roster once they add Sandoval. (Booser was traded yesterday to create room.). They have already taken steps to replace Crawford…