:lol:

Yes.

Why is there a comma in the title?

And I'd say they would.

1. Crawford is gonna get a massive contract soon
2. The Devil Rays have tons of replacement outfielders
3. Pitching is a whole lot more valuable then hitting these days
4. Especially young pitching with an ace arm

this is making me laugh out loud.

Seriously dude, put Crawford on a team that doesn't have a non-stop green light and his value is cut in half.

lmfao no..

I wouldn't do it from a Jays standpoint so....

NO

I'd never do this

Why would the rays trade the only guy who makes them money. The Rays have a ton of sp spects, they don't need McGowan. Neimann, Davis, McGee, Price and Walker. Four of those guys have REALLY high ceilings and at least 2 of them are probably better than magowan right now. Davis should be getting a good look at a spot next year along with McGee. To go along with Kazmir and Shields. Crawford is to good to give up for just McGowan anyways.

any jay fan who thinks the drays would do crawford for mcgowand is stupid.

You guys clearly don't understand the market. The Phillies wouldn't trade Brett Myers, let alone Cole Hamels last offseason for Alex Rios. In 2003 Cole Hamels was the 17th best prospect in all of baseball, and he never got higher. In the same year, Dustin McGowan was the 18th best prospect in all of baseball. Both have ace calibre arms. If someone like Rios, who is a better hitter and defender than Crawford, and his stolen bases percentage (14/18 = 78%) is comparable to Crawford's (49/58 = 84%) can't get an ace arm in return, Crawford sure as hell can't. Rios is a better player than Crawford. Rios couldn't even get the Blue Jays a sniff at Cole Hamels. If the Rays could get a pitcher with a similar arm to that of Cole Hamels for Crawford, they would jump at it. Kazmir, McGowan, Shields with an outfield of Gomes, Upton, Young = contendor.

And THU, you of all people should know that prospects are just that, prospects. Until they've proven themselves in the big leagues you can't say they'll be better than anyone. How many highly touted pitching prospects have the D-Rays had that completely flopped once they hit the majors and were never heard from again? A ton.

In this market, pitching is the currency. 25 year olds with ace arms are like bars of gold. Dustin McGowan is gold, in the batters box, Carl Crawford is an average hitter. He doesn't have overwhelming contact, he doesn't have overwhelming power, and his plate discipline is terrible. Don't over value someone based upon their legs.

McGowan as of now does NOT have an ace arm.

so, how the fuck are 2003 prospect rankings relevant in this? Jesse Foppert, Gavin Floyd and Jason Stokes were all top 15 prospects that year.

I'd think Cole Hamels was slightly higher regarded after his rookie campaign than he was in 2003.

Jayhawk, where are you.

He's always had an ace arm. It's just been a matter of pitch command, and he's got that.

His numbers certainly doesn't seem ace-like.

Baseball America ranks prospects based upon potential. Hamels and McGowan were right next to eachother, and both are in the majors right now putting up similar numbers.

I'll take a 25 year old in his first full season with a 3.90 ERA in the AL East any day, thanks.

Get your head out of your ass, don't even compare McGowan to Hamels.

Hamels>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>McGowan. It's not even close.

How the fuck are McGowans numbers comparable to Hamles this year?

McGowan has a 97 mph fastball, a 92 mph slider, and an 86 mph curveball. His pure stuff is better than AJ Burnett's. AJ Burnett is regarded to have one of the best arms in baseball.

PK, I'd be willing to bet you've never even watched McGowan pitch, so don't speak of that which you do not know.

Oh, so now we are jumping over to Burnett now :rolleyes:

Bu tell me, how do McGowans numbers compare to Hamels?

Wtf are you talking about? You said McGowan doesn't have an ace arm, I'm saying he does since his arm is better than Burnett's. Follow the conversation here guy.

Yeah, the fact that he's in the AL east is super relevant. Considering he's made 3 starts this year against the Red Sox and Yankees.

Well if he was better, would he be putting up better numbers? Instead, his numbers are pretty average at best.

:lol: :lol:

Season:

Hamels: 3.50 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 4.00 K/BB
McGowan: 3.90 ERA, 1.21 WHIP, 2.36 K/BB

Last 10:

Hamels: 2.97 ERA, 1.05 WHIP, 3.00 K/BB
McGowan: 2.62 ERA, 1.04 WHIP, 2.85 K/BB

Throw in the AL/NL difference, they're very comparable dude. Throw in the fact that Hamels has 58 career starts to McGowan's 33, he's expected to be a little further in development.

Obviously, you guys don't understand the market.

The Phillies two years ago needed pitching. So they went ahead and made an offer for Ted Lilly. Any of you know who they offered?

Hamels has a lot better numbers, so? Are you saying McGowan will be better?

And if you wanna talk shit about McGowan's opponents...

Hamels has faced:

Nationals 3 times
Cardinals 2 times
Giants 2 times
Astros 2 times
Padres 1 time
Marlins 1 time
Reds 1 time
White Sox 1 time

Not exactly fierce opponents. Also, Hamels has a 0.73 ERA and 19 strikeouts in 12.1 IP against PITCHERS this season. Take out pitchers and throw in David Ortiz, Jim Thome, etc, and his numbers drop down.

And McGowan has a 4.76 ERA against NL teams, your point?

He faced the Rockies, the Dodgers twice, the Phillies, and the Giants. 4 of his 5 starts against the NL were against very strong offenses. He didn't have the benefit of facing the Nationals during interleague.

But he still faced pitchers, remember? :rolleyes:

Lol, the Dodgers don't exactly have a strong offense.

He faced pitchers in 3 starts, Hamels faced pitchers in 25 or so starts... what is your point?

This is closer than it looks.

First, people need to understand that Carl Crawford is an exceptional outfielder and that Dustin McGowan is probably a fourth starter. If we're comparing the two players, it's no contest: Crawford is far better. I'm not yet positive that Crawford won't be an MVP some year. I know that Crawford's outfield range is underappreciated.

But Carl Crawford will cost $5.25 million next year, and $18.25 million the next two years. After that he's a free agent. Dustin McGowan will make MLB minimum through 2009, followed by three years of arbitration-eligibility where he'll make 40%, 60% and 80% of his worth on the free-agent market, give or take.

Are three years of Carl Crawford at $22.7 million better than two years of Dustin McGowan near MLB minimum salary plus rights to his three arb years? My vote is yes--even considering salary, I'd rather have Crawford--but it's a pretty close call.

My point is comparing McGowan to Hamels is a joke.