A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    My issue with the age of the millionaire isn't so much the ludicrous prices fans will pay to support this American royalty - but with how players are measured. "If he's making 20 mil; - he has to be worth 20 mil". Well, it's easier to measure Manny's skill-set on paper than it is CC's. I get UR allocation for $$$ spent. That's a given. The task is to keep the team competitive while keeping the farm relatively stocked. If that means signing Lackey or CC and over-paying, so be it. A team in regression means drastic revenue drop. That is far worse than over-spending. It's not an easy balance for the FO. But while NY gets older, Theo continues a prime-youth movement. And so far, I don't see how spending 20 mil on a player worth 65% of that is gonna cripple their future prognosis.  They can fill SS/RF/BP depth cheaply. The core of this team is primed for a continued run.
    Posted by harness
    I agree with you on the motivation to spend to stay highly competitive and how that can justify a contract. Mike Cameron is a good example I think or for a bigger ticket OF JD Drew. Lackey is another example when it comes to pitching or the $51M posting fee the RS paid to get Dice K.

    But Crawford is a different kettle of fish. IMO the RS painted themselves in a corner a bit because they did have the motivation you discuss and could not afford to do the Cameron route again in 2011 and say "trust us, we are the smartest guys in the room" after going from ALCS loss in 08, to ALDS swept loss in 09, to no playoffs in 10.

    I hope they did know what they are doing. But I don't see it. Crawford is just not a superstar, middle of the order player and unless the market changes he will be occupying one of those slots in the RS budget for 6 and 3/4 seasons to come. So to some extent salary matters. My argument about Lackey has been that his contract is in line with what his skills get in FA. Ditto with Drew. You can't find a similar contemporary player with a contract that looks anything like this.

    My guess is the RS talked themselves into this step by step. We need the RH but if we miss on Werth and CC is still available, think of the defense and speed and his power game looks like it is emerging. Then Werth gets $120M plus and they figure CC is worth more than Werth. They rationalize age, bla bla bla.

    But honestly I knew we might be in trouble the day people starting talking about CC batting third on a team with Youk and A-Gon on the roster. And then I thought so do you bat him second? And what, move Pedroia to 5 and Papi down? Well what about lead-off? But Ellsbury hits from both sides better, similar OBP and slightly better base stealer and the power? Not important here as a trade off for being meat when a LH is on the mound. 6th? And stack Ortiz, CC and Drew in a row?

    I have tried to drink the kool-aid but my own words on the treads last summer now haunt me. When guys like Exdodgerfan used to go nuts about how we HAD to sign Crawford I used respond that he was fools gold and would be the worst FA signing for the contract required since Alphonso Soriano. Unlike Softlaw (nothing softy about him) I can't wait to say I was wrong about CC and right that Theo Epstein knows way more than me. That is what I assumed at the signing and still hope is the case but for all I can usually see the RS viewpoint and make that argument, I just can't right now.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Enjoy the show Crit! Nice novelty act between Soft-bans...
    Nava seems to lack the burning desire that elevated him last year.

    To Moon: My 65% was in reference to CC's 20 mil, not all FA's.
    Some low risk ones pay off. I'm talking about 6.5 mil a year that won't be freed up for the next 6-7 years. I don't see this as a crippling effect. Now, if you combine that with Lackey and Dice next year, then it might serve as a restraint. Or, it might not.

    Measuring 20 mil on the scales depends on which scale you are using. I believe the FO uses the heavy-duty one: Where the team is projected in the here and now - and down the road.

    If the FO had pulled the boners the Mets pulled, he wouldn't have the luxury of paying CC. His attention to scouting and planting a fine farm reaps the likes of AGONE & CC.

    CC wasn't signed to address the Pen or catcher or 1st-3rd.
    He was signed to solidify the outfield and add another dimension of speed.
    Agone and the signing/acquisitions filled out the pen/1st-3rd. The gamble was Salty, and it might just payoff.

    You have to admit that the big $$$ FA's get most of the attention, but the fact many of our core players are producing at levels exceeding their FA worth don't.
    It's a balance...on their scale anyway.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Wish we could have saved some runs for Wake and Aceves but nice entertaining game with a relaxing back 1/3 after a couple of nail biters.

    The test of just how much of a handicap the awful start was starts tomorrow. As we see it was easy to come back from a 2-10 start BUT it used up some of the cushion that maybe needed for injury. And for all it may be comforting to say Lackey and Dice K weren't pitching well, we also were in 3rd-4th place because of it. We need decent starts from Wake and Aceves and let it begin tomorrow.

    Go Sox....

    PS, is somebody going to walk up to Wake before the game tomorrow and say, "hey, you used to wear this uniform, how do you put on the jersey anyway?"
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Aceves pitches Saturday.
    Wake on Sunday.
    Tek will likely get Aceves - one more head-case.

    Coming back from a 2-10 start was anything but easy.
    I look for the batting averages to bloom vs. inter-league play.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Aceves pitches Saturday. Wake on Sunday. Tek will likely get Aceves - one more head-case. Coming back from a 2-10 start was anything but easy. I look for the batting averages to bloom vs. inter-league play.
    Posted by harness
    Why do you say Aceves is a head case? Because the NYY did not think he came back from his injury fast enough?

    The rotation makes more sense because it keeps Salty from catching the day game after a night game.

    The Sox have done quite well in inter-league but overall the "gap" is narrowing between the two leagues I think. Tonight I think the NYY and Rays think so. Zambrano could be a tough match-up for the RS tomorrow, sounds like the big fella is doing better now that Sweet Lou isn't "coddling him".  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    My take on Aceves is based on watching him pitch - his reactions to signs and communication. The press Hyperbole is academic.
    In time, I think you'll see my point.

    I think the decision to pitch him Saturday was done with a catcher rotation in mind. Looks like Salty will be getting 60% of the starts, which is about right given where he is at this stage.

    You may be right on the inter-league gap, but I still think they only have one really good team in that league. The time to build a cushion is now.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoftlawRedSox. Show SoftlawRedSox's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Salty is getting confidence and improving rapidly. He'll never throw that well or block that well, but he should now catch about 80% of the time.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    My take on Aceves is based on watching him pitch - his reactions to signs and communication. The press Hyperbole is academic. In time, I think you'll see my point. I think the decision to pitch him Saturday was done with a catcher rotation in mind. Looks like Salty will be getting 60% of the starts, which is about right given where he is at this stage. You may be right on the inter-league gap, but I still think they only have one really good team in that league. The time to build a cushion is now.
    Posted by harness
    Time will tell. If you are talking about his last appearance, I don't read too much into that. Aceves didn't like what Tek was calling, they haven't worked together a lot so it got kind of drawn out.

    I think we are pretty parochial when it comes to the NL. The Phillies are not the only good team in the league. It wasn't an accident they won the WS and all-star game last year.  Through 43 games AL teams have scored 3 more runs and there about a 0.09 difference in ERA with National League pitching staffs getting a handful more SO and allowing a few less BB. The difference isn't that pronounced considering the lack of a DH. It just isn't as pronounced as it was a few years ago where NL ERA could be expected to near a run less at this point in the year. Teams like the Braves, Reds, Marlins and Giants could hang in the AL ithink, just like Tampa and Cleveland are.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Heh Crit...How about some ENTHUSIASM MAN!

    Laughing

    Funny stuff! 

    The highlight of my day was seeing Ellsbury actually hit a ball to LF which reached the wall in the air. First time I've ever seen that!

    It would be so great if he could patent that for the future. I would think that he should be able to do that more often! It would really impact his game if he could.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I'd love to think the team is full of hot hitters but I think the opposing staff left a lot to be desired. It was one mop up guy after another.

    It was fun to see the stress go away early. This is my favorite type of game. I like crunching the other team every inning!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Boom and Amp I think Nava was exposed very shortly after his great start last year. ML pitching has a tendency to do that to marginal players; and remember he is an awful defensive player. Of course, ML pitching is something that the Cubs are still in search of. That rotten staff and the first decent weather in Fenway maybe all season, really has the bats cranking. It's hard to believe that we went this deep into the season before we hit double digits in a game. Hopefully, our new fourth and fifth starters can keep the fires burning over the weekend. As hard as it may be to believe after the terrible start, we could be leading the division by Memorial Day!
    Posted by jidgef


    I don't think Nava was THAT bad.  If it wasn't for his speed, Crawford wouldn't be that great of a fielder.  I've seen him make a few boners out there.

    As far as hitting weakness goes, Crawford looks terrible vs. LHP and Ellsbury initially had real trouble with the low-inside slider until he had time to make his adjustments.  Nava, unfortunately for him, was only given one year to adjust.
    Given time, Nava might have adjusted.  Also, he's a switch hitter.  I'm not suggesting that Nava is better than Crawford, just that he's no that bad.

    I really think(hope anyway) that he he latches on with someone.

    For a guy to overcome his obstacles...a LOT of them, there is not a person in the world who would convince me that he has lost his 'drive, dedication, fire' etc.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Katz: It wasn't that Aceves didn't like the signals - he just looked like he was coming off meth. when Tek went out to question what the hell he was doing.
    Check out the replay. He crossed him up more than once.

    As for the NL - were they facing the A.L.?
    The RS/RA figures reflects games among themselves.

    Tell me what the inter-league run disparity was last year. Last few years?
    Tell me the win-loss differential when they play each other.
    One WS and an AS game hardly make UR case. That league is a joke. Has been for years.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II : I don't think Nava was THAT bad.  If it wasn't for his speed, Crawford wouldn't be that great of a fielder.  I've seen him make a few boners out there. As far as hitting weakness goes, Crawford looks terrible vs. LHP and Ellsbury initially had real trouble with the low-inside slider until he had time to make his adjustments.  Nava, unfortunately for him, was only given one year to adjust. Given time, Nava might have adjusted.  Also, he's a switch hitter.  I'm not suggesting that Nava is better than Crawford, just that he's no that bad. I really think(hope anyway) that he he latches on with someone. For a guy to overcome his obstacles...a LOT of them, there is not a person in the world who would convince me that he has lost his 'drive, dedication, fire' etc.
    Posted by ampoule


    What do you think propelled him to overcome such obstacles?
    To reach such heights?
    His drive. His obsession to be where he always dreamed of playing.

    Once an individual realizes a dream - and the realities set in, the nightmare often begins. Nava now knows his limitations. Does he have the skills to overcome his hitting weaknesses? That may be a matter of pure ability.

    If anyone ever got the most of his ability, it was him. But without that insatiable desire to prove something - which in his case might simply have been: to reach the top - there's only one direction left.

    I'm not saying he's a quitter. Not at all. But he now has a new challenge, and must find it in himself to meet it.

    Either way, I admire him very much.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Moon : In a way, the CC contract is crippling. But OTOH, it enables the team to only have to fill one outfield position. And they have several choices on the farm. It may involve different faces on different bus rides for a time. But the fact that  only Rf needs to be filled is huge. Especially considering other team needs at the time. Furthermore, I doubt fans will ever see the true value CC adds to the club, given Jake's presence. For this reason, his contract will forever be an eye sore. At the same time, Drew brings intangibles that will be ignored by one-dimensional thinkers. It's a pity that this is the age of the millionaire player. Value measured in $$$ alone leads to narrowed vision.
    Posted by harness


    Unfortunately thats how a lot of posters think around here. Also, I dont think CC's contract in any way will be crippling to John Henry's wallet or the RS budget.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I agree with you on the motivation to spend to stay highly competitive and how that can justify a contract. Mike Cameron is a good example I think or for a bigger ticket OF JD Drew. Lackey is another example when it comes to pitching or the $51M posting fee the RS paid to get Dice K.

    But Crawford is a different kettle of fish. IMO the RS painted themselves in a corner a bit because they did have the motivation you discuss and could not afford to do the Cameron route again in 2011 and say "trust us, we are the smartest guys in the room" after going from ALCS loss in 08, to ALDS swept loss in 09, to no playoffs in 10.

    I hope they did know what they are doing. But I don't see it. Crawford is just not a superstar, middle of the order player and unless the market changes he will be occupying one of those slots in the RS budget for 6 and 3/4 seasons to come. So to some extent salary matters. My argument about Lackey has been that his contract is in line with what his skills get in FA. Ditto with Drew. You can't find a similar contemporary player with a contract that looks anything like this.

    My guess is the RS talked themselves into this step by step. We need the RH but if we miss on Werth and CC is still available, think of the defense and speed and his power game looks like it is emerging. Then Werth gets $120M plus and they figure CC is worth more than Werth. They rationalize age, bla bla bla.

    But honestly I knew we might be in trouble the day people starting talking about CC batting third on a team with Youk and A-Gon on the roster. And then I thought so do you bat him second? And what, move Pedroia to 5 and Papi down? Well what about lead-off? But Ellsbury hits from both sides better, similar OBP and slightly better base stealer and the power? Not important here as a trade off for being meat when a LH is on the mound. 6th? And stack Ortiz, CC and Drew in a row?

    I have tried to drink the kool-aid but my own words on the treads last summer now haunt me. When guys like Exdodgerfan used to go nuts about how we HAD to sign Crawford I used respond that he was fools gold and would be the worst FA signing for the contract required since Alphonso Soriano. Unlike Softlaw (nothing softy about him) I can't wait to say I was wrong about CC and right that Theo Epstein knows way more than me. That is what I assumed at the signing and still hope is the case but for all I can usually see the RS viewpoint and make that argument, I just can't right now.

    I agree 100% and felt the same way all the way back to the FA musings of last summer.

    It also amazed me how many people wanted to demote Youk and AGon to bat him 3rd... I think mostly to justify he was "worth it" and not based on the obvious numbers.

    I was laughed at when I said his numbers vs LHPs justified being platooned. Somehow the $20M/year is supposed to make him improve vs lefties? His career and recent sample sizes are large enough to see what he is: great vs RHPs and awful vs LHPs. His overall OBP is not good enough to really take full advanbtage of his speed. It now appears his fielding may have been over-rated as well.

    This is not "Monday morning quarterbacking" for me. I never baought into the argument that tehre were no OF'ers available after 2011, and so we should pay $20M this year to justify filling a possible need next year. The AGon deal shows there are other ways, and our OF prospects are many.

    I do understand why Theo "did it", and I too hope I eat crow on this issue. I do think Crawford will return to close to or better than his "norm" over the next 2 years or so, but to me, even that is not worth the alternative plans for usage of $142M/7 years.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Enjoy the show Crit! Nice novelty act between Soft-bans...
    Nava seems to lack the burning desire that elevated him last year.

    To Moon: My 65% was in reference to CC's 20 mil, not all FA's.
    Some low risk ones pay off. I'm talking about 6.5 mil a year that won't be freed up for the next 6-7 years. I don't see this as a crippling effect. Now, if you combine that with Lackey and Dice next year, then it might serve as a restraint. Or, it might not.

    I happen to think it's more like $8M, but I'll go along with $6M. It can certainly be crippling. Just look t this year: $6M could have gotten us a nice all around catcher or another very good pen arm.

    More importantly, to me, is that if you are saying CC is worth $14M now, he wont be worht near that in years 4- 7. I'd say we are losing about $6-7M this year, and increasing to about $13-15M year 7. That's a lot of doe.


    Measuring 20 mil on the scales depends on which scale you are using. I believe the FO uses the heavy-duty one: Where the team is projected in the here and now - and down the road.

    If the FO had pulled the boners the Mets pulled, he wouldn't have the luxury of paying CC. His attention to scouting and planting a fine farm reaps the likes of AGONE & CC.

    CC wasn't signed to address the Pen or catcher or 1st-3rd.
    He was signed to solidify the outfield and add another dimension of speed.

    Again, his speed is marginalized by a poor OBP (for a player at $20M) and a small Fenway LF. Signing a left-handed OF'er just made no sense to me, especially since he can't play RF after Drew goes.

    Agone and the signing/acquisitions filled out the pen/1st-3rd. The gamble was Salty, and it might just payoff.

    Many alternative plans were there: mine might have looked like this:

    WE could have gotten another pen guy,a catcher, and a good RH'd OF'er for less than $20M.

    You have to admit that the big $$$ FA's get most of the attention, but the fact many of our core players are producing at levels exceeding their FA worth don't.
    It's a balance...on their scale anyway.

    Maybe it's time to put CC 9th and let's see the Crawbury thing full fledged. Doesn't it shock you that batting our $142M guy ninth is not an absurd idea? He may never move up beyond #7 this year unless there is an injury or Drew slumps badly.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Unfortunately thats how a lot of posters think around here. Also, I dont think CC's contract in any way will be crippling to John Henry's wallet or the RS budget.

    Only if Henry OKs going over the CAP every year or our kids play well and save money at several slots vacated by high priced aging players shown the door..
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from playball01. Show playball01's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think some may have forgotten one of the reasons for the overpriced CC contract. If memory serves me there was also an issue with regards to NESN Red Sox ratings and the hope was that the Crawford-Ellsbury tandem would excite the fans and bring back some of the pink-hatters that had disappeared, which would increase advertising revenues for the network.

    When looking at the financial picture one must look beyond the RS team/salary constraints and address all of the holdings as they relate to Red Sox ownership P & L. To us it's a game but to ownership it's big business.

    Although I am disappointed in Crawford's performance thus far and would never have believed what his numbers would be at this point in the season there is still a great opportunity for ownership to benefit financially from the signing, which many of us think was an overpay.

    Time will tell but I haven't given up on the player. 3 walk-off winning hits has lead me to believe that there is more magic to come, it ain't over till it's over and more people are probably tuning in to games and now watching through the final out.



     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Playball, I don't doubt the need to insure that the NESN ratings drive the RS to field winning teams with exciting players. But Carl Crawford on a .520 baseball wouldn't draw flies. He just isn't that big a star. The RS had just landed their star in Gonzalez.

    And beyond the baseball team Crawford has no impact on the NESV holdings. No leverage to be had in Premiership or NASCAR from Crawford.

    This isn't just a few bucks. This contract per year is slightly higher than what Manny Ramirez was paid on an annual basis. In the 7.66 years Ramirez was with the RS he put up a .998 OPS, created about 1500 runs between his runs scored and RBI and hit 274 HRs. That is all good for ratings. Manny made the guys in front and behind him better. While Manny's quirky antics drove the management and RS Nation nuts at moments, it was box office. From his game to how he wore his uniform Manny was box office. Can anyone honestly say the same thing about Crawford?

    But Theo spent most of Manny's stay here trying to move him because the contract cramped the team's financial flexibility and there were better values in the market. Theo taught me to hate contracts like this and now I am supposed to forget.

    The RS have not one but two Manny size contracts. That makes it unlikely that when a talent worthy of $142M does come on the market the RS can pull the trigger. If this signing doesn't work a LOT better than it has it will be the elephant in the room for years to come.

    So far we have seen that Crawford's defense doesn't come into play that often. We also know that the guy has web gem skills out there but have also seen with a chance to watch him play every day that he can have absolute lapses in judgment/focus.

    His splits versus LH were troubling, his spray chart a bad overlay in Fenway making his SLG and hence his OPS a potential danger holding up in Fenway Park. And that OPS wasn't eye popping to start with, it was under .800 to start with. Yes they play 81 games on the road and the LF defense matters more on the road but when a player is going to average 300 PAs a year in one ballpark it shouldn't play badly to his strengths.

    Watching him right now in some ways is unfair because he is mired in a terrible slump but that batting stance is tragically open leaving tons of stuff to go wrong with his swing mechanics and at least right now he is not seeing the ball well, his ABs are clinics in swinging at pitchers pitches early in the count and then swinging at garbage late. Right now if his name wasn't Carl Crawford he would platoon more often than Drew. And Moon is right, if it weren't for the "ego" of it all he should be hitting 9th. If it is good enough for Ellsbury when he scuffles what about Crawford aside from a few HRs has he ever done different than Ellsbury in his MLB career?

    If Crawford isn't doing it on the field I just don't see where the money is for the ownership group. Nothing sells like winning and in the absence of it I don't think a base stealing .300 hitter with 15 HRs make a couple of web gem catches a month is going to put fannies in the seats or in front of their TVs. And unless the luxury tax ceiling rises dramatically with anew CBA (fat chance) or the RS objection to going over that barrier has been philosophical and not resource based this contract does hurt the baseball and business operations.

    Making this contract go away would be way harder than Renteria's or Lugo's. While it is likely that he will never be worth the contract one can only hope he starts to play like the $14M player for 5 years that he is.

    I really want to be wrong but this signing so far does look like it is on a parallel with the Alphonso Soriano deal. And that isn't good for baseball ops or the bigger picture. All it does is win the Hot Stove battle and sell a few more advertising slots and tickets over the winter but a Hot Stove win is a show and no go has no lasting impact except cramping the ability to make moves later. For this contract to work Carl Crawford not only needs to play like he did in 2010, he needs to improve upon it.

    Just my takes
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from playball01. Show playball01's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    For this contract to work Carl Crawford not only needs to play like he did in 2010, he needs to improve upon it.

    I agree with your assessment and especially the sentence in bold type. We need to realize that Crawford's production thus far couldn't have been predicted. The player was signed based on his career numbers and if the player had gotten off to a better start, similar to career averages, then this discussion wouldn't be happening and few would really care about the salary amount.

    The slow start by the team ran parallel with Crawford's sub par "out of the gate" performance, both offense and defensively, hence, the player's performance has been under more of a microscope as a result.

    There is no debating that the signing will remain a controversial topic for years to come but I can't comfortably label the signing as brilliant, overpaid or a bust this early into the deal.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    Is it not safe to say that the people who wanted to put Youk outside of the 3 or 4 spot really don't know anything at all?  I think that topic fired me up over the winter/spring more than any other.

    Then of course there was the "Youk is average at best as a third baseman," which was always bologna.

    Youk is an amazing talent! 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Unfortunately thats how a lot of posters think around here. Also, I dont think CC's contract in any way will be crippling to John Henry's wallet or the RS budget. Only if Henry OKs going over the CAP every year or our kids play well and save money at several slots vacated by high priced aging players shown the door. .
    Posted by moonslav59
    Because it is a 7 year deal it will come into play over the life of the contract. As guys like Bard and near Crawford clone Ellsbury get later into arbitration the stress on the budget mounts. As the contracts of Lester, Youk, Pedey and Buch hit their progressive increases the budget stress increases. So even with a productive player development system feeding the big club it is an impedement.

    I don't think the RS will fold their doors over the signing but it will be felt by them and is likely to affect the product they can put on the field. There's a reason the RS FO went to the trouble of investigating Carl's off the field lifestyle.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    Is it not safe to say that the people who wanted to put Youk outside of the 3 or 4 spot really don't know anything at all?  I think that topic fired me up over the winter/spring more than any other. Then of course there was the "Youk is average at best as a third baseman," which was always bologna. Youk is an amazing talent! 
    Posted by BurritoT
    Yes he is. And while Youk is a better defensive 1B than he is a defensive 3B, if you believe in such things as positional value, with the current supply at 3B he is a better 3B when ranked against his peers than he is a 1B.

    People who though that Crawford should displace Youk in this part of the order had to dismiss OBP and OPS as valid metrics. Youk had the same HR production with over 200 fewer PAs last year, an identical BA and over 60 points higher OBP.

    Where Crawford fits in if you dismiss the names, the contracts and only use the stats in the line-up makes you wonder just what series of events led the RS to this signing and what there vision was and 40 plus games into the contract what is it now?

    As I posted earlier the best debate maybe lead-off but when you consider that Ellsbury has been a slightly more eficent base stealer and hits LH pitching better, Jacoby gets the nod. From there until you get to 7th, the other players on the roster get the nod because of his rotten splits versus LH pitching IMO.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from elvis-surfs. Show elvis-surfs's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    I think a lot of the lineup issues in regard to Crawford will be resolved in the offseason when Elsbury leaves...still cant believe how much they paid for him though

    or Elsbury may be traded soon...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part II:
    I think a lot of the lineup issues in regard to Crawford will be resolved in the offseason when Elsbury leaves...still cant believe how much they paid for him though or Elsbury may be traded soon...
    Posted by elvis-surfs
    That in an of itself just would only further highlight how bad a signing this was.

    Ellsbury has been a horse playing in ever game this year (he and A-Gon are the only ones). He is tied for the team lead in runs scored, third in RBI and has stolen twice as many bases as Crawford while only being caught 1 more time.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share