Carl Crawford

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

    Re: Carl Crawford

    In Response to Re: Carl Crawford:
    [QUOTE]jimdavis you may be a Sox fan and you may never say anything negative about the Sox but you sure know how to take some swings at other posters... that's all. Nobody cares all that much about you either.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    You cared enough to post when I did not even address you.  I didn't take a swing at anyone.  I simply posted that the negativity was a bit much for me.  If you didn't care you could have skipped it.  But you made it a poin to respond directly to me.  My thought stands...many are overly negative.  It must make them feel good.  Since you had something to say, you must be in that group.  That's cool for you.  Enjoy it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from aussiewill. Show aussiewill's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    In Response to Re: Carl Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Carl Crawford : Hey Aussiewill.... I too have been following the Sox for quite some time (I'm of the Yaz ERA). Not sure that I get the correlation nor the comparison between he and Crawford? Teddy ball game's resume speaks for itself, so I won't try to diminish his accomplishemnts, but if he were playing today...first off he'd be making some pretty big dough! That said, the game has changed and while Ted Willams was a great player, HOF, etc...He played in an ERA when he wasn't playing against the best in the world (pre desegragation), that and he regularilty would get 3 or 4 at bats a game against the same pitcher...He and the player of the 40's 50 and 60's never had to deal with the lefty specialist and the closers of today game...I'm sure he would still have been a HOFer...Trust me he would've struggled to square up Rivera's cutter just like ever other lefthanded hitter of this generation...Not to mention guys like Sparky Lyle's (slider) who were death to lefties...Sutters splitter was prety nasty as well and he wouldn't have been the first nor the last HOF to offer at one that bounced. The list gone on and on different era's and we could argue all day about which era was the best, I'd probably settle on the 70's cause that when all teams were fully intergrated... What Crawfrod is making is a by product of fiscal model of the modern game, Good for him. I am not a big fan of beatin a guy up because of what he makes. I, like all fans, want to see players earn thier dough, playing to thier potential. Cleary Crawford is falling short, but he can start to turn it around begining tonight! The kids to good an athlete to continue playing so poorly...For his sake and that of the teams...lets hope tonight is the night he squares up a couple of balls and shows us why Theo and more importantly John Henry chose to make him a very wealthy young man...he'll never be Teddy ball game, that was not the expectation...what we all thought we'd get was a dynamic all around ball player that'd hit close to 300 and steal us 50 bags...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]

    I was asked by some poster , who are you anyway? So I told him. The Williams reference and it wasn't only Ted, it was about the fact that I never saw major league hitters of that ERA chase bad pitchers like some hitters do today. Crawford being a prime example. He chases the high strike and he chases the breaking ball off the plate . When he is going good he doesn't chase the stuff in the dirt. I am only saying that this guy is getting superstar money, and he chases stuff that , you don't see good hitters chasing.

    Maybe he is feeling the pressure and that is contributing to his anxiety. Maybe next year he will relax settle in and hit .300 and steal 50 bases, maybe, and I hope so. Personally I don't think that a guy that is getting the dough he is getting, gets a free ride, if he doesn't produce. But hey, it doesn't seem to bother Tito or Theo so maybe we should all ignore the Crawford saga.

    Drew copped it from the get go, AJ is copping it in NY . Lackey has been in the firing line, it comes with the territory. Beckett was even enduring the slings and arrows last year.

    As to you assertion that Ted Williams faced inferior pitching. I will give you one small example. I had a conversation with the great Bob Feller in 1989 at  a night for number nine. Ted's 70th , they were all there, Joe D, Bobby Doerr , Pesky, Raddatz, even John Havlichek , I was like a kid in the candy store. I asked Feller what happened the first time he pitched to Ted. This would be Bob Feller, with the 100 mph fastball. He told me that in 1939 the first time he pitched to Ted, that Williams lined two doubles off the centerfield wall in Fenway off him.

    No there was no Mariano, the Yankees had Ryne Duren, Luis Arroyo ( great little lefty) All the teams had good relievers , don't you worry about that.  there were plenty of good relievers, they hadn't designated the term closer till much later. The hot guy out of the pen was the closer . Actually it was sometimes more effective.

    If you go back before Williams' Era , you find that starters went 7 innings almost no matter how they were going. But they pitched off a 15 " mound, today they pitch off a 10" mound. There were only 8 teams in each league . There were no batting Helmets. You crowded the plate, you got the brush back, no warnings to the pitchers, you could hit 3-4 batters, never got thrown out of the game. Today throw inside after someone was hit your otta of here.

    The Dodgers had a pitcher Sal "The Barber " Maglie . They called him the barber because he threw inside all the time. pitchers if anything were tougher then. The strike zone was bigger. MLB reduced the size of the strike zone after the 68 season. One guy hit .300 in the AL Carl Yastremski . They were afraid that they would lose fans. Bob Gibson had an ERA of 1.12 in 68. Luis Tiant was slightly higher for the Indians. I think Luis struck out 250-300 batters in 68. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    In Response to Re: Carl Crawford:
    [QUOTE]How is that going to help us, assuming you want to retain Ellsbury? Don't you think that Tek benefited by having Boras as an agent?
    Posted by andrewmitch[/QUOTE]

    I believe that Borass doesn't negotiate for what's best for his players, he negotiates with the mindset of what's best for HIM.  The more he gets for the player the more he gets for himself.

    In the case of Veritek, at the end of 2008 IIRC the Sox offerd 'Tek ~$10MM-$12MM/yr for a two year contract, which he turned down to go to free agency.  Since Veritek was fairly candid about wanting to stay in Boston I blame Borass for persuading 'Tek to take that route.

    Eventually 'Tek fired Borass and came back where he wanted to be, but at a much reduced salary - a 1 yr contract @ $5MM plus a club option at $5mm for the next year, an option the club declined, and 'Tek later signed a one year contract for $2MM.

    Players sign contracts with agents to negotiate for them and to advise them, and I believe that Borass's "advice" is far too tainted by what's best for Borass.

      And yes, I certainly want Ellsbury back and I'd like to think that Ells wants to come back.  Why not?  He's established here, has friends, and is on a competitive team.  I just hope that someone (Veritek?) can convince Ells to overide what Borass tells Ells he wants and let Ells sign for a reasonable amount without pricing himself out of Boston.  Because that's what Boras's history is - going for the money without consideration of the other factors that would make a player want to stay where he is.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac32. Show pinstripezac32's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    I just hope that someone (Veritek?) can convince Ells to overide what Borass tells Ells he wants and let Ells sign for a reasonable amount without pricing himself out of Boston.

    after seeing the agon & CC contracts

    why should he need to
     
    '' sign for a reasonable amount without pricing himself out of Boston''

    I doubt he hired boras 2 yrs after being signed to do such a thing


    Because that's what Boras's history is - going for the money without consideration of the other factors that would make a player want to stay where he is.

    the good new is the jered weaver deal
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    Why would Ellsbury sign for less money to stay in Boston?  As Carl Crawford and Rentaria have demonstrated, players that have a proven track record in Boston should sign for more money to stay here.  If the Red Sox have to pay an Ellsbury-like player $20 million to replace Jacoby, then Ellsbury is worth $22 million. 

    Signing a Free Agent from another team is a gamble.  Signing a free agent with a proven track record in Boston is not a gamble.  It's as close to a sure thing as you can get.


    Boston is a tough place to play.  If I Ellsbury, I'd take less money to play for the Mets - same media circus, National league, and brand new clubhouse.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Piersall37. Show Piersall37's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    In Response to Re: Carl Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Carl Crawford : What do past salaries have to do with today?  Do you cry over the price of gas or milk?   Life is tough, huh? The amazing part is that you negative trolls think that you are the only ones who can see Carl is struggling.   And that you are the only ones who know how much money he makes. No sheet Sherlock ... gee, how smart of you to come into this POSITIVE thread and spew your garbage all over the place.   That takes courage and brains!!!!   Sox fans support the team NO MATTER WHAT.  Not just when they are doing well.  And that goes for our players too.   
    Posted by soxmeister[/QUOTE]
    What an awesome post.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  I can see some mild banter going back and forth about players, and expectations and so forth, but I believe a true RS fan accepts a player through thick and thin, the good times and the bad.  I firmly believe that half of these posters are incited by our illustrious beat writers in both the Globe and Herald.  If these clowns would just leave ballplayers alone and let them work out their problems with the proper coaches, etc., instead of putting their slumps under a microscope, perhaps the ballplayers in question could concentrate on their problem instead of answering stupid questions.  How about a poll on which sports writers irritate you the most.  Two come to mind immediately for me.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    Carl drew a walk, he drew a walk.....that is an important achievement for him.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    5 ribbies for Carl tonight in Arlington. Maybe he just likes the hot weather?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    In Response to Re: Carl Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Carl Crawford : What an awesome post.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  I can see some mild banter going back and forth about players, and expectations and so forth, but I believe a true RS fan accepts a player through thick and thin, the good times and the bad.  I firmly believe that half of these posters are incited by our illustrious beat writers in both the Globe and Herald.  If these clowns would just leave ballplayers alone and let them work out their problems with the proper coaches, etc., instead of putting their slumps under a microscope, perhaps the ballplayers in question could concentrate on their problem instead of answering stupid questions.  How about a poll on which sports writers irritate you the most.  Two come to mind immediately for me.
    Posted by Piersall37[/QUOTE]

    There's no rainbow without the rain.
    Nor would we appreciate the sun for the clouds...
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    In Response to Re: Carl Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Carl Crawford : What an awesome post.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  I can see some mild banter going back and forth about players, and expectations and so forth, but I believe a true RS fan accepts a player through thick and thin, the good times and the bad.  I firmly believe that half of these posters are incited by our illustrious beat writers in both the Globe and Herald.  If these clowns would just leave ballplayers alone and let them work out their problems with the proper coaches, etc., instead of putting their slumps under a microscope, perhaps the ballplayers in question could concentrate on their problem instead of answering stupid questions.  How about a poll on which sports writers irritate you the most.  Two come to mind immediately for me.
    Posted by Piersall37[/QUOTE]

    +1 Love your posts Piersall, just wish you would post more often. :)
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    Now that CC has started to rake, the haters must be pretty upset.  They will be back to bash on the next CC 0-4 night.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    In Response to Re: Carl Crawford:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Carl Crawford : There's no rainbow without the rain. Nor would we appreciate the sun for the clouds...
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    This is why Harness supports the trolls.
    Without the trolls faking negativity, concern, and doom and gloom
    His forum would meet the fate of Humpty Dumpty
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Carl Crawford

    Your-Echo, you and Pike have systematically been more negative in your forum posts, making this a doom and gloom forum. Your calling out of "trolls" and your badgering of posters, including harness, who is a die-hard Sox fan, is part of the reason why this forum sucks when you and Pike post. You proliferate exactly what you preach. You are a doom and gloomer, just like Pike. You doom and gloom posting, Sox fans may doom and gloom, but it's out of caring for the team mostly or fearing that they could fall off the playoff map. 
     

Share