Crawford- Henry

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

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry : I understand the context behind what Henry was attempting to do. As you stated, it appears his intent was to show that he does not have veto power in player personel decisions and allows them to do there job. With that I agree with you. However, I don't understand what good it does to publically state that the principle owner of the team was opposed to bringing in Carl Crawford. Crawford is a guy who had a terrible year but has 6 years left on an enormous contract. How does he feel coming back here in spring training knowing the owner did not want him? The perception I take from this is that Henry was more interested in making himself and the rest of the ownership look good and was willing to throw Crawford under the bus in that process. I think Henry was totally wrong in this & I feel there was much better avenues to get his point across rather then belittling Carl Crawford. I just don't see the positive that can come out of this.
    Posted by Newfiebullet[/QUOTE]

    I don't disagree that it could've been left unsaid, and not sure that he was trying to make ownership look good nor was he throwing anyone under the bus in cluding Crawford again he never ever questioned Crawford ability or that he didn't support the signing...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]Bay's contract is 5 million a year less than Crawford's, and four years less. Plus, Bay had no problem playing in Boston, as Crawford seems to have. Bay's production here was something Crawford could only dream of.
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    The analysis was comparing the first year of free agent contracts. Now you are muddying the parameters by comparing contracts of different lengths.

    In any event, I'll wait until later in Crawford's contract before I conclude that it was the worst signing ever. Patience.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]Bay's contract is 5 million a year less than Crawford's, and four years less. Plus, Bay had no problem playing in Boston, as Crawford seems to have. Bay's production here was something Crawford could only dream of. As for the ESPN article, I didn't make it up. Dunn's contract is 8 million less than Crawford's.
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    I'm not saying you made it up, I'm saying the math is wrong.  According to FanGraphs there is a 27 million gap for Dunn and about a 20 million gap for Crawford.  We can only assess one year at this point, right?

    The guys that write these articles aren't always the sharpest with numbers.


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-Bay-Fan. Show J-Bay-Fan's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    Come on Red Sox Nation. Let us support Crawford.
    We know that we expected more of it but where is the damn support and loyalty to our team? Honestly I feel bad with what is happening about it. He made every effort to try to produce for the Red Sox. I am very happy that the Red Sox have signed and thatthe next year, will have a good season. Just do not want us to be so hard on him.


    SUPPORT TO CARWFORD, PLEASE! ..  

    I hurts on John Henry said of Crawford. Besides the pressure of the fans and the press all season, and the additional pressure it creates, will go crazy ... Believe in it. He can. He has talent. He need confidence. Come on. He is our player. Remember? 

    RED SOX NATION! 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    Yes, but Dunn only makes 12 million (only?)., so how can there be a 27 million dollar gap?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]Yes, but Dunn only makes 12 million (only?)., so how can there be a 27 million dollar gap?
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    1) I'm assuming they're using FanGraphs values because the 0.9 million for Crawford is what FanGraphs has for him.

    2) FanGraphs allows for negative values because it compares to 'replacement level' players.  Dunn therefore got a negative 13 million value.  Which makes sense when you consider he hit .159 with a .569 OPS and he doesn't play defence.

    3) Dunn's contract is 4 years $56 million.  I think the correct number to use is the average value of $14 million. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry : I understand the context behind what Henry was attempting to do. As you stated, it appears his intent was to show that he does not have veto power in player personel decisions and allows them to do there job. With that I agree with you. However, I don't understand what good it does to publically state that the principle owner of the team was opposed to bringing in Carl Crawford. Crawford is a guy who had a terrible year but has 6 years left on an enormous contract. How does he feel coming back here in spring training knowing the owner did not want him? The perception I take from this is that Henry was more interested in making himself and the rest of the ownership look good and was willing to throw Crawford under the bus in that process. I think Henry was totally wrong in this & I feel there was much better avenues to get his point across rather then belittling Carl Crawford. I just don't see the positive that can come out of this.
    Posted by Newfiebullet[/QUOTE]Context is important here. It probably did not make a lot sense to give up the sound bit because clipped it sounds even worse but the context isn't as bad as the headline. Henry said he was against the signing yes. Asked why, he said that he thought the team was very LH already. He further said he doesn't as rule over rule the baseball operations guys.

    As for how Crawford should feel coming back here? Like he stole something. He stunk like Lackey stunk. He should have something to prove. He has to prove he is a MLB player. Now I don't think he is as bad as he was last year but has it sunk in yet just how bad he was?

    His OBP was .289. Not his BA his OBP. His WAR was 0. his dWAR -0.3. He was bad enough if he had options the RS would have sent him down to the minors.

    His contract always was going to be a controversy but after his first year here let's put it in perspective. He holds the largest contract paid to an OFer in the game today. His contract is 10th largest ever (if you account for the fact that the two biggest contracts ever both belong to A-Rod).

    Now I do think Henry needs to give Carl a call and say "I just wanted to put this into context for you. I was on a radio talk show in Boston and they asserted the only reason we signed you was NESN ratings. Carl that's not true. I told that them that the baseball operations people wanted you. I did say that I was not initially for your signing and that this was because with the addition of A-Gon just the prior week, we were already loaded with LH hitters. But the baseball operations guys made a great case and I supported their decision once they did. We really have a lot of faith in you and know that together we are going to have a great 2012."

    That ends the drama about poor Carl being "called out".

    But while everybody has been focusing on Beckett who had a great year, A-Gon who was pretty much what we hoped he would but played much of August and all of September with a torn calf, Papelbon who had a great year, Papi who had a great year, Youk for getting on his teammates tails, VTek for not; let's face facts.

    Whether you were for this signing before it happened, questioned it when it happened; or embraced it when it happened, or hated it all along; one year into it this is the worst position player FA signing ever. Yes "evah" .

    Hey for those who wanted Henry to be more like Steinbrenner, you just got a bit of it perhaps. That said while I applaud Henry's desire to call out Felger as an entertainer rather than a journalist it wasn't the best moment in the appearance.

    But Carl Craword has lots of other things to worry about other than the fact that principle owner approved his contract in spite of reservations.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    Well spoken, FiveKatz!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    Too many people only read headlines about Henry being against the CC signing. Thanks to those like Katz who read the details which offer a completely different story. Many on the forum were against the CC signing for exactly the same reason - too many lefthanded hitters.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Modano09. Show Modano09's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry


    What a stupid, stupid comment.

    All he has to say is that he lets his baseball people make the moves and that they felt Crawford was the right guy so he signed off on it. Crawford has been a great player in the past and we hope that expect him to bounce back next year.

    What good is it doing anyone for the owner to come out and say that he didn't support signing a guy who's here for another six years? By all account, Crawford wasn't a guy who didn't care. He had a bad year. He worked hard to correct that, but it is what it is, one bad year from a guy who's been a great player prior to that. The guy already feels bad enough about an off year in a new city and now rather than focus 100% on bouncing back next year he has it told to the city that the owner doesn't support him.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    When was Crawford a "great" player?
    Maybe we should pass the hat for him, because he chokes playing in Boston?
    Sorry, bad fit, bad signing.
    I don't feel bad for Carl Crawford. He's being paid 147 million dollars to do more than "care".
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]When was Crawford a "great" player? Maybe we should pass the hat for him, because he chokes playing in Boston? Sorry, bad fit, bad signing. I don't feel bad for Carl Crawford. He's being paid 147 million dollars to do more than "care".
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    We all know that CC had a bad first year. We are also disappointed. Before being certain that it was a bad signing, why not wait another year. Are you a Red Sox fan?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from GhostofTito. Show GhostofTito's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    I am a lifelong Sox fan, but I'm not a sheep, either.
    When I see something I don't like, I voice my displeasure.
    That's what these discussion boards are for.
    I never liked Carl Crawford, and his signing here was not a positive act, to me.
    The long swing, the constipated batting stance, the low OBP, the lack of real power.
    Everybody and his mother knew the Sox were overloaded on the left side. Yet Theo, after making a run at Justin Upton (was he the only right handed hitting RF in MLB?) he went with his usual man crush instincts and overpaid for someone who is a questinable fit, to say the least.
    Even if he returns to career norms next season, they still overpaid, and he's still a poor fit on this team and in Fenway Park.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry : We all know that CC had a bad first year. We are also disappointed. Before being certain that it was a bad signing, why not wait another year. Are you a Red Sox fan?
    Posted by UticaClub[/QUOTE]I tend to agree with TheGhostofTito here.

    It was a bad signing because the valuation is absurd.

    Assume Carl Crawford is his career stats prior to coming to Boston and 2011 is weird outlier. That player is not the highest paid OFer in baseball not close. Even if Crawford was his 2010 stat sheet the valuation is too high.

    Now Carl Crawford probably won't be as bad as 2011 next year. But the contract stinks. It is a non-cap league but CBT and revenues set boundaries on what clubs can do in terms of adding players and in fact retain players.

    And sit back look at the RS roster, Crawford's skill sets and honestly say where he fits. He is a #6 or #7 hitter versus RH and probably should platoon and not see LH. And that is not based on his 2011 numbers because he was at best a #9 hitter and probably should have been in AAA if he had options. He was one of the most over hyped FAs ever and while I thought the RS must know what they were doing, the evidence is pretty clear whatever unique twist they did with advanced SABRmetrics was a failure to date.

    The question is not whether it was a bad signing but rather is it a disaster or just a contract that will put drag on the organization over the life of the deal. He will not be the best OFer in the game with more than 6 years MLB service (what his contract says he is) but he will be the highest paid.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry : Context is important here. It probably did not make a lot sense to give up the sound bit because clipped it sounds even worse but the context isn't as bad as the headline. Henry said he was against the signing yes. Asked why, he said that he thought the team was very LH already. He further said he doesn't as rule over rule the baseball operations guys. As for how Crawford should feel coming back here? Like he stole something. He stunk like Lackey stunk. He should have something to prove. He has to prove he is a MLB player. Now I don't think he is as bad as he was last year but has it sunk in yet just how bad he was? His OBP was .289. Not his BA his OBP. His WAR was 0. his dWAR -0.3. He was bad enough if he had options the RS would have sent him down to the minors. His contract always was going to be a controversy but after his first year here let's put it in perspective. He holds the largest contract paid to an OFer in the game today. His contract is 10th largest ever (if you account for the fact that the two biggest contracts ever both belong to A-Rod). Now I do think Henry needs to give Carl a call and say "I just wanted to put this into context for you. I was on a radio talk show in Boston and they asserted the only reason we signed you was NESN ratings. Carl that's not true. I told that them that the baseball operations people wanted you. I did say that I was not initially for your signing and that this was because with the addition of A-Gon just the prior week, we were already loaded with LH hitters. But the baseball operations guys made a great case and I supported their decision once they did. We really have a lot of faith in you and know that together we are going to have a great 2012." That ends the drama about poor Carl being "called out". But while everybody has been focusing on Beckett who had a great year, A-Gon who was pretty much what we hoped he would but played much of August and all of September with a torn calf, Papelbon who had a great year, Papi who had a great year, Youk for getting on his teammates tails, VTek for not; let's face facts. Whether you were for this signing before it happened, questioned it when it happened; or embraced it when it happened, or hated it all along; one year into it this is the worst position player FA signing ever. Yes "evah" . Hey for those who wanted Henry to be more like Steinbrenner, you just got a bit of it perhaps. That said while I applaud Henry's desire to call out Felger as an entertainer rather than a journalist it wasn't the best moment in the appearance. But Carl Craword has lots of other things to worry about other than the fact that principle owner approved his contract in spite of reservations.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    solid post well said.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BimboBrandi. Show BimboBrandi's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]The talk of Crawford fleeing is silly because his contract pretty much guarantees he is going nowhere for the next six years. Henry putting the signing on Theo is another weak, weak show by the Yachster. Crawford comes back and tears it up next year, shutting the Liverpool Weasel and 3/4 of this board up.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]


    Joe Maddon had to be really careful roughly half of last season because Carl was so beaten down by The Trop's old hard turf. He was showing all of the signs of players like Ken Griffey, Jr. when Junior was playing on Riverfront Stadiums notorious surface. Carl has shown every sign of a player whose body has been beaten down. Many of us Rays fans were hoping he'd be traded to the Angels for the chance to play on that pillow surface at Anaheim for that very reason.

    It's very possible that Carl's career has been significantly cut short by the years of pounding on the hard surface and he'll probably rarely shows signs of the same old Carl again.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry : Joe Maddon had to be really careful roughly half of last season because Carl was so beaten down by The Trop's old hard turf. He was showing all of the signs of players like Ken Griffey, Jr. when Junior was playing on Riverfront Stadiums notorious surface. Carl has shown every sign of a player whose body has been beaten down. Many of us Rays fans were hoping he'd be traded to the Angels for the chance to play on that pillow surface at Anaheim for that very reason. It's very possible that Carl's career has been significantly cut short by the years of pounding on the hard surface and he'll probably rarely shows signs of the same old Carl again.
    Posted by BimboBrandi[/QUOTE]Carl was over hyped even when he was in Tampa though. He was a .340 lifetime OBP hitter, he made circus catches but also made lots of bad reads. He wasn't as efficient a base stealer as Ellsbury, hit for more HRs than Ellsbury BUT his spray chart suggested RF in Fenway would kill that.

    I am will confess the following. When everyone last year was screaming we have to sign Crawford I posted that I thought the guy was fools gold and was another Alphonso Soriano profile. I stated emphatically there was no way with a minor league system full of quick legged LH OFer with gap power and Jacoby Ellsbury on the MLB roster that the RS would ever sign Crawford for what I thought would be a $90M deal.

    When the RS signed him I said they must know what they are doing, heck he is 29 and there must be some deep metrics here because this doesn't fit the RS traditional MO.

    I am back full circle, the dude was fools gold. I truly doubt he is as bad as he was last year and after watching him for 162 games that was't about his body breaking down. The guy runs like the wind still. He is a great physical specimen. Outside of pulling a hammy, he was a horse this year.

    But Crawford's stance is too open. He has a bad command of the strike zone and lives on mistakes. The spread between his career BA and OBP are all too telling.

    His baseball "instincts" are marginal and that was magnified by Fenway's LF where judgment and reads trumps speed and athleticism.


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    When everyone last year was screaming we have to sign Crawford I posted that I thought the guy was fools gold and was another Alphonso Soriano profile. I stated emphatically there was no way with a minor league system full of quick legged LH OFer with gap power and Jacoby Ellsbury on the MLB roster that the RS would ever sign Crawford for what I thought would be a $90M deal. 

    katz. I was against the Carwford signing since before we even signed him. softy and others were as well.

    When I heard the massive amount they paid him, I said he was "overpaid by $50M" and was nothing but a "glorified platoon player". I said "even if he repeats his career 2010 year 7 times, he'd still be grossly overpaid". 

    His 2011 results were still a shock to me, and I fully expect him to return to his career norm (not that reat, but certainly better than 2011).

    I know we have discussed this before, but I recall you saying the OF options in 2012 were poor (and they are), and that after 2010's epic OF failure, signing or obtaining a bigtime OF'er was a high priority last winter. I'm not saying you were for the CC signing, but you seemed more "understanding" of it than a few of us who were deadset against it all along.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    John Henry said absolutely nothing inappropriate about Carl Crawford.

    Maybe commenting on him at all was a bad idea because 1. Boston media will always try to make him look like a bad guy and 2. Shockingly, despite the New England area's sparkling higher education system, it seems the vast majority of Red Sox fans have no ability towards reading comprehension.

    The vast majority of the posts in this thread confirm that (not counting the usual chest beaters screaming "I SAID THIS IN MARCH!!" or "ME ME I SAID SO LOOK AT ME!!!")

    The owner said, in no uncertain terms that he felt the team's lineup was too left hitting heavy.  He was not a supporter of a big contract for another LH hitter.  Lots of management, including the owner, have opinions and input.  Henry allowed his trusted GM to do what he paid him to do, make baseball decisions.

    As they said in Animal House: "YOU F 'ED UP!  YOU TRUSTED US!!"

    His team, leading most of MLB failed miserably down the stretch and blew a playoff spot.  The Cardinals now are showing you what a borderline team can do once they scrape their way into the playoffs.

    In such instances, people generally lose jobs.  Oh, wait, the Manager and GM are gone.  Shocking?  Really?

    John Henry made a reasonable comment about the prospect of giving a zillion dollar contract to a redundant player. Lots and lots of people felt that way.  No only was he right, that player was terrible on top of it.  If troublemaking media and illiterate fans want to pretend Henry said something wrong, its on them.  If CC wants to pretend that is an act of not supporting CC, there's another thing he messed up.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    I don't really think Henry lied or even tweaked his position on the Crawford contract but it sure seems if he felt that way he would have said "no" and over-rode his team.

    Maybe he really does leave it all to them (the management.)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]When everyone last year was screaming we have to sign Crawford I posted that I thought the guy was fools gold and was another Alphonso Soriano profile. I stated emphatically there was  no way  with a minor league system full of quick legged LH OFer with gap power and Jacoby Ellsbury on the MLB roster that the RS would ever sign Crawford for what I thought would be a $90M deal.  katz. I was against the Carwford signing since before we even signed him. softy and others were as well. When I heard the massive amount they paid him, I said he was "overpaid by $50M" and was nothing but a "glorified platoon player". I said "even if he repeats his career 2010 year 7 times, he'd still be grossly overpaid".  His 2011 results were still a shock to me, and I fully expect him to return to his career norm (not that reat, but certainly better than 2011). I know we have discussed this before, but I recall you saying the OF options in 2012 were poor (and they are), and that after 2010's epic OF failure, signing or obtaining a bigtime OF'er was a high priority last winter. I'm not saying you were for the CC signing, but you seemed more "understanding" of it than a few of us who were deadset against it all along.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]You are right Moon. First off and I don't get any Bill Beane bonus points for this I thought Werth was going to be the man. I felt they really had to get one OFer from the 2011 class and that Werth being RH able to play both corners and I assumed a $70M commitment was the man.

    My take on CC was that he was LH hitter whose power would be muted by Fenway, lower OBP, tough LH splits and swing too much like Alphonso Soriano who I called fools gold. I used to just get impassioned heat back from ExDodger

    But once the RS do something I tend to sit back and try and figure out why. And I have learned a lot doing that so I was pretty open to this signing because frankly I was probably a lot more down on what Cameron and Drew were going to have left than others and though Kallish while the pick of the litter in need of further development.

    My points of rational were, .340 OBP but with exceptional stealing ability, defense that could really take every thing hit in front of him away, between CC and Ellsbury no gaps and only 29. At that salary Carmine must have really projected this on the moon.  The mere fact that the contract was so big I just had to believe the RS knew this was going to be great. I annoyed you know who with theories that the RS would go longer years on guys at 28 or 29 because they got more prime years for the $$$. I thought I had been once agin enlightened by the RS.

    If there was something I was right about the RS really could not count on what they had in control for the OF at all and that they won't have to OFers ready to move up to AAA and have MB impact yet.

    But my takes when I thought Werth was the man now seem to more valid. Sadly for me they were right about CC, Werth is no world beater at this point either.

    Any way when I heard that Theo was going to Chicago I thought about calling John Henry and thought again about how high I was on Jayson Werth and then I determined to keep the day job!

    :)

    .


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from walterjohnson07. Show walterjohnson07's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    Henry was unwise to have made this comment given the length of Crawford's contract.  However Henry did add that he had made similar remarks in the past about other transactions, but yielded to the opinions of the "baseball" minds.  That doesn't seem outlandish.

    I was elated at the Crawford signing, thinking the combination of Ells and Crawford would produce outstanding coverage in the outfield (arms notwithstanding), and that they could create absolute havoc on the basepaths.  I hope Crawford merely had an off year, part of which could be due to the clubhouse environment. 

    I am troubled to read that Ells, who had a fabulous, MVP year, was reportedly detached from most of the players, confiding in Jed Lowrie.  They need to figure out what they need to do to keep Ells from walking after 2012.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry : You are right Moon. First off and I don't get any Bill Beane bonus points for this I thought Werth was going to be the man. I felt they really had to get one OFer from the 2011 class and that Werth being RH able to play both corners and I assumed a $70M commitment was the man. My take on CC was that he was LH hitter whose power would be muted by Fenway, lower OBP, tough LH splits and swing too much like Alphonso Soriano who I called fools gold. I used to just get impassioned heat back from ExDodger But once the RS do something I tend to sit back and try and figure out why. And I have learned a lot doing that so I was pretty open to this signing because frankly I was probably a lot more down on what Cameron and Drew were going to have left than others and though Kallish while the pick of the litter in need of further development. My points of rational were, .340 OBP but with exceptional stealing ability, defense that could really take every thing hit in front of him away, between CC and Ellsbury no gaps and only 29. At that salary Carmine must have really projected this on the moon.  The mere fact that the contract was so big I just had to believe the RS knew this was going to be great. I annoyed you know who with theories that the RS would go longer years on guys at 28 or 29 because they got more prime years for the $$$. I thought I had been once agin enlightened by the RS. If there was something I was right about the RS really could not count on what they had in control for the OF at all and that they won't have to OFers ready to move up to AAA and have MB impact yet. But my takes when I thought Werth was the man now seem to more valid. Sadly for me they were right about CC, Werth is no world beater at this point either. Any way when I heard that Theo was going to Chicago I thought about calling John Henry and thought again about how high I was on Jayson Werth and then I determined to keep the day job! :) .
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    The Sox did indeed overpay for Crawford and his struggles last year only served to heighten that perception...With regards to his signing, I wonder how much his body type and age played into the decision, post the tougher steriod testing (Holiday)? While I get that Crawford was never a prototypical Red Sox hitter due to his low OBP in Tampa. He was an impact player with elite athleticism. Who was the 1st player since Ty Cobb to surpass 100 HR 100 2B 100 3B and 100 SB before the age of 30 and lets also not forget he was also close to a lifetime .300 hitter with gold glove ability in left field...

    Why I believe they signed the guy to a 7 year deal was that he was at 29 years of age still in his prime with no history of significant or chronic injuries. A player that was in the mold of say Rickey Henderson who used his athleticism to maintain himself and play at a very high level until he was 40...There are many more examples of players that were elite athletes that all remained productive well into their late 30's (Willie May's, Lou Brock etc)...almost as many as their are with those that were "non athletes" that faded to black when 35 was 35. Which is what is at play now with the tougher testing for steriods...

    I would've loved to have been in the board room when the baseball opps guys gave their presentation to the board when they were advocating signing him. Because therein lyes the answer...My hope is that for his and the Sox best interest we see the Carl Crawford that played in Tampa one whom every time he was on 1st was in scoring position...Hopefully an off season to clear his head and a new skipper will help to unlock the player we thought we signed...Becasue unlike many on this board I was excited by his signing and still feel that he can and will be the impact player they'd hoped when they signed him...

    In terms of him ever being worth 20M...I'll leave that equasion to the baseball opps guys...To me as long as the terms of his contract don't prevent us from fielding a championship level team with the depth needed to navigate 162 game schedule or prevent us from continuing to invest in our player develoment machine. It's only money and by definition a bad contract is one that prevents teams from signing guys and having a deep bench and back ends of the rotation and pen...Something that I don't see as an issue...
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]I have always liked Carl Crawford and always thought about him becoming a member of the RedSox. I was very happy when they acquired him last off season..We all know Carl did not have his typical year and although he was still playing in the same division as he was with the Rays he needs to be given a chance.. Now with the latest news that Henry did not support the signing of Carl... are you kidding me John Henry? Now this is headline news on Boston.com.. Honestly, if I am Carl Crawford right now i would want out of this despicable organization and town.... Maybe Carls performance was due to his environment?? Has anyone thought of this? Maybe he thought the team was basically made up of a lot of losers who did not care about playing together as a team... The way everything is unfolding right now is an absolute disgrace...
    Posted by soxman16[/QUOTE]

    Careful Soxman16,

       Or people will be accusing you of being me.  :o)

       I have said similar things about being happy we got Carl, and the pressure cooker we have here - but I think his was personally applied, wanting to do great and make "the stands always full of great fans" happy.  He was looking forward to being here ...  but then Madonna thought she wanted to be married to Sean Penn (that dates me, I know ...) before he starrted beating up on her.

       I cannot see Henry giving approval of a $142 million deal without being behind it.

       It gives me pause to, for the first time, not trust him.  Is he selling out on Carl because of his less than stellar season, or ...  ?

       ::  ::  ::
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Crawford- Henry

    In Response to Re: Crawford- Henry:
    [QUOTE]When was Crawford a "great" player? Maybe we should pass the hat for him, because he chokes playing in Boston? Sorry, bad fit, bad signing. I don't feel bad for Carl Crawford. He's being paid 147 million dollars to do more than "care".
    Posted by GhostofTito[/QUOTE]

    If you're gonna be a donkey, at least get your figures right.  He didn't sign for the number you posted.  You were close but still wrong.

    But to answer your question, great player is what he was considered by many of the baseball people I listened to.  The only thing he lacked was true power, otherwise he was an excellent player in many ways.  Closing your eyes to that also does nothing to prove you're an educated poster.

    Selling out on your team member so quickly really shows your character ... or lack of it.



    :: :: :: ::
     

Share