Crawford injured again

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN. Show COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    he has a good agent????  our GM was high?  I dunno...
    Posted by georom4
    i said it then, y did we not consider putting cameron there for a year. after all, theo was willing to switch ells for he was so high on cam in the first place. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Giving top money to guys who aren't  or did nothing as Sox is a mantra the Sox have lived by for years. Not giving money to guys who are Sox, contribute to the Sox winning, is also a mantra. When Ellsbury and Papelbon leave because they are short-changed on salary, you can guess who their agents will be citing as reasons to be paid very large money--Crawford, Lackey...to name 2. And yes, Cameron was a horrible signing. The very fact he even is hitting for his new team just shows you he couldn't handle his role in Boston. He was absolutely a waste of money, waste of time. As for hindsight, I was very harsh in my criticism of the Sox FO when they signed Cameron, when they moved Ellsbury, when they signed Lackey, and I was not happy when Beckett got his re-up. I was wrong on Beckett, but as you can probably look back, so were about 90 percent of the media who had also ascertained that maybe Josh was losing it. In Response to Re: Crawford injured again :
    Posted by dannycater


    Not giving money to the Sox contributors is the Sox mantra?  They extended Youkilis, Becket,and Pedroia before each contract expired, and did so wisely.  They also tried to extend Papelbon, but he did not want an extension at the time.  As for Ellsbury, there still is time to extend him, but that became more difficult the day he hired Scott Boras.  And when a player hires Scott Boras, he does so because he wants to havre his next contract come the way Boras gets them.  Every player know Scott Boras' methods.  Even I know them.  If the Sox don’t extend Ellsbury, it might be more because Ellsbury himself does not want an extension and prefers to get as much as possible for as long as possible.  He could get an extension with any agent.  But he did go and hire Boras himself.

    As for paying players on other teams, that is exactly what free agency is.  Go look at the highest paid players around the league and in MLB history, and you will find very few have resigned with their original team.  Jeter, Pujols and Vernon Wells might be the whole list.  (Unless you count the A-Rod opt out scenario).  Like it or not, that is how business is in MLB.  You pay less for a player when no one else can make him an offer and more when everyone else can.

    As for Crawford being a bust already, wasn’t Beckett’s new deal a bust one year ago today? Anyone still feel that way?  Maybe 90% of the media was down on Beckett, but if you can access my posts, you will see I was not and repeatedly said it was too early to make any call.  The exact same approach I have with Crawford (although I never liked the deal from day one.)

    So, what if Ellsbury signs a big deal and then suddenly has the same disappearing act as Crawford?  Will you be thankful then that the Sox at least made him a ridiculous offer when they did not have to, simply because he was already here?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Carl Crawford is a nice talent, but he's got 2 months and a postseason to help this team win. His current numbers don't suggest a guy who is worth 142 million. Is that his fault? No, it's the Sox for signing another lefty speedster when they had a duplicate in CF. But nevertheless, I expect more from CC, and I think most Sox fans deserve to see him perform like he did in Tampa. Often, free agent guys who are slow starters as Sox remain that way in their careers as Sox. Manny, AGON, Schilling were guys who immediately showed their impact as Sox in their first seasons as Sox. It's not rocket science.
    Posted by dannycater


    First of all, when you say fans deserve it, you are calling out for entitlement.

    But the reality is, this is all about impatience.  As I said, one year ago, fans were decrying the extension of Josh Beckett as a complete bust.  Andrewmitch even had a signature line on every worthless post he made that referred to Beckett by name as a player who could not be dealt for a PTBNL.  He still using that today?

    Matt Clement made an immediate impact his first season, going 10-2 3.85 and making the All Star team his first half season in Boston.  So I guess that was a good contract?   Keith Foulke had a great first season in Boston, too.  He lost his closer job before his second season was out.  I don’t get the importance of stressing the player must make an impact right away or the entire deal is a bust, other than blatant impatience.  Coco Crisp had his worst season in Boston his first year and improved at the plate each season, and established himself as an elite defensive presence during that time, as well.  Just because a player has one bad season is no reason to write off everything as a bust.  And just because a player is good for one season is not justification for the entire deal, either.  And of course, JD Drew’s first season was abysmal, but he improved drastically in 2008 and 2009, having two of the best seasons of his career.  But apparently, he is a bust because (1) he had a bad first season in Boston and (2) as you have said, he never duplicated what he did in Atlanta.  Well, Manny Ramirez never duplicated his 2007 season in Cleveland during any of his years in Boston.  Shouldn’t he be a bust as well by your criteria?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    08, 09 were not anywhere near Drew's "best seasons of his career." He had a monster season with Atlanta, and a monster season in St. Louis.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    Manny Ramirez was the best right-handed hitter the Sox have ever seen in a uniform. The statistics bear it out. Are you an all-time moron notin, or just a complete idiot?
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from -TheBabe---------------------. Show -TheBabe---------------------'s posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Manny Ramirez was the best right-handed hitter the Sox have ever seen in a uniform. The statistics bear it out. Are you an all-time moron notin, or just a complete idiot?
    Posted by dannycater

    LOL...you just showed that you are the moron. 

    Never heard of Jimmie Foxx?

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

    Re: Crawford injured again

    Jimmie Foxx was a helluve a player. But he also played prior to guys throwing 4 pitches or facing specialized relievers. Foxx though probably could hit 40 jacks if he grew up in today's game. He had Popeye forearms. So did Gehrig.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Manny Ramirez was the best right-handed hitter the Sox have ever seen in a uniform. The statistics bear it out. Are you an all-time moron notin, or just a complete idiot?
    Posted by dannycater


    Literacy is your friend. Try it some time.

    You said earleir that JD Drew was a bust because he did not do for the Sox what he did in one season fr Atlanta.  So if not having a career year is grounds for being a bust, Ramirez did not have a career year here either....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    Cater got schooled and undressed by Notin and then he doesn't respond to any of it.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Jimmie Foxx was a helluve a player. But he also played prior to guys throwing 4 pitches or facing specialized relievers. Foxx though probably could hit 40 jacks if he grew up in today's game. He had Popeye forearms. So did Gehrig.
    Posted by dannycater


    Foxx hit 50HRs on a team that did not hit 100. Only player in MLB history to accomplish that...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    Manny was a consistent hitter for nearly every season he was on the Sox. He is the greatest RH Sox hitter I've ever seen in person. Sorry, if that hurts your feelings, gentlemen, but I think there are a lot of people who can understand that.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from -TheBabe---------------------. Show -TheBabe---------------------'s posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Jimmie Foxx was a helluve a player. But he also played prior to guys throwing 4 pitches or facing specialized relievers. Foxx though probably could hit 40 jacks if he grew up in today's game. He had Popeye forearms. So did Gehrig.
    Posted by dannycater

    He also wasn't jacked up on PED's like manny was

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    how do you know Foxx didn't take "vitamin supplements" back then. You don't know what guys were doing. There's evidence that the Atlanta Braves had home run spikes in the 1970s...forms of enhancing drugs were being used. More than meets the eye in baseball.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from REBEL. Show REBEL's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    In Response to Crawford injured again : My sincere thanks for your sincere concern concerning Crawford. I would bet that 98% of RSN is disappointed in Crawford this season - including the FO, managers, players and Crawford himself. Do you think that ownership and the FO expected this when he was signed? Did they predict the injuries. Did they have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight? Most of RSN (millions) feel just like you do but they choose not to preach to the choir.
    Posted by Your-Echo


    MOST OF RSN WAS STUNNED WHEN THE SIZE OF CRAWFORD'S CONTRACT BECAME KNOWN, THEY STUNNED AGAIN BY LACKEY!There must be a place to draw the line, and stop! I always liked Billy Beane's Axiom:  One in three top pitching prospects will fulfill his potential.  The other two will fail for various reasons, including injury.  I think the same rule applies to free agents!  OK,  Dice-k, Crawford, and Lackey.  It would be a blessing if one of them makes it!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Manny was a consistent hitter for nearly every season he was on the Sox. He is the greatest RH Sox hitter I've ever seen in person. Sorry, if that hurts your feelings, gentlemen, but I think there are a lot of people who can understand that.
    Posted by dannycater


    You are making ad sad ARGU,EMNTS AND AVOIDING THE ACTUAL QUESTIONS - SIGNS OF A MAN WHO KNOWS HE HAS LOST.

    nO ONE SAID mANNY WAS NOT A GREAT HITTER. You postulated Drew was a bust because he was not as good as he was during his career year in Atlanta.  You need him to be a bust to justify your "firsy year bust
    ", always a bust" theory you want to attach to Crawford.  But Drew had TWO OF HIS BEST SEASONS (Learn what those words mean anotherr time phonics has failed you.) in Boston, and improved vastly over his first year. 

    But you continue with this "but he was not as good as he as in Atlanta" garbage, clinging to the logic that Drew had to have a career year, or he simply never imrpoved.  So I pointed out Manny also never duplicated his career year of of 1997 in Boston.  To which you someohow interpret that to mean I said Ramirez was not a good hitter.

    People only twist words and use partial context when they are afraid to admit their error.  your first simple and repeatedly disproved error was statingh players never improve after year one  Drew clearly did.  Whether or not he duplicated Atlanta is immaterial.  He did have two of his best seasons in 2008 and 2009.

    Oh, and learn to read...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from fenwayjack2. Show fenwayjack2's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    What type of numbers would justify this size contract? People need to stop thinking homeruns. Crawford is not a homerun hitter. He has hit lots of triples, doubles and singles. He will never be able to put up RBI numbers because of the guys hitting ahead of him in the lineup. The problem mainly is he is a top of the lineup guy on a team that didn't need a top of the lineup guy. We already have #1-#5 covered with Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz. Crawford is struggling because he is like a fifth wheel, the team went overboard to correct a broken team in the offseason. He really doesn't fit in this lineup with so many lefties and so many top of the lineup hitters. But , look at the plus side. Would you rather him underperforming here or killing us in New York? The awful truth is, if we didn't get him he would be wearing pinstripes right now...and likely be the solution to at least one of their problems.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD


    Definitely would be destroying us playing in pinstripes.  I would move him back to 3rd as soon as she goes a glimmer of what he's done for 7 years.  Bat AGON cleanup, then Youk, then Ortiz and the problem is solved. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    how do you know Foxx didn't take "vitamin supplements" back then. You don't know what guys were doing. There's evidence that the Atlanta Braves had home run spikes in the 1970s...forms of enhancing drugs were being used. More than meets the eye in baseball.
    Posted by dannycater


    Vitamin supplements are intended to correct a poor diet. Those who dislike or are allergic to milk take calcium. Those who dislike vegetables take Vitamins K, C, and potassium. Those who don't eat enough meat take B complex and Iron. What in the world would be wrong or suspect about someone supplementing their diet with vitamins? Sometines your mouth and keystrokes are faster than your brain.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    well, if you could read, you would see " " around the vitamins, implying substances that may have altered one's physique. PEDs have only been established as for sure being used during the Steroid Era. There is evidence it has happened before. People just didn't follow up as journalists/MLB detectives to look for that evidence. As for notin, Manny was not going to hit 170 RBI again, but Drew certainly could have driven in 90 for the Sox. I think that would have been a reasonable request due to his ridiculous salary.  Drew was a bust signing.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    well, if you could read, you would see " " around the vitamins, implying substances that may have altered one's physique. PEDs have only been established as for sure being used during the Steroid Era. There is evidence it has happened before. People just didn't follow up as journalists/MLB detectives to look for that evidence. As for notin, Manny was not going to hit 170 RBI again, but Drew certainly could have driven in 90 for the Sox. I think that would have been a reasonable request due to his ridiculous salary.  Drew was a bust signing.
    Posted by dannycater


    Can we lose the RBI argument on Drew?  Is that seriously the only evaluation metric we have?

    Drew drove in 14% of all runners on base during his first 4 seasons in Boston.  During that same time frame, Kevin Youkilis drove in 16%.  During his first 4 years, Mike LOwell drove in 16%.  Had Drew driven in a whopping 7 more RBI each year, he's have driven in the same percentage as Youk and Lowell.  and no one ever complains about their RBI totals.

    And regardless, your arguements were (1) players with bad first yers in Boston never have good careers and (2) Drew never improved in Bostonbecause he did not duplicate his one careeer season in Atlanta.  Switching to RBI at this stage in the game is merely a subjet change to cover your tracks.  Whether you liked Drew or not, there is no argument about whther or not he improved after a bad first year.  None.
     
    The reality is many players had bad first years in Boston and improved (Drew, Crisp), and many with good first years (Clement, Foulke) had bad careers in Boston.   All of this is your primary "proof" for why Crawford's contract is a bust already.  Is it a bust in 2011? Yes, it looks that way.  But 2012?  2013 thru 2016?  Even I would hold off judgment on that right now. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    Can we lose the RBI argument on Drew?  Is that seriously the only evaluation metric we have?

    Drew drove in 14% of all runners on base during his first 4 seasons in Boston.  During that same time frame, Kevin Youkilis drove in 16%.  During his first 4 years, Mike LOwell drove in 16%.  Had Drew driven in a whopping 7 more RBI each year, he's have driven in the same percentage as Youk and Lowell.  and no one ever complains about their RBI totals

    I agree 100%, but would add that if Drew did have 7 more RBis per season, most Sox fans would still say it wasn't enough. RBI% means nothing to many here..

    A point of curiosity: was the 14% of runners driven in based on AB or PA? I know many fans here are upset at Drew for not swinging at non strikes to try and up his RBi total- totally absurd, I know. A BB with men in scoring position is a negative for some fans here. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Crawford injured again

    In Response to Re: Crawford injured again:
    Can we lose the RBI argument on Drew?  Is that seriously the only evaluation metric we have? Drew drove in 14% of all runners on base during his first 4 seasons in Boston.  During that same time frame, Kevin Youkilis drove in 16%.  During his first 4 years, Mike LOwell drove in 16%.  Had Drew driven in a whopping 7 more RBI each year, he's have driven in the same percentage as Youk and Lowell.  and no one ever complains about their RBI totals I agree 100%, but would add that if Drew did have 7 more RBis per season, most Sox fans would still say it wasn't enough. RBI% means nothing to many here. . A point of curiosity: was the 14% of runners driven in based on AB or PA? I know many fans here are upset at Drew for not swinging at non strikes to try and up his RBi total- totally absurd, I know. A BB with men in scoring position is a negative for some fans here.  . 
    Posted by moonslav59


    Total runners.

    The Game Log pages on baseball-reference.com can tell you how many runners were on base for any player in any season (back to a date I imagine).  They also tell who were the runners on the RBI.

    They even break down the bases, but I did not take RISP into consideration.  Instead i took the number on -base when Drew, Youkilis, Lowell and Ortiz came up.  Subtraced HR from their RBI total (no credit for driving in themselves), and did the division...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share