Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

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

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    Really, you regret parting w this trash for AGON?

    I agree, but his contract does limit our expenditures elsewhere.

    (I liked the deal and still do.)
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    How about letting Crawford play another season before assuming that he will never improve.

    I'm all for this idea, but as The Smiths would sing,

    "You say it's gonna happen soon, well when exactly does that mean? You see I've already waited too long, and all my hope is gone..."
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox : Doesn't anyone versed in the scientific method rely on only one observation. If a frog jumps once for a distance of six inches, does the scientist conclude that the mean, median, and mode value of six inches is final. How about letting Crawford play another season before assuming that he will never improve.
    Posted by Calzone65[/QUOTE]

    Uh, no one ever said not to collect more data.  The point is, once again, that the frog must just  more than 6 inches before one can conclude he can jump any further.  I can't just say "give the frog the benefit of the doubt".  The frog has to prove it. Crawford has to prove it.  Until he can, he's terrible.  Burden of proof is on him. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    You won't give him the benefit of the doubt, however you will label him a bust and wasted money already? Right....
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]You won't give him the benefit of the doubt, however you will label him a bust and wasted money already? Right....
    Posted by freediro[/QUOTE]

    Your question does not make any sense

    I will not give him the benefit of the doubt and I will label him a bust until CRAWFORD can PROVE otherwise

    Sorry so many of you are not grasping this concept - he has no equity in Boston
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox : Keeping Youk over resigning Beltre (and moving Youk too early rather than too late) probably hurt more.
    Posted by ccfss[/QUOTE]

         Though I disagree that keeping Youk over Beltre hurt more, you do make a  good point. Beltre could have been resigned at a relatively reasonable rate, and Youk could have been traded.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]Crawford would likely be back already if he hadn't been so willing to push it after the elbow surgery.  IMO, his wrist injury is due to trying to compensate for his not quite ready elbow.  A case of trying too hard too soon.  He badly wanted to be ready for opener and it set him back.  Looking for good production from Crawford once he gets back because I think he is determined to show he was worth the signing.  Just give the guy a chance once he is healed.
    Posted by michaelsjr[/QUOTE]

         The guy doesn't get on base, doesn't drive in runs, and doesn't hit for power. What good is he?
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MikeNagy stilleatsworms. Show MikeNagy stilleatsworms's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In response to "Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox": [QUOTE]LOL at the dude who said the AGON trade ruined this team.  We gave up 0 for AGON.  Casey Kelly had an ERA of 4 in AA (not AAA, but AA) last year with a terrible k/9 ratio.  Anthony Rizzo had a .141 batting average in 150 major league at-bats last year. Really, you regret parting w this trash for AGON? I hate comments like , "you cant trade pitching prospects ".  Every pitching prospect is an individual.  What you should do with a prospect should be 100% baseed on the prospect himself and not governed by an over-simplistic gross generalization. The AGON trade was a robbery.  The prospects we gave up stunk. Posted by Drewski5[/QUOTE] Some believe youk would still be an all star if he stayed at first
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]Far too simplistic to isolate an expensive, long term and perhaps ill-advised so far signing and suggest unto itself that it has ruined a team.  The San Francisco Giants grossly overpaid an unproductive pitcher named Zito and yet were able to win a World Championship in spite of their misjudgement.

    RESPONSE: What's "simplistic" about it? In Crawford, the Sox are paying a guy $20mil. per year who doesn't get on base, doesn't drive in runs, and doesn't hit for power. 
         Your Zito analogy doesn't wash. Zito is best compared to another horrible Theo free agent signing...John Lackey. The Giants were able to overcome this because they developed pitchers Matt Cain, Tim Linceman, Brian Wilson, and catcher Buster Posey from their farm system.

    The formerly competitive sport of major league baseball has evolved over the past decade or thereabouts into a reality show with "luck" both good and bad as the primary driver of success between the lines.  Since 2001 improbable champions have emerged in October to claim the ultimate prize.  Franchises that had been on the outside looking in for years or in the case of expansion teams getting a handful of good players and having them perform well at the right time has been a recurring phenomena.

    RESPONSE: It's not luck. Teams like the Giants, Rays, and now Rangers have been built through their productive farm system. High profile teams like the Yankees, Phillies, and Cardinals make the play-offs seemingly every year. What's the Sox strategy? What are they getting out of their farm system?   

    All of that being said, I thoroughly enjoy the roller coaster ride of a baseball season and watching teams evolve over time.

    RESPONSE: Did you enjoy last September?

    I accept what I cannot change and look forward to the ever changing script.  Today's goats can be tomorrow's heroes.  Such is the nature of the unpredictable sport.

    RESPONSE: Sorry. The better organizations build from within...and have a plan. Even the Yankees are starting to depend more on their farm system. Right now, the Sox are clueless...and have painted themselves into a corner with their disasterous free agency signings.
    Posted by WilcyMoore[/QUOTE]
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]I don't get the "cause and effect" analogy stated in the Opening post. Why is an 18-3 loss the fault of Carl Crawford? On the other hand I can entirely see the connection of the 18-3 massacre with trading away Hawk Harrelson. And don't tell me that my logic is faulty or that I need another cup of coffee.
    Posted by Calzone65[/QUOTE]

         Even Professor Irwin Corey is smart enough to comprehend that I wasn't referring to Crawford for the 18-3 loss. It was just a preamble to how the Sox are going down the tubes...and that the biggest reason for their collapse is the Crawford signing.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

     what this team really needs...a righthanded power hitting OF and run producer

    Take you that many years to figure that out......................
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]     Rangers 18, Sox 3...with the Sox' best pitcher going, and at home.       It's really a shame. Just five years ago, the Sox won their second world championship, and appeared to have a bright future. They had a plan. They had adopted the "money ball" philosophy, and were acquiring players at every position who had high on base percentages. They had also successfully rebuilt their minor league system...and were producing some good young players.           But then, for some reason, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein, changed course. His signing of Carl Crawford...a guy with a lousy career on base percentage, who didn't hit for power...to a 7 year, $142mil. dollar deal, set this team into it's current tailspin.       Crawford has great speed, and is, or was, an excellent defensive OF. But, because he doesn't draw walks and doesn't hit over .300, he hardly gets on base...where he can put his speed to use. Because he doesn't get on base, he's incapable of becoming a good one or two hole hitter. Because he hits left-handed, batting him second behind Jacoby Ellsbury and in front of Adrian Gonzalez makes the Red Sox line-up too lefty-top heavy, and prone to left-handed pitching.       Crawford is also incapable of batting 5th or 6th in the line-up, because he doesn't hit for power, and is not a good rbi man. Accordingly, he was set up to hit in the no-mans' land position of 7th. So...the Sox are paying this guy a long term, $20mil. per year deal, to bat 7th??? They're paying a guy $20mil. per season who doesn't hit for power, consistently drive in runs, and doesn't get on base? Compare and contrast this with their last $20mil. per year player (before Gonzalez), Manny Ramirez.       The signing of Carl Crawford has destroyed the teams' salary structure, and is unquestionably the worst contract in baseball. His bloated contract acts as a millstone around the neck of management, who are now hamstrung from bringing in what this team really needs...a righthanded power hitting OF and run producer, capable of batting cleanup. Such a hitter would anchor the current Sox' batting order. Without such a hitter, their order seems out of kilter.               
    Posted by TexasPat[/QUOTE]

    Ells will be gone Crawford in center field batting leadoff....Bit..ch and moan all you want.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox : Ells will be gone Crawford in center field batting leadoff....Bit..ch and moan all you want.
    Posted by donrd4[/QUOTE]

    I hope you're right about this.  I said when Crawford was signed that this move was the Sox 'insurance' against Ells going to FA.

    The drawback, of course, is that CC has said that he neither wants to play CF OR bat leadoff.  I'm not sure how what CC wants will play into what he gets, but if he gets what he wants the Sox are spending too much money on a corner outfielder who is a prima donna.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    Buying "insurance" 3 years before it's needed makes no sense.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    Whether we think it was a good idea or not, that was the best reason I could see for signing CC when they did.  There was no place for a player of Crawford's skills on that team when they signed him. 

    I also believe it was done for other not-so-admirable and not-so-good reasons.  Remember that it was a foregone conclusion that Crawford was going to the Yankees at that time and I think Theo signed him to keep the Yankees from getting him.  (We now know(?) that the Y's didn't want him at all and if so Theo was 'had" but that's information we didn't have at the time.)
    I also think that the FO wanted to make a 'splash' and signing CC while ostensibly ripping him away from the Y's was a good way to do that. 

    I think the reasons were sound but the move didn't work out for them - or at least hasn't yet.  I'm still hoping for the best though. :-)
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    In Response to Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox:
    [QUOTE]not sure about the yankee stuff but all good points S5 The drawback, of course, is that CC has said that he neither wants to play CF OR bat leadoff. There was no place for a player of Crawford's skills on that team when they signed him.
    Posted by pinstripezac[/QUOTE]

    Good Morning, Zac.

    Exactly! 

    Hey, I was one of those guys who was gushing euphorica (does that make sense?  LOL) at the time, but I also wondered what they were going to do with him.  The reason signing him made sense to me is because he was the most talented player available - and how do you turn down that kind of talent, even if you don't have a spot for him?
    My thinking at the time is as I posted earlier, was "Ellsbury Insurance". It's the only thing that makes sense to me from a business standpoint. The Yankee stuff was all for PR.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    ... and signing CC while ostensibly ripping him away from the Y's was a good way to do that...

    They picked the wrong guy to make a statement with.

    However, the need for an OF'er was there, but just not to the degree that they felt ($20M worth), and the type of player CC was (is?) did not fit their biggest need on offense-- a right handed power guy.
     

Share