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:
    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


    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:
    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


    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. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  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":
    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
    Some believe youk would still be an all star if he stayed at first
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  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:
    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


         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. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jackbu. Show jackbu's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    Like I keep saying, after lugo I would never sign small market players. We've seen too many small market players fail here. Even Gonzalez complained last year about the busy schedule and the amount of night games to be played. When the schedule got really tough in sept, he was another who shut down.
     
  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:
    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


    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. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac. Show pinstripezac's posts

    Re: Crawford Signing Has Ruined Red Sox

    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.










     
  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:
    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


    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.
     
Sections
Shortcuts