Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from theYAZZER. Show theYAZZER's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise! :      It's not all about batting average. How many walks does Crawford draw? How many homers has he hit? The guy's OBP is a joke. It negates his greatest asset...his speed. Because he doesn't regularly get on base, he's ineffective as a lead-off man, or batting second. Because he doesn't hit for power, he's ineffective as an rbi man, in the middle of the line-up.      Please explain to me how a guy like this is worth $20mi. per season?
    Posted by TexasPat3


    i wished he would have explained it to theo einstein.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tjwoods. Show tjwoods's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Just win, baby.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from **>The-Babe<**. Show **>The-Babe<**'s posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    LOL...yeah, crawful "raised" his average from the .240's to the .250's.......pathetic.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    Moon, I think saying the Crawford deal will 'cripple our future' is overstating it for a team as wealthy as the Sox, unless times really change. I think it might be more like a nagging hamstring injury...
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    Yes, we are wealthy, but we seem to have a pretty finite budget. There's only so many dollars to spread around in any given year.

    I think Crawford was overpaid by about $7-8M, but realize that all top FAs have to be "overpaid" in order to get them. I'm willing to settle on a somewhere around $5-6M a year overpay number.

    On the surface that doesn't sound crippling, but look closer: If he's overpaid by $6M, we still would have had $14M slotted for a deserving LF'er and $6M less to spend elsewhere. We could easily lose Papi and Papelbon by a combined $6M per year offer differential. That's pretty major. "Crippling?" I say yes. Then, 2 years from now, we may lose Jacoby by someone outbidding us by less than $6M/yr. "Crippling"? Maybe-maybe not.

    Of course Theo could blow that $5-6M per year on a few busts.

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

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise! : It's not against the trend that newer employees are paid less. It does bother me some. Some employees in other companies are grossly overpaid...that bothers me too.
    Posted by moonslav59


    My point is: If the board is gonna bellow long and loud about Crawford's contract over the next 6+ years, as they did with Drew, why not talk of those being under-paid, which allows for the over-paid?

    How can the process be understood if only one side of it is presented?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    I think most posters understand how the system works for young players as they go through arb years or sign "lower-than-market" longer term deals out of the need for security. There have been a rare few threads about it, but it is mentioned often enough throughout other threads.

    Most knowledgeable fans know that high paying teams with a somewhat rigid top spending budget line have to balance their roster with some kids who make "dirt" for pay compared to the megadeals like CC's. The Sox have been able to stay competitive thanks in large part to several "lower-than-market" deals signed by Youk, Pedey, Lester and others. They have produced at twice the dollar-rate of Lackey, CC, and Drew.

    I see your point about the "underpaid" guys, but it's pretty simple to understand why not many people want to champion the cause of people making "JUST" 400K to play a game many of us loved playing for free and would have given our left nut to play in the bigs.

    Yes, CC will become the next Drew on this board, even if he reaches and slightly exceeds his career norm every year. I criticized Drew's deal for several years too. I still don't buy the 2-3 swings argument made him worth $70M. Lugo was a bust. Renteria was not worth what amounted to $20M for one year. Theo was smart enough to get out from under the Edgar deal in time. There's no getting out of the CC deal. It's a 7 year anchor.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    As fivekatz has said, it's possible that the Crawford signing was partly a box office signing.  Before any of the big moves happened, Lucchino basically came out and said the Red Sox were hoping to make two big acquisitions.  We don't know all the talks that went on behind the scenes, but this Crawford signing was no spur-of-the-moment deal.  We know that there was a huge buzz around the team before the season started.  I'd be interested to know what the TV ratings have been like this year.    
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    I think most posters understand how the system works for young players as they go through arb years or sign "lower-than-market" longer term deals out of the need for security. There have been a rare few threads about it, but it is mentioned often enough throughout other threads. Most knowledgeable fans know that high paying teams with a somewhat rigid top spending budget line have to balance their roster with some kids who make "dirt" for pay compared to the megadeals like CC's. The Sox have been able to stay competitive thanks in large part to several "lower-than-market" deals signed by Youk, Pedey, Lester and others. They have produced at twice the dollar-rate of Lackey, CC, and Drew. I see your point about the "underpaid" guys, but it's pretty simple to understand why not many people want to champion the cause of people making "JUST" 400K to play a game many of us loved playing for free and would have given our left nut to play in the bigs. Yes, CC will become the next Drew on this board, even if he reaches and slightly exceeds his career norm every year. I criticized Drew's deal for several years too. I still don't buy the 2-3 swings argument made him worth $70M. Lugo was a bust. Renteria was not worth what amounted to $20M for one year. Theo was smart enough to get out from under the Edgar deal in time. There's no getting out of the CC deal. It's a 7 year anchor.
    Posted by moonslav59


    That's right. The degree of the anchoris debateable, but the fact CC or most FA's are over-paid isn't.

    What bothers me is that if most fans understand the process of under-pay vs. over-pay, why is it they only discuss those who are over-paid? If the topic is the 7-year anchor, why not balance it out with the tide?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Sorry, I don't think I ever want to talk very long about how Pedey is underpaid.

    It has to do with human nature, i think.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Albatross! Get your albatross!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Well Moon, my friend, then my human nature will be to bring it up whenever I see too much over-load. And I'll also bring up Yaz's career OPS s. southpaws anytime you refer to CC as a 'glorified platoon player'.

    What's fair is fair.
    Albatross is equalled out by the non-mercenaries...like Wake.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Wakefield is a hang-on loser who complains about his role when they won't let him start. Over 55 million for this tip the cap after grand slam loser. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    If charitable Wake is a loser, I hate to think what that makes you.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    55 million from Red Sox is not charitable for goofball Wakefield.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    Well Moon , my friend, then my human nature will be to bring it up whenever I see too much over-load. And I'll also bring up Yaz's career OPS s. southpaws anytime you refer to CC as a 'glorified platoon player'. What's fair is fair. Albatross is equalled out by the non-mercenaries...like Wake.
    Posted by harness


    Context.

    The era of Yaz was different. Some of Yaz's prime years were during the pitching era (mound height). Also, we had nobody better on the bench vs LHPs than Yaz. That is not the case with CC. We have better choices and we can get another cheap choice this off season.

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

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    Well Moon , my friend, then my human nature will be to bring it up whenever I see too much over-load. And I'll also bring up Yaz's career OPS s. southpaws anytime you refer to CC as a 'glorified platoon player'. What's fair is fair. Albatross is equalled out by the non-mercenaries...like Wake.
    Posted by harness

     

    jd crawford is the 'ALBATROSS.'
    wake is the 'ANCIENT MARINER.'

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

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Wake never played for the Mariners.

    ;)
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    how dare anyone rip Yaz....oy vay
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    maybe he should have been pinch hit for with a righty batter in the 78 playoff...*high drive off Guidry, it's gone, home run Yaz*
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Tony Conigliaro pinch hit for Fred Lynn in a 75 game v. Angels. Lynn struck out 3 times before Tony C batted with D.Johnson in dugout.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Frank Tanana btw was the power pitcher who struck out Lynn all night.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    Frank Tanana btw was the power pitcher who struck out Lynn all night.
    Posted by dannycater


    Now that is ironic.  
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    we can get another cheap choice this off season

    Name one. Mike Aviles?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    How about BHall?
     
Sections
Shortcuts