Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

  1. 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!:
    [QUOTE]What people seem to forget about Lackey is he pitched in the"pitcher friendly" AL West. Alot of games in ballparks that favor pitchers, Anaheim,Seattle,Oakland. Now he has to pitch in more hitter's ballparks, Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Tampa Bay. Also many more games against the Yankees and Tanpa Bay lineups which stack up better offensively than the western teams ( exception: Texas). Also he was signed to be a 3rd or 4th starter( maybe even 5th), not the ace, behind Beckett, Lester, Buchholz and with any luck Matsuzaka( although that didn't work out well). The expectations seem to be that he would put up numbers fitting a top line ace of the staff. Sure they paid alot of money for him, sure they overpaid, but good pitching is rare....Lackey is a "good" pitcher....he is just not a "great" pitcher. Too many Sox fans think he was supposed to be a "great" pitcher. Frankly, I feel he is a good middle of the rotation pitcher, he hates to lose,he will not often shut the opposing team down, he will keep you in most games ( but he needs a little run support) but he is not an ace. He matches up pretty well against 3rd or 4th starters of most MLB teams, he does not matchup well against the #1 starters of many MLB teams (Sabbathia, King Felix, etc.). I was not expecting him to be any more than what he is. If he is himself, with this offense, he should win many games. Just don't expect him to contend for the Cy Young. He is what he is.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]


    Been trying to get this point across for months.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    I fully expect CC to help this team over the next 2-3 years. He is a talented player. He's not the only FT player in MLB wither serious split issues over a long period of time.

    He started slow. Very slow. He's done much better since May 1st, but "much better" is still not helpful in my opinion. He's a professional. He has a tremendous workout routine. He's a battler. (He's from my area)

    I hope his fielding improves. It has been shockingly blah.

    He's in his prime now. I do think he can improve on his best numbers. I do think he can do batter than his last 3 year combined average stats. He could explode in October and all will be forgotten.

    I'll never be convinced he was worth the money. I stick to my original position that he was overpaid by over $50M, and that his contract would cripple us for years to come, but that's not his fault. He can and will help us win. I hope he starts when it counts.
     
  3. 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!:
    [QUOTE]I fully expect CC to help this team over the next 2-3 years. He is a talented player. He's not the only FT player in MLB wither serious split issues over a long period of time. He started slow. Very slow. He's done much better since May 1st, but "much better" is still not helpful in my opinion. He's a professional. He has a tremendous workout routine. He's a battler. (He's from my area) I hope his fielding improves. It has been shockingly blah. He's in his prime now. I do think he can improve on his best numbers. I do think he can do batter than his last 3 year combined average stats. He could explode in October and all will be forgotten. I'll never be convinced he was worth the money. I stick to my original position that he was overpaid by over $50M, and that his contract would cripple us for years to come, but that's not his fault. He can and will help us win. I hope he starts when it counts.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    That's what it's all about: Cutting it when it counts.

    Most FA's are over-paid. Filling needs is expensive.
    Was he a need? That's debateable. But clearly nobody on the 2010/2011 outfield roster, beyond Jake, was gonna out perform what CC's done since the end of April.

    That tells me the need for a productive outfielder was necessary. Especially with Drew/Cam in their last years here. That's why I said last fall they will go all out for him.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    I agree harness, but most FAs are not overpaid by more than $50M (in my opinion).
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    That's because most FA's aren't signed for 7 years.
    If you look at ratio of perceived over-pay per year, I think you'll find that it's in line with others over the last five years or so. If we figured his market value at about 15 mil a year last year, that means he's over-paid by 25%. So are several others.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Good point, but $50M above and beyond $150M (what he deserved at most) is a 33% overpay, not 25%.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    I don't follow. He's making 20 mil a year for 7 years.
    If his perceived market value is 15 mil per year, then he's overpaid by 5 mil per 20, or 25%. 5 mil times 7 years = 35 mil overpay. How do you get 50?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Lackey has been terrible and there is nothing to suggest he'll get better.  He shouldn't even be on the post season roster.  His era dipped in July because he had 3 starts against the worst teams in the AL.  He's terrible. 

    CC is has been good since May 1.  His season #s are being pulled down by a truly awful April.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    [QUOTE]We can't change what Carl's done so far, but I really think a lot of it has to do with Coma putting him at the bottom of the order...basically treating him like a has-been. Nonetheless, he does appear to be coming out of his own self-inflicted coma and swinging a much better bat.If that continues, it bodes REAL WELL for the Sox in post-season.  It seems to me, on the fielding side, that he has performed OK...nothing spectacular.
    Posted by PetesCall[/QUOTE]

    So you're saying CC's bad season is due to him batting down the order?  Not the other way round i.e. he's batting down the order because he's having a bad season?

    Also, do you consider him a better leadoff hitter than Ells? Better nbr 2 than Pedey?  Better 3/4/5 than Agon/Youk/Papi? 

    Also, the current top 5 are far higher OBP guys than CC....and you want to transfer some of their at bats to a lower OBP guy?  You want to give away walks and hits in return for outs?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    [QUOTE]notin, i respect your posts, you are one of the more intelligent posters here. However, really that's 2 months worth of bad hitting (DL list too), if covers 46 games and that's  more than 1/4 of the season. Even if you factor in his "norms" over his career, he's getting 2 free passes by you and others...1. he is getting a free pass for 46 games, you use May 25, a 4-for-4 game as the start point of him getting to his norms 2. he is getting a free pass for games played Aug 9 to 19, and a free pass for games played between July 25-31...two horrific stretches of poor batting. Let's get real here. He's actually had 3 months combined of dreadful hitting and 1-1/2 months of ok to good hitting. That's why his numbers are down, and that's why taking splits from May 25 is kind of cherry-picking.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    I disagree that it is “cherry-picking”.

    I chose a legitimate starting point when he started to turn around and actually hit.  The bad stretches you point were not eliminated and were accounted for in those splits.  If I were cherry picking, I would have removed those stretches as well, and his numbers would get even greater.

    I’m not giving him a free pass for anything. Crawford’s first 47 games this season were horrific, and everyone including him, realizes this.  However, his last 55 games have been a vast improvement, and more in line with what should have been expected.  He’s still not the guy we hoped for, and not commanding elite money, but the consensus that he is a bust based on 47 games is huge snap judgment, and clinging to stats to date without acknowledging he has stepped up a lot is equally premature.

    While he has struggled for a couple stretches since May 25 is immaterial when you see the overall picture.  Every player has bad stretches.  Even the two you highlighted are fairly short. 

    The real problem with Crawford is not so much the April of the first season; it’s the length of the deal.  Granted, he was actually young for a free agent, but 7 years is a long time for a baseball player. I would not be surprised if 80% of all major leaguers had careers shorter than 7 years.  (50% have careers one year or less, so this is not as ridiculous a leap as it might look at first glance.) Look back to 2004 and see who the best players in baseball were, and look at them now.  How many were able to maintain that level of play?  Obviously age caught up with a lot of them, but even most of the top rookies from 2004 have failed to improve.  If you look at the top vote-getting rookies from 2004 in both leagues, there are 15 names.  Of those 15, 8 of them are no longer in MLB, including 2004 AL ROY Bobby Crosby.  Only Matt Holliday and Zack Greinke have become star major league talent.

    Seven seasons is a long, long time.  Hopefully Crawford can maintain.  But free agents who sign long term deals and remain productive throughout are very rare.  Manny Ramirez was the exception, not the rule, and is not a good yardstick for comparison.

     
  11. 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!:
    [QUOTE]I don't follow. He's making 20 mil a year for 7 years. If his perceived market value is 15 mil per year, then he's overpaid by 5 mil per 20, or 25%. 5 mil times 7 years = 35 mil overpay. How do you get 50?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    1) I have thought he was overpaid by $50M, and I said that day one.

    2) Going by your numbers, if he is worth $15M and gets $20M, he is overpaid by $5M from the $15M number.I see it as 5/15 is 33%. 

    3) Going by my numbers, he was overpaid by $50M, meaning he should have gotten $92M. Therefors $50M/92M is really about a 55% overpay in my book.

    It's like you are making $20 bucks an hour and get a $5 raise. It is considered a 25% pay raise, not a 20% raise. (5/20 not 5/25)
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Moon, % aside, if CC is being over-paid by 5 mil a year - times 7 years - that's 35 mil over-paid, not 50 mil over-paid.

    25% of 140 mil is 35 mil.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    If we figured his market value at about 15 mil a year last year, that means he's over-paid by 25%. So are several others.

    You said this, not me. I said before we even signed him that I felt he was worth about $11-13M x 7, but as a top FA, maybe $13-14M x 6 or 7.  To me, it is $7M overpay x 7 years or about $50M in total. To me going from about $13.5M to about $20M is about a 50% overpay (6.5/13)

    We disagree on the overpay and how you figure the percent, but the fact is, I still think CC will help this team alot over the next 3-4 years. His contract will hurt or even cripple us at times, but CCwill contribute favorably- hopefull starting very soon. 
     
  14. 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!:
    [QUOTE]If we figured his market value at about 15 mil a year last year, that means he's over-paid by 25%. So are several others. You said this, not me. I said before we even signed him that I felt he was worth about $11-13M x 7, but as a top FA, maybe $13-14M x 6 or 7.  To me, it is $7M overpay x 7 years or about $50M in total. To me going from about $13.5M to about $20M is about a 50% overpay (6.5/13) We disagree on the overpay and how you figure the percent, but the fact is, I still think CC will help this team alot over the next 3-4 years. His contract will hurt or even cripple us at times, but CCwill contribute favorably- hopefull starting very soon. 
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    What we perceive as a player's worth isn't the market worth. Thus,
    over-payment is a matter of opinion. What's more, every year the market changes, as supply and demand predicates expenditure.

    Neither you nor I saw the 140 mil/7-year deal. I'm sure it surprised Theo.
    You can draw analogies to CC's skill-set to other FA signings and make a raw determination of relative worth (And in that context, CC is probably worth more  than 11-13 mil, depending on UR frame of reference. You can use WAR, or draw analogies to guys like Drew/Dunn/Holliday/Werth).

    Not using hindsight, I think 11-13 mil is short. Didn't we say last fall his FA price was likely between 13-16 mil a year? I believe we both saw it as a 3-4 year deal. Correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Yes, I do recognize the need to overpay "real value" to get top FAs. I did say I thought CC was worth (as a FA) $13-15M x 3 or 4 years. That's different than 7 years. The years 5-7 will cripple us. Short term, we may lose Papi or paps due to CC's deal. Farther out, we may not keep Jacoby due to CC's deal. 

    I know my range is narrow and subjective. I know fangraph's said I was all wet. I just don't think his speed and supposed good D, make up for a sub .800 career OPS. $20M guys should have .900+ OPS or have some pretty spectacular intangibles. I mean like super-duper defense at a high impact area like C, SS, or CF. I mean like 75+ SBs and 5-7 CS. I mean like a rocket arm. I mean like at least 2 of these 3. It's just not there. It wasn't there before. It should not have been expoected to be there after the signing. 

    The fact that he should be platooned, makes matters even worse. paying him $20M a year to play (as he should) only 66% of the games is insane. Pro-rated, he is making $30M/yr (or $20M to play in 110 games as he should be playing).

    Sorry, harness. I can never see anything close to him even approaching earning his pay. I hope to God I am wrong.  Like I said, he is a good player. He will help this team win many games. That's not my point. My point is that his contract is insane. It will cripple our future. He is a glorified platoon player who has played everyday due to being on a poor depth team, and now being paid $20M is prohibitive to platooning.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    I, too, was never on board with years 5-7. I saw the need I felt the FO would see and figured he'd cost about 15-16 mil over 4 years. Well, ya go year by year.
    We didn't see Werth at 20+. We might be looking at 27-30 for the Fielder. Or maybe not. Each market is different.

    In CC's fifth year, top FA's might be going for 35 mil a year! We just don't know.
    What you perceive 20 a mil a year should bring is relative. I think dishing out 14 mil a year for Drew to opt out of his Dodger contract was necessary, but was it worth it?

    If you look at team need and his salary's impact over the five years of his Boston tenure, it didn't hurt the team IMO.

    For the next few years, the team likely pays about 5 mil more a year for CC than they had hoped. What they pay Dice to rehab next year is more costly than CC's perceived over-pricing.

    My point is, 5 mil or so a year isn't gonna cripple them, given CC's performance improves and remains constant over the bulk of his deal. The key is how inexpensively they can fill other positions.

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

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    My guess is that Jacoby will take a deal elsewhere for less than $5M more than what Theo offers. $5M does matter. $7M x 7 years matters even more.

    Paps may walk for less than $2-3m per year more elsewhere. Papi the same. We could lose both of them for $5M total/year.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Werth and Crawford are both supporting players but both are being paid as if they are the lead man on the team... Both overpaid and both having bad years.

    Look for Crawford to eventually be much better and always overpaid.
     
  19. 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!:
    [QUOTE]My guess is that Jacoby will take a deal elsewhere for less than $5M more than what Theo offers. $5M does matter. $7M x 7 years matters even more. Paps may walk for less than $2-3m per year more elsewhere. Papi the same. We could lose both of them for $5M total/year.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    That's one way to view it. Paying Dice not to pitch is another.
    I prefer to spread out the deficit to some players - and view it through how they under-pay others. Why is it the board perception is: Crawford is over-paid, but we never hear about how Bard or Aceves or Albers or Pedy are underpaid.

    You spend a great deal of time defending Wake, and rightfully so. But it's only because you are trying to correct the perception of others. 
    That's what I'm doing. 
     
  20. 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!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise! : That's one way to view it. Paying Dice not to pitch is another. I prefer to spread out the deficit to some players - and view it through how they under-pay others. Why is it the board perception is: Crawford is over-paid, but we never hear about how Bard or Aceves or Albers or Pedy are underpaid. You spend a great deal of time defending Wake, and rightfully so. But it's only because you are trying to correct the perception of others.  That's what I'm doing. 
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    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.

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

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

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    [QUOTE]No apologies or "maybe I spoke too soon" posts yet from the critics. Bash all you want, but admit it when you were wrong.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]


    wrong about what?
    what 'rise?'
     
  23. 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!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise! : Very good point spaceman, the Yankees started setting the bar many years ago and have raised it considerably since making it very difficult for certain teams to compete.  Fortunately they no longer hold a choke hold on baseball, many teams "like the Sox" can now compete. I would single out the Yankees and agents like Boras for setting todays standards.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]


    if you're gonna blame bora$$, then remember, he only succeeds when HE'S dealing with stupid GM'S.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    In Response to Lackey and Crawford on the rise!:
    [QUOTE]No apologies or "maybe I spoke too soon" posts yet from the critics. Bash all you want, but admit it when you were wrong.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    Lackey is having a horrible year.  What are you trying to say?  That he has been pitching better lately?  He has.  No doubt about it.  but what are critics "wrong" about?


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

    Re: Lackey and Crawford on the rise!

    Here is my only fear of the overpay of Lackey and CC (to the tune of 224 mil):
    Papelbon, Ortiz come up for free agency, what does Theo do with these 2 consistent to terrific performers who have for years and years now done their jobs far better than the newbies of high salary. AGON immediately has earned his keep. When it's time for Ellsbury, what will Theo do then? It's all speculation, but as far as I can see, you almost have to spend 200 million for the 3 to keep them as Red Sox for the duration of their future performance expectancy. If they want to keep them as Sox. I would like to see all 3 continue for years as Sox players (Ortiz will be a short contract, Papelbon a longer contract, Ellsbury the longest). But again, will the 224 million set aside for 2 underperformers eventually cost the Sox for the other 3?? I don't know, and I don't know how limitless the pocketbooks are....Don't forget, soccer now a financial strainer as well.
     

Share