regarding Carl Crawford..

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

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : Slomag, you aren't making a great case still when you ask if they needed the speed in the smallest OF in baseball. Carl Crawford has always been a LF. No matter how bad things went with Upton in Tampa they never put CC in CF but for a very few games. It was a dumb signing. Those who wanted to give the Rs the benefit of the doubt because they were smartest guys in the room (I was among these) figured they must have seen something. Again compared to Ellsbury, Crawford had better SLG but his spray chart did not convert well to one of baseball's deepest RF. He had a lower OBP than Ellsbury. He couldn't hit LH pitching well at any point in his career where Ellsbury had better stats. Ellsbury had a higher career SB% and in 2009 stole more bases than Crawford without the benefit of the RS pitching staff to steal against. If you are right and the RS signed a $142M deal to replace Ellsbury it was a dumb move in hindsight. The RS FO admitted that Ellsbury had been mishandled and treated harshly in the media at the ownership level right after the 2010 season. The revisionist stuff about 2010 in the light of how wrong the detractors was is a strange tact to take. He came back from the rehab assignment in Pawtucket and immediately aggravated the ribs diving for a ball in Philly. That set in motion the player requesting a second opinion and the discovery that it wasn't bruised ribs or even a single micro-fracture but 5 micro-fractures. The RS have a 7 year deal with a career .340 OBP hitter, who was a top 5 base stealer, prone to web gems and brain cramps in the field, who can't hit LH pitching and power is to RF, where his home park is stingy. It is no longer a question of this being a good signing or not, just how bad is it IMO. I know I say this a lot, but for the guy who was quite public about how bad Manny Ramirez contract was while Ramirez was arguable the best RH hitter ever to wear a RS uniform to a deal almost as big for CC is mind numbing.     
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    Regarding LF, the configuration of Tropicana Field is very different - so much so that the Rays seem to prefer their best defenders to play LF and CF, keeping their weakest OF in right.  Desmond Jennings is very good defensively, and is primarily playing LF.

    Regarding OBP comparisons, if you take Crawford's career OBP average up to the signing, it is slightly lower than Ellsbury's at the same point.  If you throw out ages 20 - 23, when Crawford was facing MLB pitching, but Ellsbury was in the minors, Crawford holds the slight edge.  Neither one is exactly an on-base machine - the better they hit, the higher the OBP.

    Regarding Ellsbury's injuries, whether mis-diagnosed or not, he was on the DL for 6 weeks from April until his return in Philly.  He was then on the DL again from May 24th to August 4th.  That's 11 weeks - 17 weeks all together.  And then he shut it down for the season on August 13th, and claimed he wasn't 100% in December, so essentially Jacoby Ellsbury's body heals at 20% the normal human rate.  Is it really unreasonable for the FO to feel they couldn't trust him to be healthy and productive going forward? 

    The Sox overpaid for Crawford, but with the understanding that 1) there are very few similar profiles and baseball, and none on the FA market until at least 2014, and 2) if the Yankees failed to sign Lee, they would gladly overpay for Crawford, with the intention of trading Brett Gardner for pitching and 3) eventually, they could trade Ellsbury and make up for a portion of the cost of Crawford by filling out the OF with good players playing below cost.

    Finally, when making the Manny comparison, keep in mind that the total Red Sox payroll in 2000 was $78M.  In today's dollars, it would be like signing Prince Fielder for $35M / year.



     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreenMonster1964. Show GreenMonster1964's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    [QUOTE]A guy making his money is not allowed a below average year.  Produce or take a pay cut or leave.
    Posted by MichFan[/QUOTE]

    Which I am sure is exactly what you do when you screw up at work.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Give him time. Patience. Too many of you want instant results / gratification. you sound like spoiled and entitled fans. Anyone can be a Monday morning QB, that is thinking like a child. Grow up.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from gclef. Show gclef's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to regarding Carl Crawford..:
    [QUOTE]Most posts I read on this site are all negative regarding Crawford.  Agree he had horrific year, but he is capable of much more and seems to sincerely want to play to his potential for RedSoxNation.  Gotta admit - he walked into a pretty dysfunctional atmosphere.  I vote to withhold judgement on him until we see more in 2012.
    Posted by michaelsjr[/QUOTE]
    I agree, he should be given one more season to see if he can turn it around. Not a big fan of his, but the 2011 sox had a multitude of problems.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : Regarding LF, the configuration of Tropicana Field is very different - so much so that the Rays seem to prefer their best defenders to play LF and CF, keeping their weakest OF in right.  Desmond Jennings is very good defensively, and is primarily playing LF. Regarding OBP comparisons, if you take Crawford's career OBP average up to the signing, it is slightly lower than Ellsbury's at the same point.  If you throw out ages 20 - 23, when Crawford was facing MLB pitching, but Ellsbury was in the minors, Crawford holds the slight edge.  Neither one is exactly an on-base machine - the better they hit, the higher the OBP. Regarding Ellsbury's injuries, whether mis-diagnosed or not, he was on the DL for 6 weeks from April until his return in Philly.  He was then on the DL again from May 24th to August 4th.  That's 11 weeks - 17 weeks all together.  And then he shut it down for the season on August 13th, and claimed he wasn't 100% in December, so essentially Jacoby Ellsbury's body heals at 20% the normal human rate.  Is it really unreasonable for the FO to feel they couldn't trust him to be healthy and productive going forward?  The Sox overpaid for Crawford, but with the understanding that 1) there are very few similar profiles and baseball, and none on the FA market until at least 2014, and 2) if the Yankees failed to sign Lee, they would gladly overpay for Crawford, with the intention of trading Brett Gardner for pitching and 3) eventually, they could trade Ellsbury and make up for a portion of the cost of Crawford by filling out the OF with good players playing below cost. Finally, when making the Manny comparison, keep in mind that the total Red Sox payroll in 2000 was $78M.  In today's dollars, it would be like signing Prince Fielder for $35M / year.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]The dimensions of the Trop just don't back this up. Crawford was in LF because he doesn't have the arm to make a throw from RF to 3B. I am pretty sure from getting to watch him play a full season in Boston he was almost never in CF because he has trouble reading balls over his head and that this would all be compounded in CF with the most difficult reads of the three fields.

    Left Field - 315 ft (96 m)
    Left-Center - 370 ft (110 m)
    Center Field - 404 ft (123 m)
    Right-Center - 370 ft (110 m)
    Right Field - 322 ft (98 m)

    The NYY weren't going to sign Crawford but I sure wouldn't have minded if he was eating $120M of payroll personnel budget for them for the next six years.

    Ellsbury in hindsight makes everyone who thought he was a slacker look silly and his 2011 is better than any year Crawford ever has had and by a wide margin. If they signed Crawford to trade Ellsbury, keep in mid they also gave up a #1 pick to sign Crawford. Crawford's contract makes him untradable and likely makes Ellsbury unsignable.

    As for Manny Theo Epstein wasn't here in 2000. He started whining about that contract in 2003 and did not stop until after the 2006 off season. Manny just happens to be the only OFer in history of the game to get a bigger contract than CC's. I find it ironic, sorry but I do.

    I don't know if your theory is right why they signed CC. Personally I think they hated the 2012 class of FA, weren't all that high on their prospects, were scared what Cameron would ome back with at his age after missing as season and were concerned that Drew was aging out badly.

    Clearly CC's contract was impacted by the equally if not even more jaw dropping bad reach the Nats made with Werth. In fact I think that was the guy the RS were tracking first and probably thought they could get him for JBay money. He made more sense. Could play all three OF positions. He was a RH bat and the RS were stacked with LH on the big club in the minor league system in OF as well.

    It is a puzzling signing, the most puzzling Epstein ever made considering how strict he was with valuations for his own players went the went in the open market.


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

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    I am not going to comment on the contract, because that is done.  You cannot undo it.  I agree that most free agents, certainly the premium free agents, are overpaid.  That is just the way it is. 

    I have a question for those who say he has to change his batting stance.  What was different about his stance in 2011 from 2010?  If his stance was good enough in 2010, what changed?  Was it even more open, less open?  I don't know.  I thought of this when they were commenting on Nelson Cruz's open stance during the playoffs, how it helps him see the ball better.

    Finally, I am with the crowd that says "Hey, he is on the Sox now, just root for the guy."  I can't understand why there are some that constantly complain or wish bad on players that are on the team they root for.  I am not saying it is wrong, because you have the right to root the way you want.  I just don't understand it.  Though I do get thoroughly upset with those that wish injury upon Sox players, or players on any team for that matter.    
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : Regarding LF, the configuration of Tropicana Field is very different - so much so that the Rays seem to prefer their best defenders to play LF and CF, keeping their weakest OF in right.  Desmond Jennings is very good defensively, and is primarily playing LF. Regarding OBP comparisons, if you take Crawford's career OBP average up to the signing, it is slightly lower than Ellsbury's at the same point.  If you throw out ages 20 - 23, when Crawford was facing MLB pitching, but Ellsbury was in the minors, Crawford holds the slight edge.  Neither one is exactly an on-base machine - the better they hit, the higher the OBP. Regarding Ellsbury's injuries, whether mis-diagnosed or not, he was on the DL for 6 weeks from April until his return in Philly.  He was then on the DL again from May 24th to August 4th.  That's 11 weeks - 17 weeks all together.  And then he shut it down for the season on August 13th, and claimed he wasn't 100% in December, so essentially Jacoby Ellsbury's body heals at 20% the normal human rate.  Is it really unreasonable for the FO to feel they couldn't trust him to be healthy and productive going forward?  The Sox overpaid for Crawford, but with the understanding that 1) there are very few similar profiles and baseball, and none on the FA market until at least 2014, and 2) if the Yankees failed to sign Lee, they would gladly overpay for Crawford, with the intention of trading Brett Gardner for pitching and 3) eventually, they could trade Ellsbury and make up for a portion of the cost of Crawford by filling out the OF with good players playing below cost. Finally, when making the Manny comparison, keep in mind that the total Red Sox payroll in 2000 was $78M.  In today's dollars, it would be like signing Prince Fielder for $35M / year.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    Slo, that's the best I've heard in a while, but I'm sticking with my "glorified platoon" player "overpaid by about $50M". 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Yeah. Crawford probably isn't going to do much batting 7th again.

    Yeah, he should bat 9th vs lefties or ride the pine.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    [QUOTE]... and the fact that he had one of the worst arms imaginable.
    Posted by jackyldo[/QUOTE]Thank you. For some reason we've all overlooked the lousy outfield arms over the past year, showing up in terms of very few outfield assists. Throwing the baseball accurately is something you should be able to do even if you have the yips at the plate.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    If you are right and the RS signed a $142M deal to replace Ellsbury it was a dumb move in hindsight.

    Explain why there is any doubt about why Crawford was signed long term?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Hopefully they adjust the line-up so that Carl can hit somewheres in the 1-3 spots, or at the very least 9th... any spot 4 thru 8 is ridiculous and this is one more reason I am glad Mr. L-R-L-R has moved on.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share