regarding Carl Crawford..

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

    regarding Carl Crawford..

    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.

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

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to regarding Carl Crawford..:
    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


    No doubt.  The real Carl Crawford will stand up in 2012.  I am pretty confident of that.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MichFan. Show MichFan's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    A guy making his money is not allowed a below average year.  Produce or take a pay cut or leave.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rutland76. Show Rutland76's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Mob behavior happens on forums also, watch how Crawford is viewed here when he has a good season in 2012.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

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


    Because ... that is how contracts have always worked ... and nobody making big money has ever had a bad year ... 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sindarin-erebor. Show sindarin-erebor's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Given how bad he was last year, it is assured he will be better, just how much better remains to be seen. He needs a total revamp of his stance and approach at the plate. I suspect his drop in fielding prowness was due to a dramatic loss of confidence. I hope he returns to the player he was prior to 2011, and yes, I understand his contract with us is insanely high. I think at his core he is a good person who trys very hard and is accountable for his failures....both good character traits, unlike say a Lackey.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    I wonder if his legs weren't a bigger problem than we knew this year.  Strange to have that kind of drop in both SB and defense, if he was truly healthy all year.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from trouts. Show trouts's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

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

     Unlike football, baseball contracts are guaranteed. He can have 6 more lousy years and we still have to pay him the money. How many ballplayers have ever had lousy years and voluntarily taken pay cuts or "left the team"? Even if a player were of a mind to do that the players' union wouldn't allow it to happen.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    The real Carl Crawford has a career OPS under .800.  What was Theo thinking?  Crawford this year was paid what Youk and Pedroia were paid together. 

    Yes, I expect him to be better in 2012, but nowhere near that price tag.  If his OPS in 2012 is .900, I will be delighted to start a thread saying I was wrong. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Crawford was far from the worst player on the team in 2011.  Besides, his lack of production wasn't the reason the collapsed in September.  Nothing he could have done would have had any impact on the season unless he could have been effective on the mound for 7 innings every 5th day.

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

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    The real Carl Crawford has a career OPS under .800.  What was Theo thinking?  Crawford this year was paid what Youk and Pedroia were paid together.  Yes, I expect him to be better in 2012, but nowhere near that price tag.  If his OPS in 2012 is .900, I will be delighted to start a thread saying I was wrong. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    No doubt the contract was way out of proportion with his production.  It was a panic offer generated from the spectre of Yankee interest that wasn't even real. But, since what is done is done, I really can't keep harping on the price tag.  Divorced from the ridiculous salary, I am more than happy to have Carl on the Sox.  He will return to his form next year.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jackyldo. Show jackyldo's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    We expected more    and got far less than anyone thought possible.

    What stood out for me  was the bad habits he had at bat  and the fact that he had one of the worst arms imaginable. 

    We are stuck with him and we can only hope this year at bat and stealing bases was an abberation.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    The real Carl Crawford has a career OPS under .800.  What was Theo thinking?  Crawford this year was paid what Youk and Pedroia were paid together.  Yes, I expect him to be better in 2012, but nowhere near that price tag.  If his OPS in 2012 is .900, I will be delighted to start a thread saying I was wrong. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    the real Carl Crawford was the 1st player since Ty Cobb to surpass 100 doubles, 100 triples, 100 homers and 100 SB before he turned 30...that's the Carl Crawfrod we signed and that's the Carl Crawford that needs to show up ready to go in 2012
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RickEO. Show RickEO's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

     Carl Crawford needs to bat 1st and play RF.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PaulLaCourse. Show PaulLaCourse's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to regarding Carl Crawford.. : No doubt.  The real Carl Crawford will stand up in 2012.  I am pretty confident of that.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus


    No, the real Carl Crawford will not stand up in 2012 and I am pretty confident of that.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    Crawford was far from the worst player on the team in 2011.  Besides, his lack of production wasn't the reason the collapsed in September.  Nothing he could have done would have had any impact on the season unless he could have been effective on the mound for 7 innings every 5th day.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover
    On balance he may have been the worst starter aside from RF. Catcher was a platoon and he was worse than the DH, the 1B, the SS, the 3B and the CF. And the RF thing, Drew at least fielded his position well. 

    Hopefully he'll get better. He played a very ordinary LF (home and road), did not use his speed, was a problem fitting into the line-up and was nothing short of bad versus LH pitchers.

    Now Crawford probably just had a down year but his contract is puzzle and that bad year just punctuates that. Most signings the Rs have made even when they don't work out you can understand the decision even though it did not work.

    How the market inflated so much for Werth and Crawford is a puzzle. The owners were reckless IMO in both cases. What makes the Crawford signing so puzzling is this is the same group that whined about how bad the Manny Ramirez contract was.

    Crwaford gets another year because there isnothing else that can be done with the contract. But he was not a good player in 2011. He was 28 out of 30 OFers wwith 450 or more PAs in OBP, 23rd in OPS, 20th in RBI. He also happened to hold the biggest contract. Bad combination.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from siestafiesta. Show siestafiesta's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    "Nothing he could have done would have had any impact on the season unless he could have been effective on the mound for 7 innings every 5th day."

    Don't know how you can make that comment.   I agree that pitching was the biggest issue, but they only missed the playoffs by 1 game, so of course he could have made a difference if he had a better season.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Posts: 3
    First: 8/15/2011
    Last: 10/27/2011

    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.



      You have distinguished yourself already, at the fresh young age of 3 posts!

      Well said.  Give Peace and CC a chance!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rutland76. Show Rutland76's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    If the skeptics and cynics are against signing free agents which is extremely risky then let them come out and say that we should not sign any free agents this winter. It seems to me that they were all in favor of signing Crawford and Lackey at the moment of signing. They pat themselves on the back using 20-20 hindsight but never state what they thought at the day of the signing.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : No, the real Carl Crawford will not stand up in 2012 and I am pretty confident of that.
    Posted by PaulLaCourse


    OK.  I am basing my conjecture on the fact that 2011 was a statistical abnomoly for Crawford.  I am figuring that had to do with the daunting transition of culture and the pressure of new giant contract.  It stands to reason that those factors will diminish in his 2nd season with the Red Sox.  So, I expect him to return to his career norms.  What are you basing your conjecture on?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : On balance he may have been the worst starter aside from RF. Catcher was a platoon and he was worse than the DH, the 1B, the SS, the 3B and the CF. And the RF thing, Drew at least fielded his position well.  Hopefully he'll get better. He played a very ordinary LF (home and road), did not use his speed, was a problem fitting into the line-up and was nothing short of bad versus LH pitchers. Now Crawford probably just had a down year but his contract is puzzle and that bad year just punctuates that. Most signings the Rs have made even when they don't work out you can understand the decision even though it did not work. How the market inflated so much for Werth and Crawford is a puzzle. The owners were reckless IMO in both cases. What makes the Crawford signing so puzzling is this is the same group that whined about how bad the Manny Ramirez contract was. Crwaford gets another year because there isnothing else that can be done with the contract. But he was not a good player in 2011. He was 28 out of 30 OFers wwith 450 or more PAs in OBP, 23rd in OPS, 20th in RBI. He also happened to hold the biggest contract. Bad combination.
    Posted by fivekatz


    Rewind the clock a year, and you have a "what do we do with Ellsbury" situation.  The FO doesn't trust Ellsbury to stay healthy and put the team needs ahead of his personal stats - they see Crawford on the market with an identical skillset and at the time was thought to have more power and be better defensively.  They probably thought he could play CF or RF in 2012.  Then they let Ellsbury bounce back to his career average in 2011, and trade him to fill holes.

    If that was the plan, the move makes a lot more sense - it's not just what Crawford is worth, it's what Crawford plus the return on Ellsbury is worth. 

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

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    The real Carl Crawford has a career OPS under .800.  What was Theo thinking?  Crawford this year was paid what Youk and Pedroia were paid together.  Yes, I expect him to be better in 2012, but nowhere near that price tag.  If his OPS in 2012 is .900, I will be delighted to start a thread saying I was wrong. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    You have to have a little perspective - if you only count the years he was older than Will Middlebrooks, he has an OPS over .800.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnDeckCircle. Show OnDeckCircle's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Crawford will have a better year in 2012 after making adjustments but he had his best years with the Rays because his talents were a better fit in their lineup but knew the Rays wouldn't give him big money when he became a free agent.       He was a big fish in a small pond with very little media hovering over him realizing that he's not big on interviews.    The new Sox manager will have to find the best way to use his talent.      As he ages so will his foot speed.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    It seems reasonable to assume that a young player who's played like a star all his life, then has one bad season is more likely to play like the player he had been prior to 2011.  Still I guarantee if Crawford picks it up next year and from there on out, there will still be haters and naysayers....most of Sox nation will forget and forgive, but a lot of you are just to stubborn to change your opinions on people. 

    Reality is we are likely stuck with him, so is it wrong to cheer and hope for what should be a highly plausible scenario????
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : Rewind the clock a year, and you have a "what do we do with Ellsbury" situation.  The FO doesn't trust Ellsbury to stay healthy and put the team needs ahead of his personal stats - they see Crawford on the market with an identical skillset and at the time was thought to have more power and be better defensively.  They probably thought he could play CF or RF in 2012.  Then they let Ellsbury bounce back to his career average in 2011, and trade him to fill holes. If that was the plan, the move makes a lot more sense - it's not just what Crawford is worth, it's what Crawford plus the return on Ellsbury is worth. 
    Posted by slomag
    Even if this is all true it just does not begin to match the contract.

    And I know it is popular to compare the players because they were both top of the game base stealers. But while Crawford may have ranked higher as a LF than Ellsbury at CF, Crawford is a LF by trade not a CF. Ellsbury was a higher OBP guy with less power at the time, I don't see the guys as identical, maybe close in skill set offerings. Ellsbury had the better OBP, better base stealing success rate by percentage and played the tougher position. The system was loaded with LH OFer with gap power and plus speed.

    It was an odd isgning. I figured the RS must have seen something that I wasn't when they signed Crawford. He did not fit their profile in terms of selectivity at the plate and the rumored $90M price tags seemed inflated for what Crawford's historical production was. $142M is a jaw dropper.

    As for the RS view of Ellsbury coming into the year, I am not so sure they really shared the media view as much as they fed it, playing defense for a medical staff that was once again under fire. If they did, they were wrong weren't they?

    Beating on Crawford is no particular joy to me. I used to argue before the signing that the RS would never sign the guy because of the speculated size of the contract and his profile. When they signed him I figured they must have seen something here that I as a fan did not. Whatever they saw, nobody else saw it 2011.

    It is will be a lasting footnote on the RS management that made so much vocal noise about how bad Manny Ramirez contract was the entire length of it and did a contract nearly as big for a player who clearly is a fraction of the offensive producer (only Manny's deal in the history of the sport is bigger for a OF).  
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share