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..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : 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).  
    Posted by fivekatz


    I think it does justify the contract.  Say the Red Sox trade Ellsbury to the Braves for Jurrjjens and O'Flaherty.  Without Crawford, you have to rebuild your entire OF with rookies or free agents.  That gives the free agents a ton of leverage, and you wind up over-paying for a Willingham or a Kuddyer, neither of whom is likely to out-perform crawford in 2012.

    Now you have a legitimate setup man for Bard in O'Flaherty so you can let Papelbon walk, and save what - $40M over 4 years?  Jurrjjens is likely to be worth 20 - 30M over his salary over the next two years, and you have the opportunity to extend him early for more savings.

    That means that Crawford only has to be worth 70% of his contract for the contract to be justified.

    That's just one scenario, but I'm saying if Ellsbury is moved, the Crawford signing should not be seen in the vaccuum of dollars for a single player.



     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250'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


    You are right about the poor pitching that lead to the collapse more than other factors.  I expect that Crawford will have a much better year next season.  
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Great post! You are exactly correct sir. It's hard enough going from small market to Red Sox bright lightsville, but to do so when the team's in disarray must have been a nightmare for him. He's not worth what Theo gave him, but he's a MUCH better baseball player than we saw last year. Expect a vast improvement going forward.



    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

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ghost of Tiante. Show Ghost of Tiante's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : I think it does justify the contract.  Say the Red Sox trade Ellsbury to the Braves for Jurrjjens and O'Flaherty.  Without Crawford, you have to rebuild your entire OF with rookies or free agents.  That gives the free agents a ton of leverage, and you wind up over-paying for a Willingham or a Kuddyer, neither of whom is likely to out-perform crawford in 2012. Now you have a legitimate setup man for Bard in O'Flaherty so you can let Papelbon walk, and save what - $40M over 4 years?  Jurrjjens is likely to be worth 20 - 30M over his salary over the next two years, and you have the opportunity to extend him early for more savings. That means that Crawford only has to be worth 70% of his contract for the contract to be justified. That's just one scenario, but I'm saying if Ellsbury is moved, the Crawford signing should not be seen in the vaccuum of dollars for a single player.
    Posted by slomag


    Thats one heck of an arguement when you could have signed Ells for less money and he had a better career year than Crawford will ever have. In the end it was a mistake to siogn this AVERAGE guy to big bucks. Eat the Crawfish, it was a blunder!
     
  5. 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.. : Thats one heck of an arguement when you could have signed Ells for less money and he had a better career year than Crawford will ever have. In the end it was a mistake to siogn this AVERAGE guy to big bucks. Eat the Crawfish, it was a blunder!
    Posted by Ghost of Tiante


    That statement pretends that you predicted a 27-year-old would add 180 points to his OPS career average.  Are you going to predict BJ Upton or John Jay have MVP seasons in 2011?  That's roughly the equivalent here.

     
  6. 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.. : That statement pretends that you predicted a 27-year-old would add 180 points to his OPS career average.  Are you going to predict BJ Upton or John Jay have MVP seasons in 2011?  That's roughly the equivalent here.
    Posted by slomag
    All due respect Slomag you are suggesting that trading that same 27 year old now would justify the size and length of the Crawford deal.

    Outside of HR production, Ellsbury was an equal or better player before his SLG jumped. Hit LH pitching better, played a tougher position, was a more efficient base stealer and had a better OBP. Gardner in NY is much the same and in fact in 2011 was a better player than the 2011 CC. 

    The contract was a bad valuation. How bad time will tell. But normally you expect to get your best productivity from a FA during his prime years and expect slippage from 32-35. The RS just totally lost one of those prime years and got what they'd hope against but would not be shocked by in the final year of CC's deal.

    It is a stretch on CC's career averages to have done a deal this long for so much per year.

    I get the idea of not giving up on the player and at some point the idea of production justifying the contract will have to be put aside. But as long as people discuss the player in terms of his contract IMO it is hard to make a case that RS came out looking smart on this one. he isn't the second best OF to hit ever hit FA at 28 but his contract is the second biggest.

    Best case to me is to say that CC isn't a bad player, he is a better player than he was in 2011 but he was given a bad contract.

    And that bad contract will have consequence. It is off by at least $5M a year and that means every year the RS can't bring in 3-5 guys for the BP trying to find an Alfredo Aceves. It probably ensures if Ellsbury is the real deal and last year wasn't a fluke they won't be able to retain him.

      

     
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : All due respect Slomag you are suggesting that trading that same 27 year old now would justify the size and length of the Crawford deal. Outside of HR production, Ellsbury was an equal or better player before his SLG jumped. Hit LH pitching better, played a tougher position, was a more efficient base stealer and had a better OBP. Gardner in NY is much the same and in fact in 2011 was a better player than the 2011 CC.  The contract was a bad valuation. How bad time will tell. But normally you expect to get your best productivity from a FA during his prime years and expect slippage from 32-35. The RS just totally lost one of those prime years and got what they'd hope against but would not be shocked by in the final year of CC's deal. It is a stretch on CC's career averages to have done a deal this long for so much per year. I get the idea of not giving up on the player and at some point the idea of production justifying the contract will have to be put aside. But as long as people discuss the player in terms of his contract IMO it is hard to make a case that RS came out looking smart on this one. he isn't the second best OF to hit ever hit FA at 28 but his contract is the second biggest. Best case to me is to say that CC isn't a bad player, he is a better player than he was in 2011 but he was given a bad contract. And that bad contract will have consequence. It is off by at least $5M a year and that means every year the RS can't bring in 3-5 guys for the BP trying to find an Alfredo Aceves. It probably ensures if Ellsbury is the real deal and last year wasn't a fluke they won't be able to retain him.     
    Posted by fivekatz
    All to the point.
    Ellsbury's year certainly didn't look like a fluke. He looked like the player who was developing and put it all together. His 2011 numbers would seem to be hard to duplicate, but who knows. He may be on the verge of becoming one of the great players in the game, year in and year out. If he in fact becomes that, Boston's chances of retaining him are pretty slim. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    I am wondering if the Sox didn't bid so high on CC because they thought the Yanks wanted him.  Although he probably will never be worth what the Sox paid for him over the course of his contract...if he just plays up to his stats before the trade I will consider that a successful contract...all things considered.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ghost of Tiante. Show Ghost of Tiante's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : That statement pretends that you predicted a 27-year-old would add 180 points to his OPS career average.  Are you going to predict BJ Upton or John Jay have MVP seasons in 2011?  That's roughly the equivalent here.
    Posted by slomag


    No im basing on facts not predictions, hows your fantasy team doing? BTW I dont pretend as you suggest! Bet you would love a team of allstars for the sox right?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Good to hear from someone who gets it. Very few pro athletes are worth what they're paid, it's a matter of what the marketplace views their worth at when the contract is signed. Crawford was the top free agent coveted by 2 or more teams. That automatically means he was destined for an over payment, but I think most fans were thrilled at the signing at the time. Folks like myself posted he was over paid by about $3 milllion per year, but we got the piece we needed and it WILL pay off going forward. Kudos to John+the boys for opening their wallet and getting it done. The guy's in his prime performance years and I expect great things this coming season.  Watching the hate turn to love over this contracts life span will be fun. Who wouldn't love a guy who'll hit .285ish with 25-30 homers and 40+ stolen bases, while playing very good defense? Once he learns to spank baseballs off the green monster he'll be a double machine, and always a risk to steal 3rd. His average will rise 30-40 points as a result. You'll see!!!



    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    I am wondering if the Sox didn't bid so high on CC because they thought the Yanks wanted him.  Although he probably will never be worth what the Sox paid for him over the course of his contract...if he just plays up to his stats before the trade I will consider that a successful contract...all things considered.
    Posted by traven

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

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    I think the biggest thing about Crawford is that he has to get committed to making improvements in his batting stance and his pitch selection.  The worst thing would be if he just shrugged off last year as an aberration caused by the change of town or whatever.  He has some fundamental flaws that need to be fixed or things will not just get better. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Regarding Carl Crawford, simply stated if he played to his resume this thread would not exist. Was he overpaid, I'll leave that to Henry and Luccino to conclude. What he needs to do in 2012 is put 2011 behind him and return to the game changing athlete they thought they'd signed and while he may never live up to the lofty expectation his contract suggest. He can and will help the Red Sox in 2012 and beyond if he plays to his career norms. frankly it's on him to do just that...

    To those that continue to state that due to Crawfords contract, it now precluded the Red Sox from having the funds too sign Ellsbury or that they should'nt have spent those moneys on Crawford, instead used those moneys to resign Ellsbury are not taking into consideration the dynamics at play. Simply the flaw in this logic is that Ellsbury and his agent Scott Boras have both made clear their intent to go to market after the 2013 season. To date both have declined all attempts by the Red Sox to negotiate an extension...

    Thus the Red sox are resigned to making the best out of his remaining years with the club and once he reaches free agency if they chose to try to retain him. They'll make him an offer he can't refuse, in hopes that he wants to play for the Red Sox. The caviat is if they meet he and his agents demands does he want to play in Boston? Only he and Boras know the answer to that...Negotiating with Boras is a slippery slope at best. How many of you trust that Boras will negoitiate in good faith? His track record suggest that he will find the best deal for his client by all means nessasary. Trust and negotiating in good faith with him, has a differing definition than it does to 30 general managers...Just ask the Braves...

    With that as the backdrop. If you look at the 3 to 5 year plan. The Red Sox entering the 2011 season had Ellsbury signed through 2013 coming off an injury. One that cost him an entire season and how he and his agent handled his rehab left many wanting. Thus they had no garanantees that he would come to camp and be the dynamic leadoff hitter they projected him to be after consequetive years where his OBP increased before his lost season of 2010. No one could have predicted his MVP season of 2011. Thus with an aging JD Drew and Mike Cameron both on the last years of their deals with no ready for prime time impact prospects at the ready to step in. The Sox had a need for a starting OFer one that could be a bridge to the future and serve as part of the nucleaus for 2012 and beyond. Enter Crawford who at 29 was still in his prime with 4 or 5 projectable years of producing at his career norms if healthy a high probability...

    Down on the farm we had Nava, Kalish, Reddick and Dmac...None of whom were seen as impact players ready to step in and be the bridge to the future. Kalish our best of prospect showed after getting called that he was a toolsy kid with the promise of more, but he didn't show that he was ready to bean everyday impact player at the ML level. Reddick also a toolsy kid, is a AAAA prospect with a little pop, as we saw once teams got a scouting report on him he struggled to adjust and hit below the mendoza line. The one true impact prospect we had was Westmoreland, his unfortunate illness sent a ripple effect through the entire oraginzations manpower plan. Make no mistake had he not gone down. It's likely we pass on Crawford becasue he represented a true impact middle of the order talant. Who was targeted to arrive late in 2010 or the spring of 2011.

    Here's the deal regardless of what Crawford makes, he ours, and it's incumbent on the new Manager and his htting coach to find the key to unlock the talants that Crawford has shown since learning to play the game at the big league level...That Carl Crawford is one a dynamic offensive player with the speed and agility to be a game changers on both sides of the ball...If that Crawford shows up next year and beyond, 2011 will be a foot note...unfortunately for him the media and the many Sox fans will much like they did with Drew look to find fault and based on his salary will always deem him as being less than...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    OK. A couple things: Crawford's signing was more to keep him away from the Angels than the Yankees actually. And a new, more aggressive-style Manager will benefit Crawford's production. No disrespect to Tito. And yeah, I know, "you have to get on base to steal a base", but his SB attempts were the lowest in his career (besides his rookie year) and that speaks of a managerial philosophy that you can't simply dismiss. Ellsbury's SB attempts were down this year also. And it's not just SB I'm talking about. This team has the tools to manufacture runs when they go into hitting slumps and they haven't taken full advantage of that. Manufacture runs. Hit and run. Bunt. steal. Move runners over. Be aggressive. They only try it when all other options are lost and then it becomes desperate instead of habitual.
    Posted by emp9


    emp,
    Not sure that they signed him to keep him away from either the Yanks or the angels...they signed him becasue the wanted him.. It's really that simple.

    In tems of the manager. I'd have to agree that's why I am a proponant of hitting Crawford in the two hole where he likly to see more fastballs and hitting in front of Pedria and Gonzalez behind Ellsbury I think it better takes advantage of his speed...

    what I'll also add is that he played most of the year with hamstring injury and which may have had more to do with him not running than not having the green light to do so...
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    OK. A couple things:

    Crawford's signing was more to keep him away from the Angels than the Yankees actually.

    And a new, more aggressive-style Manager will benefit Crawford's production. No disrespect to Tito. And yeah, I know, "you have to get on base to steal a base", but his SB attempts were the lowest in his career (besides his rookie year) and that speaks of a managerial philosophy that you can't simply dismiss. Ellsbury's SB attempts were down this year also. And it's not just SB I'm talking about. This team has the tools to manufacture runs when they go into hitting slumps and they haven't taken full advantage of that. Manufacture runs. Hit and run. Bunt. steal. Move runners over. Be aggressive. They only try it when all other options are lost and then it becomes desperate instead of habitual.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Just curious, but what excuses are the Crawford supportors citing for his complete and total refusal to throw to the cut-off man?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from CASox. Show CASox'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


    Horrific??? Really?? not even close to being that bad!!
     
  17. 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.. : All due respect Slomag you are suggesting that trading that same 27 year old now would justify the size and length of the Crawford deal. Outside of HR production, Ellsbury was an equal or better player before his SLG jumped. Hit LH pitching better, played a tougher position, was a more efficient base stealer and had a better OBP. Gardner in NY is much the same and in fact in 2011 was a better player than the 2011 CC.  The contract was a bad valuation. How bad time will tell. But normally you expect to get your best productivity from a FA during his prime years and expect slippage from 32-35. The RS just totally lost one of those prime years and got what they'd hope against but would not be shocked by in the final year of CC's deal. It is a stretch on CC's career averages to have done a deal this long for so much per year. I get the idea of not giving up on the player and at some point the idea of production justifying the contract will have to be put aside. But as long as people discuss the player in terms of his contract IMO it is hard to make a case that RS came out looking smart on this one. he isn't the second best OF to hit ever hit FA at 28 but his contract is the second biggest. Best case to me is to say that CC isn't a bad player, he is a better player than he was in 2011 but he was given a bad contract. And that bad contract will have consequence. It is off by at least $5M a year and that means every year the RS can't bring in 3-5 guys for the BP trying to find an Alfredo Aceves. It probably ensures if Ellsbury is the real deal and last year wasn't a fluke they won't be able to retain him.     
    Posted by fivekatz

    Katz, the bottom line is the Sox can trade Ellsbury and still have a speedy left-handed defensive outfielder with base-stealing capability and .300 AVG potential on the roster.  It's hard to imagine that even if the Sox keep Ellsbury for 2 more years, that they will outbid large-market teams who lack a player with this profile.  As such, the moment they signed Crawford, they gained a very good player and a very valuable trade chip.  The player has depreciated, and the trade chip has appreciated.  I don't know if, when, or how they cash it in, but that chip has the potential to be easily worth 25 - 30% of Crawford's salary.  From a business perspective, does it really matter how that money is spread across the field?





     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from user_4166609. Show user_4166609's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    I think that if the Red Sox get Dave Martinez as our manager, he could very well return Carl to form. That reason alone makes him the front runner in my book...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : emp, Not sure that they signed him to keep him away from either the Yanks or the angels...they signed him becasue the wanted him.. It's really that simple. In tems of the manager. I'd have to agree that's why I am a proponant of hitting Crawford in the two hole where he likly to see more fastballs and hitting in front of Pedria and Gonzalez behind Ellsbury I think it better takes advantage of his speed... what I'll also add is that he played most of the year with hamstring injury and which may have had more to do with him not running than not having the green light to do so...
    Posted by Beantowne


    Yeah. Crawford probably isn't going to do much batting 7th again. His power was career average, but everything else wasn't. I wanted him batting second too, in the top of the order that you mentioned. However, the 2-10 start didn't help matters much. I didn't hear much on his hamstring injury ( I know he was out a blip )... though that could explain the timidness regarding his running game and his defense. There are some who believe the batting order doesn't matter as much as one would think.... I say cool, then let him bat second. Essentially, if it doesn't matter anyway, what does it matter then if you let him bat second? Again with the two lefties in a row... it's probably going to happen at some point in the lineup anyway ( and it did, only towards the heart or the bottom of the order ). I think it's much more beneficial to the team as a whole, not just somebody's individual numbers, to put the speed up front. And you then add Pedroia to that scenario? He's not too shabby either on that front. Ehh, I guess i'll keep my fingers crossed until next season.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. : Yeah. Crawford probably isn't going to do much batting 7th again. His power was career average, but everything else wasn't. I wanted him batting second too, in the top of the order that you mentioned. However, the 2-10 start didn't help matters much. I didn't hear much on his hamstring injury ( I know he was out a blip )... though that could explain the timidness regarding his running game and his defense. There are some who believe the batting order doesn't matter as much as one would think.... I say cool, then let him bat second. Essentially, if it doesn't matter anyway, what does it matter then if you let him bat second? Again with the two lefties in a row... it's probably going to happen at some point in the lineup anyway ( and it did, only towards the heart or the bottom of the order ). I think it's much more beneficial to the team as a whole, not just somebody's individual numbers, to put the speed up front. And you then add Pedroia to that scenario? He's not too shabby either on that front. Ehh, I guess i'll keep my fingers crossed until next season.
    Posted by emp9


    emp,
    Hopefully 2012 starts off better than 2011 for Crawford and with a year under his belt hopefully we'll see the guy we thought we signed vs the shell of his former self that was Crawford in 2011. In the end regardless of where he hits it's on him to show up ready to play and put all of the BS of 2011 behind him produce to his 2008-2010 levels and let the chips fall where they may. He'll never live up to the expectations that his contract suggested he should but he can be a dynamic ball player that helps us win games...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Wow.   I am stunned at all the Crawford apologists on this board.  His OPS in 2011 was .694, which is insanely low and makes Drew in his first four years at Boston look like the bargain of the century.  Plus Drew was and is a very good outfielder.

    I also don't follow the logic trail of getting a Crawford because Ellsbury was damaged goods.  He got hammered by a middle linebacker disguised as thirdbaseman and had 4 or 5 broken ribs which were initially misdiagnosed by the Sox medical stuff, who were also reluctant to do an MRI.  With very little help from the Sox, he went to Arizona for part of the season and part of the offseason and came back better than ever.  And, remember, in 2009 he led MLB in stolen bases and the Sox in hits.  Plus he was being paid a much smaller amount than Crawford when Crawford was in Tampa. 

    None of the above translates into a compelling need to shell out major $$ for Carl Crawford.  There was absolutely no need to replace Ellsbury, but was a need for a good hitting leftfielder.  Werth might have been that guy, but was overpriced.  So the Sox simply got an overpriced replacement for Werth. 

    I also don't understand the argument that somehow Crawford should be forced into a key lineup spot to encourage him and salve his ego.  All five (Ellsbury, pedroia, Agon, Youk, Papi) of the first five lineup slots this year were hitting, scoring, and driving in runs at a much better rate than Carl Crawford.  If Crawford was inserted into, say, the 2 slot, that great hitting that carried the Sox to first place at the end of August might have come apart much earlier. 

    Like everyone else, I hope Crawford plays well in 2012 and earns a good slot in the lineup.  I also think he is capable of it.  But please don't tell me how unfairly he was treated this year or how acquiring him was one of Theo's great moves in roughly 10 years as the Sox GM.  It was a bad move, and the Sox now have to try to make it a not so bad move, presumably with Crawford's help. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford.. :  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.
    Posted by trouts


    A voluntary pay cut would have to be approved by the MLBPA, and you know that's not going to happen.
    Hard enough for these guys to take a home-town discount without the union being up in arms. It's kind of like selling your house dirt cheap....brings down the value of the other houses in the area.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    In Response to Re: regarding Carl Crawford..:
    Wow.   I am stunned at all the Crawford apologists on this board.  His OPS in 2011 was .694, which is insanely low and makes Drew in his first four years at Boston look like the bargain of the century.  Plus Drew was and is a very good outfielder. I also don't follow the logic trail of getting a Crawford because Ellsbury was damaged goods.  He got hammered by a middle linebacker disguised as thirdbaseman and had 4 or 5 broken ribs which were initially misdiagnosed by the Sox medical stuff, who were also reluctant to do an MRI.  With very little help from the Sox, he went to Arizona for part of the season and part of the offseason and came back better than ever.  And, remember, in 2009 he led MLB in stolen bases and the Sox in hits.  Plus he was being paid a much smaller amount than Crawford when Crawford was in Tampa.  None of the above translates into a compelling need to shell out major $$ for Carl Crawford.  There was absolutely no need to replace Ellsbury, but was a need for a good hitting leftfielder.  Werth might have been that guy, but was overpriced.  So the Sox simply got an overpriced replacement for Werth.  I also don't understand the argument that somehow Crawford should be forced into a key lineup spot to encourage him and salve his ego.  All five (Ellsbury, pedroia, Agon, Youk, Papi) of the first five lineup slots this year were hitting, scoring, and driving in runs at a much better rate than Carl Crawford.  If Crawford was inserted into, say, the 2 slot, that great hitting that carried the Sox to first place at the end of August might have come apart much earlier.  Like everyone else, I hope Crawford plays well in 2012 and earns a good slot in the lineup.  I also think he is capable of it.  But please don't tell me how unfairly he was treated this year or how acquiring him was one of Theo's great moves in roughly 10 years as the Sox GM.  It was a bad move, and the Sox now have to try to make it a not so bad move, presumably with Crawford's help. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    Max, do you think the front office was kicking itself for mis-diagnosing Ellsbury's rib injury, or do you think they were p1ssed that he was telling them he wasn't ready to come back to the lineup when he was hammering balls all over Pawtucket in his re-hab stint?  Whether you think it's fair or not, what do you think the Sox FO was thinking when they signed Crawford?  That they needed as much speed as possible in the smallest LF in baseball?  Or that they needed to replace a guy who had no interest in playing for the Sox long-term, who was making decisions based on his personal stats, who was airing his grievances through the media, who at the time of the Crawford signing (in December) was quoted as saying he was not 100%?


     
  24. 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.. : Max, do you think the front office was kicking itself for mis-diagnosing Ellsbury's rib injury, or do you think they were p1ssed that he was telling them he wasn't ready to come back to the lineup when he was hammering balls all over Pawtucket in his re-hab stint?  Whether you think it's fair or not, what do you think the Sox FO was thinking when they signed Crawford?  That they needed as much speed as possible in the smallest LF in baseball?  Or that they needed to replace a guy who had no interest in playing for the Sox long-term, who was making decisions based on his personal stats, who was airing his grievances through the media, who at the time of the Crawford signing (in December) was quoted as saying he was not 100%?
    Posted by slomag
    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.     
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: regarding Carl Crawford..

    Slomag, Ellsbury will go where the money is, just as many other Sox players have done.  If the Sox make him a good offer, he will stay because he knows he can play well in Boston and that the fans like him. 

    More importantly, I absolutely do not understand the logic of paying $20M a year for a speedy outfielder with no power and a very low (for that money) OPS.  If Ellsbury comes anywhere near duplicating this year next year, he should get a big contract because he will be one of the best players in MLB. 

    Bottom line:  the Sox may be forced to keep Crawford because of that dumb contract, but Ellsbury is they guy who can really help. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share