Werth it?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from natepioneer1. Show natepioneer1's posts

    Werth it?

    Let the whining begin.  So by the time Werth passed second base yesterday on his way home, I could hear people say we could have had him and should have gotten him, then we wouldn't have  been saddled with Crawford.

    Let's put this in perspective.  Werth hasn't exactly been a huge success thus far and one home run in a very public way doesn't change that.

    In the two years since they both signed:

    Werth  2011- 150 Gmes, 20 HRs 58 RBIs 232; 2012 81 games, 5 HRs 31 RBIs 300

    Crawford 2011 -130 games  11, 56 255;  2012  31 games 3 19 282.

    Werth was durable in 2011, Crawford less so, although that hammy was responsible for most of those 32 games.  Before that he was always in the 150s, save for 07 and 08 .  07 was fine with 143, although 08 was just 109.  But then came 154 and 156.  Werth did not have his first 150+ until 09 and followed that with another in 10.  Before 09, it was 89, 102, 94, 134.  I don't know how much injuries played in those years.

    In the two years preceding the FA  Werth was 2009 159, 36 99 268 and 2010 156 27 85 296;  Crawford  2009 156 15 68 305 and 2010 154 19 90 307.  Look they both had good years in 2010.  Crawford better average, Werth more power.  and 2009 was similar, although Werth batted only 268. 

    For their careers Werth is 10 yrs  1006, 145 495 267, while Crawford is 11 years 1396 118 667 292.     On average Werth is a better HR hitter, but not by as much as one would expect.  He knocks in more runs and clearly has an edge in BA.  Crawford had more 150+ yrs than Werth.  He has 6 to Werth's 2 and his first came in 2003 when Werth played 26 and was still 6 years away from his first.  At the time Werth 24 and Crawford 21.

    When they signed their deals both for 7 years, Werth was 31 and Crawford 28.  We, if I recall were pretty happy with that little fact in comparing them then.

    In terms of fit, would Werth have been better.  Perhaps.  He is after all, a right handed hitter and one of the issues last year was that the outfield was too left handed. He would probably have done well in Fenway, although the HR yesterday would not have even gotten halfway up the wall.

    Cue Cody Ross.  Methinks that had they signed Werth, there would not have been a Cody Ross signing this year.  Ross has very similar career numbers to Werth in one less year 887 122 452 262.  He is two years younger and since the signings has been more productive 38 and 133 to 25 and 89.  Werth was 232 and 300 in average playing 150 and 81;  Ross was 240 and 267 playing in 121 and 130.  In terms of HRs Ross has the Fenway swing.  He hits them high and when he gets ahold of one, it's gone.  Yesterday would have been a single.
    If they had Werth (and not Ross) that would have 18M per for 7 yrs to do RF.  Ross was 2.5 for 1 and even if they sign him longer term, it will probably be only 3 years and 20-25, maybe 30.  So in 2015, they would be paying a 34 yr old Ross, 7-9 million and be done with him.  Werth, at 36  would be getting 18m  and they would still owe him 36 more for 2016 and 2017, when he would be 38. 

    I know I got off the track a bit vis a vis Crawford and maybe at the time, Werth would have been a better move.  But they were able to get thmselves out from under the Crawford deal.  I'm not sure that would have been the case if it were Werth they were trying to unload.

    The bottom line here is we should not get carried away with one home run.  If Washington goes further, he may go on to more heroics.  Getting back to Ross, he was the man for Giants in 2010, especially in the NLCS.

    So let's not be too revisionistic when we assess deals.




  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Werth it?

    I was in favor of signing Werth.  But Werth stated that he is looking for 7 years contract at the same time Crawford wanted too.

    It would be a bad signing if Boston signs Werth for 7 years, but he would have given Boston some good first three years of baseball.   

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Werth it?


    Is it just me?  But I think Werth looks like Jesus Christ.  lol 

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Werth it?

    No thank you! As slim as the FA list is there is better options, cheaper!

  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Werth it?

    Werth-Crawford would have been a moot point, had Theo been on the ball and signed Matt Holliday for millions less than those two got, instead of signing Lackey.

    Holliday would have been exactly what the Sox needed. A big RH bat in the middle of the order. All the guy does is hit.