Author Topic: Red Sox sign Crawford  (Read 1211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37010
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #1: December 09, 2010, 07:54:43 AM »
So, Werth might be older, but I don't care about stolen bases and Crawford has no power. I'll go out on a limb and say that Werth is better for the Nats right now.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17114
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #2: December 09, 2010, 08:00:06 AM »
OK, I'm shocked.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27498
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #3: December 09, 2010, 09:42:04 AM »
OK, I'm shocked.

Tell me again how the Red Sox are different from the Yankees? 

Offline asindc

  • Posts: 166
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #4: December 09, 2010, 09:57:29 AM »
Tell me again how the Red Sox are different from the Yankees? 

It is getting more and more difficult for Boston fans to make that argument.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 16332
  • GOOOOOOOOOOD MORNIN' VIETNAM!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #5: December 09, 2010, 10:01:48 AM »
Tell me again how the Red Sox are different from the Yankees?  


Living up here, I can tell you there's a big difference in fan-base now.  I can actually stomach Red Sox fans, whereas ALL Yankee fans remind me of that douchebag who caught the homerun that wasn't a homerun against the Rangers:


Offline Sharp

  • Posts: 3583
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #6: December 09, 2010, 10:49:57 AM »
Tell me again how the Red Sox are different from the Yankees? 
They don't buy cham-oh...
They don't have their own net-oh...
They don't have a lot of bandwa-oh...
Um... their owner owns a European soccer team!

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 33584
  • Lets go to work
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #7: December 09, 2010, 11:36:22 AM »
Living up here, I can tell you there's a big difference in fan-base now.  I can actually stomach Red Sox fans, whereas ALL Yankee fans remind me of that douchebag who caught the homerun that wasn't a homerun against the Rangers:

(Image removed from quote.)


Best part about that will always be nag tits in sweatpants dropping F bombs behind him.

Offline soxfan59

  • Posts: 1199
  • Gough, Gough White Sox!!!
    • John R. Russell, Ltd.
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #8: December 09, 2010, 11:39:54 AM »
Tell me again how the Red Sox are different from the Yankees? 

The fans.  Yankee fans are pompous ass hats.

Red Sox fans are pompous ass hats with an inferiority complex and a holier than thou attitude.  They are the Cubs fans of the American League.  Give me Yankee fans any day.  Red Sox fans are insufferable now that they are their own version of the "Evil Empire."

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17114
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #9: December 09, 2010, 03:01:00 PM »
Tell me again how the Red Sox are different from the Yankees? 
Their still below the luxury tax level and have $54 MM coming off the books next year?  This is their first FA contract over $100 MM since 2000?  That's two ways. 

Look, I know they've used ability to pay to take on A-Gon and eat bad contracts like Lowell, Lugo and Rentawreck.  Anyone lingering to the scrappy underdog image is hopelessly behind the times.  Yes, they do have to a bit more careful with their contracts than the NYY, but they are using their financial strength when they have to.

Of course, everything that the Red Sox have done in terms of financial muscle flexing could have been done by NYM, LAD, LAA, Chi-NL, PHI, and a few other teams.  They are a well run organization.

From reading Boston sites, some of the analysts say tthe two moves were really about replacing Drew and Ortiz a year early.  There will not be comparable OF talent next year as FAs, and they had 2 holes in the OF for 2012.  The line-up looks unbalanced for this year, which will be tough against the Matusz -Cecil - Romero, even before you get to Price, CC, and likely Lee.  Lots of good lefties in that division.  It will be interesting to see what else they do.  Downs now becomes more attractive after the first Type A, but Feliiciano or even Mahay might be good enough.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27498
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #10: December 09, 2010, 09:20:02 PM »
This is their first FA contract over $100 MM since 2000? 

You're counting Crawford, but shouldn't we also recognize that they evidently have a secret agreement with Gonzalez that's sure to exceed $100m?

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 16214
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #11: December 10, 2010, 07:36:08 AM »
You're counting Crawford, but shouldn't we also recognize that they evidently have a secret agreement with Gonzalez that's sure to exceed $100m?

Or the fact they paid in excess of $100M for Matsuzaka's services.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27498
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #12: December 10, 2010, 09:06:47 AM »
Or the fact they paid in excess of $100M for Matsuzaka's services.

Right.  Even though very little of that trickled down to the player.   

 ;)

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 16214
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #13: December 10, 2010, 09:36:57 AM »
Right.  Even though very little of that trickled down to the player.  

 ;)

True, poor kid has to bus tables at McDonalds to make ends meet.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17114
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #14: December 10, 2010, 10:43:52 AM »
You're counting Crawford, but shouldn't we also recognize that they evidently have a secret agreement with Gonzalez that's sure to exceed $100m?
Not an FA contract.  I think I've been consistent in my post about separating trade then sign deals from FA contracts.  And they are still $8 - 10MM under the cap, and will be further under the cap in 2012. 
Or the fact they paid in excess of $100M for Matsuzaka's services.
The $51.1 MM that went to Seibu once Dice-K was signed did not count as cap money, and they would not have been on the hook for it but for their getting Dice-K to sign a 6 year, ~$50 MM deal.  Because it was uncapped money, that is like paying $85MM for 6 years.  Higher than I think he's worth, but not outrageous AAV.  It was that lengthy to buy out his prearb years.  Ted Lilly will make close to that between his Cubs and Dodgers contracts.

Offline asindc

  • Posts: 166
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #15: December 10, 2010, 12:16:22 PM »
Not an FA contract.  I think I've been consistent in my post about separating trade then sign deals from FA contracts.  And they are still $8 - 10MM under the cap, and will be further under the cap in 2012.  The $51.1 MM that went to Seibu once Dice-K was signed did not count as cap money, and they would not have been on the hook for it but for their getting Dice-K to sign a 6 year, ~$50 MM deal.  Because it was uncapped money, that is like paying $85MM for 6 years.  Higher than I think he's worth, but not outrageous AAV.  It was that lengthy to buy out his prearb years.  Ted Lilly will make close to that between his Cubs and Dodgers contracts.


I agree that Boston is a very well-run organization that uses its market advantages well (unlike the Cubs, for instance), but the point most are making here is not whether Boston manages to stay under the luxury tax limit (not a cap, mind you... calling it a "cap" I think leads to a misconception), but that despite the shrewd management it does not take a genius to outbid your next competitor by $34 million for an OF when you are already paying a 35-year old OF $14 million a year and a 37-year old OF $7.25 million a year.  The point is that they are spending money like horny, drunken sailors on shore leave after years of complaining about the Yanks doing the same thing.  I think Dan Shaughnessy nailed it in this column:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2010/12/10/sudden_status_as_favorites_is_richly_deserved/

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17114
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #16: December 10, 2010, 01:18:56 PM »
I don't read Shaughnessy.  :lol:  Shaguhnessy now stands alone on my Shaughnessy - Wilbon list.  

I think the Angels have never figured out free agency well.  I'm not as high on them as an organization as others are, while fully respecting the long run they have had near the top.  There is an incredible list of misses on FAs they wanted and guys that left.  Except for Vladi, their big gets in free agency since are Gary Matthews Jr. and Torii Hunter. They thought they were the only bidders on Crawford and would come to them when they offered a contract that was high relative to the estimates of contracts in October.  They did not adjust their bid to reflect Dunn, Werth, and several lesser contracts that reflected a different market.  Boston may have come in $34MM higher than the Angels, but that does not mean that the Angels bid reflected what their competition should have been in at.  And as for Drew, he's been worth every penny ($57.1 MM earned v. $56 MM paid) and filled a need.  If he's a 2 WAR player his last year, then it is only $3 MM overpay.  Only the Shaughnessy - like / talk radio types still complain about the Drew contract.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27498
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #17: December 10, 2010, 02:59:27 PM »
Not an FA contract.  I think I've been consistent in my post about separating trade then sign deals from FA contracts.  And they are still $8 - 10MM under the cap, and will be further under the cap in 2012.  The $51.1 MM that went to Seibu once Dice-K was signed did not count as cap money, and they would not have been on the hook for it but for their getting Dice-K to sign a 6 year, ~$50 MM deal.  Because it was uncapped money, that is like paying $85MM for 6 years.  Higher than I think he's worth, but not outrageous AAV.  It was that lengthy to buy out his prearb years.  Ted Lilly will make close to that between his Cubs and Dodgers contracts.

They've got 3 players they've paid more than $100m in total contract value for.  Whether or not they count against the cap I don't really care, unless they are gaming the system to avoid paying their share of the luxury tax and thus diminishing the Nats' revenue- I would not be a fan of that.

My overall point is, from my objective viewpoint (not a fan of either the Sox or the Yankees, and really have no preference between them), they are virtually indistinguishable in their ability to bring overwhelming financial resources to bear when they have flaws to fix, vastly more than the other 28 clubs can do.   They really have become the twin of the "evil empire" they used to rail against.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17114
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #18: December 10, 2010, 03:22:29 PM »
Fine.  I'll stick with they are closer to team #3, #4,  . . . #7 than #1 in budget, but will accept that they have the image of being indistingusihably as extravagant and "win at all cost."  I've said it before - I'm much happier that they no longer need sympathy.


Offline blue911

  • Posts: 16214
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #19: December 10, 2010, 05:24:32 PM »
Fine.  I'll stick with they are closer to team #3, #4,  . . . #7 than #1 in budget, but will accept that they have the image of being indistingusihably as extravagant and "win at all cost."  I've said it before - I'm much happier that they no longer need sympathy.

I still think they're pathetic.  :twisted:

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27498
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #20: December 10, 2010, 09:44:22 PM »
Fine.  I'll stick with they are closer to team #3, #4,  . . . #7 than #1 in budget, but will accept that they have the image of being indistingusihably as extravagant and "win at all cost."  I've said it before - I'm much happier that they no longer need sympathy.

Sure, if the Nats were suddenly dominant  :lmao: and drawing huge crowds and huge TV ratings and somehow their revenue was surging and they started throwing money around to sign up any free agents that might add a WARP or two, I'd be on board with that program.  But alas, we're on the outside looking in at that orgy.     :'(

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10563
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #21: December 10, 2010, 09:46:46 PM »
Sure, if the Nats were suddenly dominant  :lmao: and drawing huge crowds and huge TV ratings and somehow their revenue was surging and they started throwing money around to sign up any free agents that might add a WARP or two, I'd be on board with that program.  But alas, we're on the outside looking in at that orgy.     :'(
Peeping Tomterp :shock: :rofl:

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17114
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #22: December 11, 2010, 11:52:36 AM »
Sure, if the Nats were suddenly dominant  :lmao: and drawing huge crowds and huge TV ratings and somehow their revenue was surging and they started throwing money around to sign up any free agents that might add a WARP or two, I'd be on board with that program.  But alas, we're on the outside looking in at that orgy.     :'(
One of the reasons I'm nitpicky about what are accurate and inaccurate criticisms of the Red Sox management is because I think there are lessons to be learned for the Nats.  I realize right now there is no way this team can match their revenue streams, so not everything can be done the same way, but when I hear folks saying draft choices don't matter, or that prospects are always worth trading, or spend money on this guy regardless of the market, I cringe.

Drafting and development has been an enormous part of their sustained run.  Trading prospects you draft and develop is also part of it, but you have to have them to trade them and trade them at the right time. 

They track who will be available when multiple years out and adjust their signings and trades for that.  They have been working on A-Gon deals since 2009 (when they went after Victor instead), and, so Theo says, they had Crawford targeted for this year since he signed his last contract.  They could accept losing a Manny when they could move for a Bay, and losing Bay when they could "bridge" a  year to the guy they really wanted was Crawford.  They mix short contracts and long contracts, and always seem to have a ton of money coming off the books.

Google the phrase "Bridge year Red Sox" and you will get over 1.5 MM hits.  That refers to their strategy last year of no big extensions, short term signings, and holding onto to prospects to see what they could fill internally.   They cashed in this year on the guys they kept.

For the Nats, I like the Werth deal because it seems to be part of a long term strategy for baseball improvement.  I think Rizzo gets it.  I would not mind a short term contract at first if they go the FA route because I don't see anyone out there you want to make a long term commitment to (especially after they botched the handling of Dunn; either Stan's route or Rizzo's route would have been good, but doing neither was the worst).  I think that the Lerners, were they willing to use their own wealth for a few years, could support higher budget levels, but eventually I think this market will support revenue streams that put this team in the top 10 in MLB (even with the MASN split).

I think it is quite simplistic to just throw up your hands and say "the Red Sox don't care about how much they spend and can afford so much more than everyone else."  I don't think they have any intrinsic advantage at all over 3 NL teams (Mets, Dodgers, Cubs) in terms of potential following, and are not clearly ahead of the LAA, CWS, Phi. and a few others. 

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27498
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #23: December 11, 2010, 09:17:04 PM »
when I hear folks saying draft choices don't matter, or that prospects are always worth trading, or spend money on this guy regardless of the market, I cringe.

I will never induce cringes on any of those points.

I think it is quite simplistic to just throw up your hands and say "the Red Sox don't care about how much they spend and can afford so much more than everyone else."  I don't think they have any intrinsic advantage at all over 3 NL teams (Mets, Dodgers, Cubs) in terms of potential following, and are not clearly ahead of the LAA, CWS, Phi. and a few others. 

I don't think they don't care, but the Dice-K posting fee struck me as an incredible extravagence.  A fee to sign a player that in itself was more than several teams' entire player salaries for a full season, and then a contract to the player on top of that!  Stunning.  The Cubs and Mets have huge resources as well, but they have such dumb management that their threat to competitive balance seems benign, by comparison. 

But I'm now where something in me roots for all those mammoth contacts end up lousy for the teams that have the arrogance to tender them - Soriano, A-Rod, Ryan Howard, Crawford, etc.  Not Werth, of course, that's a virtuous  :halo: kind of deal.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27498
  • Hell yes!
Re: Red Sox sign Crawford
« Reply #24: December 11, 2010, 10:27:45 PM »
Boz points out that Crawford's numbers at Fenway aren't close to his numbers elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006172.html

Quote
Throughout his career, Crawford has hit Red Sox pitching just as well as he has hit against everybody else - that is, as long as the games were in Tropicana Field. There, he had a flashy slash line of .327/.363/.482. But in lopsided Fenway Park, which works against all his tendencies as a hitter, Crawford has only hit one home run every 85 at-bats. In 338 career plate appearances in Fenway, a large sample over many years, he has an ugly .275/.301/.406 line.

There's a name for speedy, weak-armed left fielders with those numbers. They're called AAAA players. Or young prospects. Many teams have one. The Nats' example is Roger Bernadina, except he can throw. Last year, Crawford's OPS was "only" 75 points lower in Fenway than elsewhere.