Is Allen Craig washed up? Or can he bounce back?

Todd Benzinger · Dec 6, 2014

Great idea, great examples. I posted a few examples earlier in another thread, but they were just off the top of my head. I'll repost it here just because it has a few more examples. I didn't use the age restrict, and only did guys who had a sox connection of some vague kind. The best ones to add to the list are probably Lowell and Beltre.

How many guys had a terrible year at age 29 or so and never bounced back? So far we have mostly inspiring comparisons...

Plenty of guys have a terrible year once or twice in a (very) productive career. I've been wrong about this often on SoSH. I thought Lowell was cooked (age 31, ops+ of 77). I thought it was crazy to sign Johnny Damon after a bad year in Oakland (ops+ of 83 at age 27). Paul Konerko had one very bad year in Chicago (ops+83 at age 27), and some SoSHers hoped the Sox would pounce. I thought that was a terrible idea. Adrian Beltre had bad, if not awful, years (93 ops+, age 26; 83 ops+, age 30) before coming to the Sox for his late career surge. OTOH--looking at the stats--I thought getting Tony Clark was great--and then he had his awful year, as bad as Craig, actually worse (Age 30, 49 ops+), for the Sox; he is the one example who sort of fell off the table, although he had some OK and even very good years as a part-timer thereafter.

There must be a study of guys who put up a stinker of a year between ages 27-30 and what it means. Of the examples I can think of, it doesn't seem to mean anything much. It could be something wrong that spells a downward spiral (Clark); usually it means a slump before a return to form (all the the others).

grimshaw · Dec 6, 2014

Looking at how comparable his numbers were to Werth makes you realize how good a masher he was.
Referencing this article here: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/is-allen-craig-this-bad/ :

The biggest difference with Craig last year was that he just stopped hitting fastballs. He went from 25.6 runs above average vs fastballs in 2013 to -10 this year. Two seamers killed him the most. Pitchers have kept pounding him inside and he's making very weak contact. A lot of his fly balls have turned into grounders the past two years.

I'm excluding Dye and Edmonds from the conversation because of the era they were in and the late career year type surges they had, but I think Bay is a good guy to look at. He went the same route Craig did - 26 runs vs FB, down to -7 the following year up to lambasting them at 42 runs above average in his bounce back season. That was short ilved as soon as he went to the Mets and fell off the map. I'm not sure what sorts of adjustments he made in Fenway other than having a wall to shoot for.

If it was injury related, wouldn't he have had something done this off season? If it's a bat speed issue, it doesn't look good. If it's mechanical, maybe a new hitting coach can help him.
I'm not that optimistic since he's been trending downwards, and isn't good in the field either to make up for it. At best I see him as a platoon option with Nava if Nap is traded, unless he just takes the job away from Nava by force.

GilaMonster · Dec 6, 2014

Craig had a double whammy of problems in 2014.

1)K% rose: His K% rose from 17.8% to 22.4%. I think part of the problem is that made a lot less contact outside the strike zone with his O-Contact% falling 71%ish to 60.7%. Especially of breaking balls where his Whiffs/Swing went from 25% to 36%.

2)BABIP problems- His BABIP fell .330ish go .266. Part of this is he hit 10% more GB than usual... not good for a slow guy.

He seems to be struggling with either pitch recognition or his swing mechanics.

Minnix tries to put it on bat speed, but didn't look deep enough...because it isn't just hard stuff. http://tinyurl.com/nyfwehw
More and more of his grounders when to the opposite field as well.

Plympton91 · Dec 6, 2014

The skeptic in me wonders how many of those "bounce back" seasons were chemically aided. Supposedly, that's harder to do now.

Seels · Dec 6, 2014

I don't think the answer to this matters.

I think the better question is can and should the Red Sox afford to find out whether he's washed up or not.

I'd rather not find out. We've been down this road too many times before with other players. If he bounces back he's a 3 win player that is getting paid what he's worth. If he doesn't he's a disaster that is taking playing time away from figuring out can produce. When best case scenario for a guy is a 3 win player for $12, and worst case is below replacement level for the same amount...why should a top tier organization be taking the gamble on such a low return?

MakMan44 · Dec 7, 2014

Because a 3 WAR player isn't a low return?

Not only that, he fits right in at 1st after Nap's contract is up at the end of the season. Just giving Craig away is asinine.

uncannymanny · Dec 7, 2014

I know those are somewhat arbitrary numbers but the current $/WAR is ~$6MM. At 3 WAR Craig would have pretty significant surplus value by that measure.

Rasputin · Dec 7, 2014

Seels said:
I don't think the answer to this matters.

I think the better question is can and should the Red Sox afford to find out whether he's washed up or not.

I'd rather not find out. We've been down this road too many times before with other players. If he bounces back he's a 3 win player that is getting paid what he's worth. If he doesn't he's a disaster that is taking playing time away from figuring out can produce. When best case scenario for a guy is a 3 win player for $12, and worst case is below replacement level for the same amount...why should a top tier organization be taking the gamble on such a low return?

This is ridiculous. Of course the Sox can afford to find out. In fact, doing otherwise would be ridiculously silly.

A three win player is not a low return.

The money is already spent.

If we can get him to AAA that would be ideal, but if we can't, giving him backup OF abs isn't going to be a disaster no matter how bad he is.

BarrettsHiddenBall · Dec 7, 2014

Craig's never actually posted 3 WAR, and the reason his 2011-2013 WAR was trending up was increased playing time (though admittedly he's never played a full season, which depressed his counting stat/WAR totals). I know Gray Eagle wasn't trying to mislead, but it's worth noting that his initial 151 OPS+ was over 200 ABs; he followed that up with 469 ABs at 137 OPS+ and 508 ABs at 129 before the annus horribilis. Still a good player through 2013 but not a good trend, even if 2014 was an anomaly.

The vacancy at 1b or even DH in 2016 is definitely worth noting*, and there's no reason to just give Craig away at this point. Moreover, there's definitely a roster-construction case for trying to trade Victorino before Craig; if Castillo and Betts are around and ready, they can afford to carry a relatively weak defensive 4th OF, especially if JBJ is available in Pawtucket.

But if there's a team out there that wants to take a chance on Allen Craig, a 30 year old 1B who can play some OF with less than 1200 ABs of above average OPS+ to his name, rebounding in 2015 instead of 2016 and is willing to give up value for it, I think they have to consider it. And if him and Vic are competing for 4th OF come ST, and Vic looks good but and Craig looks awful, you go with the better player unless the rotation is in shambles and they're not GFIN. Allen Craig should get a chance to put it back together; but a team that's probably going over the luxury tax after spending nearly $200 million on Sandoval + Hanley and potentially dropping another hundred million plus on starting pitching probably shouldn't be the team to give him that chance if there are more reliable options available.

*though if Napoli is still effective he seems like someone who'd take a reasonable deal to stay in Boston -- I know, this thought should probably be retired at this point...

TigerBlood · Dec 7, 2014

Stash him in Pawtucket and find out.

mauf · Dec 7, 2014

MakMan44 said:
Because a 3 WAR player isn't a low return?

Not only that, he fits right in at 1st after Nap's contract is up at the end of the season. Just giving Craig away is asinine.

I don't understand this thinking. Craig is under contract for three more years; "giving away" that contract would be the right move if you think he's cooked.

Of course, I don't think you could give away that contract, and I doubt he'll accept an assignment to Pawtucket (he's out of options, right?), so there's not much to do except pencil him in as a more expensive version of Jonny Gomes and hope he comes around. The OP has some encouraging examples in that regard, though I'd note that most of those guys were more athletic than Craig, and guys like that seem to age better.

ivanvamp · Dec 7, 2014

Craig ends up as a backup OF/1b and gets 350+ ab for the Sox this year.

And he will be solid, I predict, defensively and offensively. Not so good that you absolutely must find more playing time for him, but plenty good enough such that you're happy he's on the team, and you don't feel bad at all about penciling him into the lineup.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 7, 2014

maufman said:
Of course, I don't think you could give away that contract, and I doubt he'll accept an assignment to Pawtucket (he's out of options, right?), so there's not much to do except pencil him in as a more expensive version of Jonny Gomes and hope he comes around. The OP has some encouraging examples in that regard, though I'd note that most of those guys were more athletic than Craig, and guys like that seem to age better.

He still has two options left according to soxprospects.com, and he hasn't accumulated enough service time for his permission to be required to use them. So unless I'm missing something, the Sox can stash him at will.

mauf · Dec 7, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
He still has two options left according to soxprospects.com, and he hasn't accumulated enough service time for his permission to be required to use them. So unless I'm missing something, the Sox can stash him at will.

Per Cot's, he has four years of MLB service time. Iirc, that means he can't be sent to the minors without his consent, but I'm definitely not our resident expert on those rules.

Edit: Would've been a major screw-up by the FO not to use one of those two options in 2014 to keep him from hitting the 4-year mark (his play surely merited a demotion), so hopefully there's a wrinkle I'm missing.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 7, 2014

maufman said:
Per Cot's, he has four years of MLB service time. Iirc, that means he can't be sent to the minors without his consent, but I'm definitely not our resident expert on those rules.

Edit: Would've been a major screw-up by the FO not to use one of those two options in 2014 to keep him from hitting the 4-year mark (his play surely merited a demotion), so hopefully there's a wrinkle I'm missing.

According to this BP article, it's five years of service time, not four, that trigger the player's right to refuse demotion. (Third paragraph from the bottom.)

However, because it's more than three years since Craig's first ML appearance, he would have to clear optional waivers, which seems pretty likely under the circumstances.

mauf · Dec 7, 2014

Thank you. That makes sense.

Of course, there's a fair chance he's on the Opening Day roster in the Gomes role regardless. Nava's LH bat would be a better fit roster-wise, but Craig is clearly the better player if he bounces back.

Dustin the Wind · Dec 7, 2014

Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe reports that the Marlins and Brewers have showed interest in Allen Craig.
Barry Jackson of the Miami Herald has also reported previously that the Marlins had some interest in Craig, who could take over as their regular first baseman. The Brewers could use Craig in a platoon at first with Adam Lind while also possibly giving him some time in the outfield. The Red Sox would undoubtedly be selling low on Craig if they decided to trade him, as he hit just .215/.279/.315 with eight homers in 2014.

At this point is this a take what you can get for Craig or do you stash him at AAA as TigerBlood and others have suggested? Is there enough at bats at the MLB level for him here in the Gomes role?

MakMan44 · Dec 7, 2014

Bosox4416 said:
At this point is this a take what you can get for Craig or do you stash him at AAA as TigerBlood and others have suggested? Is there enough at bats at the MLB level for him here in the Gomes role?

maufman said:
I don't understand this thinking. Craig is under contract for three more years; "giving away" that contract would be the right move if you think he's cooked.

My point is simply that I would be incredibly annoyed if they dumped Craig and he goes on to hit .300 with 20 HRs for another team next season. I think most people can agree with that.

And FTR, Gomes had 366 PAs in 2013. I'm sure they could find Craig enough playing time to figure out what they have in him.

lexrageorge · Dec 7, 2014

As of today, Allen Craig doesn't cost the Sox anything to keep, other than the money they already are on the hook for.

It's unlikely he'll fetch much in return in a stand alone trade; they'd probably get a utility player, bullpen filler or AAA player in return, and also have to eat salary. Under those circumstances, it doesn't hurt to at least get him some at bats in spring training, and then try to get him through optional waivers and assign him to the PawSox in an attempt to increase his trade value.

He may still be useful as a complementary piece in a bigger trade for a starting pitcher.

Reverend · Dec 7, 2014

Plympton91 said:
The skeptic in me wonders how many of those "bounce back" seasons were chemically aided. Supposedly, that's harder to do now.

I don't consider this form of skepticism in any way negative based on what we know. Also, while I don't believe the sport is completely PED free, I consider the notion that's it's harder to basically be a demonstrated fact just from the nearly immediate drop-off in power numbers.

It's also a critical point for understanding any and all team construction and roster management plans. Specifically, we simply are not sure how much of our historical knowledge is importable to today's situation--pre-PED era stuff didn't have today's medical, rehabilatory, and weight-lifting knowledge, and PED era stuff is obviously out. In a sense, I think teams have been reinventing the wheel on mid-to-late-career player projections, which is often confounding and frustrating for fans, but that's the way it is.

Savin Hillbilly · Dec 7, 2014

MakMan44 said:
And FTR, Gomes had 366 PAs in 2013. I'm sure they could find Craig enough playing time to figure out what they have in him.

But in 2013 Gomes was part of a platoon with Nava in LF. Their other alternative there was Mike Carp, who is an outfielder only in his agent's dreams. The OF picture this year is much more crowded.

Rasputin · Dec 7, 2014

Savin Hillbilly said:
But in 2013 Gomes was part of a platoon with Nava in LF. Their other alternative there was Mike Carp, who is an outfielder only in his agent's dreams. The OF picture this year is much more crowded.

Which is why sending him to AAA is ideal, but crowded or no, there's going to be opportunities for Craig. All the outfielders will need days off. So will Mike Napoli. So will David Ortiz.

lxt · Dec 7, 2014

This a most difficult quandary to be in. If Craig returns to the player he was then the Sox have a secret weapon to bring up when they need hitting and to take over roles when injuries occur. If the Craig we saw in 2014 is all that's left then we have another player to carry that "should've, could've, would've". To be honest one Middlebrooks is enough and he doesn't cost a dime in comparison.

Rasputin · Dec 7, 2014

lxt said:
This a most difficult quandary to be in. If Craig returns to the player he was then the Sox have a secret weapon to bring up when they need hitting and to take over roles when injuries occur. If the Craig we saw in 2014 is all that's left then we have another player to carry that "should've, could've, would've". To be honest one Middlebrooks is enough and he doesn't cost a dime in comparison.

I don't think Middlebrooks is going to sniff the roster. Maybe if he's still in the organization and is hitting well he'll get an injury replacement callup at some point, but if other folks are healthy, he's got nothing to offer.

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon · Dec 7, 2014

If the position players are:

1B Napoli
2B Pedey
SS X
3B Panda
LF Hanley
CF Castillo
RF Victorino
Supersub Betts (I don't want to live in a world where he doesn't lead off next year)
C Vazquez
DH Ortiz
Catcher 2

That leaves two more spot for Cespedes (seems unlikely he and Vic are both on the roster - I picked Vic for nostalgia), BROCK HOLT, Will, Craig, JBJ, and Nava.

Seems like Holt is the most versatile back-up infielder, and Nava is the most versatile fifth outfielder with the best on-base skills. That puts Craig, JBJ, and Will all in AAA competing for the IL MVP award. And Cespedes on the bus to San Diego.

Also, that team should score some friggin' runs.

MikeM · Dec 7, 2014

MakMan44 said:
My point is simply that I would be incredibly annoyed if they dumped Craig and he goes on to hit .300 with 20 HRs for another team next season. I think most people can agree with that.

I would agree that such a fear would make more sense in the event there was a better projected possibility on the table of such happening here.

As it stands now though that $20m 2016/2017 commitment is a fairly substantial total to have looming around a .215/.279/.315 guy you are hoping turns it around while being designated to a full time backup role. Which even in a better case scenario that sees him playing out to be the 2015 version of Jonny Gomes...what then? Do we expect to find ourselves sitting around next winter comfortable enough with the SS turnaround that he slides right in to first and Napoli's run producing spot in the lineup? Color me skeptical such will be the clear cut case, or that his then trade value would even be noteworthy enough to warrant the risk in keeping him around.

While i arguable understood the rationale at the time, the reality of the situation resides in a rebuilding/retooling world that sees constantly drawing value lines on what we are willing to commit to starting player X (or pay for marginal/upside type upgrades in any given year). If there was a team out there like Miami/Milwaukee willing to take the same multi-year flyer on Allen now that we initial projected a potential interest in, you dump the contract and don't look back in any other fashion then "well regardless what happens, we were not going to give him that same opportunity to succeed anyway".

MakMan44 · Dec 7, 2014

But there's no reason to do that. Like, literally no reason. His contract isn't such a burden that they can't eat it if he doesn't turn it around, you're going to get nothing of value in a return for him, and apparently he can be stashed at AAA.

kazuneko · Dec 7, 2014

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
If the position players are:

1B Napoli
2B Pedey
SS X
3B Panda
LF Hanley
CF Castillo
RF Victorino
Supersub Betts (I don't want to live in a world where he doesn't lead off next year)
C Vazquez
DH Ortiz
Catcher 2

That leaves two more spot for Cespedes (seems unlikely he and Vic are both on the roster - I picked Vic for nostalgia), BROCK HOLT, Will, Craig, JBJ, and Nava.

Seems like Holt is the most versatile back-up infielder, and Nava is the most versatile fifth outfielder with the best on-base skills. That puts Craig, JBJ, and Will all in AAA competing for the IL MVP award. And Cespedes on the bus to San Diego.

Agreed. Unless Victorino and Cespedes are traded it's hard to see how Craig makes the major league team. It would mean giving Craig the back up 1b/OF position over Nava - which just doesn't make sense for a roster this right-handed. It also seems to make more sense to give Craig the opportunity to rebuild his career by getting regular ABs. The fact that those regular ABs wouldn't be at the major league level is beside the point - Craig wouldn't have been able to hit single A pitching the way he was swinging last season. If he starts raking -at any level- his trade value will rise and at that point we start talking about him as a viable Napoli replacement.

MikeM · Dec 7, 2014

MakMan44 said:
But there's no reason to do that. Like, literally no reason. His contract isn't such a burden that they can't eat it if he doesn't turn it around, you're going to get nothing of value in a return for him, and apparently he can be stashed at AAA.

I guess....if you are ultimately willing to write that $20m off as having absolutely no potential impact on the opportunity or desire to spend elsewhere going forward.

I'm not, and as it stands now believe the money can and will be better utilized in a manner that does not start with the prospect of having to stash a 30 year old with a sizable MLB contract in AAA.

BarrettsHiddenBall · Dec 7, 2014

If a team is willing to take the same flier we did, presumably they would be giving up something of value (what's half a Lackey?). Moreover if they're willing to see what he has at the major league level in 2015, and the Red Sox are planning to stash him at AAA, he should have more value to other team; if they're willing to give up value in return, the Sox should consider it. It's not like he's an irreplaceable piece for 2016, and it's not guaranteed that he'll return to being a good player.

MakMan44 · Dec 7, 2014

MikeM said:
I guess....if you are ultimately willing to write that $20m off as having absolutely no potential impact on the opportunity or desire to spend elsewhere going forward.

I'm not, and as it stands now believe the money can and will be better utilized in a manner that does not start with the prospect of having to stash a 30 year old with a sizable MLB contract in AAA.

What in the world is $9 million or $11 million going to get you? A league average starter? Maybe? Both of those are more than Vic just made to sit on the bench last season. The Dodgers just paid Haren $10 million for a season of 1 WAR.

Could the money be slightly better spent? Sure, it could. I'm firmly in the camp that seeing if Craig can get back to a 2-3 win player is worth the money because that upside is greater than the probable return on the saved cash.

uncannymanny · Dec 8, 2014

Inevitably someone will get hurt, just as they do every single season. Having a guy with Craig's potential around to fill that hole at a salary that is unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on the teams ability to spend money (there's already been talk they're willing to push past the tax knowing they'll come back down next season) is exactly the kind of thing the team should be doing with their financial advantage.

JimD · Dec 8, 2014

MikeM said:
I would agree that such a fear would make more sense in the event there was a better projected possibility on the table of such happening here.

As it stands now though that $20m 2016/2017 commitment is a fairly substantial total to have looming around a .215/.279/.315 guy you are hoping turns it around while being designated to a full time backup role. Which even in a better case scenario that sees him playing out to be the 2015 version of Jonny Gomes...what then? Do we expect to find ourselves sitting around next winter comfortable enough with the SS turnaround that he slides right in to first and Napoli's run producing spot in the lineup? Color me skeptical such will be the clear cut case, or that his then trade value would even be noteworthy enough to warrant the risk in keeping him around.

While i arguable understood the rationale at the time, the reality of the situation resides in a rebuilding/retooling world that sees constantly drawing value lines on what we are willing to commit to starting player X (or pay for marginal/upside type upgrades in any given year). If there was a team out there like Miami/Milwaukee willing to take the same multi-year flyer on Allen now that we initial projected a potential interest in, you dump the contract and don't look back in any other fashion then "well regardless what happens, we were not going to give him that same opportunity to succeed anyway".

You're assuming that the Marlins or Brewers would be willing to just take on Craig's entire contract. I don't see this happening, especially with the notoriously cheap Loria. If the Sox are going to move Craig, I believe it is highly likely that they will either have to eat a portion of the contract or subsidize it by giving away a propsect or two.

lexrageorge · Dec 8, 2014

JimD said:
You're assuming that the Marlins or Brewers would be willing to just take on Craig's entire contract. I don't see this happening, especially with the notoriously cheap Loria. If the Sox are going to move Craig, I believe it is highly likely that they will either have to eat a portion of the contract or subsidize it by giving away a propsect or two.

Which makes trading him now a really bad idea. The 1 or 2 prospects will be more valuable to the Sox in 2016 and 2017 than 50% relief on a $10M AAV over those 2 years. By 2016, the $9M will be pretty tiny piece of the club's total payroll.

judyb · Dec 8, 2014

Which makes trading him now a really bad idea. The 1 or 2 prospects will be more valuable to the Sox in 2016 and 2017 than 50% relief on a $10M AAV over those 2 years. By 2016, the $9M will be pretty tiny piece of the club's total payroll.

Against the luxury tax limit, it's not even that much, the AAV of his backloaded contract is around $6.5M, so he might end up costing them almost as much against the luxury tax limit to send enough money with him to trade him to a team that only cares how much real money he's owed as it would to just keep him.

Plympton91 · Dec 8, 2014

lexrageorge said:
By 2016, the $9M will be pretty tiny piece of the club's total payroll.

If you could trade Allen Craig for another Koji Uehara, would you do it? That's $9 million.

lexrageorge · Dec 8, 2014

Plympton91 said:
If you could trade Allen Craig for another Koji Uehara, would you do it? That's $9 million.

It's not exactly equivalent, as Craig makes $5.5M in 2015, but has a longer contract.

If the Sox were offered a quality reliever being paid $18M over the next 2 years straight up for Allen Craig, should they do it? Not the worst trade, and far better than giving up prospects just to get relief on half of his salary (which ain't happening anyway). But I'm not sure such a trade would be something they *have* to jump on right now either.

Plympton91 · Dec 8, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
The Sox clearly saw something, as did most of us on this board, to like about Craig when they acquired him. While he was horrible with the Sox, it was 107 plate appearances, for a new team, in a lost season. To give up on him based on that seems like overreacting and would make me question why the hell they ever got him in the first place.

Unless he's hurt (which is certainly a possibility), it seems hard to believe that he could just be completely finished.

Getting somebody with Joe Kelly's age, elite velocity, holding his own in 200 or so major league IP, with 4 years of control for 1-1/2 years of Lackey is a pretty damn nice return. It would not surprise me at all if Craig was viewed by both the Red Sox and Cardinals as net negative value in the trade.

MakMan44 · Dec 8, 2014

Plympton91 said:
Getting somebody with Joe Kelly's age, elite velocity, holding his own in 200 or so major league IP, with 4 years of control for 1-1/2 years of Lackey is a pretty damn nice return. It would not surprise me at all if Craig was viewed by both the Red Sox and Cardinals as net negative value in the trade.

Then why would they take him? Not ONCE have you explained that.

foulkehampshire · Dec 8, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
Agree to disagree. Kelly will probably be a decent back of the rotation starter for a number of years, but I don't think he was the key to the trade- although that seems to be the story now.

Hell, I imagine they certainly could have done Lackey for Kelly if they wanted to.

Cardinals wanted to shed payroll. They'd seen enough of Craig to figure that he probably wasn't going to be a piece they wanted to use going forward, with (at the time) the young OF depth they had in the minors.

I'm also of the opinion that 4 years of Kelly was the key to the trade. Kelly has the stuff to be a good mid rotation starter. Whether or not that materializes is another story. At worst, he'll end up a fairly valuable bullpen piece outside of a Bard-like flame-out scenario.

Hank Scorpio · Dec 8, 2014

I'm not giving up on him so much as I realize there's not an obvious fit for him on this team other than AAA right now.

Assuming Cespedes is traded, and I don't see how he isn't, you're everyday outfield is going to be Ramirez in left, Castillo in center and Betts in right. If one of them needs a day off, you have Victorino on the bench. Nava too, who can serve as a fifth outfielder and give Napoli a day off here and there.

Craig's value right now is entirely in being a contingency for a long-term Napoli injury and, barring that, what he might offer the team in 2016 and beyond as an everyday first baseman.

kieckeredinthehead · Dec 8, 2014

Plympton91 said:
Getting somebody with Joe Kelly's age, elite velocity, holding his own in 200 or so major league IP, with 4 years of control for 1-1/2 years of Lackey is a pretty damn nice return. It would not surprise me at all if Craig was viewed by both the Red Sox and Cardinals as net negative value in the trade.

This is exactly the sort of question that a good reporter should have asked and answered by now: who asked to include Craig in the deal?

Reverend · Dec 8, 2014

kieckeredinthehead said:
This is exactly the sort of question that a good reporter should have asked and answered by now: who asked to include Craig in the deal?

Abraham back in August:

That’s what made it surprising at the trade deadline when the Cardinals told the Sox they would be willing to include Craig in a deal to get righthander John Lackey.

“When [GM Ben Cherington] mentioned the potential of getting Craig, that got my attention,” Farrell said. “He’s a proven hitter.”

Craig was signed to a team-friendly five-year, $31 million deal before the 2013 season. He turned 30 in July and had been a productive player on three postseason teams. But the Cardinals valued Lackey more.

“I was surprised by the trade,” said Craig. “But as players, we understand that nothing is ever permanent unless you have a no-trade clause. The fact I was coming to a great organization helped me get past it.”

Craig had never settled into one position, playing mostly first base, right field, and left field in recent seasons. Matt Adams had him blocked at first base, and the Cardinals had a group of outfield prospects ready to play. That made Craig expendable despite all he had accomplished.

“He was one of our most valuable players — that’s why he got that contract and he probably could have got more,” Kelly said. “I was surprised they traded me and I was really surprised they traded Allen.”

Don't fully know what to make out of it. Of course, they may just be trying to roll the dice and come up with another Victorino or Napoli and managed to get two rolls out of Lackey. If either comes up, this could end up looking like a brilliant trade. Of course, that brings us back to the issue of where to fit Craig in to see how he does... and for how long and who might you have to move to see him?

Personally, though, I'm not going to start with hypothetical rosters and the lack of space until they've figured out what they're doing--and who they might be trading to do it--with the starting rotation. At this point, they have assets, which is where we want them to be at this point.

MikeM · Dec 8, 2014

JimD said:
You're assuming that the Marlins or Brewers would be willing to just take on Craig's entire contract. I don't see this happening, especially with the notoriously cheap Loria. If the Sox are going to move Craig, I believe it is highly likely that they will either have to eat a portion of the contract or subsidize it by giving away a propsect or two.

I was simply speculating on the possibility that was brought up (hence the "if" in my post). While i was intrigued to see the rumored surface interest, my own assumption agrees on it being highly unlikely. To the extent that if a full contract dump was indeed on the table...i actually suspect Ben would have already pulled the trigger on it.

Rudy Pemberton said:
The Sox clearly saw something, as did most of us on this board, to like about Craig when they acquired him. While he was horrible with the Sox, it was 107 plate appearances, for a new team, in a lost season. To give up on him based on that seems like overreacting and would make me question why the hell they ever got him in the first place.

I'm not doubting he saw something he liked there at the time the trade went down. But that was then and this is now, with a different set of surrounding circumstances even beyond those (horrid) post-trade 107 PA (well, also currently assuming X/Betts do not get traded) . Ben may have not given up on him to the extent we'll see him paying off Craig's contract to play elsewhere, but i will argue that we certainly seem to have given up on him enough that a different direction was decidedly taken. One which questions how much of that "seeing something" realistically just boils down to an (overly) aggressive approach to finding potential offense for 2015...which is now looking like a fairly poor fit in aftermath hindsight (not that i blame Ben for trying mind you).

Again, unless one chooses to believe that being committed to those 2016/17 years, on the hope that he *might* bounce back and we *might* feel comfortable enough with it to pencil him in as our full time Napoli replacement next year, was/is really part of the ideal plan here. I don't. Expensive one year flyers on upside players like Craig are one thing. A guaranteed 3 year flyer without any real opportunity spot in year one barring a major injury is quite another imo.

Drek717 · Dec 9, 2014

MikeM said:
I was simply speculating on the possibility that was brought up (hence the "if" in my post). While i was intrigued to see the rumored surface interest, my own assumption agrees on it being highly unlikely. To the extent that if a full contract dump was indeed on the table...i actually suspect Ben would have already pulled the trigger on it.

I'm not doubting he saw something he liked there at the time the trade went down. But that was then and this is now, with a different set of surrounding circumstances even beyond those (horrid) post-trade 107 PA (well, also currently assuming X/Betts do not get traded) . Ben may have not given up on him to the extent we'll see him paying off Craig's contract to play elsewhere, but i will argue that we certainly seem to have given up on him enough that a different direction was decidedly taken. One which questions how much of that "seeing something" realistically just boils down to an (overly) aggressive approach to finding potential offense for 2015...which is now looking like a fairly poor fit in aftermath hindsight (not that i blame Ben for trying mind you).

Again, unless one chooses to believe that being committed to those 2016/17 years, on the hope that he *might* bounce back and we *might* feel comfortable enough with it to pencil him in as our full time Napoli replacement next year, was/is really part of the ideal plan here. I don't. Expensive one year flyers on upside players like Craig are one thing. A guaranteed 3 year flyer without any real opportunity spot in year one barring a major injury is quite another imo.

Mike Napoli has played 140 games once and 139 games once in his career. He's played somewhere in the 108-119 every other season as a full time starter. So even without major injury we've likely got 40+ games for Craig at 1B already.

The team also managed to carry Mike Carp for the majority of the last two seasons. Doing the same for Craig, a far higher ceiling player with a far better track record of success, shouldn't be that hard.

Lastly, injuries do always happen. Craig can play LF, 1B, and DH. Having him on a roster that includes Mookie Betts (good backup for 2B should Pedroia get hurt) and Ramirez (a 3B and even SS depth option) would buffer more than just the OF in the event of a serious long term injury. Between the three of them they can backstop every position but catcher. Add Brock Holt to the mix as a super sub and the club has impressive depth, even more impressive when you consider that they can mix and match LH/RH at their discretion should this become an issue.

Personally, I hope to see this for a position player roster:

RF - Betts
2B - Pedroia
DH - Ortiz
LF - Ramirez
3B - Sandoval
1B - Napoli
SS - Bogaerts
C1 - Vazquez
CF - Castillo

C2 - Butler/Ross
MI - Holt
OF4 - Victorino
OF5 - Nava
OF6/1B - Craig

With Cespedes traded for pitching or more prospects.

Of course that would require the club to buck their normal trend of 13 position players and 12 pitchers, but I think the number of AAA pitchers they'll have to use options on anyway this year makes it easy to use the close proximity of Pawtucket as a 26th man.

Assuming that isn't the case though, I'd rather keep Craig and flip Victorino than vice versa. Vic is done with the Sox after this season, Nava is still cost controlled and provides a valuable LH bat off the bench. Craig has significant rebound potential that would make him a heart of the order bat as soon as 2016, when the club is likely to lose at least one if not both of Napoli and Ortiz. I don't think the acquisition of Craig was to amass a large amount of 2015 offensive options but instead to specifically add a cost controlled option for 2016/2017 as the lineup and roster as a whole will likely look very different after 2015.

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon · Dec 9, 2014

Clearly, there's a lot yet to shake out, but if they're relying on the likes of Joe Kelly, Rubby, Webster, Renaudo, Clay, etc., to make significant amounts of starts, there's no way they can carry 11 pitchers. None of those guys can be counted on to consistently go even six full.

You're going to need about 20 innings a week out of your bullpen, minimum, with a long man in reserve. Trying to rely on the shuttle is going to make the 10-day waiting period math really hard.

Sprowl · Dec 10, 2014

Plympton91 said:
Getting somebody with Joe Kelly's age, elite velocity, holding his own in 200 or so major league IP, with 4 years of control for 1-1/2 years of Lackey is a pretty damn nice return. It would not surprise me at all if Craig was viewed by both the Red Sox and Cardinals as net negative value in the trade.

For the Red Sox, Craig's long-term risks were biased on the upside - he was a serious threat in the 2013 World Series, so his peak offensive value presuming recovery from Lisfranc injury is clearly very high. The Red Sox have an ageing first baseman with both long- and short-term injury threats, so the value of a high-ceiling replacement at a reasonable price is also high. Then there's Big Papi, who may not be immortal, and Craig's multiyear 1B/DH insurance value looms larger.

For the Cardinals, Craig had nothing to offer them in 2014, while an experienced playoff starter like Lackey did. The Red Sox were looking beyond 2014, and needed offense. Now it all depends on whether Craig's recuperating foot can restore his ability to lift the inside fastball. He'll probably have to demonstrate that in Pawtucket, along with Middlebrooks and Bradley.

On the bright side, the Red Sox have good minor-league depth at every position but shortstop (assuming Betts takes over in the event of a Pedroia injury).

Is Allen Craig washed up? Or can he bounce back?

Member

Member

Member

New Member

bubble burster

Member

stole corsi's dream

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

New Member

Banned

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

captain obvious

loves the secret sauce

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

loves the secret sauce

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

4416

stole corsi's dream

Member

for king and country

loves the secret sauce

Will outlive SeanBerry

New Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

stole corsi's dream

Member

Member

New Member

stole corsi's dream

Member

Member

Member

Member

bubble burster

Member

bubble burster

stole corsi's dream

hillbilly suburbanite

Member

Member

for king and country

Member

Member

Member

mikey lowell of the sandbox