Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Abraham: The Red Sox have a seven-year, $142 million deal done with Carl Crawford.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
529 replies to this topic

#201 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 16,224 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:48 AM

He averaged 3.75 P/PA in 2010, 3.76 P/PA in 2009 and 3.43 P/PA in 2008.


Which is sub-average, for those keeping track, though not terribly so. He's definitely not an "extends ABs" kind of player by that number, though he's not a total hack.

EDIT: Beltre was 96th in the league last year, at a 3.76 P/PA (2 spots ahead of Crawford)

Edited by SumnerH, 09 December 2010 - 12:50 AM.


#202 drbretto


  • guidence counselor


  • 4,366 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:48 AM

I'll let Pedroia sum up this offseason for me:

Posted Image

#203 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,164 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:48 AM

Word is that the Yankees never made an offer and that the Angels topped out at 7/$108M.

Where does it say that. Lynch had the Sox offering 5/$100 weeks ago, there is no way that was a 7 year offer.

#204 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,451 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:48 AM

This deal is going to suck in 4 to 5 years.

I don't like it at all. Signing a guy whose entire game is predicated on speed (no arm, no HR power, no OBP skills, terrible jumps) who doesn't even play CF? You just have to pray this becomes a trainwreck later rather than sooner.

One leg injury and no one in Boston will ever laugh at the name Gary Matthews Jr. again.

#205 Jack Sox

  • 3,325 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:48 AM

I like it. It's not every day you get a chance to add a HOF caliber player in the prime of his career to your lineup. I also love the idea of Crawford in LF. In theory, with his speed he'll be able to play very shallow getting to a lot of balls that would normally fall in.

Also I really like this move as it basically forces everyone else's hand. The Yankees HAVE to sign Cliff Lee now, right? At whatever his asking price is. And what do the Angels do? Sign Beltre? Be my guest, we'll take your second rounder.

#206 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,647 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:49 AM

Watching the Yankee during the postseason it was clear that their weakness was controlling the running game.

Sox now employ Crawford and Ellsbury. Checkmate.


I actually think it's more of a looking forward move in that they see Montero is likely about to take over NY C for the next decade or so, and this move will put even more pressure on him from day 1. That's obviously not the whole reason for the move, but it's got to be part of it as far as the NY rivalry part of it goes.

#207 Soxfan in Fla


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,540 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:50 AM

He averaged 3.75 P/PA in 2010, 3.76 P/PA in 2009 and 3.43 P/PA in 2008.


Have to say those numbers surprise me. I can remember a lot of AB's where it seemed like he extended the AB with a bunch of foul balls. I stand corrected.

#208 cahlton

  • 528 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:51 AM

Just a thought, Sox pitching hasn't been league average in those years, right? So take this with some salt.


Thanks. I stand partly corrected: In 2008 the Red Sox' ERA ranked 4th in the league, in 2009 7th, and in 2010 9th.

http://espn.go.com/m.../2008/league/al

On the other hand, his top two age-28 comps at Baseball Reference are two Hall of Famers, Roberto Clemente and Sam Crawford. For what it's worth, most of Clemente's best seasons came after his age-28 season.

http://www.baseball-...crawfca02.shtml
http://www.baseball-...clemero01.shtml

Edit: I stand even more corrected because I should have looked at 2008-10 *home* pitching stats only: 6th, 6th, and 11th.

Edited by cahlton, 09 December 2010 - 12:53 AM.


#209 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22,218 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:52 AM

Man, if Swisher and Gardner stumble next year it's going to get very pissy on NY sports radio.

#210 bombdiggz

  • 994 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:52 AM

I think this is an overpay, but not really egregiously so. I really expected Crawford to get about 20 M AAV, but I also expected him to get 8 years, maybe more.

When is the last time the Red Sox had two players steal 50 bases?

I'm pretty excited by this move. Carl Crawford is a dynamic player and there may be a bit more power in there. This team is going to score a lot of runs over the next 7-8 years.

I think the lefthandedness can be minimized too, with Crawford (1) and Jacoby (9). Against a LHP, I imagine they sit Ortiz in favor of Cameron and potentially sit JD too, getting 5-6 RHBs in the lineup.

#211 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,451 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:53 AM

That said this team is going to be absolutely ridiculous next year. Theo might as well go for the gold sign Martin and a bullpen.

Clearly Henry is spending the money he made robbing that moron Hicks of Liverpool.

#212 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 17,360 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:53 AM

This is gold Jerry. Pure gold. From Ken Rosenthal.

Before signing Carl Crawford, the Red Sox may have engaged in some good old-fashioned negotiating hijinks.

It would be just like the Sox to throw a monkey wrench into the Yankees’ attempt to sign Cliff Lee

And this little stunt, if it indeed happened, would have qualified.

The Sox are one team that made a seven-year offer to Lee, according to officials with another club.

But there was a catch.

The offer was for a lower dollar figure than Lee would accept, making it an offer that Lee was certain to refuse.

Why would the Sox do such a thing?

Because with such an offer, they would empower Lee’s agents to say they had a seven-year bid, potentially forcing the Yankees to increase their six-year proposal.

Link

#213 coachraf

  • 203 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:55 AM

This.

Imagine too the fallout here had we woken up to read the MFY had locked Carl up for the same numbers.

I'm pumped.


Exactly. He was going to get the money from the Angels or MFY if not from us. He had options. I'm thrilled that he chose us. I'm thrilled that he's off the Rays...and I'm thrilled he didn't choose the MFY.

#214 bombdiggz

  • 994 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:55 AM

I actually think it's more of a looking forward move in that they see Montero is likely about to take over NY C for the next decade or so, and this move will put even more pressure on him from day 1. That's obviously not the whole reason for the move, but it's got to be part of it as far as the NY rivalry part of it goes.


Something is telling me the effect on Montero was not a big part of Theo's reasoning.

#215 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,346 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:57 AM

I actually think it's more of a looking forward move in that they see Montero is likely about to take over NY C for the next decade or so, and this move will put even more pressure on him from day 1. That's obviously not the whole reason for the move, but it's got to be part of it as far as the NY rivalry part of it goes.

Or it takes Montero out of play in NY, especially if they don't sign Lee. In such a scenario, I could see them packaging Montero for a SP like Greinke, signing a more capable defensive catcher like Russell Martin who isn't a black hole on offense (assuming he is healthy), and then going after Prince Fielder either midseason or in the offseason to be their DH (which in all likelihood was Montero's future position).

#216 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 17,647 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:57 AM

Something is telling me the effect on Montero was not a big part of Theo's reasoning.


If Yadier Molina or even Jose Molina was NY's regular catcher, I do think that changes the thinking a bit here. You can disagree, but that's my perspective.

#217 MikeGatorGreenwell

  • 50 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:58 AM

This deal is going to suck in 4 to 5 years.

I don't like it at all. Signing a guy whose entire game is predicated on speed (no arm, no HR power, no OBP skills, terrible jumps) who doesn't even play CF? You just have to pray this becomes a trainwreck later rather than sooner.

One leg injury and no one in Boston will ever laugh at the name Gary Matthews Jr. again.



Look at this guys numbers last year:

.307, 30 doubles, 13 trips, 19 homers, 90 ribs, 110 runs, 47 steals ..

I don't care about the geek stats .. those numbers are nice .. add in his OF range .. NICE!

#218 86spike


  • Currently enjoying "Arli$$"


  • 22,218 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:59 AM

If Yadier Molina or even Jose Molina was NY's regular catcher, I do think that changes the thinking a bit here. You can disagree, but that's my perspective.


I really don't think this decision was about the 19 annual Yankee games and their cathcers.

#219 behindthepen


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,953 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 12:59 AM

Raines, Rickey, Johnny Damon, guys with "young player skills" tend to age well. I see Crawford in that mold. He's a tremendous player, who maybe hasn't hit his ceiling yet.

Career Obp:

Damon .355
Raines .385
henderson .401

Crawford .337
Ellsbury .344

#220 cahlton

  • 528 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:00 AM

Or it takes Montero out of play in NY, especially if they don't sign Lee. In such a scenario, I could see them packaging Montero for a SP like Greinke, signing a more capable defensive catcher like Russell Martin who isn't a black hole on offense (assuming he is healthy), and then going after Prince Fielder either midseason or in the offseason to be their DH (which in all likelihood was Montero's future position).


Bengie Molina?

#221 syoo8

  • 929 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:00 AM

Fangraphs WAR 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006

Adrian Gonzalez: 5.3, 6.5, 3.8, 3.2, 3.9 = 22.7

Carl Crawford: 6.9, 5.7, 2.5, 3.0, 4.6 = 22.7




Baseball-Reference WAR 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006

Adrian Gonzalez: 6.3, 7.0, 2.9, 3.8, 2.9 = 22.9

Carl Crawford: 4.8, 4.4, 2.3, 2.9 3.3 = 17.7



Perhaps this is O/T but why does Sean Smith's methodology value Crawford's production differently from Fangraphs? Does Fangraphs value defense more?

I was surprised that Gonzalez and Crawford were so comparable in WAR over the past 5 years.

#222 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 22,435 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:01 AM

OBP the last two years:

.364
.356

Crawford is an odd case - he was legendarily rushed into the bigs at 20 and didn't get his sea legs, so to speak, until a few years later.

#223 Pumpsie


  • The Kilimanjaro of bullshit


  • 10,649 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:01 AM

Just fix the damn bullpen already. It sank us last year. Don't let it happen again. Then, I might be able to relax and appreciate this trade signing a bit more. But, until then, I'm not.

(This should make the post police happy. Or maybe not.)

Edited by Pumpsie, 09 December 2010 - 01:14 AM.


#224 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 14,225 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:02 AM

Then, I might be able to relax and appreciate this trade a bit more.


What trade?

#225 rembrat


  • SoSH Member


  • 23,924 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:02 AM

What trade?


Oh boy here we go again

#226 MikeGatorGreenwell

  • 50 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:02 AM

What trade?


HAHA .. you beat me to it ..

#227 Kull


  • wannabe merloni


  • 1,161 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:02 AM

I'll let Pedroia sum up this offseason for me:

Posted Image


I shit you not. My first thought was "What the holy hell??!!" My second was "God, I'd love to see a video of Pedroia bouncing off walls right now!"

#228 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,346 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:02 AM

Bengie Molina?

He's expected to retire.

The other story is he'd like to go to St. Louis and play with his other brother.

But I suppose if you make him an offer he can't refuse he might give it another go. Either way, whether it's signing Russell Martin or Molina or whoever, it would provide them with a more able defensive catcher and free up NY to trade Montero for a SP (assuming Lee signs elsewhere).

Edited by The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa, 09 December 2010 - 01:06 AM.


#229 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 14,225 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:02 AM

Oh boy here we go again


Is Crawford bizarro Jay Payton?

#230 MHead81

  • 529 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:03 AM

Just fix the damn bullpen already. It sank us last year. Don't let it happen again. Then, I might be able to relax and appreciate this trade a bit more. But, until then, I'm not.

Yeah, they probably haven't thought of that.

#231 MikeGatorGreenwell

  • 50 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:04 AM

2010 ...


Gold Glove
7th in MVP voting
Silver Slugger award
4th All-Star appearance

And the guy is 29



And you people are bitching about this move??

#232 bean8282

  • 436 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:05 AM

This is stunning news and I am baffled by it like many here.

Considering Crawford's skill set (i.e. speed, range, athleticism), does it make any sense to actually front load a contract like this to some degree in order to hedge against the possibility of an overly negative age related decline (i.e. he begins to lose a step or two entering his mid-thirties)? For example, if the FO projects him to be worth $100 million over the next four years (an arbitrary amount), does it make sense to structure the deal so that he is paid $90 million of the $142 million of the contract over those first four years? That would leave $52 million over the last three years of the deal and possibly provide greater flexibility to either move him as he starts to show signs of decline or make his salary hit in the out years not as onerous even given some type of decline in athleticism.

I know that, in general, contracts are not front loaded because a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future. However, if the FO feels Crawford is almost certain to provide a very high level of production worth between $25 and $30 million over the next four years, but due to his skill set he is more of a risk to see those skills deteriorate in the out years of the contract, does it make sense to give him a slightly higher AAV in the beginning of the contract to provide greater flexibility at the end of it? Or does inflation (i.e. a dollar is more valuable now than it is four years from now) make this thought process nonsensical.

#233 chrisfont9

  • 1,688 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:06 AM

Also I really like this move as it basically forces everyone else's hand. The Yankees HAVE to sign Cliff Lee now, right? At whatever his asking price is. And what do the Angels do? Sign Beltre? Be my guest, we'll take your second rounder.


Goading the Yankees into signing Cliff Lee? I don't think I'm on board with such a plan.

#234 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,014 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:06 AM

2010 ...


Gold Glove
7th in MVP voting
Silver Slugger award
4th All-Star appearance

And the guy is 29



And you people are bitching about this move??


Listing accolades that are mostly awarded by idiots isn't going to sell anyone on this move.

#235 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 16,224 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:07 AM

Look at this guys numbers last year:

.307, 30 doubles, 13 trips, 19 homers, 90 ribs, 110 runs, 47 steals ..


They are, by far, his career outlier numbers. Theo's made his living not getting suckered in by one career year, and Crawford is not only the type of player who's overvalued by backward-thinking managers but is also coming off his career numbers. Coming into the offseason, I expected him to be the obvious "anvil" contract of the year for some team that signed a "fast! yay!" player to a big contract after a total outlier of a season. It's a pretty shocking move by the Sox to sign that kind of player to what looks like a massive overpay.

That said, he's pretty likely to be very solid over the next few years; it's just surprising to see that sort of move from this team, and in 3-4 years or so it's likely to be a contract we hate. But maybe they have reason to think the market's about to explode, so locking in players this year makes sense.

#236 ForceAtHome

  • 4,012 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:07 AM

Crawford leading off with Ellsbury batting 9th will arguably be the lineup with the fastest back to back punch in ML history.


I'm not sure exactly how Ellsbury compares to Joey Gathright in pure speed, but the 24 year old versions of Crawford and Gathright were a pretty lethal speed combo for Tampa Bay batting 1-2 in 2005. Gathright couldn't play baseball well, but man could he run.

#237 bankshot1


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,048 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:10 AM

Theo dropped a lot of gelt, a lot of gelt on the last night of Hanukah for a LH/LF

still trying to digest this one.
lotta LH hitters and depending on what happens to Ellsbury there could be a speed element that could give the Sox a new and exciting style.

thats alotta gelt for Crawford though

#238 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 16,224 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:11 AM

This is stunning news and I am baffled by it like many here.

Considering Crawford's skill set (i.e. speed, range, athleticism), does it make any sense to actually front load a contract like this to some degree in order to hedge against the possibility of an overly negative age related decline (i.e. he begins to lose a step or two entering his mid-thirties)?


Not really; that's definitely a plus side of this deal. Multi-tool speed players like Crawford tend to age better than station-to-station power hitters who only have 1-2 good skills; an overly negative decline shouldn't be a big concern with a guy like him.

#239 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 27,091 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:11 AM

Listing accolades that are mostly awarded by idiots isn't going to sell anyone on this move.


We prefer to believe the accolades awarded by our own idiots

#240 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,900 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:12 AM

They are, by far, his career outlier numbers. Theo's made his living not getting suckered in by one career year, and Crawford is not only the type of player who's overvalued by backward-thinking managers but is also coming off his career numbers. Coming into the offseason, I expected him to be the obvious "anvil" contract of the year for some team that signed a "fast! yay!" player to a big contract after a total outlier of a season. It's a pretty shocking move by the Sox to sign that kind of player to what looks like a massive overpay.


Yeah, because those backward thinking managers are always overvaluing defense and base running and ignoring the important things like home run totals and RBI's. Guys who work hard and are historically athletic age well. Much better than big, slow, unathletic sluggers.

#241 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,346 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:12 AM

I'm not sure exactly how Ellsbury compares to Joey Gathright in pure speed, but the 24 year old versions of Crawford and Gathright were a pretty lethal speed combo for Tampa Bay batting 1-2 in 2005. Gathright couldn't play baseball well, but man could he run.

In 2004 the DevilRays had Joey Gathright, Carl Crawford, and a healthy Rocco Baldelli on the roster at one point. Not to mention the Julio Lugo that Theo fell in love with.

#242 cahlton

  • 528 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:12 AM

He's expected to retire.

The other story is he'd like to go to St. Louis and play with his other brother.

But I suppose if you make him an offer he can't refuse he might give it another go. Either way, whether it's signing Russell Martin or Molina or whoever, it would provide them with a more able defensive catcher and free up NY to trade Montero for a SP (assuming Lee signs elsewhere).


The latest, as of two days ago, is that he's "on the fence":

http://twitter.com/S...370057443155968

#243 MHead81

  • 529 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:12 AM

Come on, SoxScout, let's get that press conference info!

#244 cgori

  • 1,508 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:13 AM

Fangraphs WAR 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006

Adrian Gonzalez: 5.3, 6.5, 3.8, 3.2, 3.9 = 22.7

Carl Crawford: 6.9, 5.7, 2.5, 3.0, 4.6 = 22.7




Baseball-Reference WAR 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006

Adrian Gonzalez: 6.3, 7.0, 2.9, 3.8, 2.9 = 22.9

Carl Crawford: 4.8, 4.4, 2.3, 2.9 3.3 = 17.7



Perhaps this is O/T but why does Sean Smith's methodology value Crawford's production differently from Fangraphs? Does Fangraphs value defense more?

I was surprised that Gonzalez and Crawford were so comparable in WAR over the past 5 years.


There's a sticky on the top of this very forum: http://sonsofsamhorn...0939-using-war/

I'll quote: "Fangraphs uses Park Adjusted Runs Above Average based on wOBA to calculate the offensive component and UZR to calculate the defensive component." You have to dig one more link deeper to see that Sean Smith has his own proprietary metric (TotalZone) for the defensive component, I believe this is the best link I could find on the subject: http://www.hardballt...to-1956-part-2/

Basically it's the difference from UZR to TotalZone, if I understand it correctly, and it's why you have to clarify which WAR you are using (b-ref vs fangraphs).

#245 MikeGatorGreenwell

  • 50 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:14 AM

Listing accolades that are mostly awarded by idiots isn't going to sell anyone on this move.



I know, I know ... I'm just overly excited by this signing, and thought all hope of it happening was gone .. so I'm grasping for straws to justify the contract ...

In the end, does it matter? Sox ownership has the money, so they are apparently giving Theo the go-ahead to spend it and try to 1up the MFY?

#246 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 16,224 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:16 AM

Yeah, because those backward thinking managers are always overvaluing defense and base running and ignoring the important things like home run totals and RBI's. Guys who work hard and are historically athletic age well. Much better than big, slow, unathletic sluggers.


The last couple of sentences are definitely true (I just made the same point upthread). It's signing a mediocre OBP guy who's speedy (contrary to your insinuation, baserunning is definitely a tool that tends to be wildly overvalued by "traditional" managers) and most importantly coming off of a career year (which really tends to signal an oncoming decline and a big market overvalue) that concerns me.

#247 nothumb

  • 2,822 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:17 AM

When you look at the duration and career path of Tim Raines, the years are not as scary.


Tim Raines posted an OBP of .390 or better 5 times before his age 29 season. Crawford has never done it, never even posted an OBP of .370 or better in fact. So if you're saying that we can count on Carl Crawford to continue to get on base at a mediocre clip and hit for minimal power through his age 36 season, sweet. And while Raines remained productive into his 30's, his production definitely declined, and most speed guys do not age that well.

#248 mahky bellhorn

  • 1,520 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:18 AM

Considering Crawford's skill set (i.e. speed, range, athleticism), does it make any sense to actually front load a contract like this to some degree in order to hedge against the possibility of an overly negative age related decline (i.e. he begins to lose a step or two entering his mid-thirties)? For example, if the FO projects him to be worth $100 million over the next four years (an arbitrary amount), does it make sense to structure the deal so that he is paid $90 million of the $142 million of the contract over those first four years?


Nope. That only increases the present value of the contract and has no bearing on the luxury tax.

#249 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 10,561 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:19 AM

and most importantly coming off of a career year (which really tends to signal an oncoming decline and a big market overvalue) that concerns me.


I'd be a lot more concerned if this career year came at age 34, rather than 28.

And it's not exactly a huge outlier, either. At all, actually.

#250 JBill

  • 1,944 posts

Posted 09 December 2010 - 01:19 AM

LA Times article from earlier today...

Torii Hunter began recruiting Carl Crawford last July, when the Angels outfielder made sure the Tampa Bay star's locker was next to his for the All-Star game in Anaheim. He has kept in touch with the All-Star outfielder throughout the free-agent process this winter.

That courtship could have a happy ending for the Angels and Hunter, who expressed confidence Wednesday that Crawford would sign a lucrative contract with the Angels.

"I think the process is just about done, and hopefully we can land him this week," Hunter said by phone from his home in Texas. "The Angels are really trying. I know that for a fact."

LA Times

Not quite done Torii, not quite.