Jump to content


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

Photo

Crawford has wrist surgery


This topic has been archived.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

#51 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17882 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 07:30 AM

Carl Crawford's contract should be forced to be worn around Theo's and Cherington's neck like a Scarlet Letter.

#52 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11441 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:38 AM

Carl Crawford's contract should be forced to be worn around Theo's and Cherington's neck like a Scarlet Letter.


Or they should be forced to carry it into Mordor and cast it into the Fire of Doom:


One deal to screw us up,
One deal to mar us,
One deal to make us suck
and from the playoffs bar us.



#53 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25460 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 08:47 AM

Hey assholes, this isn't chat. Knock off the one-liners and add some substance.

#54 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17882 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 09:52 AM

Hey assholes, this isn't chat. Knock off the one-liners and add some substance.


Ok Carl Crawford's contract is so bad I honestly believe it can hamstring the Red Sox for years. Last year the paid 20 million to get negative value out of player. If they had not signed Carl Crawford they would have made the playoffs.

They should have put the man on waivers and prayed some idiot would have been stupid enough to grab him. Considering how much money the Angels dumped this offseason it wouldn't have completely shocked me if they took a nibble.

Problem with talking substantially about Crawford is that his contract is a joke. It is worse than Lackey, Lugo, and Renteria combined. And this is when Crawford's contract should be adding value. Those last four or five years will be trainwrecks.

It is mindboggling why anyone would have given LF whose whole game is based on speed and who can't play CF that kind of contract. No power, arm, or plate discpiline in a corner OF position well into his mid 30s...

Sorry I just poked in my mouth.

#55 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11441 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:40 AM

<substance>

I don't think it's nearly as bad as TRic seems to, because I do think Crawford is going to rebound and provide some value that's at least in the same ballpark as his AAV. But since almost any big-ticket FA contract is likely to be an overpay--even if all goes well--a big-ticket contract that lays a mammoth egg in the first year, like Crawford's, has almost no way of avoiding being a major overpay. And if he's going to start the second year of the contract by missing time with an injury, this becomes even more certain.

Crawford has been a $20M player in the past, and he could still be a $20M player again for the next few years. But he's likely to be a $20M budget constraint for a few years longer than that, and if this affects our ability to re-sign key players like Ellsbury or Lester, it could conceivably make it harder for the Sox to be competitive going forward.

</substance>

#56 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7365 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:48 AM

Perhaps the Red Sox should have told the Cubs, if you want Epstein he comes packaged with Crawford.

#57 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17882 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 11:23 AM

<substance>

I don't think it's nearly as bad as TRic seems to, because I do think Crawford is going to rebound and provide some value that's at least in the same ballpark as his AAV. But since almost any big-ticket FA contract is likely to be an overpay--even if all goes well--a big-ticket contract that lays a mammoth egg in the first year, like Crawford's, has almost no way of avoiding being a major overpay. And if he's going to start the second year of the contract by missing time with an injury, this becomes even more certain.

Crawford has been a $20M player in the past, and he could still be a $20M player again for the next few years. But he's likely to be a $20M budget constraint for a few years longer than that, and if this affects our ability to re-sign key players like Ellsbury or Lester, it could conceivably make it harder for the Sox to be competitive going forward.

</substance>


Crawford has been a "20 million dollar" player twice in his 10 year career. Much of that value was based on fielding which he has been eractic with his whole career. It is going to be real hard for him to come back to his fielding value in Fenway's small LF.

#58 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13658 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 12:24 PM

I agree with Tom 100%. It is amazing to me the staunch defenders Carl has around here. It is hard to believe there was ever a chance Lugo would be replaced as the worst signing in memory, or as a symbol of suck, but Carl has done that. Reading Moneyball, or even watching the mish mash film, Carl is the guy Billy fired scouts for loving. He has flashy tools that don't cover up he does not walk, can't play CF.

Even at his best he is a poor fit for this team. LF in Fenway is great place to have power bat and hide a OF with little range like Manny, Rice, Ted Williams. Though to be fair Manny and Rice played LF in Fenway a lot better than Carl Crawford did last year. Also Fenway's cf and rf require capable, at least, defensive players. So the Red Sox may need to sacrifice a bit of O for D in CF and RF. It was great folly, and continures to be great folly, to sign an OF who has a lot of his value (theoretically at least) in D to play lf. And all of this applies if Crawford wasn't a head case that folded under the pressure for an entire season, to the point he could not even catch a simple flyball by game 162.

SJH dislikes the hiring of Valentine. There is no player more responsible for Tito's dismissal than Carl Crawford. If he had played like any 26 year old AAAA depth guy the Sox make the playoffs easily.

Every time some retread gets shelled for nine runs in a start, and there will a be a few in 2012, we can thank the idiotic decision to sign Carl Crawford.

Edited by reggiecleveland, 19 January 2012 - 09:43 PM.


#59 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17882 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 12:33 PM

I really hope that Carl has an amazing season so the Red Sox can unload him. I still would be whispering in the Nationals ear about a Werth/Crawford swap which makes a ton of sense for both teams.

#60 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383597 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 12:38 PM

I know (or at least I think I've heard) that Crawford doesn't want to play CF. But does that mean he can't or won't? If Ellsbury leaves, maybe the plan is to move him. He doesn't have a great arm, but from watching him play I didn't get the sense that he gets terrible reads on the ball and he certainly has the speed for CF. Why isn't replacing Ellsbury with Crawford an option?

#61 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25460 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 12:39 PM

SJH dislikes the hiring of Valentine. There is no player more responsible for Tito's dismissal than Carl Crawford. If he had played like any 26 year old AAAA depth guy the Sox make the playoffs easily.

Every time some retread gets shelled for nine runs in a start, and there will a be a few in 2012, we can than the idiotic decision to sign Carl Crawford.


Crawford per Frangraphs was worth only 0.2 WAR in 2011. Given that a AAAA depth guy like you mention would be the very definition of replacement player, I would argue that in fact a 26 year old AAAA guy would not have made any type of difference. Carl played just about exactly like one.

2011 was the worst season for him in the last 10 years or so. His recent performances before 2011 indicate that he's a much better player than what we saw last year. I have no idea if he'll ever get straightened out here, but the track record indicates a good possibility that he will post better numbers in 2012 than 2011.

#62 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12108 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 12:50 PM

At this point, am I the only one who thinks Theo signed Lackey and Crawford knowing full-well he'd be working someplace else now, and it was all just a great big middle finger at LL........?


That's pretty ridiculous, but it isn't ridiculous to suppose Theo took a more short-term approach knowing that he was likely to be elsewhere by the latter years of those contracts. The deals that Toronto signed with Vernon Wells and Alex Rios toward the end of J.P. Ricciardi's tenure as GM there are an interesting parallel.

The fact that we're even discussing Theo's motivations illustrates why the Sox were right not to thwart Theo's ambitions, even if they don't end up getting significant compensation from the Cubs.

#63 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17882 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 12:52 PM

I know (or at least I think I've heard) that Crawford doesn't want to play CF. But does that mean he can't or won't? If Ellsbury leaves, maybe the plan is to move him. He doesn't have a great arm, but from watching him play I didn't get the sense that he gets terrible reads on the ball and he certainly has the speed for CF. Why isn't replacing Ellsbury with Crawford an option?



Crawford was terrible in center. A lot of the problems Ellsbury had earlier in his career which made the Red Sox toy with putting him in LF, Crawford is far worse at. Crawford is so reliant on his speed because he gets bad jumps on balls.

Crawford's main problem is he is a terrible technical player. He relies on his amazing athelticism and simply hasn't developed real baseball skills. His plate discipline is horrendous and probably not getting better. He isn't a crafty base stealer and is not great around the bases outside of his blazing speed.

These kind of players do not show longetivity. Simply because when his natural gifts begin to erode, he does not have the skill set of a MLB ball player.

This is one of the reasons I advocate a Werth/Crawford trade.

Really it makes sense for both teams. Washington has a larger LF and a park that plays better for a speed based player. Also Harper is probably going to be RF.

Werth is RHB that can play excellent RF defense. Also while Kalish's arm is sort of passable in RF, he would be better suited for LF.

#64 drtooth


  • 2:30


  • 9136 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 01:27 PM

Crawford had a similar issue in Aug 2008 with his right wrist/finger. I hope this a freak injury and not a trend.

#65 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 21112 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 01:34 PM

Crawford has been a "20 million dollar" player twice in his 10 year career. Much of that value was based on fielding which he has been eractic with his whole career. It is going to be real hard for him to come back to his fielding value in Fenway's small LF.

I agree somewhat but he can always play more shallow, thereby catching a lot of liners and bloops that might drop in front of some LFers, while having the speed to get back to the wall and catch longer drives. Lot of good that did on the last play of last season though. DOH! more important to me is that I don't think I'll ever get over that dopey stance of his (which I know he hit with in TB).

#66 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 17882 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 01:39 PM

I agree somewhat but he can always play more shallow, thereby catching a lot of liners and bloops that might drop in front of some LFers, while having the speed to get back to the wall and catch longer drives. Lot of good that did on the last play of last season though. DOH! more important to me is that I don't think I'll ever get over that dopey stance of his (which I know he hit with in TB).


He could if he was able to make decent routes at balls.

#67 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13658 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 02:37 PM

Crawford per Frangraphs was worth only 0.2 WAR in 2011. Given that a AAAA depth guy like you mention would be the very definition of replacement player, I would argue that in fact a 26 year old AAAA guy would not have made any type of difference. Carl played just about exactly like one.


I'll take your word for it, but it is hard to imagine a corner OF guy not putting up an OBA over .3.

I expect the metric doesn`t actually look at the guys that don`t make it. I mean to play lf or 1b you should be raking, You need to be a middle of the order guy, So if you play those positions and hit like Scutaro or Coco Crisp, you are in the minors. This again points to the idiocy of this signing.

So I question a system that assigns any positive value to Crawford`s 2011.
I mean a guy that is not good enough on d to play right or centre and not good enough hiiter to win the everyday left job, but a decent hitter. There has to be 15 guys in triple a capable of putting up a .680-.750 ops and being passable in lf.

#68 Toe Nash

  • 3042 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 04:23 PM

I expect the metric doesn`t actually look at the guys that don`t make it. I mean to play lf or 1b you should be raking, You need to be a middle of the order guy, So if you play those positions and hit like Scutaro or Coco Crisp, you are in the minors. This again points to the idiocy of this signing.

AL LFers put up a .251/.311/.393 line for a .704 OPS last year. The only position worse was catcher.

These things are somewhat cyclical, so generally you are right (LFers put up the third-best OPS behind RF and 1B in 2010), but I think that's where the positive value came from: His .694 OPS was actually just below average (and above replacement).

#69 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4656 posts

Posted 18 January 2012 - 04:58 PM

AL LFers put up a .251/.311/.393 line for a .704 OPS last year. The only position worse was catcher.

These things are somewhat cyclical, so generally you are right (LFers put up the third-best OPS behind RF and 1B in 2010), but I think that's where the positive value came from: His .694 OPS was actually just below average (and above replacement).


Fangraphs WAR does not use single season stats for positional value, but recent historical values. Their adjustment for left field is -7.5 runs per 162 games. Remember, WAR (a stat I dislike for multiple reasons, especially single year WAR) measures wins above a replacement player. A replacement player, simplified, is approximately 20 runs, or 2 wins, worse than an average player at their position per 600 plate appearances. So Carl Crawford having a WAR of 0.2 means he was some 16 runs worse than an "average" left fielder with his 539 plate appearances. It was a terrible season by any measure.

There is some very good information on how WAR is calculated on the Fangraphs site. The Dave Cameron series explains things very well.

#70 joyofsox


  • empty, bleak


  • 6357 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 04:17 PM



Seen at BDD:

"I knew he had some problems with his wrist during the season. But I didn't realize until talking to some people close to him this afternoon is that he had several injections during the season. That left wrist was bothering him during the year. He was fine with his bottom hand, had a lot of trouble following through. It bothered him. They figured, well, a couple months off at the end of the season it would be alright. He started hitting right after Christmas, it started bothering him again so he went to doctor Sheridan." -- Peter Gammons on NESN's Hot Stove Live


#71 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 21112 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 04:44 PM

AL LFers put up a .251/.311/.393 line for a .704 OPS last year. The only position worse was catcher.

These things are somewhat cyclical, so generally you are right (LFers put up the third-best OPS behind RF and 1B in 2010)

And the entire difference was Carl Crawford, year over year. Kidding, somewhat.

#72 Alcohol&Overcalls

  • 1205 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 04:45 PM

Seen at BDD:
"I knew he had some problems with his wrist during the season. But I didn't realize until talking to some people close to him this afternoon is that he had several injections during the season. That left wrist was bothering him during the year. He was fine with his bottom hand, had a lot of trouble following through. It bothered him. They figured, well, a couple months off at the end of the season it would be alright. He started hitting right after Christmas, it started bothering him again so he went to doctor Sheridan." -- Peter Gammons on NESN's Hot Stove Live


This would certainly make more sense than the existing "lack of guts" or "poor fit in Fenway" explanations for falling off a cliff, although (again) it doesn't exactly paint the then-med staff in a great light as far as condition management.

#73 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25460 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 04:49 PM

This would certainly make more sense than the existing "lack of guts" or "poor fit in Fenway" explanations for falling off a cliff, although (again) it doesn't exactly paint the then-med staff in a great light as far as condition management.


Which might explain why they were ushered out of the nearest door in the post-collapse purge.

#74 Alcohol&Overcalls

  • 1205 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 06:04 PM

Which might explain why they were ushered out of the nearest door in the post-collapse purge.


No doubt - hell, every new piece of evidence suggests a firing squad may have been appropriate.

#75 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7290 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 06:51 PM

Re. PG, isn't the right wrist the bottom hand for a LHH?

Also, the Valentine callback thing makes me think CC could use a little PR help this year. There may be some who think that people just need to "play their way out of things" but as Seth Mnookin pointed out about Coco post injury, things in Boston have a way of snowballing for players in funks.




(null)

#76 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11441 posts

Posted 19 January 2012 - 06:58 PM

Re. PG, isn't the right wrist the bottom hand for a LHH?

Right, that's why Gammons was saying the bottom hand was fine.

#77 biollante


  • SoSH Member


  • 7808 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 10:30 AM

Well, the injections are news to me. However, Tric could very well be right about the suckiness of Crawford (I keep saying to myself how wrong I was about Lugo - not about how right I was about Lackey) . Oddly, I feel that whatever care Sox players get doesn't seem to be correct. This isn't anything I can quantify (heaven forbid) but how does an outsider evaluate each team's medical care of their players ?

Edited by biollante, 20 January 2012 - 10:33 AM.


#78 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7290 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 11:11 AM

Right, that's why Gammons was saying the bottom hand was fine.

Yeah, but the way I read it, that doesn't follow really with the "he had trouble following through" point. Whatever, I'm sure his left wrist hurting doesn't help w the follow-through either. Carry on...

#79 Alcohol&Overcalls

  • 1205 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 11:49 AM

Yeah, but the way I read it, that doesn't follow really with the "he had trouble following through" point. Whatever, I'm sure his left wrist hurting doesn't help w the follow-through either. Carry on...


I'm not an expert, but as an armchair hitting mechanics guy ... In an ideal, late-release swing, the top hand 'pushes' on the bottom hand and drives the bat (almost handle-first) toward the zone, then creates 'snap' to drive the bat head through the point of impact. Assuming he meant "getting extension through the point of impact" by "following through" (which is pretty reasonable), it makes sense that the top hand would be the limiting factor here. The top hand is often the more important hand from a strength/stability standpoint.

Even when the top hand is released on follow-through, it's generally* well after the point of impact anyway, so follow-through will (effectively) already have happened.

*Johnny Damon excluded

#80 Van Everyman


  • SoSH Member


  • 7290 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 12:05 PM

Has there been any indication that this injury limited him last year beyond "just being sore"? Per A&O's post, it would seem to explain why so much of his contact was weak.

#81 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 20752 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:08 PM

Has there been any indication that this injury limited him last year beyond "just being sore"? Per A&O's post, it would seem to explain why so much of his contact was weak.


It might have contributed to some of the really awful throws he made from left field, most of them short, high and wide to the left. Of course, his throwing arm has never been good.

#82 plnii

  • 101 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:34 PM

It's hard to read into the vague media reports about the wrist injury itself--I'm not sure exactly what type of wrist injury would require removal of cartilage. I've had multiple wrist issues personally, including a broken scaphoid, torn TFCC (twice), and a sprained scapholunate ligament.

Sounds a bit like the TFCC tear because one treatment is steroid injections (mainly to reduce inflammation). Anyway, the TFCC commonly tears, typically treatment is rest and hope it fixes itself. Otherwise, they might remove the dead cartilage (if there is some) and then it feels better and might heal or it might not heal completely and your is a little looser (the TFCC holds the radius and ulna together). That's the best case I think in terms of ligament tears. The others seems to be far more destabilizing.

#83 lexrageorge

  • 3043 posts

Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:07 PM

I still say the chances of a guy who was clearly a low-to-mid 0.800 OPS guy throughout his career suddenly turning into a sub-0.700 OPS guys at age 29 just because of a new team is practically nil, unless there's an underlying medical issue. I can't say I'm surprised.

We can argue all day as to whether the 0.830 OPS Crawford is worth $20M/yr playing LF in Fenway. But I'd think we'd all take the 0.830 OPS and be happy after last season. Whether this injury was truly the root cause is obviously unknown to us, but it does seem plausible.

As for the Sox medical staff, well the team did clean house. Crawford's injury may have happened anyway, and it's quite possible that the course they took was the best for the situation at the time. Again, it's truly unknowable.