137 replies to this topic

[JMDurron]

Inflation, how does it work?

The throw and the steals were more excellent signs from Crawford.

The IF hits seem like a mixed bag. If he's dependent on those, he won't be successful for any length of time. The first hit, though, was no IF single tonight, and I'll take solid contact from Crawford any way I can get it after last season.

[LogansDad]

It's funny, really... it seem like of his 4 hits so far, three of them have been of the weak infield/seeing eye variety, and yet all three of his outs have been decent contact (the first one yesterday was roped to right, I guess the second one was a bit of a popup, but his flyout to center tonight was hit pretty well). Between him and Jacoby, this team could be really exciting for the next couple months.

[JMDurron]

It's funny, really... it seem like of his 4 hits so far, three of them have been of the weak infield/seeing eye variety, and yet all three of his outs have been decent contact (the first one yesterday was roped to right, I guess the second one was a bit of a popup, but his flyout to center tonight was hit pretty well). Between him and Jacoby, this team could be really exciting for the next couple months.

Seemingly reversed BABIP luck aside, the other funny thing about Carl Crawford to me is that, despite how obscenely stupid this is to type after all of 2 games, right now he is the only part of the team that makes me think that something can be different in a better and unexpected way in 2012 compared to 2011. So far this season, everything has been worse in a somewhat predictable way (clubhouse strife, dramatic media quotes, Matsuzaka, Youk useless and then gone), worse in unpredictable ways (Beckett, Lester both sucking, Bard fails completely), or no better than last season (Injury devastation). What few bright spots there have been (Nava, Middlebrooks, and Ortiz on offense) have been mitigated by regression or injury, as one might expect.

Carl Crawford playing even remotely like the guy he was in Tampa Bay, even for just two freaking nights, is literally the only thing I can think of that is actually better on the 2012 Red Sox than what we watched on the 2011 Red Sox. Regression is the new winter, but it's been a nice, and I dare say "exciting" thing to see even in such a ridiculously small sample. It's a really tiny sign that not every meaningful surprise on this team necessarily has to be a bad one.

[trekfan55]

This is weird, I think:

Carl Crawford thought Francona didn’t have his back, likes Bobby Valentine just fine http://dlvr.it/1sxNxS #mlb #hbt

Hardball Talk via twitter

[Red(s)HawksFan]

This is weird, I think:

Hardball Talk via twitter

Pretty much all stems from Francona pushing him down in the order early on last year. He never should have been hitting 3rd to begin with in that lineup. But Francona, probably with pressure from above, started the season with him in a spot in the lineup that "justified" his big contract instead of putting him where he belonged from the beginning. Not really Tito's fault and not really Carl's fault. Crawford was such an ill fit with the team at the time he signed, it really shouldn't have been a surprise that his spot in the lineup wouldn't be easy to figure out or be happy with.

[joe dokes]

This is weird, I think:



Hardball Talk via twitter

I wonder if it has anything to do with the batting order. BV said that Crawford told him he liked to be higher in the order. Francona moved him down to "protect him" when he was really crappy early on. Its possible that Crawford's perception of Francona's move was different than Francona's intent. (I'm also not generally advocating for players to set the lineup;that's a differen discussion)

EDIT: what the other guy said.
There may also be a differnce in styles. BV may want Crawford 2nd to run as much as possible. Francona was careful not to open up a base with with sluggers coming up. So combine a different style, with Ortiz's absence, and its run like hell, boys.

Does Pedroia still bat 2nd when he comes back?

Edited by joe dokes, 18 July 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

He thought Francona didn't have his back because he moved him to a different lineup spot?

Jesus Christ, what children these athletes are....

[scotian1]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the batting order. BV said that Crawford told him he liked to be higher in the order. Francona moved him down to "protect him" when he was really crappy early on. Its possible that Crawford's perception of Francona's move was different than Francona's intent. (I'm also not generally advocating for players to set the lineup;that's a differen discussion)

EDIT: what the other guy said.
There may also be a differnce in styles. BV may want Crawford 2nd to run as much as possible. Francona was careful not to open up a base with with sluggers coming up. So combine a different style, with Ortiz's absence, and its run like hell, boys.

Does Pedroia still bat 2nd when he comes back?

I would be happy with Crawford still batting second and having Pedroia in the third spot followed by Ortiz and Gonzalez. If Crawford remains fairly consistent getting on base, don't see why he would be moved.

[trekfan55]

He thought Francona didn't have his back because he moved him to a different lineup spot?

Jesus Christ, what children these athletes are....

O then you'll love this quote from the article:

If form holds, there will be a story in the Globe next week about how everyone hates Crawford now because he likes Bobby. Because, based on the coverage we read anyway, the Red Sox are basically a high school home room placed in the major leagues.

[Toe Nash]

He thought Francona didn't have his back because he moved him to a different lineup spot?

Jesus Christ, what children these athletes are....

He moved him down after just two games, and all the way to 7th (behind Jed Lowrie). I can see that being perceived as a slight, especially if Francona didn't explain it well. We know that batting order doesn't really matter but it does to some players. He never hit anywhere other than 2nd or 3rd from 08-10 in Tampa, even though he had a poor year in 08.

Also, if the team scouted him so extensively, they should have known that he (perhaps) needed to be coddled, and told Francona.

He's probably a baby about this. But like it or not he's our baby, and if it takes him batting 2nd to be Good Carl, then that's what they should do. If he's playing like 2010 he's perfectly reasonable as a #2 hitter. Put Pedroia 5th or lower since he probably doesn't care.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

He moved him down after just two games, and all the way to 7th (behind Jed Lowrie). I can see that being perceived as a slight, especially if Francona didn't explain it well. We know that batting order doesn't really matter but it does to some players. He never hit anywhere other than 2nd or 3rd from 08-10 in Tampa, even though he had a poor year in 08.

Also, if the team scouted him so extensively, they should have known that he (perhaps) needed to be coddled, and told Francona.

He's probably a baby about this. But like it or not he's our baby, and if it takes him batting 2nd to be Good Carl, then that's what they should do. If he's playing like 2010 he's perfectly reasonable as a #2 hitter. Put Pedroia 5th or lower since he probably doesn't care.

He was dropped to 7th with a lefty on the mound for the Rangers, after going 0 for 4 with 3K against CJ Wilson on Opening Day. And I bet that's EXACTLY how Francona explained it to him. Of course, Francona explaining it doesn't mean that Crawford heard what he had to say or accepted it. And then the next three games he was back up in the 2-hole, and then he started seven out of the next 8 games in the lead-off spot with Ellsbury dropping to 8th and 9th. It wasn't until the 15th game of the season that Crawford was moved "permanently" to 7th. At that point, having started 13 of 15 games in one of the top 3 spots in the order, he was at .127/.172/.145 through 58 PA. Francona did what he had to do to get the team moving in the right direction considering at the time of Crawford's "demotion" the team was 4-10.

Edited by Red(s)HawksFan, 18 July 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

He's probably a baby about this. But like it or not he's our baby, and if it takes him batting 2nd to be Good Carl, then that's what they should do. If he's playing like 2010 he's perfectly reasonable as a #2 hitter. Put Pedroia 5th or lower since he probably doesn't care.

Oh, of course. Do what you need to to make everybody perform at their best. I agree, but I still think much less of him for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I can't understand why Carl was unhappy. But it's one thing to be dissatisfied with the way your boss is using you and another to say that he "doesn't have your back" because of it--unless you felt like it was communicated in a dishonest or evasive way, which seems unlikely, and Crawford doesn't seem to be suggesting that.

I mean, seriously...."I feel like I didn’t have the manager’s confidence therefore I started to think something was wrong with me"? Because of a batting order shift? Your ego is that fragile?

[Plympton91]

Does Pedroia still bat 2nd when he comes back?

If Pedrioa is is typical .300 / .370 / .500 self, then I think he needs to hit 3rd to break up the lefties.

Ellsbury, Crawford, Pedroia, Ortiz, Gonzalez, Middlebrooks, etc.

[Toe Nash]

He was dropped to 7th with a lefty on the mound for the Rangers, after going 0 for 4 with 3K against CJ Wilson on Opening Day. And I bet that's EXACTLY how Francona explained it to him. Of course, Francona explaining it doesn't mean that Crawford heard what he had to say or accepted it. And then the next three games he was back up in the 2-hole, and then he started seven out of the next 8 games in the lead-off spot with Ellsbury dropping to 8th and 9th. It wasn't until the 15th game of the season that Crawford was moved "permanently" to 7th. At that point, having started 13 of 15 games in one of the top 3 spots in the order, he was at .127/.172/.145 through 58 PA. Francona did what he had to do to get the team moving in the right direction considering at the time of Crawford's "demotion" the team was 4-10.

Tampa faced plenty of lefties and Maddon never dropped him.

I agree that he's being a baby. But moving him down may have had the opposite effect of what was intended. Crawford certainly sees it that way.

[Bongorific]

My issue has never really been with the open stance (a batter can start with his back to the pitcher for all I care, as long as he's ready when his timing step lands). His balance last season at the trigger point was all over the place, and that first swing was quite similar. If you see the above, right when his front foot lands, his back is already leaning forward and his ass is dangling out behind his legs. At that point your center of gravity is key, and his is all over the place.

I agree with this except for the degree of his openness. Last year his front foot is so far back that his hips are completely out of whack. While it wouldn't matter if he was able to get square during his trigger, it would be difficult to do so consistently from that position. His foot is traveling such a long distance that it woud be challenging to always get it to the correct spot, especially when struggling and pressing at the plate. As you correctly pointed out, he struggled with consistently getting into a balanced, attacking position.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Tampa faced plenty of lefties and Maddon never dropped him.

I agree that he's being a baby. But moving him down may have had the opposite effect of what was intended. Crawford certainly sees it that way.

Very true about his time in Tampa. But how often in his time there was he not one of the three best bats in that lineup? In the 2011 Opening Day Red Sox lineup, he was no better than the 5th best hitter overall (Ellsbury being a bit of a question mark at that point), arguably the 6th or 7th (it wasn't known that Drew was completely cooked right then either).

No reason to hit him high in the order against lefties when there are better options.

[Harry Hooper]

This is just vomit-inducing stuff:

There is a sense that he views the early-season lineup move as some sort of betrayal, one that still is sticking with Crawford as he tries to turn this new page.

"I look around baseball and I look at all the guys that signed big contracts and all the guys that went to new places. All, besides Prince Fielder maybe, they all had some kind of getting-used-to type period and I feel like I got cheated out of that. I didn't have the chance to really do that," Crawford said. "You spend $142 million on somebody, you have to live and die with them. You didn't really give me a chance. After two days, that's really never happened. My confidence just went down. It was gone. What do you expect? What's wrong with one month? If I'm terrible after one month, then yeah. Who spends $142 million and throws a guy in the seven-hole and leaves him there? It doesn't make sense to me.

"I didn't feel like I had the manager's confidence. I don't know about the organization, but I don't try and look past the manager, so I feel like I didn't have the manager's confidence, therefore I started to think something was wrong with me, and it just snowballed after that. It had a trickle-down effect, and it just got worse and worse as the days went by."

WEEI



Given his propensity to crumble, CC = Coffee Cake.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

As I pointed out already, CC was put in the lead-off spot for a week at the expense of Ellsbury being dropped to 8th or 9th. That drop in the order and show of "no confidence" didn't really shatter Ellsbury. He turned around and delivered an MVP season.

Signing Crawford was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole from the very beginning. This latest revelation does nothing but back up that assessment.

[Savin Hillbilly]

This is just vomit-inducing stuff:

Unbelievable. He thinks the amount of money we were paying him should have guaranteed him privileged status in the lineup? That's boo-worthy.

[Toe Nash]

As I pointed out already, CC was put in the lead-off spot for a week at the expense of Ellsbury being dropped to 8th or 9th. That drop in the order and show of "no confidence" didn't really shatter Ellsbury. He turned around and delivered an MVP season.

Signing Crawford was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole from the very beginning. This latest revelation does nothing but back up that assessment.

And no one is arguing that it doesn't.

Ellsbury is not Crawford in many ways.

A team that followed Crawford around for a year should have figured out that he's apt to feel the way he does. They probably shouldn't have signed him if they had noticed that, but since they did, here we are.

It's like Dice-K. I wonder if he had just been left alone and allowed to do things his way what kind of pitcher he would have been for us.

[Toe Nash]

Very true about his time in Tampa. But how often in his time there was he not one of the three best bats in that lineup? In the 2011 Opening Day Red Sox lineup, he was no better than the 5th best hitter overall (Ellsbury being a bit of a question mark at that point), arguably the 6th or 7th (it wasn't known that Drew was completely cooked right then either).

No reason to hit him high in the order against lefties when there are better options.

In 2008 he was battling injuries all year, and ended up with a .718 OPS, 8th out of 9 Rays with over 100 games, and yet was never dropped below third.

[joe dokes]

Well, when he says he "didn't have the manager's confidence," he's probably right.

As for the rest, however fragile he might be, it didn't prevent him from doing well in TB. while the player has the lion's share of the responsibility, maybe the manager bears some, too. After all (and please dont let this de-rail into more Youk shit), Valentine gets all the blame for his words apparently driving Youkilis out of town. Maybe Tito just mishandled this one, a bit.

It has to be a little bit unsettling for a guy in his 10th major league season; coming to a new team. Its easy to say "tough shit, 20 million, go play." But humans dont always work that way, and its often up to the team and manager to figure it out.

Edited by joe dokes, 18 July 2012 - 11:43 AM.

[joe dokes]

Unbelievable. He thinks the amount of money we were paying him should have guaranteed him privileged status in the lineup? That's boo-worthy.

I dont think its the amount of money itself. Its that the Sox shelled out that kind of money. I dont think its entitlement. I think its surprise. Its not like he had any experience with FA's coming to TB.

[TomRicardo]

His last play in 2011 was a missed catch that lost his team the game, and a playoff spot (yes, I know it's not his fault that the Sox missed the playoffs last year but that was the last memory I had of him in a Sox uniform, not pretty).

Crawford was awful last year. It was more his fault than any other player. That includes Lackey.

[Al Zarilla]

He thought Francona didn't have his back because he moved him to a different lineup spot?

Jesus Christ, what children these athletes are....

I heard that on WEEI.com this morning (Crawford likes Valentine, wasn't sure about Tito). I liked it better in the old days when they rarely interviewed athletes, or Ted just gave them the finger. Whatever Crawford says now doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I just want to see what he can do on the field.

[Savin Hillbilly]

In 2008 he was battling injuries all year, and ended up with a .718 OPS, 8th out of 9 Rays with over 100 games, and yet was never dropped below third.

What puzzles me about all this is: surely the Sox should have anticipated that given their lineup strength, Crawford might or might not end up making sense to hit near the top of the order. Why wasn't this broached during negotiations? Shouldn't Crawford and his agent have been told "of course, we have such a strong lineup here, you might end up hitting a bit lower in the order than you're used to"? What would be the point of leaving the topic alone? It was certainly guaranteed to come up sooner or later.

I dont think its the amount of money itself. Its that the Sox shelled out that kind of money. I dont think its entitlement. I think its surprise. Its not like he had any experience with FA's coming to TB.

"You spend $142 million on somebody, you have to live and die with them. You didn't really give me a chance."

I think this speaks for itself. If it's not entitlement, I don't know what else to call it. It's the kind of self-justifying, perspective-challenged crap that you would expect (but wouldn't put up with) from a high school kid. From a 30-year-old professional, it's just jaw-dropping, appalling stuff.

Here's how a grownup talks:

"You spend $142 million on somebody, you expect them to perform. I wasn't performing, so Tito moved me down. I didn't like it, but I understood it. I took it as a challenge to start producing on a level where he would have to move me back up."

[smastroyin]

Tito's mistake was giving him the privilege in the first place, so that the move to his rightful place in the order was not a "demotion"

There was never any reason to bat Carl Crawford higher than sixth in the lineup that featured Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youkilis, and Ortiz. Theo and Tito should have made that clear when he signed. Because even though batting orders don't matter a whole lot to run production, they sure as hell matter to the players, and none of those four guys was going to be happy with a demotion either - displacing three of them to bat Crawford third was a shit idea from the start.

[Harry Hooper]

He got moved down in the order. Coffee Cake talks like Francona stapled his ass to the bench for two months and never let him on the field.

[Joshv02]

He didn't say "they gave me $142mm and therefore I should bat in the top of the lineup." He said "they committed a lot of money, which means that they believe in my skillset when they signed me; but, then they bat me at the end of the lineup, which indicates that they didn't believe in my skillset when they played me. That doesn't make sense to me and I didn't like it.

Its a touch less unreasonable then "I get to pick where I want to bat."

I'd prefer a better response - I was given a lot of money to perform, I didn't, I should have - but, it is less entitlement and more confusion as to his role, point, purpose.

Who does sign a player to $20mm and bats them 7th? That is odd.

[SoxScout]

How’s this for a blockbuster?

Left fielder Carl Crawford to the Miami Marlins for either shortstop Jose Reyes or third baseman Hanley Ramirez, with other pieces and significant cash involved.

The Boston Red Sox are contacting teams to gauge their trade interest in Crawford, according to major-league sources.

“There’s nothing going on with Carl,” Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington said. “He’s our left fielder and we’re glad to have him back in our lineup.”

http://msn.foxsports...-dodgers-071812

Edited by SoxScout, 18 July 2012 - 12:03 PM.

[Laser Show]

So much for his confidence being restored. Hopefully he doesn't see that report.

[JimBoSox9]

http://msn.foxsports...-dodgers-071812

Jesus H Christ. How did this organization just overnight completely lose the ability to do anything clandestinely? Throwing meat to a pack of hungry dogs doesn't even describe how this rumor will be taken in the media.

[Al Zarilla]

He didn't say "they gave me $142mm and therefore I should bat in the top of the lineup." He said "they committed a lot of money, which means that they believe in my skillset when they signed me; but, then they bat me at the end of the lineup, which indicates that they didn't believe in my skillset when they played me. That doesn't make sense to me and I didn't like it.

Its a touch less unreasonable then "I get to pick where I want to bat."

I'd prefer a better response - I was given a lot of money to perform, I didn't, I should have - but, it is less entitlement and more confusion as to his role, point, purpose.

Who does sign a player to $20mm and bats them 7th? That is odd.

I'm sure if he started to hit like 2010 Crawford, or reasonably close to that, Tito would have moved him up. It happens all the time, getting lowered in the order when you're not hitting as expected. You work harder, whatever it takes, to improve yourself. Go to Maggs, go to Gonzo and ask them "what am i doing wrong"? Torre put ARod down to the 8 hole once, but he never intended to leave him there.

Just when we were starting to feel a tiny bit good about the guy, he comes out with this.

[ScubaSteveAvery]

He got moved down in the order. Coffee Cake talks like Francona stapled his ass to the bench for two months and never let him on the field.

I get that what he said was questionable at best, and that he's not popular, but are we actually going to start making up derogatory names for players and then start using them on the main board? Coffee Cake? Really?

[Harry Hooper]

That rumor conforms with the "order from above" for CC to start playing in Boston Monday so that there would be a little showcase before the trade deadline.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I guess trading off Crawford for Reyes wouldn't be the end of the world...just depends on if they would need to throw in the $12M or so to make up the difference in their contracts. But why would the Marlins be looking to trade Reyes in anything other than a salary dump/relief transaction? Ditto for Hanley.

Crawford has been an ill fit in Boston from the day his contract was inked, but I don't think anyone is going to do the Sox a favor by taking him off the their hands without the Sox picking up a healthy chunk of his remaining salary. It will certainly take more than a week or two of "show he's healthy" games to entice anyone to make an offer that makes any sense for the Red Sox.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Who does sign a player to $20mm and bats them 7th? That is odd.

A team with a juggernaut offensive lineup who signed the player for $20M as much for his defense as his offense.

[Toe Nash]

I like the obligatory post from RicardoBot. You've made that same point in every Crawford thread, often more than once. We got it.

"You spend $142 million on somebody, you have to live and die with them. You didn't really give me a chance."

I think this speaks for itself. If it's not entitlement, I don't know what else to call it. It's the kind of self-justifying, perspective-challenged crap that you would expect (but wouldn't put up with) from a high school kid. From a 30-year-old professional, it's just jaw-dropping, appalling stuff.

Here's how a grownup talks:

"You spend $142 million on somebody, you expect them to perform. I wasn't performing, so Tito moved me down. I didn't like it, but I understood it. I took it as a challenge to start producing on a level where he would have to move me back up."

There's a couple really great essays by David Foster Wallace that explore the psyches of pro athletes and what it takes to be one of the best in the world at something, especially when it's something so singular as playing baseball (or, his DFW's case, tennis). One is on Tracy Austin's autobiography where he discusses how terribly it's written and how she provides virtually no insight into what it's like to be a pro tennis player other than vapid clichés. The other is on Michael Joyce where he examines the strange world that is someone who isn't a top ten tennis player but is only top 100. Both really changed my perspective on athletes and psychoanalysis and I think much of this board would be well-served to read them before criticizing a player for something he says (and they're great essays in any case)

‎"But we prefer not to countenance the kinds of sacrifices the professional-grade athlete has made to get so good at one particular thing. Oh, we'll pay lip service to these sacrifices -- we'll invoke lush clichés about the lonely heroism of Olympic athletes, the pain and analgesia of football, the early rising and hours of practice and restricted diets, the prefight celibacy, etc. But the actual facts of the sacrifices repel us when we see them: basketball geniuses who cannot read, sprinters who dope themselves, defensive tackles who shoot up bovine hormones until they collapse or explode. We prefer not to consider the shockingly vapid and primitive comments uttered by athletes in postcontest interviews, or to imagine what impoverishments in one's mental life would allow people actually to think in the simplistic way great athletes seem to think. Note the way "up-close and personal profiles" of professional athletes strain so hard to find evidence of a rounded human life -- outside interests and activities, charities, values beyond the sport. We ignore what's obvious, that most of this straining is farce. It's farce because the realities of top-level athletics today require an early and total commitment to one pursuit. An almost ascetic focus. A subsumption of almost all other features of human life to their one chosen talent and pursuit. A consent to live in a world that, like a child's world, is very serious and very small."

How does this relate to Crawford? Well, it's interesting that he eschews clichés here and actually says what he thinks. Usually we want our players to do this. But beyond what DFW writes here (that clichés are a reflection of players' singular focus on one pursuit) he also writes that clichés exist as a kind of defense mechanism for players -- they're not only the easy thing to say to defend themselves from media scorn, but also something that they use to defend themselves from thinking too hard and getting away from the muscle memory that makes one successful to start with.

So perhaps Crawford being honest is a sign that he's thinking too hard, but about the wrong things, and perhaps that's not a desireable trait in a player. He'd be better served by not thinking about whether his manager has his back and just going out and playing ball. But perhaps that's not who he is.

In any case, we need to be cautious when ascribing intent (or deciding whether or not someone is a grownup) to what a player says. It just may not be there in the way we expect it, and they are probably not grown up in the same ways we are, either.

Edited by Toe Nash, 18 July 2012 - 12:23 PM.

[cwright]

This doesn' explain CC feeling that Tito didn't "have his back", but I heard a replay of a conversation Crawford had with Merloni back in February about the batting order and how Crawford changed his approach as a result. Here's a link to the video:

http://www.csnne.com...IJj0G6EsSJxiNEb

Excerpt:

Lou: Did you think about hitting home runs because you were down in that sixth spot? Did you change your approach?

CC: Well, there’s nothing else you can do, really, you know, I mean you got...

Lou: Well, you can still be you.

CC: I mean, you can be you, but you know, you got Big Papi on first, somebody on second. You know, a lot of the other teams, they used to come and say to me, they was just like, you know, “We hope they leave you in the seven hole; because we don’t, we’re not afraid of you at all; you don’t intimidate us at all. We know you can’t hit a triple; you’re not going to probably hit a double, and you don’t hit that many home runs, so… you can’t steal a base. You can’t do nothing, really.” And to hear your peers from the opposing team tell you that, it gives you a feeling on the inside that you just, you know…

[Savin Hillbilly]

In any case, we need to be cautious when ascribing intent (or deciding whether or not someone is a grownup) to what a player says. It just may not be there in the way we expect it, and they are probably not grown up in the same ways we are, either.

It would certainly be presumptuous to "decide whether or not someone is a grownup" based on a few isolated quotes. I just said he wasn't talking like a grownup. How much that's characteristic of him, and how much it's just him having a really bad media day, is something that only those who know him personally can speak to, of course. I'm just reacting to how it sounds, the attitude that it appears to express.

[MoGator71]

This doesn' explain CC feeling that Tito didn't "have his back", but I heard a replay of a conversation Crawford had with Merloni back in February about the batting order and how Crawford changed his approach as a result. Here's a link to the video:

http://www.csnne.com...IJj0G6EsSJxiNEb

Excerpt:

That has to screw with a guy's head. And what's worse is that it's probably true, and it's got to get to a guy hearing it. He's dangerous when he gets on base and makes a pain in the ass of himself to the other team, while the big bats are coming up. I'd be on board with CC 2nd and Pedroia cleanup if it helps get him hitting like he did in Tampa. And we already know Pedroia gets off hitting 4th. Ells, CC, Ortiz, Pedey, Adrian, WMB, Salty, Sweeney, Aviles...maybe hit Ross 6th vs. lefties and slide everybody else down a spot.

[trekfan55]

That has to screw with a guy's head. And what's worse is that it's probably true, and it's got to get to a guy hearing it. He's dangerous when he gets on base and makes a pain in the ass of himself to the other team, while the big bats are coming up. I'd be on board with CC 2nd and Pedroia cleanup if it helps get him hitting like he did in Tampa. And we already know Pedroia gets off hitting 4th. Ells, CC, Ortiz, Pedey, Adrian, WMB, Salty, Sweeney, Aviles...maybe hit Ross 6th vs. lefties and slide everybody else down a spot.

Totally on board with this.

What he showed last night was what really made me hate him when he was with the Rays. He got on base, stole a base, went 1st to 3rd, scored on a single, etc, I do not believe they are worth 21MM a year, but that's another issue. And I do agree that if they signed that player, and then had him bat 7th then there is a disconnect somewhere.

[Savin Hillbilly]

That has to screw with a guy's head. And what's worse is that it's probably true, and it's got to get to a guy hearing it.

It's not true--or wasn't. Crawford has been in double figures in triples five times, and before last year had never hit fewer than 8 in a full season. In 2010 he had 13 triples and 30 doubles. He won't hit a ton of HR, but he'll typically hit about as many as Pedroia. When he's right, he's eminently qualified to knock in baserunners with XBH.

So, let's see, we've learned today that the guy (1) is way too sensitive to real or imagined slights from his manager; (2) seems to think that being paid a lot of money should make you immune to having your role be dependent on your performance like other players; (3) completely forgets his own demonstrated abilities when trash-talking opponents deny them.

And we don't want to trade him for Hanley Ramirez because Hanley's a head case?

[gammoseditor]

It's not true--or wasn't. Crawford has been in double figures in triples five times, and before last year had never hit fewer than 8 in a full season. In 2010 he had 13 triples and 30 doubles. He won't hit a ton of HR, but he'll typically hit about as many as Pedroia. When he's right, he's eminently qualified to knock in baserunners with XBH.

So, let's see, we've learned today that the guy (1) is way too sensitive to real or imagined slights from his manager; (2) seems to think that being paid a lot of money should make you immune to having your role be dependent on your performance like other players; (3) completely forgets his own demonstrated abilities when trash-talking opponents deny them.

And we don't want to trade him for Hanley Ramirez because Hanley's a head case?

The rumor isn't Crawford for Hanley straight up. Beyond that, if you take all of your assumptions as facts then there's a real chance that if you leave him in the 2 hole where he's happy then he returns to his old form. Look at Hanley's numbers the last two years. They are pretty terrible.

[JimBoSox9]

It's not true--or wasn't. Crawford has been in double figures in triples five times, and before last year had never hit fewer than 8 in a full season. In 2010 he had 13 triples and 30 doubles. He won't hit a ton of HR, but he'll typically hit about as many as Pedroia. When he's right, he's eminently qualified to knock in baserunners with XBH.

I think the point CC was making isn't so much about driving in runners with big hits, it's that from the 6/7 spot in 2011, he was up at the plate a lot with much slower runners occupying first and/or second. That would inhibit his ability to stretch hits an extra base. That's how I read it, anyways. Whether that's actually true or not is a whole 'nother thang.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I think the point CC was making isn't so much about driving in runners with big hits, it's that from the 6/7 spot in 2011, he was up at the plate a lot with much slower runners occupying first and/or second. That would inhibit his ability to stretch hits an extra base. That's how I read it, anyways. Whether that's actually true or not is a whole 'nother thang.

Right, meaning CC won't get doubles because the guy on first is too slow to get to third, or won't hit triples because the guy on first can't score from first, etc. It's the old Joe Morgan "clogging up the bases" argument.

I don't think it's too much of a slam on Carl to say that he might not be far from Morgan in his thinking. Dude wants to run and he doesn't want Salty lumbering along in front of him.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think the point CC was making isn't so much about driving in runners with big hits, it's that from the 6/7 spot in 2011, he was up at the plate a lot with much slower runners occupying first and/or second. That would inhibit his ability to stretch hits an extra base. That's how I read it, anyways. Whether that's actually true or not is a whole 'nother thang.

If that's how he meant it, the counter to it is still for him to hit and get on base anyway, and he wasn't doing that. If he was roping singles that should have been doubles or doubles that should have been triples, it would have become painfully obvious that he needed to be moved up in the order to put him in front of the "base cloggers".

[TheGoldenGreek33]

Hmm. Yeah. I don't seem to recall Tito jerking around Ortiz, Pedroia, etc. when they struggled.

But it's Saint fucking Tito who shits rainbows and lollipops so Carl Crawford = Coffee Cake.

[smastroyin]

In 2009, the year Ortiz really struggled, he batted in 4 different positions regularly.
In 2010, when he recovered, he also batted in 4 different positions regularly.

I have no qualm with the idea that Tito, Theo, and Carl Crawford were not on the same page, and that's bad enough as is. The "demotion" talk is annoying. And frankly I think he is full of shit. He hit third for a long time in Tampa, with runners on in front of him. In 2009 he had a very similarly shitty year in Tampa and did not get moved around and hit where he wanted and it didn't help him. Players look for reasons. I doubt any of them had an actual effect on his performance.

Just as a moderation note, though, I agree that the Coffee Cake thing is stupid, please stop.

[Dick Pole Upside]

Crawford's best skills (speed, base stealing, ability to create pressure on a pitcher when on base) are wasted in the bottom third of the batting order, and Tito gave him an enormously short leash (two games) so as to not upset his boy Pedey and the rest of the batting order.

Crawford didn't handle it well, and has admitted as much. It was critically important to him to be able to "show fast" with this second chance, and he's pleased he's been able to demonstrate some of his better skills in the two spot in the first two games of his re-appearance.

Tito had his guys who he favored just like every other manager. Carl was never one of his guys. Happens in every clubhouse.

Carl speaks the truth.

Yeah, he gets paid too much, but is there any rational explanation why some of you guys hate him so much? He seems like a straight shooter to me.