Allen Craig

[geoduck no quahog]

In case you were wondering, from Wikipedia:
 
 

The Lisfranc injury...is an injury of the foot in which one or more of the metatarsal bones are displaced from the tarsus. This type of injury is named after Jacques Lisfranc de St. Martin (2 April 1790–13 May 1847), a French surgeon and gynecologist who first described the injury in 1815, after the War of the Sixth Coalition.

 
So, problem number 1 - this is an injury diagnosed by a French Gynecologist after cutting someone's foot off during the Napoleonic Wars. That's fucked.
 

Options include operative or non-operative treatment. If the dislocation is less than 2 mm, the fracture can be managed with casting for six weeks. The patient's injured limb cannot bear weight during this period. For severe Lisfranc injuries, open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and temporary screw or Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation is the treatment of choice. The foot cannot be allowed to bear weight for a minimum of six weeks. Partial weight-bearing may then begin, with full weight bearing after an additional several weeks, depending on the specific injury. K-wires are typically removed after six weeks, before weight bearing, while screws are often removed after 12 weeks.
 
When a Lisfranc injury is characterized by significant displacement of the tarsometatarsal joint(s), nonoperative treatment often leads to severe loss of function and long-term disability secondary to chronic pain and sometimes to a planovalgus deformity. In cases with severe pain, loss of function, or progressive deformity that has failed to respond to nonoperative treatment, mid-tarsal and tarsometatarsal arthrodesis (operative fusion of the bones) may be indicated.
 

 
 
Looks like it could be, at worst, a 4 month treatment/recovery period. Unless I'm reading that wrong.

 

[In my lifetime]

 
 

 
 
Looks like it could be, at worst, a 4 month treatment/recovery period. Unless I'm reading that wrong.

 

 
Unfortunately at worst, it can be career ending. The end of a career is not uncommon for a bad Lisfranc injury in a basketball or football player, where there is much more running involved especially on harder surfaces.  The choices as you quoted are correct -  immobilization for ~2 months vs. surgery to stabilize the joint typically with screws.  As with almost all injuries, the degree of the injury is critical. If the injury is a Lisfranc recurrence, it is more likely that surgery may be needed.  I think without question he will be shut down for the season.  
 
This is not say the Craig's injury will be career ending just that it is possible with a bad Lisfranc injury.

 

[JMDurron]

On the NESN broadcast tonight, Don said that Craig re-injured his foot in the game last night. No elaboration was given.

 
Damnit.  I should have held out longer on the mea culpa.  

 

[Darnell's Son]

Just curious if Darnell or Reggie would care to amend or retract their statements?

No, because he re-injured it and I trust medical staffs more than message board posters outside of our resident docs.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Nobody claimed to know more than the team doctors. But it's pretty evident - before this news - through watching him try to move and looking at his numbers that something was wrong. Players don't always play at 100%. As previously mentioned, Pedroia does this routinely.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with the fact his foot wasn't completely healed.

Where did I say his foot was completely healed? I just said that it was silly to suggest he needs to rest when neither of the medical staffs nor front offices of the two teams that were just in the World Series did not proclaim that was the necessary action to take. Yeah, he wasn't/isn't 100%. Maybe he never will be. To suggest it's a mistake to play him is the suggestion I took issue with.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Theres a difference between saying that it's a mistake to play him and saying he'd be better served letting his foot heal. Given the difference in position of contention between STL and BOS I think it is reasonable to suggest that while it might be worth playing at less than full capacity and maybe risk reinjury for the Cards while it's not the same reward to do so for the Sox. At the very least, I think it's far from being comparable to the other version of "Cespedes for Stanton" as you suggested. Ymmv.

That's fair. Hugs and kisses.

 

[StuckOnYouk]

So is it in the club's best interest to operate ASAP??

 

[Darnell's Son]

So is it in the club's best interest to operate ASAP??

If the re-injury is serious, I guess? Where the hell is DRS anyway?

 

[Harry Hooper]

Per NESN as of Sat. afternoon:
 

Craig turned his ankle running the bases Friday but Farrell said Saturday was a planned day off all along.
 

 
 
During the broadcast, Orsillo said Craig had re-injured his foot, so he made it sound more serious. The truth = ?

 

[StuckOnYouk]

I see, Cespedes gets Friday off and Craig gets Sat off. Let's see them  both in there tomorrow night.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Per NESN as of Sat. afternoon:
 
 
 
During the broadcast, Orsillo said Craig had re-injured his foot, so he made it sound more serious. The truth = ?

SUCK IT MR. POUTINE!!!!
 
I'm just kidding, of course. Here's to hoping that he's OK and he and Cespedes can become Super Smash Bros.

 

[Drek717]

In checking the dates on Craig's injury until when he resumed playing baseball I found this quote in a USA Today piece from Card's GM John Mozeliak:

 
If the Cardinals finish with the best record in the National League, they would play the wild-card winner in the first round, and couldn't face the Dodgers until the NLCS, when Craig would perhaps be available. Yet, if they rush him back, Mozeliak said, it could lead to further damage that would put his 2014 season in jeopardy.
"The severity could be from a career issue,'' Mozeliak said, "to definitely a large part of next season.''

Now given that we all saw him limping about in the World Series, it seems pretty damn clear that he did in fact rush back.  Whether that was team driven or player driven (and lets be honest, likely the later) is secondary at this point, but he clearly wasn't at a point where he should have been playing on the foot.  However, it also seems pretty clear that the Sox medical staff view this as the later of the two worst case scenarios given, otherwise Craig wouldn't be on the team.
 
I'd like to see him in a 50/50 to 40/60 timeshare with Nava in LF so that Craig can learn how to play the Monster and the AL pitchers he'll be facing next year while generally taking it somewhat easy on the foot.  If he can come back 100% healthy next season he's as good a bounce back chance as anyone in baseball.  When healthy he's the definition of a professional hitter.  Contact, OBP, power, and he's always been better with runners in scoring position.  He's basically exactly what this club needs in the #3 hole if he can get back to being the player he was pre-injury.

 

[JFS7]

farrell likely to have the full report(and full bad news) later today

 

[DaveRoberts'Shoes]

For what it's worth, I'm planning to talk about microfracture and Lisfranc injuries at the Saberseminar in two weeks.
 
Short version - some guys never really recover from Lisfranc injuries.  The surgical bailout is a midfoot fusion, which is a decent surgery for alleviating chronic pain but isn't really compatible with high-level athletics.
 
Wow, I just dropped a turd in the punchbowl, huh?  Guess I'm not getting $10 for this one...

 

[Harry Hooper]

Imaging would presumably show the injury, but beyond that could any meaningful medical conclusions about the extent of recovery be drawn? Was it more a case of he's playing, so he seems to be recovered?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I'm typically confused. Publications are using the term "ankle" injury, which seems to be something removed from Lisfranc. Still, I can't count on these people having the terms correct.
 
Wouldn't the Sox medical staff have had input on this? Why would the Sox take on a chronically injured player's salary (meaning, they traded Lackey for Kelly)...
 
Has anyone found reference anywhere to the treatment the Cards authorized, other than rest?
 
From what I can gather online, Craig's medical history goes like this:
 
- June 2011: Kneecap Fracture from running into a wall. Did not heal sufficiently. Played after physical therapy. Elected surgery after the season. On DL through April 2012.
 
- May 2012: Pulled a hamstring.
 
- August 2012: "Chest Discomfort". No DL.
 
- September 2013: Lisfranc injury. First reported as "ankle injury". Wore protective boot.
 
From the St. Louis Dispatch 2013
 

X-rays taken at Great American Ball Park were inconclusive, and Craig was diagnosed with a foot sprain.
 
He said the top of his foot was still sore after the game, and manager Mike Matheny conceded that “any news where we’re sending Allen Craig away from us isn’t good news.”
 
In the fourth inning, Craig had the infield hit that helped the Cardinals rally from a two-run deficit for a 2-2 tie. But as he reached first he took a step toward second base while also trying to look behind him for the ball. His foot bent awkwardly and he fell to the ground.
 
Carlos Beltran scored on the error that came at the end of Craig’s infield hit. Craig was tagged out easily when he couldn’t move on his own back to the base. He had to be helped to his feet.
 
“It scared me because my foot has never bent like that before,” Craig said. “I tried to walk it off. It’s sore right now.
 

 
 
 
Rest and rehabilitation was the prescription last year. He apparently came into spring training needing to work on strength/agility with his foot, and everything seemed to go well at that time. I can't find anything in writing that discusses someone recommending surgery.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

For what it's worth, I'm planning to talk about microfracture and Lisfranc injuries at the Saberseminar in two weeks.
 
Short version - some guys never really recover from Lisfranc injuries.  The surgical bailout is a midfoot fusion, which is a decent surgery for alleviating chronic pain but isn't really compatible with high-level athletics.
 
Wow, I just dropped a turd in the punchbowl, huh?  Guess I'm not getting $10 for this one...

I'll give you the $10 if I can ask a follow-up question. If Craig's medical records showed a Lisfranc, could the Sox docs sign off on taking on the remainder of the $31M contract? That seems a bit hard to believe with what I've personally beard about Lisfranc but what do I know?

Also, there are suggestions that the Cards mismanaged his innury: http://www.stlcardinalbaseball.com/did-the-cardinals-mismanage-craigs-injury

 

[Harry Hooper]

A little tidbit from the Post-Dispatch:
 

According to the base-running metrics, Craig was the 11th-poorest runner in baseball this season. And his defense was well below average. 
 

 

[In my lifetime]

I'll give you the $10 if I can ask a follow-up question. If Craig's medical records showed a Lisfranc, could the Sox docs sign off on taking on the remainder of the $31M contract? That seems a bit hard to believe with what I've personally beard about Lisfranc but what do I know
?

 

 
It is all a matter of severity.  Mild Lisfranc injury --- immobilization and back on the field after ~2 months typically without major of problems. Severe injury ----- surgery and good chance that the foot will never be 100%.  

 

[TheoShmeo]

It seems strange that the Sox wouldn't just sit him down for the remainder of this lost season.  I'm of course not writing with the benefit of any actual knowledge regarding his injury, but if he's at all compromised, why not get him fully healthy and create more at bats for the likes of Bradley and Betts?  It's not as if they don't what Craig's upside is or they think they can get back into the race. 

 

[Harry Hooper]

Red Sox outfielder Allen Craig is absent from the Red Sox lineup for the second-straight game after turning his ankle in the ninth inning of Friday’s match against New York. Despite the setback, Farrell said that the team expects Craig back in the lineup to face his former team – the Cardinals - starting on Aug. 5.
 
“Still day to day,” Farrell said. “He still feels the soreness of when he crossed the bag the other night, so we’re hopeful he’s back in the lineup here when we get to St. Louis.”
 
Farrell acknowledged that Craig’s injury is in the same foot that suffered a Lisfranc fracture at the end of last season, but added that he wasn’t sure if it both his current and past injures are somehow connected.
 
“It’s the same foot,” Farrell said. “I can’t say it’s the same exact injury and that’s what we’re working through right now.’
 

 
WEEI

 

[Cellar-Door]

It seems strange that the Sox wouldn't just sit him down for the remainder of this lost season.  I'm of course not writing with the benefit of any actual knowledge regarding his injury, but if he's at all compromised, why not get him fully healthy and create more at bats for the likes of Bradley and Betts?  It's not as if they don't what Craig's upside is or they think they can get back into the race. 

He wasn't injured as far as I know.
He's been back from the Lisfranc for a while. He was running and playing the OF fine in STL. The speculation on STL radio was that something was wrong with his swing since fastballs inside were either swings and misses or grounders, which led to more FB inside.

 

[catomatic]

 
WEEI

I remember looking at that play and shouting at Teixeira to get his fucking foot off the bag. He had half the bag covered with his foot and forced Craig to the far outside of the bag—resulting in this injury. Am I alone in seeing it that way?

 

[twibnotes]

I remember looking at that play and shouting at Teixeira to get his fucking foot off the bag. He had half the bag covered with his foot and forced Craig to the far outside of the bag—resulting in this injury. Am I alone in seeing it that way?

Hoof. His hoof was on the bag.

 

[catomatic]

Hoof. His hoof was on the bag.

Tail was obviously in the way too. I was bullshit—totally lost my equine-imity.

 

[theapportioner]

Imaging would presumably show the injury, but beyond that could any meaningful medical conclusions about the extent of recovery be drawn? Was it more a case of he's playing, so he seems to be recovered?

Lisfranc injuries are not infrequently missed on initial x-rays of the foot, so it's possible he was "misdiagnosed" as having an ankle injury initially.

 

[soxhop411]

Joon Lee ‏@iamjoonlee  52s
Confirmed: Corey Brown is getting called up to the #RedSox according to sources.
 
Craig to the DL?
https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/496414705351942144

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

<p>
Joon Lee ‏@iamjoonlee  52s
link to tweet
Confirmed: Corey Brown is getting called up to the #RedSox according to sources.
 
Craig to the DL?

[URL="https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/496414705351942144"]

https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/496414705351942144

link to tweet
link to tweet[/url]
Corey Brown was still in the organization?

If Craig is found to have an existing Lisfranic injury can the Sox get more compensation from St Louis? Or is it on them because Craig had a physical?

 

[Harry Hooper]

Lisfranc injuries are not infrequently missed on initial x-rays of the foot, so it's possible he was "misdiagnosed" as having an ankle injury initially.

 
Thanks, but I was referring to the Red Sox medical review, before the trade was completed.

 

[Corsi]

 

Maureen Mullen ‏@MaureenaMullen  1m
Allen Craig going on DL.
 

 

[Harry Hooper]

Sean McAdam on CSNNE said Craig is going down to NC to see Jeter's ankle surgeon Dr. Robert Anderson for a consult. 
 
The Cards had Dr. Anderson treat Craig for the original injury, which Craig is downplaying:
 

So, to be clear, Craig believes bad habits at the plate, not an injured foot, are to blame for his precipitous decline?
“I’m healthy this year,” Craig said. “That’s all I can say.”
 

 
and from Browne on Red:
 

 
"Honestly, it's just a little tweak. Obviously, they want to do their evaluations and make sure everything's good," said Craig. "I just got here. Obviously, I want to be out there, and they want me to be out there, but now's a good period to just evaluate things and move forward."
 

 

 

[nattysez]

This article from St. Louis says that the Sox acquired damaged goods when they got Craig. 
 

One must suspend disbelief to think that a Lisfranc injury that put Craig on crutches and eventually in a walking boot before being aggravated in the World Series has been a non-issue during a tepid spring and a hair-pulling season.
***
“You don’t know first-hand if what happened last year had any lingering effect on his swing and his production this year,” Farrell stated.
Here’s a second-hand opinion: Absolutely.
 

 
Then a Cards beat writer tweeted, in response to the question "Why would the Sox acquire damaged goods?"
 

I don't have an answer, and it's disingenuous to fake one. That's for Boston to explain. Check @joestrauss column today.
 

 
https://twitter.com/dgoold/status/497069564946292737
 
 
h/t @redsoxstats
 
Hopefully all this means that Craig can heal over the winter and be ready to rake again come spring.  Going into next season with both Victorino and Craig as rehabbing health question marks is going to make roster management tough.

 

[mabrowndog]

Scott Lauber ‏@ScottLauber 23m



Cherington said #RedSox didn't see any red flags when reviewing Craig's medicals last week. Long-term, still believe prognosis is positive.
 
Tim Britton ‏@TimBritton 19m
Cherington said there are no long-term concerns about Craig’s foot. Team is being cautious because it can be.
 
 
Another key passage from the Joe Strauss column NattySez linked to upthread:
 

 
Craig’s slugging percentage crashed more than 100 points from last season. His ground-ball rate soared. Hitting coach John Mabry solicited help from others, most notably former All-Star center fielder Jim Edmonds. But the malady persisted: Craig could no longer hit against his left foot, a power-robbing problem compounded by his tendency to “cheat” on inside fastballs and come out of his stance. Hitters produce power from the ground up. Craig had no base.

 

 

[Harry Hooper]

Ben sez:

 

"The long-term prognosis is still very good," he added. "There’s no concern about whether he’s going to be OK to play and feel good and be completely healthy. It’s just a question of making sure we’re not putting him in a position where he’s compromised and maybe at risk of doing something else by making up for what’s going on with his foot."
...
The Red Sox had access to all his medical records before the trade and didn't determine Craig had any lasting effects from last season's injury.
 
"No red flags in the long-term," Cherington said. "We didn't have any heightened concern about whether this was a long-term risk. He had obviously played through October and then played a lot this year on it."
 

 
MassLive

 

[JimD]

They took a chance and they knew it.  If Craig comes back close to his previous performance level, it's a huge win.  If he never recovers, they have the payroll to accept it as a sunk cost and move on.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Though it is kind of odd that they're so concerned with an overpay or bad contract with Lester and at the same time taking kind of a flyer on Craig.  Here's a guy whose performance went through the floor this year and about whom there are rumblings that his former team, not a bunch of nitwits, thinks he may have a career impacting injury.
 
Said differently, the Sox are OK paying Craig $31 mm when it's at least possible he's going to be a shadow of his former self, yet they're likely going to draw a line with Lester at somewhere near, say, $120 MM when if they would agree to $150 mm, they'd probably get it done.
 
I get that these are different situations.  I get that it's not a simple linear equation.  I get that there is precedent involved.  Pitcher versus OFer.  Other distinctions abound.
 
Still, the willingness to give someone like Victorino $39 mm, when the entire world screamed "overpay," take a chance on Craig coming back to health and, if they don't get Lester, sign someone of lesser talent a large contract to be the supposed Ace of the staff seems inconsistent with their solemn discipline with Lester.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Though it is kind of odd that they're so concerned with an overpay or bad contract with Lester and at the same time taking kind of a flyer on Craig.  Here's a guy whose performance went through the floor this year and about whom there are rumblings that his former team, not a bunch of nitwits, thinks he may have a career impacting injury.
 
Said differently, the Sox are OK paying Craig $31 mm when it's at least possible he's going to be a shadow of his former self, yet they're likely going to draw a line with Lester at somewhere near, say, $120 MM when if they would agree to $150 mm, they'd probably get it done.
 
I get that these are different situations.  I get that it's not a simple linear equation.  I get that there is precedent involved.  Pitcher versus OFer.  Other distinctions abound.
 
Still, the willingness to give someone like Victorino $39 mm, when the entire world screamed "overpay," take a chance on Craig coming back to health and, if they don't get Lester, sign someone of lesser talent a large contract to be the supposed Ace of the staff seems inconsistent with their solemn discipline with Lester.

The team has been consistent in staying away from longer term deals with the exception of Pedroia who ironically is on the verge of his own "Is Pedroia cooked" thread. 1-2 year overpays are a staple in the Red Sox approach......see Drew signing, koji this winter, etc

 

[TheoShmeo]

The team has been consistent in staying away from longer term deals with the exception of Pedroia who ironically is on the verge of his own "Is Pedroia cooked" thread. 1-2 year overpays are a staple in the Red Sox approach......see Drew signing, koji this winter, etc

I know.  That has indeed been their MO, and the Pedroia contract might give them even more pause when approaching another long term deal.  
 
But money is money.  If we assume they'd be willing to go to $120 mm with Lester when $150 mm would get it done (maybe two bad assumptions), I think it's a little ironic that they would absorb a $31 mm contract for a player whose performance was way down in 2014 and who may be a serious injury risk.
 
And I get that the situations don't line-up perfectly and there are number of variables.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I know.  That has indeed been their MO, and the Pedroia contract might give them even more pause when approaching another long term deal.  
 
But money is money.  If we assume they'd be willing to go to $120 mm with Lester when $150 mm would get it done (maybe two bad assumptions), I think it's a little ironic that they would absorb a $31 mm contract for a player whose performance was way down in 2014 and who may be a serious injury risk.
 
And I get that the situations don't line-up perfectly and there are number of variables.

 
The biggest problem in this comparison seems pretty obvious- your conclusion assumes that the first $120m isn't at risk.  It's not that they won't risk $30m on Lester but will risk $31m on Craig.  It's that they must think there's a decent chance that of the $150m they'd give Lester maybe half of that, or more, is a significant risk.  If you could guarantee the FO that only $30m of the $150m would be risky I think they'd have signed him already.

 

[j44thor]

This is the part I don't get:
 

"No red flags in the long-term," Cherington said. "We didn't have any heightened concern about whether this was a long-term risk. He had obviously played through October and then played a lot this year on it."
 

 
Yes he has played but he has been awful since the injury.  If you are assuming he is mostly healthy since he is already playing on it then it is quite possible he is already on a steep decliine.  If you do believe that the injury has been the factor then how can you possibly assume there are no red flags when he is dealing with a relatively new injury that has ended others careers?
 
Something seems very off with Ben's statements.

 

[Drek717]

The team has been consistent in staying away from longer term deals with the exception of Pedroia who ironically is on the verge of his own "Is Pedroia cooked" thread. 1-2 year overpays are a staple in the Red Sox approach......see Drew signing, koji this winter, etc

Well, Pedroia is clearly playing through an existing injury massively handicapping his performance.
 
I think the more important questions here are:
1. why does this club consistently let guys play well below 100% (Pedroia this year as well as other times in the past, Craig post-trade, WMB much of last season, Buchholz at multiple points in his career, etc. etc.)
2. Why does a club that so poorly manages the health of their players on the active roster feel confident enough to make bets on the health or lack thereof when making trades?
 
Basically, if they feel like they have some sort of injury evaluation/recovery edge then why the hell isn't it being put to use on their own club?  The bravado presented when picking up someone like Craig doesn't ring true when at the same time they can't even reduce Pedroia's role by a game a week when he clearly has an injury sapping his power.

 

[CaskNFappin]

Sounds like there's a belief a sustained period of rest, made possible by being on a non-contending team, will allow for the full healing process to take place.

 

[Harry Hooper]

This is the part I don't get:
 
 
Yes he has played but he has been awful since the injury.  If you are assuming he is mostly healthy since he is already playing on it then it is quite possible he is already on a steep decliine.  If you do believe that the injury has been the factor then how can you possibly assume there are no red flags when he is dealing with a relatively new injury that has ended others careers?
 
Something seems very off with Ben's statements.

 
 
True, if they signed Craig, a la Victorino, it would be one thing in terms of a gamble, but they handed over a darn good asset to get him.

 

[JimD]

 
 
True, if they signed Craig, a la Victorino, it would be one thing in terms of a gamble, but they handed over a darn good asset to get him.

 
Kelly wasn't exactly a throw-in.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
Kelly wasn't exactly a throw-in.

 
And John Connolly was the real target of the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

 

[TheoShmeo]

 
The biggest problem in this comparison seems pretty obvious- your conclusion assumes that the first $120m isn't at risk.  It's not that they won't risk $30m on Lester but will risk $31m on Craig.  It's that they must think there's a decent chance that of the $150m they'd give Lester maybe half of that, or more, is a significant risk.  If you could guarantee the FO that only $30m of the $150m would be risky I think they'd have signed him already.

But I was not concluding $120 mm was not at risk.  It clearly is.
 
I was just making an assumption -- which may be way off -- that the Sox would go there but not higher.  I don't have a lot of basis for making that assumption other than it's almost impossible to believe that Lester will get less than $120 mm and yet the Sox are talking about trying for him.  Unless they are saying that for only PR reasons (clearly a possibility), then they would seem to be willing to take that risk but not one as much as that PLUS the Craig amount (which I believe is actually around $26 mm until the $13 mm option year, including what the Sox will pay for this year). 
 
In the end, I like the Craig/Kelly trade.  I assume that the Sox knew that Lackey wasn't going to do an extension, might not have played at all for $500k and would have been a bad situation.  And I assume that other teams knew that too, thereby reducing Ben's leverage.  And I like Craig's upside and Kelly was clearly promising last night.
 
I'm just generally annoyed about Lester not having been signed and the willingness to take a chance on Craig in possibly the amount of the gap between where the Sox may be in November and what Lester might get on the open market only puts a finer point on it.
 
This is probably a bit of a hijack and side discussion, so let's resume our regularly scheduled discussion of Allen Craig.

 

[Plympton91]

They took a chance and they knew it.  If Craig comes back close to his previous performance level, it's a huge win.  If he never recovers, they have the payroll to accept it as a sunk cost and move on.

This pisses me off. I guess they're only willing to risk dead payroll in the near term on players they get from other teams.

Another way to look it is that Kelly might be as good as Lackey for about $20 to $30 million less over the next 4 years, so there's that angle.

 

[SouthernBoSox]

This pisses me off. I guess they're only willing to risk dead payroll in the near term on players they get from other teams.

Another way to look it is that Kelly might be as good as Lackey for about $20 to $30 million less over the next 4 years, so there's that angle.

The irony is that you constantly, and I mean absolutely constantly, post about how the Red Sox are a large market team and voice your displeasure about how they are operating.
 
And then they do exactly what a large market team should do in taking a chance on a super high ceiling bat who is signed to a very very reasonable contract if he is healthy. They took on risk that many teams couldn't do, which is basically exactly what the Red Sox should be doing.  They also took on Cespedes and the only way that deal works is because the Red Sox are the Red Sox and Oakland is Oakland.
 
And yet this will all come back to not resigning Ellsbury.  We didn't resign Ellsbury dude, we just didn't and there are a ton of reasons we didn't.  That doesn't mean the Red Sox refuse to spend money.
 
You're basically trying to have it both ways.  When they don't spend money it's because they are cheap, when they do spend money then they aren't spending it the way you want.
 
Just get over it. Please.

 

[judyb]

This pisses me off. I guess they're only willing to risk dead payroll in the near term on players they get from other teams.

Another way to look it is that Kelly might be as good as Lackey for about $20 to $30 million less over the next 4 years, so there's that angle.

You know why that is, a backloaded contract from another team is a CBT bargain, Craig's AAV is just a bit more than $6 million a year.

 

[Plympton91]

And yet this will all come back to not resigning Ellsbury.  We didn't resign Ellsbury dude, we just didn't and there are a ton of reasons we didn't.  That doesn't mean the Red Sox refuse to spend money.
 
You're basically trying to have it both ways.  When they don't spend money it's because they are cheap, when they do spend money then they aren't spending it the way you want.
 
Just get over it. Please.

Like I said in two other threads recently, you people are way more fucused on Ellsbury at this point than I am. Whether its Ellsbury, Salty, Drew, or Lester, and soon to be Cespedes, there is a massive focus on the "out years" of long term contracts. Yet, here they willingly absorbed a contract that may be dead from day 1. It's not consistent to me at all.

For instance, The Pierszyski fiasco was all because they were worried about year 3 of a deal with Saltalamacchia. Year 3. One year of potentially misallocated money; money that likely could be at least partially expunged through a trade. In contrast, Craig is 4 years of potentially dead money at near the same AAV as JS would have been.

But, as I also said, I think a reasonable defense of the FO here is that the delta between what they're going to pay Kelley over the next four years and what some team is going to pay Lackey is probably in the range of Craig's contract. So it could be viewed as Lackey for Kelley, with Craig as an expensive lottery ticket evening out the salaries of Lackey and Kelley.

I hope Craig turns out ok, but I think viewing it as a longshot is the most realistic. It is really hard to be optimistic given what DRS has posted, and the scouting reports and Statistical analysis of his recent performance, even before the injury.