Boston Signs Carl Crawford
Despite acquiring Adrian Gonzalez on Sunday, the Boston Red Sox have taken a back seat to the Yankees down here in Orlando. With Derek Jeter re-signing and holding an angry press conference, as well as their open pursuit of Cliff Lee, the meetings have centered around New York’s activity. Not anymore- with Carl Crawford in the fold, the Red Sox have stolen the show.
In general, reaction to the deal among people I talked to in Orlando was mostly negative, as $142 million for Carl Crawford is a big number. As a guy who gets a lot of value from his speed and defense, he isn’t the type of player to land a contract of this size. As Ken Rosenthal mentioned on Twitter, this is $50 million more than the next highest contract in baseball history for a guy who had never hit 20 or more home runs in a season- Ichiro’s previous record of $90 million for five years just got blown out of the water.
Just because it is unique, however, doesn’t mean it is automatically bad. Defense has historically been undervalued in the market, and while not everyone agrees with the conclusions reached by defensive metrics all the time, I have never met anyone who thinks that Carl Crawford is anything besides a great defensive left fielder. His speed and defense package are among the best in the game, and he’s a pretty good hitter too.
Over the last two years, the only position players with a higher WAR than Crawford are Albert Pujols, Evan Longoria, Ryan Zimmerman, Joe Mauer, and Chase Utley. Crawford is ahead of sluggers like Adrian Gonzalez, Joey Votto, and Miguel Cabrera, but as we saw with Gonzalez’s extension, that kind of money for their skillset is considered acceptable. Just because Crawford creates wins in a different way doesn’t make those wins less valuable. If you buy into Crawford being an elite defender, then he is worth this contract, and maybe even a little bit more.
But there is an argument to be made that left field in Boston is perhaps the worst place in baseball for a guy with great range to make an impact defensively. The Green Monster turns a lot of potential outs in other parks into base hits in Fenway, which may diminish Crawford’s ability to perform at the same level as he did in Tampa Bay. The Red Sox might have to consider shifting Crawford to right field, where his speed could be better utilized to maximize his value.
Even as a left fielder, though, I think he can earn this money. If we assume Crawford is a +5 win player, $5 million per win is the going rate this winter, and a standard aging curve that knocks off half a win per season, inflation “only” needs to be six percent annually per year going forward for Crawford’s projected value to come out to $142 million. Given that Crawford is only 29, he might be able to sustain a +5 win peak for another year or two, which would push his value even higher.
Are the Red Sox taking a big risk that Crawford won’t suffer some kind of leg injury that destroys all of his value at once? Sure, they are, but that risk is there with nearly any kind of player you sign to a deal this large. This skillset ages pretty well, and, barring injury, Crawford should be one of the premier players in the game for the next three or four years. Add in that the wins Crawford add could be the difference between making the playoffs and sitting at home in a tough division, and there are actually a lot of reasons to like this deal for Boston.
They got a lot better today. Yes, it’s a lot of money for a guy who doesn’t do the things that traditionally earn a lot of money, but he’s worth it, especially to Boston.
Since when does a skillset almost entirely based on speed age well into a player’s late 30s?
This contract wasn’t worth it at all. You aren’t factoring in the massive risk inherent in a seven-year deal, especially a massive deal to a guy who relies on his legs and not his bat.
If things go right Crawford could end up being worth $142 million in WAR, sure, but that doesn’t mean he was ever worth a $142 million contract (and the associated risk)
Crawford is 29 now, this deal will by no means last well into his late 30s.
Did the sox overpay? Probably not if Crawford makes it the length of his contract injury free and doesn’t have any major setbacks.
Does the baseline risk of any player getting hurt over a 7 year time make this deal an overpay by the RedSox? Sure it does…….but they can afford it and they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. They made this deal because they can, and because they didn’t make the playoffs last year.
Since forever. Guys whose game is based on speed are almost universally good athletes who are in peak physical condition, and their bodies don’t break down like that of lumbering sluggers with extra weight everywhere. Look at guys like Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Roberto Alomar, and even Ichiro – this skillset works in your 30s if you stay healthy.
Good signing. Once Crawford loses his speed and elite defense he’ll just start to walk and homer more to make up for it like Henderson and Raines. Happens all the time with these athletic types of players.
Sorry, but there’s a difference between raw athleticism and raw speed. Speed is on the decline by a player’s 30s. With the exception of Ichiro (but he’s a freak of nature: Crawford is no Ichiro), none of the guys you mentioned relied on an abnormally high BABIP like Crawford does.
Without a .340+ BABIP, Crawford’s AVG and SLG are both going to plummet.
Fangraphs is a great site, but sometimes you stretch your analysis just to be slightly contrarian (and admittedly, the mainstream media’s obsession with power and neglect of defense is ridiculous). That doesn’t make this a smart signing though.
Henderson might not be the best example… A’s, early 90′s, posting an average of 7 war in his 30-32 seasons (or 31-33?). Hate to paint everyone with that brush, but that time period, that team, that performance in his early 90′s might not be purely about his athleticism (though athleticism is certainly part of it no matter what)
Alomar fell off a cliff in his early 30′s (age 33?)… also on the Indians in the late 90′s (I know, it’s not fair)
I do agree with your overall premise though.
ummm… early 30′s…. if he was putting those #’s up in his early 90′s I would without a doubt say it was chemically enhanced! Doh!
You act like Crawford will be one of the slowest players in the game by the time his contract is up. No, he will still be one of the fastest. He won’t be as fast as he is today, but he’s not going to have some massive BABIP freefall because of losing a little speed. And maybe he will be another Ichiro. There aren’t many players in baseball history like Carl Crawford.
@ Crawl –
How is Ichiro a distinctly better athlete than Crawford. In addition to being a high draft choice, Crawford had scholarship offers to play football at Nebraska and basketball at UCLA. He’s an athletic freak if ever there was one in baseball.
It seems like you’re the one who’s trying to fit his preconceived notion into the framework you want it to fit.
Using those three examples, Henderson seems like the exception rather than the rule. Alomar put up his best seasons in 1999 (Age 31) and 2001 (33) but then completely fell off the map in 2002 and was out of baseball two years later. And most of Raines’ gaudy stats were put up in his Age 23-27 seasons; his only 5+ WAR after that came in his Age 32 season and was mostly due to his glove. Raines couldn’t stay on the field, either; he didn’t crack 600 PAs once after that Age 32 season. This doesn’t mean that Crawford will break down, but Alomar and Raines don’t support your point.
Of the guys you mention here (Henderson, Alomar, Raines, and Ichiro), Ichiro is the only one that, to me, would offer any hope that Crawford will be worth this contract.
Henderson didn’t rely on his legs as much as Crawford does. Henderson could have been as slow as Bengie Molina and he still would have been an All Star.
Alomar was done as a productive player when he was 34.
Raines couldn’t stay healthy–he never broke 140 games played after the age of 32.
Like I say, Ichiro has managed to stay good into his 30′s. So did Kenny Lofton. But they were both better hitters then Crawford has ever shown to be, so I’m not so sure they are great examples.
Ichiro
27: .387/.457/.838
28: ..388/.425/.813
Lofton:
27:.412/.536/.948
28: .362/.453/.815
29: .372/.446/.817
Crawford
27: .364/.452/.816
28: .356/.495/.851
How exactly are these guys better hitters than Crawford? They look almost exactly the same to me. Crawford might actually be the best of the 3.
Yeah, Lofton’s 27 year was ridiculous, but he never came within .100 of it again.
Guys like myself, Alomar, Raines etc also GOT ON BASE. We walked and weren’t reliant on our batting average to get us an OBP above .320. Even in my 40s I had OBP’s higher then Crawford has ever had and I was flirting with the Mendoza line. What happens when Crawford starts to have more seasons like 2008? Looks awfully mediocre to me. I don’t care how good he is at this time defensively, 7 years is a long time to expect him to continue to play near that level.
I get your point, but I don’t think the Red Sox are hoping for a Roberto Alomar in this deal. That would mean about four good years out of the seven and then nothing. Alomar would definitely be an example of a guy falling off the ledge at a relatively young age.
I’m having trouble finding an article about player types and aging curves using the googles. I’m fairly certain I’ve come across them before. Can somebody give me a hand?
I agree with Dave’s main point but I have trouble comparing ANYONE to Rickey. Rickey was the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of the game and probably one of the top 10 best players of all time. Its hard to say “Well, Rickey was great into his late 30s…so Player X might be too” Raines turned into a 4th OF/DH type hitter to survive…Alomar got hit by a bus around Age 35.
Crawford will certainly age better than Werth I would think.
Griffey Junior might be a decent body type comp to Crawford. One bad hamstring injury seemingly led to another leg injury to another injury to another injury …..
Slighter builds like say McGee and Ichiro tend to age very well.
Sizemore might be another good body comp in the regard of very athletic and muscular but one big injury brought him crashing down.
Rickey and Raines are mentioned quite a bit, but a lot of their value was in getting walks, like sometimes double and even triple Crawford’s rate.
When you sign a guy whose major values are in his athletic abilities (Ertic Davis, etc), you run the risk (maybe more so than any other player type) of one injury drastically reducing his value. But, that’s how it goes. Seeing how Crawford was likely to get a good contract from someone, your only other real options are MAJOR money for shorter years, or not sign them at all.
Ricky Henderson
bad timing…
The difference between Carl Crawford and Rickey Henderson is such a vast expanse that any comparison between the two, no matter how cursory, is lunacy by default.
Calling something “lunacy by default” is lunacy by default.
Joel, that had nothing to do with anything… The poster asked if there were any baseball players who were good into their late 30′s who depended on their bat and legs. Try reading first.
Since when is 35 considered late 30s? Crawford will be 35 in his last year of this contract.
While you claim Dave isn’t factoring in the “massive risk”, you clearly aren’t factoring in the situation. This deal wasn’t signed by the Washington Nationals, it was the Boston Red Sox. They just finished paying Julio Lugo and Mike Lowell 21.5 million dollars last season. While you point to the risk, you neglect to mention the added benefit of each additional win for a team in contention like the Red Sox. It isn’t far fetched to believe a player like Crawford could “put them over the top”.
Don’t forget Adrian Beltre and Victor Martinez, who were paid a combined $16.7M last year as well.
Yes; his point was that they can afford to have players on the payroll who contribute nothing to the team on the field, whereas Beltre/Martinez obviously contributed immensely on the field.
Ichiro has aged just fine….as have many others with this skill set. Do a little research.
Tom Tango dances with the issue. I highly recommend reading the info from the link.
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/does_speed_age_better/
What do you think of how lefty-heavy the Sox lineup is? Is this a major, exploitable problem? Or are the splits small enough/bench options exist to mitigate it so that it isn’t really a factor.
If Gonzalez’ progress into a more neutral platoon split continues, I don’t see it as a huge problem. Drew’s OBP stays neutral (though his power takes a hit). Crawford can struggle against lefties, but Williamsburg should help him.
They’re lefty heavy for 2011, but in 2012 its likely that one or both of Drew and Ortiz leaves. In any case, they’ll get to make another decision on how important their left handedness is again after next season.
It may be exploitable at times, but most of the time being lefty-heavy is a good thing. Besides, they do have Youkilis and Pedroia, and probably the switch-hitting Lowrie. It’s not as if they have no quality RHB.
First off, this deal is not that bad. Th sox will get 4-5 years of prime years, or almost prime years, and maybe 2-3 of decline, but the decline will not be massive. In 5-6 years from now, a win may be worth close to 6M, so he will only need to be a 3.5-4 win player.
And, yes LF is small in Fenway, but 81 games are played AWAY from Fenway.
And i hate those that say the Sox are turning into the Yanks….over 35M came off the books this year, and over 50M will be coming off the books next year—12.5 Papi/14M Drew/6M Scutaro/7.25M Cameron/11M Paps—-so the Sox will have a lower payroll next year even with tripling AGon salary. They will only need to replace their DH bc Lowrie will be their SS, Kalish will be their RF (or LF if they decide to move CC over), and Bard will be their closer.
The Sox had to make this move bc the OF market is very weak next year, and the would have lost both Drew and Cameron. This move had to be made, and the Sox payroll will only be around 150-155M next year, after salary jumps from various players, which will be almost 20M lower than this next year, and over 70M lower than the Yanks.
The Sox also have homerown players at 3B, CF, 2B, SS, CL, 2 SP, and their 8th Inn—and their RF next yr will homegrown as well. The Sox spend money wisely, and are great in regards to player development.
Pedrioa- RH
CC- LH
Youk-RH
AGon-LH (but hits LHP just as well, if not better than RHP)
Papi-LH
Lowrie-RH
Drew-LH
Salty/Martin-RH
Ells-LH
That is a very well-balanced lineup, with homegrown players, and smart signings up and down the lineup
The same thing was said about the Phillies facing the CC, Andy and the NYY. Howard did not do well, as could be predicted, given his drastic splits. But Chase Utley did just fine.
I agree with the suggestion that Boston will just have to wait and see how it goes. With so many more RHP’s in the league than LHP’s, it’ll be an advantage most of the time.
The danger is, of course, getting into a short series with a team that features lefty starters that just eat LHB’s up. In that particular case, their nightmare could be the NYY, that would throw Cliff, Andy, and CC at them multiple times in a short series (5 or 7-games).
If during the season that proves to be a big problem, is there any doubt that BOS makes a move for 1 or 2 RHBs to counter the move?
Certainly BOS is not stuck with their opening day lineup and can make some platoon additions is necessary.
“They got a lot better today. Yes, it’s a lot of money for a guy who doesn’t do the things that traditionally earn a lot of money, but he’s worth it, especially to Boston.”
As a Sox fan, this sums up how I feel about the transaction.
My reaction was more along the lines of “holy shit”.
Mine too.
Ditto
First.
I’m a huge Redsox fan, and I totally agree with moving him to Right Field. Do you think the lineup could be:
1. Carl Crawford RF
2. Dustin Pedroia 2B
3. Adrian Gonzalez 1B
4. David Ortiz DH
5. Kevin Youkilis 3B
6. J.D. Drew LF
7. Varitek/Saltalamacchia C
8. Marco Scutaro SS
9. Jacoby Ellsbury CF
Possibly switch 7-8?
Cameron should play CF
Of the Dave variety?
The problem with moving him to right is his arm has been described as bad. Maybe that is outweighed by his great range in right, but its something to consider.
So why not center? I’d definitely not put him in left. I think the shortcomings of his arm in right are less than the shortcoming of putting his speed in left.
I guess you could always put him in left and move the CF over toward RF to compensate but that seems silly.
You could almost have him play a rover position in almost shallow left-center, then move the center-fielder out toward the very deep right-center.
You might give up some extra doubles down the line in left, but you might make up for that by catching doubles and triples in right-center, and some extra singles in left.
Again, I don’t know that its worth it. But you could maybe at least do it for LHBs, then shift to a more normal arrangement for RHBs that stand a better chance of hitting something toward the line in Left.
Would be an interesting optimization problem using spray-charts and range measurements for each fielder.
i would’ve left ellsbury at leadoff and bumped everyone down one
Is Crawford going to leadoff?
I don’t think he should.
1. Ellsbury
2. Pedroia
3. Crawford
4. Gonzalez
5. Youkilis
6. Ortiz
7. Drew
8. Catcher Crap
9. Scutaro
I’ve heard that the Sox think Crawford can hit third so this is the lineup that I came up with as well. To have Crawford hit leadoff would make no sense unless they team traded Ellsbury because Ellsbury isn’t really suited to hit anywhere but leadoff. Having him hit 9th as a “second lead off hitter” would be a waste and they already have that guy in Scutaro.
Except Scutaro isn’t a starter. Lowrie is.
Crawford isn’t close to a good enough hitter to hit 3rd. He’s got a lower OBP than Ellsbury, so he shouldn’t be hitting first.
Well the Lowrie/Scutaro thing is definitely debatable. I don’t think any decisions have been made and won’t be until spring training. I do think the lineup will look very different with Lowrie in there.
And you couldn’t be more wrong about Crawford. Where to begin tearing apart your argument? Let’s start with the OBP.
Ellsbury’s career OBP is .344. His OBP in his only two full seasons was .336 and .355. I’d say his true talent level his around .350 OBP due to improvements in K% and other offensive stats (resulting in a higher avg, his BB% hasn’t changed much).
The last two seasons Crawford has put up a .364 amd .356 OBP, which I would say is pretty close to his true talent level. So when you actually look at the stats, you see that Ellsbury and Crawford have very similar OBP (and BB%).
Now to say Crawford isn’t good enough to hit 3rd is ridiculous. The guy he would be replacing in the 3 hole in the Sox lineup is Victor Martinez (he batted there most among Sox hitters last year, hitting in the 3rd spot 88 times, most by 39 times over second place Ortiz). V-Mart’s numbers last year were .302 AVG, .191 ISO, .364 wOBA. Compare that to Crawford’s .307, .188, and .378 wOBA. Those numbers look VERY similar to me. I don’t expect him to be there for 162 games, but he could hold his own if he batted 3rd the majority of the time.
“no decisions have been made, they’ll be made in spring training”
That means that Lowrie is the starter.
He’s better defensively than Scutaro, and worth about 50 runs more offensively. (yes, thats right, Lowrie’s wRC+ was 146, Scutaro’s is 96).
Lowrie was worth 1.8 WAR in 200 PA last year. Scutaro was worth 2 WAR in 700. There’s absolutely no way Scutaro starts, barring Lowrie being crippled in an accident.
Chulton, I don’t think VMart should have been hitting in the 3 hole either.
The 3,4,5, should be some permutation of Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz. All put up higher OBPs and SLG than Crawford, and there’s no way you should be lowering their PA’s to increase his. It could be argued that any of Pedroia, Drew, or Lowrie are also better options for that spot than Crawford.
Synovia,
“He’s better defensively than Scutaro, and worth about 50 runs more offensively. (yes, thats right, Lowrie’s wRC+ was 146, Scutaro’s is 96).”
Just no. wRC+ is more like OPS+ than RAR.
Looks like I did the numbers wrong.
Using wRC instead of wRC+.
Lowrie had a wRC of 34.1 in 195 PA.
Scutaro had a wRC of 78.8 in 635 PA
If you adjust each to 700PA, you get 122.4 wRC for Lowrie, and 86.9 for Scutaro, so Lowrie gives you an extra 36 runs offensively, and another handful defensively.
You would rather have Drew, who is 35, hasn’t hit above .280 once with the Red Sox and his wOBA has declined significantly each of the past 2 seasons, Pedroia, who has a career high ISO of .167 (for a full season), or Lowrie, a young player who hasn’t shown enough consistency to get more playing time, hit in the 3 spot over Crawford?
If I would “rather have that”, thats what I would have said. Notice I didn’t use those words.
I don’t care who else is in your lineup… a smart organization such as Boston won’t bat Youkilis as far down as fifth. He gets on base far too often to not get in front of Gonzalez. If this means Ellsbury has to bat ninth, then so be it.
Flip-flop Youk and Papi in my opinion. In any event, the lineup is murderous. I love it.
I’d keep Youk the higher of the two. I think he’s a demonstrably better hitter at this point in their respective careers, so I’d try to get him more AB’s rather than fewer.
Better to go L-R-L with Crawford-Youk-Papi. L-L-R leaves you vulnerable to lefty relievers.
Crawford’s OBP is way too low to hit lead-off. Ells will be at the top of the lineup this year.
Using OBP as an argument for putting Ellsbury in the leadoff over Crawford isn’t a very strong one.
OBP numbers for their last full season
Crawford (2010) – .356
Ellsbury (2009) – .355
BB% for those same seasons
Crawford – 6.9%
Ellsbury – 7.1%
although i agree that ellsbury should be in the leadoff spot with crawford hitting 3rd, youre reasoning is very flawed
Uhhh… you know that over the last five years, Crawford’s OBP is about 20 points higher than Ellsbury’s career mark, right?
To follow that up, a better argument for this should focus on K% and ISO.
Ellsbury – 11.9% and .114
Crawford – 17.3% and .188
I would rather have the guy with less power, but strikes out less, hitting leadoff and stick the guy with more power in a position where he can drive in runs.
This is why I can’t wait for FIELDf/x. J.D. Drew’s arm would not be as useful in left field, but neither will Crawford’s speed. When FIELDf/x comes out, the Red Sox will have people on situations like this right away (and I bet they have already thought about it).
Actually, Drew’s arm “strength” relies more on accuracy than power. That makes him perfect for LF in Fenway.
Eh, I don’t know where you’ve gotten that idea from, but from what I’ve seen he can launch it pretty well from the deep part of RF. Without any metrics to settle the argument, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
He’s got good accuracy and good power, but for a guy in his mid-30s, my brilliant albeit limited scouting brain suggests that arm strength will decline while arm accuracy will remain. Either way, doesn’t that mean he’s better suited in RF for those 1st to 3rd situations? Again, I feel like FIELDf/x would settle this.
i also agree with the idea of moving crawford to right and drew to left. the amount of ground that outfield would cover with ellsbury manning center would be incredible. another benefit of drew running around less in left is it may lead to fewer nagging injuries he deals with every year.
Just for the record, Drew has had a RangR of from +7 to +12 the last 3 years. Crawford has been in the 16 range.
UZR/150, Crawford has been +18, while Drew has been +10.
So while Crawford is a better defender, and has better range, its not drastically so, and I’m not sure it would offset Drew’s arm.
(i’m assuming that RangeR, and UZR’s baselines are pretty similar for LF and RF)
They’re not similar though, that’s the problem. Fenway might have the largest discrepancy between LF and RF of any ballpark.
Are we sure that Crawford will play in left?
The positional adjustment for CF is +2.5 runs. The position adjustment for LF/RF is -7.5 runs. That means we would expect 10 runs worse in fielding if he jumps to center. Given that his fielding runs over the past 3 years are 15.8, 17.5, 18.5, that would mean he is a +6-9 CF if he switches positions.
In other words, he should be able to play an above-average CF while still maintaining the same value, without having to deal with the problem of the green monster.
Over the past 3 seasons, his WAR have been 2.5, 5.7, 6.9. Valuing a win at 4.5 million, with 8% inflation per year, and a 0.5 reduction in WAR, here is what it would look like:
Starting at 6.9 WAR:
$/Win WAR Value
2011 $4.5m 6.9 31.05
2012 $4.9m 6.4 31.10
2013 $5.2m 5.9 30.97
2014 $5.7m 5.4 30.61
2015 $6.1m 4.9 30.00
2016 $6.6m 4.4 29.09
2017 $7.1m 3.9 27.85
Total Value: $210.67
Starting at 5.7 WAR:
2011 $4.5m 5.7 25.65
2012 $4.9m 5.2 25.27
2013 $5.2m 4.7 24.67
2014 $5.7m 4.2 23.81
2015 $6.1m 3.7 22.65
2016 $6.6m 3.2 21.16
2017 $7.1m 2.7 19.28
162.49
Starting at 5 WAR:
$/Win WAR Value
2011 $4.5m 5 22.50
2012 $4.9m 4.5 21.87
2013 $5.2m 4 21.00
2014 $5.7m 3.5 19.84
2015 $6.1m 3 18.37
2016 $6.6m 2.5 16.53
2017 $7.1m 2 14.28
134.38
The reduction in WAR includes chance of injury/lost playing time. I’m not saying that there’s no risk involved, but it doesn’t look like a horrible contract on the surface.
Crawford has said he doesn’t like to and doesn’t want to play center.
I can think of 142 million reasons why he might reconsider.
Perfect!
Im glad you got your LF. Now you can move Ells back to CF and then we’ll take that trade offer you sent us.
Papelbon
Ellsbury
for
Rasmus
Ryan
You don’t need two speedy OF. WE DO however need a lead off guy and Franklin is old. You’ll just move Bard into closer and put Rasmus into CF.
GOD I HATE RASMUS. He’s such a smug little kid. Lets make this happen….it’s a win/win Theo!
Thats a tremendous lose for one side.
…aaand I just saw the name of the poster I responded to. Joke > me
speaking as a Cards’ fan, I won’t take that deal. La Russa probably would though.
If there is any chance LaRussa would take this deal, I hope it’s offered and the Red Sox hire Bill Belicheck to perform some sort of jedi-mind control hex on the Cards FO to listen to LaRussa.
I really like Rasmus, and speak out about CR not being the CF LAST year, right from the start of the season.
But, I think everyone has to admit that he does have a little “JD Drew” in him (for lack of better phrase).
Seriously, after your first year in the bigs you say something along the lines of wanting to be traded. Now, I know no coach has probably said anything to Rasmus before other than “Colby, you just keep doing what you do.” But, let’s get real. This is ML baseball and it’s time to put the Big Boy Pants on.
I’m not a big fan of emotion-based decisions, but if Rasmus ever gets to the point where “He’s not working on that” or “he only wants to play hard for another team”, then it would be time toi send him away.
Talented? Yes. Valuable? Yes Valuable enough to put up with a bunch of crap? No.
Those comments do not excuse TLR for being just an arrogant, cranky, prick … and thoroughly enjoying it.
This is where the owners need to have a “STFU” meeting with both men.
“Ken Rosenthal mentioned on Twitter, this is $50 million more than the next highest contract in baseball history for a guy who had never hit 20 or more home runs in a season – Ichiro’s previous record of $90 million for five years just got blown out of the water.”
In other news, Florida Marlins team President David Sampson could not be reached for comment.
*Samson rather
[Expletive] Dave Samson
Would you guys mind explaining the joke? I feel like it’s gonna be obvious but I can’t figure out the Florida connection…thanks
@Chadam: Samson said contracts like the Ichiro one were “ruining baseball” back when it was signed.
We’re still waiting for that baseball apocalypse that was supposed to happened after Ichiro signed his extension.
Indeed.
I see the lineup as…
Crawford, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz, Drew, Salty/Varitek, Scutaro/Lowrie, Ellsbury.
This rounds out the order with speed on both ends. I like Lowrie over Scutaro b/c of his potential pop/OBP. This is a deep lineup with a lot of scenarios for Francona to play with.
This contract for Crawford is the MOST UN-THEO contract we’ve seen. Theo’s subsisted on a lot of low risk/high reward deals and extensions that justify this spending spree. The sox have the money and I wouldn’t worry about the Lefty problem b/c it will only last a year with Drew/Ortiz coming off the books in 2012, enter KALISH.
Agreed with one change. I’d move up Lowrie to seventh and drop Catcher X to eighth.
You’re right. If Lowrie wins the spot – which I prefer- that makes more sense.
kalish is a lefty too…
While it’s nice to have speed at the bottom – what about Ellbury 8th, Scutaro 9th?
Scutaro is a very patient hitter (which gives Ells more chances to run) and it splits up 2 lefties back to back. Scutaro is also the hitter you would probably least mind having to give up an out moving a runner to 3rd.
(If Lowrie wins the spot it probably no longer makes sense though)
Ellsbury’s speed would be wasted at the bottom. He should hit 7th, in front of the C and the SS if he’s in there. I’d still go with Cameron if he’s healthy.
Last 4 seasons:
Marlon Byrd________Carl Crawford
2145 PA__________2433 PA
.294 avg__________.302 avg
.350 OBP__________.351 OBP
.456 SLG__________.457 SLG
.807 OPS__________807 OPS
$5.0 million________$20.3 million
I’ve perhaps never seen such a risky contract given out. At least with Jayson Werth there is a diverse skillset so he’ll be useful for the length of the deal. Same for Vernon Wells. This contract could blow up in their faces with even a minor hamstring injury or something because his bat is just mediocre, it brings little value.
There’s the defense component which really isn’t close though.
But I’m surprised at how close the offensive #’s above are. I think Crawford’s offense gets perceived a bit higher because of steal totals(like Ellbury)
What would that comparison be for the last 2 seasons?
Crawford had 5.5 WAR in 2007-8 and 12.6 in 2008-9.
Holy crap, Eric Van just criticized someone for cherry picking data. I think the internet was just crushed by 2 tons of falling irony.
there is so much wrong with your post. as mentioned, you are ignoring defense. you are also completely ignoring speed and runs. you’re using the past 4 seasons, but over that period byrd has experienced his prime while crawford is just entering his.
YEAR Carl Crawford WAR vs Marlon Byrd WAR
2008 2.5 3.0
2009 5.7 1.8
2010 6.9 4.1
Career WAR 34.5 14.1
Crawford is 4 years younger, plays in the AL East, and steals bases. See how I made the numbers look in the favor of Crawford. marlon byrd is a lousy comparison.
You’ve never seen such a risky contract given out? Wait ’til you see that 7 year deal that Cliff Lee’s about to get.
According to BB-Ref the two closest career comparable to Crawford through age 28 are Roberto Clemente and Sam Crawford… So yeah, he’s a good player.
So when does the Red Sox payroll go above the Yankees?
The Sox probably won’t wind up adding much payroll this season seeing as how they shed 30M in payroll with Beltre, Martinez and Lowell’s contracts not on the books. Gonzalez only makes about $6M next season and just looking at AAV for Crawford, that equals out to about what the Sox lost in payroll. It was around $160m last season, I’d expect to stay around that number.
I don’t think the sox will use Crawford leadoff. He has stated he does not want to be a leadoff hitter, so they are more likely to bat him second or third.
I feel like the lineup will go
Ellsbury
Crawford
Pedroia
Agonz
Youk
Ortiz
Drew
Tek/Salty
Scutaro
Agree that I don’t think he’s going to bad leadoff. I’d leave Pedroia 2 and have Crawford 3 as I posted above.
Ellsbury’s one of the worst hitters in that lineup. He shouldn’t be hitting 1st. If he’s in there instead of Cameron, he should be 7th.
How? Is everyone forgetting that he hit .300 in his last healthy season. Last year was a fluke. He played 18 games and was hurt most of the time. Doesn’t mean he should be knocked for that.
Mike Cameron is also 38, can’t stay healthy, and hasn’t hit over .250 in his last 3 full seasons.
His best full year wOBA was .354, definitely decent but the post said that he’s one of the “worst hitters in that lineup,” which is true. Just because he might be a top three hitter in some lineups doesn’t mean that the Sox should bat him in a premium spot.
Mike Cameron is basically a TTO player.
His value comes from …
[1] Defense
[2] Walks
[3] Homers
Referring to his BA is probably not the best method (unless it is so low that his wOBA and WAR take huge hits, making him not valuable).
Cameron had injuries. Injuries decrease any player’s value.
Cameron is one of those guys that gets 1+ WAR simply from defense (if accurate), and his wOBA is generally above league average. He was a smart pickup in terms of WAR/$, but age and injuries were the risks.
Seriously, they have all these great OF prospects and Lars Anderson and they just acquired another OF and 1B long term. They must be the Noah’s Ark of baseball (2 really good players at every position?)
I’m wondering if they value their prospects as much as the analysts do? Seems to me if a team was data-based and made cost-efficient high-value decisions, then spending 250M over 7y on positions that your highest prospects play, maybe isn’t the brightest decision.
But, really, they’ll probably get some really good relievers or back end starter for those prospects (who will conveniently not pan out at the ML for their new team), and BOS will chuckle all the while.
ells is capable of a 350 obp, which is about the same as crawford, but crawford has more power which is why it makes sense to bat him. if you have ells and crawford with their speed, and then pedroia and agonz who bash (or will in agonz’s case) balls off the green monster you are going to have a lot of runs coming from the top of that lineup. Pedroia is a 50 doubles guy so hitting behind ellsbury and crawford will allow him to drive in a bunch and keep the table set for agonz.
They are giving Hank Aaron- Ted Williams money to a Juan Pierre type player.
By ‘Juan Pierre type player’, I assume you mean ‘black outfielder who’s fast’? Because that’s the only thing Pierre and Crawford have in common.
Actually, I’ve outproduced Crawford 0.7 to 0.6 WAR in 2011 and 2012.
I think Crawford has a bit more pop than Juan Pierre. I don’t think I need to post stats on this.
According to Baseball Reference, Hank Aaron made at least $1,565,000 in his career and Ted Williams $1,458,500. Probably incomplete numbers, but I’m pretty sure Crawford is being paid more money than both players combined for their careers, even if you adjust for inflation.
+1
Rounding up to present value, Ted Williams at most earned 1.25M per year. I’d rather have Pierre money than Williams money.
Hank Aaron-Ted Williams would be getting $30 mil plus per year in their prime in this market.
You’re gonna be great being the guy that complains that everything was better 30 years ago in the retirement home.
Scott – what are you talking about?
Hank Aaron wouldn’t be a 30 million dollar player. Williams is debatable.
I’d like to see Francona drop him in the middle of the batting order. The RBIs should go up as he sees more chances but I also wouldn’t be surprised to see a power spike if he sees some meatier pitches.
Look, I get that Crawford is a great defender, whether you use advanced metrics or just scouting reports. But you’re giving $142 million to a guy with a .337 career OBP. In what world is that a good deal? Even in his age 27 and 28 years, he’s only averaged a .360 OBP. Here’ s a comparison:
27-28 years
Shane Victorino: .292/.355/.446 with 61 SBs and average defense in CF
Carl Crawford: .306/.360/.473 with 107 steals and good defense in LF
Now obviously, Crawford looks like the better player. Perhaps a good bit so. But 7 years, 142 million better? Victorino got 3/22 from the Phils and that was probably considered a bad contract on here. I mean, wow. Crawford is a great player, but this market is just silly right now.
Why is Victorino’s contract bad? He is an above average bat at a premium defensive position, a package that’s easily worth 3 WAR. Isn’t 7.3 million a year bargain?
Now, before you attack my defensive characterizations of them, just consider their positions. Victorino was a FANTASTIC defensive RF: he had a UZR/150 of 20.1 in the season that he played there in 2007. That’s basically the player that Crawford is in LF (a position down the defensive spectrum from RF). Victorino moved to CF and was merely just above-average.
You put Crawford in CF, and I’m not sure he ranks that much of a better defensive player than a lot of guys.
I guess my point is that while the game might have undervalued defense for a long time, if this contract is justified mostly by Crawford’s defense, it’s entirely possible that it’s significantly overvaluing it at this point.
Picking one stat and saying that’s what makes the deal a bad one is ridiculous. It glosses over the fact that he’s a legitimate 5-tool player still in the midst of his prime.
Your own comp of Crawford to Victorino shows CC to be a MUCH better player even with you selling his defense way short. You seem to understand that Crawford is a great player and you mention it in the last sentence of your post, so why the surprise that he got a superstar contract?
It’s a hefty contract, but that’s what happens when you’re far & away the best player in the market.
The Yanks are probably willing to dig just a bit deeper with another dangerous lefty in Boston’s lineup. If they sign Lee and resign Pettitte (big ifs, I know), that’s three lefties they can throw at Boston in a short series.
As a die hard Red Sox fan and well read in “basic sabermetics”, I am confused by Crawford’s skill set,how much it is valued by WAR, and this contract.
Nick Swisher is a year older than Crawford. He had a higher OBP and Slugging percentage, hit more homeruns, drew more pitches, more walks, and yet had WAR of 3 less than Crawford. Is Crawford’s defense the difference? Are there other factors that I am missing? It seems pretty clear to me that plate discipline never fades. Why bank so heavily on a player who doesn’t excel at it?
Second, what scares me is next years free agency. What follows is assuming the Red Sox get back to their 2010 payroll (another 10 mil or so in relievers) of around 160 million for this season.
According to Cot’s about 45 million comes off the books following this season. If 20 of that goes to Agon, that leaves 25 million to pay/replace Buckholz, Ellsbury and Lowrie, who will be in arbitration, and David Ortiz, JD Drew, Cameroon (more than expendable, and Papelbon who will be Free Agents. In a sense they will have 25-35 million (depending on whatever the contracts, length and amount, they sign this year) minus whatever they pay in arbitration, to pay for a right fielder (unless Kalish is the man), a DH (a guy named Albert might be more worth the 20 million we gave to Crawford), and a closer (move Bard into the roll and you still have a gaping whole in the 8th inning).
By my estimation its around 15-20 million. Is that really enough for two every day players, and the closer?
They’ll have about $54mm* coming off the books next year, before Gonzalez’s raise and arbitration raises (estimate those as +$17 for Gonzalez, + $1 for Lowrie, + $3 for Ellsbury, + 3 for Buchholz). That leaves about $28mm.
They’ll have RF, SS, DH and CL to fill. RF will likely be filled by Kalish. SS will likely be filled by Lowrie. CL will likely be filled by Bard (though, of course, that means they have to replace Bard – but that is cheaper than replacing Papelbon). I can’t imagine Pulhols going to FA, but if he does I doubt that the luxury tax means much.
That leaves DH, the bench, and the bullpen, and $28mm just to remain budget neutral (assuming C doesn’t need replacing, which is a big if). I think the team for the next 3 years or so is pretty set in stone now, baring a trade of a significant player. I don’t think the Crawford signing will get in their way.
* $54mm=
$8 (Cameron)
$14 (Drew)
$12.5 (Ortiz)
$2 (Varitek)
$6 (Scutaro)
$11.5 (Papelbon)
IF $ were to get tight, they could always move Matsusaka and pick up another $10M in flexibility. That obviously means developing a low-cost replacement from within but I suspect Doubront may allow for that option. The big fiscal problem perhaps comes in 2014 when the Beckett and Lackey deals figure to be out of gas. So it’s incumbant on the system to produce some internals over the next two years.
Andrew
You are also missing stolen bases when thinking about WAR. I think the gist of your post is right on in that this deal will hamper the team going forward. I think it is at least a $50M overpay.
Crawford steals a ton of bases and consistently has one of the highest speed score in the majors, which gives a major advantage for him in calculating wOBA. Also, Crawford was close to Swisher in OPS alone (about .20) below Swisher, which led to a slightly lower wOBA on Swisher’s account. When you add to the fact that Crawford was worth about 20 runs more than Swisher on defense (which makes up 2 WAR of Crawford’s total by itself), and for park effects (Yankee Stadium is a majors hitters park), then the discrepancy in their WAR totals come to effect.
I am sure Zimbabwe will sign for cheap to backup CF.
That was the best typo I’ve seen in ages.
Crawford LF plus
Pedroia 2B plus
AGon 1B plus
Youkilis 3B plus
Ortiz DH plus
Drew RF plus
Lowrie SS plus
Salty C plus
Ellsbury CF plus =
Yankees get fucked in the ass!!!
Does this mean the small market Sox will have to stop getting revenue sharing?
Looking for some opinions on how this impacts Pedroia’s fantasy value…
The way I see it, Pedroia either hits leadoff or second (right ahead of or behind Crawford), or they move him down below the middle part of the order (hitting like 6th) and keep Ellsbury at the top. I suppose he could hit 3rd, but I have a hard time seeing 3-4-5 not being taken up by Gonz, Youk and Ortiz (in some order).
If Pedroia ends up hitting 6 or 7, does his value fall much? I see less SBs and Rs from that position.
Just looking for opinions as I need to decide if I will keep him or trade him in my league.
I don’t think anyone here cares a whit about your fantasy team.
Apparently you cared enough to be rude, Parker.
Hell with you Parker
I’m so disappointed in you…
I can’t lose!!
sox love pedroias bat too much to take him out of the top half of the lineup. hes going to hit somewhere in the top 3, thats for sure
Ortiz could definitely his 6th but even if Pedroia gets pushed down that probably won’t diminish his value much. The Sox know that stealing in front of weak hitters is more valuable than stealing in front of power guys so you might even see his steals increase from late in the order.
Cameron loves Theo Epstein. Theo could sign a dirty pile of laundry and Cameron would still find a way to justify it.
Yeah, Dave has this weird fetish for extremely well run organizations.
Uh, you might want to think about what you just said.
I think we could say Cameron has a fetish for organizations that employ certain methods.
Whether they are well run or not, depends on what team we’re talking about.
I think we could also really examine whether BOS operates really well or just spends really big. Mu suspicion is that they are one of the few that does both.
IMO, BOS is one of those teams that works within a budget, does some really good things, misses the playoffs and then says the hell with it and jumps right in and plays “Yankee ball”.
There are other organizations that Dave hates that do just fine and have the rings to show it.
#6org
(For Fredsbank)
Error 253–Relevancy failure. Your comment bears no relevance to any rational discussion and has been repeated too many times in lame attempts to make digs at a one-time ranking that was purely subjective.
Please pay the fine of $9,532.86 or the face the alternate fine of dinner at Ned Colleti’s house on Christmas Day.
This is a fine signing but let’s not forget that some of Crawfords value comes from his defense which will be diminished by playing 81 games in Fenway. While these moves replace V-Mart and Beltre admirably it does not make them drastically better. Boston still needs to get Beckett and Lackey to pitch like they are capable to win it all.
Why would we forget something that is right in the article?
Lackey was a 4 win player last year…how much better do you expect him to be?
Better than a 4.32xFIP.
Just like I didn’t like the Torii Hunter deal and the Vernon Wells contract, I don’t like this one. Going with my gut here. The “inflation” meme is soooo wrong that it’s not even worth debating again. Crawford is a good player but he’s been injured before (wrist that i can recall), and I think that you could get similar results with the so called “tweeners” that are never given a change due to their “lack of power” or their “lack of range”. As it’s been mentioned before, LF in Boston takes away his range +.
I haven’t seen anything written even discussing why the inflation meme is wrong, much less seen it repeated ad nauseam. Care to enlighten me?
I don’t think left-field at Fenway Park is as easy to play as you suggest. You make it sound like a sandbox while it isn’t much different than other parks.
This says one thing to me. Signing a player at this dollar volume and length with Crawford’s skill set is a very good indication that baseball’s steroid era is finally over. Now real 4 & 5 tool players are getting top money. I would put Crawford at a 4.5. However the shortened Fenway right field distance may add the missing RBI and HR power numbers.
I see the major shake-up to the Sox line up impacting Ellsbury. Nara has the right line up except Scutaro will play SS. Lowery is the utility infielder.
The money doesn’t phase me. I could care less who makes what. Crawford has so much talent and Sox fans have been try to get this kind of player since Fred Lynn left.
Unless we think that players of Crawford’s type also use steroids.
Which I would say is probably true considering how many track and field guys were busted for steroids.
I am NOT saying that Carl Crawford used steroids. I am saying that it wasn’t just big hulking 3 true outcomes that used steroids. Half the players that have been busted were pitchers.
I’m looking at the hypothetical lineups and they seem to favor Ellsbury in CF despite the fact that he is an average defender out there (career 0.2 UZR/150). I think putting Crawford in CF (career 9.2 UZR/150) despite his lack of recent experience there and putting Ellsbury in LF (~23 UZR/150; small sample-size) might work more to their advantage. Crawford’s arm is a few ticks above Ellsbury’s and would be better utilized in CF. Thoughts?
crawford doesnt like to play center. thats why the rays kept him in left all these years. I think the sox should move him to right, but ive heard he may even be resistant to that move too
Comments from players like this crack me up.
The guy with the best range on the team doesn’t want to play the position that covers the most ground?
Yep, he’s a real-team player that Crawford. Won’t lead off as well, despite possessing the best skill set on team for it. The opposite of Alfonso Soriano, who didn’t want to bat anywhere but leadoff for the longest time.
KG:
If he batted lead off he wouldn’t have had such spiffy RBI numbers to inflate his value!
Can anyone find Carl Crawford’s UZR in Fenway? That might give us some suggestive data. He probably has a somewhat large (as far as these things go) sample in that park already.
How is this possibly considered a good deal and the Werth deal is considered terrible? Just shows media bias to the big clubs.
Crawford is a better player.
Crawford is younger.
The Red Sox have more money to spend than the Nats.
I think they’re both pretty bad deals. I really really really like Crawford as a player, but at $20 million a year? Does anyone still think that the Beltran deal is still a good deal? That’s the best comparison I can come up with when looking at the biggest deals of the last 10 years… Beltran lacked Crawford’s speed but had more power and a better walk rate and look at him now… but I’m sure if the Red Sox get two 6WAR years out of Crawford, they’ll be happy.
Also, why can’t we bring up the fact that Crawford’s glove is less valuable in left than it is in center? $20 million a year for a great glove, no power left fielder doesn’t seem like the best way to spend one’s resources.
However, the Crawford deal makes much more sense for the Red Sox than it does the Nationals since the Red Sox should contend in all seven years that Crawford is there. The Nats might contend towards the tail end of Wert’s contract.
Every long contract is a huge risk with increasingly absurd dollars attached, but amongst these obscene contracts Werth’s is perhaps one of the worst and Crawford’s one of the best
This deal makes the Sox favorites for the World Series. The Werth deal makes the Nats favorites for 3rd place (maybe). You don’t get $30m plus for finishing in 3rd place in the NL East. They’re on different ends of the win curve and each dollar the Red Sox spend is more effective at this point.
Further, Crawford is a better player, younger, better skill set and didn’t get all that much more than Werth.
All the same, I don’t hate the deal for the Nats, but I don’t think its the smart move Boston made with Crawford.
At this point can we stop giving BOS credit for knowing “sabermetrics”? … and acting if they “outsmart” other front offices.
If they would sign Cliff Lee, this would be pretty much a replication of NYY’s offseason a couple of years ago.
I wonder how much of this has to do with the LAA being interested? I ask because they seemed to be pretty set in the OF. The Angels are rumored to be the favs for Crawford, and BOS throws ridiculous money at him, as they did Lackey. Granted it’s just 2 players, but given BOS’s troubles with LAA, it might be an interesting situation.
———————————–
As for Crawford. Seriously folks, lean athletic types age better than the more mesomorphic body comps. You can find evidence for this no matter where you look. Everywhere from medical journals to men’s softball leagues. It’s really pretty simple, they don’t add weight/fat, and their ligaments retain the elasticity and strength due to having less strong muscles pull on them for years.
The only thing that could throw a wrench into Crawford’s aging well is a serious leg injury, ala Mantle or Coleman.
I do have questions about the defensive metrics. There was a graph put up at TT’s site showing that Crawford basically caught 100-150 more balls than any other LF. That’s seems almost absurd to me that one guy could be that much better than all the other LF, but it is also possible. If that is accurate than CC may very well earn all that extra defensive value. Playing in front of the monster would be pretty much a waste of his skills. If that actually happens, I really don’t want to hear how smart BOS is.
Are you saying the Boston front office doesn’t know sabermetrics? Just because they have the budget to make big signings doesn’t mean they don’t do the things that saber types like, such as signing scrap heap players such as David Ortiz and Daniel Nava. This also seems a moderately far cry from signing Burnett, Sabathia and Teixeira in the same offseason. For one thing, neither Gonzalez nor Crawford will cost as much as either Sabathia or Teixeira, and for another, if the Sox hadn’t drafted well, they wouldn’t have had the resources to acquire Gonzalez in the first place.
The Sox haven’t really had problems with the Angels, excepting the 2009 division series. It’s actually been the other way around. This move had everything to do with the Sox about to lose two of their three projected starting outfielders after the 2011 season with only one realistic in-house replacement.
This also seems a moderately far cry from signing Burnett, Sabathia and Teixeira in the same offseason.
And this is all that matters!!!! Ignore the fact that 28 other teams could never dish out $300M in one winter, it’s only unfair if it’s more than the Yankees!!!!
Your BOS comments show less about your understanding of their front office and more that you have some obvious negative bias towards them.
They ARE a progressive front office that utilizes advanced stats, and I’m sure it would be any one of our wet dreams just to peek and the data and analysis they are sitting on right now.
The difference is they HAVE the money. People are nutso about the Bosox, and they cram more and more people into Fenway every year. It’s a shitshow. This means they HAVE the disposable income to make a sub-par value deal like this, to increase their chances even further that they make the playoffs.
This is about haves and have nots. They are a brand (like the Pinstripes). They didn’t make the playoffs last year. They have the money, more than enough. They have the fanbase, and they need to make them happy.
No one ever said “the BOS front office is the most shrewd in the business and never overpays for anyone”. The best generalization would be “intelligent front office utilizing progressive analytics wielding a Yankee-esque bankroll.”
It makes so much sense for them to make this deal happen at this moment in time with their depleted outfield, and it says nothing about whether or not they employ advanced sabermetrics. It means they need to win, and are sitting on a Scrooge McDuck vault.
They gotta move Crawford to RF, no? Any Tampa fans out there that can comment on his arm strength? Would he be a good fit in right? I’d like to see Cameron in center when he’s healthy, Ellsbury in left (and backing up Cameron in center), Crawford in right, and Drew and Kalish in a supporting role. That said, Ellsbury is pretty good trade bait right now. I’d happily trade Ells for bullpen help, a starting pitcher, or a good catcher (but who’s out there?). Beyond the stolen bases, his skill set is replaceable.
The Red Sox might be playing defense here. As a Sox fan, the thought of Crawford in pinstripes scares me. The short porch in right would give him a legit power boost, and he’d a significant overall upgrade over Gardner. They also prevented Crawford going to the Angel’s, where he’d be an excellent fit with Scioscia. The market forced their hand on salary, but hey I’d much rather see us overpaying for good talent than our competitors if we can afford it. The Sox were really thin in talent in the OF, and now they’re looking great…
I did not create a false dichotomy where if the Red Sox spend big they don’t know sabermetrics. What I did say is that we could stop giving them credit for “outsmarting everyone with sabermetrics”, because at the end of the day they are who they are because of their spending.
By all means they should do whatever they need to in order to put the best team on the field. They owe it to their city and fans.
I’m not jealous. I’m not bitter.
I would like to see structural/systematic change in baseball … so that intelligence does have a chance to thrive. Right now, it’s still the playground mentality, where even the kid that was “held back” twice rules the turf because of his size. In other words, almost all mistakes are simply overcome with clout.
But, I don’t resent BOS spending a bunch of money to make themselves better (provided they did not whine and cry when New York did/does it).
I was just saying that we should stop praising them and their success for including sabermetrics, as if that were the primary reasons.
What does sabermetrics say about the Beckett deal? Lackey’s contract? Matsuzaka’s contract?
Where and when do they actually use all the sabermetrics they are reputed to study?
To decide whether to acquire/sign AGonz and Crawford? My 9yo son could tell you those two guys are worth signing, especially if you have money enough to afford to overpay them.
It seems to me when BOS is presented with a real problem, such as a long-term shortstop, they cannot solve it? If they are unable to buy the problem’s solution, where does it get solved?
At this point, I think BOS is pretty much just a different version of the NYY. Previusly, I think they went after a specific type of player that could fall under the category of a high OBP type that may be undervalued by the former system.
Now, it’s just throw huge money at guys and hope the contracts pay off. If they don’t just repeat with a different player.
Sabermetrics probably said that a power hitting, slick-fielding, good-running shortstop was the best commodity to have … not one to trade away for a RH power pitcher.
Bill Mueller and Mark Bellhorn say hi.
Really? That’s it? Bill Mueller and Mark Bellhorn?
Am I missing something?
Are the examples of SBill Mueller and mark Bellhorn intended to counter all of the big overpay contracts that Bos has accumulated, as examples of the front office’s superior methods?
Should we count Scott Broscius and Marcus Thames as examples of the NYY don’t big contratc their way to success.
We might as well call Sabean a genius for the Huff signing.
I’m trying to be more funny than snarky, but I am wondering if the examples of Mueller and/or Bellhorn are intended to serve as examples of BOS FO’s mental advancement paying off. Seems weird to me since we’re talking about them in the same breath as guys with 7-year contracts. How long did Mueller and Bellhorn produce for BOS?
I think you’re missing a couple things. #1, the Red Sox did not sign AGonzalez, they traded for him. Because of shrewd drafting, farm depth, and the recent addition of potentially 5 picks in the 2011 draft (2 for vmart, 2 for beltre, 1 for lopez), the Sox could afford to move their two top prospects. #2, on opening day 2011, the Red Sox will have 7 players that were either homegrown (Lester, Youk, Lowrie, Pedroia, Ellsbury) or acquired via assets (Salty, Agon). Also, their two top relievers, Bard and Papelbon are homegrown. They’ve spent big on Crawford and Drew.
Get past the traded/signed thing, quickly. We can just say acquired him (I said traded in one post and signed in another, acquired in another).
They acquired him because they were one of a few teams that could afford to sign him long-term. No other team would give up 3 prospects for 1 year of AG. BOS’s ability to sign him is why AG ended up in BOS. Believe me, all of the other teams knew that Ag was a good play worth signing for a long-term contract. They also likely had the prospect package to equal or better BOS’s bid. They simply did not have the 20M for 7 years to sign him long term, and completely drain their farm system for 1 year.
In the end it came down to “can they sign AG long term”? The answer for most teams was “No”. The only other team that could was set at 1B.
What does this prove? Seriously. Being able to pay also counts in being able to keep your own homegrown stars. The NYY kept all of their homegrown stars by being able to pay them more than anyone else could .That’s very important because it seems like teams have to overpay to get a player to leave one team for another.
I pointed out the other day that if KC could afford to resign their own young talent, their outfield for a decade would have been Damon, Beltran, and Dye … probably better than any other outfield for the time period. That’s the point, being able to draft over slot, develop the players and then sign them for long-term contracts is a premium advantage. I don’t under-estimate it. Combine that with being able to sign the best FA’s on the market for premium contracts in both money and years, and you have high quality players at essentially all positions (or should).
What you’re explaining seems to compliment my comments rather well. My guess is that you were illustrating the BOS has drafted well over the past 5-8 years, and I agree. My point would be so have many other teams, they just cannot afford to keep everyone once they become free agents … a problem neither BOS or NYY has to worry about.
CircleChange11, have you ever considered, like, consolidating your posts, since it seems like it’s just a circular path to a bomb of a statement?
Those were just some of the best examples of undervalued guys making a difference. Some other good examples are Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, the JD Drew contract (blah blah blah, spend 10 minutes and realize the Red Sox could’ve given an anchor contract to Soriano or Lee, but chose the boring OBP’r over the .300 w/ power guys), shrewd drafting, etc.
If money is the only reason for Boston’s success, why has other big money teams flopped? Is life unfair for the Cubs, Mets, Angels, and Dodgers? They have plenty of money AND don’t have to play against the Yankees 19 times a year.
And the reason the Red Sox haven’t “solved” their SS situation at this point is more because Lowrie’s hurt a lot, and they have 20 year old in AA Jose Iglesias likely ready to go soon. Not to mention that before this week, the three best players on their roster were internet products (arguably 4). I think our GM is doing just fine, thanks.
Agree on both the consolidation (or not being so impulsive), and that BOS both spends wisely and spends a lot.
I think my overall point in regards to their spending was once upon a time they were almost frugal compared to what is going on now. I think I mentioned before that they seem to spend wisely, until they miss the playoffs, then they “fight fire with fire” in terms of “Yankee Spending”.
But, I do agree I really do need to get right to the point and/or make fewer of them. The internet is not the best communication medium for me.
It’s true that Crawford will play 81 games in Fenway – but he’ll also play 81 on the road. Do they really want Magglio Ordonez in LF in places like Yankee Stadium? The Sox have suffered defensively on the road over the years because because their home LF/RF are “reversed” (and perhaps benefited at home for the same reason). They tried to make the move to speed in LF last year with Ellsbury; there’s some inefficiency to doing so with a high-priced player like Crawford, but after all they’re playing to win.
This contract strikes me as pretty high, and especially for Boston (in terms of “fit”) – but it’s not just crazy like the Werth deal, or Zito.
This is probably as bad as the Werth deal. Too many years, too much risk. It seems much better to build a team around a young cost controlled core and add free agents pieces on much shorter deals. Unless you’re the Yankees.
Which the Red Sox are. They just choose to keep their payroll right under the luxury tax limit to appease Bud in return for giving them the team over the other parties with higher bids.
Which is fine for a stretch, but tough when you are trying to compete every year like BOS and NY.
Good signing considering they gave Beckett 80+ million and the guys fastball has zero movement on it. Its hard to forgive Theo for signing Beckett during his contract year(should have let him play it out) when most people can see the guy as not only soft but completely hittable with today’s fast ball hitters.
Despite the importance of lineup construction being overblown by some, I just can’t resist throwing out my own version of this incredibly dangerous lineup.
1. JD Drew – L
2. Carl Crawford – L
3. Dustin Pedrioa – R
4. Adrian Gonzalez – L
5. Kevin Youkilis – R
6. David Ortiz – L
7. Jed Lowrie – S
8. Jarrod Saltalamacchia – S
9. Jacoby Ellsbury – L
Keeping in mind that 1,2,4,5 are the most important spots in the order.
Pray you don’t face the White Sox in the playoffs with that line up.
1. Crawford
2. Pedroia
3. Gonzalez
4. Youk
5. Papi
6. Cameron
7. Drew
8. Tek/Salty
9. Scutaro
I think Crawford has to lead off with the need to spread out the lefty bats. Regardless of the ways this pans out, they’ve got a sick line-up and their defense should be great. Sox are your 2011 World Series favorites.
“Keeping in mind that 1,2,4,5 are the most important spots in the order.”
Say whaaaa??
Good, I’m glad we cleared that up that 44% of the spots in a batting order are the most important.
Narrowly beating out a 3-way tie between 3,6, and 8 for 2nd most important. Which leaves 7 and 9 as 3rd most important, obviously.
you would have jd drew hit lead off? you should probably stop taking your crazy pills now
As a Sox fan that watches a lot of games…. I’m very happy about this.
He has given the Sox fits in the past. I bet his WAR vs the Sox is somewhere around +1win per season as a divisional foe. Sure, $142m may be too much money for him. But is $120m over 7yrs? Not really. I’ll gladly accept they’re paying him $22m over the next 7yrs to not play for NYY or LAA. It helps the team.
Another Sox note… they’re looking awfully good for the next 5 or so years.
If Ichiro’s contract was “the end of the world as we know it,” Dave Samson’s head just exploded.
I’m seeing a lot of comments about Crawford and allusions to a lean, athletic body type. The dude is 6’2″, 220, with a thick lower half. Pretty much the exact definition of a mesomorph, it’s not much smaller than your typical RB or jacked WR. Can we all be so sure that a guy with his frame and play style is a sure bet to not lose athleticism at a greater rate than someone with a wispy frame, like Ichiro?
I’m rambling, but if he puts on any weight, his athleticism is going to wane, especially as he hits his early 30s.
Because it’s relative.
I agree he’s not a small, wispy type. But at the professional athlete level the Ichiro’s would be the “hardgainers” of the world.
The extreme Mesomorphs would be the Pujol’s of the world that could add muscle/weight just by walking by the buffet/gym.
Carl Crawford, IMO, is much more close to the “genetic jackpot” club Mickey mantle, Rickey Henderson, maybe Grady Sizemore, etc.
He’s much more a mesomorph than he is an ectomorph in the general sense. Compared to other professional athletes, he slips down a little on the scale … especially when they are really fast 6’3 250 pounds guys, commonly called linebackers.
The overall point is that by not adding extra weight (the not good kind) and being overly muscular (as funny as that sounds for a 6’2 220 guy) his joint, tendons, and ligaments have not taken a pounding (especially in baseball), and he’s likely to keep his skills and abilities rather well.
Crawford is going to be (or has the high chance to be) one of those guys that at 50, looks 35.
Picture Rickey Henderson now. Ask him if he works out. Yes, it’s a good reason to hate him. *grin*
Crawford is not a Willie McGee type, but he’s also not your typical corner of body type either.
Basically, he’s a perfect model for a “multi-sport” athlete, that doesn’t fit really well in any one category.
To add to this comment, the contract is not predicated on a history of being able to hit for power but on a single season of showing some limited power potential. A guy doesn’t automatically start hitting for power just because he ages, or because someone dreams of turning a slap hitter into a gap hitter (see Jose Reyes). He’s been given Manny-type money but Manny he isn’t.
As far as being compared to Roberto Clemente, that’s a laugh, Clemente’s best seasons were late in his career and all would agree he was an exceptional player. Despite the calls of “raaaacist” from the peanut gallery, the poster who said Crawford was more Juan Pierre than any HOF great made an appropriate point based on some basic stuff – BA, OBP, SBs, and the fact that no one wants to put either of them in CF. And yet, everyone blows hot air over his “defensive value”. He’d be better in RF? Riiiight.
Regarding the value of stolen bases, he obviously didn’t capitalize on all those times reaching scoring position because that doesn’t show in his runs scored. I wonder how many two-out steals he has, what situations he’s stealing in. ARod has made millions of dollars on pile-on home runs and superfluous RBIs, I guess the new bubble is speed.
Crawford 2007 – 2010 and Soriano 2003 – 2006, their four year averages prior to them signing their deals.
Crawford – .801 OPS, 13 HR, 45 SB, wRC 123
Soriano – .870 OPS, 37 HR, 31 SB, wRC 121
Remember that for most of that time Soriano was miscast as a 2B, and upon moving to LF was a plus defender there (54.2 UZR 2006-08).
Am I missing something here? Why isn’t the Crawford contract getting blasted?
So Dan O’Dowd is making “an expensive guess” (Dave’s words) with inflation re: Tulowitzki’s extension, because there’s just no way to tell what kind of salary inflation we’ll see in coming years. If salaries don’t inflate significantly, it’ll be a bad contract for the Rockies and it’s important to know that “no one really knows where the markets are going.” But this contract is just another brilliant gambit by mega genius wunderkind Theo Epstein, because he “only” needs to see 6% salary inflation in coming years to justify it. That six percent figure, if it came to pass, would more than justify Tulowitzki’s extension but when Dave wrote his reaction piece to that move the framing was just slightly different.
Good to see that Dave evaluates transactions objectively, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to some and chastising others for relatively identical moves.
Agreed, this seems a bit like hypocrisy on Cameron’s part. When you look at Tulo’s biggest portion of the contract, where he gets paid 20 million for his age 30-34 seasons, you go off market value of today’s economy, in which 1 WAR accounts for 5 million in value, and that the Rockies still own pieces to keep them in contention, then Tulo would have to put up 4 WAR in those seasons to keep equal value in the contract. Tulo has put up over 5 WAR in 3 of the 4 seasons, 6.4 in his last which wasn’t even a full season, and his injuries were freak injuries for the most part. Tulo is also, by all accounts, a well above average shortstop (5.8 UZR/150 for his career), if not one of the best in the league, and even if he couldn’t stay at shortstop for the duration of the deal, he has all the tools to be a pretty damned good 3rd basemen. Considering that this also helps the Rockies market in giving them a new face of the franchise especially when the Broncos are in disarray, Tulo’s deal is way better than people give it credit for, and better than the Crawford deal for sure, though I don’t believe it’s an albatross as some are making it.
Cameron HATES the Rockies with a passion. According to him the park puts in more effort than the players and is the equivalent of a PED. So I’m not really surprised that he would blast the Rockies and applaud the BoSox here. The only difference atm is that the Red Sox have been spending more. Personally, I think that the Rockies have more spending power than they have let on, otherwise they wouldn’t be trying to tie up CarGo, Tulo and Ubaldo all at once.
I’d at least point out that O’Dowd extended Tulowitzki several years before his contract expired. He didn’t have to. He already had Tulo.
Not saying the Red Sox had to sign Crawford, but if they were going to, they had to do it now. His last contract was actually up.
In other words, the fact that O’Dowd signed Tulo indicated that he was taking a gamble and banking on his guess. The fact that Theo signed Crawford indicated that he wanted Crawford.
I think that retaining the ‘face’ of the team for the length of his pro career has it’s own value that you can’t necessarily place a price tag on, sure, Helton’s balky back makes O’Dowd look like crap for giving him that deal, but Helton is also working with the Rockies to allow them to spend more now to help the team compete. Tulo is the same type of player that will work to make the team better even if he has to sacrifice in the short term.
I’m not saying I disagree that retaining the face of the franchise has value. I’m also not sure we can quantify that value accurately. However, I think the timing of the deal puts it into a different class of decision than signing Crawford. They aren’t the best comparison because there are a lot of differences between the two situations. Hence I don’t see the hypocrisy, regardless of whether Cameron is right or wrong.
I haven’t looked into Cameron’s history of analyzing the Rockies, but even if he has been harsh on them, I think the comments are too quick to jump up and claim bias. If he seems to be unfair to the Rockies, then he probably truly believes in a strong park factor, as you said, and his analysis is based on that park factor, not his opinion of the team. For what it’s worth, I think Cameron knows what he’s doing with park factors in general. The community in general oversimplifies park factors to a great extent.
I don’t think it’s a given that the Green Monster will affect Crawford’s defensive value. Sure, there’s less space to roam, but it also allows Crawford to play more shallow, and gobble up all the bloops/flares that frequently drop in over the infield.
At least, that’s what I would do if I were Carl Crawford. I’d also have 142 million reasons to tell you guys to suck my balls.
What if Crawford counts his ball-sucking units in quarters? Then he’d have 568 reasons to tell you to suck his balls? Who said a reason to suck his balls has to be a dollar??
“The Green Monster turns a lot of potential outs in other parks into base hits in Fenway, which may diminish Crawford’s ability to perform at the same level as he did in Tampa Bay”
I’m not convinced this is true.
The vast majority of hits to the outfield fall in front of the outfielders. With a guy like Crawford in Fenway’s left, he should be able to play really far forward (Like they were doing with Elsbury, before Beltre ran him over), and turn a lot of singles into outs, while still being able to get back to hard hit balls.
Crawford’s range will also allow Ellsbury to cheat right a bit, and cover some of the gap between him and Drew.
Good point! :p
The more I think about this contract, the worse it gets. A lot of Crawford’s value comes from his glove. That gloves become nearly worthless at Fenway. His WAR is gonna take a huge hit unless he moves to right since .300/.350/.450 outfielders aren’t worth 20 million a year.
It was also pointed out to me that Fenway is a triples minus park, while the Trop was triples plus park… which means triples become doubles which is going to hurt his slugging. I’m thinking Crawford is a 3-4 WAR player the next few years unless he’s moved to right, where he’ll have a chance to be a 6-7 WAR player.
Also, while solid, Crawford’s OBP isn’t eye popping in anyway.
Just because left field in Fenway is shallow and there’s a huge wall up there doesn’t mean a player will lose ALL of his defensive value. Ellsbury has put up +23.2 UZR/150 playing left field at Fenway so it is possible to make an impact defensively there. I know this is a small sample size and not what we should expect from Crawford over a full season, but it’s more to show that it IS possible to be a plus defender in left field at Fenway. (The last two guys to play extended time in left for the Sox with decent sample sizes were Jason Bay and Manny Ramirez, both terrible defenders that don’t compare to Crawford in any way so it’s no use looking at their numbers.)
On Saturday, Rany Jazayerli wrote 4000 words about why Carl Crawford was worth 7 years, $140 million to the Royals. Good perspective on how to justify the dough sabermetrically.
This is an overpay for any team but the Red Sox or Yankees. The Yankees can afford to pay Jeter 17 million and the Red Sox can afford to pay Crawford 21 million because they have a market where the revenue production per win is closer to 6-7 million than 4-5 for a league average team in a mid size market.
As a GB/LD hitter Crawford gets little benefit from Fenway. His 320 BABIP on GB requires him to maintain his speed. He may lose a few hits to LF on LD at Fenway since the LF’er plays shallow. His K/BB ratio and P/PA is not very impressive, and he does not hit LHP’ers well.
Red Sox first choice was Werth, but the Nats beat them to it. So the the Red Sox beat the Yankees to Crawford who would have went after him if they failed to sign Lee. Crawford would be more valuable in NY, so thats a plus.
What people fail to realize is that after 2010 with slumping ratings and a poor secondary market for tickets, a failure to win in 2011 would cost tens of millions in lost revenues for NESN and the Red Sox at a time when the owners of both (NESV) has invested 450 million in Liverpool. Losing is not an option in 2011.
The Evil Empire Jr has given MLB notice, much like they did after their terrible 2006 season and the Yankees did after their terrible 2008 season.
” He may lose a few hits to LF on LD at Fenway since the LF’er plays shallow”
Red Sox LF’ers play shallow. Almost no one else does at Fenway. I don’t know why, but thats pretty much the way it is.
Finally someone who dives into more advanced statistics but doesn’t lose their head.
Am I the only who thought “Johnny Damon” with this deal?
I don’t think people are really appreciating the base problem with the Red Sox. I am not naive and watching the Red Sox bat against good teams/pitchers, CC in August, was brutal. But the Red Sox, despite a laughable string of luck, were 2nd in the league in runs.
The real issue to this team was the pitching. What’s theo’s plan on this one?
1. Lester is a rock.
2. Buckholz was unusually luck last year. He will still be a stud.
Then what?
Beckett? look at this stats, he has had as many mediocre years in boston as ace like.
Lackey?- his stuff looked alot less active, and that included his “revival” in the second half of the season.
Dice-K?
The bullpen is barren.
Doubront is unproven.
Papelbon is on a two year decline.
Bard is a rock.
This money should have been spent on Lee. A real chase of him would have made the yankees work (not that this won’t), and we if we can go this deep why not? They should have signed Russel Martin, and a whole bunch of Relievers. Thats a far better way to spend the 35 million.
Traded Dice-K or eat the 10m.
This monster deal seems to be addressing a non-issue.
On the bright side the Red Sox are a little less ridiculously white.
You can’t say Buchholz was lucky without saying Beckett is Unlucky.
The popular sentiment in Boston is Beckett/Lackey cost us the 2010 season.
Which is an improvement I guess, people are at least blaming guys who had bad seasons, instead of guys who had good seasons that the media doesn’t like.
Huh? That is most certainly not the popular sentiment among Bostonians with any understanding of baseball. Losing Pedroia, Youk, Ellsbury for the season and VMart and Cameron for an extended period of time cost us the season.
Huh? That is most certainly not the popular sentiment among Bostonians with any understanding of basebal
How many fellow Sox fans actually DO have an understanding of baseball outside of what they hear sports radio scream?
Every older person I know is more than ready to throw Lackey and Beckett under the bus.
I understand baseball has to Ls
Russell Martin is still out there, right?
Andrew, do you realize what a volatile commodity relievers are? How many guys follow up a lights-out year by getting shelled the following season? Very few relief pitchers are consistently beasts, the vast majority of them are closers and setup men and most do not hit the open market. When they do they get out-sized contracts.
A little less ridiculously white?
Yeah man, Epstein went out and tried to build the whitest team money could buy. It’s the only way to win in the AL East.
Don’t be ignorant man, your stupidity is offensive.
Let’s end on a high note. Good luck with your GED classes.
Yeah Andrew great idea. Sign Lee. Sign Lee for 7 years, in a good hitters park, from 32-39 when he relies primarily on command and location to get hitters out, is a flyball pitcher, and in the toughest division in the league?
Mix me two of whatever you’re drinking.
Question to the group: aren’t there changes coming to the draft rules that’ll hamper the Sox’ (and Yanks and Mets etc.) annual collection of Casey Kelly/Anthony Renaundos? Those above slot guys that would’ve been high first rounders but they pick up later on in the draft because they can throw money at them? If they can no longer play that game (the game that yields both internal stars and the kinds of pieces that can get you an Adrian Gonzalez) going forward, then don’t you need to lock in some key pieces long term?
Not to mention upcoming MLB / MLBPA negotiations … lots of doubt out there and I’m sure that owners want to lock up the “devils they know”.
Can you clarify the bit about the changing draft rules? Am I right about that? I haven’t been able to nail down the facts. Hate operating under this vague, hey-didn’t-I-read-somewhere notion I have.
The yanks and mets are not big players in the over slot game (especially the mets – they go slot only). The sox have been exploiting this, but by no means are they the clear leader in the clubhouse. For example, check out last years draft spending:
http://www.mlbbonusbaby.com/2010/02/13/weekend-column-draft-spending/
Top Five
1. Pittsburgh Pirates – Greg Smith, $9.35 million
2. San Francisco Giants – John Barr, $7.7 million
3. Boston Red Sox – Jason McLeod, $7.44 million
4. Tampa Bay Rays – R.J. Harrison, $6.875 million
5. Baltimore Orioles – Joe Jordan, $6.64 million
This is where the small market teams should be spending, and some clearly do. But 9.35M was the top spend, you don’t think small market teams can compete with the big boys under this system?
That’s really eye-opening. Are the rules actually changing?
Stoney: Well, nothing has been changed yet, or is scheduled to change for that matter.
It’s just likely that something will change, as the current CBA(Collective Bargaining Agreement) is coming to an end after the 2011 season, and there’s been talk about changing free agent compensation rules as they currently stand(where a team signing a Type A free agent loses a first or second round draft pick, depending on whether they draft in the 1-15 slots or 16-30 slots).
And it’s certainly possible some things will change, and that some teams are anticipating this right now and that’s affecting the moves they make.
When a speedy 30-year old signs a longish contract, you can rely on the analysis to mention that it might be a bad idea to sign a guy way into his 30′s when speed is such a big part of his game. When a slow 30-year old signs a longish contract, you can rely on the analysis to mention how poorly slow guys age. Enough already. Long contracts are no good, in general, and they should be avoided if possible, but it’s not always possible. it’s the cost of doing business, and I’m sure the Red Sox understand that.
I agree, and I think most understand that.
Teams in specific situations are more justified in the risk. For example, BOS is ready to compete NOW with the most competitive franchise in baseball.
WAS is not ready to compete, nor may bthe be for the next 2-3 seasons.
There are times when it is more justifiable to take on a long contract. IMO, BOS is fine taking on both of these contracts. WAS is not.
I just don’t want to hear BOS or their fans complain about NYY, buying multiple free agents in a single off-season, or touting how they use sabermetrics to make better moves than everyone else.
The NYY and BOS have outspent everyone to such a degree that we are now evaluating their transactions on a different scale (6-7M/WAR rather than the 4.5 or 5M/y we use for everyone else).
As I like to say, that’s ruckin fidiculous.
I compare what happens at MLB with what I see at the HS level. basically a whole lot of a and 2A teams are trying to compete with some 5A teams. Not. Gonna. happen. Let’s contract about 8 teams and get it over with already.
I don’t have the time to go into this in full detail, but here’s a quick run.
I agree, the Sox are one of the top spending teams in MLB and clearly use it to their advantage, as the system allows them to do. But take a quick look at their record prior to 2002, when Theo/Henry took over, specifically the 1980′s and 90′s.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/
That’s a whole lotta crap, filled mostly with mid to low 80 win teams. What changed? Did Boston suddenly get an influx of residents, creating a larger market, allowing the current regime to expand payroll? I don’t believe so.
From my vantage point, I see a new management team running the franchise like a successful business. On the marketing side you have the creation of pink hats, “Red Sox Nation,” 24/7 TV coverage on NESN, “America’s Most Beloved Ballpark,” etc. On the baseball side you have a commitment to player development (see Lester, Buchholz, Bard, Papelbon, Pedroia, Youk, Lowrie, Ellsbury) + farm system (consistently recognized as one of the deeper systems) + focus on draft (ranked 3rd in 2009 draft – http://www.mlbbonusbaby.com/2010/02/13/weekend-column-draft-spending/, and I believe 3rd in the 2010). And yes, because of the revenues, you have a team that can spend $160M on payroll, as well as use assets to acquire players (Kelly/Rizzo/Fuentes for Agon, Masterson/Price/Hagadone for Vmart being the two latest examples).
“or touting how they use sabermetrics to make better moves than everyone else.”
I personally haven’t said that, and I’m not foolish enough to think the Crawford signing was some genius saber move by Theo. But also don’t ignore the signings of Ortiz, Mueller, Millar, Bellhorn, Nava, Beltre, all undervalued assets at the time.
But what’s the solution? Should they be penalized for running a successful business? Salary cap so that owners can pocket even more money?
BTW, while clearly playing on a level that only a few teams can, the Sox have still been outspend by 46% since 2002 vs NYY.
I agree completely, and I have throughout the thread.
IMO, BOS gained an advantage over the NYY for a short period of time due to spending wisely and focusing on homegrown players. They essentially replicated what the Braves did with bringing up great young players and meshing them with establiushed veterans and key free agent signings.
For a few years, Boston was THE model on how to build your organization up.
But, then they do seem to get to a point where it seems like they think “Why should we only make smart, value-laden moves, when we don;t have to” and then offer Lackey and Crawford contracts far above (or maybe just well above) their likely production value.
A part of me wonders if the LAA being involved, and BOS’s tough history with them, causes their emotions to play a larger role than usual. They are human.
I don’t blame BOS for spending. Why should they restrain if they don;t have to. Like Sandy Alderson just said, “Why operate on a tight budget if you don;t have to?” in regrads to whether he will run the Mets like “Moneyball”.
My overall feeling on the Red Sox is that they are (or were) highly intelligent and really used it to make huge advances in the organization, but then when the NYY spend like crazy and BOS misses the playoffs, they just say “Aw the hell with it” and flex some brawn. Why shouldn’t they?
When it comes to market, it’s just not population size, but local wealth that also plays in. So, not only do they have large cities in NYY and BOS, but also wealthy cities, that are incrdibly crazy with baseball. It’s the perfect storm up there. NYY and BOS also push each other like no other teams do.
I live in NL Central country, and teams simply don;t spend as much because they don;t have to. If the Cubs spend 200M wisely and take over the division, it’s a safe bet the cardinals will respond with doing the same thing, or explore new ways of getting better (under-valued commodities, player development, international FA’s, etc).
IIRC, the NYY didn’t get ridiculous with spending until the Red Sox beat them (perhaps 2004). Then the two teams have basically been pushing each other higher and higher.
Why does it matter how much a large market team pays for a player? Shouldn’t this only matter for small market teams with strict budgets? Large market teams (i.e. the Red Sox and Yankees) have the luxury of being able to overpay players to sign them. They can afford it! All you need to know is that the Red Sox are better with Crawford than without him. Someone who is going to contribute 5-6 WAR in the outfield, where the likes of Darnell McDonald and Daniel Nava saw significant time last season, is a huge bonus for the Sox. And as much as other teams may hate it, they can afford to overpay for him and all the talk of if this is a bad contract or not is meaningless.
Besides my preference for structures more resembling the other American sports, my recent comments are being misinterpreted as if I am saying that BOS and NYY should not outspend everyone. Duh. Why wouldn’t they? Why wouldn’t they use their #1 advantage?
Disagreeing with the current setup in MLB and saying that the NYY/BOS should not use their #1 advantage are two very different things. Isn’t that obvoius?
I’m not saying NYY/BOS should not outspend any and everyone (or even 3-4 teams combined). I am saying they should not be allowed to; we should stop praising their front office intelligence; and we should stop making fun of everyone else for not being more competitive.
IMO, MLB is a more extreme version of the BCS.
You do realize that Chicago (both), Detroit, ANA, NYM, have all outspent Boston most of this decade, right?
What kind of justification is that?
Besides, I’ll give you a chance to look up the numbers and then self-correct your statement
In ’00, NY was the #1 spending team @ 95M. 10th was COL @ 65M.
In ’10, NY was the #1 spending team @ 206M. 10th was SF @ 97M.
Please tell me you see the differences in disparity? The top teams have increased their spending disparity by 100M, whereas the 10th highest spending team has increased by 30M.
This is no longer having a “slight advantage”; this is literally playing a different game.
@circlechange11: you do realize that the MLB in general has been raising payrolls right? The inflating price of a win has something to do with this. this offseason we are seeing some crazy FA contracts given out… and NONE by the yankees. yes, jeter and rivera resigned with the yankees, but for the same (mo) or less (jeter) money than they earned last year. the red sox traded for Agon, so the only signing they made was of crawford. teams spending like crazy are WAS and DET. the rangers, rockies, giants, dodgers, marlins, nationals are all increasing payroll by quite a bit. everyone is getting richer and putting that money back into the team, as they should. teams like the marlins (normally) and pirates are in it to get luxury tax money and get rich without investing more in the team.
Not only do I realize it, I pointed it out in the post right above yours.
Over the last 10 years, the “10th highest spender” has increased their payroll by 30M. As you said, team payrolls have gone up. Inflation alone will cause that (if nothing else).
In those same 10 years, NYY and BOS has increased their spending by AT LEAST 100M. So, they have increased the disparity from 30M to between 70-100M (at least!).
The gap has widened. That was MY point. While there are some teams that pocket the revenue sharing money, I would also ask the question “how much should they spend to finish in 3rd place?”
I also think that just because teams (Nats) have some money doesn’t mean they have to burn it immediately (Werth). Save it for a rainy day (like 2012, when SS and BH are worth building around).
My comments were about the widening gap between the HIGHEST spending teams, which would be NYY and BOS. Noting that team payrolls are getting higher is pretty much common knowledge, and a baseball trend for over 100 years.
But why bring up the NYY? ….
[1] They already did spend in 2008, and ARod’s ridiculous deal through his age 42 season. I don’t even expect the NYY to spend 200M every off-season, maybe every other (heh Heh), but not every.
[2] they’re getting ready to set a new record for absurd with the Cliff Lee deal.
He is a good player
@ Crawl Crawford,
“A guy who relies on an abnormally high BABIP”
BABIP for hitters and pitchers is entirely different. There are some hitters (notably faster runners) who tend to put up higher BABIP numbers. After several years they have a historical baseline to measure BABIP against. It’s not .295, the “neutral” mark is different for different types of hitters.
Also, negative 50 votes for being the guy who uses “Mainstream media” in any argument. Next time try and work in “liberal media elite”. Thanks.
I hate Boston, but for the Mariners sake I love this move. A loss for the Angels is a win for my sorry a$$ M’s!!
I think the angels feel the same way about your beloved Jack Z signing M.olivio
Yeah, it was quite a day for my Seattle Mariners.
They signed veteran catcher Miguel Olivo, and mysterious newcomer M. olivio, whose role with the team is shrouded in mysterious(just like his first name–what’s the “M” stand for, anyway). There are some in Seattle who think that M. olivio portends great evil for the future. Some say he is a harbinger of doom.
And some just think that he’s Miguel Olivo’s evil cousin who can’t spell. That’s people for ya! ;)
1. crawford’s 134 OPS+ last season was his first above 117…and his career OPS+ is 107. he is an above average hitter who runs fast.
2. go ahead and take a look at anything that compared age with speed. crawford is 29 right now. i would LOVE to wager with anyone that thinks he will stay near his current SB rates.
3. crawford’s great defense. o rly? going by WAR, his glove reaped a 0.1 last season. go ahead – look it up. 0.1 more than my dog’s spleen. yes, he was better in prior years. so? you cannot ignore 2010, either.
4. left fielder. why? because he does not have the arm for CF or RF. he is FAST…but has no arm.
5. someone pointed out that a key comp was roberto clemente. yes…and no. simlar thus far? yes. but clemente was a very odd creature that actually got stronger later in life. i do not need to explain here how that does not jibe with baseball history.
crawford is one of the more over-rated players in the game, IMO. now, he will make the hall of fame one day, as he will easily surpass 3,000 hits (due to an early start age-wise and his refusal to draw walks). 1,520 to go. wow. i just looked. 293 career walks and a career .337 OBP?! ouch.
that said, i like the sox and carl is a nice enough dude, so…good luck to him. but i expect that after two years, the yankees will be laughing at this one, unfortunately. i was really hoping they would’ve signed him and thrown away money instead of boston. dang it.
When trying to convey an intelligent counter-point, “O RLY” doesn’t work well past 4chan.
That being said, way to cherry pick one year of baseball-reference TZ scores, when basically every other metric says he’s fantastic as a defender.
Awesome…just awesome.
I agree completely on the 1 year sample size. You cant point at 1 year of defensive performance and say “See, he’s not that good” or “Wow, this guy is great”. For example, see Ibanez in 2009.
o rly? one season?
2003: -1.1
2006: 0.1
2007: -0.1
2010: 0.1
so, since becoming a regular in the AL in 2003, in half the years he has shown to be merely average or just under. in the other four years, he has shown to be good.
in the most recent season, he was shown to be average. if i had gone back to 2007, perhaps you could suggest i was cherry-picking. in determining where a player currently stands, the more recent the data, the better. and most recently…he was a 0.1. i cannot fault him for his terrible performance in 2003. he is not that player any longer. nor is he the 2009 player.
again – there is a reason why he doesn’t play CF with that kind of speed: his arm is that of a powerful woman’s.
Convenient omission of 2008 and 2009 when he was a +12 and +18. So that’s a +31, or +10.3/season in the 3 year sample required by most any serious analyst in measuring a player’s defensive ability.
This is the low end. DRS lists him at +51 since 2008, UZR at +51.8. He didn’t win the Fielding Bible award in LF, but he won it three years in a row (07-09). Baseball Prospectus forces you to pay for their stuff, but I know they rated Crawford as a +10 in 2008, and a +19 in 2009.
So yeah, you can use that halfhearted comparison by citing one year of a statistic that is good, but also an estimation, vs. other statistics actually calculated using human judgement and batted ball types, rather than just the latter.
Also, Omar Visquel once posted three-straight negative TZ seasons. He won the GG in two of those.
So yes, according to your cherry picked #, he was average. According to most other people w/ a pulse and a perception of baseball, he was well above.
we actually have common ground here, but i first need to address a flaw in your equation. no analyst would look at +12/+18/+1 and see 10.3 as the average. well, no legitimate analyst, at least. no one sets an alpha factor the makes three-year old data as relevant as recent data.
in a simplistic form, i will use james’s weighting as per the favorite toy: x1/x2/x3.
1*3=3
18*2=36
12*1=12
summary: 51/6=8.5
babe ruth hit 34, then 22 and then 6 homers in his last three seasons. on average, that is 21 per season. but who would expect him to hit 21 that next season if he played? nope. the 6 is much more valuable because it is more recent trend.
that being said – i agree with you. i have an alternate agenda here. the WAR figures are plain just not seeing the truth many times. it is criminal to worship at the alter of WAR and believe that it is infallible. our eyes (and sometimes other metrics) do tell a more clear picture. like with crawford. he is a very fast dude that has a poor arm. he can get to balls that many cannot,and he will allow runners to take extra bases on his arm, as well.
The notion that left field in Fenway Park neutralizes his seems flawed.
Fenway Park dimensions:
http://www.baseballfielddimensions.net/wp-content/uploads/fenway-park-dimensions.gif
Tropicana Field dimensions:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/stadium/tropicana_field_dimensions.jpg
The dimensions are pretty similar, no?
I understand the height of the wall plays a role, somewhat, but as someone else mentioned, he’ll likely play closer to center and more shallow, utilizing his range in different ways. The sinking liners over shortstop might alone make up for the fly balls he doesn’t have to track down over his head.
http://www.baseballfielddimensions.net/wp-content/uploads/tropicana-field-dimensions.gif
Picture of Trop dimensions from the same site.
Maybe I’m being hasty and missing something as far as analysis, but Fenway almost seems larger because of the alley.
If its one thing I want out of my LF, its great defense.
On the off-chance you’re even remotely serious:
Good defense is valuable at any position, especially the outfield as there is lots of room to cover out there. I would assume you know this, and you probably think that defense is extremely important in center-field. For some reason, you don’t realize that better defense in left-field improves the defense in center-field, shortstop, third-base, and perhaps even right-field too.
Good defenders make defenses better. The same amount of ground needs to be covered by 9 people. If you have average defenders 1-9, you’ll be average. If you have great defenders 1-9, you’ll be great. If you have terrible defenders 1-9, you’ll be terrible. These are extremes. The Red Sox next season will have four great defenders, and only one or two terrible ones depending on how you view Ellsbury.
Oh and Crawford’s offense is fantastic too.
Not really all that serious to be honest but if I were to pay big money for a great defensive OF, I’d probably look at CF or RF before LF is all. Its not quite as important defensively as either of those two positions.
As to the rest of what you said, I pretty much agree completely.
Also, LF defense in Fenway is even less important than pretty much any other ballpark. (that part IS serious)
I posted above the dimensions of Fenway Park as well as Tropicana Field, where Crawford played previously, and you’ll note they’re very similar.
Someone far more intelligent and eloquent than I should make the point better than I can, but I don’t see why it’s so obvious that Fenway’s left field has this reputation of being easy to play just because it looks small.
Actual dimensions 310-335-390 v. 315-364-404. Someone smarter than I can calculate the specific difference in area, but even when done crudely it’s easy to see there is significantly more turf to cover at Tropicana field.
The other aspect I haven’t seen mentioned is how well Crawford will play the big monster. I’d guess the Sox have liked what they’ve seen in the past from Crawford out there.
At this point, I want either Boston or New York to trade for the entire Kansas City Royals roster in exchange for a pair of prospects.
I can’t stand the Yankees.
At this point I’m torn between (a) having them lose out on Cliff Lee and watching them scramble for another starter (especially if Pettitte retires or (b) watching them sign Cliff Lee, and then witnessing him fall apart over the course of the next seven years.
Do I think Cliff Lee will be great next year? Yes.
Do I think he’ll be great to very good in 2012? Yes.
Do I think there is any possible way that he holds up for anything close to seven years? Absolutely not.
The guy has frequently been hurt in his career, and I don’t think there is a chance that he stays healthy over the course of the next seven years. And the Yankees (or any other team) definitely won’t be able to insure a pitcher’s contract at that annual value and length. And even if you’re the Yankees, if you have $25 million per year going to one guy who can’t pitch, it has to hamstring you a little bit.
So this is my dilemma….
I don’t think 25 million will hamstring their franchise in 2016 or anything. It’s suggested nearly every time they make a long term commitment like this but they always stay pretty competitive. Having a bottomless pit of money is a good thing.
Crawford is a fine player, and a tough out but I feel the Sox gave him this contract fully knowing they will slightly regret it on the backend (of course).
One can talk about the aging process all day but it means nothing without talking about the man Crawford actually is, which I have no insight or knowledge of.
Will he continue to work his butt off, day in and day out to help curb that aging process? Or will the $$$ maybe make him a bit lazier, a little less willing to put in the necessary work/training/diet?
The human aspect is the volatile portion for me. Hard to graph that.
*to me the best comp would be Johnny Damon
nice article man, thanks for sharing your idea