Skip to content

BoSox went seven years for Lee? Halos lowballed Crawford?

Dec 9, 2010, 1:12 AM EDT

stack of money’s Ken Rosenthal reports that one of those two mystery seven-year offers for Cliff Lee came from the Red Sox before the team signed Carl Crawford.

An official with another team told Rosenthal that the Red Sox made the offer, but that it wasn’t for a comparable salary to what Lee figured to be offered elsewhere. The idea perhaps was to give Lee a seven-year deal to shop around, most notably to the Yankees. It’d be gamesmanship at its best.

As for the Angels’ offer to Crawford, a source told Mark Feinsand of the New York Daily News that it was seven years and $108 million, a full $34 million less than he got from the Red Sox.

We’re pretty skeptical of that info; $108 million for seven years works out to $15.42 million per season. Possibly they offered $15 million per year for seven years and then a $3 million buyout as part of an eighth-year option. That’d be a hard offer to take seriously in this climate, though.

More likely is that Feinsand’s source was a bit off and the Angels offered $108 million for six years, or $18 million per year. That’s a substantial proposal, though it certainly wasn’t likely to get the job done after Jayson Werth got that same $18 million per year for seven seasons.

  1. Utley's Hair - Dec 9, 2010 at 1:35 AM

    I’ll post this over here, too:

    Alright, this is just stunning and disturbing. JDub went to DC for 7/$126 and people were screaming. Now, Crawford signs for 7/$142, and people are okay with it? That’s only $16 million more, people!!! Crawford is only $2 million better than Grizzly? Really?!?!?

    • iamthedoublestandard - Dec 9, 2010 at 1:39 AM

      This is why I don’t understand the double standard I mentione in another post. It’s truly mind boggling. Bad teams like the Nats would still make bad decisions. Cap or no cap. The cap would change nothing.

    • paperlions - Dec 9, 2010 at 7:43 AM

      First, Crawford doesn’t have the injury history of Werth. Second, he has been a better player than Werth. Third, he’ll turn 36 just a couple of months before the deal expires, whereas Werth will be turning 38 at the beginning of the final season. Those last two years, combined with Werth’s injury history, are what kill that deal for people.

      • Utley's Hair - Dec 9, 2010 at 8:06 AM

        You’re wrong AND you missed the point of my comment. JDub’s contract is for 7/$126, turning him 39, not 38 at the beginning of his final year. And there were several onlys in my comment, meaning that I can’t believe Crawford and his agent settled for just $16 million more, or just over $2 million/year.

      • paperlions - Dec 9, 2010 at 8:51 AM

        Jason Werth is 31 right now, the contract is for 7 years. When it ends he’ll be 38.

        Everyone knows that the Werth contract was ludicrous (including Crawford and his agent), you are assuming that it was reasonable. Anyone that thought Werth’s contract represented a new benchmark is foolish. People screamed about the Werth contract because it was foolish in terms of years and rate. People think the Crawford contract is more reasonable because he is worth more than $2M/year than Werth and Werth’s contract was an overpay.

        So, you are wrong and using poor logic.

      • Utley's Hair - Dec 9, 2010 at 11:00 AM

        Jayson Werth will be 32 in May, which is the beginning of the first season of his new contract. Add seven to that and he will be 39 in his final season.

        And I most certainly do not think Werth’s contract was reasonable. For one thing, getting $18 million/season to play a friggin’ game is insane. Seven years is insane. I was commenting on how people were in such an uproar over that contract and saying that Crawford was so much better, then why aren’t they saying he should’ve signed for much more?

      • Ari Collins - Dec 9, 2010 at 11:43 AM

        Add 6 to 32. He’ll be 32 in ’11 and 38 6 years later in ’17, the last year of his deal.

        Easy mistake to make.

  2. iamthedoublestandard - Dec 9, 2010 at 1:44 AM

    I love that the entire Yankees outfield, which is very good mind you, is making $2M less than the Red Sox new left fielder. Gotta love it. This can be seen as me spinning but good job Cash last night making them pay more than they should have. Gamesmanship at its best.

    • flpunx - Dec 9, 2010 at 9:49 AM

      Yeah – cause last time ANYONE checked, the Yankees actually care about NOT spending money. Keep trying to buy championships, and the Rays will keep beating you with a 60 mil payroll.

  3. daveydawg - Dec 9, 2010 at 7:32 AM

    i love when yankee fans get defensive

    • phukyouk - Dec 9, 2010 at 9:25 AM

      dont remember which sport writer said it but “I guess if you can’t beat the Yanks, You become them” and the sox almost did that this off season. too bad thier pitching is still just awful.

      • flpunx - Dec 9, 2010 at 9:51 AM

        The biggest problem with the Red Sox is their age. Signing Crawford at least helps them with this factor, though they still need some prospect help. Hard to see them having 75% of their team on the DL this year again though, so they should automatically have a more productive season.

      • Ari Collins - Dec 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM

        Actually, the Sox will likely have a lower payroll this year than last year. Whereas the Yanks will have a higher payroll than last year, unless they somehow let both Pettitte and Lee walk away… So yeah. TAKE THAT!! Heh.

  4. Jonny 5 - Dec 9, 2010 at 9:42 AM

    Hair, we’re usually on the same page, but dude. 2 million dollars is still, 2 million dollars. Crawford is the highest paid OF ever. Werth was over paid to become the centerpiece of a very losing team, which was probably worth a couple million by itself. I think big contracts make us fans lose perspective of what 2 million dollars really buys you in the real world. 2 million and change over 7 years is a good deal better.

    Who was arguing with me when I said Crawford would get the 7 years Werth got plus a little extra for being “Carl crawford”?? “Because the only insane team already signed their man”

    The Angels were delusional if they thought he’d take less than Werth was offered, and I think they really didn’t want him that bad then.

    • Utley's Hair - Dec 9, 2010 at 10:51 AM

      Jonny, we usually are on the same page—and here some guy says that page is usually Wanker posts, but that’s another issue. Maybe not the same paragraph, but the same page.

      I’m usually the guy who bitches about these guys getting insane and obscene amounts of money to play a damn game. I was basing my view here on the fact that so many people were screaming about how Crawford was light years better than JDub, and they are just accepting this margin of difference.

      Have you heard anything about Ruben gazing at Greinke?

      • Jonny 5 - Dec 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM

        Honestly, people who say he’s light years better are stretching the truth a little. He’s measurably better, and without stats it would be very difficult to see. Werth has better OBP (almost twice as many walks) Werth usually has a higher OPS,Werth has equal defense. i don’t see a huge gap there myself.

        I have heard that Greinke talk too. But i also think any team who doesn’t at least ask what the asking price for him is, would be totally insane. He’s cheap right now, for what you get. And trading away some prospects can get your guy at a discount as Philly well knows from experience. So yeah, I think many teams have kicked those tires. Ruben likes his pitchers though too…. We can only hope. And I hope for a good OF in a trade myself. A righty of course.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2546)
  2. D. Span (2383)
  3. G. Stanton (2347)
  4. Y. Puig (2292)
  5. J. Fernandez (2253)
  1. B. Crawford (2171)
  2. G. Springer (2100)
  3. M. Teixeira (1952)
  4. M. Sano (1843)
  5. J. Hamilton (1820)