Comments on: So: is the Carl Crawford deal actually, you know, a good one?

By: spindervish

spindervish — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:53:38 +0000

To anyone who might have a useful answer: What the hell is the deal with Crawford’s apparent refusal to play CF? It’s always bothered me; he’s a prototypical “5-tool” centerfielder, and he plays arguably the most worthless defensive position on the field. The only thing I’ve ever come up with is he wants to preserve his legs so he can rack up the SBs; the thing is, if this has been in the interest of maximizing his value as a FA, I’d have to believe he’d have been valued much higher as a plus centerfielder than “the best LF in the game.” That’s like being the smartest kid on the short bus.

And if it’s just a stat grab thing with the SBs, how did the Rays, as progressive as their brain trust seems to be, put up with that shit? How has no one ever laid down the law and told him, “Look, SBs are cool and all, but they’re generally overrated, while optimizing defense is a crucial concern. You’re our CF, period”? I realize this was less of a concern recently with the emergence of BJ Upton, but before that they used Rocco Baldelli in center, and I believe between Baldelli and Upton they even went with Delmon Young in center at times. I really do not get this at all.

By: spindervish

spindervish — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:39:14 +0000

If I remember correctly, Fenway is considered one of the top triples parks in baseball. That triangle is a bitch.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:43:52 +0000

Rany Jazayerli had a great article comparing the two when he was hoping his Royals would sign Crawford: http://www.ranyontheroyals.com/2010/12/my-winter-meetings-dream.html

By: sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo

sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:30:19 +0000

Would Damon be a comparable as far as the aging process??

By: joshv02

joshv02 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:08:16 +0000

Well, I disagreed with people who thought Manny’s defense didn’t hurt them that much, and I think the front office did, too. I don’t think that the smaller LFer changes things too much. After shifting to compensate (getting more balls in short left, more in center, and allowing Ellsbury to get more in the Triangle and in RF), I don’t assume that there is a large decrease in opportunities in left field.

And they play 81 games outside of Fenway, too.

But, yes, Crawford is more valuable for other teams b/c of his defense. And he’d be more valuable in CF than LF, but his outstanding defensive numbers (with by Total Zone – what BaseballReference uses — or UZR — what FanGraphs uses) took place in LF anyway. I don’t think its an oxymoran at all. A less efficient use of resources than possible? Sure. I agree with that.

By: psousa1

psousa1 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:08:10 +0000

No, signing Cliff Lee to a 7 year deal is not good. Signing Carl Crawford – good. Crawford is going to be much more productive in years 5-7 than Lee will be in years 5-7. Barring something unforseen He will still have Pedroia in front of him and Adrian Gonzalez behind him.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:06:42 +0000

You can definitely get lots of value from a defender as good as Crawford, even in LF. Even in Fenway’s LF. But yeah, he’d definitely be more valuable in CF (or even in Fenway’s spacious RF after Drew leaves!). Too bad that he has stated repeatedly that he dislikes playing CF.

By: Jack Marshall

Jack Marshall — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:15:31 +0000

If the Red Sox win two World Series Championships in the front end of the contract, nobody will say the back end wasn’t worth it. And he could age like Johnny Damon.

By: diamondduq

diamondduq — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:12:49 +0000

Here’s the bottom line…If the Yankees had made this deal what would people be saying? They’d be saying the Yankees grossly overpaid for yet another player to simply “buy” whomever they want. In comparison to the Werth deal this seems about right but it’s a terrible deal, actually with the deals being fairly accurate proportionally why wouldn’t this one receive the same scrutiny as the Werth deal? I actually understand the Nats overpaying so much, they have to entice players to go to a bad franchse but for Boston, it’s just a waste.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:08:41 +0000

Ha!!!!

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:50:37 +0000

I agree Ari; however, part of the issue with a declining player is that almost everything you mentioned is based off his legs. He doesn’t have the batting eye that tends to survive as player’s age. He doesn’t walk a lot (see comment about a career high 51 walks). His OBP is fueled by his BA, and if that drops, so will his OBP.

I meant to post this in my first comment, but this is one of those deals that he probably outperforms for four to five of the seven years, and then hopefully slightly underperforms for the remaining two or three. Problem is that if he has some sort of bad leg injury, his value is going to tank as his worth is in his legs.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:42:00 +0000

Yeah, people like to think CBP is a bandbox, but typically the numbers don’t say that for any Philly player, But yeah the park is smaller. Maybe the bigger park gets you more triples too?? I’d bet Crawfords triples drop considerably this season. When the ball bounces back at a guy instead of getting further away fielding the hit.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:38:08 +0000

.337 is a shortsighted number to quote because he hasn’t had an OBP that low since 2005, excepting the year he was hurt. And OBP, while the single most important part of offense, still doesn’t give you the whole picture, since it doesn’t take into account the pop he has or his excellent base-stealing and base-running. Despite a mere .356 OBP last year, he was the second-best LF in the AL and 6th best in the majors by wOBA, which takes baserunning and slugging into account. And that’s WITH wOBA heavily weighting OBP. And not taking defense into account, of course. By WAR, which does take defense into account, he was the third best LF in the majors last year, behind only Hamilton and Holliday.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:27:49 +0000

2010 H/A
Home – .320/.401/.599 (tOPS+ 116)
Away – .270/.375/.463 (tOPS+ 84)

2009 H/A
Home – .265/.364/.513 (tOPS+ 101)
Away – .274/.375/.498 (tOPS+ 99)

Career H/A
Home – .280/.369/.495 (tOPS+ 103)
Away – .263/.364/.468 (tOPS+ 96)

Most hit better at home, but he’s hit really well away as well.

By: sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo

sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:13:03 +0000

Isn’t ‘elite defender in LF’ kind of an oxymoron? If they want max value, should he slide over to CF? Especially in Boston?

This was the town that said Manny’s defense didn’t hurt them that much because of the size of the LF. SO I would have to say that the inverse is true as well, Crawford can’t help them that much in LF.

By: primobang3000

primobang3000 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:12:52 +0000

I’m not huge into sabermetrics, but I would bet that Werth’s offensive numbers were helped by playing in Philly with their smaller park. But, like you said, they surely didn’t want to pay that much, but they needed him and more importantly, they needed the Yankees to not have him. Its not my money, so spend away I say.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:08:07 +0000

Sox don’t have the pieces to get Grienke after the Gonzalez deal.

By: Charles Gates

Charles Gates — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:01:35 +0000

Methinks Ellsbury gets packaged in a deal for Grienke.

By: Charles Gates

Charles Gates — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:00:41 +0000

Born on date, bud.

I just hope Pedroia gets a neck tatoo like Crawford’s, so we can have a First Team All Grit player with some street cred.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:57:31 +0000

Excellent point. The only bench bat they’d probably add is Russel Martin, who could back up the corners and be the 3rd C. Still need one or two bullpen arms, and this actually improves their chances of getting them, since their original 1st round pick is already gone. Now it’d just be a 2nd round pick.

By: derpdederpdederp

derpdederpdederp — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:54:44 +0000

sure this is not the best deal, or at least wont be in its final few years. however, the red sox dramatically improved their team for at least the next 3 or 4 years. in order to that that they had no choice but to overpay with a long term contract, thats just the reality of the free agent market now. whether or not it is worth it will be determined by what happens in the next 4 years, and while its definitely more than crawford (or probably any athlete playing a game) is worth it will definitely not be a bad deal for the red sox

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:53:29 +0000

Talk radio and sports”writers” like Shaughnessy don’t understand how ANYTHING works. There is literally nothing the Boston FO could do to convince these people they know what they’re doing. It’s like the two championships they’ve brought didn’t happen.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:47:58 +0000

I don’t think it’s a good deal ,and I don’t think the Sox think it’s a good deal either. But they don’t care, and it kept the Yankees from getting him. If they want to compete with NY on the field, it’s obvious they’ll have to do it with their checkbooks as well. Someone was comparing the “glaring difference” between He and Werth, and I don’t see it as a huge jump myself. Werths OPS is usually higher, his OBP, SLG is too. So offensively it doesn’t make any sense. And Werth is no Defensive slouch himself, nor is he dead on the basepaths. Sure there are things that make him better than Werth, but it’s far from “glaring” and it seems to me the price Crawford got is high too.

By: BC

BC — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:29:09 +0000

Well, they just sort of added to their bench, given that Cameron is likely going to be there.

By: BC

BC — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:28:10 +0000

By: JBerardi

JBerardi — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:25:46 +0000

Going into the offseason, the big talk radio/hack sportswriter concern was that John Henry, having just spent nearly half a billion dollars on Liverpool FC, would be unwilling to spend any money on the Red Sox. Americans don’t understand how rich people work.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:24:30 +0000

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/boston-signs-carl-crawford/

Bill James proved that guys with Crawford’s skillset (tons of speed and defense with average pop) actually tend to age better into their 30s than guys who bulked up sluggers in their 20s. Part of losing a step is usually bulking up, leading to more power and patience. A 25-30 HR Crawford is likely to be worth $20 million even if he’s a merely-very-good instead of amazing LF.

Whereas a guy who’s a big slow DH type in his 20s (think Dunn or Pronk) has no way to compensate when they get even bigger and lose some bat speed.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:19:16 +0000

They’re actually $15 million or so under where they were last year. But like you said, still need a couple ‘pen signings, plus maybe a bench bat or two.

By: primobang3000

primobang3000 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:13:20 +0000

In regards to money, they are only paying Adrian 6.5 mil this year, and they got Lugo, Drew, Ortiz, Martinez and Lowell all coming off the books, freeing up a decent amount of money. I haven’t done the math, but I’m pretty sure that they will actually be spending about the same amount of money they were last year. The only thing they have to address now is some decent bullpen pitching and they should be really good.

By: thinman61

thinman61 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:12:15 +0000

All complaints about JD Drew being overpaid can now be filed in /dev/null.