Skip to content

Carl Crawford is going to need Tommy John surgery eventually

Jul 9, 2012, 8:22 AM EDT

carl crawford ap AP

Carl Crawford says his groin strain that has delayed his comeback slightly is no big deal. He gets it every year. His elbow, however, is kind of a mess, and Crawford says that he’s eventually going to need Tommy John surgery on it. Here’s Crawford on the State of The Ligament:

“Probably at some point, because it’s one of those deals. It is what it is,” Crawford said. “So probably at some point it’s going to go out on me.”

Asked if he had thought about having surgery before the elbow goes out, Crawford replied:

“Thought about it but at this point if I can play, I think they want me out on the field. So I’m just trying to do everything I can to get back on the field.”

Rehab time for a position player getting TJ surgery is much shorter than a pitcher because, you know, no curveballs. But Crawford admits that he should try to take it easier on throws from the outfield, going for the cutoff man more often.  He says, however, that it’s likely that he won’t do that because in the heat of the moment you just do what you’re trained to do, and sometimes that means firing for home.

He says he’s close to coming back. And I suppose that means base runners are close to salivating at the thought of running on Crawford’s questionable arm.

  1. Kevin S. - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:29 AM

    If it’s something that he knows is going to happen, isn’t the best course of action to have it done either right after the season ends or when the team is basically eliminated? Seems that leaves him missing the least amount of important games.

  2. deathmonkey41 - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM

    He should probably just get it down now and come back for next season.

  3. joecool16280 - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:43 AM

    His signing could go down with the Mike Hampton and Zito deals. And it’s not their faults either, it’s the management who made those critical errors of judgement.

    • kkolchak - Jul 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM

      The problem is you never know when a player’s production is going to fall off a cliff. Some guys are done by 30 while others somehow play at a high level past 40. Baseball’s guaranteed contracts also guarantee that this kind of thing will happen.

      • joecool16280 - Jul 9, 2012 at 9:49 AM

        I agree for the most part but when a players success is is mainly from speed it doesn’t take a genius to know that those abilities deteriorate north of age 30. It’s not like he was going to turn into a 30 HR 100+ RBI guy.

      • drewsylvania - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM

        True, but they did know that much of Crawford’s value was tied into good LF defense, which is not needed at Fenway. They also knew that Crawford wouldn’t play anywhere but LF.

        Basically, they could have had a better offensive player in LF for a cheaper price.

      • joecool16280 - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

        Agreed.

      • Jonny 5 - Jul 9, 2012 at 1:02 PM

        “The problem is you never know when a player’s production is going to fall off a cliff.”

        I say that from here on out, a good sign is when an agent gives away free I-Pads to possible suitors.

  4. Jason @ IIATMS - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM

    And I suppose that means base runners are close to salivating at the thought of running on Crawford’s Damon’s questionable arm.

    Fixed, just to make me chuckle, at least

    • Jason @ IIATMS - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:48 AM

      Dang it, the HTML code didn’t work. Meh.

  5. pisano - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:49 AM

    Other than the 142 million they threw out the window, he’s not that big a loss. He hit .255,and fumbled around in the outfield. I do wish him well as far as his health goes because he seems to want to earn the money he was paid, but it’s not his fault that he’s not able to play.

    • ras1tafari - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM

      Unfortunately, that’s how we have to look at – they threw 142 million out the window. I don’t think they will ever get any significant contributions from Crawford over these 7 years.

      Once a guy has basically taken 2 seasons off, it’s all over – he will never fully return, especially a guy in his 30s. He’ll be too fragile and soft from not playing. Crawford is DONE – forget about him. He’ll be hitting .235 for the sea dogs in 2014.

  6. darthicarus - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:51 AM

    It’s because he’s black! /SomeDudeInNewHampshire

  7. jarathen - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:56 AM

    Between Lackey and Crawford, those were some TERRIBLE deals. Still wish the Angels had landed Beltre, and Vernon Wells was an absolute moron move, but glad they didn’t get Crawford like everyone thought they would.

    Get the surgery, Carl. Season’s over.

  8. dirtyharry1971 - Jul 9, 2012 at 8:57 AM

    i think it would be best if he waited until next march to get that elbow taken care of, makes sense to me

  9. stex52 - Jul 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM

    Boston did a physical before they signed him, right?

    • drewsylvania - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM

      The real question is, did they do it right? Or maybe they broke him during the physical. Anything is possible with this bleeping medical management.

    • annaalamode - Jul 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM

      It seems they clearly did not. It makes me curious about the Boston organization in non-chicken and beer ways. How do you sign a guy for so much money whose body is 2 months away from falling apart? Wouldn’t there have been some signs on a thorough physical?

  10. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM

    For everyone saying he should just have the surgery* as the season is over, they are only 2.5 games out of the WC. It’s not like Philly that’s 14 games out of the division and 10 back of a WC spot.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 9, 2012 at 9:05 AM

      Damnit meant to add that if they fall farther behind in a month or so, then he should consider having the surgery to get a fresh, healthy start to next season.

  11. stairwayto7 - Jul 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    The Redsox curse lives on!

    • jarathen - Jul 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM

      If a curse involves winning two World Series in four years of baseball and being, basically, the team of the decade, yeah, I’ll take that curse.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM

        basically, the team of the decade

        How so?

      • ras1tafari - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:54 AM

        How so? They won 2 WS, went to 2 more ALCS’s and probably have the most wins in the decade (without looking it up).

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 9, 2012 at 11:04 AM

        How so? They won 2 WS, went to 2 more ALCS’s and probably have the most wins in the decade (without looking it up).

        Which decade are we talking about, ’00-’09 or ’01-’10? If it’s the latter, the only advantage they have over the Yanks is the WS victories. If it’s former, they don’t even have that.

        ’00-’09
        Yanks – 965-651, 59.7 win%
        Sox – 920-699, 56.8 win%

        ’01-’10
        Yanks – 973-644, 60.2 win%
        Sox – 924-695, 57.1 win%

        From ’00 to ’09 or ’01 to ’10, the “team of the decade” missed the playoffs four times while the Yanks did it once. The Yanks worst season in ’00 they went 87-74, which is better than three Sox seasons. It’s really not close.

      • jarathen - Jul 9, 2012 at 11:11 AM

        I didn’t write the article, I was just referring to what they said. I think the comparative history of the clubs factors in, though. One team went from no championships in almost 90 years to two in one decade. One wins them at the same pace the world holds the Olympics.

      • daisycutter1 - Jul 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM

        So the Red Sox get “Most Improved”.

  12. uyf1950 - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM

    What an utter and complete disaster his signing has been for the Red Sox. Not much else you can say about it.

  13. echech88 - Jul 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM

    Well…only 5 more years and about $100M to go. Yikes.

  14. oldpaddy - Jul 9, 2012 at 1:08 PM

    Which signing is worse, Crawford or lackey?
    These have to be the worst two signings in Sox history. Pretty impressive given how close these signings were to each other.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM

      While the money isn’t similar, at least they are “playing” for the Sox. Didn’t they ship Renteria out after one year into a 4 year deal?

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Managers get easier path to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3476)
  2. T. Tulowitzki (3139)
  3. C. Headley (2799)
  4. H. Ramirez (2685)
  5. Y. Puig (2677)
  1. R. Howard (2543)
  2. C. Lee (2478)
  3. B. Belt (2470)
  4. M. Trout (2231)
  5. A. Rios (2154)