Just in case you've been living under a rock, the Red Sox reportedly reeled in big-time free agent Carl Crawford last night for seven years and $142 million. This, less than a week after they traded for top-flight first baseman Adrian Gonzalez. The two moves put the Sox on the short list of World Series favorites for 2011.
I didn't write anything about the Gonzalez deal because I thought it was pretty cut-and-dried: the Sox traded three of their top prospects for a masher in the prime of his career. OK. The prospects were great - a potential ace (Casey Kelly), a guy (Raymond Fuentes) tagged as "the next Jacoby Ellsbury," and a first baseman (Anthony Rizzo) who could be swinging the bat just like Gonzalez in five years. But they're called "prospects" for a reason. They've never played in the big leagues and we have no way of knowing what they will do at that level.
We all remember what happened to the last Red Sox pitching prospect named Casey (see Fossum)...
But the Crawford deal - that was a lightning rod for me. There is little doubt he makes the lineup better: they've now got two .300, 50-steal guys in the outfield, an All-Star second baseman, possibly the best corner guys in all of baseball, and 35-year old David Ortiz, who can still hit moonshots. The Sox will score plenty of runs next year, as they did last year with a number of AAA players filling in from one to nine. If the pitching staff can do what they're supposed to, the Sox will win 99 games and represent the American League in the 2011 World Series against the Chicago Cubs (ha, okay, I'm sorry). But I can't help but be bothered by the terms of the deal: hear me out.
Just yesterday The Hardball Times featured an article on bad, untradeable contracts, featuring such luminaries as Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Lee, Vernon Wells, Aaron Rowand, Jason Bay, and northern Chicago racism magnate, Kosuke Fukudome. These players have a number of things in common.
They're all outfielders. When they were signed, they were all very good players. But nowadays, they are all definied by the horrible long-term deals teams lavished upon them. These things almost never work out, and within a couple of years, guys who clearly got money because they could run (Soriano, Wells) aren't stealing bases or legging out triples anymore. Mark my words: in a few years, we will talk about Carl Crawford in the very same way.
The Red Sox brain trust has never handed out a 7-year deal, and never for more than $20 million a season. The last guy to get that kind of money was Manny Ramirez, and he was signed by Dan Duquette, a man who won't be called anything less than a genius by me, but whom everyone around here just loves to make fun of (it's not like he built the nucleus of 2004 title team, after all). Theo and the silly goose owners have let good, even great players walk over pennies compared to what Crawford just signed for (look at what happened with Victor Martinez a couple weeks ago) Whatever fiscal policy they had just went right out the window, and I have to wonder why this is the exception after eight years, six playoff appearances and two World Series titles.
Some people think the Crawford deal is great to "tweak the Yankees": make them spend more to compete with Boston's free agent haul. The Lackey deal last year supposedly "tweaked the Yankees," and how did that work out? They took the best pitcher available at big money when they didn't necessarily need him. Then, he had the worst season of his career. I've got news for you, boys, tweaking the Yankees ain't gonna work, 'cause they'll always have more money than you.
And looking past 2011, the Sox have really put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by throwing their fiscal policy to the wind. On Tuesday, Peter Abraham detailed the team's projected roster for 2012, and I quote, "based on only eight players, the Sox have already spent roughly $90 million for 2012. If you add Crawford or Lee, that figure balloons to at least $110 million and you're accounting for only nine of 25 players. That's not a good balance." Damn right, Peter. I'd love to know how Theo and the geese are going to fill out that 2012 roster when they're spending all their money on nine guys. It'll probably come with a sweet increase in ticket prices! Sweeeeet Caroliiiiine!!! Ba, ba, baaahhhh!!!
Furthermore, I gotta wonder about the goods. I realize saying Carl Crawford isn't a great player could seriously erode any credibility I've built up to this point in this genius blog. But I feel he's just a very good player - a "fantasy stud" who is overvalued because of the tools and potential he possessed at age 23. Did he ever make the leap to "elite" status? He's never hit 20 home runs in a season. He wasn't ever "the man" in Tampa - he was just a piece, and the year the Rays went to the World Series, he was injured and had a down year. That was Longoria's team, Upton's team. Other than the speed, what is there that warrants $142 million? He's a .300 hitter with marginal power. I would argue that you DO NOT sign .300 hitters with marginal power to seven year deals, particularly for that kind of money.
After all, the Sox had a player like that once, Johnny Damon (7th on Crawford's Baseball Reference comp list), and they balked. Let him go to New York because they didn't want to give him an extra year.
Mark my words: in a few years, Carl Crawford will be the Johnny Damon of today, that .300 hitter with marginal power and old legs. We'll want him and his albatross contract out of town. But that doesn't mean anything today, because the Sox "tweaked" the Yankees with this one.
They may also win the 2011 World Series.
I didn't write anything about the Gonzalez deal because I thought it was pretty cut-and-dried: the Sox traded three of their top prospects for a masher in the prime of his career. OK. The prospects were great - a potential ace (Casey Kelly), a guy (Raymond Fuentes) tagged as "the next Jacoby Ellsbury," and a first baseman (Anthony Rizzo) who could be swinging the bat just like Gonzalez in five years. But they're called "prospects" for a reason. They've never played in the big leagues and we have no way of knowing what they will do at that level.
We all remember what happened to the last Red Sox pitching prospect named Casey (see Fossum)...But the Crawford deal - that was a lightning rod for me. There is little doubt he makes the lineup better: they've now got two .300, 50-steal guys in the outfield, an All-Star second baseman, possibly the best corner guys in all of baseball, and 35-year old David Ortiz, who can still hit moonshots. The Sox will score plenty of runs next year, as they did last year with a number of AAA players filling in from one to nine. If the pitching staff can do what they're supposed to, the Sox will win 99 games and represent the American League in the 2011 World Series against the Chicago Cubs (ha, okay, I'm sorry). But I can't help but be bothered by the terms of the deal: hear me out.
Just yesterday The Hardball Times featured an article on bad, untradeable contracts, featuring such luminaries as Alfonso Soriano, Carlos Lee, Vernon Wells, Aaron Rowand, Jason Bay, and northern Chicago racism magnate, Kosuke Fukudome. These players have a number of things in common.
They're all outfielders. When they were signed, they were all very good players. But nowadays, they are all definied by the horrible long-term deals teams lavished upon them. These things almost never work out, and within a couple of years, guys who clearly got money because they could run (Soriano, Wells) aren't stealing bases or legging out triples anymore. Mark my words: in a few years, we will talk about Carl Crawford in the very same way.The Red Sox brain trust has never handed out a 7-year deal, and never for more than $20 million a season. The last guy to get that kind of money was Manny Ramirez, and he was signed by Dan Duquette, a man who won't be called anything less than a genius by me, but whom everyone around here just loves to make fun of (it's not like he built the nucleus of 2004 title team, after all). Theo and the silly goose owners have let good, even great players walk over pennies compared to what Crawford just signed for (look at what happened with Victor Martinez a couple weeks ago) Whatever fiscal policy they had just went right out the window, and I have to wonder why this is the exception after eight years, six playoff appearances and two World Series titles.
Some people think the Crawford deal is great to "tweak the Yankees": make them spend more to compete with Boston's free agent haul. The Lackey deal last year supposedly "tweaked the Yankees," and how did that work out? They took the best pitcher available at big money when they didn't necessarily need him. Then, he had the worst season of his career. I've got news for you, boys, tweaking the Yankees ain't gonna work, 'cause they'll always have more money than you.
And looking past 2011, the Sox have really put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by throwing their fiscal policy to the wind. On Tuesday, Peter Abraham detailed the team's projected roster for 2012, and I quote, "based on only eight players, the Sox have already spent roughly $90 million for 2012. If you add Crawford or Lee, that figure balloons to at least $110 million and you're accounting for only nine of 25 players. That's not a good balance." Damn right, Peter. I'd love to know how Theo and the geese are going to fill out that 2012 roster when they're spending all their money on nine guys. It'll probably come with a sweet increase in ticket prices! Sweeeeet Caroliiiiine!!! Ba, ba, baaahhhh!!!
Furthermore, I gotta wonder about the goods. I realize saying Carl Crawford isn't a great player could seriously erode any credibility I've built up to this point in this genius blog. But I feel he's just a very good player - a "fantasy stud" who is overvalued because of the tools and potential he possessed at age 23. Did he ever make the leap to "elite" status? He's never hit 20 home runs in a season. He wasn't ever "the man" in Tampa - he was just a piece, and the year the Rays went to the World Series, he was injured and had a down year. That was Longoria's team, Upton's team. Other than the speed, what is there that warrants $142 million? He's a .300 hitter with marginal power. I would argue that you DO NOT sign .300 hitters with marginal power to seven year deals, particularly for that kind of money.
After all, the Sox had a player like that once, Johnny Damon (7th on Crawford's Baseball Reference comp list), and they balked. Let him go to New York because they didn't want to give him an extra year.
Mark my words: in a few years, Carl Crawford will be the Johnny Damon of today, that .300 hitter with marginal power and old legs. We'll want him and his albatross contract out of town. But that doesn't mean anything today, because the Sox "tweaked" the Yankees with this one.They may also win the 2011 World Series.
2 comments:
Contract was way too long. Completely agree.
But isn't the "win now and deal with the consequences later" mentality exactly the reason you get a player like that and get rid of your prospects anyways?
Not saying I totally agree with that mentality, but that is exactly why you do it.
This time you are just mortgaging both your future talent AND your future finances instead of just future talent.
That's totally what the Sox are doing. If you look at the two previous WS teams, you can argue that was not the plan. 2004 had a bunch of vets, by coincidence, at the end of their run. 2007 was a team loaded with young talent and a number of those guys are still here. With this, they might win it next year, might not, but you're gonna see Buchholz, Ellsbury, Papelbon, etc. walk because the Sox "won't be able to pay them" and they'll be paying a 30-something outfielder instead.
Post a Comment