Red Sox to sign Crawford to 7 year/$142 mil deal

[Crew2323]

The deal is reportedly 7 years and 142 million.

Source: The Red Sox have a seven-year, $142 million deal done with Carl Crawford.

MLBTraderumors link

[splitterpfj]

Boston has done their work, now we'll see if the Yankees push harder to bring Lee in.

[Warning Track Power]

Man...Will there ever be a day where EVERY MLB has the ability to sign two guys to the contracts GOnzalez and Crawford just got??

 

How did this sport get so far out of touch from the NFL and NBA?

[bucksbeat]

The Red Sox guaranteed well over a quarter of a billion dollars to two players during the Winter Meetings. Thankfully they're in the same division as the Yankees but you can't help but feel sorry for the Orioles, Blue Jays and Rays.

[wOOgiE22]

Amazing to think that the Rays have developed enough talent to win the division 2 out of the last 3 years, but couldn't finish through on the World Series. Now it looks like they are on their way to rebuilding mode, while the Yankees and Red Sox keep buying talent.

[brains and braun]

Amazing to think that the Rays have developed enough talent to win the division 2 out of the last 3 years, but couldn't finish through on the World Series. Now it looks like they are on their way to rebuilding mode, while the Yankees and Red Sox keep buying talent.

Lame, isn't it? Wonder what Friedman could do with the Yanks?

[GAME05]

if the Brewers had to compete in the AL East i'd be a bigger hockey fan.

 

this is a joke. boston has a couple sub-awesome seasons and so they casually sign two superstars with all their money. go figure if the yankees ever missed the playoffs they'd just sign every all-star FA on the market and trade for a few more for good measure. like the old Gypsy curse goes, may the Yankees and Red Sox have everything they desire.

[danzig6767]

Amazing to think that the Rays have developed enough talent to win the division 2 out of the last 3 years, but couldn't finish through on the World Series. Now it looks like they are on their way to rebuilding mode, while the Yankees and Red Sox keep buying talent.

Lame, isn't it? Wonder what Friedman could do with the Yanks?

 

That's why it makes me sick when ESPN so often licking the boots of Cashman and Epstein as being these great crafty GM's when pretty much every offseason they simply either open their checkbooks to buy very expensive free agents or trade for very good players on teams who can no longer afford them. Wow, what strokes of genius to be able to sign big checks. Then if an expensive move or two doesn't work out that would nearly cripple other franchises, they can just sign or trade for someone else to cover for that mistake. In the draft, they can afford each year to get upper tier guys who slip for financial reason, but that's not a concerns for the Red Sox or Yankees.

 

Next year Friedman will have to try and compete with a total payroll less than teams built by Cashman/Epstein that are paying more in yearly salary to Gonzalez/Crawford and Arod/Jeter alone. It's gotta be such a bummer and so disheartening to be a fan of any AL East teams besides NY and Boston.

[Invader3K]

Yep, the rich keep on getting richer. How many people were saying after 2008, "Yeah, the Rays are in the World Series, but how long before they have to rebuild?" I guess now we know the answer. Two years.

 

It's off seasons like this that make me appreciate how difficult Doug Melvin's job is a bit more.

[crewcrazy]

The Rays will be fine. They still have a very solid team, and could still push for 90 wins with that pitching IMO. Crawford's a nice player, but this was a pretty unnecessary signing for the Red Sox.

[sveumrules]

Does anyone else think it seems like a waste of the game's best defensive LF to put him in Fenway? Much of Crawford's value lies in turning doubles into outs, how's he gonna do that in fenway?

[Patrick425]

Man...Will there ever be a day where EVERY MLB has the ability to sign two guys to the contracts GOnzalez and Crawford just got??

 

How did this sport get so far out of touch from the NFL and NBA?

Yeah, you never see an NBA team that can load up with that much talent.

[pingman]

not to mention the draft is rigged in favor of the huge market teams too....

 

1) a draft prospect names Boras as his agent (how is this player not considered professional & thus ineligible to play college is beyond me)... anyway, say the kid is projected to be a top 15 pick AND Boras demands a signing bonus of a top 3 pick OR he'll send the kid to play college ball....ugh ....and we've seen many examples where these prospects "fall" to the Red Sox, Yankees or even the Tigers who have the resources to dole out the signing bonus

 

2) Arbitration = Satan ..... a budget strapped team can not even offer arbitration to a player in fear of being strapped with an inflated contract ... therefore the player becomes a free agent & leaves a team with no compensation (draft choices) in return

[Flood Pants]

I'm a bit surprised to see Boston sink so much money into a player who takes so few walks, though he's gotten much better at that the past couple of years. While it's true that Epstein's strategy heavily involves opening up the checkbook for the top free agents, he usually does so for players with good on-base skills. Crawford should be a below-average but very expensive left fielder by the end of his contract.

 

I hope for Tampa's sake that Boston isn't the team offering 7 years to Cliff Lee, because if so, Tampa could lose out on a first-round pick like the Brewers did when losing C.C.

[lcbj68c]

Yep, the rich keep on getting richer. How many people were saying after 2008, "Yeah, the Rays are in the World Series, but how long before they have to rebuild?" I guess now we know the answer. Two years.

 

It's off seasons like this that make me appreciate how difficult Doug Melvin's job is a bit more. ~~ Invader3k

 

It's well known that I don't wear the crown in the Melvin supporter camp, but I don't wear the crown in the other camp either. However, I really have to take some exception with the point you made and how it was spun. As a Tampa resident, I see the daily struggles of this team and have to listen to daily chatter from real fans that yearn something great for this team and this city.

 

Consider these facts a moment considering the Tampa Bay Rays. 2010 attendance: 1.86M (22nd) 2009 attendance: 1.87M (23rd) 2008 attendance: 1.78M (26th). In a game to clinch the AL East last season, Tampa fans supported the occasion to the tune of their 4th lowest attended game of the season for a paltry 12,446. By comparison, the lowest Brewers attended game of the year (didn't want to find 4th lowest) was 22,761, nearly double.

 

Ownership has been longing for a deal for a new stadium. Trying to play to the government that a better centrally located field might increase revenue. Bizofbaseball.com reports that each Rays ticket garners on average, $21.81 of revenue. This is strictly tickets, not including merchandise,concessions or other revenues. If Tampa could get their situation right to the tune of attracting even around 10th in the league where Milwaukee is, that's an additional 1 million in attendance and near $22M in revenue that could be put into the payroll of the on-field talent.

 

The situation is really a difficult one for Stuart Sternberg in that I wouldn't be surprised if he is shopping around for other cities with which to relocate. With those numbers of continued support around the tune of 1.7M, it's amazing that he has been able to operate the club at a payrolls of $73M & $63M the past two seasons. Couple that with a collection of local governments that aren't willing to help the situation with a new stadium, a new location, anything that might help the citizens and the area. You've got players (Longoria & Price specifically) that were calling out the fanbase for their pathetic efforts last season. Players are finding Tampa isn't a place they want to play. What Andrew Friedman has done is nothing short of miraculous.

 

Considering the starting pitching that remains, I wouldn't call the team in full rebuild mode. Remember they won the AL East and went to the World Series with a $43M payroll the same season the Brewers won a Wild Card and pushed a divisional series to 4 games with an $80M payroll.

 

To really find comparison Doug Melvin and Andrew Friedman is truly a disservice. With more obstacles to overcome, a far lesser payroll, stiffer competition dollar wise and talent wise in division, Andrew Friedman went out and surrounded his budding superstars during their years of control, with pitching that would make a complete team. Doug Melvin has failed to do that. And not only failed to do that, but failed to do so with far more money and far more support from ownership and the fan base. Andrew Friedman has won two division titles in maybe the toughest division in baseball and has won a pennant. There's no doubt that Doug Melvin's job is difficult. But when you have situations out there that are far more complex, less money to work with, and a growing list of off the field distractions, and that General Manager makes it work to the tune of sustained division titles and a pennant, it makes me sick to think of what Doug Melvin has done during our superstars window of team control. It doesn't make me appreciate his job that much more.

[CheezWizHed]

Yeah, you never see an NBA team that can load up with that much talent.

 

I think affordability was the intention, not just collecting talent.

 

Interesting to see Boston loading up offensively and Yanks loading up on pitching....

[JohnBriggs12]

The imbalance in baseball cheapens championships. Fans instinctively know this and no matter how many championships the Yankees and Red Sox get, to most of the country the gut reaction is the championship was bought and not earned. Will I be impressed watching the Red Sox win next year with stars who belong on the Rays and Padres? No I won't any more than I was back when the Yankees were winning with a pitching staff of guys from other organizations. Ultimately, this damages ratings on television and costs the sport revenue in the long run.

 

I just shook my head when Donald Fehr lamented that Marvin Miller was left out of the Hall of Fame. People often refer to the 50's and 60's as the golden era of baseball. One man is primarily responsible for killing the golden age of the game and that's Marvin Miller. I for one hope he never gets a plaque.

[Patrick425]

Yeah, you never see an NBA team that can load up with that much talent.

 

I think affordability was the intention, not just collecting talent.

 

Interesting to see Boston loading up offensively and Yanks loading up on pitching....

To be completely honest I don't really follow the NBA that closely, but it also seems to be a sport that has the same teams win every year and they find loopholes to getting around the salary cap (if I'm not mistaken). I was referring to Miami when I made that comment. Are there many other NBA teams that could have done that?

 

 

People often refer to the 50's and 60's as the golden era of baseball. One man is primarily responsible for killing the golden age of the game and that's Marvin Miller. I for one hope he never gets a plaque.

I could not agree more. Same with Steinbrenner.

[whizkid]

I just shook my head when Donald Fehr lamented that Marvin Miller was left out of the Hall of Fame. People often refer to the 50's and 60's as the golden era of baseball. One man is primarily responsible for killing the golden age of the game and that's Marvin Miller. I for one hope he never gets a plaque.

 

And in the 50s and 60s players were chattel, no bargaining power, no ability to move around. That did make it nice for fans but players had off-season jobs to be able to support their families while the owners kept almost all profits. I'm sure it was nice for the slave owners during slavery too, but that didn't make it right. It's the owners that are willing to pay outrageous salaries to players for marginal improvement and people willing to pay the high price of attendence and the high price of gear that allows for the current salaries.

[CheezWizHed]

To be completely honest I don't really follow the NBA that closely, but it also seems to be a sport that has the same teams win every year and they find loopholes to getting around the salary cap (if I'm not mistaken). I was referring to Miami when I made that comment. Are there many other NBA teams that could have done that?

 

The NBA salary cap has a soft and a hard limit. The soft limit means that if its exceeded, the team has to pay a luxury tax. The hard limit can't be exceeded. The main difference between MLB and NBA is that the soft limit is reachable by every team.

 

The Miami Heat signed three huge FA because:

1) The three players got together and decided they wanted to play together.

2) The Heat practically gutted the rest of their salary. Most everyone other than those three are playing for the minimum (plus an excellent shot at the NBA title)

3) Each individual took less than the max to sign with the Heat.

 

FWIW, there were a couple teams that could have done exactly what the Heat did last year. Its just that the three FAs decided to pick Miami. Probably because of Pat Riley. But there were several teams trying to do exactly that.

[Patrick425]

I just shook my head when Donald Fehr lamented that Marvin Miller was left out of the Hall of Fame. People often refer to the 50's and 60's as the golden era of baseball. One man is primarily responsible for killing the golden age of the game and that's Marvin Miller. I for one hope he never gets a plaque.

 

And in the 50s and 60s players were chattel, no bargaining power, no ability to move around. That did make it nice for fans but players had off-season jobs to be able to support their families while the owners kept almost all profits. I'm sure it was nice for the slave owners during slavery too, but that didn't make it right. It's the owners that are willing to pay outrageous salaries to players for marginal improvement and people willing to pay the high price of attendence and the high price of gear that allows for the current salaries.

Comparing baseball players of any era to slaves is a little over the top. They were getting paid to play a game. That's a little different that being a slave.

 

The problem now is that the players run the game. They call the shots. Any change that the owners want to make, they have to go through the players union...drug testing, revenue sharing, salary caps, wild card changes, scheduling, etc. How much money have the players invested in the game? If you are the one investing the money, you should be the one calling the shots (without having to get permission from your employees) and taking the majority of the profits.

 

I am convinced that baseball will eventually implode. I believe George Will wrote an article about this several years ago.

 

 

[kramnoj]

The problem now is that the players run the game. They call the shots.

 

What was the last shot the players called? The owners are all willing participants in signing these deals. The owners decide how money is distributed, and the percentage of money going to players compared to MLB income was decreasing.

[Patrick425]

kramnoj[/b]]The problem now is that the players run the game. They call the shots.

 

What was the last shot the players called? The owners are all willing participants in signing these deals. The owners decide how money is distributed, and the percentage of money going to players compared to MLB income was decreasing.

I think some owners are willing participants. The ones that can afford to be. Mainly the big market teams. This is why I said that Steinbrenner should never get a plaque. If the other owners decided they have had enough and wanted to have a vote for full revenue sharing (including TV contracts) and a Salary Cap, it wouldn't matter because even with a majority of owners in favor of it they would have to get approval from the players union, which would never happen. That's what I mean when I say the players (employees) are calling the shots.

 

 

 

 

 

[kramnoj]

If the other owners decided they have had enough and wanted to have a vote for full revenue sharing (including TV contracts) and a Salary Cap, it wouldn't matter because even with a majority of owners in favor of it they would have to get approval from the players union, which would never happen. That's what I mean when I say the players (employees) are calling the shots.

 

I don't see how you can say that with so much conviction. If the revenue was distributed equally, the players wouldn't care as long as they get paid. If anything, the players weren't satisfied with the current structure where money was going to teams that weren't spending it, which is why we saw the As sign Sheets to the deal last year and the Marlins spend the money for Johnson.

[Patrick425]

kramnoj[/b]] If the other owners decided they have had enough and wanted to have a vote for full revenue sharing (including TV contracts) and a Salary Cap, it wouldn't matter because even with a majority of owners in favor of it they would have to get approval from the players union, which would never happen. That's what I mean when I say the players (employees) are calling the shots.

 

I don't see how you can say that with so much conviction. If the revenue was distributed equally, the players wouldn't care as long as they get paid. If anything, the players weren't satisfied with the current structure where money was going to teams that weren't spending it, which is why we saw the As sign Sheets to the deal last year and the Marlins spend the money for Johnson.

Do you honestly think the players would be open to full revenue sharing or a salary cap?

 

Sheets and Johnson were each signed for about $10mil/yr. This seems to be about the limit for the small market clubs (see Suppan, Wolf, etc). The players know that with complete revenue sharing, there may be no club that can afford the $20+ million per year multi-year contracts. God forbid that those should go away even though this would benefit the lower tiered players. The current system in place benefits the mega-star players. The union has no concern for parity among teams...they just want their big paychecks.

 

I'm not necessarily saying the players as a whole should make less than what they do now (although I would have nothing against that, since they have made no investment). I'm saying the money should be spread among teams and players more evenly with more teams getting the opportunity to get in on the FA sweepstakes.