How about trading for Carl Crawford?

[El Gordo]

I'd consider it, and have advocated for such. But it would come at a price so tough for the RSox to swallow I doubt they'd bite. I would basically give them nothing, and they would give us Crawford and a boatload of cash. Or, we take Crawford, lesser money, and a very nice second piece (say, I don't know, Lester?) and we add Adam Jones. Either way, it ain't happening.

Would you trade Jones for Crawford plus 50M of his contract eaten by the Sux?

[BarclaySouthway]

I say let Crawford and Teixeira get booed by their home fans for the rest of their contracts. That will be more enjoyable to watch than anything good they could do for us.

[Woody Held]

I say let Crawford and Teixeira get booed by their home fans for the rest of their contracts. That will be more enjoyable to watch than anything good they could do for us.

Sounds like a plan

[Boston Dave]

Would you trade Jones for Crawford plus 50M of his contract eaten by the Sux?

I think we could talk, but I would still insist on no less than a top prospect coming back, as well, perhaps more. Like another poster said, that contract is an albatross- and Carl will get slaughtered at home even more than he did this year. They're on the ropes in that regard. And, I'd rather trade something else to Boston, and move Jones elsewhere where we could get better value. So a deal COULD get done, but I would put the odds just a bit better than a "snowball's chance."

[DrungoHazewood]

Like most of these kind of suggestions I could see a scenario where I'd trade for Crawford with a lot of salary relief and little going back the other way. But from the other team's perpsective it rarely works out that way. Crawford is probably due for at least a little bounceback, might even have a few 3-4 win seasons left in him. The Sox almost certainly would be selling (or trying to sell) him not as a 1 win albatross, but as a 3+ win player who had a down season.

So, sure, I'd think hard about Crawford and $50M for Gregg. But the Sox almost certainly wouldn't.

Oh, and I'd love to go back and read a few of the threads where people were advocating the O's break the bank for Crawford. How many Crawfords and Sorianos do there have to be before the "he keeps himself in awesome shape so he'll still be worth 3-4 wins into his late 30s" argument can be put to bed?

[DrungoHazewood]

Would you trade Jones for Crawford plus 50M of his contract eaten by the Sux?

Crawford has been worth about 3 wins a year over the last five years. You'd have to discount that a bit since his 2011 was worth, well, zero. So let's say going forward you'd guesstimate he's worth 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1 over the six remaining years on his deal. That's 12 wins or about $54M, not factoring in inflation.

Jones has some surplus value over his contract so long as he's pre-free agency. So... I guess what I'm saying is that (120-54) = $66M plus maybe $10 or $15M for Jones' services, equals $75-80M. That's what the Sox would have to eat for this to be a decent risk for the O's. But even then you risk Crawford pulling a Figgins, and being worth almost nothing throughout his deal.

I don't see the Sox eating anything like $80M, and I'm not sure I really see the point from the O's perspective even if they did.

[LookitsPuck]

Absolutely not. Unless the Red Sox pay his entire salary. And they can take Gregg.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Crawford has been worth about 3 wins a year over the last five years. .

He's almost a 5 fWar the 5 years prior to this one? In WAR dollars he was worth over 100 million over those previous 5 years.

[sangar]

How many Crawfords and Sorianos do there have to be before the "he keeps himself in awesome shape so he'll still be worth 3-4 wins into his late 30s" argument can be put to bed?

I can't seem to find the infinity symbol on my computer.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I can't seem to find the infinity symbol on my computer.

I wonder what the percentage of Free Agents that are actually worth their money is. I guess the High OBP power guy and the truly elite level starters are the best profiles.

[Stotle]

Oh, and I'd love to go back and read a few of the threads where people were advocating the O's break the bank for Crawford. How many Crawfords and Sorianos do there have to be before the "he keeps himself in awesome shape so he'll still be worth 3-4 wins into his late 30s" argument can be put to bed?

The Red Sox definitely paid more than the industry expected. That said, he played most of last year at age 29. Part of Boston's decision to sign Crawford had to do with their park and what they projected from him, offensively. Obviously last year was a disaster, and it seems silly to pay Crawford $20 MM for his 33/34/35 years. But if we're honest the reason this deal looks SO bad is because the absolutely unthinkable happened in 2011. I don't know anyone who voiced the concern that Crawford would be 3-5 wins worse in offensive production right off the bat.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The Red Sox definitely paid more than the industry expected. That said, he played most of last year at age 29. Part of Boston's decision to sign Crawford had to do with their park and what they projected from him, offensively. Obviously last year was a disaster, and it seems silly to pay Crawford $20 MM for his 33/34/35 years. But if we're honest the reason this deal looks SO bad is because the absolutely unthinkable happened in 2011. I don't know anyone who voiced the concern that Crawford would be 3-5 wins worse in offensive production right off the bat.

He will never be a high WAR player in Boston imo. He simply won't get enough chances in LF and almost 40% of his value is defense. I suppose there may be some upside on offense (over his regular numbers) but I'm not really sure. He'll need to hit for more power. I think he was helped by the turf in TB.

[Stotle]

He will never be a high WAR player in Boston imo. He simply won't get enough chances in LF and almost 40% of his value is defense. I suppose there may be some upsdide on offense (over his regular numbers) but I'm not really sure. He'll need to hit for more power. I think he was helped by the turf in TB.

BOS has studies projecting otherwise, with regards to offensive numbers for Crawford in Fenway. Time will tell how it plays out.

[Lucky Jim]

The Red Sox definitely paid more than the industry expected. That said, he played most of last year at age 29. Part of Boston's decision to sign Crawford had to do with their park and what they projected from him, offensively. Obviously last year was a disaster, and it seems silly to pay Crawford $20 MM for his 33/34/35 years. But if we're honest the reason this deal looks SO bad is because the absolutely unthinkable happened in 2011. I don't know anyone who voiced the concern that Crawford would be 3-5 wins worse in offensive production right off the bat.

Agreed. Nor should we be overly pessimistic moving forward - some regression to his norm (as DH noted) should be expected. Still, a precipitous drop from that (4 WAR) norm is a definite risk - and given the overall contract, the odds of it ever working out in BoSox favor appear slim. It may not be a debacle or disaster. It's likely to be pretty inefficient. And, further, they have one expensive year sucked into a .2 WAR. And, leverage-wise, it's unknown if they'll have a year during this contract where they ever could have used even a pre-peak Crawford's production more than this year given their thin margin of faltering/failure.

That said, I still find it odd that they spent so much to put him in LF in Fenway. (I guess we all do, in retrospect.)

[CA-ORIOLE]

BOS has studies projecting otherwise, with regards to offensive numbers for Crawford in Fenway. Time will tell how it plays out.

Well, Ellsbury certainly improved.