BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: WEEI: Not forgiving or forgetting has led Carl Crawford to a familiar place

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

WEEI: Not forgiving or forgetting has led Carl Crawford to a familiar place

In Tuesday night’s 7-5 loss to the White Sox, he became the first Red Sox left fielder to notch three hits with three stolen bases in a game since Roy Johnson managed the feat on May 21, 1934.

“That’s why this is extremely important. I’m extremely serious about it,” he added. “People say if you had a bad game it would be no big deal, but that’s not the case here. The first game you have to show something. Every game you really have to try and show something, but I’m always going to remember that two days. Two days. Look at [Jose] Reyes, what he did this year. He struggled for like a month and now he’s hitting like .280 almost again, back to himself. I’m mean, c’mon man.”

Quickly double checks fantasy team killing Jose Reyes! ~ .264 (hope sinks).

“I look around baseball and I look at all the guys that signed big contracts and all the guys that went to new places. All, besides Prince Fielder maybe, they all had some kind of getting used to type period and I feel like I got cheated out of that. I didn’t have the chance to really do that,” Crawford said. “You spend $142 million on somebody you have to live and die with them. You didn’t really give me a chance. After two days, that’s really never happened. My confidence just went down. It was gone. What do you expect? What’s wrong with one month? If I’m terrible after one month, then yeah. Who spends $142 million and throws a guy in the seven-hole and leaves him there? It doesn’t make sense to me.

“I didn’t feel like I had the manager’s confidence. I don’t know about the organization, but I don’t try and look past the manager so I feel like I didn’t have the manager’s confidence therefore I started to think something was wrong with me, and it just snowballed after that. It had a trickle-down effect, and it just got worse and worse as the days went by.”

Repoz Posted: July 18, 2012 at 08:42 AM | 58 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: July 18, 2012 at 09:37 AM (#4185862)

Carl Crawford will never forgive or forget Roy Johnson for that game in 1934.

2. Dale Sams Posted: July 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4185922)

If only Tito were a players manager.

Oh, and go #### yourself Carl.

3. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4185930)

Two games and all the requisite caveats but it was nice to see Crawford running last night. That first inning was a hell of a lot of fun with Ellsbury and Crawford going; single, steal, RBI single, steal.

Last year Crawford just looked like a guy terrified to run at any time.

4. Joel W Posted: July 18, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4185950)

Dale, why is your interpretation that Crawford is the jerk and not that our impression of Tito was wrong? It seems to me that the players that loved Tito were Youkilis and Pedroia, both of whom I really like, but I am not sure I'd want to be friends with.

5. Nasty Nate Posted: July 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4185968)

If an 8-year veteran loses the ability to steal bases and play frickin leftfield because he was moved around in the lineup a little bit, I, for one, am not going to blame that on the manager.

6. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4186004)

If an 8-year veteran loses the ability to steal bases and play frickin leftfield because he was moved around in the lineup a little bit, I, for one, am not going to blame that on the manager.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around. I agree with your general assessment that Crawford should have been able to suck it up and play his best but at the same time I think there is some blame to Tito (and you know what a huge Tito fan I am). Part of the manager's job is to get the most out of his players and I think it is very fair to say that Francona did not do that with Crawford last year. Maybe that makes Crawford a pansy but the manager needs to deal with those issues.

Obviously you don't bat your worst hitter lead-off or something like that but Francona seemed to jerk Crawford around a lot more than I remember him doing with others. That opening weekend shift to 7th in the lineup was surprising because it was so un-Tito like.

Ultimately the player needs to grow a pair and get the job done but I think Francona did not help the issue.

7. Nasty Nate Posted: July 18, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4186036)

Crawford batted 3-3-7-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1 in his first dozen games. It was April, and Francona was tinkering with a lineup that included 2 new big acquisitions (Gonzalez + Crawford) plus a new starting catcher, and a Lowrie/Scutaro timeshare. Maybe he should have explained better that he was experimenting with the lineups to Crawford, but I don't fault him for not realizing that a veteran would be so sensitive to being towards the bottom of the lineup for one game. FWIW, 10 games into the season Ellsbury was moved to 9th (!) for a week.

8. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: July 18, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4186056)

I don't fault him for not realizing that a veteran would be so sensitive to being towards the bottom of the lineup for one game

Plus, it's not like he batted Alex Rodriguez 8th or anything

9. Dale Sams Posted: July 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4186128)

I was going to submit this with a Garfield pic

But the world doesn't need two Carl Crawford threads.

10. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: July 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4186138)

Obviously you don't bat your worst hitter lead-off or something like that but Francona seemed to jerk Crawford around a lot more than I remember him doing with others. That opening weekend shift to 7th in the lineup was surprising because it was so un-Tito like.

Where SHOULD Crawford have been in the lineup?
Ellsbury
Pedroia
Gonzalez
Ortiz
Youkilis
Crawford

How is that not pretty fair to everyone? Youkilis was coming off a monster year, Pedroia was established at #2, Ellsbury fits well at #1 (decent season there last year), Gonzalez and Ortiz at 3/4 (or 4/3). Is there really that much of a difference between 6 & 7?

11. BDC

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4186148)

I was at the third game of the season last year, when Crawford batted seventh, and I remember thinking (at mildest) WTH. But I assumed it was a platoon tactic, with a LHP (Matt Harrison) going. And as Jacksone says, it's a strong lineup.

12. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 18, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4186164)

It wasn't the batting him 7th that struck me as much as the abrupt change. After batting him second and Crawford going 0 for 8 with 4 Ks it looked from afar as if it were reactionary rather than something well thought out.

Like I said before, I'm not saying Francona deserves 100% of the blame or close to it but I think he could have handled the situation better.

13. Dock Ellis on Acid

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4186169)

MLBTraderumors tells us that the Red Sox are gauging trade interest in Mr. Crawford.

14. SteveF Posted: July 18, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4186202)

I thought you were joking, but apparently Rosenthal is reporting this. Given the guy has been injured, is likely going to need UCL surgery at some point, and is vastly overpaid you have to wonder about the sheer magnitude of the cash the Red Sox would need to eat just to move him. Is there a better example of selling low?

15. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4186232)

Bob Nightengale is now saying the Marlins approached the Sox about a Heath Bell/Hanley Ramirez for Carl Crawford deal.

16. Obi One Kenobi Nil

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4186235)

Crawford comes off as an supremely oversensitive in that excerpt and if he was that affected by one game where he put 7th in the order I'm surprised he had the mental fortitude to *make* the Major Leagues.

17. JJ1986 Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:01 PM (#4186236)

Bob Nightengale is now saying the Marlins approached the Sox about a Heath Bell/Hanley Ramirez for Carl Crawford deal.

That doesn't sound believable at all to me.

18. Srul Itza Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4186237)

From the article linked by Dale S.:

Officer Perreault was off-duty and attending a game in Manchester, N.H., where Crawford was playing as he recovered from an injury, when he yelled “monday” toward the player, according to an investigation by Leominster police administrators. The Urban Dictionary defines “monday” as a derogatory term for a black person.

Really? monday? This is the first time I ever heard that.

I looked it up in the urban dictionary and this is what it said:

a word that can be used to describe a black person without insulting them with them knowing.
This word is relativley close to n****r.

I fucking hate mondays!

Had anyone else ever heard this?

19. madvillain Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4186238)

I thought you were joking, but apparently Rosenthal is reporting this. Given the guy has been injured, is likely going to need UCL surgery at some point, and is vastly overpaid you have to wonder about the sheer magnitude of the cash the Red Sox would need to eat just to move him. Is there a better example of selling low?

Someone on SOSH made a good point last night: the Red Sox would have just been better off DFA Youk. Now he's contributed around 1 WAR (and the game winning hr against them last night) to a team they are competing with for a playoff spot.

They'd be incredibly foolish to try and trade Crawford when his value is this low. He certainly doesn't look completely washed up, judging from the last two games at least, he can still be that 290/330/460 type with 50 of 65 sb and good defense. Not worth his contract, but certainly still a useful regular.

20. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4186239)

Bob Nightengale is now saying the Marlins approached the Sox about a Heath Bell/Hanley Ramirez for Carl Crawford deal.

Apparently the Red Sox would be adding a "prospect". I assume they're also adding several thousand dollars.

21. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4186259)

Olney says the rumor is false.

22. Dale Sams Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4186268)

I will drive Carl to the airport, fly the plane, chauffer him to the stadium, take him to the clubs and hook him up with undetectable rec drugs if it meant a trade for Bell/Hanley.

23. JJ1986 Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4186271)

Really? monday? This is the first time I ever heard that.

I think Bob Geldof started it.

24. Dock Ellis on Acid

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4186273)

Oh well. It was fun to think about during the 5 minutes where we thought there was a 1% chance of it happening.

25. Jim Wisinski

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4186275)

Crawford comes off as an supremely oversensitive in that excerpt and if he was that affected by one game where he put 7th in the order I'm surprised he had the mental fortitude to *make* the Major Leagues.

Crawford has always been extremely picky about where he bats in the order and plays in the field. He's also not a particularly bright guy.

26. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4186281)

Really? monday? This is the first time I ever heard that.

Never heard that before also looking it up when the incident was reported. Perhaps some folks are trying to make up new epithets, or just spoofing the Urban Dictionary.

27. TerpNats Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4186284)

Bob Nightengale is now saying the Marlins approached the Sox about a Heath Bell/Hanley Ramirez for Carl Crawford deal.

Unless the Bosox sweetened it up with a prospect or two, that would be the Fish waving the white flag and a steal for the New England Evil Empire.

28. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4186286)

29. gef the talking mongoose Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4186289)

Had anyone else ever heard this?

Never in my life.

30. SandyRiver Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4186300)

"Monday" - learn something new every day. The word IS only one letter different from a nasty epithet I've heard being hurled at African Americans in the distant past. Camouflaging the euphemism?

31. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4186308)

The word IS only one letter different from a nasty epithet I've heard being hurled at African Americans in the distant past

Nomad? Ya mon? Yo man? Moany?

32. gef the talking mongoose Posted: July 18, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4186315)

I assume he means "monkey" ... but my god, that's a stretch, at least to me.

33. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: July 18, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4186349)

You guys clearly spend insufficient time around racists. The term comes from the fact that everyone hates Mondays.

34. Obi One Kenobi Nil

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4186350)

So he should react well to the trade rumors?

He's looking for his security teddy bear Mr. Snuggles as we type.

35. Bitter Mouse is a genre addict Posted: July 18, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4186358)

Monday and Monkey are one letter different? Hmmmm.

36. Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines Posted: July 18, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4186365)

The Urban Dictionary means nothing. For any ten random words you can think of, some would-be witticist has probably created an Urban Dictioanry definition for nine of them.

37. Obi One Kenobi Nil

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4186366)

He was speaking esperanto

38. gef the talking mongoose Posted: July 18, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4186375)

You guys clearly spend insufficient time around racists. The term comes from the fact that everyone hates Mondays.

Everybody also hates Pauly Shore, but is Pauly Shore considered a racial slur?

39. Dale Sams Posted: July 18, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4186394)

Any insult that needs explaining is by definition just dumb. Sepos.

40. Karl from NY Posted: July 18, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4186414)

first Red Sox left fielder to notch three hits with three stolen bases... since 1934

Yeah, when your left field position spends 40 years occupied by a couple of bums with a combined career 5.5 steals per 162 games, that sort of 'drought' might happen.

41. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 18, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4186430)

Can't trust that day.

42. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: July 18, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4186452)

The Urban Dictionary means nothing. For any ten random words you can think of, some would-be witticist has probably created an Urban Dictioanry definition for nine of them.

After checking out Urban Dictionary for clarification on the lead-in reference in the Sanchez DFA thread, I can only hope to God that's the case for that particular UD entry. (Barf!!!)

43. Mayor Blomberg Posted: July 18, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4186498)

Pat -- apparently it's in wikipedia as well, or something barfy enough that I'll forgo a trip to UD.

44. Walt Davis Posted: July 18, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4186519)

Everybody also hates Pauly Shore, but is Pauly Shore considered a racial slur?

I don't know if it's racist but if you call me Pauly Shore I'll flatten ya

45. Darren

Posted: July 18, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#4186623)

The Red Sox had this "problem" going into last year: They had about 6-7 players who were all good enough to think they were top-4 in the lineup type hitters. So someone was going to have to hit lower than they hoped. It's a failure of management if the team did not prepare Crawford for that and then promptly dropped him to 7th, then moved him to 1st, a position that he doesn't like hitting in. They bragged last spring about all of the research they did before signing Crawford. They should have known, then, how important these things would be to him. They should have either decided to bat him 2nd/3rd for a couple months -or- they should have found a way to convince him that batting 7th (or wherever) would be swell -or- they shouldn't have signed him. Crawford may or may not be a tool for feeling this way, but that doesn't in any way excuse the Sox for handling him so poorly.

46. SandyRiver Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4186884)

I assume he means "monkey" ... but my god, that's a stretch, at least to me.

Yes ... and yes.

(Isn't "one letter different" just the same as "two letters different?")

47. Nasty Nate Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4186900)

It's a failure of management if the team did not prepare Crawford for that and then promptly dropped him to 7th, then moved him to 1st, a position that he doesn't like hitting in.

I don't know if the 'Crawford doesn't like leadoff' thing is myth or real, but if it is real Crawford can't have it both ways. He can't complain about being dropped in the lineup but also balk at batting first. He also suffers in comparison because the speedy outfielder who plays right next to him was dropped to 9th in the order for a while but that didn't set off some domino effect of suckitude.

They bragged last spring about all of the research they did before signing Crawford. They should have known, then, how important these things would be to him.

I agree 100%. Shouldn't all of that research have taught them how to handle his transition to Boston? 2011....ughhh

48. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:43 AM (#4186908)

Co-sign Darren's #45.

It's not a praiseworthy characteristic for a baseball player to need to bat consistently in only a small set of batting order positions, but you find ways to work with that if you think the guy is worth $20M a year. This does seem of a piece with the critiques of 2011 Tito that have been floating around. The 2004 version of Tito Francona would have built a good relationship with Crawford and probably convinced him to go along with a lower batting order position from day one. The checked-out 2011 version apparently didn't do much of any managing.

49. Ray (RDP)

Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4186919)

Really? monday? This is the first time I ever heard that.

Same here. But, then, I just recently learned of the slur "coon," so I'm the wrong one to use as a gauge for this.

50. Jittery McFrog Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4186924)

The checked-out 2011 version apparently didn't do much of any managing.

That seems overbroad. The fact that Crawford has only said this publicly after a full season of suck and a half-season of absence strongly suggests that the suck produced the complaint and not vice-versa.

51. tshipman

Posted: July 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4186930)

Same here. But, then, I just recently learned of the slur "coon," so I'm the wrong one to use as a gauge for this.

That was a good thread. I've also never heard of "monday" being a racial slur, but the "everyone hates Mondays" thing does make a certain amount of sense.

Crawford most likely was not affected by the line-up switch so much as he had a poor start to the season and was looking for excuses.

52. BDC

Posted: July 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4186951)

I must say that I have zero understanding of why a hitter would prefer one spot in the lineup over another. Well, I understand the pride issue; if you think you should bat cleanup and your manager thinks you should bat ninth, that's a prestige thing. But for it actually to become a performance issue, as if batting third were somehow structurally different from batting seventh, I'm missing something. You stand in the batter's box; sometimes there are men on base and sometimes there aren't; you swing at the ball or not as needed.

It's something of the same problem I have understanding why pitching the ninth inning is so different from pitching the eighth. I can understand why starting and relieving are different jobs, and why right field is different from third base, but not some of this other stuff.

53. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4186962)

I must say that I have zero understanding of why a hitter would prefer one spot in the lineup over another. Well, I understand the pride issue; if you think you should bat cleanup and your manager thinks you should bat ninth, that's a prestige thing. But for it actually to become a performance issue, as if batting third were somehow structurally different from batting seventh, I'm missing something. You stand in the batter's box; sometimes there are men on base and sometimes there aren't; you swing at the ball or not as needed.

Crawford talked about this a bit last year. Basically it came down to hitting 1st or 2nd you feel like your job is to get on base, hitting elsewhere in the order Crawford felt like he was supposed to add more power, to be a "run producer."

I don't think this is an unusual mindset. It's not a correct mindset but I think it's what the players and probably managers and coaches have in their heads for these guys. If you're batting fourth, you're a "slugger."

That of course is not Crawford's game and it is not hard to envision him struggling because he is trying to do something he cannot do.

54. BDC

Posted: July 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4186977)

I guess I can see that perspective, Seabiscuit. If it's a matter of feeling pressure to hit a home run, then (tactically delusional or not), it's real pressure. As you indicate, it's not a correct mindset. If you're batting 5th and there's nobody on base, your job is to get on. If you're batting 1st and there's a runner on second, your job is to drive him in. Basically, as my sandlot captain used to say, your job is always to not make a ####ing out :) But I reckon guys don't see it that way.

55. Joel W Posted: July 19, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4187009)

A good manager would works to get his hitters to see that way, but I fear that managers often encourage their hitters to have a different mindset given where they are in the lineup.

56. villageidiom Posted: July 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4187891)

The 2004 version of Tito Francona would have built a good relationship with Crawford and probably convinced him to go along with a lower batting order position from day one.

Is this the same Francona that in mid-2005 demanded Jay Payton get traded ASAP? I think we really should be re-evaluating Francona as a clubhouse harmony guy throughout his tenure, not just accept that the endgame was different from the rest.

I think when the final chapter is written on this era's Red Sox, we'll find out that the guy who unified the clubhouse was actually Kevin Millar. Francona, OTOH, didn't unify them as much as manage the media.

57. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4187903)

Is this the same Francona that in mid-2005 demanded Jay Payton get traded ASAP? I think we really should be re-evaluating Francona as a clubhouse harmony guy throughout his tenure, not just accept that the endgame was different from the rest.

I think when the final chapter is written on this era's Red Sox, we'll find out that the guy who unified the clubhouse was actually Kevin Millar. Francona, OTOH, didn't unify them as much as manage the media.

I don't think managing the media was a minor part of it. The fact is the Sox clubhouse, particularly those first couple of years, had some real forceful personalities. Millar, Schilling, Manny, Ortiz, Pedro, Nomar, Varitek...that's a lot of guys that could be difficult.

Francona was not perfect at dealing with everyone but I think generally his record is good. The only real "losses" are Crawford and Payton and I can't get too worked up about Payton. Frankly, he's the type of player who a manager probably is right saying \"#### this, get rid of him." You don't go out of your way to work with a 4th outfielder, you punt him* and slide in Gabe Kapler. Crawford is a different story, he's a key player for the team and the manager has to make that work.

You can arguably ding him for Nomar and Manny. I don't because I think he inherited a bad situation with Nomar (that was more FO driven) and I think with Manny it's more a positive that he was able to keep things stable as long as he did.

*to be clear, I'm not saying you give up at the first sign of trouble but the rope for a Jay Payton is a hell of a lot shorter than it is for a Carl Crawford.

58. SoSH U at work Posted: July 20, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4187920)

*to be clear, I'm not saying you give up at the first sign of trouble but the rope for a Jay Payton is a hell of a lot shorter than it is for a Carl Crawford.

That would be the Jay Payton who admitted to the Bay Area media he staged his confrontation with Francona to force a trade? The fourth-outfielding Jay Payton with a 92 OPS+? Yeah, that rope is a shoelace.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

WEEI: Not forgiving or forgetting has led Carl Crawford to a familiar place

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Sponsor

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics