All that money and he can't even buy a sippy cup. Whaaaaa whaaaa.

Carl Crawford: still uppity. What a MONDAY, amirite?

Who would have thought that Red Sox fans would be displeased with 0.6 WAR in 161 games from a man with a $100M contract?

"Carl, I got nothing for my column today, would you mind ######## about Boston just one more time?"

I was so thrilled when we landed Crawford and I can't get over how bad it turned out. I hate when announcers start blaming performance on personality but Crawford was the picture of a guy overwhelmed by the situation. Fine, he didn't hit that happens. It was the rest of his game that was so jarring. Defensively he played left field like a converted infielder. He seemed terrified of the wall and always seemed to react slow. When he actually did get on base he seemed hesitant to run. I remember many times where it was a "yup, gotta run here" situation and he didn't even flinch throughout the at bat.

He seemed like a pretty good guy. The reports on him were that he was working hard and when he did have success the guys in the dugout seemed genuinely happy for him. Even after the trade I don't remember reports of him being a problem in anyway, just as a guy who was really uncomfortable here and he has said that himself. It was a combination of a really bad fit and a guy who seems to have inexplicably lost it.

One big reason why big ticket free agent acquisitions don't work: almost always, you're going from a situation that's working very well. Random variation suggests that the next one won't be quite as optimized.

Whether it's the pressure, the fast food restaurants available, or what have you... the new sitch will likely regress towards the mean.

Carl Crawford is just another big whiny baby.

No. They asked, he answered. And his answers basically say Boston was a tougher environment to play in, it's his fault he didn't do anything to understand whether it was a good fit for him before signing the contract, and that his own performance made things worse. He admits he made a mistake. That's not whining.

Dear Dodgers:
Again, we thank you. Thank you thank you thank you thank you.

The guy played 9 or 10 games a year in Boston for 6 years. How could he say he had no idea what it would be like to play there? I could see not completely understanding what it's like to be on the other side and be on the other team but to have no idea at all the way Crawford portrays it seems like a failure to pay attention to your environment.

The guy played 9 or 10 games a year in Boston for 6 years. How could he say he had no idea what it would be like to play there? I could see not completely understanding what it's like to be on the other side and be on the other team but to have no idea at all the way Crawford portrays it seems like a failure to pay attention to your environment.

That's like saying you visited New York for a week every summer on vacation, then were shocked to find out it's different to live there. Of course it's different.

I thought the Crawford signing was ridiculously dumb when it was made, but I couldn't have predicted how it turned out -- and I certainly couldn't have predicted that the Dodgers would relieve the Sox of all three of their big, dumb contracts at one.

I don’t think anything Crawford says in this article is unfair.

Yeah, he’s rationalizing his struggles in Boston by blaming “Boston” in the abstract.

But does anyone dispute his basic point that if you sign a huge contract and don’t deliver, you’re going to have a rougher time in Boston than most other places, given the local media and ESPN’s obsession with the team?

Every notice how white guys talk about playing in Boston like this, while black guys talk about playing in Boston like *this*?

1. If you RTFA, he doesn't go crazy against Boston. He was asked a question he has clearly answered before, and he answered the question. No adjectives, vitriol, etc. He said it was not for him. (To be fair, he could have answered the question more succinctly. Instead, he meandered around the answer, saying nothing much, and not looking particularly thoughtful in the process..whatever.)

2. I didn't like the signing, because Boston was getting him after his peak season, a pull hitter hitting to a very deep right field at Fenway. A Gold Glove LF in the smallest LF in baseball. A speed guy in a park which (at that time, anyway) did not emphasize speed. All that said, he was waaaaay worse than I thought. He was terrible, and if he was just a little less terrible, the Sox make the playoffs in that terrible season. And he has continued to be pretty terrible at Dodger Stadium. He can't blame Boston for his performance, unless he hates palying in Los Angeles, as well...

3. Thank you, Los Angeles Dodgers. The Nick Punto trade remains the most unlikely trade I have ever seen, and I will always remember exactly where I was when it was announced. Forever. Amazing.

4. Who cares what Carl Crawford thinks, by the way? They don't ask Adrian Gonzalez, who was probably within 50 feet of Crawford at the time of the phone call, what he thinks of Boston. It's because Bradford wants some firewood to throw on his lazy sports column. Was Fred Lynn not available for comment?

Please. The media treated Carl poorly? My ass.

Several times during Carl’s tenure, I would drag out stats showing how “At this particular time” JD Drew was doing ‘this’ much better than Carl. And yet Drew got raked over the coals, while Carl was treated with kid gloves.

Several times during Carl’s tenure, I would drag out stats showing how “At this particular time” JD Drew was doing ‘this’ much better than Carl. And yet Drew got raked over the coals, while Carl was treated with kid gloves.

The media had the impression that Carl cared about how poorly he was doing, and were more sympathetic to him for his struggles than they were with JD, who they thought did not care. Basically, Carl would strike out swinging at ball four in the dirt, and be frustrated, so he sucked; JD would take a called strike three on the corner and walk away emotionless, so he was a monster.

The guy played 9 or 10 games a year in Boston for 6 years. How could he say he had no idea what it would be like to play there? I could see not completely understanding what it's like to be on the other side and be on the other team but to have no idea at all the way Crawford portrays it seems like a failure to pay attention to your environment.

You could say the same thing about the fans. Crawford played a handful of games in Boston, yet the fanbase's utter hatred of him far, far outstrips anything he's done or said. Crawford didn't say anything he hadn't said before, and the Sox fans' reaction in the thread is utterly predictable.

Crawford played a handful of games in Boston, yet the fanbase's utter hatred of him far, far outstrips anything he's done or said. Crawford didn't say anything he hadn't said before, and the Sox fans' reaction in the thread is utterly predictable.

Thanks, we were all waiting on the edge of our seats for your instruction on the proper proportions for how we feel as fans towards a player.

2. I didn't like the signing, because Boston was getting him after his peak season, a pull hitter hitting to a very deep right field at Fenway. A Gold Glove LF in the smallest LF in baseball. A speed guy in a park which (at that time, anyway) did not emphasize speed. All that said, he was waaaaay worse than I thought. He was terrible, and if he was just a little less terrible, the Sox make the playoffs in that terrible season. And he has continued to be pretty terrible at Dodger Stadium. He can't blame Boston for his performance, unless he hates palying in Los Angeles, as well...

I couldn't figure this one out either. On top of the things you listed here, it was another left-handed bat in a starting line-up that is already very lefty-heavy (as well as in an outfield with Drew and Ellsbury). Also, he was joining a team with Ellsbury and Pedroia entrenched in the top two spots in the line-up; there didn't seem to be a logical way to put the line-up together where everyone would be happy (the other issue was that there were five lefties in the starting line up with Ellsbury/Ortiz/Crawford/Drew/Gonzalez, which limits your flexibility in adjusting the line-up if you are trying to prevent a series of left handed bats in a row).

Crawford didn't say anything he hadn't said before, and the Sox fans' reaction in the thread is utterly predictable.

Huh? What Sox fan trashed Crawford in this thread?

Huh? What Sox fan trashed Crawford in this thread?

All the people in the thread who see what they want to see and ignore the evidence to the contrary. Those are the Red Sox fans he is talking about.

Speaking of which, I didn't realize Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim was a Red Sox fan. Huh.

Does Theo Epstein get a pass for this signing? Unlike many bad signings, it wasn't a bad luck signing because of injury (which happens, but can neither be perfectly predicted nor guaranteed). This was taking a 28 year old (past his prime) coming off his best season (buying high), and putting him in a position where defense (or at least speed) did not mean as much. No GM can be perfect in their FA signings, but this one looked to be bound for failure. The red sox always had money (although in this case, LA bailed them out) to cover bad spending mistakes, but still...

Theo reminds me a bit of Frank Wren; he can develop minor league/drafted players that never hit the experts' top 100 love letter lists, but is dangerously bad around free agents.

Bfan: Theo doesn't get a pass, it is firmly in the bad signing category.

But it's double dipping to ding him for supposedly getting a guy after his best season and "past his prime." That's contradictory.

putting him in a position where defense (or at least speed) did not mean as much.

Not defending this signing but I HATE this logic.

Much of my life as a Red Sox fan has been marked by Red Sox teams that destroyed opponents at home but then when they went on the road their lack of speed and defense killed them. A team plays as many road games as home games and being able to win those games is just as valuable. In theory Carl Crawford being an elite defender in New York, Toronto and Tampa (all big left fields) would have had a lot of value to the Sox. The problem was not that his skills didn't have value it's that he played terrible baseball.

Theo deserves criticism for this move without question. It was a big ticket signing and it was a spectacular failure. I think the fact that left field in Fenway is small is not meaningful to that happening though.

But it's double dipping to ding him for supposedly getting a guy after his best season and "past his prime." That's contradictory.

Understood; I should have been clearer; past his peak age 27 season.

Much of my life as a Red Sox fan has been marked by Red Sox teams that destroyed opponents at home but then when they went on the road their lack of speed and defense killed them. A team plays as many road games as home games and being able to win those games is just as valuable. In theory Carl Crawford being an elite defender in New York, Toronto and Tampa (all big left fields) would have had a lot of value to the Sox. The problem was not that his skills didn't have value it's that he played terrible baseball.

Well, this is dumb. The Red Sox, as I have pointed out many, many times before, did not lose on the road because they had Manny Ramirez, Jim Rice, Yaz, or Ted Williams in LF. The idea is purest fantasy. Why you've convinced yourself of this fantasy is beyond me, but there it is.

I still think Theo got flak for his 'bridge line' so he said, "Oh, I can spend money! I'll just go out and throw a truck of it at the best available pitcher. And for shits and giggles, I'll do it again with the best hitter available next year. Oh, did we not make the playoffs? Hunh."

Every notice how white guys talk about playing in Boston like this, while black guys talk about playing in Boston like *this*?

Yeah, but the black guys are just whiny babies.

In theory Carl Crawford being an elite defender in New York, Toronto and Tampa (all big left fields) would have had a lot of value to the Sox. The problem was not that his skills didn't have value it's that he played terrible baseball.

Agreed, but I wouldn't overlook that good defense has advantages even in Fenway's LF. Get to the ball a little quicker, some hits become outs, some doubles become singles, some runners don't score from second on a single. The more a LFer can cover from the line to the gap, the more valuable he is, and the more likely the CFer can play a step or two closer to right to defend the triangle. Sure you generally play your worst outfielder in LF, especially at Fenway, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been value if Crawford had played good defense at Fenway. As noted above, the problem was that he didn't.

The media had the impression that Carl cared about how poorly he was doing, and were more sympathetic to him for his struggles than they were with JD, who they thought did not care. Basically, Carl would strike out swinging at ball four in the dirt, and be frustrated, so he sucked; JD would take a called strike three on the corner and walk away emotionless, so he was a monster.

This makes me wonder how modern fans would treat Joe DiMaggio. Dimaggio, like Drew, was the opposite of the Paul O'Neill/Kevin Youkilis type that the modern fan seems to love.

1. If you RTFA, he doesn't go crazy against Boston. He was asked a question he has clearly answered before, and he answered the question. No adjectives, vitriol, etc. He said it was not for him. (To be fair, he could have answered the question more succinctly. Instead, he meandered around the answer, saying nothing much, and not looking particularly thoughtful in the process..whatever.)

It may not be going crazy, but I believe that constitutes a felony.*

* At least for lefthanded, leftfielders based in California.

This makes me wonder how modern fans would treat Joe DiMaggio. Dimaggio, like Drew, was the opposite of the Paul O'Neill/Kevin Youkilis type that the modern fan seems to love.

Having nothing to say for 20 years hasn't hurt Jeter any. The fans would love DiMag if he played well and the team won, and would be less enthusiastic about him if those things didn't happen.

Same with anyone else, including Drew. In Drew's case, he often wasn't "playing well" insofar as he was hurt, and there were some other minor factors that dragged him down (he usually wasn't his team's best player; he wasn't necessarily a Triple Crown stat guy, so his value was masked; and he switched teams a lot, making it difficult for him to make a connection with any one fanbase.) But if he had a great extended run with one team and that team won a couple World Series, then sure, he'd be loved.

As for Crawford, seems obvious that A) even if it's accepted that he would have more defensive value in AL East road stadiums (which I don't even know to be true, other than Yankee), that is still outweighed by having less defensive value in 81 games; B) as it turned out, that wasn't the reason the signing didn't work out; but C) it could in retrospect have provided the wrong reason to make the right decision, as it were.

The Red Sox, as I have pointed out many, many times before, did not lose on the road because they had Manny Ramirez, Jim Rice, Yaz, or Ted Williams in LF. The idea is purest fantasy. Why you've convinced yourself of this fantasy is beyond me, but there it is.

That sort of makes my point. Just as those guys weren't the problem on the road, having Carl Crawford be the Carl Crawford he usually was would have helped the Red Sox at Fenway. The Sox in many years were a slow, ponderous team and that had an effect in road games. The guys you mention weren't the only players on those teams and it was the totality of teams that cost the Sox in those days.

The problem was getting guys "made for Fenway" that were in fact not that good (Cater, Armas, etc...). The problem with Crawford wasn't that his skills didn't translate to Fenway, the problem with Crawford was that he sucked. If he had put up a 115 OPS+ with 50-60 steals and elite defense the move would have been great. The problem was he suddenly stopped hitting. He didn't need to replicate 2010 to be a good signing, he just needed to do what he had been doing the five years before that.

All these rich black guys complaining about Boston obviously just don't understand how great it is to be a rich white guy in Boston.

Having nothing to say for 20 years hasn't hurt Jeter any.

Unless I am mistaken, Jetes shows more enthusiasm than DiMaggio ever did. I can't imagine Joe D doing the Forties equivalent of a fist pump.