Crawford to Boston, $142 Million, 7 Years

[ScottyDo]

Oh yeah. It's really that simple! But I digress. I hate JP. I can't help it. I will cheer him because he plays for my favorite team. But I can't be phony. Thing is there's other players I hate more like Jeff Francoeur. I hate watching guys make millions to be mediocre at what they do.

How much more complicated is it? I mean, sure, those are simple stats that don't tell the whole story, but I challenge you to line up stats indicating that this contract doesn't make JP's look like a steal.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Pierre-hugger, and I REALLY like Crawford (who wouldn't?), but I like him more as a 5/$70ish guy. I think that contract was flat stupid but maybe I'm an idiot. If this is what it's gonna take to sign a decent outfielder, go ahead and put me down for 5 more years of our outfield. Actually, go ahead and put me down for a hell of a lot more money in scouting and drafting.

[iamshack]

How much more complicated is it? I mean, sure, those are simple stats that don't tell the whole story, but I challenge you to line up stats indicating that this contract doesn't make JP's look like a steal.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Pierre-hugger, and I REALLY like Crawford (who wouldn't?), but I like him more as a 5/$70ish guy. I think that contract was flat stupid but maybe I'm an idiot. If this is what it's gonna take to sign a decent outfielder, go ahead and put me down for 5 more years of our outfield. Actually, go ahead and put me down for a hell of a lot more money in scouting and drafting.

Well, while I agree with you about Crawford's contract, this is a matter of the cost increasing for a higher tier of production, even though the increment of production that increases is not equal to the level of the cost. You see this in all walks of life. That slightly faster computer costs much more than the model below it even though it's improvement in performance isn't THAT much faster. Or that more expensive HD tv has a better and faster picture, but it isn't THAT much better than the model below it that costs $1300 less.

 

This is the law of diminishing returns...

[Y2HH]

Well, while I agree with you about Crawford's contract, this is a matter of the cost increasing for a higher tier of production, even though the increment of production that increases is not equal to the level of the cost. You see this in all walks of life. That slightly faster computer costs much more than the model below it even though it's improvement in performance isn't THAT much faster. Or that more expensive HD tv has a better and faster picture, but it isn't THAT much better than the model below it that costs $1300 less.

 

This is the law of diminishing returns...

 

My slow computer costs 900$.

 

My fast computer costs 2000$.

 

ONCE.

 

Not 20,000,000 per year for 7 years.

 

 

Contracts are out of control considering the current state of the economy.

[Balta1701]

Contracts are out of control considering the current state of the economy.

No, they're not. They're reflecting the revenue states of the teams that are signing them.

[southsider2k5]

My slow computer costs 900$.

 

My fast computer costs 2000$.

 

ONCE.

 

Not 20,000,000 per year for 7 years.

 

 

Contracts are out of control considering the current state of the economy.

 

The numbers are all relative. To someone working in a sweatshop in China, you just spent years worth of money on a slow computer.

[Balta1701]

The numbers are all relative. To someone working in a sweatshop in China, you just spent years worth of money on a slow computer.

And they're glad that you purchased the computer that they assembled.

[iamshack]

My slow computer costs 900$.

 

My fast computer costs 2000$.

 

ONCE.

 

Not 20,000,000 per year for 7 years.

 

 

Contracts are out of control considering the current state of the economy.

Well, notice how the first line of my post stated that I agreed that Crawford's contract is an overpay.

 

Secondly, we should also not the scarcity of the product here. This is a combination of diminishing returns and supply and demand, because of the scarcity of the product.

[ScottyDo]

Well, while I agree with you about Crawford's contract, this is a matter of the cost increasing for a higher tier of production, even though the increment of production that increases is not equal to the level of the cost. You see this in all walks of life. That slightly faster computer costs much more than the model below it even though it's improvement in performance isn't THAT much faster. Or that more expensive HD tv has a better and faster picture, but it isn't THAT much better than the model below it that costs $1300 less.

 

This is the law of diminishing returns...

Yah, I get that, but this offseason is an exaggerated example, in my opinion, to the point where it's not worth it to participate in the current setup. Screw free agency, at least for outfielders. Adam Dunn is looking better and better.

[iamshack]

Yah, I get that, but this offseason is an exaggerated example, in my opinion, to the point where it's not worth it to participate in the current setup. Screw free agency, at least for outfielders. Adam Dunn is looking better and better.

But is it, really?

 

Every year the top tier players get ridiculous contracts.

 

The difference lies in where the second and third tier guys go...and from what I can see, it's playing out pretty reasonably.

[caulfield12]

Yeah, the Angels thought they had Crawford and he SEEMED to be the perfect fit for their style of play but they were about $20-30 million and a week behind. Too smug, the way the deal with negotiating...taking their sweet time instead of being aggressive, same reason they've seen 10-15 prospects the last decade deflate in value to nearly zero.

 

I think someone said there's not another similar player to Crawford in the next two FA classes.

 

You can understand why Williams had so much trouble filling that leadoff spot for seemingly forever. Talk is that the Crawford contract means the Mets will be forced to let Reyes go with their payroll already jammed. Would love to see him on the Sox, in his prime....seems a big injury risk though.

 

We'll have to cross our fingers on our own Crawford in AA this year.

Edited December 10, 2010 by caulfield12

[ScottyDo]

But is it, really?

 

Every year the top tier players get ridiculous contracts.

 

The difference lies in where the second and third tier guys go...and from what I can see, it's playing out pretty reasonably.

I don't consider either of those outfielders (Werth and Crawford) the top tier. To me, this is where second-tier players are going, masked as top-tier because of the years they happen to hit free agency.

 

Also, there comes a point at which the price of products near the top of the law of diminishing returns exceed efficiency. I think we're there.

Edited December 10, 2010 by ScottyDo

[iamshack]

I don't consider either of those outfielders (Werth and Crawford) the top tier. To me, this is where second-tier players are going, masked as top-tier because of the years they happen to hit free agency.

 

Also, there comes a point at which the price of products near the top of the law of diminishing returns exceed efficiency. I think we're there.

 

Well that's it right there...that's what I meant...the top tier players in THIS year's FA class. And this occurs because the process is controlled by human beings and not computers. Humans become impatient and emotional, and sign players to long-term contracts because they want them NOW instead of waiting til the better player is available next season.

 

To be fair though, they are also forced to please the fans, who are also impatient and emotional, and waiting back for optimal player acquisitions might be confused with inactivity or a desire to do nothing to improve the Club.

[ScottyDo]

Well that's it right there...that's what I meant...the top tier players in THIS year's FA class. And this occurs because the process is controlled by human beings and not computers. Humans become impatient and emotional, and sign players to long-term contracts because they want them NOW instead of waiting til the better player is available next season.

 

To be fair though, they are also forced to please the fans, who are also impatient and emotional, and waiting back for optimal player acquisitions might be confused with inactivity or a desire to do nothing to improve the Club.

These things are all true. I think the smart teams will stay out of it, though, and benefit from their saved money in other ways. Then, they'll win (theoretically) and appease their fan base that way. I was okay with playing the game up until these last two signings. They're excessive, and they're defining the market.

 

Boston and New York are, of course, exempt from that statement as they can do this ad infinitum. Seriously...salary cap...

[iamshack]

These things are all true. I think the smart teams will stay out of it, though, and benefit from their saved money in other ways. Then, they'll win (theoretically) and appease their fan base that way. I was okay with playing the game up until these last two signings. They're excessive, and they're defining the market.

 

Boston and New York are, of course, exempt from that statement as they can do this ad infinitum. Seriously...salary cap...

I don't think the market is really getting defined a whole lot by these signings. Cliff Lee was going to get a crapload of money regardless. If anything, the Crawford signing probably hurts Beltre's value, unless they just hold the screws to Anaheim and they relent.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I don't think the market is really getting defined a whole lot by these signings. Cliff Lee was going to get a crapload of money regardless. If anything, the Crawford signing probably hurts Beltre's value, unless they just hold the screws to Anaheim and they relent.

I dunno, I sure feel like the Werth signing defined the market for the Crawford signing.

[ScottyDo]

I dunno, I sure feel like the Werth signing defined the market for the Crawford signing.

Exactly what I was thinking. I doubt it stops there, either, once next year hits. Unless ownership colludes, and I'm sure as hell not advocating that either.

[iamshack]

I dunno, I sure feel like the Werth signing defined the market for the Crawford signing.

Well what the heck did you think Crawford was going to sign for?

[iamshack]

Exactly what I was thinking. I doubt it stops there, either, once next year hits. Unless ownership colludes, and I'm sure as hell not advocating that either.

It's inflation. Of course contracts are generally going to trend upwards with revenues.

[Balta1701]

Well what the heck did you think Crawford was going to sign for?

I dunno, but I think somewhere closer to Anaheim's offer might have been where he'd wound up if Werth had wound up at 7/$90.

[iamshack]

I dunno, but I think somewhere closer to Anaheim's offer might have been where he'd wound up if Werth had wound up at 7/$90.

I think if either Bos or NYY were going to be involved, he was going to get close to $130 million regardless. Werth's deal may have impacted his a bit, but this megadeal for Crawford has been anticipated for 2-3 years now, well before this deal with Werth.

Edited December 10, 2010 by iamshack

[caulfield12]

The players that we'll really shake our heads about getting those 5-7 year deals will be Cliff Lee (because he'll be 39), Adrian Beltre and Rafael Soriano, all of them definitely have Werth/Crawford and/or Scott Boras to thank, especially.

 

Even the Tulowitzki deal. You start seeing those numbers all around the board and you start to realize the writing is on the wall with Jon Danks...and I'm certainly not an advocate of making him our first $100 million dollar contract. Those things (especially for pitchers) just always tend to blow up in your face. For every 1 that works out, there are 9 that don't.