To be consistent ….. The Sox did not “steal” Carl Crawford away from the Angels or Yankees, just as the Yankees didn’t steal Mark Texiera away from the Red Sox. Coming in late and submitting the most generous bid should not be confused for “stealing.”
* Did the Red Sox overpay? Did they give Carl Crawford too many years? Those are the big questions being debated today in the chats by the nerds and the partisans and the partisan nerds. To these eyes, it basically boils down to this … once you get comfortable with the duration, what difference does it make whether the Sox gave Crawford 18M/yr or 20M/yr? To a team like Boston, with a $160M payroll, $2M/yr is just a big rounding error. And it’s highly unlikely to stand in the way of the club making future moves. At least not big ones.
* Nice job by the Globe’s Pete Abraham to scoop the national guys on this story. I’ve busted on Abraham plenty and he has supplied ample ammo but this scoop was a nice get.
* Crawford has stolen at will when the Rays have been at Fenway but he hasn’t hit great in Boston. His hit chart shows a fair amount of wall-ball doubles but something to consider … most of Crawford’s power comes to the RF alley and that doesn’t’ shape up as a fit with Boston.
* The Red Sox were 6-12 in extras last season and just 22-26 in one-run games. Poor bullpen work was partly to blame but it also seemed like the Sox had trouble manufacturing late-inning runs because they had no speed. With Ellsbury back and Crawford now on board, the Sox should be able to produce better late-inning and extra-inning results.
* You know who Carl Crawford kills? Here is a hint … John Lackey is pretty happy today.