Given the fact that Ben has flat out said they had prospect packages for Lackey and Lester, it's not a stretch to assume that getting Craig was an important part of this deal and based on that, to assume that the FO is much more confident in Craig's health than anyone on this board is.
Allen Craig
- Thread starter Jeff Van GULLY
- Start date
Plympton91 said:
This is only part of your point, but it is a great example of why people get so annoyed with you. Salty is a catcher. The organization is deep in catching prospects and one of them was very close to cracking the major league roster when they made that decision, with the other (who is even better by most estimations) only a year behind. Craig is a an outfielder. The organization has been extremely thin in the outfield in the minor leagues over the last couple years. After Bradley was promoted, they had guys like Brentz and Hassan as AAA depth, but no impact bat outfielders ready to graduate. They are so thin in impact bat corner outfielders that they have been trying to convert Mookie Betts. Guys like Devers, Margot and Longhi are exciting as hell, but are years away. Craig fills a need. Salty created a roadblock in an area of relative strength.
These two decisions are not related or comparable and when you bother to consider the context around each decision, they make perfect sense.
The Red Sox paid $8.5 million for one last offseason.Papelbon said:
I get that they didn't want to "block" Vazquez and Swihart, but i just don't agree that would have happened to any meaningful extent.
You folks got your bridge season this year though. Year 4 of 5 in which the team missed the playoffs. Hope you're happy with it. Keep rooting for those prospects and quoting fatally flawed defensive statistics to back up the reasoning resulting in a last place finish.
Snod makes a great point about viewing the acquisition of Craig against the lack of impact bads in the system. I still question the risk/reward. It makes more sense to me that they value 5 years of control of Kelly enough to absorb a dead contact. Maybe they'll luck out the same way they did when they took a seemingly dead Lowell to acquire Beckett, but I'm not holding my breath.
Plympton91 said:
I wasn't arguing it was Craig or Kelly that was valuable, just that acquiring Craig made sense, regardless of what you think of Kelly. I'd say the five years of control over him was also a positive in their eyes. I think it was one of those "good for everyone" deals.
Scott Lauber @ScottLauber 18m
Allen Craig will go to Charlotte tomorrow to see Dr. Robert Anderson about his foot. Anderson treated him last year #RedSox
https://twitter.com/ScottLauber/status/497598151067320320
Allen Craig will go to Charlotte tomorrow to see Dr. Robert Anderson about his foot. Anderson treated him last year #RedSox
https://twitter.com/ScottLauber/status/497598151067320320
Miller recovered from a Lisfranc injury to pitch better than ever in 2014. By better than ever, I mean he tops his charts and just about everybody else's charts in all the predictive indicators (his best ever strikeout rate, walk rate, hit rate ever). Why shouldn't Allen Craig recover as well as Miller? Or if not as well, at least well enough to take over a productive DH role when the time comes. Even hobbled, he was a fearsome opponent in October 2013. Do batters suffer worse outcomes from Lisfranc injuries than pitchers?
Sprowl said:
And how Miller recovered has very little with how Craig will recovery. There is tremendous variation in both the severity as well as treatment of the injury. Many athletes have made full recovers while others have had their careers ended by Lisfranc injuries. Right now, Craig as far as we know doesn't even have a diagnosis. That will probably change shortly after Dr. Anderson's evaluation today. A diagnosis other than a Lisfranc would be very welcome news.
Plympton91 said:
The Red Sox didn't/dont think that Jarrod Saltalamacchia is as good at playing baseball as you do. With one exception, he has been an average or below major league hitter. He is at best, an average major league catcher. Since I assume your general managing skills are at least as savvy as your player evaluation skills, why would you, as GM, sign a player that you dont think is all that good, to a 3-year contract?
Ok, and in that best case scenario you have a fantastic platoon to start with Vazquez eventually taking more and more at bats against righties too. And, you're still spending about as much as you were on catching in 2013.Rasputin said:
But in the end the front office made the right decision at least ex post. All of my kvetching about 3 moves from last offseason is really moot. The team shit the bed and finished last for second time in three years. And, for 2015 they've got themselves positioned well again. Bridge accomplished.
Bradley has been aweful, and even in my plans he would have had the chance to be aweful in many hundred at bats. Bogaerts has been aweful, and even in my plans he'd have been aweful in many hundred at bats. Pedroia has been average, Ortiz merely good. Buchholz has sucked. Peavy was below average. Workman has sucked. Breslow and Mujica have sucked. But maybe 2015 will see improvements all around. And a healthy Craig would be a nice step in that direction.
I happen to agree with some of your points (not finding another adequate OF'er, resigning Salty, however how many games better would we have been? Stuck in mediocrity at best?Plympton91 said:
This step back is probably the best thing to happen so we can realistically go forward again.
This isn't the Salty/catching thread, and we've heard the same arguments 50,000 times already.
This is the Allen Craig thread.
This is the Allen Craig thread.
So the FO only checked his medical records and did not conduct their own physical exam. On a guy with a known chronic injury, who we watched just last October limp around the bases during the WS. OK.
rundugrun said:
That's the downside of working right at the trade deadline. You don't get a 72 hour window to check medicals or negotiate extensions; most times you just have to take your chances. I suppose they could have added some PTBNL language to the trade in case Craig's medicals looked worse later, but that would be very difficult to agree on in such a short timeframe. Especially since they spent most of the previous day focusing on Lester and Miller.
Thanks. That makes sense. I didn't think about the timing of the deadline. Hopefully, Jeter's doc can get Craig on the path to health.Max Power said:
Rob Bradford @bradfo 3msoxhop411 said:
Nothing abnormal revealed after Craig ankle checkup. Hope to have back at end of DL stint
https://twitter.com/bradfo/status/497890211393589249
Tim Britton @TimBritton 5m
Allen craig’s evaluation in Charlotte revealed nothing new on his left foot. That’s good news. Baseball activities soon.
https://twitter.com/TimBritton/status/497890919308607488
TheoShmeo said:
It's as easy as comparing the luxury tax outlay for both contracts. Don't make this more complicated than it is: $150m/6years is a tax charge of $25m/year while $26m/4 is a third of that (and I agree with judyb that it's closer to $6m/year in luxury tax charge) Not only can this ownership eat $8-9m/year a lot easier than $25m/year, it's a lot easier to construct a winning team being mindful of the constraints of the luxury tax with just that $8m handicap for the next 4 years than potentially 1-6 of $25m/year.
There's no sensible argument that says a top-11-offensive-2B-that-bats-league-average-or-better and is the best defender at his position in the game is cooked. If we're on the verge of asking that question, it's because we're dumb.HomeRunBaker said:
I want a resident grammarian to chime in but this seems like it could be used to demonstrate the correct time a post calls for the response "this begs the question."Drek717 said:
Why does a dip in power by Pedroia reflect an hubris so mighty it's resulted in wanton acceptance of patently disfigured players like Allen Craig rather than a very real, very natural season-to-season variance in performance common to players throughout the history of baseball, exacerbated by a league-wide dip in power? He's also raised his slugging .012 points in the last 2+ weeks by hitting .360/.396./.480 since August 23. He could be in the midst of a Pedroian tear that raises his season's slugging line nearer .400. If that happens, there's no doubt he's a top-5 second baseman this season.
To connect this back to Craig, sometimes guys have shit seasons even when they're healthy and sometimes they have shit seasons when playing injured. Every time, we should defer to the guys that actually review the medical information and (presumably) have advanced degrees in the practice of medicine to make the judgment of whether they should play or not due to injury.
For those who missed it, Craig's been activated and is DHing tonight.
Well, you might want to roll it back out until we can parse the living shit out of this:
So much for all the "this latest injury isn't related to the Lisfranc" crap, and the "just tweaked it, no big deal" b-s.
uncannymanny said:
Well, you might want to roll it back out until we can parse the living shit out of this:
So much for all the "this latest injury isn't related to the Lisfranc" crap, and the "just tweaked it, no big deal" b-s.
It's obvious the guy has been hurt all year.
Just get it fixed. Playing through these things never ever work. Get it fixed and lets hope he regains his form, which is an upper level run producer.
Just get it fixed. Playing through these things never ever work. Get it fixed and lets hope he regains his form, which is an upper level run producer.
SouthernBoSox said:
Yeah no shit. And if that's the best bet to get him at 100% next year it makes zero sense to play him right now instead of just getting it done.
Harry Hooper said:
Farrell was just quoted about a possible surgery for Craig. That's what we're commenting on. Maybe they're talking about a different procedure than the one DRS was referring to. Why would Farrell be suggesting that he may need surgery that would prevent him from returning to high-level athletics?
glennhoffmania said:
Maybe, though given that he's going to play on it now and DRS's comments, it sounds like surgery is the last option.
Yeah, could someone shed light on the reason why he'd be trying to struggle through this on a last place team?
Yeah, I'm not sure what Farrell is talking about here. The window of opportunity for treating this acutely has completely closed. His only option now would be a fusion, which isn't terribly compatible with playing in the outfield.
Well he's only played in one game so far, but I don't get why they would activate him.Plympton91 said:
I guess they could attempt to market him as a trade chip if he performs miraculously well over the next 100 at-bats?
Maybe they don't want to risk Ortiz getting injured over the rest of the season?
Even that is a huge stretch, really. I don't understand what they're doing with Craig either...
Wow this is idiotic.
As a trade chip he'd have to perform at his previously elite levels to bring much of anything back at this point. I'm going to file that under "doubtful."
If they intend to keep him...I don't know, this is just completely careless. What's to be gained here?
As a trade chip he'd have to perform at his previously elite levels to bring much of anything back at this point. I'm going to file that under "doubtful."
If they intend to keep him...I don't know, this is just completely careless. What's to be gained here?
FWIW, Alex Speier on with Castig said he spoke to Craig who claimed he has no idea what Farrell is talking about.
Addendum: He just grounded out weakly when he got buried with an inside fastball. As a bonus, he looked to be running gingerly down the line.
Addendum: He just grounded out weakly when he got buried with an inside fastball. As a bonus, he looked to be running gingerly down the line.
for anyone who didn't see it, Nick Canelas did a good, feature length story about Craig here: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/08/28/overshadowed-but-rarely-overmatched-red-sox-of-allen-craig-has-made-a-career-of-shattering-expectations/
1. Because MLB players are almsot always under 100% regardless of whether they play on the Red Sox or any other team. Step outside the bubble and see what is occurring on other teams. Should we have shut down Pedro in 2004 pitching with his shoulder hanging off? Not allowed Schilling to take the hill in Game 6? Shut down Victorino last season? Napoli's hip? The list goes on and on. Part of being a professional athlete is to perform at elite levels when less than 100% which they will be much of the time. Then when they pussy around injuries they get the Buchholz treatment last year. Double standard. I'd much prefer the Schilling/Pedro/Victorino mindset than Buchholz.Drek717 said:
2. You are ignoring those times it has worked out. Victorino, Napoli, Koji, etc while focusing only one those that haven't. It isn't a perfect science for the Red Sox or any other team and you WILL lose some bets along the way.
buchholz basically pitched his way through the playoffs last year with absolutely nothing. dude was definitely hurt. the first four innings of WS game 4 were some of the tensest moments i've ever had as a fan.
We sent him to a specialist because he refused to pitch......the medicals came back saying he was fine. Who knows which was right but Buchholz was criticized all season for not pitching even after being cleared by Dr. Andrews.O Captain! My Captain! said:
HomeRunBaker said:
He went to another specialist who confirmed that pitching with bursitis could indeed lead to the bursa bursting (I just wanted to type that combination), and that the compensation involved in avoiding pain could lead to shoulder injury. Then he sat out another three weeks.
I've got no complaint about that -- he clearly wasn't 100% in the playoffs, and bursitis hurts like hell, no matter which bursa is involved.
So, no, the medicals didn't say he was fine. The medicals conflicted.
It always amazes me that a bunch of working slobs sitting in front of computers can tell a professional athlete he's not being tough enough.
HomeRunBaker said:
I don't know what the medicals said, but the Buchholz who showed up for game 4 of the WS had absolutely nothing and basically was pitching on guile and luck. Him getting through four innings with that stuff was a miracle nearly on the order of the Schilling bloody sock game or Pedro out of the bullpen vs the Indians and if I had any reason to doubt Buchholz's guts or Will To Win before, I never will again.
Buchholz maxed out that game at 91mph, averaging 89.5 mph on his four-seam fastball, which he threw less than his two-seamer (average velo 88.6), also mixing in 8 cutters (average velo 85.1) (!!!)
and here's his strikezone, because we know that control diminishes with injury more than velocity, even
FWIW everyone in that game thread knew he was on fumes from pitch 5 on.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Or tell professional doctors who are employed to manage the care of enormous investments (players) that they are clearly making a mistake by having X player play or Y player sit.
This cannot be iterated enough; one cannot take the perspective of a professional athlete when one has no experience as a professional athlete.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Also, since when did this turn into another Buchholz thread?
The fact that he (anyone) made it to the major league level speaks volume of their "toughness". There are tons of athletes with the talent but were not mentally tough enough (or bodies broke down) to handle the rigors of even making it to the major league level.EricFeczko said: