Carl Crawford learns a lesson that money does not buy happiness
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Carl Crawford is an immature fool with zero perspective who couldn't (and still can't) realize that the fans and media were comparatively taking it easy on him. If any Boston fan had said to him the same kind of things that were said to Clemens, he'd probably have broken down right there on the spot. At least now he admits (while still cashing his ridiculous paychecks) that there's a little more to free agency than the biggest number. Too bad (for us) it's years too late.
Mike Lowell is one of the most intelligent and well-spoken ballplayers I've ever seen. I'd believe his take on things before someone like Crawford's in a heartbeat.
Mike Lowell is one of the most intelligent and well-spoken ballplayers I've ever seen. I'd believe his take on things before someone like Crawford's in a heartbeat.
I don't buy what he's selling. I think he just couldn't cope with the fact that he wasn't performing. The fact that he is still bitching about it years removed suggests it is much more about him than it is about us.
Andrew said:
He couldn't cope with the backlash. LA is full of fairweather fans who show up when the teams are great, and if they're not, whatever. Tampa Bay, they don't show up regardless.
The fact that he was so shellshocked by perceived negativity (which, in Boston terms, again, wasn't even that bad) after signing a massive contract and not performing speaks volumes to the guy's character. Think he'd ever pull a Foulke, Meche, or a Dempster and retire leaving money on the table for the benefit of the team? Somehow, I doubt it.
Boston, like NY, is a tough town to play in for some players. It is what it is. That doesn't make Crawford a bad guy or anything, or even lacking in character, just someone who couldn't cut it.
A bad fit. Sucks for all involved -- team, player, and fans. It happens.
A bad fit. Sucks for all involved -- team, player, and fans. It happens.
EvilEmpire said:
There's been tons of players who couldn't cut it in tough environments.
Not all of them are still publicly whining about it years later - that's what stands out about Crawford. He could've just as easily said "It's a great town and I wish I'd performed better" and been done with it forever, but nope, every season it's more of the same shit and he insists on continuing it. The guy got less grief than Renteria, there's no reason for him to still be bellyaching.
Carl Crawford was one of my favorite players before he came to Boston. I was super excited when we first signed him.
That being said, what I got out of this was that as soon as somebody started paying attention to his performance, Crawford couldn't get it down. Those quotes basically read "When I got to Boston, I realized that people actually gave a shit if I went 0-4, and I couldn't handle that." I have zero sympathy for a guy who admits to spending 5 minutes on a life-altering decision and apparently didn't understand that the media and the fans are actually supposed to have an interest in players performance.
That being said, what I got out of this was that as soon as somebody started paying attention to his performance, Crawford couldn't get it down. Those quotes basically read "When I got to Boston, I realized that people actually gave a shit if I went 0-4, and I couldn't handle that." I have zero sympathy for a guy who admits to spending 5 minutes on a life-altering decision and apparently didn't understand that the media and the fans are actually supposed to have an interest in players performance.
Carl, I don't know what you expected. You played in Fenway hundreds of times as an opposing player, you knew of the NYY/Red Sox rivalry, and for at least 50 years since Ted Williams played in Fenway, the media/fans have been a part of the "story" of the Red Sox organization.
Crawford comes across as ignorant, borderline stupid, in his statements. I never booed him, I never hated him, and I was excited for him (aside from the contract) to play with the Red Sox.
How he made such a important decision basically sight unseen is....baffling.
Crawford comes across as ignorant, borderline stupid, in his statements. I never booed him, I never hated him, and I was excited for him (aside from the contract) to play with the Red Sox.
How he made such a important decision basically sight unseen is....baffling.
For those of you who remember, CC had a diary on ESPN he kept for a number of months:
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpostindex?blogname=bostonred-sox&category=carl-crawford-diary&city=boston&src=desktop
At the time, it seemed like it got it – there was a lot in there about his need to perform better and live up to his deal. But somewhere along the line, it turned into complaining.
Worth noting is this piece on Mike Lowell explaining why he chose less years and money to return to Boston:
http://m.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2014/08/06/jon-lesters-potential-return-boston-could-fol
It would be interesting to stack up a bunch of guys who loved Boston (Lowell, Hurst) with guys who hated it (Crawford, Renteria, Lackey?) and why.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpostindex?blogname=bostonred-sox&category=carl-crawford-diary&city=boston&src=desktop
At the time, it seemed like it got it – there was a lot in there about his need to perform better and live up to his deal. But somewhere along the line, it turned into complaining.
Worth noting is this piece on Mike Lowell explaining why he chose less years and money to return to Boston:
http://m.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2014/08/06/jon-lesters-potential-return-boston-could-fol
It would be interesting to stack up a bunch of guys who loved Boston (Lowell, Hurst) with guys who hated it (Crawford, Renteria, Lackey?) and why.
Well, it's not like he knew he was entering free agency and had an opportunity to ask his friends around baseball whether Boston would be a good fit. He only had five minutes!
Let's spare a little judgment for the FO, though, which had to have an inkling that they were dealing with a player who wasn't exactly Kevin Millar in the spotlight-loving department.
Let's spare a little judgment for the FO, though, which had to have an inkling that they were dealing with a player who wasn't exactly Kevin Millar in the spotlight-loving department.
One of the things that has always struck me as strange about Crawford isn't his general dislike of Boston but rather his lack of specificity. While no one thought he was living up to his contract, I don't recall a ton of vitriol directed at him. Did a Sully come up to his table and spit in his food at the Cheesecake factory or something? I'm sure there were columns written that were critical of him but I don't recall any of it being over the top, unfair, or unusual.
Is he using PTSD to describe why he's having such a terrible year this year?
I don't know what happened to Crawford. It's a tired refrain but looking at his career, if he were Dominican I would just assume he was 4-5 years older than his birth certificate. Guys with his breadth of skills don't typically lose all of them at age 29.
That said, his exit was a little tainted by the racial slur incident on his rehab right before he was traded, and it may loom larger in his mind...even though that was in Manchester, NH (and the cop was from Leominster)
I don't know what happened to Crawford. It's a tired refrain but looking at his career, if he were Dominican I would just assume he was 4-5 years older than his birth certificate. Guys with his breadth of skills don't typically lose all of them at age 29.
That said, his exit was a little tainted by the racial slur incident on his rehab right before he was traded, and it may loom larger in his mind...even though that was in Manchester, NH (and the cop was from Leominster)
I would have sympathy for him if he signed this deal when he was 21, but he was old enough to know, or to know to research what he was getting into. He just sounds like a guy who wants people to feel bad for him for making a stupid decision.
Crawford may be whiny, but to me he actually makes a really good point with this:
Gonzalez did indeed hit only 27 HRs his first year in town. And given that he had hit 31 in the pitcher's park in SD the year before, maybe people complaining about it should have been expected. But:
1) AGon led the AL in hits in 2011 with 213.
2) His doubles total went from 33 to 45 upon arriving in Boston, and his triples from 0 to 3.
3) his SLG went from .511 to .548.
4) His OPS went from 904 to 957.
Now, his OPS+ went from 152 to 155 from SD to Boston, so he was the same quality hitter he had always been. His offense did go up upon arriving in Fenway, but it manifested itself in doubles, not HRs. Fenway is not a great HR park. But it is a very, very, very good doubles park. If people got past Crawford's complaints about Boston in general, I think he has a good point here: In 2011 AGon was everything the team could have hoped for and more, and if the press fans fans bitched about 27 HRs that's on them. The 1970s viewpoint of Fenway has a HR heaven hasn't been true for a very long time now.
Gonzalez did indeed hit only 27 HRs his first year in town. And given that he had hit 31 in the pitcher's park in SD the year before, maybe people complaining about it should have been expected. But:
1) AGon led the AL in hits in 2011 with 213.
2) His doubles total went from 33 to 45 upon arriving in Boston, and his triples from 0 to 3.
3) his SLG went from .511 to .548.
4) His OPS went from 904 to 957.
Now, his OPS+ went from 152 to 155 from SD to Boston, so he was the same quality hitter he had always been. His offense did go up upon arriving in Fenway, but it manifested itself in doubles, not HRs. Fenway is not a great HR park. But it is a very, very, very good doubles park. If people got past Crawford's complaints about Boston in general, I think he has a good point here: In 2011 AGon was everything the team could have hoped for and more, and if the press fans fans bitched about 27 HRs that's on them. The 1970s viewpoint of Fenway has a HR heaven hasn't been true for a very long time now.
Gonzalez also walked in the door with shoulder issues I think. It was generally accepted that he would need time before he would be whole again. The first part of his time here, most people that I recall were "waiting for his power to come back". Unfair expectations and all, but I had hopes that he would hit 30 home runs (everyone was doing it ?!) and tattoo the monster in a Boggs-lite kind of way. To be honest, I believe his shoulder/arm/whatever prevented that from happening here.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
But even given all that - there wasn't Philadelphia level vitriol aimed at Gonzalez for his performance. Some mild bitching given the contract - sure.
I think the angst with Gonzalez had a couple of causes:
1.) Yes, people do still seem to think that a player who hits 30 HR's in an NL park should automatically hit 45 in Fenway. As you said, that hasn't been the case for a long time, but guys like Shank and Mazz will never get that through their heads.
2.) He hit 17 HR's in the first half of 2011, but "only" 10 the 2nd half. For most of the 2nd half, however, his AB/HR was really not that much worse; a post-ASB slump in July hurt him, but he did hit 9 in August/September.
3.) He got off to a poor start in 2012 ($21M for an OPS in the low 0.700's is not what fans expected). By the time he heated up around the All Star Break, the season was already toast.
4.) Rightly or wrongly, he was associated with Crawford's overpay, the collapse of 2011 and the Bobby Valentine fiasco of 2012.
5.) A-Gon never wooed the local mediots, so they had no problem crucifying him whenever something went wrong.
1.) Yes, people do still seem to think that a player who hits 30 HR's in an NL park should automatically hit 45 in Fenway. As you said, that hasn't been the case for a long time, but guys like Shank and Mazz will never get that through their heads.
2.) He hit 17 HR's in the first half of 2011, but "only" 10 the 2nd half. For most of the 2nd half, however, his AB/HR was really not that much worse; a post-ASB slump in July hurt him, but he did hit 9 in August/September.
3.) He got off to a poor start in 2012 ($21M for an OPS in the low 0.700's is not what fans expected). By the time he heated up around the All Star Break, the season was already toast.
4.) Rightly or wrongly, he was associated with Crawford's overpay, the collapse of 2011 and the Bobby Valentine fiasco of 2012.
5.) A-Gon never wooed the local mediots, so they had no problem crucifying him whenever something went wrong.
Trautwein's Degree said:
From the moment Crawford signed, he was treated with kid gloves by media and fans for quite a while. It was nothing buy rosy glowing stories about the "best team ever" due in large part to the excitement of the team acquiring him and Gonzalez. Even after the collapse in September, he got very little attention for the horrible season he'd had. More attention was paid to "chicken and beer" and the Francona/Theo departures. I don't think there was much negative said about him until maybe when he underwent wrist surgery in January 2012. I seem to recall some backlash from people who thought he'd been nursing the wrist injury all year and were upset that he'd wait until January to have surgery. From there, there wasn't a whole lot positive about him anymore. He was an albatross.
What really stands out to me is that I clearly remember wondering on many occasions why he wasn't getting more crap during that 2011 season. I remember thinking how odd it was that the media and fans alike had been so hell-bent on hating on JD Drew from the moment he signed that he never garnered a positive word until The Grand Slam, but never said a thing about Crawford. Crawford cost 50% more than Drew per year, was clearly a poor fit on a LHH-heavy team that didn't need premium speed and defense in left field, and by all measures he had a worse season in his first year in Boston than Drew had in 2007. Yet Drew was the anti-Christ and Crawford was apparently made of teflon.
That's where the continued bitching from Crawford rings kind of hollow for me. Yes, Boston is a difficult place to play and isn't for everybody. But he absolutely got off light compared to many other players who were much more productive in their time here yet were still shit on incessantly. That he's still butt-hurt about it two years after getting out just reveals how sensitive he really is, and how much of it is really on him.
I dont think he wants any sympathy or wants anyone to feel bad. he's not the most articulate guy in the world, but he is telling a cautionary tale for anyone who wants to listen.
Although I suspect the local leatherlungs will see it as such, I didn't read it as whining. I thought it was a fairly attempting-to-be-honest accounting of failure. There aren't a lot of players that would do that. Seems to me that he accepted most of the "blame," himself.
And, as smastroyin points out, its not like he got much better when he left here.
I think that's sort of the point. Putting aside the Manchster incident (yeah, I know). He came from playing in a mausoleum, where maybe one reporter covers the team, where there are few fans beyond the few that show up for the games, to a place where every game is a treated by fans and media alike like its a playoff game, and 20 reporters want to talk to him about a random game in May where he went 0-4 and the team lost 5-3. And it affected his play. Maybe he put the extra pressure on himself to justify expectations; maybe he didn't but pressed in light of the obviously higher expectations. Under that circumstance, it doesnt really matter that people weren't shouting "YOU SUCK" from the rooftops. He knew he sucked; and he knew that there were lots and lots and lots of people watching him suck.
I dont get the fans' post-departure vitriol. (I mean I do. Many fans are quick to jump on the players deemed too "weak"; especially those who admit it. I don't take the players' failures quite so personally.)
The problem with Carl Crawford in Boston was it was visibly evident he didn't give a shit and had little interest in helping his cause. He loafed, he swung at horrible pitches, he misread flyballs, he didn't steal bases, he didn't do anything the Carl Crawford they signed did.
Then when he was called on the floor for cashing a paycheck and being lazy he turned it into a "Boston sucks" problem. Fuck him.
Guys haven't performed and never received any real negative fan reactions. Carl Crawford did because he's a fool that pretended he didn't know what was going on. Ben deserves a national honor for dumping him.
Then when he was called on the floor for cashing a paycheck and being lazy he turned it into a "Boston sucks" problem. Fuck him.
Guys haven't performed and never received any real negative fan reactions. Carl Crawford did because he's a fool that pretended he didn't know what was going on. Ben deserves a national honor for dumping him.
I was trying to find out how many homers AGon hit in the first half of 2011 and couldn't pull it up. My memory is that he power went out after the Derby.
But then, I did find this article written at the AS break in 2011:
I think the real takeaway here is that losing sucks.
But then, I did find this article written at the AS break in 2011:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/redsox/2011-07-11-adrian-gonzalez-all-star_n.htm
I think the real takeaway here is that losing sucks.
I don't think he loafed. Maybe on the season ending play of 2011 you could argue that (I was livid at the time and did, but at the same time, he most likely just got a shitty read), but not in general. He is not stealing bases in LA either.
I don't know why we are talking about AGon. Sure, Crawford has a point, but largely it is that they signed and were traded together, I doubt Adrian Gonzalez would stick in his mind otherwise. Anyway, I think everyone understands that trading AGon was the price the Red Sox had to pay for dumping Crawford and Beckett. Even so, he hasn't been a lot better as a Dodger than he was in 2012 for the Red Sox.
I don't know why we are talking about AGon. Sure, Crawford has a point, but largely it is that they signed and were traded together, I doubt Adrian Gonzalez would stick in his mind otherwise. Anyway, I think everyone understands that trading AGon was the price the Red Sox had to pay for dumping Crawford and Beckett. Even so, he hasn't been a lot better as a Dodger than he was in 2012 for the Red Sox.
In this article he does admit to not having played well. Maybe as time has gone by (and he's continued to not perform) the goalposts have been moving a bit, but when he first left I recall very few of his quotes where he took blame. Even now, as others have noted, his "assuming blame" still has smacks of finger pointing - only had five minutes to make his decision? (Why didn't anyone tell me about the culture in that town a team I played against 19 times a season my whole career). Cmon.joe dokes said:
He keeps getting asked because of the type of answers he has given in the past.moondog80 said:
He didn't say he only had five minutes to make his decision. He said he made the decision in five minutes.
I'm not sure how you can interpret that statement as him pointing a finger at anyone external.
I'm not sure how you can interpret that statement as him pointing a finger at anyone external.
timlinin8th said:
I guess I dont see that as smacking of fingerpointing. That's admitting to really fucking up. YMMV.
Can't say that I'm entirely on top of his past interviews, although I recall them happening. To me, I always took them with the undercurrent of "I couldn't handle it," rather than "they made it hard for me." That's a fairly fine line, though, and again YMMV. Maybe I'm giving him the benefit of the whining/admitting doubt precisely because he was never portrayed here or anywhere else as a bad guy or malcontent.
Back to Crawford: for those that forgot, Francona started him in the first 3 slots atop the batting order in 12 of the first 13 games in 2011 (he hit 7th in the 3rd game, as they were facing a lefty in Texas who was known to be tough on LHB's). After getting off a rip-roaring start with an OBP of all of 0.172, Francona decided to move him down the batting lineup for a while, and batted him 7th. Crawford never really got better, and ended batting 6/7/8 for most of the remaining games.
Fast forward to 2012 spring training, and Crawford calls out Francona for moving him down the lineup.
I really don't get why anyone would defend Carl Crawford. He was useless here, and then threw one of the best managers the team ever had under the bus.
He got his wish later in 2012 when Valentine batted him 2nd. And he took that opportunity all the way to a 0.306 OBP and 5 stolen bases. Seriously, protesters?
Fast forward to 2012 spring training, and Crawford calls out Francona for moving him down the lineup.
I really don't get why anyone would defend Carl Crawford. He was useless here, and then threw one of the best managers the team ever had under the bus.
He got his wish later in 2012 when Valentine batted him 2nd. And he took that opportunity all the way to a 0.306 OBP and 5 stolen bases. Seriously, protesters?
The very next sentence:smastroyin said:
"Didn't have time" and "didn't take time" are two very different things. Yes he says he made the decision in five min but then goes on to make it sound like the REASON he was so hasty is lack of time. Please.
I think Crawford is also the product of the Tampa Bay/Joe Maddon mentality. He mentioned how nobody cared if he was in a slump in Tampa Bay, and Maddon has built an attitude down there that his players "play the game the right way". Maddon has taken a club with no real fan base and tried to create an environment that players want to play in, but I think it had a negative effect on Crawford when he left.
Suddenly, he was in an enivronment with an actual fanbase, one full of fans who were passionate and knowledgable about baseball, but also high on having won World Series lately and expecting more. Some players thrive in that environment, but Crawford had never been exposed to it. The whole "homegrown players" comments are pretty telling to me.
Suddenly, he was in an enivronment with an actual fanbase, one full of fans who were passionate and knowledgable about baseball, but also high on having won World Series lately and expecting more. Some players thrive in that environment, but Crawford had never been exposed to it. The whole "homegrown players" comments are pretty telling to me.
timlinin8th said:
I think you are parsing the language more finely than the speaker did when he made the comment. Whether he "took" 5 minutes" or was "given 5 minutes" and went ahead and signed anyway is really beside the point. In the context of the whole interview, I read that as "I should have taken more time."
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
And then this game happened in 2012:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS201205060.shtml
0-8 and a 3 pitch strikeout against Chris Davis in the 17th. He was dead to me from then on.
It's been said several times in this thread already and it's a view I've held for a long time now; Red Sox fans took it easy on Carl Crawford.
Despite how terrible he was, I don't ever recall him getting showered with boos or jeers and I think the fanbase understood it was a big change for him and were willing to be patient. All I can remember is most Sox fans saying "give him time and wait for him to get comfortable" or something of the sort.
We were all very patient with Carl and he responded by being a worthless player who bad mouthed all of us on his way out of town. I hope he's happy being a shitty defense, no bat bench player in LA.
Despite how terrible he was, I don't ever recall him getting showered with boos or jeers and I think the fanbase understood it was a big change for him and were willing to be patient. All I can remember is most Sox fans saying "give him time and wait for him to get comfortable" or something of the sort.
We were all very patient with Carl and he responded by being a worthless player who bad mouthed all of us on his way out of town. I hope he's happy being a shitty defense, no bat bench player in LA.
timlinin8th said:
Look, it's possible Theo placed a call out of the blue and said "ok, Carl, here is our offer, you let me know in ten minutes or I'm pulling it." But if you read what Crawford is saying contextually, what he is saying is that he saw that huge offer and made a quick decision.
DLew On Roids said:
These two statements are what I take away here. I remember there was some angst here about the FO's motives for signing Crawford. A lot of posters believed that he was signed, in part, so the Sox could be seen as making a splash in free agency (a theory I find believable).Red(s)HawksFan said:
Irrespective of the motives here, it seems that the decision to sign Crawford was poorly-thought out. The article leads me to believe that whoever was in charge of the decision didn't take the time to do a basic 30-minute job interview. That might have avoided this whole mess.
JayMags71 said:
There may have not been a 30 minute interview, but weren't there reports of the Sox having a PI follow Crawford around for a year to see if he was the type of guy they could trust with a big money deal? I don't think we can say the FO didn't do their due diligence.
Carl has only gotten worse each of his two season for the Dodgers. Im happy he's happy, but he is a crappy player now and still has three years and $62M left. I'm not sure what the point of his complaining is now, he should be happy he plays in a place where no one cares that he is the fifth best OFer on his own team and getting $20M per season
With each one of these stories that comes out, I just put more and more blame on Theo or whatever PI they hired for not figuring out that he was a bad fit personality-wise. Maybe the FO pushed them to make such a big offer, but how the hell do you follow a guy around for a year and not get a better handle on his personality? Or Theo was just making shit up.
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/news/story?id=6148268
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/news/story?id=6148268
Not exactly.tims4wins said:
I still submit they could have done a better job. Following him around for "Three or four months" is not a year, and it's certainly not the same as a conversation. Or a personality test that the Sox could afford to put together for prospective FAs.
Well, close enough.
Obviously they screwed up. And it is entirely possible that even without the mental issues, it was still the wrong decision from a 100% baseball perspective. The guy isn't even a regular player in year 4 of his 7 year deal.
Obviously they screwed up. And it is entirely possible that even without the mental issues, it was still the wrong decision from a 100% baseball perspective. The guy isn't even a regular player in year 4 of his 7 year deal.
Van Everyman said:
I mean with Lackey, they took away his beer and his best friend. Also he had to spend more time with his then in-laws during that whole insufferable "wife has cancer" period with his ex wife.
We tried really hard to do a facebook campaign to get him to be the face of the AIDS truck fundaiser and he never responded.
rembrat said:
Given he experienced a bit of that in his time with the club, I wouldn't say it's off limits for him.
That said, I'll never understand when people move on to better situations, why they can't be happy with that, and still remain hung up on the past. You got paid dude, it didn't work out, now you're playing somewhere more to your liking. You can let it slide now.