OT: Red Sox sign Crawford: 7 years, $142m

[rapsfan1231]

I don't understand why everyone is quick to label rogers as a "rich" owner that makes astronomical sums of money.. If you take a look at their balance sheet its quite disturbing they are a highly LEVERAGED company with way too much long term debt and investors are noticing and the stock is under performing. Not only that they are falling short on analysts expectations and losing market share to emerging telecommunication/other media companies..

So spending big on the jays is probably not the first thing on their mind..

[LBJSeizedMyID]

Schad hit it right on the head. Now watch Ellsbury be used for trade bait. For Greinke.

[SharoneWright]

So I guess Jose Bautista is hoping these tactics work out for the Yanks/Sox and that their wallets stay open and the firesale is put off for at least another year... Does their success on the field guarantee his payday? He must be drooling at these figures.

[SharoneWright]

Edit: This is a ridiculous contract for a 30 year old Crawford. Plus, his defense is negated by Fenway's layout. You could park Buck Martinez out in left field there if you wanted - or Manny Ramirez, the best left fielder the Sox have had since Ted Williams... defense is not at a premium under the shadow of the Monster.

[Raps in 4]

I'm so glad we didn't go after these guys. Pena at $10-million for one year is okay, but that deal Crawford got would be crippling for this organization.

[U_Mad]

Edit: This is a ridiculous contract for a 30 year old Crawford. Plus, his defense is negated by Fenway's layout. You could park Buck Martinez out in left field there if you wanted - or Manny Ramirez, the best left fielder the Sox have had since Ted Williams... defense is not at a premium under the shadow of the Monster.

But you could argue that he has less space to cover and he could get all the bloops that fall in no mans land and still keep the double play intact from LF which would be amazing if you think of it(heard on espn of course but compelling arguments nonetheless)

[Hoopstarr]

Edit: This is a ridiculous contract for a 30 year old Crawford. Plus, his defense is negated by Fenway's layout. You could park Buck Martinez out in left field there if you wanted - or Manny Ramirez, the best left fielder the Sox have had since Ted Williams... defense is not at a premium under the shadow of the Monster.

But you could argue that he has less space to cover and he could get all the bloops that fall in no mans land and still keep the double play intact from LF which would be amazing if you think of it(heard on espn of course but compelling arguments nonetheless)

John Kruk made a good point! A national holiday is in order.

The Sawx have a decision to make about their corner OF spots. Crawford has sick range but only an OK arm, while JD Drew is a solid fielder with a great arm. They also have Kalish lined up to replace Drew in RF after 2011 so they might want to avoid juggling everyone around just for one year. Crawford's range will be that much more valuable in LF and his arm might become an asset too.

[kelso]

I wonder what it would take to nab Ellsbury- he would look fantastic at the top of our batting order and it would help a bit of a logjam they have there. I think we need positional players more than pitching right now. We can fill in the bullpen and 1 starter over the next few months- we need to address leadoff and the hot corner, IMO.

[dagger]

Edit: This is a ridiculous contract for a 30 year old Crawford. Plus, his defense is negated by Fenway's layout. You could park Buck Martinez out in left field there if you wanted - or Manny Ramirez, the best left fielder the Sox have had since Ted Williams... defense is not at a premium under the shadow of the Monster.

Here's another viewpoint on how Crawford will age, and it's not good for a team like Toronto hoping he will age badly.

http://blogs.thescore.com/mlb/2010/12/1 ... -age-well/

[Hendrix]

10 years ago Boston wasn't spending money, weren't winning consistently, and because of that, they weren't selling out their games. After John Henry took control and started actually spending money on the roster and on player development, they became the powerhouse that we see today. He brought all the casual fans back.

There is absolutely no reason it couldn't happen like that in Toronto. There's more than enough people waiting to jump on the bandwagon.

To add an extra $100m in revenues? That's a tall task, even in a big city.

Heh, it's one reason I was kinda hoping that the Rays would remain a top team for 2-3 more years, though...the Red Sox had been murmuring about the need to rein in their payroll, and if they suffered through a few years of missing the playoffs while shelling out $140m+ a year, it might have undercut their revenues to some extent and opened the door.

I'm not saying it's easy. But is it really that tall of a task?

Our average ticket prices are some of the lowest in the league right now. If a good team where in town I don't think it woul be that hard to fathom a situation where ticket prices went up ~$12, and average atendance grew ~10k fans.

Suppose it's a chicken and the egg scenario though.

[Schad]

Our average ticket prices are some of the lowest in the league right now. If a good team where in town I don't think it woul be that hard to fathom a situation where ticket prices went up ~$12, and average atendance grew ~10k fans.

Suppose it's a chicken and the egg scenario though.

Adding $100m in revenue doesn't necessarily sound hard...until you consider that it's not just a 60% jump, but would have to come at a time when we'd stop receiving a healthy dollop of revenue-sharing money.

[SharoneWright]

Our average ticket prices are some of the lowest in the league right now. If a good team where in town I don't think it woul be that hard to fathom a situation where ticket prices went up ~$12, and average atendance grew ~10k fans.

Suppose it's a chicken and the egg scenario though.

Adding $100m in revenue doesn't necessarily sound hard...until you consider that it's not just a 60% jump, but would have to come at a time when we'd stop receiving a healthy dollop of revenue-sharing money.

Are you saying the loss of revenue-sharing is a bigger minus than the strong CDN dollar is a plus? I would have thought the current exchange rate is a net benefit.

edit: not trying to be skeptical, i've just been wondering that question myself, since i know we used to receive that kind of 'equalization' payment due to our weak dollar in years gone by...