Should Ghost of Carl Crawford Still Haunt Theo Epstein?

Both Halloween and the start of free agency are upon us, which makes it a great time to revisit the most famous ghost in Theo Epstein’s closet: Carl Crawford. Easily considered the future Hall of Fame exec’s worst free-agent signing, it’s worth reviewing for any lessons that may still haunt Epstein this offseason.

As a refresher, Crawford entered free agency after the 2010 season. He had a two-year combined WAR of 12.0 and was the big “it” position player in that class. He had it all. Entering his age-29 season, he ranked in the AL’s top 5 in offensive WAR, runs scored, stolen bases, and Bill James’ power/speed mix rating. His batting average (.307) was also top 10, and he had won a Gold Glove.

Using Boston’s big payroll and a desire to beat the Yankees at all costs, Epstein signed Crawford to a seven-year, $142 million contract. That’s one year shorter than Jason Heyward’s contract, but when inflated to today’s dollars, the annual average value (AAV) of Crawford’s deal was actually $2 million more ($25M to $23M).

Epstein certainly won that offseason over the Yankees, who saw lefty starter Cliff Lee spurn a $138 million offer. But then Crawford flopped in every way possible. In 2011, he produced a paltry 0.3 WAR and would average just 0.7 WAR over the next five years.

One season later, Epstein’s successor, Ben Cherington, traded the bad contracts of both Crawford and Josh Beckett to the Dodgers. The cost included shipping a still-prime Adrian Gonzalez, but it helped clear Boston¹s payroll decks. Cherington then retooled with a mess of smaller signings: Mike Napoli (3 years, $39M), Shane Victorino (3/$39M), Stephen Drew (1/$9.5M), Jonny Gomes (2/$10M) and David Ross (2/$6.2M). All would be key to the the Red Sox’ 2013 World Series victory.

One narrative about the Crawford signing has it that it was forced on Epstein as part of his power struggle with Red Sox team President Larry Lucchino. This is not true, as Epstein himself dispelled. It also runs counter to Epstein’s eagerness to flex big-market power and go after the biggest free agents.

So with the mega-contract decisions of Bryce Harper and Manny Machado looming, should Epstein mind the Crawford ghost? Might Harper’s injury history and less than stellar record against elite playoff pitching serve as a ill omen? Or should Epstein be scared off by Machado’s lack of hustle during the Dodgers’ unsuccessful title run and other character flaws?

The Cubs organization could also consider the Cherington model of going with a smaller, more precise passel of free agent signings and trades to fill in around a quality core.

The answer is not easy. As Cubs president, Epstein’s bids for Jon Lester and Ben Zobrist certainly paid off. But Heyward has been a mixed bag and Yu Darvish gets an incomplete so far. And as the Tyler Chatwood signing reminds, even more modest contracts (3/$38M) can slide off the tracks.

So in keeping with today’s chant of “trick or treat, smell my feet,” will this year’s signings lead to a bag of goodies or leave a stank on the organization for years to come? That is the risk every free agent season. Who knows if today’s great signing today remains prized tomorrow or if he pulls off his costume to reveal the ghost of Carl Crawford.

4 Comments

  1. I will forever be thankful to Theo Epstein for bringing a WS winner to the Cubs. Theo has excelled in a lot of his trades, Jose Quintana notwithstanding. Truthfully his track record for signing free agents is rather brutal. Someone added the Edwin Jackson signing, I will include the John Lackey signing in Boston, and Lackey 2nd year with the Cubs. I honestly hope the Cubs stay clear of Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. There are trades to be made and lesser Money free agents to be signed. Like maybe a starter who will eventually replace Jon Lester, and a lot of good relievers to be signed.

  2. Educators’ perspectives on attachment and advanced love in early years settings in England

    In the current risk averse climate of england (country) Necessarily intimate relationships that early years educators develop with your family have become a matter for intense scrutiny. This chapter draws on a field based study which investigated how early years educators in England engage intimately with young children to meet their needs and determine what ‘love’ looks like in early years settings. Emerging from a critical review of the attachment literature the study used an online survey, In depth interviews and focus groups to explore how notions of top quality care and love are constructed within a contemporary early childhood discourse in England. The findings of the study suggest educators want to feel well informed russian woman carrying about their professional decisions in relation to expressions of love, Care and closeness. Educators also wanted to inform their everyday intimate relationships with young children with a better comprehension attachment theory and its focus on attuned relationships.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button