Why the Red Sox Need Jayson Werth/Carl Crawford

They’re both only one year into their respective deals. For that matter, you can’t say Pedroia has worked out, dude just destroyed his foot. JD Drew is the only 5 year contract that’s worked out because he is a very, very good player, even in his down years.

Now, Paul Konerko is going to want a multi-year deal, which Boston won’t give him because he’s on the wrong side of 35, so that’s not happening. Of the other 1B stopgaps, only Derrick Lee makes any sense whatsoever. Berkman and Pena both suck.

As for Crawford, the Sox have three small, speedy players already, having four of them kind of makes the team one-dimensional. I think between Ells, Pedroia, and Lowrie, you can get the same sort of value that a Crawford could give you on the basepaths, all without costing 20mm over eight years.

This means Werth makes the most sense out of the two, filling the hole that JD Drew is going to leave in 2012. However there are also a few trades that can be looked at that aren’t quite as dangerous as Werth. Justin Upton’s been thrown around a lot, but the Sox could also deal someone to put Brennan Boesch in Pawtucket and teach him how to hit over a full season. They could stand pat this year and hope Jose Bautista repeats his 2010 numbers, or they could keep a close eye on Kalish and Reddick. Carlos Beltran is also a free agent in 2012, and he seems like he would love to get out of New York.

The Red Sox do not “Need” anyone, they’re a smart organization, and they’ll make the right move.

I’ve already given you my argument on “the Sox don’t do well at free agency” thing in your other post, which you have neglected to respond to, so I’ll leave that to you.

But only Pedrioa has worked out? I would argue that JD Drew has been a smashing success here. He’s played great defense, has been an excellent hitter, he’s been a top RF since we signed him and has been worth just about every single penny. Now people need to stop getting on Lackey and Beckett. They’ve been in the league for a while now, can’t people see them for what they are by now? They aren’t tier 1 starters, they aren’t and they never have been. They are however tier 2 starters and THEY GET PAID LIKE TIER 2 STARTERS! The pitching market is greatly overpriced, they get paid in line with their tier, like Burnett. And they perform the same way. But seeing how both these contracts were laid out last year, wouldn’t it make more sense to just say “the jury is still out on those two?” I mean they both could go out next year, post 3.25 ERAs and be 1 and 2 in Cy Young voting, wouldn’t you eat your words then?

The Red Sox need neither Werth or Crawford. They just don’t. Our outfield going into last season was Ellsbury, Cameron and Drew. And that was good enough. This year, it’s going to be Ellsbury, Cameron and Drew as it stands. People will complain about offense lost by Beltre and Victor but neglect to bring up the offense gained by Youkilis, Pedrioa, Ellsbury and Cameron.

The real issue comes in next season when Drew likely retires and Cameron’s contract expires. And that is an issue, but not one I think that can be solved by handing out 5+ year deals to two players attached with the question marks that Crawford and Werth do. For Werth, what is the end of his peak, why was he a late bloomer? For Crawford, how much will his speed wear down with age, how much will his defensive value (arguably his major divergence from Ellsbury) be wasted in Fenway for half the contract, added on to that, does he really refuse to play CF or bat leadoff? Those are things to be weary of and consider when we determine what contract to offer and to whom.

With Werth, here’s the thing, Werth will go for less than $100M, that is for sure, why? Because he is so much like Jason Bay it isn’t funny. Same age going into contract year, both seemingly capable of a 5 WAR ceiling, Career WARs are 22.2 for Werth, 22.9 for Bay. Bay is a slightly better career hitter while Werth is a better defender. Bay signed for 4/$66M with an option for a 5th at $17M. I think this is the perfect precedent to use when negotiating with Werth. And also why I believe that going beyond a 6th year is a major mistake. I know you hate that argument, but why isn’t it valid? I want Werth, I think he’d be a great addition but at what point does wanting become obsessing to the point where you’re hurting the future of the team? Keeping yourself realistic is a major thing when it comes to contracts.

Realistically the Sox WILL NOT sign Werth to a 6 year deal. They just won’t. They are an organization that looks at the options, pursues them all but has a set cut off point they will not go beyond. We told Texiera, have fun in New York, we aren’t offering more. We told Bay, listen we like you, but your knee scares the shit out of us, have fun in New York. They told Victor, listen, we love you here and this is our offer but we aren’t going higher and boom, Victor was gone. To say we should sign Werth to a 6 year deal is just pure rosterbation with no feet in reality considering the organization you are talking about. To sign Crawford to more years and money considering the questions above? It’s the same category. The Sox have managed to put together a damn good team whilst evaluating the risks of free agency. I don’t see them switching course suddenly and going out of their way to sign players to contracts for positions we already have adequately filled for next year.

If they cost more than a certain cut off point, do not pursue, we have an outfield and we’ll take the next year and figure out what to do next season as it comes when more might be available on the trade market, when the next Jason Bay becomes available. And that too may have one foot in rosterbation land. Epstein doesn’t like to trade prospects, mostly because they turn into Pedrioas and Youkilis’ and Papelbons and Lowries. However, we’ve got a large amount of the team locked in long term and a lot of good prospects in the minors being blocked. I don’t think Iglesias has a future with this team but is a major trade chip, Doubront can be a starter but would be limited to the bullpen here. Those two could be the start of a decent trade with someone for a good outfielder who we can feel a lot better about for the next 5-8 years as compared to a Werth or Crawford.

In terms of signing a 1B instead, the idea is appealing a little, however I think Lowrie can be a pretty good 3B. His bat loses some of it’s luster but a .900 OPS is a .900 OPS and I’ll be the last to complain about that. People are quick to forget how well Scoot was at short before his injury. We would be fine there with him retaining his position.

The fact of the matter is that as the team stands, we aren’t as in much trouble as some would suggest. We put out a very competitive team last year that was held back by injuries, we will lose some, but a rebuilt bullpen and rotational health can make up for a lot of that lost ground, let alone our positional players returning.

I like Crawford and believe he is the lesser risk, even if the $$ commitment will be much more. Werth is a nice player, but not in Crawford’s category. And I’m also amused by the folks that slice and dice the years and dollars here; 5 years not 6, $50 million not $60, gimme a break.
As far as the Yankees and Crawford, if they want him they can easily work both the Lee and Crawford negotiations at the same time. That being said, I don’t think the Yankees are truly comitted to Crawford. They have a fine OF now with Gardner/Granderson/Swisher, but they could look to move Swisher to DH and Gardner to right. I woldn’t put it past them.

excellent blog spare