Dodgers DFA Carl Crawford

[gunnarthor]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/06/dodgers-designate-carl-crawford-for-assignment.html

 

Crawford is still owed 43.5 after this season but is probably done.  I always thought he was a bit overrated because he was an exciting player - lots of triples and stolen bases.  He signed a huge deal with Boston (7/142) but it didn't really work out. Boston was able to dump him on LA.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm surprised more teams don't do this, frankly. The money is committed.....replacing him with a rookie adds almost no cost at all.

[Vanimal46]

If there's any team that can eat $35 million and not think twice about it, it's the LA Dodgers. The chance that any team picks him up in waivers has to be 0%.

I agree with Mike. Why continue to play a horrible investment if you can replace the player with a $500k option? 

[HitInAPinch]

Dodgers payroll:  $245.5 M

Team value:  $2.5 B

 

No worries

[Mike Sixel]

 

Dodgers payroll:  $245.5 M

Team value:  $2.5 B

 

No worries

 

completely irrelevant. Really. If it costs 500K to replace a player, or even 2-4MM a year, every team can afford that except the Rays.

 

This is about the courage to admit mistakes and do what is best for winning and losing.

[gunnarthor]

 

completely irrelevant. Really. If it costs 500K to replace a player, or even 2-4MM a year, every team can afford that except the Rays.

 

This is about the courage to admit mistakes and do what is best for winning and losing.

It's not quite that simple.  You aren't just adding to this years payroll.  You're adding to each subsequent years' payroll as well - which is why lower revenue teams can't always compete in FA with bigger revenue clubs.  Big payroll markets can wash away the contract and pretend it doens't affect their payroll.  Small markets can't.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's not quite that simple.  You aren't just adding to this years payroll.  You're adding to each subsequent years' payroll as well - which is why lower revenue teams can't always compete in FA with bigger revenue clubs.  Big payroll markets can wash away the contract and pretend it doens't affect their payroll.  Small markets can't.

 

once you have the FA or player....once the contract is signed....2-3 years of dead money should not matter at all.

 

What is better, cycling thru rookies or guys that might be good, or keeping Crawford on the payroll and punting a position? They are better off cycling thru guys that might be good, or using that spot to call up different players at different times (like when they go to the AL, and can use a DH, or when a bullpen arm is tired/hurt). 

 

If Mauer was the worst player at his position in all of baseball....the Twins could cut him and replace him with Park, then replace Park with a "free" player all day long for 3 years. And, they'd be better off, and they'd have spent an extra million or three in the process.

[Rosterman]

It is all about money. And in the scheme of things, if you eat a contract, you can write the whole thing off your books in one year - although I think MLB still carries it on the team's line each year until the contract expires.

 

Crawford. Great when he came out of the chute with the Rays, who also had a guy named Delmon Young. In my opinion, always felt that Delmon was shadowing Crawford and thought that he, Delmon, also deserved equal play and pay. Maybe if young ada produced (or listened) a tad more, he would've struck the big payday rather than playing okay ball the last few years before becoming, essentially, unwantable by any team (such a waste - Delmon had a lot of natural talent that could've become superstar if he listened/worked harder to be a baseball player rather than a Young Brother).

 

Of course, Crawford will get picked up by someone. Maybe the St. Paul Saints is keeping a roster spot for him open!?!

[TheLeviathan]

 

once you have the FA or player....once the contract is signed....2-3 years of dead money should not matter at all.

 

What is better, cycling thru rookies or guys that might be good, or keeping Crawford on the payroll and punting a position? They are better off cycling thru guys that might be good, or using that spot to call up different players at different times (like when they go to the AL, and can use a DH, or when a bullpen arm is tired/hurt). 

 

If Mauer was the worst player at his position in all of baseball....the Twins could cut him and replace him with Park, then replace Park with a "free" player all day long for 3 years. And, they'd be better off, and they'd have spent an extra million or three in the process.

 

Unless you find a sucker to take the contract from you.  So it's not like these are the only two options.

[Mike Sixel]

True. But no on was taking that contact on its own.

[HitInAPinch]

 

completely irrelevant. Really. If it costs 500K to replace a player, or even 2-4MM a year, every team can afford that except the Rays.

 

This is about the courage to admit mistakes and do what is best for winning and losing.

Sorry Mike.  I was referring to LA covering the cost of cutting Crawford.

[nicksaviking]

 

Unless you find a sucker to take the contract from you.  So it's not like these are the only two options.

 

Agree, but at some point you have to weigh the odds of someone taking on the salary at some unknown future point against the futility of the effort and the wasted roster spot.

 

Crawford looked like it was about a 99% certainty that no one would ever take on a dime of his contract.

 

Phil Hughes is looking like he's up to about 90% chance that no one will ever take his contract.

 

However to be fair, Nolasco looked to be about 90% two weeks ago and is now down to 50/50 that a team might take on some portion of his salary.

 

And to be thoroughly fair, these numbers came straight out of my butt.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree that it's not easy to find, but Boston found someone to take some whoppers.  I wouldn't argue Mauer is in the same boat as Crawford.

[DocBauer]

Crawford was actually a highly ranked high school QB who originally signed with my Huskers out of high school, so I've always followed his career with a degree of interest. I don't know if he was over rated or not, but was very exciting for a while. It's almost amazing how quickly he has fallen. Also shows the danger at times with the big FA contracts, length if not yearly salary.

 

But I agree with Mike's comment, and something many of us have argued in regard to the Twins opening spots on the roster currently, that once the cost is sunk, it just is. Replacing the cut or traded player if you can find a partner and eat salary, is really no greater a "loss" when a rookie replaces said veteran player.

 

Yes, there can be multiple years involved, and I get that. But said rookie replacement will only be making minimum type salaries for that first 2 or 3 years.

[DaveW]

While I applaud the Dodgers for doing the right thing by dumping Crawford to keep Thompson, this really isn't about admitting a previous mistake. The Dodgers never wanted Crawford in the first place. Taking his contract was part of the price they paid to get Adrian Gonzalez, the player they really wanted. I live in LA and I recall when this happened. The Dodgers wanted Gonzalez and Josh Beckett and the Red Sox insisted that they pick up Crawford's bad contract as part of the deal. Also, this is how the Dodgers briefly had Nick Punto.

Punto being a part of that trade was the best part.

[ashbury]

This is about the courage to admit mistakes and do what is best for winning and losing.

While I applaud the Dodgers for doing the right thing by dumping Crawford to keep Thompson, this really isn't about admitting a previous mistake.  The Dodgers never wanted Crawford in the first place.  Taking his contract was part of the price they paid to get Adrian Gonzalez, the player they really wanted.

This article presents the case BMCACAL makes. It wasn't a mistake. It was a cost of doing business. One that this team is better able to pay than most. And it was done to acquire a player who would not have been nearly as valuable to most other teams. The recent DFA action comes at a point the team feels they have wrung out of Crawford all the value they will get, but it was always secondary, apparently.

[Mike Sixel]

That's not the argument I'm making........so, if I had left off the "mistake" part, that would have helped.

 

Once you have a high priced player, not before you have them, but once you have them, cutting them is about courage and trying to be better. Most teams just can't do it, they just keep holding onto unproductive assets. 

[jorgenswest]

It is about a GM With the courage to own that their signing of a decline phase pitcher to a multiyear contract was a disaster. Further it is hurting the team when a younger pitcher with more upside has to be moved to the bullpen. Followed by recommendation to DFA the player. The DFA itself won't free up money. That 15 million needs to be paid the next few years even though the player is gone. It does free up a spot for a 25-26 year that has already started 73 games in AA/AAA and needs the opportunity.

[ashbury]

That's not the argument I'm making........so, if I had left off the "mistake" part, that would have helped.

 

Once you have a high priced player, not before you have them, but once you have them, cutting them is about courage and trying to be better. Most teams just can't do it, they just keep holding onto unproductive assets. 

I don't see where the courage part comes in, if the plan always was to acquire the bloated contract (as part of getting another player you really wanted), extract all the value the player still has left to give, and cut him once that point is reached.

 

Maybe the "always" part is retroactive spin, but for a big market team, it seems plausible.

[Mike Sixel]

The courage comes in for teams that did not intentionally take on a bad contract, but now have one, say, I don't know, Ricky Nolasco......

 

I am 100% NOT talking about when a team planned to have a bad contract, but what happens when they do have one. Teams, frankly, are afraid to cut those guys and replace them with potentially better guys. 

[ashbury]

The courage comes in for teams that did not intentionally take on a bad contract, but now have one, say, I don't know, Ricky Nolasco......

 

I am 100% NOT talking about when a team planned to have a bad contract, but what happens when they do have one. Teams, frankly, are afraid to cut those guys and replace them with potentially better guys. 

This thread started about Carl Crawford. Threads often have interesting tangents, and if I missed that that's what you were doing, I'm sorry about that.

[bluechipper]

Looking at Crawford's baseball-reference page, it't crazy how his numbers just fell off a cliff after the big free agent deal. Be careful looking at the career year in a player's free agent year I guess.

[old nurse]

Carl Crawford was never the same after the slight hamstring injury and the UCL injury.  Epstien was the one in Boston that was in charge when he was signed. Not all of his moves worked out.