1
2011
Saturday Mailbag: Jason Bay For Carl Crawford?
An article by XtreemIcon
Crawford is getting hammered by Red Sox nation. Bay had his best season there. What about a deal straight up (with cash coming back to the Mets).Crawford is 30 and has 6 years left on his deal. Bay is 33 with 3 years left (including vesting option). Fresh start for both players and huge off season buzz for both teams. – K. Muller
I think over the course of Bay’s contract, yes, it’s a good idea. Conventional wisdom says Crawford would probably have slotted second this season in the Mets batting order. The second spot in the order for the Mets this season was dreadful, hitting .245/.325/.320, and was the only position in the batting order to slug their way under their on base percentage. Yes folks, that includes the pitchers spot. And the top of the order will need even more help if Jose Reyes leaves for greener pastures (see what I did there? Money is gree…….forget it).
Crawford is a much better fielder than Bay is and brings a speed aspect to the Mets that no one but Reyes possesses. While both Bay and Crawford tanked completely, Crawford’s fold was for only one season, while Bay hasn’t hit since 2009. Crawford (at least as far as I’m concerned) is still protected under that “small market to big market move” one-year grace period, much like Bay was at the end of last season and Carlos Beltran was after 2005. And just to get picky and over-simplify, power is what the Mets lack the most offensively, and Crawford had a higher SLG% than Bay this season. The home park is a non-factor in this case, as Bay hit exactly six home runs each home and away and actually slugged 114 points higher at Citi Field this season.
That’s a lot to like about a swap, but the contract situations are vastly different, and that’s where I have to think twice. Ok, K Muller. let’s assume the Sox give some money to the Mets. How much? That’s really the most important part of the equation. If the Red Sox were to give the Mets $4 million to offset the next three seasons, then I’d buy into it for three years. Three years are committed anyway for the cost, may as well have the better player. But it’s not just a three-year commitment, is it?
Crawford would still be owed in the neighborhood of $60 million for the next three seasons, and that’s a tremendous risk. Would the Red Sox offset some of THAT cost? Maybe. The Texas Rangers were still paying almost 40% of A-Rod’s salary long after Alfonso Soriano was telling Frank Robinson how to manage his ball club. Would the Red Sox still pay $6-$8 million per year for Crawford even after Bay’s contract expired? If they would, maybe it would make sense for the Mets to pay $12-$14 million in that case. The part of the question “with cash coming back to the Mets“ is too vague for a concrete yes or no, because paying many millions for a speedster in his age 34-36 season is a very slippery slope.
I considered two more things that bear thinking about. Bay’s option is no longer a guarantee after two terrible seasons. The union would have a very weak case if Bay began platooning and they filed a grievance. The Mets may only have two more seasons of Bay, not three. The other thing is that I’m not very confident the Red Sox will shop Crawford. It’s only the first year, and he’s still in his prime (the back end of it, but prime nonetheless). I seriously doubt they’d dangle Crawford in a headache-for-headache swap this early into his contract, nor do I think they’d want to pay very much to do so.
The swap looks very nice on paper for the Mets, but there’s more than the players involved. There’s contract length, money and the willingness of the Red Sox to participate. My Magic 8-Ball says “too soon to tell.”
About the Author: Jesse Elgarten
24 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 25 | 18 | .581 | - |
| Nationals | 23 | 21 | .523 | 2.5 |
| Phillies | 21 | 23 | .477 | 4.5 |
| Mets | 17 | 24 | .415 | 7.0 |
| Marlins | 12 | 32 | .273 | 13.5 |
Last updated: 05/19/2013
Recent Comments
- RandomGuy: on Keep Daniel Murphy In The Leadoff Spot: And the run that scored... yup he...
- Mike Jones: on Keep Daniel Murphy In The Leadoff Spot: Isn't it telling that you had to...
- Mike Jones: on Keep Daniel Murphy In The Leadoff Spot: Do pervy old people typically change the...
- Matt Mosher: on Reds vs Mets: Marcum Takes The Hill, Ankiel Batting Second, Duda Cleanup: Trading Dickey for that package was a...
- Aaron: on Reds vs Mets: Marcum Takes The Hill, Ankiel Batting Second, Duda Cleanup: Gone! 3-3. Cueto and Marcum both struggling. This...
MMO Mets Chat
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5364 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
What you propose would be a great move for the Mets but if I am the BoSox I don’t make it as I feel the 2 seasons of Bay’s lack of productivity may indicate a downward trend rather than an aberration. Crawford’s year could be dismissed as just that, an aberration, and the Sox could expect to see the Crawford of old over the majority of the contract’s life.
Yeah this would be a great deal for the Mets, but the idea that Crawford is a better fielder is crazy. Bay has been better then average defensively in left and Crawford well below average, just look at that last ball hit to left the other night that ball WITHOUT A DOUBT should have been caught
You are right Vinnie but the writer of this post is probably referring to one of his crazy stats to tell him that Crawford is a better fielder when we all know by watching Bay that to me, Bay may be one of the best defensive LFers in Mets history (notwithstanding his offensive woes)
K-Mac was their best defensive LF’er.
If the Red Sox wanted Jason Bay, he’d still be playing there.
This seems more like a fan fantasy than a real idea. I don’t see the Sox trading Crawford for a declining player who seems to be in decline. I would love to get Crawford but the Sox just wouldn’t trade for Bay when it could have been just an off year for Crawford and Bay has been bad since he came to the Mets. If they really had wanted Bay the Sox would have kept him. We can dream though.
They did like him and is why they offered a 4 year deal but he declined.
This is actually an interesting idea. Without the Sox collapse, no way. But Mets could catch them vulnerable and in a mood to make sweeping changes. In their fear they’re staring down the barrel of perhaps a disastrous contract with Crawford. I’m sure he’ll bounce back – but this move would be about the Sox’ post-collapse trauma. They’ve already shown their mood in dumping Francona.
I’m going to say no based solely on the fact it would make the Mets too lefty heavy. Bay was supposed to bring power from the right side of the plate and they still need to find that righty power hitter.
For this trade to be even close to fair in on field value you’ld have to trade them straight up, no cash, just straight up. Sox take Bay and his two years (no way that option vests unless they want it to) we take Crawford and pay his whole deal and that would only happen if Boston wanted to dump him. I think CC will rebound after a quieter off season and go back to being near the player he has been. I don’t think he’ll remain there for 6 years but probably will for three. Bay I think is done and have felt that way since June of 2010.
The whole premise of this trade is preposterous from every standpoint but it would make people stop and think. Stranger things have happened. Toronto got out from under Wells deal and actually got something for him. This trade would only happen if Boston just wanted out.
As usual the best value by far and away went to the teams that had these guys before they became free agents, not after. Pittsburgh, Boston and Tampa got great play out of these two, the Mets and Red Sox, pretty poor. No surprise to anyone paying attention. CJ Wilson at 6/120 anyone? Prince Fielder at 7/150? Albert Pujols 5/150? Good luck with all that.
I think if the Sox did this deal, it would really mean that they don’t think he is rebounding for long, and mostly want to get the hell out from under the last 3-4 years of the deal.
Bay for 2 more is bad. A Bay-level player for 6 more? really nasty!
interesting.
I actually look at Bay as a 2 year deal. I really don’t see the option vesting. He is, at this point, no better than a platoon player.
actually, he is a good platoon guy. His overall numbers were mind numbingly bad (and 2011 was noticeably worse than 2010) with a .703 OPS. But, look at the splits:
RHP – .228/.297/.332/.629 OPS
LHP – .300/.418/.500/.918 OPS
That absolutely screams out to be platooned with a young LH hitting prospect. The Mets even have a few that would be logical, just derailed by injuries (Kirk) or general inability to stay on field) F Mart.
assuming no one is brought in for the role, I could easily see a Bay/Martinez platoon out there. heck, make it in RF and let Duda have LF, since Martinez plays right, and bay won’t be out there much anyway.
Hard to see how a guy that finished 7th in the MVP voting in 2009 at age 30 could just fall off a cliff the next year.
as to the deal, I really don’t see the Red Sox kicking in the monry to even things up. And the Mets likely don’t want him for 6 years.
But, it is certainly the type of out of the box thinking that I like to see though, and a way to radically remake the team without just bidding on a bunch of expensive FAs.
I would say a more likely shot is something like Bay for Lackey.
I hope not Lackey, we were lucky NOT to get him the first time.
no, not saying that I want him. Just that it is the type of deal that could be on the table for Bay.
Though right now, probably still roll the dice and swap them even up.
Sorry Any, I would pass on Lackey
This idea is not that unreasonable. Keep in mind, the groundswell around the Red Sox is immense. Everyone is being blamed and Crawford is in the middle of it. Bay started showing signs of life in the last third of the season and outperformed Crawford. Bay is known as a “solid citizen” around the team and gives a max effort everyday. Bay is a pull hitter and what game he does have left, definetly lends itself to Fenway. Stories out of Boston are painting Crawford as a bit of a head case. We don’t know to what extent Crawford has worn out his welcome and may not feel comfortable there. I must agree with the comment about the Mets being too left handed. That has to be considered. However Crawford’s upside is undeniable. With the right financial adjustments, this could help both teams.
If Mets don’t want to pay Reyes “Crawford” money, why would we pay Crawford “Crawford” money, unless Red Sox pay the difference between Bay and Crawford.
I think Crawford is better than he showed in Boston, then again Bay is suppossed to be better than he has shown with us.
the huge mismatch in contract length left is what really wold prevent this deal from happening.
if they had basically the same years left, then it could work as a change of scenery, better suited to the other place type of deal.
I don’t see Crawford for Bay but when it comes to movig Bay it will prob have to come down to something like this to get it done. Maybe Bay for Lackey is more plausible but in that scenario I think Lackey would be even worse.
I don’t think this is that bad an idea IF Reyes was to be let go by the Mets (and listening to the things Alderson is saying i think that’s what’s going to happen, unfortunately)
Maybe Carl Crawford suffered through the pressures of signing a new big contract for a new team and we’ve all seen that before, e.g., Beltran, Piazza got off to a rough start, and others.
I also believe that with the fences being moved in we’ll see Bay rebound to some extent.
Interesting proposal though.
I was considering writing an article on just this idea… but here were the issues I saw:
1. The money: Crawford has 6 years left and much more money than Bay. Even if Boston kicks in money, do you want a potential liability on the books for 6 years rather than 2-3?
2. Crawford had one bad year do you really think they will consider him a bust after one injury-plagued season? They have only labeled Matsuzaka as a bust as of 1 year ago or so.
I see it getting too messy. A good idea at first, but ultimately It would not work I don’t think.
You know what else would be good? Bay for Sabathia. Or never mind Crawford, what about Bay for Youkilis, Pedroia, or Ellsbury?
All of those are just as ridiculous as fantasizing that the Red Sox would give us Crawford for Bay.
I don’t think this would be good deal for the Mets.
Bay is the epitome of hustle and professionalism all the time, is an important leader in the clubhouse the players love, Citi Field dimensions will be altered in his favor, he’s shown signs of coming out of his funk, bats right handed, and continues to represent a proven power threat the Mets need. Considering a bunch of surefire homers he lost this season at Citi, I think we will see 20-something homers, 85+ RBI in 2012.
On the other hand, Crawford looks like he’s aged or has gained some fat weight. Whether that’s function of injury or something else, or my imagination, I can’t say, but remains to be seen.
I also don’t see the wisdom of the deal in Alderson terms that would make him pull the trigger. Makes no sense for the Mets in current financial state unless they lose the speed of both Reyes and Pagan, but keep in mind that Crawford said last year he doesn’t want to lead off but prefers batting third. I don’t know if that remains, nor whether batting 6-8 which is where he mainly batted as Red Sox, really dragged him down emotionally. If it did, then perhaps moving him to 1-3, might result in rebound season.