Would signing Carl Crawford be a good idea for Detroit?
That didn't take long. Dan Uggla was traded from Florida to Atlanta for Omar Infante and a relief pitcher. That leaves the Tigers looking back to the free agent market -- or whatever they've got up their sleeves in the trading market that they aren't talking about -- to fill their needs this offseason.
So now we can turn our heads to valuing Carl Crawford, Victor Martinez, Adam Dunn or others that Detroit may pursue this offseason. As before, I'll try to compare the value of the new addition to the value the Tigers would otherwise receive. In looking at the trade, however, we were trying to find the surplus value of Uggla. That's the great thing about players already under contract.. You have he possibility of capturing surplus value. When you're buying a player on the free agent market, you have to expect the market value will be close to the player's value. So you're not going to get much, if any, surplus.
So really here, what we're looking for is the biggest bang for your buck. You're not going to try to upgrade Miguel Cabrera because, 1) you can't! 2) he's already good. It's going to cost a lot to get more production. But maybe you can upgrade your poor-hitting catcher or your (essentially) empty hole in the corner outfield.
So let's look at a guy who should be a great upgrade there: Carl Crawford.
Carl Crawford:
Defense: Crawford, as know you, was recently named a Gold Glove outfielder. He was ranked 18.5 runs above average as corner outfielder by Ultimate Zone Rating.In past years he was 17.5 and 15.8. So he's consistently way above average.
Offense: For the most part, he's been 20 runs or so above average. He was 32 last season but as a 30-year-old in 2011 I think it would be dangerous to call him a 30 again. I'll say he's worth 22 runs better than average.
Adjustments: Due to playing time and the position he plays, he's worth about 15 or so runs.
Add it all up: I'd expect him to be worth 50-55 runs, or about 5 WAR next season. This is on the conservative side, of course compared to the 6.9 last year and 5.7 the year before. That still should rank him around top 10 in the outfield.
Projected cost: At 4M per WAR, he should be worth about $20 million at the start of his contract and 12 by the end of a five-year deal. So I'd guess a value over five years of $83 million or $94 over six. Because of his skill set, it's possible his value will degrade even faster. Because of his rarity right now, he will be valued higher than a normal player.
By the way, Fangraphs did a Contract Crowdsource to predict the value of the contract Crawford would receive. The results were 5.5 years and $16.4 million on average, or 5 years and 17 million for the median. So a contract of 5 years for $80 million to 6 years for $100 million, basically. I'd guess toward the middle to be safe. Maybe he'll get the nine-figure contract he seeks, but given the limited number of rich clubs I'm not certain of that.
Tigers comparisons:
Nothing against Casper Wells. You might recall I like Casper Wells. But it would probably take him a couple of seasons to reach a total of 5.0 WAR. Ceding one corner outfield spot to Ryan Raburn, Wells or Brennan Boesch are currently the top candidates for the other one.
Obviously no one doubts the Tigers must look outside the organization for a corner outfielder.
Other comparisons:
Jayson Werth is the only corner outfielder on the market who you might be able to compare Crawford to. Their games are dissimilar, but among available players they are the corner outfielders who bring the most. I plan an entire post about him, but my estimate is a WAR of 4.25 or so for the beginning number. He does not field as well, however he is above average. He bats slightly better, but you must adjust him downward for age and changing to the American League.
Other considerations:
The big idea that fans often forget about or pretend doesn't matter is opportunity cost. I know Mike Ilitch is a billionaire. But guess what? The Tigers still operate under a budget. If that wasn't true they'd be spending $200 million a year like the Yankees. Whether you're under a salary cap or a budget, you have to spend your money wisely because you only have so much of it and can't undo mistakes. If you're thinking one offseason at a time, you're probably not going to be able to field a division contender year in and year out. The way team executives approach the offseason simply cannot be the simplified way fans and the media lay it out. The Tigers can't solve all their long term plans this offseason, but they can certainly destroy their ability to in the future.
I'm not going to tell you I have the answers for what plan puts the Tigers in the best position to compete in 2011 and beyond. I am not privy to enough information. Having a farm system that constantly injects talent that you'd have to pay for in free agency otherwise is the best way to avoid that problem, and Detroit is fighting an uphill battle in that right now. They'll have major-league caliber players but some might take awhile, and few who are going to provide a lot of surplus value when they arrive. The team also has a rough sketch of what they could expect the budget to be, and I don't. We can imagine it's $100 million. But can they stick around in the $130 range again? Impossible for us to say. If they can do that, it makes being able to sign Crawford as well as some others a lot easier. If they are going through payroll deduction, Crawford makes a lot less sense.
The Tigers have $66m committed to eight players in 2011. In 2012 $53 million is committed to five players with a couple of arbitration eligibles to think about -- Max Scherzer being the key. Ten million comes off the budget in 2013, but so does the entire left side of the infield and Rick Porcello is no longer nearly as affordable. Tying up almost $60 million for three players -- no matter how good they are -- means the Tigers may struggle to keep both Porcello and Scherzer around if the players develop into their projections of frontline starters. A lot of work would be required by the Tigers farm to be able to step in and fill all the open positions to allow that kind of money to be invested.
And so far, we've just talked about offense. The Tigers have problems on the run prevent side of the ball where they need to spend some money, too. Signing Crawford cuts into flexibility while filling only one hole of many.
Bottom line time:
Don't get me wrong, I'd really like to see Crawford in Detroit. However I just cannot see how a deal of more than $100 million could be justified given the state of the farm system and the questions of just where the budget will be the next several years. Even then, I have serious questions. There's paying premiums, and there's paying premiums. The cost difference between Crawford and the next best free agents leaves enough money to fill another need with a fairly decent player. Given Detroit has so many needs, it might be smarter to find a lesser corner outfielder as well as a DH on a short-term contract. When everyone is turning their ideas to the five highest-hyped players, the best values may be found a bit lower in the pecking order. When you have so many holes, that's probably where area you want to operate in.
In any case, I doubt Crawford to Detroit is going to happen.
63 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great article
You made several solid points.
I want Carl in Detroit next season more than anyone. I know it won’t happen but I’d really be happy if it happened!
by JAYRC on Nov 17, 2010 6:13 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Several good points
Going above 100 is probably not prudent but I’d be willing to go 5/100. I think you’re probably a little too conservative in your estimations with 5 WAR next season. 5.5 is a better estimate I’d say, which projects out a little closer to 100 over the course of the contract. Plus the Tigers are at the point in the win curve when each win has added value, since they, in my opinion anyway, should be close to contending with some additional moves this offseason.
One comment that I do take exception with, and I’ve seen it elsewhere, is that Crawford has a deteriorating skillset. While he will no doubt get worse as he gets older, namely slower, Crawford has the type of skillset that should age well. Provided his time in Tropicana didn’t kill his legs, he should play above average defense for basically the entire length of his career, and will probably chip 20 steals well into his 30’s. In addition, Crawford may gain some additional power as he loses speed. Technically every player has a skillset that will degrade, but Crawford’s should be slower than normal, not faster.
I’m basing my 5 on the fact most of his career has been spent in the 4s. 2010 was clearly a career year, and coming at the end of a contract a perfect time for it! I know starting at age 27 and going a few years you should expect a peak for the player, but it still seems less likely he’ll repeat the last two years and more likey his career will be closer to the five or so before those, just a bit better. So I went with 5. Certainly could be a bit higher but that’s where I’m comfortable.
As for the Tigers’ marginal value curve, it gets a bit murkier. It’s kind of built into the $4 million figure right now. The problem with the Tigers is the team they currently have would win somewhere in the 70s if they made no additions and the marginal value of a win down there isn’t real great. Obviously, we expect them to make additions. But at the same time you have to wonder if investing so much money in one single contract would keep them from doing the all the across the board upgrades necessary to get to the upper-80s in wins to maximize the value of Crawford. If they got him, it would be difficult to afford the veteran bullpen help they need, the middle-of-the-order bat they seek, the backup catcher who hits better than Laird, etc. If they managed to go all-out this offseason, the marginal value of a win has the potential to go above 4 or 4.5, to be sure. But right now I just can’t picture this team better than the low-to-mid-80s for wins even with Crawford.
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 17, 2010 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
What is Crawford worth?
It matters who we compare him to. So who is the benchmark? Lets say Tori Hunter is. He’s getting $18 Million per year. I’d say Crawford is just as good or better, but he is also several years younger than Hunter is. Hunter was 32 years old in the 1st year of his 5 yr/ $90 Million dollar deal. Crawford will be 29 years old going into next season. So that’s our starting point.
Hunter will be 37 years old at the end of his contract, so Crawford would need an 8 Year deal for his contract to take him to the same age.
So I’m thinking 8 years @ $18 Million per year is not out of the question. That’s $144 Million that I think Crawford could get.
I want Uggla and VMart
Correction, Hunter will be 36, not 37.
So take one year off. 7 Years / $126 Million is what I think he should get. But I still don’t think 8 years is out of the question.
I want Uggla and VMart
eight years is too many.
He would be 38. So, then you have another aging outfielder making way more that his value would be. 5 years @ 85-90m.
President & Founder of the "Bring back the Big Tilde in 2k11" Campaign
That's not even a serious offer
It was reported last week that LA plans to offer him at least $100 million
If Detroit wants him bad enough, they’ll need the highest bid in dollars and years.
I want Uggla and VMart
Read the NY POST by Joel Sherman
He’s saying 8 years / $144 Million also.
I want Uggla and VMart
I don't really care about the article,
whatsoever. He is never going to be worth signing for 8 years. After age 35, its going to be the same situation as this team was in regarding Magglio, overpaid, aging outfielder. It’s not worth it. You’re missing the point of what I’m saying.
President & Founder of the "Bring back the Big Tilde in 2k11" Campaign
so you'll take one writer guessing 8 years and 144 million
vs a poll of more than 2000 educated baseball fans voting.
There aren’t enough teams in play, he’s not going to get what he wants.
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 17, 2010 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
how should I respond when somebody says " you're out of your mind" ?
I’m not dismissing the poll, but even Dave Cameron thinks he gets 7 years / $120 million.
I want Uggla and VMart
You should compliment them on correct use of "your" and "you're"
It’s a skill that is far too rare in society.
Granderson was my Tiger, then Sizemore, then Willis. Since they're all gone, I'm taking Raburn and hoping the pattern holds.
Cameron, in that story:
I’ve generally been lousy at estimating what players will sign for
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 17, 2010 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
I agree Hunter is a good comparison
However, Torii plays CF and now RF. He does have a little more value in the outfield considering Crawford can only play LF…. the easisest position on the diamond.
Great article, by the way.
Nice work as usual, Kurt.
President & Founder of the "Bring back the Big Tilde in 2k11" Campaign
Solid points Kurt
I give you an A+ (ooops sorry thats over with). I cant argue with your dollar numbers, but as you stated we dont know the budget. We could pay Crawford less money then we paid for two of our players last year. That would be Maggs & Damon. Not to mention we played two players big big bucks not to be on our team Willis/Robertson and had to pay out even more for two players to take thier MLB spots. A very large double wammy. With that said we have a lot of wiggle room for our needs. Crawford wouldnt break the bank, and we still would have enough money to fill other postions. Could you imagine Ajax and Crawford hitting next to each other? That would drive pitchers nuts with the base stealing threat. And if this were to happen I would pick up one of the veteran bats available to help protect Miggy. Vmart is not going to come cheap either. In his mind he may be looking for his twilight contract, and, I think Bos is going to let him go so easy. All your assumptions and numbers on based on the enitre lenth of contracts. (Rightfully so). But we all know having players under contract is like playing monopoly. You can improve or sell them any time you want to. Besides, even if dont get Vmart, ANY catcher we get is going to be better the Laird offensively. Players with the average he showed last year are not in the major leagues.
I would pass on Crawford
It’s too much money for a player who relies primarily on his speed. He’s played all those years on the astro turf. That concerns me for a player entering his mid 30’s in the middle of an albatross contract. I’d much rather go after a Jim Thome for one year or Paul Konerko for a few years.
If your primary value is in speed, then yes...
Crawford has been the base-stealingist mofo in the AL for the past five years. Will that continue into the end of this upcoming contract? Probably not. However, he also does a pretty good job of getting on base and playing defense. There’s room for the power to grow as well (although I don’t think he’ll every be a 20+ guy).
I think he can still be a good OF at the age of 36 or 37, but probably not a strong baserunning threat and certainly not worth 20M at the end of his contract. I’d rather have Werth for a year or two less.
I’m also one of the few around here that thinks the top of our lineup is okay with Jackson and Rhymes. I like Rhymes as a #2 hitter. I also think that Raburn could hit #2 if Rhymes falters or loses out to Sizemore. We have bigger needs at #3 and #5 and I wouldn’t really describe Crawford as either. He’s certainly not a #5. He might be a #3, but only if you get a strong #5 as well. (Otherwise, every time he steals 2B, Cabby will get the IBB.)
Granderson was my Tiger, then Sizemore, then Willis. Since they're all gone, I'm taking Raburn and hoping the pattern holds.
GREAT COMMENT!!!
If we assume Rhymes continues at 2010 #‘s at #2, Raburn could be #3 with Wells #5. Dirks backs up Wells. If Boesch looks for near strikes on the first 3 pitches, instead of working the count, he could be #5. I’m still working on Strieby/Bishop for a DL necessary DH, but I know that’s too far out for the Tigers. Stats will indicate the direction to take.
by StephenGrosberg on Nov 17, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks and no thanks
Appreciate the “GREAT COMMENT!!” quote, but please, please, please don’t bring up entering the 2011 season with Dirks, Wells, Boesch, 100% Streiby, or Bishop as our #5 hitter. We don’t want to rely on any of these guys to protect Cabrera (who would certainly see Bonds-ian IBB’s). Part of Boesch’s downfall last year may have been the pressure of always hitting after Cabrera had been walked. If you like those young guys so much, let them gain a little confidence in their bats before hitting them at #5. Furthermore, a big part of being a good #5 hitter is actually reputation (pitchers have to be a little scared of ya), and reputation is seriously lacking among this list.
Although I hate Raburn’s glove, I think it is conceivable that, if the free agent market snubs us, Raburn could be a #3 or #5 hitter (but I’d rather not bank on it)
Granderson was my Tiger, then Sizemore, then Willis. Since they're all gone, I'm taking Raburn and hoping the pattern holds.
Boesch at #5 worked well post all-star break.
Wait, no it didn’t. He fell back to earth in a hurry; spring training will be a major test.
Alex English was pretty coo'.
Too much money too many years
In todays baseball a team has to spend wisely if you sign someone like Crawford to a long term contract at a huge price you limit the teams flexibility.If that player gets hurt or dosen’t perform you are stuck and can’t do anything else.As good as Crawford is the Rays have never won anything with him.I beleve the way to go is trade for a corner outfielder or trade for a #1 starter and sign the best FA relief pitchers two of them and play with the kids we have now.Remember the World Series San Fransico won with pitching there line up wasn’t as good as ours.
Crawford isn’t worth the $, a #1 pick, and the length of the contract vs. Wells/Dirks. Period.
by StephenGrosberg on Nov 17, 2010 10:16 AM EST reply actions
We
have to bring in at least 1 corner outfielder. We cannot go into this season with Rayburn and Wells/Dirks starting every day
Agreed!
I’d like to go into the season with Werth or Maggs in the OF and the Wells/Boesch/Dirks winner. I’d be happier with Raburn as a DH, but if the team signs a DH guy, Raburn will have to prove his bat is much better than Wells in order to offset the poor defense.
Granderson was my Tiger, then Sizemore, then Willis. Since they're all gone, I'm taking Raburn and hoping the pattern holds.
Bang for your Buck
Crawford is unique in this years market because he it the one player who presents a complete package. There are a lot of guys available that can hit, but none of them contribute other aspects like Crawford does. I like the idea of bringing in Dunn, or to a lesser extent V-Mart, but if you miss on those guys there are a lot of DH types to fall back on . If you miss out on CC there is significant drop to Werth then Maggs, and that is about it.
To me, Crawford to Werth isn't significant
You lose the SB and a little defense, but not much else. Werth is a better run PRODUCER as opposed to a run GENERATOR. With Werth, you pick up more extra base power and a higher OBP. I think this team needs producers more than generators (although one of each would be nice…the generator at #3 and the producer at #5).
Granderson was my Tiger, then Sizemore, then Willis. Since they're all gone, I'm taking Raburn and hoping the pattern holds.
Werth
I think Werth is getting significantly overrated. Watching him everyday the last three years (I live in Philly) I think he is a lot more like J.D. Drew than people are giving him credit for. Werth’s #s are significantly inflated by Citizen’s Bank BallPark, just look at his home road splits in 2010. .320/.401/.599 with 18HR at home and .270/.375/.463 with 9HR. For comparison CC hit 19HR, 8 of them away from the Trop. I don’t think there would actually any significant difference in HR production between CC and Werth at the CoPa.
Thanks for looking at home and away to ELIMINATE Werth
Thanks to all negative Uggla fans and DD for listening. Will Rhymes, who reads BYB, please tell DD our opinion on CC and Werth.
by StephenGrosberg on Nov 17, 2010 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
I'd take JD Drew
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Nov 17, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Run Producer
Outside of HRs I am not sure what you are basing your run producer v. generator comparison on. The two are basically even on RBIs, Werth actually had fewer RBIs in 2010 (not that RBIs mean anything). I am just not sure what the comparison is based on?
For your info, Hank Greenberg aimed for RBI as the best measure.
by StephenGrosberg on Nov 17, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
How many championship teams did Hank build in a front office?
He was a great player, but sometimes great players say dumb things.
by ozymandius1024 on Nov 17, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
A great player knows why he's a great player
A great player knows more about playing than the front office. The front office MAY know more about what combination might win a Championship, like SF for example. Two years ago, the Tigers could have gotten Matt Holliday for Casey Crosby + and won the division. They probably would have won this year with him too. I was wrong about the trade, but…. RBI that win close games ARE important. RBI in > 3run difference games obviously aren’t as important. I’ll take a .250 player with 100 RBI, in mostly close games over a .320 plarer with 60 RBI all day long.
by StephenGrosberg on Nov 17, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
Two Problems
with your scenario, 1) players have no control over who is on base ahead of them. A quick example, A-Rod had almost 50 more RBI than Adrian Gonzales this season, but Gonzales put up better numbers in every other category. Is A-rod a better offensive player, absolutely not, he simply hits in a better lineup with men on base more often. 2) when you start quantifying RBIs in close games as being meaningful you are talking about a different statistic than plane old RBIs. I am not flat out disagreeing with you on this, but I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that there is a meaningful to be gleaned from a players ability to hit in clutch situations from year to year. By that I mean I have yet to see a study that shows certain players have a higher propensity to hit in clutch situations.
How about Jose’ Bautista vs. A-Rod? When you follow them every day, you get a much better idea. I was very grateful to Mattintoledo for relating how players did after a slow start. I was MOST impressed with what Rawley Bishop did after slow starts in Lakeland and Erie. That’s why I don’t want Adam Dunn. The best test is who you would rather pitch to. Jose’ Bautista is more feared by me than A-Rod.
by StephenGrosberg on Nov 17, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
Playing a game well does not mean you know how to manage a ball club.
I’d rather have a player who bats .280 with an OPS of 800 over that “close game RBI” stuff because I’ll get more out of the first player than the second. The first one gets on base and hits for some extra bases, which lets the rest of the team try to knock him in. The other guy is reliant too much on other players getting to scoring position.
Alex English was pretty coo'.
hank greenberg also played in a completely different era
because modern payrolls, modern studies of statistics.
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 17, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
also greenberg was a player
not a statician, i would put more stock into someone who looks at them numbers for a living, rather than someone who’s paid to get them.
President & Founder of the "Bring back the Big Tilde in 2k11" Campaign
haha
*looks at THOSE numbers…not them numbers
President & Founder of the "Bring back the Big Tilde in 2k11" Campaign
+1
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Nov 17, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
Werth and RBI
First of all, Werth hit a lot of homers (27), but also had 46 doubles. That’s a lot of gap power in addition of out of the park power. (And the doubles split is 23 home, 23 away).
Second, he spent most of his time batting behind Ryan Howard who is A) a total RBI hog and B) a slow goon that isn’t going to score on single or double. When the dude in front of you knocks home about 140 a year, the’re ain’t much left to clean up.
Granderson was my Tiger, then Sizemore, then Willis. Since they're all gone, I'm taking Raburn and hoping the pattern holds.
Doubles
46 is a lot of doubles and Werth does have gap power, but it isn’t significantly better than CC. Werth had 46 doubles and 2 triples, CC has 30 doubles and 13 triples. I like Werth I just don’t see his power as significantly better than Crawford.
ISO power numbers
In 2010:
Werth: .236
Crawford: .188
And Crawford’s was a career high. I’d say Werth has an ISO of about 80 points higher than Crawford in the long run.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Nov 17, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
Split
2010
Home ISO: 283
Road ISO: 191
Werth is a good player, but he playing in Citizens Bank has given his power numbers a huge boost.
why are you guys doing one-year splits?
I thought you’d both know better!
His three year split is about 80 for home – away, anyway.
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 17, 2010 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
David does his own shoddy workmanshp
kidding!!
by Kurt Mensching on Nov 17, 2010 8:06 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks
I was also doing 1 year numbers, but that was more for convenience.
Deputy Editor, Bless You Boys
Free Scott Sizemore!
by David Tokarz on Nov 17, 2010 10:29 PM EST up reply actions
I would pass
I just think we have too many holes and we need to spread the money around to plug as many as we can. Besides I think the Angels will go overboard to sign him.
i would like him for now, but in the long run...
not so much.
i don’t want all that money tied up to Verlander, Cabby, and Crawford in the future when we have to face raises to Kid Rick, Maxy, and co.
also, this is the year that the Yankees (and their fans) are finally realizing they don’t have an infinite payroll. it’s quite amusing. they can’t sign Lee, Crawford, Werth, Jeter, Rivera, or whatnot. maybe a few, but in the long run, they’re going to have so much money tied up to aging players exiting their prime, it’s pretty shocking. so, i guess what i’m trying to say is that the Yankees may not be a big player for Crawford. the Red Sox yes, but as of now, not the Yanks.
/Yankee rant complete
Official President of the Team Jacob Turner Fan Club
Yet Another Movie Blog
by DetroitTigersGeek on Nov 17, 2010 11:39 AM EST reply actions
Everytime someone says SIGN CRAWFORD FOR 100MM
I want to direct them toward carlos beltran and swat their nose with his rolled up contract
100M ? over 5 years no way.
I’m tired of bitching about too long of a contract on too old of a player As much as I’d like CC I’d rather sign Maggs at the 3 spot for 2 more years and see who offers what for what we don’t have very many positions we can’t improve on I guess I’d rather be a little more conservitive now knowing we’ll probablybe in a simaler posisition next year. hate to see us shoot ourselves in the foot
I hate to ride the fence but I have to
I want Crawford in Detroit really bad as ive stated 1000 times on here. I hear your concerns about the length and amount of the possible contract too.
I dont think in five or six years Crawford will be that much worse of a player though. It is definately a gamble.
I guess if missing out of Crawford means signing Dunn or V-Mart and Maggs or Werth then I’d rather pass on CC.
Should be fun to watch this all play out though.
Just say NO!
To spending upwards of $100M on Crawford. Rumors abound about his attitude and moodiness as well as not being a great teammate. Last thing we need is another headcase if things go south. Maybe Austin can be our Carl? Go after Werth instead…please Dave.

by 






















