tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20149989.post7856308777238893522..comments2024-01-10T16:29:30.043-05:00Comments on Fonzie Forever: An Ideal Change of Scenery: Jason Bay for Carl CrawfordJames Esattohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13823705871077609158noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20149989.post-83191234020541237732011-10-02T11:12:19.114-04:002011-10-02T11:12:19.114-04:00I´m a Mets fan, and I like the deal. My only thoug...I´m a Mets fan, and I like the deal. My only thought is that the Mets would prefer the $5mil per year for the first 3 years of the deal, as that would offset other big contracts they have (Johan Santana, whose contract expires after 2013), and alleviate well-documented short term financial problems.<br />I wonder if the deal could be expanded to include Mike Pelfrey for John Lackey and cash. Similar reasons to the Bay-Crawford swap. Pelfrey has talent, but was put in the position of being a substitute ace with Santana down and failed miserably. The fans are sick of him. Lackey may be coming off a horrible year, but at least he has shown in the past that he knows how to pitch and can provide innings. Maybe he´s just not a Fenway/RSNation pitcher.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20149989.post-55125872304846183042011-09-30T10:48:10.535-04:002011-09-30T10:48:10.535-04:00I don't think the Mets can do this. Bay's...I don't think the Mets can do this. Bay's contract is bad at $16, $16, and $17m each of the next three years, but Crawford's is worse at $19.5, $20, and $20.25 over the same period. Even with a $5M made to the Mets, the Mets end up paying more for Crawford over the next three years than they would for Bay.<br /><br />(And that assumes Bay's option vests.)<br /><br />And then -- the Mets would have a 34 year old OF (In Crawford) making $47.5 over the three year period 2015-2017. <br /><br />There's a very good chance that Crawford's offensive struggles are BABIP (i.e. luck) driven, but the risk isn't worth it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com