Re: Francona on WEEI @ 3:00 pm-What questions would you like the hosts to ask?
posted at 10/5/2011 3:03 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Francona on WEEI @ 3:00 pm-What questions would you like the hosts to ask?
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Francona on WEEI @ 3:00 pm-What questions would you like the hosts to ask? : The Crawford question!! However you feel about Carl, he was not a good fit in this line-up from the start and was ultimately set up to fail. Thus, Tito was set up to fail as well.
Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]
How was Crawford set up to fail? Clearly LF at Fenway isn't the best use of his speed, but how exactly was he set up to fail? Did they put him in a position that he'd never played?
And how was Crawford's failure equate to Tito's failure? It was widely reported that Crawford showed up every day and worked hard. He didn't have any run in's with any other players. Didn't have a bad attitude. Even took responsibility for his less than stellar year.
The Sox didn't miss his offense. They scored enough runs in enough games to make the playoffs.
It was clearly the pitching.
Now, I can see how the failure of Theo to pick up a legitimate starter after Dice-K went down led to the failure of the team. They started the season thin at starting pitching. The starters were capable, but they didn't have anyone in AAA that was close to being ready to step in. Dice-Ks injury put them in danger of being one injury away from being in trouble and nearly everyone in the rotation had a history of spending time on the DL.
Add in the terrible season that Lackey had, and they basically had 3 legitimate starters. When Buch went down, that left it up to Beckett who was more interested in beer drinking with Lackey than staying in shape.
Crawford? Had nothing to do with the collapse of the red sox.