Does the Coco Crisp Signing Make Sense for the Oakland A's?
Late Saturday night, the Athletics and Coco Crisp came to terms on a one year pact worth $4.5-$5 million dollars . The deal set off some heated discussion in the blogosphere, namely, what in the world is Billy Beane doing? For one, ESPN's Rob Neyer is not a fan of the signing:
With that out of the way ... I don't get it. Unless someone is traded, this makes no sense at all for the A's. Sweeney has to play, because he's an outstanding outfielder and a decent enough hitter who's young enough to get better.
Rajai Davis isn't as young, and it's far from obvious that he'll ever hit as well again as he did in 2009. But he does seem to be an excellent defensive center fielder. And Scott Hairston is decent enough to play, to say nothing of giant prospect Michael Taylor, just acquired from the Blue Jays.
Assuming that the Athletics' payroll remains in the $50-$60 million dollar range for 2010, was it really smart for Beane to commit 8 percent-10 percent of their payroll to a guy who likely will not help the A's make it to the playoffs and will probably only be around for one season.
And as Neyer mentioned in his piece, the A's already have Scott Hairston, who could play a sufficient left field for the A's in 2010 for a few million dollars less than Crisp. So ask yourself this, was Coco Crisp really necessary for the rebuilding Athletics?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?