We mentioned this in the Webtopia yesterday. And we are a little surprised that some are making a big deal out of it.

When asked about the differences between the Red Sox and the Rays, Carl Crawford had this to say:

It’s all baseball. But it’s a little different. It’s more a younger team [in Tampa], so it was more like party central all the time. [In Boston] it’s a little more calmer, a little more conservative. That’s probably the biggest difference.

People are apparently focusing on the “party central” part of the quote and ignoring the rest of it. The Rays are YOUNGER. That means fewer wives. That means fewer kids. That means more free time. And that means more PARTYING.

Get over it.

 
 

16 Comments

  1. Sarah says:

    I think the problem comes from how Carl phrased this – if he’d said “looser atmosphere” no one would be complaining. “Party central” makes the Rays sound like they aren’t serious about baseball, and that’s both unfair and untrue. Let’s face it, Carl hasn’t shown a propensity to choose his words carefully – just about everything he’s said about Tampa Bay since he’s left has ended up pissing us off.

    And seriously, who wants to party with Youk, Varitek and Big Papi? If I were part of that team, I’d be showered, dressed, and heading home immediately after the last pitch, too.

  2. Nick says:

    So you’re saying there are a bunch of tight wads in Boston. That doesn’t surprise me. Look at Youk’s batting stance. And maybe if you were a little looser you could hit over .250

    • Derek says:

      If you watch him after the pitcher starts his windup, he stands just like any other batter. He has also been one of the best players in baseball over the last 4? or so years.

  3. Jim says:

    I was thinking of this yesterday, I could see Carl thinking the Rays might have partied more than he would have liked. He always seemed to be more business like and didn’t go out much so for him to think Longo, BJ and others party a bit much wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t think he meant anything by it and i don’t think this is a big deal.

  4. Amanda says:

    He may have a point though, and (like I do), I go back to the Lightning. That was the knock on the Lightning for years that players came down here to kick back and have an easy time of it because they weren’t in the spotlight. I still remember Demers’ famous press conference when he said, “The fans have been cheated by the players, and that’s the end of it. The cheating stops today. The phoney part stops today. The fans pay our salaries. Phil is fed up with it.” Granted, this was back in some really dog days for the Lightning, so it would be more like if Crawford said that after, say, the 2004 season.

    It wasn’t until several factors came together (the Davidson ownership group, good upper management, a hard-ass coach, and quality veteran leadership in Andreychuck) that enough players — young and old — realized they had to work extra-hard to overcome the distractions and lower scrutiny to be a winner. And unlike they Rays, they actually sealed the deal.

    Now then, my beef with Crawford isn’t him bringing this up, because it does show that the ship may not be mature enough to win, even though the talent has been there. My beef with Crawford is this: You were the veteran. You were the leader. Why didn’t YOU speak up when YOU had the chance? Why weren’t YOU the one saying, “Quit partying and buckle down!” Then again, you never learned that from any of the other vets that came in, so that may be a little unfair. But he was supposed to be a team leader, and he just let the team party instead of telling them to get their act together. They would have listened. They respected you.

  5. Beth says:

    Why do we assume that Carl’s comments were meant to be, or should be taken as critical?

    Over the past three seasons, the Rays have 2 more division titles and one more World Series visit than do the Red Sox — all accomplished with a payroll that is about 1/3 of Boston’s.

    So maybe “party central” is a good thing. The Rays approach — develop prospects, trade them when they get expensive — means our team will also be dominated by 20-somethings all getting their first real pay check. To paraphrase Stu Sternberg, “this is who we are.” So bring on the party!

  6. pete says:

    This isn’t some news flash. To me its been fairly obvious that this team party’s hard. By hard , i mean 86 mets hard. at the same time they stay out of trouble and give back to the community.

    • Carey says:

      Way to overstate things Pete. Yeah, they’re doing blow and banging chicks in the bathroom at the Wine Cellar, etc. (have a buddy who used to “party” with Darling & Hernandez). Not even close. Sure, they go out (and Carl did too). And yes, they have beers after work. But to put them in the same league as the 86 Mets is absurd.

      • pete says:

        How is it absurd to get the feeling that this team party’s hard? It’s not 1986 in Manhattan , so i don’t think it’s quite as in your face as the 86 Mets team but to dismiss this type of lifestyle from this team to me is whats absurd.

  7. Carey says:

    Not surprised that Beth is the only one to get it. Watching his post-game interview I got the sincere feeling that Carl kinda misses things around here and that, in a perfect/fantasy world, he stays here and makes Boston money.

    I think you people are taking this comment too literally. I think he’s just speaking to the atmosphere of the team. Think about it. It’s a young team, mean age in mid-20s. What were you like at that age? Again, I think he’s just speaking to the general atmosphere of a 20-something dominated team.

    Also, Carl has never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer (I have it from a pretty good source that they had to label his practice shoes and game shoes so he wouldn’t get them mixed up). So I wouldn’t hold my breath for measured, poignant, comments from Carl. That said, I think a lot of you are reading way too much into those comments.

    • Sarah says:

      Carey, not sure we need to insult Carl’s intelligence here (I’d mix up my practice and game shoes, no doubt) but he’s never seemed especially careful in how he chooses his words. But I agree — I didn’t hear the actual interview so I can’t comment on the subtext, but maybe he misses “party central?”

  8. MJ says:

    I think its clear Crawford is not the most eloquent individual on the planet, so taking his words literally is probably ill advised.

    Also, as Cork said, would you not expect a group of young guys new to the show and nat’l notoriety to “party” a little more than old dudes with wives that have “been there, done that” and live under the microscope of Boston media. I know I would be “partying” as well, to the point where it didn’t affect my play on the field of course…

  9. Don says:

    ANyone that didn’t know Longo, Bj,Pena (biggest of them all)
    partied a lot are out of touch in Tampabay the stories are endless….Carls major point given… is thats not him….Now on to the big boys….in bean town….

  10. Ro says:

    I didn’t take Crawford’s comments negatively at all. I didn’t even think of “party” as go out and get wasted. I thought of party being the hip hop in the club house that you hear during post game interviews after a great win, the celebrations for all the winning the last few years, the goofing off the in the dugout, pies in faces, etc. When I read the comments, that’s what I thought he meant. I thought he was saying the Red Sox were kinda boring.

  11. Evan Longoria says:

    Sorry for partying, bro.

  12. Derek says:

    Yeah, but everyone knows when they put their business socks on, it’s business time.

Leave a Comment