Why do we shrug at Crawford's deal while sneering at Werth's?

Don't get me wrong: I like the positives of the big contract that Carl Crawford signed with the Boston Red Sox late Wednesday night. As Joe Lemire of Sports Illustrated sums up in a much longer article, the ex-Rays speedster will solidify the top of Boston's lineup and its outfield. The Red Sox can afford the seven years and $142 million because a lot of salaries have either come or are set to come off the books. Plus, they were able to kill the New York Yankees' Plan B if they're unable to land Cliff Lee later this offseason. If you've got a big stick — and the Red Sox certainly do — you should swing it.   

At the same time, I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a small part of me that feels like we've been trained to view each long-term deal done by the Yankees and Red Sox in a positive light while the default viewing mode for every other team is to start with the negative.

It turns out that I wasn't the only one who woke up feeling that way. My big bossman Jamie Mottram — an invested Washington Nationals fan — says he feels irked over the reaction after watching Jayson Werth's similar deal get roundly mocked and criticized earlier in the week. 

Writes Mr. Mottram over on Mr. Irrelevant:

Last night, Boston signed 29-year-old leftfielder Carl Crawford to a seven-year, $142 million deal. The reaction to this has generally been, "Good for them. I thought the Yankees or Angels were gonna get him."

On Sunday, Washington signed 31-year-old rightfielder Jayson Werth to a seven-year, $126 million deal. The reaction to this has generally been, "TEH NATS HAVE SIGNED THE DEAL OF DEATH!!!1!"

Crawford's career slash line is .296/.337/.444. Werth's is .272/.367/.481. Crawford is considered to be great on the basepaths and in the field. Werth is considered to be good in those areas. Neither has much star power, and their performance will almost certainly decline over the seven-year term.

So why the difference in the reactions? And why the outrage over Werth?

Indeed, just as there are positives to the acquisition of Crawford, there are positives to the Werth acquisition. And just as there are reasons to doubt a commitment to Werth for seven seasons, there are reasons to do the same for Crawford. The difference, Mr. Mottram believes, comes in our Pavlovian response to love everything a "have" team does while we're automatically set up to mock the "have nots." We'll see the same thing at play if Cliff Lee — who's 32 years old — signs with the Yankees. (Again, Lee would be a great add, but there are enough areas to immediately cast doubt if we really wanted to.) 

Look, Crawford is definitely the better pickup of the two. He's younger than Werth and has a longer track record of success. Also, the Red Sox and Yankees are much better equipped, budget-wise, to get out from a contract if it somehow turns bad (ie: John Lackey).

But the difference between Werth and Crawford — the top two position players in this year's free-agent crop and two men who were made rich by two fantastically rich ownership groups —  shouldn't be enough to cause this big of a disparity in the reactions to their signings.

Update: Here's a pretty negative (and well-written) piece on Crawford's deal from John over at Only Baseball Matters.

Kate Hudson Adriana Lima Brittany Daniel Kate Moss Zhang Ziyi