With Ellsbury's newfound power, honestly he should be batting 3rd for us right now. but he may have to stay at leadoff because we have no one better to bat there. the problem is that crawford sucks as a leadoff hitter because of his low obp. plus hes never been comfortable batting leadoff. the crawford deal looks like a complete albatross now. id much rather be paying big $$ to ellsbury and locking him up for the next 7 years.
I absolutely disagree with this line of thinking. You don't trade a player because he's suddenly become too good and in fact is much better than a player you paid too much money for. Crawford is now a 'sunken cost'. You don't base future decisions off of Crawford being a bad deal. Ellsbury is a future superstar, you dont trade him unless you get a superstar in return - I'm talking guys like King Felix and Hanley Ramirez, etc. No less than that would make me trade Ellsbury. How great did it work for the Sox to trade Babe Ruth because he suddenly became an awesome hitter and they were afraid to pay him?
Going for a more recent example, where would the Blue Jays be right now if they had traded Bautista last winter after his breakout season? Instead they extended him to a long term contract early and have now secured a
top 5 WAR player at a very good value.