Skip to content

Report: Stephen Drew “will not return to the Red Sox”

Nov 14, 2013, 10:47 AM EDT

stephen drew getty Getty Images

Boston manager John Farrell has made it clear that he’d like Stephen Drew back, but Gordon Edes of ESPN Boston reports that the free agent shortstop “will not return to the Red Sox” because he has several bigger multi-year offers from other teams.

Drew made $9.5 million this year while hitting .253 with 13 homers and a .777 OPS in 124 games and then rejected the Red Sox’s one-year, $14.1 million qualifying offer. If he signs elsewhere Boston will get draft pick compensation and could turn to 21-year-old rookie Xander Bogaerts as the new starting shortstop.

  1. jbriggs81 - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

    It’s going to be interesting how the team that signs Drew to a multi-year deal explains to its fanbase that it decided to forego its draft pick so that it could sign Stephen Drew, especially while there are other replacement level shortstops who don’t require draft pick compensation, like Peralta.

    • drewsylvania - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM

      Drew is much better than Peralta.

      • drewsylvania - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        He’s not? Do tell.

      • ryanrockzzz - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:41 AM

        Peralta has a higher OPS, and hit .303….so I’ll just start that off. Peralta also had a slightly higher WAR 3.3 to 3.1, and also since i’m on the WAR thing, Peralta and Drew were essentially the same there as well.

      • ryanrockzzz - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:43 AM

        meant to also say they were essentially the same for defensive WAR.- even though i don’t care much for that metric.

      • drewsylvania - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        The eyeball test of many has Drew as a much better defender than Peralta. Peralta really shouldn’t be at shortstop, he simply isn’t good there.

  2. drewsylvania - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

    I hope Bogaerts can handle short in the bigs. Anyone know how good he was there in the minors?

    Sucks to lose an above-average shortstop. Hopefully he doesn’t go to a division rival….

    • richwizl - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:53 AM

      I’m very disappointed that Boston couldn’t make Drew a serious offer. Bogaerts is not the fielder Drew is and, now, we don’t have a viable third baseman. Sox should go after David Freese, now.

      • bertram00 - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:08 PM

        Have you heard of this guy named Will Middlebrooks? And Cecchini behind him?

    • stevequinn - Dec 20, 2013 at 3:36 AM

      Shame Boston traded away Iglesias.

  3. xpensivewinos - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:43 AM

    Red Sox really are in a great position. Let Ellsbury walk (replace him with Bradley)……..let Drew walk, replace him Bogaerts, etc……

    And if the dominos don’t fall the way they like, they can make a deal or sign whoever they want to fill holes whether they don’t like Middlebrooks at third moving forward and want Bogaerts there or don’t think Bradley is ready, etc.

    Whoever signs Drew is overpaying. Let him go and don’t think twice about it……

  4. jdillydawg - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM

    This is kinda crazy and shows how money really does rule this game, sadly. The guy just won the World Series. It’s no longer about the competition, it’s about being the wealthiest. Would players really take multi-million dollar deals to play on teams like the Astros or the Mariners just for the paycheck? (Not that these 2 particular teams would put up the money, but if they did, I’m guessing the players would just follow the $ signs.)

    That said, maybe once you win the WS, the competition is more about how much you make than how well you or your team do on the field.

    • aceshigh11 - Nov 14, 2013 at 11:54 AM

      Of course they would. Do you really need to ask that?

      • lawrinson20 - Dec 25, 2013 at 2:54 AM

        Pedroia didn’t. So, yeah, you can ask that.

    • stex52 - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:03 PM

      Don’t kid yourself. it’s that way with most of them even before they win a World Series (if they ever do). It’s business. It’s the way they make their living.

      • paperlions - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM

        Exactly. It has always been this way. Even back before FA, players were only more interested in playing for good teams because of the bonus money associated with winning the league or World Series, which could represent nearly a 100% increase in salary.

      • gibbyfan - Nov 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM

        Can’t blame the players at all –it’s literally the american way and there are precious few exceptions. We would probably all do the same things –fans are not a factor which begs the real question of why do we as fans even give these guys a second thought. Don’t think there’s an answer out there to that one.

      • jdillydawg - Nov 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM

        So why do we as fans still wish for dynasties? Given the current business model, dynasties are a thing of the past. The best we can hope for is that our hometown team wins the WS once, maybe twice in a lifetime.

        Unless we’re the Cubs or the Mariners….

    • 18thstreet - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:53 PM

      Back in my day, the players played for free and the owners turned over all their profits to orphanages. And, thanks to that arrangement, Babe Ruth learned to play baseball.

      True story.

    • bigharold - Nov 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM

      “That said, maybe once you win the WS, the competition…”

      Did he sign with the RS thinking he was going to win a WS last off season. Because if so he must have been really optimistic. If anything signing with the RS last year taught him that you don’t have to go to a consensus playoff team to win the WS.

      Don’t hold it against a player because he makes a sound business decision. Unless you want to hold it against a team when they decide to not sign not sign a fan favorite because the deal makes no sense. And, when a player is no longer productive fans have no problem being vocal about want him thrown overboard. What happens on the field is baseball, .. the rest is business.

      • jdillydawg - Nov 14, 2013 at 9:28 PM

        I don’t begrudge any player who signs a multi-million dollar deal. I’m willing to bet, though, that if a study were done, the highest paid players in baseball are at best, only mediocre compared to their counterparts. (I have no evidence of this, but guys like Pujols, Hernandez, Hamilton, Kemp, et al come to mind).

        I would be all in favor of paying baseball players the moon plus a few planets if I could still get a ticket for a reasonable price.

    • evanpenn - Nov 24, 2013 at 2:13 AM

      Its that way for most, but not all. Pedroia signed for below his market value, that’s widely agreed. I seem to recall other instances of this, but now I can’t remember exactly who.
      I do remember Karl Malone signing with the Lakers for well below his value, just wanting to win a championship.

  5. Jack Marshall - Nov 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

    Bogaerts is fine in the field, and getting rid of Drew removes Farrell’s temptation to be stupid and not give the kid short outright.

  6. octom - Nov 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM

    Win a World Series – then take care of your family for life.

  7. rickdobrydney - Nov 14, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    For the life of me , I just can’t envision “Stephen Drew” , and “14.1 million dollars” in the same sentence. Good freaking Lord, what has this game come to ????

    • gibbyfan - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM

      Know what you mean Rick—it’s like incongruous……..dropping about 10 million would seem fathomable

  8. gambeast5533 - Nov 14, 2013 at 8:58 PM

    Ricky, what if the comment were “There is NO WAY Drew should be making 14.1 million dollars?” That sentence would be about the only way I could make it work.

  9. keltictim - Nov 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM

    I think mr drew, with the exception of Lou merloni, exceeded everyone’s expectations this year. That being said the sox did him a huge favor with the qualifying offer by ensuring any desk he got would exceed 14.1 and if he didn’t get that from somewhere else he would get it from them. It is time for him to move on and time to see what we have from the youngins. And to the guys debating a chance at the ring vs millions more to play on non contenders. It’s nice to pretend we have a clue as to which side of that argument we would choose but the fact is you can’t possibly know what you would do until you actually see your name attached to that many zeroes. Pride and virtue get thrown out real quick for another 10 mil. So please stop pretending you know what it’s like.

  10. topteach1 - Nov 15, 2013 at 2:02 AM

    Out of curiosity, if any of you were offered a 50% salary increase (from $9.4 million to $14.1 million), would you really consider turning it down just to see if some other employer, perhaps a less savory one, would offer you more for what are really limited skills? How much money do you need in your lifetime? I would guess that most of you would sell your mothers for $14.1 million. What we pay athletes is a joke! Drew just isn’t that good. I would like to see MLB players earn a base of $1,000 per game (whether you play or not) and everything else be a performance bonus based on what you do. A base hit or a walk is worth so much; doubles, triples, home runs get more; advancing a runner, another bonus; driving in a run, especially with two outs, gets a chunk; a defensive play that saves a run, here’s some cash. And if you screw up, that just means you don’t get any bonus money. So if you kill a rally by striking out or hitting into a double play or blowing a save, no soup for you! If you are not good enough to start, then you had better make the most of whatever chances you get. Now we find out just who the real producers are and how much a player is committed to his team FIRST. After all, how many people do you know who make a base salary of $162,000, get all their travel expenses paid for, and are eligible for bonuses that could add hundreds of thousands of dollars to their salary? None of these jerks could do any other job that would pay them that well. So how is it that owners are so stupid as to pay these outrageous salaries? Imagine what ticket prices would be like if team payrolls were what they were in the 1950′s. Where did we ever get the idea that a man who plays a kid’s game is worth $25M per year? Are we totally out of control??? And especially when we pay police officers, firefighters, EMT’s, teachers, social workers, caregivers, and other meaningful service providers so little. Talk about a country with truly screwed up values.

  11. pastabelly - Dec 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM

    The Mets 1st round pick is protected. It will only cost them a second. I like the Red Sox getting a sandwich pick for their $9.5M and someone to man the position until Xander was ready. Drew will not be making $14M per year, but maybe he gets 4/40 and Boras sees that as better for his client than 1/14 or 2/20.

  12. stevequinn - Dec 20, 2013 at 3:39 AM

    Take stock of all the MLB teams and see who needs a SS. There aren’t any except maybe the Mets who should probably dump Tejada.

    I think Drew is in the same boat he was last year. He’ll end up back in Boston because nobody is going to forfeit a draft pick by signing him. Once the Cardinals signed Peralta, Boras and Drew were kinda up the creek.

  13. lawrinson20 - Dec 25, 2013 at 3:00 AM

    I certainly appreciated Drew’s strong defense this year. And the occasional offense. But, i’m excited to see how Middlebrooks will contribute in a full season. 30 HR per 600 ABs. That kind of pop, plus Xander’s offense should offset the loss of Drew’s defense.

    More than that, though, i’m hoping the Sox have been relatively inactive this offseason because they’re lying in wait for Tanaka. Time to shell out. It’ll be a big contract, but they’re going to need that third ace in the rotation. Not to reach the playoffs, but to advance through them. Lester’s a year older. Lackey’s a year older, and Buchholz is a wild card, durability-wise. Tanakas don’t come along often. And, i’m hoping, also, that the Yankees are too hamstrung by the A-Rod albatross, and their luxury tax issues to really put in a haymaker bid. But, we’ll see. I still can’t imagine the Yankees (or Dodgers) being outbid.

    • gmen23 - Dec 31, 2013 at 7:24 AM

      There is ZERO chance that the Sox enter the Tanaka sweepstakes. They already have 6 bonafide starters in the bigs and are stacked in the minors with almost ready prospects like Barnes, Webster, De La Rosa, Owens, Britton, Workman, Ranaudo, etc. They just got out of a bad contract positon with the trade with the Dodgers and will not extend a 100 million plus contract to a MLB unknown like Tanaka.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5473)
  2. G. Springer (3814)
  3. M. Machado (3128)
  4. K. Uehara (2765)
  5. C. Kimbrel (2745)
  1. B. Harper (2731)
  2. I. Davis (2555)
  3. D. Pedroia (2534)
  4. J. Reyes (2498)
  5. J. Chavez (2488)