Skip to content

Stephen Drew critical of draft pick compensation system

Feb 22, 2014, 10:50 AM EDT

Stephen Drew Getty Getty Images

Players have reported to their respective spring training sites in Florida and Arizona, but free agent shortstop Stephen Drew is still looking for home. While Drew is said to be looking for $14 million per season, being attached to draft pick compensation has undoubtedly had an impact on his market. He told CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman yesterday that he believes the current system is unfair and needs some tweaking:

“You hate to say it, but it really messes up free agency for guys who worked hard,” Drew said. “A lot of people don’t want to give up that first-round pick, and that’s what it boils down to. It’s unusual. I understand draft picks, but at the same time, you have a guy who’s proven as very good on defense and a top five shortstop if you look at it.”

“Our union has been really good. But I think we really have to look at this,” Drew said. “Is this really good for free agency? Our players need to sit back and look at it and see what we need to do about it.”

According to Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, new MLBPA head Tony Clark said yesterday that there “will be dialogue” about the draft pick compensation system and its impact on free agency. However, Heyman writes that we might not see any changes until after the current collective bargaining agreement expires in 2016. As for Drew’s agent, Scott Boras, he’s not worried about finding a deal for his clients.

“Talent has no wristwatch,” Boras said. “When you’re the steak, you don’t worry about what time dinner is.”

Most Scott Boras quote ever? Most Scott Boras quote ever.

Heyman does pass along one new interesting nugget on the Mets suggesting a salary of around $9.5 million for Drew, which is what he made last year. However, the veteran shortstop continues to hold out for something better.

  1. zackd2 - Feb 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM

    Seems like the draft pick compensation affects one or two guys each year, who typically share the same one agent. Meanwhile a hundred other players are signed weeks ago.

    Is it a system issue or an asking price / demand opt out issue?

    • gothapotamus90210 - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:07 AM

      It’s likely an asking price issue, but the owners have already made a considerable concession by scrapping the previous arbitration system. The players felt that was unfair, especially to the mid-level guys (i.e. the type of player who would typically get a 1 or 2 year deal at less than $6M per season), because no team would give up a first rounder for an average player (at best) for a year or two.

      But the QO system is affecting your better players that aren’t superstars. Like I said in my post below, any additional tweaking to how they determine the QO amount could mean the QO would only be used for superstars – the owners won’t go down without a fight on that.

      • zackd2 - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM

        I can agree with your statements. This is definitely better than the last system for the players. We all know no system is going to be perfect, we’re talking about less than a handful of guys over two offseason who were the last to sign because their asking price was too high and teams looked elsewhere.

    • deadeyedesign23 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:37 PM

      It’s clearly a system issue. Owners are attaching the concept of parity to a players compensation. If player X is worth 40 million on an open market, and then you attach the loss of a draft pick to that the value of that player goes down. The reality is it’s of no value to Stephen Drew that the Red Sox get another draft pick if he goes somewhere else so why is he being held accountable for it?

      • zackd2 - Feb 22, 2014 at 6:49 PM

        If hes worth 40m, he’d get 40m. If he’s asking 40m, and he’s not worth it (age, injury, opt out demand, etc) then he won’t get it .

        Players price themselves out of team’s budgets every year, Boston offered him 14.1m and he said no. Mets offered him 9m and he said no. So he’s received offers, maybe no 6 year deal that Boras is demanding because there’s a ‘mystery’ team about to sign him if you don’t.

      • deadeyedesign23 - Feb 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM

        But he’s not asking 40 million, he’s asking 40 million (if that’s actually the figure) and a draft pick and not getting the latter.

    • lbush502013 - Feb 22, 2014 at 2:22 PM

      Well Drew had his chance to resign with World Series champions for 14.1 million dollar for one season , which would of been a 5 million dollar raise , but he turned it down , so I don’t feel a bit sorry for him ….

  2. pastabelly - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

    I don’t know how anyone with the talent level of Stephen Drew can be critical of a system that gave him an opportunity to make $14.1M this year.

    As far as Scott Boras goes, he wants to get paid for a steak while he’s selling a quarter pounder with cheese.

    • clydeserra - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM

      because the billionaires that pay him will save millions of dollars if they pay him $14.1M for one year.

    • gibbyfan - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM

      Yea further to that point, I love his quote implying a burdonsome position on players who have worked so hard. This guy isn’t remotely in touch with reality. I t’s almost like a mega lottery winner complainig about taxes

    • billybawl - Feb 22, 2014 at 2:43 PM

      Funny thing is that Boras used the same steak dinner analogy last year with Kyle Lohse and Michael Bourn:

      Both Lohse and Bourn got paid. Boras could get the proverbial eskimos into a bidding war over snow. Let’s see how this works out.

    • tinkeringwheneverigetachance - Feb 23, 2014 at 7:57 PM

      I didn’t see the cheese

  3. gothapotamus90210 - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

    I can appreciate that Drew understands this is the system his union agreed to. Considering the owners already conceded the former arbitration system for impending free agents, I can’t imagine they’d willingly accept additional changes to favor the players. If they would drop the QO pool money to the highest 50 paid players, the QO would likely exceed $20M, which would be a huge win for the union.

    Side note: best Boras quote, ever.

    • sportsfan18 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:28 PM

      Uh, did we hear Drew complaining about this system a year ago? Three years ago?

      If he had already been signed to a long term extension, would we have heard him complaining about this system?

      All no of course. He is NOT upset with the system because if he was he would have complained about it last year and the year before etc…

      Even though I don’t have proof, had he already signed a long term contract, I’m positive he would not be complaining about this system.

      When you do really care about something and you want to fight against it, you do so whether it affects you or not.

      What he cares about is that he has NOT gotten money he thinks he should have and he’s looking to place blame somewhere for it rather than on himself for not being very good or good enough to warrant a 3 yr $42 million dollar contract.

      Quit making excuses Drew. Also, I expect to hear you fighting against this system a year from now too…

  4. onbucky96 - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM

    I was starting to feel sorry for him, buuuuut, he’s a Drew and his agent is Scott Boras. Hey Scott, when is the steak diner?

    • Professor Fate - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM

      Right, because trying to take maximum advantage of his skills within the narrow window of opportunity he has is always a negative.

  5. Professor Fate - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM

    Yet another anti-free market rule. There really isn’t much “free” about being a free agent. If you’ve played out your contract and your current team doesn’t want to offer what you think you’re worth, isn’t it a hallmark of the free enterprise system that you can shop yourself elsewhere? Why should your former team get compensated for being unwilling to pay you what you think you’re worth?

    Insisting that anyone who signs Drew must give up a first-round draft pick as compensation is rewarding his former team for choosing to let him leave. That sounds like something from the communist system to me. “I don’t want to pay what someone else might want to pay for him. I should receive compensation for NOT re-hiring that player.” An effective suppression of the market, something that wouldn’t be tolerated outside of the bubble of professional sports.

    As for Boras’ comment? The usual mangled disconnect: If you’re the steak then of course you don’t care what time dinner comes because you’re the one getting eaten! And yes, Scott, talent does indeed have a wristwatch. It’s called your :window of opportunity” for a reason, as you have a limited amount of time to take advantage of it. Can’t this supposedly high-powered agent put his thoughts into words that other English speakers can actually understand? Good thing he negotiates fat contracts for his clients better than he dabbles in similes.

    • gothapotamus90210 - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:15 AM

      Nobody’s stopping him from trying him to get a more lucrative deal in Japan.

      It’s still a free market in this case. I thought those in favor of free markets liked oligopolies.

    • pastabelly - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

      Why do you use the term “anti-free market” on aspects of a system that Drew and his union agreed to in the collective bargaining process? Whenever you introduce unions into a labor equation, you take out the free market aspects of bargaining and that has its pluses and minuses.

      Drew and Boras knew these rules when they signed the $9.5M “pillow” contract with the Red Sox. If his goal was to be a totally free agent after proving his value in 2013, then he should have signed with a small market team that never would have made a qualifying offer. Of course, that’s where the rub is. No small market team would have taken on Drew at $9.5M coming off of an injury. The Red Sox, however, are not averse to giving out short-term deals and pillow contracts. Boras has used the Red Sox for this before and it worked out quite well for him and his client, Beltre. Drew and Boras could have taken less in 2013 if the goal was only to prove his value and then get to free agency. Boras, of course, has a bit of a conflict of interest on this one because he wants his PRIME steak, Bogearts, to play short in Boston.

      • Professor Fate - Feb 22, 2014 at 3:47 PM

        The term union being used when referring to the player’s association is a misnomer. Anyone making seven figures a year isn’t really part of a union.

        “Whenever you introduce unions into a labor equation, you take out the free market aspects of bargaining…” Real unions came into existence in order to allow real workers a viable chance at bargaining for better wages and work conditions. The current bastardization of unions, particularly by very-well-paid entertainers shouldn’t reflect on the simple fact that without labor unions there would never have been a middle class in this country. Now that unions have been going downhill for a variety of reasons, including their own greed, that middle class is fast disappearing.

        I was not attempting to speculate on any particular player’s agenda, nor on why the PA agreed to the current CBA. I’m sure there was plenty of compromise on both sides in order to get a deal done. I was simply bemoaning the advantage owners have in getting something for nothing. They sign a player to a contract, the player plays out the contract, the two sides cannot agree on another deal, the player leaves. Why should his old club get compensation after the fact?

        That’s it, no other point trying to be made regarding the current situation. Obviously professional sports doesn’t resemble a true free market in any way, shape, or form. Apparently my attempt to illustrate the ludicrous use of the term “free agent” wasn’t appreciated by many on here. Sarcasm is often missed by those who take too seriously grown men playing boys’ games.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM

        Why should his old club get compensation after the fact?

        The club also has to offer a guaranteed contract within a certain window to get any benefit from the QO. As mentioned below, we’ll probably start seeing a lot more of these actually accepted by the middle tier FAs.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

      Yet another anti-free market rule. There really isn’t much “free” about being a free agent. If you’ve played out your contract and your current team doesn’t want to offer what you think you’re worth, isn’t it a hallmark of the free enterprise system that you can shop yourself elsewhere? Why should your former team get compensated for being unwilling to pay you what you think you’re worth?

      His former team offered him a guaranteed $14.1M contract, which is almost $5M than he’s ever made in a year. He choose not to accept that. While the QO system sucks, as gothapotamus90210 has mentioned, the previous system was far worse for the players, yet no one complained as much as people have the last few years.

      Let’s also not forget that the whispers coming out of the Drew camp aren’t that favorable either. He wants a 2 year deal with a 1 year opt-out*. He also has mentioned not wanting to move off SS. Granted the Yanks should be jumping all over this guy, maybe it’s not just the QO system that is keeping him from being employed.

      *Btw, if a team actually accepts this deal, he’s going to get QO’d next year as well. I hope he realizes this.

      • jjschiller - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM

        I don’t think you’ll see guys with question marks turning down QO’s in the future. These things tend to balance themselves out.

        Look at the guys caught without chairs when the music stopped. Drew: never healthy. Ubaldo: has he gone Dontrelle Willis? Nelson Cruz: Drug Suspension casts doubt on his actual talent level. Kendrys Morales: Man without a position.

        I think in the future, agents are going to look at their clients, and if they perceive these kinds of question marks they’ll say “Look, take their money this year, and once they see you’ll do it, they won’t be able to risk it again in the future.”

        Because $14m AND setting the precedent that you shouldn’t be effed with beats a $9m “pillow contract.” And either way, you’re back on the market in a year.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:33 PM

        It could also be a steroid backlash, but I think teams (outside the Yankees) are getting super-leery of offering any long term deals to players over 30. The Cards offered Peralta a 4 year deal, but he was pretty much the missing piece on a great team. All these other players with a QO aren’t keystone pieces, so I’m not sure what they thought they were going to get on an [non] open market.

      • Professor Fate - Feb 22, 2014 at 3:59 PM

        Drew can want whatever he wants. Whether or not he gets it from anyone is another story. What he made then and what he might make in the future also isn’t germane. I understand his former team made him a very good offer. He seems to believe he can get a better deal elsewhere.

        What I find puzzling is that, should another team offer him a contract, why should his former team get anything? Is he or is he not a free agent with no further ties to any organization? If another team signs him they are on the hook to send a draft pick back to his former team. That in itself negates what “free” really means. These guys are not free agents. Any team they sign with is beholden to their former team in the form of a draft pick. Isn’t that just a trade by any other name?

        Hey, maybe I’m just splitting hairs, but MLB should pick a different name for players in these situations. Should the QO system go away it would benefit clubs that have seemingly bottomless pockets, since they could just wait for the best players to become available and outbid everyone. Absent a hard salary cap, that outcome would spell the death-knell of MLB. The PA wants the highest possible salaries for its players while the owners want to make a buck. I understand all that, I just think the term “free agent” is a worthless description under the current rules and not exactly what Curt Flood, Catfish Hunter, Andy Messersmith, Dave McNally, et. al., fought for.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM

        Drew can want whatever he wants. Whether or not he gets it from anyone is another story. What he made then and what he might make in the future also isn’t germane. I understand his former team made him a very good offer. He seems to believe he can get a better deal elsewhere.

        It’s precisely germane because it represents an almost 150% increase on his highest salary made. The QO isn’t exactly a $1M pillow contract. Here’s a list of everyone who got a QO and what they ended up signing for (this year):

        Beltran – 3/$45 ($15M AAV)
        Cano – 10/$240 ($24M AAV)
        Choo – 7/$130 ($18.6M AAV)
        Cruz – 1/$8
        Drew – N/A
        Ellsbury – 7/$153 ($21.1M AAV)
        Granderson – 4/$60 (12.5M AAV)
        Jimenez – 4/$50M (12.5M AAV)
        Kuroda – 1/$16M
        McCann – 5/$85M ($17M AAV)
        Morales – N/A
        Napoli – 2/$32M ($16M AAV)
        Santana – N/A

        Drew is going to most likely be in that group that signs for less than the QO amount. Throw in the fact that Boras is floating the desire for a 1 year opt-out, and tell me why someone should offer him a large contract?

        What I find puzzling is that, should another team offer him a contract, why should his former team get anything? Is he or is he not a free agent with no further ties to any organization? If another team signs him they are on the hook to send a draft pick back to his former team. That in itself negates what “free” really means. These guys are not free agents. Any team they sign with is beholden to their former team in the form of a draft pick. Isn’t that just a trade by any other name?

        They aren’t true FAs because of the attached QO. Would it be better if we referred to them as restricted FA like the NFL does? The point of the QO, and the previous draft pick compensation was to help out the poor teams who couldn’t afford to keep their better, more expensive players. The fact that the wealthier teams have figured out that this is almost a win/win situation for them is an unexpected benefit of the system.

        This is also completely different from the FA/Reserve Clause fights from before. By offering the QO, the team has to guarantee an average of the top 125 salaries to said player. Do you think Cruz is regretting not taking it now? Or Drew?

  6. Kevin Gillman - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM

    $14 million dollars for a guy who relatively gets injured every single year, and misses signifigant time? Yeah, it’s the “draft pick” and not the demand. :::rolls eyes:::

  7. paperlions - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

    If Drew really thinks he’s a top 5 SS, that perception is much of his problem, because he is nothing like a top 5 SS. He’ll be 31 next month. The last 3 years, he’s played 86, 79, and 124 games. He is not a bad player. He’s been roughly league average offensively over his career, and a slightly above average SS over his career. Those things have value.

    …but, when you are a 31 yr old player with durability concerns that has had only 2 years in your career in which you provided more than 2 fWAR in value, teams are not looking to give you $14M/year for multiple years during your 30s.

    Yes, the comp pick has hurt his value a little, but his asking price has hurt it more than the pick…just like Santana, Jimenez, Cruz, and Morales….those are all guys that were asking for way more than any team was willing to give them or than they are reasonably worth as none of them are elite (or even very good) consistent players….so most teams moved on and filled their needs with someone else…it is a game of musical chairs, and if you aren’t listening to what the market is telling you, then you may be left standing and just begging for a job.

    • js20011041 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:02 PM

      I’m not sure I completely agree. I think some of these players that turned down the qualifying offer simply aren’t worth the draft pick (and the accompanying slot money), regardless of salary. Drew might be an exception, but is a mid level player really worth wrecking your entire draft? These teams have money coming out of their ears. They can afford these salaries.

      • paperlions - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:17 PM

        Of course team can afford the salaries, but Drew is getting old, has durability concerns and is a guy that has struggled over his career to be league average (2 fWAR), Cruz just isn’t very good at baseball, he hit well in Arlington and is below average at everything else (his career road wRC+ is 95, he sucks in the field and on the bases), Santana was a salary dump a year ago and has spent most of his career as a back of the rotation starter, Jimenez has had a good 3 months over the last 3 years…..just because you could spend money on any of those guys doesn’t mean it is a good idea, even without the picks attached.

      • js20011041 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM

        I agree with that none of these players would be wise financial decisions in a vacuum. The problem is, though, that these players are exactly the reason that the union agreed to the slot bonuses. Owners don’t have any avenues to spend their money. They can’t spend it in the draft. They can’t spend it internationally. The high level players aren’t hitting the market anymore. If they’re not going to spend it on these mid level players, they aren’t going to spend it. Which is why I think that the talent currently available on the market isn’t worth the draft pick itself. If you’re a GM, do you sign Kendrys Morales or Nelson Cruz, even if they’re offering to play for the league minimum? I wouldn’t.

    • proudlycanadian - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:14 PM

      As paperlions indicated, Drew is not worth the $14 million that he was offered by Boston. He would have been better off to accept Boston’s one year offer.

      • js20011041 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM

        Well, I agree with that. But forget Drew specifically for a second. Is a player of his caliber worth almost forfeiting an entire draft for? Under the past CBA, I could see teams being willing to lose that draft pick. They could still pick a up a really talented player later in the draft and just sign him for an over-slot bonus. You can’t do that now. Even if a more talented player does fall to you in the 2nd round or later, you simply can’t afford him. You don’t have the slot money to make an offer that he’ll accept. Look at the Pirates and Mark Appel in the 2012 draft. A player fell beyond the point at which teams could afford him.

      • 18thstreet - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM

        I was looking at his projections for next year (the ones published on fangraphs), and it doesn’t look good. If MLB front offices agree with those numbers, he’ll be unemployed for a long time. And that’s separate from the injury risks. Fangraphs really doesn’t like his fielding (though I was pretty impressed by what I saw last year), and his offensive numbers have never been impressive. Lousy OBP guy, doesn’t hit lefties …

        I was surprised to see it, since I’ve been rating the guy highly (well, higher than a lot of people were rating him). But he only makes sense on a one- or two-year contract. And, in my opinion, it’s a little nuts to give up an early-round draft pick for a guy who won’t be on your team in three years.

        This is obvious in retrospect, but he should have taken the QO. I’m not sure how his agent thought the market was going to develop for him, but Boras really screwed him over. (Though, honestly, I’d never bet against Boras. He’s probably pulling off a deal as I’m typing this.)

  8. Caught Looking - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

    Boras has used the steak quote before:

  9. meb2360 - Feb 22, 2014 at 11:51 AM

    I dont understand Drew at all. He was offered 5 million more to play the same place and same position he just helped to win a world series. And yes, make no mistake, his defense and (occasionally) his bat helped as well, so he gets a 5 million dollar raise, a 67% raise and he says no thanks. I understand that the compensation pick can be detrimental to him signing elsewhere, but the Red Sox also took a chance he would take the 14.1 million and most likely be over-paying for him, especially if he bats in the mid 200’s again. It’s a game they both play and he took his chances. I would bet he re-signs with the Sox for one year and gets traded mid-season.

    • js20011041 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:07 PM

      He wants a longer contract which means more guaranteed money. I agree that it was dumb to turn down the qualifying offer. Boras should have known that the cost of the draft pick was going to significantly tamp down the market for a player like Drew. Of course, he may well have known that and advised Drew of this. Drew may have ignored him.

  10. thebadguyswon - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM

    Take the 14.1M qualifying offer and it’s a non-issue, you moron.

    • proudlycanadian - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:17 PM

      Too late now to accept the $14.1 million from Boston. They can now low ball him if he tries to return to Boston.

      • dcarroll73 - Feb 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM

        Proudly, “Too late now to accept the $14.1 million from Boston” is a big part of the problem with this system. It encourages teams to bet that a free agent will turn down the QO in which case they get a draft pick. If he takes the QO, the team might have a slight overpay. Essentially that gives them a possible big win versus a small loss of dollars. If the player is not signed until what is it June?, for whatever reason, the team is exactly where it would have been in a free market, no player and nothing gained, but the player has lost a half season and maybe more. I think a fairer balance (which the players’ association could go for in the next CBA) would be that except for some narrowly defined circumstances like an off-season injury the QO remains open until the start of spring training. If the player (or agent) has misjudged the market and got no better offers, then he can return to the team for one year at the QO price. If the team had been serious about the QO (and not just gaming the system) then they are getting exactly what they claimed they wanted in making the offer. I think that this would be a major disincentive for teams to make QOs expecting to get the draft picks.

      • jwbiii - Feb 22, 2014 at 7:39 PM

        dcarroll, The problem with that is teams often need to go to Free Agents Я Us to replace those players and the shelves are pretty bare now. This isn’t the case with the Red Sox and Drew, as they think (hope) they have an internal replacement, but the Rangers have replaced Cruz with Choo, the Royals have replaced Santana with Vargas, the Mariners have replaced Morales with Morrison, the Yankees have replaced Granderson with Ellsbury, etc. The Rangers couldn’t get a corner outfielder as good as Choo now because there aren’t any available. Some other team would have signed him. I have Laynce Nix at the top of my RF board now, and he’s a pretty big downgrade from either Cruz or Choo.

  11. thebadguyswon - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM

    I think we’re going to start seeing players accepting these QO’s. And then, in turn, teams will stop offering them as frequently. Right now, the assumption is the player will turn it down and the team will get a pick, so making the QO is a no-brainer. Drew is finding out the hard way he should have accepted his.

    • js20011041 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM

      I agree with this. I still don’t like the system. I don’t like the fact that they are blatantly penalizing teams for signing players rather than rewarding teams for losing them. But I do think that the market will begin to regulate itself on this issue.

  12. deep64blue - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:20 PM

    Nothing wrong with the system – just guys (or their agents) making huge mistakes in turning down those qualifying offers!

  13. dirtyharry1971 - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:31 PM

    Its a bad system, if a team doesn’t want to resign you why should they benefit from a draft pick because another team signs the player? Makes about as much sense as the all star game deciding home field for the ws. This is bud selig’s legacy as far as im concerned, he was responsible for dumb idea’s like this one and he can’t retire fast enough

    • jwbiii - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:34 PM

      You’re missing an important point, dirtyharry. The Red Sox did offer Drew a 1/$14m contract, he refused it. If I were a player, I too would want the security of a multi-year contract, but I would have to think about turning down that one year deal.

  14. beachnbaseball - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:40 PM

    “People call me all the time and say, ‘Man, your players aren’t signed yet.’ Well, it doesn’t really matter what time dinner is when you’re the steak.”

    That quote is old news. ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick used it in a January 11th article:

  15. yahmule - Feb 22, 2014 at 12:42 PM

    “but at the same time, you have a guy who’s proven as very good on defense and a top five shortstop if you look at it.”

    I have looked at it and you’ve never been a top five shortstop in the either league at any time in your career.

    • 18thstreet - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:28 PM

      Tulo, Desmond, Simmons, Escobar, Lowrie, Segura, Hardy, Andrus, Reyes, Bogaerts.

      Setting aside personalities, those are all players I’d rather have at shortstop for 2014 than Drew. (Please note, I’m reversing field about how I feel about his talent. I was overrating the guy before.) How many of those guys are earning $14 million next year or $36 over the next three?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:37 PM

        Reyes, Tulo, Simmons, and Andrus all are. But point taken. I think the Sox also knew that the Yanks would be in need for someone like Drew (and knew that they had spoken to Drew the previous year about a contract) and felt it was probably win/win for them. Drew accepts, plays well, gets QO’d the following year when Bogaerts is officially ready. Drew leaves, Sox play Bogaerts AND get a comp pick.

      • 18thstreet - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:44 PM

        I, for one, had assumed that the Cardinals would scoop up Drew in a heartbeat — seems like their kind of player. Drew to the Yankees makes more sense than spending a dime on Brian Roberts or whoever is playing third for the Yankees, but I wouldn’t be excited about having Drew under contract for 2016. And if you’re the Yankees, you hope that Jeter is playing 150 games in 2014, negating the need for Drew this year.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 22, 2014 at 7:20 PM

        And if you’re the Yankees, you hope that Jeter is playing 150 games in 2014, negating the need for Drew this year.

        If it were anyone but Jeter, I’d say yes. But I think there’s far too much sentimentality in play with Jeter. He’s going to bat first or second, and play SS if he’s > 75% healthy, and that may not be a good thing.

        However, the need for Drew should be for other positions. Put him at 3B full time, b/c St. Jetes isn’t moving, thus allowing you to platoon [super sub] Johnson/Roberts at 2b, and Ryan caddies for Jeter. But apparently the Yankee FO is the only one who can’t see this scenario working.

  16. jcmeyer10 - Feb 22, 2014 at 1:27 PM

    He and Boras gambled and guess wrong. I don’t blame the casino when I lose.

  17. happytwinsfan - Feb 22, 2014 at 1:40 PM

    denial, anger, acceptance. although it took him long enough to get to the anger stage, i would expect that the approach of april will accelerate his progression to the acceptance stage. when he gets there maybe he’ll decide he doesn’t want to go through the same dance next year and accept a 3 year contract at a reasonable price.

    before i go out to finish raking the roof, i think i’ll beat my dead horse one more time. durn it twins, your best shortstop option for this year is a AAA guy and your best prospect (danny santana) has yet to perform above single A and won’t be up, if ever, before the second half of 2015 at the earliest. if the coming wave works out as hoped you have a chance to make a run starting in 2015, but rarely is that done without a competent shortstop. when his price comes down to under 10 per, sign him for 3 years, and be glad that you only lose a second round pick.

    one of my neighbors, i don’t know which one, apparently saw me struggling to clear my front walk, and when i wasn’t looking finished it for me. that’s why it matters to me how the twins do.

  18. mgflolox - Feb 22, 2014 at 1:50 PM

    Well, I’ve always been critical of Drew’s ego & greed. Must run in the family. How about just shutting up, signing a deal, and proving that you’re worth what you think you are?

  19. brianl79 - Feb 22, 2014 at 2:50 PM

    I don’t understand why people keep saying the Yankees should offer him a contract. They offered him a 2 to 3 year deal earlier in the off season and he didn’t want it. He keeps turning down offers and making unrealistic contract demands and then complains that he’s not working. He and Boras are clearly out of touch with the market, and this ‘steak’ is clearly over -done.

    • 18thstreet - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:29 PM

      Well, I was saying it (again and again and again) because I was vastly overrating him. I take it back.

  20. mikhelb - Feb 22, 2014 at 3:46 PM

    The $14.1 million dollars price tag is what i dont like (average of the top 125 MLB salaries), it doesnt promote free agency, nowadays anybody in MLB can receive a qualifying offer and the players view it as a floor in terms of what they’ll be asking (unless that player is Nelson Cruz who signed for $6 millions less or roughly 300 months less of Anthony Bosch’s services).

    if a team decides to sign 25 players who got QO they’ll face having a payroll of $352.5 millions which serves its purpose if a team has 10-20 very very good players set to hit FA and that team wont be able to offer every one of their players a QO, but that simply is not true. there is no team with such amount of talent hitting FA any year… and if they did it and signed them then the team would be highly criticized for their bloated payroll (unless the team is the LAD or the redsox, which in any case their bloated payrolls are considered by their fans as 1/3 of the reality).

    in the end MLB promotes bloated payrolls or the alternative: long and medium term contracts, diminishing the amount of talent in FA and affecting the price of the few very good players hitting FA (like Tanaka for example).

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Feb 22, 2014 at 4:31 PM

      Can we put some blame on the players who are passing up guaranteed money and finding their services being valued far less than what they think? In what world did people think Nelson Cruz was going to get a contract with AAV > $14M? It’s one thing for the Yanks to attach a QO to Cano who was obviously the best FA available (perennial MVP candidate).

      But Nelson Cruz? He has played more than 128 games once in his 9 year career. In the last five years he has a .331 OBP, averaged roughly 2 rWAR, and will be 33 starting next season. He’s someone who should be jumping at a $14M guaranteed contract.

  21. therooneyskilledwebster - Feb 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM

    So it was Boras who said “steak is a dish best served cold”.

  22. tfbuckfutter - Feb 22, 2014 at 6:29 PM

    So he was delivered the qualifying offer, which is an over-valued contract because it is for one year, and he is using that figure as his base to pursue a multi-year deal?

    Good plan, dummy. You know maybe if you hadn’t been completely worthless in the postseason a contending team that needs a shortstop and already has a low pick anyway might actually bite.

    It’s your own fault for not showing up at the most important point of the season, and for over valuing yourself.

    You want $14,000,000 a season you should have taken the Sox offer and performed as a player worth that and earned the qualifying offer again next year, or if they didn’t think you were worth it you could be a free agent free and clear.

  23. willclarkgameface - Feb 22, 2014 at 7:02 PM

    It’s a system AND a Boras issue.

    You’re telling me that Stephen Drew can’t find work simply because a team would have to give up a pick? Don’t be so foolish. Boras wants to get the motherload for a guy that will probably be injured by the middle of May, all the while racking up a stat line like this: .193/.290/.311.

    Drew should take a 2 year / $12-14 million deal. And that’s being generous.

  24. jkaflagg - Feb 22, 2014 at 8:50 PM

    Boras is correct that a decent deal usually comes along, especially for pitchers when other pitchers begin to break down…..

    ….However, the problem for the player is that he’s pretty much stuck with the team that eventually caves, and it may not be a team he really has any interest in playing for…..anyone really think Kyle Lohse wanted to play for the Brewers? Or Jimenez dreamed of playing in Baltimore ?

    Hopefully Boras explained to his clients that he’ll get them their money – but they’ll need to be flexible about where they’ll play, and getting to the playoffs again is a longshot at best…..

  25. ltpm3 - Feb 23, 2014 at 3:29 AM

    Boras did something similar to Jason Varitek years ago. Boston offered Varitek $10 million for one year, Boras turned it down sayng he had offers from countless amount of teams. Ended up NO teams were calling him. Varitek ended up taking less than half of the offered deal thanks to Boras. And the same thing is going to happen here. I cant believe that Boras thinks teams will make a deal then give Drew the option to leave after one year. He must think he is dealing with morons…well in some cases he can talk them into any player and any amount…one team. If he wants to be able to walk away after one year, why didn’t he take the QO from the BoSox??

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2572)
  2. D. Span (2391)
  3. G. Stanton (2370)
  4. Y. Puig (2313)
  5. J. Fernandez (2268)
  1. B. Crawford (2194)
  2. G. Springer (2129)
  3. M. Teixeira (2009)
  4. J. Hamilton (1896)
  5. M. Sano (1859)