|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 11, 2013 12:15:14 GMT -5
My preference here is that Drew doesn't fall into our laps and that we trade Morales/Wilson and or Villarreal for a decent backup 2B/SS that would be a starter on 30-40 % of the teams. Morales in particular should fetch a nice return. I prefer Xander at SS and WMB at 3B. I want to see our front office make no move which would make Xander anything but our everyday shortstop.
Unfortunately, I don't always get my preferences.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Dec 11, 2013 12:49:55 GMT -5
Buster was just on the radio predicting Drew crawls back at two years $20-25 million. I like Drew but how realistic is it to have Xander play 3B for two years and go back to SS? If the FO thinks Xander is a SS I can't see this happening.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2013 12:52:37 GMT -5
I did look! But only on the 40-man page.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Dec 11, 2013 12:52:37 GMT -5
Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't seen it. Is it not possible that the Sox, after seeing Xander at 3rd and successfully locking up Pedroia, might look at what Betts can do back at SS as a long term option? ETA. Relating to Drew in terms of re-signing him for a 2-3 year deal til Betts might be ready.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 11, 2013 12:53:57 GMT -5
According to reports from the WM, the D-Backs are looking for a SP and have a surplus of shortstops. Didi Gregorius?
|
|
|
Post by godot on Dec 11, 2013 13:07:22 GMT -5
Wouldn't signing Drew bring the Sox close to the luxury tax threshold? If so, unless they get rid of some salary,this could hurt their flexibility to add on players later in the season.
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 11, 2013 13:39:56 GMT -5
I want Xander at SS for as many games as possible and all that means.
He has the elite skills to be a difference maker right now.
Reviewing Keri's trade value chart as an exercise is valuable and in my case, very few of the players ranked ahead of him would I trade him for, straight up (which is the defined purpose of the list).
Under no realistic circumstance do I want Drew back.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 11, 2013 14:16:48 GMT -5
Technically this is true. If the Red Sox could trade Middlebrooks for Trout and then sign Drew for a small amount this is what they would do. However, that's not going to happen. Teams talk to other teams and to agents all the time. They likely have a general idea of the trade market for their players and for free agents. Yes plans can change, but only if the underlying facts do, and generally they don't change much over short-periods. How they evaluate a player mostly changes very little over a short period of time.
Though I don't have any inside information, I just don't see a realistic scenario where signing Drew, moving Bogarts to 3B and trading WMB is the highest value option. I wouldn't be surprised if the Red Sox did indeed feel the same way.
So if Eric is indeed correct, talk of signing Drew is really nothing more than bluster and very likely isn't going to happen. That's likely for the best. What the Red Sox really need is a young cost cotrolled corner OF. They aren't going to get that by trading Middlebrooks right now.
|
|
|
Post by PedroKsBambino on Dec 11, 2013 14:31:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 11, 2013 14:41:29 GMT -5
I disagree with every point more now than when I originally read this on ESPN.
The upside of Xander and to a lesser extent Middlebrooks is so high and the risk due to the lack of a 'guarantee for 2014' so low that this is the option I would like to see pursued.
All over this and other threads folks here have made a great case on the 'lost value' moving Xander, signing Drew, and giving up on Middlebrooks causes.
The recent Trumbo trade illustrates these points further with the current dearth and therefore value in right handed power bats.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 11, 2013 14:51:06 GMT -5
Buster was just on the radio predicting Drew crawls back at two years $20-25 million. I like Drew but how realistic is it to have Xander play 3B for two years and go back to SS? If the FO thinks Xander is a SS I can't see this happening. If thats the case I think they could always use Drew for 6-18 months or so and then pawn him off to a team like the Mets later on for prospects. Even someone who is not a huge Drew fan (such as myself) should recognize that would be a team friendly deal and that could help bring a good return in a trade.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Dec 11, 2013 15:07:40 GMT -5
If we assume that, eventually, the money (and years) would be palatable for a team interested in Drew and the reason he hasn't signed is the draft compensation, what do people think is really behind that. What I mean is, is the team worried about the lost prospect or the lost funds that could be used in their overall draft haul.
I'm going down this road bc I wonder if we've finally come across a reason to employ the NBA-like "sign and trade". Bear with me:
Let's take a team in the 15-30 range of the draft (and assume it's one that hasn't already signed a comp-attached FA), are they worried about losing (or not gaining) a player from their system or not having $1.7M to $2.4M in their draft budget? Would there be rules in place that prevent a team from working something out with Drew and the Sox to have Boston re-sign him to agreed upon terms and then trade Drew in exchange for a prospect. The idea would boil down to what's more valuable, the prospect or the money (that buys a new prospect or prospects).
Of course, this idea has a very differernt "feel" to it when you look at a team like the Mets (reportedly the most interested party out there). They can't lose their 1st pick and already gave up their 2nd. So the comparison above is a prospect in their system compared to the ~$650K of their draft budget.
From the Sox standpoint, would their be a prospect in the Mets system that you'd rather have than (or be willing to take in lieu of) the comp pick (and approximately $1.5Mn in funds that would come with it).
Not sure if this is even possible but it got me thinking.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 11, 2013 15:31:33 GMT -5
A lot of the analysis I see on this site involves the option of trading a player. While that can often be a fallback option, relying on that option can be foolhardy. You don't know what the trade market for any player will be like in two years, or even a year. For that reason you should never sign a guy for three years if you already know that you are going to want to trade him after two. Things have a way of going south on a player in a hurry and if you commit to a player that you know you don't want, you could very well end up stuck with the player and his salary.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2013 15:37:00 GMT -5
Red Sox Stats ?@redsoxstats 25m
Boras tempering Drew back to Sox talk, just talked up Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Marrero on MLBN Radio. Says teams currently moving $ for Drew.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2013 15:42:12 GMT -5
Pete Abraham ?@peteabe 1m
As for Stephen Drew, Boras said he has multi-year offers that are contingent on the teams making other moves first. #redsox
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 11, 2013 15:48:22 GMT -5
Work your magic Scott.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2013 15:52:18 GMT -5
Gordon Edes ?@gordonedes 15m
Boras on Drew possibly a fit for Bostom: Everybody agreed it worked well for everybody. they're certainly a candidate for him."
*cough* bulls**t
|
|
|
Post by JackieWilsonsaid on Dec 11, 2013 15:56:29 GMT -5
Scott Boras quote: "Budgets are a human design rather than a physical barrier."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2013 15:59:36 GMT -5
So despite the possibility that all of this stuff is simply posturing, it seems pretty clear to me that Drew is not going to be back with the Sox next season. Hello extra comp pick.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2013 16:09:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2013 16:09:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 11, 2013 16:37:59 GMT -5
Though technically true it's not realistic. There is no real incentive for a players former team to participate in such a deal. There are only three ways that a team that gave a qualifying offer to a player will not receive a comp pick and the bonus money attached assuming he does not sign with his original team. They are if the player retires, signs a minor league contract, or does not sign a major league contract until after the draft. The chances of a player who is good enough to receive a qualifying offer choosing any of these three options is zero. Hence it would be foolish for the Red Sox or any other team to sign a player who had refused a qualifying offer and then trade him to another team for anything less than the comp pick and bonus money they would have received otherwise. Yes there can be a difference between the pick that the signing team would give up and the comp pick that the former team would receive, but the difference would be so small that such a deal would likely never happen. Even if it were possible, I would guess that the comissioner would rule that such a deal wasn't legitimate under the CBA and not allow it to go through. I'd have to think that if you could really do a sign and trade someone, like Kyle Lohse or Michael Bourn would have already thought of that.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 11, 2013 16:39:45 GMT -5
Jon Heyman ?@jonheymancbs 2m #redsox still talking to stephen drew. as with napoli, they want him back.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 11, 2013 16:39:50 GMT -5
Gordon Edes ?@gordonedes 15m Boras on Drew possibly a fit for Bostom: Everybody agreed it worked well for everybody. they're certainly a candidate for him." *cough* bulls**t ...and Boras would have called Woody Allen a candidate for Miss America also.
|
|
|
Post by bjb406 on Dec 11, 2013 16:41:23 GMT -5
It makes too much sense for someone else to sign drew and too little sense for us to sign him. If we signed him we are essentially giving up a first round pick for someone who would be at best a part time player on our team, and really should be strictly a backup. If the Mets sign him he would be one of the better starters in the league at his position and they would only need to sacrifice a 3rd rounder. The only way it would be in our best interest to sign him is if no one else will sign him and he is willing to be paid like a backup.
|
|