Drew v. 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
This whole thing with signing Drew being some kind of necessity strikes me as rotisserie baseball logic rather than actual baseball logic.
 
Maybe I glossed over the post you're referring to, but who is claiming Drew is some kind of necessity?
 
I think the argument is centered on determining if it's worth pursuing Drew for the short term gain in 2014, or better to let him leave and prioritize he future.  Not sure anyone thinks Drew is a "must sign", regardless of the circumstances.  
 
But if his market dries up and he's much cheaper than expected, I think he's worth keeping on the radar.  Cherington and Farrell both seem to feel the same way, unless they are simply lying to the media (always possible I suppose).
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,887
Plympton91 said:
How do you get more run production out of replacing Ellsbury with JBJ and Drew with Boegaerts. That's expecting a lot from rookies, where a best case scenario has them maybe matching the production on average, with a moderate downgrade via JBJ (same OPS less 40 steals) matched by a moderate upgrade from XB (maybe 50 points of OPS).
 
I believe he just is comparing Drew vs. Bogaerts, and their production. Ellsbury is gone. You have to accept that.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
8,125
New York, NY
Plympton91 said:
How do you get more run production out of replacing Ellsbury with JBJ and Drew with Boegaerts. That's expecting a lot from rookies, where a best case scenario has them maybe matching the production on average, with a moderate downgrade via JBJ (same OPS less 40 steals) matched by a moderate upgrade from XB (maybe 50 points of OPS).
 
This is a silly definition of best case scenario. The best case scenario should pretty clearly involve more run production. It's incredibly unlikely to be achieved, so my disagreement is basically semantic, but it is still a possibility.
 
Because, a best case scenario likely involves performances superior to the past season's minor league line. This happens with prospects breaking into the majors, even if it is not the norm. (Think of Hanley Ramirez, for example.) But, as a proxy, let's just assume that both player can equal their 2013 AAA lines in MLB next year. Once again, incredibly unlikely, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. That's a .284/.369/.453 line from Bogaerts replacing Drew's .253/.333/.443 and a .275/.374/.469 line from Bradley replacing Ellsbury's .298/.355/.426. The combined improvement would massively outweigh the baserunning downgrade.
 
The team has likely downgraded by the transition to prospects this offseason. But, it is not a certainty that they have. Certainties rarely exist in baseball.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Comparing Zips zWAR for 2014 with 2013 fWAR, JBJ is a 4.3 WAR downgrade in 2014 from 2013 Ellsbury. XB a modest 0.6 WAR downgrade from 2013 Drew.  Obviously the best case is much less of a downgrade, but also less probable.
 
In fact, for the lineup as a whole, 1-9 they lose about 12 WAR, mainly due to regression at pretty much every position except WMB at 3B, and 2014 AJP being projected to produce 1.3 WAR less than Salty in 2013.  
 
Take them with a grain of salt since they understated the lineups projections by about the same amount last year.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2014-zips-projections-boston-red-sox/ 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
curly2 said:
 
I believe he just is comparing Drew vs. Bogaerts, and their production. Ellsbury is gone. You have to accept that.
 
In other news, pigs have to fly. :q:
 
 
JakeRae said:
 
This is a silly definition of best case scenario. The best case scenario should pretty clearly involve more run production. It's incredibly unlikely to be achieved, so my disagreement is basically semantic, but it is still a possibility.
 
At SS/3B, they only have to improve on a .253/.314/.413 line to be better than the 2013 left-side infield. WMB+Bogaerts+Herrera/Holt/whoever are certainly capable of falling short of that, but I think a midline projection would be a little better than that, even allowing for some Xander growing pains.
 
In CF, I think the ZiPS projections are a bit skewed by heavy regression. For instance, ZiPS has Bradley pegged for an 8.4% walk rate next year. That would be by far the lowest walk rate he has posted at any professional level--including last year in MLB when he was clearly struggling yet put up a 9.3%. It seems pretty implausible that he will walk that little. Likewise with his ISO--even last year he had a .147, which was his lowest professional ISO to date, yet ZiPS is regressing him to a .130.
 
So it seems to me that the ZiPS projection is a pretty good measure of the JBJ worst-case scenario for next year, or at least worst reasonably likely scenario. Steamer and Oliver both have him pegged for about a .020-.025 better wOBA than ZiPS--in the .330 range. In that scenario he's probably not a 4+ WAR downgrade from Ellsbury--more like 2 or 3, which is what some of us have been saying all along. And if he develops as we can reasonably hope he will on both sides of the lines, that difference will shrink to little or nothing within a few years, at a huge payroll savings.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
Well, in good news, Oliver now has Jackie Bradley as a 5 WAR player in the 286 games that he's going to play next year.
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,256
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
Devizier said:
Well, in good news, Oliver now has Jackie Bradley as a 5 WAR player in the 286 games that he's going to play next year.
So, JBJ is going to Satchell Paige it this year and play for multiple teams?  I'm definitely drafting him in fantasy baseball.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
According to this report the Yankees aren't signing Drew :
 
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/31/the-yankees-are-not-signing-stephen-drew/
 
This commenting on a Gammons earlier tweet:

 
Brian Cashman yesterday said Yanks are not signing Stephen Drew. How Sox do pillow contract that isn't shoved down his throat is delicate
 
 
 
I never really thought the MFY were a realistic landing spot anyways .. too much internal politics to overcome with Saint Derek being the titular incumbent.
 
This probably won't be resolved until Tanaka signs and the SP market is cleared up. Then the Sox will have a much better idea on the market for Peavster.
 
I suppose they could sign Drew right now - 10m / 1 ? - and deal with the fallout later (Where to dump Peavster , what to do with WMB) 
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,371
Pioneer Valley
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
According to this report the Yankees aren't signing Drew :
 
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/12/31/the-yankees-are-not-signing-stephen-drew/
 
This commenting on a Gammons earlier tweet:
 
 
I never really thought the MFY were a realistic landing spot anyways .. too much internal politics to overcome with Saint Derek being the titular incumbent.
 
This probably won't be resolved until Tanaka signs and the SP market is cleared up. Then the Sox will have a much better idea on the market for Peavster.
 
I suppose they could sign Drew right now - 10m / 1 ? - and deal with the fallout later (Where to dump Peavster , what to do with WMB) 
It's funny that they've attached the Edes opinion from November, "Stephen Drew will not return to the Red Sox," because he has multi-year offers from several teams.
 
Adding:
Please excuse my stupidity, but does the SOE piece imply that the Sox would only get a third-round pick from the Mets if they sign Drew, but a first round from any other team? 
I'm confused, because later on it says, "There are risks in going with Middlebrooks, but he's still in his pre-arbitration years, and the Sox will get a third first-round pick for the 2014 draft if they let Drew walk. "
 

Mike F

Mayor of Fort Myers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
2,068
I believe the Sox would receive a second supplimental pick. The Mets would surrender their third rounder.

Edited for wandering mind during typing
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
InsideTheParker said:
It's funny that they've attached the Edes opinion from November, "Stephen Drew will not return to the Red Sox," because he has multi-year offers from several teams.
 
Adding:
Please excuse my stupidity, but does the SOE piece imply that the Sox would only get a third-round pick from the Mets if they sign Drew, but a first round from any other team? 
I'm confused, because later on it says, "There are risks in going with Middlebrooks, but he's still in his pre-arbitration years, and the Sox will get a third first-round pick for the 2014 draft if they let Drew walk. "
 
The Red Sox receive the same pick in the 2014 draft no matter who signs Drew.
 
The Mets would give up their 3rd round pick because their first is protected and they gave up their 2nd by signing Granderson.
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
Plympton91 said:
How do you get more run production out of replacing Ellsbury with JBJ and Drew with Boegaerts. That's expecting a lot from rookies, where a best case scenario has them maybe matching the production on average, with a moderate downgrade via JBJ (same OPS less 40 steals) matched by a moderate upgrade from XB (maybe 50 points of OPS).
I was  just talking about SS 3B production, in light of  losing Drew's defensive contribution. Last year they got .683 OPS with 20 HRs from 3B and .771 OPS with 14 HRs at SS. I don't think itis wildly optimistic to expect better than this in the power dept from Middlebrooks and  Bogaerts and probably Holt and Herrera. 
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
 
 
The Red Sox still don’t know if Stephen Drew will be back. Cashman has stated that the Yankees are not signing Drew, but while the Mets have claimed disinterest, one rival GM thinks it’s about negotiations with Scott Boras, that they are not sold on Ruben Tejada and are still concerned about developing a very talented group of young players with the inexperience of Tejada, Juan Lagares and Travis d’Arnaud up the middle.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/gammons-notes-overlooked-deals-brett-gardner-will-middlebrooks-and-more/
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
I would prefer signing Drew to a 3 year deal over a 1 year deal that includes the promise they won’t make him a QO after the season.  In signing Drew to a 3 year deal, the Red Sox would have a useful trade chip after the 2014 season, which is better than losing him for nothing.
 
If the Red Sox sign Drew, I don’t see a role for Middlebrooks and would expect the Red Sox to trade him.  But what kind of trade value does Middlebrooks have? This article tries to get that figured out:
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/12/29/5245304/will-middlebrooks-easily-attainable-right-handed-power
 
Cecchini could be ready as early as next season.  He will ride the Double-A and Triple-A busses this year and may not need much more time in the minors beyond 2014.  He will be 24 years old in April of 2015.  The Red Sox seem to like Marrero even though he hasn’t impressed with the bat. There is sufficient minor league depth on the left side of the infield to not worry about losing Middlebrooks, who might not be a legitimate starting player anyway.
 
But is Middlebrooks’ trade value > Drew’s compensation pick?  If it is, I like the idea of resigning Drew and trading Middlebrooks.  With Drew the Red Sox add a LHB to the lineup.
 
True, Bogaerts (3b) and Drew (SS) would cost more money than Middlebrooks (3b) and Bogaerts (SS), but the cost is for one year only--I think Cecchini will be ready by 2015 and so they can trade Drew and go with Cecchini (3b) and Bogaerts (SS) in 2015.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
Aside from probably the Yankees, with whom the Sox are unlikely to deal, is there a team that would want Drew on a 2-year deal a year from now that couldn't or wouldn't just sign him now to a 3-year deal?  Consider that if they acquire him a year from now, they're trading a prospect (or two or some other player of value) that could be of similar value to the draft pick they'd be giving up to sign him now.
 
If the Red Sox are going to sign Drew (or any player, frankly) to a three-year deal, it's going to be because they want the player in a Red Sox uniform for the full three years.  Teams don't just sign guys to long term deals with the intent to trade them off before the end of the contract.  Well, teams not owned by Jeffrey Loria don't do that.
 

TOleary25

New Member
Sep 30, 2011
358
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Consider that if they acquire him a year from now, they're trading a prospect (or two or some other player of value) that could be of similar value to the draft pick they'd be giving up to sign him now.
 
Why does this have to be the case? The Sox don't necessarily need full value in a trade for Drew if they are happy with 3B and SS without him next season.
 
Signing Drew and trading Carp would be an interesting idea. It would essentially be a platoon of Drew facing righties and WMB facing lefties (and backup 1B) while bouncing Xander back and forth from SS to 3B.  Drew is insurance if WMB or X struggle and it would also give the Sox a little more time to figure out if Xander can play SS full time. Unfortunately I don't see Drew coming back to be a platoon player.
 

KillerBs

New Member
Nov 16, 2006
906
Given that, generously, Drew's market appears to be somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 teams, I do not think he is in a position to be making bold demands about playing time. If Stephen Drew wants not only a 3 year deal, but some type of commitment that he won't sit vs LHPers, let alone ever be asked to play any postion but ss, then this decision is easier than I even had imagined it to be. He has a lifetime OBP vs LHPers of .291. WMB OPS vs LHPers over 200 ABs = .838. 
 
If he is prepared to buy into the 3-man rotation concept, where he has to earn playing time, presumptively sits vs LHPers and agrees to develop some positonal versatility, then I would have some interest in a 2 year deal at a rate which reflects his value on the market. Otherwise, in the absence of an intervening WMB deal where we get full value back for him, I wish Drew would just go cut his crappy deal asap with the Mets so we can move on from this.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
someoneanywhere said:
Drew will not sign here if he is asked to platoon. He will play instead for the Mets as an everyday guy.
 
This seems to take for granted that the Mets want him and that only the possibility of the Sox bringing him back as their everyday shortstop has prevented him from signing with the Mets so far. Is there evidence for this? All the buzz so far has been that the Mets are ambivalent.
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,232
Charlottesville, Virginia
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
This seems to take for granted that the Mets want him and that only the possibility of the Sox bringing him back as their everyday shortstop has prevented him from signing with the Mets so far. Is there evidence for this? All the buzz so far has been that the Mets are ambivalent.
 
Sandy Alderson is much better than their previous GM.  I read somewhere that he is exercising patience to keep Boras from exaggerating Sox interest to artificially inflate Drew's market value.  More than ambivalence, their encouragement of that buzz is truly frugality.  The Mets 3rd round pick isn't that much of a a sacrifice for them at this point.  They apparently have the financial flexibility to add Drew if they don't overpay.  The buzz that Drew will end up back with the Sox is probably more likely desperate spin indirectly from Boras to minimize the embarrassment after Drew rejected the qualifying offer from the Sox until Drew ultimately signs probably with the Mets for less than he expected.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
FanSinceBoggs said:
I would prefer signing Drew to a 3 year deal over a 1 year deal that includes the promise they won’t make him a QO after the season.
 
IIRC this is expressly forbidden as a contractual term under the new CBA.
 
FanSinceBoggs said:
True, Bogaerts (3b) and Drew (SS) would cost more money than Middlebrooks (3b) and Bogaerts (SS), but the cost is for one year only--I think Cecchini will be ready by 2015 and so they can trade Drew and go with Cecchini (3b) and Bogaerts (SS) in 2015.
 
I have yet to hear anyone in "prospect media" world talk about Cecchini playing 3B well enough to displace Middlebrooks. Between questions about his power actually developing and his defense I think it is highly unlikely that the FO would plan their finances around him being ready. There's just too much that has to go right and so much that can easily derail Cecchini's advancement; this outcome is like winning the lottery, which is not a plan.
 

Hairps

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2006
1,862
Hollywood for Ugly People
Red(s)HawksFan said:
If the Red Sox are going to sign Drew (or any player, frankly) to a three-year deal, it's going to be because they want the player in a Red Sox uniform for the full three years.  Teams don't just sign guys to long term deals with the intent to trade them off before the end of the contract....
 
Not directed at you, but this did get me to thinking again about something that's been rattling around in my brain for a while -- should we start to consider the out-years of FA contracts (those without no trade clauses attached) more like team options when we consider the value to a team? Really, it seems to me, the team is signing the player to a deal where they have an option to either have them on their roster or to make available for a trade each season.
 
Viewed this way, the fact that that option itself exists for the team has additional value of its own. And if that's the case, have we been consistently underestimating the value of free agent contracts from the team's perspective?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Hairps said:
 
Not directed at you, but this did get me to thinking again about something that's been rattling around in my brain for a while -- should we start to consider the out-years of FA contracts (those without no trade clauses attached) more like team options when we consider the value to a team? Really, it seems to me, the team is signing the player to a deal where they have an option to either have them on their roster or to make available for a trade each season.
 
Viewed this way, the fact that that option itself exists for the team has additional value of its own. And if that's the case, have we been consistently underestimating the value of free agent contracts from the team's perspective?
 
But teams always have the option to either keep a player on their roster or trade them, barring a no-trade clause. It's not something that's specific to FAs, let alone FAs in their walk year. So I'm not sure how it qualifies as a team option or as "additional value." Maybe I'm not understanding you.
 

Hairps

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2006
1,862
Hollywood for Ugly People
Yeah, what I'm thinking is that the "option" (barring an NTC) is always there for the team, but maybe such a given that "we" (internet prognosticators and the like) have come to just ignore that having that option itself provides value to the club and is therefore not factored in when everybody goes thru their post-signing analysis of how good/bad of a deal is for a team.
 
Short of an NTC, of course, there are other factors (age, injury risk, risk of salary deflation during the time of the dea) that could render that "option" useless to the team.
 
Anywho, it's probably nothing, or maybe I just have it all wrong in my mind. While I don't exactly by into the recent post-Punto trade, post Vernon Wells-trade narrative that "there is no such thing as an untradeable contract", I also don't think it's true that teams are stuck with players they sign to multi-year deals, and that the fact that the team maintains this option of what to do with a player under contract has some value on its own that is ignored when looking at the deal and also I like to write extremely long run-on sentences.
 
EDIT: Thinking about it the other way, maybe it's that we're not paying enough attention to the contract when this option to the team is not built in -- when the player has been granted no-trade protection. Seems like that's always reported as an afterthought, when the reality seems to be that that limits the teams options, that that carries a price, and that we could start looking at what the cost of that to the team might be.
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,792
Suburbs of Washington, DC
This may have been already answered somewhere in the previous 12 pages, but for clarity if Drew signs with the Mets, would this be correct:
 
The Mets' first-round pick is protected; the Mets' second round pick has gone away because of the Granderson signing; if the Mets sign Drew, the Mets would lose their third-round pick; the Red Sox would gain a pick in the supplemental round, between the first and second rounds, giving them two picks in that supplemental round (for Ellsbury and Drew) along with additional cash to sign those additional picks?
 
Just trying to figure out whether picks gained from lost free agents are bunched together in one supplemental round or whether they would track with the round in which the signing team lost their pick, like the Mets' third-round pick in the case of a Drew signing.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
IpswichSox said:
This may have been already answered somewhere in the previous 12 pages, but for clarity if Drew signs with the Mets, would this be correct:
 
The Mets' first-round pick is protected; the Mets' second round pick has gone away because of the Granderson signing; if the Mets sign Drew, the Mets would lose their third-round pick; the Red Sox would gain a pick in the supplemental round, between the first and second rounds, giving them two picks in that supplemental round (for Ellsbury and Drew) along with additional cash to sign those additional picks?
 
Just trying to figure out whether picks gained from lost free agents are bunched together in one supplemental round or whether they would track with the round in which the signing team lost their pick, like the Mets' third-round pick in the case of a Drew signing.
 
Yes, picks are bunched in the same supplemental round between rounds 1 and 2 of the draft.
 

ji oh

New Member
Mar 18, 2003
271
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Yes, picks are bunched in the same supplemental round between rounds 1 and 2 of the draft.
 
Though they're not calling it a supplemental "round" anymore; they just add them on the end of the first round, which will have lost several picks from the original list.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y2013/drafttracker.jsp
 
The "competitive balance picks" are between rounds 1 and 2, and then 2 and 3.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,429
Looks like Drew/Boras are sufficiently desperate that Drew's now claiming to be comfortable being a utility inf.  http://www.gammonsdaily.com/gammons-notes-gregory-polanco-toronto-pitching-stephen-drew-and-braves-payroll/
 
Last winter, the Yankees wanted to sign Stephen Drew, but were told he would only play shortstop. So he ended up with Boston. But this week Scott Boras dropped several hints that Drew would be willing to play other positions, which might make him more attractive to both the Red Sox and Yankees; Boston might be able to use him at short, third and even first base, and the Yankees could play him at second and third and have him as insurance if Derek Jeter has any physical problems. In fact, Drew’s value may be greater if he will play several positions.
What the Red Sox have yet to decide is whether Drew would be comfortable as a utilityman, considering how hard he worked to come back from a serious ankle injury and the diligence with which he prepared the entire 2013 season. Early on in their negotiations, Red Sox GM Ben Cherington let Drew and Boras know that the plans are for Xander Bogaerts to be the Boston shortstop, which might limit Drew to games at first, third and short against righthanded pitching.
 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
You know if Derek Jeter were anything close to the mythical "winner at all costs" he wishes he was, he'd have already told the Yankees that he'd move to 3B if they signed a top flight shortstop like Drew
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
Plympton91 said:
You know if Derek Jeter were anything close to the mythical "winner at all costs" he wishes he was, he'd have already told the Yankees that he'd move to 3B if they signed a top flight HOF shortstop like Drew 2003 Arod.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Plympton91 said:
You know if Derek Jeter were anything close to the mythical "winner at all costs" he wishes he was, he'd have already told the Yankees that he'd move to 3B if they signed a top flight shortstop like Drew
 
This used to by my position as well until Hambone set me straight with a, "Please--like Jeter gets a quick enough jump on the ball to play third." I conceded the point immediately.
 
More generally, I'm kinda shocked there isn't more of a market for a high end shortstop. The Red Sox extending him the QO should signal to other teams that they don't have any immediate health concerns as they would be willing to pony up $14 mil for the year, too, so I'm not sure of what any  major concerns with him as a player would be.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Reverend said:
 
This used to by my position as well until Hambone set me straight with a, "Please--like Jeter gets a quick enough jump on the ball to play third." I conceded the point immediately.
 
More generally, I'm kinda shocked there isn't more of a market for a high end shortstop. The Red Sox extending him the QO should signal to other teams that they don't have any immediate health concerns as they would be willing to pony up $14 mil for the year, too, so I'm not sure of what any  major concerns with him as a player would be.
 
I think teams are being very irrational about the value of the draft pick slot money.  The likelihood that a second-half of the first round draftee over his entire career would put up anything close to, let alone more value than Drew over the next 3 years is miniscule.  Suppose the Red Sox didn't have a shortstop and Drew was signed to a reasonable 3 year deal by a small market team.  Would you be willing to trade Bryce Brentz straight up for him?  That's what teams are essentially not doing here.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
Plympton91 said:
 
I think teams are being very irrational about the value of the draft pick slot money.  The likelihood that a second-half of the first round draftee over his entire career would put up anything close to, let alone more value than Drew over the next 3 years is miniscule.  Suppose the Red Sox didn't have a shortstop and Drew was signed to a reasonable 3 year deal by a small market team.  Would you be willing to trade Bryce Brentz straight up for him?  That's what teams are essentially not doing here.
 
It's not just the pick that is of value, it's the money that is slotted to that spot as well.  Based on last year's draft, that amounts to around $1.7M.  That's $1.7M less that the team would have to sign one or more draftees, none of whom are necessarily the player taken with the actual spot in the draft.
 
Probably also worth noting that the Sox have turned compensation picks into players like Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, and Jackie Bradley Jr as well as borderliners like Brentz.  Additionally, they took players like Jacoby Ellsbury in the late first round in part because they paid over slot...something made harder to do with the spending limits now in place on the draft but aided by the ability to add to the spending purse with compensation round slots like the one they'll get for Stephen Drew.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
It's not just the pick that is of value, it's the money that is slotted to that spot as well.  Based on last year's draft, that amounts to around $1.7M.  That's $1.7M less that the team would have to sign one or more draftees, none of whom are necessarily the player taken with the actual spot in the draft.
 
Probably also worth noting that the Sox have turned compensation picks into players like Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, and Jackie Bradley Jr as well as borderliners like Brentz.  Additionally, they took players like Jacoby Ellsbury in the late first round in part because they paid over slot...something made harder to do with the spending limits now in place on the draft but aided by the ability to add to the spending purse with compensation round slots like the one they'll get for Stephen Drew.
 
I agree it is the slot money that they are valuing, more so than the pick itself.  I don't know how much classical theory of value applies to the baseball draft, but in an efficient market that $1.7 million should yield the same expected value whether you spend it on one first round pick or use it to upgrade the quality of 2 or 3 later round picks.  I think if that wasn't at least the case to a first approximation, more and more teams would take signability players in the first round and spread the money out in later rounds.  That didn't seem to happen this year, if anything, I think the consensus moved in the direction of using the first round to get the best player available; at least it did for the Red Sox.
 
The current group has done an historically good job of getting value out of the first two rounds of the draft, for sure.  But how much of that is good luck and good development vs. good drafting is not really quantifiable.   And despite that above average run, for every hit they've had a miss in 1 and 1s picks -- Jason Place, Kris Johnson, Caleb Clay, Craig Hansen, Ryan Dent, Bryan Price, Kolbrin Vitek
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,263
Town
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
It's not just the pick that is of value, it's the money that is slotted to that spot as well.  Based on last year's draft, that amounts to around $1.7M.  That's $1.7M less that the team would have to sign one or more draftees, none of whom are necessarily the player taken with the actual spot in the draft.
 
Probably also worth noting that the Sox have turned compensation picks into players like Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, and Jackie Bradley Jr as well as borderliners like Brentz.  Additionally, they took players like Jacoby Ellsbury in the late first round in part because they paid over slot...something made harder to do with the spending limits now in place on the draft but aided by the ability to add to the spending purse with compensation round slots like the one they'll get for Stephen Drew.
 
Interesting to note here that the value of access to this $1.7 million allocation may actually have a market value of greater than $1.7 million.
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,219
Somerville, MA
Well it's the slot money, the draft pick, and the money it takes to sign the guy.  Two players, Rafael Soriano and Kyle Lohse, signed late last year because compensation was attached to them.  Both still got pretty good deals.  And I think it's pretty clear both teams that signed them would take it back if they could.  I think Drew will end up being a value, but I wouldn't want the Sox to sign Nelson Cruz or Kendrys Morales if they had a need at either position for what those guys are looking for and then lose a draft pick on top of it.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
It's not just the pick that is of value, it's the money that is slotted to that spot as well.  Based on last year's draft, that amounts to around $1.7M.  That's $1.7M less that the team would have to sign one or more draftees, none of whom are necessarily the player taken with the actual spot in the draft.
 
Probably also worth noting that the Sox have turned compensation picks into players like Clay Buchholz, Jed Lowrie, and Jackie Bradley Jr as well as borderliners like Brentz.  Additionally, they took players like Jacoby Ellsbury in the late first round in part because they paid over slot...something made harder to do with the spending limits now in place on the draft but aided by the ability to add to the spending purse with compensation round slots like the one they'll get for Stephen Drew.
 
Not sure Ellsbury is a good example though since a team would lose that late 1st round pick and have no need for the 1.7 million, at least for that pick.  However, assuming they had the pick and the 1.7 million, it seems the 1.7 million value comes to play when you pick someone who is not very good and can be had for under slot, and then apply the excess to lesser players in the later rounds to pay them overslot? 
 
I realize I am probably missing something here but it seems to me the slot money and value of the late round draft picks have been overstated by teams looking for an excuse not to spend money on free agents, or perhaps as part of a universally adapted negotiating strategy to pay the free agents w/ a QO less money.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Drew is an excellent player at a premium position. I'd love to have him back if the personnel fit was better, but as I'm all for Xander as the SS going forward, I haven't been pro re-sign Drew. How on earth has a market not developed for him? Is it really that much of a perfect storm situation where there just aren't any teams with chance to contend (and therefore willing to spend on a proven SS) in this, his (healthy) free agency season, that also have a need? 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
dbn said:
Drew is an excellent player at a premium position. I'd love to have him back if the personnel fit was better, but as I'm all for Xander as the SS going forward, I haven't been pro re-sign Drew. How on earth has a market not developed for him? Is it really that much of a perfect storm situation where there just aren't any teams with chance to contend (and therefore willing to spend on a proven SS) in this, his (healthy) free agency season, that also have a need? 
 
Nice job of answering this question by Jeff Sullivan:
 
The Problem with Stephen Drew's Market
 
I think the one team he misses that could conceivably want Drew is the Athletics, who could move Lowrie to second to make room for him. But that's a stretch.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,437
Haiku
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Nice job of answering this question by Jeff Sullivan:
 
The Problem with Stephen Drew's Market
 
I think the one team he misses that could conceivably want Drew is the Athletics, who could move Lowrie to second to make room for him. But that's a stretch.
 
Less of a stretch would be Lowrie getting injured, but how likely is that? :rolleyes:
 
Should Drew have known to take the qualifying offer? One would think he'd have the championship glow about him, but apparently not.
 
The Red Sox looked their best and won a World Series in 2013 with Drew at SS and Bogaerts at 3B. How much value would be lost by shifting Bogaerts to third base 3 years before his time? It comes down to the team's evaluation of Middlebrooks, who was benched when it counted, along with Saltalamacchia.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Nice job of answering this question by Jeff Sullivan:
 
The Problem with Stephen Drew's Market
 
I think the one team he misses that could conceivably want Drew is the Athletics, who could move Lowrie to second to make room for him. But that's a stretch.
Its nice to hear FG has the Red Sox 6 games better than the rest of the AL East, but I'm not buying it.

The Royals would become very formidable with Drew at SS and Infante at 2B replacing the dreck they almost made it with last season, and as the article notes, Toronto's 2B is a wasteland that Drew would immediately improve unless he became wife-beater Cordero bad at 2B.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,887
Sprowl said:
 
How much value would be lost by shifting Bogaerts to third base 3 years before his time?
 
The big question is whether the Sox think if/how long the Sox think Bogaerts can stick at short. If they did anticipate moving him in three years regardless, Drew is a natural fit. If they think he play play shortstop until he's 30 and then move, then they will probably keep him there and tell Drew he's welcome on a one-year deal (with the three-way of Drew, Bogaerts and Middlebrooks, with Drew at SS and Bogaerts at third vs RHP, and Bogaerts at short and WMB at third vs. LHP) but no more.
 
And if Brian Butterfield's opinion is right, X is a shortstop all the way.
 
http://nesn.com/2013/12/brian-butterfield-xander-bogaerts-will-be-a-shortstop-until-the-day-he-retires/ 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.