Mystery teams in on Drew

[Otto von Ballpark]

As for D-Backs owner Ken Kendrick and if he's a bonehead. I've never met him. I wasn't in the room when he got frustrated with Stephen Drew.

 

 

Here's the Diamondbacks owner quotes about Drew:

 

 

On Drew: "I'm going to be real direct about Stephen. I think Stephen should have been out there playing before now, frankly. I, for one, am disappointed. I'm going to be real candid and say Stephen and his representatives are more focused on where Stephen is going to be a year from now than on going out and supporting the team that's paying his salary."

What can you do?: "All you can do is hope that the player is treating the situation with integrity. Frankly, we have our concerns."

Have you talked to Drew?: "I have not, really, I don't think it's my place to do so, but others have."

How did Drew respond?: "I think he (long pause) was not very direct. He needs more time to get ready. I'm speaking from his perspective."

 

 

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/2012/06/06/20120606arizona-diamondbacks-ken-kendrick-comments-justin-upton-stephen-drew-transcript.html#ixzz2tsEBOysj

 

Seems pretty weak to hold that against the player. Especially when the same owner, and same front office and field staff, has talked of multiple other players (i.e. Justin Upton) in almost the same way. If anything, this tells me more about the Diamondbacks org than it does any particular player.

[tobi0040]

Here's the Diamondbacks owner quotes about Drew:

 

 

On Drew: "I'm going to be real direct about Stephen. I think Stephen should have been out there playing before now, frankly. I, for one, am disappointed. I'm going to be real candid and say Stephen and his representatives are more focused on where Stephen is going to be a year from now than on going out and supporting the team that's paying his salary."

What can you do?: "All you can do is hope that the player is treating the situation with integrity. Frankly, we have our concerns."

Have you talked to Drew?: "I have not, really, I don't think it's my place to do so, but others have."

How did Drew respond?: "I think he (long pause) was not very direct. He needs more time to get ready. I'm speaking from his perspective."

 

 

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/2012/06/06/20120606arizona-diamondbacks-ken-kendrick-comments-justin-upton-stephen-drew-transcript.html#ixzz2tsEBOysj

 

Seems pretty weak to hold that against the player. Especially when the same owner, and same front office and field staff, has talked of multiple other players (i.e. Justin Upton) in almost the same way. If anything, this tells me more about the Diamondbacks org than it does any particular player.

 

 

Remember when Gardy was on Scott Baker about not coming back soon enough.....when he had a strained flexor tendon, then the doctor went in and found a strained UCL?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, while Drew was dumped at the low point of his recovery by the D-Backs, and his option declined by perpetually cash strapped Oakland, he signed for basically the exact same amount to take a starting job with a big media market contending team. (Drew actually made MORE money in 2013, with the buyout + his Boston salary, than if Arizona or Oakland had picked up his option.)

 

I think that might be better evidence of Drew's regard in baseball, and his baseball playing abilities, than some fairly empty comments about his rehab by a mouthy owner.

[Willihammer]

"The doctor said it was going to be a year process, and now I'm at month seven," he said after taking some grounders during practice at the team's Salt River Field complex. "Flexibility is back to normal. Now I just have to get the strength back."

Asked if there was any chance he might be ready for the season opener on April 6 against the Giants at Chase Field, Drew demurred.

"I don't know. Like I told you, the doctors said a year," Drew said. "The coaching staff has been really good. The training staff is really good. We're taking it one day at a time and we'll see where it goes from there."

 

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120301&content_id=26944304&vkey=news_ari&c_id=ari

 

That was March 1, 2012. The owner made his off the cuff medical comments in June. So his timeline wasn't the doctor's timeline.

 

I think its possible, maybe even likely, that Drew was caught in the crosshairs between his owner and his agent, while he was just following doctor's orders.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If you're investing money, you want to understand the risks and benefits. The risk here is that a large percentage of middle infielders decline precipitously from age 30 to age 32. That isn't an opinion, it's a statistical fact. Drew could be an outlier. But if you're a betting man, you don't bet on outliers.

 

I know the "second baseman cliff" seems like gospel now, but I've seen some more recent data that suggests it is exaggerated based on a few high profile cases:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-chase-utley-age/

 

Here's a 2005 look at the issue:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?%20articleid=4464

 

If there is an effect, it's not as large as you suggest. Some middle infielders can't shift to a corner as their skills decline, I guess, but otherwise, I don't think middle infielders actually fall off cliffs more than other players. If you can link a study otherwise, we can discuss that tangent further.

 

And we're not talking a Barry Zito type forever commitment here -- the absolute max I've seen suggested here is 3 years (through age 33) at $10 mil annually. For this team, with this payroll and future obligations, that is quite easily an affordable bet if you like the player now. Certainly very far from "pass because of Bill James study".

 

Another discussion of aging curves:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/do_2b_age_worse_than_the_typical_position/

[Mike Sixel]

anyone that questions a professional athletes willingness to play "because he's soft" or whatever....I don't respect that person much. These guys go through an awful lot of pain and suffering.

[cmathewson]

I know the "second baseman cliff" seems like gospel now, but I've seen some more recent data that suggests it is exaggerated based on a few high profile cases:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-will-chase-utley-age/

 

Here's a 2005 look at the issue:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?%20articleid=4464

 

If there is an effect, it's not as large as you suggest. Some middle infielders can't shift to a corner as their skills decline, I guess, but otherwise, I don't think middle infielders actually fall off cliffs more than other players. If you can link a study otherwise, we can discuss that tangent further.

 

And we're not talking a Barry Zito type forever commitment here -- the absolute max I've seen suggested here is 3 years (through age 33) at $10 mil annually. For this team, with this payroll and future obligations, that is quite easily an affordable bet if you like the player now. Certainly very far from "pass because of Bill James study".

 

Another discussion of aging curves:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/do_2b_age_worse_than_the_typical_position/

 

There is this study, which is more generalized, but, as a critique of James' theory, does correct the certitude of the MI claims I have made: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9933

 

The most relevant quote from it for our purposes is this one from James' famous study:

 

Good hitters stay around, weak hitters don't. Most players are declining by age 30; all players are declining by age 33. There are difference in rates of decline, but those differences are far less significant for the assessment of future value than are the differing levels of ability (James, 1982, p. 205).

 

Looking at Drew, who is not that good of a hitter to begin with, I can say he is much more likely to regress from his 2013 season than to hold steady. When you add the Fenway factor, the odds go up even further.

 

So you are paying for past production, not for future production. Whether it is worth overpaying for a guy who will be practically useless by the end of the contract is a matter of opinion. I can say with some confidence that it is not the kind of investment this front office tends to make, nor would I in their shoes. I understand the argument that this team of all teams should make the investment, considering free cash flow and relative dearth of shortstop talent. But I don't agree with it.

[mikecgrimes]

anyone that questions a professional athletes willingness to play "because he's soft" or whatever....I don't respect that person much. These guys go through an awful lot of pain and suffering.

 

Just like anything else some guys are more willing to play through things then others. I don't care if it's in the players head or he just isn't physically put together much like I don't care if lack of production is more mental or based on ability. Be as tough as you can, and then be a little tougher. I understand you are worried about your body at 50, if thats what drives you sign for less money and be honest about it.

[Willihammer]

Another point - for whatever reason the DBacks started 2012 with Drew on the 15 day DL. So he may have caused 40 man issues. This, again, wouldn't have been Drew's fault. He should have been put on the 60 day DL since that would have been more closely aligned with the 12 month recovery timeline suggested by Drew in the above quote. In fact, he still would have been able to return ahead of schedule - he would have been eligible to play early in month 10.

[thetank]

His brother, JD, was always missing games except in the years he became a FA. You will likely have to have another SS playing an average of 50 games a year.

[Willihammer]

anyone that questions a professional athletes willingness to play "because he's soft" or whatever....I don't respect that person much. These guys go through an awful lot of pain and suffering.

 

Not to mention that Drew would have every incentive to play. It was a contract year.

 

By contrast an owner who has no intention of re-signing the player would have no incentive to protect his long term health.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Not to mention that Drew would have every incentive to play. It was a contract year.

 

By contrast an owner who has no intention of re-signing the player would have no incentive to protect his long term health.

 

Arizona still held an option on Drew's services for 2013, but generally your point stands.

[Otto von Ballpark]

There is this study, which is more generalized, but, as a critique of James' theory, does correct the certitude of the MI claims I have made: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9933

 

The most relevant quote from it for our purposes is this one from James' famous study:

 

Well, I wasn't doubting that players in general decline with age.

 

But to say that you're not going to sign a guy to a reasonable deal (~3/30 or less, plus 2nd round pick) at a position of need, because A) he's 30 years old, and you don't like his home/road splits for one season, seems to be taking this general concept to a bit of an extreme.

 

Looking at Drew, who is not that good of a hitter to begin with, I can say he is much more likely to regress from his 2013 season than to hold steady. When you add the Fenway factor, the odds go up even further.

 

So you are paying for past production, not for future production. Whether it is worth overpaying for a guy who will be practically useless by the end of the contract is a matter of opinion.

 

So if a career MLB OPS of .764 is "not that good of a hitter to begin with", what does that make a career minor league .675 OPS?

 

What kind of contract would NOT constitute "overpaying" for Drew? Some folks here are talking 2/20. I don't think he goes that cheaply, but are you arguing against that? Or 3/30? What would you pay him?

 

And on that note, what's your projection for Drew in 2014 and beyond? PA/OPS+/dWAR? And how about Florimon? I would like to know what kind of production you are associating with these dollar figures too.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Here is the problem I get myself into. I am a die hard fan and sit here and assume that the Twins want to win. I sit here think that is the objective. I think they want to win, but the main objective is to run this team as profitable as possible. So when we sit here and debate signing Drew and how we would obviously win more games as a result......those 3 wins simply are not worth $8-9M dollars to this front office and ownership group. Signing Morales or Cruz and the wins associated is not worth $12M. That is the harsh reality. Most would love to see these moves (if short term deals).

 

Consider a few things.

 

 

Forbes pegged this team at a profit of $10M last year. This year our payroll remains the same while revenue is up nearly $40M. So this team should make $50M next year.

 

The value of the Twins, pre-stadium (mostly publicly funded) was $214M. Last year, Forbes calculated the value at $560M. Bloomberg has the value now at $700M, with the increase related to the new media deal (added $110M to each franchise). So this team is up nearly half a billion dollars, or 250% in the span of 6-7 years.

 

By any measure, our fans are some of the best in the game. We have gone out to the games to watch horrible baseball for 3 years in a row.

 

Would it be the end of the world to throw us a bone with Drew and/or Cruz/Morales? Would that be asking too much? We would not hamper our future and this team would still be well in the green next year.

 

We should not have to watch Florimon at SS or sit here and try and justify the signing. This is a conversation that should have happened at Target field in October and it should have been a relatively simple one.

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/morning_roundup/2013/10/minnesota-twins-value-700-million.html

 

To me, it isn't that simple. It's a short term vs. long term approach. No matter what the Twins throw at Drew, they will forfeit a pick in the 40s to aquire him. That's worth something, and the question becomes exactly what. As well, the profitability thing may not be an issue right now, but it would be the reason that would prevent them from getting a real upgrade should it be available at a later time.

[TheLeviathan]

The World Champs didn't "cast off" Drew...they offered him a $14M one yr contract, despite having the minors' best SS prospect ready to go.

 

They offered him a poison pill. Something they knew he wouldn't take, that would get them a draft pick. They killed two birds with one stone....let him leave and open up a compensation possibility. The notion that the 14m QO is a testament to his value is twisting things.

 

And for the record, "Florimon is a vastly superior defender" is an opinion, not a fact, and an opinion based on little evidence at that.

 

Well, yeah it's an opinion roundly shared by almost every expert who made a list you can find. There is a case to be made for Drew but it isn't Drew's D > Florimon's D. That to me just shows an unwillingness to fairly compare the two.

 

I also find it odd you loudly trumpet the merits of moving Mauer and bemoan decline phases. The justifications are working off the same model of prediction - basically the concept of statistical likelihood.

[nicksaviking]

But to say that you're not going to sign a guy to a reasonable deal (~3/30 or less, plus 2nd round pick) at a position of need, because A) he's 30 years old, and you don't like his home/road splits for one season, seems to be taking this general concept to a bit of an extreme.

 

 

 

Ten million (or possibly $13 million) may be reasonable for this year, but likely not in 2015 or 2016.

 

I'm not sure why you think his splits don't matter. We dwell on his home production from last year because in 2012, his production at home AND on the road was awful.

 

Breaking it down:

2012 Road-Bad

2012 Home-Bad

2013 Road-Bad

2013 Home-Good

 

Why would we focus on the quarter of the time he was good as opposed to the 3/4 of the time he was terrible? I also don't know why people want to continue to use his past, pre-injury data to make a point. Recent data is, and should always be a stronger consideration. His career numbers are not as useful as his recent numbers, why would you pay for them?

 

Jose Valverde only got a minor league deal, so will Johan Santana. Joe Saunders still can't get a job. No one is rushing out to re-sign Manny Rameriz and he wants to still play. Yet somehow the model is different for Drew simply because he plays a position of need?

[big dog]

Also, while Drew was dumped at the low point of his recovery by the D-Backs, and his option declined by perpetually cash strapped Oakland, he signed for basically the exact same amount to take a starting job with a big media market contending team. (Drew actually made MORE money in 2013, with the buyout + his Boston salary, than if Arizona or Oakland had picked up his option.)

 

I think that might be better evidence of Drew's regard in baseball, and his baseball playing abilities, than some fairly empty comments about his rehab by a mouthy owner.

 

To me, the better evidence of Drew's regard in baseball is that teams are reporting without him. That worries me. A lot. I'm not a huge Florimon supporter, but I don't expect the 2014 version of Drew to be all that good. Others have posted very thoughtful arguments to the contrary, which I respect. It will be interesting to see how he does this summer, wherever he lands.

[cmathewson]

Well, I wasn't doubting that players in general decline with age.

 

But to say that you're not going to sign a guy to a reasonable deal (~3/30 or less, plus 2nd round pick) at a position of need, because A) he's 30 years old, and you don't like his home/road splits for one season, seems to be taking this general concept to a bit of an extreme.

 

 

 

So if a career MLB OPS of .764 is "not that good of a hitter to begin with", what does that make a career minor league .675 OPS?

 

What kind of contract would NOT constitute "overpaying" for Drew? Some folks here are talking 2/20. I don't think he goes that cheaply, but are you arguing against that? Or 3/30? What would you pay him?

 

And on that note, what's your projection for Drew in 2014 and beyond? PA/OPS+/dWAR? And how about Florimon? I would like to know what kind of production you are associating with these dollar figures too.

 

I have said one year with an option. As far as terms, I could see 2/20 total, with a sizable portion of that built into incentives and the vesting option. And make the incentives/vesting doable, based on games or PAs or something, not on performance.With these clauses, you're mostly mitigating the risks of significant injury, which is a major reason guys after 30 decline. There's always a way to mitigate risks through terms like this. But I wouldn't be enthused about a straight 2/20.

 

Would he take it? No clue. The Sox are adamant on a one-year deal. So it seems the only competition for a deal like this is the Mets. It all depends on what they are willing to do. Tejada looks like a Florimon clone. And BA doesn't think much of their SS prospects above rookie ball. If I had to place a bet, I'd say the Mets get him for 3/28 or so.

[tobi0040]

To me, it isn't that simple. It's a short term vs. long term approach. No matter what the Twins throw at Drew, they will forfeit a pick in the 40s to aquire him. That's worth something, and the question becomes exactly what. As well, the profitability thing may not be an issue right now, but it would be the reason that would prevent them from getting a real upgrade should it be available at a later time.

 

That may be, but I refuse to believe we could not have paid up or traded for a better SS or DH than Floriomon and Kubel/Parmalee. So upgrades were out there without a pick attached. Kubel may magically come back to 2-3 years ago levels, but I have read his bat has really slowed down. So he is a question mark.

 

I think this ownership group has a profit first model, and spend enough to say we spent and keep enough people coming to the park so they can remain profitable. I have heard Dave St. Peter and Terry Ryan throw around the $90M they spent on pitchers this offseason when asked about payroll. Funny enough LEN3 repeated the quote verbatim on his chat the other day when a person asked why payroll is the same. So get used to that talking point for the next year as we watch a AA SS and a AAA DH.

[cmathewson]

That may be, but I refuse to believe we could not have paid up or traded for a better SS or DH than Floriomon and Kubel/Parmalee. So upgrades were out there without a pick attached. Kubel may magically come back to 2-3 years ago levels, but I have read his bat has really slowed down. So he is a question mark.

 

I think this ownership group has a profit first model, and spend enough to say we spent and keep enough people coming to the park so they can remain profitable. I have heard Dave St. Peter and Terry Ryan throw around the $90M they spent on pitchers this offseason when asked about payroll. Funny enough LEN3 repeated the quote verbatim on his chat the other day when a person asked why payroll is the same. So get used to that talking point for the next year as we watch a AA SS and a AAA DH.

 

I wouldn't draw that conclusion in this case. Yes they're tight, but they are extremely interested in winning. They just take a longer view than we tend to. I wouldn't worry about stop gap signings like Kubel. The real talent is on the way from the minors.

 

In the next few years, this team will be back in the playoffs. Does Drew help that cause? Probably not. If not, is it worth throwing money and a draft pick at him? Not unless the terms are more favorable than he is currently asking for.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not sure why you think his splits don't matter. We dwell on his home production from last year because in 2012, his production at home AND on the road was awful.

 

I guess if you subscribe to the theory that one of the lasting effects of a broken ankle is poor hitting everywhere but Fenway Park, this is a salient point.

 

Obviously 2012 is bad everywhere -- home, road, RHP, LHP. I don't like making excuses, but it's kinda hard to ignore a broken ankle.

 

And 2013? He had 237 PA on the road, and only 167 PA vs LHP. Those are mightly small samples to write a guy off as a product of Fenway or strictly a platoon player (not saying he isn't better at home and vs RHP, like virtually all MLB LHB, but the difference is probably closer to his career averages than his relatively small 2013 sample).

 

I'm not saying he will necessarily hit his career numbers every year (98 OPS+) -- even pre-injury, the guy bounced between 90 and 110 OPS+ figures. I just think that 90-110 is still the working range for Drew, for this year and the next couple, which is a fair sight better than Florimon's 70. (I know defense counts too, although there is less confidence in those numbers, and outside of Andrelton Simmons, the performance range is much narrower than on offense.)

 

And with the current market, we could actually get Drew for less than anticipated (MLBTR predicted 4/48, with a low estimate of 3/36), which is better than waiting to see what a future offseason brings (or doesn't bring) or continuing to cycle through fringe/waiver guys indefinitely.

[Otto von Ballpark]

To me, the better evidence of Drew's regard in baseball is that teams are reporting without him. That worries me. A lot.

 

They reported without Lohse last year. They're also reporting without Ervin Santana, Cruz, and Morales this year.

 

Late signings under the new comp system really can't be compared to late signings of days gone by.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I have said one year with an option. As far as terms, I could see 2/20 total, with a sizable portion of that built into incentives and the vesting option. And make the incentives/vesting doable, based on games or PAs or something, not on performance.With these clauses, you're mostly mitigating the risks of significant injury, which is a major reason guys after 30 decline. There's always a way to mitigate risks through terms like this. But I wouldn't be enthused about a straight 2/20.

 

Thanks for the answer. 2/20 guaranteed is your absolute, holding-your-nose-while-signing-it top end. (And for the record, I believe MLB contract incentives can only be based on playing time rather than performance -- although I believe "games finished" can skirt that rule for closers.)

 

Now, what kind of production would you project from Drew for your 2/20? PA, OPS+, dWAR? What kind of production would you project, today, from the Twins in-house alternatives? Just trying to see if we disagree on valuation or projection.

 

Personally, unless a physical reveals his ankle is held together by duct tape, I think 2/20 would be an absolute steal. As noted above, MLBTR predicted 4/48 for Drew, with a low estimate of 3/36, and they've been pretty accurate. He took 1/10 last year for a starting gig on a big media market contender, when there were still lingering questions about his recovery. Proposing 2/20 as your maximum acceptable contract now is basically saying you don't want the player under any circumstances. Might as well make the same 2/20 offer to Ervin Santana to compete for the 5th starter's job.

[nicksaviking]

2/20 wouldn't upset me like a 3 year deal would, but does anyone really think he will come to Minnesota on a two year deal? If he lowers his demands to two years, he will likely get the Red Sox, Mets, Yankees and other high profile coastal cities back in play. And if he lowers his demands on years, he's likely going to raise it on price.

 

In the end the Twins would have to overpay (most likely in years) for a guy who half of us don't trust anyway.

[tobi0040]

I wouldn't draw that conclusion in this case. Yes they're tight, but they are extremely interested in winning. They just take a longer view than we tend to. I wouldn't worry about stop gap signings like Kubel. The real talent is on the way from the minors.

 

In the next few years, this team will be back in the playoffs. Does Drew help that cause? Probably not. If not, is it worth throwing money and a draft pick at him? Not unless the terms are more favorable than he is currently asking for.

 

 

I agree they are intersted in winning in the back half of 2015 and 2016. I was hoping we had a group interested in winning every year, or at least fielding a competitive team.

[big dog]

They reported without Lohse last year. They're also reporting without Ervin Santana, Cruz, and Morales this year.

 

Late signings under the new comp system really can't be compared to late signings of days gone by.

 

I'm not comparing them to late signings of days gone by. I'm saying right now, no major league team has signed Drew (or the others). If that doesn't at least cause a little concern, why not? Because every other team is set at shortstop?

[Guest USAFChief]

They offered him a poison pill. Something they knew he wouldn't take, that would get them a draft pick. They killed two birds with one stone....let him leave and open up a compensation possibility. The notion that the 14m QO is a testament to his value is twisting things.

 

 

 

Well, yeah it's an opinion roundly shared by almost every expert who made a list you can find. There is a case to be made for Drew but it isn't Drew's D > Florimon's D. That to me just shows an unwillingness to fairly compare the two.

 

I also find it odd you loudly trumpet the merits of moving Mauer and bemoan decline phases. The justifications are working off the same model of prediction - basically the concept of statistical likelihood.

1. They offered him a one year, $14M contract. How you want to define that offer is a matter of opinion, but the facts are not in agreement with the earlier claim the world champs had "cast (Drew) off." Actually, the facts are just the opposite...Drew declined the world champs offer, not the other way around.

 

2. I have never claimed "Drew's D > Florimon's D." I have said the difference between the two defensively probably isn't near as great as some here have claimed, which is why I took issue with the claim "Florimon is a vastly superior defender." If you can point me to "almost every expert's" written opinion so stating, I'll consider changing my opinion.

 

3. I trumpeted the merits of moving Mauer because keeping him in the lineup is an important part of any Twins success, and he was never going to be in the lineup every day as a catcher, even if he stayed healthy. Mauer's bat is what's important to the Twins, not whether he plays catcher or first. It also occurs to me that if "decline phase" is an issue, then I assume you were opposed to signing Mauer to an 8 yr contract, no? Much of his contract will happen during that time frame.

[Guest USAFChief]

I'm not comparing them to late signings of days gone by. I'm saying right now, no major league team has signed Drew (or the others). If that doesn't at least cause a little concern, why not? Because every other team is set at shortstop?

 

It should, and does.

 

But...as has been pointed out, not every team has the need, not every team has the money, and most teams will forfeit a 1st rnd pick, not a second rnd pick.

 

Combine those factors and the market for Drew is fairly limited, a factor which some of us think works in the Twins favor, rather than against it.

[cmathewson]

Thanks for the answer. 2/20 guaranteed is your absolute, holding-your-nose-while-signing-it top end. (And for the record, I believe MLB contract incentives can only be based on playing time rather than performance -- although I believe "games finished" can skirt that rule for closers.)

 

Now, what kind of production would you project from Drew for your 2/20? PA, OPS+, dWAR? What kind of production would you project, today, from the Twins in-house alternatives? Just trying to see if we disagree on valuation or projection.

 

Personally, unless a physical reveals his ankle is held together by duct tape, I think 2/20 would be an absolute steal. As noted above, MLBTR predicted 4/48 for Drew, with a low estimate of 3/36, and they've been pretty accurate. He took 1/10 last year for a starting gig on a big media market contender, when there were still lingering questions about his recovery. Proposing 2/20 as your maximum acceptable contract now is basically saying you don't want the player under any circumstances. Might as well make the same 2/20 offer to Ervin Santana to compete for the 5th starter's job.

 

I would look for an OPS+ in the 90-100 range. UZR at about the water line. Total WAR around 2. Something like. I know "the market" values 1 WAR as $7 million. But I would hope for a bargain at this stage in the offseason.

 

I think Florimon is slightly above replacement level. His bat might be a negative. But, I'd say his glove should carry him up to 1 WAR, or thereabouts. Next year, I expect Santana to be close to a 2 WAR, .5 for bat and 1.5 for glove. But I recognize that I'm higher on Santana than most.

 

I would have to hold my nose more on the draft pick than the money. We're talking about a net gain of 1 WAR, spending 20 million plus a draft pick is definitely a close-your-eyes-and-pray kind of decision.

[Riverbrian]

Here's the Diamondbacks owner quotes about Drew:

 

 

On Drew: "I'm going to be real direct about Stephen. I think Stephen should have been out there playing before now, frankly. I, for one, am disappointed. I'm going to be real candid and say Stephen and his representatives are more focused on where Stephen is going to be a year from now than on going out and supporting the team that's paying his salary."

What can you do?: "All you can do is hope that the player is treating the situation with integrity. Frankly, we have our concerns."

Have you talked to Drew?: "I have not, really, I don't think it's my place to do so, but others have."

How did Drew respond?: "I think he (long pause) was not very direct. He needs more time to get ready. I'm speaking from his perspective."

 

 

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/2012/06/06/20120606arizona-diamondbacks-ken-kendrick-comments-justin-upton-stephen-drew-transcript.html#ixzz2tsEBOysj

 

Seems pretty weak to hold that against the player. Especially when the same owner, and same front office and field staff, has talked of multiple other players (i.e. Justin Upton) in almost the same way. If anything, this tells me more about the Diamondbacks org than it does any particular player.

 

Well said.

 

I do want to be clear that I'm not saying the owner or Drew is right. My main concern is Drew's numbers are not worthy of 10 million plus at multi years.

 

Quotes mean very little to me because they are often misleading. I only used it to show that something was up.

 

To me actions speak louder than words.

 

We can blame Arizona for trading Drew to Oakland for Jamieson and say Arizona is poorly run in hindsight. That may have been a mistake. I don't know.

 

But... Can we at least assume that they tried to see if any of the other 29 teams were willing to offer more than a 17th round pick that was not performing well at Low A.

 

No one else wanted Drew at that low price. That's an action that speaks louder than words. It happened in 2012.

 

Arizona traded him for nothing and didn't have a replacement at the time. That's an action that speaks louder than words. It gives me pause.

 

While pausing... I still believe that you are paying 10 million for position scarcity and not actual production and that's my biggest issue.