Mystery teams in on Drew

[TheLeviathan]

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.

 

They only offered it to him because they knew his agent would never accept it. They didn't want him back, so they tried to get compensation for him on the way out the door. Nothing more. It was an offer with no intention, nor any expectation, of him accepting it. They let him go, plain and simple.

 

If you can point me to "almost every expert's" written opinion so stating, I'll consider changing my opinion.

 

What, exactly, is your basis for saying there isn't that much of a difference? I've got, by my count, six reputable links ready. But I'd love to hear why Drew is even comparable. And don't give me anything about "less athletic shortstops" or any of this other speculation. I'd like to hear where your evidence is as well. Here's one of my six links, the rest all have similar results:

 

http://www.fieldingbible.com/complete-votetally.asp

 

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.

 

You missed the important similarity. Moving Mauer wasn't important because he was in his decline phase. Moving him was important because there was a high statistical probability that his bat would stay in the lineup more often moving to first. And there was a much lower statistical probability of another concussion.

 

Likewise, there is a high statistical probability that Drew is declining or about to very soon. Same principle, it's one I'm sure you accept as a justification for many, many other things as well.

[Otto von Ballpark]

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.

 

Thanks again for the numbers.

 

Aside from his lost injury year of 2012, Drew has 5 consecutive years of prorated 3+ WAR, including last year's 3.1 in only 124 games. He's actually pretty consistent in that regard. And it's mostly batting WAR, which should be more projectable than defensive WAR.

 

And there's no way 2/20, or even 3/30, prevents this team from making any other move, really. Just a pretty modest investment that shows you're not completely punting 2014, and you're slightly less likely to punt 2015 too.

[tobi0040]

Thanks again for the numbers.

And there's no way 2/20, or even 3/30, prevents this team from making any other move, really. Just a pretty modest investment that shows you're not completely punting 2014, and you're slightly less likely to punt 2015 too.

 

That is the point I keep coming back to. $10M a year for the next 2-3 years does not mean we can't afford anyone later.

 

They signed pitchers because our staff was embarrassing and know that if that marginally improves, the heat will be off t hem for the most part. That seems to be the motivation, just enough.

[cmathewson]

Thanks again for the numbers.

 

Aside from his lost injury year of 2012, Drew has 5 consecutive years of prorated 3+ WAR, including last year's 3.1 in only 124 games. He's actually pretty consistent in that regard. And it's mostly batting WAR, which should be more projectable than defensive WAR.

 

And there's no way 2/20, or even 3/30, prevents this team from making any other move, really. Just a pretty modest investment that shows you're not completely punting 2014, and you're slightly less likely to punt 2015 too.

 

I expect some regression from 3+, about 1 WAR from age and the + from home ballpark. My projection might be more pessimistic than most. But, there it is.

[nicksaviking]

That is the point I keep coming back to. $10M a year for the next 2-3 years does not mean we can't afford anyone later.

 

They signed pitchers because our staff was embarrassing and know that if that marginally improves, the heat will be off t hem for the most part. That seems to be the motivation, just enough.

 

And what if some combination of Pelfrey, Hughes and Nolasco flop and the Twins are willing to go after another bigger named pitcher again next year? If James Shields or Justin Masterson are available and the Twins are already at $90-100 million, the odds the Twins go after them probably decreases a lot.

 

And if not in 2015, what about 2016? I don't want that dead salary on the books in three years.

[tobi0040]

And what if some combination of Pelfrey, Hughes and Nolasco flop and the Twins are willing to go after another bigger named pitcher again next year? If James Shields or Justin Masterson are available and the Twins are already at $90-100 million, the odds the Twins go after them probably decreases a lot.

 

And if not in 2015, what about 2016? I don't want that dead salary on the books in three years.

 

With Drew Payroll would be about $92M. We lose $12M next year (Corea and Josh). So start at $80M and add back 2 starters making the minimum, add a CF making the minimum, potentially both corner OF making min. (Arcia and Hicks), and a 3B making the minimum.

 

A payroll at $80M is $30M to $40M below the recommendation of 52% of revenue. Really a moot point, Shields will get a 6-7 year, $150M+ contract and we aren't going there for a pitcher. But this should not stop us from doing anything.

[jokin]

 

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.

 

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.

 

.

 

Drew's actions in 2013 speak louder than all of the words of doubt on this thread, by far.

 

Most of your defense of your position is "words", which you admit are misleading, by an owner who not only completely misjudged Drew' rehabilitating status.......and maybe this didn't occur to you..... but he committed a foolish self-inflicted wound, by castigating his own asset's potential trading value in public...and now he has egg on his face for those foolish actions.

[jokin]

Thanks again for the numbers.

 

Aside from his lost injury year of 2012, Drew has 5 consecutive years of prorated 3+ WAR, including last year's 3.1 in only 124 games. He's actually pretty consistent in that regard. And it's mostly batting WAR, which should be more projectable than defensive WAR.

 

And there's no way 2/20, or even 3/30, prevents this team from making any other move, really. Just a pretty modest investment that shows you're not completely punting 2014, and you're slightly less likely to punt 2015 too.

 

 

Yeoman work spycake, well stated.

[jokin]

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?

 

3 strawmen for the price of one? The current situations for Valverde, Santana and Ramirez resemble Drew's situation in no way whatsoever.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I expect some regression from 3+, about 1 WAR from age and the + from home ballpark. My projection might be more pessimistic than most. But, there it is.

 

Actually, 2 WAR is about what Steamer and Oliver have Drew pegged for too. So it's not unreasonable, although I do think it more pessimistic than a true mean/median projection should be, because we know specifically what caused Drew's sudden 2012 decline, and most projection systems don't. (Remember, to them, this is a guy who simply hit like Pedro Florimon for one season.)

 

Even if 2 WAR is your median projection, he's still got 3+ WAR upside (his 2013 was 3.75 WAR prorated to 150 games) and, having reached that level at age 30, at age 31-32 he would still have a pretty healthy percentage likelihood of approaching that. Florimon doesn't have that, and Santana doesn't really have that, especially not for the next couple seasons.

[Riverbrian]

Drew's actions in 2013 speak louder than all of the words of doubt on this thread, by far.

 

Most of your defense of your position is "words", which you admit are misleading, by an owner who not only completely misjudged Drew' rehabilitating status.......and maybe this didn't occur to you..... but he committed a foolish self-inflicted wound, by castigating his own asset's potential trading value in public...and now he has egg on his face for those foolish actions.

 

Even the "Actions" turn into "words" after interpretation of the "actions"... So... I'm with ya... I really do use the same grain of salt.

 

Bottom line... The dynamic between Arizona and Drew is unknown by us outsiders... It's impossible for either of us to know.

 

However... None of the other 29 teams were willing to put up a package of more that Jamieson for Drew. That's an action for 2012 and it wasn't that long ago and it still gives me pause. I'm not willing to think it was just injury related.

 

As for 2013... He had a good year but it wasn't exceptional and it was even less wonderful in comparison to players that can really hit... And I mean really hit like Nelson Cruz.

 

Its just better than Florimon and that's a low bar to clear. You are paying for position scarcity. It's too much money for what we get.

[jokin]

This shows exactly what I'm saying when I talk about the price tag of SS's and position scarcity inflating that price tag. Gregorious value is equivalent to Trevor Bauer and Shin Soo Choo.

 

Justin Upton does not equal the value of Elvis Andrus or Jurickson Profar. With Drew you are paying big money because he is a SS. Not because he has consistently produced awesome numbers.

 

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. I don't know if he made assumptions or Drew said to him.... Screw You... I'm not risking my contract with someone next year or whatever. We don't know if it was Boras and Drew disagreeing with Team Doctors or Kendrick not listening to team doctors. I don't know.

 

I'm not comfortable designating anyone as a bonehead without 1st hand knowledge of them.

 

They are able to accumulate a lot of money because they don't give away assets.

 

Actions speak louder than words... Drew was given away. The A's gave the D-Backs nothing for him. It was compounded because it cost the D-Backs Trevor Bauer to replace him. You could say... Indirectly... The D-Backs gave away Bauer to get rid of Drew.

 

It was just 2012... It wasn't that long ago. A decent 2013 with a winning team Boston doesn't say... I'm back... Ta-Dah!!!

 

In 2012... Not along ago... The D-Backs gave him away... They hated him that much... It would have to be assumed that they tried to trade him to more teams than the A's.

 

No team could beat the A's package of Sean Jamieson... a 17th round pick who was hitting .234 at Low A.

 

Now consider position scarcity and the price of Gregorious and Andrus and I assume without proof that Drew was unwanted in 2012 by everyone and 2012 wasn't that long ago.

 

 

Its going to give me pause. You won't be able to convince me to jump in first feet. I must pause.

 

I think it's important to distinguish boneheaded moves from actually labeling someone as being a bonehead, which is certainly not what I said. But I did demonstrate that the owner made 2 decisions that worked out very poorly (Drew's resurgence in 2013 traded away for nothing, with contributory negligence by badmouthing that asset in the process/Trading a #9-ranked prospect SP for a #72-ranked SS due to position scarcity).

 

Ta=Dah. Drew came back with a resurgence in 2013 because he was fully healthy. Much like Hardy came back after being given away by the Twins because they similarly didn't understand that Hardy was not yet fully recovered.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I should add, I really don't care that much about Drew specifically. When he was projected to get 4/48 by MLBTR, I thought "no thanks."

 

But I like taking advantage of opportunities. How many established 3+ WAR shortstops hit free agency? At age 30? How many of them see their expected contract fall near Twins/Willingham levels, presumably due more to a lack of openings around the league and draft pick compensation issues than the player's own health or production?

 

If you're a team with some big holes and some cash to play with, this is absolutely the type of situation you should be looking for: the chance to improve the team when the market favors you, when you have some leverage in negotiating with the player, and you don't have to get into a bidding war. Garza was a great example of this, since he didn't even require draft pick compensation, but most of the late signing free agents fall into this group too (especially the pitchers and this shortstop, given the Twins needs at those spots).

 

Snagging a player or two every so often by this method, while not absolutely necessary from a strict "success cycle" perspective, reduces the likelihood you will have such big holes to fill in the future, and reduces the likelihood that you will be forced to try filling a hole when the market conditions are not as favorable. And improves your chances for winning.

[jokin]

 

Bottom line... The dynamic between Arizona and Drew is unknown by us outsiders... It's impossible for either of us to know.

 

. I'm not willing to think it was just injury related.

 

As for 2013... He had a good year but it wasn't exceptional and it was even less wonderful in comparison to players that can really hit... And I mean really hit like Nelson Cruz.

 

Its just better than Florimon and that's a low bar to clear. You are paying for position scarcity. It's too much money for what we get.

 

Clearly, Drew had a doctor and a trainer and an agent and a manager and an owner who all had different expectations for what they wanted from Drew in 2012. Pulled in multiple directions, and re-learning how to run on a reconstructed weight-supporting and direction-changing bone that had itself been literally pulled 180 degrees from it's natural direction. It might be impossible for us to know exactly what went down, it's quite reasonable to infer from the information available.

 

Wasn't exceptional in 2013? He was the 4th best-hitting SS for those with over 500 PAs.

 

We've gone over Cruz, hurt every year, huge steroid risk, one-dimensional player. And turning age 34, he would present far greater risk and likely will cost more to sign than Drew.

 

I still haven't seen anybody, not just you, RB, who has made a convincing argument on how signing Drew is "too much money for what we get."

[Don't Feed the Greed Guy]

I still like Florimon, but if Kmart suddenly announces a Blue Light Special on thirty year-old free agent shortstops...

 

[Mike Sixel]

Right on spycake, had they filled a hole a year with a medium priced guy, they would not be too far away from winning to sign legit players......or they could be dealing them if they still are. I still can't see a downside to Drew. They could literally burn 10MM a year, and still have money left over to sign a big time player in the future, which I don't see happening.

[Guest USAFChief]

Even the "Actions" turn into "words" after interpretation of the zzz"actions"... So... I'm with ya... I really do use the same grain of salt. Bottom line... The dynamic between Arizona and Drew is unknown by us outsiders... It's impossible for either of us to know. However... None of the other 29 teams were willing to put up a package of more that Jamieson for Drew. That's an action for 2012 and it wasn't that long ago and it still gives me pause. I'm not willing to think it was just injury related. As for 2013... He had a good year but it wasn't exceptional and it was even less wonderful in comparison to players that can really hit... And I mean really hit like Nelson Cruz. Its just better than Florimon and that's a low bar to clear. You are paying for position scarcity. It's too much money for what we get.

A couple rebuttals:It might not be fair to hold the Arizona trade against Drew. The Twins for example gave up Gomez to get Hardy and then turned around and gave him away for two minor league relievers. Should we hold that against Hardy?I think you're perhaps underestimating the difference between Drew and Florimon offensively. There's over .150 pts of career OPS there. Getting an extra buck fifty of OPS is valuable whether you're replacing an .800 guy with a .950 guy, or a .600 guy with a .750 guy...and the second case will almost certainly be cheaper.

[jokin]

I should add, I really don't care that much about Drew specifically. When he was projected to get 4/48 by MLBTR, I thought "no thanks."

 

But I like taking advantage of opportunities. How many established 3+ WAR shortstops hit free agency? At age 30? How many of them see their expected contract fall near Twins/Willingham levels, presumably due more to a lack of openings around the league and draft pick compensation issues than the player's own health or production?

 

If you're a team with some big holes and some cash to play with, this is absolutely the type of situation you should be looking for: the chance to improve the team when the market favors you, when you have some leverage in negotiating with the player, and you don't have to get into a bidding war. Garza was a great example of this, since he didn't even require draft pick compensation, but most of the late signing free agents fall into this group too (especially the pitchers and this shortstop, given the Twins needs at those spots).

 

Snagging a player or two every so often by this method, while not absolutely necessary from a strict "success cycle" perspective, reduces the likelihood you will have such big holes to fill in the future, and reduces the likelihood that you will be forced to try filling a hole when the market conditions are not as favorable. And improves your chances for winning.

 

 

This is spot on. Finding a SS going forward through FA will become more expensive and more risky, not less. Yunel Escobar looks like the only upcoming FA that the Twins might be able to afford, and Tampa holds a team option on 2015, besides. The rest are prohibitively expensive, even older or more injury-prone than Drew, or some combination of all 3.

 

Drew isn't the perfect answer by any means, but he gives you a perfect bridge at the position until you can answer the question of "Who?" more definitively.

[Otto von Ballpark]

However... None of the other 29 teams were willing to put up a package of more that Jamieson for Drew. That's an action for 2012 and it wasn't that long ago and it still gives me pause. I'm not willing to think it was just injury related.

 

I know very little about how trades actually happen, but I am pretty sure Drew was not offered to all 29 other MLB teams in 2012. There isn't really a "trading block" or central agency for these things. Arizona wanted relief of Drew's salary, and got it; Oakland wanted a SS for their stretch drive, and got it; Boston wanted a SS for $10 mil, and got it.

 

As for 2013... He had a good year but it wasn't exceptional and it was even less wonderful in comparison to players that can really hit... And I mean really hit like Nelson Cruz.

 

If by "really hit" you mean "really hit more homers" I guess you're right. Same AVG/OBP, more homers for Cruz, more triples for Drew.

 

Over his career, Nelson Cruz is worth 8 rBat (B-Ref batting runs) per 500 PA (and actually less than that rate over the past 3 seasons).

 

Drew had 6 rBat in 500 PA last season.

 

For his career, Drew is only -1.5 rBat per 500 PA. But even that is just a one-win difference between the two from hitting alone, more than dwarfed by defense, positional adjustment, our organizational depth at SS vs corner OF, and Cruz being almost 3 years older.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Getting an extra buck fifty of OPS is valuable whether you're replacing an .800 guy with a .950 guy, or a .600 guy with a .750 guy...and the second case will almost certainly be cheaper.

 

Exactly.

 

And to those who think Florimon can be just fine as 9 hole hitter, remember the Twins have multiple 9 hole hitters in our lineup as of today. It helps to replace one of them!

[jokin]

Exactly.

 

And to those who think Florimon can be just fine as 9 hole hitter, remember the Twins have multiple 9 hole hitters in our lineup as of today. It helps to replace one of them!

 

5 of 9 field positions hit below .700 OPS for the Twins last season with Florimon only the worst among many possible bad hitters in the batting order (and now Morneau's gone [104 OPS+]) and replaced by Suzuki- with a Florimon-esque 73 OPS+ in 2013). Drew's 2013 OPS+ would put him far above the bottom of the order plus the leadoff position and right around the top 3 spots in the order (#2, #4, #6).

 

It certainly does help to replace one of the many spots OPS+ing between 70 and 80.

[TheLeviathan]

If you're a team with some big holes and some cash to play with, this is absolutely the type of situation you should be looking for: the chance to improve the team when the market favors you, when you have some leverage in negotiating with the player, and you don't have to get into a bidding war. Garza was a great example of this, since he didn't even require draft pick compensation, but most of the late signing free agents fall into this group too (especially the pitchers and this shortstop, given the Twins needs at those spots).

 

I 100% agree with your sentiment. What I think you may be missing is that there is leverage working against the Twins - the qualifying offer, namely. When you consider every bit as glaring a need for the Mets (and maybe the Yankees for that matter) and they aren't rushing to do this - doesn't that give any of you pause about Boras' approach right now?

 

Or concerns, within MLB, about Drew specifically? Florimon is not a long term answer, but he's pretty universally regarded as a good defender. The Mets can't even say they have that and they have mountains of money to play with. The Yankees have little going forward with or without Jeter in their infield. And yet, he still sits there unsigned.

 

I completely understand the appeal of Drew, I just disagree it's the right move. What I would suggest to those arguing so forcefully that it's a slam dunk...if that was the case....why is ST happening and several teams with big money available and I high degree of need...not also pouncing on this move?

 

I think it speaks to the concerns brought forward about him and how these are legit concerns that even those in very powerful positions in the league agree with. It has nothing to do with ignoring this very excellent strategy you lay out spycake and everything to do with the warts of this particular player.

[Monkeypaws]

If the Twins were going to blow the pick and pay big, I'd prefer E. Santana to tell the truth.

 

Drew is a very pedestrian hitter, and not worth the investment.

[Riverbrian]

I 100% agree with your sentiment. What I think you may be missing is that there is leverage working against the Twins - the qualifying offer, namely. When you consider every bit as glaring a need for the Mets (and maybe the Yankees for that matter) and they aren't rushing to do this - doesn't that give any of you pause about Boras' approach right now?

 

Or concerns, within MLB, about Drew specifically? Florimon is not a long term answer, but he's pretty universally regarded as a good defender. The Mets can't even say they have that and they have mountains of money to play with. The Yankees have little going forward with or without Jeter in their infield. And yet, he still sits there unsigned.

 

I completely understand the appeal of Drew, I just disagree it's the right move. What I would suggest to those arguing so forcefully that it's a slam dunk...if that was the case....why is ST happening and several teams with big money available and I high degree of need...not also pouncing on this move?

 

I think it speaks to the concerns brought forward about him and how these are legit concerns that even those in very powerful positions in the league agree with. It has nothing to do with ignoring this very excellent strategy you lay out spycake and everything to do with the warts of this particular player.

 

Excellent post!

 

This has been a great discussion... I also understand the desire of those who are Pro-Drew. I'm just not in that camp.

 

Great points made on both sides regardless.

[jokin]

If the Twins were going to blow the pick and pay big, I'd prefer E. Santana to tell the truth.

 

Drew is a very pedestrian hitter, and not worth the investment.

 

Except based on WAR value computations from 3 of the last 4 years, he's a freaking bargain.

 

And there's no reason, financially, that they couldn't sign both a high end pitcher as well as a complete MLB SS.

 

If Drew's a "pedestrian" hitter for a SS, coming in at #4 in that group in 2013, what does that make the rest of the group?

"Loiterers"?

"Malingerers"?

"Vagrants"?

"Wastrels"?

"Layabouts"?

[cmathewson]

Actually, 2 WAR is about what Steamer and Oliver have Drew pegged for too. So it's not unreasonable, although I do think it more pessimistic than a true mean/median projection should be, because we know specifically what caused Drew's sudden 2012 decline, and most projection systems don't. (Remember, to them, this is a guy who simply hit like Pedro Florimon for one season.)

 

Even if 2 WAR is your median projection, he's still got 3+ WAR upside (his 2013 was 3.75 WAR prorated to 150 games) and, having reached that level at age 30, at age 31-32 he would still have a pretty healthy percentage likelihood of approaching that. Florimon doesn't have that, and Santana doesn't really have that, especially not for the next couple seasons.

 

Hey, it's not my money, so yeah, let's just put it on red. Thing is, it's not just money. It's a draft pick. And it's an opportunity for a top 10 prospect (Santana). Look, I have said I would sign him for 2/20. But I would be very careful not to extend that, because he does not really help that much. And rumor has it, he's still holding out for 3/30. Caving to that is like putting your money on green.

[jokin]

Hey, it's not my money, so yeah, let's just put it on red. Thing is, it's not just money. It's a draft pick. And it's an opportunity for a top 10 prospect (Santana). Look, I have said I would sign him for 2/20. But I would be very careful not to extend that, because he does not really help that much. And rumor has it, he's still holding out for 3/30. Caving to that is like putting your money on green.

 

We seem to be closer than some realize. I've been advocating for a deal at no more than 2 years from 3 Drew threads ago. But nothing wrong with exploring a 3rd year mutual option arrangement.

 

I'm not sure which rumor you've heard about 3/30, but I have frequently heard about Boras asking for 2 years with a first-year opt-out, and also that Drew has publicly stated he has no qualms. Both situations would be perfect for the Twins, they make the QO after the opt-out and maintain the potential to play Drew at SS or 3B.

[ppearson50]

Nelson Cruz looks to be on the verge of signing with the Orioles. So cross him off our list. I did see that Matt Cerone, a Mets blogger, said the Astros and the Twins are the mystery teams in on Drew. So I guess that is good news.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Hey, it's not my money, so yeah, let's just put it on red. Thing is, it's not just money. It's a draft pick. And it's an opportunity for a top 10 prospect (Santana). Look, I have isaid I would sign him for 2/20. But I would be very careful not to extend that, because he does not really help that much. And rumor has it, he's still holding out for 3/30. Caving to that is like putting your money on green.

 

First off, I don't believe in automatically holding spots open for any "top 10" org prospect who is still likely a year-plus away from the show. Drew for 2 does not block Santana at all (if it develops that there is anything to block). Heck, Drew for 3 is barely worse, it at least gives you a fallback plan for 2016 if Santana doesn't take those steps forward.

 

I don't like losing the pick, but as pointed out by others, the Twins have an advantage over some clubs in that regard (our pick is lower than most, and we allegedly already have a pretty deep system).

 

Boston offered Drew 1/14 with no loss of draft pick. Not sure of the cash value of that pick, but Boston also gave him 1/10 last year before he was known to be recovered from injury. 2/20 plus the pick should not be a hold your nose situation at all. And 3/30 would not necessarily be caving -- without the broken ankle, think what Drew could have seen on the market this winter.

 

It should be very interesting to see where he lands, and for how much. These late signings so far are looking like good values -- potential aces/#2s for Nolasco money or less, back of the rotation types for Kurt Suzuki type money guaranteed. Drew looks to be he best value position player option.

[howieramone1406390264]

First off, I don't believe in automatically holding spots open for any "top 10" org prospect who is still likely a year-plus away from the show. Drew for 2 does not block Santana at all (if it develops that there is anything to block). Heck, Drew for 3 is barely worse, it at least gives you a fallback plan for 2016 if Santana doesn't take those steps forward.

 

I don't like losing the pick, but as pointed out by others, the Twins have an advantage over some clubs in that regard (our pick is lower than most, and we allegedly already have a pretty deep system).

 

Boston offered Drew 1/14 with no loss of draft pick. Not sure of the cash value of that pick, but Boston also gave him 1/10 last year before he was known to be recovered from injury. 2/20 plus the pick should not be a hold your nose situation at all. And 3/30 would not necessarily be caving -- without the broken ankle, think what Drew could have seen on the market this winter.

 

It should be very interesting to see where he lands, and for how much. These late signings so far are looking like good values -- potential aces/#2s for Nolasco money or less, back of the rotation types for Kurt Suzuki type money guaranteed. Drew looks to be he best value position player option.

 

There never was a potential ace in the free agent market. Whether Garza, Santana, or Jimenez are still 2's is certainly open for debate.