Has anybody mentioned Stephen Drew?

[Ceetar]

I predicted/guessed/shotinthedark Drew would sign with the Mets by the time the snow finishes falling tomorrow.

[Mex17]

No one is really speculating on this, but what are the chances of him actually going to the Twins or Astros?

[Edgy MD]

He's got to go somewhere.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Opening Day just a little more than six weeks away. This can't drag on much longer.

[Lefty Specialist]

If I'm Stephen Drew, I'm a little antsy right about now. I still don't think he comes to the Mets, but wherever he signs it'll probably be for less than he could have gotten a month ago.

[Frayed Knot]

If so he wouldn't be the first guy who had to settle for less by following Boras's strategy of waiting for the big deal that never arrived. He could just wind up with a one-year deal (in which case he would have been better off taking the qualifying offer from the BoSox) and then try the FA thing again next year.

On the other hand, it's possible that the Jeter announcement (have you heard that Jeter is planning on retiring after this season?) makes the Yanquis suddenly more interested either now--fill in at other positions now kid and we promise to let you play SS full-time next year--or for 2015

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: If so he wouldn't be the first guy who had to settle for less by following Boras's strategy of waiting for the big deal that never arrived. He could just wind up with a one-year deal (in which case he would have been better off taking the qualifying offer from the BoSox) and then try the FA thing again next year. On the other hand, it's possible that the Jeter announcement (have you heard that Jeter is planning on retiring after this season?) makes the Yanquis suddenly more interested either now--fill in at other positions now kid and we promise to let you play SS full-time next year--or for 2015

if he accepted the qualifying offer he'd have been back in the same spot next year, no?

what he really needs to do now, i think, is find a one year deal BUT with a team that agrees not to offer arbitration so that he wont have the draft pick attached to him again next offseason.

[Edgy MD]

Nymr83 wrote: if he accepted the qualifying offer he'd have been back in the same spot next year, no?

With $14 million more in his bank account, and possibly with a more appealing CV and a different market.

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: if he accepted the qualifying offer he'd have been back in the same spot next year, no? With $14 million more in his bank account, and possibly with a more appealing CV and a different market.

Well, I don't think that even a good year (or a repeat of the best year he's had in the last 3 lets say) improves his market too much because of the draft pick compensation attached to him. The compensation kills mid-level free agents because its just not worth losing a 1st round pick to get 2-3 years of a 2-3 WAR guy at a reasonable contract number. There are probably about a half dozen guys strongly affected by this each year and that wasn't enough for the union to make it a sticking point (or they really got outfoxed in the last CBA, either way its bad for Drew).

There are only 2 ways to get rid of that draft pick: sign with a team that agrees not to make a qualifying offer (and take less as a result) or get traded mid-season (compensation doesn't attach to someone you acquired this year). Drew can't control the 2nd option.

Now Drew's loss could really be the Mets' gain here, because they look to be the only team that 1) really needs a shortstop and 2) would lose only a 3rd round pick. The Red Sox are the only other team that wouldn't lose a higher pick but they have a prospect they feel is ready and they "lose out" on the compensation pick if they don't let him go elsewhere.

The system is kinda dumb, but the Mets need to be smart here and take advantage.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I predict ownership collusion allegations ... this should be
done, somewhere. Someplace.

[metsmarathon]

Edgy MD wrote: Nymr83 wrote: if he accepted the qualifying offer he'd have been back in the same spot next year, no? With $14 million more in his bank account, and possibly with a more appealing CV and a different market.

and with a team that would not be quite so quick to make a qualifying offer knowing that the player just might go ahead and take it again.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I wonder of Boras over-played his hand here.

[nymr83]

d'Kong76 wrote: I predict ownership collusion allegations ... this should be done, somewhere. Someplace.

There are always allegations, but the CBA is to blame here, not collusion.

[Edgy MD]

If they were going to collude, why him and apparently only him? Why not Peralta?

There's usually somebody left over around now. Last year it was Bourn, this year it's him.

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: If they were going to collude, why him and apparently only him? Why not Peralta? There's usually somebody left over around now. Last year it was Bourn, this year it's him.

ESPN Ranked the Free Agents, of their top 50, 4 remain:
6- Ervin Santana
9- Stephen Drew
23- Nelson Cruz
25 - Kendry Morales

All 4 have draft picks attached to them, which is no accident.

Freddie Coupon has signed numbers 13, 15 and 34 on that list. the mets did not lose anyone on the list. not a bad offseason by most standards.

[Edgy MD]

Listen, if you want to argue for fewer restrictions on the talent marketplace, and every last vestige of the reserve clause destroyed, you've got no greater ally than me. My only point is that he wasn't a particular victim of collusion, beyond the greater collusion that is the restrictions of free agent system itself.

[metsmarathon]

he's a victim of the current draft pick compensation. the latest CBA really fucked that shit up good.

[Frayed Knot]

metsmarathon wrote: he's a victim of the current draft pick compensation. the latest CBA really fucked that shit up good.

Well, two ways to look at that I suppose.

1) there are far fewer players now who cost a signing team a compensation pick, fewer signing teams that have their picks protected, and the picks that the losing team gets aren't as high as they used to be. So by that measure the latest CBA improved things from the days when situational relievers who sometimes never even made a contribution to their new team (like say Pedro Feliciano ... heh, heh, heh) involved draft picks.

2) Now that there are so few FAs that warrant compensation, the signing teams are more cautious than ever about signing one of them

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: he's a victim of the current draft pick compensation. the latest CBA really fucked that shit up good.

Maybe in part. But it's not like no one wants him. if he's still not coming down from 42/3 and an opt out clause he may just be overvaluing himself. Even with the lack of shortstops, it seems like teams are unwilling to commit to anyone that's not the best. maybe because it's usually not as difficult to play a no-offensive glove guy there out of an athletic minor leaguer?

[metsmarathon]

Frayed Knot wrote: metsmarathon wrote: he's a victim of the current draft pick compensation. the latest CBA really fucked that shit up good. Well, two ways to look at that I suppose. 1) there are far fewer players now who cost a signing team a compensation pick, fewer signing teams that have their picks protected, and the picks that the losing team gets aren't as high as they used to be. So by that measure the latest CBA improved things from the days when situational relievers who sometimes never even made a contribution to their new team (like say Pedro Feliciano ... heh, heh, heh) involved draft picks. 2) Now that there are so few FAs that warrant compensation, the signing teams are more cautious than ever about signing one of them

yes, the old system was rather wacky in how it determined the value of those eplayers. particularly for relievers, but really for all players. in the past, there were really so many compensation picks flying around that it didn't matter all that much for teams, especially in larger markets, to lose a pick for a player they wanted. and with the type-B players, the signing team didn't really lose anything anyway.

the current problem is that there are players now who are, effectively, type B players who are costing their signing team type-A compensation. there's also the caution over losing a high draft pick that you mentioned, plus a new-found emphasis on the future value of those draft picks that teams are really finally coming around to realizing.

this seems to have not been well-anticipated in the development of the current CBA. i felt the prior system was fairly robust, with tweaks really only needing to be made for the ranking system of type-A vs. type-B. i'm not sure if i like that in-season trades strip away the compensation pick. i always tended to like that feature as it boosted the trade market.

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: . i'm not sure if i like that in-season trades strip away the compensation pick. i always tended to like that feature as it boosted the trade market.

I think it might have been suppressing the trade market a little actually, as teams started to realize it'd be better to hang on to those guys. Especially when those guys were on non-contending teams that probably wouldn't be able to afford them in FA. Unless you find a team that wants him and is willing to give you specific players/prospects that you really want, you'd often be more inclined to pick your poison in the draft.

But on the other hand, the acquiring team knew they'd be getting a draft pick too so wouldn't be as worried about tossing a prospect maybe they weren't as thrilled with in trade.

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: Listen, if you want to argue for fewer restrictions on the talent marketplace, and every last vestige of the reserve clause destroyed, you've got no greater ally than me. My only point is that he wasn't a particular victim of collusion, beyond the greater collusion that is the restrictions of free agent system itself.

Are you responding to me? I agree with you, when i said "no accident" i meant the cba was causing it,not collusion

[Frayed Knot]

metsmarathon wrote: the current problem is that there are players now who are, effectively, type B players who are costing their signing team type-A compensation. there's also the caution over losing a high draft pick that you mentioned, plus a new-found emphasis on the future value of those draft picks that teams are really finally coming around to realizing.

Well, if teams are offering at least the qualifying minimum (top 1/6 of all salaries) to someone who is essentially a 'Type B' player then the player might be better off accepting the offer.
I'm pretty sure all the players who have received the qualifying offer in the two years this system has been in place (about 10-12 each year) would have been 'Type A' under the old system, and that the old system would have produced more FAs due compensation with heavier compensation attached (two picks instead of one, higher picks, etc.)

Players and agents, of course, would like to do away with the system entirely, but I think this is at least a step in that direction.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Bill Madden speculating that Steve Boras may actually let Drew go unsigned past Opening Day.

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Bill Madden speculating that Steve Boras may actually let Drew go unsigned past Opening Day.

bluff?

It seems like he'd only _lose_ value (unless they're gambling on an injury) as teams get through Spring Training and make decisions and plans for the roster without him.

[Edgy MD]

Bill Madden's a Hall of Famer, guys.

This really underscores the need for us to buy up one of those abandoned spring training facilities, preferably the old Dodgertown, and create a camp for unsigned vets.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Bill Madden speculating that Steve Boras may actually let Drew go unsigned past Opening Day. bluff? It seems like he'd only _lose_ value (unless they're gambling on an injury) as teams get through Spring Training and make decisions and plans for the roster without him.

Yeah, maybe Boras is figuring that if Ruben Tejada, for example, has an awful spring, the Mets may become more desperate. (Or the same with the Red Sox and their young phenom, whatever his name is.) And if that doesn't come to pass, then maybe some other team will discover a weakness at shortstop (or perhaps second or third base?) and suddenly become interested.

It's definitely a gamble. But Boras has maneuvered his client into a bad spot.

[Edgy MD]

I guess that "offer on the table" Mike Francesa broke was eyewash.

[nymr83]

This really underscores the need for us to buy up one of those abandoned spring training facilities, preferably the old Dodgertown, and create a camp for unsigned vets.

I think they have this in Football and guys PAY you to show up and play, the business model is that you are promising your games (against the other guys in your facility) give these guys a higher level of competition to prove themselves against than they'd get anywhere else that isnt actually a major league camp. of course, if 2 or 3 super-agents were smart they'd band togther to do this themselves and be able to hold that out as one more reason to sign with them for fringe guys (and they hope one of these guy hits the lotto and pays for it all)

[Edgy MD]

WE'RE smart! Let's go!