Diamondbacks Bullpen

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AtwpcFE0IMgv1OwYX5LCBNgRvLYF?slug=ap-dodgers-drew&prov=ap&type=lgns

JD Drew chose to opt out of the remainder of his 3 year, $33m deal to become a free agent.

I think he becomes the best value among all free agent outfielders in the market right now.

In other news, the Dodgers are royally fucked. Couldn't have happened to a nicer organization.

Eat your heart out, LaSorda

Otacon · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject:

D'backs should get him. Seriously. 2 years, 30 million (his current deal was 3 for 30). Trade Byrnes and Hairston and he would be gone by the time CarGon is here.

I wish anyway.
_________________

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

Otacon · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject:

That's why I ended it with "I wish". Sad

I say he signs with St. Louis. lollololo.
_________________

McCray · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject:

wow, the dodgers are so royally screwed. but they had to see this coming. think they'll try to give him a newer, longer, richer contract, or is he just gone?

for a second there, i was going to ask if people thought the dodgers would fill his spot via the farm, but i don't see ned colleti doing that. he's going to find some 39 year old outfielder with waning skills.

so, lev's down for the red sox. my money's on the mets -- i could see them dfa'ing green and giving his spot to drew. (man, i'm STILL shocked that the mets traded for green!)
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

matt · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject:

Holy shit, this is BAD for the Dodgers.

TAP · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject:

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

Dylan · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 235

Mets need pitching, they've got enough offense to throw you out in RF McCray.

The Drew contract was the one true black mark on the DePo era. Can't blame Hidely Hodely Nedareeno on this one.

moviegeekjn · Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject:

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

qudjy1 · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1121

SF would seem to be a likely landing place...

matt · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:53 am Post subject:

Dylan · MLB Rookie Joined: 11 Aug 2006 Posts: 235

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

Think about it from a different angle, Dylan: you have an injury prone player like Drew, and you expect that the next couple of years will be his peak years. You fear that he may decline rapidly in years 4-5 of the contract, but you cannot sign him for a 2 or 3 years only.

What you achieve by giving him the opt out clause is incentive to bust his ass over the first couple of years of his contact. Basically, you are getting a guy who's relatively cheap at 11m/year, and who's playing excellent ball--and who's trying his best to stay on the field so he can cash out if he opts out.

Put it differently: if DePo had signed Drew to a two years, $22m deal, I think everyone would've said "Fn A great deal for DePo". Maybe DePo only wanted Drew for 2 years, to give the farm the chance to mature guys like Kemp and Joel Guzman (since traded) and some of the other OF options. You basically get Drew for 2 years at a relatively cheap deal, given his projected production, then you don't have to worry that he'll break down for years 3-5 of the contact--when you can give RF to Guzman and CF to Kemp.

I think the DePo had a pretty good incentive to agree to the opt out clause. Ned, OTOH, should've made sure that Drew wouldn't execrise it; I think that if he had approached Drew with an offer for an extra year at $11m or so, Drew would've stayed. But Ned got caught up with his pants down. As Homer would say, "Doh!"

shoewizard · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 am Post subject:

At the time of the contract, I felt that this was a bad clause for the Dodgers, for exactly the reasons that Dylan stated.

I still think so. Bottom line is Drew is gone, and they can't replace him for the same price, unless they get really lucky with one of their young outfielders.

Dodgers are screwed. Laughing

qudjy1 · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1121

Colletti will probably look to get in on the Lee/soriano dealings... which to me are two players who are not much of an upgrade, and will cost prob 4-5M more a year...

TAP · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:34 am Post subject:

qudjy1 · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1121

Thats funny too... gonzo is probably pissed about Drews opt out.. pushes him down the ladder one more rung...

shoewizard · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:44 am Post subject:

The next rung down from where he is standing, whether he knows it or not, is the ground.

qudjy1 · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1121

McCray · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:37 am Post subject:

gonzo as a 4th OFer or platoon guy or bat off the bench has some value.

i'd be surprised if he gets a starting gig, really surprised if he's still starting at the end of 07.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

Otacon · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:38 am Post subject:

NJ-DBACKS-FAN · Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:52 am Post subject:

qudjy1 · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1121

How would you guys "rank" him among the available LFers... i think my opinion is that he is probably tied in a close second to Soriano with lee...

Although there are obvious injury concerns with drew - he posted a .891 OPS this year, and has been better (higher ops) than Soriano in every other year than this year. Lee and him are basically identical this year, but drew has been better in the past as well...

In other words - in my opinion the available replacements are not much of an upgrade - and they will cost more...