Stephen Drew critical of draft pick compensation system

68 Comments

Players have reported to their respective spring training sites in Florida and Arizona, but free agent shortstop Stephen Drew is still looking for home. While Drew is said to be looking for $14 million per season, being attached to draft pick compensation has undoubtedly had an impact on his market. He told CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman yesterday that he believes the current system is unfair and needs some tweaking:

“You hate to say it, but it really messes up free agency for guys who worked hard,” Drew said. “A lot of people don’t want to give up that first-round pick, and that’s what it boils down to. It’s unusual. I understand draft picks, but at the same time, you have a guy who’s proven as very good on defense and a top five shortstop if you look at it.”

“Our union has been really good. But I think we really have to look at this,” Drew said. “Is this really good for free agency? Our players need to sit back and look at it and see what we need to do about it.”

According to Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, new MLBPA head Tony Clark said yesterday that there “will be dialogue” about the draft pick compensation system and its impact on free agency. However, Heyman writes that we might not see any changes until after the current collective bargaining agreement expires in 2016. As for Drew’s agent, Scott Boras, he’s not worried about finding a deal for his clients.

“Talent has no wristwatch,” Boras said. “When you’re the steak, you don’t worry about what time dinner is.”

Most Scott Boras quote ever? Most Scott Boras quote ever.

Heyman does pass along one new interesting nugget on the Mets suggesting a salary of around $9.5 million for Drew, which is what he made last year. However, the veteran shortstop continues to hold out for something better.

Mike Rizzo and Shawn Kelley almost got into a physical confrontation

Getty Images
15 Comments

A few weeks back the Washington Nationals designated reliever Shawn Kelley for assignment the morning after he threw his glove into the ground and glared at the Nats dugout in frustration after giving up a homer in a blowout win against the Mets. He was later traded to the Athletics. Nats GM Mike Rizzo said at that time that he thought Kelley was trying to show up his manager and that there was no room for that sort of thing on the team, offering an “either you’re with us or you’re working against us” sentiment in the process.

Today the Washington Post talks about all of the Nationals’ bullpen woes of late, and touches on the departure of Kelley as being part of the problem. In so doing, we learn that, on the night of Kelley’s mound tantrum, he and Rizzo almost got into a physical confrontation:

Rizzo headed down to the clubhouse and confronted Kelley, according to people familiar with the situation. The argument became heated, including raised voices, and eventually it almost became physical, according to people familiar with the exchange. Adam Eaton got between the two of them and separated them before things could advance further . . .

Might I point out that, the fact of this emerging now helps to vindicate Brandon Kintzler who, the day before, was traded away, some say, for being the source for negative reports from inside the Nats’ clubhouse?

That aside, the article does not make anyone look good, really. Rizzo had the backing of his team with the Kelley incident, but the overall story — how did the Nats’ bullpen, which was once a strength — get so bad? — does no favors for Rizzo. Mostly because he seems to have thought that they had so much extra bullpen depth that they could afford to deal away Kintzler, which he says was a financial move, not a punitive trade for being a media source.

Question: when was the last time you heard a baseball man say he had too much relief pitching? Especially today, in which the bullpen has assumed such a prominent role? Seems rather unreasonable to cut relievers when you’re trying mightily to come back from a sizable deficit in the standings, yes?