Was Drury a bad signing?
View Single Post
07-19-2008, 11:26 AM
Join Date: May 2004
Originally Posted by
So your telling me that if you were offered 7 million, that you would want 5.5 million instead? I don't think so, you would be taking more money to play for your favorite team.
No, you inferred that.
Had we not offered him 7M, that wouldn’t have been an option. Let’s assume no one else offered him 7M (they probably didn’t). He was probably getting offers in the 5.5-6M range.
Nowhere did I say “home-team discount.” I suggested that, if we had offered 5.75-6.25M, he’d have no reason NOT to sign with his favorite team. Every 500K counts BIGTIME these days.
So in light of all that, and the fact that he signed less than 12 hours into free agency, we can assume slats probably offered 7M up front with little negotiation. Good player that I’m glad to have, but a bad signing no less.
And a lot of people expect the salary cap to go higher and higher. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But if the general economy is a good indicator, either the cap won’t go much higher or 7, 8, 9, 10M will be greatly de-valued.
But anyway, bad signing. Rolston, a very similar player, never made near that much. Sure he was in different markets and is 4 years older, but he signed for 2.5M in '05... two years later, Drury gets 3x that? Would you have signed Rolston at 30 for 7M? I wouldn't have.
Hindsight is 20/20, and I agree with the above post. But never is a 55-60 point player worth 7M, I don't care if he led the Mexican Revolution... maybe Slats thought he'd win us the cup, in which case, it makes sense... but until then, I personally will call this a bad signing.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BobMarleyNYR