Thursday, April 28, 2005
A Brief Word On Stephen Drew
If Scott Boras is to be believed, the Diamondbacks and Stephen Drew are far away from an agreement.
You can already read Primer or what I'm sure is now a 5-page thread on the Republic's D-Backs message board on this.
The official Random Fandom projection on what kind of professional baseball player Stephen Drew will be is, "What? Are you kidding me? I got no idea."
So as you can see, I don't have much of an opinion (or a valid one, anyway) on who has the misperceived notion of Stephen's Drew value. Clearly, the two sides are far enough apart that it's possible for both of them to be misjudging his "true" value (whatever that means).
The only thing I do have an opinion on (and why I'm not willing to wait until tomorrow's Waiver Wire to discuss it) is that the article should not have been printed without an attempt to contact D-Backs' management. What we have in the article is a bunch of charges from Scott Boras. They may be completely true. They may be utter lies. But they're serious enough charges (the D-Backs had an informal deal with Drew that was taken off the table when Colangelo was pushed out) that they merit a response, or an attempt at one.
I don't know, I'm guessing Boras tracked McManaman down in the locker room after the game and McManaman, having been given an awesome story, ran with it and didn't have time to solicit the other view. Or maybe that point was included and got edited out. Or maybe there was a solar flare that interrupted the phone transmission that included that point. The point is, I don't know, and it's possible there's a very good reason for the omission.
But an article like this (with new information) should've gone out with both sides -- even if one or both sides are lying.
You can already read Primer or what I'm sure is now a 5-page thread on the Republic's D-Backs message board on this.
The official Random Fandom projection on what kind of professional baseball player Stephen Drew will be is, "What? Are you kidding me? I got no idea."
So as you can see, I don't have much of an opinion (or a valid one, anyway) on who has the misperceived notion of Stephen's Drew value. Clearly, the two sides are far enough apart that it's possible for both of them to be misjudging his "true" value (whatever that means).
The only thing I do have an opinion on (and why I'm not willing to wait until tomorrow's Waiver Wire to discuss it) is that the article should not have been printed without an attempt to contact D-Backs' management. What we have in the article is a bunch of charges from Scott Boras. They may be completely true. They may be utter lies. But they're serious enough charges (the D-Backs had an informal deal with Drew that was taken off the table when Colangelo was pushed out) that they merit a response, or an attempt at one.
I don't know, I'm guessing Boras tracked McManaman down in the locker room after the game and McManaman, having been given an awesome story, ran with it and didn't have time to solicit the other view. Or maybe that point was included and got edited out. Or maybe there was a solar flare that interrupted the phone transmission that included that point. The point is, I don't know, and it's possible there's a very good reason for the omission.
But an article like this (with new information) should've gone out with both sides -- even if one or both sides are lying.
Comments:
Post a Comment
