JD Drew rational for opting out

Well, for starters, we did hold JD Drew hitless (0-for-2 with a walk and strikeout) in his first (unofficial) game against the Dodgers, which is always a good thing for team confidence. By the way, Drew's replacement, RF Moss scored the only Red Sox run yesterday.

Anyway, speaking of JD, there is a very interesting article on the top scroll at mlb.com, which sheds some light on Drew and Boras' reasons for invoking the infamous opt-out clause. One of the cited reasons is Boras making Drew aware of the fact that with a young family they ought to have had more job security. 
Apparently, the was no no-trade clause in the Dodgers contract with Drew. Says JD:

"You know, the thing with me is that we were looking for some job security, and I know where the Dodgers are heading and I didn't want to become trade bait at some point down the road. Those were the  things that were very important to me, and it just didn't seem like they wanted to pursue any of those avenues, so they moved on and I kind of had to do the same thing." 
In effect Boras made Drew accept a limited no-trade from the Sox - limited to... two teams?? Having said that:

"Sources with knowledge of his Dodgers contract said Monday there was language in that deal allowing him to block trades to five teams, ostensibly giving him more job security with the Dodgers than in his current deal."

My question: why beat about the bush with lingo on peripheral aspects of contract when everybody and their mother knows it was mostly a guaranteed money-based decision? Drew then turns around and blames Colletti for being pissed with the last-second opt-out decision.

In general I was thinking that JD going public about his leaving the Dodgers in the off-season would make me understand the rationale of his (their, with Boras) decision. Having read this piece (very informative, no doubt) - I'm puzzled all the more.

And you?