Mets Still In It For Stephen Drew, But Why?

The New York Mets reportedly still have interest in free agent shortstop Stephen Drew, which is puzzling. If the Mets are to be consistent with their previous spending policies, they should pass on Drew and move on with Ruben Tejada.

The Mets backed off on outfielder Michael Bourn last winter as to not give up a compensatory draft pick. As it turned out, the Mets made a good decision, one that enabled them to get a look at Juan Lagares.

DREW: Should pass.

DREW: Should pass.

Not only would Mets have to give up a pick for Drew, they’d also have to start the package at $14.1 million. This would be one big E-6.

This for a 30-year-old shortstop who hit .253 with a .333 on-base percentage, 14 homers and 67 RBI last year for Boston. Yes, Drew played a solid shortstop, but for where the Mets are, for what they are attempting to do fiscally, and for their rebuilding blueprint, he does not make sense.

None.

Nobody knows what the Mets will get from Tejada, but he’s worth another look, especially for a team whose timetable to compete remains a year down the road.

Giving Tejada another year is a better, less-taxing option than to get hooked into Drew for at least three-years, which is what agent Scott Boras most assuredly will be seeking.

There are no guarantees with or without Tejada, or Drew, as to their performance, but from a building prospect, the Mets still have needs, some of them pressing and likely costly, that will be better addressed than adding Drew.

Your comments are greatly appreciated and I will attempt to respond. Follow me on Twitter @jdelcos

12 thoughts on “Mets Still In It For Stephen Drew, But Why?

  1. Why not sign a few more pitchers…then…..trade for some position players particularly a ‘shortstop’? That is coming from a position from strength…we are not that far from that!

  2. Here’s why,they sign Drew and they’re contenders for a WC. Especially if they can cobble together a league average 1B. It’s about time they played meaningful games in September.

  3. Personally, I don’t need to give Tejada, or Davis for that matter, any more looks. I know what they can do, which is very little.

  4. I think it would be a good thing to add Drew for a third round draft pick and Sandy is
    waiting until Drew’s market shrinks to 10-12 million a year and with little or no market
    2 years should due it! If you like a singles hitter who will hit 1 hr and knock in 30 rbi’s
    for the whole year then Tejada is for you but if you want a 6th or 7th hitter who will
    hit 10-15 hr’s and drive in 60-75 rbi’s then Drew is the answer! Its not as if the mets will
    spend the money they will pay Drew this year on another player so why not try to
    sign him! With there starting rotation and as much offense as they can get they could
    compete for a wild card!!

  5. I don’t understand the thinking here.

    You cheered when they signed 2 OF who can’t hit 250 for a combined $22m / yr but criticize the team for continuing to be interested in a player who can actually hit 250 and field his position. This considering the odds on favorite was sent down because he was not a mlb player…

    While I agree a 250 hitter is nothing to get excited about and it is a lot of money, Sandy seems to think 250 is the new 300
    Why else do we go after all these guys who can’t hit 250 to improve a team that can’t hit?

  6. Well said, John! I wouldn’t want Drew for two years, not to mention three. Mets are not a shortstop away from the playoffs.

    Even a single year at $15M+ has opportunity costs. Why not see if a young gun, like Tejada, can bounce back?

  7. Good Morning John,

    Your point is well taken. However, I agree that adding potential pop beyond what Ruben can ever do is not a bad idea. Drew will not hurt us defensively. Ruben can be on the roster as a reserve middle infielder. If you argue that EY is a viable second baseman deserving of at bats and spelling Murphy you are arguing that we should sign Drew. 30 years old WS experience and a significant boost. Go get ‘em for two years when the market dictates feasability. Like Bourn if that does not go through then so be it. We have some kids in the hopper worthy of taking a look but not so close to the Bigs yet.

  8. This article makes a lot of poor points. First, the #11 pick in the draft is an awfully different price to pay than a mid-3rd round selection.

    Second, the Mets don’t even have to be concerned with the qualifying offer. That deadline to accept has passed, and there are no indications that a deal worth anywhere near that amount still exists.

  9. Why does the salary have to start at $14.1? That was a qualifying offer which Drew declined. Any offer is subject to market forces. In Drew’s case, he is losing leverage and his cost is dropping. If the Mets can move salary by trading Ike, Drew makes sense on a 2 year deal. He is solid defensively and will provide decent punch for a middle infielder.

  10. Mets should sign Drew because he very solid defensively and an enormous upgrade at the bat for his position.

    cf-Lagares
    1b Murphy
    3b Wright
    lf Granderson
    C d’Arnaud
    ss Drew
    rf – C Young
    2b E Young

    Speed & moderate power, provided everyone can get on base… :)

  11. Pingback: Mets Morning News: A toast to good health, good wins, and good TRAIDS in 2014! | Magazine On Health

  12. Pingback: Mets Morning News: A toast to good health, good wins, and good TRAIDS in 2014! | Health Senses by AllureSenses.com