Here’s the latest on Stephen Drew with the newest news item being a potential problem with his medical reports.
Andy Martino reported this morning that “according to an official with one team who expressed early interest in Drew, his medicals are raising some concerns.”
It could be one of the reasons why the Mets have been reluctant to offer a two-year deal, the other being a price that is too high above what they are willing to offer.
My biggest criticism of Drew has been his inability to stay on the field. He’s averaged only 95 games a season in the last three years.
On Sunday, a source told Adam Rubin, that the Mets remain engaged with agent Scott Boras about Drew, but continue to portray Drew as more of a “possibility” than a “probability.”
Team officials are split on about how valuable Drew would be to the Mets. Some would rather give Ruben Tejada one more shot as the everyday shortstop.
Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports says that a number of rival executives are baffled as to why the Mets haven’t signed Stephen Drew yet.
The Mets gave a four-year deal to Granderson, who turns 33 in March, Rosenthal explains, but. Drew is two years younger, and 2½ years removed from right-ankle surgery.
“The loss of a draft pick and accompanying pool money should barely be a consideration: The Mets’ first-rounder is protected, they already have lost their second-rounder for Granderson and the pick they would sacrifice for Drew would be the 82nd overall.”
I could be wrong, but I still think the main thing holding things up is that Drew want’s a three-year deal and the Mets prefer a one-year deal and for a lot less than what Scott Boras is looking for annually.
This medical reports issue coupled with the fact he’s missed on average 70 games a season since 2011, worries the heck out of me. What good is an upgrade to Tejada if he can’t stay on the field?
How do you read the situation?
(Updated at 1/6 at 9:30 AM)
