Anthony DiComo, a beat reporter for the Mets who writes for MLB.com and Mets.com, recently answered fans questions in his column. A writer posed a question to him that almost every Met fan has thought to themselves once or twice the past week: with nobody anchored down or overwhelming at the shortstop position, why have the Mets been so hesitant to sign Stephen Drew?
DiComo's answer was telling.
The only explanation I can give you is one I've heard multiple times this winter: the Mets simply don't love Drew as a player.
Maybe some part of that is posturing, but I suspect there's more than a morsel of truth to it. Drew is going to be 31 on Opening Day, he hasn't had a full, healthy season in four years and his career on-base percentage is .329. While he's obviously an upgrade over Ruben Tejada if healthy, the Mets don't see him as enough of one to justify the risk or the salary -- he's certainly not one of the "big-impact players" ...I would agree that Drew is not going to prove to be a "big-impact" player, and at this point I think it has become clear that the Mets are not in love with him. However, repairing the Mets and fielding a competitive team on the budgetary constraints in place means that repeatedly signing one impact player after another is out of the question. Drew, however, would be solid in the lineup and in the field, and would serve a purpose the team needs next season. The Mets were not held back because they had no talent on the field; the Mets were held back because of just how bad some positions were producing, namely outfield, first base, and
shortstop. The last two spots, after the acquisition of Granderson and Chris Young, have rightly been hotly discussed as needing improvement. A team is simply not going to compete with a .200 batting average at either position, never mind at both. Drew would afford the team a short term, reasonable answer for the position and allow them to turn their attention elsewhere.