WTF? Another Day, Another Twist in the Road to Stephen Drew

I know we are all tired of reading about the saga of Stephen Drew, but each day it seems to grow curiouser and curiouser. Follow me down this twisting, turning road to its logical conclusion, please.

Dec. 12 - "I think it's more likely if we come up with a 'high-end' shortstop or someone we like, it's more likely to come in a trade," Mets General Manager Sandy Alderson told reporters today. That statement would seem to indicate that the Mets have moved on from the idea of signing Stephen Drew, although one reporter, Michael Silverman of the Boston Herald, wondered if Alderson wasn’t engaging in some gamesmanship in playing down the Mets interest in Drew.

Jan. 10 - Anthony DiComo of MLB.com wrote that Sandy Alderson intimated that signing Stephen Drew was “extremely unlikely”. Those were the reporter’s words, but when asked if that seemed accurate, the GM did not take exception to them. Alderson indicated, at that time, that there were three alternatives: “sign a free agent, make a trade or go with what we have, subject to probably bringing in a backup to Tejada.” "I'd say right now, it's probably more likely that we will go with Option C, which is Ruben at shortstop with the addition of a backup." Since that time, the Mets resigned utility infielder Omar Quintanilla, who could serve as that back-up to Tejada.

Jan. 29 - DiComo again reported that Alderson said that the Mets were not likely to sign shortstop Stephen Drew. Alderson did not completely close the door on a Drew signing. "We haven't ruled it out, but I think doing anything is unlikely," said Alderson. "... I know there's been a lot of speculation about Drew and the Mets, but at this point, that's what it remains -- speculation."

Feb. 4 - Kristie Ackert, also of the News tweets that a Mets source says there is no offer on the table for Stephen Drew at this time. That statement seems to be backed up by WEEI.com’s Rob Branford, tweeting “According to a source with knowledge of the situation, NO offer has been made by #Mets to Stephen Drew as of this moment.” Yet at the very same time, Mike Francessa, who we all know and love, (lmao) stated unequivocably that the Mets had made an offer to Drew, and that they were fighting over the years. According to Francessa, money was not the issue, and only the duration of the deal needed to be worked out.

Feb. 5 - Andy Martino of the New York Daily News says “The latest on Stephen Drew is easy: There is no latest. The Mets haven’t made an offer. The Mets like the player. The Mets don’t want to commit multiple years. The market has developed slowly, and Scott Boras is willing to wait.

Feb. 6 - Adam Rubin of ESPN New York writes that the Mets would consider a two- or possibly even three-year deal for Drew. However, a source told ESPN that Scott Boras wants an opt-out clause for Stephen Drew after Year 1 of a multiyear deal. It appears that the opt-out is a deal-breaker for the Mets. That's because Drew could again enter free agency after a good season in 2014. And with a poor season he would be locked in to one or two more seasons guaranteed -- placing all of the risk on the team side.

Is there anything, . . anything at all, that we Met fans can believe about the Mets’ stance when it comes to the pursuit of Drew? Are they really satisfied with Tejada as their opening day shortstop? Is a trade still a possibility? Is signing Drew highly unlikely? Have they made Drew an offer? Are they really wrestling with Scott Boras over the number of years? Are they reluctant to offer Drew more than one year? Are they open to multiple years? Two? Three? Has Boras really asked for an opt out after one year? And is that demand really a deal breaker? Do they have a deal if the demand for an opt out clause is dropped? And lastly, are all these twists and turns merely Alderson’s mind games with Boras, to keep him off balance in an effort to sign Stephen Drew on his own terms?

Perhaps it is foolish to speculate any more, but this last rumor seems far fetched to me. All along, we have been hearing of the Mets reluctance to go for more than one year, and now if Drew wants to opt out after only one year, doesn’t that give the Mets exactly what they wanted in the first place? If Drew has a good year and opts out, the Mets have their one year deal. If Drew has a poor year, the Mets are stuck with him for the balance of the contract, but that is as if there was never an opt out clause to begin with. So, if the Mets preference is a one year deal, but they are willing to give two or three years, it should make no difference to them whether the contract contains an opt out clause or not. Of course, there is an obvious compromise in my view. Sign Drew to a two year deal with a third year club option and let him have his buy out clause after one year, with the stipulation that they can make him a qualifying offer in the event he does opt out.