Chelsea Transfer Rumors: Blues Better Off Missing Out on Didier Drogba
From Shaun Custis of The Sun:
Owner Roman Abramovich made an embarrassing U-turn by sanctioning a move for the former Blues hero.
Drog, 34, was offered a six-month deal to the summer with a further one-year option for next season.It was a blunt admission by Red Rom that his £50 million golden boy Fernando Torres has flopped.
But Drogba turned down Rom's offer and is set to join Turkish side Galatasaray today.
That's a good thing for Chelsea. A very good thing, in fact.
According to The Sun, Galatasaray's move for Drogba set the club back £8.5 million. Would it really have been wise to spend that sort of money to shatter Torres' confidence and cause Demba Ba—one of the savvier signings of the January transfer window, for what it's worth—to question his role on the team?
No, of course not. Drogba was the hero of the Champions League last season, no question about that, but he's not the force of nature of old. He had 13 goals and four assists for Chelsea in 35 appearances last season, sure, but the team can get that production from both Torres and Ba.
Remember, this isn't the Drogba that scored 29 goals in league play for Chelsea in the 2009-10 season. This is a Drogba who is still a clutch player, yes, but may not be a great value at £8.5 million at this point.
Chelsea's signing of Ba was smart, as the team added a solid striker but didn't break the bank to do so. In Torres and Ba, Chelsea have two first-team strikers already on the squad. I know it isn't popular to like Torres, but he does have 15 goals in all competitions for the team this year.
He's not exactly chopped liver, in other words. He's not worth the money it cost to bring him to London, sure, but he's not chopped liver.
Financially, missing out on Drogba was for the best. From a psychological standpoint, it works out as well. Chelsea have enough issues to deal with—having to eat a giant plate of crow with Torres and Ba watching, squirming in their seats, was the last thing the Blues needed.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?