MLB to rule on the protection of the Mets 1st round (11th overall) pick
Mets have NOT yet made an offer to Bourn
Mets have NOT yet made a formal request to MLb about the pick
<tt>There seems to be some debate over whether the Mets' first-round pick is protected. New York finished with the 10th-worst record in 2012 but has the 11th overall selection because the Pirates were awarded the ninth choice after failing to sign No. 8 pick Mark Appel last summer.
CBA Article XX, Section B (4) (d) </tt>The Regular Draft Choice of the signing Club described in subparagraph (c) above shall not include any selection in the Rule 4 Draft awarded as compensation for failure to sign a Rule 4 Draft selection from the preceding year and shall be assigned as follows. If the signing Club is among the first half of selecting Clubs, excluding selection(s) awarded as compensation for failing to sign a Rule 4 selection from the preceding year, then the choice to be assigned for the highest ranking free agent Player signed by such Club shall be its second choice .
Article XX, Section B (4) (c) (i): A Club that signs one Qualified Free Agent who is subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest available selection in the next Rule 4 Draft. A Club that signs more than one Qualified Free Agent subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest remaining selection in the next Rule 4 Draft for each additional Qualified Free Agent it signs. Notwithstanding the above, a Club shall not be required to forfeit a selection in the top ten of the first round of the Rule 4 Draft, and its highest available selection shall be deemed its first selection following the tenth selection of the first round.
I have a feeling each day that goes by the Mets will be more unlikely to sign Bourn. My reasoning? Scott Boras is my answer, he will swindle every penny he can out of the contract, and each day that goes by with him raising the price the less likely (I feel) he'll become a Met.
I'm not sorried about Boras. The Mets are clearly unwilling to part with their 11th overall. The Mets haven't even asked the MLB to review the rule yet, and until they do there can be no ruling.
Lose the pick = No Bourn Keep the pick, Bourn could be a Met if he's willing to sign for a 2-3yr deal.
IMO I don't want Bourn, I don't think he's worth the money, and I don't think he's all that talented. He's 30yrs old and his game depends on his speed. Anyone 30 or older knows that sometime between 30 and 33 you lose a step.
Alderson gave an interview yesterday saying that he wants to find out if he'll be able to keep the pick BEFORE he makes an offer to Bourn. I guess the Wilpons are talking to Selig behind the scenes to see if its possible or not, or worth even trying. MLBPA say they will probably go ahead and ask MLB to make a ruling on it even if the Mets don't.
Bourn fits the Mets needs but he's not a superstar or anything to get super excited about. He would make a diference and get us a few(5-10) extra wins, but we still won't be a playoff team for now.
2-3 weeks to go before players report to spring training. Alderson also mentioned he may pick up an outfielder or 2 that gets released around the league before the season starts. We'll see, I'm still excited that another Mets' season of baseball is near. Very interested to see how D'arnaud and Wheeler do in the spring and how they perform when they actually get called up a few months into the season.
The Mets can not ask for a ruling until they make the pick. Yes they have been having discussions behind closed doors, but it ultimately came down to, "you can not ask for a ruling prior". That is what makes the situation stickier. They have already been told that cant get a ruling until after they make the signing, and therefore without assurance they are going to be less inclined to give him the 5 he wishes or even move to a 4 year. Plus it will limit the desire to stretch the pocketbook a bit.
The organization wants Bourn, but they are not going to give Boras the money or length he is looking for, so yes we might not get him for more than a one year deal, but then Seattle becomes in play as well, even more so. The thing that does help Bourn even though his game is predicated on speed is that he did have 703 plate appearances last year. So it isn't like Jose Reyes where you expect time off for injuries due to hamstrings and such. Apparently Michael knows how to stay conditioned enough so as not to pull anything. And there have been guys through history, albeit few that have sustained speed through the years. The ones that have injury concerns ussually show it by now. He can sustain his speed for at lesat 3-4 years before the drop off and the steals are a big part feel for when it is safe to go. He has that.
We need to pick Bourn up and then our minor league guys can become corner OFs which is easier to train. This could escalate our revelance by a year or two and make 2014 a very viable option to compete for post season, if we don't have things go right and put us there this year. Potential doesn't necessarily amount to success, but we have as much potential as any ball club, if not more because the lack of established talent which most of the clubs already competitive do have.
I say sign him and let it work itself out. It is one pick that may not every come to fruition anyway and if he did it would be many years down the road.
I stlll think Bourn is a good pickup even for more money that he should really get, but there is a length of contract issue here. Alderson is right to wait out the market and see what happens. That might mean he's signed by someone else, but if it's 4-5 years then it's the right move. 2-3 years is a whole different story.
Bourn isn't exactly this era's Kenny Lofton, but he does play a good CF, get on base, steal bases and score a bunch of runs. It would be a lot better if he didn't strike out so much--and that's what hurts his value since his OBP is a lot lower than it should be for a leadoff hitter.
It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. If he's reasonable the #11 pick is probably worth it since it's a crap shoot anyhow but you don't want to have him here for 5 or 6 years as I think everyone more or less agrees.
Will the signing of Bourn make the Mets a contender? NO
Will the Mets be more entertaining to watch if they sign Bourn? Yes
Will MLB grant the Mets the 1st round exemption for signing Bourn? Unknown
Should MLB grant the exemption? Absolutely not because it will set a bad precedent.
If baseball grants the exemption, Bourn gets an "escape clause" built into his contract and the Mets offer him 12-14 mill per then Bourn will be a Met.
The Mets are still a righty power hitting outfielder, an "ace type" of starter (hopefully Harvey or Wheeler grow into that role eventually) and a "real" pen (hopefully the young guys step up) away from being contenders for the second wild card even with Bourn.
Bourn makes sense if another couple of moves are going to be made to make this team legit thus not letting the resigning of Wright be for nothing.
Michael Bourn is a need for for his defense in CF and that is all he brings to the table for 15 M per year times X years and the loss of the 11th pick in the Draft. I have built a CF platoon which will mimic Bourn offensively for 1 M and we already have them on the roster. Like Jack Spratt and his wife it takes two clean the plate, our two are Collin Cowgill who hit .315 against LHP and .208 vs RHP. The other dance partner is Kirk Nieuwenhuis who likes those RHP .271s worth, but can't hit the southpaws .180. The following the the platoon numbers based on 550 ABs and the recognized 70/30 split RH/LH. compared with Bourn's actuals from 2012. Avg. OBP Runs HRs RBIs SB
Platoon .285 .321 95 16 70 13
Bourn .274 .348 96 9 57 42
Factors to consider when evaluating, Bourn had 74 more ABs than Cowgill/Nieuwenhuis. In terms of run productivity he produced 144 runs and the platoon projects to 149 in fewer ABs. That measure pretty much negates the value of the SB. Finally the stats used to produce the platoon projection contained ABs facing the lethal RH or LHP that owned Cowgill or Nieuwenhuis, This would seen to indicate that putting each in the best enviornment to succeed would produce even better results.
That's some admirable work for sure Yogi and it looks good on paper.
The issue though is sample size. Cowgill has a total of 196 major-league AB and Nieuwenhuis has 282. Plus Nieuwenhuis had some worrisome trends last year, hitting .325 in April, .263 in May, .238 in June and .105 in July.
The sample sizes work both ways--there could be big upside for Cowgill and Nieuwenhius that we don't know about. The difference is that Bourne has 3000+ AB in the majors, so his numbers are much more reliable.
Granted the sample is small but that may just be the platoon in CF for 2013 and would be, even if the number don't hold up, better than either Cowgill or Nieuwenhuis singularly. Matt Van Dekker has been invited to the major league camp this spring so he may be part of the mix. Incidently Mike Baxter and Andrew Brown can be dropped in the Cusinart and blended into a better RF than the 2012 model. Mets could make up unis with Michael Andrew Baxter-Brown on the back after the DNA is all spun together.
Yogi I agree that is Aldersons' plan going into the spring unless Bourn really takes a discount however I think Bourn will be more effective this year overall.
Seriously though I know that's the plan, and there is always a chance that someone will emerge from that group to be a productive major league player. I have very little faith in any of them, though we all did see Nieuwenhuis give something for a short time last year and Cowgill and Baxter have a certain measure of upside but overall that's just not much to go on.
I don't think anyone is giving Bourn more than a 3-year deal so Alderson will be right in holding off any talks unless they start and end with 3-years. i also think $15 is way too overpriced for a guy who's career year last season amounted to a .276 average. Alderson has to use Angel Pagan's free agent contract as a comparison ($10 million for 3 years). Pagan has speed like Bourn, covered centerfield wonderfully in SF last year, and is the same age. But Pagan has more power, hits more extra base hits and hits for a higher average.
As for the combinations that people are suggesting instead of signing Bourn, forget about the numbers you're putting on paper. No combination will give you the necessary defense Bourn will bring to the team and no combination will provide the speed or OBP necessary to score runs.
I'm not a great fan of Bourn's but would gladly pay him $10m-$11M for 3 years, not more. Offensively he's not a superstar. He strikes out more often than you'd like to see and is basically a singles hitter with speed. But when I think of the disaster we have as an alternative, and the fact we have nobody in our minor league system ready to step in this year or probably next year in centerfield, then Bourn becomes my center of attention because at least you know we're set in centerfield. That's one of 3 positions in our outfield out of the way.
Then you can use the circus of platoon players to fill the two corner outfield positions.
Alderson/Mets FO flew to Houston to have dinner with Bourn and his agent Scott Bora$. Bourn said he wanted a 5 year deal, obviously this is what he's gonna say... But... that doesn't mean he won't accept a 3 year deal with an opt out after a year or 2. Boras likes those kinds of contracts when the market is minimal or slow for his free agents, he's okay's it before for other players of his. And the Mets like the idea of it too, it buys them time to get outfielders like Nimmo closer to ready while having a respectable outfielder over the next year or 2.
This is what is said to have been discussed during the dinner.
Again though, none of this stuff will matter unless the Mets know they can keep their 1st round pick first.
I agree Tart .. Bourne is a speed guy , you will get a HR once in a while and plenty of SB's ..good
defense , your right I really don't think he is worth but who on the other hand is out there.
To much money for this guy , I would never give this guy 5 YRS ! I hope Sandy agrees!!
Met4, Play the hand we have, we can platoon our mix of low end outfielders to maximize their success. The other young players, Tejada, Gee, Harvey, Niese, Davis get another year to develop and we bring up Wheeler and D'arnaud in July to aclimate them. This is not a playoff team and the best we can do if we can't win big, is lose big and move up that draft ladder for 2014. In back to back years in the early eighties we drafted Doc and Straw. The Nationals in the back to back years had the #1 pick and landed Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg. This year's pick is more valuable than an expensive defensive player who is approaching the inevitiable slide toward game over.
Marlon Byrd, Collin Cowgill, and Andrew Brown, are all low risk signings, but none project to high reward. If Michael Bourn is a high risk minimal reward because in the short term the Mets are not going to win, and in the longer term (4-6 yrs.) the risk escalates. However a player who is low risk financially, but could be hugh reward is sitting in free agency. 2005-08 averaged 160 games and 640 ABs, .281/.372/.496 and 116 runs, 27 Hrs, 81 RBIs, and 29 SB. He also picked up a SS and two GG in CF during this period.
The down side is in the 4 years since, he has produced very little. Grady Sizemore, (30) has had surgery for two sports hernias, both knees, elbow and his back. He also didn't make it on the field last year. With an average of only 52 games and 198 ABs over 2009-11, paired with .220/.280/.379 some team will spend the 1 M to sign him to a contract. They might get zero for the risk or.....
Coming off a 18-8 record in 2004 with an ERA of 3.00, whip 1.17 and 222 inn. the Yankees signed Carl Pavano to a 4 yr. 38 M contract. In year 1 of the contract Pavano started 17 games, 100 inn, and an era of 4.77/1.47. The remaining three years including 2006 that he missed consisted of 9 GS and 46 inn. The Pavano point is that in the three years after that four yrs with the NNY he had 98 GS and 642 inn.
