I still think that nats were in a differen't situation then us. When they added Werth they were in a better positon to compete sooner.
Printable View
I still think that nats were in a differen't situation then us. When they added Werth they were in a better positon to compete sooner.
Well if they add bourn id hate to think they would stop there. So if they got him I'm assuming they are making an effort to compete.
Forgot about him but yes please.Quote:
Originally Posted by toki_wartooth
His name is Seņor Buttcheeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorGato
i pass
$100M? Pass.
I'd be completely shocked if we gave this guy whose practically produced an average wRC+ 100 million...
I would be, too, but you do realize that, the last four years, he's been worth 4.9, 4.7, 4.1, and 6.4 WAR, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRtH_SiDeR_10_
Eww, I want nothing to do with Bourne unless we are keeping it around 4 years.
Levine was the one that said we wouldn't get bourn right?
That's a pretty good past for the 30 year old speed/defense star looking for his big payday over many years.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidH
I'm ok with Bourn at Upton's price, (wouldn't love it, but would be ok with it) but anything above it I say no.
Hell, with Levine's apparent lack of connections within the new front office, he probably wrote this after reading Marlin's post.
Anyway, I believe we have interest, but I'd be totally shocked if we end up to be the highest bidder for him.
I think that is about what he is worth, but I don't think it makes sense for this team. Too much risk on the back end of a 5 year deal with him. Also, I think we are trying to see how many incorrect ways we can spell Born.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefire
Clearly the Cubs are in because Bourn's market is starting to dry up. Atlanta and Washington both have their CFs now, and those were supposedly two of the biggest contenders to sign Bourn. If they get him cheaper than what he wants, good deal. If not, the Cubs will be just fine.