Michael Bourn vs. 1st Round Pick

[GottaBelieve]

Metsblog has a poll up asking whether you would rather sign Michael Bourn to a 1 year deal or keep the 11th pick in the upcoming draft.

I think that poll is not asking the right question. The real question to me is (assuming this team would actually be willing to spend some money), do you sign Michael Bourn to a longer deal (say for 3 years), or do you keep the 11th pick in the 2013 draft?

And post your reasons. And please keep it civil without the usual banter. This is a pure baseball question.

[The-rock-man]

Damn I was just asking that question myself. Bourne on 3 yr deal would be a fine addition at 12-15 mil per. I would take him in a heart beat for center field since we are about 3 yrs from producing a productive outfield. That said, SA won't give up the pick for him and we have no money for any additional help. Regardless what the FO says. The other choices are just so unproductive.

[metsfaninSTL]

I would keep the draft pick.

[milominderbinde]

Absolutely, if he could be had for a three year deal. I think he's looking for more than that. Bourne should be a reasonably sure thing over that time frame. Baseball draft picks, even first rounders, are crap shoots

[GottaBelieve]

I would pick Bourn over the number 11 pick in what people are calling a potentially weak draft.

For one thing, the guy is 30, and you can expect reasonable production out of him over the next few years. He also happens to be a productive player at a premium defensive position - one he plays very well.

His projected WAR on fangraphs is 4.6 for 2013. By comparison, David Wright has a 5.8 projected WAR in 2013.

Considering the black hole that is the Mets outfield, I think Bourn at a 3 or 4 year deal would make tremendous sense. Regarding the draft pick, I'd be thrilled if the number 11 pick in the draft became a productive every day major league center fielder like Bourn.

[BradHolt4CYoung]

Nope, signing Bourn wont make us make the playoffs in 2013, or even be that competitive.

I would rather wait until 2014 offseason to sign a OFer. This player would be similar in production/cost/age to Bourn, but he wont rely so much on his speed like Bourne, not good for a player entering his 30s...He also wouldnt cost us our 1st round draft pick. We also wouldnt be wasting a year of his contract completely because we our chances of contending in 2014 are greater than 2013 with the farm system we currently have/young players improving

[beltran15mets]

keep the pick, Bourn is all speed no power. One hamstring injury and our investment backfires

[The-rock-man]

Each year you add a piece to the puzzle. Bourne would be a piece to help us build and move forward. If you're counting on young players to provide the entire team, its a foolish wish! If you expect our first round pick to be an all-star, well its a heck of a gamble. This all leads back to what McFly has been preaching. We should be able to add pieces when we need them. Right now we could use a real major league player to play center field. But like the rest of you, I have a limit on years and millions. 3 for 45 is my limit.

[Big Bowhammer]

keep the pick, Bourn is all speed no power. One hamstring injury and our investment backfires

I agree 100%!

[StoicSentry]

Each year you add a piece to the puzzle. Bourne would be a piece to help us build and move forward. If you're counting on young players to provide the entire team, its a foolish wish! If you expect our first round pick to be an all-star, well its a heck of a gamble. This all leads back to what McFly has been preaching. We should be able to add pieces when we need them. Right now we could use a real major league player to play center field. But like the rest of you, I have a limit on years and millions. 3 for 45 is my limit.

Yeah but he's 30, and we're 2-3 years away from our core being fully in place. Definitely wish we would have added pieces, just not this guy.

[KingsnQueens7]

This shouldn't even be a thread. This team is in no room to compete right now, save the pick and build for the future.

[SILVER SEAVER]

They traded a 20 game winner who helped them win 74 games last season so how better can Bourn possibly make them? Save the pick and pray your scouting did their homework.

[Dugmet]

I would pick Bourn over the number 11 pick in what people are calling a potentially weak draft.

For one thing, the guy is 30, and you can expect reasonable production out of him over the next few years. He also happens to be a productive player at a premium defensive position - one he plays very well.

His projected WAR on fangraphs is 4.6 for 2013. By comparison, David Wright has a 5.8 projected WAR in 2013.

Considering the black hole that is the Mets outfield, I think Bourn at a 3 or 4 year deal would make tremendous sense. Regarding the draft pick, I'd be thrilled if the number 11 pick in the draft became a productive every day major league center fielder like Bourn.

Chances are better that Bourne will be productive than the draft pick. However, there are two parts to this equation worth considering.

01. The 11th pick does provide the Mets with a substantial amount of monies allocated to their draft spending pool. Giving up the pick would be costly in this respect. In the past, signing a qualifying FA did not impact an organizations ability to sign draftees. However, they do have an extra $700k or so from not signing Stanky.

02. Could a player drafted #11 overall be used as a prominent component of a trade for an established MLB player better than Michael Bourne within 2 to 3 years?

Highly rated drafts can go bust, and "poor" drafts can still yield great players. Chances are good there will be a future all-star available at #11 overall.

To me answer to the question is whether or not Bourne alone makes the Mets a playoff quality team. I don't think so.

[SILVER SEAVER]

Chances are better that Bourne will be productive than the draft pick. However, there are two parts to this equation worth considering.

01. The 11th pick does provide the Mets with a substantial amount of monies allocated to their draft spending pool. Giving up the pick would be costly in this respect. In the past, signing a qualifying FA did not impact an organizations ability to sign draftees. However, they do have an extra $700k or so from not signing Stanky.

02. Could a player drafted #11 overall be used as a prominent component of a trade for an established MLB player better than Michael Bourne within 2 to 3 years?

Highly rated drafts can go bust, and "poor" drafts can still yield great players. Chances are good there will be a future all-star available at #11 overall.

To me answer to the question is whether or not Bourne alone makes the Mets a playoff quality team. I don't think so.

Bourn was selected in the fourth round of the '03 draft by the Phillies with the 115th pick so I can believe there is hope for the 11th pick of the first round.

[YoungStuna]

For starters, the poll is a bit mis-leading. There is no chance Boras settles on a 3 year contract for Bourn. At worst, he will sign a 1-year deal and enter the market again next season.

Now, the Mets are in no position to be giving away their top draft pick for aging players, especially when that player won't make a big enough difference in 2013.

Unless we somehow got Upton, that is the only way I'd get Bourn.