Michael Bourn vs. 1st Round Pick

[The-rock-man]

I still think he gets a 5/$65M kind of deal. There are teams that could still use a quality CF.

You're probably right on the 5 yrs. My point was 3 yrs at 45 max and another foundation piece going forward. On yard barker the other day they asked the trivia question; Who is Duda, Baxter, and Nieuwenhuis? Our outfield is making the rounds as pathetic. We should at least be able to field decent outfielders!

[acerimusdux]

If he's going cheap, I have to take Bourne and give up the pick. Keep in mind, if you get him 3 years or less, there's a decent chance you'll get a pick back anyway when he leaves. Not as high a pick, but a supplemental anyway.

I also think this team has a chance to compete by 2014. And yes there are other guys who might be available then, but a bird in the hand.....I don't know if any of those other guys I like will be without teams bidding for their services and running up the cost.

The main issue for me is risk. If Bourne has no other serious suitors offering 5+ years, it is possibly Boras would take a short term deal for a year or two at a high rate and look to cash in again in another market. So I'm strictly bargain hunting here. If I can have him for anywhere from 2/35 to 4/60, I'm interested. I'm out if anyone offers more than 5/70.

Yes, they did just trade Dickey, but they got a lot more in return than one far off draft pick, and Bourne likely adds at least as many wins as Dickey anyway. Plus, we have quality young pitching, and we don't have quality young outfielders.

I'm also considering the impact Bourne and a possibly winning team might have on revenues in 2013. Additionally, I want these young players coming up to play on a team that is at least somewhat competitive. Finally, I don't think you should stop making good baseball decisions just because you don't think you're going to make the playoffs this year. If the cost to the future is small, yes I'll give up a little in order to have a much more interesting team to watch the next couple of years.

[milominderbinde]

If he's going cheap, I have to take Bourne and give up the pick. Keep in mind, if you get him 3 years or less, there's a decent chance you'll get a pick back anyway when he leaves. Not as high a pick, but a supplemental anyway.

I also think this team has a chance to compete by 2014. And yes there are other guys who might be available then, but a bird in the hand.....I don't know if any of those other guys I like will be without teams bidding for their services and running up the cost.

The main issue for me is risk. If Bourne has no other serious suitors offering 5+ years, it is possibly Boras would take a short term deal for a year or two at a high rate and look to cash in again in another market. So I'm strictly bargain hunting here. If I can have him for anywhere from 2/35 to 4/60, I'm interested. I'm out if anyone offers more than 5/70.

Yes, they did just trade Dickey, but they got a lot more in return than one far off draft pick, and Bourne likely adds at least as many wins as Dickey anyway. Plus, we have quality young pitching, and we don't have quality young outfielders.

I'm also considering the impact Bourne and a possibly winning team might have on revenues in 2013. Additionally, I want these young players coming up to play on a team that is at least somewhat competitive. Finally, I don't think you should stop making good baseball decisions just because you don't think you're going to make the playoffs this year. If the cost to the future is small, yes I'll give up a little in order to have a much more interesting team to watch the next couple of years.

Yup. A better team brings in money. For some reason ownership doesn't understand this. Further, acknowledging that you are not going to make the playoffs does not mean you should compete for the number 1 pick in the draft (football is different here). Putting out the historically bad outfield we have now is both stupid from a business and baseball perspective and disrespecful of the fans.

[Marty Mcfly]

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.

That's Mattshill skewing the question so he can look back on this and say 'Well, you agreed with Sandy'.

He does it all the time.

[GottaBelieve]

If he's going cheap, I have to take Bourne and give up the pick. Keep in mind, if you get him 3 years or less, there's a decent chance you'll get a pick back anyway when he leaves. Not as high a pick, but a supplemental anyway.

I also think this team has a chance to compete by 2014. And yes there are other guys who might be available then, but a bird in the hand.....I don't know if any of those other guys I like will be without teams bidding for their services and running up the cost.

The main issue for me is risk. If Bourne has no other serious suitors offering 5+ years, it is possibly Boras would take a short term deal for a year or two at a high rate and look to cash in again in another market. So I'm strictly bargain hunting here. If I can have him for anywhere from 2/35 to 4/60, I'm interested. I'm out if anyone offers more than 5/70.

Yes, they did just trade Dickey, but they got a lot more in return than one far off draft pick, and Bourne likely adds at least as many wins as Dickey anyway. Plus, we have quality young pitching, and we don't have quality young outfielders.

I'm also considering the impact Bourne and a possibly winning team might have on revenues in 2013. Additionally, I want these young players coming up to play on a team that is at least somewhat competitive. Finally, I don't think you should stop making good baseball decisions just because you don't think you're going to make the playoffs this year. If the cost to the future is small, yes I'll give up a little in order to have a much more interesting team to watch the next couple of years.

This is exactly how I feel. I wouldn't take Bourn at any cost, but if he can be had for a reasonable 3-4 year deal, I do it.

I don't believe you can build a winner by completely ignoring major league talent that is available for years on end waiting for the eureka moment.

Bourn is probably a 4+ WAR player. He plays a premium position the Mets desperately need help with. He can help ease the process for some of the younger players coming up.

He has some real value to a team like the Mets.

[YoungStuna28]

But they aren't giving up the pick. It was crucial for the Mets to get into that Top 10 last year, and technically they were if the Pirates had just signed Appel. It really sucks for situations like this.

[Dugmet]

Sandy Says

“We will be, over the course of the next year, emerging from the shadow of some large contracts," Alderson said. "And that may portend more activity -- and significant activity -- in the free-agent market." -- Sandy Alderson (per Adam Rubin)

No promises, okay Marty?

[GottaBelieve]

But they aren't giving up the pick. It was crucial for the Mets to get into that Top 10 last year, and technically they were if the Pirates had just signed Appel. It really sucks for situations like this.

Yeah that really does suck about the Appel thing.

I don't think a team should lose its protected pick because another team can't sign a player. But such is baseball.

[acerimusdux]

But they aren't giving up the pick. It was crucial for the Mets to get into that Top 10 last year, and technically they were if the Pirates had just signed Appel. It really sucks for situations like this.

But what is the value of that pick on average, $10M? Maybe $15M tops?

What you are paying the guy in salary is more valuable than the pick. The value of that pick makes it unlikely it would be worth signing Bourn, but I still have to know the overall cost before I say.

It's funny, I used to be one of the only ones worrying much about things like giving up draft picks. I was in the minority when I didn't like giving 4/66 to Jason Bay. Or in thinking it was crazy to even consider resigning Oliver Perez when you could net a draft pick there. It seems everyone is now buying 100% into rebuilding though.

I guess I just never had that all-or-nothing mentality. I always think we should protect draft picks and not overpay for free agents. But I also always like it when you can actually improve the team at what looks like a reasonable cost. I guess I don't think I know enough about what's going to happen in the future to think I can follow some grand master plan that says when exactly we're going to win. I think if you just try too make one good move at a time, the master plan will take care of itself. I'd probably be making moves like trading Dickey and signing Born in the same offseason nearly every offseason.

That said, this would probably all be moot, because there probably is still some team out there who will pay more for Born. But if the price is right, he's not a guy I could turn down right now.

[Marty Mcfly]

Sandy Says



No promises, okay Marty?

Nope. Pedantry.

[Claymation]

I would rather not sign anyone that will cost us a pick,
Because that pick might be the next Michael Trout.

[knicks_champ]

Keep the pick.. we are in rebuilding mode. Signing this guy will just leave us more confused on what the team wants to do.

[The-rock-man]

I would rather not sign anyone that will cost us a pick,
Because that pick might be the next Michael Trout.

or maybe Shawn Abner!

[bklynny67]

With or without Bourn, the chances of us making the playoffs in the next 2 yrs, and honestly probably 3 yrs, aren't good.

The draft pick is more valuable to a rebuilding team like us, especially since once Wheeler, d'Arnaud, Familia, Mejia, etc are promoted this yr and are no longer part of our minor league system, our farm is gonna suck once again and be ranked towards the bottom.

Now if we signed other notable free agents this yr then it would make more sense. But even then, Bourn is 30 already and he really only has speed and everyone knows that's the first thing to go, and his SB total dropped 20 last yr already.

If we were ready to contend, I'd take him... but he'd be a waste right now cuz we signed no one else... if I knew we'd make multiple good signings next yr and actually try to compete, then I'd be more inclined to sign him now.

But as it stands now, no sense in signing Bourn to make us go from a 70 win team to a 74-75 win team, UNLESS Wilpon is serious about letting SA spend next season.

[nymetsrule]

Keep the pick.. we are in rebuilding mode. Signing this guy will just leave us more confused on what the team wants to do.

Picking some 18 year old in the draft is beyond rebuilding. If we are rebuilding, we shouldn't have to wait 6 years until that player is good for us.