Mets have interest in long term deal for Michael Bourn

[Dugmet]

And the Top 10 is made up of the Top 10 worst teams, it's not logical to penalize the 10th worst team in baseball for something another team failed to do. It's a very flawed rule that should be changed for future reference.

No it isn't. Not by the language of the rules governing FA compensation and the draft.

Flawed? Sure. Should it be changed? Sure, why not, but that would require a cooperative discussion between ownership, the commissioner, and the MLBPA. That isn't going top happen now, and if Selig were to intervene it would be seen as favoritism. Surely, Braves, Nationals, Marlins, and Phillies management would object, and they would have a strong leg to stand on...the language of the rule that is in place and was ratified by all parties when the CBA was signed. Perhaps they will revisit this issue next winter.

[YoungStuna]

No it isn't. Not by the language of the rules.

Flawed? Sure. Should it be changed? Sure, why not, but that would require a cooperative discussion between ownership, the commissioner, and the MLBPA. That isn't going top happen now, and if Selig were to intervene it would be seen as favoritism. Surely, Braves, Nationals, Marlins, and Phillies management would object, and they would have a strong leg to stand on...the language of the rule that is in place and was ratified by all parties when the CBA was signed. Perhaps they will revisit this issue next winter.

If the Top 10 teams sign all their picks, is the next year's top 10 not comprised of the 10 worst teams? The language of the rules is illogical because why is the protection limited to a number?

[dunbummin]

No it isn't. Not by the language of the rules governing FA compensation and the draft.

Flawed? Sure. Should it be changed? Sure, why not, but that would require a cooperative discussion between ownership, the commissioner, and the MLBPA. That isn't going top happen now, and if Selig were to intervene it would be seen as favoritism. Surely, Braves, Nationals, Marlins, and Phillies management would object, and they would have a strong leg to stand on...the language of the rule that is in place and was ratified by all parties when the CBA was signed. Perhaps they will revisit this issue next winter.

The language of the rule may be clear, but it appears to be contrary to its intent. I believe everyone would agree that the intent of the rule was to ensure that the ten worst teams in baseball would have their first round pick protected. The fact that the team with the 13th worst record last year gets an extra pick among the top ten should not result in one of the ten worst losing that status. If anything, there should be 11 protected picks in situations like these. (That is, assuming the compensatory pick that was being carried over from last year, was a protected pick in last year's draft.) Although the language of the rule was ratified when the CBA was signed, it is altogether possible that the parties failed to realize that it contained a loophole that flew in the face of their intent.

MLB may choose to not rectify this injustice, just as they refused to overturn the travesty of Gallaraga's perfect game. However, if a majority of the owners see this as contradictory to their intent when the rule was drafted, and the MLBPA certainly sees it that way, they could jointly grant the Mets appeal, and later (next winter, as you suggest, perhaps) amend the wording to conform to the intent of the rule in the first place.

[GottaBelieve]

If you want to make it really fair, if a team that fails to sign a draft pick gets a compensation pick in the top 10 a year later, that pick should not be protected - while the 10 teams with the worst record should have their picks protected.

In any case, I don't see what any other team can logically complain about if MLB protects the Mets pick. The CBA just changed and the new system is erroneously punishing a team that it intended to protect.

Adherence to policies that fail to execute the intent of their language is not a very logical way to do things. The precedent set by not protecting the Mets pick here is far worse than the precedent set by protecting it.

[acerimusdux]

The language of the rule may be clear, but it appears to be contrary to its intent. I believe everyone would agree that the intent of the rule was to ensure that the ten worst teams in baseball would have their first round pick protected.

Thing is, the old rule was the 15 worst teams had protected picks, with wording that explicitly excluded compensation picks from the prior year. It seems pretty clear to me they deliberately wanted to make less picks protected. Why would they change the wording, instead of just changing the number, if this isn't what they meant to do?

The old rule read:

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......

The new one apparently reads:

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. Notwithstanding the above, a Club shall not be required to forfeit a selection in the top ten of the first round.

I think it's an uphill battle for the Mets to argue they did this accidentally, that this wasn't the intent of the new CBA.

[Marty Mcfly]

If Ellsbury is healthy, and if he hits free agency, and if he's interested in the Mets, and if he can be had for a reasonable price...

This line of thinking places a lot of faith in variables that the Mets simply do not control.

At best, the odds of landing Ellsbury a year from now if he's healthy and worth signing are a serious long shot for the Mets.

Exactly.

[Marty Mcfly]

It absolutely does..

I'll take the mathematical algorithm that determines an objective value of a player and a team's worth over a subjective opinion that's based on feelings.

.83 isn't close enough for you?

It absolutely doesn't. Baseball isn't played by algorithms. I'll take a better player contributing over what an algorithm says.

It isn't an objective opinion though it's an algorithm, it doesn't take into account the effect of say having RA Dickey has elsewhere on the team does it? RA helped in many small ways, Bourn would probably elevate the rest of the lineup a little, having him on the bases gives us a SB threat (which we didn't have last year), which affects the pitcher, having speed on the bases affects the fielder, pressure leads to mistakes...

Teams win championships, not algorithms.

And this team will never win another one unless it improves drastically, DW is already 30, he's been to the post-season once, I want a contender ASAP not in 3-4 more years. All standing pat does is give you more to do next year.

[Dugmet]

It absolutely doesn't. Baseball isn't played by algorithms. I'll take a better player contributing over what an algorithm says.

It isn't an objective opinion though it's an algorithm, it doesn't take into account the effect of say having RA Dickey has elsewhere on the team does it? RA helped in many small ways, Bourn would probably elevate the rest of the lineup a little, having him on the bases gives us a SB threat (which we didn't have last year), which affects the pitcher, having speed on the bases affects the fielder, pressure leads to mistakes...

Teams win championships, not algorithms.

And this team will never win another one unless it improves drastically, DW is already 30, he's been to the post-season once, I want a contender ASAP not in 3-4 more years. All standing pat does is give you more to do next year.

Delayed gratification, or deferred gratification, is the ability to resist the temptation for an immediate reward and wait for a later reward. Generally, delayed gratification is associated with resisting a smaller but more immediate reward in order to receive a larger or more enduring reward later.[1] A growing body of literature has linked the ability to delay gratification to a host of other positive outcomes, including academic success, physical health, psychological health, and social competence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification

[jomota]

Thing is, the old rule was the 15 worst teams had protected picks, with wording that explicitly excluded compensation picks from the prior year. It seems pretty clear to me they deliberately wanted to make less picks protected. Why would they change the wording, instead of just changing the number, if this isn't what they meant to do?

The old rule read:



The new one apparently reads:



I think it's an uphill battle for the Mets to argue they did this accidentally, that this wasn't the intent of the new CBA.

When you hear that labor issues are settled and all they have to do is dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" and it takes another week, this is the stuff they are talking about. Apparently this was an "i" that never got dotted.

[jomota]

Delayed gratification, or deferred gratification, is the ability to resist the temptation for an immediate reward and wait for a later reward. Generally, delayed gratification is associated with resisting a smaller but more immediate reward in order to receive a larger or more enduring reward later.[1] A growing body of literature has linked the ability to delay gratification to a host of other positive outcomes, including academic success, physical health, psychological health, and social competence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification

Dug, when you write this stuff, can you sense hundreds of people collectively rolling their eyes?

Maybe you can tie this theory? into saber stats. Like calculate a player's GRAT-WAR or something.

Just wondering.

[macattack]

It absolutely doesn't. Baseball isn't played by algorithms. I'll take a better player contributing over what an algorithm says.

It isn't an objective opinion though it's an algorithm, it doesn't take into account the effect of say having RA Dickey has elsewhere on the team does it? RA helped in many small ways, Bourn would probably elevate the rest of the lineup a little, having him on the bases gives us a SB threat (which we didn't have last year), which affects the pitcher, having speed on the bases affects the fielder, pressure leads to mistakes...

Teams win championships, not algorithms.

And this team will never win another one unless it improves drastically, DW is already 30, he's been to the post-season once, I want a contender ASAP not in 3-4 more years. All standing pat does is give you more to do next year.

it would appear he's never seen "Trouble with the curve". good movie with clint eastwood. i know it's a movie but makes sense.

[Marty Mcfly]

it would appear he's never seen "Trouble with the curve". good movie with clint eastwood. i know it's a movie but makes sense.

I've not seen it either. It's got to the stage where people are now thinking that advanced stats are determining baseball, not the players and the games.

[Marty Mcfly]

Dug, when you write this stuff, can you sense hundreds of people collectively rolling their eyes?

Maybe you can tie this theory? into saber stats. Like calculate a player's GRAT-WAR or something.

Just wondering.

LOL!!! I'll assume that drivel from Wiki was intended for me?

That post is a perfect illustration of why he is on ignore....

[macattack]

I've not seen it either. It's got to the stage where people are now thinking that advanced stats are determining baseball, not the players and the games.

u really need to see this movie then.

[metswon69]

It absolutely doesn't. Baseball isn't played by algorithms. I'll take a better player contributing over what an algorithm says.

It isn't an objective opinion though it's an algorithm, it doesn't take into account the effect of say having RA Dickey has elsewhere on the team does it? RA helped in many small ways, Bourn would probably elevate the rest of the lineup a little, having him on the bases gives us a SB threat (which we didn't have last year), which affects the pitcher, having speed on the bases affects the fielder, pressure leads to mistakes...

Teams win championships, not algorithms.

And this team will never win another one unless it improves drastically, DW is already 30, he's been to the post-season once, I want a contender ASAP not in 3-4 more years. All standing pat does is give you more to do next year.

You want a contender ASAP?

Well then i would suggest you get into that Delorean and fast forward to 2014 because it's not happening this year with or without Bourn.

He will make us better yes and again if they can get him for less than 5 years do it but i don't suggest giving him a BJ Upton type deal because BJ Upton was drastically overpaid. The difference being Upton still has power where as Bourn's ability is based solely on his speed.

As for your feelings on WAR, i gave you all the statistical proof in relation to how it determines a player's value and how it the aggregate WAR correlates to a team's W-L.

It's not some kind of accident or coincidence.

Sabermetrics do not take out the human element, they account for situational hitting, situational pitching (the clutch gene as so many like to call it), baserunning, etc etc.

They also go a step further and measure how individual player's affect their team's performance on a per play basis.

It's called WPA...

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/wpa/