Hits & Misses: One Last Word On Bourn and The Pick

51 Comments + Add Comment

• taskmaster4450 January 31, 2013 at 10:28 am

  I agree with your assessment of Bourne. I can go either way with him. But I think you destroyed your entire argument for the 1 year rental with this tidbit:

  “…he’ll be worth a lot more with a team friendly deal…”

  That is the hangup. With Boras involved, the likelihood of a team friendly deal is minimized. Sure it gets better with each passing day considering we are about to enter February. If Bourne is holding out for 5 years, Alderson needs to pass. As many have stated on here, a 3 year deal with team options is palatable. But if the price gets attractive enough, other teams are most likely in the mix driving the price back up.
• srt January 31, 2013 at 10:43 am

  I’m with Joe in that I can go either way with Bourn.
  A < than 4 year deal and not giving up that pick would be O.K.

  However, once Boras starts thinking about a team friendly type deal, several other teams will probably want to get in on that. Then Boras will just use them all to jack up the price anyway. Which is why I don't believe we'll be seeing Bourn sign with the Mets.
• NormE January 31, 2013 at 10:45 am

  Joe D, your point on signing Bourn and using him in a trade to gain younger help down the line is an excellent one. His signing gives Alderson greater flexibility to make trades.
• DrDooby January 31, 2013 at 10:47 am

  A couple of points to keep in mind:

  # 1 The 1st rounder – unlike in the past – has a high relevance for your entire draft budget. When you sacrificed a bottom 15 1st rounder in the past, you were able to make up by going over slot for someone. That´s no longer possible. The pick is gone, your budget gets cut. Thus, this probably is the bigger hangup.

  # 2 Signing Bourn to a 1-year deal makes no sense at all. Sure, you may get a more advanced prospect in return. But if you keep him and make him a qualifying offer, you trade your # 11 overall for maybe # 33 overall the following year while spending 13+ million $ on a player in one year that probably doesn´t turn you into a contender anyway.

  # 3 Bourn would make sense on a bargain sort of deal, say Angel Pagan type, 4-years, 40-44 million $. That´d be below his value (he´s worth more than Pagan due to much better defense and also younger age and lesser injury history). However, a rebuilding team has no use for him on a shortterm or a longterm deal.

  # 4 The solution:
  A team with a protected top 10 pick signs Bourn to whatever the parties agree on, loses its 2nd round pick – but gets a better prospect return from the team that wants to add Bourn.
  For example, let´s say the Houston Astros agree to sign Bourn to a 4-year, 52.0 million $ contract and lose their 2nd rounder, then trade Bourn to the Mets in exchange for Jenry Mejia and Matt Den Dekker. Mets get a strong CF and trade from prospect surplus. Astros get more value than their 2nd round pick.
  • TX January 31, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Only way a one year deal works out is if they sacrifice the 2nd pick and not the first. This way you actually move up in the draft about 12 spots or so.

    I want to see a 3 or 4 year deal only. Nothing more, nothing less.
  • TRS86 January 31, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    That being said, sign and trades are frowned up by baseball. Although there are loop holes to get around the fact that they aren’t supposed to be traded until mid-season it’s still considered cheating the system I have been told.
    • DrDooby January 31, 2013 at 3:13 pm

      But the current system is clearly hurting Bourn too. Actually, the Twins hurt Bourn the most by surprisingly trading both of their two CF to contending teams that both needed a LHH CF.
      Washington and Philadelphia seemed like natural landing spots for Bourn yet the Nats went with Span and the Phillies with Revere.
  • Metsie January 31, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    A Budget that doesn’t need the money to sign a 11th 1st rounder so has literally ZERO affect on the budget regarding the rest of the draft uless you planned on UNDERPAYING that 11th pick to UNDER SLOT and using the savings on the rest….

    And if you tried that the BEST you could hope for is to get the 12th pick next year when he refuses to sign for less than he should get!
    • vigouge January 31, 2013 at 8:14 pm

      As a whole teams paid 4.5 million under slot for players in the first round last year. 15 players in total signed for under slot money and only 5 went over so obviously teams were drafting players to sign under slot in the first few rounds to have money left to go over slot later on. Plus a team can go over their overall pool by up to 5% before losing a pick.
      • Metsie January 31, 2013 at 9:45 pm

        Oh so yu wind up with the WHOPPING 140K if you SIGN your 1st rounder to spend elsewhere and lose it of you get a starting CF and lose the pick?

        And I bet most of that 4.5 mil (split between 32 teams mind you) was for players picked AFTER the 11th pick….
        • vigouge January 31, 2013 at 11:58 pm

          You’d bet wrong, out of the first 11 picks 10 signed, 6 signed below slot for a total of 4.6 million. Averaged out those teams were 750k below slot. The differences are even starker in the second round. A quick glance at the slot value vs signing and nearly everyone is far below slot. That saved money adds up, even if a team can save 250k on their first pick and 100k on their second that’s a decent chunk of change to spread around after round 10. Along with the 100k cap that is on every pick after 10 that saved slot money can be used to pick up the equivalent a couple extra 3rd or 4th rounders.

          If a team can still get a guy they value highly with their first pick and go under slot, then it’s a great decision especially given the volatility of prospects where quantity near the middle rounds is important.
          • Metsie February 1, 2013 at 12:22 am

            Right big IF they an get him to go UNDER slot….

            And thats assuming he doesn’t insist on OVERSLOT which happens a lot with the players we target because they all can go to college and re-enter the draft…

            Doesn’t matter your really not saving a lot of money to sign picks with….

            And it’s all pointless if we don’t sign half our draft again.
            • vigouge February 1, 2013 at 5:32 am

              Well obviously you have to draft a guy who’ll sign underslot, teams generally have an inkling on what bonus demands a player has plus there are very few players drafted in the first round who don’t sign (1 or 2 a year) most of whom were players who fell because they had a strong commitment or incredible bonus demands that the team knows already and are taking a chance.

              You’re also looking at the savings wrong, it actually is a large amount that can add up quickly. An extra 250k can turn your 12th, 16th, and 20th round picks into the equivalent of a 3rd, 5th, and 9th pick. It’s like trading down in football, it’s routine for a team to trade their first pick for another teams first and third, it’s a great way to still get the player you want plus another one for virtually free.

              I also wouldn’t really worry about the amount unsigned last year, the Mets got 18 out of the first 22 picks (20 rounds), most who didn’t sign were in the 30′s. Players drafted their have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being a starter in the majors. You should feel good at how aggressive the team was with who they picked. They seemed to realize that if a signable player would have very little chance of contributing long term then draft a tougher to sign,but more talented, player. If you sign the guy great you get an extra 8th,9th, 10th rounder, if not then who cares, it’s just to fill out the Kingsport or GCL Mets roster anyway.

              Give me two hail mary lottery tickets in the 30′s vs any other 8 safe signings. Go the the baseball america draft database and pick a random 30 something round in any random year, you will recognize almost no one who actually signed.
              • Metsie February 1, 2013 at 2:38 pm

                But a guy who will take underslot is probably not the best player that was there!

                Money isn’t LIMITED….You get enough to sign ALL of your picks and we already saved money last year by not signing half our draft and not giving our 2nd rounder a slot offer…

                The money is much LESS important than the player…
                So if your going to take the pick you had better get someone who will be better than Bourn when he gets here and if he isn’t then the pick is expendable…

                This is the point lost on everyone who bitched about Omar giving away picks to get guys that made his team the team to beat those three years.
                • vigouge February 1, 2013 at 9:29 pm

                  You can still get the player you value the most and go underslot. There are almost no sure things in the draft so the best available player at any draft spot is determined solely by the teams scouting system and every teams values different skillsets differently. And money is limited, that’s the point of the pool. Teams can not draft and sign 40 players who have the potential to play in the majors for 8.5 million (the mets pool next year). A team is lucky to get 6 or 7 players, nearly all from the first dozen rounds, that make the majors. Why anyone would want to increase the number of players with top 10 round talent is beyond me. I don’t see why this is so hard to understand.

                  In the history of baseball there has been one team able to build a consistent winner mostly though free agency, the Yankees, and their most successful period was when they were a homegrown team supplemented by free agents. Every other team has built from their farm and the draft by drafting impact players, trading away deep depth for need and supplementing the roster with smart signings. The teams who tried to go the free agency route like the Mets and Cubs in the mid to late ’00′s, the Marlins last year, end up sucking very quickly.

                  You should really go back and look at those ‘teams to beat’ assembled by Omar, look at who made starts and who got significant at bats. They were all deeply flawed with mediocre bullpens and no depth. The 07 and 08 teams basically had a hot streak at the beginning of 07, then over a year of .500 ball followed by another hot streak to end 08. Those glory years left the team with 130+ million dollar fourth place roster and very few players that could help on the horizon. Give me what Alderson is doing now, or what Cashen was doing in the early 80′s any day of the week.
• jessep January 31, 2013 at 10:49 am

  I do not buy into the fact that Bourn could be traded at age 31 off a good year for a top outfield prospect.

  First of all, he’s on the market for a reason – his demand is low right now.

  Secondly, he was traded at age 28 for Brett Oberholtzer (minors), Paul Clemens (minors), Juan Abreu and Jordan Schafer.

  None of those guys are labeled top prospects by any stretch and while I understand the contract issue was different – the bang for the buck was not. Bourn was better at 28 and 29 than he likely will be at 31-34.

  So while it’s not an exact science, I can’t imagine a team giving up a top OF prospect for an older overpaid guy when teams didn’t give up top prospects for a younger and underpaid version of him just 2 years ago
  • TRS86 January 31, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Agreed, the only way it would work is if you are getting him for something like 4/40.
    • TexasGusCC January 31, 2013 at 7:00 pm

      I also don’t see much of a trade chip. Why would a team trade two good prospects for Bourn, when they can sign now and just lose one? Just cannot see that happening. Therefore, you better be ready to keep him because you may have to. And then, offer him a qualifying offer and see if he turns it down again. LOL, I don’t think so!
  • Padilla February 1, 2013 at 7:36 am

    Have no fear everyone, if Bourne wereto become a Met, jessup would do a 180 in a second and tell us all how valuable he is to the team and as a future trading chip. Jessup has no limits when it comes to twisting the truth and coming up with new lines to defend the puppet master and world’s greatest sport liar.
• TRS86 January 31, 2013 at 10:54 am

  I mentioned this idea on Bourn before but that could have been exactly what the meeting was about Joe. Perhaps the Mets were trying to determine if they could get him for a price that would make his value in trade worth losing the #11 pick. Obviously that deal would have to be very team friendly and if he and Boras are not going to back off the 5/75 deal then it would be completely foolish to give up the #11 pick.
  • DrDooby February 1, 2013 at 4:46 am

    Bourn would be a very good fit in the Mets OF right now. Especially defensively – but also offensively as a hitter who has averaged a .346 OBP over the past three seasons and also doesn´t have severe platoon splits. That said, giving up the # 11 overall pick for him only makes sense if you get him for at least 3 years and no more than 4 years – and well below the perceived market value.
    If you “only” have to give up the 2nd round pick – probably somewhere around # 50 or so overall (haven´t looked) – then you still don´t want Bourn for longer than 4 years or at what he´d normally have received on the open market had that market not collapsed around him. But you´d be able to go at least a bit higher.

    Would a deal like this be legal under MLB terms:

    Bourn gets a 3-year, 36 million $ contract with a club option 4th year at 12 million $ or a 1.5 million $ buyout to make it 37.5 million $ guaranteed if the 1st rounder is gone.
    If it´s only the 2nd rounder and losing the 1st can be challenged you make it a 4-year, 52.0 million $ guaranteed contract. Which is still well below what Bourn was looking for (5-years, 75 million or 6-years, 90 million) but at least in a range where Boras & Co. can save face.

    The question the Mets have to ask themselves:
    Who is going to be the CF for the next 3+ years ?
    Is it Nieuwenhuis / Cowgill or Den Dekker / Lagares from within ? Is that solid enough ?
    If not, who are the best available CF options on the free agent market beyond Bourn ?
    Carlos Gomez & Jacoby Ellsbury next winter, sure. But where do you see the market for them going ? Do you believe in Ellsbury who has been labeled a very strong or rather mediocre CF by different reports ? Are you willing to hand out a major contract that may have to top 100 million $ overall to a 30+ year-old OF who has had injury problems in the past ?
    Likewise, is there a realistic trade target a few months down the road or next winter ? Chris Young jr. (if his 11.5 million $ option gets picked up by OAK ) ? Dexter Fowler ? Colby Rasmus ? Cameron Maybin ? Is the 11th overall pick (and the slot money he brings with it) worth more than the prospects you´d have to give up in a trade ?
    • Just-Da-Damaja February 1, 2013 at 6:56 am

      1 – in terms of depth…who plays SS if Ruben Tejada misses significant time?

      this to me is the biggest question.

      we all know we have 2 other options to play 1B

      we all know we have options to play 3B…and C….

      we have 0 depth in the OF and SS

      when Sandy inherited this club, he actually got a club that was pretty resistent to injuries, because of the depth.

      3 seasons later….and we have 0 depth at SS, 0 depth at 2B, 0 depth in the OF
      • Metsie February 1, 2013 at 2:33 pm

        It’s going to be Quintanilla again…
    • Metsie February 1, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      If you get him to agree to justa 4 year deal then in 3 years you can trade him with a year left to go so whoever gets him can get a comp pick and put Nimmo there because if he’s not ready by then he is a bust and your screwed no matter what.
      • Donal February 1, 2013 at 10:31 pm

        And if Bourn plays at less than an All Star level those last 2 years, you are screwed since he won’t be good enough to warrant a qualifying offer.

        And no, the organization doesn’t rise and fall with Nimmo. He’s important, but this isn’t a Fernando Martinez situation.
  • Just-Da-Damaja February 1, 2013 at 7:44 am

    Sandy, Boras and Bourne would game the whole system by just waiting until April to sign the contract.

    No draft pick given up at all
    • Donal February 1, 2013 at 9:37 am

      That requires a lot of trust in the other party. And they would probably ending up pissing off both the league and the union.
• doug January 31, 2013 at 10:56 am

  Go back to the Blue Jays and see if they’ll do clubhouse freak Jordany Valdespin for Raj Davis. Put Davis out there with Cowgill and save some dough, yet still get a speedy base stealer.
  • TRS86 January 31, 2013 at 11:03 am

    With the info on Melky coming out, I don’t think they are trading any OF.
  • vigouge January 31, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    No need to trade for Davis, Cowgill and Brown both do what he does and are younger and cheaper. Plus Valdespin is better than Davis and adds depth up the middle.
• Brian January 31, 2013 at 11:00 am

  It’s one thing to trade away established major leaguers for somebody else’s prized prospects. It’s entirely something else to demonstrate the smarts to develop those prospects on your own, within your own system. Then you’ve got something to crow about.

  +1
• djmurphy January 31, 2013 at 11:18 am

  I’d rather the pick. However, the Mets never Draft the best player available. They don’t want to pay them thats why it’s hard for me to dump on Minaya or Anderson. They look at under slot signability. That is for the top picks.It’s a shame almost all Met fans wanted them to draft the same OFer last year Courtney Hawkins. If you draft best player available he’s ur pick, if you draft need he’s ur pick If you draft Mets style u get another light hitting middle infielder. So while I’d rather the pick because maybe we can get: Austin Wilson, Trey Ball, Kohl Stewart, Reese McGuire, Colin Moran , Justin Williams, Bobby Wahl, Ian Clark or Aaron Judge. some of these guys will be available but they are studs and the Mets generally stay away from studs in first rould. The only time in recent memory the Mets took the best player was when they took Harvey. There were alot of teams that thought he profiled as a reliever. However in my mind he was in the group I considered best available.
• Dan from Whitestone January 31, 2013 at 11:30 am

  That’s a good point of doing a sign and trade, I like the idea. If they were to get that team friendly deal as you say it should be something to seriously consider. Also, it might just end up that you keep him because of his defense and speed. But the point is it gives the team more options and that’s always a good thing.
  • TRS86 January 31, 2013 at 11:34 am

    But then as I said it’s likely the reason they met for dinner as well. This idea only works if you can get him on a team friendly deal. If not then you are stuck with an overpaid guy who bases his game on speed and is a light hitting LH CF while we will still have our biggest weakness which is a RH power hitting OF to slot behind Ike.
• SheawasBetter86 January 31, 2013 at 11:56 am

  I understand trading Bourn, but it’s likely he’d get a no trade clause to protect him.
  • TRS86 January 31, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    I am not so sure on that. I think he might get maybe a limited one but heck he might want to be traded to a contender later on. Most likely he thinks that if not for the compensation part he would have already been signed by one.
• peter January 31, 2013 at 1:43 pm

  to risky, a season of decline or an injury kills the trade value. A one year deal with a trade at the deadline is less risky if your signing him to trade him. I say the pick right now is more important.
• Matt Mosher January 31, 2013 at 4:58 pm

  I don’t want him. He’s not that good and he is starting the decline phase of his career. If we were ready to win, he’d be perfect. But not for this team.
• Metsie January 31, 2013 at 5:30 pm

  “It’s one thing to trade away established major leaguers for somebody else’s prized prospects”

  This was a very good point….

  Especially considering that this sudden JUMP in what our Minors is ranked won’t last past July or August since the two guys that made it jump will no longer be down on the farm…..

  Beside the price was so much higher than what the pother teams that got ranked paid because thier farm was drafted and developed not paid for….
• Chicago Days January 31, 2013 at 9:59 pm

  If Bourn wer the guy that would put us over the top or even to keep us in contention into September then maybe if the $$$$$’s / years weren’t crazy. But lots of luck with Boras the Avenger in charge.
  Plus, Bourn’s game rests on his legs; his SB’s have come down, and without his speed, his Stats would quickly deteriorate. Hence, i doubt we’d be able to trade him for a “nice package”. I’d say that 75% failure rate for the #11 pick would probably match the odds we could trade Bourn after 1 or 2 years for much beyond a journeyman.
  LOOK at our history: Foster, Bonilla,Murray, Vaughn, Alou, Glavine, Ollie, Benson…you name it. How many damn times have we gone BUST on laying out the $$$$’s & the dreams on has-beens?
  Thank you. And good night.
  • Metsie January 31, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    What is itwith Boras that makes you all think he can get any team to overpay at his whim?

    He hasn’t been able to do that for years and it doesn’t really matter who the hell is a players agent when your this close to Pitchers and Catcher reporting his leverage is nill and at some point his client is going to say to him get me a gig for this year or YOUR FIRED!
    • Chicago Days January 31, 2013 at 10:57 pm

      Well, if Bourn’s terms were reasonable, he would’ve long been signed by now. Wrong dude / wrong time for us IF we have to give up our #11 pick. And IF Bourn would’ve settled for 13 megas / yr for 3 – 4 years…he’d be a Met by now IF our pick were protected. IF we can’t agree with the guy (and his agent on the basics) why give the guy more than a subway token to Queens, why bother Uncle Bud with a late-night call? Plus Bourn’s market value–even if he had 2 good years for us, would be diluted because of the Avenger’s MO that eliminates the team’s right to a compensatory pick.
      Forget Bourn, Den Dekker may be our guy.
      • Metsie February 1, 2013 at 12:16 am

        No one is denying that the terms were probably unreasonable….
        But the terms will change one way or the other before ST starts….
        Just because he has Boras as his Agent doesn’t mean he is going to GET whatever it was Boras was asking for….

        Boras can do a lot of things but he can’t FORCE any GM to pay the price they don’t want to pay…

        And before ST starts your going to see that Bourn is going to sign with someone for something a LOT more reasonable that whatever it was he was asking for last week….

        So judge the worth of losing the picks based on what that price is not based on Boras is an ass, wantsa the moon and just assume he will get it because his name is Boras….

        No one is signing Boras! And in the end Bourn wants to play baseball MORE than he wants to sit around watching it while Boras tries and pulls a Buyer out of his you know what…

        Lets stop making Boras out to be some guy who ALWAYS gets a high price….Cause when he plays games like this more ofte than not all he ever gets is FIRED and the guy signs for what the Market is willing to pay….

        I wasn’t commenting on the worth of Bourn or us signing him at all….
        Just the fact that people seem to think Boras can BLACKMAIL the league into paying more than what they want to…

        He can’t and Bourn will sit on his A$$ until the price comes down or he fires Boras….
        He is a non factor in ANY negotiation and some would even say he HURTS the player’s chances of ever signing….
        • TRS86 February 1, 2013 at 8:16 am

          We said the same thing about Soriano and both times he has been mid to late January and been able to get him his contract. I don’t think it will happen either Metsie, but with Boras one can never tell.
          • Metsie February 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm

            Yes but look at the Calendar TRS…LOL

            I’m not even suggesting Bourn won’t get what he wants…there is always some dumb GM who decides what the hey….

            But in the end, no matter how stubborn or convincing Boras is (and by that I mean convincing Bourn), Bourn is going to see people playing baseball in a matter of two weeks and if there is no contract signed by then Boras will either be forced to lower the price, take the best deal he has gotten thus far, or more than likely get fired (if he refuses) because as much as Bourn wants 13+Mil and 5 years, that desire PALES in comparison to his desire to play baseball for an MLB team.

            He is not going to sit out the season because he can’t…
            He isn’t THAT good to hold his value that long.

            Look at Oswalt…He held out too and wound up being a Reliever not a starter….
            One thing to be stubborn but at some point the players says this is more important than that and the price adjust accordingly no matter WHAT name appears on the Agent’s business card…

            Thats all I was really getting at above.
            • Just-Da-Damaja February 1, 2013 at 10:03 pm

              “Bourn is going to see people playing baseball in a matter of two weeks and if there is no contract signed by then Boras will either be forced to lower the price, take the best deal he has gotten thus far, or more than likely get fired (if he refuses) because as much as Bourn wants 13+Mil and 5 years, that desire PALES in comparison to his desire to play baseball for an MLB team.”

              the 1 other option is bourn waiting til april, then signing with a team that wont risk losing that pick…

              the system is broken and made with loop holes
              • Donal February 1, 2013 at 10:35 pm

                You risk the ire of the league and the union. Not a good idea.

                Plus, he’s going to need time to get back into rhythm.
• Chicago Days February 1, 2013 at 8:12 am

  We shall see if Bourn / Boras cave to the ‘market’…or the market caves in & comes to them. Seattle is my prime suspect to cave.
  IF he costs 13/yr for 3 years and we keep our #11 pick, ok. If not, no,
  I still say he won’t have much market value in 2 – 3 years. If i’m wrong, i’ll say i was.
  i believe it’s time we make good baseball decisions, measuring price (cost) vs. return. Yeah, Bourn’s better than any OF-er we’ve got and if we can get him cheap, i’m all for it. Otherwise, no..
  • TRS86 February 1, 2013 at 8:14 am

    Listening to Ruben Amaro talking about the Bourn situation his thoughts were basically the market is the market and sometimes you get taken by it and have to adjust if you are the player and agent. Basically he said there was nothing left for Bourn and he couldn’t see him getting close to his demands. Will be interesting if the goes the Jermaine Dye route.
• Just-Da-Damaja February 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm

  so what happens if 1 team signs 2 players with each team getting draft compensation picks…

  does that team lose both their 1st and 2nd round pick? or just the 1st ?
  • XtreemIcon February 1, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    They lose the first, then second, and so on. A pick for every free agent with compensation they sign.