Updated By Craig Lerner on 1/23
The plot keeps thickening as Adam Rubin reports the following:
A reliable major league source with knowledge of the Mets’ plans would not dismiss the possibility outfielder Michael Bourn could end up with the team.
The Mets have a glaring need in their outfield. Currently, Lucas Duda is slated to play left field, with Kirk Nieuwenhuis and Collin Cowgill platooning in center field. Until another addition is made, Mike Baxter and Andrew Brown would appear the two logical candidates to pencil in for right field. Bourn also would provide the Mets with a bona fide leadoff hitter, which they currently lack.
As previously mentioned, signing Bourn would cause the Mets to forfeit the 11th overall pick in the draft. Sandy Alderson all but indicated he was unwilling to do that a few weeks ago. Rubin has tried to see if the Mets GM stance has changed, but Alderson has not replied to his email inquiry as of this afternoon.
Bourn hit .274 with nine homers, 57 RBIs and 42 steals in 624 at-bats with the Atlanta Braves last season. He primarily has played center field during his major league career.
Some of my colleagues raised some good points last night and while I’ve been totally against signing Bourn most of the Winter, if his price were to come down to lest say the three year, $45 million deal that MMO’s Mitch Petanick speculated in the comment thread, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with bringing Bourn onboard.
Updated by Craig Lerner on 1/22
So if you haven’t heard the latest, here it is. Jon Heyman was on MLB Network this evening and reported that the the Mets have been discussing Michael Bourn quite often lately.
After processing the possibility that the Mets are seriously considering signing the former Brave and forfeiting their first round pick to do so, I’ve come to the following conclusion on the matter….
I hope Jon Heyman is wrong!!!
Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe says this morning that “the Mets are not out of the picture if the price and length of commitment come down” on free agent outfielder Michael Bourn.
As you can read below, I don’t see Bourn and the Mets as a match for the reasons I specified, chief among them being that it would cost the Mets their first round pick.
Original Post 1/15
I don’t understand why I continue to read posts and comments about the Mets needing to sign center fielder Michael Bourn. Why?
I look at Bourn’s age (30) and his career numbers, and I don’t see what the fascination is all about.
Is it just the speed?
Bourn, who is represented by Scott Boras, is reportedly seeking a deal worth $100 million dollars as a free agent.
I see that number and it takes me back to the Jose Reyes situation a year ago.
Wasn’t the main reason we didn’t re-sign Reyes due to the fact that his entire game relied heavily on his legs?
Wasn’t one of our chief concerns that speed is usually one of those assets that rapidly declines when you’re on the other side of thirty?
Why would we give Bourn the same deal Reyes was looking for when he is a year older than Reyes and plays less of a premium position than Reyes did?
Honestly, I really don’t see the logic here.
Bourn’s speed is already in decline and while he plays a spectacular defense in center field, his on-base skills are nothing to rave about.
Besides what I already mentioned is the fact that signing Bourn would cost the Mets their first round pick which is the No. 11 pick overall.
Is Bourn a player you really want to sacrifice a high draft selection for and also give $100 million dollars to?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it.
You could make a great argument for going after Justin Upton or checking in on the Nationals’ Michael Morse. But I see no reason to make this kind of an investment for Bourn, who is just a mediocre player on the downward slope of his career.