Sandy Alderson Met With Bourn And Boras in Houston

158 Comments + Add Comment

• Mike Armato January 26, 2013 at 9:09 am

  The Mets will not sign Bourne,,no way they are giving up the 11th pick in the draft,,at best they offer him a 2 year 20 million with no compensation…he is just no that good or valuable…I want Brett Gardner next year from the Jankees !!..
  • Hotstreak January 26, 2013 at 9:42 am

    We need so many OF’s we have can obtain both of them. Our first two batters could be Bourn and Gardner.
• SheawasBetter86 January 26, 2013 at 9:47 am

  I too have fallen in line with the group that covets the draft. I believe that the current state of the Mets makes the draft a nessesity. Normally, a big market team wouldn’t need to worry about such things, especially of their payroll was sitting at 80 million. Again, under the current system in place in MLB, a big market team with a 80 million dollar payroll, would be looking to spend another 70 million right now.

  The mets are not doing that; they can’t. And despite the hatred that people have for what’s been drafted in the first round the past two years, I still think the draft is too important to the Mets right now. Unless they were signing a Josh Hamilton type player, I don’t think they should risk losing their first rounder. Bourne, to me, just isn’t worth the money and the pick. Not when there’s better options next year, and more money available to spend to get them.
  • Tommy2cat January 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    I have to agree. I want a team that is built to last. Bourn’s a decent player, but it would be our luck to have his wheels fall off in the 2nd year of a 5 year deal, and to lose a draft pick to the draft-savvy Braves. Uhhh, not today, maybe tomorrow…

    I recommend that we keep stock-piling arms and young talented position players when the opportunity strikes. Sandy’s acquiring both d’Arnaud and Syndergaard for RA was a stroke of genius, as was his earlier acquisition of Wheeler.

    Acquiring a big named FA should be the exception and not the rule and only if the situation fully warrants the lost draft pick, that is if you want to build a perennial contender. An example would be signing Stanton when he’s 26-27 years old.

    Good pitching beats good hitting almost every time. Bourn doesn’t bring enough alone to justify the risk a 5-year deal would bring combined with the loss of a first-round draft pick. Nope.
• SheawasBetter86 January 26, 2013 at 9:51 am

  I’d much rather them keep the pick, and draft a Austin Wilson or Aaron Judge if given the chance in June. Now, will this FO do that? I don’t know…they seem to covet 5 year development plans on their first rounders who have been high schoolers.
  • oleosmirf January 26, 2013 at 11:08 am

    I think that was more a result of the Mets rebuilding process than a total philosophy. As a team gets closer to being competitive, it makes more sense to go after college kids who can be MLB ready in less than 3 years.

    WIth the Mets dire OF situation, getting a college bat that can finish 2014 in AA and could be a September call up in 2015 would be a smart move.

    That way he and our younger prospects like Nimmo, (assuming they develop as expected of course) could make their debuts around the same time.
• Peter January 26, 2013 at 9:55 am

  It’s all about the draft pick, they can not give it up. It could possibly help them get Stanton. If they can get Stanton next year and add Gomez or Ellsbury then that is a more productive long term route. Gomez will be 28 and Stanton I think 23. You guys keep saying oh the draft pick might be a bust and you are correct about that, but that does not mean it has to be a bust for us. Whoever is drafted can be used in a trade for Stanton or to keep the system somewhat respectable after the trade. That is also why trading Santana, Marcum, and Francisco at the deadline is so important. Assuming and hoping they play well, sure I guess Bourn help thus year and the next two possibly but it is not worth it if you give up the pick long term.

  Another year of production and improvement from Flores and Syndergaurd and you have a great starting point for a Stanton trade. Alderson will go after power and Stanton is the best right handed young power hitter in the game. Whoever thinks giving up the pick is a good idea dwell on that. It does not matter how much money you got, you need prospects to get great young long term pieces. Everyone will go after Stanton and whoever gives the best package wins, not whoever spends the most.
  • Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 9:58 am

    are the mets ready to invest 100-150 mil in stanton ?

    cuz i dont trade the farm for stanton if he is going to get arb-expensive in 2 more seasons…and the mets play the im broke card again…
  • oleosmirf January 26, 2013 at 11:20 am

    I don’t see how the Mets could obtain Stanton without giving up Wheeler, D’Arnoud or Harvey.

    Our only chance would be if the Mets younger pitching prospects (like Montero, Robles, Fulmer etc.) turn into top prospects and Lucas Duda develops into a productive LF with power.

    That way maybe a package of Syndergaard, Fulmer, Duda and Montero could be enough…
• Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 9:57 am

  How about trading for Alex Rios?

  he only has 2 years left and is paid 12.5 mil per year…

  can play a very good RF and can slide over to CF if needed…

  is righthanded…

  has power…can hit for avg…has speed…is sorta like a Beltran-lite…

  JP loves him ( former Blue Jay )

  …just a thought…
  • Joe D January 26, 2013 at 10:39 am

    If he were available, I’d certainly bite.
  • taskmaster4450 January 26, 2013 at 10:54 am

    What would it take to pry someone like that loose?
    • oleosmirf January 26, 2013 at 11:27 am

      and arm, a leg and then some…
• Hotstreak January 26, 2013 at 10:01 am

  SA sold DW on his plan which I obtained: He told him we are no longer in Phase #1.
  the phases are as follows:

  1. Survivor-ship of the principal owners during Picard lawsuit just last year. Now COMPLETED.
  2. Rebuild -IN PROCESS
  3. By deferring payments and refinancing to obtain pieces for a .500 team IN PROCESS
  4. Challenge for the 2nd and then first w/c …. IN FUTURE 2014 and 2015
  5. Challenge for the top in NL East and a Division Championship 2016
  6. World Champions 2016 or 2017
  • Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 10:17 am

    By deferring payments and refinancing to obtain pieces for a .500 team IN PROCESS

    “obtain pieces” ?

    u mean like shaun marcum?

    4. Challenge for the 2nd and then first w/c …. IN FUTURE 2014 and 2015

    LMAO ur kidding right?
    • Hotstreak January 26, 2013 at 11:07 am

      Bourn could be the legs they need that were chopped off when Reyes left. Do not give me crap that Bourn is no Reyes. We need speed and CF defense. Enough with the youngsters who are lucky to be considered 4th OFers. I do not understand in business if you have a need you invest and obtain the best option at the best price. Hairston did not fill the speed and CF need. Get thru your head that yesterday’s business plan of retrenchment is over. No we are not big spenders like we use to be. But now we have to be prudent spenders. That does mean being el cheapo like last years business plan. By now you know I am not an Alderson apologist. But some of you definitively are chicken little. The financial storm is over and we can come out from total being totally negative Should we believe and trust Alderson — “Well I agree seeng is believing.” However lets at least let the dog do its tricks like getting SF and Toronto to give up their stud prospects.
• 86mets January 26, 2013 at 10:20 am

  I agree with you Joe, 100%. I really dont like the idea of signing Bourn in the 1st place. The hypocrisy of such a move is pretty evident: they didn’t want to commit to Reyes because his game is so tied up in his legs, yet, Bourn is far less dynamic a player. He’s older, strikes out twice as much, and has nowhere near Reyes’s career stats. Plus, this f/o has preached building through the farm system and avoiding the very kind of contracts that Bourn will require. Surrendering a 1st round pick for a backloaded, expensive contract for a player who won’t make the Mets a winner goes against everything Alderson & his henchmen want us to believe they’re doing. If they really are serious about this, which I doubt, this just reeks of desperation to do something for the sake of doing something. And that is something I thought they were getting away from.
  • Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 10:29 am

    so would you have gone after BJ Upton…?

    there was no draft pick lost with that free-agent signing…

    he plays CF

    he is right handed

    he has power…

    the mets will be dropping johan’s 25 mil salary next season…giving them a whopping 40+ mil payroll for 2014….

    the only CF who will be a free agent next year will be a 31 year injury prone jacoby ellsbury

    state your case…
    • taskmaster4450 January 26, 2013 at 11:01 am

      There was a draft pick lost for signing Upton. He got a qualifying offer from the Rays.

      I question whether he is better than Bourne right now. The advantage is that he is younger than Bourne which will give them an extra few years. But like Bourne, much of BJs game is his legs. He does have the pop to move to a corner OF if needed in the future, something that Bourne seems to lack.

      5 years for BJ made sense because of his age; not so much for Bourne.
      • Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 2:01 pm

        ahh ok…good point….

        imagine…for an additional 25-28 million…our OF for the next 4-5 years could’ve been…

        LF – Duda
        CF – Bourn
        RF – Upton

        Not Murderers Row….but alot better than the alternative…

        1 – Bourn – L
        2 – Tejada -R
        3 – Murph – L
        4 – Wright – R
        5 – Ike – L
        6 – Upton – R
        7 – Duda – L
        8- Travis – R
        9 – Pitcher

        From a defensive perspective, we get 2 solid OF
        From an offensive perspective, we have a deep and balanced lineup….

        and since both players are signed in the same year, u only lose 1 pick either way…

        BJ’s contract

        2013 28 Atlanta Braves $12,450,000
        2014 29 Atlanta Braves $13,450,000
        2015 30 Atlanta Braves $14,450,000
        2016 31 Atlanta Braves $15,450,000
        2017 32 Atlanta Braves $16,450,000

        Say you sign Bourn to a 4 year / 50 mil deal…

        we stil have an operating payroll of about 80 mil…but our team now has…

        a good lineup…
        a good starting rotation
        good defense…

        only thing we still need to work on is bullpen…
• Hank January 26, 2013 at 10:22 am

  So the Mets might just be feigning interest in Bourn to make it seem like they’re working to make the team better?? That’s crazy. Just too crazy. They would never. Okay, yes. Yes, they would.
• Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 10:25 am

  FYI – Mets could’ve had the 3rd best RHP prospect in baseball …. along with the 2 kids they traded for…( wheeler and noah )

  http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130119&content_id=41037368&c_id
• L.J. Phipps January 26, 2013 at 10:26 am

  I have to say “what sense does it make to sign Bourn?” While he may have an impact some what it does not put the Mets in a position to “get over the hump.” He will definitely make the outfield better but will not make the Mets a contender for the division so why waste the money and the pick. If the Mets were a player or two away from taking the division maybe, but since we all know this is a feel out, rebuilding, cash saving year, it makes no sense economically or business wise. I think Alderson knows this and again this is just posturing. He can sit back and say well Boras wanted too much money and it was not worth risk losing the pick. Just stop the b.s. bring in the kids see what you have in Spring Training, then if you can pick up some guys to solidify the team fine. It’s a transition year and we know it, lets call it what it is!
• Joe D January 26, 2013 at 10:35 am

  I look at Michael Bourn and all that comes to mind is this:

  I knew Jose Reyes. Jose Reyes was a friend of mine. Mr. Bourn, you’re no Jose Reyes.

  Hat tip to Metstradamus.
• taskmaster4450 January 26, 2013 at 11:07 am

  Funny to see the comparisons to Reyes. There is no way to know the deal (if one was even made to Bourne) but there is a big difference between 6/$106M and 3/$45M or $50M.

  Without Loria’s insanity, I bet Reyes would still be a Met because the market most likely would have settled somewhere near 5/$75M.
  • Chicago Days January 26, 2013 at 11:25 am

    I think you hit it, taskmaster4450, and Loria then dumps his high-priced ‘toys” barely 1 yr later! But, at this point, it’s time to move on. Again, i agree: Bourn IF he doesn’t cost us the #11 pick (and i doubt he will), should be signed for something like 15 / yr for 3 – 4 years.
    And now to my sore point: can we please stop with this doomsday NY-bred cynicism day-in and day-out (ok, i do ‘get’ we ARE Mets Fans!) and objectively analyze the sitch instead of wringing our hands and shaking our doubtful heads, saying ‘no way / no way…Sandy or Jeff (or somebody else dumb & incompetent or sly & devious) will scotch the deal and further bury us in 4th or 5th Place for the next generation.
    What’d that get us in the RA Saga? MOST NY Press / Media pundits ruptured their spleens in doubting RA was WORTH TOP prospects…and what happened?
    MOST also doubted Sandy woud EVER sign a MLB F/A this offseason. Well? And, believe me, i am NOT a Sandy luvver or apologist and wish he had been more proactive on a score of players (mostly trades for OFs either from Rangers, D-Backs, or the Jays’ Gose) and lament he failed to get much for the loss of Reyes.
    BUT it’s written in the wind (and probably on the Subway Wall–if we look hard enough): we’ll sign Bourn IF the 1st Round Pick isn’t lost AND IF he doesn’t cost more than $15 MEga’s / yr for no more than 3 – 4 years. It’ll be DONE in a NY Minute! IF…
• taskmaster4450 January 26, 2013 at 11:13 am

  Another thing to keep in mind, Den Dekker has been compared by some scouts to Jim Edmonds. We all know he has things to work on i.e. his strikeout rate. But the guy is a highlight reel defensively (watched a number of FSL games when he was there) and he can hit when he makes contact. Does he preclude the Mets from going after Bourne? Not likely since he isnt exactly knocking at the door of the big leagues. However, it might be smart for the Mets to pass on Bourne since he isnt exactly a superstar and Den Dekker might provide most of what Bourne gives you. If that is the case, then the Mets can take that money and spend it in another area.

  Just some food for thought since, as most pointed out, Bourne doesnt put the Mets over the top.
  • Chicago Days January 26, 2013 at 11:51 am

    And i also agree that MDD is a very intriguing prospect. He’s got the K-flu but otherwise the kid can hit and he plays a great CF. Not sure if he’s ready this year. He seems to stumble his 1st year at a higher level BEFORE he dominates the following year. So, we shall see. Hopefully, if we do sign Bourn for not STUPID $$$$’s, he has a great season for us, retains his market value, and we can trade him in the offseason and go with MDD in ’14. Stranger things have happened in Mets-Land.
    • ifthevansrockin January 26, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      that actually is a reason to roll with MDD this year. If you are not likely to compete, it is the perfect year to give a guy the chance to try and prove he can handle the job. And if he needs a year to acclimate, then this would be the one to give him.
      • Chicago Days January 26, 2013 at 2:42 pm

        You may be right, ifthevansrockin, Maybe, all of us get shocked when our opening day lineup is MDD in CF, with a combo of Cowgil / Baxter; Brown/Kirk manning the 2 corners. And Duda is either in AAA or traded–or Kirk is in AAA. I’d prefer Duda leaves. We need Defense more than anything to go with our pitching.
  • Hitman January 26, 2013 at 11:53 am

    Edmonds? Didn’t we hear the same comparisons about Nieuwenhuis last year?
    • Chicago Days January 26, 2013 at 11:58 am

      Hey Hitman. Well, i dunno if MDD ‘is’ Edmonds-like or Edmonds-lite but he is intriguing to me and a better defensive CF-er than Kirk and ‘still’ young-ish (26 in August)…so it’d be great if the kid comes through.
      • Hitman January 26, 2013 at 12:12 pm

        If I had to pick between Den Dekker & Nieuwenhuis, I’d choose Den Dekker. As good of a CF Den Dekker is, I just don’t believe in the Edmonds comparison. If anything, he’s a younger Michael Bourn but with power. Everything from the high K rate to speed to defense to hitting in general is spot on when you compare the two.
        • Chicago Days January 26, 2013 at 1:13 pm

          Hitman, i’d be very happy if MDD is ‘a younger Michael Bourn but with power’. Ecstatic. Let’s hope so.
• Peter January 26, 2013 at 11:21 am

  Dude Stanton is not even Arb eligible now, that is why you trade for him next off season, even when Stanton is Arb eligible you do not gave to pay 150 mill, you can lock him up to a Jay Bruce type of deal, 7 years 80 mil. He is not a free agent and will not command a 150 mil contract Untill he us a free agent. That’s why you build farm and trade for guys like Stanton. Young and not even in prime, you get him for his best years. Guys Bourn should not be here if they have to give up the pick, it is as simple as that, also no more than three years. Come on now
  • JetsMets13 January 26, 2013 at 11:50 am

    He is not a free agent and will not command a 150 mil contract Until he is a free agent.

    Worse players than Stanton have already gotten deals like that much long before free agency AND arbitration.
• ray sadecki January 26, 2013 at 11:30 am

  Is this another attempt by the mets to dupe the fans? The source of this story isnt even a mets source but a major league source. As you state Joe. If Sandy wants bourne so bad why isnt he showing bourne the town? Maybe because this is a non story to begin with and Joe D sees another opportunity to make SA look bad,
  • Met Maniac January 26, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Alderson needs no help looking bad, he does that quite well on his own. Plus he has shills like you that give him cover. There’s always more room at the inn at MetsBlog for another shill?
  • ifthevansrockin January 26, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    at this point, it has nothing to do with showing him the town (he has been to NY plenty of times).

    The only thing Boras is interested in being shown is money. Whoever shows the most, wins.
  • Rich from Lake Como January 28, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    You’ve been played like a violin, Sadecki… all of these name dropping leaks about who the Mets are interested in… all scams. They aren’t signing anybody and they will NOT be signing anybody next year when the have what is laughingly referred to as “payroll flexibility”. Doesn’t anybody get it? The Wilpons are only trying to retain their tenuous hold on this franchise… Sandy is here to cut payroll and give the impression that the team is building for the future. There is no future.
• Jon January 26, 2013 at 11:47 am

  Bourne is a good player but he is not in Jose Reyes league. Reyes has been a star since the day he arrived. Bourne has had a couple of good years. He is a strikeout machine and doesn’t hit lefties very well. Also little pop. Bourne Is a better defensive Juan Pierre.
  Nothing wrong with that. But not fit 5 years.
  3 years and I would do it buy Bourne wont.
  Reyes soils have been s 5/ 90ish million without the Marlins
  He woul be playing in either Tironto, Milwaukee, or Detroit. Maybe Boston.
  AA loves the guy but they don’t do more than 5 years. Noway he was a Met… Calderon did not want him which makes this Biytne pr stunt all the more laughable
• oleosmirf January 26, 2013 at 11:50 am

  The Mets have a dire need for a CF (and leadoff batter) for the next 3 years and Bourn solves both those needs immediately.

  I would not give up the 11th pick in the draft (and the money) for him, but there are ways to circumvent that and there is no debating that Bourn is really a perfect fit for us…

  4 years 55-60 million works for me. It’s overpaying for sure, but that contract should not be prohibitive especially once Santana and the majority of Bay’s contracts are off the books…
  • Hotstreak January 26, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    I totally agree. But the draft picks for position players must better than has been.
• Hitman January 26, 2013 at 11:55 am

  Joe, I can’t say I blame you for being skeptical. The Mets have a bad habit of letting people on. Wasn’t that long ago that they had “strong interest” in Brian Wilson that quickly turned into them “not being impressed” days later, which eventually turned into them “not closing the door” on him. Until I see the headline “Mets Acquire Michael Bourn”, I’m holding back expectation.
• Met Maniac January 26, 2013 at 11:57 am

  We need a centerfielder who can play great defense for our young pitchers coming up. Bourn fits the bill! We desperately need somebody with speed. Bourn fits the bill. Just get him already and stop skirting the issue. Have some balls.
  • Met Maniac January 26, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Also want to add one more thing. I’m a big believer in having strong defense up the middle. D’Arnaud will be a HUGE improvement over Thole, Tejada shines at shortstop, Murphy sucks, we need the centerfielder very badly. It will make our pitchers pitch more confidently and they wont be afraid to challenge hitters because they trust the defense. Go get Bourn!
• Mr North Jersey January 26, 2013 at 1:31 pm

  Up to now the words I have read most expressed regarding the Mets and Bourn was “thinking seriously about Bourn”, “interest in Bourn sincere”, and “a “realistic” possibility”.

  Heyman felt there was indications they were “thinking seriously about Bourn” in part because they are trying to win a ruling to keep their #11 pick.

  Rosenthal said “interest in Bourn sincere” was according to a source.

  Puma said Bourn was “a “realistic” possibility” according to a major league source.

  It is a long way from just thinking, interest or possibility to actually negotiating and I’ve tried to treat it as such. The only reference I can recall of the Mets actually contacting Boras was a John Harper article where he said the Mets have talked to the agent of Miachael Bourn but it doesn’t expand on it. Just that they have talked.

  The Mets have maintained in the past that there was not going to be a big dollar signing most likely from the Mets this off season and that they would be unwilling to give up their pick. A change from that by signing Bourn would suggest something happened to alter their thought process this off season.

  Odds are that unless Bourn signs for an un-Boras like type deal and or the Mets get that #11 pick protected Bourn will probably not be a Met. I can only guess that the Mets would sooner do this and go another route than say give up the pick or give Bourn a 5 year $75M guaranteed type deal.
• sarge69 January 26, 2013 at 2:01 pm

  Another LH bat? Really?
  And a free agent going into his 30′s, how many times do Mets and fans have to get burned by an over his prime years, Vince Coleman comes to mind, to see that we need RH power to balance lineup not LH.

  I don’t believe the rumors, probably put out there by SA surrogate in the media to keep discouraged Met fans “thinking” that a great signing is out there.
  I believe the Marcum signing is the last one till maybe a released RH bat appears in ST or Lutz or another farm system player makes his case and wins the RH OF position.

  Don’t believe all the rumors associated with SA and Mets, as JoeD pointed out Bourn has not been seen or smelled anywhere near NY since Sept.
  • Trs86 January 26, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    I agree the need is for a RH #5 hitter.
  • Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Vince Coleman played LF
    Vince Coleman signed with the Mets as a 28 year old
    Vince Coleman played 72 games at age 29 ( and still had 37 SB )
    Vince Coleman played 71 games at age 30 ( and still had 37 SB )
    Vince Coleman played 92 games at age 31 ( and still had 38 SB )

    When Coleman signed in 1991, he had one of the top contracts in ALL OF BASEBALL, was the highest paid LF in all of baseball..

    Bourn wouldnt even scratch the top 20…
    • Donal January 28, 2013 at 4:48 pm

      Coleman had 24 in 1992.

      And you should also see how often he was caught in his tenure with the Mets. Goes to show what I keep saying about base stealers.
• Metsie January 26, 2013 at 2:28 pm

  They are merely hiding behind this Pick business to make a PR play to the fans….

  If the MLB announced today the Pick would be protected we would soon here the price for Bourne is too high and we were moving on….

  Sure they have an honest interest in having Bourne….
  If he were to accept a 2 Year 20 Million dollar contract and no picks given up….

  But we all know he is not going to settle for that and they won’t pay more even if the pick was not an issue….

  This is all just more SMOKE and MIRROR slaesmanship to get more poeple to buy tickets.
  • Trs86 January 26, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Lol, if people rush to buy tickets because they think the Mets might sign Bourn they deserve what they get. Seriously the thought of Bourn isn’t selling Tickets.
    • Metsie January 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm

      You talk the only tickets upfor sale are NEW PURCHASES….

      What about those who are still torn about RENEWING thier tickets and face a deadline for paying the bill or they lose them and what might entice them to renew for another year as opposed to just giving up the seat?

      I didn’t claim this was about increasing Attendance at all….
      The rumors are all about maintaining what few tickets they sold last year….
      Same reason why Wright got the contract he did!

      PR…MAINTAINING the Attendance as much as possible while they stick to this NO SPEND mantra so maybe the cuts will not be offset by loss of Attendance…..

      Notice how the Bourne stuff is a recent activity…If they were SERIOUS and were being held up by the loss of the pick why didn’t they petition the league to get protected the second they knew they got knocked out of the protected picks? Why did they wait till now?
      • Trs86 January 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm

        As I said if fans are trying to decide to either spend or not spend their money and that decision rest on Bourn (no e) rumors they deserve what they get.
        • Metsie January 26, 2013 at 5:51 pm

          They WON’T because Fans are smarter than this GM gives them credit for…

          This maybe the point you seem to be missing here….

          They think this is going to keep attendance static while they play thier little game…
          It’s doomed to failure!
          But then again we were doomed the second Sandy took over since this game of being the GM of an MLB team has passed him by long ago!
• peter January 26, 2013 at 2:55 pm

  Wow I need to here who got 150 mill or more before during Arb eligible that is not close to as good as Stanton? And if there was who and what year of Arb did they get it in?
  • Just-Da-Damaja January 26, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    age 28 – Joey Votto – 12 year 251 million dollars, entering 3rd year of arb

    age 23 – Todd Helton – 10 year 151 mil – entering 1st year of arb

    the longer you wait….the more of a risk the player takes in signing…
    the quicker you sign…the of a risk the team takes in locking up the player…

    if stanton continues to do what he is doing, he will be a free-agent at age 26….with the yanks, red-sox, dodgers and a whole bunch of teams with more cash flow than the mets willing to pay..

    so yeah…if u trade for stanton, the trade HAS to be contingent on a LOOOONG term deal that ensures Stanton will be the face of the franchise

    Having Stanton sandwiched between Ike + Duda with Ike hitting 3rd would give us a very formidable lineup….not to mention murph + tejada…
    • hotstreak January 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm

      Stanton is going to Texas by trade deadline.
• Joey D. January 26, 2013 at 4:09 pm

  Hi Joe D.,

  The Mets are as much sincere in wanting to sign Bourne as they were with Jose and again I think it is those in the media and the fan base that are using this to make it appear as if they are. Not making the appeal now – while still having no contact with his agent to this point -cannot be seen as another strategic ploy by Sandy any more than it was having nothing more than an informal talk with Jose’s agent . In Bourne’s case, they still need to sit down to negotiate with the appeal pending.

  Has there been any “official” explanation as to why Sandy is making the appeal now? As mentioned, it might not be as much grandstanding as it is an honest attempt to address a problem that the Mets might again be facing in the future. I doubt very much that it has to do with anything going on now, as so many out there believe it does.
• srt January 28, 2013 at 4:52 pm

  I’d pass on him for 5 years as well.
• Jon January 28, 2013 at 4:57 pm

  Base stealers? You left out Lou Brock
  He aged ok
• Hitman January 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm

  Can someone please tell Bourn to put the crack pipe down? 5 years? He better come down with that demand or the only place he’ll be starting is the couch. I hope no team is stupid enough to give him no more than 3 years.
• Joe January 28, 2013 at 5:23 pm

  Breaking NEWS:

  Bourn signs 5 year deal with Japans Yokashimura Giants 10 years 200 million.
  Sandy Alderson buys Sushi Restaurant to celebrate !
  • Mr North Jersey January 28, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    You seem conflicted. Is it 5 years or 10?
    • Joe January 28, 2013 at 5:34 pm

      Lol, I saw that after I posted it.
      Whatever it takes to sign him elsewhere, as long as the Mets dont sign him.
    • Donal January 29, 2013 at 9:18 am

      It’s deferred. He’ll play for 5 years but get paid over 10.
• Devin January 28, 2013 at 5:26 pm

  Every time you say dog and pony show this plays in my head.

  http://youtu.be/EJHJfkLPoGQ

  Please stop it! lol
• AndyB January 28, 2013 at 5:48 pm

  The draft pick (although 11 should be a blue chip, that player is at least 3 years away) bothers me less than a 5 year contract for a 30 year old who is really just a “good” player. Bourne is not going to have a team built around him, he is cog.
• SheawasBetter86 January 28, 2013 at 5:50 pm

  The Mets wouldn’t like those parameters????

  Who the heck would?

  5 years and a first rounder, plus 60-75 million for a lead off hitter without any pop is too big of a commitment for Bourn. Sorry, but I’m with the Mets on this.

  Now, if you told me 3 years for 39 million without the first rounder and I’d do that deal instantly.
• Metsie January 28, 2013 at 5:59 pm

  I say GOOD FOR HIM for stating what he wants….
  I hope he enjoys watching baseball on TV….
  He might even get a 5 year Minor League contract after doing that.
  • taskmaster4450 January 28, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    This might also reflect poorly on Boras. He is known for always getting a deal.

    I wonder how Bourne is feeling right at this moment.
    • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 8:32 pm

      Born (may not right now but soon) probably feels the Way A-Rod did when it hit him he should have taken the Mets deal instead of going to Texas.
      And how he fired Boras and negotiated with the Yankees on his own because he was tired of always being in limbo while Boras tried to bluff his way into bigger and more unreasonable contracts.
• Craig January 28, 2013 at 6:03 pm

  Joey D, can you please give us a non suger coated up date on Shannon Ford! I read your post from nov! Thanks
• The real cactus January 28, 2013 at 6:06 pm

  He can want 10 years and 150 million.

  Who the he$$ cares.

  Braves out.
  Phillies out.
  Nationals out.
  Rangers out.

  He’s not getting 100 million.

  There is no mystery team.

  Mets or Mariners.

  Pick your 4 year backloaded contract.
  • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    Precisly!

    If he insists on 5 years maybe someone in japan or Korea will give it to him….
• Trs86 January 28, 2013 at 6:51 pm

  Are we now holding it against the mets that they aren’t ran by raving lunatics? 5 years for Bourne? Ask Dye how refusing to realize your worth works?
  • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 6:55 pm

    No we are holding it against the mets that they waited so long to sign an OFer that they are left with this option or nothing to improve the OF they decimated over the past two years.
    • Trs86 January 28, 2013 at 7:18 pm

      Ok that’s valid and completely separate from the discussion on acting like Sandy should cave to his demands but won’t because he won’t spend.
      • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 8:25 pm

        Well other may have demanded Sandy cave but I haven’t been one of them…
        the furtest I have gone is if they like the price they had they shouldn’t let the 1st rounder get in the way because 4 years from now we should have plenty more options to solve problems in the OF and looking at the IF (Davis, Murphy,Tejada, Wright and at some point d’Arnaud coupled with the dearth of Pitching in A and AA plus Niese, Harvey, Wheelr and Gee there really is not much we are going to need by the time that pick would pay off.

        The IF is set for 4 years barring injury….Nimmo will be in CF in three years unless he is a bust….
        The Pitching seems like it can be sustained with the kids we have or good enough to trade for one and in 4 years we might STILL be talking about how to fix the OF….

        Which is why I wanted them to sign Victorino when they had the chance…The timing would be just about right for Nimmo.
    • hotstreak January 28, 2013 at 7:46 pm

      Victorino’s contract is looking good.
      • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 8:27 pm

        I liked it for many reasons….
        1 – The timing was perfect for holding us over till Nimmo was ready
        2 – He has some WS and Playoff experience which is always valuable
        3 – he played for our biggest rivals who are known for playing hard and could help give inside info on how they think
        4 – he was as good as any other 13 Mil per OFer out there and while he had a down year last year he could easily rebound and increse his trade value.
• Peter January 28, 2013 at 7:31 pm

  Who would really be dumb enough to give him 5 years? As it is it seems like the Mets, Orioles, Mariners, and Maybe Texas have interest in him. Texas is said to not even be talking with him. None of these teams are going to give him 5 years, so is it really a fog and pony show? Or should the Mets give in to 5 years for Bourn? I mean this is what the anti Aldersons want correct ? To make a dumb move and sign him to 5 years, lose the pick, and still come in fourth or third. Sounds a little unintelligent if you ask me, I would wait until he finally realizes he will have to take a smaller deal, or settle for a one year deal and try again next year. If the Mets don’t give up a pick and get him for one year that’s best case scenario. Three year max deal and can not give up pick. Odds of it happening are not good but the media has to have something to write about I guess.
• Peter January 28, 2013 at 7:40 pm

  If Alderson gets bourn on a deal he wants without losing a pick it is because he waited. If he does not get Bourn it’s because he has to give up pick or some fool gave into him. In that case I could not care less. I do not see anyone giving into him, Mariners would also have to give up 12th pick do that is not something they probably want to do. So if Alderson gets Bourn who is a top outfielder available this free agent off season, and it’s because he waited I will assume some people will find something else to complain about cause we know it ain’t gonna be wow give Alderson credit.
  • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Yes and if he gets no OF help at all it is because he waited…..And let all the more reasonable signing that could have helped carry Duda and Kirk the next two years.
• TheBigHomie January 28, 2013 at 8:46 pm

  I completely agree with you Peter. It’s a shame that folks are so anti sandy that they are becoming anti met.
  • taskmaster4450 January 28, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    I wouldnt go that far. I have gone head-to-head with some of the anti-Alderson people and while I think they are off base, I will not call them anti-Met. They love this team just as much as everyone else does. To try to diminish their loyalty isnt fair either. Most of them have decades rooting for this team in both good times and bad (sadly more of the later). But most want to win as much as anyone.

    It is just basically a difference in philosophy. Personally, I feel Omar was a terrible GM. That being said, I hope his “guys” all work out because they are Mets. I hope Duda slugs 35 HRs; Ike is a perennial AS; Harvey a superstud on the mound; Parnell grows some to match his closer type arm; Murphy and Tejada for a terrific DP combo; and Edgin becomes another Randy Myers.

    The bottom line is that we are all Met fans on here and while the intelligence (and sanity) of some might be questioned, I dont believe the passion for the team can be.
    • hotstreak January 29, 2013 at 2:53 am

      The flip side is what are Michael Boun’s options? Classic Answer is the market. Who will blink first. When it comes to a 30 year CF usually the Yankee’s would be there. Boston has Victorino. The market is sky high but is in the process of adjusting back to a balance between Seller and Buyer. However with Borus as agent who will blink first. Again who really would sign Bourn for 5 years at 15 M per year. Nobody is the answer.
  • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    We aren’t anti-Mets we are Anti-Losing for long periods of time for a maybe that never comes….

    Most of us have been through this back in 1995…The last time we all said we were rebuilding.
    • Vinny B January 28, 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Like I was saying in the shoutbox earlier today, it’s ridiculous that someone could be called “anti met” just because they criticize the GM. Criticizing the GM is something that has been going on forever. It isn’t something that just started now because of Sandy.

      In fact, I actually think being skeptical of player transactions can show you are a true fan. It shows you are opinionated and passionate about your favorite team. Fans only want what’s best for the team, so if they think a move the team made was bad, they are going let their voices be heard.

      Now, what’s wrong with that?
      • Trs86 January 29, 2013 at 6:18 am

        I could be wrong but I don’t think he was calling criticizing the GM antiMet. I don’t like doing that under any circumstance, why are we here if we are? I think his point was, as we have already read some say, there are those who hate Sandy so much they would rather see players or even the team do poorly just as a ill show you or in hope he gets fired. Personally I think most of us want the same thing we just all differ on how, when and if its already happening.
      • hotstreak January 29, 2013 at 11:17 am

        You should read the Texas Ranger blogs and the criticism of John Daniels who most of us wanted as GM. Lost Hamilton, No Dickey. For that matter no Travis D’Arnaud. Plus collapses of the team. Team even compared to Buffalo Bills with their WS losses. Yes No Bourn either to take Hamilton’s place.

        There is an however: I predict John Daniels will obtain Stanton by the trade deadline.
• TexasGusCC January 28, 2013 at 9:21 pm

  Brilliant, Peter.
• TheBigHomie January 28, 2013 at 9:50 pm

  Not trying to questions anyone’s loyalty moreso there credibility and objectivity.
• Joey D. January 28, 2013 at 9:56 pm

  Hey Metro,

  I think Joe is suggesting the Mets weren’t serious. He wrote:

  “In the end, the Mets never made any offer to Bourn, official or otherwise.”

  “Let’s see the Mets make a legitimate offer and put their money where their mouth is first. So far there has been no evidence of that.”

  I’m sure you know what your mischievous pal is hinting at. The Mets were in touch with Boras for a few days this past week. Even with just telephone calls, they could have been serious as to talking about dollars, years, deferred payments and didn’t make an offer only because they recognized what Boras was asking for was just too much. Also, because Sandy was waiting till Bourn’s market value might decline he wasn’t going to make any formal offer earlier.

  This does resemble the pattern after Jose officially became eligible for free agency. Sandy took his time waiting, then spoke a couple of days with Jose’s agent, recognized Jose was asking too much – if not in money, then in guaranteed money so he never submitted even a formal, initial low offer.

  So do you think the Mets were serious with Bourn as they were filing a petition which Sandy never did as well? If not, then why with Jose after the season was over?

  Ciao
• Matt Balasis January 28, 2013 at 10:04 pm

  I don’t see how they were ever really serious about Bourn, why give a (close to) Reyes contract to a player who is nowhere near his equal? They’re better off focusing on a trade for an up-and- comer — a guy like Campana, who is actually a spare part on the Cubs, would be nice.
  • Metsie January 28, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    I still ay it was mostly lipservice to make it appear like they were looking into improving the OF with plenty of endings to explain it away when they didn’t get him…

    I thought for a moment there that when it was reported they were petitioning MLB about the pick that MAYBE they got a number they were willing to spend but when that Petition rumor was squashed I knew then and there they were just yanking our chains.
  • Chicago Days January 28, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    Hi Matt, no offense but i tried to see what you see in Campana, but i missed it. No power at all. He must be a ***** Star CF-er.
    • matthew balasis January 29, 2013 at 11:20 am

      Well, in 2010 and 2011 he hit .317 and .350 respectively in stints at AA and AAA, with OBP’s of .376 and .391. He gets on base, he plays a terrific CF and he’s unbelievably fast (30 steals during limited playtime with the Cubs last year). I’m not saying he’s the solution, but he’d certainly be cheap (to acquire) and maybe not much worse offensively than Bourn.

      By the way, elite center fielders past the age of 30? Pretty gruesome drop-off:

      http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/michael-bourns-questionable-future-defensive-value/
• Metstheory22 January 29, 2013 at 7:31 am

  Mets should have included E. Bonafacio in Dickey deal. Would have had CF and steal guy for a couple of years. He is a UT guy in Toronto.
  • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 8:16 am

    I agree but there might be a reason that he wasn’t included. It’s possible that Toronto likes him a little more than you think, considering they ask for him in the Marlins deal.
  • Metro12 January 29, 2013 at 8:27 am

    Bonifcacio has a career .671 OPS. Mets fans would be whining over production like that in the OF. He is also shaky as a centerfielder. For CF, I’d rather go with Niewenhuis.
• Alex68 January 29, 2013 at 9:10 am

  It’s not gonna happen.. All of this is the mets trying to apeace the fan base, saying they tried but couldn’t get it done and move on with the garbage sandy brought in this offseason. Unlike you Joe D i will not back down from my thoughts on this, he’s not gonna sign him, and i won’t say “ohhh, if he signs him i’ll admit i was wrong”, because it will not happen… We’ve acquired a bunch of OF just to rotate them and field the less garbage out there…
  • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 9:13 am

    So do you think it would be a good idea to sign Bourn for 5 years and give up the pick and the money associated with the pick?
  • Alex68 January 29, 2013 at 9:15 am

    Yes. One thing you keep forgetting is the guy in charge of making those draft picks is depodesta, so until proven otherwise, give me the proven major leaguer over a guy who will be pick by a guy with one of the worst track records in terms of picking players in the first round.
    • Donal January 29, 2013 at 9:20 am

      So, it isn’t about the player, but about a guy whose job you don’t understand.

      alex, what is Depo’s role in the organization?
      • Joe D January 29, 2013 at 10:00 am

        Donal, you see, this is how it always starts. Do you really believe he doesn’t know the answer to that? There was more to your motive behind the question and it had nothing to do with whether Alex new DePo’s title and job description. Please stop engaging in dialog that will lead to the type of threads you are always the first to complain about.
        • Donal January 29, 2013 at 9:01 pm

          My point is depo doesn’t run the drafts, which has been established before. There really isn’t a lot of reading between the lines there.

          No idea why you decided to lecture here, but whatever. It’s your place.
          • Just-Da-Damaja January 29, 2013 at 9:46 pm

            Depo is a very big part of the prospect selection process.

            There are at least 10 different folks involved from the scout all the way up to Jeff and Fred.

            You can have a great scout but if the pieces above him are not supportive, it doesnt matter..

            every level is more dependent on the level above him for success.
            • Donal January 29, 2013 at 9:56 pm

              Of course the guy in charge of development gets a say in the draft. But, he doesn’t run it.
    • Alex68 January 29, 2013 at 9:28 am

      VP of player development and scouting for the New York Mets. What’s yours donal????
      • Donal January 29, 2013 at 9:03 pm

        See, you went and looked something up and learned something new because I pointed out the goofy thing you said( not personally attacking you, mind you, just what you said). You’re a slightly better person because I teased you.

        You’re welcome.
    • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 10:03 am

      Well I guess we are at an in-pass as usual as I wouldn’t give Bourn 5 years even if there wasn’t a draft pick attached. 5 Years for a 30 year old career .272 .339 .365 .704 hitter? No way.
• Metro12 January 29, 2013 at 9:16 am

  Interesting. I would not offer Bourn more than 3 years guaranteed. Give him a 4th year as a relatively easy vesting option. I don’t think Boras will get a better offer.

  As for the draft pick, I would think that Wilpon and Sandy have enough friends in the commissioner’s office that they will be able to get a pretty good indication beforehand of how they may rule.

  So I would take the chance, provided it was a reasonable contract and they get the indication beforehand of how the ruling may go.
• Metfan Lou January 29, 2013 at 9:23 am

  I think this thing will break by the end of the week. Boras and Bourn overplayed their hand and as we get closer to spring training teams have set their rosters and the market is very thin for his services. My understanding is the Mariners and Rangers have bowed out so it appears he only has the Mets interested in him. If you were Bourn what would you do.Sit out the 13 season. He has bills to pay and a family to support just like a working Joe. Not to drag this out but my prediction is compromise. Four year deal 13 million a year with an option for the remaining two years.
  • Joe D January 29, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Lou, I wouldn’t say they overplayed their hand yet. You never count your winnings until the dealing’s done. Also, if Bourn’s price does drop to three or four years, $13 million per, you can bet 2-3 more teams will jump into the pool. Boras will reengage all 30 teams if and when he decides to lower the bar. He fequently does and he always finds that one mystery team late in the game that came out of nowhere.
    • Metro12 January 29, 2013 at 10:10 am

      Joe D, while it’s true other teams may jump back in if Bourn’s price drops, the Mets still retain a small advantage — the potential for them to retain their first round pick. Teams that finished with better records than the Mets in 2012 can’t make that case to the commissioner’s office. So the Mets would still have an advantage.

      It’s Sandy’s style to wait things out. Sure, he loses some valuable things by doing that. But he also sometimes ends up with very good deals.

      A wild guess — Mets have about a 40% chance to get Bourn on their terms.
    • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 10:10 am

      No way is he engaging all 30 teams even if it goes down to 3/45.

      Nats? No
      Braves? No
      Phillies? No
      Marlins? No
      Reds? No
      Cards? No
      Brewers? No
      Cubs? Not anymore IMO but I will give a maybe
      Dodgers? No
      Giants? I think actually a dark horse
      Dbacks? No
      Padres? No
      Yanks? No not unless they trade someone
      RSox? see Yanks
      Toronto? No
      Rays? Still too expensive
      O’s? Maybe but don’t seem to want to add anything
      Indians? No
      Royals? No
      WSox? No
      Twins? No
      Tigers? Not likely
      A’s? No
      Astros? No
      Rangers? Yeah, maybe even though Daniels has said he is done
      Angels? No
      M’s yeah, that’s my odds on bet.

      Honestly even at that price you realistically get a pool of in order M’s, Mets, , Giants, Rays, Cubs, Tigers.

      I don’t see anyone else even needing him.
• SheawasBetter86 January 29, 2013 at 9:40 am

  I’m still waiting for the admission about Sandy totally misreading RA’s market…
  • Joe D January 29, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Keep waiting, TruthsAboutMurphy. I stopped waiting for Cerrone to admit he was wrong for writing he thought the Oliver Perez deal was great for the Mets and that he sees Perez vying for a Cy Young and tossing the franchise’s first no-hitter. I never went that far and only said we needed to sign him rather than Lowe, but still admitted I was wrong a year later. I never have a problem coming clean. You need to move on. I stand behind what I say. Why don’t you talk some baseball instead of trying to be my keeper? I don’t need a keeper, although you never know. A keeper may come in handy in the future with the stuff I have to deal with just for posting my opinions on my site.
• ifthevansrockin January 29, 2013 at 9:44 am

  Well, odds are Boras would dearly love to get a deal done with the Mets for Bourn (money being equal of course!). So it should be a good indication of who has more power, Boras or Selig!

  though if the player’s union wants the mets pick protected, and boras wants it, and supposedly the only reason the mets don’t have new owners is Bud is serving as Fred’s sugar daddy, that is a lot of incentive to find a nuance loophole in the CBA!

  and if they hold firm to the rule, it will become a stalemate, until Boras comes down to some # (3/36?) that makes forfeiting the pick worth it to Sandy and the gang.
  • taskmaster4450 January 29, 2013 at 10:18 am

    True but Rubin brought up a good point in his article about the owners. Their incentive is to keep salaries down as much as possible. It is not in the other 29 owners best interest to allow the Mets not to give up the pick to sign Bourne. This increases Bournes appeal to the Mets i.e. his value. While it probably wont make a difference in terms of the long term escalation of salaries, Rubin does have a point. And, Selig is responsible to all the owners…that is who he answers to.
• peter January 29, 2013 at 10:32 am

  Alderson can not give up the draft pick for Bourn, if they can keep the pick and Boras comes back down to reality of a three year deal, then he is a Met.It is pretty clear and you do not need to read anything from the Media to figure that out. Just need to wait it out and show a lot of interest, the longer this goes on the better it is for the Mets. Everyday that passes Boras will realize that he needs to go to a one year deal and try again next year, or take a shorter deal. And MLB will eventually have to give a ruling on the pick, and the ruling should be a rule change for the entire length of the contract not a one year favor to the Mets. The teams where stupid enough to agree on the deal in the first place and that kind of screws the Mets.

  I would think he goes to Texas on a one year deal, or a team that is not even being mentioned. Mets do not get him because of the draft pick.
• Hitman January 29, 2013 at 10:49 am

  Give it a week. His demand of a 5-year deal will come down and he’ll cave just like Towers.
  • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    I say Three Weeks….

    It’s two weeks till pitchers and catcher report, and When Bourn sees that he will tell Boras to get a deal done or be fired, I figure another week, 20 press leaks from Boras under the guise of MLB SOURCE and some team makes the deal. Probably someone who has a very late 1st rounder or is protected…Like Pittsburg.
• srt January 29, 2013 at 10:52 am

  Just points to none of us here really know what’s going on behind the scenes in regards to putting together this team. The off season isn’t over until…well, it’s over.
  • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    pitches and catcher report in two weeks….

    that means the offseason is pretty much over.

    Scratch Bourn it isn’t going to happen. Take a look at what remains and tell me what move will be made to save us?

    Just about the only trade worth doing is Stanton,and Miami is in no rush until Bourn is off the market (increasing the trade value).

    Just about the only other surprise move that is possible at this point is they sign the beard after seeing his progress from the last time when they were not impressed with his velocity.
    • srt January 29, 2013 at 12:41 pm

      Deals do get done during ST.

      As to ‘saving us’ – there is no one deal that’s going to suddenly propel the Mets as favorites in the NL east. We basically have no OF and acquiring Bourn is still going to leave them with a platoon at the other 2 OF positions.
      • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:09 pm

        Who is going to trade someone who could help before the season starts?
        All the trades that you see are minimalist depth trades and never anything significant…

        Teams are not going to have a major change of heart during ST and if there was someone they wanted to trade they would have tried to trade him by now.

        Sure anything is possible….Someone could hand you the winning Powerball ticket….
        Possible is hardly probable.
        • srt January 29, 2013 at 1:12 pm

          Regarding your first question…..could be a variety of scenarios. For instance, some team has their rotation and BP set and 2 arms in the starting rotation go down in ST for the year. Or one SP and their closer. That team might be looking at trading to fill those holes rather than what they may/may not have on the farm.

          Just saying there has been deals done during ST before, if not a ton like during the true off season.
          • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:37 pm

            In both your scenarios your not going to get a GOOD player back….
            Your going to get Kids for one of YOUR good players….

            If they lost talent due to injury they certainly aren’t going to give MORE talent away….
            SO in both those scenarios we would be sellers not buyers.

            Best case is some other team has TOO MANY good players at a position you need and will trade you thier depth for something else they are less deep in…

            In the end your just trading Depth for Depth….
• TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 11:27 am

  What I thought was interesting in the Sherman article was the idea that perhaps they could do an opt out deal. Something along the lines of a 4 year deal with opt out clauses after each year or even after the 2nd and 3rd years? Couldn’t that be about the best either party could hope for at this point? Something like 4/50 with opt outs?
• TX January 29, 2013 at 11:29 am

  I still maintain a 4 year, 52-55 million dollar deal gets this done and the big hold up will be money vs. the pick. If the Mets can somehow keep the 11th pick, they probably overpay a little. If they can’t, the overall cost or years drops. And, I’m thinking they are hammering out those details and once they have something in place, that is when MLB will be approached about the spirit on the top 10 protected picks vs. 10 worst teams picks being protected.

  I’d say they could have a deal contingent on the Mets keeping the pick or the signing falls thru, but I doubt that would fly, due to the details coming out and it would set the Bourn market and you konw Boras never would want that getting out…
  • srt January 29, 2013 at 11:33 am

    Who – exactly – makes the decision on that 11th pick? Is it Selig by himself?
    Anyone know?
    • TX January 29, 2013 at 11:39 am

      I’d assume Selig, but not sure.
    • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 11:41 am

      Good question and as I responded to TX on the uh.. other thread… the situation is certainly in a pickle. Bud is not likely to rule until he has to and I see no way the Mets give up their pick for Bourn unless the value of his contract in a trade actually is more than what they believe their pick will be worth. In other words, I would still assume someone besides the Mets finally cave just so Bud doesn’t have to make a decision.
      • srt January 29, 2013 at 12:43 pm

        Thanks, all. So the consensus is it’s Selig’s decision alone.

        I’m sure he hopes Bourn signs with another team so he doesn’t have to get involved in making this decision.

        I’m also thinking along the line that you are – the price has to warrant SA giving up that pick.
      • ifthevansrockin January 29, 2013 at 1:13 pm

        one thing for sure. After the deadline passes, before next off season, they need to release a definitive position on this, so there is no ambiguity going into next year. Real simple, 2 lines should take care of it, and then everyone will know for sure.
    • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 12:32 pm

      Probably Seligula….

      But they will not make a decision until a deal is made….
      They don’t want to upset the negotiation cart and give the Mets an advantage as the other teams who might be involved with him will cry a river over that.

      So they won’t even accept a petition until the deal has been made and the pick is really at stake.
      • Met Maniac January 29, 2013 at 12:55 pm

        Metsie, why wouldn’t all the teams be asked to weigh in on the decision? It was their rule in the first place. The MLBPA wanted to keep it at 15 rather 10 so of course they are all for protecting the Mets pick. So are all the agents. Selig cant play favorites with Wilpons again because it’s becoming too transparent now and is way past the cronyism stage. Pretty sure the other teams would be against it.
        • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:14 pm

          Actually it was part of the NEW CBA if I’m not mistaken….
          Before that (last year even) ity was the top 15….

          And since Seligula was in charge of negotiating the CBA My guess is it would be left to him to decide cause I don’t see them having some emergency meeting vote just to give us protected status.

          In either case we would be better off if it was Seligula’s call…The league is not interested in making exceptions to protected picks they would love it if NO picks were protected because it keeps the prices down and they get more picks for anyone they might lose.

          SO it’s really the League (rest of it) that WANTS it to be the way it is….
          The Players association are on board and supporting us if we make a petition.
        • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:18 pm

          Just to add I DO agre with what you said about Seligula being in a place where too much favoritism towards the mets is in play….

          Which is probably why he won’t say or hear a thing until the deal is actually made, He can poll the owners on the issue and then make a decision.

          Right now NO DECISION and NO COMMENT is all we will get…
          It solves thier problem by keeping the price on a bourn honest and will deal with it after a deal is actually made instead of setting a precedent that they will be forced to stick to for the duration.
• TJ January 29, 2013 at 12:30 pm

  Does anyone know what the rule states as far as the pick the Pirates were awards? It makes absolutely no sense to me why a team that failed to sign its top pick would be rewards with a protected pick in the subsequent season. Why wouldn’t Pittsburgh be awarded the 11th pick, or the 75th pick, or no other pick? This to me is more of a questoin for MLB than whether 10 or 11 picks are protected. Whether this works out for the Mets, or if it even becomes an issue, MLB should fix this for next year. Many people are all gaga over the #11 pick, and “building the farm”, coming off a year that the Mets passed on Courtney Hawkins, a powerhitting OF, to make a safe pick that they could sign under slot, and failed to sign their second round pick. If Bourn’s price drops to 3 years $40 mil, passing on him would be a mistake.
  • jessep January 29, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    So because they didn’t sign Appel (who was projected as #1 overall by the way) the Pirates get the 9th pick which is 1 slot below where they took Appel.

    They offered Appel a fair value for where he was picked but the Boras client wanted his big pay day since he could make double that much if selected #1 in 2013.

    So that slots Toronto down to 10th, and thus the Mets get the shaft at 11
  • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm

    I have another question. Does that mean that Pittsburgh’s pick is protected? Even though they didn’t finish poorly last year? Is that really the intent of the rule?
    • jessep January 29, 2013 at 12:56 pm

      yes PIT’s pick is protected. So if they signed a FA they would lose their other 1st round pick which is outside the Top 10
      • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 1:02 pm

        Yeah, it was kinda rhetorical, basically saying was the intent of the rule to protect someone who didn’t need protecting and to bump down someone who’s pick should be? To me they missed the boat with the language of this.
        • jessep January 29, 2013 at 1:06 pm

          yeah but what if Pit was terrible in 2012? Wouldn’t they need the protected pick just as much as anybody?
          • TRS86 January 29, 2013 at 1:10 pm

            Yes….
            So perhaps they could develop a system based if you lose the pick then it’s conditional on how you finish? Kinda like how the NBA does with trading picks.
            • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:34 pm

              They dnt need conditions, just set the protected status BEFORE te award compensation picks.

              The 10 worst teams determines who has protected picks and then the COMPs can be awarded after that protection is determined.
      • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:06 pm

        ‘m willing to bet that even if they were awarded the 12th pick if they lost a pick it would STILL be that 14th overall not the pick they got in COMP.
  • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:05 pm

    The issue isn’t the rule regarding what pick the Pirates got….Even if it was not protected space if they had signed someone they would most likely lose their EARNED 14th overall 1st rounder not thier comp pick.

    The issue is the rule on what is protected….
    Since the Comp picks are not tradable and not a pick you would lose no matter WHERE it is then it should not be counted in the protected list.
    If the Pirates signed Bourn they would not lose that comp pick even if it was the 12th pick….

    And thats the point that the Mets should persue if they really want bourn (which they don’t not at his prices)
    • jessep January 29, 2013 at 1:13 pm

      “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”

      So that is not accurate. If the Pirates pick last year was say 11th and they didn’t sign him… their comp pick would be the first to go if they signed a free agent.
      • Metsie January 29, 2013 at 1:28 pm

        And in year’s previous…If a team had no 1st rounder but had a COMP pick and was due to lose a pick due to signing away an FA would they have lost thier COMP pick since it was thier highest?

        I doubt it….
      • TJ January 29, 2013 at 5:02 pm

        Regardless of whether it is the Mets involved or not, or the specific wording of the agreement, it makes no sense to me why one of the 10 worst teams would lose protection if its 1st round pick due to some other team failing to sign its pick in the prior year. The same holds true for the 2nd round pick the Mets are awarded for failing to sign their 2nd rounder last year. To me, if you don’t sign the pick, oh well, but that’s just me. I don’t expect Uncle Bud to be calling for my 2 cents.
• rob January 29, 2013 at 3:25 pm

  Since Alderson’s arrival, I’ve been truly fed up with him.
  However, I do applaud his decision in this case.
  Simply put, Michael Bourn does NOT warrant the money Boras is wanting.
  • Joe D January 29, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    So I’m confused… How do I classify you? Are you a SLU–RPER or a part of the CORE? Are you at the altar burning incense? Or are you on the ledge threatening to jump? Which one is it? There is no middle ground.
• peter January 29, 2013 at 3:36 pm

  Stanton should be the target, he is a right fielder, right handed, and has massive power. Exactly what the Mets need, he is a perfect fit.He probably does not go on the market until next off season which is good. It really makes no sense to trade him now or during the season for Miami, they still got him cheap and there is no other reason to go to a game in Miami. Plus the market for him will be bigger next off season.They will trade him before he hits arbitration though.This is one of the main reasons the Mets can not give up the first round pick. It can help to obtain Stanton or keep the system somewhat respectable. There is almost no doubt in my mind Sandy goes after him. I hope one of Montero, Fullmer, or Mateo, goes nuts this year in the minors. With Syndergaurd,Flores, and one of those pitcher there is a good chance the Mets can land him. Obviously there would be a prospect or two more to have to be given.