I mean, how many washout “name” free agent contracts do we have to put up with before people figure out that they rarely work to your advantage for more than a year or two (if at all, Jason Bay anyone?) and that the money angle is almost always an accountant’s nightmare in the end.

So give me those younger players any day of the week. And Sandy? STAY THE COURSE.

It’s not that you didn’t sign Bourn that has me upset – in fact, taken in the context of all the moves you didn’t make for this team, I’m glad you didn’t. Bourn in himself would not have been enough to make the club that much stronger or be part of the core you still feel needs developing.

It’s that you talk as if you think most Met fans are idiots.

Today you told the media that you made every effort to sign Bourn. Before that it was the fifth year vetting that was a stumbling block.

Well, how come those like Joel Sherman were picking up information about the deal being offered was similar to Cleveland’s? A fifth year $12 million option based on plate appearances in the fourth season is not an offer similar to the Indians.

If so serious, then why the wait for the arbitrator’s decision being a stumbling block? How about the three month wait which still didn’t result in the filing of a petition ?

Or even more directly – at the time when informed that the Mets were bumped to number eleven why not having at least initiated an “INFORMALl” inquiry with MLB to get an idea of what you would be up against – you know, just like the kind of “informal” talks you had with Jose’s agent which led you to conclude the Mets could not meed his demands?

And if it is a matter of not having the money but spending it wisely, why would one who has cited so many past types of contracts in which teams have been “burned” with similar type players (age, skill, etc.) suddenly commit to even a $48 million four year contract (with no fifth year) on a 30 year old gold glove center fielder with great speed but a lifetime .272 bating average who averages four home runs a year? Can see other teams doing it, but this goes so much against your past history. Why the turn around?

And then, why no mention about the CBA ruling when talking with Mike Francesa about a month ago when it pertained to improving that outfield? Instead we were told that you were waiting to see how further things developed – and that included the strategy to present an offer to Scott Hairston. And when Francesa inquired about Scott you said:

“You know, money’s always an issue and I wouldn’t deny that, but it’s also a question of playing time and he wants to play — we understand that — and one of the things that exists for us right now, the dynamic is, that in order for us to sign Scott we want to be able to commit a certain amount of playing time. This is where you balance two or three things going on at the same time. If one or two other things were to happen, it might affect his playing time. So it’s not just about the money, it’s also about playing time and what we can readily commit to Scott.”

So $5 million over two years ($2.5 million per year) with incentives was too much to invest because of the problem pertaining to playing time? With the outfield we had and still do?
And yet you would commit $48 million ($12 million per year) to a player who would be the same as Scott would be after his two year deal would end (34)?

Sorry Sandy, but there are just too many contradictions in both words, actions and and other moves to believe that you made every effort to sign Bourn – or to sign ANY type-A free agent. You knew about the conflict with the CBA ruling the end of October. Again, that you didn’t make any INFORMAL inquiry to get an idea of how MLB was going to interpret that doesn’t speak well for any sincerity to match those words.

Or, did you actual make such an informal inquiry and knew what to possibly expect – use of an independent arbitrator, having to first sign a type-A free agent before petition could be filed, the time element in which it would take to reach a decision – and thus waited prior to spring training so to let that time limit work conveniently work against you?

http://www.amazinavenue.com/2013/1/17/3889254/sandy-alderson-mets-francesa-travis-darnaud-zack-wheeler

You still pissed Sandy didn’t re-sign Reyes at the number Reyes wanted??

And I still remember guys like Bonilla, Saberhagen, Henderson and Coleman.

We’ll be fine.

Wright signed an 8 year deal because he had no confidence in himself, so passed on signing a 3 year deal. Gotcha.

That’s speculation.

The incredibly pro-Sandy group would have been all over defending the non-signing of Bourn.

That’s fact.

You know those people who make thier evaluations of deals/potential deals based on if Sandy made them or not?

If Sandy gets them then the price was a steal WELL worth the money no matter what the money (see Francisco at 6M per) or a guy who hits .220 and gets 3 Mil.

And if Sandy doesn’t get him REGARDLESS of the performance level no matter WHAT that player signs for is TOO MUCH to pay for X,Y, And Excuse Z.

But you are forgetting one thing. Few of us are saying we are a playoff team at this time with the addition of certain key free agents – though we do also have faith in the young players that this would actually not be out of the question even in 2013. What we are are saying is that more realistically with these signings along with the young kids developing we will be that much closer to becoming a playoff team, which is the goal.

The free agent crop the past two seasons had many fine choices for us to pursue – young, credible relievers and outfielders with power. The perfect type of player to compliment a young, growing team. Next season the type of players we need – outfielders and relievers – are all of an older stock. Those who are young have not shown to be that productive (while that could change with 2013 being a breakthrough year – which could also mean just a one-time career year as well, i.e., Andres Torres in 2010 for the Giants).

The team could have grown together this year. Indeed, had moves been made based on talent instead of not wanting to spend last winter, it is a valid argument this team could have really surprised many past the first half of the year. They were leading the wild card at the all-star break without a bullpen and with Ike Davis only starting to show coming out of a season long slump due to that valley fever, etc. Imagine the bullpen had they had signed, for example, just one viable closer like a Broxton, etc. along with Francisco (moved to middle relief). Imagine out outfield had they not traded Pagan for Riveria and Torres (a move I still believe was financial in nature – getting two players for just $400k more than the price of one).

In addition, Gee was injured but Sandy said that winter that he was holding back spending so he could have a contingency budget to spend during the summer in anticipation of just such an event. What happened?

That’s not looking back in hindsight in 2013 – that’s looking ahead back in the winter of 2011/12.

That’s why rebuilding is not as simple as obtaining prospects and letting them develop along with others already in the farm system. There are many other steps that one has to abide to which includes already having a core of young players already on the roster (which they have), not getting rid of them when they are in their final year of arbitration and then approaching free agency (like they did with Pagan), retaining good but older players to be slowly replaced by those coming up (which they didn’t), going after key free agents that would fit in (which they haven’t) and not feeling they have to keep every good prospect they have instead of trading one or for more established players.

Again, for me as I said before during and after I did not think Bourn was a good fit.

It was a no brainer to predict what was going to happen here….
No matter WHAT the price….
If we had signed him it would have been a GREAT DEAL and a STEAL…
And if ANYONE ESLE signed him it would be called TOO MUCH for him….

It was as predictable as NOON!

My apologies for addressing you as Connor which is not your last name at all. Wanted to properly address you by your first name and not in the rude manner it accidentally came across as by not proof-reading the salutation.