What would you say the odds are that the Mets sign Michael Bourn? It’s been well documented that the Mets won’t make him an official offer unless they know that their first round pick is protected – you all know the story.
But it was also reported that the Mets are willing and prepared to go “all-out” to sign Bourn. I must confess that I don’t like the sound of that.
I love that the Mets see themselves in a position to go all-out on a free agent player, I’m just not convinced that Michael Bourn is the player that should be Alderson’s first official free agent over-pay.
I understand that spring trainining is less than a week away and that the outfield options have dwindled to nothing –both on the trade and free agent market fronts. Bourn indeed represents the best of what’s left. But I find it odd that 29 other teams never made the former Brave an offer this late into the buying season. So why overpay him? And who exactly are the Mets bidding against aside from themselves?
Is this the year we’ve been waiting for when the Mets burst out of the gate and challenge for the NL East crown? Are we at the stage where we are one or two pieces away from winning it all and we’ll go “all-out” to get those players no matter how much they want or how old they are? Isn’t this the kind of behavior that got the team into trouble in the first place?
With the numbers I’m hearing, the Mets could very well have $35 milion invested in two players going into the 2014 season That would be over one-third of a $100 million payroll. Do we really want to travel down that road again? And is Michael Bourn the kind of player you commit to like that? Both he and David Wright would be 32 at the start of 2015 and deep into their declines. Frankly, this was the kind of situation I thought we would never see again under Sandy Alderson, so I’m a little befuddled by this talk of going all-out on Bourn. That’s one rumor I hope gets debunked sooner rather than later.