12
2013
The Bourn Debacle Was Mishandled By All Sides
An article by 
The big Mets news from last night was Michael Bourn, who decided not to sign with the Mets. Instead, Bourn signed a four-year, $48 million contract with the Indians with an easily-attainable fifth option year that would bring the total contract to five years and $60 million. Regardless of what you think of Bourn as a player, or how much money he was really worth, this whole situation was mismanaged from the beginning by all parties — including the Mets.
As the offseason winded down, so did the price for Michael Bourn. Bourn and his agent Scott Boras thought they had a chance at cashing in on a big contract, especially after B.J. Upton signed with the Braves for $75 million. However, for a variety of reasons, Bourn’s price dropped to the point where the Mets were now major players.
There was one sticking point for the Mets, however: the compensation pick they would have to give up. I agree with Sandy Alderson and the front office about this, and it was the right move to fight the compensation. Losing the pick would have huge consequences on the rest of the draft, well past the first round. Not only would the Mets lose their first-rounder if they signed Bourn, but they would also lose up to a third of this year’s draft budget. That didn’t make sense, even for a player of Bourn’s caliber.
The negotiations inched along, and rumors kept swirling. Eventually, it became clear that the Mets were the favorites to land the 30 year-old center fielder. It made sense for them as a team, and they were one of only a few clubs willing to come close to Bourn’s asking price. It got to the point where the Mets were in heavy negotiations with Bourn and Boras. According to Mike Puma of the New York Post, they even agreed to terms on money and years, and were just down to little details. So what went wrong? The draft pick compensation ruling.
The biggest mistake the Mets made was not appealing earlier. Jon Heyman of CBS Sports tweeted after the signing that the Mets were reluctant to appeal the rule in the CBA that forced them to give up their pick until they had first signed Bourn, fearing that once it became public, Bourn would have more leverage and drive the price up. They were right, and the price of Bourn would have increased once it became known that they were appealing. What upsets me most isn’t their strategy once they were in the final stages with Bourn, it’s the lack of preparedness the Mets showed in this situation. Why they didn’t appeal on Day 1 of the offseason is unbelievable.
Even if Alderson had doubts the team would be able to sign a big free agent, he should have made that option available from the beginning. They were too passive in that sense before the rumors with Bourn even began to surface. Why not take care of (or at least fight) that issue before it can become a problem? If they knew that this issue would take a few days (or even a few weeks) to resolve, why wait? (The MLBPA is in the same boat.)
The other side of this is how Major League Baseball handled this. They too, were passive from the beginning, refusing to go to an arbitrator until Bourn agreed to terms with the Mets. They didn’t want to make a ruling on this matter and set an unwanted precedent. I get that. However, the way they milked and manipulated this situation was wrong. They told the Mets to agree with Bourn and then go to an arbitrator. But the longer Bourn was left on the market, the less patient he would be in waiting for a ruling. All Major League Baseball had to do was wait, and they would not have to get that ruling. And that’s exactly what happened.
It’s disappointing the Mets missed out on Bourn. He was a very talented player and one who could have helped the team greatly over the next few years. His price was a little high, but very fair when you consider some of the other free agent outfielders who signed multi-year contracts this winter.
I have been a fan of Sandy Alderson from early on, and still am. I like the overall direction he is taking the organization and the emphasis on a strong core of cheap, young stars. That’s the way you build championship teams. But he messed up here. He is going to take a lot of heat if he fails to address the outfield. It isn’t completely his fault (Major League Baseball deserves as much blame) but had he been more aggressive in fighting this compensation rule, Michael Bourn might be a New York Met.
While I still support Alderson, his passiveness was too much this time. There is a saying that in order to truly appreciate something, you must concede its faults. For Alderson, passiveness is one of them.
About the Author: Connor O'Brien
I am a very young, but passionate Mets fan who has blogged about the Mets for three years. I hope you all enjoy the unique perspective that a fan like me can bring to the table. More about me... favorite Met- Johan Santana... favorite food- Citi Field burgers and hot dogs!... favorite musician- Mos Def... favorite Mets moment- the no-hitter of course, but I also attended Game 1 of the 2006 NLDS as well as Johan's three-hit shutout in late September 2008. Follow me on Twitter @UpAlongFirst
68 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braves | 42 | 30 | .583 | - |
| Phillies | 35 | 37 | .486 | 7.0 |
| Nationals | 34 | 36 | .486 | 7.0 |
| Mets | 27 | 40 | .403 | 12.5 |
| Marlins | 22 | 48 | .314 | 19.0 |
Last updated: 06/19/2013
MMO Mets Chat
Recent Comments
- ImaginaryFigment: on Wilmer Flores: It’s Time For Another MLB Debut: "Kind of a big head, the kind...
- Hitman: on Mets vs Braves Live Chat: Eric Young Jr. Makes His Mets Debut: If Leathersich continues at the pace he's...
- Connor O'Brien: on Last Night We Saw A Big Chunk Of “The Plan”: "lean 100% on numbers and come up...
- Peter: on Mets vs Braves Live Chat: Eric Young Jr. Makes His Mets Debut: Guys like Stanton are going to happen,...
- Hitman: on Mets vs Braves Live Chat: Eric Young Jr. Makes His Mets Debut: As much of a big fan I...
Latest From Mets Minors
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1333 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
LOL easily attainable…except if u platoon Bourn b/c of poor performance or health…which cant be disputed by the union…
And the mets knew their draft pick was not protected back in August…
but wait until January to make it an issue …
lmao
I agree completely that this was mishandled by the Mets, and they should have tried to address this issue at the beginning of Free Agency.
But, I think its better in the long run without Bourn. He fell off considerably in the 2nd half last year, and being 30 years old and your best attribute is speed, the Mets got away with making a bad decision.
Now they can move on, find someone cheap on waivers or a trade at the end of camp, and move forward.
You’re right, they should have at least entertained the possibility. I’m just relieved it was Bourn, someone I was pretty luke warm about anyway, rather than someone who really could have been a difference maker.
But, I still think MLB and the PA should have seen a situation like this coming and they still need to address it.
anyone who could’ve been a difference maker for us would’ve had more suitors…
How exactly where the Mets going to appeal this on day 1 of the offseason when it has been made clear by the commissioners office that there would be no ruling until there was a deal on the table and the Mets were not willing to meet the demands of Bourn/Boras when free agency started, 5 years $75 million? The Mets and Bourn didn’t come to terms until late in the process when Bourn/Boras lowered their demands to 4/48 which is what the Mets had been proposing.
It can’t be both ways.
My understanding as well.
Also, I believe at some point, we were in on Upton, before he was traded to the Braves. Reason I’m thinking that is the SA comment after the trade, saying if Hairston was still available after that trade, they likely would have signed him. I can only assume that meant they were holding off signing Hairston in case they were able to work out a trade for Upton.
The Upton discussion were short and sweet. They wanted one of Wheeler or Harvey and Sandy balked at that price as he should have!
Yea, its easy to forget sometimes that these deals don’t happen in a vacuum. There are always other deals or other considerations that are in play.
The Hairston issue was front and center throughout the dealings with Bourn and the Mets didn’t seem to really ramp things up with Bourn until after he was off the table.
Boomer, you are absolutely correct! MLB wouldn’t have made a ruling in the first place without an agreement, secondly there is NO WAY any team is signing a Boras Client on day one of the offseason. In a way it’s unfortunate this didn’t work out, but I get the feeling that in year 3 and 4 of that deal Bourn will probably done us a favor. I put this on MLB, Sandy played this right from the get go, it was MLB that didn’t want to set the precedent in the first place. Actually had Bourn come to terms with the Mets sooner chances are he would be a Met. All in all I was good with this if we signed Bourn or Not. He’s not a game changer by any stretch, but his defense could have helped tremendously in the OF and it would have given the Mets a real lead off hitter.
Sandy Alderson had no intention of signing Michael Bourn. As always, he’s mega excuse-maker, diverting blame and responsibility which squarely rests on him. If he truly wanted to sign this player, the draft pick issue would have already been decided before it came to this.
Instances arise in law in which a party to a dispute will want an advance ruling – its call a “declaratory judgment”.
Alderson failed to seek one, knowing the Mets were on the cusp of the top 10 protected picks. Had he sought a ruling from MLB once it became clear that that the Pirates would bump them to the 11th pick, then the issue would’ve been resolved well in advance of the Bourn negotiations and would not have been the ridiculous factor it became.
Alderson has done fine work, but holding onto or acquiring GG-caliber lead-off hitters apparently is not one of his strengths. We’ll be kind and call it a “missing skill”.
It has been announced that the decision would have been made by an independent arbiter and not the commissioners office. Even if the normal laws applied to MLB, which they don’t, who was going to give them a declaratory judgement?
Adding to what you said is the fact that every MLB insider, exec, writer, expert all agreed the Mets would get pick protected. It was common knowledge. Nobody doubted that.
Really.
>>One rival executive said he could envision a scenario in which the commissioner’s office could be motivated to discuss the draft-pick compensation issue if the union showed a willingness to offer a concession in another area. But the point proved moot.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-lose-out-on-michael-bourn-who-agrees-to-four-year-deal-with-indians-1.4625446?qr=1
That came out this morning so apparently not every baseball insider agreed. So what concession do you suppose the players association was willing to make?
That is a pure fabrication and speculation. Terribly out of line with the legalities if the issue. This was not going to be a new go at a collective bargaining agreement. The CBA is set in stone. This was not going to have anything to do with give-backs and trade-offs as that misguided exec suggests. This was an interpretation of the intent and heart of the rule that would be decided by an independent counsel or arbiter. Sorry, but your new news is not news at all and anyone with basic knowledge of contract law would agree with me..
Ken, the CORE salute you. this guy boomer is nothing but another alderson shill who will go hell and bent in defending his lord. so he uses BS excuses to try to deviate from the problem and how shitty his GM is…
Give me a T. T!
Give me an H. H!
Give me an I. I!
Give me an S. S!
What do get!
THIS!
Clearly, the CBA is not set in stone or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I never cease to be amused at people who come onto blogs and insist they have more knowledge of how the arcane and frankly made up rules of MLB work. Baseball operates as an unregulated monopoly in the US with labor/management rules that are unlike any normal industry.
If this was such a cut and dried issue as you claim then why would any of this need to go to an arbiter?
If this was such a cut and dried issue as you claim then why would any of this need to go to an arbiter?”
You can’t be serious… did it go to an arbitrator? No!!!!!!!!!! so there was no need for one because bourn signed with another team period. it’s funny how you said: “I never cease to be amused at people who come onto blogs and insist they have more knowledge of how the arcane and frankly made up rules of MLB work” yet you are trying to be the smarters guy of the bunch…
May I inquire as to your profession and your expertise on this matter?
FIrst you say this:
>>Adding to what you said is the fact that every MLB insider, exec, writer, expert all agreed the Mets would get pick protected. It was common knowledge. Nobody doubted that.
For which you provide zero backup that every MLB insider, exec and expert all agreed that the Mets would get their pick protected.
And then in response to a quote from a MLB exec without blushing you say this.
>>That is a pure fabrication and speculation.
I’ll see your knowledge in basic contract law and raise you knowledge of basic common logic.
The union wasn’t going to make a concession on behave of one player anyway. A) They probably liked their chances in arbitration. and B) If they did make a concession to get the Mets pick protected the union body would have to vote on it as it would for any change made to an existing contract. There is no way they had the time to get all the players on the same page and get a vote to pass in time. If it would pass? Those players without compensation attached to them might see that as a detriment to their own signings if there were a higher caliber player available to a team without giving up that pick.
Does this rival exec have a name?
or is he just another employee of another organization ….
technically, an advertising exec from the Yankees is a rival exec…
Evidently Bourn and Boras did doubt that, otherwise he wouldn’t be in Cleveland! Their own fault though, they played this situation out far too long if he really wanted to come to the Mets. Boras probably gave Sandy and ultimatum of sign my player now or we’ll go elsewhere, well clearly that is a game of chicken Boras lost,..again assuming the so called rumors are true about the Mets being his first choice. Doesn’t matter, what’s done is done!
Connor, i applaud you for (even though not as harsh) coming out and semi blasting alderson, once again, he tries to be smarter than the situation and gets burn. he’s the one who keeps saying how the mets will be good and better than expected this year, then this happens and all you have to do is wonder what exactly is going on.. at $12 million per year this guy wasn’t a bad fit, npt sure what the problem is here, other than me thinking he’s forfeiting this year to get a high draft pick in 2014 i don’t see what else can be said about the situation, he doesn’t wanna win to be in the mid draft class, he wants to be higher, therefore putting the shittiest team on the field gives him that opportunity. we all know the man as a GM sucks, as a pay cutting emplyee he’s been a god given gift to the wilpon, but as a GM he’s updated and still stuck on 1990 in terms on players salary. again, i said from the beginning all of this was blowing smoke and i was right, i didn’t want bourn here at a high price tag, but i understood he fits 3 different needs the mets have to fill, instead, alderson chose not to address those needs as usual because saving $12 million and a draft pick (Who might be another bust) in 2013 june draft is more valuable than winning .
You’d never see this from you know who. lol
“We have made significant changes to the outfield. Bay, Torres, Hairston out. Cowgill and Brown in. Applause for Sandy.”
Maniac, exactly, even though connor admits to love sandy and the direction of the team (Not sure which direction) he understand the need we could’ve filled with bourn and how mispoorly sandy handled that negotiations, the other guy? He is probably working on his “By not signing bourn he had another good day, Part deaux”.
I am sure his defenders will be all over the place saying how bourn sucks, is overrated, we didn’t need him, the 11th pick is better, blame the wilpons etc, everything and everyone’s fault BUT sandy’s.
SMH
Connor, excellent job as always, my friend. You did a great job trying to analyze all angles of this debacle.
I was never big on Bourn especially at the rumored 5/75 deal. To me with the draft pick that was a no go. Now that we see the truth, I am fuming, We have a team that has no lead-off hitter, no MLB capable outfielder, and very poor outfield defense. For 4/12m that was easily the right decision to say “ya know what if we lose the pick, we will still be ok”.
I am very happy the way the farm is coming along but they need to start focusing on the MLB roster. The 11th pick won’t be realized until 4-5 years from now and the probability if the pick doing well is low.
The price got so low, that the Indians, who didn’t even need a center fielder, said eff it this would be too stupid for anyone to pass up.
I rarely put most of the blame on Sandy for the bad moves because I feel many of his decisions are dictated by the idiots that own the team, but this one is ALL on him. He screwed up.
Good read and I agree there were mistakes made by everyone.
The ruling should be amended for the 10 teams. Bourn wasn’t the type of player that a team would evaluate as we’ve got to have him…….if he was, the Braves would’ve kept him and he wouldn’t have been available for any team. He fell to the Mets and eventually signed with the Indians because of this. The Indians didn’t waste any time signing Swisher (even though I think it’s a mistake) and I’m sure another team would have too because he hits with some power. That’s really what the Mets were looking for and why they wanted Justin Upton….. if they didn’t need Wheeler and Harvey as much as they do right now I think they would’ve gambled and traded for him. Soon those arms in the system (and there’s a lot of them) will be available for trade. RH batting athletic outfielder with a strong arm and some POP please!
I agree. I think Bourn was about #5 on the list for the Mets.
The Mets missed the boat on Bourn. But they also likely dodged a bullet.
Bourn would have helped short-term. But the risk of decline long-term was big given how much he depends on his legs.
Bourn would have filled a hole this year. But that hole might just as easily be filled by Niewenhuis, who is good defensively and has a potentially better bat.
What happened last night was disappointing. But it’s not that big a deal considering Bourn’s flaws as a player.
Would I have liked Bourn? Yes, but not with a 5 year contract, which is essentially what he got, and at the risk of losing the first round draft pick.
The less skilled the player, the less it makes sense to overpay on a long multi-year contract. Because you can more easily replicate those skills with someone in the farm system or via a trade.
The bright side is that Niewenhuis and perhaps MDD get a chance to prove themselves in CF this season. In the meantime, as the pitching on the farm continues to mature, a trade can be made during the season to exchange some it for someone else’s spare outfielder.
It will also be incumbent on Sandy to pick well at #11. Not take too many risks with that position. We’ll see.
I still believe that the bullpen was the team’s worst problem last year. If it’s not fixed this season, it won’t really matter who is in the OF. So, hopefully, they continue to tinker with the bullpen during the season to ensure it’s not the debacle it was in 2012. They need at least league average performance there.
The good news for Sandy is he not only gets to keep telling his hilarious outfield jokes but he also preserves his first round pick to select the next Von Hayes or another utility infielder.
Huzzah!
Well, I assume that is a dig at Nimmo, bu if you can get Von Hayes with the #11 pick, you hit the jackpot.
It really doesn’t matter when they started thier appeal. Mostly because the MLB was insistent that they were not going to judge the appeal until such time as a deal was made and a pick was actually at stake.
They sure as hell were not going to give what the rest of the league considers a BIG MARKET team a negotiating advantage over the rest of the league.
And any delay between the time they agreed on a price and signing the paper was time a guy like Boras would use to shop around to the rest of the league to find another taker at the price plus SOMETHING…..
I wasn’t sold on Bourn either way all I ever said was if the price is right don’t let the pick get in the way. Well thats EXACTLY what happened!
They had from the signing until June to make a protest and appeal the loss of the pick.
In the end all they managed to accomplish is doing Boras’ job for him and to set the price for the rest of the league.
And as I predicted days ago If they had a deal that made signing him worth it to us with our wishy washy insistence on not spending money, then they had a deal that made him worth it to ANYONE ELSE as well!
And any petition would be a signal to the rest of the league that a price is set, call Boras ask what it is, add a dollar or year or option and Bourn goes someplace else.
Cause WAITING is and always will be a recipie for losing to someone who is proactive and doesn’t wait.
Yes Sandy screwed up! He had a guy at a good price and let his cheapness regarding picks get in the way. Cheapness over a pick he might NOT have had to lose and had 4 months to get back after he got his guy.
Boras once again played the Mets into a deal with someone else.
OK so how do we know that Boras wasn’t the issue here? Rumor is that Sandy had this deal on the table for a while, Boras wanted him to increase it and he said no. MLB consistently said they would not rule until an offer was agreed upon by both sides. Thus the Mets couldn’t appeal until Boras and Bourn accepted the offer.
Very plausible.
And according to some GMs, Boras is always the issue. There’s a handful of them that refuse to deal with him. I never did get that though. He’s apparently very good at what he does. He’s there to represent the clients, not sure what some GMs expect.
Here’s the problem with Boras. According to reports Bourn’s first choice was the Mets. It’s interesting how many times Boras clients end up signing with someone other than their first choice. He knows how to look out for one thing… Boras.
Well yeah….the more money his clients get, the more money he makes.
I will throw this in here too:
“It’s believed that three of the final four teams in on Bourn had top ten draft picks that would have been protected, Heyman reports.”
And the fourth being the Mets?
So absolutely NO team was willing to sacrifice their first round pick AND pay Bourn 4/48/ —5/60.
Rumor?
Is that the straw we are going to cling Sandy’s job as a genius on?
Rumor says we HAD the best offer but didn’t sign it while we waited to appeal regarding the pick…
That gave Boras the time he needed to get the MORE when all Sandy had to say was this is the deal sign it or we move on and Boras doesn’t have the time to find the better offer.
I predicted exactly what happened last week!
I said the second someone heard we were planning on making a motion regarding the pick the other teams who were not interested in negotiating with Boras would call ask what the price was and make the deal while we were mired in red tape…
And that would appear to be precisely what happened….
Considering none of us where there? Yeah rumor.
But it’s the same rumor that has been around for weeks. MLB said they were not going to make a decision until a deal was agreed on in principle.
Same rumor mill that said Cleveland wasn’t even interested at all….
I predicted this all last week before the report of more than just who we knew being interested, that the second we got to a point where we were moving towards protecting the pick that someome would see that we had a price we liked and GET INTERESTED!
It doesn’t take a business or psychology degree to know that if Tightwad Sandy alderson had a price he liked the price must be damn good enough to take a look and inquire…
Cleveland did and got him didn’t they?
And all they had to do was offer an option year to get Bourn to say I like the mets but I like money more!
Think what you wish. That’s all you can do with rumors.
LOL
Right before Bourn signed with Cleveland…
“Jim Bowden of ESPN reports that, according to sources, if the Mets are able to reach an agreement with Bourn their pick would be protected. He adds that MLB is more concerned about protecting the teams with the worst 10 records rather than the first 10 picks of the draft.”
according to sources….
so do i take these sources as gospel?
Not that Cleveland mishandled things, but was it a wise choice for them to overpay for Bourn? Their starting pitching was really bad last year, so they would have been better served plowing some of their offseason dollars into starting pitching. Even someone like Marcum would have helped improve their rotation a lot. But to spend all that money on both Swisher and Bourn while also losing 2 early round picks? If I’m an Indians fan, I wouldn’t be too happy with their direction. I understand they got Bauer, but he is no sure thing at this early point in his career.
Nope they are just like the Mets here. Signing Bourn they still have their largest hole unfilled. They were desperate for a SP before the deal and still are. Seriously their #1 might not even crack the Tigers rotation.
Boomer, SRT, TRS and Donal are in full on “Defend Sandy” mode today…. SMH
Ah…MMO’s sandbox playground.
Not defending Sandy at all. I didn’t want Bourn and would have said the same thing if he signed him. In fact I have been saying it all along that I wouldn’t give more than 3 years and no pick.
Somehow you still defending this man, i am surprised you somehow have said it was the wilpons’ fautl…
You’d be surprised at a lot of things.
TRS, again, i explain to you why the signing made sense at a reasonable price, the man is only 30 right? he fits 3 needs we as a team have that could’ve made us better for this season and even better next year. he would’ve helped big time in CF while adding speed to a team starving for it, and also would’ve been our leadoff hitter for years to come, $12 million per is reasonable eough imho, why not sign him? the guy we’ll pick won’t be ready up until 2018!?!?! that my friend is loser mentality. also, i don’t recall you saying you didn’t want bourn, i recall me and you agreeing on wanting him for the right price, and 4 years at $12 million per is enough for a guy that’ll fit 3 needs. and 4 if you add the fact that he’ll make wright and davis see more fastball if on base.
Again, I think with or without Bourn the Mets largest need is a RH power hitting OF. To me signing Bourn for that amount and giving up the #11 pick just takes resources away from being able to solve the largest need. We have LH CF options, not as good as Bourn but kids that have something to prove, we have only one in house solution for RF power guy… your favorite Brown.
“TRS86 February 5, 2013 at 9:42 am
Pending the Bourn deal, I tend to agree. I don’t like it. It would have to be the perfect deal where we not only do not sacrifice the pick but also sign him at a cost that is easy to trade if needed. Otherwise, I don’t get it either.”
“TRS86 February 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Very well could Maniac. ANY thing over 3 years for Bourn is stretching it and anything close to 5/75 will result in Jason Bourn… oh that’s too close to the other, Michael Bay.”
“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.”
Keep in mind he basically got a 5 year deal with that easily attainable option.
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.
So are you OK with the wright deal then? a 30 year old getting paid $20 million per for a guy who is in obvious decline and with his best years clearly behind him??? You make no sense. again, rosenthal couldn’t have said it better, for dickey we got 2 guys who can help almost immediately in comparision to a draft pick this year, also, for $12 million i’d sign up for him because he’d make us better in areas we are desperate to fill, or what, you rather him keep brining PO’ss to be giving them the opportunity to suck just to wish if he can find lightning in a bottle? Amazing… SMH
Did you want my opinion or just to give your’s again?
Again, I think the Mets largest need is a RH OF with pop and I still think that is the case regardless of Bourn.
‘Again, I think the Mets largest need is a RH OF with pop and I still think that is the case regardless of Bourn.’
This.
And here’s hoping TC’s answer to that is not Turner.
our biggest need is a RH OF with pop…
so basically….they should’ve signed BJ Upton…or Cody Ross…or traded for Justin Upton…or signed Nick Swisher…4 moves Sandy was never even remotely close to doing…
considering that Sandy attempted to sign a LH CF with no pop, me thinks Sandy disagrees with your assesment
You answered your own question Connor. “Why not take care of (or at least fight) that issue before it can become a problem?”
The answer was “…the Mets were reluctant to appeal the rule in the CBA that forced them to give up their pick until they had first signed Bourn, fearing that once it became public, Bourn would have more leverage and drive the price up.”
Based on reports the biggest factor that saw Bourn sign with Cleveland was finding out the grievance would not take days but rather weeks. In fairness to Bourn you have to expect that on Feb 11 he is going to wait a few weeks for a maybe even if it was a strong maybe over a sure offer now in Cleveland.
In the end the Mets was not willing to give up the pick and in my opinion more importantly the bonus money that went with it to sign Bourn. At least not if it meant they had to pay him 4 years $48M.
That should read “you have to expect that on Feb 11 he is not going to wait a few weeks”
I don’t know how O’Brien can still support Alderson. I have been a Mets fan since 1968, and this is the first year that the Mets begin spring training with uninspiring and unexciting hopes for the coming season. Even in their worst years, there was always some interest generated about a particular new acquisition. Not this year.
Because none of us have the religious zeal some like to claim. We also see the big picture.
The fact is, Alderson is GM of the Mets. And while we all have moves or actions that we disagree with, we think, over all, that things are improving. Does it hurt for the short term? Absolutely. But, if the work is done right and we avoid too many disasters, the Mets wil lbe sustainable winners.
“Even in their worst years, there was always some interest generated about a particular new acquisition. Not this year.”
And that is the problem. We’ve been too content winning the December World Series and engaging the false hope. Instead of thinking “hey let’s go see that new guy we signed”, why can’t we think “let’s go see the defending champs”?
We need to be less concerned with the sizzle and be more concerned with the steak.
I don’t know, when we signed Bay did you have interest then?
That was meant for the poster above.
[...] Online writer Connor O’Brien makes a more common sense approach, claiming the Mets suffered from “lack of preparedness.” Alderson was “too passive,” he [...]