Opportunity could be knocking for Matt den Dekker if Kirk Nieuwenhuis’ knee injury turns out to be more serious than just a bruise. We’ll know more on that later today.

The Mets will consider all their options if Nieuwenhuis were to miss any significant time, but one could make a strong argument that den Dekker could have a leg up on his competition because of his stellar defense which can impact a game as much as a solid bat. His glove-work is that good. Here is what I wrote about that this weekend…

Original Post 3/2

If you have been watching the Mets at all this spring, one thing has become evident – Matt den Dekker deserves a shot to be the Opening Day centerfielder.

Throw the offensive stats out the window for just a second and ask yourself who you would want out there chasing down fly balls. After seeing a few highlight reel catches already this spring, it becomes more and more evident who should get the nod.

Now let’s take the spring stats into consideration. Here is a breakdown of how the Mets outfield competition is playing out so far this Spring:

(Games played through March 1 – Note: Nieuwenhuis should read six strikeouts.)

The common argument when looking into spring training stats is that they should be taken with a grain of salt. In other words, don’t put too much weight into whether a player gets off to an extremely hot start, or an extremely cold start.

While that argument holds some validity, because spring stats are not factored into any regular season awards and does not factor into the race for the pennant, when you have a situation like the Mets have, where it’s an open audition for an outfield job, spring stats will definitely impact the decision of who is standing in the Mets outfield on opening day.

With that being said, looking at the stats shown above, only a couple of guys have gotten off to hot starts in the outfield–and one of them (Valdespin), has yet to get any reps in the outfield.

Den Dekker’s spring stats are comparable to the other players vying for an outfield job with the exception of Collin Cowgill and Marlon Byrd. However, defensively, den Dekker sticks out like a sore thumb amongst his colleagues, and I mean that in a good way.

Terry Collins should be looking at ways to strengthen the team’s defense up the middle, and the best way to do that right now is by having den Dekker out there. Having a defensive player like den Dekker in center will make the pitching staff that more effective. Having a gold glove caliber outfielder in center will also take the pressure off the other outfielders, and help cover some of the defensive gaps that may exist when Lucas Duda or Byrd are out there with him.

Den Dekker has made a living making highlight reel catches.

Having solid defense up the middle will also let the pitchers pitch the way they want to pitch. If a pitcher has too little confidence in the defense behind them, they will try to strike every hitter out. This inevitably leads to more walks as they try to nibble corners (unless they are a power pitcher) because they are afraid to let the hitters put the ball in play. So by having a defender of den Dekker’s quality in centerfield, pressure is not only taken off of the other outfielders, but the pitcher as well.

If den Dekker can perform offensively as well as the other outfielders on the roster, then why not just have him join the team right out of spring training? Right now, is there any reason to believe that he can’t perform as well offensively, or maybe even better than the other outfielders on the Mets roster?

I did my weekly MMO Prospect Pulse on Matt den Dekker, and while I noted I wasn’t sure he would ever be a .300 hitter at the major league level, I do think he has the potential to be a 20/20 player; a 20/20 player that can win a gold glove. Maybe we are starting to see why the Mets may have not pulled the trigger on Michael Bourn after all.

The only argument I can see being made about den Dekker being given the keys to the centerfield job with the Mets this year was his performance when promoted to Buffalo last year.

However, as I noted in last week’s feature, it has been a trend across his career thus far to go through an adjustment period when promoted. During that adjustment period, his offensive stats tend to take a dip. However, after the adjustment period, his offensive numbers are at an all-star level. Mix that in with that solid defense, and there is only one man for the job this year in centerfield.

There is no reason to start den Dekker at Las Vegas this year. Throw him in centerfield, bat him in the eight hole of the lineup where he will experience minimal pressure, and let him do his thing. He will figure it out. The best thing for his development would be to let him adjust to the major league pitchers and the major league level while taking advantage of that ridiculous defensive skill set.

The Mets need den Dekker’s glove in centerfield, and when his bat comes around, they will be able to use that too. But the Mets have to stick with him. They can’t send him down to Las Vegas if he starts to go through an adjustment period at the big league level. Let the kid figure it out and entertain us with some jaw dropping catches while he’s in the process.

Enjoy this recent den Dekker highlight-reel catch from last week’s Grapefruit League action!

In case you missed it, check out my exclusive MMO Prospect Pulse on Matt den Dekker.

Follow MMO Minor League Analyst Mitch Petanick on Twitter at @FirstPitchMitch for even more Mets Minor League and prospect coverage.

The Mets, a team in transition, are just about set from top to bottom, short of a spot on the bench and maybe another spot in the bullpen.  Being set for this season doesn’t necessarily mean set for the future, though. In fact, although this spring won’t, the upcoming season will answer a variety of questions about the path the organization will take next season and beyond.

Will the Mets need to acquire two outfielders or three?  Is the right side of the infield set for years to come?  How about the back end of the rotation?  These are all questions that need to be answered.  As a result, each of these players finds himself on the block this year…

Lucas Duda

A natural first baseman who is blocked at the position by Ike Davis, the Mets still hope to find a position Duda can play efficiently enough to justify keeping his bat in the lineup.  That bat however, also needs to improve this upcoming season if Lucas intends to keep himself in the fold beyond the 2013 season.  2012 saw his power numbers increase, but at the expense of his strikeout count, which averaged one per game.  The hope is that Duda can hit .260+ while realizing his 25-30 home run potential, but if he can’t find that happy medium, his struggles in the outfield will ultimately usher him out of the Mets’ plans.

Daniel Murphy

The twenty-seven year old Murphy has absolutely clawed his way to a starting spot in Queens.  His reward comes in the form of a significant raise he received just two weeks ago and the knowledge he’ll have to continue to claw if he hopes to maintain his spot.  In 2013, the Mets will not only ask Murphy to continue his progression at second base, they’ll ask him to better his power numbers that have only featured six home runs each of the past two years.  A fair request for a career contact hitter with gap power?  Probably not…but to date nothing has come easy for Murphy, so why should things start now?

Ike Davis

I know what your thinking…There is no way the Mets could possibly jettison their twenty-five year old power-hitting first baseman who remains under team control through the 2016 season.  However, allow me to remind you that the only thing that salvaged Davis’ 2012 campaign was his 32  home runs, which partially overshadowed his embarrassing first half which ultimately resulted to only a .227 batting average.  If nothing else, Davis represents a ton of potential.  That’s a commodity which may be valuable to a slue of other teams, should the Mets’ front office decide a trade is in order.  With Lucas Duda and possibly even Reese Havens as other long term options at first, Davis will still need to prove his value moving forward.  While the much more likely scenario sees Davis signed to a long term, team friendly, contract at some point this season, Ike’s future remains far from certain.

Dillon Gee

The 2013 season will bring with it the eventual arrival of Zack Wheeler, who will join the previously established Matt Harvey as the pitching saviors who the Mets’ front office hope can secure the rotation for many years to come.  While they may secure the front end of the rotation, the back end remains left to Dillon Gee, who seeks to return from season ending surgery as the result of a vascular ailment late last year.  Prior to falling victim to a blood clot, Gee’s 6-7 record was a poor representation of his performance which included 8.0 K/9IP and the lowest ERA of his short career.  With a plethora of young pitchers many have described as virtual clones of Dillon at the Triple-A level, Gee will have to stay on his game should he want to maintain his spot on what may be one of the strongest young rotations in baseball in short order.

Every season has the potential to shed light on the future.  The 2013 season will be no different for the New York Mets.  In a perfect world, each of these guys earn their way onto the 2014 roster, thus allowing Sandy Alderson and the rest of the Mets’ front office to apply their considerable assets elsewhere.  However if they can’t, the Mets may find themselves with more holes than they can possible fill next winter, resulting in an even longer delay in the organization’s revitalization.

Follow me on twitter at @RobPatterson83

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.

So of course we find out that Bourn was signed by the Cleveland Indians to a 4 year deal at $48 million with a vesting 5th year if he gets 550 at-bats, totaling the deal to 5 years and $60 million. Somewhere Jason Bay was gritting his teeth and giving himself a self-induced concussion upon hearing the news. I was never on the lets sign Bourn boat to start with and the least of which had to do with losing the draft pick. First off, why sign a player whose game is all about speed, to a long term contract and roll the dice that he stays healthy. No I’m not talking about Jose Reyes because Reyes was and is about 100 times more talented a player than Bourn.

Sure both are leadoff hitters, but Michael Bourn is a leadoff hitter by default – only for his speed. He struck out 155 times last year. Reyes did just about that over a three season span. Both of their on-base-percentages are relatively similar – something that should wake Reyes up I would think, but Reyes is just a better all-around player than Bourn ever has been. So what was so incredibly desirable about Bourn to Mets fans?

Yes, I know we’re probably going to see more faces in the outfield than Lindsay Lohan has DUI’s so a little certainty would be nice but at what risk? Are we ready to bring in yet ANOTHER player closer to the back end of their career to plug a hole only to lament the decision in year 3 when we’re paying a guy 12 million “who tries hard” and that’s about it?

I get it. It would be nice to have a warm body out there with some pedigree that didn’t require a background check with the Department of Homeland Security. Guess what –been there, done that and I’m sick of the Mets being burned in the process. Michael Bourn wasn’t the key player to take us to the next level. He’s just a name and Mets fans need to stop this love affair with names. The “next” star, if that comes from any of the young talent the Mets currently have, will not be a household name or a name the rest of us baseball wonks know of easily. It will be another Edgardo Alfonso. It will be another Todd Hundley. It will be another Jon Niese. It won’t be a Michael Bourn.

Sorry Mets fans…no white smoke this time.

Mark Simon did a piece on ESPN New York yesterday which ranked the top five infields in the team’s history, as well as the top five outfields. His rankings were pretty solid, although he had the 1999 Mets outfield ranked as No. 5 snubbing a very solid 2006 outfield.  Let’s be honest, 2006 was more deserving of the No. 5 spot. Just as a reminder, that 2006 Mets team had Carlos Beltran, Cliff Floyd, Endy Chavez and Xavier Nady.

However, when looking at Simon’s rankings you can only come to one conclusion–the Mets have never been known for dynamite outfields.

Having an outfield ranked as the fifth best in team history that included the likes of Benny Agbayani, Roger Cedeno, an aging Rickey Henderson and Darryl Hamilton, with a sprinkle of Shawon Dunston, is proof positive that the Mets were never known for solid outfields.

It’s funny how some things change over time, but some things stay the same.

The Mets once again find themselves in a position to not only keep the tradition alive, but could quite possibly be putting the worst outfield that they have ever had in their history on the field in 2013.

The Mets have had solid outfielders through the years, but aside from a few teams, never had an outfield worth bragging about. Maybe it’s because the outfielders that they draft never seem to pan out–not since the 1980s anyway. The Mets often find their better outfield talent in the free agent market.

Here are some names of outfielders that the Mets have drafted that turned out to be absolute busts: Lastings Milledge, Jason Tyner, Alfred Shirley, Christopher Roberts and Robert Stratton. All of those picks were first round selections by the Mets, which brings us to the next point.

When looking up and down at the Mets’ first round selections since 1990, less than ten of those picks lived up to their first round pick status. Actually, one could argue that it’s less than five.

Here is the list of Mets first round picks that have made an impact at the major league level: Jeromy Burnitz, Preston Wilson, Scott Kazmir, Philip Humber, Ike Davis and Matt Harvey.

After looking at that list, you will notice that Burnitz, Wilson, Kazmir and Humber were all drafted by the Mets, but spent the majority of their careers with teams other than the Mets. And Humber probably wouldn’t have even made the list if not for throwing a perfect game in 2012. Harvey and Davis have barely spent enough time at the major league level to guarantee them not to be busts (although it certainly looks as if they won’t be).

Why is this important?

This is exactly why the Mets should not let a first round pick come between themselves, and getting an impact player like Michael Bourn to play in the outfield. It boils down to the simple fact that these first round draft picks that are treated like a bottle of water in the desert, turn out to be more of a bust than a boom the majority of the time.

Giving up the pick isn’t the end of the world. The Mets will be able to save the money that they would potentially be wasting by paying a first round draft pick millions of dollars before he ever steps foot on a professional baseball field. They can do that, and then improve the outfield at the same time. That’s smart.

Now the question is are the Mets willing to pay the price for a player that they can build their outfield around? Or is this just Sandy playing the part of One-Eyed Willie from the Goonies with another one of his tricks? Either way, the Mets shouldn’t let the loss of the first round pick get in their way. Maybe it’s time to start changing history.

From a pure statistical standpoint, Bourn and Reyes aren’t so different.  If you want to discuss their best quality, speed, Bourn has averaged 51 stolen bases and 8 triples per 162 games played whereas Reyes has averaged 55 and 15 respectfully.  When it comes to their prowess at the plate, each have a career on-base percentage within points of .340, but on all other fronts Reyes has been a bit better.  Reyes boasts an career batting average twenty points higher than Bourn and a slugging percentage that dwarfs the free agent centerfielder.  Reyes also doesn’t share Bourn’s propensity for strikeouts.  So again I ask, why would the Mets sign Michael Bourn if there weren’t willing to resign Jose Reyes?

As much as most Reyes advocates won’t want to hear it, health is a factor in this comparison.  While Bourn may only average six more games per season since becoming a full-time player, the last five seasons have seen him average 150 games per season compared to Reyes’ average of only 123.  Such a health concern, or lack there off in Bourn’s case provides one reason why the Mets may be considering him when they balked on Reyes.  Another reason, which shouldn’t come a a surprise to most, is that the four year, roughly $50 million dollar contract the Mets are theoretically set to offer Bourn is no where near the six year, $106 million dollar contract Reyes commanded on the open market last winter.

Michael Bourn may not be the flashy, exciting player the Mets once had in Reyes, he may not be as good as Reyes in general (although WAR states otherwise if you’re into that kind of thing) but he certainly appears to be less of a risk.  Therein lies the reason Bourn appeals to Sandy Alderson so much. Not only does Bourn immediately fill the teams’ need at leadoff, he also bolsters a weak outfielding core on the cheap, so to speak.  That should make him an ideal fit in Sandy’s system.

Finally, its important to reaffirm that the Mets wouldn’t be signing Michael Bourn to replace Jose Reyes.  That task was unfairly dealt out to Ruben Tejada last spring, and while he can’t be expected to fill Reyes’ shoes, it was the presence of a sound shortstop who the Mets feel can hit for average that made a much more expensive Reyes expendable.  There is no such player when it comes to the Mets’ outfield.  Michael Bourn is not Jose Reyes, and likely never will be.  However, under these circumstances and at the price being discussed, he will be a Met if Sandy Alderson has his way.

Follow me on Twitter at @RobPatterson83

With Justin Upton joining brother B.J. and second baseman Dan Uggla in Atlanta to form the Underachieving U’s (quick, contact Ugueth Urbina’s agent – Urbina’s out of jail and needs a place to fail!), the Mets have now set their sights on former Braves outfielder Michael Bourn.  His acquisition would instantly give the Mets a proven major league outfielder.  It would also give the Mets a number of problems.

Here are three pros and three cons that have to be considered by Sandy Alderson in a potential signing of free agent outfielder Michael Bourn:

Goodbye Jason Bay, Andres Torres and Scott Hairston. Hello, Michael Bourn?

Pros:

1)  Michael Bourn would instantly give the Mets a legitimate stolen base threat.  In 2011, both Jose Reyes and Angel Pagan surpassed the 30-steal mark.  Last year, David Wright led the team with only 15 thefts.  As a team, the Mets’ 79 stolen bases in 2012 marked the first time they failed to steal 100 bases since the Art Howe era.  In addition, no Met has stolen 40 bases in a season since Reyes swiped 56 bags in 2008, the same year Michael Bourn began his current streak of five straight 40+ steal seasons.

2)  The Mets have only had two outfielders win a Gold Glove Award.  Tommie Agee was the first in 1970 and Carlos Beltran won three consecutive Gold Gloves from 2006 to 2008.  Bourn has a Gold Glove pedigree, taking home the hardware in 2009 and 2010 as a member of the Houston Astros.  It should be noted that Houston’s Minute Maid Park has one of the most spacious and trickiest center fields in baseball, with Tal’s Hill, a flagpole and various outfield wall angles to contend with.

3)  Lucas Duda is pegged to be a corner outfielder.  That’s bumbling, stumbling, “I can’t move furniture without injuring myself” Lucas Duda.  How bad is Duda in the outfield?  Let’s just say George “The Stork” Theodore shakes his head whenever he sees Duda chasing a fly ball.  In other words, the Mets desperately need an outfielder that can cover all the ground that Lucas Duda won’t.  That’s where Michael Bourn will help the team the most.

Citi Field might see lots of this if the pros outweigh the cons.

Cons:

1)  For a leadoff hitter, Bourn doesn’t have the most impressive on-base percentage.  He has compiled a .350 on-base percentage just once in six full seasons in the majors and has maintained a .339 career OBP.  He also averages nearly 2½ strikeouts for every walk he draws, a number that is far too high for a player who is expected to be a table setter at the top of the lineup.

2)  In 2011, Bourn batted .294 with 61 stolen bases and 140 strikeouts in 656 at-bats.  Last season, Bourn’s average dropped to .274 and he only swiped 42 bases.  His strikeouts also increased to a career-high 155 while his at-bat total shrank to 624.  Although he stole 19 fewer bases in 2012, Bourn still led the majors by being caught stealing 13 times.

3)  Michael Bourn has been an All-Star and a Gold Glove winner because of his legs.  But all of his accolades and stolen base totals were achieved while Bourn was in his 20s.  Bourn is now running on 30-year-old legs.  As shown above, it has become easier to throw him out on the basepaths, and Bourn is also taking off fewer times after reaching base.  His natural decrease in speed will eventually affect him in center field as well, as fly balls he used to track down with ease can now potentially elude his glove.

A quick strike by Sandy Alderson might lead to quick strikeouts by Michael Bourn.

Every player has pros and cons.  Michael Bourn is no exception.  But with the Mets trying to build a contending team without sacrificing their future, every pro and every con has to be considered before making any player decision, including whether or not Bourn is worth the potential loss of a first-round draft pick.

Michael Bourn is clearly an above-average centerfielder.  But is he an eight-figure a year player, especially now that he’s on the wrong side of age 30?  Bourn also saw decreases in his stolen base total, as well as a lower batting average and higher strikeout rate.  Is his play in 2012 the sign of a decline or was it just a blip on an otherwise successful career chart?

Clearly, the Mets cannot go into the 2013 season with an outfield of Lucas Duda, Kirk Nieuwenhuis and Mike Baxter.  But is Michael Bourn worth the money he’ll be seeking to play at Citi Field?  Is he the short-term answer that will lead to long-term success?  It’s certainly going to be an interesting couple of weeks for Sandy Alderson as he weighs all the pros and cons of a potential Michael Bourn signing.

Rickey Henderson said it the only way Rickey would on the day he stole his 939^th base, passing Lou Brock for first on the All-time list: “Today, I’m the greatest of all time.” Mind you, Lou Brock was standing right next to Henderson when he proclaimed that over the PA system, but that’s besides the point. That statement showed the amount of confidence that Rickey had in his baseball abilities. He was the only player that could turn a base on balls into a triple. When Henderson reached first base, everyone in the stadium knew he was stealing, he went anyways, and more often than not, was safe with a career stolen base percentage of 81%. The top-ten list for career stolen bases looks like this:

1. Rickey Henderson: 1406
2. Lou Brock: 938
3. Billy Hamilton: 912
4. Ty Cobb: 892
5. Tim Raines: 808
6. Vince Coleman: 752
7. Eddie Collins: 745
8. Max Carey: 738
9. Honus Wagner: 722
10. Arlie Latham: 707

The gap between the top base stealer and the 10^th best base stealer is quite appalling; the 699 difference is half of Henderson’s total, which shows you how often he was stealing bases. For a player to match this mark in a 25-year career, they would have to average about 56 stolen bases per year.

The highest ranked active player on this list is Carl Crawford, sitting in 58^th place with 427 career stolen bases. In order to reach Rickey Henderson’s record, he needs to swipe 979 more bases. Crawford is currently 30 years old, so let’s say for argument’s sake that he plays ten more years. He would need to average about 97 stolen bases per season. That ain’t happening.

When thinking of elite base stealers today, three names come to mind: Jose Reyes, Michael Bourn, and Jacoby Ellsbury. Reyes currently has 367 stolen bases at the age of 28; if he plays until he is 40, he would need to average 87 stolen bases per season for the next 12 years. With his hamstring issues, I doubt that will happen. Michael Bourn has been at the top of the list of base stealers over the last three years. At the age of 28, he has 229 stolen bases and would need to average 98 swipes per year until he turned 40 to approach the record. Ellsbury is 27 years old and currently has 173 steals, meaning he would need to average 95 steals a year until he is 40 to approach Henderson’s record.

The morale of the story is that this record is not getting broken any time soon, mostly because no player was able to swipe a bag when everybody knew he was going to like Rickey Henderson. The only way Henderson was able to do that was because of his self-confidence. Nowadays, managers handcuff a lot of base stealers and throw up a red light in certain situations. The game has changed since Rickey was running all over the place, and since the game has changed, his record will be safe for a while.