• Welcome Guest
New York Mets

Welcome to the New York Mets.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • METS ASK MLB TO PROTECT DRAFT PICK SO THEY CAN SIGN BOURN
  • To:All
  • 1/24/13
  • saztastic2012

Mets interested in Bourn, lobbying MLB to protect their top draft pick
January 24th, 2013 6:49 am
The Mets have interest in free-agent OF Michael Bourn, but would have to surrender their first round draft pick to sign him.

However, because the Pirates moved ahead of the Mets to No. 9 in the draft – after failing to sign their top pick last year - the Mets are lobbying MLB to get their No. 11 overall pick protected (a right reserved for the top 10 picks). This would instead allow the Mets to give up a second-round draft choice in exchange for Bourn, according to the following reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3:45 am: Bourn is realistic possibility for the Mets, a major league source said (Puma, New York Post).

2:49 am: The Mets are seriously considering whether to sign Bourn, who has been seeking a five-year deal. The Mets have $15 million to spend, despite reports to the contrary. (Heyman, CBS Sports).

2:00 am: The Mets could squeeze in a multi-year deal despite budget constraints, a person with knowledge of the team’s thinking said (Carig, Newsday).

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • bbjmparis
I'll believe it when I see it. Sounds like a Fred/Jeff/Sandy tease
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • skorpio520

I actually think the Mets have A good arguement against it BUT why now? shouldve b!tched about it 3 months ago. Its bogus and ridiculous that Mets are being punished because of the Pirates inability to sign their pick. Again though.shouldve said something 3 months ago.

That being said id be shocked if the league gos for it.
If it means losing A pick ,I dont want him if its just him coming. Sure as heck dont wanna give that pick to Atlanta.
Let it go,try again next year with dif players if it means losing the 11th pick.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • saztastic2012
I think they could sign Bourn, He could take his first spring training AB,, Get a hit and steak a base in his first game of the season as a Met and you would still not believe it.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • saztastic2012
They might go for it because A) it would mean one of the big market teams gets better which is good for MLB, B) It gets a guy signed who has gone unsigned all offseason, C)it is the right thing to do.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • elsid1986

While I have been one of those here that have repeatedly said the Mets should at least attempt to improve the Major League Team while building up the rest of the organization, and I have been very critical of the current outfield, I don't think Bourne is worth losing the pick. He isn't a difference maker.

Also when this started breaking last night , looked up the new CBA and read the language on this (yea I couldnt sleep). Based on what I read I do not see any possible way the Mets #11 pick gets protected.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • saztastic2012

Lets not foget the Commish is a close friend of the Wilpons and it is in the best interest of the game that the mets be competitive, Bourn along with Marcum and TDA/Buck goes along way towards that.

Fact is it is unfair that the Mets got their pick nocked just over the limit to be protected based on another teams inability to sign their draft picks.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • elsid1986

*Fact is it is unfair that the Mets got their pick nocked just over the limit to be protected based on another teams inability to sign their draft picks*.

I don't disagree at all. It is grossly unfair. But the way it's worded doesn't appear to provide any leeway. It specifically says *the Top 10 picks are protected". But hey, maybe Bud can do something and something breaks in the Mets favor for a change.

Also to be considered. Even if Bud wanted to, don't you think Atlanta would be pi$$ed?

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • danthemetfan
You can word the draft by saying the Mets have the tenth pick, but the Pirates have a "supplemental pick" after the 9th overall pick. It is probably be how it should be worded anyway.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • DFAB
The Mets won't get what they want. They constantly get sh** on. I have heard though that it's possible that if MLB feels that no one wants to sign Bourn because of the draft pick loss, they could eliminate that penalty for that specific player since he is ultimately the one being hurt. However, IF somehow MLB decided to remove the penalty from Bourn, there is NO CHANCE we get him since other teams would then be interested.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • murphstates

I really can't see how MLB could do this. The Braves complied with the rules and made the $13.3 million qualifying offer, Bourn chose not to take it.

If I'm the Braves and MLB says "sorry, you're getting the 40th pick instead of the 11th" I'd freak out. Especially when you consider one of the other teams linked to Bourn is Seattle with the 12th pick.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • DFAB
Yep....I honestly think it has zero chance of happening. The only way I see something happening with Bourn regarding draft compensation is that MLB decides in that it is in the player's best interest to remove the penalty in order for him to be signed. It looks like he might still be looking for a job come ST. IF they removed such penalty, then maybe MLB can reward the Braves with 2 supplemental picks? Idk...I just know the Mets aren't going to be on any type of positive receiving end..
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • MetObserver
If MLB agrees with the situation they would have to get the player association to go along with an amendment to the rules. Maybe the answer is to give the Braves a pick right after the Met's 11th pick. Do to the unforeseen provision of the rule that caused the true 10th pick to be pushed back to #11.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • skorpio520

then the mariners would have a case to say "why are we being punished?"

only fair way to do this ,imo, is if you draft a player and cant sign him.the following year you get your first that you would get anyway (wherever it may fall) and a first round sup pick to make up for the player you dont sign.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • 86mex17
Dam pirates , Appel had no intentions of ever signing with them and they knew it.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • brianinwi
Certainly worth a shot. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • MetObserver
True a much better way to do it. I would assume that they didn't even take into consideration the penalty that this would impose on the team with the 10th pick. May be very fair to the team that doesn't sign their first round pick but unfair to the true 10th pick. That is why I can see the Met's request being at least taken under consideration by MLB.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/24/13
  • 4545_ajd

"I actually think the Mets have A good arguement against it BUT why now? shouldve b!tched about it 3 months ago"

Because it's almost February and Bourn hasn't signed so they may now have MLBPA union at their back to help get this done in order to get the most for one of their players.

  • Reply to this Message
Message 547770.19 was deleted
  • 1/24/13
  • 4545_ajd

"The Wilpons would rather drink battery acid than spend money"

Must of downed a few glasses before giving Wright 138M then.

  • Reply to this Message
Powered by Mzinga