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).
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.
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.
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.
*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?
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.
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.
"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.
"The Wilpons would rather drink battery acid than spend money"
Must of downed a few glasses before giving Wright 138M then.