so we sign David Wright to this humongous contract,and that says to me we're going to try to compete sooner rather than later,why else commit 7 years/130 million to a 30 year old?

then we deal Dickey (in a very good deal i might add) which says to me we're really looking down the line because while TDA may be here next year Syndegaard may not until '15 or so and aside from catcher we've got more than a few holes

and in today's MLBTR/Boston Globe it's speculated that the Mets might still be in on Bourn if the number of years and money comes down....and this just confuses me...Sandy just said a couple of weeks back that signing a FA and losing a first round pick isn't our usual MO...but if the years come down along with the money it MIGHT be a good fit?....

so assuming Bourn wants at least 4 years but comes down to three we're willing to give up the #11 overall pick for 3 years of Michael Bourn?...another 30 year old who makes his living with his legs and who had a HORRIFIC second half of '12?.....will he make us contenders in '13? '14? or even '15?....and then flank him with Lucas Duda and Kirk or Mike Baxter?...why even consider this?

and then what? spend a ton of money NEXT offseason when Santana and Frankie come off the books and potentially lose a first round pick next season also when we win an extra few games with Bourn added,just enough to push us out of the top ten draft picks?

unless we don't sign an impact FA next offseason which brings us back to my opening question: What's up with this plan?....are we accumulating picks and prospects or trying to win now?...will surrendering a first rounder next year as well as this be our new "blueprint" for success? or will we just give up this year's first rounder and sign mediocre FA's next season?...

as this offseason continues to unfold and we approach 3 weeks before the start of ST i have to ask myself what exactly is the direction we are headed in?....

we do have money,we don't?...

we restructured David's and Bay's contract for 2013 so we can _____? (fill in the blank)

we DO believe in surrendering a #11 overall pick for a 30 year old who won't make us contenders or we're deeply commited to the draft and don't believe in expensive long term deals that will cost us part of our future?

we will commit huge money to the face of our franchise and not deal him WHILE CONVINCING HIM of our plan to succeed soon or simply did it to sell some tickets?

unless we pull off a trade for a young ML ready outfielder using Murphy or Flores or Parnell or some combination of both this plan appears to be overly deliberate and disorganized

this team needed to commit itself in one direction or the other and being that we're so financially strapped the choice was clear

signing David and waiting for Santana's,Buck's,and Frankies contracts to come off the books so we can spend money (MAYBE) before '14 and lose draft picks just doesn't make a lot of sense with what's transpired this offseason

ANYONE looking at an overall blueprint for this organization?

On the other hand, it makes no sense to sign Wright and not surround him with good players over the next couple of years.

I'm not as against signing Bourn as many and don't feel 4 years for a 29 year old, even though he releis on his legs, is excessive. He addresses a few critical needs for the Mets: leadoff hitter, speed and OF defense.

As for the #11 pick, it's nice and all, but if the player takes 4 years to make the majors, Wright's better years will be short. Just because the Mets are picking #11, there's no guarantee the player they take will ever make the majors, let alone be a good player. The odds of Bourn being good for 4 years is greater than the #11 pick being an impact player.

"On the other hand, it makes no sense to sign Wright ..."

It makes sense if you don't want to completely alienate your fanbase.

And it's not like he's 35 already. If the kids come around and SA gets some $$$ to play with when he'll really need it, it could be a couple years when they start to complete, and DW will be 32 or so.

Not old.

True, but it's relying totally on the majority of the prospects to be real good. The Mets have a few very good pitching prospects, but aside from TDA, the cupboards pretty bare for any bats that are close to ready.

Next year's FA market looks worse than this year's.

<<"And it's not like he's 35 already. "
<<"Not old."

Neither is Bourn. I think he's a little younger than Wright, so getting Bourn this year means one less hole to fill over the next year or two.

<<"It makes sense if you don't want to completely alienate your fanbase"

Glad you put in completely.

I have been echoing that sentiment all along. Depite what they say publicly, ownership and the front office are punting on 2013, and there is nothing wrong with that. However the error they are making is that they never truly committed to a rebuilding phase or retooling phase.

I believe it was a mistake to lock up Wright long-term and it will haunt this franchise from the moment he signed that extension.

Considering the dire straights the Wilpons are in financially, I can understand why it was a priority for them to extend Wright. What troubles me the most is that if they felt that Wright was the only olive branch they could have extended to placate this fanbase and sell tickets, then they have no business owning a team in the largest market in the country.

There is something very wrong with punting a season.....you play to win,

Ask Herm

"There is something very wrong with punting a season.....you play to win,"

Good point. The Nats certainly did that 2006-2011 while they were 'rebuilding'.

And how do you play to win when 1) the owners can't/don't want to spend, and 2) you have virtually nothing at the ML to trade, and not a whole lot of expendable top-notch talent in the minors to spend either?

Let's say the Mets went out and signed 2 FA's this off-season. I have no idea what the average # of FA's signed is, but assume it's 2.

What 2 guys would have vaulted the Mets from a likely 4th place finish to post-season contention? And how much would it have cost a team that has little or nothing to spend?

Believe me I understand your frustration and angst. I have no faith in this ownership.

It took the Nats 9 years to have a good team and to date they have had one good season....ever

Also, the still haven't won anything..

Lets shoot higher!

generally speaking i don't have a problem with your thinking but i just find the whole process inconsistent

if we're going to sign Bourn and so little else the plan doesn't work

i think signing Bourn,Rafael Soriano and then dumping a package of prospects for Upton might work...but not the single FA signing of Michael Bourn

to me to sign him and lose a first round pick and win 78 games next season just doesn't make a lot of strategic sense

"It took the Nats 9 years to have a good team and to date they have had one good season....ever"

Well, how about this - can you tell me, given the constraints SA is working under, what moves could he have made this off-season that would have turned this team into a potential contender in 2013?

Agreed, that's why the Mets had to trade Wright and Reyes. They did neither and were only able to get value in return for Dickey.

The mets lost 70M last year and can easily make 50 with a winner....a 120m swing.

You can get an all-star for about 20m/year so they can get 4 all-stars (should do the trick) and still pocket 20m for the Wilson's!!! Everyone is happy!

"You can get an all-star for about 20m/year so they can get 4 all-stars (should do the trick) and still pocket 20m for the Wilson's!"

I'm not sure if you're being humorous or not, so I don't know how to respond ...

And how are they going to acquire the three other all-stars if you include Wright in that mix?

I think it's a little too early to bank on Harvey and Wheeler.

Buy them when available....may not be able to get them all right away but they can start the process at any time.....no time like 3 years ago!

"that would have turned this team into a potential contender in 2013?"

But why does it have to turn the team into a potential contender the very next season? Don't you have to start somewhere, especially since we have multiple holes? Couldn't it have made some sense to, I don't know, sign one or two guys this offseason and another couple next offseason?

This goes back to the point of the thread though, which I'm in complete agreement with. What exactly is the plan? Is it indeed to compete in 2014 or is it more long term? What kind of money are they really willing to spend in the near future. We have absolutely no clue of that, but it doesn't look good. We remain in the dark.

and that's my problem with this strategy: What are we doing?...i don't have a problem with signing David if we were then going to sign Bourn and trade for Upton and or sign Soriano

but this plan is as confusing as it is slow