whats the odds?

selig has obviously been aiding the wilpons...maybe he will throw us one

2 day ago I would have said almost 0, now from what I read it could be as high as 50/50 especially if the MLBPA is pushing for it.

It should be. Absolutely ridiculous a bottom 10 team can't have a protected pick.

1 in 3. there are 10 teams behind mets, roughly 2/3 of league who would likely squawk. i think the mets position has merit tho.

6:1 against

Bottom ten is bottom ten. We absolutely deserve our pick protected. Incompetency from Pittsburgh shouldn't make us held accountable for their poor drafting.

>> 1 in 3. there are 10 teams behind mets, roughly 2/3 of league who would likely squawk. i think the mets position has merit tho.

They could do it. They would have to add a clause to the CBA, with the player's union approval, covering the exact situation. It will happen again so it couldn't be a one time thing. It's flat out unfair that a team should lose a protected pick because another team couldn't sign their 1st round pick last year.

Agreed, Appel wasn't going to sign and they knew it. Makes no sense.

If Players Association is for making this change in CBA then I'd put odds at 75% it happens.

Way CBA is set up now a team could opt not to sign their 1st rd pick in a weak draft yr so they can get 2 picks in a stronger draft the following yr.

Should be if teams w/ #1 - #9 overall draft pick fail to sign their guy they still get additional pick the next yr (1 pick later) but team that would've been protected as top 10 pick still gets protected from losing a draft pick. In other words if 3 teams fail to sign their pick from #1 - #9 overall picks then following yr #11, #12 & #13 teams are still protected from losing draft picks.

It's in the best interests of MLB AND players to make that change IMO.

Because this situation had not been explored when the agreement was signed the most fair way to change it would be to allow the team pushed out of the 10th place to keep its pick. But let the team that should have received that 10th pick at the #11th position pick next in the #12 spot. It would be fair to both teams and every other team would be pushed back one pick which isn't very punitive.

Or leave the pick positions as they are but protect the teams pushed out of the top 10 by failure of team(s) to sign a top 9 pick the yr before. I gave an example in my last post here how that would work.

Chances are 0%

Well see, I really am not thrilled about Bourn but if they get him I do not want to lose the pick.

It would be more punitive to a team like the Braves, if we did sign Bourn with a change in the rules, and they had to pick in the supplemental round losing many draft places in that case.

highly unlikely the Mets go through with it if they lose the appeal.

" But let the team that should have received that 10th pick at the #11th position pick next in the #12 spot."

New CBA Braves get a compensation pick either way no matter who signs Bourn or what pick they give up, no longer do they get the pick of the team that signed the FA. So no matter who signs Bourn they get the same pick which makes this a lot more possible since no team is really getting scr*wed over majorly and would argue against it much.

Then that would be fair.