Apparently ,the mlb wont rule on the draft pick subject unless A deal is already in place.The Mets have to atleast have a deal in place for Micheal Bourn.Any word on this? Are they atleast negotiating on the subject that any one is aware of?

Someone asked me in another thread "whats the point? they arent gonna meet his asking price anyway" my response was "if they are going through all this then i would think theyd have traded numbers or maybe even agreed on something"

Thats what I would think but I havent heard anything that are even talking.

Sandy seems to be really good at keeping this out of the media where other gm's ,its all over the place who they are talking too.Lets hope thats what it is.

I like the idea of signing Bourn,ONLY if the picks unprotected.In order for it to be ruled on,A deal has to be in place.

So put A deal in place and prove the boobirds wrong when they say Sandy has lied when he says hes still putting A 2013 team on the field.

Just my take on it.

Why would they need a deal in place to make a ruling on a request by an owner? If they don't have a deal in place but have asked MLB for a ruling how would it hurt to rule. If it is ruled in their favor they will not lose the pick and will be free to sign a free agent. If they decide to not sign a free agent then it is a wash and they didn't need the ruling in order to keep the pick.

It just doesn't make much sense that they need a deal to be in place.

Then the Mets shouldn't and won't sign him.

I agree it doesn't make much sense, but I've also read in a few places where the Mets need to come to an agreement with Bourn before they can petition for the exception.

I'm guessing MLB isn't going to arbitrarily change the CBA with someone first requesting it and then gathering input from the owners' and players' attorneys. It may end up being something that can be negotiated between MLB and the MLPA.

So ML baseball pushes them out of the top 10 which is a protected pick and tells them sign him first, and then we'll disclose our decision? I'm rarely on the Mets'side on these type of transactions but Michael Bourn will not help the Mets to win more than 75 games anyway. I say let him go elswhere.

The reason they should make a ruling isn't only because the Mets could sign a player but because it is just unfair to any team in this position. And it will happen again in the future so they should set a precedent now or change that part of the agreement to prevent it from coming up again.