they're all first rounders and i certainly wouldn't deal any of them for Bourn and that's the way we have to think before we give up a first rounder for Michael.....

of course there's no guarantees with draft picks HOWEVER sometimes the reward can be significant

But,but just ask BB and his kinfolk. All draft choices only have 10% or less chance of becoming anything. You're thinking must be all wrong. We traded Beltran for nothing and got even less for Dickey. So he would rather trade any one of those players for Bourn than keep a draft choice at #11.
*note filled with sarcasm.

No, but I'd trade Pelfrey, Milledge, Havens, Heilman, Humber, etc for him.

***Wright wasn't a first round pick

Well he was picked before the second round started so technically you can say he was.

The discussion seems moot considering everything that's been reported on this. The Mets will absolutely not entertain the idea of signing Bourn unless they can keep the pick which, let's be honest, means this probably has no chance of happening at all.

That said, I recently read a great article that dug through the first round of 17 years of drafts from 1990-2006 in order to determine the chances of picking a successful player. For the round as a whole, it's 30%. Picks 1-5 had a 48% success rate while 25-30 was at 10%. For picks 11-15, it's 36%. So is the 1 in 3 chance worth it? I'm probably on the fence.

Considering that you lose the #11 pick and have to pay Bourn for 5 years at approx. $15 million per I say it should not be done. Now if the league lets the team keep the pick and Boras let's the price and years on Bourn slide to 3 years for say $13 million per. I say go ahead and make that deal. Otherwise use Den Dekker in Center and see what he can do.

(lol,picked up on the sarcasm)

just bringing this point up because it may offers some perspective in terms of what a first rounder MAY mean if chosen wisely

while a first rounder may go bust in any sport it's possible looking at the names above that by 2014 the core of our team may all be first rounders

so we have to think real hard before tossing away the 11th overall pick (who BTW MAY have a shot to be part of the '14 core although it's a long shot) for a player that won't help us contend the next couple of years

Wright technically was a first round compensatory pick for Mike Hampton's defection

It's not a question of asking me...it's a question of just looking up who our first round picks were. Only 10% of them amounted to anything. That's a fact, not an opinion.

understood which is why i say there's no guarantee....

HOWEVER your throwing out names that span 50 years of Mets baseball

i'm pointing out that 5 of our current or near future roster will be comprised of first rounders,that's 20% of our roster

it's just my opinion but i'm not giving up the 11th overall pick for a slap hitting CFer who's 30 and depends on his legs

we wind up getting the pick protected and all we're "losing" is money?....i've got no problem with that

Putting everything into perspective: If it means i'm going to have to spend 4 yrs/50 million dollars on a 30 year old who depends on his legs/speed AND the 11th pick in the draft for a player who,at least IMO,will NOT make the difference between the playoffs and also-rans i would simply vote no

and it's very possible that as of June 1st of 2013 20% of our roster and best players will consist of former first round picks

that's not an opinion,that's a fact

But you also say that 90% of prospects fail which may be a correct figure but then you apply it to a prospect that is highly regarded by all of baseball. That theory is totally ridiculous. The percentage of success of those prospects that are universally considered good have a much higher percent of success than 10%. Yet you claim that Wheeler and TDA are useless prospects.

Frankly, I think both sides have a fair case so I wouldn't argue either way. There's not a good enough chance that the 11th pick will yield a successful player for me to get upset over forfeiting it for one we know is immensely valuable and yet, considering where the organization is, I wouldn't blame them for wanting to take their chances.

The "not make the difference between playoffs and also-rans" argument, though, isn't a strong one to me. Not if we're signing him for 4 or 5 years. Again, you do have to start somewhere. No ONE player is going to lift this team to the playoffs. But Bourn would be a great first step. And I think with him on board and another signing or two next offseason, we very well could be in position to contend.

All this aside, I just also have to say how appalling it'd be to go into the season having not only done absolutely nothing to improve what was already an embarrassing outfield, but actually made it worse.

---

Edited 1/26/2013 4:23 pm ET by nvmets10

i'd personally rather take my chances on a #11 first rounder being here in 3 years or so when we may be competing over a then 33 year old whose contract will be expiring in a year or two

like i've said,if he won't cost us a draft pick i have no problems signing Bourn to a reasonable contract...

if Bourn was going to be the last piece of what i thought might be a championship worthy team puzzle,yeah

but NOT at the expense of top-third first rounder when even with Bourn we're probably not competing until '14 or more likely '15

No.

I wouldn't give up a pick for Bourne. No way in h*ll... I don't believe Sandy would either, hence the request to MLB.