• Welcome Guest
New York Mets

Welcome to the New York Mets.
Before posting, please review our Message Board Guidelines

    • MLB Ruling : Directional Impact
  • To:All
  • 1/26/13
  • rnr8396

If MLB rules in Mets favor (Mets keep the #11 pick):
Sign Bourn to a 3 yr $42 Mil back loaded contract with 2 additional option yrs @ $14 mil ea. vesting based on plate appearances. 2013 @ $10 Mil, 2014/2015 @ $16 Mil ea. including a $2 Mil mutual buyout each yr after 2014. That's an average of $14 mil a season for a 5 yr/$70 Mil total deal. It's close to what Boras wants, helps the Mets financially now and allows both sides an out if the relationship doesn't work.

If MLB rules against the Mets (Mets lose the #11 pick):
Pass on Bourn altogether. Select the best player available regardless of position with the #11 pick. By the time that player is ready to contribute, our needs may be vastly different then they are today. Allow our in house options to compete for playing time (survival of the fittest, or at least the hottest) and allow the cream to rise to the top (as it were) so a final determination can be made for 2014. Who will be 2014 starting players, who will be coming off the bench, who is kept in AAA as back up insurance in case of injury, and who needs to be moved or released. Using 2013 to assess what we have now, will better position us for 2014 when the bad contracts come off the books and we can then go out and get some quality pieces to add to the core developed in 2013.

In either scenario, I would address the Bullpen. This was an area that cost us quite a few games last season. With Francisco, Parnell, Edgin, Carson, Mejia and Familia probably all in the mix, and the addition of Pedro Feliciano this off season, I would take a chance on BOTH Roy Oswalt and Brian Wilson. Neither would be big money or long term, so lets throw some mud on the Bullpen wall and see what sticks. It would have to be an improvement over last season, and help create enough competition between them to help push each other.

  • Reply to this Message
Message 547880.2 was deleted
  • 1/26/13
  • metthunder
even tho Mets really should draft an OFer, I would at least think about drafting Appel if he's still there. He and the Pirates started it all. Also I thought when you couldn't sign a pick in the past, you received a pick around #32 or 33, why should they be given another high pick again. They knew they couldn't afford Appel even when they drafted him.
  • Reply to this Message
Message 547880.4 was deleted
  • 1/26/13
  • rnr8396

Agreed, but it's not really just the Pirates...its the language of the CBA that is screwing us.

Regardless, for now....it is what it is, until it aint LOL

My post was simply my suggesting what direction we should go in given the 2 likeliest scenarios of a ruling by MLB. Having the MLBPA in our favor will help, but to what extent remains to be seen if at all. Since this off season although starting late in terms of action for the Mets is finally underway, I have been reading many that are passing judgement on the Mets as if they were a finished product for 2013. I truly do not believe this is what we will look like when we break from spring training and head north to start the season. People need to be patient (at least a little more patient) and wait for the bad contracts to drop off so we can better reinvest our resources in 2014.
This year we will realistically not compete for the post season, but with the maturation of the kids along with another year of our core, then adding a few pieces when this season is over and we have more financial flexibility, I think we can turn this thing around in 2014.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/26/13
  • MetObserver
It wasn't because they couldn't afford to sign him because they offered well over slot. He may not want to play in Pittsburgh. And we can't be sure that he would want to play in NYC either, especially on the Mets. And how much over slot will the Wilpons be willing to go.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/26/13
  • metthunder
still a cra p shoot and as much as I hate to say Boras who's his agent had a hand in it, he was involved. But Pirates were stupid to even pick him
  • Reply to this Message
Message 547880.8 was deleted
  • 1/26/13
  • rnr8396

>>"In a feature that did not change with the most recent CBA in 2012, teams can also earn compensation for unsigned picks from the previous year's draft. If a team doesn't sign a first or second round pick, they will get to pick at the same slot plus one the following year. For example, if the team with the #5 pick does not sign that player, they would have the #6 pick the following year. The regular draft order would continue around those picks. For compensation for not signing a third round pick, teams would get a pick in a supplemental round between the third and fourth rounds. If a team fails to sign a player with one of these compensated picks, there is no compensation the following year"<<. Source: Wikipedia

There is no mention of any required offer needing to be made. The recommended offer to the #8 draft slot was $2.9 Mil. and the Pirates offer to Appel was $3.8 Mil. So it wasn't as though the Pirates intentionally low balled him hopping he would decline so they could have 2 picks within the top 10 the next draft. In fact from what I understand, had the Pirates offered him more than $3.837 Mil, they would have exceeded their allotted "MLB enforced budget" and would have been stripped of having their pick in this draft.

Bottom line is that the rule intention within the CBA is admirable, but the rule needs to be amended so that the bottom 10 TEAMS (not picks) are protected. In addition, I would have only the original 2013 draft slot for Pittsburgh (in this example) be protected and NOT the carry over pick from the previous year. Either that or protect Pittsburgh's additional pick for not signing the #8 pick from last draft be a sandwich pick between round #1 and #2. That might help deter teams from trying to intentionally pass on their #1 pick in one year (weaker draft??) so they could double up within 1-10 in the next draft.

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/26/13
  • AdrianMonk

It will be a watershed event in Met history.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/26/13
  • rnr8396
Hey Monk....
Just trying to keep a positive prospective on the situation. My thinking isn't completely "pie in the sky" fantasy, as each scenario I painted is both realistic and doable. Probable.....that's another story.
The problem as I see it, is that until a decision (by MLB) is reached, it is unknown which way the Mets can or are forced to go. I also realize that there is another possible realistic scenario that I did not paint. They could simply just do nothing. I know there are some on here (either haters or those that have become numb over the years) that will say the Mets will opt for nothing. I dont share that opinion. I believe that there is more to come, but certain dominoes must fall first for the next domino to follow. I believe that signing Feliciano (although not a major signing) was the first domino to fall after the R.A. Dickey trade, but then the Marcum domino (2nd) fell. I think that an Outfield domino will fall soon followed by another Bullpen domino. These things have a way of impacting one another, and I just think that Sandy is being patient and trying/hoping that some of these dominoes start to come to him on his terms rather than on theirs (IE:Boras) such as I view the Marcum signing did come to him.
  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/27/13
  • AdrianMonk


Well, I agree with you Bourn should only be considered if the first round draft choice is protected, and I'm okay with "seeing what we have" if he is not. Personally, I would rather the latter course ends up being taken.

As for the bullpen, I think signing both Oswalt and Wilson is overkill, and probably wouldn't accomplish very much anyway. We have several pitchers (Hefner, Mejia, Familia, McHugh, Gorski, Schwinden) waiting for injuries to have something to do, and surely one of them could be useful as a replacement starter/setup guy. Signing Oswalt probably means that he sits around instead of Hefner. Wilson will miss half the season, and could be disruptive if we have any sort of success in the bullpen early on. His act really only works if he's dominant. Do you really want to see him out there if he isn't? He might end up shaving, and then all would be lost :)

  • Reply to this Message
  • 1/27/13
  • rnr8396

>>" He might end up shaving, and then all would be lost"<< LOL !!!

I simply mentioned Oswalt and Wilson as possible options, as the bullpen was an area that directly caused losses after we were in the lead or had at least tied a game. There is no question in my mind that the one area that needs to be addressed is the Outfield, but since the options available are not a perfect fit for one reason or another, and we have holes in other parts of our game....it would make sense to at least try to improve the Pen.
As far as Oswalt/Wilson go as options, I would lean towards Wilson. Oswalt has had issues with health and recently even when healthy, has had a tough time being productive. Wilson, although coming back from injury, has had more recent success, and is not far removed from dominating. As you mentioned, he will need additional time to be 100% and that will allow our present in house options (that you listed) to step up and develop into what role each will play. Francisco's role as closer should not be "in stone" and I think Parnell could challenge him. Having Wilson around in the 2nd half will only keep the competition for that closer role going. I have heard that Wilson actually would like to start as well, so he could be a swing man as well. You can never have too much depth when it comes to pitching. The season is a marathon, and during the course of the 2013 campaign, we will have plenty of opportunity to see who steps up, and who steps out.

  • Reply to this Message
Messages 547880.14 through 547880.17 were deleted
  • 1/27/13
  • pt1028
Here's a question: What if every team fails to sign their 1st round pick? What happens then?
  • Reply to this Message
Message 547880.19 was deleted
  • 1/27/13
  • DFAB
what do you expect from trolls?
  • Reply to this Message