well i've got to ask,who's the genius that made that judgement and put that into the CBA agreement?....

the Pirates don't sign their draft pick (#8) from 2012 so no matter how they performed this year they were destined to pick 9th? a protected pick?...even if they won 95 games?

now they've got the 9th pick and i believe the 13th or 14th pick for 2013

and after that kind of lack of common sense judgement (giving the Pirates the 9th pick before the '12 campaign was even finished) WE have to appeal to have it changed?

so if you think the following season's draft is stronger and don't like who you're forced to pick in the first round if you don't get it done you get TWO first rounders the following season?

like i said,pure genius

we've got no chance of changing whoever's mind it is that came up with this

It really is absolutely absurd. At the very least, I just don't understand how the teams with the ten worst records aren't protected no matter what. What if this were to happen with multiple teams in the top ten and they both happened to have great seasons to boot? Completely undermines what the rule was put in place for.

exactly right....if a team can't sign it's first rounder or won't sign their first rounder they could receive a compensatory pick between the first and second round OR at best 2 sequential picks at the position they finish in after the season

THE DECISION THAT THE PIRATES SHOULD RECEIVE A PROTECTED FIRST ROUND PICK IN 2013 BASED ON THEIR RECORD FROM 2011 REEKS OF INEPTITUDE AT THE VERY TOP OF BASEBALL'S THINKERS

AT THE VERY LEAST common sense would dictate that if there IS going to be a pick given to the team like that for the following year's draft the number of teams whose first round pick would be protected would be EXPANDED, in this year's draft it would be the top (worst) 11 teams instead of 10

here's MLB trying to make sure the biggest spenders and winners aren't getting dealt from under the bottom of the deck and they hurt the chances of team who doesn't want to part with their first round draft pick,it's ridiculous

not sure why the Pirates should be rewarded and the Mets punished....makes no sense to me

am I wrong or didn't teams get pick #32 or 33? when this happened....and what happened to pick Mets couldn't sign last year ...2nd round?

it's amazingly poor,poor judgement by the people whose job it is to make sure these kind of compensations are fair and just

just a little bit of common sense and yet it escaped them completely

as they old saying goes they have it backasswerds lol.

"AT THE VERY LEAST common sense would dictate that if there IS going to be a pick given to the team like that for the following year's draft the number of teams whose first round pick would be protected would be EXPANDED, in this year's draft it would be the top (worst) 11 teams instead of 10"

Completely agree. I can understand them wanting to make sure a team gets their due for a bad season, therefore only bumping them back one spot the next year. BUT that doesn't mean you then penalize and s.crew over another bad team for it. Just expand the number then. Because this could start looking absolutely embarrassing for them if more than one team was to fail to sign their pick. It's really something that should be addressed and BEFORE that potential scenario presents itself.

i agree,some compensation is due,but NOT at the expense of another team nor should that compensation be based on a team's record from 2 seasons earlier....

you're right,this sets up a bad precedent and if it happens to more than one team going forward the first round could get pretty disjointed

and we both know what's going to happen,they'll see how ridiculous it was and change it NEXT draft and the new rules will be referred to "Amendment to the Shaft the Mets Rule"

they sure do,can't believe how they could mess even this up

this rule was in the old cba also. never affected the mets so it was little known.

....and what happened to pick Mets couldn't sign last year ...2nd round? >>>

mets get an extra 2nd rd pick in 2013 draft. #76 i think.

Fact is, the Mets stumbled on a potential loophole that could be brutally abused, and are correct to argue that their pick should still be protected, as they were one of the ten worst teams when the season ended. Those picks should be protected no matter what. Personally, I'm also ok with the Pirates, and in the future, any team failing to sign their picks getting slotted back in at that spot. THOSE picks should NOT be protected, though. Pretty much, you want to not sign your 1st rounder for whatever reason? Fine. You can have the pick back, but you lose the protection you had the year prior. Roll the dice.

I believe the new CBA is awful and this situation is just one example of the clusterf*** they created. That said, I'm sympathetic to the Pirates situation. Yes they failed to sign their pick, but they offered Appel way over slot, more than a million over slot, and he still didn't sign.

The CBA hurt the Pirates, hurts all rebuilding teams and hurts the players in the draft. The Pirates offered over slot, but with the new hard cap on bonuses you can't pour all your resources into a single player so they were handcuffed by the CBA. Rebuilding teams can no longer pour unlimited resources into the draft, making it harder to infuse talent into the system. From 2007 to 2011 the Nats spent more than $50 million on draft bonuses, including spending more than $18 million in a single draft. That is no longer possible with the hard cap. Finally, Appel would have been a consensus number one based on talent, but he dropped precisely because of signability questions. A year earlier the Pirates could have given him $8 million and proceeded with the rest of their draft, but the Pirates entire bonus pool was $6.5 million and even with that they still offered him $3.8 million.

So the Pirates, all the teams that picked ahead of them and passed on Appel, the Mets, Appel and every other super talented future draftee all get sc.rewed because of the abomination that is the new CBA.

heres another sh!tkicker.say 5 out of the top ten picks dont sign their picks.the following year,its already settled.only the five worst teams get protected picks

And of course it's the Mets who are scr ewed by this change.

This franchise never catches a break.

I honestly think the wilpons are playing this to their advantage. They have no intention on paying bourn. While it does stink, its still irrelevant.

A writer in the NY Times today speculated that all of this is just a PR move by the organization to try and appease the fans by giving the appearance of activity on the outfield when they have no intention of paying Bourn, draft pick protection or not.

Exactly. We're all debating this issue for nothing!

maybe thats the mlb basically said you get a deal in place and we will make a decision. wilpons tried making appear they were trying but a curveball was thrown when the mlb might actually appear to consider it.

honestly.it kind of appears that way. they mightve figured they didnt have a shot in heck until the mlb and players union surprised them.so what do you do now? just blow it of and pretend it never happened.

lately thats the treatment the fans have been getting.lied to for the sake of tickets then ignored ,blown off,and crudded on.