He said this on MLB Network according to Twitter.

Hope it's true.

And if it is it makes sense for MLB to do it. Players Association was in favor of giving Mets the exemption. And like I just posted on another thread teams that might try to block it wouldn't have much of a case. Because NOTHING changes for any team picking behind the Mets.

If Mets get to sign Bourn without losing 1st rd pick that would be AWESOME!!

I hope he is right, but I find it hard to believe.

Braves get the same pick no matter who signs Bourn, it doesn't effect the Braves.

So when he says what we want to hear he is a source?

Bayroot.

Believe it when you see it.

So...so are we rebuilding or half heartedly trying to contend?

But do we really need Bourn for 4-5 years? Even if he is better than any outfielder we have now. Will that also be true in a couple of years? I never thought he was very good anyway and now to invest in him for the future is a mistake. I hope the league doesn't rescind the rule and let the Mets keep the pick and trade for Bourn.

I dunno. I feel like some here are just hoping we do "something" for the sake of it

Not really.

If Marlins (or another top 10 pick team) sign Bourn nothing changes for Braves. They still get #33 pick. So if Mets get exemption & sign Bourn Braves still get #33 pick. Nothing's changed for them.

If Mets don't get exemption they don't sign Bourn. No protected team has signed Bourn after months of him being on FA market (Not worth $$$/ yrs?). No unprotected team's signed him either (Not worth losing 1st rd pick?). If Bourn goes unsigned til after 2013 draft Braves get NOTHING. NO compensation pick at all. So Braves should actually want Mets to get exemption so they're guaranteed compensation pick.

From what I understood he didn't say we are getting him he just said he felt MLB would protect our pick. Guess time will tell

but if the Mets sign Bourn and don't lose the pick every team picking behind the Mets loses the opportunity to move up a spot....so there's a lot of teams that might not think this is fair from their point of view

I hope its not true, he's getting old and his only really appeal is his speed, once that goes, he won't be offering much for us. I'd rather stick it out this year and not wast money on Bourn

But Mets have repeatedly said they WON'T sign Bourn without the exemption!!! So no teams would move ANYWHERE!!!

No other team's been reported to be close to signing Bourn after months of Bourn being on FA market. If Bourn goes unsigned til after 2013 draft Braves get NOTHING. NO compensation pick at all.

So no DAMAGES for any team. And Braves should actually be in favor of granting Mets exemption so they're guaranteed of getting that #33 compensation pick for Bourn.

I suspect I'm nearly alone on this, but I'd actually rather they go with what we have and take our lumps if that's the way it goes. We can probably get .250-.260, 12-15hrs and 20 SB from MdD, or .275, 5-8 hrs, 40SB from Bourn. Is it worth a 3-4 year contract at 15M per? In the end, it might just mean the 15th draft pick instead of the 10th.

I guess I'd get on board eventually, but I'm just not excited about this. I guess I sense the chemistry won't work.

How long ago?

The most recent thing I saw as at 10:30 and was not a sure thing, Only

"This morning on MLB Network, Peter Gammons said he had feels MLB will protect the Mets first-round draft if they sign a player requiring draft-pick compensation.

If that happens, there is “real optimism,” according to Gammons, that free-agent OF Michael Bourn will sign with the Mets."

Was there something new?

>>>"suspect I'm nearly alone on this, but I'd actually rather they go with what we have and take our lumps if that's the way it goes. We can probably get .250-.260, 12-15hrs and 20 SB from MdD, or .275, 5-8 hrs, 40SB from Bourn. Is it worth a 3-4 year contract at 15M per? In the end, it might just mean the 15th draft pick instead of the 10th. I guess I'd get on board eventually, but I'm just not excited about this. I guess I sense the chemistry won't work."<<<

You are not alone on this. I am not crazy about Bourn really. If it has to happen, then it better not be for more than 3 year and maybe 10-12 per year at most. If it were up to me though, I'd be offering 1yr + an option, or 2years flat, and if he said no, then so be it. Go with what we have and take our lumps. We can sign big ticket items later.

I have to agree also. I admit I do like Bourn to a degree, but not 5 years at $15 mil per. We won't know about the pick issue for sure until MLB gets off their collective posteriors and makes a decision. If for us, sign Bourn 2 years for the $10-12 mil per. If he won't sign, then later Mike. If against us, move on and wait for the draft. We may get creamed because of the OF we have or don't have, but we'll know for sure what the "kids" are/are not capable of doing. Then move on for 2014. We're not going to be WS Champs the end of this year no matter who is in any position in the OF.

I guess the biggest question I have is if they're willing to bend the rules for the Mets then why wouldn't every other team in baseball come out of the woodwork and ask for favors too?

I'm not crazy about Bourne either. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have my low power infielders stealing bases for me than one of my outfielders, where I could presumably fill a spot with a power bat/some speed. I feel like you can get very similar production from lower cost guys like Pierre (age notwithstanding).

he also said bay would never play here. unfortunately he was wrong.