apparently this morning Rosenthal followed Gammons and said he didn't think it would happen because it would establish a precedent (from MetsBlog)

Matt Cerrone states Mets will NOT sign Bourn if it costs them the first rounder which i completely agree with and that it was reported by Mike Puma of the Post that the Mets do not want to go beyond 3 years for him (i've thought 3/36-39 without losing the pick was the only scenario that made any sense)

Alderson said the reason he doesn't want to give up the pick is not only the potential talent you might miss out on but also the subsequent decrease in money you'd be able to spend on the draft (i believe the amount of money you'd be allotted to spend on that slot would be deducted from the overall total you could spend on the draft....plus in prior years if you gave up your first rounder you could attempt to draft and pay over slot to make up for it in later rounds an option that is NOT available under the new CBA)

While the God father of baseball reporting Peter Gammons feels they will protect the pick, He said she said they said what?

Apparently, Pete Gammons is of two minds on the subject.....

I think a waiver is unlikely.

Anything more than 3years for him would be wrong - I wouldn't even like to go beyond two.
Not that crazy about Bourn to begin with, but if it happens, better not be beyond 3years

Gammons will say anything in the hope that something he predicts will turn out correct. He's like the saz of sportwriters.

>> I think a waiver is unlikely.

I don['t think the Mets are going to get this protected. If Selig did it without a change to CBA, if would be viewed by other teams as the Mets getting preferential treatment. That would open a can of worms. I don't understand how those working on the CBA didn't see this situation coming.

"if would be viewed by other teams as the Mets getting preferential treatment."

They most likely already DO get that treatment with fred being friends with selig. Selig would never force fred to sell....that's pretty evident. Why can't their friendship benefit the FANS for once?

I don't think they are going to sign him even if they gained a draf pick.

Boras will hold out for 6 or 7 years, no way the Mets go for that.

Then we don't sign him.

It's the difference between maybe 5 wins anyway.

you're right,we're dealing simply in gut feeling and opinions here.....haven't heard a word from MLB about this topic yet

i'm in your camp and i've said it pretty much all along: no Bourn if it's going to cost us the pick and preferably 3/36-39 and no more than that

i agree,as much as i think the rule that's in place is wrong and defies common sense i don't think they can amend the current CBA as late as February when the Players Assoc. and teams alike have agreed to the deal to begin with

i don't think even Boras would hold out for 7 years but i do think he'd shoot for 4-5 and if he's aiming for more than 13 million per for that length of time the Mets don't belong anywhere near Michael Bourn

The thing is it's now February. When is the last time a player of this caliber was still unsigned at this point? You'd have to think the demands are now down considerably. It's remarkable how little word there's been of interest from anyone.

yes,in regards to where we are at this point in the offseason we'd all think that Bourn's price would be lower,but then we've all seen where all you need is one other team to jump in if they think he's going to sign somewhere else for a cheaper contract and up the ante a bit and we're off to the races,even if it's just a two team race

but i think the sticking point as far as Bourn and the Mets is concerned is the draft pick

They most likely already DO get that treatment with fred being friends with selig. Selig would never force fred to sell....that's pretty evident. Why can't their friendship benefit the FANS for once?

Selig said it wouldn't be fair to other teams. Whether other teams have contacted Selig about this I don't know. There's an onwership committee that over sees what the Selig does. He uses what's good for the game all the time, but this situation doesn't fall under that clause unless they change the CBA. Opening the can of worms this would isn't good for the game. If he were to protect this pick, without a change in the CBA, he's going to have 28 owners kicking his door in. I don't know if he would feel his friendship with Wilpons is worth the headaches he would have.

this is what i think is stupid

the mets arent asking for an exception...they are requesting that the rule be adjusted permanently...which it should be bc the current rule is stupid and departs from the way it has always been done.

im so sick of hearing how the only reason the wilpons havent sold is b/c of selig...its just not true

how many owners have been forced to sell the team by the commissioner? and don't bring up frank mccourt bc that was a WILDLY different situation in which the owner was embezzling money out of a team that he never paid for

link

and if he protects the mets pick, it sets a precedent that essentially already changes the cba...and it should be changed bc its a stupid alteration to the rules