Was there actually anyone left on this forum that was surprised Bourn agreed to a four-year, $48 million deal with the Indians? Does anyone beleive the Mets decision was based on anything other than MONEY? Does anyone beleive they were ever going to pay him close to market value? Even if it may have been their last chance in 2013 for them to field a product that resembles a Major League baseball team?
It was all a smokescreen, and if you beleive different good luck with life because being naive in this world is a huge disadvantage. Just ask the Wilponzis about all the money they lost with their naivety.
No, .270 hitters with no power are not game changers.
--> How would you describe Mookie Wilson? Did he fill a need for the Mets while putting up similar if not lesser numbers than Bourn? The Mets desperately need a center fielder and desperately need a lead off hitter. He fit those needs and if you believe Alderson was affordable for the Mets. How many draft picks end up with numbers even close to Bourn?
Mookie was a good CFer but not the greatest of leadoff hitters, he struck out too much, and he wasn't the fielder that Bourne is.
Mookie was at his best when he was part of the Dykstra/Wilson platoon and even at that, Lenny was the better leadoff hitter/fielder.
I loved Mookie, but he wasn't by any stretch a game changer.
I'm okay with it, if that 4th year and not the dollars was the determining factor. Speed is his game, we all know that. But there are two things that afflict players whose main game is speed. Age and injury.
Now, maybe Bourne has'nt been hit by the injury bug, but I'll bet that between now and the end of his contract, he'll spend more than a few days on the DL as he gets older and those legs start to ache more and more.
--> Do the Mets win a championship in '86 without Wilson? Can speed at the top of an order change a game? Can an error or lack of range in CF change a game? You can argue that Bourn is a better all around player than Wilson was. Exactly who do you see in the Mets system that is going to provide what the Mets need at the top of the order and in CF in 2013?
Not signing Bourn confirms what many already believed to be true. The Mets are not the least bit serious about being competitive in 2013. Some on here (maybe most) are OK with this. I am not part of that club. It is my belief that when you have the privilege of playing in the largest sports market on the planet you can and should be able to build and compete at the same time.
And they REALLY REALLY need to stop their transparent and insulting attempts to deceive their dwindling fan base.
There is also a great possibly that Bourn never wanted to be a Met....
if true - smart man.
" How would you describe Mookie Wilson? "
Good point. The game of baseball is not only about homeruns. Getting on base, moving runners over....that'll score runs too.... Stuff that doesn't show up on stats.
I thought Melvin Mora was very valuable to our organization. When they traded him, I thought it was a big mistake. Oh well.
--> "As a guy that likes to drive in runners, I would love Bourn to be on the bases when I'm hitting just because how he CHANGES the game," Davis said before being honored at the Thurman Munson Awards in New York City. "We're going to see more fastballs if he's on the team, he's definitely going to help out the second hole hitter, David (Wright), me, in every aspect of the game. Yeah, it would be great. He's also an amazingly good defender out in center field."
~~ Ike Davis
You are'nt suggesting the Mets win the WS this year if they signed Bourne, because they won a WS with Mookie on it?
That seems to be what you're suggesting.
Do the Mets win the WS in 1986 if Mookie isn't on it? I'll answer that question with a question: Do the Red Sox LOSE the 1986 WS if Bill Buckner isn't on it?
These ifs can go on, ad infinitum.
~~ Ike Davis
I saw the interview, doesn't change a thing. Ike Davis has an opinion, you have one, I have one. Doesn't change a thing.