...let it leak to the press that Bourn's 1st choice was the Mets?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/michael-bourn-agrees-to-4-year-deal-with-indians-mets-miss-out/


"Bourn was offered a similar contract from the Mets, who were his top choice, according to multiple reports"





Notice it says "MULTIPLE REPORTS." So it probably came from Boras's side as well as from Mets.

Doesn't Boras usually keep very tight control over all aspects of a deal? Why wouldn't Boras make sure his guy Bourn said all the right things about Cleveland Rah-Rah? That he's looking forward to Rockin' in Cleveland (Rock 'n' Roll HOF reference)? Why let it be known Bourn's #1 choice was to play for the Mets?

And if that report was NOT leaked by Boras why wouldn't Boras and/ or Bourn be "setting the record straight"?

Funny, the Post reported yesterday his prefence was to go to a team that had a chance at a postseason.

Funny, those multiple reports.

As Boras usually does, he tried to make sure it was known that the Mets (or any other big market team) was in the mix for his client. I was waiting for the mystery team to pop up but it was getting a little too close to spring training for comfort and Bourn had to make a move. I'm sure the Indians overpaid a little for him knowing the Mets were interested.

"the Post reported yesterday his prefence was to go to a team that had a chance at a postseason"



Cleveland Indians last 4 seasons:

2012 = 68 wins / SP = 5.25 ERA / BP = 3.99 ERA / 845 Runs Allowed/ negative 178 Run Differential

2011 = 80 wins / SP = 4.51 ERA / BP = 3.71 ERA / 760 RA / negative 56 RD

2010 = 69 wins / SP = 4.53 ERA / BP = 3.83 ERA / 752 RA / negative 106 RD

2009 = 65 wins / SP = 5.30 ERA / BP = 4.66 ERA / 865 RA / negative 92 RD



1 season where they approached .500 (1 game under in 2011).

THREE out of 4 yrs Cleveland never even got to 70 wins.

Starting pitching never had below 4.50 ERA in ANY of last 4 seasons.

TWO of last 4 seasons starting pitching ERA over 5.00!!

ZERO of last 4 seasons w/ BP ERA under 3.70.

ZERO of last 4 seasons w/ positive Run Differential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mets last 4 seasons:

2012 = 74 wins / SP = 3.83 ERA / BP = 4.65 ERA / 709 RA / negative 59 RD

2011 = 77 wins / SP = 4.12 ERA / BP = 4.33 ERA / 742 RA / negative 24 RD

2010 = 79 wins / SP = 3.80 ERA / BP = 3.59 ERA / 652 RA / +4 RD

2009 = 70 wins / SP = 4.77 ERA / BP = 3.89 ERA / 757 RA / negative 86 RD





Compare to Cleveland:

Mets had 1 season where they approached .500 (2 games under in 2010).

FOUR out of 4 yrs Mets got to 70+ wins.

Mets starting pitching had under 4.50 ERA in ALL FOUR of last 4 seasons.

Mets had TWO of last 4 seasons starting pitching ERA UNDER 4.00.

Mets had 1 of last 4 seasons w/ BP ERA under 3.70.

One of last 4 seasons w/ positive Run Differential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Which team of those 2 teams looks like it's headed in a positive direction at least as far as pitching?

And Pitching (almost) always wins.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/

Unless someone was living under a rock it was already WELL KNOWN that Mets wanted Bourn & the only sticking point was keeping the 1st rd pick.

So what was Boras's point in making things uncomfortable for Cleveland fans to know Bourn would rather be playing in Queens?

Boras always plays one team against another. If there is only one city or team involved, then it hurts his negotiation. Cleveland blinked and took the bait. I don't know if the Mets were all that interested. If they were, they wouldn't have let it come down to a protected draft pick or not.

Bor as is just sticking it to the Mets, a favorite tactic.

Your report was floated by Horowitz.

The other sticking point was Bourn wanted 5 years.

He got what he wanted with no risk from the draft ruling. Bourn made the rational decision.

~~~ the Post reported ~~~

Once I hear/read those words, I stop paying attention.

Yeah I know Boras pits 1 team against another. But the "game" is over w/ Bourn. Why let it leak to the media that Bourn's 1st choice was to play for Mets now that he already signed w/ Cleveland?

And you're wrong about Mets not being all that interested. Bourn's good but he's not THAT good for the $$$/ yrs he got PLUS losing #11 overall pick AND draft slot $$$ for that pick!!

Seems to me saying Bourn's 1st choice was playing for the Mets is sticking it more to the Cleveland fans than the Mets. Not exactly gonna have Indians fans running out to buy merchandise w/ Bourn's name & # on it.

Mets made it clear from the get-go they weren't gonna sign Bourn without that pick being protected. Wasn't a secret kept from Boras. Or any MLB GMs.

Good for Bourn getting more than he would be worth to the Mets at this point in time.

"Boras always plays one team against another. If there is only one city or team involved, then it hurts his negotiation. Cleveland blinked and took the bait. I don't know if the Mets were all that interested. If they were, they wouldn't have let it come down to a protected draft pick or not."

Yeah, it's really hard for me to buy the idea that they were protecting an 11th round pick. It sounds silly.

" it's really hard for me to buy the idea that they were protecting an 11th round pick. It sounds silly"



Not just the #11 overall pick. The draft pool money for that pick too!!



See Dec 27, 2012 article:

"Are sign and trades coming to baseball?"

http://itsaboutthemoney.net/archives/2012/12/27/are-sign-and-trades-coming-to-baseball/

"teams could really be weary of losing money from their draft pool, more so than the actual pick itself"