I agree with you and I am wondering what the TV show is that you referenced.

didn't the Angels offer us Trout plus more for Wright 2 years ago? Maybe it was a rumor let me see what i can dig up. From what I can find it was Bojorous they were thinking of moving.

as i recall we both agreed on dealing Wright and Dickey but you were pretty adamant about keeping Ike which is obviously a perfectly reasonable sentiment

but i think we agree that in overall direction we're neither here nor there and it showed in our dealings with Bourn

we've got a lot of holes to fill and have to hope that ownership is being truthful when they say they've got the money to spend next offseason (problem is not a lot in the way of top end outfielders will be available and like i always like to point out we won't be negotiating in a vacuum, there will be many other teams involved as well)

but retrospectively it's pretty obvious our divergent paths this year froze us when it came to making the move with Bourn

like i've said from purely a sentimental perspective i like the idea of Wright being here but while i agree it's nice to have our own Jeter i'm not sure it's in the best interests of rebuilding the team....

i'm in the "minimal minority" when it comes to Ike,just not sure what we've got in him,and as i've posted here i would have theoretically dealt Ike for the Mariner's package they offered for Upton,even if it meant adding Murph to the deal

with Wright and Davis/Murphy deals i think we could have gotten back 6 or so top prospects and reloaded much faster

and again as i've said i can't argue with keeping Davis, i completely understand that he's got outstanding power and is a solid defensive first baseman as well....

but if we're not rebuilding why didn't we sign Bourn?....if we're closer to competing now than with a rebuild why would we not give up the first round pick?

i don't have a problem with David being here,i just believe the dealing of Dickey,keeping Wright,and then passing on Bourn because of the draft pick (which i agreed with) doesn't make sense as far as an organized plan goes

i didn't want Bourn if it was going to cost us the pick but now i'm trying to look at things from the FO's perspective and the series of moves/non-moves just leaves us in limbo IMO

i agree, keeping David,trading Dickey,then passing on Bourn makes little sense to me in regards to "the plan"

i like the Lyons,Hawkins,and Atchison signings but will that take ML experience away from Familia,Carson,and others?

after this season when Santana and Marcum are gone are we going with Niese,Harvey,Wheeler,and Gee for '14?....and what of our outfield?....and what of our bullpen if Lyon,Hawkins,and Francisco will be gone?

the plan doesn't seem to be in "sync"

that IS an interesting story and like most Yogisms there is truth and wisdom hidden beneath the surface

i can see where any franchise would want to keep a player of Wright's caliber but the same could be said of Dickey if that's the direction we were going in....

the way the Bourn thing evolved and twisted and turned at least to me shows how disjointed the thinking is in the FO

IMO no plan should have included Bourn. If we trade anyone of value then why add someone of such marginal value like Bourn? If we go all out rebuild there is no need for Bourn since we would be doing the exact same thing we are doing now which is evaluating young and cheap talent. If we trade no one and go forward with Dickey and Wright then why add someone like Bourn who wouldn't be putting us over the top while we STILL have to evaluate young and cheap talent at the corners.

while i wouldn't have paid Bourn 15 million a season and given up our first round draft pick if we'd have kept Dickey and Wright i would have thought Bourn made perfect sense

to keep Dickey and Wright and then tryout Kirk and Den Dekker in center wouldn't be prudent IMO...

if we're trying to win now keeping Wright,Dickey,and signing Bourn makes sense

if next year is a tryout then keeping Wright doesn't fit the plan

i don't know,but what they've done and not done seems to indicate a lack of definitive direction

Trying to win with Dickey, Wright, and Bourn makes zero sense against a team of Harper, Strassburg, Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Werth, and Storen....the Nats are loaded, the Braves are nipping at their heels, the Phils have three pitchers at the top of their rotation that are as nasty as any top 3 when healthy.

I really don't even mind Wright being signed to what is basically the last contract of his career. It not "too" expensive for a player with no real serious injury history. He doesn't have to be "the guy" by the time we compete. If he is merely playing the role of Robin Ventura in 2000 or Paul O'Neil for the Yanks in 95 and 96, then that is not a bad thing. If you are rebuilding, you need some sort of veteran presence in the lineup to let the young guys know how "things are done". It only makes sense to have that guy be someone that grew in the system and knows the city of New York rather than bringing in someone from the outside who may or may not fold under the media microscope that is the big apple.

Well, let's hope that the draft pick is a lasting Bourn legacy.

So, by your own reckoning, they did two out of three: traded Dickey, kept Wright and passed on Bourn (even if they flirted with the idea of signing him). So, aside from maybe not trading Wright (which you admit would be a tough call), seems like they're batting .666 in the rebuild effort.

Well, let's face it, there is no guarantee that trading Wright would bring us a major star. Stockpiling bodies sounds like a good idea, but whether they would ultimately include an impact player remains to be seen. So, I think it's reasonable to act in a way that lets Met fans continue to enjoy what David can bring, and let him develop a body of work that we can appreciate long term.

If there was a concrete offer which included someone regarded as a can't miss star, I would think twice about it. I suspect that most offers would be for several younger players with less upside.
I'd pass on those deals.

<< How has rebuilding worked out for the Royals, Pirates, and Mariners? >>

How did the rebuildiing work out for the Yankees in the early 1990s, the Phillies in the pre-Rollins/Hamels/Utley/Howard era, and the Giants in the post-Barry Bonds era?

Answer: Pretty well.

"It's not a rebuild because David wasn't traded and the lack of any major acquisition again has us still in the dark about the willingness to spend."

If you don't think trading two veterans for two top ten prospects then you are just completely clueless. Trading the whole entire team doesn't mean rebuild. Wright represents a lot to this organization and it is very understandable that he will be a Met for the next eight years.

"but if we're not rebuilding why didn't we sign Bourn?"

Because Bourn doesn't put this team over the top.