"where does it say anywhere that the mets agreed with bourn."
Right here: http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/60733/of-becomes-clearer-with-bourn-indians-pact
Source: Mets, Bourn had deal structure.
Just like I said. It took a mere 6 days from the time I made this thread to the signing.
let me just make this easy.
in your OP you stated "Mets are about to announce the signing of Bourn. Not sure what's going on with the pick but I assume MLB has ruled it's protected, otherwise the Mets would not have signed him."
you said the mets have signed bourn and we were just waiting on an announcement. the way you stated it, it was clear the draft pick situation was cleared up one way or another. the mets had signed bourn and we either gave up the pick or we didn't. either way the mets had bourn signed. he was a new york met!
but.................... it never happened. you just made it up and hoped you would get lucky and look smart.
you seem to be a decent poster here and post a lot of nice threads but doing this source thing is just weird. i have no idea why you are putting on this act and pretending you have sources. its clear you don't have any. just stop. please
No, I meant the structure of a deal is in place. I clarified on Feb. 7th because everyone was pouncing on the thread:
* o:metsfansince89* Feb-7
* 548121.129 * Reply to 548121.121
* alex8686 * Posts:609
The structure of the deal is in place and agreed to. It's a 4 year deal. They're now just waiting on the draft pick ruling. It's expected MLB will rule the pick is protected. Once that happens, the signing will be announced.
"The structure of the deal is in place and agreed to. It's a 4 year deal. They're now just waiting on the draft pick ruling. It's expected MLB will rule the pick is protected. Once that happens, the signing will be announced."
none of that happened.. there was no ruling. it never got that far.
again, your OP stated the deal was done. he was a met. you are changing your stance on this now and you look really bad
Everything in that email is correct buddy. It was a 4 year deal. The structure was in place. They waited on the draft ruling.
The only thing that's wrong that I admit is they ruled the pick isn't protected. The reports coming out that they didn't rule are WRONG. They DID. The Mets got rock solid info there was no way to get the pick protected and they pulled out. Alright?
Now stop being petty about stuff. I'm doing people a favor by relaying inside information.
with all due respect alex you said in your OP that the Mets would soon announce Bourn's signing and that he was signed to a contract,saying pretty distinctly that you assumed MLB protected the pick or the Mets wouldn't have "signed" him
that was never true obviously,so either your source gave you bad information or,well,we won't go anywhere else with this......
anyway,i think the right thing to do here is just let this fade and walk away
i have to agree,he said Bourn was signed and the announcement was coming soon...that wasn't the case
i'm not criticizing the guy, maybe he does know someone who knows someone who exaggerated where the Met/Bourn negotiations were at
but at this point going back and trying to defend his OP and saying "i told you so" doesn't sit right
And why wouldn't other sources have printed that info about MLB declining the protection of the pick? Wouldn't it be the Mets who would have made that know in order to save face in this deal? Yet not a peep about it.
Please keep you inside information to yourself from now on and you won't look so foolish nor will you have to get dizzy while trying to spin it.