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"