Skip to content

The Mets should not be able to keep their first round pick if they sign Michael Bourn

Jan 25, 2013, 9:13 AM EDT

bourn getty Getty Images

We mentioned yesterday that the Mets are asking Major League Baseball to allow them to keep their first round pick this year — the 11th pick — in the event they signed Michael Bourn. This despite the fact that the new CBA says that only top-10 picks are protected if a team signs a player who has been given a qualifying offer.

Ken Rosenthal lays all of the reasoning out in his column today. The thinking: the Mets would have been the tenth pick had the Pirates not been awarded their own compensation pick for failing to sign Mark Appel, their first round pick from 2012. The Mets were the 10th worst team, the thinking goes, so they should be able to keep their pick even if it’s now technically the 11th. Rosenthal notes that the Mets and the union would support this deviation but that Major League Baseball would likely fight it.

For once I’m on Major League Baseball’s side here. The reason? The new CBA’s failure to address compensation picks kicking someone out of the top 10 in such a situation is not some mere oversight that inadvertently subverts the spirit of the rule and the intent to help out bad teams like the Mets. Rather, it was a very specific and conscious omission.

Indeed, the last CBA specifically protected top 15 picks from compensation and specifically exempted draft compensation picks — like the one the Pirates got for not signing Appel — from counting.  The new CBA changes that to the top 10 picks and makes no mention of draft compensation picks. This is not merely a matter of “rules are rules.” It’s about the fact that MLB and the union actively removed protection for the Appel-pick situation. They saw it there in the last version, had someone highlight the text and hit “delete.” They knew exactly what they were doing.

To suggest, then, that the current setup goes against the spirit of the rules is simply wrong. The union and the league changed the spirit from what it was before. Why should Michael Bourn and his agent and the Mets now benefit because that rule is now in force?

If this becomes a grievance, it’s going to go to an arbitrator. I would hope that an arbitrator holds the league and the union to the bargain they actively hammered out.  A bargain that, if they don’t like now, they should be forced to changed rather than simply set aside because it’s inconvenient for them.

  1. iman883 - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    Isn’t it just as likely that they just forgot to include the portion specifically exempting draft compensation picks? I mean, do you really feel confident enough in these guys to completely rule out that this was just human error? Let’s get some parol evidence rule up in here and look at the extrinsic evidence! (Had to make a terrible lawyer joke)

    I actually agree with the Mets here (shocking, considering I agree with almost nothing else they do). I’m not sure why they should be penalized for another team’s failure to sign a draft pick. If not for the Pirates’ ineptitude, the Mets would have a top 10 pick and this wouldn’t even be a discussion.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:27 AM

      You can’t go to parol evidence for the clause is not ambiguous!!

      (wow, I remembered something)

      • iman883 - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

        Well done sir, well done indeed. I was going to make a counterargument, then I realized, why would I do that?

      • proudlycanadian - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:37 AM

        I respectfully disagree with you Craig. I realize that you are being a lawyer in your reasoning; however, to deprive the Mets of their first round draft pick would be a miscarriage of justice. The lawyers who wrote up the wording of the CBA messed up and did not consider what would happen if one of the teams got screwed due to the failure by another team to sign a player they had drafted the previous year.

      • alang3131982 - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM

        How do you know the lawyers messed up? What if it was a point of debate? Further, what if other teams operated on the basis of the rules as is? It’s on the Mets or any other team to address rules they dont like, not in the one (rare) instance it affects them. Unless someones comes forward and says that a) all parties agree it should be changed and b) it was intended to be otherwise, then there was no mistake here.

      • rdillon99 - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:53 AM

        Anyone who has ever been part of the collective bargaining process would know that both sides would have employed very experienced and highly paid negotiators/lawyers to draft the terms of the collective agreement. There is no stone left unturned when it comes to the specific wording that ultimately makes it into a collective agreement. Every single word is scrutinized to make sure that it accurately reflects what was agreed upon between the parties. To suggest that they somehow “just forgot to include the portion specifically exempting draft compensation picks” or that they “did not consider what would happen if one of the teams got screwed due to the failure by another team to sign a player they had drafted the previous year” is unfathomable, particularly when they had a specific provision dealing with this situation in the last agreement. Obviously, I wasn’t in the negotiating room when this issue was discussed, but I would think that the much more likely scenario is that they considered the issue and decided upon not specifically exempting compensation picks from the top-10.

      • snowbirdgothic - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:53 AM

        The notion that the battalions of high-powered lawyers involved in drafting a carefully negotiated contract between parties worth hundreds of millions on one side and billions on the other “forgot” something that their innate sense of fair play should have included is slightly less probable than the notion that the guys on Finding Bigfoot are actually going to find, you know. Bigfoot.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM


        To suggest that they somehow “just forgot to include the portion specifically exempting draft compensation picks” or that they “did not consider what would happen if one of the teams got screwed due to the failure by another team to sign a player they had drafted the previous year” is unfathomable

        One question I have as IANAL, is how CBA’s work. Do they just take the previous doc and edit/add/delete phrases/paragraphs from it or do they create an entire new document? If it’s the former, I can understand how odd it’d seem to delete a specific phrase. However, if it’s the latter, with the shear volume of these documents I could easily see something being accidentally left out.

      • rdillon99 - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:01 AM

        churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged: Lawyers never (repeat, never) reinvent the wheel. The prior CBA Agreement very likely would have been used as a template for the new agreement. To the extent that changes were made between the two agreements, there would have been a reason for doing so and you can bet that those changes were specifically negotiated.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM

        Thanks for the explanation. I wonder if the players got some sort of concession for eliminating this clause and now they have some buyer’s remorse?

    • cackalackyank - Jan 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM

      @iman I sincerley doubt that a cadre of MLB and MLB union lawyers did an “OOOPS” on something like protection of draft pick compenstion picks. I know how some people feel ‘awww those poooor Mets, trying to finally sign a good player, and it will cost them their pick’ , but bottom line is the Mets owners are at fault for the condition of the Mets. Why should they benefit from their poor decisions. There were other options out there that would not have cost them a pick, but they sat on the sidelines until now trying get a bargain. It is kind of the ‘you can pay me now, or you can me later’ thing.

    • somekat - Jan 26, 2013 at 1:04 AM

      No, it’s not just as likely, because that portion was specifically included in the last CBA

      If the rule stated one thing last time, the rule still exists, but says something else now, that is not an accident.

  2. plmathfoto - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:30 AM

    Craig: If it was the other way around, where your team (Braves) weren’t (potentially) winding up on the short end, would you have the same position here?

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:35 AM

      Of course I would.

      I love how some folks around here have this notion that since I root for a team (just as all of you do) that I am incapable of being even handed about stuff. As if I haven’t been critical of the Braves in the past.

      Anyway: It would make no difference. If the Braves were in the Mets position and were trying to circumvent the rules, I would call them out on it in a second.

      • thebadguyswon - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:37 AM

        You make a fair arguement Craig. But lets not pretend you haven’t openly been a homer for the Braves before. I think that’s where people get the notion you refer to.

      • recoveringcubsfan - Jan 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM

        Ah, but Craig: it is the appearance that sticks with most people – as you well know, being a fancy, big city lawyer and all. No me, I’m just a simple country boy, but it seems to me, as I’m sure it seems to all good-hearted, simple folk in this great forum, that this case being about the Braves getting a 1st round pick could have just as easily been written up by any other writer on the HBT staff and everybody would have been OK with it. The point is an interesting one without your lawyerly input (and you aren’t a labor lawyer anyway, so you don’t have much more expertise with this than, say, a Civil War historian does in discussing WWII). You should just admit up front that this is a tad unseemly but that you have an opinion that hasn’t been addressed yet by anyone else. Pretending that you don’t see any appearance of impropriety is pretty disingenuous, dude.

        My own input, worth very little (but I have represented a union – as a local president – in CBA negotiations) is this: the lawyers working for MLB and the Players Association are not geniuses and they don’t know the implications of everything they agree to. I am sure that not every detail was examined closely by all parties involved, though the change Craig noted from the last CBA was surely discussed by everyone at some point. That doesn’t mean they understood what they were doing. At some point in every negotiation, most people just want the damn thing done with and signed and at that point a lot of things that had been tabled are hashed out PDQ.

        This being the first year of the new CBA, it’s really not too shocking to see a club immediately test one of its new provisions. And I, for one, don’t see anything wrong with that. Let the process run its course.

      • dcwal152 - Jan 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM

        Conveniently…if the Mets don’t get to keep their first round pick if they sign Bourn…who gets it? Hmmm….the Braves?

    • paperlions - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

      Considering the strength of evidence for his argument, I imagine that he would. It would be one thing if historically there were not exemptions, but they actually removed this rule on purpose. While his attitude about the rule may change if it was the Braves in the situation, I doubt that he would construct a different argument (just lament that MLB and the MLBPA purposefully removed exemptions).

  3. The Dangerous Mabry - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:32 AM

    Of COURSE the MLBPA supports it. They’re going to support anything that increases the amount of money a player is likely to be paid. It doesn’t even seem like a story. I’m sure the union would be perfectly happy to have no compensatory draft picks thrown around, since they very clearly devalue free agents.

    But whether or not you think they should lose the pick for signing Bourn, I think it’s awful that the Mets have petitioned the league for a ruling on this, and got a response of “You’ll have to sign him first, and then we’ll let you know.” At least according to Mr Marchand here:

    Seems like it’s a pretty important piece of the puzzle and I can’t see why the league refuses to give them a clarification on what will happen beforehand.

    • Chris Fiorentino - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:47 AM

      I’m with you here…the decision should be made before the FA is signed. To tell the Mets that you have to sign someone first, THEN the decision will be made on whether you will lose the 11th pick in the draft is patently unfair.

    • mashoaf - Jan 26, 2013 at 1:13 AM

      I wonder if it is in the CBA that the original team can do a sign and trade with the players new team and go around the giving up a draft pick?

  4. Alex K - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:35 AM

    I don’t think that the Mets should get to keep their pick either. We can’t just go changing the rules in the middle of the game. But I also think the rule needs to be rewritten during next season because it sucks that the Mets should have to give up thier pick when they were one of the 10 worst teams last year.

    • birdman6824 - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:48 AM

      I doubt that part of the CBA can be changed before the entire agreement lapses (2016, I think)

      • Kevin S. - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:59 AM

        Sure it can be, so long as the parties mutually agree to it.

    • Alex K - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM

      I have no clue if they can amend certain parts before it lapses. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen ASAP, though.

  5. lordd99 - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:40 AM

    Did the two sides actively decide this is what they want, or is it more likely that didn’t clearly think this one scenario through? It was a large and complex document with many, many changes from the prior CBA. I think you hit the point the point at the end. This shouldn’t just be viewed as a NY Mets issue. They should update the CBA so that it addresses this situation for all teams moving forward.

  6. DonRSD - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM


  7. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM

    Someone more versed in the CBA can confirm/deny, but what’s to stop Boras, the Mets, and the Braves coming to some sort of a sign and trade agreement? Figure the Mets will offer a BJ Upton-esc contract (5/$75.25M). Let’s add 10% on top, b/c you know, Boras so 5/$82.775M or $16.55M per year. Braves agree to sign Bourn for one year at $16.55M, he agrees, and then the Braves trade Bourn to the Mets for a B/B+ and C/C+ level prospects (Braves need something out of this deal and they’d lose a supplemental pick by doing this). Bourn gets traded and Mets add 4 more years to the contract.

    Obviously everyone would have to agree on the events before hand, and there’s a possibility of someone getting screwed, but if all goes well? Everyone wins, everyone’s happy, where’s the issue?

    • geoknows - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM

      That loophole has been closed under the new CBA as well. The scenario you are describing is regarded as collusion and is no longer allowed.

    • tmhofficial - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:49 AM

      Also, why in the world would the Braves do that? Get a B/C level prospect, when they are forfeiting 2 1st round picks essentially, including the #11? No chance. Seemed logical, except for that part.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM

        Because the Braves wouldn’t get the Mets first round pick. That changed with the new CBA as well, the pick just disappears hence why I mentioned the Braves should get a B and C prospect b/c the only thing they lose is a supp pick next year.

  8. greymares - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM

    the Mets aren’t paying for this guy it’s a smoke screen to make their 3 fans think they are doing something to better the team.

    • thebadguyswon - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:39 AM

      You are thinking of the Marlins. The Mets have a large fan base,

  9. planck16 - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:16 AM

    I am sure a revision could be made. Maybe the Meta have a choice of giving up their #1 pick or multiple picks like #2 and #5. Anyway, both teams should not be punished for the Pirates failures.

  10. thehypercritic - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    I WILDLY disagree with the headline, but agree with the article.

    Draft pick compensation should not be hitched to free agents who’ve already been denied a shot at the free market for nearly a decade, but the CBA must be followed and that trumps everything. The notion that the parties didn’t consider and account for compensation picks via unsigned players is laughable.

  11. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM

    I understand the idea of giving the team that loses a free agent an extra draft pick, but I don’t really get the idea of taking it away from a team that signs a free agent. Can’t these compensation picks all just be sandwich rounders? Otherwise, it seems like the only winner is the team that lets their free agents walk, while everyone else (new team, free agent) is penalized. Is that who the system intends to reward?

    • geoknows - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      The compensation picks are now all in the sandwich round. The signing team loses their pick, but that pick does not go to the team that lost the FA. The pick simply disappears.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        Good to know. That still seems lame. A team like the Mets needs to improve, but they are forced to choose between improving via free agency and improving via the draft. Shouldn’t both avenues be available to them?

        I suppose the current system is fair in that it hurts both the teams and the players, but perhaps a system could be devised that BENEFITS all involved.

  12. illcomm - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM

    please reference two articles in which you criticized the braves. cause I don’t believe u

  13. phillyphannn83 - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM

    Craig, why can’t your Phillies posts sound like this? There’s no rhetoric, no backhanded compliments(wait a second, you’ve never given the Phillies nor their fans any sort of compliment, only backhands) and no snide remarks. This post is pure journalism. And its another division foe. I just don’t understand, if you’re capable of writing unbiasedly, as you claim you do about the Braves, why do you find it absolutely impossible to do it with the Phillies but you CAN do it with the Mets?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      Because, as commentors have written 1001 times, all of you Phillies fans flock to the posts like flies to shit whenever he writes one. The ones that don’t even have any hint of trolling still get 50+ comments and god knows how many views. I mean, it probably wouldn’t happen now, but a year ago and further back a “Ryan Howard is overrated” post was good for 150+ comments easily.

      • phillyphannn83 - Jan 26, 2013 at 4:06 AM

        Oh EXCUSE us for being a passionate “all-weather” fanbase that supports our team no matter what. Seems like other poeple are just jealous that theyre not part of such a strong and devoted fanbase. Cry me a river. Boo freaking hoo. If it bothers you so much then stop reading posts about the Phillies, its a pretty simple solution.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      I defy you to find one article I’ve written about the Phillies as a baseball team — not the fans, not PR and assorted bullshit like that, but as a baseball team — that has been unfair. I picked them to win the NL East last year. I have never said a negative thing about the actual baseball talents of Roy Halladay or Chase Utley or anyone on their roster that wasn’t based in reality. I’ve never slammed Charlie Manuel. Quite the opposite, actually. he’s one of my favorites.

      I have noted when they’ve played poorly. I’ve noted when their front office has made silly moves. I’ve pointed out when their fans’ exuberance was silly based on the evidence at hand. And yes, I’ve made a lot of jokes and snide comments about this because Philly fans are about the most overly-sensitive bunch around and I like getting a rise out of them.

      But never have my biases — which, unlike most writers I freely share so you know what you’re getting with me — caused me to be unfair as a point of analysis. It’d be one thing if it did, for then you’d be getting bad information from me. But if it’s just a matter of people not liking my tone, well, go find someplace where your tender sensibilities will not be so easily rattled.

      • natslady - Jan 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM

        Now my feelings are hurt because I thought NATS fans were the most “overly-sensitive bunch around.” 😉

        Anyway, to the topic: The NFL seems to have no problem changing rules mid-stream (example: the challenge rule which was changed MID-SEASON). If both the union and management agree that the rule is not working as intended, they can change it.

      • deep64blue - Jan 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM

        Do you have some evidence that the NFL changed the challenge rules mid-season?

      • natslady - Jan 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

        I believe they did change this rule, at least that is what I understood from comments during games.

      • hisgirlgotburrelled - Jan 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM

        No, that was not changed. ‘They’ said it could possibly be changed before the playoffs, but never was.

        The only rule I can think of right now off the top of my head changed mid-season in one of the 4 major sports was when Sean Avery was waiving his hands in Martin Brodeur’s face.

      • richyballgame - Jan 25, 2013 at 5:14 PM

        When the baseball world has their eyes upon you and you choke, of course people will make note of it.

      • phillyphannn83 - Jan 26, 2013 at 4:44 AM

        So let me get this straight. I say Phillies and you single that out to mean the players only, not the rest of the organization as a whole. So now youve succesfully defended yourself against what you incorrectly assumed I was talking about, while admitting that the players are the only part of the organization you have not written biasedly about. And you expect us not to defend our franchise? Sorry were not like the rest of your fellow Braves fans, whom youve called out yourself for being fair-weather fans, and actually stand up for our team. Dont sit here and act like you dont single out the Phillies. You dont troll other teams fans anywhere near the frequency you do the Phillies, and were not supposed to take issue with that? We get it that your bent over us being the team that ended your decade and a half of dominace. We get it that your bent because we have one of the most, if not THE most, passionate fanbase in the MLB and your embarrassed by your team’s attendance numbers. What YOU dont get is that it gets old and very annoying when(I use the NBC SportsTalk App on my tablet) we dont even have to click on the story and we know if its written by you or Pouliot just by the headline. There have been stories on here where you two have covered the same topic and Pouliot’s is normal and yours is all rhetoric and sh¡t talkin. It just happened with the Delmon Young signing. Yeah hes not Josh Hamilton or BJ Upton but do you really have to use every piece of news about the Phillies as a reason to talk sh¡t? Honestly, if Matt wrote more about the Phillies, I simply wouldnt read your stories but lucky us, a Braves fan is the one writer for HBT that writes about our team the most. So we have no choice but to read what you write. If some other company had a similar app, Id never be here. But its actually a really good app thats very useful. Another thing you dont understand is that, I read almost every story posted to HBT, PFT, PHT, and PBT, and youre honestly the only guy that constantly talks sh¡t on one franchise. Its like youre obsessed. If it wasnt so frequent, we really wouldnt care. We’d jab back and forth with youand have fun with it. But its like youre some high school kid just trying to push peoples buttons. The bottom line is, you know what youre doing, dont act all suprised and defensive when we take issue with it. Philly fans may be obnoxious and passionate, sometimes irrational, sometimes arrogant, but by no means are we stupid. Thats the reason we are the way we are. People think were terrible fans because we will boo our team even if were in 1st place and winning that day’s game. Its because we dont accept mediocrity, and we all know weve had a lot of mediocre teams over the years. But we dont accept it from our players and we can recognize it. We can see through the BS, we know when someone isnt giving 100%. Were a blue-collar city. A city of hardworking people who expect the same of overpaid athletes who have it easy. Were the town of the Broad St Bullies and Charlie Hustle, the Brian Dawkins and Chuck Bednariks. We have history and heritage, honor and pride and we will defend our team and our city. Its no wonder everybody hates us…its because they know we put their fellow fans to shame.

  14. illcomm - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

    he lies to himself a lot I’m guessing. if u say it enough it must be true. it must be. just ask his ex.

  15. thebadguyswon - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM

    In essense, the Mets are being penalized for something the Pirates did. If you were one of the ten worst teams, why shouldn’t your pick be protected?

    • geoknows - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM

      I don’t disagree, but that’s not what the CBA says. It doesn’t say the picks of the ten worst teams are protected; it says the first ten picks are protected.

      • thebadguyswon - Jan 25, 2013 at 11:34 AM

        I’ll be honest – I don’t care all that much. Bourn is nothing special.

  16. jamesonandasterisk - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:38 AM

    As someone who works under a CBA, everyone is aware of the changes. Before we vote on a contract, everyone is given a copy of the proposed changes where every single word that changes is presented with the original text followed by the revised text. If it was changed, it was changed FOR this situation, intentionally. This is how they wanted it to work when it was written and to change it now because the situation they specifically were addressing arose, I’d say no, you agreed to this, if it is important to you, bring it up at negotiations for the next CBA.

  17. mazblast - Jan 25, 2013 at 10:54 AM

    The rule is clear. What the various parties can, can’t, or must do is clear.

    Then there is the fact that the Mets’ owners are pals with the Commissioner. As we’ve seen with the NFL, that trumps everything.

    Look for a ruling in favor of the Mets.

  18. byjiminy - Jan 25, 2013 at 11:25 AM

    The spirit of the rule doesn’t support the Mets, either. The point of exempting the top 10 picks, at least in part, if not entirely, is that they are too valuable to have to forfeit.

    The rule doesn’t exempt the “ten worst teams.” If that was the point, the rules would have said that. The rule exempts the top ten picks.

    It’s like trading a “lottery-protected” draft pick in the NBA. You get our 2014 pick, unless it’s in the top 8. No one cares how your team did; it might not even be your own pick. All that matters is how much it’s worth. If it’s top 8, everyone agrees it’s too much to sacrifice for your newly acquired player.

    The Mets did not get any better or worse when the Pirates didn’t sign Appel, but their pick got less valuable. It’s no longer one of the top ten. So it’s not exempted.

    If you give the Mets an out here, should the 9th worst team in the NBA get to participate in the draft lottery, because they were really the 8th worst team, and got passed in the standings only because of injuries?

    If I wait in line for tickets to Shakespeare in the Park, or Justin Bieber, and they sell out one before me in line, should I get tickets anyway, because I got stuck in traffic on the way there?

    No one likes to miss the cut-off by one spot. But someone always has to, no matter where it falls.

    Of course the cost of a high pick suppresses the free agent market. That’s the whole point. The union wants an open market, the owners want a restricted market, and that’s where they compromised.

    I think it’s unfair, because it restricts the market for some players more than others. What should happen, IMO, is the team that loses a player gains a draft pick, but it doesn’t come from the team that signs him. They should all be newly created supplemental picks, like the Pirates got for Appel.

    Right now, the situation is especially unfair, because if you sign one free agent, your second signing is only a 2nd pick. Which is totally unfair to the team that loses the player! You get a #1 pick if he signs with one team, and a #3 if he signs with another?

    If Boras worked out a deal where Bourn signed with a team that had already lost its #1, and then traded him to his real destination, it would serve everyone right.

  19. hisgirlgotburrelled - Jan 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM

    In 2008 the Nationals failed to sign #9 pick Aaron Crow. In 2009 they were awarded the #10 pick.It happened in 2011 with 3 teams, the Diamondbacks, Brewers, and Padres.

    This is not the first time a protected pick became unprotected because a team failed to sign their 1st round pick from the year before. I can see if they make a change in the future to the worst 10 teams having their first round pick protected regardless of selection number. But that’s not in the CBA, so until it is the Mets lose their #11 pick if they sign Bourn.

  20. gbar22 - Jan 25, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    This compensation rule is honestly a pretty dumb rule and I have no idea why mlbpa ever accepted it to begin with after all look what it has done to a bunch of good players. Kyle lohse not even getting a sniff? Ridiculous. I don’t understand why a team should be compensated for not wanting to sign their own free agent

  21. chaseutley - Jan 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    Have the Mets paid back the $25 million that they borrowed from the league yet?

    • thebadguyswon - Jan 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM

      Yes, they did.

  22. mottershead1972 - Jan 25, 2013 at 2:49 PM

    Who are you f-Ing people? The guy writes a story about how the mets shouldn’t be able to break the rules and you go on the attack. Get a life and STFU!

  23. billb09 - Jan 25, 2013 at 5:21 PM

    Simply….. You’re an ass. Then teams that don’t sign players because they horde their money should lose their pick and never be compensated…..hmmm the Braves and the rest of the league would have to star paying draft picks.
    New York haters….

  24. macjacmccoy - Jan 26, 2013 at 2:07 AM

    BS. Yea your against allowing the Mets to keep their pick bc its not in the CBA and not bc it would keep the Braves from getting it. Anyone who believes is dumber then you for thinking you could pull it off. I also want the Flyers to not have to give Montreal any draft picks if they sign restricted free agent PK Subban not because it would save the Flyers multiple 1st rounders but because its the best thing for Subban money wise. Anyone believe me?

  25. macjacmccoy - Jan 26, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    Well Craig and his defenders if you/he is so unbiased then where is the article questioning if the Braves have gotten any better like the one after the Mariners trade? Because WAR and fWar would say that the Braves would be better off in 2013 with Chipper Jones, Martin Prado, and Michael Bourn over BJ Upton, Justin Upton, and Chris Johnson. But Im sure there’s a reasonable explanation for it because when it comes to the Braves Craig is never bias.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Ramirez (2390)
  2. G. Stanton (2343)
  3. G. Springer (2327)
  4. C. Correa (2312)
  5. J. Baez (2290)