Skip to content

The Mets have “zero interest” in Michael Bourn if it means losing the draft pick

Jan 26, 2013, 11:20 AM EDT

michael bourn getty Getty Images

Richard Justice of MLB.com reports that, unless the Mets are allowed to hold on to their otherwise unprotected 11th pick in the draft, they have “zero interest” in signing Michael Bourn. In addition, Justice makes two good points:

1. Why in the heck would a team in the Mets position want to pay for Bourn anyway; and

2. He details how the new compensation system came about that has the Mets in the current situation they’re in.

As for the first one hey, it’s the Mets’ money so who cares. Bourn would improve them, but probably wouldn’t be worth his contract come the time that they’re legitimately competitive.

The second point is more interesting, inasmuch as the whole idea of qualifying offers and compensation was approved by the players as part of a larger mechanism in which teams were limited in how much money they could spend on the draft. The players freely went along with the plan that, in effect, screws amateur players.  Not that’s biting some of them in the butt.

  1. chill1184 - Jan 26, 2013 at 11:29 AM

    Even if the pick was protected I still wouldn’t want him. He’s 30 and CF who’s main strength is speed. Speed is one of the first things on the decline when a player hits the big 3-0. There is no guarantee that Alderson would give him the type of contract that Bourn is currently looking for in addition from what I’ve read this years upcoming draft is supposed to be pretty damm deep. Its not worth sacrificing the pick (while your division rival gets a sandwich pick) and killing your draft pool money.

    • Ben - Jan 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

      Never mind that the research says speedy players age better. Let’s not let facts get in the way of a good rant, shall we? http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/does_speed_age_better/

      • jl9830 - Jan 26, 2013 at 2:54 PM

        Not facts; one person’s study. It’s a pattern. Common sense dictates that speed goes away as people age. It makes no sense for the Mets to sign a 30-year old OF who has zero power in his prime and relies on speed for his great defense and base-running, which makes up his value. As he gets older, he will get slower. He already had 19 less SB last season than in 2011. No thanks.

      • paperlions - Jan 26, 2013 at 3:54 PM

        Faster player tend to be more athletic players and the more athletic the player the better he ages. It is actually a fact. It doesn’t matter if only one person performs the study using the best available information.

        A lot of things slip as people age, eye sight, hand-eye coordination, and muscle explosive power of all muscles (not just those for running), which also affects bat speed. In any case, given equivalent health, better athletes will age better as baseball players. That doesn’t change the fact that this would still be a strange signing for the Mets.

      • weaselpuppy - Jan 26, 2013 at 4:05 PM

        this same study argues that Carl Crawford’s contract will be borne out as a fantastc one….

        The little waterbug guys that rely only on speed and not any power tend to stop being effective starters around age 29-32…many stick around for years, but are never the same guy….Willie Wilson, Kenny Lofton, that kind of guy..or they just disappear, like Vince Coleman, Omar Moreno, Brian Hunter etc. The guys with a little more power tend to age better, but still lose most of their SB value by age 30-31. Ricky is the one guy who stayed a 40+ Sb threat into his mid 30s….

  2. dondada10 - Jan 26, 2013 at 11:34 AM

    Captain Kirk and Michael Den Dekker it is.

  3. gpatrick15 - Jan 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM

    The Mets should have “zero interest” in Michael Bourne anyway. His skill set, to me, is more useful in a complementary capacity. He’s fast, and can get on base. Who do the Mets have that could consistently bring him in, other than David Wright? Bournes skills are more useful as a complementary piece on a contender, rather than a centerpiece on a noncontender. He did well with the Astros, but the team remained dreadful. If I’m the Mets, I’d walk away.

    • thebadguyswon - Jan 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

      Agreed. He’s not worth it.

    • wickedmrnightshade - Jan 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM

      The Mets had the second worst outfield in baseball. It’s only gotten worse with the losses of Andres Torres and Scott Hairston and next year’s free agent class for OF is awful. They aren’t contending until they actually get legitimate starting outfielders and you have to start somewhere.

      He’s not the savior but passing on him (if they don’t have to give up draft pick) just because he isn’t Carlos Beltran would be idiotic.

  4. cackalackyank - Jan 26, 2013 at 12:55 PM

    They are doing you a favor, Sandy. You want that pick if you are serious about rebuilding. Bourn is not the answer.

  5. bigwayne75 - Jan 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

    Sandy Alderson is talking about adding a legit outfielder but don’t want to give up anything, this is what pisses me off about this team, they are cheap. In order to be good you have to make some sacrifices and they aren’t willing to do it. The Wilpons make the Dodgers owners from a few years ago look like Hall Of Fame owners. This team won’t be good until they are willing to make sacrifices and the Wilpons and Alderson aren’t willing to do that. I wish we (Mets fans) could vote these guys out of their positions. Bud Selig, please take this team away from the Wilpons.

  6. paperlions - Jan 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM

    If there was ever a year to lose the pick, it would be this one. By all accounts, the talent at the top of this draft is even worse than last year…..and last year was considered a down year.

  7. macjacmccoy - Jan 26, 2013 at 4:06 PM

    Again… 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.

  8. byjiminy - Jan 26, 2013 at 4:34 PM

    The Mets had no intention of spending that kind of money. This is just trying to shift the blame to someone else: “We were going to sign some really players, but someone else stopped us, you should be mad at them, not us.” Anyone who believes that is an idiot. No offense to any idiots out there, but come on. This is the Mets. If they got the exemption, they still wouldn’t have agreed to a contract. Their interest depends on the market dropping so much that he’d become a good deal. Nice fantasy, but that just doesn’t happen.

  9. eohlson - Jan 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM

    The only way I sign Bourn is 3 years, max.
    12M per. He’s 30, he’s in his prime with no
    injury history. You guys are splitting hairs.
    You’re looking for reasons not to sign him.
    They need some kind of outfield right now
    and CF is a good place to start.

  10. wickedmrnightshade - Jan 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM

    There is nothing that baffles me more than the argument that the Mets should just wait to add significant talent “until they’re ready to contend.” It was made for Justin Upton and it’s being made for Michael Bourn.

    Newsflash: the outfield is the biggest thing holding them back from competing by far. The rotation (Santana/Niese/Marcum/Harvey/Gee) is very good on paper and the infield (Wright/Tejada/Murphy/Davis) is solid. Yeah the bullpen is a problem, but the outfield is so much worse. 29th in fWAR last year, a wRAA of -11.3, and a wOBA of .309. Any upgrade it might have gotten by ridding themselves of Jason Bay are outweighed by the fact that it subtracted 3.7 fWAR with the losses of Andres Torres and Scott Hairston (the latter being by far the best hitter in Mets outfield last year).

    Considering that next year’s free agent class is littered with future grossly overpaid CFs (Granderson, Ellsbury) and rightfielders who shouldn’t be playing the outfield (Shin Soo Choo, Corey Hart, Carlos Beltran), and considering the fact that there are zero legitimate starting outfielders on the current roster or close in the minors (Nimmo is years away), it makes no sense to say “oh, this player isn’t EXACTLY the player I want to give up value for, no thanks.” The Mets just gave David Wright a $140 million extension with the idea that they’d be competing in 2014/2015 and they’re not going to do that with this current outfield.

  11. offthelows - Jan 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM

    The 2 teams that would want Bourn’s services right now don’t want to give up the draft pick, Mets and Mariners.. It would have been better for the players to demand the qualifying offer players would require the team obtaining his rights to surrender their #2 pick, or make the entire 1st round protected instead of the top 10. The 10 cutoff doesn’t make a lot of sense to the #11 and #12 teams, who end up with losing records and are out of the playoffs

  12. poouull - Jan 27, 2013 at 7:05 PM

    Alderson is shrewd. Get Boras to help them protect the pick first, then either sign Bourn to their length and amount or sign someone else. No sweat.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Harper vs. Trout? It's just the opening act
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. I. Davis (3793)
  2. M. Machado (2545)
  3. M. Minor (2530)
  4. D. Robertson (2497)
  5. K. Farnsworth (2482)
  1. M. Cuddyer (2412)
  2. G. Springer (2380)
  3. C. Kershaw (2224)
  4. J. Mejia (2213)
  5. C. Gonzalez (2201)