Master Index of Archived Threads


The Bourn Compensation

Edgy MD Jan 23 2013 10:09 PM

When does a set of 10 contain 11? Mets are curious about Michael Bourn. Getting Michael Bourn means a signing team has to forfeit its first-round pick. That is, unless that first-round pick is in the top ten, then the signing team forfeits its second-round pick The Mets pick is in the top ten. But wait, the Pirates, by failing to sign their top ten pick in 2012, are awarded a pick in the same position in 2013. That knocks the Mets #10 pick to #11. But why should that pick be suddenly exposed because the Pirates, through no fault (or grace) of the Mets, got to jump in line? Sounds like a defensible position for the Mets to argue, whether or not it turns out to be a fruitful one.

bmfc1 Jan 24 2013 03:57 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Edgy MD wrote: why should that pick be suddenly exposed (say the Mets) because the Pirates through no fault (or grace) of the Mets, got to jump in line? The rule is intended to protect the ten worst teams, so yes the Mets pick should remain protected. The Mets didn't improve because the Pirates couldn't sign their #1 pick and shouldn't be penalized. This is the perfect opportunity for Fred's BFF Bud to interpret the rule "in the best interests of baseball" and keep the pick protected. Also, where's the harm? The Union won't object because it increases competition for a FA? Boras won't object. The only parties that will object are those hoping to get Bourn for even less than the Mets might pay. a Club shall not be required to forfeit a selection in the top ten of the first round of the Rule 4 Draft, and its highest available selection shall be deemed its first selection following the tenth selection of the first round.— MLB Basic Agreement, Article XX, B. (4)(c)i., p. 89 http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf I think that the in the intent of the rule would be served by adding "as determined by the ten lowest win totals in the preceding season" to the end of this clause.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2013 06:28 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Well, the Braves might object. They probably would not like to see the general agreement re-written to retroactively address a case they have a stake in. If the Mets get Bourn and get their way, I imagine it will be based on a sympathetic reading of the rule as its written, rather than a rewrite. Who gets to make that ruling, whether it's the commissioner or some other person or body, I'm not sure.

MFS62 Jan 24 2013 08:26 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

bmfc1 wrote: why should that pick be suddenly exposed (say the Mets) because the Pirates through no fault (or grace) of the Mets, got to jump in line? The rule is intended to protect the ten worst teams, so yes the Mets pick should remain protected. The Mets didn't improve because the Pirates couldn't sign their #1 pick and shouldn't be penalized. This is the perfect opportunity for Fred's BFF Bud to interpret the rule "in the best interests of baseball" and keep the pick protected. Also, where's the harm? The Union won't object because it increases competition for a FA? Boras won't object. The only parties that will object are those hoping to get Bourn for even less than the Mets might pay. a Club shall not be required to forfeit a selection in the top ten of the first round of the Rule 4 Draft, and its highest available selection shall be deemed its first selection following the tenth selection of the first round.— MLB Basic Agreement, Article XX, B. (4)(c)i., p. 89 http://mlb.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf I think that the in the intent of the rule would be served by adding "as determined by the ten lowest win totals in the preceding season" to the end of this clause. Don't get hung up by thinking logically. Somehow, the Mets will get screwed. And that's why I'd rather get a power hitter for right, keep Duda in left, and get a freakin' motorcycle for whomever plays center between, them rather than overpay for Bourne and lose a draft pick. Later

Benjamin Grimm Jan 24 2013 08:28 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

The way I look at it, is Bourn somebody for whom we'd be willing to trade a draft pick? If the Mets are expecting to contend (and I hope they are) during the term of his contract, then the answer to that may very well be yes.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2013 08:30 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I'm not sure who the "power hitter for right" is, but if he is a free agent, and generally as good as Bourn, then the issue remains.

bmfc1 Jan 24 2013 08:32 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

MFS62 wrote: Don't get hung up by thinking logically. Somehow, the Mets will get screwed. There's the law and there's real-life. MFS62 brings the reality.

TransMonk Jan 24 2013 08:53 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The way I look at it, is Bourn somebody for whom we'd be willing to trade a draft pick? If the Mets are expecting to contend (and I hope they are) during the term of his contract, then the answer to that may very well be yes. I agree with this logic...but I'm not sure of Bourn's worth. And while the logic of the Mets pick getting bumped doesn't mean they were any better than 10th worst is perfectly sound, I doubt that MLB budges.

MFS62 Jan 24 2013 09:31 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

If the "righty with power" can't be found for right, then I'd prefer they try to make a deal for someone like a Carlos Gomez, who has centerfield defense comparable to a Bourne, hits righty, and has more power, rather than losing a first round pick for MB. Then, the need for a hitter for right wouldn't be as critical - they could move Kirk to right. Later

seawolf17 Jan 24 2013 09:37 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I don't know that Bourn's the answer, really, not at the money he's going to command. He's a good player, but not a cornerstone player, not considering he's only going to get slower. I'd be very against signing him.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 24 2013 10:08 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I think I'd be okay with three years. Maybe four. (We have to keep in mind, though, that Jason Bay's four-year contract was way too long. Four years too long!) A four-year deal would still end before Bourn's 35th birthday. Anything less than three years probably isn't worth giving up the draft pick. And anything over four is too risky. My guess is that this won't happen, but the longer Bourn goes unsigned, the more likely it becomes.

Frayed Knot Jan 24 2013 10:24 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

TransMonk wrote: And while the logic of the Mets pick getting bumped doesn't mean they were any better than 10th worst is perfectly sound, I doubt that MLB budges. I don't think "budging" is the issue here. I'm sure this contingency was nailed down during the CBA which created the new compensation rules (that's why they pay all those lawyers). Either it was written to protect the first ten picks regardless of whether they are "earned" in the previous season or leftover from last year, or they are intended for worst ten 2012 records only meaning that the Mets pick is protected. I'm pretty sure the answer is the former rather than the latter but, either way, I highly doubt it's something MLB has to rule on here.

Vic Sage Jan 24 2013 10:45 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

i can't believe they're even considering this. Bourn has a career OPS around .700 and an OPS+ of 90. In the 5 years since becoming a starter in 2008, he's put up the following OPS+: 57 / 97 / 89 / 103 / 99. That was his prime, folks -- age 25-29. Boras is now looking to get him a 6yr/$100m contract; but even if he goes for 3yr/$45m, he's not worth it. He's a good glove/speed guy with no power, a mediocre OB%, and an average of 50bb/125k as a leadoff hitter, who is now moving into his 30s. Sure, a 50sb/GG CFer ain't nothing, but with that kind of "peak production", i don't want to be on the hook for his decline. Maybe if it didn't cost us the #11 pick, and if the deal didn't last longer than 3 guaranteed years or so, and if the pricetag didn't cripple the budget and hamstring Sandy's ability to make adjustments during the season and in upcoming years, then sure. fine. But right now it does, it will and it likely would. so no thanks.

TransMonk Jan 24 2013 10:50 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Frayed Knot wrote: And while the logic of the Mets pick getting bumped doesn't mean they were any better than 10th worst is perfectly sound, I doubt that MLB budges. I don't think "budging" is the issue here. I'm sure this contingency was nailed down during the CBA which created the new compensation rules (that's why they pay all those lawyers). Either it was written to protect the first ten picks regardless of whether they are "earned" in the previous season or leftover from last year, or they are intended for worst ten 2012 records only meaning that the Mets pick is protected. I'm pretty sure the answer is the former rather than the latter but, either way, I highly doubt it's something MLB has to rule on here. I agree...but they are "arguing" anyhow. I'm not sure to who and to what end...but that's why I used the word "budge". http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/p ... pick-issue.

Vic Sage Jan 24 2013 11:05 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Where there are lawyers, there are arguments being made about how rules are interpreted (rarely are they as self-evident as you would think). That's what we do. And often, statutory interpretation is based on an examination of the purpose of the rule. Here, the purpose was to allow the ten worst teams to pursue FAs without penalty, to allow them an advantage to improve themselves. I can see MLB agreeing to this "interpretation" and giving the Mets a waiver from strict construction of the rule, even over the objections of some owners. But since this is not a dispute between the League and the Player's Assn (who would have NO problem extending a waiver to the mets, and the other 20 teams as well), and would just be an internal dispute among owners, i'm not sure what the mechanism is by which such a "waiver" would be granted. Perhaps Commissioner Selig (good friend of the Wilpons) can just pronounce it (like an executive order) with his broad "best interests of bb" powers bestowed on him by the owners.

bmfc1 Jan 24 2013 11:09 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

2 out of 2 lawyers at the CPF concur. Now do it, Bud.

Vic Sage Jan 24 2013 11:12 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

lets get CF in on this; he's a lawyer, too.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2013 11:32 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I imagine the Mets' offer wouldn't amount even to 3x15. More like 3x10, or 3x10 plus option. Or maybe with some creative escalation. It's a little ate in the season for Boras to be shopping for six-year deals, and surely most suitors are similarly approaching with eyes wide open to concerns about getting locked too deeply into Bourn's inconsistency.

Centerfield Jan 24 2013 01:07 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Vic Sage wrote: lets get CF in on this; he's a lawyer, too. CF thinks that Bourn sucks and that this move makes no sense. Oh, the rule? Right. Anyone looking at the intent behind it should agree that the Mets pick should be protected. But the rule is pretty clear that it is the first ten picks. I have no idea if the powers that be have the authority to massage it, or whether they have to stick with what is written until the next CBA. And if Bud were really looking to screw the Mets, he would waive the compensation and allow the Mets to sign Bourn to a 4 year, 60 million deal.

smg58 Jan 24 2013 01:29 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Bourn is the best defensive outfielder in baseball right now, which makes him quite a bit more valuable than most people realize. (Bill James has him in the top 10 among all players for total runs last year.) The catch is that he just turned 30, and players whose game depends a lot on speed tend to decline sooner and faster than, say, power hitters. Losing the draft pick would hurt, but a team-friendly contract would lessen the blow of that. I think he'd be a bargain at 3 and 30.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2013 01:31 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

It's worth noting that, as imperfect a package as he may be, the team needs defenders.

Ceetar Jan 24 2013 01:39 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

smg58 wrote: and players whose game depends a lot on speed tend to decline sooner and faster than, say, power hitters. maybe not. [url]http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/does_speed_age_better/ He's a good defender, but the best? I dunno, I'm extremely skeptical of defensive numbers, particularly to an absolute like that. UZR/150 had him negative just back in 2011. (Could be a quirk of him switching teams?) He's also a plus baserunner. I guess this plays in more valuably in a Lucas Duda outfield, but I still don't really like him. I'm thinking this is Carlos Beltran's fault though. You don't generally have hitters like that in CF I guess. Pagan was good in that regard too.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2013 01:54 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I think the advantage that speed guys may hold is that, as they come into their old guy skills, their legs may deteriorate, but everybody's legs deterioration, but their legs having started at the high end of the curve, won't deteriorate as much so as to take them off the field. Mookie was one guy whose legs were still weaponized in this 30s.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 24 2013 02:21 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Ken Rosenthal wrote: Source: Union would support #Mets if team asked MLB to allow it to forfeit 2nd-round pick instead of 1st for signing Michael Bourn.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2013 02:35 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Brian Costa wrote: MLB spokesman: "Our understanding of the basic agreement is that the Mets would lose the No. 11 draft pick." (if they sign Bourn)

Gwreck Jan 24 2013 02:45 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

David Schoenfield agrees that we should avoid Bourn unless he's really cheap.

dinosaur jesus Jan 24 2013 03:55 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Yes, let's only get good players if they don't cost anything. There've got to be a lot of guys like that, right? The thing is, if you want players who are good right now--players you know are pretty good, not ones you might be good, if you're lucky--you have to be willing to overpay. That's how free agency works. I don't know if the Mets are a serious contender for Bourn--he seems like the kind of player who can help a good team, but won't do much for a bad one. But what the hell. The guy can play. Don't we want some guys who can play?

TransMonk Jan 24 2013 05:07 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

dinosaur jesus wrote: ...he seems like the kind of player who can help a good team, but won't do much for a bad one... This.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 24 2013 08:12 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I don't believe the Mets are any hotter for Bourn today then when they started the offseason, necessarily; it's a matter the merry-go-round bringing Bourn their way, seems like. And I wouldn't think they do anything stupid in their pursuit.

Nymr83 Jan 24 2013 08:24 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I think a GG centerfielder with a 90 OPS+ is useful... but not worth losing a 1st round draft pick for or signing to a long term deal. if he wants 2 years, maybe 3, and the mets win the fight on the pick, thats awesome. if not, keep looking. as for the rule the leter seems clearly against the Mets while the intent seems in their favor. i'm too lazy to look this up but does the CBA have an official clause regarding its interpretation?

Ashie62 Jan 24 2013 08:50 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Fuck David Schoenfeld..who the hell is he? Mets can't afford Bourn anyway..

Ashie62 Jan 24 2013 08:54 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Lets wait for Brandon Nimmo

Edgy MD Jan 24 2013 09:25 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Bourn v. Nimmo is pretty far from an either/or question.

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2013 11:13 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Back to the original question in this thread: there doesn't appear to be much if any ambiguity in the wording in the CBA. A Club that signs one Qualified Free Agent who is subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest available selection in the next Rule 4 Draft. A Club that signs more than one Qualified Free Agent subject to compensation shall forfeit its highest remaining selection in the next Rule 4 Draft for each additional Qualified Free Agent it signs. Notwithstanding the above, a Club shall not be required to forfeit a selection in the top ten of the first round of the Rule 4 Draft, and its highest available selection shall be deemed its first selection following the tenth selection of the first round.” Note that it doesn't exempt picks based on how that top-10 pick was obtained (via the previous year's record or via failure to sign a player in the previous draft) even though the compensation rules for prior draft set-ups DID note that distinction. So the remaining argument seems to be not what the rules say -- they say the Mets WILL have to forfeit pick #11 if they want to sign Bourn -- but whether this change was actually the intent of the powers at be when they made them. It would seem odd, in my mind, to rule in the Mets' favor here simply because they don't like where they wound up and they suddenly think Bourn might be at an attractive price (after all, they weren't screaming about being screwed in November when many thought his price would be much higher/longer). The thing they do have going for them really is that there wouldn't really be any losers if MLB does allow the change. Under the new rules (which clearly WERE intentional) Atlanta no longer gets the specific pick of the team that signs him, they get awarded a compensation "sandwich" pick regardless of who signs him. The Met pick simply "disappears" (and their budget adjusted accordingly) if/when they sign Bourn; the only question remains whether it'll be pick #11 or their 2nd round choice. Other teams will benefit slightly if things remain as they are and the Mets cough up the 11th pick because each of the slots after them will move up one slot: the 12th pick becomes the 11th, 13th becomes 12th, etc. The same chain reaction would happen if they win this appeal and have to forfeit their 2nd round pick instead although the jump from say 55 to 54 is not quite as dramatic as 15 to 14 so there could be some teams that would fight against this - notably those with picks in the teens. On the other hand maybe some of them will find themselves in the same situation in a year or two and, if nothing else, a decision here would clear up the question for future drafts. Also the MLBPA is supporting the Mets in this seeing as how it'll bring one more team into the pool for Bourn and, in effect, reduce the drag on his signing.

Edgy MD Jan 28 2013 11:19 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Bourn, of course, loses in a ruling against the Mets. Not that anybody deciding is necessarily going to consider his concerns.

Frayed Knot Jan 28 2013 11:23 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Well, the player's association is and they are lending a voice to this.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 28 2013 12:20 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Yeah, but that's just another voice going, "HEY! You can't do this because... just, because!"

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2013 06:49 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yeah, but that's just another voice going, "HEY! You can't do this because... just, because!" Sure, but one thought is that if the players want it ('It' meaning the rules interpreted to protect the worst 10 teams not the first 10 picks), the Mets want it, and the majority of other teams at least don't strongly object to it then baseball could see this as a win-win-win situation and change the wording both for this season and the future before it actually affects anyone. But this is all getting ahead of ourselves here. Both Joel Sherman and Baseball America used the term "long-shot" in the last 24 hours to describe a Bourn-to-Mets scenario. The Mets certainly won't go after him until this draft pick question is resolved and won't do it at all if it's not resolved in their favor; IOW, if it involves a draft pick they aren't signing him. And even if everything falls into place there are still those minor details of money and years coupled with a big heaping pile of Boras on the side. The Mets reportedly want to top out at three years while Boras, not surprisingly, insists that there are five years deals to be had even as ST is just around the corner. Sherman brings up the Boras favorite of the 'opt-out' deal where Bourn could sign for three with an escape clause after one, so if he plays poorly he has the comfort of a guaranteed deal, or he gets to bail and do this FA thing all over again next year if he has a good 2013. I could see the Mets agreeing to that if the dollar numbers aren't crazy.

MFS62 Jan 29 2013 07:06 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Frayed Knot wrote: Sherman brings up the Boras favorite of the 'opt-out' deal where Bourn could sign for three with an escape clause after one, so if he plays poorly he has the comfort of a guaranteed deal, or he gets to bail and do this FA thing all over again next year if he has a good 2013. I could see the Mets agreeing to that if the dollar numbers aren't crazy. Why would they agree to that kind of deal? If he plays badly they're stuck with him? Weren't the long term contracts for unproductive players part of what got them into the current situation? Later

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2013 07:15 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

MFS62 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Sherman brings up the Boras favorite of the 'opt-out' deal where Bourn could sign for three with an escape clause after one, so if he plays poorly he has the comfort of a guaranteed deal, or he gets to bail and do this FA thing all over again next year if he has a good 2013. I could see the Mets agreeing to that if the dollar numbers aren't crazy. Why would they agree to that kind of deal? If he plays badly they're stuck with him? Weren't the long term contracts for unproductive players part of what got them into the current situation? The idea would be that a contract with an opt-out would be an enticement for the Bourn/Boras camp to accept a shorter term deal than what they want. The Mets aren't agreeing to a five-year contract no matter what clauses you throw in there, but a three-year under the right terms could be acceptable and if it takes an opt-out clause to get them there well then maybe they agree. If he sucks well then three years is easier to swallow than five and they'd still have a quick and defensively superior CF. If he's good then the worst that happens is that it was like he signed a one-year deal to fill the team's biggest hole and maybe they even get a future draft pick out of the whole thing.

MFS62 Jan 29 2013 07:59 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Frayed Knot wrote: The idea would be that a contract with an opt-out would be an enticement for the Bourn/Boras camp to accept a shorter term deal than what they want. The Mets aren't agreeing to a five-year contract no matter what clauses you throw in there, but a three-year under the right terms could be acceptable and if it takes an opt-out clause to get them there well then maybe they agree. If he sucks well then three years is easier to swallow than five and they'd still have a quick and defensively superior CF. If he's good then the worst that happens is that it was like he signed a one-year deal to fill the team's biggest hole and maybe they even get a future draft pick out of the whole thing. Makes sense when you explain it. I got nervous when I read the words "Boras favorite". Later

Edgy MD Jan 29 2013 08:07 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

It seems to me that, in the spirit of the thing, If the team with the 10th worst record in 2012 (the Mets) doesn't get their pick protected because Pittsburgh bumped them to the 11th pick based on not signing their top pick from 2011, the team with the 11th best pick (checking: it was Oakland) from 2011 should have had their pick protected, because theirs was, in practice, the 10th pick, Pittsburgh's pick being essentially nullified. But, of course, that pick could not be protected because there was no way of knowing at the time of the draft that Pittsburgh would fail to sign their man. Am I overthinking this? Yes, I am. And it hurts. Too much is made of Scott Boras. He's just a man.

Ceetar Jan 29 2013 08:18 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

It's interesting, you'd think protecting that pick would be against the spirit of the rule. The Pirates didn't finish with the 10 worst records. Look at the Blue Jays for example. 10th pick, protected, but likely to be MUCH better this year. Say they don't like the guys available to them this year, they could push the pick back, and take the 10th pick in a draft year when they finished closer to the top. And it's protected, so they could make the playoffs, be a great team, and still have a protected pick in next year's draft. I'd argue the 10 picks should be protected, but it should skip the Pirates pick. It should be the top 10 picks from 2013, not the carry over.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2013 08:23 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I'd argue, moreover that the draft is immoral, illegal, anti-competitive, and hurts the sport. And once you start making dubious rules of who has the exclusive "right" to an unwitting amateur's services, you will never stop twisting those rules into pretzels.

Ceetar Jan 29 2013 08:29 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Edgy MD wrote: I'd argue, moreover that the draft is immoral, illegal, anti-competitive, and hurts the sport. And once you start making dubious rules of who has the exclusive "right" to an unwitting amateur's services, you will never stop twisting those rules into pretzels. That of course, is irrelevant to this conversation.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2013 08:32 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Edgy MD wrote: Too much is made of Scott Boras. He's just a man. Yes. If he refuses to let his player sign for fewer than five years, and you only want to offer three, then you don't sign the guy. If nobody offers five, then he'll eventually have to settle for four. Or three. Or two.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2013 08:33 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

That of course, is irrelevant to this conversation. No, it is not. We're arguing about rights, are we not? Once you go down that path, you are led toward the inescapable conclusion that trying to continually unscramble the eggs for the sake of a manufactured fairness is impossible because the whole enterprise is built to be unfair.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2013 08:35 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Well, their only interest is to be fair to the teams. As you say, if they were looking to be fair to the players there wouldn't be a draft at all.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2013 08:45 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

nevermind

Edgy MD Jan 29 2013 08:49 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

You sure? It was your turn and all.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2013 08:53 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I was sorta responding to my misreading of Grimsters post. Plus it was something I said a million times here. You don;t need to hear it today. But whatever, I think Bourn might not be a bad thing to have, the way things look now.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2013 09:00 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Yeah, I certainly didn't let my redundancy of my pet issue keep me from cranking on it. Hats off to those who choose discretion. On the subject of Borneo. Hats of to Alderson for being cool in playing the waiting game. And if that means he occasionally walks away from the table without the bounty he wants, well then, it shows the world he's willing to do that, and sends a message to the guy across the table next time that he is willing to walk away. So if they want a deal, they better not think they can get him to roll over.

Frayed Knot Jan 29 2013 10:08 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Ceetar wrote: It's interesting, you'd think protecting that pick would be against the spirit of the rule. The Pirates didn't finish with the 10 worst records. Except that it's tough to argue that that was the spirit of the rule when the previous CBA (2007-2011) specifically exempted compensatory yet the wording specifically did NOT exempt those picks in this current one. It also doesn't help the Mets case that they apparently didn't bring this up in November but rather only recently once they saw Bourn in their sights. Plus where were they when the change in the ruling was being adopted? And even if they did object at the time they were out-voted.

Edgy MD Jan 29 2013 10:11 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Or the wording was the way it was because the law of unintended consequences. Nobody forsaw this. And the Mets didn't object earlier because it didn't occur to them to. Stupidity is common. Happens to me all the time.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 29 2013 12:51 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Speaking of unintended consequences, couldn't a successful appeal here also open the door to other arguments from other teams this particular issue doesn't directly impact? (EX: "We're meant to have the monetary allotment for the 13th-worst team; why should we get the allotment for the 15th-worst, just because teams X and Y couldn't sign their guys last year?")

Ashie62 Feb 04 2013 10:01 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Star Ledger giving Bourn to Mets some legs. [url]http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/mlb/384830/mets-in-ongoing-discussion-with-bourn

MFS62 Feb 05 2013 07:03 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Signing Bourn without the assurance they will not lose their first round pick reminds me of those police dramas in which the cops tell a perp that if he testifies against his cohorts, he MIGHT get a reduced sentence. Then when he tells all, they tell him it wasn't possible. Later

Ashie62 Feb 05 2013 08:52 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

They talk about the possibility of a one year "pillow contract" and argue that what the Mets could get by trading Bourn at the deadline, if need be, would likely beat the historical performance of the #11 picks selected since the draft began. Asin Sandy pulls off a Dickeyesque coup. For me... Bourn CF Murphy 2B Wright 3B Davis 1B Duda RF Nieuwenhuis LF Tejada SS Buck C

Benjamin Grimm Feb 05 2013 08:55 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

This is where the new rules are killing Bourn. In years past, he could always sign a one-year contract and then try free agency again the following year. But now, with the potential loss of a draft pick, that one-year deal is less attractive to may clubs. The Mets certainly aren't in a position to give up a draft pick for a one-year player; only a team that's very close to being a championship-level club should consider such a thing. The Mets would need at least two, probably three, years from Bourn to make it worthwhile. Maybe the pieces will fall into place; I read today that David Wright has initiated courtship rituals with Bourn, so who knows? If the contract isn't crippling, I'd be okay with losing the pick for three years of Bourn.

Ashie62 Feb 05 2013 10:39 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Bourn needs Texas to step up or I believe Bourn is Metly. They could sign him for three years keep him and lose one pick. Its not the end of the world..Bourn would be a very good ballplayer added to the lineup. I want to be optimistic about this...

metsguyinmichigan Feb 05 2013 12:08 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Heck, if the team plays well this year, next year's draft pick won't be worth squat. Who wants the No. 30 draft pick? (Optimism in full gear!)

Vic Sage Feb 05 2013 02:08 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

frankly, even a top pick is worth only marginally more than squat. From 1965 to 2008, only round 7% of the Mets 1st round picks have ended up "stars" (MATLACK, STRAWBERRY, GOODEN, WRIGHT), with maybe IKE DAVIS eventually getting into that group. Another 10% had a decent major league career (Burnitz, Jeffries, Brooks, Backman, Mazzilli, Kazmir), and there were a bunch more marginal guys (Foli, Leary, T.Long, Pr.Wilson, B.Jones, Shiraldi, Heilman, Humber, Pelfrey), while 30 of their 56 1st round picks either never ended up playing in the majors or played briefly with a negative WAR. We'll still have to wait and see on the more recent picks, but historically, the draft has not exactly been a gold rush for the Mets, and the difference between a 1st and 2nd round pick really shouldn't stop us from signing Bourn, if Sandy is of a mind to, and if he comes at a bargain price that we can lock up for 3 years.

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2013 02:12 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This is where the new rules are killing Bourn. In years past, he could always sign a one-year contract and then try free agency again the following year. But now, with the potential loss of a draft pick, that one-year deal is less attractive to may clubs. Well in the past guys like Bourn still still required compensation under the right circumstances. The rules set out in this most recent CBA actually toned down the number of players who are subject to compensation (restricting it to only the handful of "best" FAs that year) and maybe that's part of why Bourn (and Kyle Lohse) are still on the market at this late date: the relative scarcity of players whose signing means ceding a draft pick makes them stand out more than before. Only about six to eight players this year were subject to this version of the rule; in earlier seasons it was often double and triple that amount. Signing Bourn without the assurance they will not lose their first round pick reminds me of those police dramas in which the cops tell a perp that if he testifies against his cohorts, he MIGHT get a reduced sentence. Then when he tells all, they tell him it wasn't possible. That's why the Mets want to get a ruling on this "loophole" first before going ahead - but I don't think that's going to happen.

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2013 02:15 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Vic Sage wrote: ... the difference between a 1st and 2nd round pick really shouldn't stop us from signing Bourn The difference between #11 and maybe #60-ish should be significant enough to at least enter into the decision making process.

Vic Sage Feb 05 2013 02:24 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

absolutely, its a factor. But it shouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor. I just think people put entirely too much value on draft picks in baseball; they're way less reliable than they are in football or basketball, and having a first rounder means something, but not nearly as much as one might think. Based on the Mets' own results, they have about a 50/50 chance that their #1 pick never makes any kind of impact at all in the majors, and only about a 17% chance of getting a very good-to-star level player.

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2013 02:55 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Vic Sage wrote: absolutely, its a factor. But it shouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor. No, but among the factors - and I think what the Mets may be leaking is that the money it'll take to sign Bourn isn't worth the draft pick PLUS the money and PLUS the years considering the team ins't exactly in a one-player-away kind of situation and Bourn isn't exactly that guy. Of course it's also hard to know if that's the truth or not, it may just be posturing. The other thing that throws a wrench into the works here is that where you pick now determines how much money you have to sign all your picks for next year. The slots determine your total pool of money (go over and you pay either in lux tax and/or future picks) so while the newer lower amount should be commensurate with the new slots, the fact that there's not a cap ("suggested" or otherwise) on any one pick means that the lower overall amount does make it tougher to shift and/or spread out the money among the picks.

Edgy MD Feb 05 2013 02:57 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Let's check 1991-2000 for gigglez: [list]1991: #11 --- Shawn Estes (7.4 career WAR) #60 --- Chris Pritchett (-0.8) 1992: #11 --- Derek Wallace (0.0) #60 --- Ritchie Moody (0.0) 1993: #11 --- Daron Kirkreit (0.0) #60 --- Brad Fullmer (4.4) 1994: #11 --- Mark Farris (0.0) #60 --- Jerry Whittaker (0.0) 1995: #11 --- Mike Drumright (0.0) #60 --- Jeremy Blevins (0.0) 1996: #11 --- Adam Eaton (0.8) #60 --- Randi Mallard (0.0) 1997: #11 --- Chris Enochs (0.0) #60 --- Jose Nicolas (0.0) 1998: #11 --- Josh McKinley (0.0) #60 --- Jermaine Van Buren (-0.6) 1999: #11 --- Ryan Christianson (0.0) #60 --- Ryan Ludwick (10.7) 2000: #11 --- Dave Krynzel (0.2) #60 --- Freddie Bynum (-1.4)[/list:u] Wow! What a miserably un-meaningful data set I selected! But to the extent that it can be construed as meaningful, #60 wins, 12.3 WAR to 8.4! Congratulations to all Draft Position #60 supporters everywhere!

Ashie62 Feb 05 2013 04:35 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I'll take the proven over potential most all of the time....

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2013 05:08 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

That's some bad #11s there. Lately they've been better [Andrew McCutcheon 2005; Max Scherzer in 2006]* but still hardly a sure thing even if surer than #60s The problem here is that this could be the worst of possible worlds: a season which should have resulted in the 10th pick becomes the 11th through no fault of their own just as the number of protected picks drops from 15 to 10, meaning this would be the highest possible pick that has ever been lost through this process** and ever could be lost, all for a player that may cost a lot and may be no better than the difference between a 75 and 80 win season. So, sure, it's a gamble to bank on Mr. 11/2013 being a valuable player down the road but so is banking on Bourn being worth whatever contract he'll eventually get (here or elsewhere) and the downside to this could be enormous. * I wonder if better information these days means that draft picks as a rule are getting better? And by better I mean more predictable in that a higher pct of the future gems are being seen as such ahead of time and are less randomly distributed even though there'll always be a larger degree of randomness in the baseball draft as compared to others. ** One of the highest picks transfered in recent years under the recent rules (15 protected) was the #18 pick that the Braves ceded to the Mets for the final swan song season of Tom Glavine [13 starts, 2 wins, and a 5.54 ERA for a 4th place team] that resulted in Ike Davis being selected by the Mets.

Frayed Knot Feb 05 2013 06:27 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

btw, NYM 2nd round pick in June scheduled to be pick #48 overall, not #60 so that negates the downside slightly -- and even if Bourn & Lohse (the only two remaining guys who merit compensation) sign elsewhere that stays in the same spot since one pick will disappear for each one that is added so the later picks do not get pushed back any further from their current spot. ex: team with 20th pick overall signs Bourn -- that 20th pick goes away so each later pick moves UP one slot .... but then Atlanta picks up a compensatory pick after the 1st round (low 30s somewhere) so all the slots after that move right back to where they were. The teams with picks after #20 but before wherever the Bourn pick is added will benefit slightly in this example and will again if and when Lohse signs under similar circumstances.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 05 2013 08:13 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Frayed Knot wrote: Vic Sage wrote: absolutely, its a factor. But it shouldn't necessarily be the deciding factor. No, but among the factors - and I think what the Mets may be leaking is that the money it'll take to sign Bourn isn't worth the draft pick PLUS the money and PLUS the years considering the team ins't exactly in a one-player-away kind of situation and Bourn isn't exactly that guy. Of course it's also hard to know if that's the truth or not, it may just be posturing. The other thing that throws a wrench into the works here is that where you pick now determines how much money you have to sign all your picks for next year. The slots determine your total pool of money (go over and you pay either in lux tax and/or future picks) so while the newer lower amount should be commensurate with the new slots, the fact that there's not a cap ("suggested" or otherwise) on any one pick means that the lower overall amount does make it tougher to shift and/or spread out the money among the picks. THIS. Like, A LOT. $2.5 million in budget goes away with the pick. If your first-rounder-- as Cecchini supposedly did-- signs for $250-500K under slot, that's a LOT more money you can throw at a high-potential collegebound/underclassman second- or later-rounder who slips. Add that to the risk of giving a high-BABIP, ALL-speed-value guy entering his thirties a multiyear deal, and... I just have serious misgivings.

Vic Sage Feb 05 2013 09:05 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

i'm not advocating they sign Bourn. I'm just not sold that the reason not to do so is or should be the pick, in and of itself.

Edgy MD Feb 05 2013 10:53 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Damn that hateful draft.

Frayed Knot Feb 06 2013 06:42 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

In a statement that could be written just about every winter only with interchangeable players and team names, Joel Sherman writes today that; "The Mets and Scott Boras are engaged in a game of chicken. The powerful agent is saying he has attractive offers elsewhere for Michael Bourn. The Mets are essentially challenging him to prove those offers exist by remaining relatively inflexible in what they are willing to spend on the fleet center fielder." He goes on to mention the times when the Mets played and lost this game in earlier years, like when Boras really did have a four-year deal for Derek Lowe (Braves) when the Mets were holding for three, or when St Louis was revealed to be the "mystery team" who really would give Matt Holliday a six-year deal. Boras is again claiming he has better offers than the three the Mets are willing to go. The first difference here is that it's already February. The other is that Sandy is looking to Bourn as the only option; in those other two examples the Mets missing out on targets Lowe (a good thing as it turned out) and Holliday (not so good) meant even worse Plan B's of Ollie Perez & Jason Bay. This looks to be a case of Bourn or the kiddie korps.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 06 2013 07:09 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

The key difference here is, Plan B doesn't involve a multiyear, double-digit-millions risk.

Edgy MD Feb 06 2013 07:25 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I didn't think the Mets ever seriously discussed Holliday, but rather set their sights on Bay pretty early. And in the case of St. Louis, the "mystery" team was the team Holliday had already been traded to the previous winter, so I don't really think that case fits his narrative. I'm not even sure I remember the Mets seriously pursuing Derek Lowe.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 06 2013 08:35 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

From Metsblog: "But according to Sherman, Bourn’s agent, Scott Boras, claims he has better offers at his disposal. However, Sherman suggests the Mets could have the largest offer out to Bourn, and Boras could be trying to get more out of them by intimating he has a market for Bourn." I believe nothing -- NOTHING -- Scott Boras leaks in these situations.

TheOldMole Feb 06 2013 08:44 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

And it's not really Boras's job to leak the truth - his job is to leak what will benefit his client. But surely the Mets have better sources than what Boras leaks to the press.

Ceetar Feb 06 2013 08:47 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Boras used the word 'attractive' I read that as "Hey, the Mets suck, you should pay him MORE to play for you"

Edgy MD Feb 06 2013 08:49 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

If that line of reasoning gets a player two more dollars, I'm sure it's not beneath an agent to push it. I'm sure many have.

Ceetar Feb 06 2013 08:54 AM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Edgy MD wrote: If that line of reasoning gets a player two more dollars, I'm sure it's not beneath an agent to push it. I'm sure many have. Certainly not. I don't begrudge Boras saying whatever he wants. He's certainly good at his job. Just clarifying the phrasing. I tend to agree the Mets probably won't be pulled into a game of chicken. They've been perfectly clear about their intentions to probably not sign Bourn all offseason, and we're getting REALLY close to Spring Training now. I don't see how Boras has much leverage here and suspect he'll either take said attractive offer if it really exists, or cave and it'll basically be a done deal with the Mets in another day or two.

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2013 04:17 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Bourn dollars being thrown around in the press (various sources including Cerrone at 'Mets Blog' - Mets are thought to be thinking about ~ 3yrs @ $40 - Bourn/Boras are said to want more like 4/$60 but the Mets don't want to bid against themselves and aren't convinced that there'll be a better offer out there so, for now at least, are willing to play the waiting game. Then on the compensation front, the issue is likely to be decided by an arbitrator AFTER a signing would take place (IF it takes place of course) and "there are reports that negotiations with the MLBPA would result in New York's first-round pick being protected." (MLB Daily Dish)

Benjamin Grimm Feb 09 2013 06:15 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I think that sticking with 3 years, $40 million is a wise play. If he gets away to another team, so be it.

smg58 Feb 09 2013 06:20 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

I agree, provided plan B isn't to go north with the outfield we currently have.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 09 2013 06:59 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

The other options are named Abreu, Damon, Podsednik, and Sizemore. Provided each of them requires a guaranteed major-league contract, which one IS your backup plan? Honestly, I think I'd rather have The Outfield Of A Thousand Faces than guarantee any of those a starting spot. (Though I could go Sizemore, on a cheap enough pillow deal.)

Edgy MD Feb 09 2013 07:36 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

The backup plan may be a trade.

Ceetar Feb 09 2013 07:37 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The other options are named Abreu, Damon, Podsednik, and Sizemore. Provided each of them requires a guaranteed major-league contract, which one IS your backup plan? Honestly, I think I'd rather have The Outfield Of A Thousand Faces than guarantee any of those a starting spot. (Though I could go Sizemore, on a cheap enough pillow deal.) the only 'option' Sizemore provides is a on-field September trial to see if he's worth keeping in 2014.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 09 2013 08:04 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Ceetar wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: The other options are named Abreu, Damon, Podsednik, and Sizemore. Provided each of them requires a guaranteed major-league contract, which one IS your backup plan? Honestly, I think I'd rather have The Outfield Of A Thousand Faces than guarantee any of those a starting spot. (Though I could go Sizemore, on a cheap enough pillow deal.) the only 'option' Sizemore provides is a on-field September trial to see if he's worth keeping in 2014. Well, yeah-- I meant, a pay-you-to-rehab, 1-or-2-year-cheapo deal. He's out until at least midyear, yes?

Ceetar Feb 09 2013 08:15 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

yeah, something like that. He really only applies in discussion about the future and 2014 and what not.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 09 2013 08:37 PM Re: The Bourn Compensation

Edgy MD wrote: Let's check 1991-2000 for gigglez: [...] Wow! What a miserably un-meaningful data set I selected! But to the extent that it can be construed as meaningful, #60 wins, 12.3 WAR to 8.4! Congratulations to all Draft Position #60 supporters everywhere! These findings don't surprise me. I think I already posted what I'm about to write in an older thread, but I couldn't give a flying fuck about the amateur draft and the anticipation over it unless the Mets have one of the very top picks in a year where they have a chance at picking one of those precociously special phenoms that come along once or twice a decade. Like a Strawberry or a Griffey or an A-Rod or a Strasburg.