Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Post New Topic
  Page of 37  Next >

The Bourn Saga: What Camp Will He Report To?

Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 5:03 PM

The Bourn Saga: What Camp Will He Report To? 


Last edited 2/6/2013 9:43 AM by Walnutz15

Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 5:12 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


Good. And personally I hope they have tons of interest if it is protected.

Posted: 1/26/2013 5:33 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


By now, Selig should have made a statement that either he supports the Mets contention or he doesn't.  Its not rocket science.
Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 5:35 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


Why would MLB change their stance on pick protection if they haven't already?  This can't be the first case like this.  Perhaps under the new CBA, but top 15 picks were protected under the old CBA and teams that failed to sign their picks received compensation the exact same way under it as they do now.

Posted: 1/26/2013 5:51 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 



DocK16 wrote: Why would MLB change their stance on pick protection if they haven't already?  This can't be the first case like this.  Perhaps under the new CBA, but top 15 picks were protected under the old CBA and teams that failed to sign their picks received compensation the exact same way under it as they do now.
I think the failed to sign draft pick compensation is new, so I think this is the first case of this to arise.
Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 5:53 PM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


Thank goodness.

Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 6:09 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 



omnimetfan wrote:
DocK16 wrote: Why would MLB change their stance on pick protection if they haven't already?  This can't be the first case like this.  Perhaps under the new CBA, but top 15 picks were protected under the old CBA and teams that failed to sign their picks received compensation the exact same way under it as they do now.
I think the failed to sign draft pick compensation is new, so I think this is the first case of this to arise.

I don't think it is.  I'm positive the Nats received compensation resulting in the team selecting Drew Storen a few years ago.

Posted: 1/26/2013 6:13 PM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


I keep looking for the quote from Bourn where he says the Mets have zero interest. :) This thread is a bit deceiving. Moreover, the writer of the that quote doesn't even cite to a Mets source, no?

Last edited 1/26/2013 6:33 PM by dcmets

Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 6:36 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 




---------------------------------------------
--- MookieLJL wrote:

Good. And personally I hope they have tons of interest if it is protected.

---------------------------------------------

This about sums it up.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 6:45 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


Hoping it's true.

Said it in the OF thread: I'm not giddy at the thought of Bourn, but if the pick is protected and he could be had for a couple of years given how depressed the market has been for him, I'd be on board. 

He's not a guy I'm interested in overspending or giving up a first round draft pick for, but at the right price, and with #11 safe, sure, why not?

John Adams: At a stage in life when other men prosper, I'm reduced to living in Philadelphia!
Mike "Doc" Emrick: THEY SCORE! HENRIQUE!! IT'S OVER!!!

Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:11 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 




---------------------------------------------
--- DocK16 wrote:


omnimetfan wrote:
DocK16 wrote: Why would MLB change their stance on pick protection if they haven't already?  This can't be the first case like this.  Perhaps under the new CBA, but top 15 picks were protected under the old CBA and teams that failed to sign their picks received compensation the exact same way under it as they do now.
I think the failed to sign draft pick compensation is new, so I think this is the first case of this to arise.

I don't think it is.  I'm positive the Nats received compensation resulting in the team selecting Drew Storen a few years ago.

---------------------------------------------

It seems like that rule might've changed a bit. The Nats were slotted 10th in the 09 draft after failing to sign Aaron Crow with the 9th pick in 2008. It was called a Supplementary pick and I don't know if it carried protected status. In 2005 the O's drafted Garrett Olsen with the 48th and final pick in the sandwich round as compensation for failing to sign Wade Townsend with the 8th pick in 2004.
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson
Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 7:20 PM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


Anyone know whether or not signing a minor league contract would circumvent the draft comp issue? Under the old cba, after a certain date compensation no longer applied. I don't recall if that was May 1 or June 1. I wonder if this cba addresses that point.

I see this is in the cba. No compensation is earned for a player who signs a minor league contract regardless of when that contract may convert to a major league deal except if done solely to circumvent the compensation. In our case, if Bourne wouldn't be so obviously the team's best OFer we might get away with it. Well, if the league doesn't change the rule regarding do-over picks getting protection, why not force the issue by signing Bourne to a minor league deal if no other teams step forward?
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson

Last edited 1/26/2013 7:38 PM by DuffyDyer

Avatar

Posted: 1/26/2013 11:31 PM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


I'd love Bourn even with giving up the first. LoL sandy, we want banners, not geeked out draftees.

Bourn is a rich man's Coco Crisp .... which is a HELL of a ball player.

Posted: 1/26/2013 11:57 PM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


This is the first year with this new rule. Used to be the protection was for the bottom 15 "teams", not the picks.

For instance last year the top 16 (Nats pick) where protected instead of 15 because the D'Backs had a comp pick coming (just like now w/Pitt).

I didn't think it was fair when I found out at the very end of the season but didn't think they'd sign a QO free agent anyway.

Most MLB fans (of all teams, not just Mets fans) that I've read through many different forums seem to agree that it's unfair and that the Mets are getting screwed.


Duffy- Apparently Keith Law has stated that he's been informed Selig does realize a team may try to offer a minor league deal and that he has already let teams know that they will be penalized severely if they tried to circumvent league rules.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who? Who?? Who??"- Ray Lucas on Jets Postgame Live
Avatar

Posted: 1/27/2013 12:15 AM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 



Daaaarryl wrote: This is the first year with this new rule. Used to be the protection was for the bottom 15 "teams", not the picks.

For instance last year the top 16 (Nats pick) where protected instead of 15 because the D'Backs had a comp pick coming (just like now w/Pitt).

I didn't think it was fair when I found out at the very end of the season but didn't think they'd sign a QO free agent anyway.

Most MLB fans (of all teams, not just Mets fans) that I've read through many different forums seem to agree that it's unfair and that the Mets are getting screwed.


Duffy- Apparently Keith Law has stated that he's been informed Selig does realize a team may try to offer a minor league deal and that he has already let teams know that they will be penalized severely if they tried to circumvent league rules.
ya know, market forces determine how prices are set.  if the consequences of the market are such that Bourn or Lohse can only get a minor league deal, how could the offering team be penalized if there are no other offers?
"Maybe it's time to make some moves."  - Sandy Alderson

Posted: 1/27/2013 1:01 AM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


I have no idea, although it would be obvious to anyone that these players deserve a major league deal. Don't know what Selig would do (deducting a 1st rounder or more, maybe even something as harsh as what David Stern did to Minny w/the Joe Smith circumvention?)

They did enough to cut it down from 15 to 10 and should have kept the rest in tact with regards to comp picks.


BTW- Brian Cashman was asked about this during an interview with Benigno and Roberts on Friday and he even thought, as a MLB executive, that it was very unfair to the Mets.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who? Who?? Who??"- Ray Lucas on Jets Postgame Live

Last edited 1/27/2013 1:02 AM by Daaaarryl

Avatar

Posted: 1/27/2013 2:22 AM

Re: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 



DuffyDyer wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- DocK16 wrote:


omnimetfan wrote:
DocK16 wrote: Why would MLB change their stance on pick protection if they haven't already?  This can't be the first case like this.  Perhaps under the new CBA, but top 15 picks were protected under the old CBA and teams that failed to sign their picks received compensation the exact same way under it as they do now.
I think the failed to sign draft pick compensation is new, so I think this is the first case of this to arise.

I don't think it is.  I'm positive the Nats received compensation resulting in the team selecting Drew Storen a few years ago.

---------------------------------------------

It seems like that rule might've changed a bit. The Nats were slotted 10th in the 09 draft after failing to sign Aaron Crow with the 9th pick in 2008. It was called a Supplementary pick and I don't know if it carried protected status. In 2005 the O's drafted Garrett Olsen with the 48th and final pick in the sandwich round as compensation for failing to sign Wade Townsend with the 8th pick in 2004.
Didn't the Phillies get their top pick back when JD Drew wouldn't sign there?
Avatar

Posted: 1/27/2013 9:18 AM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


The bottom 10 teams should be protected and any compensation picks for unsigned players should be labeled supplemental.

Just makes more sense, IMO.  (and that's regardless of the Mets' pursuit of Bourn, which I'm on the fence with to begin with)


17 & 14 = Best Duo In NY Sports

Last edited 1/27/2013 9:19 AM by acesfull86

Posted: 1/27/2013 9:41 AM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 



acesfull86 wrote: The bottom 10 teams should be protected and any compensation picks for unsigned players should be labeled supplemental.

Just makes more sense, IMO.  (and that's regardless of the Mets' pursuit of Bourn, which I'm on the fence with to begin with)

Well put.  Exactly what I have been thinking.  The compensation picks for failing to sign a pick the previous year should be 'supplemental.'
Avatar

Posted: 1/27/2013 10:55 AM

RE: Bourn: Mets have zero interest if MLB won't protect 1st 


Alderson's response to our Bourn question made it clear despite reluctance they are considering giving up #11 draft pick to sign him....hmmm

Post New Topic
  Page of 37  Next >