The Bourn Compensation

[Edgy MD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/post/_/id/60132/mets-argue-draft-pick-issue.

[Vic Sage]

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]

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

[Vic Sage]

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

[Edgy MD]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ceetar]

smg58 wrote: and players whose game depends a lot on speed tend to decline sooner and faster than, say, power hitters.

maybe not. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[dinosaur jesus]

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]

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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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?