The Bourn Compensation

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Let's check 1991-2000 for gigglez:

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)

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]

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

[Frayed Knot]

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]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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]

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]

Damn that hateful draft.

[Frayed Knot]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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

[Edgy MD]

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.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

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]

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]

Boras used the word 'attractive'

I read that as "Hey, the Mets suck, you should pay him MORE to play for you"

[Edgy MD]

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]

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]

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]

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

[smg58]

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

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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]

The backup plan may be a trade.

[Ceetar]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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]

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

[batmagadanleadoff]

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.