The Bourn Compensation

[ashie62]

Fuck David Schoenfeld..who the hell is he?

Mets can't afford Bourn anyway..

[ashie62]

Lets wait for Brandon Nimmo

[Edgy MD]

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

[Frayed Knot]

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]

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

[Frayed Knot]

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

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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

[Frayed Knot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

nevermind

[Edgy MD]

You sure? It was your turn and all.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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]

Star Ledger giving Bourn to Mets some legs.

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/mlb/384830/mets-in-ongoing-discussion-with-bourn

[MFS62]

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]

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]

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]

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...