Why do the Mets want to sign Bourne? They're going to be bad regardless.

I know no one will probably agree, but the appearance of caring might be important. Also, shit in the major leagues, especially for a team with a market that big, is not on the same geologic timescale that the Royals and Pirates are on. It can change fast enough for Bourn's signing to not be a waste.

PECOTA says 80-82. Add Bourn, you're pretty much replacing a replacement-level outfielder, so add 4 wins. Things break right, add somebody at the deadline ...

That was a nice dream for three hours.

PECOTA says 80-82. Add Bourn, you're pretty much replacing a replacement-level outfielder, so add 4 wins. Things break right, add somebody at the deadline ...

You're looking at two 90+ win teams at the top of the NL East already. Something would have to break very, very right.

That was a nice dream for three hours.

If Heyman is right as to terms, 4/48 with $12M vesting option, that's a steal for Cleveland.

There was no market for Bourn for anyone without a protected pick. This means the Braves will get no first round draft pick.

There was no market for Bourn for anyone without a protected pick. This means the Braves will get no first round draft pick.

Don't they still get a sandwich pick? Cle just loses a 2nd rather than a 1st.

I know the Braves don't actually get Cleveland's pick.

They still get a sandwich, I think. Tampa gets the Braves' first round pick (#30) for Upton the First.

They still get a sandwich, I think. Tampa gets the Braves' first round pick (#30) for Upton the First.

No. The Braves' pick just disappears (IIRC). TB also gets a sandwich.

I know no one will probably agree, but the appearance of caring might be important. Also, #### in the major leagues, especially for a team with a market that big, is not on the same geologic timescale that the Royals and Pirates are on. It can change fast enough for Bourn's signing to not be a waste.

I generally agree. I don't care so much about appearances, but I do think it's generally a good idea to acquire reasonably valued assets that will help your team win. To the point raised in #5, signing Bourn would reduce the amount of crazy #### that would have to happen for the Mets to contend. If you can make a few moves like that, all of the sudden, you're a contender.

I think the Braves pick in exactly the same place they'd pick if the Mariners had signed him. All comp picks are sandwich picks now.

I generally agree. I don't care so much about appearances, but I do think it's generally a good idea to acquire reasonably valued assets that will help your team win. To the point raised in #5, signing Bourn would reduce the amount of crazy #### that would have to happen for the Mets to contend. If you can make a few moves like that, all of the sudden, you're a contender.

Not to mention it's a great deal for Cleveland. They're paying for him to average 2 WAR over the contract.

You're looking at two 90+ win teams at the top of the NL East already.

You're that high on the Phillies?

Well done.

Dammit, Walt had me convinced that signing Bourn would have been a good move.

PECOTA says 80-82.

That sounds high to me, and I generally tend toward optimism in February. The infield actually isn't bad, but that OF is horrendous. Didn't the Cubs just DFA Campana to make room for Hairston)? Even that might be an upgrade over what's on hand.

I don't think it is unreasonable for the Mets to think that they could compete soon. They'll be freeing up some money when Santana and Bay's contracts are over. They have some nice pieces and have some very intriguing young pitching. More importantly, they weren't horrible last year. I don't think it would have been odd to try to add a good outfielder this year even when they don't think they can make the playoffs this year.

That's a reasonable deal for the Indians and I would have been happy had the Mets made that deal. How about someone like Grady Sizemore?

You're looking at two 90+ win teams at the top of the NL East already. Something would have to break very, very right.

Doesn't mean you don't try. Replacing Colin Cowgill with a guy who has been worth over 14 WAR the past 3 years is a good way to improve the odds.

That's a reasonable deal for the Indians and I would have been happy had the Mets made that deal. How about someone like Grady Sizemore?

At this point, they should be sending spring training invitations to every available outfielder who's started a game in AAA or higher in the past 3 years.

At this point, they should be sending spring training invitations to every available outfielder who's started a game in AAA or higher in the past 3 years.

Scott Podsednik, come on down.

Even cloudier now.

Apparently, the Mets matched the 4y/48m part of the contract but did not add the vesting option. That's why they didn't get him.

How about someone like Grady Sizemore?

I think he's going to be out for the start of the season.

I'm excited about the steps forward Flores took last year-- I don't know what the scouts said about his gains, but he's finally showing some real power. He's in the F-Mart boat, in that he has been in the system for so long it's easy to forget he'll only be 21 this year.

Apparently, the Mets matched the 4y/48m part of the contract but did not add the vesting option. That's why they didn't get him.

Silly. I can see not wanting to lose the #11 pick, but $12M 5 years from now?

I think he's going to be out for the start of the season.

He's Grady Sizemore, the Nick Johnson of outfielders. He's going to be out to start every season.

This is the Met outfield. Grady Sizemore could be upgrade if he were playing with one arm.

This is the Met outfield. Grady Sizemore could be upgrade if he were playing with one arm.

I admittedly ignored the Mets for most of 2012, so I had to look. Which leads me to the obvious question. Who the #### is Mike Baxter?!

Who the #### is Mike Baxter?!

The Mets best outfielder? You probably heard of him last year when he crashed into a wall to save Johan's no-hitter, injuring himself in the process, then missing a couple months.

I generally agree. I don't care so much about appearances, but I do think it's generally a good idea to acquire reasonably valued assets that will help your team win. To the point raised in #5, signing Bourn would reduce the amount of crazy #### that would have to happen for the Mets to contend. If you can make a few moves like that, all of the sudden, you're a contender.

Problem is, the Mets can't make a few moves like that. No money, no talent it makes sense to trade. They're also in exactly the wrong place to sign a guy whose trajectory is likely to be 4-3-2-1 wins. Adding a guy like Bourn in the 2014-15 offseason will probably make a lot more sense.

Who the #### is Mike Baxter?!

That's Starting Right Fielder Mike Baxter.

They're also in exactly the wrong place to sign a guy whose trajectory is likely to be 4-3-2-1 wins.

Why would you expect that rapid of a decline from a 30 y.o.?

Apparently, the Mets matched the 4y/48m part of the contract but did not add the vesting option. That's why they didn't get him.
Silly. I can see not wanting to lose the #11 pick, but $12M 5 years from now?

You're assuming the Mets ever intended to sign Bourn.

edit: why would you not? Anyway, it's not a rapid decline for a good, not great player. It's hard to last into your mid30s in baseball as a regular. Those guys are the exceptions. It's not insult when it's assumed that you won't last past 34 or so. 3.5-4 win players don't typically have nice gentle declines stretching from age 30 to 37.


.

You probably heard of him last year when he crashed into a wall to save Johan's no-hitter

Not really. Mike Baxter sounds like a lawyer from Connecticut.

Silly. I can see not wanting to lose the #11 pick, but $12M 5 years from now?

ESPN says that the reluctance to give up the #11 pick was the issue. I think that's a valid reason, so long as the Mets pick somebody with a higher ceiling than Gavin Ceccini this year.

edit: why would you not? Anyway, it's not a rapid decline for a good, not great player. It's hard to last into your mid30s in baseball as a regular. Those guys are the exceptions. It's not insult when it's assumed that you won't last past 34 or so. 3.5-4 win players don't typically have nice gentle declines stretching from age 30 to 37.

He averaged almost 5 WAR from 26-29. At this price you're asking him to generate 10 WAR through age 34.

It would require a total collapse for him to be not worth the contract, and then you're out of the deal after 4 years, b/c you bench him and the option doesn't vest.

I thought the Mets had been told that they wouldn't lose their pick. If that's not true, yeah, I am OK with them not giving up that pick to the Braves, who would have drafted the second coming of Willie Mays.

Rotoworld said that they offered him 4y/48m so it looks like they made him a legit offer.

Who do the Mets have in the mix right now in the OF? Marlon Byrd, Duda, Baxter, Nieuwenhuis, and Cowgill? Is that it? That's going to be awful.

Is that it?

They have Andrew Brown too. He's not very good, but I like him more than Byrd or Cowgill (as a hitter).

@35: If your argument is that he'll be worth 4/48, that's a pretty decent bet. The question of whether he's the right signing this offseason for these Mets is an entirely different one.

@35: If your argument is that he'll be worth 4/48, that's a pretty decent bet. The question of whether he's the right signing this offseason for these Mets is an entirely different one.

Well, if he's almost certain to be worth the deal, and might be a good bit better than that, and they have no OF, why wouldn't they sign him?

Only reason is to reline the Wilpons' empty pockets. Assuming the pick wouldn't be lost.

As I wrote, that he's going to not be very good by the time the Mets have a shot at it is why.

Of course, if the only difference between signing and not signing is that the Wilpons keep the money, by all means get him. Still, in that scenario, I would have kept Dickey and used the difference between Bourn and Dickey to fill in starting in 2015.

edit: you seem to be under the impression that the Mets are like other, saner baseball teams. I've taken over the last couple of years to see them instead as practitioners of a kind of performance art, meaning I want to be entertained. Dickey was by far the most entertaining Met, so I would have kept him. Waiting for the Mets to win under the Wilpons is like engaging in eternal foreplay. You keep searching for ways to be tittilated, but there won't be a climax.

I'm seriously asking this: can you name a worse outfield than what the Mets are going to subject us to? I don't mean now, I mean in your entire life of following baseball. I really can't. I Baseball Referenced every first year expansion team and couldn't find one worse. In 50 years of following the Mets I can honestly say I have less enthusiasm for them than I ever had. When bringing in Marlon Byrd, Corey Patterson and Pedro Feliciano are supposed to get me psyched?

Well, if he's almost certain to be worth the deal, and might be a good bit better than that, and they have no OF, why wouldn't they sign him?

Bourn could be worth 4/48 and still not be a good idea as a signing. If the thinking is that this team has no chance to contend this year or next, all signing Bourn accomplishes is getting the team a worse draft pick the next couple years, then when the team is ready to contend, it's entirely possible they're stuck with an untradeable fourth outfielder who makes $12 million and impedes improvement elsewhere on the roster.

I don't agree with the thinking, as I think this team is closer to contention than the anti-Bourn crowd feels, but it's understandable.

I don't mean now, I mean in your entire life of following baseball.

This cracked me up.

I don't think you can plan like this but you could sign Bourn and trade him as well as long as you think he will be good over the next year or two. The Marlins did it with Beurhle and Reyes.

In 50 years of following the Mets I can honestly say I have less enthusiasm for them than I ever had. When bringing in Marlon Byrd, Corey Patterson and Pedro Feliciano are supposed to get me psyched?

They have their best run of prospects since the Reyes/Wright/Kazmir/Milledge days, that's something worth watching for.

To answer your question, last year's Astros began the year with Schafer, Martinez and Bogusevic in the outfield. They were all below replacement level last year. That's pretty bad, and of the three Martinez is the only one that looked like he might have underperformed - Schafer and Bogusevic were known to be garbage. Their 4th outfielder Justin Maxwell had a very nice year and eventually won a starting job. So, yeah, they might still be better than the Mets.

It looks like they tried to sign him and failed. Not a big conspiracy or anything. It does mean that they're stuck with what's on-hand. If you squint enough, you can see Kirk and Duda being OK. What I don't understand is the decision to not snag Hairston, unless at that point they thought they had a legit shot at Bourn. But even then, what was the fear? Afraid of having 2 full outfielders between the 5 on the roster?

When bringing in Marlon Byrd, Corey Patterson and Pedro Feliciano are supposed to get me psyched?

You left difference-makers LaTroy Hawkins and Brandon Lyon off of your list.

Snagging Marcum was a good move.

I've taken over the last couple of years to see them instead as practitioners of a kind of performance art, meaning I want to be entertained. Dickey was by far the most entertaining Met, so I would have kept him.

Strongly agree with this. And if Alderson concluded the same and began focusing primarily on fun or wacky players, I would support that.

Problem is, the Mets can't make a few moves like that. No money, no talent it makes sense to trade. They're also in exactly the wrong place to sign a guy whose trajectory is likely to be 4-3-2-1 wins. Adding a guy like Bourn in the 2014-15 offseason will probably make a lot more sense.

I would agree with you if this were a contract that was likely to significantly hamstring the Mets on the back end. But, even if Bourn were just a 1 WAR player in the last year, that's only $7 mil in deficient value (assuming $5 mil/WAR, which is probably low), and Bourn would still be worth the contract at 4-3-2-1 (which is a very pessimistic assumption). This signing would make the Mets better and they would be acquiring an asset that looks to be undervalued at the moment. Those kinds of moves are good moves any time. Maybe Bourn would have helped the Mets accomplish the unexpected or maybe they would have traded him for prospects or maybe he would have just made the Mets a bit more fun to watch. I'd like any of those things.

The other thing is, you can't expect to become a contender all at once. And the market for professional baseball players isn't terribly liquid. Sometimes you have to make a move when a good move is available rather than waiting until the perfect time to make a move - the right move might not be there for the making at the perfect time. So you pick up 5 or so 2014 wins with Bourn now, and maybe a few more with trades in season, and maybe a bunch more this offseason after Santana and Bay come of the books (mostly). But if you don't get the 5 now with Bourn, you have a bigger hill to climb and you still have to find a CF.

If Bourn were a 1 WAR player on the 2013 Mets, he would be known as "by far our best outfielder."

@48: Your points are all cogent or better, given any decently run baseball team.