The 2012 Offseason Thread

[Cubswin11]

Villanueva Roster Watch, Day 37

If the organization is looking to improve efficiency, the team physical process is a good place to start.

 

Pretty sure they're looking for inefficiency.

 

Flipping the bird to MLB roster rules is apparently an exploitable inefficiency. It's simultaneously annoying and admirable.

The Cardinals have been exploiting this inefficiency for years, they seemingly always have an active roster of 30 and a 50-man roster.

[JeffH]

I imagine a trade with the Indians would include the Cubs acquiring Rendon.

 

I'm not as well read on prospects as I should be, so I will often use Google...and I can't figure out who you're talking about.

The dude we took in the Rule 5, so we don't have to keep him on the main roster all year.

 

That could not happen.

 

Maybe not in the "just hold onto that guy as part of the deal" sense, but I'm not aware of any restrictions that the Cubs can't mostly agree on a deal that involves Rondon, then just return him to the Indians as a formality before they trade him to us outright.

 

Every other team after the Cubs in the Rule 5 draft order would have a chance to take Rondon and keep him subject to the Rule 5 stipulations. The Cubs and Indians could not work out a trade that would effectively rob Rondon of his Rule 5 rights. If no other team took him under Rule 5, then a trade could be agreed to (see Chiasson-Hinske).

[hawkeyecub]

This is so stupid and I love it a lot.

 

 

There is not one thing even remotely stupid about that.

 

Not at all. That's great.

[Clem Fandango]

I guess this is good news for the Cubs, as it knocks out one of the remaining teams reported to be interested in Bourn...

 

MLB.com's Richard Justice writes that the Mets have "zero interest" in Michael Bourn if it means losing their top draft pick.

The Mets aren't close to being relevant in the NL East and would have to give up their first-round pick in order to sign Bourn, though the MLBPA could file a grievance that would allow the pick to be protected. CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reported earlier this week that eight different teams could be looking to make a late run at Bourn, including the Mariners, Rays, and Orioles. The Mariners are also tied to draft pick compensation at 12th overall.

[Bull]

I guess this is good news for the Cubs, as it knocks out one of the remaining teams reported to be interested in Bourn...

 

MLB.com's Richard Justice writes that the Mets have "zero interest" in Michael Bourn if it means losing their top draft pick.

The Mets aren't close to being relevant in the NL East and would have to give up their first-round pick in order to sign Bourn, though the MLBPA could file a grievance that would allow the pick to be protected. CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reported earlier this week that eight different teams could be looking to make a late run at Bourn, including the Mariners, Rays, and Orioles. The Mariners are also tied to draft pick compensation at 12th overall.

 

I think there's a good chance this means the Mets DO get Bourn. There is so talk of rewriting the rules to prevent this happening again. The mets had the tenth worst record and should be protected, but the pirates get a pick as compensation for failing to sign their first round pick last year, bumping the mets to 11th - not protected.

[Guest]

I guess this is good news for the Cubs, as it knocks out one of the remaining teams reported to be interested in Bourn...

 

MLB.com's Richard Justice writes that the Mets have "zero interest" in Michael Bourn if it means losing their top draft pick.

The Mets aren't close to being relevant in the NL East and would have to give up their first-round pick in order to sign Bourn, though the MLBPA could file a grievance that would allow the pick to be protected. CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reported earlier this week that eight different teams could be looking to make a late run at Bourn, including the Mariners, Rays, and Orioles. The Mariners are also tied to draft pick compensation at 12th overall.

 

I think there's a good chance this means the Mets DO get Bourn. There is so talk of rewriting the rules to prevent this happening again. The mets had the tenth worst record and should be protected, but the pirates get a pick as compensation for failing to sign their first round pick last year, bumping the mets to 11th - not protected.

 

So how does that mean there's a good chance the Mets do get Bourn?

[Formerly Snayke]

I guess this is good news for the Cubs, as it knocks out one of the remaining teams reported to be interested in Bourn...

 

MLB.com's Richard Justice writes that the Mets have "zero interest" in Michael Bourn if it means losing their top draft pick.

The Mets aren't close to being relevant in the NL East and would have to give up their first-round pick in order to sign Bourn, though the MLBPA could file a grievance that would allow the pick to be protected. CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reported earlier this week that eight different teams could be looking to make a late run at Bourn, including the Mariners, Rays, and Orioles. The Mariners are also tied to draft pick compensation at 12th overall.

 

I think there's a good chance this means the Mets DO get Bourn. There is so talk of rewriting the rules to prevent this happening again. The mets had the tenth worst record and should be protected, but the pirates get a pick as compensation for failing to sign their first round pick last year, bumping the mets to 11th - not protected.

 

So how does that mean there's a good chance the Mets do get Bourn?

 

Yeah, I'm really confused.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The previous CBA specifically exempted picks that got pushed out of the protected zone. That language was removed in this CBA. That has to be intentional.

[Gilby]

The previous CBA specifically exempted picks that got pushed out of the protected zone. That language was removed in this CBA. That has to be intentional.

 

Yep. I feel for the Mets here and think it should be protected, but I'm pretty sure it won't be.

[Guest]

I feel like this is a topic the Mets should've explored around 4 months ago.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Our long national nightmare is over. Lendy Castillo DFA, Villanueva official.

[Guest]

Our long national nightmare is over. Lendy Castillo DFA, Villanueva official.

 

Same thing all over again with Hairston now, right?

[Illini Iceman]

The previous CBA specifically exempted picks that got pushed out of the protected zone. That language was removed in this CBA. That has to be intentional.

 

Yep. I feel for the Mets here and think it should be protected, but I'm pretty sure it won't be.

 

Why would you feel for the Mets? You have to be in the top 10 and they are 11th so what do they have to complain about other than being really close to having had the pick be protected. And why "should" it be protected if the CBA specifically states it won't and was written for a purpose in a way to change the previous rule where it would have been.

 

If anything it is doing the Mets a favor by pushing them toward not signing a guy who they probably really shouldn't be spending a lot of money on anyway considering the current state of their team.

[CubsWin]

The previous CBA specifically exempted picks that got pushed out of the protected zone. That language was removed in this CBA. That has to be intentional.

 

Yep. I feel for the Mets here and think it should be protected, but I'm pretty sure it won't be.

 

Why would you feel for the Mets? You have to be in the top 10 and they are 11th so what do they have to complain about other than being really close to having had the pick be protected. And why "should" it be protected if the CBA specifically states it won't and was written for a purpose in a way to change the previous rule where it would have been.

 

If anything it is doing the Mets a favor by pushing them toward not signing a guy who they probably really shouldn't be spending a lot of money on anyway considering the current state of their team.

They finished with the 10th worst record but got bumped to 11th when the Pirates failed to sign Appel and received the 9th pick in this year's draft. I think that part of the CBA might be adjusted in the near future. That said, I don't care one whip what happens to the Mets...

[Bull]

I guess this is good news for the Cubs, as it knocks out one of the remaining teams reported to be interested in Bourn...

 

MLB.com's Richard Justice writes that the Mets have "zero interest" in Michael Bourn if it means losing their top draft pick.

The Mets aren't close to being relevant in the NL East and would have to give up their first-round pick in order to sign Bourn, though the MLBPA could file a grievance that would allow the pick to be protected. CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reported earlier this week that eight different teams could be looking to make a late run at Bourn, including the Mariners, Rays, and Orioles. The Mariners are also tied to draft pick compensation at 12th overall.

 

I think there's a good chance this means the Mets DO get Bourn. There is so talk of rewriting the rules to prevent this happening again. The mets had the tenth worst record and should be protected, but the pirates get a pick as compensation for failing to sign their first round pick last year, bumping the mets to 11th - not protected.

 

So how does that mean there's a good chance the Mets do get Bourn?

 

Yeah, I'm really confused.

Because they've filed for an exemption and the players union is supporting them. I think the rules will be rewritten.

[Illini Iceman]

Of course the players union is supporting them. They want to help one of their members to increase his chance to get paid big money. Plus they probably realize that they messed up big time with this new FA compensation rule in the CBA and are going to try to find ways to limit the damage as much as possible. The rule was specifically re-written in the new CBA to allow for this - don't think for a second it was just some oversight or slipped through.

 

The rule doesn't say the first round pick of teams with the 10 worst records are protected, it says the 10 top picks are protected and the Mets don't have one of the 10 top picks. I really don't see what the Mets have to complain about other than that they just got unlucky.

[Gilby]

The previous CBA specifically exempted picks that got pushed out of the protected zone. That language was removed in this CBA. That has to be intentional.

 

Yep. I feel for the Mets here and think it should be protected, but I'm pretty sure it won't be.

 

Why would you feel for the Mets? You have to be in the top 10 and they are 11th so what do they have to complain about other than being really close to having had the pick be protected. And why "should" it be protected if the CBA specifically states it won't and was written for a purpose in a way to change the previous rule where it would have been.

 

If anything it is doing the Mets a favor by pushing them toward not signing a guy who they probably really shouldn't be spending a lot of money on anyway considering the current state of their team.

 

I'm not losing any sleep over it, but it's pretty crappy for them that they lose their protected pick because another team couldn't sign a player. I disagree with it, which is where that "should" came from. You are correct, and I agree, it's written in a way that the Mets will likely lose this battle.

[rocket]

here's your fantasy sleeper

Jon Heyman ‏@JonHeymanCBS

Ronny cedeno appears headed to the #STLCards

[Clem Fandango]

Mike Puma of the New York Post reports that free agent outfielder Michael Bourn wants a five-year contract.

Puma says the Mets "aren't going there," and neither is any other major league team. Bourn, because he's tied to draft pick compensation, is going to have to lower his asking price to attract suitors. The 30-year-old outfielder batted .274/.348/.391 with nine homers, 57 RBI and 42 stolen bases in 155 games last season for the Braves.

[Cubswin11]

Mike Puma of the New York Post reports that free agent outfielder Michael Bourn wants a five-year contract.

Puma says the Mets "aren't going there," and neither is any other major league team. Bourn, because he's tied to draft pick compensation, is going to have to lower his asking price to attract suitors. The 30-year-old outfielder batted .274/.348/.391 with nine homers, 57 RBI and 42 stolen bases in 155 games last season for the Braves.

I'd guess the lack of 5 year offers has more to do with his age (30) and that a large chunk of his value is tied to, two things that teams don't typically pay a lot for and/or still aren't quite sure how well they age (speed/defense) and not so much the draft pick tied to him.

[davell]

Nah, I think some team would have bit, if not for the draft pick situation. Now, it certainly appears less likely obviously. Boras needs the Dodgers to trade Ethier, in order for that to happen, in my mind. Personally, I want Boras to make a statement, using one or both of Bourn and Lohse as the guinea pigs. Hold out til after the draft, when compensation evaporates on those guys.

[mul21]

Nah, I think some team would have bit, if not for the draft pick situation. Now, it certainly appears less likely obviously. Boras needs the Dodgers to trade Ethier, in order for that to happen, in my mind. Personally, I want Boras to make a statement, using one or both of Bourn and Lohse as the guinea pigs. Hold out til after the draft, when compensation evaporates on those guys.

 

I really hope he does and makes the hard cap go away (or makes it less restrictive anyway). It has so much less to do with the draft pick than the money you lose along with the draft pick. I wouldn't be surprised if they renegotiate to losing the draft pick but keeping your pool money in the near future. That helps both the teams and the player looking for the contract.

[Bull]

Nah, I think some team would have bit, if not for the draft pick situation. Now, it certainly appears less likely obviously. Boras needs the Dodgers to trade Ethier, in order for that to happen, in my mind. Personally, I want Boras to make a statement, using one or both of Bourn and Lohse as the guinea pigs. Hold out til after the draft, when compensation evaporates on those guys.

That would be an embarrassmennt to everyone involved. Player, agent, union, owners, and commissioners office all have strong motivation to make sure that doesn't happen. Even Boras (who would stand to make more money on one deal,) could lose out on future clients if Bourn and Lohse are perceived to take a step back.

[Careless]

That said, I don't care one whip what happens to the Mets...

Would you cow-tow something to help or hinder the Mets?

[imb]

theo is going to sweat bourn out and get him for a really good deal, isnt he