Michael Bourn remains unsigned. The Mets have not signed a single major league free agent all offseason (is that possible?). As the offseason winds down and as the Mets deal with a loophole in the MLB collective bargaining agreement, the two may be coming to a match.
The Mets have money, Jon Heyman of CBS Sports says. The Mets have been quiet not out of financial restrictions, but rather prudedence. Further: what's the greatest reason for teams not to sign Michael Bourn? Giving up a draft pick. With money, and potentially not having to give up a pick, the Mets just may be the team.
Heyman explains the legal loophole/battle that the Mets face right now:
The Mets are thinking enough about it that they are trying to win a ruling to keep their draft choice if they sign Bourn, the Daily News reported. The teams with the 10 worst records are supposed to have protected first-round draft picks, and the Mets' contention is that while they are slated to pick 11th and thus not holding a protected pick, that's only because the Pirates failed to sign their No. 1 pick, Mark Appel, last year, not because they weren't 10th worst by record.
If all the Mets have to give up to get Michael Bourn is money, then he may be the man for them. I am sure it was not what Bourn had in mind heading to free agency, but it may be his only chance to recoup some money and his pride. Boras will throw in opt-out clauses, I am sure, so if the Mets are not a good team in a couple years and the market is good Bourn can escape.
The Mets are the first team on Heyman's list, and the Braves just added Justin Upton so the teams not having to give up a draft pick are dwindling. I think Bourn ends up in Flushing.
