Michael Bourn rumors have been flying around all offseason, but he is still sitting there without a job for 2013. We were told how he'd be one of the most highly sought after free agents this offseason, but perhaps those people who said that need to rethink it. Bourn has had plenty of suitors, but talks with him have not even progressed to the stages where we were hearing constant rumors of a signing being near. It's early February, less than ten days before pitchers and catchers report to spring training and he's without work.
There are reasons that Michael Bourn is still without a job. He's coming off his best season and he's seeking a lot of money. Additionally, only the top 10 picks in the draft are protected so most teams who sign him would be giving up their first round pick. The Cubs pick second so that pick is secure, but if they signed Bourn or any other player who was presented a qualifying offer, they would give up their 2nd round pick.
In a perfect world the Cubs would like to keep that pick, along with all of them, but is MIchael Bourn good enough to give up that pick? The Cubs need a long-term solution in the outfield. Even if the Cubs are confident that Brett Jackson can stop striking out so much, there are 3 outfield positions and the Cubs lack prospects in the high minors that could help out.
Alfonso Soriano enjoyed a resurgent 2012 season, but his contract is up in two years and the Cubs have been trying to trade him every day for the last 18 months. Or longer. David DeJesus has one guaranteed year left and a team option for a third at $6.5 million. Nate Schierholtz isn't very good.
As for prospects, Jorge Soler is still in the low minors and Albert Almora has barely started his professional career. The Cubs could certainly use Michael Bourn. They could also use all their draft picks, but at times you've got to make a trade. Michael Bourn is a good ballplayer, though not as good as he was last season.
| Year | AVG | OBP | SLG | UZR | Rfield | BsR | fWAR | rWAR | WARP | avgWAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | .229 | .288 | .300 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 4.2 | 0.2 | -0.7 | -1.1 | -0.5 |
| 2009 | .285 | .354 | .384 | 9.9 | 11.0 | 12.0 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 3.9 | 4.5 |
| 2010 | .265 | .341 | .346 | 19.4 | 30.0 | 8.8 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 3.4 | 4.5 |
| 2011 | .294 | .349 | .386 | -6.4 | -3.0 | 13.1 | 4.1 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | .274 | .348 | .391 | 22.4 | 24.0 | 6.6 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 3.7 | 5.4 |
Bourn has been very consistent over the last four seasons. So consistent that his OBP has only ranged from .341 to .354. Since 2009, only one season has a slugging below .380 and none are higher than .391.
As you can see from the table, he derives a lot of his value from defense and he'll be 30 years old. At the end of a 5-year contract it's safe to say that much or all of his defensive value will be gone and the same is quite probably true of his baserunning value. There's a reason teams are balking at a lot of money over 5 years for a guy like Bourn. He makes his living on young player skills and he's wanting to be paid through what is an advanced age for baseball players.
Bourn doesn't offer much at the plate. He'll be consistently OK. He's ranged from below average to slightly better than average over the last four seasons and his offense will also deteriorate even further.
Despite that, he has value right now and is a good bet to retain much of that value in the next 2-3 years. After that, I wouldn't put much faith in being of much value, but long-term contracts are usually structured in a way that teams underpay at the front and overpay at the end. It's the cost of free agency and if the Cubs are ever to be active in that front, it's a cost they'll have to be willing to pay for.
81.3 million dollar man
CAIRO is projecting 2.5 offensive WAR and +7 on defense, which gives him a 3.2 WAR projection for 2013. Let's be generous and up that to 3.5 just because I'm an optimistic guy. We'd get something like this over the next few years:
- 2013: 3.5 WAR
- 2014: 3.0
- 2015: 2.5
- 2016: 2.0
- 2017: 1.5
He'd be worth about 12.5 WAR over 5 seasons. If the win value starts at $5.5 million, that's roughly an average win value of $6.5 million over the life of the contract.
I haven't paid a ton of attention to the Bourn rumors this offseason, but I seem to recall him looking for a 5-year deal in the $75 million neighborhood. According to my optimistic-updated CAIRO projections, he'd worth approximately $81 million. However, players who sign multi-year contracts give the team a discount due to the uncertainty of the years ahead. That discount is roughly 10%. So a reasonable contract for Bourn comes out to $72-73 million over 5 years.
Since teams would be giving up a draft pick, that value is even less, which is why he's still on the market. He'd be a solid addition to the Cubs now and in the future so why not offer him $65 million and see if that gets him to sign?
If the Cubs are reluctant to spend that much, how about a shorter contract for a little bit more per year? Tangotiger came up with a quick and easy tool once that showed the approximate value of a contract over a different number of years. For example, a player who is worth $10 million over 5 years would be worth $11 million over 4 years or $9 million over 6 years. Over 3 years Bourn might be worth a total of $50 million.
I'm doubtful he gets that much. I'd assume if he was worth as much as the projections suggest that he'd already be off the market, but I don't really know. I can only estimate his value and considering he's still available.
Should the Cubs even bother to get involved at this point?
Comments
aside: http://obstructedview.net/aside/war-is-more-widespread-threatening-and-serious-than-actual-war.html
dmick89Quote Reply
Do not want.
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
i mean maybe if we sign him to one year deal can flip him for a better prospect then a second rounder at the deadline.. But maybe not? Its risky
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
I’m talking long term. You don’t sign someone like Bourn to flip him at the deadline.
dmick89Quote Reply
In all honesty, I couldn’t care less about a 2nd round pick. I wouldn’t give up the 2nd pick in the draft for him, but a 2nd round pick isn’t worth that much money. If the Cubs want to be good at some point they’ll be giving up draft picks. That’s just how it goes. The decision isn’t about whether or not you give up picks, it’s about what picks you’re giving up and for what players.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yea i dont think Bourn is the type of player we need right now. I mean i always hate facing him i just dont know how much better he makes this team. I am totally cool with forfeiting the pick if it makes sense. I am not sure Bourn is that guy
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
Yeah, I don’t know if he is or not. I just think the Cubs might have a chance to get him at a cheaper price than usual. I wouldn’t pay as much as his value suggests, but if he comes at the right price, then sure. He is a good ballplayer and would make this team better. He also softens the blow if Brett Jackson doesn’t work out
I’d rather have Bourn than Edwin Jackson and I like Jackson.
dmick89Quote Reply
Hmmmm.. I think i would rather have Edwin jackson. Just something to be said for someone who will guarantee you over 200+ innings of average to better pitching.
Not to mention there might be untapped potential
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
I almost feel like there HAS to be something else, right? Medicals or something? It just seems weird that if he offers value SOMEONE would be willing to spend the amont that people are saying. Or maybe he only wants a “winning” team? I dunno. It just seems odd.
But, aside from that, I agree with you. Its only a second round pick, so if you get him at a deal and you know he doesn’t have some crazy bones made of glass issue, I say it’s worth at least considering. Someone on here before said the real issue may be paying projected values for players who rely on speed is hard because it diminishes so much quicker than power, maybe there’s some truth to that? That WAR may depreciate at a higher rate with age?
AkabariQuote Reply
I think the issue isn’t the amount of money involved (because of the way teams can finagle the slot money in the first ten rounds) but the fact that you lose a potential impact player at that second round spot. That’s why I’m leaning towards not signing Bourn unless he comes super cheap.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Akabari:
Its the new CBA. I just dont think teams want to give up limited draft funds.
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
I say yes, the Cubs should sign Bourn. IF the price is right. No more than 3 years or more than 14 million per year.
RayQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
It would that if that really were the only reason though, that other guys who got qualifying offers would still be sitting too, right? Bourn wouldn’t be the ONLY one. That’s what makes me feel like its more than that.
AkabariQuote Reply
@ Akabari:
I think teams are hesitant to invest a lot of $$ in players when their only major plus tool is speed. That can disappear quickly.
Same thing with potential #3 starters like Kyle Lohse
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
That’s what I was saying my previous comment. WAR probably diminishes quicker in a player who relies on speed. Or at least it might. So it would require more of a discount than Bourn has been willing to take.
AkabariQuote Reply
Akabari wrote:
Actually, it’s the opposite. http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/does_speed_age_better/
dmick89Quote Reply
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Edwin Jackson did alright. BTW, Jackson hasn’t pitched 200 innings since 2010 and has only done it twice in his career.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Ray:
I agree with this. If it’s a good price, go for it.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’m usually all about signing players, but for some reason I’m don’t really think the Cubs should sign Bourn. Maybe it is because of the draft pick. It would have been nice to sign multiple players that cost draft picks since our first is protected.
Mobile WaLiQuote Reply
(dying laughing) http://firsttoknow.com/this-woman-charges-1-a-minute-to-cuddle-you/
dmick89Quote Reply
The Cubs are projected to win about 77 games on the high-end? With Bourn it probably takes the projection to 80-81 wins. That means the Cubs would need to find another 6-7 WINs, at least, in order to be in contention. Not impossible but unlikely at this point in the off-season. I wouldn’t be opposed to Bourn but not if it means a 5 year contract. The team is going to continue to need flexibility 2-3 years out as they SHOULD have their core players from the minors up and contributing. However I could see it as a way for the Cubs to be part of the “lightening in a bottle” considering only Jackson is even remotely available to be a starting CF for another 1 or 2. They could then eye trading Bourn in year 2 or 3 taking on the risk that his skills could go downhill fast or he has a major injury.
JManQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
That’s…brilliant.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Huh. Well shit. Very interesting. As someone pointed out, though, on that blog
Which that thing someone posted about Trout and being just as good at a younger age can mean a huge difference in pay out. So I don’t know. I just feel like it can’t be JUST the draft picks that are the issue. If it is, I feel like veteran players will start to really regret the new CBA in a few years.
AkabariQuote Reply
My thoughts on speedy guys are that they probably do age better. As was pointed out in the comments of that thread, you’re comparing one group of players with a positive attribute (speed) to another group who doesn’t possess it. They have to be better overall. Speed guys take better care of their bodies than those who don’t have it so I definitely buy that speed players age better than non-speed guys.
My concern with speed guys, and I think it’s a huge concern, is that they’re a leg injury away from being much less valuable. The same thing could be said for a pitcher (he’s an arm injury away from being useless). It could probably be said for a power hitter (he’s a wrist injury away from having significantly less power). Unlike the power hitter, the speed player regularly uses his legs and is much more likely to get the leg injury than the power hitter would be to injure his wrist.
Really, when you think about a speed guy like Bourn, you’re kind of talking about the risk in signing a better than average pitcher. The difference is that Bourn can play every day and position players are less apt to get injured than pitchers.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Like Jose Reyes? Let’s see how he turns out. I agree with this concern, but also with the speed ages OK statement too. Grissom, Juan Pierre, Coleman, Ricky, EY, Furcal, Lance Johnson, Otis Nixon….Brock, WIlls, etc.
But even at that, if Ellsbury were available, I’d rather have him, and for Bourn, I’d prefer 3 years with option for 4th.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
You must have joined the blog after my epic rants comparing the Carl Crawford and Alfonso Soriano deals (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Probably. I really didn’t start commenting or reading regularly until about a year ago. I thought about Crawford, but his is Tommy John, not a leg injury, unless there is more than just the elbow. Soriano is a good example of a speed guy that didn’t hold up, except that he had power too, and that’s still had value despite the leg issue.
Speaking of being relatively new here, I came to Cubs blogs directly through ACB but only just in time to see the analysis of Jack Benny’s best seasons. I never had a BCB phase.
SVBQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
That pretty much sums up the argument I was making. Aside from the power difference they profiled pretty similarly. Soriano was thought to be a freakishly good athlete.
Even I didn’t expect for Crawford to crater as much as he did.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Both berselius and I have talked about the risks with signing guys who rely primarily on speed using Crawford as an example. Soriano to an extent. I’m also fairly sure we could look at other skills and find similar results. Not to mention, if we’re talking about it being unwise to sign players with one skill, what we’re also saying is that it’s not smart to sign free agent pitchers. Pitchers have just one primary skill and an arm injury for a pitcher is much more likely to occur than a leg injury for a position player. It’s also much more likely to seriously affect his performance in the years after.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think an approach that eliminates one skilled players as free agent signings is even possible and definitely not a wise decision for a front office. I can accept that the Cubs shouldn’t sign Bourn for any number of reasons, but the risk of signing someone with his skill set isn’t one of them. The flip side to the risk of a leg injury is him staying healthy and potentially aging better than other players without speed.
Signing any free agent to a long term contract is a risk. There’s less risk when it’s less money, but if the Cubs ever want to be good again they’re going to have to take greater risks in free agency. There are arguments to be made that the Cubs shouldn’t yet take that risk.
I would remind people that if the Cubs wait to spend big on free agency when they can contend that they will find themselves in a situation similar to what the Cubs were in after spending big for a few years. The contracts will be expiring years down the road and that money will be tied up. I don’t think any of us want to see the Cubs in that position. It seems to me the best thing to do is to set it up so that you have money coming off the books each year and the only way to accomplish this meaningfully with good free agents, is to sign them at different times.
I don’t really want the Cubs to sign 3 guys to 5-year $100 million contracts in a few years because they look like they can contend. I’d rather they sign 1 now, 1 next year and 1 the following year. Or 1 next year, another the following and so on.
dmick89Quote Reply
Rice Cube wrote:
Calm down son.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Because we have to.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I agree with that. To me it is far better to stagger your FAs and contracts. And 4 more wins for this year from Bourn might even give me the optimism that the Cubs won’t lose 100 again. (dying laughing)
But it looks like Boras was looking for something ridiculous for Bourn. If you are going to take what seems to be a big overpay risk, it makes sense that the risk be put on someone that has something in back up to offer. Soriano has power (and leadership, fwiw). Bourn appears to be one-trick pony, like a pitcher. So I think it’s fine that they assume a risk, but the caution on going too far out is a good move.
Plus, if there was one weakness in Theo’s game before, real or perceived, it was FA signings.
SVBQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
First, I agree that it’s foolish to sign a bunch of free agents at once because then you’re in a situation where you have too much money lumped together. It was only necessary because the Cubs had a shitty farm at the time and no reasonable expectation that they had a pipeline of talent coming to replace the guys who were aging, expiring contracts, or traded. But you don’t have to sign everyone to equal length contracts, so I’m not sure how big of a hinderance it is, particularly if you have a greater likelihood of farm guys providing value.
I think we’re underestimating the power of past lessons. Theo got burned with the Crawford deal, this org probably regrets the Soriano deal, so there’s enough institutional memory of FA contracts to speed guys that didn’t work out. I imagine there’s an element of “never again” running around the halls at 1060W Addison. Not to say they’ll never take a chance on a speedy FA, just that they won’t when the payoff for that risk is small (little chance it leads to contention, championships, or ticket sales in yrs 1-3).
26.2cubfanQuote Reply
SVB wrote:
I agree with this and I certainly wouldn’t overpay for Bourn. I’m not even willing to pay him what he’s worth on my imaginary team. I would get him if the price is low enough. I’m just not really sure what that price is. 3 years, $48 million would probably work for me.
dmick89Quote Reply
26.2cubfan wrote:
This is a good point, but the free agents usually dictate how many years they’ll get. A guy like David DeJesus gets 2 years with a 3rd year team option. A really good player will get at least 4 years and probably 5 or even more. It’s not really reasonable to expect the Cubs to add significant talent for a shorter number of years than expected. Sure, they could pay more annually in order to get it done, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily good. At times it might be, but other times you’d prefer the longer contract paying the player fewer dollars per year.
I’m not suggesting the Cubs are going to find themselves in this situation. I hope they don’t and I’m not even sure it’s reasonable to expect them to be in that position. My point is that if everyone insists they only buy good free agents in 2-4 years when they can contend, you are going to end up in a position where you have aging players on the backend of their contracts making more than you’d prefer and little to spend elsewhere.
FWIW, I don’t think teams really learn from their mistakes in the way you’re suggesting. I do think Theo would be more hesitant to sign a guy like Crawford to that contract, but he will sign another player to a similar contract and that player will significantly under-perform. The only way this won’t happen is if the Cubs get luckier than shit with their young players working out and they don’t sign many (or any) players to contracts that long.
The market determines how much a player is worth and if the Cubs really want a player because they want to contend or need him, they will overpay in both dollars and years. Maybe they get lucky and that player does better than expected, but it will happen. That is, if the Cubs don’t become a small market team and spend little on free agency.
dmick89Quote Reply
Good piece! I still don’t know personally what to think on Bourn. It’s not that I don’t like his skillset, but does he block someone in the future? Is it worth a draft pick? (It usually is).
I guess it comes down to the money and length of contract, like always. In the absence of the draft pick it seems that the values above are justified. The question becomes, how much does it go down because of the draft pick, if at all?
It seems we will see if Boras can wave his magic wand.
GivejonadollarQuote Reply
This is potentially a really uninformed response, but I think I’d be much more excited about spending the money and the draft pick on someone who could provide more at the plate than Bourn. Its this team’s offense that seems weak, and that’s a problem both in terms of real value and fan-interest value.
UrkQuote Reply
Myles set up a Super Bowl thread on the forum for those interested: http://obstructedview.net/forum/topic/super-bowl
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Urk:
That’s the kind of argument I can get behind.
dmick89Quote Reply
Aside from Bourn, is there anyone left on the FA list that you think is worth looking at? Maybe Rolen in a part time role on a one-year contract? Or Chris Young for more pitching depth? Grady Sizemore on a minor league contract (Seems I heard he already did that, but if so MLBTR isn’t up to date..)?
SVBQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yeah, Bourn would be a great pick up for a contender. For a fourth place team with little hope of contending for a couple years, it’s the wrong move (IMHO).
Suburban kidQuote Reply
There’s some talk about the Mets possibly being able to keep their pick if they signed Bourn. What the fuck is up with that?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
The idea is that because the CBA only protected the top 10 picks in the draft, but Pittsburgh’s non-sign of Appel pushed the Mets out of the top 10, the Mets are trying to argue that it was against the spirit of the agreement. In the old days the non-sign compensation didn’t push anyone out of the top 15. But here, the CBA (as far as I know) doesn’t make that stipulation.
If I were the other 29 teams I’d tell the Mets to suck it up. Especially the Braves, because they certainly wouldn’t want the Mets to get off so easy.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Thanks, RC.
dmick89Quote Reply
Stated another way, the CBA appears to protect the 10 losingest teams in baseball from the prior season by protecting their first round draft pick. The Mets argue they fit that criteria and the Pirates shouldn’t be able to push them out of it because they couldn’t sign Appel. So the Mets want the CBA to protect the top 10 picks of the losingest teams, not the top 10 picks 1-10.
I agree with the Mets, not that anyone has asked.
SVBQuote Reply
@ SVB:
The counterargument here is that the stipulation being contested here was omitted deliberately so the Mets may not have a case after all. If they want to change it, they’d have to argue for it in the next CBA or set up an amendment later on. I also think Atlanta would have a major objection against the Mets getting an exception here.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Yes. Wonder how it will turn out. My guess is the Mets won’t get their way….
SVBQuote Reply
New Shit
MylesQuote Reply
Chrome suggests you’ve been infected with malware. Just FYI.
Rice CubeQuote Reply