Bourn To Run

I can’t believe I have to keep doing this (and maybe I don’t since most, if not all readers of this blog are on board) but it seems the dumb faction of Mets fans (Yankees fans in the wrong colors) are agitating for the Mets to sign Michael Bourn.
Bourn turned down $13m this year to stay with the Braves, so he’ll probably hope to get even more than that per year for a deal of 3 or 4 years.
Bourn is 30 and not even a particularly good player. He is below average offensively. His OPS+ for the last two years was 85 and 99 (100 is league average). He has zero power, and his on-base isn’t even good. He’s never been above .355 which is basically the minimum you could accept from a leadoff hitter.
If the Mets were so desperate for a leadoff hitter they should have kept Jose Reyes. He was a much better offensive player, at a more important position, though not as stellar defensively. His contract was for more years and slightly more money than what Bourn would probably get, but it would carry them to the same age 34 season. The Mets got only a 2nd round pick for Reyes (more on this in a moment). They made the right decision allowing Reyes to leave, now it's time to follow through on that plan.
I understand Bourn's WAR over the past 4 years (4.9, 4.7, 4.1 & 6.4) has been fantastic. Those numbers have been boosted by exceptional fielding and base-running numbers, which I acknowledge are important. But they can be very fickle, fluctuating wildly, and a move to a new park could incite a change in his defensive metrics. Though you would expect a speedy center fielder to be even better in a big park like CitiField.

Michael Bourn's excellent glove could add several wins for the Mets, but they'd still be a 4th place team

Even if you could guarantee Bourn would add 5 wins to the Mets, and they could get 5 wins from other improvements (highly doubtful), that would still make the Mets an 84-win team, good enough for 3rd in the stacked NL East, at best. That's the complicating factor when analyzing the cost and value of wins on the open market. Wins that help a team improve from 70-something wins to the low-80s are of very little additional value. It's those wins that boost a team from the low and mid-80s into the playoffs that bring in additional millions.
Now remember another extenuating circumstance, the Mets would have to surrender their first round pick, the 11th overall in the draft as compensation for signing Bourn. This is a little tricky because the CBA states that for players in Bourn's class who were tendered by their teams the signing team would have to give up its highest pick as compensation, but the top 10 picks are protected. Technically, the Mets pick was 10th overall, but a pick was added because the Pirates didn't sign their pick, bumping the Mets down to #11, thus making it eligible to be forfeited for signing a player such as Bourn. The Mets have petitioned the league to get their pick protected because of this technicality, a challenge they are almost guaranteed to lose. But even if they do win, it would still be unwise.
Forget all the specifics, and look only at the broader picture: we have been here before, tried this strategy and it didn't work, it saddled the team with bad salaries and crippled us for years. Signing expensive free agents, especially ones who are barely above-average players (like Jason Bay) as they start to enter the age where their skills will decline, is a losing proposition. Yes, there's a strong chance the #11 draft pick will never play a single day in the major leagues, but as we have seen the teams that have built through the draft have built through the drafted have strong cores ready to contend for years. Teams that sign big-ticket free agents often end up struggling to get out from under those contracts for years, something I hoped the Mets were starting to get passed.