Bats: Mets Need a Center Fielder, but at What Cost?

Eight years ago, the Mets pursued a free-agent center fielder represented by Scott Boras, baseball's most formidable and unyielding agent.

That player was Carlos Beltran, who was coming off a sensational 2004 postseason for the Houston Astros in which he hit eight home runs and batted nearly .500. He was 27, and considered one of baseball's elite players, and the Mets, in Omar Minaya's first winter as general manager, went after him hard.

Still, the assumption was that the Yankees, George Steinbrenner's Yankees, would end up with Beltran because, well, because they were the Yankees. But on Jan. 7, 2005, The New York Times published a story by Murray Chass that reported that the Yankees were actually going to take a pass on Beltran, unwilling to pay the 40 percent luxury tax on the $100 million or more it would take to sign him.

Yankee fans were incredulous. I remember one, obviously not a Times reader, who called a sports-talk host on WFAN and said: "Who is this Murray Chass, and how come he's saying the Yankees won't sign Beltran?"

Chass was saying it because it was true even though Boras stood on his head to make it not so. In the end, the Mets and Minaya did land Beltran, for seven years and $119 million, beginning a bittersweet relationship that led to a famous called strike three but no parades up Broadway.

Fast forward to January 2013. The Mets now appear to have at least some interest in a free-agent center fielder represented by the same Mr. Boras, although this player is not in Beltran's class. Michael Bourn is 30, hit .274 last season with 9 home runs and 57 runs batted in, and also stole 42 bases for the Atlanta Braves.

In other words, he can run, and field and hit for a decent average while playing just about every day, which is much more than can be said for the dubious lineup of outfielders currently on the Mets' roster.

But would the Mets, who spend as little money as possible these days as they try to resolve their financial issues, really reach a multiyear deal with Boras of all people? Would they potentially spend tens of millions of dollars on a player who is probably not good enough to make that much of a difference to a Mets team that looks headed for still another fourth-place finish next season?

And would they really be willing to surrender a first-round draft pick as free-agent compensation in order to sign Bourn? Right now, they would have to, because they have the 11th pick in the first round of the 2013 draft and only the top 10 picks are protected from compensation awards.

Actually, the Mets did have the 10th pick but were bumped down one spot when Pittsburgh was awarded a top 10 slot after failing to sign their own first-round pick in 2012. The Mets could petition Major League Baseball, arguing that they did, after all, have the 10th worst record in baseball last season and should have a top 10 pick regardless of what happened to the Pirates.

If baseball doesn't agree, the players union could file a grievance on the Mets' behalf. But even if the Mets, one way or another, end up with a protected first-round pick, would they really spend a lot of money on Bourn? Is it possible this whole flirtation with Bourn is at least partly designed to make it seem as if the Mets are trying to do something, even though they know the odds of anything really happening are pretty slim?

Back in the winter of 2004-5, the Mets had money to spend and spent it. Now, they have a lot less money. And at least for the moment, no real center fielder.