clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Should The Astros Go Long-Term With Michael Bourn?

I know, it's weird to think about commitment when you're such an utter wreck, but the Astros are going to have to deal with Michael Bourn sooner or later. He has one year of arbitration eligibility left after this season is up, and recently hired Scott Boras as his agent. Those are the jumping points for FanGraphs' Eric Seidman, who doesn't think that signing Bourn long-term is a good idea for the Astros:

↵
↵

Bourn might be known as a defense-first player, but let's not act like he swings feebly. He can run, and reaches base at an above average clip to properly utilize his speed. Put everything together and Bourn has truly maximized his value based on his skills. Is that worth 5-WAR money? I have a hard time seeing some team giving him a 5/$75, or a 6/$87.5, which would calculate out to a break-even at 3.5 WAR/season.

↵

...

↵

The best course of action would be for the Astros to test the trade market for Bourn, as many teams could benefit from what he provides much more than they will. The move would make plenty of sense this year, as well, given his $4.4 million salary - taking on half of that over the rest of the season would not hinder payroll flexibility or the ability to make additional in-season moves. Bourn is an average hitter with tremendous defensive ability. He will get paid, but it shouldn't be by the Astros, and it will almost certainly be for an average annual value less than his recent production merits.

↵
↵

Seems to make logical sense to me. Unless Bourn is willing to take a steep hometown discount (hint: he hired Boras, so he isn't) the Astros should be wary of handing over big bucks to a player whose value is almost completely tied up in defense. The Astros would just be doing what they did with the Wandy Rodriguez and Brett Myers extensions: removing the players value to chase mediocrity. 

↵

Images by eflon used in background images under a Creative Commons license. Thank you.