Bourn would give the team fantastic OF defense. It would also put Stubbs in a better spot to be platooned. I wouldn't be against signing him so long as the money isn't too crazy.
That said, the offense would have all sorts of bad potential. A lineup full of scrappy doos can be frustrating to watch when things are going OK. It can be absolutely brutal when slumps hit. The Indians aren't good enough to be risk averse, but this move would still be a roll of the dice.
I know this may sound crazy, but could they go for both Swisher and Bourn? They could really use both of them and since they were going to offer Edwin Jackson and Swisher, why not adjust the plan and put the money into Bourn? That would give us one of the best defensive OFs in the MLs and also a pretty solid lineup. Interesting thought.
first I heard of this !!!!! I'd actually prefer him straight up over Swisher, if we can only afford one of them. Legitimate All-Star, and would give us at least a little credability. Like everyone has said too, proto-typical lead off guy.......and maybe the best base stealer in all of baseball !!!!!
Edg1931 wrote: I know this may sound crazy, but could they go for both Swisher and Bourn? They could really use both of them and since they were going to offer Edwin Jackson and Swisher, why not adjust the plan and put the money into Bourn? That would give us one of the best defensive OFs in the MLs and also a pretty solid lineup. Interesting thought.
I guess if they truly were prepared to sign both, they might be able to bring both Bourn and Swish in. This would of course come at the expense of any chance of a FA starter. But it's not like the remaining FA-SP crop is great anyway. If they want to get buckwild, they could bring in Swish-Bourn and deal Droob/CP for a starter(s). At that point, we'd be looking at a complete team overhaul. Not the worst thing.
Not so fast. Based on what Bowden said WFNY asserted that "the Indians are reportedly on the short list of teams “in the market” for OF Michael Bourn, according to a tweet from ESPN and XM analyst Jim Bowden."
What Bowden actually said was "Michael Bourn's market includes: Sea, Cleve, Mia, Phil, NYM, TX." All it appears Bowden was doing was identifying teams that might still have an interest in Bourn -- not that there is in fact any such interest by these teams.
I'm surprised anybody believes Bourn would be a good fit on this team - especially over Swisher. We already have Stubbs who's game is much like Bourn's ableit not quite as good. Bourn gets on base at a better clip, but he isn't a table setter imo. What is it about his career 339OBP that makes anybody think he would be such a good leadoff hitter? He also led the league in caught stealing. He's a basestealer by volume.
Also, he's a RH hitter and we just added 2 to our lineup. Swisher is a SH who hits for power - a middle of the order hitter and that's what we need the most.
If the Indians are going to overpay for a player then at least let it be to fill the biggest need in the lineup.
I would pass on Bourn. Bourn is a good table setter, but we really need guys are are table clearers more. Brantley, Stubbs, Kipnis should all be decent table setters, but we need another guy capable of driving them in. Cabrera and Santana are inconsistent in that regard. This is not a knock on Michael Bourn as he is a solid player, but I just question how valuable he would be to our team if there isn't anyone that can get him home when he gets on base and uses his speed to get into scoring position.
breadman20 wrote: Everything Brett said about what Tito said.
Everything Bread said about what Brett said about...ah, never mind.
Anyone enthusiastic about Bourn should look at his second half last year. Let me put it this way; he wouldn't have stood out from everyone else on the Tribe...
Sometimes I don't think we look closely enough at why teams let their players walk. This is especially relevant in Swisher and Bourn's case. These are not players from teams that couldn't afford them, nor are they from teams that didn't NEED players of their exact profile. Bottom line, the teams didn't WANT them back, and for good reason: the price was never going to worth what they knew the team would get from them.
And they were, and are, quite correct. Just say no, Tribe, just say no.