Nov 29, 2012; Atlanta, GA, USA; Atlanta Braves outfielder B.J. Upton addresses the media after his signing during a press conference at Turner Field. Mandatory Credit: Daniel Shirey-US PRESSWIRE

Now, we have already looked at the pros and cons (twice) of adding Michael Bourn. I still am in the “no” camp. I think there are options out there that are less of a long-term investment and less of a risk for that money. General Manager Mike Rizzo says that he wants a dynamic lead off man, which means Bourn is definitely in the mix and that scares me because of the investment that will be necessary.

If Upton is getting five years, you have to think Bourn will want at least that. The problem is that Bourn is two years older than Upton. He is about to turn 30 which means that a five year deal will take him until he is at least 35. Carl Crawford signed his deal at age 30. Chone Figgins signed his after age 30. These are the worst case scenarios but it is the biggest image I have in my mind of what Bourn will be. Probably due to my watching way too many Seattle Mariners games the last three years.

With Upton signing first, it means there are even more teams in the running for Bourn, even though much of the rumored market for both players was pretty much the same. Like I mentioned already, there are other options available. I would much rather see a short term fixture like Angel Pagan or Shane Victorino than I would a five year contract on Bourn. But Rizzo has been right before, maybe he has something else under his sleeve. Too bad the Miami Marlins don’t have a center fielder with a big contract. That could have been an easy solution.

As for Upton signing with an NL East team, it doesn’t really worry me much. Sure, the Braves are probably the team best set to challenge the Nationals reign on the National League East, but I’m not sure Upton makes them that much better as we stand today. He definitely makes them better, I just don’t know if it puts them past the Nationals, and really any exercise in comparing two teams is best to do once Spring Training starts or at least when both teams are done their improvements. We know the Nationals will add at least one major league player to their team as we stand whether it be a pitcher, outfielder or infielder. We can assume the Braves aren’t done either.

Upton signing with the Braves only means that the market for Bourn changes and perhaps even intensifies. When competition for a Scott Boras client emerges, the only loser is the team looking for value. I don’t know if the Nationals can afford to have an outfield that includes Jayson Werth and Michael Bourn signed to big contracts especially when they will have other holes to fill and other big parts of the team to sign to long-term deals.

Buckle up, folks. The off-season is just getting started.

Aug 29, 2012; San Diego, CA, USA; Atlanta Braves center fielder Michael Bourn (24) walks back to the dugout after striking out in the eighth inning against the San Diego Padres at Petco Park. Mandatory Credit: Jake Roth-US PRESSWIRE

My fellow District on Deck blogger Andrew Flax posted an article several days ago expounding upon the reasons that the Nats should sign center fielder Michael Bourn. I felt compelled to weigh in on all the reasons the Nats and Michael Bourn are not a good fit.

Two years ago, Michael Bourn would have been the answer to the Nats prayers for a center fielder and lead off hitter. That ship has sailed. The current Nats team is not the same team as it was, player wise or prospect wise.

Signing Michael Bourn to play center field jams up the Nats outfield in negative ways. If the Nats don’t resign Adam LaRoche, then they can move Michael Morse to first and platoon Tyler Moore and Roger Bernadina in left field. The Nats also can move Tyler Moore to first base, his natural position, and let him hit everyday and keep Morse in left field. The Nats have good outfield prospects in Corey Brown, Eury Perez and Brian Goodwin who are available to come up in the event of injury and at least one of them will be major league ready next year. Bernadina needs playing time too.

Bryce Harper took the center field job last year and by the end of the season, owned it. Long term, the Nats will want to move Harper to one of the corner outfield spots to preserve the longevity of his career. That move does not need to be made for several years. Harper will only be 20 years old this year. By the end of the season, teams were afraid to send average runners from third base to score on fly balls to center field. Know why? Harper proved he has an accurate cannon for an arm and can throw out runners trying to score from third. He was making highlight reel throws that previously only Rick Ankiel had managed to produce for the Nats. One of the reasons the Nats could let Ankiel go mid-season was because Harper proved he could play center field. The Nats didn’t need Ankiel as a substitute center fielder with Harper and Bernadina on the team.

When Harper is ready to move to one of the corner outfield spots, Brown, Perez or Goodwin should be ready to take over the job. If not, the Nats can sign a center fielder when they need one.

Baseball managers and teams make way too much to do over the position of “lead off hitter”. You know how many times a lead off hitter hits lead off in a game? Usually once. That is the guaranteed number of times the first hitter in the order leads off an inning. As soon as another player on the team gets on base, your lead off hitter is going to be hitting second or third in an inning the next time he comes to the plate. Then he is just another batter. A player who strikes out a lot, as Michael Bourn does, hurts the team by not moving runners over who got on base in front of him and increasing the chances of making the second or third out in an inning when they come up right behind the pitcher.

The Nats need to construct a line up that works. Toward the end of the season, Davey Johnson had done just that, having Werth hit lead off and Harper hitting behind him in the number two spot. When both of them got on they were a threat to execute a double steal. Jayson Werth is the smartest baserunner on the team. Equally interesting combinations are Harper hitting lead off and Werth hitting behind him, using Steve Lombardozzi to lead off when he gets a start, and using Danny Espinosa as a lead off hitter if, again, he can stop striking out so much. One of the reasons Espinosa isn’t hitting lead off is because of his high strikeout numbers. Why is having Bourn, another high strikeout guy, a better option at lead off? Davey Johnson has proven time and again that he can construct a line up that works with the players he has. The Nats don’t need to spend in excess of $75 million dollars to solve a lead off hitter problem that doesn’t really exist.

That talk of $75 million dollars is another reason the Nats shouldn’t sign Bourn. The Braves just signed B.J. Upton to a five year deal worth $75.25 million. Upton is a career .255 hitter who steals less bases than Bourn. The only advantages that Upton has over Bourn are that he is two years younger and hits more home runs. Now that the Braves gave Upton that kind of deal, the price for Bourn just went up. There is no way Scott Boras will accept anything less than a $80 million deal for Bourn now.

As much fun as it is to spend other people’s money, I can’t advocate that the Lerners spend in excess of $75 million dollars to get a player who will want a five or seven year deal who will be in his mid to late thirties by the time the deal is completed. Bourne most likely won’t be able to play center field to the end of the contract, which means the Nats will be back in the same box in a couple of years–in need of a center fielder. If the Bourn advocates think that getting him to play center for a couple of years and then letting one of the young prospects take over, moving Bourn to a corner will work (which it won’t, because what do you do with Werth and Harper if Bourn takes one of the corner positions?), then the Nats might as well let Harper play center for a couple more years and then move him to a corner position and let one of the young guns take over in center and save the cash.

The Nats will need that cash. The MASN television contact is still nowhere near finalized. The Nats don’t know how much money eventually will be available from the MASN deal. The Nats are going to need to have the cash and the flexibility to try to lock down Strasburg to a long term deal–and that may turn out to be the most expensive contract for a pitcher ever when all is said and done. The Nats should be thinking about getting Jordan Zimmerman in the fold on a long term deal, which will not be cheap either. If Ross Detwiler has another good year, wanting the cash available to sign him long term may be a good idea. In a couple of years, they may want to try to sign Harper long term. Juggling payroll is not just a matter of figuring out what you have available to spend this year, but what are you going to need to spend down the road to keep your good players on the team. Wasting $75 million dollars is never a good idea, and using that money to sign Bourn may mean missing out on locking down Jordan Zimmerman, Detwiler or Strasburg.

The Nats for this season need a fifth starter (unless they kiss and make up with John Lannan, which is unlikely) and they are either going to need to spend $15-$20 million to keep Sean Burnett or they are going to have to go out and sign another left handed reliever. The Nats have a few holes to fill for this coming year, but center field is not one of them. The Nats should pass on the Michael Bourn sweepstakes.

September 16, 2012; Atlanta, GA, USA; Atlanta Braves center fielder Michael Bourn (24) slides into third safely before the tag by Washington Nationals shortstop Ian Desmond (20) in the seventh inning at Turner Field. Mandatory Credit: Daniel Shirey-US PRESSWIRE

The Nationals’ lineup is, as it stands, already quite full. The only spots that could potentially change are the outfield and first base. If Adam LaRoche re-signs, then the lineup is essentially locked, with him at first and an outfield of Morse/Harper/Werth, unless the team decides to trade Morse. If LaRoche does not re-sign, however, a world of possibilities is opened. The team could sign another first baseman-type player, and has reportedly expressed interest in Nick Swisher. However, this does not address the need for a leadoff hitter. The only way in which this need could be addressed is if the team either trades Morse or does not re-sign LaRoche, and then signs Michael Bourn.

Last season with the Braves, Bourn hit .274/.348/.391. At first glance, these numbers are not particularly impressive. Werth’s OBP and slugging were both significantly higher. However, Bourn also stole 42 bases, good for second in the NL. He was also a premier defensive player, committing only two errors all season despite playing the third-most innings among NL outfielders. He led baseball in UZR/150 at 22.5; meaning that he saved 22.5 runs more than the average MLB outfielder. As an overall contributor, Bourn finished 13th in baseball with 6.4 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) according to Fangraphs, a full run more than the top National, Ian Desmond, who had 5.4 WAR. Bourn would be a huge upgrade over Harper defensively in center, and a boon to the top of the lineup as well.

While Bourn is a force atop the lineup, he has his drawbacks as well. One of the biggest knocks against him is that he strikes out a lot, 155 times in 2012, or in more than 20% of his plate appearances. The main reason that a high strikeout rate is bad is that while some outs in play can score runners, such as sacrifice flies, strikeouts cannot. As the leadoff hitter, however, Bourn will not often have to hit with runners on base, which means that strikeouts are not as much of a problem as they would be for any other player. Critics will also note that 2013 will be Bourn’s age 30 season, and speed is the first skill to depart as a player ages. While Bourn may be 30, he is a relatively young 30. His rookie season was his age 24 season, which means that he has less wear-and-tear on him than a similar player whose major league debut came at age 21 or 22.

The final criticism of Bourn is that he will command a large salary, which is undoubtedly true. Former Nationals GM and ESPN columnist Jim Bowden predicted that Bourn would sign a 5 year, $75M deal, paying him $15M a year. The issue here is not that the Nationals cannot afford this deal, which they can. The Lerners are baseball’s richest owners, and can foot any bill. The concern is that Bourn may not be worth the money. The standard across baseball is to pay approximately $5M per Win Above Replacement. By that logic, Bourn’s 2012 season was worth over $30M. If he can produce at a similar level going forward, then the deal would be a bargain. The break-even point for this deal would be 3 WAR, a benchmark that Bourn has met for each of the last four seasons. If Bourn’s production does not suddenly drop precipitously, a deal like that would be within reason. Signing Bourn to a long-term deal in center would also lock down the entire Nats outfield for the foreseeable future, turning promising prospects such as Brian Goodwin into valuable trade chips with which the Nationals can improve other positions.

Across the board, Bourn is a perfect fit for the Nats. He fits their needs, his weaknesses are few and far between, and best of all: signing him significantly weakens his former team and the Nats’ fierce division rival, the Atlanta Braves. Adding Bourn would be a huge step forward for the Nats, and he could be a significant piece of a championship team in 2013.