MLB Free Agency 2013: "No Chance" New York Yankees Pursue Michael Bourn
It was rather shocking to see Michael Bourn's name linked to the New York Yankees this winter.
It's shocking because the Yankees already have their outfield all set for the 2013 season with Brett Gardner in left, Curtis Granderson in center and the recently re-signed Ichiro Suzuki in right.
However, in a story done this week by Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe, the Yankees were "quietly" in on the center fielder, but only if the price tag dropped.
According to Wallace Matthews of ESPN, that will not be happening, as a source has told Matthews that there is "no chance" the Bombers pursue Bourn.
For those who were hoping for the Yankees to go after Bourn, I'd hate to be the one to tell you this, but it makes sense that the Yankees aren't interested.
Why? Because the Yankees already have that kind of player on their roster in Gardner.
Wise move for the Yankees to not pursue Michael Bourn?
Both are known for their tremendous speed in the outfield and on the basepaths, neither are any resemblance of a power hitter and have geared their games toward being a leadoff hitter and both are left-handed.
And that's exactly what the Yankees have a lot of in their outfield and lineup, lefty hitters.
Right now, they are currently searching for a right-handed outfield bat and both Scott Hairston of the Mets and Vernon Wells of the Angels have been linked to the Yankees as possibilities for that spot.
And if you asked me right now where Bourn lands, I'd say either one of those spots depending on who is willing to pony up a little more dough for the soon-to-be 30-year-old.
Most people like Matthews are waiting for the Yankees to "make their big splash" of the winter.
That's something the Yankees haven't done yet, but there's still a lot of winter offseason left before pitchers and catchers report.
However, it looks like Bourn just won't be that "big splash."
Stay tuned, Yankees Universe.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?