PDA

View Full Version : No Beltran...or any other Boras clients


jlim
11-15-2004, 11:43 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041115sox,1,4509617.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

:gulp:

MUsoxfan
11-15-2004, 11:53 PM
Either we're the cheapest team on earth or Scott Boras is more of a scumbag than a used car salesman

GiveMeSox
11-15-2004, 11:53 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041115sox,1,4509617.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

:gulp: Well its not like we didn't assume this already. This is more of just an official word. What Boras is acutally doing is colluding the market in his own way. He is setting the price before demand is assessed. He is purposly setting the price so high that he has limited the number of participants willing to sign his players to only the handful of big guys. Boras over values his players on purpose, the market would set a Beltran at probably the same level of a Vlad type deal but Boras of course cant let that happen for his own personal wealth and ego. It could be said that the players might be happier somewhere else, somewhere where they would take less $$, or somewhere with an uprising team, or somewhere closer to home. But Boras wont let that happen, the clients happiness is 2nd to the size and term of the contract and who puts the most $$ in the players and Boras's pockets. Some people bitch about the owners i think Boras is just as bad.

FightingBillini
11-15-2004, 11:57 PM
Either we're the cheapest team on earth or Scott Boras is more of a scumbag than a used car salesman
A little from column A a LOT from column B

ChiWhiteSox1337
11-15-2004, 11:58 PM
I know I shouldn't be surprised or saddened by this but I am. All this talk so far in the papers and radio about how the white sox were going to increase the payroll got me thinking we could land someone like Carlos Beltran. I hope we can still get a FA pitcher such as Carl Pavano and a few relievers......

NWSox
11-16-2004, 12:07 AM
I actually respect KW for coming out and saying that he won't be dealing with Boras. I wish more GMs would do the same. Now we just have to hope that KW doesn't go and overpay for some mediocre FAs.

StillMissOzzie
11-16-2004, 12:28 AM
Either we're the cheapest team on earth or Scott Boras is more of a scumbag than a used car salesman
FYI, these are not exactly what you'd call mutually exclusive.

SMO
:happybday to me!

DumpJerry
11-16-2004, 06:59 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-041115sox,1,4509617.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Article states that certain teams, like the White Sox, refuse to talk with Borasss and he is being a major jerk about Magglio (which only confirms my suspicion that Mags will never get cleared to play again). I guess if you're a baseball player and want to avoid certain teams like the White Sox (and others who were not named), just sign up with Borassss.

It must be great to get all that money being a Borassss client, too bad your fan base will be non-existant since loyalty is a two-way street.

Can't we tie Borasss to Osama so that he will disappear in a Navy brig for life?

SOXSINCE'70
11-16-2004, 07:16 AM
Either we're the cheapest team on earth or Scott Boras is more of a scumbag than a used car salesman
Or maybe option "C", BOTH!!:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

jabrch
11-16-2004, 07:25 AM
I am wondering what Boras is asking - and what sort of market there is of teams willing to meet his demands.

SoxFanTillDeath
11-16-2004, 07:45 AM
I actually respect KW for coming out and saying that he won't be dealing with Boras. I wish more GMs would do the same. Now we just have to hope that KW doesn't go and overpay for some mediocre FAs.

Does this mean we will end up overpaying for the other free agents though, because their agents know that we have a very limited selection since we "refuse" to deal with Boras?

I know Boras is a jerk, but I was really hoping for JD drew coming here after we trade CLee for Mark Mulder.

Does this mean that as long as Boras is around we will never sign a top free agent? I can't see this being anywhere near good....

Jjav829
11-16-2004, 07:57 AM
I am wondering what Boras is asking - and what sort of market there is of teams willing to meet his demands.
He's asking for the world and the market is non-existant. Seriously, I get the idea that a lot of teams are laughing at his demands. The Yankees have already decided to forget about Beltran for a few weeks and go address their pitching while waiting for Boras's demands to come down significantly.

Nonetheless, it's always nice to know as a fan that your team has no chance to sign some of the top players in the game because your team won't negotiate with their agent. Well, I guess there is one positive out of this story.

The White Sox could go after Minnesota free agent Cristian Guzman but more likely will settle for someone like Placido Polanco, who most teams see as a backup shortstop. Last season he hit a career-high 17 home runs to go with 55 RBIs for Philadelphia, playing 109 games at second base, 13 at third and none at shortstop.
I love the way that is stated. O, damn, no Christian Guzman. We'll just have to settle for Placido Polanco. :rolleyes: Do us a favor Kenny, "settle" for Placido Polanco!

Hitmen77
11-16-2004, 08:04 AM
I'd like to see the Sox sign great free agents as much as the next guy, but I can't say that I disagree w/ Kenny Williams on this one.

Here's what I don't understand - it seems like alot of people like to say that ballplayers should get as much money as the stupid owners are willing to pay them (good point). But, the same people will turn around and complain about the cheapness of owners who don't bow down to the likes of Boras and players asking for $10-20 million/year. We can't have it both ways!

In the end, we pay for these outrageous salaries through inflated ticket prices. Now alot of people will say that if people are stupid enough to spend over $100 to take their family to a game, then they shouldn't complain. But, then the same people turn around and say that anyone who doesn't go to alot of games is not a "real" fan and that the Cubs have the "best" fans because they blindly buy tickets regardless of cost or quality of product.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 08:06 AM
Let's see - KW says he's avoiding Boras because he's overvaluing his clients (something that seems to at least anecdotally be true fo other teams as well based on comments in this thread). So if/when Boras comes down from his demands (like a 5-year/notrade deal for a 30+ yr old catcher), this might be revisited. That's all it means. Of course if the demands don't come down or don't come down enough, we're out of the running.


As for Maggs, I'm very surprised that we haven't seen any remarks on how Maggs is violating the CBA by refusing a medical exam. That's got to be worth something to the Sox.

Dolanski
11-16-2004, 08:20 AM
All I can hope for is this. Remember last year when Boras tried to play the drive the price up game with Maddux and IRod? The teams all balked at his demands and waited them out and they got them about what they deserved contractwise, more or less.

Look at Jason Varitek. NO ONE, and I mean no one, is going to give a 5 year guaranteed deal for a 34 year old catcher. Not saying we are going to get him, but Boras' strong arm tactics with V-Tek are just a sign of how he operates and how idiotic his demands can be. If the Red Sox aren't going to give him 5 guaranteed years, who else is? No one, that's who. His price, like some (not all) of Boras' clients will come back to earth. Either that, or he will just sucker Tom Hicks into overpaying for his leftovers again (Chan Ho Park baby!)

Also, its only November. A lot can happen between how and Spring Training...

hold2dibber
11-16-2004, 08:23 AM
I think KW is absolutely right in not dealing with Boras if his demands are off the charts. I don't understand, however, why KW thinks its a good idea to go spout off to the press about it. Why not just shut your pie hole and let other agents think you're talking to Boras, too. Other agents now know, for example, that the Sox don't have Lowe or Millwood as an option, so maybe the price for Radke or Leiber just went up a little when their agents talk to KW.

Over By There
11-16-2004, 08:43 AM
I don't have a problem with the stance KW is taking here.

It seems to me that Boras bargains in bad faith. Particularly the whole Magglio thing - the Sox are a part of the deal, but Boras/Ordonez own the information and are not releasing it because it's not in their best interest. That is not good faith bargaining, and you can't blame KW or other GMs for not wanting to deal with that.

Now whether KW needs to come out and talk to the media about his stance is another thing. And of course I'd love to bring some top name free agents here. But all in all, I respect that KW is taking a stand on this, and I hope other GMs follow his lead. As a fan of any team, if your GM gets burned by someone like Boras because he's manipulating the market, it's bad for you as a fan and we should be behind the GMs that are standing up to this behavior.

soxtalker
11-16-2004, 09:04 AM
Has anyone gotten some of the players' perspectives on working with Boras? On the surface, he seems to get his players the highest salarly possible. By itself, that would seem to be great for the player. What's the downside? Have any players defected from Boras and indicated why?

Justafan
11-16-2004, 09:05 AM
I started a thread a month ago titled "get ready for a long off season" and I was torched by a few posters who suggested I was jumping the gun. Well, I now ask those same posters to eat crow and acknowledge that it does not look so good.

The fact that the Sox will not be going after the best players in F/A confirms it. Like I said, same dance, different year.

Procol Harum
11-16-2004, 09:17 AM
Boras is a bad guy. Boras is a snake oil salesman. Boras is overpricing his players. JR and KW won't deal with him--aren't they heroes? Perhaps not in August when our big free agent signing for 2005, Placido Polanco, is batting .226 and is 9th in the league among starting shortstops in fielding % and range factor and the Sox are 62-60, 8 games out of first and 5 behind in the Wild Card.

Given all that, I could forgive JR and crew for being a bit frugal in this instance if I didn't have the last decade + of bad free agent management to account for--this is the same fiscal genius who thought paying the big bucks to Jaime Navarro and Albert "Clubhouse/Public relations Poison" Belle was a great idea. :o:

gosox41
11-16-2004, 09:20 AM
I am wondering what Boras is asking - and what sort of market there is of teams willing to meet his demands.
It's Boras' style to ask a ton for his players. He does it every year. Ivan Rodriguez is his most recent example.

Both sides are posturing. None of Boras big time clients are expected to sign before December so odds are discussions haven't gotten serious yet with any team.


Bob

Kogs35
11-16-2004, 09:21 AM
this just proves a point that the ptb in baseball get rid of these agents who think there god. i hate scott boras and i wish and hope that mlb gets him out of here asap. there is a reason why the nfl is theeee number 1 league right now. and maggs is violating the cba with not letting teams see his knee especally the sox to see it. i hate u scott boras

Tekijawa
11-16-2004, 09:21 AM
SHOCKING. I didn't see this comming at all.

jabrch
11-16-2004, 09:38 AM
It's Boras' style to ask a ton for his players. He does it every year. Ivan Rodriguez is his most recent example.

Both sides are posturing. None of Boras big time clients are expected to sign before December so odds are discussions haven't gotten serious yet with any team.


Bob
Incidentally - he got I-Rod exactly what he said he would - 4/40. I don't know what the price tags are on Drew, Milwood, Varitek and Lowe. We saw the 8 years and 20mm per #s or whatever they were that Boras tossed on Beltran last week. It sounds to me like there will be no market for that. I am assuming he is being equally as out of line with the market with Drew and Ordonez. We heard 5/50 on Varitek - thats not happening, right? He tried to fool people last year into giving Milwood 5/50 and he turned down 3/30...I don't see Milwood getting 10mm anymore - not after last year.

The reality has to fall somewhere in the middle. I agree here that KW is being smart not to pay these crazy, over-market prices in the first week of free agnecy. As time goes on, if all owners and GMs (independent of eachother, of course) do not pay these prices, they will eventually fall. (so said my Economics professors 10 years ago) But I hope KW/JR don't mean that they will never ever ever consider dealing with Boras. Hopefully in January the prices for one or more of his players might be more realistic - and we might play in that area. If not, and if Boras can create a market for those players that is large enough to meet their demands, then I guess we can only hope that this would leave us in a position to bid on the non-Boras clients. (Pedro? Pavano? Clement? RJ? etc...)

Justafan
11-16-2004, 09:41 AM
Christian Guzman jerseys will be a hot sell this year.

DMarte708
11-16-2004, 09:46 AM
I started a thread a month ago titled "get ready for a long off season" and I was torched by a few posters who suggested I was jumping the gun. Well, I now ask those same posters to eat crow and acknowledge that it does not look so good.

The fact that the Sox will not be going after the best players in F/A confirms it. Like I said, same dance, different year.Some members fail to grasp the reality of Chicago White Sox baseball. Several of the additional revenue streams (attendance/TV deal) some thought would boost payroll haven't. You don't "show interest" in Christian Guzman and Pokey Reese unless financial constraints are tight.

It's very frustrating depending on KW to locate the next Esteban Loaiza, and then proceed to tell us (the fans) how much potential he has. I've come to the realization that no significant moves will occur.

Watch how quickly Williams falls back on his best-rotation-in- AL Central card when no significant offseason improvements are made.

October, 2004:

:KW

"The focus of our offseason will be a front of the line starting pitcher and OBP players."

February, 2005: Kenny Williams is immersed in a Soxfest argument over lack of offseason moves.

:KW

"I'm very confident with the players currently on our roster. Our first four starters match up well with any team in MLB, and our offense can bash with the best of them. Perhaps our biggest surprise will be the reemergence of Joe Borchard. Remember him? He hit a glorious....majestic...500 ft HR which forever fueled my ego. He'll patrol RF next season."

Justafan
11-16-2004, 09:51 AM
:KW
"I fully expect Crede to have a breakout year and Borchard will make Sox fans forget aboout Ordonez". Good times!

lowesox
11-16-2004, 09:54 AM
I think this is good news. The sox need lesser-known role players. I think the Vizquel/Ordonez developments will keep Kenny from making a big mistake.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 10:00 AM
Well its not like we didn't assume this already. This is more of just an official word. What Boras is acutally doing is colluding the market in his own way. He is setting the price before demand is assessed. He is purposly setting the price so high that he has limited the number of participants willing to sign his players to only the handful of big guys. Boras over values his players on purpose, the market would set a Beltran at probably the same level of a Vlad type deal but Boras of course cant let that happen for his own personal wealth and ego. It could be said that the players might be happier somewhere else, somewhere where they would take less $$, or somewhere with an uprising team, or somewhere closer to home. But Boras wont let that happen, the clients happiness is 2nd to the size and term of the contract and who puts the most $$ in the players and Boras's pockets. Some people bitch about the owners i think Boras is just as bad.
Can someone translate this for me? I honestly have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Setting the price so high that only a few teams can compete for Beltran's services? In other words, put up or shut up? Isn't that the way it always is, always has been and always will be for FA players? Is it Boras' fault that he happens to have the most desireable players in his portfolio? Should he price Beltran the same as a b-tier FA and hope Beltran will be happier with less money or should he get the best deal for his client and hope his client can build a life in NY or Boston or Atlanta or LA as a young celebrity with a pocket full of cash?

This constant condemnation of agents trying to do the best they can for their clients financially while assuming they haven't spoken to their client about what cities they would like to play in is just plain silly.

Millionaires trying to get the best deal possible from billionaires and we blame the millionaires and their lawyers for trying to get a few extra bucks.

That's just plain ridiculous...

I realize we Sox fans would love to see Beltran playing on the South Side of Chicago (in the baddest part of town), but in the end, it comes down to one man's fault that that won't happen and it isn't Scott Boras or even Carlos Beltran.

:reinsy
"Why are you looking at me?"

duke of dorwood
11-16-2004, 10:01 AM
Shocking news item of the year

Ken Williams will not negotiate regarding ANY Scott Boras free agents

I'm Stunned !!!!!!!!!!!!1

kittle42
11-16-2004, 10:04 AM
Some members fail to grasp the reality of Chicago White Sox baseball. Several of the additional revenue streams (attendance/TV deal) some thought would boost payroll haven't. You don't "show interest" in Christian Guzman and Pokey Reese unless financial constraints are tight.

It's very frustrating depending on KW to locate the next Esteban Loaiza, and then proceed to tell us (the fans) how much potential he has. I've come to the realization that no significant moves will occur.

Watch how quickly Williams falls back on his best-rotation-in- AL Central card when no significant offseason improvements are made.

October, 2004:

"The focus of our offseason will be a front of the line starting pitcher and OBP players."

February, 2005: Kenny Williams is immersed in a Soxfest argument over lack of offseason moves.

"I'm very confident with the players currently on our roster. Our first four starters match up well with any team in MLB, and our offense can bash with the best of them. Perhaps our biggest surprise will be the reemergence of Joe Borchard. Remember him? He hit a glorious....majestic...500 ft HR which forever fueled my ego. He'll patrol RF next season."
Bingo and bingo. How do some Sox fans led themselves get deluded every offseason?

Baby Fisk
11-16-2004, 10:06 AM
Meh, we don't need them anyway.

:reinsy

"Did you hear that, Kenny? It's working, it's working!"

Rocky Soprano
11-16-2004, 10:07 AM
Good Bye Maggs. :whiner:

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 10:10 AM
On a side note, nothing Boras is doing can be considered illegal or a violation of the CBA.

However, if the owners get together and say "We won't bid on Boras clients" then they are definitely doing something illegal.

Now for the fun conspiracy stuff:

Does anyone else wonder if KW's public comments are a message to the rest of the owners? Would it shock anyone to learn that JR is trying to influence the FA market by sending his GM out to make these comments to a Cubune reporter in an attempt to influence the prices of these high value FA's?

Even if not, it certainly would make for interesting court room fodder if/(more likely) when the next anti-trust lawsuit gets dropped on the owners for collusion and violations of the CBA.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 10:17 AM
On a side note, nothing Boras is doing can be considered illegal or a violation of the CBA.

.
Actually, I believe that his refusal to allow Sox docs to evaluate Maggs is a violation of the CBA, and I'm quite surprised that the Sox haven't either made that public or at least filed a grievance with the league/union.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 10:19 AM
Actually, I believe that his refusal to allow Sox docs to evaluate Maggs is a violation of the CBA, and I'm quite surprised that the Sox haven't either made that public or at least filed a grievance with the league/union.
Don't they actually have to offer arbitration before he is considered Sox property?

Also, since the deadline hasn't passed for them to offer arbitration, nothing Maggs or Boras has done could be considered a violation yet...

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 10:19 AM
On a side note, nothing Boras is doing can be considered illegal or a violation of the CBA.

However, if the owners get together and say "We won't bid on Boras clients" then they are definitely doing something illegal.

Now for the fun conspiracy stuff:

Does anyone else wonder if KW's public comments are a message to the rest of the owners? Would it shock anyone to learn that JR is trying to influence the FA market by sending his GM out to make these comments to a Cubune reporter in an attempt to influence the prices of these high value FA's?

Even if not, it certainly would make for interesting court room fodder if/(more likely) when the next anti-trust lawsuit gets dropped on the owners for collusion and violations of the CBA.One of the things that changed in one of the previous CBA's is the standard for proving collusion. It's a lot higher. There has to be explicit collusion shown. A presumption of collusion when owners don't bid on FA players is no longer sufficient.

DMarte708
11-16-2004, 10:21 AM
However, if the owners get together and say "We won't bid on Boras clients" then they are definitely doing something illegal.
Instead of owners agreeing to refuse offers for Boras clients, would it be the same to say "We feel the price of this particular agent is not within our price range." Offer bids, but just below his asking price. If no owner is willing to pay Beltran 180 million over 10 years that shouldn't be collusion.

There has to be a way to combat the Eboras virus.

EDIT: Ol' 2 beat me to it.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 10:22 AM
One of the things that changed in one of the previous CBA's is the standard for proving collusion. It's a lot higher. There has to be explicit collusion shown. A presumption of collusion when owners don't bid on FA players is no longer sufficient.
Would stepping up to a microphone or talking into one that a major newspaper reporter is holding and saying, "(THE SOX) will not be bidding on ANY Boras client" be considered proof?

My comment was intended half in jest, but if the rest of the owners follow JR/KW's lead, it could certainly be construed that way...

Justafan
11-16-2004, 10:22 AM
Good Bye Maggs. :whiner:
But at least he will still be playing in Chicago.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 10:25 AM
But at least he will still be playing in Chicago.
Playing what? Wheelchair basketball? At this point, that seems as likely as him playing baseball on opening day, 2005.

Hangar18
11-16-2004, 10:27 AM
As for Maggs, I'm very surprised that we haven't seen any remarks on how Maggs is violating the CBA by refusing a medical exam. That's got to be worth something to the Sox.
Steff brought this up a while back ......... Why the Chicago Media ISNT
all over this story is beyond me .... oh wait, theyre all trying to get a jump
on Little Darren Baker and what his process will be for choosing pinch-hitters...

Justafan
11-16-2004, 10:28 AM
Playing what? Wheelchair basketball? At this point, that seems as likely as him playing baseball on opening day, 2005.
Boras has gone on record as saying Ordonez is fine and will prove it at the winter meetings. He knows what he is doing and I will not be at all surprised to see him playing LF with the Cubs next year.

Justafan
11-16-2004, 10:29 AM
Steff brought this up a while back ......... Why the Chicago Media ISNT
all over this story is beyond me .... oh wait, theyre all trying to get a jump
on Little Darren Baker and what his process will be for choosing pinch-hitters...
Actually, the media is recruiting Ordonez, like Beltran, for the Cubs. If you think otherwise, you are a foolish man.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 10:36 AM
Boras has gone on record as saying Ordonez is fine and will prove it at the winter meetings. He knows what he is doing and I will not be at all surprised to see him playing LF with the Cubs next year.
Yeah, he's also said that he'll have Maggs "work out" for teams, but no mention of medical exams. If Maggs is doing so well, why not kill all speculation and let the Sox examine him? If he's healthy, the comp picks from arbitration wouldn't be a drag on the $$$ or the overall contract terms (it hasn't in the past). The only rational explanation is that the exam will show something that will drive down Maggs value, and so the lack of compensation picks will become a factor in how teams value him.

ode to veeck
11-16-2004, 10:36 AM
... best-rotation-in- AL Central card ...
An oxymoron if there ever was one, likely to be heard again though from our stellar front office

I'm also curious why more noise or explanation is not given for Sox not getting/exercising rights to Maggs' medical.

Justafan
11-16-2004, 10:38 AM
If Maggs is doing so well, why not kill all speculation and let the Sox examine him?Flight,

Because Ordonez wants NOTHING to do with Reinsdorf and Williams anymore. Bridges are burned.

Kogs35
11-16-2004, 10:38 AM
Yeah, he's also said that he'll have Maggs "work out" for teams, but no mention of medical exams. If Maggs is doing so well, why not kill all speculation and let the Sox examine him? If he's healthy, the comp picks from arbitration wouldn't be a drag on the $$$ or the overall contract terms (it hasn't in the past). The only rational explanation is that the exam will show something that will drive down Maggs value, and so the lack of compensation picks will become a factor in how teams value him.
so cant the sox file like a protest or something with mlb about the magglio situation?

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 10:41 AM
Flight,

Because Ordonez wants NOTHING to do with Reinsdorf and Willams anymore. Bridges are burned.
Doesn't pass the smell test. Why wouldn't Boras recommend to his player "hey, its in your best interest to keep as many teams in the market as possible". Plus, there hasn't exactly been any bad comments from JR/KW about Maggs, so the "burned bridges" are because they didn't up their offer to him? That's pretty sensitive if you ask me.

All his refusal to allow medical exams does is raise awareness of that with other teams. It's in his best interest to dispel them. It's also in the CBA that the Sox have a right to medical exams, so he's risking some sort of grievance being field by not doing that. Your theory that he's willing to do all of this just because the Sox didnt' come up to his desired offer just doesn't make sense.

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 10:45 AM
Don't they actually have to offer arbitration before he is considered Sox property?

Also, since the deadline hasn't passed for them to offer arbitration, nothing Maggs or Boras has done could be considered a violation yet...The CBA requires players to allow examination and treatment. Once the WS ended and he became a FA, Maggs had no obligation to allow Sox doctors access. But before that, he was bound by the agreement. His refusal is a violation of the agreement. But the penalty is also set by the agreement and is limited to a "reasonable fine" and/or suspension without pay for up to 30 days. No further recourse is spelled out in the agreement.

What I wonder is if they Sox did offer arbitration and he accepted and it was later found that he couldn't play and was hiding the extent of the injury, could the Sox sue to void the contract on the basis of fraud?

Justafan
11-16-2004, 10:45 AM
Doesn't pass the smell test. Why wouldn't Boras recommend to his player "hey, its in your best interest to keep as many teams in the market as possible". Plus, there hasn't exactly been any bad comments from JR/KW about Maggs, so the "burned bridges" are because they didn't up their offer to him? That's pretty sensitive if you ask me.

All his refusal to allow medical exams does is raise awareness of that with other teams. It's in his best interest to dispel them. It's also in the CBA that the Sox have a right to medical exams, so he's risking some sort of grievance being field by not doing that. Your theory that he's willing to do all of this just because the Sox didnt' come up to his desired offer just doesn't make sense.
Williams has bit his lip(for the most part) with regards to Magglio, but I have seen him quoted mildly ripping Ordonez for switching agents, ETC. There is NO WAY that Boras plans to put on a show for teams if Ordonez is not healthy. The bottom line here is that Ordonez wants out.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 10:45 AM
Doesn't pass the smell test. Why wouldn't Boras recommend to his player "hey, its in your best interest to keep as many teams in the market as possible". Plus, there hasn't exactly been any bad comments from JR/KW about Maggs, so the "burned bridges" are because they didn't up their offer to him? That's pretty sensitive if you ask me.

All his refusal to allow medical exams does is raise awareness of that with other teams. It's in his best interest to dispel them. It's also in the CBA that the Sox have a right to medical exams, so he's risking some sort of grievance being field by not doing that. Your theory that he's willing to do all of this just because the Sox didnt' come up to his desired offer just doesn't make sense.
Maybe you missed that article JR gave quotes to regarding Maggs' stupidity in turning down the Sox generous offer last spring. The charred remains of the old suspension bridge is now floating down the river and that touch of whitewater may not be reason to be nervous, but that upcoming waterfall doesn't look good.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 10:47 AM
The CBA requires players to allow examination and treatment. Once the WS ended and he became a FA, Maggs had no obligation to allow Sox doctors access. But before that, he was bound by the agreement. His refusal is a violation of the agreement. But the penalty is also set by the agreement and is limited to a "reasonable fine" and/or suspension without pay for up to 30 days. No further recourse is spelled out in the agreement.

What I wonder is if they Sox did offer arbitration and he accepted and it was later found that he couldn't play and was hiding the extent of the injury, could the Sox sue to void the contract on the basis of fraud?
First, did he refuse to be examined while still under contract?

Second, no. It's buyer beware in almost all contracts, trades and negotiations. Heck if Belle got paid by the Orioles, than nothing could be done about Maggs either.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 10:48 AM
Maybe you missed that article JR gave quotes to regarding Maggs' stupidity in turning down the Sox generous offer last spring. The charred remains of the old suspension bridge is now floating down the river and that touch of whitewater may not be reason to be nervous, but that upcoming waterfall doesn't look good.Right, but unless those were quotes made much earlier and reprinted, those were after all the refusals, not before.

And justafan: I'll be very interested to see what Maggs does in his "workout" for teams. What Boras said was that he'd "showcase his phyiscal prowess" and "work out" at the winter meetings, not that he'd have or allow medical exams.

Paulwny
11-16-2004, 10:50 AM
SHOCKING. I didn't see this comming at all.
Yep, quite a revelation.
Hasn't the Boras/JR feud been mentioned numerous times on this board yet, people are shocked. Good to great fa's are for those teams tring to contend for a ws ring and are willing to spend the money. Boras will always set the bar high for the players he represents because he knows that he'll always find some owners salivating over these players.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 10:51 AM
Right, but unless those were quotes made much earlier and reprinted, those were after all the refusals, not before.

And justafan: I'll be very interested to see what Maggs does in his "workout" for teams. What Boras said was that he'd "showcase his phyiscal prowess" and "work out" at the winter meetings, not that he'd have or allow medical exams.
After the refusals? Well, that changes everything.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 10:51 AM
First, did he refuse to be examined while still under contract?

Second, no. It's buyer beware in almost all contracts, trades and negotiations. Heck if Belle got paid by the Orioles, than nothing could be done about Maggs either.
I believe it's a different situation because insurance practices have changed since the Belle deal. I doubt there'll be any insurance on Maggs contract absent a pretty thorough medical exam. Or at least it'll be insurance that excludes absences in the event of knee injuries.

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 10:54 AM
First, did he refuse to be examined while still under contract?

Second, no. It's buyer beware in almost all contracts, trades and negotiations. Heck if Belle got paid by the Orioles, than nothing could be done about Maggs either.I don't know if the Sox made a formal request for an examination before the WS or not. If so, his refusal would be a violation. Maybe they're not pressing it because it's not going to get them anything much.

And contracts are not "buyer beware". If you lie or deliberately hide material facts that bear on a contract, that's fraud, and is grounds for voiding the contract. If I sell you an item that I know has a defect and you don't ask about it, that's one thing. You're required to do "due dilligence". But if you ask and I assure you that everything's OK, that's fraud.

39thandWallace
11-16-2004, 10:56 AM
I actually respect KW for coming out and saying that he won't be dealing with Boras. I wish more GMs would do the same. Now we just have to hope that KW doesn't go and overpay for some mediocre FAs.
Don't think for a minute that Jerry is not the one calling the shots Kenny is Merrily his puppet. JERRY PLEASE SELL THE TEAM!!!!!!

Paulwny
11-16-2004, 10:59 AM
Ant team offering Maggs a contract, that he agrees to, will demand a complete medical evaluation before the contract is signed. Owners are stupid but, not that stupid.

Justafan
11-16-2004, 11:06 AM
Flight,

Magglio is healthy, if he was not, there would be no display that Boras would be able to put on at the winter meetings. I'm telling you Magglio simply does not want to deal with this team anymore and wants to shove it so far up Reinsdorf's rump, that he would take a 2 year deal with the Cubs. I just am getting a sense that this is what will happen.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 11:08 AM
Flight,

Magglio is healthy, if he was not, there would be no display that Boras would be able to put on at the winter meetings. I'm telling you Magglio simply does not want to deal with this team anymore and wants to shove it so far up Reinsdorf's rump, that he would take a 2 year deal with the Cubs. I just am getting a sense that this is what will happen.
We'll see. Remember, Maggs came back and played with the BME, so just because he goes out and runs & jumps on 12/10 doesn't mean that he's healthy. My sense is that Boras will do that to drive up interest, and then the medical exams will come only once a team is pretty far down the line and in the end, it'll be some sort of incentive-laden deal.

But we'll see on 12/10 (or possibly on 12/8 if you're right and suddenly medical reports start floating around).

mweflen
11-16-2004, 11:32 AM
Obviously I'm getting to this thread a little late. I just read the story on chicagosports.com - my initial reaction: What the #&@$!????

KW goes on and on about "staying under the radar," then goes and pops off with such an unprofessional on-the-record comment.

I just really don't know what this guy is thinking some times. Agree though I might with his assessment (Boras is an expert at getting his clients paid more than they're worth), it just seems stupid to put yourself out of the running with so many clients, and to make yourself obviously more deeperate to agents of other clients for similar positions.

Just imagine: "So, Ken, we see you need a {Position X}... and you don't want to talk to Boras, who has {player X} in that position. Hmmm..... Guess it's time for us to jack up our price!"

Idiot. I lost a lot of respect for KW today.

Ten bucks says Williams will be grousing tomorrow about how the media misquoted him and created a story where there was none.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 11:44 AM
I don't know if the Sox made a formal request for an examination before the WS or not. If so, his refusal would be a violation. Maybe they're not pressing it because it's not going to get them anything much.

And contracts are not "buyer beware". If you lie or deliberately hide material facts that bear on a contract, that's fraud, and is grounds for voiding the contract. If I sell you an item that I know has a defect and you don't ask about it, that's one thing. You're required to do "due dilligence". But if you ask and I assure you that everything's OK, that's fraud.
Are you sure that is the case in situations goverened by Collective Bargaining Agreements?

This isn't a typical Free Market contract situation. The Sox would have to specifically put a clause in the contract voiding it in the case of knee problems.

The Sox or any team is free to make that a stipulation of any contract offer, or stipulate that the offer is contingent on Maggs passing a doctor's examination, but barring said stipulation, the Sox would have no legal recourse if they signed Maggs and then he turned out to be injured as I understand it.

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 11:46 AM
Flight,

Magglio is healthy, if he was not, there would be no display that Boras would be able to put on at the winter meetings. I'm telling you Magglio simply does not want to deal with this team anymore and wants to shove it so far up Reinsdorf's rump, that he would take a 2 year deal with the Cubs. I just am getting a sense that this is what will happen.
Enough novacaine in the knee and Maggs could run around doing gymnastics for an hour.

JKryl
11-16-2004, 11:55 AM
Can someone translate this for me? I honestly have no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Setting the price so high that only a few teams can compete for Beltran's services? In other words, put up or shut up? Isn't that the way it always is, always has been and always will be for FA players? Is it Boras' fault that he happens to have the most desireable players in his portfolio? Should he price Beltran the same as a b-tier FA and hope Beltran will be happier with less money or should he get the best deal for his client and hope his client can build a life in NY or Boston or Atlanta or LA as a young celebrity with a pocket full of cash?

This constant condemnation of agents trying to do the best they can for their clients financially while assuming they haven't spoken to their client about what cities they would like to play in is just plain silly.

Millionaires trying to get the best deal possible from billionaires and we blame the millionaires and their lawyers for trying to get a few extra bucks.

That's just plain ridiculous...

I realize we Sox fans would love to see Beltran playing on the South Side of Chicago (in the baddest part of town), but in the end, it comes down to one man's fault that that won't happen and it isn't Scott Boras or even Carlos Beltran.

I can't say for sure, but what I get out of his comments is that Boras is locking up all the top talent, and is inflating the salary structure of the top people by asking for much more money than the second tier are asking for. Therefore, if you want one of the top tier players, you have to pay Boras' price which basicly eliminates 3/4 of the teams. In essence, we now have the high priced major leagues (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.) and the minors (White Sox, KC, Twinkies).

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 11:58 AM
I can't say for sure, but what I get out of his comments is that Boras is locking up all the top talent, and is inflating the salary structure of the top people by asking for much more money than the second tier are asking for. Therefore, if you want one of the top tier players, you have to pay Boras' price which basicly eliminates 3/4 of the teams. In essence, we now have the high priced major leagues (Yankees, Red Sox, etc.) and the minors (White Sox, KC, Twinkies).
These "minor league teams" can't afford them, why?

Is it because they are run like minor league teams?

jabrch
11-16-2004, 11:59 AM
These "minor league teams" can't afford them, why?

Is it because they are run like minor league teams?
Or because they have a revenue model that looks different than the larger revenued teams?

ewokpelts
11-16-2004, 12:05 PM
Let's see - KW says he's avoiding Boras because he's overvaluing his clients (something that seems to at least anecdotally be true fo other teams as well based on comments in this thread). So if/when Boras comes down from his demands (like a 5-year/notrade deal for a 30+ yr old catcher), this might be revisited. That's all it means. Of course if the demands don't come down or don't come down enough, we're out of the running.


As for Maggs, I'm very surprised that we haven't seen any remarks on how Maggs is violating the CBA by refusing a medical exam. That's got to be worth something to the Sox.dont forget, that kenny offered maggs full use of sox doctors and staff up to the day right up to the day he signs with another team...magss rewarded that generous offer(kenny did not have to since maggs contract is up) by going to austria and having a secret surgery. AND then he signed with borass....let him and his knee rot
Gene

voodoochile
11-16-2004, 12:07 PM
Or because they have a revenue model that looks different than the larger revenued teams?
Or that the owners refuse to get serious about revenue sharing.

Or that the owners who do get pieces of the revenue sharing pie refuse to put that money back into their payrolls.

Or that they believe the small market mentality they feed the fans and thus get stuck in a small market niche.

don't believe the ownership hype...

lowesox
11-16-2004, 12:10 PM
IT's a gamble, but I'm starting to think the White Sox should offer Maggs arbitration. From what it sounds, Boras and Maggs are going to be in a fine position to make a lot of $. If we offer arbitration, I really think Maggs will go another way anyways, and we'll get the draft picks.

I hate the thought of us paying a ton of money to keep a player who isn't healthy - but more than that, I hate the thought of losing a guy like Maggs and not get anything for him. Especially when indications seem to point to him being healthy.

Jabroni
11-16-2004, 12:12 PM
IT's a gamble, but I'm starting to think the White Sox should offer Maggs arbitration. From what it sounds, Boras and Maggs are going to be in a fine position to make a lot of $. If we offer arbitration, I really think Maggs will go another way anyways, and we'll get the draft picks.

I hate the thought of us paying a ton of money to keep a player who isn't healthy - but more than that, I hate the thought of losing a guy like Maggs and not get anything for him. Especially when indications seem to point to him being healthy.What indications are there that Maggs is healthy? Do you think that Maggs and Boras would admit that he still injured?

jabrch
11-16-2004, 12:13 PM
IT's a gamble, but I'm starting to think the White Sox should offer Maggs arbitration. From what it sounds, Boras and Maggs are going to be in a fine position to make a lot of $. If we offer arbitration, I really think Maggs will go another way anyways, and we'll get the draft picks.

I hate the thought of us paying a ton of money to keep a player who isn't healthy - but more than that, I hate the thought of losing a guy like Maggs and not get anything for him. Especially when indications seem to point to him being healthy.
80% of 14mm = 11.2mm for a douchebag who doesn't want to be here and hasn't even taken a physical yet? He can go screw him self as far as I am concerned. Arbitration? No way - Cuz if we offer it to him, he'd probably take it and then go on the DL for the entire season to rehab himself.

Iwritecode
11-16-2004, 12:14 PM
The CBA requires players to allow examination and treatment. Once the WS ended and he became a FA, Maggs had no obligation to allow Sox doctors access. But before that, he was bound by the agreement. His refusal is a violation of the agreement. But the penalty is also set by the agreement and is limited to a "reasonable fine" and/or suspension without pay for up to 30 days. No further recourse is spelled out in the agreement.

What I wonder is if they Sox did offer arbitration and he accepted and it was later found that he couldn't play and was hiding the extent of the injury, could the Sox sue to void the contract on the basis of fraud?

Didn't Maggs have the surgery after the WS? I honestly can't remember. If so, what good would it be for Sox doctors to examine him before the surgery?

Iwritecode
11-16-2004, 12:15 PM
80% of 14mm = 11.2mm for a douchebag who doesn't want to be here and hasn't even taken a physical yet? He can go screw him self as far as I am concerned. Arbitration? No way - Cuz if we offer it to him, he'd probably take it and then go on the DL for the entire season to rehab himself.

If they offered arbitration, he accepted and then went on the DL, wouldn't insurance cover his salary???

lowesox
11-16-2004, 12:15 PM
What indications are there that Maggs is healthy? Do you think that Maggs and Boras would admit that he still injured?
I think it would severely damage both of their reputations if it came out that they were lying about MAggs' health. Besides, I think if they were really worried about his health they wouldn't be so quick to close any doors - especially the one that would be easiest to return to.

Lip Man 1
11-16-2004, 12:22 PM
My only contribution to this discussion (and this is absolutely not a rip on anyone) is that really when you get right down to it, did anybody honestly think the Sox were going to go hard after these guys in the first place?
Seriously...

and on the question of Scott Boras. He does what he is paid to do by the players who hire him. His loyalty isn't to the sport, or to the owners but to the players who pay him. That's business folks. Obviously judging by his client list this year and for many seasons past, he must be doing a sensational job because the top talent keeps hiring him.

The onus is on the White Sox to deal with reality and figure out a way to work with this guy, like other teams have, if they want to increase the amount of talent that they have on the roster. Not doing so severly limits their ability to procure talent given that he represents so many baseball players.

Lip

JB98
11-16-2004, 12:37 PM
First, I can't really disagree with KW for not wanting to deal with Boras. However, I wish he'd stop running his damn mouth in the papers. It makes the organization look foolish and hurts his negotiating position.

Secondly, I was resigned to the fate that Magglio would leave, and the media would lure him to the Cubs a long time ago. I'm neither alarmed nor surprised. I've been braced for this for awhile.

Third, it really says a lot when people on this board are talking excitedly about the prospects of signing Placido Polanco. Don't get me wrong, Polanco is a nice utility infielder. It's just sad how the malaise of this franchise has lowered our expectations as a fan base to a point where many of us come to realization that someone like Polanco is the best we can do to fill the gaping void we have in our middle infield. This isn't even meant as a criticism. It's just an observation.

Hangar18
11-16-2004, 12:54 PM
Bingo and bingo. How do some Sox fans led themselves get deluded every offseason?
Not me ......

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 01:05 PM
Are you sure that is the case in situations goverened by Collective Bargaining Agreements?

This isn't a typical Free Market contract situation. The Sox would have to specifically put a clause in the contract voiding it in the case of knee problems.

The Sox or any team is free to make that a stipulation of any contract offer, or stipulate that the offer is contingent on Maggs passing a doctor's examination, but barring said stipulation, the Sox would have no legal recourse if they signed Maggs and then he turned out to be injured as I understand it.If there are any lawyers in the house, they can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand contract law, you don't have to volunteer information (except in some specific situations), but you can't lie or cover up information, either. To do so is fraud. You're bound to due dilligence, but if a player does not allow you the opportunity to a medical examination and assures you that everything is fine, then if it turns out they were lying you have grounds for voiding the contract. This is common law. If there was anything specific in the CBA to the contrary, that would supercede the common law, but I haven't seen anything in there like that. This would be arbitration, anyway, so they can't insert clauses into the contract. It basically extends the previous year's contract with the new salary.

I have to figure the Sox have no shortage of smart lawyers, so they know their rights in this regard. I suspect they've just decided to move on, but they are getting screwed out of draft picks.

Randar68
11-16-2004, 01:37 PM
If there are any lawyers in the house, they can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand contract law, you don't have to volunteer information (except in some specific situations), but you can't lie or cover up information, either. To do so is fraud. You're bound to due dilligence, but if a player does not allow you the opportunity to a medical examination and assures you that everything is fine, then if it turns out they were lying you have grounds for voiding the contract. This is common law. If there was anything specific in the CBA to the contrary, that would supercede the common law, but I haven't seen anything in there like that. This would be arbitration, anyway, so they can't insert clauses into the contract. It basically extends the previous year's contract with the new salary.

I have to figure the Sox have no shortage of smart lawyers, so they know their rights in this regard. I suspect they've just decided to move on, but they are getting screwed out of draft picks.
Despite what the media reports and speculation are, IMO the Sox should still offer arbitration. It's likely Boras would reject it looking for a multi-year deal as more secure for his client anyways. A 1-year contract in the neighborhood of 12-16 million doesn't give much long-term security to Maggs should he not come back fully 100% again...

mweflen
11-16-2004, 02:06 PM
Despite what the media reports and speculation are, IMO the Sox should still offer arbitration. It's likely Boras would reject it looking for a multi-year deal as more secure for his client anyways. A 1-year contract in the neighborhood of 12-16 million doesn't give much long-term security to Maggs should he not come back fully 100% again...
I agree with this. I think if the Sox offered arbitration, Boras and Maggs would certainly reject it, since they want multiple years. Also, if they took it and Maggs proved to still be injured, they'd never get a good contract after 2005.

So, the Sox get their picks, and Maggs gets his money elsewhere. Good riddance.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 02:11 PM
I agree with this. I think if the Sox offered arbitration, Boras and Maggs would certainly reject it, since they want multiple years. Also, if they took it and Maggs proved to still be injured, they'd never get a good contract after 2005.

So, the Sox get their picks, and Maggs gets his money elsewhere. Good riddance.
How so? Sox offer, Maggs accepts, spends 2005 on the DL rehabbing and collecting $11mil. Then in mid-late 2005 he either comes back to show he can play and hits the market "fresh" after '05 or he simply waits on the DL, heals up 100%, and then goes on a big tour after the season, lets everyone do medical exams, etc, and gets his $$$.

Meanwhile, the Sox end up basically paying $11mil for a guy to sit in the stands in his wheelchair and make churros.

Jabroni
11-16-2004, 02:13 PM
Meanwhile, the Sox end up basically paying $11mil for a guy to sit in the stands in his wheelchair and make churros.:)

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 02:13 PM
I agree with this. I think if the Sox offered arbitration, Boras and Maggs would certainly reject it, since they want multiple years. Also, if they took it and Maggs proved to still be injured, they'd never get a good contract after 2005.

So, the Sox get their picks, and Maggs gets his money elsewhere. Good riddance.The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to agree with this. If Maggs/Boras accepted arbitration and he couldn't play, there would be hell to pay. I can't believe the Sox would take it lying down. I expect they would try to void the contract for fraud. Boras would be in jeapordy of being de-certified by the MLBPA, which is way too big a risk for him to take for his 10%.

mweflen
11-16-2004, 02:15 PM
How so? Sox offer, Maggs accepts, spends 2005 on the DL rehabbing and collecting $11mil. Then in mid-late 2005 he either comes back to show he can play and hits the market "fresh" after '05 or he simply waits on the DL, heals up 100%, and then goes on a big tour after the season, lets everyone do medical exams, etc, and gets his $$$.

Meanwhile, the Sox end up basically paying $11mil for a guy to sit in the stands in his wheelchair and make churros.But his credibility would be shot, He and Boras have been swearing up and down that he'd be ready for spring training. What kind of contract would he get if every GM in the business finds out that it was a big lie? How seriously would they take Maggs and Boras when they say they're 100% for 2006?

They want big, guaranteed money NOW, for a long multiyear deal. This is why they would reject arbitration. If they wanted a 1-year "proving" season, Maggs probably would have already signed with the Sox.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 02:16 PM
The more I think about it, the more I'm coming around to agree with this. If Maggs/Boras accepted arbitration and he couldn't play, there would be hell to pay. I can't believe the Sox would take it lying down. I expect they would try to void the contract for fraud. Boras would be in jeapordy of being de-certified by the MLBPA, which is way too big a risk for him to take for his 10%.
You really think Boras would stop at having Maggs report to ST, then come up lame with a "recurrence" or something? I don't. There are ways to get around it so that you can't PROVE that he misled the team, so he wouldn't get decertified. And as long as you're certified, and you ahve the players, owners will have to deal with you. So Boras wins.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-16-2004, 02:19 PM
Meanwhile, the Sox end up basically paying $11mil for a guy to sit in the stands in his wheelchair and make churros.
Don't give Boras any ideas about representing the Churros makers at Comiskey II. they may cost $10 next season. :smile:

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 02:19 PM
But his credibility would be shot, He and Boras have been swearing up and down that he'd be ready for spring training. What kind of contract would he get if every GM in the business finds out that it was a big lie? How seriously would they take Maggs and Boras when they say they're 100% for 2006?

They want big, guaranteed money NOW, for a long multiyear deal. This is why they would reject arbitration. If they wanted a 1-year "proving" season, Maggs probably would have already signed with the Sox.
It's easy. After the 2005 season, tell teams it's open season in terms of their medical evaluations. You're right that teams wouldn't take Boras' word for it, but assuming a year off gets him back to 100%, then teams can look for themselves.

As for the 1-year "proving season", if he's hurt, he's not going to get the big money, multiyear deal. He's going to get the incentive based deal. The way Scott's going, he's setting up Maggs for one of 2 "injury" scenarios. 1)Sox offer arb and he gets 11mil to rehab. 2)It's easier for Maggs to get an incentive-based deal from another team because they don't have to give comp picks.

jabrch
11-16-2004, 02:22 PM
Despite what the media reports and speculation are, IMO the Sox should still offer arbitration. It's likely Boras would reject it looking for a multi-year deal as more secure for his client anyways. A 1-year contract in the neighborhood of 12-16 million doesn't give much long-term security to Maggs should he not come back fully 100% again...
If he accepts, we are toast next year - right?

mweflen
11-16-2004, 02:26 PM
As for the 1-year "proving season", if he's hurt, he's not going to get the big money, multiyear deal. He's going to get the incentive based deal. The way Scott's going, he's setting up Maggs for one of 2 "injury" scenarios. 1)Sox offer arb and he gets 11mil to rehab. 2)It's easier for Maggs to get an incentive-based deal from another team because they don't have to give comp picks.
If he's hurt, he's not showing any one. No examinations are taking place, and all they've said is that Maggs will do a "showcase" workout for every team in December. Smells like a con to me. But it's a con designed to win big money for several years.

If Maggs was apt to settle for an incentive laden deal, he would probably not have Boras as an agent, and would have just taken the Sox' 5yr/$70mm offer from last year.

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 02:27 PM
You really think Boras would stop at having Maggs report to ST, then come up lame with a "recurrence" or something? I don't. There are ways to get around it so that you can't PROVE that he misled the team, so he wouldn't get decertified. And as long as you're certified, and you ahve the players, owners will have to deal with you. So Boras wins.It's almost certainly a moot point, because I don't think there's any way in hell the Sox WILL offer arbitration. So we're just talking hypotheticals, here. I'm just beginning to think that the risks for Boras and Ordonez may outweigh the benefits. Even if he was hurt, he could probably get an incentive deal somewhere for a year or two, so it's not as if stiffing the Sox is the difference between life and death. I think it would be tough to cover up if they knew all along that he wasn't going to be able to play. Medical records can be acquired. This is not just shading the truth a bit. It's a complete and deliberate fraud. Boras really would be at risk of being decertified. Boras doesn't need the money. Is it worth the risk for his 10% of the $11M?

Randar68
11-16-2004, 02:41 PM
If he accepts, we are toast next year - right?
Sorry, I don't follow. Toast how? Does it change our plans? Sure. Do we let him walk for nothing? Nope.

He'll command a legit long-term contract. Bank on it. I've heard he's running pain free, what else does he have to prove to teams? The bone is healthy and the joint is stable? Edema is not typically a degenerative desease IIRC...

We're not talking about Albert or BlackJack's hips here.

Would Maggs take 11 million/year over 5 years? Prolly instead of taking arbitration, yeah, without even thinking twice probably.

Flight #24
11-16-2004, 02:51 PM
Sorry, I don't follow. Toast how? Does it change our plans? Sure. Do we let him walk for nothing? Nope.

He'll command a legit long-term contract. Bank on it. I've heard he's running pain free, what else does he have to prove to teams? The bone is healthy and the joint is stable? Edema is not typically a degenerative desease IIRC...

We're not talking about Albert or BlackJack's hips here.

Would Maggs take 11 million/year over 5 years? Prolly instead of taking arbitration, yeah, without even thinking twice probably.
Randar - If Maggs WAS healthy and willing to take 5yrs-$55mil, why wouldn't he just let the Sox examine him and take their 5yr-$70mil offer?

As for proving something to teams, being able to run doesn't mean squat. Edema has been linked to necrosis of the bone (i.e. Bo Jackson's hip), and arthritis, IIRC - hence the concern about his condition.

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 03:02 PM
Randar - If Maggs WAS healthy and willing to take 5yrs-$55mil, why wouldn't he just let the Sox examine him and take their 5yr-$70mil offer?

As for proving something to teams, being able to run doesn't mean squat. Edema has been linked to necrosis of the bone (i.e. Bo Jackson's hip), and arthritis, IIRC - hence the concern about his condition.I wouldn't assume the Sox 5/70 offer is still on the table. If Maggs is healthy, he passes on arbitration, no question. He gets his money. The Sox get their draft picks. Everybody's happy.

If he's not OK to play in 2005, what are his choices? He can either accept a incentive deal somewhere or accept arbitration for a bit more money under false pretenses. It seems to me that he and Boras can't expect to accept arbitration, stiff the Sox and expect no repurcussions. And those repurcussions will, in the end, cost them more than the difference between the $11M arbitration salary and what he's likely to get as a floor in an incentive deal.

It's not that there's no risk in offering arbitration. It just seems to me to be low risk.

hawkeyesrule
11-16-2004, 03:06 PM
Now that I've read each and every repsonse, I can comment. I think we have several things going on here. One being that Maggs is banking on getting a long term deal from someone, be it the Sox or another team. I think KW's comments were a little posturing against Boras. The other thing I question is why Maggs went to Austria for surgery. I've never heard of an athlete going overseas like that. Willis McGahee destroyed his knee and I don't believe he left the country. Would a doc in Austria be required to testify in a lawsuit and would those medical records be able to be aquired? There is definitely something shady going on here. Scott Boras represents everything that is bad in the agent profession. There is something called goodwill, and there is no exact dollar value on it (therefore he doesn't get paid on it). There is a reason that MLB and NHL are in the toilet, and it is greed on both owners and players side. What's so wrong with a cap??? It caps the price that fans will have to shell out for tickets, souveniers, and food. I am getting completely sick of pro sports teams passing every cost on to their fans when an athlete needs more money for his great great grandkids and everyone he knows great great grandkids.

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 04:45 PM
Now that I've read each and every repsonse, I can comment. I think we have several things going on here. One being that Maggs is banking on getting a long term deal from someone, be it the Sox or another team. I think KW's comments were a little posturing against Boras. The other thing I question is why Maggs went to Austria for surgery. I've never heard of an athlete going overseas like that. Willis McGahee destroyed his knee and I don't believe he left the country. Would a doc in Austria be required to testify in a lawsuit and would those medical records be able to be aquired? There is definitely something shady going on here. Scott Boras represents everything that is bad in the agent profession. There is something called goodwill, and there is no exact dollar value on it (therefore he doesn't get paid on it). There is a reason that MLB and NHL are in the toilet, and it is greed on both owners and players side. What's so wrong with a cap??? It caps the price that fans will have to shell out for tickets, souveniers, and food. I am getting completely sick of pro sports teams passing every cost on to their fans when an athlete needs more money for his great great grandkids and everyone he knows great great grandkids.The problem with a cap is that it doesn't work without a floor as well. The NFL found that out. The floor for the NFL is set at 55% of average revenues. If baseball set a minimum such as this, something like 8 teams would have to raise payroll. This works in the NFL because most revenues are shared. Applied to baseball, how can you tell the Pirates, for example, that they have to raise their payroll without the revenues to pay it? You really would have teams going bankrupt. A salary cap/floor system only works if you have relatively even revenue streams. Without greatly increased revenue sharing, such a system would be a disaster in baseball.

jabrch
11-16-2004, 04:58 PM
Sorry, I don't follow. Toast how? Does it change our plans? Sure. Do we let him walk for nothing? Nope.

He'll command a legit long-term contract. Bank on it. I've heard he's running pain free, what else does he have to prove to teams? The bone is healthy and the joint is stable? Edema is not typically a degenerative desease IIRC...

We're not talking about Albert or BlackJack's hips here.

Would Maggs take 11 million/year over 5 years? Prolly instead of taking arbitration, yeah, without even thinking twice probably.
OK - I wasn't going on the assumption that he is as healthy as you seem to think. I was planning on him taking arbitraion, getting 11mm, and sitting for 2/3 of the season while getting healthy. If he is healthy, and going to be ready on opening day to play, and we are SURE of that, then I'd be more open to offering arbitration.

Randar68
11-16-2004, 05:36 PM
OK - I wasn't going on the assumption that he is as healthy as you seem to think. I was planning on him taking arbitraion, getting 11mm, and sitting for 2/3 of the season while getting healthy. If he is healthy, and going to be ready on opening day to play, and we are SURE of that, then I'd be more open to offering arbitration.
Call me crazy, but I think he'll be starting somewhere on opening day. JMO! Not that I believe Boras, just what I have heard would lend me to believe that.

Randar68
11-16-2004, 05:38 PM
Randar - If Maggs WAS healthy and willing to take 5yrs-$55mil, why wouldn't he just let the Sox examine him and take their 5yr-$70mil offer?

As for proving something to teams, being able to run doesn't mean squat. Edema has been linked to necrosis of the bone (i.e. Bo Jackson's hip), and arthritis, IIRC - hence the concern about his condition.Maggs' edema was not in the joint, rather in the shin, IIRC. That offer isn't out there from the Sox and hasn't been for some time. They pulled it long ago.

Daver
11-16-2004, 06:00 PM
One of the things that changed in one of the previous CBA's is the standard for proving collusion. It's a lot higher. There has to be explicit collusion shown. A presumption of collusion when owners don't bid on FA players is no longer sufficient.
The definition of collusion has not changed in the CBA, it is very diffucult to prove though. The only reason the MLBPA won in the 80's is because they had written proof signed by the commisioner himself to prove their case.

Of course the owners were spared from paying the treble damages because of their anti trust exemption, they merely had to pay simple damages. The CBA was altered to include language that would allow the MLBPA to seek treble damages should they find the owners guilty in the future. Perhaps that is the change in the CBA you were thinking of?

Ol' No. 2
11-16-2004, 06:30 PM
The definition of collusion has not changed in the CBA, it is very diffucult to prove though. The only reason the MLBPA won in the 80's is because they had written proof signed by the commisioner himself to prove their case.

Of course the owners were spared from paying the treble damages because of their anti trust exemption, they merely had to pay simple damages. The CBA was altered to include language that would allow the MLBPA to seek treble damages should they find the owners guilty in the future. Perhaps that is the change in the CBA you were thinking of?I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that after the collusion cases they put some language in the CBA that required explicit proof of collusion and that it could not just be implied by salary offers to free agents. I just can't recall where I read it. I think it might have been one of Doug Pappas' articles. It wasn't the current CBA, but the next one after the collusion cases. When I have some time I'll try to find it.

Daver
11-16-2004, 07:22 PM
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that after the collusion cases they put some language in the CBA that required explicit proof of collusion and that it could not just be implied by salary offers to free agents. I just can't recall where I read it. I think it might have been one of Doug Pappas' articles. It wasn't the current CBA, but the next one after the collusion cases. When I have some time I'll try to find it.
The burden of proof in a collusion case has nothing to do with the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the employers and it's employee's, the agreement is basically a document that sets working conditions, as well as sets payroll parameters, work hours, etc.

Collusion cases are heard before the National Labor Relations Board, with all the facts in the case, and they make their findings based on national labor law, and turned over to a federal judge if deemed nessascary.

When the owners were found guilty of collusion in '83 (?) they were forced to pay damages of about 185 million dollars, these were simple damages as decreed by a federal judge, MLB was pardoned from paying the legal treble damages, because of the anti trust excemption they recieved in 1922, and had to pay simple damages. When the players and the owners agreed on the next CBA following this judgement, the MLBPA fought for inclusion of a clause that would allow the MLBPA to seek treble damages should this infraction ever get repeated, and it was upheld by Shyam Dys, who was at the time the appointed NLRB mediator between MLB and the MLBPA.

Jerome
11-16-2004, 07:30 PM
but I was really hoping for JD drew coming here after we trade CLee for Mark Mulder.

I was also really hoping that Maria Sharapova would marry me after she dumped her huge-muscled boyfriend.

El Kenballo
11-16-2004, 08:04 PM
I heard on 1000 today, KW said he will not Negotiate with Boras clients, because " he sets The price too high"
but we knew that anyways!!!

This is my first post, ive been observing this sight thru my friend, for awhile
thought i would join.
see you at soxfest!!!

nitetrain8601
11-16-2004, 08:09 PM
There's already a thread about this.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-16-2004, 08:13 PM
QUOTE=El Kenballo]I heard on 1000 today, KW said he will not Negotiate with Boras clients, because " he sets The price too high"
but we knew that anyways!!!

This is my first post, ive been observing this sight thru my friend, for awhile
thought i would join.
see you at soxfest!!![/QUOTE]
:welcome: Nice to see another NW Sider both on the board and in the Sox camp (I live in Norwood Park). This is not as bad (as far as Cubs bs goes) as when I lived 1 mile West of Wrigley but bad enough.

Foulke29
11-17-2004, 12:17 AM
I actually respect KW for coming out and saying that he won't be dealing with Boras. I wish more GMs would do the same. Now we just have to hope that KW doesn't go and overpay for some mediocre FAs.
There's the problem with Boras. It's not the sweet deal he negotiates for the A-Rods and Beltrans of the world. It's that crappy over the hill and below average players suddenly think they're more valuable than they really are. Was Vizquel really worth more than 12 million for three years? "F" Scott Borass and I hope he burns in a very hot place!

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 11:17 AM
The burden of proof in a collusion case has nothing to do with the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the employers and it's employee's, the agreement is basically a document that sets working conditions, as well as sets payroll parameters, work hours, etc.

Collusion cases are heard before the National Labor Relations Board, with all the facts in the case, and they make their findings based on national labor law, and turned over to a federal judge if deemed nessascary.

When the owners were found guilty of collusion in '83 (?) they were forced to pay damages of about 185 million dollars, these were simple damages as decreed by a federal judge, MLB was pardoned from paying the legal treble damages, because of the anti trust excemption they recieved in 1922, and had to pay simple damages. When the players and the owners agreed on the next CBA following this judgement, the MLBPA fought for inclusion of a clause that would allow the MLBPA to seek treble damages should this infraction ever get repeated, and it was upheld by Shyam Dys, who was at the time the appointed NLRB mediator between MLB and the MLBPA.Daver, there was actually a clause put into the CBA that dealt with collusion. It was put there at the insistance of the owners, as a matter of fact, as a result of a collusion by two players (I'll have to look up the names) who jointly refused to sign unless the other was signed. It's ironic that the owners were hoist on their own petard, but that's what happened. I'm working from memory here, but I'm sure of those details. I'm pretty sure that in a later CBA the clause was modified to require explicit proof of collusion. I've just got to find the article.

Foulke29
11-17-2004, 11:22 AM
Daver, there was actually a clause put into the CBA that dealt with collusion. It was put there at the insistance of the owners, as a matter of fact, as a result of a collusion by two players (I'll have to look up the names) who jointly refused to sign unless the other was signed. It's ironic that the owners were hoist on their own petard, but that's what happened. I'm working from memory here, but I'm sure of those details. I'm pretty sure that in a later CBA the clause was modified to require explicit proof of collusion. I've just got to find the article.
The two players were Koufax and Drysdale.

Lip Man 1
11-17-2004, 01:13 PM
NWSox says: "I actually respect KW for coming out and saying that he won't be dealing with Boras. I wish more GMs would do the same. Now we just have to hope that KW doesn't go and overpay for some mediocre FAs."

If the name of the game is using all means to acquire talent then saying you won't negotiate with the most powerful agent, who every year has a stable of top talent is ludicrous. This smacks of personal animosity exactly what you DON'T want when making 'business' decisions.

The Sox are shooting themselves in the foot by this.

Lip

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 01:28 PM
NWSox says: "I actually respect KW for coming out and saying that he won't be dealing with Boras. I wish more GMs would do the same. Now we just have to hope that KW doesn't go and overpay for some mediocre FAs."

If the name of the game is using all means to acquire talent then saying you won't negotiate with the most powerful agent, who every year has a stable of top talent is ludicrous. This smacks of personal animosity exactly what you DON'T want when making 'business' decisions.

The Sox are shooting themselves in the foot by this.

Lip
We all know that KW didn't say he wouldn't negotiate with Boras, right? Despite what Moronotti likes to say, all KW said was he doubted they'd get it done because Boras currently overvalues his guys.

Imagine that - early in the process, before all the non-tenders hit the market, agents demands are higher than teams are comfortable with. Shocking.

Ol' No. 2
11-17-2004, 01:29 PM
NWSox says: "I actually respect KW for coming out and saying that he won't be dealing with Boras. I wish more GMs would do the same. Now we just have to hope that KW doesn't go and overpay for some mediocre FAs."

If the name of the game is using all means to acquire talent then saying you won't negotiate with the most powerful agent, who every year has a stable of top talent is ludicrous. This smacks of personal animosity exactly what you DON'T want when making 'business' decisions.

The Sox are shooting themselves in the foot by this.

LipExcept he never said anything of the kind. Read what he actually said, not what the reporter wrote.

gosox41
11-17-2004, 02:25 PM
Except he never said anything of the kind. Read what he actually said, not what the reporter wrote.
But that would take away all the fun of making assumptions about the Sox.


Bob

jabrch
11-17-2004, 02:37 PM
Except he never said anything of the kind. Read what he actually said, not what the reporter wrote.
Don't you get it #2... Cheap and Stupid anything that some people can do to prove that is fine - regardless of if there is any truth to it.

Does anyone really think that KW would categorically rule out ever discussing anything with Boras? Uribe is a Boras player. You think KW won't even talk about Uribe when his contract is up? Come on... What he was saying was that he won't be bidding on this current crop of stars at the prices that Boras wants - and nobody should blame him for it.

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 02:42 PM
What he was saying was that he won't be bidding on this current crop of stars at the prices that Boras wants - and nobody should blame him for it.
He didn't even go that far, he just said he's got a valuation of players and Boras' current valuation of his guys is a lot higher. That doesn't say that either or both of those won't change.

I've seen comments from other GMs that prices are currently pretty high and are expected to go down as time goes on, especially once non-tendered FAs hit the market. But I'm sure KW waiting to see what happens at that point to the big names is just another example of his stupidity.