PDA

View Full Version : Boras plays Houston's McLane


Unregistered
01-16-2005, 10:48 AM
In the least shocking baseball news of the offseason, Drayton McLane feels like Scott Boras used the Astros as leverage to get a better deal with the Mets, and that Beltran had no intention of ever re-signing with his team. The "Friends of Boras" need to step back and realize there's a difference between being a good agent and just being a total douchebag. :cool:

Boras said he accepted McLane's final offer of $108 million over seven years. McLane said he never went higher than $105 million.

Boras said the two sides had agreed on a package of incentives. McLane said they never did.

Boras said it was the no-trade clause that ended negotiations. McLane said he felt that if he had agreed to the no-trade clause, there would have been another obstacle. McLane said he had offered only a partial no-trade clause.

McLane said the real problem was that the two sides didn't really begin negotiating until last weekend's deadline was closing in.

"The thing that was disappointing is that we never really had any negotiations until Saturday night," McLane said. "We tried. We offered to fly to Puerto Rico. We've negotiated five contracts with Craig Biggio and four with Jeff Bagwell. Every time we did it with the player in the room. I thought if we could all sit down, Carlos included, we could get a deal done.

"If we'd had more time, we might have resolved things, but we waited too long to get started. That must have been (Boras') plan all along."
Link (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/5E3E083F258D8F7386256F8B00249EF1?OpenDocument&Headline=Beltran's+agent+irks+McLane)

beckett21
01-16-2005, 11:21 AM
Oh come on now. That's not fair. Scott's just doing his job. By any means necessary. What's wrong with that? He should be commended.

Besides, ALL owners are crooks. They get what they deserve. This is all Jerry Reinsdorf's fault in the first place. Leave Boras alone.

:rolleyes:

Most people with half a shred of decency already understand who Scott Boras is and how he operates. Those FOSB who don't by now probably never will.

Lip Man 1
01-16-2005, 12:52 PM
Boras is doing his job. That's what he's being paid for.

Lost in all this 'morality' is the story I posted a few days ago from The Sporting News radio network. According to them Beltran did not re-sign with Houston because McClain refused to include a no trade clause. When you look at the numbers offered between Houston and the Mets they were comparable.

I don't mind one bit if Boras and every agent screw over the owners. They did it to the players for 100 years. Talk to me after another 70 years has gone by when things are now even.

Lip

RKMeibalane
01-16-2005, 12:58 PM
Boras is doing his job. That's what he's being paid for.

Lost in all this 'morality' is the story I posted a few days ago from The Sporting News radio network. According to them Beltran did not re-sign with Houston because McClain refused to include a no trade clause. When you look at the numbers offered between Houston and the Mets they were comparable.

I don't mind one bit if Boras and every agent screw over the owners. They did it to the players for 100 years. Talk to me after another 70 years has gone by when things are now even.

Lip

Oh, please! Do you really think the no-trade clause was the reason why Beltran didn't stay in Houston? *****. I'm interested to hear whether Beltran's contract with the Mets includes a no-trade clause. Thus far, there hasn't been any such clause mentioned, which leads me to believe that Boras was holding out for more money, and when the Mets gave it to him, he told Beltran to sign there.

To say that Boras is just doing his job is ridiculous. The man is a snake in the grass. I do think that McLane needs to stop crying about the situation and move on, but at the same time, I can't help getting the feeling that Boras screwed him over like he screws everybody else.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 01:32 PM
Boras is doing his job. That's what he's being paid for.

Lost in all this 'morality' is the story I posted a few days ago from The Sporting News radio network. According to them Beltran did not re-sign with Houston because McClain refused to include a no trade clause. When you look at the numbers offered between Houston and the Mets they were comparable.

Why does this post not surprise me?:rolleyes:

I don't think Beltran was calling any of the shots. He was going to sign wherever Boras told him to. Boras was going to take whichever deal got Boras the most money. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I don't know the specifics, but Beltran himself probably would have made more money on a similar contract in Houston, since there is no state income tax in Texas. The chance to be a media darling in NY and to be able to continue to milk the cash cow dry via endorsements and such is ultimately why I believe Boras persuaded Beltran to sign with the Mets. It's a never-ending supply of cash. For people like Boras, there is never enough money. Let's not pin this entirely on Beltran. The players are puppets; Boras is the puppetmaster. Beltran's fault in all of this lies with him allowing Boras to represent him. He has that right, I guess.

I don't mind one bit if Boras and every agent screw over the owners. They did it to the players for 100 years. Talk to me after another 70 years has gone by when things are now even.

Lip

I'd say the players and their union are doing a pretty good job of sticking it to the owners. Free agency is out of control. There is no salary cap. The *steroid policy* is still a joke (although that benefits both parties). Look around at the other major sports in this country. No group of players have it any better than baseball players. They deserve each other, perhaps. That much I can agree with. I am not pro-owner by any means, but for anyone to champion Scott Boras disgusts me. The man is unethical, and I will never applaud that. If you choose to overlook that fact just because it means more money for him and his clients, that is your choice.

You and the other FOSB are entitled to your opinion. I will agree to disagree with you. I don't think either one of us is going to change our mind on this issue.

Flight #24
01-16-2005, 01:58 PM
Boras is doing his job. That's what he's being paid for.

Lost in all this 'morality' is the story I posted a few days ago from The Sporting News radio network. According to them Beltran did not re-sign with Houston because McClain refused to include a no trade clause. When you look at the numbers offered between Houston and the Mets they were comparable.

Lip

A request made at the 11th hour, when negotiations only started at the 10th because the agent wouldn't allow them to start earlier. That puts all those "Carlos would love to stay in Houston" comments on par with "Maggs could play today" in terms of truthfulness. But yeah, it's all McLane's fault, Boras should be a national hero.

Mohoney
01-16-2005, 02:30 PM
No group of players have it any better than baseball players.

You're probably right, but there sure are some HEAVY sticker prices attached to several very mediocre NBA players.

RKMeibalane
01-16-2005, 06:40 PM
Why does this post not surprise me?:rolleyes:

I don't think Beltran was calling any of the shots. He was going to sign wherever Boras told him to. Boras was going to take whichever deal got Boras the most money.

Exactly. As part of his crusade to force Reinsdorf out of baseball, Lip is content to blame every damn thing on the owners, while claiming that players and their agents bear no responsibilty when a team gets screwed over. As I said in my earlier post, I'm still waiting to see if a no-trade clause is part of Beltran's contract with the Mets. If it's not, that only proves our point that Boras was trying to screw the Astros the entire time.

As much as I dislike Reinsdorf, I think he has the right idea when he says that he won't deal with Boras. The guy is a snake in the grass. Blinded by his hatred, Lip can't see this.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 06:46 PM
Exactly. As part of his crusade to force Reinsdorf out of baseball, Lip is content to blame every damn thing on the owners, while claiming that players and their agents bear no responsibilty when a team gets screwed over. As I said in my earlier post, I'm still waiting to see if a no-trade clause is part of Beltran's contract with the Mets. If it's not, that only proves our point that Boras was trying to screw the Astros the entire time.

As much as I dislike Reinsdorf, I think he has the right idea when he says that he won't deal with Boras. The guy is a snake in the grass. Blinded by his hatred, Lip can't see this.

Why do the owners screw the fans over?

Because they have to pay the likes of A-Rod, Beltran, etc. Guess who ultimately is paying the player's salaries.....? :?:

Yes. The fans. So when you cheer for Boras and how he *really sticks it to the owners,* don't bother to ask why you are paying $17 for a beer. It's simple, really.

:borass:

Don't look at me. Not my problem.

voodoochile
01-16-2005, 06:48 PM
Why do the owners screw the fans over?

Because they have to pay the likes of A-Rod, Beltran, etc. Guess who ultimately is paying the player's salaries.....? :?:

Yes. The fans. So when you cheer for Boras and how he *really sticks it to the owners,* don't bother to ask why you are paying $17 for a beer. It's simple, really.

:borass:

Don't look at me. Not my problem.

I agree that Borass takes his job to an extreme, but let's not go overboard defending the owners. When they get serious about revenue sharing, then some of these rants will make more sense, but as it stands, the owners are not exactly pure of any guilt in the present situation.

Flight #24
01-16-2005, 06:57 PM
I agree that Borass takes his job to an extreme, but let's not go overboard defending the owners. When they get serious about revenue sharing, then some of these rants will make more sense, but as it stands, the owners are not exactly pure of any guilt in the present situation.

IIRC, the owners proposed significantly increased revenue sharing in the last CBA discussions, but were shot down by the MLBPA. Just my recollection. Now there are different interpretations as to whether the owners were serious about that offer, whether they were just going to hide revenues, etc. But I believe that they've at least made that a topic and IIRC, Don Fehr has publicly come out against significant revenue sharing conceptually.

RKMeibalane
01-16-2005, 07:01 PM
I agree that Borass takes his job to an extreme, but let's not go overboard defending the owners. When they get serious about revenue sharing, then some of these rants will make more sense, but as it stands, the owners are not exactly pure of any guilt in the present situation.

I agree, but I'm getting tired of Lip and the FOBB blaming them for everything that's wrong with baseball. Problems as serious as the kind that baseball has aren't the result of one group's mistakes.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 07:15 PM
I agree that Borass takes his job to an extreme, but let's not go overboard defending the owners. When they get serious about revenue sharing, then some of these rants will make more sense, but as it stands, the owners are not exactly pure of any guilt in the present situation.

I'm not on the side of the owners. Just exaggerating to make a point.

They are both insufferable. I just can't stand to see Boras in any kind of positive light.

Allow me to make an analogy here relevant to my profession.

The bane of the doctors' existence is the healthcare insurance company. The *owners*, if you will. The doctor is just the "little guy." The *player* for the purpose of this example.

Because the insurance companies historically and unabashedlly lowball the doctors, let's say one of the doctors decides to fight back. He is going to rip off the insurance company to get what he deserves. He provides services which are not necessary. He *up-codes* his charges (charges more than customary for his services). He makes millions of dollars by doing this.

Should this doctor be *commended* because he beat the system? Should I, as an honest physician, be impressed by this and applaud him? Hey, it's all about making money, right? Who cares! The insurance companies get what they deserve!!

I deal with insurance companies on a daily basis and I detest them with every ounce of my being. However, for someone to lie and defraud the system, this is unacceptable. You can even take the *medical* moral obligation out of the equation if you like; assume nobody gets shoddy treatment, assume nobody gets physically hurt. Insurance companies are defrauded of millions, probably billions of dollars a year. Because other physicians get away with it, does that mean I should do it too? Just so I can make more money? Just to stick it to the insurance company? I guess that is a matter of a person's own values. TRUST me, I am NOT defending insurance companies here.

As a matter of fact, this actually hurts me. The insurance companies will lower their reimbursement rates, and I will be paid less for what I legitimately do. Oh, by the way....your insurance premiums are going up again. I can't imagine why.

As a physician, we are held to a different standard and I understand that. We should be. But because the owners are bad, does that give Boras license to do whatever he wants? I don't think so.

Don't confuse my contempt for Scott Boras as a defense of the owners; but I'll be damned if I will ever praise Boras. Sorry if my previous post led you to misunderstand my point. I don't like the owners either, but that doesn't mean one idiot has a right to skew the playing field for all the other *honest* agents and their clients.

voodoochile
01-16-2005, 07:23 PM
I'm not on the side of the owners. Just exaggerating to make a point.

They are both insufferable. I just can't stand to see Boras in any kind of positive light.

Allow me to make an analogy here relevant to my profession.

The bane of the doctors' existence is the healthcare insurance company. The *owners*, if you will. The doctor is just the "little guy." The *player* for the purpose of this example.

Because the insurance companies historically and unabashedlly lowball the doctors, let's say one of the doctors decides to fight back. He is going to rip off the insurance company to get what he deserves. He provides services which are not necessary. He *up-codes* his charges (charges more than customary for his services). He makes millions of dollars by doing this.

Should this doctor be *commended* because he beat the system? Should I, as an honest physician, be impressed by this and applaud him? Hey, it's all about making money, right? Who cares! The insurance companies get what they deserve!!

I deal with insurance companies on a daily basis and I detest them with every ounce of my being. However, for someone to lie and defraud the system, this is unacceptable. You can even take the *medical* moral obligation out of the equation if you like; assume nobody gets shoddy treatment, assume nobody gets physically hurt. Insurance companies are defrauded of millions, probably billions of dollars a year. Because other physicians get away with it, does that mean I should do it too? Just so I can make more money? Just to stick it to the insurance company? I guess that is a matter of a person's own values. TRUST me, I am NOT defending insurance companies here.

As a matter of fact, this actually hurts me. The insurance companies will lower their reimbursement rates, and I will be paid less for what I legitimately do. Oh, by the way....your insurance premiums are going up again. I can't imagine why.

As a physician, we are held to a different standard and I understand that. We should be. But because the owners are bad, does that give Boras license to do whatever he wants? I don't think so.

Don't confuse my contempt for Scott Boras as a defense of the owners; but I'll be damned if I will ever praise Boras. Sorry if my previous post led you to misunderstand my point. I don't like the owners either, but that doesn't mean one idiot has a right to skew the playing field for all the other *honest* agents and their clients.

Well, your analogy misses one key point...

If the patient in question benefits from your upcoding, then it's a different issue. If you lie to the insurance companies to get necessary procedures for your clients and in the process, make millions of dollars, who's wrong?

Last time I checked, Boras's clients were all benefiting at least finacially from his representation.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 07:31 PM
Well, your analogy misses one key point...

If the patient in question benefits from your upcoding, then it's a different issue. If you lie to the insurance companies to get necessary procedures for your clients and in the process, make millions of dollars, who's wrong?

Last time I checked, Boras's clients were all benefiting at least finacially from his representation.

Details, details...:tongue:

Actually the patient COULD benefit in some scenarios. For example, let's say that Mrs. Jones would like to have her toenails trimmed. Unfortunately for Mrs. Jones, she has Medicare, which will not pay for her to have them trimmed unless she is diabetic and has fungal toenails.

Mrs. Jones toenails are perfectly healthy and she is as well. So...I could CHARGE her $45 cash....but she won't go for this because "the doctor down the street always gets it covered by medicare for me. So if you can't do that I'll just go back there."

So my options are: (1) tell her to either pay cash or take a hike; or (2) put a false diagnosis on her claim to get medicare to pay the claim.

So you see: false diagnosis=I get paid, patient gets toenails trimmed for free. Honest diagnosis=patient leaves in a huff, and goes to see another doctor who will falsify her diagnosis. Not to mention she will bad-mouth me because I obviously don't know how medicare works so I must be an idiot.

So, sorry but I beg to differ with you. We may not be talking millions of dollars here, but $45 to a senior citizen on a fixed income is a LOT of money. Why pay when you don't have to?

I'll bet you thought my job was easy! :redneck

voodoochile
01-16-2005, 07:43 PM
Details, details...:tongue:

Actually the patient COULD benefit in some scenarios. For example, let's say that Mrs. Jones would like to have her toenails trimmed. Unfortunately for Mrs. Jones, she has Medicare, which will not pay for her to have them trimmed unless she is diabetic and has fungal toenails.

Mrs. Jones toenails are perfectly healthy and she is as well. So...I could CHARGE her $45 cash....but she won't go for this because "the doctor down the street always gets it covered by medicare for me. So if you can't do that I'll just go back there."

So my options are: (1) tell her to either pay cash or take a hike; or (2) put a false diagnosis on her claim to get medicare to pay the claim.

So you see: false diagnosis=I get paid, patient gets toenails trimmed for free. Honest diagnosis=patient leaves in a huff, and goes to see another doctor who will falsify her diagnosis. Not to mention she will bad-mouth me because I obviously don't know how medicare works so I must be an idiot.

So, sorry but I beg to differ with you. We may not be talking millions of dollars here, but $45 to a senior citizen on a fixed income is a LOT of money. Why pay when you don't have to?

I'll bet you thought my job was easy! :redneck


I'm sorry, did you say toe fungus? :tongue:

I basically agree that Boras is a jackass who has played the rules to the extreme in an effort to win what he perceives as a game. I won't justify that, but I don't think the way to do that is to make the owners look better than they actually are.

It's just the opposite tactic that Lip took and neither is good logic...

Daver
01-16-2005, 07:45 PM
IIRC, the owners proposed significantly increased revenue sharing in the last CBA discussions, but were shot down by the MLBPA. Just my recollection. Now there are different interpretations as to whether the owners were serious about that offer, whether they were just going to hide revenues, etc. But I believe that they've at least made that a topic and IIRC, Don Fehr has publicly come out against significant revenue sharing conceptually.

The CBA discussion was about what share the MLBPA recieved on revenues that are shared already, mostly merchandise revenue, and on how the the so-called "Luxury Tax" money was distributed, the MLBPA has a problem with Bud Selig doling it out as he sees fit with no accountability.

Voodoo was refering to revenue sharing similar to what the NFL has, if the owners chose to take that path ( which I doubt they ever will) the MLBPA really has little voice on the matter, until such time as it affected the CBA, which would still be bargained the same way it always has been.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 07:46 PM
I'm sorry, did you say toe fungus? :tongue:

I basically agree that Boras is a jackass who has played the rules to the extreme in an effort to win what he perceives as a game. I won't justify that, but I don't think the way to do that is to make the owners look better than they actually are.

It's just the opposite tactic that Lip took and neither is good logic...

Understood. Just fighting fire with fire...

I probably could have come up with a better analogy than that one. Sorry if I ruined anyone's dinner! :redneck

Nick@Nite
01-16-2005, 07:57 PM
Actually the patient COULD benefit in some scenarios. For example, let's say that Mrs. Jones would like to have her toenails trimmed. Unfortunately for Mrs. Jones, she has Medicare, which will not pay for her to have them trimmed unless she is diabetic and has fungal toenails.

Mrs. Jones toenails are perfectly healthy and she is as well. So...I could CHARGE her $45 cash....but she won't go for this because "the doctor down the street always gets it covered by medicare for me. So if you can't do that I'll just go back there."

So my options are: (1) tell her to either pay cash or take a hike; or (2) put a false diagnosis on her claim to get medicare to pay the claim.

So you see: false diagnosis=I get paid, patient gets toenails trimmed for free. Honest diagnosis=patient leaves in a huff, and goes to see another doctor who will falsify her diagnosis. Not to mention she will bad-mouth me because I obviously don't know how medicare works so I must be an idiot.

So, sorry but I beg to differ with you. We may not be talking millions of dollars here, but $45 to a senior citizen on a fixed income is a LOT of money. Why pay when you don't have to?[/color]

I'm not sure what the above involves, but whatever you due beckett21, no bunion pics! :redneck

beckett21
01-16-2005, 08:01 PM
I'm not sure what the above involves, but whatever you due beckett21, no bunion pics! :redneck

Ok, I promise! :redneck

ewokpelts
01-16-2005, 09:05 PM
Boras is doing his job. That's what he's being paid for.

Lost in all this 'morality' is the story I posted a few days ago from The Sporting News radio network. According to them Beltran did not re-sign with Houston because McClain refused to include a no trade clause. When you look at the numbers offered between Houston and the Mets they were comparable.

I don't mind one bit if Boras and every agent screw over the owners. They did it to the players for 100 years. Talk to me after another 70 years has gone by when things are now even.

Lip
and we're the ones that suffer... over-priced tickets and merchandise are the result...
Gene

Lip Man 1
01-16-2005, 10:06 PM
Ewoks:

If you think for one moment that the owners would have LOWER ticket prices and merchandise if player salaries were low then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

They will raise the cost for those items as high as people are willing to bear. My point... if you don't want higher prices then don't buy the stuff because if you do there's a market for them at the designated prices.

Your comment sounds like you think owners are all nice gentlemen and sportsmen who are just trying to do right by their players. Yea right.

Daver is about as well versed in the garbage that has gone on under Bud Selig's reign as anyone. I'm sure he can list for you a number of items concerning price gouging, conflict of interest issues and shenanigans that the owners have pulled just in the past ten years he'll probably start with Jeff Loria.

Lip

Dadawg_77
01-16-2005, 10:30 PM
Understood. Just fighting fire with fire...

I probably could have come up with a better analogy than that one. Sorry if I ruined anyone's dinner! :redneck


First off the Doctor in your example is committing federal crime. I don't think Scott Boras has done that in any negotiation he has been a part of, since he isn't in prison. While he may mislead owners, he isn't committing fraud.

As for the ethical question, is Boras ethically bond to tell the absolute truth to owners who he is bargaining with? I would argue no, both people in the room are excellent businessmen/women. Scott isn't taking advantage of an old lady in an unethical matter but rather beating grown billionears /millionears at their own game. The whining owners you hear, are those who can't handle that fact. Boras only ethical commitment is to his client as he must act in his best interest.

Players don't hirer Boras to give home town discounts, so don't think Boras pushed any his clients from doing what they wanted. They acquired Boras' services to obtain most cash. Everyone knew Beltran was going to the highest bidder and Houston couldn't match Mets highest offer. Boras knew this, so in order to push the price up, he needed to keep more then one bidder around thus he strung Houston along. The fact is Houston didn't see it or saw but do to fan pressure was stuck in playing around. Ever think Houston knew that so they make a great offer, knowing the Mets would beat it. Thus they look like they tried but Scott Boras wouldn't allow it to happen.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 10:48 PM
First off the Doctor in your example is committingfederal crime.

You are correct. But they have to be caught. Medicare fraud carries severe penalties. I'd rather just do things the right way and be able to sleep at night.

I don't think Scott Boras has done that in any negotiation he has been a part of, since he isn't in prison. While he may mislead owners, he isn't committing fraud.

So what is the difference between misleading someone, lying to someone, or committing fraud?Aren't they all basically synonymous?:?:

As for the ethical question, is Boras ethically bond to tell the absolute truth to owners who he is bargaining with? I would argue no, both people in the room are excellent businessmen/women.

So you are saying it is ok to lie, basically. Because someone is an excellent businessperson, they should be able to see right through a lie and make a fair assessment. :?:

Boras only ethical commitment is to his client as he must act in his best interest.

Lie, cheat and steal just as long as it benefits the client. Fine. Works for some people I guess. Just not me.

Look Dawg, I said this earlier. This is not a defense of the owners. Why is Boras the only agent who seems to go to this extreme? He is not the only one I am sure, but he is the posterchild for dirty agents. He is screwing over his honest colleagues (assuming there are some) who do things by the book. If that's ok with you then I don't expect you to agree with anything I have said. That's fine. Everyone has an opinion on the matter. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, or vise versa. Personally I have no respect for Scott Boras. That is my opinion. That doesn't make me a fan of the owners by extension.

Daver
01-16-2005, 10:55 PM
There is a reason sports agents have law degrees, but do not practice law.

They have to take an ethics oath when they recieve their liscence to commit law.

I would be willing to bet there are a ton of agents that failed the bar exam more than once.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 10:58 PM
There is a reason sports agents have law degrees, but do not practice law.

They have to take an ethics oath when they recieve their liscence to commit law.

I would be willing to bet there are a ton of agents that failed the bar exam more than once.

Thank you Daver for pointing this out.

People seem to think doctors are the only ones who have to follow any code of ethics anymore. :?:

munchman33
01-16-2005, 11:28 PM
Well, your analogy misses one key point...

If the patient in question benefits from your upcoding, then it's a different issue. If you lie to the insurance companies to get necessary procedures for your clients and in the process, make millions of dollars, who's wrong?

Last time I checked, Boras's clients were all benefiting at least finacially from his representation.

Comparing getting someone a necessary procedure versus getting an already rich baseball player millions more dollars is just silly.

beckett21
01-16-2005, 11:33 PM
Comparing getting someone a necessary procedure versus getting an already rich baseball player millions more dollars is just silly.

The point was that we all deal with issues every day that can be handled ethically or unethically. We all make choices that have consequences. Some are just magnified.

Sorry if my analogy offended you.

munchman33
01-16-2005, 11:45 PM
The point was that we all deal with issues every day that can be handled ethically or unethically. We all make choices that have consequences. Some are just magnified.

Sorry if my analogy offended you.

No, I'm not offended. I actually agree with you. I just don't think the analogy works because health is such a larger issue than an extra few million for a ballplayer. But the fact that it doesn't work only shows how right you are, because in the doctor's case, it's infinitely more important to go the distance. Confused yet? :?:

voodoochile
01-17-2005, 08:53 AM
No, I'm not offended. I actually agree with you. I just don't think the analogy works because health is such a larger issue than an extra few million for a ballplayer. But the fact that it doesn't work only shows how right you are, because in the doctor's case, it's infinitely more important to go the distance. Confused yet? :?:

I am and I'm also stunned by the way you belittle "an extra few million dollars".

Read that sentence over again...

First fans are offended by the prices we pay the players, crying about how if the players don't like the money offered, they should go work at Burger King. Then they say all players whould work for $1M - it's plenty of money. Finally they say, "What's a few extra million dollars?"

I'm not saying you have said all of these things, but they have all been said on these boards at various times.

Of course no one likes to talk about the owners and the few extra dozens of 10's of millions of dollars many of them have received of your tax money to run their businesses.

Also, Lip is dead on... Prices won't come back down. If the players all take salary cuts, the owners will just pocket the extra money and laugh all the way to the bank - you know, like they did for the first 100 years of MLB...:rolleyes:

Dadawg_77
01-17-2005, 10:33 AM
Look Dawg, I said this earlier. This is not a defense of the owners. Why is Boras the only agent who seems to go to this extreme? He is not the only one I am sure, but he is the posterchild for dirty agents. He is screwing over his honest colleagues (assuming there are some) who do things by the book. If that's ok with you then I don't expect you to agree with anything I have said. That's fine. Everyone has an opinion on the matter. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, or vise versa. Personally I have no respect for Scott Boras. That is my opinion. That doesn't make me a fan of the owners by extension.

I am saying vilification of Scott Boras isn't needed and unwarranted. If he had committed any crime don't you think a owner would turn him in or at least take legal action against him? I haven't seen it so I can only assume he is going by the book or at least walking the line of legality. What I am saying is the owners aren't dumb people who needed protection from a shark like Boras but rather they are sharks swimming in the same pool. I think we agree on that. When swimming with sharks I want the shark with the sharpest bite on my side.

Foulke29
01-17-2005, 10:35 AM
Boras is doing his job. That's what he's being paid for.

Lost in all this 'morality' is the story I posted a few days ago from The Sporting News radio network. According to them Beltran did not re-sign with Houston because McClain refused to include a no trade clause. When you look at the numbers offered between Houston and the Mets they were comparable.

I don't mind one bit if Boras and every agent screw over the owners. They did it to the players for 100 years. Talk to me after another 70 years has gone by when things are now even.

Lip

No - I don't believe Bora$$ is doing his job at all. He is lying to his business partners. Now, I have a job to do as well. I work for a very large company - in their IT area. I support what's call Service Management, and I'm supposed to be an advocate that gets the rest of the company's employees on board with using the process.

Sure I could promise things that I can't really meet. I could tell them that everyone that uses the process gets a big raise/bonus during the first year they use it. But that'd be lying. It would be using misleading information to mold the outcome of a situation. It's unethical, and in other places in the business world, people get fired for doing it.

Bora$$ should be banned from baseball. If collusion between owners is illegal in MLB, why isn't collusion between a player and an agent - or multiple players illegal?

Dadawg_77
01-17-2005, 10:54 AM
Bora$$ should be banned from baseball. If collusion between owners is illegal in MLB, why isn't collusion between a player and an agent - or multiple players illegal?

Collusion between players and owners is banned. Now does Boras or other agents prop up markets by knowing what his clients will sign for and keeping everyone within that price range, maybe. But since the owners haven't made that a collusion case yet, so I doubt that violates the CBA. Also an agent represents a player in a public agreement, so by the nature of that agreement there is no collusion.

voodoochile
01-17-2005, 10:59 AM
No - I don't believe Bora$$ is doing his job at all. He is lying to his business partners. Now, I have a job to do as well. I work for a very large company - in their IT area. I support what's call Service Management, and I'm supposed to be an advocate that gets the rest of the company's employees on board with using the process.

Sure I could promise things that I can't really meet. I could tell them that everyone that uses the process gets a big raise/bonus during the first year they use it. But that'd be lying. It would be using misleading information to mold the outcome of a situation. It's unethical, and in other places in the business world, people get fired for doing it.

Bora$$ should be banned from baseball. If collusion between owners is illegal in MLB, why isn't collusion between a player and an agent - or multiple players illegal?

Because the owners own the team and thus control all of the revenue streams.

The players actually do bond together - it's called a union and it protects them from the greedy manipulative ways the owners have acted in the last 100 years. It was common for players to work an off-season job at one point just so they could make ends meet, while the owners made money hand over fist dating back forever and still are when you add in the money from the capital increase they are all sitting on.

It is interesting that you use the word business partner. How is Boras a business partner of the owners? Does he share in the wealth when a team gets sold at a substantial increase in value? Do his clients get a guaranteed percentage of the overall revenue that MLB generates? Have the owners opened their books to him and his clients?

This defense of a bunch of greedy billionaires who regularly extort large chunks of your tax money from the government just so they can make even larger profits is silly. Neither side of this equation is free from dirt. Boras may not be the nicest guy in the world, but obviously some of the players think he is doing right by them.

Flight #24
01-17-2005, 11:08 AM
This defense of a bunch of greedy billionaires who regularly extort large chunks of your tax money from the government just so they can make even larger profits is silly. Neither side of this equation is free from dirt. Boras may not be the nicest guy in the world, but obviously some of the players think he is doing right by them.

I think we can agree that both sides are dirty, and in no case does the fact that the other side is dirty make one side cleaner. As Doc put it - being anti Boras doesn't mean being pro-owner.

Bora$ obviously does everything within his power to get his clients maximum $$$. How much he pushes them to do that rather than sign somewhere where they might be "happier" (however you define that) is unknown. That he goes beyond the limits of what would be considered business ethics is IMO not really in question.

If you think it's unethical/dirty of owners to publicly offer players big money contracts, but decrease the value using deferred money, how can you think it's not equally unethical for an agent to lie about competing offers or medical status?

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2005, 01:00 PM
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_136860.jpgPlease, Mr. Boras. I want to stay in Houston. Don't make me go to New York.
:borass:No! You'll go where I tell you and like it.
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_136860.jpgBut Mr. Boras. I don't CARE if the Mets are offering more money. And I don't CARE about the millions in endorsement deals I can get in New York. I feel such LOYALTY to the Astros. After all, I played there three whole months.
:borass:Shaddup! *slaps across the face* Now get out of here now. I've got no more time for you. I have some medical reports to go over. *buzzes secretary* Nancy, bring me a bottle of wite-out. Better make that TWO bottles.

RKMeibalane
01-17-2005, 01:03 PM
http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_136860.jpg

Has this picture been tagged? We need to have it around during the season so we can have him talk.

gosox41
01-17-2005, 01:20 PM
In the least shocking baseball news of the offseason, Drayton McLane feels like Scott Boras used the Astros as leverage to get a better deal with the Mets, and that Beltran had no intention of ever re-signing with his team. The "Friends of Boras" need to step back and realize there's a difference between being a good agent and just being a total douchebag. :cool:

Link (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/5E3E083F258D8F7386256F8B00249EF1?OpenDocument&Headline=Beltran's+agent+irks+McLane)


McLane has a lot of nerve wanting to negotiate with the player in the room (as well as the agent) before making a sizeable investment.
I thought only the evil JR does that.



Bob

gosox41
01-17-2005, 01:23 PM
A request made at the 11th hour, when negotiations only started at the 10th because the agent wouldn't allow them to start earlier. That puts all those "Carlos would love to stay in Houston" comments on par with "Maggs could play today" in terms of truthfulness. But yeah, it's all McLane's fault, Boras should be a national hero.


All owners are evil. And they're the only one's that have moral obligations that they keep violating. None of this is Boras fault.


Bob

gosox41
01-17-2005, 01:27 PM
I am saying vilification of Scott Boras isn't needed and unwarranted. If he had committed any crime don't you think a owner would turn him in or at least take legal action against him? I haven't seen it so I can only assume he is going by the book or at least walking the line of legality. What I am saying is the owners aren't dumb people who needed protection from a shark like Boras but rather they are sharks swimming in the same pool. I think we agree on that. When swimming with sharks I want the shark with the sharpest bite on my side.

Did Boras do anything legally wrong by not letting the Sox see Magglio's knee while he was still Sox property?



Bob

WhiteSoxFan84
01-17-2005, 01:52 PM
Lip

I agree. Boras is the BEST at what he does. He's not exactly Jerry Mcguire and doesn't make everyone smile and laugh (unless you're his client) but he will sure as hell show you the money.

He's a bastard, no doubt, he's evil, in some sense. I do not feel bad for the Rangers nor do I feel bad for the Mets and Astros. McLane should have been smart enough to realize that a silly no-trade clause could not have really been the reason they couldn't agree on a deal.

He screws people on the road to getting the people he WORKS FOR what they are looking for; the most money possible. Beltran, A-Rod, Lowe and everyone else that hires him, hire him to get them the best deal out there (aka most MONEY there). By hook or by crook, he always gets the best money out there. If he has to take advantage of fools down the line, so be it. McLane and the rest of the Astros brass can be simply described with one word; FOOLS. How do you invest all your offseason in ONE person and not even WORRY about the possiblity of him not coming back? You want to talk about douchebags, I'd be looking at the Houston front office. Not Bora$$.

Dadawg_77
01-17-2005, 02:01 PM
Did Boras do anything legally wrong by not letting the Sox see Magglio's knee while he was still Sox property?



Bob

Don't know for sure, but since the Sox haven't taken any legal action, I assume not.

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2005, 02:09 PM
Don't know for sure, but since the Sox haven't taken any legal action, I assume not.That doesn't necessarily follow. Players are contractually obligated to provide their team with all their relevant medical information. The Sox simply chose not to pursue the matter.

But the issue is not wheter Boras acts illegally. It's a matter of ethics and integrity. His clients pay him to get the best deal he can. Fine. No one puts a gun to the owner's head and forces him to sign. But if you don't behave in an ethical manner, pretty soon no one wants to deal with you. That applies whether you are a sports agent, used car salesman or a butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

Dadawg_77
01-17-2005, 02:11 PM
That doesn't necessarily follow. Players are contractually obligated to provide their team with all their relevant medical information. The Sox simply chose not to pursue the matter.

But the issue is not wheter Boras acts illegally. It's a matter of ethics and integrity. His clients pay him to get the best deal he can. Fine. No one puts a gun to the owner's head and forces him to sign. But if you don't behave in an ethical manner, pretty soon no one wants to deal with you. That applies whether you are a sports agent, used car salesman or a butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

But people keep dealing with him either because they have too to get the big name, or he really isn't unethical at all. Boras rep is out there for everyone to know, it isn't like anyone hasn't heard about him in baseball.

Ol' No. 2
01-17-2005, 02:13 PM
But people keep dealing with him either because they have too to get the big name, or he really isn't unethical at all.It's mostly the former. But I expect as time goes by, more and more teams are just not going to want to deal with him. What goes around comes around.

AZChiSoxFan
01-17-2005, 02:30 PM
In the least shocking baseball news of the offseason, Drayton McLane feels like Scott Boras used the Astros as leverage to get a better deal with the Mets, and that Beltran had no intention of ever re-signing with his team. The "Friends of Boras" need to step back and realize there's a difference between being a good agent and just being a total douchebag. :cool:

Link (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/5E3E083F258D8F7386256F8B00249EF1?OpenDocument&Headline=Beltran's+agent+irks+McLane)

This is why I commend KW for simply choosing not to negotiate with Bor-ASS. SB does not negotiate in good faith, according to numerous media accounts.

Example:
Bor-ASS: For my client, I want $10 mil per year, 5 years, no-trade clause, hotel suite.
Sucker GM: OK, sounds great, we'll do that.
Bor-ASS: You agree? Oh wait a minute. I really meant $12 mil per year, 7 years, blah, blah, blah. The target never stops moving.

The game goes on and on. As stated previously, good for KW to not play the game. I have no qualms with any free agent who would just be honest and say, "I want the most money and whoever pays it, I'll go there." What's sickening are all the disingenuous comments from Beltran about how much he loves the city of Houston, loves the locker room atmosphere, blah, blah, blah.

Dadawg_77
01-17-2005, 03:36 PM
This is why I commend KW for simply choosing not to negotiate with Bor-ASS. SB does not negotiate in good faith, according to numerous media accounts.

Example:
Bor-ASS: For my client, I want $10 mil per year, 5 years, no-trade clause, hotel suite.
Sucker GM: OK, sounds great, we'll do that.
Bor-ASS: You agree? Oh wait a minute. I really meant $12 mil per year, 7 years, blah, blah, blah. The target never stops moving.

The game goes on and on. As stated previously, good for KW to not play the game. I have no qualms with any free agent who would just be honest and say, "I want the most money and whoever pays it, I'll go there." What's sickening are all the disingenuous comments from Beltran about how much he loves the city of Houston, loves the locker room atmosphere, blah, blah, blah.

Actually, Boras doesn't name his price first while talking to clubs. He tells clubs to make an offer. He does this to establish the baseline Market price since clubs will come in with a lowend offer. Then he drives the price up.

StillMissOzzie
01-17-2005, 03:56 PM
Actually, Boras doesn't name his price first while talking to clubs. He tells clubs to make an offer. He does this to establish the baseline Market price since clubs will come in with a lowend offer. Then he drives the price up.

I beg to differ. For Beltran, he's the one who tossed the 10 years for $200M terms out there. Of course, he didn't get that, but I heard this long before I heard the first real offer from a team.

SMO
:gulp:

Randar68
01-17-2005, 05:59 PM
Boras is doing his job. That's what he's being paid for.

Lost in all this 'morality' is the story I posted a few days ago from The Sporting News radio network. According to them Beltran did not re-sign with Houston because McClain refused to include a no trade clause. When you look at the numbers offered between Houston and the Mets they were comparable.

I don't mind one bit if Boras and every agent screw over the owners. They did it to the players for 100 years. Talk to me after another 70 years has gone by when things are now even.

Lip

*****! That's like saying paying African Americans today will undo slavery. Get over yourself.

Mickster
01-17-2005, 06:02 PM
*****! That's like saying paying African Americans today will undo slavery. Get over yourself.

Keys-Lip 2008! :D:

Dadawg_77
01-17-2005, 09:27 PM
I beg to differ. For Beltran, he's the one who tossed the 10 years for $200M terms out there. Of course, he didn't get that, but I heard this long before I heard the first real offer from a team.

SMO
:gulp:

He threw out an outrageous number in the public to tell teams to come in with high bids. But Boras doesn't talks by giving teams a specific number, they give Boras a number.

Foulke29
01-17-2005, 11:43 PM
Lip

I agree. Boras is the BEST at what he does. He's not exactly Jerry Mcguire and doesn't make everyone smile and laugh (unless you're his client) but he will sure as hell show you the money.

He's a bastard, no doubt, he's evil, in some sense. I do not feel bad for the Rangers nor do I feel bad for the Mets and Astros. McLane should have been smart enough to realize that a silly no-trade clause could not have really been the reason they couldn't agree on a deal.

He screws people on the road to getting the people he WORKS FOR what they are looking for; the most money possible. Beltran, A-Rod, Lowe and everyone else that hires him, hire him to get them the best deal out there (aka most MONEY there). By hook or by crook, he always gets the best money out there. If he has to take advantage of fools down the line, so be it. McLane and the rest of the Astros brass can be simply described with one word; FOOLS. How do you invest all your offseason in ONE person and not even WORRY about the possiblity of him not coming back? You want to talk about douchebags, I'd be looking at the Houston front office. Not Bora$$.

You know what - I'm not defending the owners. I'm saying that in business - to lie over and over again is ridiculous. Regardless, fans are the losers in this equation.

I won't gripe about inflated ticket prices. Nor will I gripe about the inflated prices on items sold by vendors.

I will, however, gripe about the growing disconnect with fans from the players and the identity of their chosen team. Moreso, I'll gripe that as teams overpay for players, everyone loses. The teams take on a burden that they can not afford and in the long run have to suffer years or decades of mediocrity to make up for the $250MM contracts. Sure, every now and again, a team can take the hit and turn that player into the franchise's key to winning the World Series. See Boston. However, when an owner has the sense to stick to a reasonable budget, his fans suffer greatly because he's been blacklisted by Bora$$.

Sure Boras is doing his job and trying to grab that golden egg for his clients, but when is enough - enough? How many mansions do you want? How many cigars do you want to light with a $50 bill? Is A "biotch slapper" rod's life that much better because he makes an additional $3 to $4 million a year? Will Beltran's be that much better?

Do the owners rake in the cash? Sure they do, but they have an obligation to put the money back into their teams and very often do.

What's my point? I dunno. I suppose it's F Owner, F Boras and F the greedy jerky players!

samram
01-18-2005, 12:09 AM
It's mostly the former. But I expect as time goes by, more and more teams are just not going to want to deal with him. What goes around comes around.

Then we can wait for the collusion suit.

gosox41
01-18-2005, 08:19 AM
That doesn't necessarily follow. Players are contractually obligated to provide their team with all their relevant medical information. The Sox simply chose not to pursue the matter.

But the issue is not wheter Boras acts illegally. It's a matter of ethics and integrity. His clients pay him to get the best deal he can. Fine. No one puts a gun to the owner's head and forces him to sign. But if you don't behave in an ethical manner, pretty soon no one wants to deal with you. That applies whether you are a sports agent, used car salesman or a butcher, baker or candlestick maker.

It's OK when Boras acts without integrity. But damn those owners if they do it.


Bob

gosox41
01-18-2005, 08:23 AM
Keys-Lip 2008! :D:

ROFLMAO. maybe Lip should move back to Chicago and help work to pass the Slave Reparation (sp?) issue. Nevermind the fact that my grandparents didn't move to the states until the early 1900's I should have to pay for what happened 50 years before anyone in my mfamily set foot ohn US soil.


Bob

Nick@Nite
01-18-2005, 08:47 AM
Boras is toe jam.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2005, 09:03 AM
Then we can wait for the collusion suit.It's not collusion for any number of teams to individually decide not to deal with Boras.

Lip Man 1
01-18-2005, 10:23 AM
Foulke:

One thing missing from your comments is the issue of 'pride.' With many athletes, top executives and entertainers, like it or not, having the highest salary, or x number of mansions is important to them.

It gratifies their ego's, it 'proves' to them that they have made it to the top of their profession.

As someone who has never and will never make it to the top in anything, I can not relate to that belief but it is there and it does comes into play.

Also in regards to the posted notion about players always going to teams that offer the most money, this comment may prove enlightening:

"I’m so glad you asked. Alex Fernandez signed for seven or eight million dollars less then he could have gotten elsewhere. Wilson Alvarez signed for 15 percent less to play in Tampa versus a city in the Northeast. Greg Maddux took 25 percent less by not going to the Yankees in 93 and Bernie Williams could have played in Arizona for 100 million but instead stayed in New York for 90 million. Shall I continue?" -- Scott Boras to Sports Illustrated's Steve Rushin.

Lip

gosox41
01-18-2005, 11:55 AM
Foulke:

One thing missing from your comments is the issue of 'pride.' With many athletes, top executives and entertainers, like it or not, having the highest salary, or x number of mansions is important to them.

It gratifies their ego's, it 'proves' to them that they have made it to the top of their profession.

As someone who has never and will never make it to the top in anything, I can not relate to that belief but it is there and it does comes into play.

Also in regards to the posted notion about players always going to teams that offer the most money, this comment may prove enlightening:

"I’m so glad you asked. Alex Fernandez signed for seven or eight million dollars less then he could have gotten elsewhere. Wilson Alvarez signed for 15 percent less to play in Tampa versus a city in the Northeast. Greg Maddux took 25 percent less by not going to the Yankees in 93 and Bernie Williams could have played in Arizona for 100 million but instead stayed in New York for 90 million. Shall I continue?" -- Scott Boras to Sports Illustrated's Steve Rushin.

Lip

Citing a quote by Boras isn't the best way to win over an argument. Did he ever admit to the fact that he made up the mysterious team when he was playing Hicks like a fiddle with A-Rod.

Much of what Boras said is hot air and should be regarded as such.


Bob

Mickster
01-18-2005, 12:32 PM
Much of what Boras said is hot air and should be regarded as such.

Unless, of course, it supports Lip's position.

samram
01-18-2005, 12:33 PM
It's not collusion for any number of teams to individually decide not to deal with Boras.

Very true. However, you know that Boras won't just accept the fact that no one wants to deal with him anymore. He would file suit and cause some trouble, and let's face it, there are a lot of people who would believe any charge of collusion or underhandedness against MLB owners, no matter how frivolous.

voodoochile
01-18-2005, 12:37 PM
Very true. However, you know that Boras won't just accept the fact that no one wants to deal with him anymore. He would file suit and cause some trouble, and let's face it, there are a lot of people who would believe any charge of collusion or underhandedness against MLB owners, no matter how frivolous.

Is this the same group of owners which has been convicted of colluding once already?

The question is: what constitutes collusion? If all the individuals deciding not to deal with Boras or his clients got the idea from say - Reinsdorf's GM publicly stating that he will no longer deal with Boras or his clients - does that imply an organized effort? Would the courts see it that way?

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove...

If the owners have a bad reputation, they need look no further than the nearest bathroom where they can check the mirror...

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2005, 12:40 PM
Very true. However, you know that Boras won't just accept the fact that no one wants to deal with him anymore. He would file suit and cause some trouble, and let's face it, there are a lot of people who would believe any charge of collusion or underhandedness against MLB owners, no matter how frivolous.Boras has no grounds to file a suit. The MLBPA would have to file a grievance and it would go to an arbitrator. In the earlier collusion cases there was clear cut evidence. I doubt the MBLPA would even touch it. Boras' whining about how no one will play with him isn't going to sway an arbitrator.

samram
01-18-2005, 01:23 PM
Is this the same group of owners which has been convicted of colluding once already?

The question is: what constitutes collusion? If all the individuals deciding not to deal with Boras or his clients got the idea from say - Reinsdorf's GM publicly stating that he will no longer deal with Boras or his clients - does that imply an organized effort? Would the courts see it that way?

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove...

If the owners have a bad reputation, they need look no further than the nearest bathroom where they can check the mirror...

Collusion would require an agreement between two or more parties, so I don't think an owner getting the idea from a public statement by JR or KW would constitute collusion.

One oddity is the owners were the ones that insisted on disallowing collusion after Drysdale and Koufax held a dual holdout back in 1966. I'm not sure how the Flood Act changed the collusion laws as they pertain to baseball, but until then, collusion was allowed.

Ol' No. 2 is right in that it would be a grievance filed by the union and not a suit. However, I don't think the MLBPA would necessarily wait for clear cut evidence to start an investigation. They started one after 2003 simply because some agents noticed players were receiving similar (not necessarily identical) offers from different teams.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2005, 01:32 PM
Collusion would require an agreement between two or more parties, so I don't think an owner getting the idea from a public statement by JR or KW would constitute collusion.

One oddity is the owners were the ones that insisted on disallowing collusion after Drysdale and Koufax held a dual holdout back in 1966. I'm not sure how the Flood Act changed the collusion laws as they pertain to baseball, but until then, collusion was allowed.

Ol' No. 2 is right in that it would be a grievance filed by the union and not a suit. However, I don't think the MLBPA would necessarily wait for clear cut evidence to start an investigation. They started one after 2003 simply because some agents noticed players were receiving similar (not necessarily identical) offers from different teams.The collusion case was not based on federal labor laws. It was based on a specific provision in the CBA (Article XX (E) if you're interested). It was put there, as you mentioned, at the insistance of the owners as a result of the Drysdale/Koufax holdout. IMO, the collusion talk after the 2003 season was nothing more than gamesmanship by the union. If they had anything, they wouldn't have sat on it.

voodoochile
01-18-2005, 02:06 PM
Collusion would require an agreement between two or more parties, so I don't think an owner getting the idea from a public statement by JR or KW would constitute collusion.

One oddity is the owners were the ones that insisted on disallowing collusion after Drysdale and Koufax held a dual holdout back in 1966. I'm not sure how the Flood Act changed the collusion laws as they pertain to baseball, but until then, collusion was allowed.

Ol' No. 2 is right in that it would be a grievance filed by the union and not a suit. However, I don't think the MLBPA would necessarily wait for clear cut evidence to start an investigation. They started one after 2003 simply because some agents noticed players were receiving similar (not necessarily identical) offers from different teams.

It can be argued in a court of law that JR's statement was really a message to other owners. They actually proved price fixing by gas stations in a similar manner. See they didn't have to talk to each other, they just read the price off the other guys sign and set their price the same. Didn't you ever wonder why different gas stations on the same corner almost never have a price war or why gas stations that are in clusters have virtually the same prices as gas stations further away that are solitary?

Again, it can be argued that JR's/KW's statement was a message to stop paying Boras clients big money or to stop negotiating with them altogether. It remains to be seen how it will all play out and Boras certainly was forced to downgrade his salary expectations for Beltran (Market forces at work, IMO) but if the owners eventually stop signing any Boras client, look for more players to sign with him to protect their rights and this to become a legal issue...

gosox41
01-19-2005, 09:35 AM
It can be argued in a court of law that JR's statement was really a message to other owners. They actually proved price fixing by gas stations in a similar manner. See they didn't have to talk to each other, they just read the price off the other guys sign and set their price the same. Didn't you ever wonder why different gas stations on the same corner almost never have a price war or why gas stations that are in clusters have virtually the same prices as gas stations further away that are solitary?

Again, it can be argued that JR's/KW's statement was a message to stop paying Boras clients big money or to stop negotiating with them altogether. It remains to be seen how it will all play out and Boras certainly was forced to downgrade his salary expectations for Beltran (Market forces at work, IMO) but if the owners eventually stop signing any Boras client, look for more players to sign with him to protect their rights and this to become a legal issue...

Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels will always deal with Boras.

I would think more proof is needed to show collusion then KW saying the Sox aren't going negotiate with Boras. Isn't that a freedom of speech issue?

And what's the difference (legally) of the Sox making a comment like that and Boras not letting the Sox see Magglio's medical records while he was Sox property and the Sox were paying his salarY?

If Boras can legallly do that, then I don't see how KW can't speak freely on what his team is doing (and not recommending what other teams do.)



Bob

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 09:53 AM
It can be argued in a court of law that JR's statement was really a message to other owners. They actually proved price fixing by gas stations in a similar manner. See they didn't have to talk to each other, they just read the price off the other guys sign and set their price the same. Didn't you ever wonder why different gas stations on the same corner almost never have a price war or why gas stations that are in clusters have virtually the same prices as gas stations further away that are solitary?

Again, it can be argued that JR's/KW's statement was a message to stop paying Boras clients big money or to stop negotiating with them altogether. It remains to be seen how it will all play out and Boras certainly was forced to downgrade his salary expectations for Beltran (Market forces at work, IMO) but if the owners eventually stop signing any Boras client, look for more players to sign with him to protect their rights and this to become a legal issue...You can argue in a court of law that the earth is flat. It's just not going to get you very far. And collusion claims don't go to a court of law, they go to an arbitrator, who is even less likely to be swayed by specious arguments. This doesn't come even close to the standard of proof necessary to prove collusion. It's good for press releases, and not much more.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 10:02 AM
Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels will always deal with Boras.

I would think more proof is needed to show collusion then KW saying the Sox aren't going negotiate with Boras. Isn't that a freedom of speech issue?

And what's the difference (legally) of the Sox making a comment like that and Boras not letting the Sox see Magglio's medical records while he was Sox property and the Sox were paying his salarY?

If Boras can legallly do that, then I don't see how KW can't speak freely on what his team is doing (and not recommending what other teams do.)



Bob

I didn't say it was what was actually happening. I merely pointed out that it can be construed that way. There have been other teams to come out with similar comments since that day KW made the announcement.

While I agree that it doesn't probably rise to proof of collusion, if Boras is eventually forced from the market because of a unified effort by the owners to ban him and bar his employees from signing, it certainly will look bad for them when it goes to the arbitrator (as ON2 has pointed out).

I agree that big money teams are less likely to stop dealing with Boras and his high priced clientele and thus it probably never becomes a legal issue, but if the market gets smaller because 20-25 of the teams in MLB stop making offers, it has the same effect by driving salaries down and that is what collusion is all about.

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 10:08 AM
I didn't say it was what was actually happening. I merely pointed out that it can be construed that way. There have been other teams to come out with similar comments since that day KW made the announcement.

While I agree that it doesn't probably rise to proof of collusion, if Boras is eventually forced from the market because of a unified effort by the owners to ban him and bar his employees from signing, it certainly will look bad for them when it goes to the arbitrator (as ON2 has pointed out).

I agree that big money teams are less likely to stop dealing with Boras and his high priced clientele and thus it probably never becomes a legal issue, but if the market gets smaller because 20-25 of the teams in MLB stop making offers, it has the same effect by driving salaries down and that is what collusion is all about.

Doesn't Boras' comments work against him in this scenario? I mean when he publicly says "opening bid is 10-yr / $200MM", then it should be pretty simple for teams to come out and say "Uhhhh....that's too rich for my blood".

I would guess absent some sort of proof like the same offer coming from 4 different teams, witness commentary, or something, a public comment by a GM or 2 that Boras overvalues his players and lies to teams to inflate value, therefore teams are reluctant to deal with him isn't going to be enough.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 10:43 AM
Doesn't Boras' comments work against him in this scenario? I mean when he publicly says "opening bid is 10-yr / $200MM", then it should be pretty simple for teams to come out and say "Uhhhh....that's too rich for my blood".

I would guess absent some sort of proof like the same offer coming from 4 different teams, witness commentary, or something, a public comment by a GM or 2 that Boras overvalues his players and lies to teams to inflate value, therefore teams are reluctant to deal with him isn't going to be enough.

You are probabaly correct and yes, to some extent, Boras scared off some teams with his demands for a huge contract.

I'm probably seeing something that isn't there. The owners just have a horrible history of doing whatever it takes to keep salaries down. No shock, lower salaries = higher profit margins. I worry about them way more than I worry about one tough agent who is representing the cream of the MLB talent crop...

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 10:59 AM
You are probabaly correct and yes, to some extent, Boras scared off some teams with his demands for a huge contract.

I'm probably seeing something that isn't there. The owners just have a horrible history of doing whatever it takes to keep salaries down. No shock, lower salaries = higher profit margins. I worry about them way more than I worry about one tough agent who is representing the cream of the MLB talent crop...I have to agree with your general sentiment. The owners have a nasty habit of shooting themselves in the foot. The original collusion has to go down as one of the all-time stupidest things supposedly intelligent people have ever done.

Lip Man 1
01-19-2005, 01:06 PM
From a historical perseptive of the 'collusion' issue from the mid 80's:

"Peter Ueberroth periodically turned to the lawyers telling them to stop him if he got onto collusion grounds. They never did, though they did occasionally halt owners who got carried away in the raptures of ‘fiscal responsibility’. That was the code word for abstinence and the leading proselytizers were Jerry Reinsdorf, Bud Selig and John McMullen." - From the book ‘The Lords Of The Realm’ by John Helyar. Pg. 362. Published 1994.

"Bill Giles (Phillies owner) conceded in a TV interview that he was interested in Lance Parrish (then the Tigers All-Star catcher). Now the Lords were all over him. White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf reminded Giles of his ‘fiscal responsibilities’ (so Giles later testified in court, though Reinsdorf maintains he didn’t say that. His version of what he said was: ‘Don’t be stupid. Make sure you don’t win by a whole lot.) – From the book ‘The Lords Of The Realm’ by John Helyar. Pg. 377. Published 1994.

Also in Fay Vincent's book, 'The Last Commissioner', Vincent states that Peter Ueberroth was not the architect of the ill fated collusion plan from the mid 80's. Vincent says that Jerry Reinsdorf and Bud Selig started it, pushed it through and that Ueberroth simply went along for the ride.

Lip

Lip Man 1
01-23-2005, 12:31 PM
Apparently The Sporting News radio networks story on why Beltran did not sign with Houston is correct. This is from Phil Rogers column in Sunday's Tribune:

"One of the reasons Miller was dumped was owner Drayton McLane's decision to marshal his resources to try to hang on to Beltran. It's hard to know what is more stunning—that McLane would go to $100 million in the Beltran bidding war or that he would lose the war because he would not agree to a no-trade clause."

Lip

HoustonAstros967
01-23-2005, 02:32 PM
Boras will do whatever it takes to get his player the most amount of money they can get. Even if he has to ruin a team's season.

Flight #24
01-23-2005, 03:42 PM
Apparently The Sporting News radio networks story on why Beltran did not sign with Houston is correct. This is from Phil Rogers column in Sunday's Tribune:

"One of the reasons Miller was dumped was owner Drayton McLane's decision to marshal his resources to try to hang on to Beltran. It's hard to know what is more stunning—that McLane would go to $100 million in the Beltran bidding war or that he would lose the war because he would not agree to a no-trade clause."

Lip

This may be factually true, but it doesn't refute McLane's contention that a)they were trying to negotiate for a while and getting stonewalled, and b)based on the way things progressed, it appeared that accepting that would only lead to more/different issues.

From my vantage point, the fact that they were trying to negotiate for a while with no response, and that this came up last minute is a huge point that makes it seem like Boras/Beltran never had any intention of the Astros winning.

Lip Man 1
01-23-2005, 10:14 PM
Houston:

It's not Scott Boras job nor should he 'care' about if his demands 'ruin' a club's season.

When he's hired by a team to repesent their interests then he will.

As Phil Rogers stated in his column the Astors have no one to blame but themselves for their off season, they allowed themselves to go on and on with Beltran instead of setting a 'drop dead' date which could allow them time to go after other free agents and then they refused the no trade clause demand, which as was stated on The Sporting News radio network is also insane because if the Astros suck that bad you can bet Beltran wouldn't want to stick around anyway.

Flight:

Unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing if they intended to sign with Houston or not. Your dislike of Scott Boras is coloring your vision. The money was roughly the same between the Astros and Mets and for right now at least Houston had the better team. That tells me the no trade clause was a major issue.

Lip

gosox41
01-25-2005, 12:18 PM
Houston:

It's not Scott Boras job nor should he 'care' about if his demands 'ruin' a club's season.

When he's hired by a team to repesent their interests then he will.

As Phil Rogers stated in his column the Astors have no one to blame but themselves for their off season, they allowed themselves to go on and on with Beltran instead of setting a 'drop dead' date which could allow them time to go after other free agents and then they refused the no trade clause demand, which as was stated on The Sporting News radio network is also insane because if the Astros suck that bad you can bet Beltran wouldn't want to stick around anyway.

Flight:

Unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing if they intended to sign with Houston or not. Your dislike of Scott Boras is coloring your vision. The money was roughly the same between the Astros and Mets and for right now at least Houston had the better team. That tells me the no trade clause was a major issue.

Lip


Which is why it's a waste of time to deal with Scott Boras. He'll string a team along as long as it takes. In reality the team (this year it was the Astros) should just start operating on Plan B much sooner.

So Lip, let's play pretend here for a moment. Let's assume Magglio is 100% healthy and never got injured. Also assume Boras is his agent and that the Sox let him reach free agency. Knowing Boras strings teams a long to get the best for his client, would you want the Sox:

1. Negotiate a bit and if he signs it's great but if not set a deadline so they can go on to Plan B.

2. Don't negotiate at all and immediately go to Plan B.

3. Wait for Magglio to make a decision knowing that one single decision can make or break the 2005 season.


Bob

gosox41
01-25-2005, 12:19 PM
Houston:

Flight:

Unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing if they intended to sign with Houston or not. Your dislike of Scott Boras is coloring your vision. The money was roughly the same between the Astros and Mets and for right now at least Houston had the better team. That tells me the no trade clause was a major issue.

Lip

Did it ever come out that Beltran got a no trade clause with the Mets? I haven't seen it anywhere.


Bob

Lip Man 1
01-25-2005, 12:47 PM
Bob:

This week's Sports Illustrated.Teddy Bruschi on the cover. Page 55 in the story on Mets G.M. Omar Minaya by Michael Faber. "and giving him (Beltran) a full no trade clause..."

Lip

gosox41
01-26-2005, 08:31 AM
Bob:

This week's Sports Illustrated.Teddy Bruschi on the cover. Page 55 in the story on Mets G.M. Omar Minaya by Michael Faber. "and giving him (Beltran) a full no trade clause..."

Lip

Gotcha. It'll be interesting to see how it works out for the Mets.


Bob

Flight #24
01-26-2005, 10:04 AM
Flight:

Unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing if they intended to sign with Houston or not. Your dislike of Scott Boras is coloring your vision. The money was roughly the same between the Astros and Mets and for right now at least Houston had the better team. That tells me the no trade clause was a major issue.

Lip

Really? The fact that they were trying to negotiate with him, but Boras wouldn't even get things started indicates that they didn't really have that great an interest in Houston in the first place. It strains the limits of credibility to believe that they wanted to stay in Houston, but were just "too busy" to negotiate until the last minute or that if a no-trade was really that important, they just waited until the last minute to raise it as an issue.

Add in Boras history of double-talk, and this fits a pattern of putting on a face to make sure that he kept Houston in the bidding to use to get a better deal elsewhere (or do you still believe Maggs was "ready to play" in November or that he had "minor surgery"?).

gosox41
01-26-2005, 11:00 AM
Really? The fact that they were trying to negotiate with him, but Boras wouldn't even get things started indicates that they didn't really have that great an interest in Houston in the first place. It strains the limits of credibility to believe that they wanted to stay in Houston, but were just "too busy" to negotiate until the last minute or that if a no-trade was really that important, they just waited until the last minute to raise it as an issue.

Add in Boras history of double-talk, and this fits a pattern of putting on a face to make sure that he kept Houston in the bidding to use to get a better deal elsewhere (or do you still believe Maggs was "ready to play" in November or that he had "minor surgery"?).

Good point about Houston and Boras conveniently being too busy to negotiate with him. It's too bad the 'Stros fell for it as most Sox fans would want to keep Beltran in Houston. It's Houston's fault that all this happened. It's probably one of the many reasons teams are getting sick of dealing with Boras. Who needs this? Some tems have woken up to the fact that Boras will take things to every deadline that he can to put teams under pressure to overpay for a guy or risk blowing a whole season.

Boras may get the best deal for his client's and that is his job. But after reading his antics here and in other situations I can see where teams don't want to deal with him.


Bob

Lip Man 1
01-26-2005, 11:49 AM
Bob;

You need to restate your comment... SOME teams don't want to deal with him. His clients always find jobs don't they?

The name of the game is talent and having as much of it from any and all areas. I just don't understand how not wanting to deal with a number of players, many of them among the best because of a 'personality' problem with their agent helps the Sox achieve this.

Perhaps you can explain that to me.

Lip

gosox41
01-26-2005, 02:00 PM
Bob;

You need to restate your comment... SOME teams don't want to deal with him. His clients always find jobs don't they?

The name of the game is talent and having as much of it from any and all areas. I just don't understand how not wanting to deal with a number of players, many of them among the best because of a 'personality' problem with their agent helps the Sox achieve this.

Perhaps you can explain that to me.

Lip

Lip,

I meant 'teams' by more then one. Which there are more then one team that doesn't want to deal with Boras. The rest is semantics. I never said all teams.

And maybe I should clarify. If I were an owner I wouldn't wait around for Boras to go through his act. All teams that are interested in a Boras player should pursue him, but smnart teams are going to wise up and realize it doesn't pay (literally and figuratively) to do it for an extended period of time. It's always good to have a fallback plan. Because while Boras doesn't care about a teams season, a team shouldn't bank all of their next season hopes on waiting for Boras to wait things out while he tries to convince either NY team to enter the bidding.

So yes, I can see why a team won't put up with his BS. Just like I can see why Boras is trying to get the best deal for his client. Of course a team can always wind up like Houston who limited their options by getting played by Boras and limiting their chance to win in 2005.

How would you feel if the Sox spent all off season chasing Beltran and doing little else only to lose him? You play the game with Boras for a bit, but there's a point where it's time to move on.

Also, on a slightly different note, Boras does represent some of the most talented players in the game. But this is still a team sport and in this day and age one player isn't going to single handedly turn around a franchise. It's easier for the New Yorks or Boston to play around with Boras but it's more complicated for the other 90% of baseball who work within budgets and have other holes to fill.

last, Lip, I gave you an explanation. You never repsoned to my little multiple choice quiz, which ironically deals with how you would deal with Boras. I look forward to seeing what you wrote.


Bob

Lip Man 1
01-26-2005, 07:15 PM
I would deal with Boras the way that Ken Rosenthal stated in last week's print edition of The Sporting News suggested... strictly on a professional level, no name calling, no statements to the press.

I'd let him know exactly what clients of his I am interested in, I'd ask him to give me what he feels is an opening offer, then if I wanted to pursue him (or them) I'd submit my offer with a date by which I had to have an answer since as with Houston's case, I can't waste the whole season waiting and come up empty.

If he agreed to meet with me to negotiate my offer I'd be willing to speak with him provided it was before my original cutoff date.

Finally if we agreed to do a deal it would be a straight forward approach... no deferred money, no bonuses for say MVP, All Star Game, no personal loans, no up front bonuses etc...just cash on the barrel head. That way his client and I would know exactly what the financial obligations are and I'd have a way of figuring out my budget from year to year.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
01-26-2005, 08:30 PM
I would deal with Boras the way that Ken Rosenthal stated in last week's print edition of The Sporting News suggested... strictly on a professional level, no name calling, no statements to the press.

I'd let him know exactly what clients of his I am interested in, I'd ask him to give me what he feels is an opening offer, then if I wanted to pursue him (or them) I'd submit my offer with a date by which I had to have an answer since as with Houston's case, I can't waste the whole season waiting and come up empty.

If he agreed to meet with me to negotiate my offer I'd be willing to speak with him provided it was before my original cutoff date.

Finally if we agreed to do a deal it would be a straight forward approach... no deferred money, no bonuses for say MVP, All Star Game, no personal loans, no up front bonuses etc...just cash on the barrel head. That way his client and I would know exactly what the financial obligations are and I'd have a way of figuring out my budget from year to year.

Lip:borass:What?? No occular enhancer machine? Don't call us...we'll call you.

beckett21
01-26-2005, 08:52 PM
I would deal with Boras the way that Ken Rosenthal stated in last week's print edition of The Sporting News suggested... strictly on a professional level, no name calling, no statements to the press.

I'd let him know exactly what clients of his I am interested in, I'd ask him to give me what he feels is an opening offer, then if I wanted to pursue him (or them) I'd submit my offer with a date by which I had to have an answer since as with Houston's case, I can't waste the whole season waiting and come up empty.

If he agreed to meet with me to negotiate my offer I'd be willing to speak with him provided it was before my original cutoff date.

Finally if we agreed to do a deal it would be a straight forward approach... no deferred money, no bonuses for say MVP, All Star Game, no personal loans, no up front bonuses etc...just cash on the barrel head. That way his client and I would know exactly what the financial obligations are and I'd have a way of figuring out my budget from year to year.

Lip

With that approach you'd sign just as many Boras clients as Reinsdorf does.

No statements to the press by Boras? :rolling:

Amusing.

Lip Man 1
01-26-2005, 10:27 PM
No statements to the press by ME. Boras can say whatever he wants to say but I will not make any comments...nothing like 'we have a different value of his clients....' Nothing at all.

Lip

gosox41
01-27-2005, 08:07 AM
I would deal with Boras the way that Ken Rosenthal stated in last week's print edition of The Sporting News suggested... strictly on a professional level, no name calling, no statements to the press.

I'd let him know exactly what clients of his I am interested in, I'd ask him to give me what he feels is an opening offer, then if I wanted to pursue him (or them) I'd submit my offer with a date by which I had to have an answer since as with Houston's case, I can't waste the whole season waiting and come up empty.

If he agreed to meet with me to negotiate my offer I'd be willing to speak with him provided it was before my original cutoff date.

Finally if we agreed to do a deal it would be a straight forward approach... no deferred money, no bonuses for say MVP, All Star Game, no personal loans, no up front bonuses etc...just cash on the barrel head. That way his client and I would know exactly what the financial obligations are and I'd have a way of figuring out my budget from year to year.

Lip


I like your last paragraph. What about a no-trade clause?

This made me think of another question: What would you think of ownership if they met such strict criteria in negotiating. Boras had an obvious advantage by taking it all the way to the arbitration deadline because of Clemens. He knew Houston was in the running and wanted to put the screws to them.

What if Houston moved the deadline up 6 weeks so they can make moves at the GM meetings? Or better yet, what if the Sox were negotating with a high profile player (doesn't matter who his agent is) and came out and said that we're going to negotiate to X date and that's it. But what if it was clear in the situation that in order for the player to get the possible deal it would be to his advantage to wait longer? How would you feel if such an ultimatum was made? Would that be considered a serious offer by you?



Bob

voodoochile
01-27-2005, 08:12 AM
Just wanted to chime in here...

Those incentive bonuses - MVP, ASG, stat based incentives, etc. are common place among big names. Almost every major star has them in their contract - even guys who are almost guaranteed to make the ASG year to year.

gosox41
01-27-2005, 08:14 AM
No statements to the press by ME. Boras can say whatever he wants to say but I will not make any comments...nothing like 'we have a different value of his clients....' Nothing at all.

Lip


So you're letting Boras manipulate the press be giving his side of the story. His side of the story will include only information that gets his player the best deal. It may make other owners look cheap or stubborn or making 'unreasonable demands' without him telling anyone what they are.

IMO, if I were an owner or GM, I'd never give up my right to speak with the press. There are usually 3 sides to every story. The team's side which isn't getting told. Boras side which will only give details that make his client look good without regard to any team and the truth. I've seen here how people react to all these media 'conspiracies.' No way do I go in without making any comments if the other guy is going to talk. If he's quiet I'd be quiet. If not I'd be doing everything to negotiate and everything to let the fans know that we were negotiating in good faith instead of being accused otherwise because the media is reporting one thing.


Bob

beckett21
01-27-2005, 09:50 AM
So you're letting Boras manipulate the press be giving his side of the story. His side of the story will include only information that gets his player the best deal. It may make other owners look cheap or stubborn or making 'unreasonable demands' without him telling anyone what they are.

IMO, if I were an owner or GM, I'd never give up my right to speak with the press. There are usually 3 sides to every story. The team's side which isn't getting told. Boras side which will only give details that make his client look good without regard to any team and the truth. I've seen here how people react to all these media 'conspiracies.' No way do I go in without making any comments if the other guy is going to talk. If he's quiet I'd be quiet. If not I'd be doing everything to negotiate and everything to let the fans know that we were negotiating in good faith instead of being accused otherwise because the media is reporting one thing.


Bob

Exactly correct. To leave all the talking up to Boras would be to weaken your position further. He would love that tactic.

Case in point:

I particularly enjoyed this offseason when Boras kept insisting that the Yankees were still involved in the bidding for Beltran's services to try to drive the pricetag up after they had repeatedly stated they were out. He kept pulling them back in to give himself leverage.


Good faith negotiation? Boras doesn't know what that means.

Lip Man 1
01-27-2005, 09:58 AM
There's no position to weaken. I've given Boras my offer. If he wishes to discuss it as long as it was before my 'deadline' day, I'd be more then happy to.

If it's afterwards, sorry I can't, I have to pursue other free agents.

When the negotiations are over one way or another if the fans have questions, I'd provide a detailed, accurate breakdown of my offer or offers to the media. Then the fans can say what they will.

But unlike what teams have been doing, I won't cover up anything. Here is the offer we made...the exact money, the exact bonus figures, perks and so forth. Then the fans and media can say what they will.

In short, I'll make my best offer but I won't play games if it causes my to blow the entire off season waiting.

Lip

voodoochile
01-27-2005, 11:12 AM
There's no position to weaken. I've given Boras my offer. If he wishes to discuss it as long as it was before my 'deadline' day, I'd be more then happy to.

If it's afterwards, sorry I can't, I have to pursue other free agents.

When the negotiations are over one way or another if the fans have questions, I'd provide a detailed, accurate breakdown of my offer or offers to the media. Then the fans can say what they will.

But unlike what teams have been doing, I won't cover up anything. Here is the offer we made...the exact money, the exact bonus figures, perks and so forth. Then the fans and media can say what they will.

In short, I'll make my best offer but I won't play games if it causes my to blow the entire off season waiting.

Lip

By making the deadline public knowledge, you would also hurt Boras's negotiating stance. He wouldn't be able to use your team to jack up interest/offers from other teams after that date.

TommyJohn
01-27-2005, 12:03 PM
Exactly correct. To leave all the talking up to Boras would be to weaken your position further. He would love that tactic.

Case in point:

I particularly enjoyed this offseason when Boras kept insisting that the Yankees were still involved in the bidding for Beltran's services to try to drive the pricetag up after they had repeatedly stated they were out. He kept pulling them back in to give himself leverage.


Good faith negotiation? Boras doesn't know what that means.

I also recall Boras stating that the Cubs were "very much in" the hunt for
Beltran, even after it was pretty much clear that they weren't going to
bid on him, either.

gosox41
01-27-2005, 12:03 PM
Exactly correct. To leave all the talking up to Boras would be to weaken your position further. He would love that tactic.

Case in point:

I particularly enjoyed this offseason when Boras kept insisting that the Yankees were still involved in the bidding for Beltran's services to try to drive the pricetag up after they had repeatedly stated they were out. He kept pulling them back in to give himself leverage.


Good faith negotiation? Boras doesn't know what that means.

As the old joke goes: Do you know how to tell when Boras is lying? When his lips move.

Seriously, Boras uses the media to his advantage when it calls for it. No reason for a team negotiating with him shouldn't do the same especially considering how quick many fans are to let any media story that favors their opinion use it as a way to force their opinion. Just because the media reports it doesn't make it 100% accurate.

BTW, on the Beltran sidenote. I believe the Mets flew down to the Dominican to meet with Beltran. So in this case it was OK for Boras to allow that to happen, but the Sox get ripped for wanting to meet with A-Rod.


Bob

gosox41
01-27-2005, 12:07 PM
There's no position to weaken. I've given Boras my offer. If he wishes to discuss it as long as it was before my 'deadline' day, I'd be more then happy to.

If it's afterwards, sorry I can't, I have to pursue other free agents.

When the negotiations are over one way or another if the fans have questions, I'd provide a detailed, accurate breakdown of my offer or offers to the media. Then the fans can say what they will.

But unlike what teams have been doing, I won't cover up anything. Here is the offer we made...the exact money, the exact bonus figures, perks and so forth. Then the fans and media can say what they will.

In short, I'll make my best offer but I won't play games if it causes my to blow the entire off season waiting.

Lip

How would you know if other teams are playing games ? Maybe they're telling the truth. Unless one is a fly on the wall in the negotiations, I can see where people would doubt you just as much as any other owner who might be playing games.

I can almost guarantee the end result is both the owners and the agent are fabricating their side of the story to save face. Knowin the power of the media, I would think you have to use it to your advantage at the time, especially when the other guy is.


Bob

santo=dorf
01-27-2005, 12:08 PM
Finally if we agreed to do a deal it would be a straight forward approach... no deferred money, no bonuses for say MVP, All Star Game, no personal loans, no up front bonuses etc...just cash on the barrel head. That way his client and I would know exactly what the financial obligations are and I'd have a way of figuring out my budget from year to year.

Lip
Well you would've failed to signed Carlos Beltran this offseason, unless you're willing to make the All-Star game and MVP bonuses guaranteed. What would Beltran's contract be worth if he gets all those bonuses? How about a full no-trade clause?

gosox41
01-27-2005, 12:10 PM
I also recall Boras stating that the Cubs were "very much in" the hunt for
Beltran, even after it was pretty much clear that they weren't going to
bid on him, either.

That's a perfect example of Boras fabricating a story and using the media. From Boras POV the Cubs were in the hunt for the simple reason that they probably called him and inquired about him at some point this offseason. That shows interest, hence they must be in the hunt. But that doesn't mean they were serious.


Bob

gosox41
01-27-2005, 12:13 PM
Well you would've failed to signed Carlos Beltran this offseason, unless you're willing to make the All-Star game and MVP bonuses guaranteed. What would Beltran's contract be worth if he gets all those bonuses? How about a full no-trade clause?

Good point. If JR had offered made a straightforward offer to a player for a 5 year contract paying $15 mill per year but there would be no incentives he'd be ripped on for being cheap. Because, as has been pointed out numerous times, if the other teams are offering the same basic package plus incentives then you need to also if you're serious about signing him. If that's what the market is, then offering anything less is not going to get the player.

This negotiating thing is soooo simple.:D:





Bob

gosox41
01-27-2005, 12:14 PM
:tomatoaward

I finally get to do this.