PDA

View Full Version : Scott Borass


buehrle4cy05
11-17-2005, 09:51 PM
I just feel like venting about this guy a little bit. I think that he's the one who makes the players greedy, because he goes out and gets a big cut of their contracts. If all players didn't have agents, I'm sure we wouldn't see teams get milked for every penny possible. A-Rod wouldn't have got that astronomical contract, which in all honesty, gave baseball a bad repuation of giving out huge contracts. Let's hope Borass does the sport a big favor and retires, or moves to some desolate island where they have no cell phone service and no internet.
:borass:

Major props to Kenny for saying that he won't deal with any Bora$$ clients.:cool:

Lip Man 1
11-17-2005, 10:21 PM
Agents are hired to represent the people who pay them. When MLB starts paying them to represent their business then they will. Until them don't blame agents for owners stupidity.

Agents do the job they are paid to do just like any other working stiff. It's not their job to worry about 'the good of the sport.' It's there job to worry about their employer.

Lip

Banix12
11-17-2005, 10:59 PM
He comes off as an uncaring tool, which he might be, but the fact is he seems to do his job better than any other agent out there. I can't blast a guy for doing the job well which he is paid to do.

Baseball is a business, a player only has a short period of time where he can make big money so I really can't blame any player who takes the maximum amount of money offered to him and Boras seems to get that money.

I don't have to respect Boras, I don't have to respect the methods he uses to extract big money, but I have to respect the fact that he gets results.

And Lip is right, blame is on the owners. Owners give out the contracts, Agents can just steer them in that direction.

rdivaldi
11-17-2005, 11:25 PM
You know what guys, it's okay to talk about "the business of baseball" and yes, Borass does do his job well in terms of $$$. But honestly guys like him do nothing but hurt the game. Let's talk about the absolute GARBAGE he pulls with the draftees he represents. I get absolutely steamed thinking about the poor kids he ruins by having them hold out or even worse, go to the Independent Leagues where they inevitably get hurt because of the poor training staffs and lackadaisical managers.

We'd be better off if Scott Borass was selling encyclopedias door to door instead of being an MLB agent.

beckett21
11-17-2005, 11:26 PM
Agents are hired to represent the people who pay them. When MLB starts paying them to represent their business then they will. Until them don't blame agents for owners stupidity.

Agents do the job they are paid to do just like any other working stiff. It's not their job to worry about 'the good of the sport.' It's there job to worry about their employer.

Lip

You must have a great deal of respect for Drew Rosenhaus too, huh?

I really don't feel like entering another ethics debate. Suffice it to say Boras, Rosenhaus and the like have no ethics or morals when it comes to their negotiation *tactics*.

Essentially you are condoning lying, cheating and stealing so long as it is to their client's benefit. To each his own I guess.

TDog
11-17-2005, 11:37 PM
...

Essentially you are condoning lying, cheating and stealing so long as it is to their client's benefit. To each his own I guess.

And that ignores the moral issue of an agent income coming from the skills and toil of others.

Well put.

ChiSoxRowand
11-17-2005, 11:56 PM
You must have a great deal of respect for Drew Rosenhaus too, huh?

I really don't feel like entering another ethics debate. Suffice it to say Boras, Rosenhaus and the like have no ethics or morals when it comes to their negotiation *tactics*.

Essentially you are condoning lying, cheating and stealing so long as it is to their client's benefit. To each his own I guess.

Completely agree Beckett. It's not right to say 10 teams are interested in a player when in reality there is only three. IMO the thing I hate about Boras the most is what he has done to the draft. The reason the draft was made is so the worst teams could draft the best players. Now that isn't happening because all the Boras Clients (usually top college players) are demanding too much money and falling in the draft. Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew should have went 1 and 2 in the 04' draft. But I don't think either one went in the top 15.

Banix12
11-18-2005, 12:12 AM
Completely agree Beckett. It's not right to say 10 teams are interested in a player when in reality there is only three. IMO the thing I hate about Boras the most is what he has done to the draft. The reason the draft was made is so the worst teams could draft the best players. Now that isn't happening because all the Boras Clients (usually top college players) are demanding too much money and falling in the draft. Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew should have went 1 and 2 in the 04' draft. But I don't think either one went in the top 15.

The draft is a separate issue. The problem with the draft is the incredibly loose rules that baseball has on bonus money and contracts to draft picks that allow agents to do the things Boras does. Problems that desperately need to be sorted out.

Unfortunately nothing Boras really does is really against the rules (because if he did break the rules I'm sure MLB would do anything to destroy his business). I'm sure he does a few things that break or bend rules, but for that matter teams do plenty to break draft rules such as trying to negotiate with players before they draft them.

I'm sure plenty of baseball teams lie in negotiations as well. I don't like boras' tactics as well but I'm kind of tired of the idea that teams and GM's are innocent bystanders and unwilling victims in all of this.

StockdaleForVeep
11-18-2005, 12:21 AM
He apparently has something with all the talent he is representin. Also, agents are needed because many players when they start off know jack about business. They spent too much time being breezed thru college if they even went. Even bowlers need coaches

http://www.skapunkandotherjunk.com/images/Icons/kingpin_roy.gif
"Doesnt a bowler need a friend, a brother, a companion?"

getonbckthr
11-18-2005, 12:32 AM
Like it has been said previously on this thread blame the owners. My view on big contracts is simple. If your boss came up to you and said, "hey (insert name) you have worked really hard, and you show lots of promise in (insert job) i'm thinking about offering you a raise. How about instead of 50,000 a year I pay you 250,000/yr." Would any of us really say no cause Jim in the next office will hear of that and demand the same. Hell no you wouldn't. Personally I do respect Boras and Rosenous(sp) just like I respect the guy at the local body shop for repairing my car. Why? Simple they do their job. As its the body shop guys' job to fix my car cause thats what i pay him for, it's the agents job to get his client the best deal possible cause that's what the player pays him to do.

SOX ADDICT '73
11-18-2005, 01:22 AM
I don't have to respect Boras, I don't have to respect the methods he uses to extract big money, but I have to respect the fact that he gets results.
What about the fact that those "results" include the major hit a player's image takes just by associating with a creep like Boras? Before last offseason's deception-fest, there were few players I respected more than Magglio Ordonez. Needless to say, my opinion of him has drastically changed. I'm sure there have been similar reactions by fans of the Rodriguezes (A-Rod and I-Roid), Kevin Brown, and Carlos Beltran (especially Astro fans) since signing with this parasite.

He grossly overvalues his players, advises them to hold out (essentially holding teams and their fans hostage), and just flat-out lies, lies, lies to get those "results" you admire. So yeah, if you're an "ends-justifies-the-means" sort of person, I guess you would respect that. As far as I'm concerned, Boras, Rosenhaus and their ilk are a huge part of what's wrong with professional sports.

Certain owners are guilty as well, since there's always at least one idiot willing to give $14 million a year to a gimp like Magg$, but I'm glad Jerry and Kenny aren't buying. We can thank our lucky stars that Crede isn't a FA this year. After the postseason he had, just imagine the sort of deal Bor-ass would be seeking! C'mon, Joe - borrow a phrase from The Donald and say to your morally and ethically-bereft agent, "YOU'RE FIRED!"

Banix12
11-18-2005, 02:48 AM
What about the fact that those "results" include the major hit a player's image takes just by associating with a creep like Boras? Before last offseason's deception-fest, there were few players I respected more than Magglio Ordonez. Needless to say, my opinion of him has drastically changed. I'm sure there have been similar reactions by fans of the Rodriguezes (A-Rod and I-Roid), Kevin Brown, and Carlos Beltran (especially Astro fans) since signing with this parasite.

He grossly overvalues his players, advises them to hold out (essentially holding teams and their fans hostage), and just flat-out lies, lies, lies to get those "results" you admire. So yeah, if you're an "ends-justifies-the-means" sort of person, I guess you would respect that. As far as I'm concerned, Boras, Rosenhaus and their ilk are a huge part of what's wrong with professional sports.

Certain owners are guilty as well, since there's always at least one idiot willing to give $14 million a year to a gimp like Magg$, but I'm glad Jerry and Kenny aren't buying. We can thank our lucky stars that Crede isn't a FA this year. After the postseason he had, just imagine the sort of deal Bor-ass would be seeking! C'mon, Joe - borrow a phrase from The Donald and say to your morally and ethically-bereft agent, "YOU'RE FIRED!"


If you want to get moralistic, then fine. But business isn't always ethical and moral and I'm sure other agents, owners, and even players have their little games they play in the "grey area" of morality and ethics.

Anyway, the first two things you mention "holding out" and "overvaluing players" have nothing to do with morals and ethics. That's negotiating (it's not like a draftee is a free agent and can get money from other teams) and Boras' personal opinion. As for his lies, I don't have a ton of proof on his lies but anyway it's not like General Managers and Owners are like George Washington

And I never said I admired the results, I said I respect the fact that he gets results, it's grudging respect because I'm not a fan of his methods but you have to acknowledge the success. If other baseball agents could master the techiques that Boras has utilized you can be positive that they would be utilizing them.

Feel free to not care about Maggs, I'm positive he doesn't care about what you think. He is a ballplayer with a limited shelflife in the league and he got enough money in one contract to live off of for the rest of his life. I can't fault a man for taking that.

This whole concept that professional sports is bad because ballplayers want to get their maximum pay is just stupid. In every other job on earth that is what an employee tries to do, for some reason just because they play pro sports they are supposed to say, "Gee, I want to take the 14 million dollars a year that Boras can get me, but shoot I owe it to some fans that I have never personally met in my life and the bosses for whom I was forced to play for (often for below market value in Maggs first few seasons on his rookie contract) so I think I'm just going to take less money even though my earning power will never be this high again."

If you want to go see people playing baseball just for the love of the game go check out a little league game, in the MLB they play for money. Just deal with it because it is never going to change.

Professor
11-18-2005, 08:25 AM
Agents are hired to represent the people who pay them. When MLB starts paying them to represent their business then they will. Until them don't blame agents for owners stupidity.

Agents do the job they are paid to do just like any other working stiff. It's not their job to worry about 'the good of the sport.' It's there job to worry about their employer.

Lip

Lip, always enjoy your posts. I have to respectfully disagree here, though. This is the same defense high ranking officers of the Third Reich, for example Adolf Eichmann, used. What happened to individual responsibility? Now everyone blames the system. The system exists only because of people's willing compliance with it. Yes they do their job, but ought they? This is why our military has ethics codes where though one should almost always follow orders of your superiors, if you are asked to do something ethically questionable, soldiers have the right, indeed are required, to disobey. The "I was only doing what I was told/paid to do" defense does not hold up in our court system...so far. At any rate, I agree the owners should stand up to him, like JR and KW.

samram
11-18-2005, 08:32 AM
This whole concept that professional sports is bad because ballplayers want to get their maximum pay is just stupid. In every other job on earth that is what an employee tries to do, for some reason just because they play pro sports they are supposed to say, "Gee, I want to take the 14 million dollars a year that Boras can get me, but shoot I owe it to some fans that I have never personally met in my life and the bosses for whom I was forced to play for (often for below market value in Maggs first few seasons on his rookie contract) so I think I'm just going to take less money even though my earning power will never be this high again."

If you want to go see people playing baseball just for the love of the game go check out a little league game, in the MLB they play for money. Just deal with it because it is never going to change.

I definitely agree with these last two paragraphs. I've always wondered why we know players' salaries anyway. What real interest do we have in knowing how much a guy makes for playing ball? I agree that it's fun for us to play simulated GM and say "Well, if this guy leaves and this guy signs and we trade this guy for that guy, we'll be at this payroll number" and I like doing it too. However, the only thing that mattered to me this past season was that the Sox won the World Series, not that they did it with a $75 million payroll.

veeter
11-18-2005, 08:46 AM
There is greed from each party. Obviously Boras wants the most for his client, then he gets paid. The PLAYER who hires this jag knows Boras is THE guy to get the most money (MAGGS). Lastly the owners are willing to pay big contracts because they see ticket sales in the end. As incredible and exhilerating as sports are, they are laced with greed and selfishness. I just wish I was a kid again, when I didn't understand all of this. How is Sox history going to look in 25 years, when someone asks, "You mean Paul Konero didn't play on the 2006 Sox?" "No he left for a new team because, instead of $50 million he took $60 mil. and another year." Utterly pathetic. The fans are the ones who suffer.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 10:08 AM
Like it has been said previously on this thread blame the owners. My view on big contracts is simple. If your boss came up to you and said, "hey (insert name) you have worked really hard, and you show lots of promise in (insert job) i'm thinking about offering you a raise. How about instead of 50,000 a year I pay you 250,000/yr." Would any of us really say no cause Jim in the next office will hear of that and demand the same. Hell no you wouldn't. Personally I do respect Boras and Rosenous(sp) just like I respect the guy at the local body shop for repairing my car. Why? Simple they do their job. As its the body shop guys' job to fix my car cause thats what i pay him for, it's the agents job to get his client the best deal possible cause that's what the player pays him to do.

The owners bear a lot of the blame as do the players. However, agents aren't just doing what you say they're doing. They're misrepresenting the truth, playing off fear tactics, and withholding information [a la Maggs Ordonez].

You use the body shop example, but what if your car battery is merely dead and a mechanic charges you to fix the starter and replace the battery? You don't know the difference.

Or what if a body shop worker could have hammered out a dent but he tells you you have to replace the whole front panel?

Would that be worthy of your respect?

And yet, this is essentially what Rosenhaus and Boras do.

I'd love to be a client of theirs, I guess. But I'm not and therefore have very little respect for their questionable business tactics.

spiffie
11-18-2005, 10:29 AM
The owners bear a lot of the blame as do the players. However, agents aren't just doing what you say they're doing. They're misrepresenting the truth, playing off fear tactics, and withholding information [a la Maggs Ordonez].

You use the body shop example, but what if your car battery is merely dead and a mechanic charges you to fix the starter and replace the battery? You don't know the difference.

Or what if a body shop worker could have hammered out a dent but he tells you you have to replace the whole front panel?

Would that be worthy of your respect?

And yet, this is essentially what Rosenhaus and Boras do.

I'd love to be a client of theirs, I guess. But I'm not and therefore have very little respect for their questionable business tactics.

So you know the mechanic is shady. You know they do nasty things. But you go there anyhow? And we're blaming the mechanic for your bad decision? It's not like the owners/GM's are naive children. If Boras says 10 teams are interested, get on the phone and figure out how legitimate that is. If they won't give you the x-rays on Ordonez, do what the Sox and 28 other teams did and don't sign him. That is the job of a General Manager. If he is letting himself be intimidated by a player agent, he is not doing his job and ought to be replaced.

These teams have the ability to do all the research and investigation on their investment that they need. If an agent won't let them do that, their client should, in a rational world, find himself unwanted. However, as long as there are stupid owners willing to bid against themselves like Detroit did with Maggs, this won't happen.

And while I have a happy first reaction to the idea that we won't negotiate with certain agents, I know as a Sox fan I will be pissed off if at some point they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage due to this.

samram
11-18-2005, 10:30 AM
The owners bear a lot of the blame as do the players. However, agents aren't just doing what you say they're doing. They're misrepresenting the truth, playing off fear tactics, and withholding information [a la Maggs Ordonez].

You use the body shop example, but what if your car battery is merely dead and a mechanic charges you to fix the starter and replace the battery? You don't know the difference.

Or what if a body shop worker could have hammered out a dent but he tells you you have to replace the whole front panel?

Would that be worthy of your respect?

And yet, this is essentially what Rosenhaus and Boras do.

I'd love to be a client of theirs, I guess. But I'm not and therefore have very little respect for their questionable business tactics.

I think the difference is that owners and GMs have far more knowledge about the marketplace and players than the average person has about cars. However, I do agree that misrepresentation of the market is unethical, especially since there is very little the teams can do to find out how true the claims are. Can you imagine what would happen if KW called Bill Bavasi (or any other GM) and asked if he had any interest in a particular free agent? Guys like Boras would be crying collusion in a New York minute.

The outrageous contract demands aren't as big a deal. If Boras says Damon wants 7/$84 million, I think most people know he's just setting the bar high.

slavko
11-18-2005, 10:36 AM
So you know the mechanic is shady. You know they do nasty things. But you go there anyhow? And we're blaming the mechanic for your bad decision? It's not like the owners/GM's are naive children. If Boras says 10 teams are interested, get on the phone and figure out how legitimate that is. If they won't give you the x-rays on Ordonez, do what the Sox and 28 other teams did and don't sign him. That is the job of a General Manager. If he is letting himself be intimidated by a player agent, he is not doing his job and ought to be replaced.

These teams have the ability to do all the research and investigation on their investment that they need. If an agent won't let them do that, their client should, in a rational world, find himself unwanted. However, as long as there are stupid owners willing to bid against themselves like Detroit did with Maggs, this won't happen.

And while I have a happy first reaction to the idea that we won't negotiate with certain agents, I know as a Sox fan I will be pissed off if at some point they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage due to this.

Teams can't get on the phone and see if other teams are bidding. That would be collusion, prohibited by the CBA. So you either have to accept or reject what an agent says without verifying in this regard. Therein lies the agent's advantage. On the surface, it would seem to be an unethical advantage.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 10:48 AM
So you know the mechanic is shady. You know they do nasty things. But you go there anyhow? And we're blaming the mechanic for your bad decision? It's not like the owners/GM's are naive children. If Boras says 10 teams are interested, get on the phone and figure out how legitimate that is. If they won't give you the x-rays on Ordonez, do what the Sox and 28 other teams did and don't sign him. That is the job of a General Manager. If he is letting himself be intimidated by a player agent, he is not doing his job and ought to be replaced.

These teams have the ability to do all the research and investigation on their investment that they need. If an agent won't let them do that, their client should, in a rational world, find himself unwanted. However, as long as there are stupid owners willing to bid against themselves like Detroit did with Maggs, this won't happen.

And while I have a happy first reaction to the idea that we won't negotiate with certain agents, I know as a Sox fan I will be pissed off if at some point they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage due to this.

Like I said - the owners are at fault. True, I could learn more about cars and find out who's lying etc. I would be partially at fault. But that doesn't mean the mechanic isn't cheating me. I'm not taking all the blame off me, but he still did something ethically wrong.

Come on people, this isn't rocket science. If you believe it's all right to mislead people and cheat them just come out and say so.

TomBradley72
11-18-2005, 11:11 AM
And that ignores the moral issue of an agent income coming from the skills and toil of others.

Well put.

Moral issue? If the player didn't see value in the service the Agent provided he wouldn't retain the agent and pay for the service. No athlete is forced to use an Agent...they choose to retain their services as part of growing "their business".

Hard for to picture anyone in this scenario as having the "high moral ground"...players are mercenaries, owners are millionaire/billionaires, etc...

Lip Man 1
11-18-2005, 11:34 AM
"Essentially you are condoning lying, cheating and stealing so long as it is to their client's benefit. To each his own I guess."

Beck I'm not condoning anything but as Earth Wind and Fire sang in 1975 'That's The Way Of The World...'

Lying, cheating and stealing are a part of today's business world on so many levels it's not even calcuable. Like it or not that's reality. From politics to the media conflicts of interest, from ventures like Enron and Haliburton to husbands and wives cheating on each other.

I accept things as they are. I don't have to like it, I don't have to do it myself but I recognize what is.

So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make generalizations about me and what I think since you don't know me.

Back to the point however... what Borass does may not be liked by some but as long as he is not breaking legal rules for agents there is nothing anybody can do about it.

Legality and morality are two different issues and topics. When Boras and Rosenhaus break legal rules regarding agents and their clients they will be dealt with. Until them that's the way it is. Morality issues are not subject to the 'law' since what is moral for you may not be for me and so forth.

Lip

daveeym
11-18-2005, 11:36 AM
Like I said - the owners are at fault. True, I could learn more about cars and find out who's lying etc. I would be partially at fault. But that doesn't mean the mechanic isn't cheating me. I'm not taking all the blame off me, but he still did something ethically wrong.

Come on people, this isn't rocket science. If you believe it's all right to mislead people and cheat them just come out and say so. HAHAHAHA that's hilarious. Go Spiffie and Banix (and any others I missed). Baseball and player salary negotiations are these guys' businesses. Contracts determine everything. They're both in equal bargaining positions, to say otherwise is ignorant. Big difference between that and consumer issues where knowing the extent of damage to my car is considered "my business".

Throw the MLBPA into the mix. They're the ones that have so many things set in the collective bargaining agreement that handcuff the owners more so than any agent. If any teams had some balls like the Eagles half this crap wouldn't fly. If teams would cancel contracts or sue for reimbursement due to breach of contract this would all be moot. Ultimately it's all one big orgy under the MLB franchise.

D. TODD
11-18-2005, 11:37 AM
Baseball is a business not merely a game. Many fans want "loyalty" from players on their favorite team. Take less money, or less guaranteed years to be loyal to your team & it's fans. That is a joke to me, very few people on this board or anywhere else would limit their earnings or pensions for their particular employers. I agree some players get overpaid, but as a rule I would rather see the workers (players) get a bigger share, then the owners. It makes no difference if you own Wal Mart or the New York Yankees I'm rooting for the rank & file to get paid as much as possible. Players & agents should push for whatever they can get when they have a chance to as a free agent.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 11:48 AM
HAHAHAHA that's hilarious. Go Spiffie and Banix (and any others I missed). Baseball and player salary negotiations are these guys' businesses. Contracts determine everything. They're both in equal bargaining positions, to say otherwise is ignorant. Big difference between that and consumer issues where knowing the extent of damage to my car is considered "my business".

Throw the MLBPA into the mix. They're the ones that have so many things set in the collective bargaining agreement that handcuff the owners more so than any agent. If any teams had some balls like the Eagles half this crap wouldn't fly. If teams would cancel contracts or sue for reimbursement due to breach of contract this would all be moot. Ultimately it's all one big orgy under the MLB franchise.

Of COURSE it's a business. But just like any business there is an ethical way to go about negotiations and an inethical way.

In any other business presenting false information (My client has 15 teams actively interested in him...you had better up your offer) or deliberately withholding information (Magglio didn't go to Austria. No you can't look at his knee) would be grossly unethical.

I don't have a problem with A-Rod's contract, or Boras asking 84/7 for Damon. That's fine. That's business. I have an issue with the shady dealings Boras constantly resorts to.

Honestly this is confusing some people very much. I am not saying that agents should encourage behavior like Dye's where he took a lower offer because he gave his word. Their job is to get as much money as possible for their clients. However, they still have a responsibility to operate in an ethical manner, imo.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2005, 12:06 PM
Moral issue? If the player didn't see value in the service the Agent provided he wouldn't retain the agent and pay for the service. No athlete is forced to use an Agent...they choose to retain their services as part of growing "their business".

Hard for to picture anyone in this scenario as having the "high moral ground"...players are mercenaries, owners are millionaire/billionaires, etc...Exactly. Let's not be pollyannish. Everybody knows who Scott Boras is, the players most of all. They know exactly what they're getting when they sign with him. That's WHY they sign with him. And as Jerry Reinsdorf said last year, you NEVER rely on what an agent says. You have to develop your own information. To do otherwise is foolish. And as my mother used to say, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 12:08 PM
Exactly. Let's not be pollyannish. Everybody knows who Scott Boras is, the players most of all. They know exactly what they're getting when they sign with him. That's WHY they sign with him. And as Jerry Reinsdorf said last year, you NEVER rely on what an agent says. You have to develop your own information. To do otherwise is foolish. And as my mother used to say, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

Yes. That's fine. But just because you're realistic about the way the system works doesn't mean you have to respect them for it.

For instance - ambulance chasers.

Since when has something being accepted as inevitable justified it morally?

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 12:10 PM
Big difference between that and consumer issues where knowing the extent of damage to my car is considered "my business".


I just noticed this part too:

remember what Costanza said:

"Johnson Rod? OH yeah!!! the JOHNSON Rod"

Dick Allen
11-18-2005, 12:13 PM
What most people here are saying is that Boras and Rosenhaus are dirtbags. We know that. Yes, they try to get their clients the best deals possible and frequently get results. We don't have to like their methods. But like so many people in the business world, they're dirtbags. Plain and simple. If I saw one of them face down in the street, I'd run them over.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 12:19 PM
What most people here are saying is that Boras and Rosenhaus are dirtbags. We know that. Yes, they try to get their clients the best deals possible and frequently get results. We don't have to like their methods. But like so many people in the business world, they're dirtbags. Plain and simple. If I saw one of them face down in the street, I'd run them over.

That is pretty much the thrust of my argument, with a little murder added.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2005, 12:24 PM
Yes. That's fine. But just because you're realistic about the way the system works doesn't mean you have to respect them for it.

For instance - ambulance chasers.

Since when has something being accepted as inevitable justified it morally?I doubt if they care whether I respect them or not. There are lots of dishonest people in the world. Maybe it's just my practical nature, but as long as I know who they are and can take measures to protect myself, they can't hurt me. It's the dishonest people who you DON'T know about or who can do their business without constraints that are a concern. Scott Boras doesn't fall into either category.

daveeym
11-18-2005, 12:25 PM
Of COURSE it's a business. But just like any business there is an ethical way to go about negotiations and an inethical way.

In any other business presenting false information (My client has 15 teams actively interested in him...you had better up your offer) or deliberately withholding information (Magglio didn't go to Austria. No you can't look at his knee) would be grossly unethical.

I don't have a problem with A-Rod's contract, or Boras asking 84/7 for Damon. That's fine. That's business. I have an issue with the shady dealings Boras constantly resorts to.

Honestly this is confusing some people very much. I am not saying that agents should encourage behavior like Dye's where he took a lower offer because he gave his word. Their job is to get as much money as possible for their clients. However, they still have a responsibility to operate in an ethical manner, imo. There's NOTHING unethical about saying 15 teams are talking to my client. Call his bluff then. Is that how you negotiate when buying a car or a house? "Well that's a fair price, I'll pay that." Hell no, it's, " man I really like it, but I just can't fit it in my budget, I got 12 kids to feed." *****.

AUSTRIA, AUSTRIA, WHO CARES. The contract is not compete until OUR guys look at him and clear him. Sure we'll give you 80+ million, IF....

Bunch of crybaby fans is all it sounds like. Magglio broke my heart, Borass sucks, those yankmees spend too much money.

Steelrod
11-18-2005, 12:53 PM
One thing that is seldom mentioned is that players can discuss salaries and offers among themselves, so can agents. If teams however do it, thats collusion!

The union also puts pressure on premier free agents (in this case Konerko) to set new ground. Remember one player's salary effects all salaries above and below him. Reinsdorf is correct in saying that he's at the mercy of his dumbest competitor.
Signing Konerko for whatever, forces teams Not to go to arb1tration with lower figures for equal ability.
Lets see, .280 hitter, streaky, 40 home runs, slow, better than average defense.
How many first basemen can lay claim to equal, near equal or higher stats.

D. TODD
11-18-2005, 01:23 PM
One thing that is seldom mentioned is that players can discuss salaries and offers among themselves, so can agents. If teams however do it, thats collusion!

The union also puts pressure on premier free agents (in this case Konerko) to set new ground. Remember one player's salary effects all salaries above and below him. Reinsdorf is correct in saying that he's at the mercy of his dumbest competitor.
Signing Konerko for whatever, forces teams Not to go to arb1tration with lower figures for equal ability.
Lets see, .280 hitter, streaky, 40 home runs, slow, better than average defense.
How many first basemen can lay claim to equal, near equal or higher stats. This is very true, and a wise move on the players union part. Gordie Hows was notorious for taking small contracts because he made money outside of his deal with the Red Wings. This hindered every other player in the league when they wanted to negotiate for a higher salary. The management would just say how could we pay you x amount when the great Gordie Howe only makes x amount. Konerko and all free agent signings effect the entire rank & file in the union.

getonbckthr
11-18-2005, 01:49 PM
One thing that is seldom mentioned is that players can discuss salaries and offers among themselves, so can agents. If teams however do it, thats collusion!

The union also puts pressure on premier free agents (in this case Konerko) to set new ground. Remember one player's salary effects all salaries above and below him. Reinsdorf is correct in saying that he's at the mercy of his dumbest competitor.
Signing Konerko for whatever, forces teams Not to go to arb1tration with lower figures for equal ability.
Lets see, .280 hitter, streaky, 40 home runs, slow, better than average defense.
How many first basemen can lay claim to equal, near equal or higher stats.

From what you just said player signing impacts future market. For that reason alone the White Sox and Angels should not be afraid to throw 14-15 million on Paulie. Now true you should only be able to get him for 12-13, but when you sign to a 5 year deal your essentially set at 1B. Next year when Derek Lee becomes a free agent they will look at the Konerko contract and because Derek, provided he puts up similar stats next season, would have more hr's, more rbi's and a better average not to mention alot more speed and a better glove, would cause DLee to demand about 18 million a year. At the moment he enters the market next season teams like who ever signs PK, Texas, ST Louis and others with 1B tied down for a while are at an advantage. Why? Because they don't need a 1B, but seeing what PK would have signed for, the teams needing a 1B would be put in a position to overpay even more so, thus eventually limiting their amount of potential spending. Also I kinda wonder if there is an agent oath of where you should always get the most money for your player not only to help yourself, but also to help your peers as well.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 01:59 PM
I doubt if they care whether I respect them or not. There are lots of dishonest people in the world. Maybe it's just my practical nature, but as long as I know who they are and can take measures to protect myself, they can't hurt me. It's the dishonest people who you DON'T know about or who can do their business without constraints that are a concern. Scott Boras doesn't fall into either category.

Sure, but this thread isn't about whether Scott Boras cares if you respect him. It's about how people feel about Boras. Frankly, I think he's a rat.

I don't have any fantasy that he is crying at night saying "Fquaye149 thinks I'm a rat"...but oh well. I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't care if I think he's an ******* for the way he forces smaller companies out of business, but I will anyway.

So he's a good businessman. Great. Wonderful. I still don't like him, and I would wager not many people do besides his clients and his mother.

spiffie
11-18-2005, 01:59 PM
Also I kinda wonder if there is an agent oath of where you should always get the most money for your player not only to help yourself, but also to help your peers as well.

They don't need an oath because for 95% of player negotiations, it's going to come down to who is offering the most money. If multiple teams are offering the same money, then other things will factor in. But most of the time, the goal of the agent is the goal of the player, to get the best deal possible. And seriously, if a player was truly interested in playing for one team or in one situation, and told his agent "I want a deal from a west coast team only", do you think the agent would actively work against that player because he could get a bigger deal elsewhere? No! It would be bad business and it would quickly get around that the agent is not working for the player. The reason Boras and Rosenhaus have so many clients is simple, they get what the player is looking for.

And yes, calling up another owner and discussing what to offer players is collusion. But if anyone really thinks that these people are such dinks as to believe that "well, if Boras says every team is offering 8/120 mil then it's true" then you severely underestimate most GM's. (I am willing to accept that may be what went through the minds in Texas and Detroit before the A-Rod and Ordonez deals.) Or, to put it another way...we can make reasonable guesses as to who is being pursued by whom...I would think a GM in MLB would be much better at that then we are.

getonbckthr
11-18-2005, 02:05 PM
I'm sure Bill Gates doesn't care if I think he's an ******* for the way he forces smaller companies out of business, but I will anyway.

So he's a good businessman. Great. Wonderful. I still don't like him, and I would wager not many people do besides his clients and his mother.

Thats purely to protect his own business. If he doesn't eliminate the smaller companies one of them could potentially do the same he did with microsoft. become big and destroy the previous giants. Does he eliminate jobs in the mix, yes he does. In the business world, especially in such an important business as computers, if you know the demand will always be high due to the impact on society, it only makes sense to do whatever you can do to make sure your the only one out there for people to purchase from.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 02:26 PM
Thats purely to protect his own business. If he doesn't eliminate the smaller companies one of them could potentially do the same he did with microsoft. become big and destroy the previous giants. Does he eliminate jobs in the mix, yes he does. In the business world, especially in such an important business as computers, if you know the demand will always be high due to the impact on society, it only makes sense to do whatever you can do to make sure your the only one out there for people to purchase from.

that's fine. I still don't like its effects. And I know a lot of people don't either.

I'm sure you have some sort of thing like that, where you don't respect, for instance, Terrell Owens, even though I could spend time "rationalizing" his actions. No amount of capitalist theory will change the fact that Bill Gates has ruined quite a few people's livelihood. Dress it up all you want.

Likewise, Boras's tactics are hurting baseball teams. Yes the system that allows him to do this is also at fault, but the bottom line is that it's happening.

there's plenty of blame to go around, but I would love to call a spade a spade and in fact - I'm going to.

Boras is a schmuck.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 02:30 PM
And yes, calling up another owner and discussing what to offer players is collusion. But if anyone really thinks that these people are such dinks as to believe that "well, if Boras says every team is offering 8/120 mil then it's true" then you severely underestimate most GM's. (I am willing to accept that may be what went through the minds in Texas and Detroit before the A-Rod and Ordonez deals.) Or, to put it another way...we can make reasonable guesses as to who is being pursued by whom...I would think a GM in MLB would be much better at that then we are.

So dishonest tactics are all right as long as most people are smart enough to see that a liar is lying?

In other words it's ok to swindle someone out of their money as long as that person was foolish for giving their money to you? (for example - those idiots who send out e-mails saying they're the president of Nigeria)

getonbckthr
11-18-2005, 02:32 PM
Boras is a schmuck.
How about this instead: Boras is a genious playing the role of an *******

beckett21
11-18-2005, 02:34 PM
Of COURSE it's a business. But just like any business there is an ethical way to go about negotiations and an inethical way.

In any other business presenting false information (My client has 15 teams actively interested in him...you had better up your offer) or deliberately withholding information (Magglio didn't go to Austria. No you can't look at his knee) would be grossly unethical.

I don't have a problem with A-Rod's contract, or Boras asking 84/7 for Damon. That's fine. That's business. I have an issue with the shady dealings Boras constantly resorts to.

Honestly this is confusing some people very much. I am not saying that agents should encourage behavior like Dye's where he took a lower offer because he gave his word. Their job is to get as much money as possible for their clients. However, they still have a responsibility to operate in an ethical manner, imo.

Agree with all of your points. That is the gist of my argument as well. It's the misrepresentation and covering up of facts that is disturbing to me. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about business.

While he may not be breaking any *laws*, the man is a scumbag. There are scumbags in all walks of life, in all areas of business. Just because he makes more money for his clientele and is *sticking it to the man*, i.e. ownership, this does not make Scott Boras worthy of praise or respect, at least not in my book. That is not a defense of the owners, it's a defense of all of the honest agents out there who aren't media whores and making headlines for themselves every day of the week.

Let's also remember who is a direct beneficiary of these *innocent* deceptions: the agent himself. Let's not get all high and mighty saying that he is looking out for the little guy. He's looking out for himself first and foremost. His client is the pawn in his power game.

Switching to Rosenhaus really worked out well for T.O., didn't it? :rolleyes: Rosenhaus looked like a crazed lunatic at their last press conference as he watched the millions of dollars slip out of his grasp. Poor T.O. my ***. Who was he looking out for there? T.O., or himself?

I do not respect Scott Boras or his ilk, nor will I ever. There are plenty of honorable, ethical agents out there that are worthy of praise. There is still something to be said about doing things the right way, about following a code of ethics, though apparently some people disagree.

ndu3t4
11-18-2005, 03:27 PM
Like it has been said previously on this thread blame the owners. My view on big contracts is simple. If your boss came up to you and said, "hey (insert name) you have worked really hard, and you show lots of promise in (insert job) i'm thinking about offering you a raise. How about instead of 50,000 a year I pay you 250,000/yr." Would any of us really say no cause Jim in the next office will hear of that and demand the same. Hell no you wouldn't. Personally I do respect Boras and Rosenous(sp) just like I respect the guy at the local body shop for repairing my car. Why? Simple they do their job. As its the body shop guys' job to fix my car cause thats what i pay him for, it's the agents job to get his client the best deal possible cause that's what the player pays him to do.

That is completely different. 250,000 and 50,000 is enough to change a lifestyle. These players are turning down 15 million to take 17. That's redculous. That's why I lost respect for Magglio. If the Sox offered him a god awful contract at 5 million, then what Mags did would have been fine, but he turned down his city, his team and fans to add platinum rims to a Bently.

Hitmen77
11-18-2005, 04:02 PM
Agents are hired to represent the people who pay them. When MLB starts paying them to represent their business then they will. Until them don't blame agents for owners stupidity.

Agents do the job they are paid to do just like any other working stiff. It's not their job to worry about 'the good of the sport.' It's there job to worry about their employer.

Lip

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the guys here that likes to complain about Reinsdorf not willing to increase the Sox payroll. If so, then how can you say "don't blame the agents for the owners stupidity"?

Again, I apologize if I'm misrepresenting what your position has been in the past.

But, even if this doesn't apply to you, my comment does apply to alot of people out there. I always here people say JR won't spend money to compete, the Sox payroll is too low, etc. Then the same people say that we should blame escalating salaries on "the owners stupidity" and the players/agents are perfectly entitled to take as much as the owners are stupid enough to spend. Seems like alot of people want to have it both ways. They want fiscal responsibility of baseball owners - but only applied to owners of the other 29 teams.

Lip Man 1
11-18-2005, 04:05 PM
"It's the misrepresentation and covering up of facts."

Beck legally what Boras does isn't misrepresentation and covering up of facts.

If it was he'd be suspended as an agent by the MLBPA. And with respect before you say 'they'd never suspend as powerful an agent' may I give you Jerry Kapstein (who was the Scott Boras of the 1970's). Yes the MLBPA did suspend him for a time as an agent because of some illegal things that he did.

Again there is a difference between morality and legality.

Lip

getonbckthr
11-18-2005, 04:09 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of the guys here that likes to complain about Reinsdorf not willing to increase the Sox payroll. If so, then how can you say "don't blame the agents for the owners stupidity"?

Again, I apologize if I'm misrepresenting what your position has been in the past.

But, even if this doesn't apply to you, my comment does apply to alot of people out there. I always here people say JR won't spend money to compete, the Sox payroll is too low, etc. Then the same people say that we should blame escalating salaries on "the owners stupidity" and the players/agents are perfectly entitled to take as much as the owners are stupid enough to spend. Seems like alot of people want to have it both ways. They want fiscal responsibility of baseball owners - but only applied to owners of the other 29 teams.
The way I see it is, it is the owners fault for giving in to big contracts. Now when everyone suggests Jerry spend money I dont really think they want him to spend 150 million dollars. I think it is more of a comment saying if it is the only way to compete for free agents then we have top spend more. preferrably we could sign Paulie to a 5 yr/35 million dollar contract. However, because of the agents aggressiveness and the owners acceptance, those days of getting someone of Paulie's abilities for that price are nonexistent.

Hitmen77
11-18-2005, 04:11 PM
I don't have to respect Boras, I don't have to respect the methods he uses to extract big money, but I have to respect the fact that he gets results.

By that benchmark, Mr. Potter is the most respected man in town in It's a Wonderful Life.

And Lip is right, blame is on the owners. Owners give out the contracts, Agents can just steer them in that direction.

So, I guess we can mark you both down as being in favor of the Sox cutting payroll to reign in outrageous salaries.

Flight #24
11-18-2005, 04:14 PM
Beck I'm not condoning anything but as Earth Wind and Fire sang in 1975 'That's The Way Of The World...'

Lying, cheating and stealing are a part of today's business world on so many levels it's not even calcuable. Like it or not that's reality. From politics to the media conflicts of interest, from ventures like Enron and Haliburton to husbands and wives cheating on each other.

I accept things as they are. I don't have to like it, I don't have to do it myself but I recognize what is.



All I wonder is where this attitude was the past couple of years when discussing the behaviour of Sox ownership? :rolleyes:

Flight #24
11-18-2005, 04:17 PM
"It's the misrepresentation and covering up of facts."

Beck legally what Boras does isn't misrepresentation and covering up of facts.

If it was he'd be suspended as an agent by the MLBPA. And with respect before you say 'they'd never suspend as powerful an agent' may I give you Jerry Kapstein (who was the Scott Boras of the 1970's). Yes the MLBPA did suspend him for a time as an agent because of some illegal things that he did.

Again there is a difference between morality and legality.

Lip

What else do you call it when he admittedly tells Tom Hicks that there are other, better bids for ARod when in fact there are none?

Or when he refuses the Sox to get a look at Magglio's knee in advance of trying to offer him arbitration or a contract? (or when he repeatedly claims "he's healthy enough to go right now, in fact we'll have a public workout.......oops, had to cancel it so it won't be a zoo!").

At BEST it's misrepresentation. At worst, it's lying and/or bad faith. The problem is that you have to prove it, which is near impossible to do.

beckett21
11-18-2005, 04:59 PM
I accept things as they are. I don't have to like it, I don't have to do it myself but I recognize what is.

So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make generalizations about me and what I think since you don't know me.



Lip:

*Acceptance* of these actions is one thing, *defending* them another.

Without putting myself on a high moral pedestal, I have a fundamental problem with Boras and his tactics. As far as generalizations go, he should not be lumped in with the other agents--he is in a class of his own. There are plenty of agents out there who serve their clients well, without embarassing themselves and their profession in the process.

Whether or not Boras is legally *playing by the rules* is irrelevant to me. I could never defend him under any circumstance. That was my point. To defend him is to condone his actions, which to me goes beyond mere acceptance.

BTW no offense intended; sorry if it came off that way. What is moral and ethical to one may not be to another, agreed.

IowaSox1971
11-18-2005, 05:30 PM
Blame the player who hires Boras, do not blame Boras. When a player picks Boras as his agent, he knows what type of individual he is getting to represent him. Boras will do whatever he can (and I assume he will do this legally) to get the player the best contract. If the player does not want this type of agent, he has the right to pick someone else.

Boras, quite simply, is the best agent in the business, if you're going by results. Could anyone else have gotten a team to give Magglio a five-year, $70 million contract after the injury? No way. But Boras did. Somehow, he gets teams to overpay for his players. Is that his fault? No, it is not. He is doing the job he was hired to do.

Blame Magglio if you're upset that he did not return to the White Sox. Do not blame Boras. Boras did not hire himself. I don't necessarily agree with all of the tactics Boras has used, but he has not been found guilty of breaking any laws, etc.

getonbckthr
11-18-2005, 05:52 PM
Lip:


There are plenty of agents out there who serve their clients well, without embarassing themselves and their profession in the process.


For the amount of money he makes off of those guys I would have no problem embaressing myself.

Banix12
11-18-2005, 06:21 PM
By that benchmark, Mr. Potter is the most respected man in town in It's a Wonderful Life.



So, I guess we can mark you both down as being in favor of the Sox cutting payroll to reign in outrageous salaries.

There are different kinds of respect. There is the respect that you show a person when you really like the guy and then there is respect you show because frankly his abilities are beyond other people's. I hate his tactics but if I'm a GM and I have Scott Boras sitting at the other side of the table I have to respect the fact that this is a guy who can make me look foolish if I am not really careful. Maybe acknowledge would be a better word to use.

Scott Boras does his job better than any other agent because he is willing to do the things no other agent is willing to do.

And no, I am not in favor of cutting payroll and don't put words in my mouth. You know what happens when people assume.

Hendu
11-18-2005, 06:45 PM
I don't mind Boras too much because, honestly, there are some dumb owners and GMs that really need to be exposed. The best way of exposing them is having them overpay players and handcuffing the franchise for years to come. After which time, hopefully, the owners will wise up or sell the franchise.

Having said that, would I piss on Boras if he was on fire? Might have to do some negotiating first.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 07:14 PM
For the amount of money he makes off of those guys I would have no problem embaressing myself.

That's fine. Clearly money is more important to you than dignity, decency and comporting yourself in an ethical manner.

Each of us makes our own decisions regarding the kind of person we want to be. Seems as if you have a good grasp of where your values lie, which is more than most people can say,I guess.

fquaye149
11-18-2005, 07:15 PM
Scott Boras does his job better than any other agent because he is willing to do the things no other agent is willing to do.



Hey! Kind of like Keyzer Soze!

daveeym
11-18-2005, 10:01 PM
That's fine. Clearly money is more important to you than dignity, decency and comporting yourself in an ethical manner.

Each of us makes our own decisions regarding the kind of person we want to be. Seems as if you have a good grasp of where your values lie, which is more than most people can say,I guess. You guys and your ethics make it sound like he's holding a gun to the owners heads.

A sucker's born everyday. A fool and his money are soon departed. Etc. Etc.

Detroit had there opportunities to examine maggs, they had an out clause in the contract. Well they were either a bunch of ******* and didn't use the out clause or Borass was right, Magg's knee was healthy. That's the facts. Not what bitter fans whine about.

It's all just a game a poker, Texas could have called his bluff too, and AROD probalby still would have gotten over 200 mill somewhere else. And if he didn't texas would have gotten him cheaper. It's there move, it's poker, it's a bluff, they have every opportunity to walk away, or make their own demands, absurd or not, in return. Every trade, original contract, etc. is always finalized after a physical and medical review, who cares what's said in negotiations or rather the press. It doesn't change the ultimate outcome.

Once again just bitter fans. Magg's made his decision he was gone. All this other **** you're all crying over is the PR game that was played after that decision was made.

Banix12
11-18-2005, 10:39 PM
You guys and your ethics make it sound like he's holding a gun to the owners heads.

A sucker's born everyday. A fool and his money are soon departed. Etc. Etc.

Detroit had there opportunities to examine maggs, they had an out clause in the contract. Well they were either a bunch of ******* and didn't use the out clause or Borass was right, Magg's knee was healthy. That's the facts. Not what bitter fans whine about.

It's all just a game a poker, Texas could have called his bluff too, and AROD probalby still would have gotten over 200 mill somewhere else. And if he didn't texas would have gotten him cheaper. It's there move, it's poker, it's a bluff, they have every opportunity to walk away, or make their own demands, absurd or not, in return. Every trade, original contract, etc. is always finalized after a physical and medical review, who cares what's said in negotiations or rather the press. It doesn't change the ultimate outcome.

Once again just bitter fans. Magg's made his decision he was gone. All this other **** you're all crying over is the PR game that was played after that decision was made.

Great post. I would also use this concept: most of the time when you absolutely have to make a move judgement is impared and you are more likely to make a bad deal. If you look at a lot of Boras' best contract talks he seems to be taking advantage of teams that really have to make a move. Cubs and Maddux, Maggs and Detroit, Seattle last season, any JD Drew talks. The teams in these situations were usually under the gun to make a deal, Boras would apply pressure and get huge contracts.

Everybody is trying to turn this into a never ending battle between good and evil, when really you just have an employer and employee negotiating through various grey areas to get the most advantageous deal for their side. Many of you guys are also taking baseball negotiations way too personally, as if Maggs leaving was a personal attack to some of you guys.

I would also point out that none of us have ever actually ever met or talked to Scott Boras and a good portion of what we know about the guy comes from guys who work for baseball teams. Not exactly the most unbiased opinions.

beckett21
11-18-2005, 11:00 PM
Everybody is trying to turn this into a never ending battle between good and evil, when really you just have an employer and employee negotiating through various grey areas to get the most advantageous deal for their side. Many of you guys are also taking baseball negotiations way too personally, as if Maggs leaving was a personal attack to some of you guys.

I would also point out that none of us have ever actually ever met or talked to Scott Boras and a good portion of what we know about the guy comes from guys who work for baseball teams. Not exactly the most unbiased opinions.

For the record I never shed a tear when Maggs left town. On the contrary, bless him for doing what he felt he needed to do to properly secure his future and support his family. I never had any animosity towards him personally. Let me make that perfectly clear.

That said, there is a right way and a wrong way to do business. I wasn't born yesterday. I understand the way the world works. Trust me.

Boras is a snake. Some people will agree with his *ends justify the means, win at all costs* mentality. I do not.

Flight #24
11-18-2005, 11:24 PM
Scott Boras is the type of guy who if he's walking behind a little old lady and sees a $100 fall out of her purse will pick it up and keep on walking. Or if she only has a $10 and needs singles for the bus will look in his wallet and tell her "Hmmmm....I can only give you $9" when he's got a wad of singles in his jacket pocket.

Neither is lying or illegal. Moral - you decide.

Lip Man 1
11-18-2005, 11:35 PM
What else do you call it when he admittedly tells Tom Hicks that there are other, better bids for ARod when in fact there are none?

Flight:

I call it business as usual in the business world (see Enron and Haliburton for example or Martha Stewart) The onus is on Tom Hicks to do his homework to see if Scott Boras is correct. If Hicks doesn't attempt to find out 'the truth' then he has no one to blame but himself for his stupidity.

It's called 'creating a market...'

Lip

Banix12
11-18-2005, 11:52 PM
Scott Boras is the type of guy who if he's walking behind a little old lady and sees a $100 fall out of her purse will pick it up and keep on walking. Or if she only has a $10 and needs singles for the bus will look in his wallet and tell her "Hmmmm....I can only give you $9" when he's got a wad of singles in his jacket pocket.

Neither is lying or illegal. Moral - you decide.

I want to know where is all this information all you guys have on Boras that you are basing these generalizations on. How can a lot of people here be saying he is "this type of guy" and "dirty scumbag", when they are really all basing this on second hand information, much of it coming from people who got burned in negotiations with him. You guys make him sound so evil I would think he kills puppies for sport in his spare time.

From where I am standing all he has been guilty of is making GMs look foolish by making them overpay. If Scott Boras was negotiating deals for a steel workers union or flight attendants and not baseball players he would be applauded for getting great deals.

I can't say the end always justifies the means but frankly I doubt any of us here are fully aware of the means that he uses or what he truly is like in a negotiation. We are also largely unaware of the means that GMs use against guys like Boras in these negotiations.

fquaye149
11-19-2005, 12:31 AM
What else do you call it when he admittedly tells Tom Hicks that there are other, better bids for ARod when in fact there are none?

Flight:

I call it business as usual in the business world (see Enron and Haliburton for example or Martha Stewart) The onus is on Tom Hicks to do his homework to see if Scott Boras is correct. If Hicks doesn't attempt to find out 'the truth' then he has no one to blame but himself for his stupidity.

It's called 'creating a market...'

Lip


So you're comparing him to Enron and Martha Stewart's crimes? That's fine, but it also says a lot about what kind of human being Boras is.

Also - to everyone who's saying "there's a sucker born every minute and two to take him" I couldn't agree more. Read my posts, for God's sake. I all but came out and said that.

But just because suckers exist doesn't mean swindling's ok. Just because you decide to buy some beachfront property I'm selling in Arizona doesn't make me a moral person for selling it.

This is really confusing some people. No wonder Boras operates the way he does - there's a lot of people who seem to be willing to vindicate him for it simply because no one is stopping him.

Banix12
11-19-2005, 01:16 AM
This thread is going nowhere fast.

Just a little nugget. Scott Boras last year testified in front of congress in SUPPORT of the "Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act"

- made it illegal for a sports agent or agency to lure a student-athlete into signing a contract by giving false or misleading information

- Agents also may not provide anything of value to the student-athlete or anyone associated with him or her and must tell the student-athlete in writing that he or she may lose NCAA eligibility after signing an agency contract.

- gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jurisdiction over sports agents through its unfair and deceptive acts and practices power.

- required specific written warnings in contracts to warn athletes of things like losing college eligiblity.

link to article (http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2004/10_11_04/association_wide/4121n13.html)

Now to me that's at least some proof that he can be a decent guy, though I'm sure a lot of you are just going to take this as proof that he has lied to congress.

I'm just waiting for someone to tell me Boras has designs on stealing christmas this year.

Steelrod
11-19-2005, 02:00 AM
This thread is going nowhere fast.

Just a little nugget. Scott Boras last year testified in front of congress in SUPPORT of the "Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act"

- made it illegal for a sports agent or agency to lure a student-athlete into signing a contract by giving false or misleading information


- Agents also may not provide anything of value to the student-athlete or anyone associated with him or her and must tell the student-athlete in writing that he or she may lose NCAA eligibility after signing an agency contract.

- gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jurisdiction over sports agents through its unfair and deceptive acts and practices power.

- required specific written warnings in contracts to warn athletes of things like losing college eligiblity.

link to article (http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2004/10_11_04/association_wide/4121n13.html)

Now to me that's at least some proof that he can be a decent guy, though I'm sure a lot of you are just going to take this as proof that he has lied to congress.

I'm just waiting for someone to tell me Boras has designs on stealing christmas this year.
Seems kinda odd that Boras would speak about anything concerning ethics!
As I recall, he was NOT Maggs agent for a full year prior to his free agency, yet everyone knew (with the possible exception of Magg's current agent) that he would be representing Maggs at the end of the season.In the real world, this is Boras tampering with another agent's client. Not ethical and maybe not even legal. No agent is going to sue another agent so it was allowed.
Maggs put his house up for sale early in the year and turned down all offers. He SAID staying in Chicago was a priority, but he had no intention of doing so. $$ was the only issue, and god knows what Boras said to him, even if he didn't represent him at the time!

Banix12
11-19-2005, 04:18 AM
Seems kinda odd that Boras would speak about anything concerning ethics!
As I recall, he was NOT Maggs agent for a full year prior to his free agency, yet everyone knew (with the possible exception of Magg's current agent) that he would be representing Maggs at the end of the season.In the real world, this is Boras tampering with another agent's client. Not ethical and maybe not even legal. No agent is going to sue another agent so it was allowed.
Maggs put his house up for sale early in the year and turned down all offers. He SAID staying in Chicago was a priority, but he had no intention of doing so. $$ was the only issue, and god knows what Boras said to him, even if he didn't represent him at the time!

I don't remember everybody knowing that Maggs was going to switch agents and be a Boras client. i remember most people being legitimately surprised. Do you have any proof to your claim or is it just an opinion of yours?

Three things that now seem apparent about maggs last year
1. he was upset about being traded to Boston before 2004
2. There seemed to be legitimate friction between him and Ozzie Guillen
3. he felt that the white sox were lowballing him and were negotiating in bad faith.

Even though he said he wanted to be back (every player says that because there is always that chance they could be back and they don't want to burn bridges until the future is certain), I think it was pretty clear that Magglio wanted out of the White Sox organization and I think he could have come to that decision on his own without Scott Boras whispering evil thoughts in his ear. However I think it is easier for some people to accept the Boras Puppetmaster scenario of, "Magglio would never do that, how dare Boras corrupt him." than the scenario of "Magglio just wanted out of the white sox organization."

If magglio wanted to return he could have easily told Boras to release the medical records to the sox before the date to file for arbitration. Boras would have been forced to do it, because Magglio is technically his boss. By hiring Boras and them not releasing records I think it was Magglio saying to the sox, "Don't even think about giving me arbitration because there is no way I'm going to be stuck here on a one year deal. Sign me to big money or give me free agency."

Maybe he did tamper, but I have zero reason to believe that. And I certainly think the decision to hire Boras is one he could have made on his own without any assistance on Boras' part.

samram
11-19-2005, 07:25 AM
What else do you call it when he admittedly tells Tom Hicks that there are other, better bids for ARod when in fact there are none?

Flight:

I call it business as usual in the business world (see Enron and Haliburton for example or Martha Stewart) The onus is on Tom Hicks to do his homework to see if Scott Boras is correct. If Hicks doesn't attempt to find out 'the truth' then he has no one to blame but himself for his stupidity.

It's called 'creating a market...'

Lip


Enron or Worldcom are not examples of "business as usual"- if they were, this country would be in a state of anarchy. Caveat emptor is not the end all, be all of business when one of the parties lies and/or misrepresents the market.

When Boras misrepresents the market, he is negotiating in bad faith- something you sure as hell wouldn't condone if it was being done by ownership.

Professor
11-19-2005, 07:42 AM
This thread is going nowhere fast.


Got that right... The God of Relativism laughs mightily.

samram
11-19-2005, 08:06 AM
This thread is going nowhere fast.

Just a little nugget. Scott Boras last year testified in front of congress in SUPPORT of the "Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act"

- made it illegal for a sports agent or agency to lure a student-athlete into signing a contract by giving false or misleading information

- Agents also may not provide anything of value to the student-athlete or anyone associated with him or her and must tell the student-athlete in writing that he or she may lose NCAA eligibility after signing an agency contract.

- gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jurisdiction over sports agents through its unfair and deceptive acts and practices power.

- required specific written warnings in contracts to warn athletes of things like losing college eligiblity.

link to article (http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2004/10_11_04/association_wide/4121n13.html)

Now to me that's at least some proof that he can be a decent guy, though I'm sure a lot of you are just going to take this as proof that he has lied to congress.

I'm just waiting for someone to tell me Boras has designs on stealing christmas this year.

Well, he testified concerning the agent-player relationship. I have no doubts he is looking out for the best interests of his clients. My bone of contention is how he conducts negotiations with teams.

What makes this different from most negotiations is that each player is a unique item and that player acquistion is a zero-sum game among the teams. Furthermore, there's only so much teams can do to gauge the interest in a particular player due to possible collusion accusations. Should that dichotomy demand more honesty from agents?

For the record, I don't think Boras should be sanctioned or anything like that. I certainly don't think he's done anything illegal. However, I do think he has a tendency to negotiate in bad faith.

Flight #24
11-19-2005, 09:06 AM
What else do you call it when he admittedly tells Tom Hicks that there are other, better bids for ARod when in fact there are none?

Flight:

I call it business as usual in the business world (see Enron and Haliburton for example or Martha Stewart) The onus is on Tom Hicks to do his homework to see if Scott Boras is correct. If Hicks doesn't attempt to find out 'the truth' then he has no one to blame but himself for his stupidity.

It's called 'creating a market...'

Lip





Lip: I call it the same thing as telling the Illinois legislature that you can move the team unless you get a new stadium, then continuing to operate under a budget and the legal terms of said agreement, something that is also "business as usual". I assume you have no problem with that either, right?

I eagerly await your defense of the Sox payroll history under those guidelines.

Flight #24
11-19-2005, 09:09 AM
I want to know where is all this information all you guys have on Boras that you are basing these generalizations on. How can a lot of people here be saying he is "this type of guy" and "dirty scumbag", when they are really all basing this on second hand information, much of it coming from people who got burned in negotiations with him. You guys make him sound so evil I would think he kills puppies for sport in his spare time.

From where I am standing all he has been guilty of is making GMs look foolish by making them overpay. If Scott Boras was negotiating deals for a steel workers union or flight attendants and not baseball players he would be applauded for getting great deals.

I can't say the end always justifies the means but frankly I doubt any of us here are fully aware of the means that he uses or what he truly is like in a negotiation. We are also largely unaware of the means that GMs use against guys like Boras in these negotiations.

I can't speak for everyone, but I base my opinion on some well known facts:
- Lying about other offers to get guys to bid against themselves.
- Having drafted players hold out for a ong long time, something that generally ends up hurting them more than anything as they usually get redrafted lower
- Preventing the Sox from having access to examine Maggs and lying about the condition of his knee.

And other similar events. Guy's a snake. He gets the most money for his client, but there are plenty of examples of good agents working for their clients without resorting to such tactics.

Steelrod
11-19-2005, 09:15 AM
I don't remember everybody knowing that Maggs was going to switch agents and be a Boras client. i remember most people being legitimately surprised. Do you have any proof to your claim or is it just an opinion of yours?

Three things that now seem apparent about maggs last year
1. he was upset about being traded to Boston before 2004
2. There seemed to be legitimate friction between him and Ozzie Guillen
3. he felt that the white sox were lowballing him and were negotiating in bad faith.

Even though he said he wanted to be back (every player says that because there is always that chance they could be back and they don't want to burn bridges until the future is certain), I think it was pretty clear that Magglio wanted out of the White Sox organization and I think he could have come to that decision on his own without Scott Boras whispering evil thoughts in his ear. However I think it is easier for some people to accept the Boras Puppetmaster scenario of, "Magglio would never do that, how dare Boras corrupt him." than the scenario of "Magglio just wanted out of the white sox organization."

If magglio wanted to return he could have easily told Boras to release the medical records to the sox before the date to file for arbitration. Boras would have been forced to do it, because Magglio is technically his boss. By hiring Boras and them not releasing records I think it was Magglio saying to the sox, "Don't even think about giving me arbitration because there is no way I'm going to be stuck here on a one year deal. Sign me to big money or give me free agency."

Maybe he did tamper, but I have zero reason to believe that. And I certainly think the decision to hire Boras is one he could have made on his own without any assistance on Boras' part.

I was told that he was switching agents in May by the son of one of his neighbors. He is also the one who told me his house was up for sale in April. Don't know how he got the info., but he was correct on both counts.

Tragg
11-19-2005, 09:38 AM
Low ethics are low ethics.
It's true that if people do their homework that they can avoid the fate of the swindler; that no one forces anyone to do business with creeps. The Enron employees should have been diversified well before Enron prevented them from diversifying.

Regardless, it doesn't excuse poor behavior.

Lip Man 1
11-19-2005, 12:21 PM
Flight:

My primary issues with Uncle Jerry in the past have been a feeling (notice the word I used since I have no tangible proof) that the Sox were making FAR MORE profit then was being told. (You may recall somewhere on this web site the long arguments along this line posted by those both thinking this was true and false i.e. parking/ concessions money, TV- radio revenue etc.) Therefore when the public helped build him his ballpark without him contributing to it he has an obligation to field the best team possible. I have never had a problem with him making a profit, but the circumstances are different when profit turns to greed at the expense of the city/state and fans.

It should be noted that in some of my interviews (including Jimmy Piersall's) that many supposedly 'in the know' have stated that the Sox haven't been losing money for years, at the very least since the 2000 season.

The second situation that drives me nuts is this history of contracts. Just make an individual an offer. If he takes it fine. If he doesn't fine. It's these Reinsdorfian Clauses that drive me to drink. Deferred money, special provisions and so forth. Uncle Jerry has always negotiated and has stated so himself, that 'make me your best offer.' Well the reverse is also true.

Personal example. When I bought my car in Louisiana in the fall of 1989 I went to four dealers. Literally I said I'm looking to buy, here is the car I'm interested in. Make me your best offer and I'll decide yes or no. I'm not going to screw around, and after you make your offer I'm not going to nickle and dime you to death, saying now 'I want this...' and so forth. By the end of the day I had four offers. Chose the one I wanted and got the car the next day. Simple. Nothing protracted, nothing prolonged.

I'd like him to operate the same way.

And finally this is totally unscientific and in some cases illogical but I generally despise owners period. They have been screwing the players for 100 years. 'It's time' for the players to screw them.

Until Scott Boras breaks the law and is decertified by the MLBPA he can negotiate the way he feels is best for his client...the team, the league and the sport be damned. (Again you think the owners have been doing what's best for the sport? Hell they shut down baseball in 1994 trying to bust the union...)

Again you can have questions about his morality but legally you have nothing to stand on. The businesses I mentioned in my original post tried to screw the public, broke the law and got nailed. How many businesses are screwing the public everyday and getting away with it? Just read the paper daily and you'll see the answer to that one.

Lip

Professor
11-19-2005, 12:46 PM
How many businesses are screwing the public everyday and getting away with it? Just read the paper daily and you'll see the answer to that one.

Lip

Argumentum ad populum in conjunction with ad hominem tu quo que. Argument from appeal to the people and the 'ole "they do it too" rebuttals. Logic 101 informal fallacies.

Banix12
11-19-2005, 12:47 PM
I can't speak for everyone, but I base my opinion on some well known facts:
- Lying about other offers to get guys to bid against themselves.
- Having drafted players hold out for a ong long time, something that generally ends up hurting them more than anything as they usually get redrafted lower
- Preventing the Sox from having access to examine Maggs and lying about the condition of his knee.

And other similar events. Guy's a snake. He gets the most money for his client, but there are plenty of examples of good agents working for their clients without resorting to such tactics.

I will go with you on #1 but I'm not totally convinced it is the most evil of sins to lie to a GM. Many GM's will lie right back at you.

The other two I don't have a ton of problem with. Young players know what they are getting when they sign with Scott Boras, he can hurt you in the draft but often you end up making that money back because he does usually negotiate larger contracts for his clients even if it is a second round pick. And anyway, the team that drafts a player has that player as basically an indentured servant for the first six years of his career, often at prices greatly below market value for the talent displayed on the field. If he can get a young player more money, then I say fine.

As for Maggs knee, I still think that was just a tactic to prevent the white sox from offering him arbitration so he could become a free agent. If it was Maggs choice to become a free agent then I don't even have a problem with that. I think in that case it is a smart tactic to use because he probably didn't want to be stuck in a one year bad situation. Ethically it's a grey area, but tactically rather intelligent.

I don't want people to fall in love with Boras, I'm really just playing devil's advocate here. But I would just implore people to consider that most of the information we obtain about this guy seems to come from the various ownerships around the league and a lot of anti-big salary sportswriters. Not really a reliable source. A lot of what I am hearing here is the party line of siding with ownership.

samram
11-19-2005, 12:51 PM
Personal example. When I bought my car in Louisiana in the fall of 1989 I went to four dealers. Literally I said I'm looking to buy, here is the car I'm interested in. Make me your best offer and I'll decide yes or no. I'm not going to screw around, and after you make your offer I'm not going to nickle and dime you to death, saying now 'I want this...' and so forth. By the end of the day I had four offers. Chose the one I wanted and got the car the next day. Simple. Nothing protracted, nothing prolonged.

I'd like him to operate the same way.

See, you had four different dealers from which to choose the same product and if you didn't get it, it wouldn't be to your detriment. However, there's only one Alex Rodriguez and you have to deal with they guy he says you have to deal with, and if you don't get him, that means he's going to be hurting your team in the years to come. That changes the negotiational dynamic, IMO.


And finally this is totally unscientific and in some cases illogical but I generally despise owners period. They have been screwing the players for 100 years. 'It's time' for the players to screw them.

Until Scott Boras breaks the law and is decertified by the MLBPA he can negotiate the way he feels is best for his client...the team, the league and the sport be damned. (Again you think the owners have been doing what's best for the sport? Hell they shut down baseball in 1994 trying to bust the union...)

Again you can have questions about his morality but legally you have nothing to stand on. The businesses I mentioned in my original post tried to screw the public, broke the law and got nailed. How many businesses are screwing the public everyday and getting away with it? Just read the paper daily and you'll see the answer to that one.

Lip

Once again, someone is confusing player-agent relations with player-team negotiations. The MLBPA doesn't give a **** how Boras deals with teams- that's not their concern. I have no doubt that Boras acts in his client's best interest. The discussion here is about whether he negotiates in an ethical manner or in bad faith, which I believe he has done in the past.

whitesoxfan1986
11-19-2005, 01:14 PM
As much as I hate Boras and Rosenhaus, when it comes down to it they are just doing their job. An agent's job is to get the most money for his client. Also I believe most of MLBs elite are represented by Boras and most of the NFLs elite are represented by Rosenhaus. The best players in any sport are represented by what the fans call A- hole agents. What this tells me is that if you want the best players, you have to pony up the $$$, or you won't get them. And what makes it work, is the owners belief that if you don't have the best players, you won't win, which is BTW, untrue. (see 2005 White Sox, 2001 Patriots) But I have realized that the owners of Chicago sports teams are cheap, especially the McCaskeys

Paulwny
11-19-2005, 02:10 PM
A few days after Texas signed ARod the owner was on CNBC (stock channel). When asked how he could afford this contract he replied ~ My accountants have assured me that we will make money off this deal, a dramatic increase in attendance and tv viewership leading to increased revenues.
In the end he may have over paid, but at the time he may have felt he got the best of Boras. I suppose that during the negotiations he was saying --I can't afford this--- meanwhile he was counting his supposed revenue increase.
It's all part of negotiations, same as company negotiating with a union.

Flight #24
11-19-2005, 03:10 PM
Flight:

My primary issues with Uncle Jerry in the past have been a feeling (notice the word I used since I have no tangible proof) that the Sox were making FAR MORE profit then was being told. .....
I have never had a problem with him making a profit, but the circumstances are different when profit turns to greed at the expense of the city/state and fans.
....
The second situation that drives me nuts is this history of contracts. Just make an individual an offer. If he takes it fine. If he doesn't fine. It's these Reinsdorfian Clauses that drive me to drink. Deferred money, special provisions and so forth. Uncle Jerry has always negotiated and has stated so himself, that 'make me your best offer.' Well the reverse is also true.

All "business as usual" in both baseball and general business. Virtually all of the big money contracts signed by players include those same types of items, the DSC being the only one that IIRC is unique.

Until Scott Boras breaks the law and is decertified by the MLBPA he can negotiate the way he feels is best for his client...the team, the league and the sport be damned. (Again you think the owners have been doing what's best for the sport? Hell they shut down baseball in 1994 trying to bust the union...)

Again you can have questions about his morality but legally you have nothing to stand on. The businesses I mentioned in my original post tried to screw the public, broke the law and got nailed. How many businesses are screwing the public everyday and getting away with it? Just read the paper daily and you'll see the answer to that one.

Lip

And the same can be said for owners. Seems a bit "double-standardy" defending the right of Borass to do anything within the law but then slamming owners for doing things 100% within the law, no?

Lip Man 1
11-19-2005, 04:30 PM
Flight:

No one said life was fair did they?

Samran:

I'm not totally disagreeing with you but there is a difference between doing something illegally and unethically as even Beckett pointed out. If you go back to the beginning of the thread I believe the poster mentioned something about Boras being bad for baseball (or like that). My point was Boras isn't supposed to care about the owners or the sport. That's not his job. The thread then evolved into a discussion of ethics versus legality which I say is two different things. Boras may be shady but he's not illegal and until he crosses that line that's the way it is. You know what you are getting when you deal with him although for the record there have been a number of franchises that don't seem to have the issues with him that the White Sox do, which tells me this goes beyond business and is personal between those two sides, which is not the best way to actually do business.

Lip

buehrle4cy05
11-19-2005, 04:43 PM
Flight:

No one said life was fair did they?

Samran:

I'm not totally disagreeing with you but there is a difference between doing something illegally and unethically as even Beckett pointed out. If you go back to the beginning of the thread I believe the poster mentioned something about Boras being bad for baseball (or like that). My point was Boras isn't supposed to care about the owners or the sport. That's not his job. The thread then evolved into a discussion of ethics versus legality which I say is two different things. Boras may be shady but he's not illegal and until he crosses that line that's the way it is. You know what you are getting when you deal with him although for the record there have been a number of franchises that don't seem to have the issues with him that the White Sox do, which tells me this goes beyond business and is personal between those two sides, which is not the best way to actually do business.

Lip

I understand what Boras is doing, and it's his job, and he does a great job at it. But just because somebody does a great job at something doesn't mean you have to like or respect them (see Barry Bonds). That's where I was going with my argument. I think that what he does, with both stars and rookies, was a big reason as to why a lot of people viewed baseball as the sports that pays it's players too much. I never hear that about basketball, even though mid-lower level players can make upwards of 5 or 6 million a year, and the stars can make around $30 mil a year.

Banix12
11-19-2005, 06:36 PM
I understand what Boras is doing, and it's his job, and he does a great job at it. But just because somebody does a great job at something doesn't mean you have to like or respect them (see Barry Bonds). That's where I was going with my argument. I think that what he does, with both stars and rookies, was a big reason as to why a lot of people viewed baseball as the sports that pays it's players too much. I never hear that about basketball, even though mid-lower level players can make upwards of 5 or 6 million a year, and the stars can make around $30 mil a year.

i think nobody really complains about costs in Football, Basketball, or Hockey anymore because they have all enacted Salary caps. Before they put those caps in place though there was always a lot of complaining.

Certainly though every sport has players that people consider incredibly overpaid. A lot of bad players out there with huge contracts

samram
11-19-2005, 07:16 PM
Flight:

No one said life was fair did they?

Samran:

I'm not totally disagreeing with you but there is a difference between doing something illegally and unethically as even Beckett pointed out. If you go back to the beginning of the thread I believe the poster mentioned something about Boras being bad for baseball (or like that). My point was Boras isn't supposed to care about the owners or the sport. That's not his job. The thread then evolved into a discussion of ethics versus legality which I say is two different things. Boras may be shady but he's not illegal and until he crosses that line that's the way it is. You know what you are getting when you deal with him although for the record there have been a number of franchises that don't seem to have the issues with him that the White Sox do, which tells me this goes beyond business and is personal between those two sides, which is not the best way to actually do business.

Lip

My point is that you seem to condone acting in bad faith if it's done by Boras, as long as it's in his clients' best interests. Conversely, you condemn the owners if they act in the best interests of their teams.

Also, if the other teams don't have a problem with him, it's not necessarily the Sox who are taking things personally. Perhaps it's the other way around. After all, hasn't the rap against JR always been that he ran the Sox too much like a business? Why would he act differently toward one particular agent?

FarWestChicago
11-20-2005, 12:28 PM
And finally this is totally unscientific and in some cases illogical but I generally despise owners period. They have been screwing the players for 100 years. 'It's time' for the players to screw them.The Good Ol' Lip Two Wrongs Make A Right argument. :rolleyes:

Palehose13
11-20-2005, 12:56 PM
And finally this is totally unscientific and in some cases illogical but I generally despise owners period. They have been screwing the players for 100 years. 'It's time' for the players to screw them.

Hey Lip...If the players start "screwing" the owners, you know who gets scrwed in the end...us fans.

They are men playing a GAME for a living and making good money off of it. I don't feel bad at all for them. Hell, I play "pro" football. You know how much my teammates and I get paid per game...one dollar. But hey, I love it and that's why I do it.

Steelrod
11-20-2005, 01:46 PM
The Good Ol' Lip Two Wrongs Make A Right argument. :rolleyes:

Whether you believe it or not, owners DO have a responsibility to the sport! Irresposibile acts by one owner effect all 30 owners. Agents specifically don't care about the sport, just their clients.
Lip- your hatred of ownership is misdirected. Without their businesslike behavior, there would be no owners for you to hate!
Teams sell based on the greater fool theory in most cases. If you think owning a team is a sure thing, try borrowing 98% and buying a team. Banks will show you the error of your ways. Speaking of that,has any bank or insurance company ever owned a sports team? If most all of them make money as you and Piersall seem to think, they would! And speaking of that, what owner in his right mind would confide financial information to Piersall. Someone is pulling your chain!

daveeym
11-20-2005, 04:18 PM
Enron or Worldcom are not examples of "business as usual"- if they were, this country would be in a state of anarchy. Caveat emptor is not the end all, be all of business when one of the parties lies and/or misrepresents the market.

When Boras misrepresents the market, he is negotiating in bad faith- something you sure as hell wouldn't condone if it was being done by ownership.
You're right Caveat emeptor is not the end all, the contract is. If he misrepresented any injuries etc, his player will be in breach of contract and there would be legal remedies against him as well.

daveeym
11-20-2005, 04:20 PM
I understand what Boras is doing, and it's his job, and he does a great job at it. But just because somebody does a great job at something doesn't mean you have to like or respect them (see Barry Bonds). That's where I was going with my argument. I think that what he does, with both stars and rookies, was a big reason as to why a lot of people viewed baseball as the sports that pays it's players too much. I never hear that about basketball, even though mid-lower level players can make upwards of 5 or 6 million a year, and the stars can make around $30 mil a year. It's called a salary cap, or rather lack of one, not the "Scott Boras Clause" that gives baseball a bad name.

buehrle4cy05
11-20-2005, 05:11 PM
It's called a salary cap, or rather lack of one, not the "Scott Boras Clause" that gives baseball a bad name.

So you're saying that if baseball had a salaryt cap, Boras wouldn't try to milk every penny from a team? Or am I reading too far into what you said?

D. TODD
11-20-2005, 06:42 PM
Hey Lip...If the players start "screwing" the owners, you know who gets scrwed in the end...us fans.

They are men playing a GAME for a living and making good money off of it. I don't feel bad at all for them. Hell, I play "pro" football. You know how much my teammates and I get paid per game...one dollar. But hey, I love it and that's why I do it. They are men in the entertainment Field whose skills bring in billions of dollars. I for one would like to see the workers (players) get the majority of profits that they generate. They are not merely playing a game, they are highly skilled pros whose talents are highly valued. If your league brought in the revenue that M.L.B. players do then you would get paid accordingly. I respect your passion for your sport, but in your case it is a game, while in the N.F.L., M.L.B., etc. it is BIG business.

daveeym
11-20-2005, 07:22 PM
So you're saying that if baseball had a salary cap, Boras wouldn't try to milk every penny from a team? Or am I reading too far into what you said?There'd be a limit on what a team could spend and/or a limit on what a player could make, so there'd be nothing to milk. In the NBA, i'm surprised players like garnett and kobe even use agents, they just need to say give me 5 years at the max and it's done.

Lip Man 1
11-20-2005, 07:47 PM
Palehose:

I guess you can say the same thing when you go to the movies and have to pay ten bucks because Tom Cruise is getting 36 million for the film....

Or when you pay eighty dollars for a U2 concert ticket ...

and so on down the line.

I seem to remember Howard Cosell saying back in the 70's that 'when you beat odds of 100,000-1 to get to the top of your profession you deserve to collect big...'

I happen to agree with that. Now one could make a perfectly reasonable case that baseball players (or movie stars or rock stars) aren't worth more then say teachers, policemen or soldiers but that happens to be the way the world has evolved.

I mean the top heart specialists and trial lawyers make millions as well and let's not forget CEO's who get golden parachutes while their company is laying off people. (see: Michael Eisner...)

Again I'm not automatically disagreeing with you postition just that I feel it's totally wrong to single out athletes. There are other professions as well where a very few, select, talented individuals are making ungodly amounts of money. Like I say this system has it's flaws but it's the only one the world has right now so if you are one of the talented few who have worked their rear ends off to get to the very top, then God bless you and you deserve to collect.

Lip

Professor
11-20-2005, 07:57 PM
They are men in the entertainment Field whose skills bring in billions of dollars. I for one would like to see the workers (players) get the majority of profits that they generate. They are not merely playing a game, they are highly skilled pros whose talents are highly valued. If your league brought in the revenue that M.L.B. players do then you would get paid accordingly. I respect your passion for your sport, but in your case it is a game, while in the N.F.L., M.L.B., etc. it is BIG business.

I have heard this said many times before. That is, that sports are entertainment. Sometime recently sport has been conflated with entertainment and I would like a detailed, well-thought explanation for this idea. Or are people just reciting what they heard someone else say?

I always thought this was part of the distinction between Sox and cubs fans, for example; the latter treat baseball as entertainment, whereas Sox fans treat it as sport. These are not the same thing. When did this shift in thinking take place and on what basis?

Banix12
11-20-2005, 08:14 PM
I have heard this said many times before. That is, that sports are entertainment. Sometime recently sport has been conflated with entertainment and I would like a detailed, well-thought explanation for this idea. Or are people just reciting what they heard someone else say?

I always thought this was part of the distinction between Sox and cubs fans, for example; the latter treat baseball as entertainment, whereas Sox fans treat it as sport. These are not the same thing. When did this shift in thinking take place and on what basis?

This has nothing to do with sox versus cubs thinking. Watching Major league baseball is something which a fan watches to be entertained by. It's really no different than buying a ticket to a movie.

The players on the field are the only ones in baseball who are participating in a sport. The fans are in the stands watching the sport as a form of entertainment.

The definition of entertainment is "something diverting or engaging (such as a public performance)", does that not describe professional baseball?

Flight #24
11-20-2005, 08:36 PM
I seem to remember Howard Cosell saying back in the 70's that 'when you beat odds of 100,000-1 to get to the top of your profession you deserve to collect big...'

I happen to agree with that.

What are the odds on being able to buy a sports team? Owners should qualify under your theory as well, but I don't recall you ever even giving them the right to break even. Something about how even if they do lose money, it's their issue since they get to own teams........That double standard comes in handy an awful lot, huh?

buehrle4cy05
11-20-2005, 08:39 PM
There'd be a limit on what a team could spend and/or a limit on what a player could make, so there'd be nothing to milk. In the NBA, i'm surprised players like garnett and kobe even use agents, they just need to say give me 5 years at the max and it's done.

Got it. Thanks.

Lip Man 1
11-20-2005, 10:06 PM
Flight:

Considering the amount it costs to purchase a professional sports franchise (even the worst ones) I think the odds of any owner 'going broke' and not having enough money around for generations of his immediate family members is very slim.

You have to be worth millions upon millions upon millions just to even get in that position in the first place don't you?

It's like purchasing a Corvette and then complaning about the cost of insurance and gas. If money is an issue then don't buy the franchise in the first place.

That's not so hard to understand is it?

I guess we can discuss this for the next year and it isn't going to change our opinions. You have emphathy for the owners. I have empathy for the workers regardless of how much money they earn in a year. Then when you add the cost of city/state supported stadiums, the owners are coming off like Bonnie & Clyde in the 1930's.

No owner anywhere ever loses money in sports. Between the stadium leases, the extortion of new facilities under the threat of leaving and the tax laws the only money they lose is in the ledger books of some accounting firm. It's not real. If it was they'd be selling those franchises immediately. These people aren't dumb Flight, don't think that for a nanosecond. And as PHG has pointed out numerous times, isn't it strange that the value of these franchises keeps going up and up and up? Hmmmm....

I should think the Stanford University economics professor who examined the owners books during the 1994 labor impasse and said what the owners were claiming was totally bogus and all lies should have ended this discussion years ago. Guess it didn't.

Lip

Steelrod
11-20-2005, 11:59 PM
Palehose:

I guess you can say the same thing when you go to the movies and have to pay ten bucks because Tom Cruise is getting 36 million for the film....

Or when you pay eighty dollars for a U2 concert ticket ...

and so on down the line.

I seem to remember Howard Cosell saying back in the 70's that 'when you beat odds of 100,000-1 to get to the top of your profession you deserve to collect big...'

I happen to agree with that. Now one could make a perfectly reasonable case that baseball players (or movie stars or rock stars) aren't worth more then say teachers, policemen or soldiers but that happens to be the way the world has evolved.

I mean the top heart specialists and trial lawyers make millions as well and let's not forget CEO's who get golden parachutes while their company is laying off people. (see: Michael Eisner...)

Again I'm not automatically disagreeing with you postition just that I feel it's totally wrong to single out athletes. There are other professions as well where a very few, select, talented individuals are making ungodly amounts of money. Like I say this system has it's flaws but it's the only one the world has right now so if you are one of the talented few who have worked their rear ends off to get to the very top, then God bless you and you deserve to collect.

Lip

I guess you can say the same thing about owners. There are only 30 of them who were successful enough to have the funds to purchase a team. That also is a unique talent. They also may have worked their tails off to get there.And those 30 who got to the top should be accorded the same consideration as the 900 players who got to play for them each year. They don't expect your blessing. And if you feel they players should command as much as they can get, I assume you don't mind helping to pay for them with increased ticket prices. After all, it's your team also!

Steelrod
11-21-2005, 12:04 AM
Flight:

Considering the amount it costs to purchase a professional sports franchise (even the worst ones) I think the odds of any owner 'going broke' and not having enough money around for generations of his immediate family members is very slim.

You have to be worth millions upon millions upon millions just to even get in that position in the first place don't you?

It's like purchasing a Corvette and then complaning about the cost of insurance and gas. If money is an issue then don't buy the franchise in the first place.

That's not so hard to understand is it?

I guess we can discuss this for the next year and it isn't going to change our opinions. You have emphathy for the owners. I have empathy for the workers regardless of how much money they earn in a year. Then when you add the cost of city/state supported stadiums, the owners are coming off like Bonnie & Clyde in the 1930's.

No owner anywhere ever loses money in sports. Between the stadium leases, the extortion of new facilities under the threat of leaving and the tax laws the only money they lose is in the ledger books of some accounting firm. It's not real. If it was they'd be selling those franchises immediately. These people aren't dumb Flight, don't think that for a nanosecond. And as PHG has pointed out numerous times, isn't it strange that the value of these franchises keeps going up and up and up? Hmmmm....

I should think the Stanford University economics professor who examined the owners books during the 1994 labor impasse and said what the owners were claiming was totally bogus and all lies should have ended this discussion years ago. Guess it didn't.

Lip

...and if the professors are so correct, they also should be pooling their resources, borrowing up to their teeth, and buying franchises and not spending all their time writing books. In this life, sure things are hard to come by. Jim Cramer will tell you to put everything you have on a sure thing when you are 100% sure. (See Back to School if you don't understand the difference between scholars and businessmen)

Palehose13
11-21-2005, 12:19 AM
They are men in the entertainment Field whose skills bring in billions of dollars. I for one would like to see the workers (players) get the majority of profits that they generate. They are not merely playing a game, they are highly skilled pros whose talents are highly valued. If your league brought in the revenue that M.L.B. players do then you would get paid accordingly. I respect your passion for your sport, but in your case it is a game, while in the N.F.L., M.L.B., etc. it is BIG business.

I guess I didn't express how I feel appropriately. I'm not ****ty that a make a buck a game and they make millions or even hundreds of thousands a year. I do understand that MLB>>>>>>NWFA, but I expect that the guys still love the sport. I'm not complaining about making $8/year playing football. I'm happy to have the opportunity, but hey...when you get to millions a year, I don't want to hear about 12 mil vs. 14 mil/year and needing to "take care of their families".

I don't love the owners and I don't like greedy players. I have no problem with players getting paid what they are worth in their market, but Boras is slime and it seems to me that he gets the owners to overpay for his players.


Again I'm not automatically disagreeing with you postition just that I feel it's totally wrong to single out athletes. There are other professions as well where a very few, select, talented individuals are making ungodly amounts of money. Like I say this system has it's flaws but it's the only one the world has right now so if you are one of the talented few who have worked their rear ends off to get to the very top, then God bless you and you deserve to collect.


I don't think that I actually stated a position or singled out ball players. Hell they're all overpaid (people in the entertainment business), but they wouldn't make that money if people like me didn't give up my hard earned cash for them. I think athletes get singled out more than actors or musicians because their contract negotiations are very often made public, unlike actors and musicians.

DaleJRFan
11-21-2005, 03:20 AM
:tomatoaward

spiffie
11-21-2005, 11:15 AM
...and if the professors are so correct, they also should be pooling their resources, borrowing up to their teeth, and buying franchises and not spending all their time writing books. In this life, sure things are hard to come by. Jim Cramer will tell you to put everything you have on a sure thing when you are 100% sure. (See Back to School if you don't understand the difference between scholars and businessmen)
If you find a bank willing to lend someone making even say $100,000 a year the $400-800 million needed to buy a major league baseball team, do please advertise it on these boards. I've had a couple of Vegas hotels I want to buy, and just need the right lender.

I personally only recommend "Back to School" when someone needs remedial history lessons.

http://www.delafont.com/specialty_acts/Specialty_Images/l-egends-comedy-samk.jpg

Professor Terguson, history teacher.

asindc
11-22-2005, 10:57 AM
A little more to add to the discussion:

SPORTS / BASEBALL | November 22, 2005 - NYTimes.com: Damon's Agent Eager for Stats to Be Binding
By JACK CURRY

Scott Boras, Johnny Damon's agent, loves to analyze statistics and then unfurl them to help his clients score gigantic numbers for free-agent contracts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/22/sports/baseball/22damon.html

TDog
11-22-2005, 11:11 AM
... I've had a couple of Vegas hotels I want to buy, and just need the right lender.

....

When I was living near Las Vegas, I was surprised at the number of hotels and casinos in bankruptcy court, dealing with the Chapter 11 debt reorganization.

I didn't figure out until I was too old to do anything about it that it's the lawyers and agents making the money.

AZChiSoxFan
11-22-2005, 11:20 AM
Flight:

(Again you think the owners have been doing what's best for the sport? Hell they shut down baseball in 1994 trying to bust the union...)


Lip

Silly me....I always thought the fact that two sides couldn't come to an agreement is what lead to the demise of the 1994 season. Thanks for setting me straight and pointing out that the MLBPA genuinely wanted to compromise and reach an agreement.

Lip Man 1
11-22-2005, 11:28 AM
Az:

History records that the U.S. Federal Court ruled that MLB owners did not negotiate in good faith therefore they were ordered back to the table.

Judge Sonya Sodermeyer made the ruling during the off season. She also ruled if I remember correctly, that because they bargained improperly, their desire to have new rules instituted (as per labor law) would not be allowed to take place. The old rules remained in effect and a deal was struck in March 1995.

Lip

AZSoxFAN
11-22-2005, 05:37 PM
Scott's still the Devil...:redneck

Steelrod
11-22-2005, 07:51 PM
If you find a bank willing to lend someone making even say $100,000 a year the $400-800 million needed to buy a major league baseball team, do please advertise it on these boards. I've had a couple of Vegas hotels I want to buy, and just need the right lender.

I personally only recommend "Back to School" when someone needs remedial history lessons.

http://www.delafont.com/specialty_acts/Specialty_Images/l-egends-comedy-samk.jpg

Professor Terguson, history teacher.
lol Good one.
As far as banks go, try any of them. Lip and his professor friend will guarantee all teams make a profit, so there's No risk!

Lip Man 1
11-23-2005, 12:15 PM
Steel:

When you can cook the books as well as the MLB owners have been doing you're damm right they can all make a profit.

If you need concrete examples of their flim-flam methods try reading The Lords Of The Realm.

Lip

Steelrod
11-23-2005, 12:41 PM
Steel:

When you can cook the books as well as the MLB owners have been doing you're damm right they can all make a profit.

If you need concrete examples of their flim-flam methods try reading The Lords Of The Realm.

Lip

Lip, heres your chance to be a very rich man. If you have knowledge of teams "cooking the books", turn them into the IRS. You'll get the usual 10% finders fee. I suggest to read the IRS codes. Tax laws benefitting teams ended in 1986!

Flight #24
11-23-2005, 01:23 PM
Like I say this system has it's flaws but it's the only one the world has right now so if you are one of the talented few who have worked their rear ends off to get to the very top, then God bless you and you deserve to collect.


Considering the amount it costs to purchase a professional sports franchise (even the worst ones) I think the odds of any owner 'going broke' and not having enough money around for generations of his immediate family members is very slim.
You have to be worth millions upon millions upon millions just to even get in that position in the first place don't you?
It's just absolutely hilarious the complete usage of a double standard. Owners have worked to be in the position they're in to buy and own a team. Yet they don't have the same right to get as much as they can as players who've worked to be in the position they're in........



I guess we can discuss this for the next year and it isn't going to change our opinions. You have emphathy for the owners. I have empathy for the workers regardless of how much money they earn in a year. Then when you add the cost of city/state supported stadiums, the owners are coming off like Bonnie & Clyde in the 1930's.

No owner anywhere ever loses money in sports.

How many players do you have as losing money, Lip? Any? Are players families in any danger of going broke? I guess you empathize with poor old Latrell Sprewell who can't feed his family?

You like to cite Scott Boras as simply using the means within his possession to legally make money.......are the owners breaking the law here or does that just not apply to them?

inĚconĚsisĚtent http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dinconsistent) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn-shttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifnt)
adj.

Displaying or marked by a lack of consistency, especially:
<LI type=a>Not regular or predictable; erratic: inconsistent behavior.
Lacking in correct logical relation; contradictory: inconsistent statements.
Not in agreement or harmony; incompatible: an intersection inconsistent with the road map.

Paulwny
11-23-2005, 01:23 PM
Lip, heres your chance to be a very rich man. If you have knowledge of teams "cooking the books", turn them into the IRS. You'll get the usual 10% finders fee. I suggest to read the IRS codes. Tax laws benefitting teams ended in 1986!

What Lip is referring to is that the IRS does see the legit books. Meanwhile the public gets to see the owners' versions of revenue vs expenditures. Owners aren't stupid, theyd never give the IRS cooked books.

FarWestChicago
11-24-2005, 12:14 AM
It's just absolutely hilarious the complete usage of a double standard. Owners have worked to be in the position they're in to buy and own a team. Yet they don't have the same right to get as much as they can as players who've worked to be in the position they're in........Let's face it, Lip does have a moral compass. It's just always in the presence of a VERY strong magnetic field. :D:

Lip Man 1
11-24-2005, 01:06 PM
West:

You really should be doing stand up! :D:

Flight:

Like I said before...nobody said life was fair did they?

Lip