Boras says baseball's integrity is damaged

[jerichoholicninja]

The new CBA rules have damaged the integrity of the sport because "Clubs are trying to finish last to create more draft dollars. And this dramatically affects the Wild Card and Major League standings."

 

Below is from MLBTradeRumors. Boras's quotes are Onion-worthy.

 

Baseball’s most prominent agent says the integrity of the sport has been damaged by its collective bargaining agreement. MLB’s top labor executive says the system works, even though one prominent player remains jobless. Within a telling piece at USA Today, Bob Nightengale reports that agent Scott Boras and MLB executive VP Rob Manfred are at odds over the current CBA.

 

Boras argues that the basic agreement encourages teams to finish with poor records. The clubs that finish with the worst records are able to spend more freely on amateur players.

 

"The integrity of the game has been compromised,'' Boras told Nightengale. "What baseball has done, it has created a dynamic where draft dollars are affecting the Major Leaguers. Teams are constructing clubs to be non-competitive, like Houston and Miami, so they can position themselves where they can get more draft dollars. Clubs are trying to finish last to create more draft dollars. And this dramatically affects the Wild Card and Major League standings.''

 

Kyle Lohse, the top unsigned free agent, has suggested in recent months that the new draft pick compensation rules have limited his leverage (latest Lohse rumors here). His agent agrees. Boras argues that draft dollars are "the latest currency" for MLB general managers.

 

“And the best way to earn draft dollars is to sabotage your Major League team and finish last,'' he said.

 

In the past teams didn’t mind surrendering a first round draft pick to sign a prominent player, Boras said. The clubs could simply spend over-slot on players in later rounds, a practice that is no longer permitted in the same way.

 

“Now, you've taken away the structure of the scouting and developing,” Boras said. “They have stolen our youth. They have kidnapped our children in this system.''

 

Manfred explained that the agreement won’t be changed to accommodate one player.

 

"It is important to focus on all the changes to the system of draft choice compensation,'' Manfred told Nightengale. "A large number of players were freed from the burden of compensation completely, and those players undoubtedly received better contracts as a result. We have not heard anyone raising questions as to whether the system is working for those players.”

 

Manfred points out that with the exception of Lohse the nine players who declined qualifying offers obtained substantial contracts.

 

"The fact that one Scott Boras client has not signed does not convince me that the system is broken,'' Manfred said.

 

Agent Larry Reynolds represents B.J. Upton, another player who hit free agency after declining his former team’s qualifying offer. Reynolds told Nightengale it would be “misleading” to suggest that draft pick compensation is the lone variable that determines a free agent’s value.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/03/scott-boras-rob-manfred-disagree-on-cba.html

 

How nice of him to throw a hissy fit because one of his incredibly mediocre clients doesn't have a job and he's losing money because of the spending limits in the draft.

[monty57]

Yes, I'm sure Lohse's family would've starved had he settled for the paltry sum of $13.5MM he would've received had his advisor given him better advise.

[paul253]

What a tool. What Boras doesn't seem to want to admit is that it is people like him that make it necessary limit the amount of money teams can spend on draft picks. Without limits it's essentially an auction, with the best players going to teams who are willing to pay for their insane asking prices. The purpose of the draft is to get the best players to the worst teams. And while MLB has easily the most screwed up draft system in all sports, at least the last CBA made SOME improvements.

 

As far a Lohse goes. What he needs to realize is that if a team would rather have a first round draft pick than him then he probably isn't that good. He had the opportunity to accept an insane one year deal and not have to go through all of this but he chose to decline, probably because Boras told him to. He made his own bed here and has nobody to blame but himself.

[James Zumstein]

If Scott Boras isn't happy with the new CBA, then Rob Manfred deserves a pat on the back. He helped negotiate a good deal for MLB. Boras represents individual players, not THE players. If he truly wants what's best for all players, he would be a union negotiator. He's not, because he only wants what's best for HIS players, not everyone else's.

[monty57]

I don't necessarily have a problem with how Boras operates. His clients just need to know that Boras does not look out for an individual's best interest. He only looks out for making the most possible money. If his bets pay off, he & the player make out big time. If they don't pan out, he's still loaded, but the player is hurt. Boras will find more clients and make millions more dollars, while the hurt player goes out and gets a "real" job.

 

For some players, this is what they want, so there needs to be a guy like Boras around to fill this demand. However, if you choose to hire Boras, don't complain when the gamble doesn't pay off. If you didn't want to take the gamble, there are plenty of agents who care about the players and not just about the money.

[splitterpfj]

I think this is really funny. Mr Boras is great at what he does, but there is ZERO question, his success has had a negative impact on the game for years.

 

How many high-profile prospects were not drafted, or not signed by the team who otherwise would have had them, if not for Boras' financial demands? Again, he gets people paid, he's doing his job, but if you're talking about what it does to the game, it's basically the same thing, from the other direction. Then, he controlled where talent went, which is not the intent of the system, and now he doesn't like it because something besides him is driving the market.

[TooLiveBrew]

How nice of him to throw a hissy fit because one of his incredibly mediocre clients doesn't have a job and he's losing money because of the spending limits in the draft.

Sums it up perfectly.

[JohnBriggs12]

Think about it. Since the start of guaranteed long term contracts, how many roster decisions are made purely on the amount committed to a particular player (cough Jeff Suppan cough) rather than the ability to perform at that moment? Boras didn't invent that system (Marvin Miller did, which is why I oppose him getting into HOF), but he profited from it. How is having players on your roster beyond their useful years good for the integrity of the game? They don't do that in the NFL. If you can't play anymore, you're gone.

 

So now Boras is concerned about the integrity of the game? What a joke.

[JackNicholson1974]

Why didnt Lohse accept the 13.5 million tender?

[splitterpfj]

Jack, I'm sure it's because he was advised not to. I'm sure Boras told him he'd get a long-term contract for him, like he has time and again for so many others.

 

That philosophy landed Michael Bourn in Cleveland, where he never thought he'd be, and has kept Lohse unemployed.

 

I hope MLB sticks to their guns on this issue, agents shouldn't be deciding which teams can acquire talent.

[RockCoCougars]

I think that Boras is a scumbag, so I'm thrilled to see this. Boras made his name by representing draft prospects and asking for the moon, creating an unfair situation for the small market teams. Largely due to his greed, MLB changed the rules to level the playing field and be more in line with other sports. Now he's crying because his mediocre client turned down a guaranteed 8 figure deal? His tears fall on deaf ears here. Simply put, he gave terrible advice, vastly overestimating the market for a middling mid 30's pitcher coming off a career season. His preposterous claim that MLB teams would actually tank to get a better spot in the draft belies the fact that he thinks that he is smarter than everyone else.

 

This will hurt his reputation among players moving forward, so I'm glad for that. I really hope that no one signs Lohse all year.

[splitterpfj]

RockCo, as I stated above, I hope MLB sticks to their guns, and limits some of the agents' power, but Boras certainly isn't the only one who thinks there are team owners who would tank based on the new draft system.

 

Peter Gammons has been commenting on this lately, he thinks it's happening right now in Miami and Houston, and he has suggested removing their revenue sharing, and their protected picks, until they attempt to compete. One of the points he raised was the possibility of three playoff teams coming from the AL West, while they beat up on Houston. He believes those two teams are essentially competing for higher picks, and hence more cash allotted to sign their picks, for the next 3-5 seasons.

[TooLiveBrew]

Peter Gammons has been commenting on this lately, he thinks it's happening right now in Miami and Houston, and he has suggested removing their revenue sharing, and their protected picks, until they attempt to compete. One of the points he raised was the possibility of three playoff teams coming from the AL West, while they beat up on Houston. He believes those two teams are essentially competing for higher picks, and hence more cash allotted to sign their picks, for the next 3-5 seasons.

The irony here being that Miami did "attempt to compete" (aka spend money on free agents) last season & weren't good. What Gammons is essentially suggesting is that one of these teams sign a Lohse and/or other comparable blah free agents so they only lose 89 games instead of 100. It's really a nonsensical approach to the issue imo.

 

What else are non-huge market teams supposed to do to get the elite talents in the game? They certainly can't afford to spend $200M on one player in free agency. They obviously have to draft & develop them. You don't tend to find the Bryce Harpers or David Prices in the middle of the first round.

 

I have zero problem with teams blowing it all up & starting over. The downsides are already present in terms of revenue generated in rebuilding seasons, we don't need to invent more.

[RockCoCougars]

RockCo, as I stated above, I hope MLB sticks to their guns, and limits some of the agents' power, but Boras certainly isn't the only one who thinks there are team owners who would tank based on the new draft system.

 

Peter Gammons has been commenting on this lately, he thinks it's happening right now in Miami and Houston, and he has suggested removing their revenue sharing, and their protected picks, until they attempt to compete.

 

I won't disagree that the Astros are stripped down with no pretty much no hope of competing, but haven't there been teams like that every year? I doubt that this is part of a plan to secure more 'draft dollars', however. The payroll is this low mostly due to economics. The team was recently sold, and most importantly they aren't saddled with any horrible contracts or dead money. At this point, they seem to be going about things the right way- why throw money away on mediocrity to fill up the roster. Without looking at things, my guess is that attendance/revenue will be way down in Houston this season, so why spend money just to put on a facade that you are trying to compete this season. People can argue about a salary floor all day long, but the players union didn't get one, hurting mediocre players like Lohse in the process.

[craigharmann]

Boras is one to speak about integrity.

[paul253]

How can you claim a team is "tanking" when they don't even draft the best player available? Houston had no need to tank in order to draft Correra last season. They probably could have gotten him 5 picks later. Granted they were allocated more money to spend but what they did with that money was very smart in many people's eyes.

 

Baseball isn't like basketball or even football where a few good draft picks will take you from worst to first. And baseball more than any other sport has such a wide margin or error in drafting that it's hard to imagine anyone tanking to move up a spot or two. The reason Miami and Houston are where they are is because, thanks to people like Scott Boras, their payrolls got so out of whack that they had to dump all these expensive players so they can actually have money to invest in the draft. For how much it would cost for two years of Kyle Lohse a team could probably sign all of it's draft picks for two entire drafts.

[splitterpfj]

What Gammons is really getting to is, there are team owners who are receiving revenue sharing, which is designed to increase their competitiveness...and they're keeping the money. While this happens, their teams stink, which, in theory at least, gives the teams in their divisions a better chance at reaching the playoffs.

 

I don't think he means to say those teams should have to spend money just to spend it, but if this is the path they choose, they should not be given revenue sharing, and they should not have their picks protected, should they choose to sign a free agent.

 

I see his point. I don't think teams should ever be expected to sign guys, just to make things look good, but if you're going to go cheap, by design, then you don't get help from the system.

 

In any event, anything that limits the power of Mr Boras, makes me smile.

[TooLiveBrew]

What Gammons is really getting to is, there are team owners who are receiving revenue sharing, which is designed to increase their competitiveness...and they're keeping the money. While this happens, their teams stink, which, in theory at least, gives the teams in their divisions a better chance at reaching the playoffs.

 

I don't think he means to say those teams should have to spend money just to spend it, but if this is the path they choose, they should not be given revenue sharing, and they should not have their picks protected, should they choose to sign a free agent.

 

I see his point. I don't think teams should ever be expected to sign guys, just to make things look good, but if you're going to go cheap, by design, then you don't get help from the system.

The only solution that would satisfy this line of reasoning is a team spending more on payroll. Organizations can use the revenue sharing money for anything, right? Like improving facilities, scouting, etc. Who is anyone to say, from the outside looking in, how a club should spend their revenue sharing dollars?

 

The selective revenue sharing idea would punish any team that goes into a full-on rebuild, which is a completely legit & viable team-building strategy. Why should the rules be changed to punish small markets even more? There's one club in MLB that imo you can actually argue was/is gaming the revenue sharing system (Miami). And I think Miami could make a pretty compelling argument that they used accrued revenue sharing income to help finance their pricey offseason last year.

 

The idea that someone should get to pick & choose which teams are allowed to get revenue sharing dollars -- or if their draft picks are protected? Are you kidding? -- really burns me up. The richest clubs in baseball aren't losing money, they're making it at a greater rate than ever before. They're hardly even missing the small percentage that they have to pay into the revenue sharing system.

 

If the Astros (or any rebuilding team) want to keep their roster cheap while they try to rebuild from scratch, more power to them. That's sound business, in my book.

 

In closing, I realize you're simply laying out Gammons's stance, splitter. My vent is not intended to be aimed at you.

[RockCoCougars]

To me it seems that the argument by Gammons, etc. is a bit flawed because isn't revenue sharing based on revenues and not payroll (expenditures) or profit? I will not claim to be an expert on how the system works, so I looked this up on fangraphs:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/business/revenue-sharing/

 

Please feel free to correct me on this if I'm mistaken, but what I got from that is that all teams contribute a percentage of their local revenue to a fund which is then split equally across the teams... basically meaning that the big dollar teams pay in more than they get back and vice-versa. Looking at the Astros, they are in one of the bigger markets in baseball, so I would think that they would have a pretty solid revenue stream going. Has it been confirmed that they are getting a big chunk of revenue sharing? Being in that market, I can't believe that it would be much, and if it is, someone down there is doing something wrong.

[endaround]

It is based on revenue but not market size. So the teams in Florida, the Marlins who play in a large market and the Rays who play in a decent size one (twice the size of Milwaukee) get revenue sharing because the ownership can't attract fans. The incentives are all messed up.

 

And the pot is currently split evenly, so each team gets a set amount from the general revenue fund (like $50-60 million I think). So Houston's check is fixed no matter how badly they draw.

[endaround]

It is based on revenue but not market size. So the teams in Florida, the Marlins who play in a large market and the Rays who play in a decent size one (twice the size of Milwaukee) get revenue sharing because the ownership can't attract fans. The incentives are all messed up.

 

And the pot is currently split evenly, so each team gets a set amount from the general revenue fund (like $50-60 million I think). So Houston's check is fixed no matter how badly they draw.

[Invader3K]

If Scott Boras is unhappy, then MLB must be doing something right.

 

It's not like Boras has ever done anything to help out anyone other than himself and his clients when it's a benefit to him.

[The stache]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldfuhxeXPc1qea18x.jpg

"Oh oh oh, Scotty's crying."

 

I'm so happy to hear that this colossal dickwad is upset. As a matter of fact, I want to fly out to New York, take Rob Manfred to Scores, and get him a lap dance or three.