Scott Boras: What's next?

[brettac1]

The draft was insituted solely to keep top prospects from getting fair market value. Doug Pappas (R.I.P.) wrote a really good synopsis of it a long time ago when the Drew thing was going on.

[Thurston Fluff]

The draft was insituted solely to keep top prospects from getting fair market value. Doug Pappas (R.I.P.) wrote a really good synopsis of it a long time ago when the Drew thing was going on.

 

Fair market value = the richest teams get all the best players regardless of age or experience. Do you think Milwaukee would have had a chance at Prince, Weeks, Braun, Sheets or any good looking top prospect if all players started as free agents? Do you think Milwaukee, Pitsburgh, Minnesota, Oakland, Florida, Tampa or Kansas City would even exist today if there wasn't a system in place to fairly distribute the talent pool in some way?

I didn't read the book you mentioned so I'll go by what you said above. I read a book years ago about baseball at the turn of the century (20th not 21st). Most teams were basically farm teams for a couple clubs. All you have to do to see what would happen if teams couldn't control a player for a set period of time is look at the posting process or foreign players who start out as free agents. It might be interpreted as being insituted soley for that purpose but it's not being honest about why the idea of finances being the sole determination of players disbursment is not good for any sport. Fair market value has to be balanced with competetive balance. If he neglected to put that need into the equation he wasn't taking the entire picture into account. Either that was sloppy thinking on his part or he wasn't being honest about the need for it.

[jeffy]

The one reason I like Scott Boras is because he has attacked the amateur draft system, and gets those guys their money. Players get totally screwed from the time they get drafted all the way until they hit arbitration (and often during arby, as well). Though, I know this system is pretty good for the Brewers, I still think it sucks and isn't fair.

I'd like to be "totally screwed" like that...getting a few hundred thousand to a few million as a signing bonus.

[brettac1]

Fair market value has to be balanced with competetive balance

 

Not when you are looking at what "fair market value" means, Boras is an agent and he wants his clients to get the most money they can. Competitive balance should be the least of his concerns, it's really not an issue at all for him.

 

Like I said, of course the indentured servant system helps the Brewers, it's just bogus for the players.

 

And the Pappas thing wasn't a book, you can google it and read the article.

 

I'd like to be "totally screwed" like that...getting a few hundred thousand to a few million as a signing bonus.

 

Yeah, it's awesome to win an MVP and make $300,000 while owners and the league make record profits. Sounds like a great system to me. When you consider how few draft picks make it, they should be trying to squeeze every penny out of ownership. I'm fine with it. There isn't exactly a balancing of wealth going on, pre-arby players make a pittance compared to what they help make the team.

[homer]

"Like I said, of course the indentured servant system helps the Brewers, it's just bogus for the players. "

 

Well yeah but you need a balanced system on both sides of the equation. 90% of the teams in the league benefit by having the draft the way it is.

 

For every Prince Fielder there is a Brien Taylor. The teams are the ones taking the risk.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"Boras is an agent and he wants his clients to get the most money they can. Competitive balance should be the least of his concerns, it's really not an issue at all for him. "

 

Yep, he wants the most money possible, regardless of HOW he gets it.

 

Isn't he great for the game? When will HE be enshrined in Cooperstown?

 

Scott Boras is to the spirit of baseball as Michael Vick is to pit bull terriers.

 

I've also wondered all these years why Boras clients, in their contract "walk" years, amazingly start performing 50-100% better. Look at the walk years turned in by Javy Lopez, Adrian Beltre, Carlos Beltran, Johnny Damon...just BEFORE they became eligible for a major payday, and look at their numbers just AFTER they signed.

 

It's like the divisional sales manager whose annual bonus is predicated on having 80 line 1 managers in place, under him, at the close of the year. All year long, he has 60 or 70, but during the last week of the year, he suddenly promotes dozens of otherwise underqualified sellers to be managers. Presto! His quota is met, he gets $25,000 in bonus cash. Then, in January, there are mysteriously a series of demotions in his ranks, and he's right back to 65 sales managers again, as usual.

 

That brand of dishonesty is similar to what Boras has been doing all these years, when contract time rolls around. I wouldn't be surprised for a minute if he contacted an "F.O.V." also known as a "Friend Of Victor" (Conte) to get a fresh supply of BALCO shipments of The Cream or The Clear just in time for walk year.

 

Scott Boras is the worst stain on the game of baseball since the Black Sox scandal.

[TooLiveBrew]

If only GSP would open up on the Scott Boras topic...http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

[brettac1]

When will HE be enshrined in Cooperstown?

 

He won't, but Marvin Miller should be.

 

I wasn't talking about his conduct with established players, just amateurs. You can't argue with the production of a lot of guys that are on his roster, though - mainly A-Rod. I think if you looked at all agents, you'd find plenty of guys that busted out after big contract years, and a bunch that lived up to that contract. By rule, free agency is a dangerous game to get involved with, Boras just makes it more dangerous for teams with less room for error because he's going to squeeze every red cent out of a team - and that's why his clients love him. I do like that players get more money, though, because they deserve it. Their salaries shouldn't remain static while the money going into owners' pockets increases so much. The players are the ones responsible for those profits, and they deserve to be compensated for it.

 

I think the idea that he goes out and cops juice for his clients before their free agent years is ludicrous. Any idiot could see what was going to happen with those players after they signed their deals - Lopez was an aging catcher, Damon was limited by nagging injuries his last season plus in Boston (Theo knew, right?), Beltre had one good season and a bunch with an OPS a little over .700, it was an obvious outlier to anyone but Bill Bavasi. Beltran should have won the MVP last season, he was the best player in the league. I don't doubt that Lopez could have been juiced, nor Beltre. But I don't think there's anyway that Beltran did, and probably not Damon, either.

 

Most players will decline following signing free agent deals, because more often than not they are signed after a player's peak seasons. That seems to be common sense to me. One of the exceptions was A-Rod, and he's about to win another MVP after signing his deal. Miguel Cabrera will be another exception, but truly great players that are sound investments just don't hit the market very often.

 

I agree with you that he's bad for the game, but he's good for his clients, so he's not going away anytime soon.

[TooLiveBrew]

But I don't think there's anyway that Beltran [juiced], and probably not Damon, either.

 

Really? Why? Unless of course you mean, "They didn't juice extra in their contract year(s)." That I could get on board with, but the notion that there's 'no way' any given player could have used steroids is simply baffling to me.

[brettac1]

I guess I was hyperbolic there... I should have said that I have no reason to believe that they juiced. I don't think they are anymore of a possible juicer than your average player - Jeter, Ichiro, Torii Hunter, Garrett Anderson, whatever, I don't think there should be a cloud of suspicion over Beltran or Damon. I certainly think there is no evidence of Scott Boras acquiring steroids for his players.

 

In general I don't think any player should have suspicion of steroid use placed on them just because they put up big numbers, and happened to in a contract year. I really don't care about the issue at all, but I don't like seeing players getting linked to it and then ripped by fans who do care about steroids and PED's over nothing but pure speculation. Steroids do not = great production, great production does not = steroid use.

[TooLiveBrew]

True, but I guess I'm one of the few that honestly, objectively believes that much closer to 100% of pro athletes (than most would like to admit) are steroid users. I know there are former, current, and future Brewers that are users/abusers, and I am confident the same can be said for the Packers, fwiw.

[jeffy]

If you are concened about athletes as "indentured sevants" the place to look would be college sports, not MLB.

Whether there is a draft or not, there needs to be some system that allows all teams to have at least a shot at getting enough talent to compete. There will be less fan interest, which means less money for both owners and players, if there is not a competitive balance to some extent.

When you consider how few draft picks make it, they should be trying to squeeze every penny out of ownership. I'm fine with it. There isn't exactly a balancing of wealth going on, pre-arby players make a pittance compared to what they help make the team.

In addition to giving big signing bonuses to these draft picks, most of whom will never make any money for the team (based on your statement that few of them make it), what does it cost to run a minor league system to develop these players?

You can't just ignore the money that is spent on those who don't make it. The team does not know who will pay off and who will not. They invest in a whole bunch of players in the hope that a few of them might pay off and help the team for a few years.

I don't have a problem with players trying to get whatever the market will bear, but I'm not too concerned about young ballplayers having to "suffer" making only a few hundred thousand, plus whatever signing bonus they got. I do think the agents are not necesarily doing them a favor by taking the risk that nothing bad can ever happen while they await the free-agent market. What if in 2006 Carlos Lee had sustained an injury like Graffanino's or Koskie's? Then he might not have looked so smart for having turned down a certain $60 million from the Brewers.

[endaround]

Then Lee would have collected on a huge insurance settlement.

[brettac1]

Then Lee would have collected on a huge insurance settlement.

 

Yeah. Drafted players are not members of the MLBPA, which is part of the reason why they never really fought tooth and nail to help draftees get larger bonuses, since (especially with smaller market teams) the money that gets paid to those draft picks would be going in their pockets instead.