Boras: Are teams hurting themselves?

[Texsox]

Through the ecstasy of the selection, Broadway did find time to talk about his desire to sign quickly with the White Sox. He is represented by Ryan Ware, who works for agents Adam Katz, Tom Reich and Craig Landis, an important fact for a team that did not want to deal with a potential Scott Boras client.

 

Boras' clients are a virtual all-star team. The best players all eventually find him and he finds them. How much of a disadvantage is it to any team that will not deal with him?

[southsider2k5]

Boras' clients are a virtual all-star team. The best players all eventually find him and he finds them. How much of a disadvantage is it to any team that will not deal with him?

 

Ask the Rangers and teams what is it worth to have spent $40 million a year on two Borass players and be handcuffed in adding complimentary players. There are bads to go with those good players.

[DBAHO]

Boras' clients are a virtual all-star team. The best players all eventually find him and he finds them. How much of a disadvantage is it to any team that will not deal with him?

And yet only a handful of teams are willing to draft Bora$$ clients. Figures.

[Texsox]

Ask the Rangers and teams what is it worth to have spent $40 million a year on two Borass players and be handcuffed in adding complimentary players.  There are bads to go with those good players.

 

And you blame that on Boras? If they spent $40 million on a different agent's players, they would not have been handcuffed?

 

The decision to pay that much for two players was flawed, regardless of who the agent is.

[DBAHO]

And you blame that on Boras? If they spent $40 million on a different agent's players, they would not have been handcuffed? 

 

The decision to pay that much for two players was flawed, regardless of who the agent is.

But the thing is nowadays teams aren't going to be that stupid. Look at Colorado with Todd Helton.

 

Bora$$ thinks it's ok for the a team to pay at least an extra half of what he would probably get with another agent. He FORCES his clients to go into the FA market, and things like loyalty, family and comfort etc. just don't come into play with his negotiations. If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays offered Mr. X $25 million over 2 years, while say the Yankees offered $17.5 million over 2 years (if he played for the Yankees originally, and enjoyed playing there), Bora$$ would advise his client to take the D-Rays offer, even if the teams sucks and has no chance of making the playoffs.

 

Jeff Weaver and Stephen Drew did the right thing though, even though Bora$$ was desperate for them to stay in the draft, for an extra $2 million. That's how this guy works, plain and simple.

[Texsox]

But the thing is nowadays teams aren't going to be that stupid. Look at Colorado with Todd Helton.

 

Bora$$ thinks it's ok for the a team to pay at least an extra half of what he would probably get with another agent. He FORCES his clients to go into the FA market, and things like loyalty, family and comfort etc. just don't come into play with his negotiations. If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays offered Mr. X $25 million over 2 years, while say the Yankees offered $17.5 million over 2 years (if he played for the Yankees originally, and enjoyed playing there), Bora$$ would advise his client to take the D-Rays offer, even if the teams sucks and has no chance of making the playoffs.

 

Jeff Weaver and Stephen Drew did the right thing though, even though Bora$$ was desperate for them to stay in the draft, for an extra $2 million. That's how this guy works, plain and simple.

 

Too bad his clients are too dumb to see this.

 

Those that think an agent has an obligation to the team to make certain the team doesn't do something stupid, do you also believe the team has an obligation to make certain the player doesn't do something stupid like sign for millions less than the player is worth?

 

How many people here asked their employer, when an offer was made, if the company could gain market share by paying them less? How many would take a cut in pay to help their company gain market share?

[SuperSteve]

But the thing is nowadays teams aren't going to be that stupid. Look at Colorado with Todd Helton.

 

Bora$$ thinks it's ok for the a team to pay at least an extra half of what he would probably get with another agent. He FORCES his clients to go into the FA market, and things like loyalty, family and comfort etc. just don't come into play with his negotiations. If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays offered Mr. X $25 million over 2 years, while say the Yankees offered $17.5 million over 2 years (if he played for the Yankees originally, and enjoyed playing there), Bora$$ would advise his client to take the D-Rays offer, even if the teams sucks and has no chance of making the playoffs.

 

Jeff Weaver and Stephen Drew did the right thing though, even though Bora$$ was desperate for them to stay in the draft, for an extra $2 million. That's how this guy works, plain and simple.

IIRC Andruw Jones would be an example of someone who stayed with the club as opposed to your scenerio.

[DBAHO]

Too bad his clients are too dumb to see this.

 

Those that think an agent has an obligation to the team to make certain the team doesn't do something stupid, do you also believe the team has an obligation to make certain the player doesn't do something stupid like sign for millions less than the player is worth?

 

How many people here asked their employer, when an offer was made, if the company could gain market share by paying them less? How many would take a cut in pay to help their company gain market share?

But money shouldn't be the ONLY factor in negotiations is what I'm trying to get at. Teams have budgets, Bora$$ has an idea that teams have a big revenue stream that they should be throwing at his clients.

 

Sure you could be getting some extra money, but would you prefer to be happy and winning, or would you prefer to be miserable? Look at Alex Rodriguez. Perfect scenario.

[DBAHO]

IIRC Andruw Jones would be an example of someone who stayed with the club as opposed to your scenerio.

And you look at Jones now and think "damn, he's probably overpaid". Well imagine what he could have gotten from another team under Bora$$. Jones chose to stay and play for a winner. Good for him.

[southsider2k5]

And you blame that on Boras? If they spent $40 million on a different agent's players, they would not have been handcuffed? 

 

The decision to pay that much for two players was flawed, regardless of who the agent is.

 

Look at the Sox of 2005 and 2004 and think about that question. You need more parts than 2 studs if you are going to win. You have to be deep. Unless you are the Yankees and Red Sox, it doesn't make sense to spend that much money on one or two great players, when you can get 5 good players for the same price.

 

Teams are hurting themselves wasting so much money one so few players.

[DBAHO]

Look at the Sox of 2005 and 2004 and think about that question.  You need more parts than 2 studs if you are going to win.  You have to be deep.  Unless you are the Yankees and Red Sox, it doesn't make sense to spend that much money on one or two great players, when you can get 5 good players for the same price.

 

Teams are hurting themselves wasting so much money one so few players.

I remember at the start of the season a lot of people were looking at our lineup and saying it was weaker because we didn't have Maggs and Carlos (who both make a combined approx $20 mill this season). That's what about b/w a 1/3 and 1/4 of our payroll in 2 players right there. For a team that doesn't have payroll of close to or above $100 million, it doesn't make sense to have that much money locked up in just 1 or 2 players. What happens if they get injured or if they slump?

 

The Sox's offense may have struggled all year, but that's because a lot of players have struggled. At least now, it's a lot deeper, so we don't have the likes of Uribe hitting in the #2 hole like he did last season. Pods and Iguchi provide a great platform and they make what just over $3 million together? You don't have to spend heaps of money on Bora$$ clients to bring in talent, there's enough available elsewhere.

[Texsox]

But money shouldn't be the ONLY factor in negotiations is what I'm trying to get at. Teams have budgets, Bora$$ has an idea that teams have a big revenue stream that they should be throwing at his clients.

 

Sure you could be getting some extra money, but would you prefer to be happy and winning, or would you prefer to be miserable? Look at Alex Rodriguez. Perfect scenario.

 

The player and his agent should not be negotiating for the team, any more than the team should be negotiating for the player.

 

Agent "I'm sorry Mr. TeamOwner, but I don't see how you can be competitive and pay my player $10,000,000. Let's make it $8,500,000? Does that sound fair to you?

 

TeamOwner "No, I insist. He's batting .329 and we need a left handed bat. He's worth at least $10,000,000 that's only fair.

 

Agent "Well if you can convince me you can spend it *and* be competitive, I guess we will take the money."

 

 

Look at the Sox of 2005 and 2004 and think about that question.  You need more parts than 2 studs if you are going to win.  You have to be deep.  Unless you are the Yankees and Red Sox, it doesn't make sense to spend that much money on one or two great players, when you can get 5 good players for the same price.

 

Teams are hurting themselves wasting so much money one so few players.

 

I'm not arguing that a top heavy payroll is the answer. I agree that a balanced payroll, is probably a better path to the playoffs. What I cannot see is a player settling for less money on some hope the team will use the money to sign other players, who also would be signing for less, in hopes of getting other players who will sign for less dollars. That's a nice socialist system, but not a free enterprise, American dream way.

 

And just having the extra money doesn't mean you will win anything. The Yankees have an almost unlimited payroll. If players started signing contracts based on lower wages so the team could sign more free agents, like the Yankees, there is no guarantee of winning.

 

But my original question. Are teams hurting themselves when they refuse to sign a player based on his agent?

[sayitaintso]

Boras is a money loving Dickwad. Plain and simple.

[southsider2k5]

The player and his agent should not be negotiating for the team, any more than the team should be negotiating for the player.

 

Agent "I'm sorry Mr. TeamOwner, but I don't see how you can be competitive and pay my player $10,000,000. Let's make it $8,500,000? Does that sound fair to you?

 

TeamOwner "No, I insist. He's batting .329 and we need a left handed bat. He's worth at least $10,000,000 that's only fair.

 

Agent "Well if you can convince me you can spend it *and* be competitive, I guess we will take the money."

I'm not arguing that a top heavy payroll is the answer. I agree that a balanced payroll, is probably a better path to the playoffs. What I cannot see is a player settling for less money on some hope the team will use the money to sign other players, who also would be signing for less, in hopes of getting other players who will sign for less dollars. That's a nice socialist system, but not a free enterprise, American dream way.

 

And just having the extra money doesn't mean you will win anything. The Yankees have an almost unlimited payroll. If players started signing contracts based on lower wages so the team could sign more free agents, like the Yankees, there is no guarantee of winning.

 

But my original question. Are teams hurting themselves when they refuse to sign a player based on his agent?

 

Who said a player should settle for less money? That is a completely different question. You asked if the teams were getting hurt. I think for everyone except the upper escelon teams, they benefit by not signing Borass guys as they are able to sign comperable players for less money, and then have the ability to build around those players moreso than if they wasted that money on one player.

[YASNY]

But my original question. Are teams hurting themselves when they refuse to sign a player based on his agent?

 

To a certain extent, yes they are. All options should be left open for acquiring the best talent available. Having said that, I cannot blame the White Sox for not negotiating with Boras after the way he used them in the ARod fiasco. If I was in the Sox' situation, I wouldn't completely slam the door on Boras free agents and draftees, but I'd be very cautious with my approach.

 

On the other hand, teams that are willing to deal with Boras, and have the cash to do so, are at an advantage to the rest of the teams. The NYY, BoSox, LAD, CHC can draft the good Boras clients that KC and Pitts pass by and get some real quality talent at the bottom of the 1st round. It's not a good scenario for competeive balance in baseball, but it is reality as we know it.

[Texsox]

Who said a player should settle for less money?  That is a completely different question.  You asked if the teams were getting hurt.  I think for everyone except the upper echelon teams, they benefit by not signing Borass guys as they are able to sign comparable players for less money, and then have the ability to build around those players moreso than if they wasted that money on one player.

 

But not all Boras clients are upper echelon players earning multi-year, multiple-million dollar paychecks.

 

Definition time:

 

Boras Player, any player he represents.

Boras Player, A-Rod etc. earning multiples of tens of millions of dollars.

 

Or are you extending Boras' negotiations to include a guy near the minimum who may make an extra $100,000 because he had Boras representing him? I hesitate to throw this example on the fire, but doesn't Boras represent Crede? I doubt Crede's contract prevented us from signing any free agent.

 

I think we are in total agreement that committing a huge chuck of your payroll to one or two stars is not a path to the post season. Baseball requires too many players, and any one individual will not have enough AB or defensive chances to make a big enough impact. So yes the Rangers are now the poster child for payroll management.

 

I think YAS brings up an excellent point. In a sense Boras is also helping his clients to winning teams based on some of the smaller market teams passing.

 

I understand the business side of baseball, I just worry when alongside height weight position played is the agent's name as an important tool in evaluating talent. Soon, players will be able to almost hand select what team they are going to based on who their agent is.

[southsider2k5]

But not all Boras clients are upper echelon players earning multi-year, multiple-million dollar paychecks.

 

Definition time:

 

Boras Player, any player he represents.

Boras Player, A-Rod etc. earning multiples of tens of millions of dollars.

 

Or are you extending Boras' negotiations to include a guy near the minimum who may make an extra $100,000 because he had Boras representing him? I hesitate to throw this example on the fire, but doesn't Boras represent Crede? I doubt Crede's contract prevented us from signing any free agent.

 

I think we are in total agreement that committing a huge chuck of your payroll to one or two stars is not a path to the post season. Baseball requires too many players, and any one individual will not have enough AB or defensive chances to make a big enough impact. So yes the Rangers are now the poster child for payroll management.

 

I think YAS brings up an excellent point. In a sense Boras is also helping his clients to winning teams based on some of the smaller market teams passing.

 

I understand the business side of baseball, I just worry when alongside height weight position played is the agent's name as an important tool in evaluating talent. Soon, players will be able to almost hand select what team they are going to based on who their agent is.

 

The effect trickles down. When Borass's big names get huge money, the mediocre guys use that as a barometer to get their money. Ask the Rangers who spent $65 million on Chan Ho Park, the Dodgers who spent $55 million on Darren Driefort, or the Tigers who spend $75 million on Maggs. Those guys aren't the best in the game, but they still used the same agent to get their contracts, and they still have the same ripple effect on payroll. I can't wait to see what Scotty can get Joe Crede in FA so that we can laugh at that team as well.

[Texsox]

So are you blaming the agent or the team? It would seem that the pressure is on the other agents to perform for their players as well Boras could ask for $60,000,000 for Crede but no team is going to pay it. Nothing really happens until some owner ponies up the cash.

[GoodAsGould]

I think baseball should do what basketball does with the draft... allow players to get only a certain amount of money when drafted. That way any team can afford any player.

[danman31]

I think baseball should do what basketball does with the draft... allow players to get only a certain amount of money when drafted.  That way any team can afford any player.

Nah, I like it this way better because there are HS guys who have college commits and can be lured away from college with $$. Teams aren't going to pick them where they belong talent wise if they know they may not be able to sign him and the player won't sign if he doesn't get the money he deserves.

[Chisoxfn]

The player and his agent should not be negotiating for the team, any more than the team should be negotiating for the player.

 

Agent "I'm sorry Mr. TeamOwner, but I don't see how you can be competitive and pay my player $10,000,000. Let's make it $8,500,000? Does that sound fair to you?

 

TeamOwner "No, I insist. He's batting .329 and we need a left handed bat. He's worth at least $10,000,000 that's only fair.

 

Agent "Well if you can convince me you can spend it *and* be competitive, I guess we will take the money."

I'm not arguing that a top heavy payroll is the answer. I agree that a balanced payroll, is probably a better path to the playoffs. What I cannot see is a player settling for less money on some hope the team will use the money to sign other players, who also would be signing for less, in hopes of getting other players who will sign for less dollars. That's a nice socialist system, but not a free enterprise, American dream way.

 

And just having the extra money doesn't mean you will win anything. The Yankees have an almost unlimited payroll. If players started signing contracts based on lower wages so the team could sign more free agents, like the Yankees, there is no guarantee of winning.

 

But my original question. Are teams hurting themselves when they refuse to sign a player based on his agent?

 

No, the only person hurt is the player because quite often they end up losing money because only a few teams are willing to take him and in regards to the draft it will have a negative impact on his signing bonus (at least half of the time).

[DBAHO]

So are you blaming the agent or the team? It would seem that the pressure is on the other agents to perform for their players as well Boras could ask for $60,000,000 for Crede but no team is going to pay it. Nothing really happens until some owner ponies up the cash.

What if he was the only above average third baseman on the FA market and a team was DESPERATE for a third baseman?