Boras company tied to lending money to prospects

[Dick Allen]

Great sidebar, if anyone had actually excused the NCAA for anything.

 

It has more to do with having your financial situation dependent on the same person who is negotiating your contract. And don't give me this crap about Boras being honest. He lies to people and teams all of the time. It is documented all over the place with mythical offers coming from one and the like. Hell he flat out lied to the White Sox about Magglio Ordonez not having had any surgery when they snuck Maggs off to Europe to get him operated on in secret. He's a crook. The idea that he would exploit kids for a few bucks makes perfect sense.

My dad was a lawyer, an honest lawyer. He always taught me to tell the truth. The one exception was when you were negotiating. I agree that Boras isn't some clean, play by the books guy, and I really doubt his interest in "loaning" money to these poverty stricken foreign free agents, is just to help THEM out. He obviously expects something a little more than payback of the loan. But as far as negotiating, both sides lie all the time. You can't blame him for lying during those times.

[StrangeSox]

Wait, loaning someone 70 grand (who you expect to easily pay this loan back) is now a form of human slavery? Seriously lets turn the narrative down just a bit. Hell I would MAYBE even consider one of the opposing arguments above if Boras had ever done anything that was dishonest in his career. He hasn't, nor would he because of the possible damage to his reputation (and thus, loss of clients).

 

Boras has never been dishonest? Huh?

 

Anyway, the point is he is exploiting their current financial situation (poverty) for his own advantage. And we don't really know how hard he goes after people who don't (or can't) pay him back.

[iamshack]

Boras has never been dishonest? Huh?

 

Anyway, the point is he is exploiting their current financial situation (poverty) for his own advantage. And we don't really know how hard he goes after people who don't (or can't) pay him back.

But really, I think the point is, how is this any different than all kinds of other creditors that loan money to people using ridiculous terms to exploit their present unenviable position?

 

This particular kid was allowed to sign with other representation, was he not? So it isn't like Boras is using the debt to force him to use Boras's company as representation. So I fail to really see the comparisons to slavery and prostitution here.

 

Is it slimy, of course. But slavery? That seems a bit dramatic.

Edited December 2, 2010 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

But really, I think the point is, how is this any different than all kinds of other creditors that loan money to people using ridiculous terms to exploit their present unenviable position?

 

This particular kid was allowed to sign with other representation, was he not? So it isn't like Boras is using the debt to force him to use Boras's company as representation. So I fail to really see the comparison's to slavery and prostitution here.

 

Is it slimy, of course. But slavery? That seems a bit dramatic.

 

Well, I didn't say slavery. And while it may or may not be against MLB rules, it's probably not any more illegal than payday loans with 400% APR.

[iamshack]

Well, I didn't say slavery. And while it may or may not be against MLB rules, it's probably not any more illegal than payday loans with 400% APR.

That's the example I was going to use as well. It's just taking advantage of people in bad positions to exert control over them for your own benefit. Slimy, but unfortunately legal.

[ScottyDo]

But really, I think the point is, how is this any different than all kinds of other creditors that loan money to people using ridiculous terms to exploit their present unenviable position?

 

This particular kid was allowed to sign with other representation, was he not? So it isn't like Boras is using the debt to force him to use Boras's company as representation. So I fail to really see the comparisons to slavery and prostitution here.

 

Is it slimy, of course. But slavery? That seems a bit dramatic.

It's different because he's not accountable to anyone for anything, whereas American lenders usually are (see: Kardashians, heh). Legality has little to do with this discussion, its just gross.

[Paint it Black]

It has more to do with having your financial situation dependent on the same person who is negotiating your contract. And don't give me this crap about Boras being honest. He lies to people and teams all of the time. It is documented all over the place with mythical offers coming from one and the like.

 

So you're mad at he acts like every other agent does? It's an agents job to get a player the most money possible. It's a tactic.

 

Boras has never been dishonest? Huh?

 

Outside of any normal contract negotiations, he hasn't been. As I stated earlier, why would he want to damage his reputation?

 

This particular kid was allowed to sign with other representation, was he not?

 

Thread over.

[Texsox]

First off it is perfectly legal for people to loan people money. The terms may push it into being illegal, and the method of collecting. MLB rules allow loans up to $500 without the agent telling anyone. Above that the agent must disclose the loan. Now I assume that only applies to potential clients, if he wants to loan his kid $1,000, I assume he doesn't have to claim that.

 

We have an example of a kid who took the loan, then signed with a different representative. Boras asked for his money back, probbaly the same he would have if the kid signed with him. Bottom line, these kids have some income so they can develop into baseball players instead of hotel workers to support their families. The agent has an even greater interest in that kid's development.

 

The slavery example would work nicely when we find some kid shackled to Boras' lawn mower when he doesn't develop into a baseball player. If we want to continue the slavery example with mlb, how about players being sold and traded to other teams where they are forced to move and work for as long as a decade? They have no choice in employers for the term of the contract. If they are drafted, they can only work for that employer. That seems like a stronger example of slavery in baseball than someone receiving a loan.

[witesoxfan]

Both examples are more comparable to indentured servitude than they are slavery. There was absolutely no reward for slavery at all, whereas, if you play baseball, you can make quite a bit of money.

 

Besides that, if in the middle of your baseball contract, you decide you don't want to play anymore, you can just quit and forfeit all of the money. If you were a slave and just decided that you didn't want to work anymore, you got whipped.

[ScottyDo]

I think what he was trying to say was that the PROCESS of modern slavery (i.e. monitary debt for coercive purposes) is similar to the process of lending money with the expectation of something in return other than capital + interest. I don't think he was suggesting that the results that follow are similar in any way. I'm pretty sure we all know that being a Boras client isn't slavery.

 

Somebody brought up that you don't have to bring up loans less than $500. Well, it wasn't less than $500. Or even close to that threshold.