Post by Rog on Sept 30, 2015 14:32:22 GMT -5
OK, but what is it specifically that Boras has done wrong? I guess when we get down to it, we'll probably never know, since it's almost a he said, she said situation.
If Scott is unethical, I'm very much against him. But I fear that the reason we are so against him here is that he get lots of money for his clients, money that raises the market. We surely want our team to spend more money, but we seem to sometimes resent the players -- and especially their agents -- who get it.
The Giants, and other teams, have apparently frozen Boras out. But that hasn't prevented him from getting top dollar for his clients.
Regarding how to view the contract he got for Max Scherzer, it kind of comes down to how one sees the time value of money. Scherzer will receive money all the way through 2028 IIRC. But this season he is receiving less than Pablo Sandoval, less than Jon Lester. About the same as Jake Peavy and Sergio Romo combined.
Because of the way Boras structured Scherzer's deal, the Giants could have afforded it. As with Barry Bonds, and to a far greater extent, the Giants would have been on the hook for deferred payments. More and more it appears the Giants steered clear of some murky waters with Sandoval, Lester and Shields. Based on this year, the water seems less murky with Scherzer.
One wouldn't have to take a very high discount rate to make Scherzer's deal less expensive than Lester's. Jon will make $26 million per season compared to Max's $30 million. Given that Scherzer receives his money later than does Lester, one could easily make the argument that Jon's contract -- with the exception that it is for six years compared to Max's seven -- is actually CHEAPER than Max's.
What Boras did in this instance was to achieve the goals of both his client (Scherzer) and the Nationals. Boras got Scherzer the $30 million per season Max wanted. And he provided the affordability the Nationals presumably needed. That was creativity on Scott's part, a compromise of sorts.
Boras's methods don't always work. IIRC he was the agent that didn't do well for Kyle Lohse a couple of years back. But Scott's gambles pay off a high percentage of the time.
We have criticized the Giants for moving on when Shields declined their offer, which turned out to be higher than what he actually received from the Padres. But if all the owners took that stance with Boras's clients, he wouldn't be able to generate the leverage he generates now.
Is it wrong for him to hold the owners up as long as he does? Probably not, since they could defeat his efforts if each one of them wanted to.
One advantage I did read that Boras has. He can get information from each of the teams he is negotiating with, whereas the teams are prohibited from sharing it between themselves. I would guess that is pretty much the same as the "real" world though.
Boras himself was a baseball star at the University of Pacific before signing to play in the minor leagues. I believe I read that at UOP he was concurrently working on his major and a doctorate in pharmacology. He continued school while playing in the minors. I read that Ken Boyer and Jack Krol administered a final to him. He ultimately got his law degree from UOP's School of Law, McGeorge University, which is located not far from where Boras grew up in Elk Grove in the Sacramento area.
Now, if Boras faked an offer or offers from teams as I read may be the case, I'm against him. That's not fair. Otherwise though, I think it's more fair to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. I guess the thing that makes it murky is, how do we know for sure -- either way? But I think it's far more fair to give a guy the benefit of the doubt than to condemn him for what he may have done -- or may not have.
If Boras is unethical, I can't support the man. But if he merely uses strong tactics to get the best deals for his clients, well, that's his job -- whether we like it or not.
I just thought of something that is highly hypocritical on our parts. We decry the amounts of money the players make -- then complain because our team doesn't spend more on them.
It is the teams, not the players, who control salaries. Whether a player has a good year or a bad one, it is the teams that determine what he is "worth." And, frankly, a player's value SHOULD be determined on the open market, just as our values in our professions are.
If players are indeed overpaid, who is it who is doing the overpaying? And aren't we tacitly supporting that when we buy tickets or souvenirs -- or even watch on TV, where our team makes a lot of money -- although apparently not as much as teams such as the Dodgers, Yankees and Angels.
Baseball does enjoy the benefit of being able to limit player salaries to the bottom limit for as many as nine years after signing the player. Then they enjoy three more years where the player's value is determined by an arbitrator rather than the free market. If the system is unfair to either party, as much as the players make, it is they -- not the owners, who have only themselves to blame.
And not, by the way, Scott Boras.
If Scott is unethical, I'm very much against him. But I fear that the reason we are so against him here is that he get lots of money for his clients, money that raises the market. We surely want our team to spend more money, but we seem to sometimes resent the players -- and especially their agents -- who get it.
The Giants, and other teams, have apparently frozen Boras out. But that hasn't prevented him from getting top dollar for his clients.
Regarding how to view the contract he got for Max Scherzer, it kind of comes down to how one sees the time value of money. Scherzer will receive money all the way through 2028 IIRC. But this season he is receiving less than Pablo Sandoval, less than Jon Lester. About the same as Jake Peavy and Sergio Romo combined.
Because of the way Boras structured Scherzer's deal, the Giants could have afforded it. As with Barry Bonds, and to a far greater extent, the Giants would have been on the hook for deferred payments. More and more it appears the Giants steered clear of some murky waters with Sandoval, Lester and Shields. Based on this year, the water seems less murky with Scherzer.
One wouldn't have to take a very high discount rate to make Scherzer's deal less expensive than Lester's. Jon will make $26 million per season compared to Max's $30 million. Given that Scherzer receives his money later than does Lester, one could easily make the argument that Jon's contract -- with the exception that it is for six years compared to Max's seven -- is actually CHEAPER than Max's.
What Boras did in this instance was to achieve the goals of both his client (Scherzer) and the Nationals. Boras got Scherzer the $30 million per season Max wanted. And he provided the affordability the Nationals presumably needed. That was creativity on Scott's part, a compromise of sorts.
Boras's methods don't always work. IIRC he was the agent that didn't do well for Kyle Lohse a couple of years back. But Scott's gambles pay off a high percentage of the time.
We have criticized the Giants for moving on when Shields declined their offer, which turned out to be higher than what he actually received from the Padres. But if all the owners took that stance with Boras's clients, he wouldn't be able to generate the leverage he generates now.
Is it wrong for him to hold the owners up as long as he does? Probably not, since they could defeat his efforts if each one of them wanted to.
One advantage I did read that Boras has. He can get information from each of the teams he is negotiating with, whereas the teams are prohibited from sharing it between themselves. I would guess that is pretty much the same as the "real" world though.
Boras himself was a baseball star at the University of Pacific before signing to play in the minor leagues. I believe I read that at UOP he was concurrently working on his major and a doctorate in pharmacology. He continued school while playing in the minors. I read that Ken Boyer and Jack Krol administered a final to him. He ultimately got his law degree from UOP's School of Law, McGeorge University, which is located not far from where Boras grew up in Elk Grove in the Sacramento area.
Now, if Boras faked an offer or offers from teams as I read may be the case, I'm against him. That's not fair. Otherwise though, I think it's more fair to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. I guess the thing that makes it murky is, how do we know for sure -- either way? But I think it's far more fair to give a guy the benefit of the doubt than to condemn him for what he may have done -- or may not have.
If Boras is unethical, I can't support the man. But if he merely uses strong tactics to get the best deals for his clients, well, that's his job -- whether we like it or not.
I just thought of something that is highly hypocritical on our parts. We decry the amounts of money the players make -- then complain because our team doesn't spend more on them.
It is the teams, not the players, who control salaries. Whether a player has a good year or a bad one, it is the teams that determine what he is "worth." And, frankly, a player's value SHOULD be determined on the open market, just as our values in our professions are.
If players are indeed overpaid, who is it who is doing the overpaying? And aren't we tacitly supporting that when we buy tickets or souvenirs -- or even watch on TV, where our team makes a lot of money -- although apparently not as much as teams such as the Dodgers, Yankees and Angels.
Baseball does enjoy the benefit of being able to limit player salaries to the bottom limit for as many as nine years after signing the player. Then they enjoy three more years where the player's value is determined by an arbitrator rather than the free market. If the system is unfair to either party, as much as the players make, it is they -- not the owners, who have only themselves to blame.
And not, by the way, Scott Boras.
