So if the Hosmer contract is invalidated, does he have a case against Boras for not representing his best interests?

Pooch. Screwed.

Game over, Boras. Game over.

So if the Hosmer contract is invalidated, does he have a case against Boras for not representing his best interests?

If he's declared a free agent, then no. And I thought the Pirates and MLB claimed that their contracts (pedro and hosmer) were sent a minute or two before the deadline. Are they changing their story now?

If he's declared a free agent, then no.

The chances of that are really slim. Amateurs that can't agree on a contract don't become free agents, they go back into the draft the next year.

If he's declared a free agent, then no. And I thought the Pirates and MLB claimed that their contracts (pedro and hosmer) were sent a minute or two before the deadline. Are they changing their story now?

Both the Pirates and Royals are now claiming that the paperwork was sent in "an appropriate time frame." The Pirates are maintaining that the verbal agreement was before the deadline, which seems questionable; I don't know about the Royals. It's pretty clear that they were both granted an extension by MLB and used it at least for filing the paperwork.

Both the Pirates and Royals are now claiming that the paperwork was sent in "an appropriate time frame." The Pirates are maintaining that the verbal agreement was before the deadline, which seems questionable; I don't know about the Royals. It's pretty clear that they were both granted an extension by MLB and used it at least for filing the paperwork.

The Post-Gazette said Boras had Pedro verbally accept at 11:58 pm. At that moment, Huntington, "still holding the phone, turned and shouted, 'Send it!'" Maybe it took the admin assistant more than 2 minutes to type in $6M before hitting send.

The problem is that Hosmer will be ineligible to attend the college he picked. He can sign on with a junior college I suppose and go back into the draft next year, but will he really want to do that? I guess the Royals would get pick 3A (5th overall next year) in this scenario.

The chances of that are really slim. Amateurs that can't agree on a contract don't become free agents, they go back into the draft the next year.

Except that Hosmer is officially not an amateur. He's a legit professional, he played in a game, there's absolutely no way he'd be let into the NCAA. To me it actually doesn't make too much sense how he'd end up back in the amateur draft.

The more I actually read about this the more I end up thinking Boras is actually right, as slimy a situation as it is. If you can have an agreement but "submit the terms later", that means it isn't really a deadline. I fail to see how it's legally different to "figure the terms out" a few minutes after the deadline vs. "figure the terms out" a few months later. It's past the deadline. Period.

Ain't this a cluster(bleep!).

Why did the deadline get instituted in the first place?

Except that Hosmer is officially not an amateur. He's a legit professional, he played in a game, there's absolutely no way he'd be let into the NCAA.

I don't know (or care) about the NCAA rules, but is he a professional? Has he accepted a paycheck? Has he cashed a bonus? If so, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the contract would be valid.

Except that Hosmer is officially not an amateur. He's a legit professional, he played in a game, there's absolutely no way he'd be let into the NCAA. To me it actually doesn't make too much sense how he'd end up back in the amateur draft.

It's not really an "amateur" draft- it's no different than if he played in the Northern League - he'd go back in the draft- Boras litigated that already and lost.

I'm starting to get the idea that maybe Boras isn't the one instigating this- Boras simply can't get all these deals done at the deadline- especially when he doesn't move until the 11th hour- so this year (and last year) he/his clients verbally agree at the deadline- they then take some more time to iron out every last detail and prepare a written contract- perhaps he haggles a bit on getting more concessions after the deadline...
This year- the Pirates don't haggle, the contract is the contract period- Boras then tells his guy to not sign the contract and to not report- the Pirates up the ante- put Pedro on the restricted list-
MLB then ups the ante and says, well if Pedro's deal is no good- neither is Hosmer's...

It could be Boras who got blindsided here- his reported responses have been awfully weak by Boras standards. Many of Boras future clients already know that hiring Boras actually limits their options- some teams won't deal with them- but if on top of that it appears that some teams and MLB itself is willing to go out of there way to eff with Boras's clients- then if I'm a highly regarded prospect- I don't want him as my agent.

OK that's my Hosmer FA theory- if Hosmer can convince the arbitrator that the real reason MLB invalidated his Royals contract and made him wait another year to re-enter the draft- was not because technically his contract was late- but because MLB was using him as a tool to eff with Boras...

Why did the deadline get instituted in the first place?

A few reasons, I believe. I think the NCAA may have had some role in it.

If so, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the contract would be valid.

Except the contract may have been signed under terms which violate the CBA, and which were not approved by the Players Union. If so, then it's not a contract.

Assuming that the contract is invalid, it's unclear what he is - he's played in a pro game, but he didn't have a valid contract when he did. From the NCAA's point of view, it'll probably make him a pro - even if he didn't have a valid contract, he probably accepted meal money, equipment, or something else for the pro game in which he played. From MLB's, it'll probably make him an amateur, as he's never had a valid contract for any pro game.

According to Kevin Goldstein's writeup in BP yesterday, Hosmer is ineligible to play NCAA baseball regardless of what happens to his KC contract:

"As an additional note, Hosmer has already signed an actual contract, has already played, and has likely already received a significant amount of money. There is no way he'd have NCAA eligibility should his deal be voided."

If I were Hosmer and I were locked out of pro & major-college ball for a year because Boras was trying to get a few extra bucks for ANOTHER client, then I think I'd have an awfully strong argument that Boras was representing his own interests at the expense of mine.

Happy Base Ball

Hosmer did not dress for Thursday night’s game,

He played...NAKED?!?

It's not really an "amateur" draft- it's no different than if he played in the Northern League - he'd go back in the draft- Boras litigated that already and lost.

Playing with an affiliated team is extremely different than playing with an indy league that has nothing to do with MLB. Too bad Wily Mo Pena wasn't draftable otherwise there'd be precedent.

He played...NAKED?!?

not exactly

From MLB's, it'll probably make him an amateur, as he's never had a valid contract for any pro game.

It's not the "amateur draft", it's the "first year player" draft. I think that Boras tried to get someone declared a free agent under the not-an-amateur status, but it was shot down. Heck, every player out of high school could go play one game in the Northern League and then be an MLB free agent then.

Why did the deadline get instituted in the first place?

A few reasons, I believe. I think the NCAA may have had some role in it.

I sort of doubt it. It makes more sense if you read it from the point of view of drafting teams, who want to ensure their players at least have a shot of getting in some professional playing time in the same season they're drafted. Jered Weaver, despite all of Boras's assurances, was all but rusted shut by the time he started playing in 2005.

Why is anyone bringing in the NCAA rules into this discussion? what does it matter to MLB? I would be perfectly happy if Hosmer and Alvarez both have to miss out a year of college ball and have to waste a year in the independent league, and one of them damages themself beyond their ability to play at the major league level. It would serve them right as far as I'm concerned.

It could be Boras who got blindsided here- his reported responses have been awfully weak by Boras standards. Many of Boras future clients already know that hiring Boras actually limits their options- some teams won't deal with them- but if on top of that it appears that some teams and MLB itself is willing to go out of there way to eff with Boras's clients- then if I'm a highly regarded prospect- I don't want him as my agent.

That is an awesome theory. I would love it if it was true.

Why is anyone bringing in the NCAA rules into this discussion? what does it matter to MLB? I would be perfectly happy if Hosmer and Alvarez both have to miss out a year of college ball and have to waste a year in the independent league, and one of them damages themself beyond their ability to play at the major league level. It would serve them right as far as I'm concerned.

cardsfanboy, almost on a daily basis you prove what a jackass you are.

cardsfanboy, almost on a daily basis you prove what a jackass you are.

why is that? because I think kids who haven't done anything at the real levels shouldn't be making a ton of money until they prove something? or because I dislike a scum bag like Boras who exploits these kids as much as the owners do, to eek out every last penny?

I have no actual disdain for either of these kids, but they made the choice to hire Boras and when his goals collide with his clients interests, he has nearly always gone to working for himself first. He's always been like this, and the more bad things that happens to hurt his interest, the better off the game will be.

Why did the deadline get instituted in the first place?

I think this may have been answered before, but it was (1) to keep a lid on bonus signings being made public; (2) to get players some playing time during this season; and (3) to remove the threat of "I'm going to class" as a bargaining chip for amateur players.

Why is anyone bringing in the NCAA rules into this discussion? what does it matter to MLB?

Uhh because if it is ruled that Hosmer/Alvarez were legally wronged they are to be given restitution. Seeing as how it is impossible to reinstate Hosmer's college eligibility, he gets to claim damages and/or the arbitration decision on his status will favor him over MLB.

Yeah it'd serve Hosmer right for agreeing to a contract then events that have nothing to do with him #### him over. You're not a schadenfreuden douche or anything.

Uhh because if it is ruled that Hosmer/Alvarez were legally wronged they are to be given restitution. Seeing as how it is impossible to reinstate Hosmer's college eligibility, he gets to claim damages and/or the arbitration decision on his status will favor him over MLB.

but they were wronged by their agent. MLB allowed the extension, it happened, they signed, then their agent wanted to backtrack on the issue and continue to negotiate. At no point in time has anyone said that the Pirates didn't offer what was agreed upon by the two parties, just that Boras wanted to continue negotiating. It's his agent causing the problems so he should live with it.

Yeah it'd serve Hosmer right for agreeing to a contract then events that have nothing to do with him #### him over. You're not a schadenfreuden douche or anything.

But he's a Boras client...you see and Boras is Evil, and those who associate with evil get what's coming to em. Think of Hosmer as Grand Moff Tarkin to Boras' Vader.

why is that?

Because you apparently wish injury on Hosmer simply for selecting Boras as his agent.

I have no actual disdain for either of these kids,

Let me show you your post in #21:

I would be perfectly happy if Hosmer and Alvarez both have to miss out a year of college ball and have to waste a year in the independent league, and one of them damages themself beyond their ability to play at the major league level. It would serve them right as far as I'm concerned.

have a nice life.

Innocent victims of Boras manipulations. It happens in war all the time, here it is a couple of kids not getting a few extra thousand dollars. Not really worried if I hurt their feelings, for their decision to hook up with a guy that only values things in dollar bills.

but they were wronged by their agent.

as much as I 'd hate to agree with cardsfanboy (after his asinine "I would be perfectly happy if Hosmer and Alvarez... It would serve them right as far as I'm concerned." comment)

but it would appear that if Hosmer is forced to sit out a year- then yes it was his agent (or even the MLBPA) that harmed him not MLB.

MLB allowed the extension

Exactly, that's the entire flipping point. If it is ruled MLB had no right to grant the extension (which IMO they probably didn't) then it is a void contract and nothing else matters. Doesn't matter who raised the stink, it's an illegal contract which is the same as NO contract. Hosmer's situation is slightly stickier in that he's probably gotten money and lost eligibility and, like I said, the remedy regarding his status would favor him over MLB should the contract be deemed void.

Now, the rational thing to do regarding just Hosmer would just be to leave him alone, everyone is happy, and say "never again" to the extensions. Legality and rationality aren't always the same thing.

Alvarez, who the hell knows. I said it earlier, I don't understand the difference between the "figure the rest out a few hours later" from "figure the rest out a few months later", you're still violating the deadline, magnitude is irrelevant in a black and white situation. Is it slimy? Yes, but the MLB set themselves up for this anyway.

cardsfanboy, it must have killed you all those years to cheer for Rick Ankiel and J.D. Drew - two guys who completely ###### over the system to the Cards benefit.

MLBPA thinks Hosmer has a contract.

Union grievance will focus on Pirates' Alvarez

The union will contend further that the Pirates' case was the only one in question. The Pirates have cited the Kansas City Royals' talks with first baseman Eric Hosmer as having gone past midnight, but the Royals' position is that an agreement was reached before midnight and all that was missing was approval.

The union will contend that the Royals' approval was delayed - as well as that of possibly one other team - just so the Pirates could have extra time with Alvarez.

Exactly, that's the entire flipping point. If it is ruled MLB had no right to grant the extension (which IMO they probably didn't) then it is a void contract and nothing else matters. Hosmer's situation is slightly stickier in that he's probably gotten money and lost eligibility and, like I said, the remedy would favor him over MLB should the contract be deemed void.

Now, the rational thing to do regarding just Hosmer would just be to leave him alone, everyone is happy, and say "never again" to the extensions. Legality and rationality aren't always the same thing.

Alvarez, who the hell knows. I said it earlier, I don't understand the difference between the "figure the rest out a few hours later" from "figure the rest out a few months later", you're still violating the deadline, magnitude is irrelevant in a black and white situation. Is it slimy? Yes, but the MLB set themselves up for this anyway.


screw hosmer, it's his agent making the big deal about alvarez, if you do what I would consider the truly rational fair thing, which is what you proposed, then it rewards alvarez and boras while penalizing the pirates and mlb who by all accounts were the ones attempting to negotiate fairly. for the record, in a perfectly just world Hosmer would be completly left out of the situation. His choice of agents, and his agents attempt to play "lawyer" has caused a mess, and Hosmer is the innocent victim in this. It was his choice to hire Boras after all.

as to the hours vs months deadline is of course majorly different. If you extent it by months there are other factors, such as him going to school etc to consider. The only true purpose of a short extension is when both sides feel that a deal will be worked out(which it was---before Boras changed his mind) and that there are just minor haggling points to worry about.

I don't think it would be fair to Hosmer if the collateral damage from Boras' chicanery meant that Hosmer's contract isn't valid either, but I also don't think the best remedy for that is for Hosmer to become a free agent and don't think an arbitrator would agree. Obviously both Hosmer and the Royals want Hosmer on the Royals at an agreed-upon price, so I have a hard time envisioning him ending up elsewhere. To award Hosmer free agency seems very unfair to the Royals and overly generous to Hosmer so I doubt that would happen.

cardsfanboy, it must have killed you all those years to cheer for Rick Ankiel and J.D. Drew - two guys who completely ###### over the system to the Cards benefit.

not really, my beef is rarely over the players caught in Boras web. If either of these kids appear to be good guys when they eventually start to earn the money they got, I would have zero problems rooting for them. It still doesn't change the fact that I don't like it when people manipulate the spirit of the rules to play rules lawyer.

I don't think it would be fair to Hosmer if the collateral damage from Boras' chicanery meant that Hosmer's contract isn't valid either, but I also don't think the best remedy for that is for Hosmer to become a free agent and don't think an arbitrator would agree. Obviously both Hosmer and the Royals want Hosmer on the Royals at an agreed-upon price, so I have a hard time envisioning him ending up elsewhere. To award Hosmer free agency seems very unfair to the Royals and overly generous to Hosmer so I doubt that would happen.

when it's all said and done, I doubt there will be any changes to Hosmer, my gut feeling (and I'm sure many others on here) is that Hosmer is being used as a chit from MLB to force Boras's hand. For the record, I don't usually support that type of tactic, but sometimes when dealing with pure evil you have to get a little dirty yourself.(and considering MLB as an entity is pretty evil, it's not like they are really doing anything that is beneath them)

I would absolutely escalate it too Hosmer and any other player who signed after the deadline if I was the Pirates to try and put Boras in a big ass conflict of interest mess.

And to be perfectly blunt. #### Hosmer, it was his choice to use Boras and that comes with risks.

It still doesn't change the fact that I don't like it when people manipulate the spirit of the rules to play rules lawyer.

The "spirit" of the rules?
The effing "spirit" of these effing rules????

Good god, it's one thing to manipulate the spirit of a contract they agreed to- it's quite another thing to try to manipulate a set of one sided rules that were enacted without any consideration for your interests at all.

It's completely irrelevant in relation to Hosmer's status that it is Boras who also represents Alvarez. Hosmer is in a one-on-one legal relationship with Boras, his agency's dealings with anyone else don't affect him. Had Aaron Crow signed after the deadline he'd be in exactly the same situation as Hosmer. Boras acting on behalf of Alvarez doesn't relate to Hosmer in any different way than it would on Crow.

If the world were just, Alvarez would be "forced" to take his 6 million he's trying to call backsies on, but it's not and we have to deal with these things and the letter of the law I'd think Boras is going to win. I understand the purpose of the short deadline, it makes lots of sense. So does creating a longer deadline when they think there's going to be an agreement e.g. say some certain player wanting 6.2 million instead of 6. Unfortunately negotiating ANY deadline without the MLBPA isn't within MLB's power IMO. I can't believe MLB never thought this was going to bite them in the ass...

Good god, it's one thing to manipulate the spirit of a contract they agreed to- it's quite another thing to try to manipulate a set of one sided rules that were enacted without any consideration for your interests at all.

excuse me? the extension was enacted in consideration of Boras interests, I mean he did agree to the contract verbally correct? therefore the extension was in consideration of both the Pirates and Boras/Alvarez interest, just because Boras after the fact thought he could change his agreement because 'technically' the extension was against the rules(debateable of course), so that he doesn't have to agree to what he already agreed to.

Let's look at the facts.

Most important
1. Did Boras, Alvarez and the Pirates agree on a contract, which the Pirates are/were willing to honor?

2. Did Boras after agreeing change his mind on the terms of the contract and attempted to extract a larger bonus, above what was previously agreed to by both sides?

Those are really the relavent issues, the rest is just rules lawyering.


Boras is probably in the legal right, but I don't think he is "right" and think it's a crock that he continues to have a job because he is a smart man that believes in manipulating everything to suit his purpose (yes I know the lawyers on here love him for it, but I always like to pretend that we live in a somewhat fair universe that rewards integrity, honesty, being nice, fair, etc. You know the stuff that separates us from being savages--yes I know pipe dream, but I'll root for anything that hurts the manipulators)

but they were wronged by their agent. MLB allowed the extension, it happened, they signed, then their agent wanted to backtrack on the issue and continue to negotiate. At no point in time has anyone said that the Pirates didn't offer what was agreed upon by the two parties, just that Boras wanted to continue negotiating. It's his agent causing the problems so he should live with it.

The problem with MLB allowing the extension (if that indeed happened) is that it does unilaterally change the CBA. However, if the Pirates' version of things is accurate, Boras is risking just about his entire practice with his behavior, and the fact that the Hosmer deal getting sucked into this shows why.

not really, my beef is rarely over the players caught in Boras web.

You say that as though Boras' reputation were unknown. It's something that puzzles me about your comment at #34:

Hosmer is the innocent victim in this. It was his choice to hire Boras after all.

If Boras is evil, and his reputation was known beforehand (which you have to believe it is), why is Hosmer not partly, however distantly, to blame?

It's completely irrelevant in relation to Hosmer's status that it is Boras who also represents Alvarez. Hosmer is in a one-on-one legal relationship with Boras, his agency's dealings with anyone else don't affect him. Had Aaron Crow signed after the deadline he'd be in exactly the same situation as Hosmer. Boras acting on behalf of Alvarez doesn't relate to Hosmer in any different way than it would on Crow.

If the world were just, Alvarez would be "forced" to take his 6 million he's trying to call backsies on, but it's not and we have to deal with these things and the letter of the law I'd think Boras is going to win. I understand the purpose of the short deadline, it makes lots of sense. So does creating a longer deadline when they think there's going to be an agreement e.g. say some certain player wanting 6.2 million instead of 6. Unfortunately negotiating ANY deadline without the MLBPA isn't within MLB's power IMO. I can't believe MLB never thought this was going to bite them in the ass...

first part, I agree with. In a perfect world Hosmer wouldn't be affected by his choice of Boras, and he probably shouldn't, but MLB is arguing if they are going to pull the written rule when it helps them, then they should accept it when it hurts them. (maybe different strength of arguments though)

as to the second part, about MLB not believing it is going to bite them on the butt, well I'm sure the thought was "if both parties agree to the extension, then it's in the best interest of both parties to extend" seems fair to me, maybe against the rule, and it's not like it's easy to get a vote from the mlbpa on an issue like this in a quick time frame, and of course mlbpa doesn't really care about the interests of an incoming amateur, so they don't have the best interest of either party and are only concerned about helping themselves.

If Boras is evil, and his reputation was known beforehand (which you have to believe it is), why is Hosmer not partly, however distantly, to blame?

even though my posts may appear I think the world is black/white, I know that it isn't. A young kid could easily get pulled into the grasp of Boras even though they are genuinely good people, Boras is the master manipulator and could tell these kids "I take your interests first, that is why I got Andruw Jones a great below market contract in Atlanta, if I was all about the money I would have gotten him a much larger contract but that is what Andruw wanted" (note that would of course be lying about the Andruw Jones events, but so what, he doesn't have to tell the truth, just get the kids to agree to work with him.

for the record, Hosmer is partially to blame(minutely/distantly), but he's much more an innocent in this thing than a guy at fault.

Boras is probably in the legal right

I think MLBPA may be in the legal right here- if MLB unilaterally extended the deadline- then the remedy is to say the contract is no good- it wasn't signed by the deadline- Alvarez goes back in the draft next year.

Boras? He'd be in the "wrong" with the MLB for agreeing to a deal after the deadline- in fact he'd be even worse- he'd not just trying to violate the rule- or even manipualet it- he's seeking to obliterate it apparently.

I don't think this is the fight Boras wanted- I think (with 97.5% certainty) that there are only 2 possible outcomes re Alvarez:

1: The deal with Pitt is held timely- he gets $6mm and reports- if he doesn't report he goes on the restricted list indefinitely and gets no $- either way Boras looks bad- not just to us, or the MSM- bu to prospective clients

2: The deal with Pitt is ruled late, Alvarez goes back in the draft next year, Pitt gets pick #3 next year- sometime between now and then Alvarez and his family may wake up, smell the coffee and can Boras- and once again Boras looks bad to his prospective clients.

I think Boras, for a change, was taken by surprise- he was trying to negotiate past the deadline- the Pirates said nothing doing, we have a deal, besides the deadline is past, Boras said, well if it's past the deadline, it's past the deadline- the whole deal is blown up- the Pirates said, oh we don't think you want to make that argument :-)

The Pirates then put Alvarez on the restricted list for failing to sign the contract and report- I don't think Boras expected that, I don't thinkhe had a plan for that, and arguing that the Pirates violated the deadline was the only thing he came up with on short notice- and he publicly made it without thinking through how such a claim would actually impact his clients- the rules have changed since he got Travis Lee declared an FA when Minny failed to tender him an offer in time.

for the record, Hosmer is partially to blame(minutely/distantly), but he's much more an innocent in this thing than a guy at fault.

My point being, you pick Boras as an agent because you believe that he can get you top dollar that other agents can't. You also do so knowing he may step on the toes of the people he's negotiating with. If that backfires, it becomes your problem.

So far I haven't heard anything other than allegations from the MLBPA and Boras that the deals were filed late and that MLB granted a unilateral extension. If there's evidence to the contrary, where is it?

Very good post 45. JPWF13. I agree with pretty much everything there (at least I'm hoping that MLB was smart enough to act in the manner you are describing, it seemed in the past that MLB was about as competent as keystone cops when dealing with Boras, but he still never did get his 'declared free agent white whale' that he's been chasing)

I think Boras, for a change, was taken by surprise- he was trying to negotiate past the deadline- the Pirates said nothing doing, we have a deal, besides the deadline is past, Boras said, well if it's past the deadline, it's past the deadline- the whole deal is blown up- the Pirates said, oh we don't think you want to make that argument :-)

I agree with you up to this point: if it were true that Boras saw this as a loophole, why wait this long to exploit it? Boras is as sharp a lawyer as there is in this business; he would have to know that the CBA doesn't grant "do-overs" if the teams don't meet the deadline. In other words, why wasn't Boras taking this line as of the start of business August 16?

for the record, Hosmer is partially to blame(minutely/distantly), but he's much more an innocent in this thing than a guy at fault.

So why have you said you'd be happy to see his career ruined? He hasn't done a thing wrong.

if it were true that Boras saw this as a loophole, why wait this long to exploit it?

I don't think Boras saw it as a "loophole"- he saw it as an arguing point "If you don't give me more $ my guy doesn't sign the contact you don't get him and we take our chances in next year's draft".

When Boras sees (or thinks he sees) a loophole he PICKS the target to try it out on- I don't think he picked this particular fight in that manner.

In other words, why wasn't Boras taking this line as of the start of business August 16?

Because he really didn't want his client to blow $6mm and wait a year for next year's draft- he just wanted to squeeze some more $/concessions from the Pirates.

I don't feel bad for the independent contractors who got blown up while working on the Death Star, either. They knew what they were doing when they went to work for The Empire.

I agree with JPWF. Boras clearly wasn't/isn't trying to blow up the whole system - he was just trying to quietly stick up the Pirates for more coin. The idea that deadlines are completely inflexible is somewhat ridiculous, anyway, especially if both sides want something to happen.

If I were Hosmer and I were locked out of pro & major-college ball for a year because Boras was trying to get a few extra bucks for ANOTHER client, then I think I'd have an awfully strong argument that Boras was representing his own interests at the expense of mine.

My prediction as soon as the first thread on this appeared was that Hosmer and his family were going to sue the bejeezus out of Boras by the end of this. I'm sticking to that.

cardsfanboy Posted: August 29, 2008 at 04:15 PM (#2921918)

I think kids who haven't done anything at the real levels shouldn't be making a ton of money until they prove something?

- what exactly is a "ton" of money?
it takes the families of these guys a HUGE amount of money invested to get their kids anywheres near someone who MLB will even look at. if the guys are top prospects why should they NOT be paid?
- i think you are just one of those guys who really REALLY think that baseball players should get paid a teacher's salary and work odd jobs in the offseason so that the billionaire woners can keep all their salaries


or because I dislike a scum bag like Boras who exploits these kids as much as the owners do, to eek out every last penny?

- so you prefer that the owners do the exploiting?
you want to go back to the old days and the players have the right to be exploitd or not play at all?
you don't want someone to fight for the player who is as unscrupulous as the owners?
- and i would bet that if it was YOU who was a top notch baseball prospect you wouldn't be telling a team - oh i don't need to get a bonus. or salary. i'll just go on welfare and food stamps cuz i'm just happy to have the privilege of playing baseball. and i plan to try to get some work at walkmart in the offseason - i'll be working out by lifting boxes. maybe some manual labor


I have no actual disdain for either of these kids, but they made the choice to hire Boras and when his goals collide with his clients interests, he has nearly always gone to working for himself first. He's always been like this, and the more bad things that happens to hurt his interest, the better off the game will be.

- i'm not clear how any victory of the owners over the players makes the game better. please explain
- i also would like to know a case where the intersts of boras and the player were different and boras worked for himself first

and you most certainly DO have disdain for hosmer/alvarez and anyone else who hires boras

- what exactly is a "ton" of money?
it takes the families of these guys a HUGE amount of money invested to get their kids anywheres near someone who MLB will even look at. if the guys are top prospects why should they NOT be paid?

I would say anything over 1mil is a ton of money.

- so you prefer that the owners do the exploiting?
uggh. I'm sorry but I hate this argument, saying evil people exist so other evils are perfectly alright to exist. The owners exploited the crap out of the players prior to 1970 or so (argue exact date I really don't give a rats ass) and the players association has done a grand job of making up a lot of ground. and i'm sorry but I rarely side on the side of labor making millions. I don't care that the owners are making billions. I would prefer owners to exploit the kids than agents, at least owners ultimate goal is to get value (playing time) out of the players, which is actually valuable from my point of view. The agents goal is to get money for potential regardless of these guys ever do something. It would be like mcdonalds hiring 8 people to work the register, giving them money for a full year salary, but then giving them training and realizing that only 2 of them are worth keeping as the others can't or won't give the full effort to be a good employee. and being on the hook for the other 6 who have no chance of being competent enough to do the job.

- i'm not clear how any victory of the owners over the players makes the game better. please explain
lets clarify, Boras in this case isn't representing the players, he's representing potential players. From a rational point of view, playing lottery with people who really don't have a supper strong bargaining position to begin with, allowing them to manipulate the system to strengthen a position that I personally think doesn't need strengthening is bad for baseball. I support a slotted system, I think anything else is screwed up and ultimately unfair to the poorer teams. A slotted system will also encourage kids to go back to school if they aren't drafted high enough, and considering the failure rate of draftees, it's a good thing (yes I know that most of the kids in the first two rounds technically sign a contract that they could literally retire on even if they never play a game of even double A)

Here's the thing: a guy attacks you with a knife without provocation--that's evil. You grab the knife and slit his throat--that's not evil, that's fighting back.

Here's the thing: a guy attacks you with a knife without provocation--that's evil. You grab the knife and slit his throat--that's not evil, that's fighting back.

agree. A guy attacks you with a knife, escapes and three years later you have performed a columbo on him and discovered his location, and then using your superior wits you position him to where you can kill him, is evil, yes you are less evil than the first guy but the thought out revenge, which ultimately lead to you committing an act that you know is evil, is evil.

actually more that I think about it, not sure you are less evil in this instance, thought out revenge with a higher casuality rate could be classified as bigger evil technically.

I would prefer owners to exploit the kids than agents, at least owners ultimate goal is to get value (playing time) out of the players, which is actually valuable from my point of view. The agents goal is to get money for potential regardless of these guys ever do something.

Completely wrong. The agent gets a cut of the players' earnings. Which is mostly earned by actual playing time at the highest level. The agent is vested in the success of the player; his interest is aligned much more so than the owner.

cfb

well then why pay draftees so much as a penny? why not get rid of bonuses period? heck, why pay the kids at all? make THEM pay for the "privilege" of playing ball

there is no such thing as a "fair" slot - and the owners are lowering the numbers every year hoping to get it gone.

the agents are not exploiting kids

the owners are the only ones doing the exploiting. and if it is ok for baseball team owners to exploit, then why not every single other employer? i mean getting value out of your employees is your purpose as an employer

what makes baseball players any different from secretaries

it is amazing to me that there are so many "liberals" on this site who are in favor of the exploiting of ballplayers

as for the hiring of guys who don't work out - well, youneverknow because you simply HAVE to guess who can play in the majors. you get all KINDS of guys who were supposed to be filler who are stars and all KINDS of guys who are supposed to be stars who aren't. you HAVE to pick a large group of guys. you HAVE to gamble because unlike mcdonalds, you can't actually just see IF they can run a cash register.

gambling costs $$$$$
and it should be the owners footing the bill
NOT the kid

it is kind of like buying a racehorse for a stud. you got NO idea if the horse will even agree to mate let alone will his offspring be any good.

it is a GAMBLE. you don't say well i'l agree to pay you for the horse once his offspring start wining races

and one more thing -

seriously

do you REALLY think parents would agree to invest literrally hundreds of thousands to play there kids where they have to and invest all that time for absolutely nothing? especially considering that other professional sports will actually PAY?

you think any good athlete - heck any GREAT athlete is gonna work for years for basically NOTHING, especially with no hope of geting a college degree if they fail?

Cardsfanboy is delusional on so many levels. I used to think it was restricted to his Cardinal posts which have no bearing on reality, but now it appears he has no moral centre whatsoever.

So our only two choices are a world where a rookie gets paid $6 mil before he does anything and one where he is paid $0?

Wow. So the owners deserve the money more than the players do. What is it again that the owners actually do? I'm not just talking the best owners who do some amazing CEO craziness. I mean the ones who sit atop the worst organizations in the game doing nothing except collecting money on their monopoly.

I liked Neyer's old argument that the return on being a baseball owner should be the fame and uniqueness of being one of the multi-millionaires that gets his name in the paper everyday.

The "I'd play for free" argument is not feasible because players are selected on merit so I would be unable to out compete Alvarez for a MLB job.

The "I'd own a team for free" argument is much more compelling. Except being Bud's friend, what exactly do MLB owners bring to the table? Why is it we allow a good ol' boyz network the latitude to pick which super rich connected dude gets massive tax deductions?

I never understood why some people have so much, "Poor super billionaires" sympathy for owners and then see players as not earning their money.

It's a little early on ruling whether this is a fight Boras didn't pick etc. etc. Most likely scenario is that the rules get tightened, and Alvarez gets a few extra k in compensation. Everyone wins!

I'm not surprised at the indignation at Boras, which is probably deserved, but the implication that the MLB and the Pirates are morally in the right is questionable at best. Essentially, contract negotiations are a game of chicken at this late stage - who blinks first - except the guys who make the rules had (to mix a metaphor) stacked the deck in the Pirates favour. The deadline could extend in one and only one direction - in a way that benefited the Pirates - and the ownership was well aware of that. The Pirates phoned up at a point where no negotiation was possible - indeed, no deal was possible without MLB's permission - and at a point where there was no leverage whatsoever for the player. That is unquestionably not the spirit of the law, and is unquestionably immoral. The only saving grace was the huge amount of money offered, but if I was treated in that way by my employer, I'd burn the building down.

To be honest, as dislikeable as I find Boras, he and Alvarez did exactly what every employee does in this kind of employment situation: accept the contract, then kick up a fuss. While I think it's likely that Boras is not someone you'd want to marry your daughter, I think it's pretty unlikely he's acting immorally; in the negotiation process, it's almost certainly the Pirates who have tried to take advantage of the situation to their benefit.

I don't mind the players making some money, but making enough to retire for life at age 20 when they hadn't done anything in the real world of their chosen profession doesn't make sense to me. Yes I know talent, blah, blah, blah. and market dictates blah, blah, blah. I just don't see any real reason for these kids to be making this much money other than "they can".

As to agents not exploiting the kids? I can't seriously belief anyone uttered that with a straight face, of course agents exploit the kids, they also help the kids of course, but as this case here shows, they also exploit them, in another thread someone said that Boras big white whale is to get an amateur declared a free agent, and this appears (on the surface) to be another one of those attempts. It's potentially hurting one of his other clients. Over the past 5 years how many stories have we read that stated a player would have signed for the home team, but his agent never relayed the offer to the player because it wasn't as large as another offer? how is that not exploitation? And of course we just heard about the stories of some of the "agents" in the Dominican and other hispanic countries and their tactics.


and yes the owners deserve the money more than the players, I don't understand what is so hard to grasp with that concept, it's their company, if they are paying good wages (which every single major league ballplayer is making good wages) then there is nothing wrong with keeping the excess money. Of course just like any other business different owners treat their profits differently, some believe in reinvesting in the team, others don't. That is where to get upset if you are fan of the team is what they do with their profits to make themselves better, not whether they deserve the money.

60. Gaelan Posted: August 30, 2008 at 12:22 AM (#2922593)

Cardsfanboy is delusional on so many levels. I used to think it was restricted to his Cardinal posts which have no bearing on reality, but now it appears he has no moral centre whatsoever.

If you think so that is ok, I personally have a strong moral center, it just doesn't apply that highly to distinguish the difference between a 20 year old making 6mil who hasn't done anything in his life, and an agent making millions off of just being a rules lawyer. vs owners making billions.

I believe in an overall fair world, where the guys who have actually done something get paid. I don't think that just because one side has money, that the other side is automatically entitled to it, especially when the players side is making a ton anyway. These kids are signing contracts that should guarantee that they never have to work a day for the rest of their life. and yet are squablling over what they would consider pennies to prove some personal point about how 'valuable' they are.

and you are right about me being delusional about the Cardinals, afterall they are performing exactly as all the experts predicted on this board this season, I mean there is absolutely zero chance the Cardinals will win one more game to finish under the 76 wins that nearly every single person on this board predicted, or that Ludwick

Ryan Ludwick - The Outfielder of Last Resort. The less he plays, the better the Cards will probably do because it means that they have three outfielders playing better than this known quantity. He's real good off the bench, but just a bit shy of a solid starter.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/looking_forward/discussion/looking_forward_to_2008_st_louis_cardinals/ fun thread. :) look at the second to last post, and you see I say the Cardinals winning 85 games vindicates me. I think I'm in good shape there don't you?


61. A Surfeit of Peaches Graham (SdeB) Posted: August 30, 2008 at 01:53 AM (#2922634)

So our only two choices are a world where a rookie gets paid $6 mil before he does anything and one where he is paid $0?

that is the funny part, there is no point in time that I would agree with that or even suggest that, heck I don't even mind them getting a large amount of money, but I'm a big fan of the slotted system, you get drafted at this point you get this amount of money, if not you go back into the pool for next season. My problem of course with a slotted system is that I think I don't think MLB would make it a fair amount of dollars. There are a lot of flaws with a slotted system, just like there are flaws with the current system.

I would prefer owners to exploit the kids than agents, at least owners ultimate goal is to get value (playing time) out of the players, which is actually valuable from my point of view.

Cardsfanboy, circa 1870.

I would prefer ex-slaveowners to be exploiting the Negros rather than the carpetbaggers. At least the ultimate goal of the ex-slaveowners is for the former slaves to have jobs and be productive members of society, wish is actually valuable from my point of view.

It's just absurd how cardsfanboy wants to take a system in which drafted players have every leverage taken away from them, and now he wants to take the one protection a drafted player has, legal representation, away from them too. 20-year-olds kids vs. 9 and 10 figure corporations? Fair fight?

Think players should prove themselves before getting paid? Fine, if that's a legitimate thing, than unleash them on an actual fair, free market and we'll see what happens. Even if the draft is a good thing in baseball, the argument that it's "fair" in some manner is absurd.

Wow, that was ruthless, Dan. But I agree with every word. In other words, "well said".

I also agree w/ Dan (@65).

I'm not sure what Hosmer's draft status should be after this, if his contract is nullified. There have been guys who've signed, played, then had their contracts invalidated who then became FAs in recent year, but there names aren't coming to mind (no one of any renown at any rate - others have signed but had their deals revoked for health reasons - Kala Kaaihue, for one, signed w/ Boston out of HS, had to play juco ball because signing w/ the Sox made him ineligible for D-1 ball, then later inked w/ Atl).
I imagine he'd go back into the draft, because they wouldn't want to reward Boras'/Alvarez's bad behavior...

I simply cannot see any grounds for an arbitrator to award Alvarez FA status. Either there is a valid contract or there isn't. If there's a contract, then he's a Pirate. If there's no contract, then he's simply a draft pick who failed to sign and goes back into the draft pool next year. This is a totally different issue than those that lead to Travis Lee, et al becoming free agents 10 years ago. FA isn't going to happen.

where a rookie gets paid $6 mil before he does anything

He was good enough at baseball to be drafted #2 and have a team willing to pay him $6 mil and he did nothing? Wow, impressive.