Even though this is one of baseball's most accomplished liars talking, it IS the Pirates we're talking about. It won't shock me if the Pirates really DID do something dastardly and/or dumb. Like I said once in the other thread... I don't think it's an accident Bora$ has chosen to pick on the Pirates, given their well-established record for quite spectacular incompetence.

It won't shock me if the Pirates really DID do something dastardly and/or dumb.

We know.

:)

7:35 p.m.: Pat Courtney, vice president of communications, put out this release on behalf of Major League Baseball: "We believe the grievance is entirely without merit. The deadline was extended to accept minor league contracts voluntarily entered into by the clubs and the players with the help of their agents. It is settled law that the arbitration panel has no authority to disturb such minor league contracts."

I have literally no knowledge that would lead me to be able to make a proper analysis of the above statement, but to a layman it looks pretty difficult to get around. I dunno, I'd love for someone better informed to chime in.

I haven't studied the facts yet, either, but that quote from Courtney is basically saying, "It doesn't matter what the facts are because an arbitrator doesn't have jurisdiction"; that's not exactly a ringing proclamation of truth, justice, and the American way on one's side.

I haven't studied the facts yet, either, but that quote from Courtney is basically saying, "It doesn't matter what the facts are because an arbitrator doesn't have jurisdiction"; that's not exactly a ringing proclamation of truth, justice, and the American way on one's side.

Sure, but it generally implies MLB can lay down the hammer in any way they see fit. Which they can, can't they, with the anti-trust exemption and all that fun stuff?

Bora$

Is this really necessary?

Scott Boras phoned from California to give this quote: “The Pirates violated Major League Baseball rules

I assume he means that they submitted the contract past the deadline- which is what the Union is complaining about...

If that's all Boras has on the Pirates he's really pushing in the wrong direction this time

Is this really necessary?

The voices aren't commanding me to do it, if that's what you mean. It's half contempt and half respect for the man. Nobody is better at squeezing every last drop of value out of contracts, for better or worse.

If Abe Lincoln were reincarnated and elected 44th president of these United States, Zeth would be the first to say "I know we've just replaced the dumbest president in history with Lincoln, but this IS the President of the United States we're talking about, and we know all about the recent history of that position..."

Bora$

Is this really necessary?

True. Preferred usage is Bora$$.

According to Neyer, Boras's real problem is that he was such a jerk in negotiations that Alvarez ended up talking to the Pirates himself.

I don't really get much out of his statement at all. Really, it sounds kind of childish. "They're saying I did bad stuff, but they did too. I'm not going to tell you what though." Seriously, sounds like a kid in a playground fight.

I know this would have little to do with the arbitration of the case, but if the contract was submitted after the deadline, but Alvarez signed it, I don't understand what grievance Boras could possibly have. If #12 is right and Boras was out of the loop, I guess I can see why he would want the contract voided, but if we're talking about a contract being signed versus no contract at all, it seems like Boras should take his 5% and get off the Pirate's lawn.

I don't really get much out of his statement at all. Really, it sounds kind of childish. "They're saying I did bad stuff, but they did too. I'm not going to tell you what though." Seriously, sounds like a kid in a playground fight.

I know, but I can't tell you.

I'm not sure I understand Boras' complaint. Is he arguing that he and MLB conspired to avoid the deadline by mutually agreeing to a deal after it? Is he arguing that he didn't know the deal was signed at all?

If his argument is 'MLB extended the deadline, we both signed a deal after the prior (but no longer operative) deadline knowingly, and now I want out of it' that's pathetic and unconvincing.

The real shock is that he didn't wait until the middle of the decisive game of the World Series to announce this.

Out of curiosity, what's Boras's angle here? How does he stand to make more money when he's just going to delay Alvarez's arbitration eligibility and free agency for at least a year? Is there some precedent being established here that stands to benefit agents in the future?

Out of curiosity, what's Boras's angle here?

I think he's trying to get Alvarez declared as a free agent - basically, by the league acting unilaterallly in extending the window of negotiation past that allowed by the CBA, they violated Alvarez' rights under the CBA. At the same time, by signing him to a contract, they've also removed his ability to return to school as an amateur. Thus, the only reasonable thing to do would be to void the improperly negotiated contract and allow him to freely negotiate with any team.

Incidentally, the above is massive speculation on my part.

Alvarez never signed anything to my knowledge. There may have been (probably was) an oral agreement.

I think he's trying to get Alvarez declared as a free agent

According to the PIT Post-Gazette, Boras would prefer to re-do the negotiations:

If the arbitrator should rule for the union, according to two baseball executives who declined to be named, he likely will have three courses for action:

> Scrap the previous agreement and send the Pirates and Alvarez into new negotiations. This is known to be the preference of Alvarez's renowned agent, Scott Boras, who would welcome the chance at a higher bonus. But there is no precedent for such a decision.

> Allow Alvarez to go back into the draft class for next year. The Pirates picked him No. 2 overall June 5, and they would be compensated with No. 3 overall next year.

> Decide that his ruling should apply only to future instances.

The executives said the third option is most likely, based on arbitration precedent as it applies to the commissioner using his discretion.

"He would say this is how it's going to be going forward," one executive said.

Also from the blog entry:

In 2007, MLB granted a midnight exception to the Texas Rangers for pitcher Pedro Borbon, a Boras client, the only one before this year under the most recent labor pact.

How come Boras didn't complain about THAT one? [In P-G speak, I think that means Julio Borbon, the OFer - I've always noticed the PG tends to muff more than a few details]

Keith from the other thread:

Scott Boras, Alvarez's agent, phoned general manager Neal Huntington at 11:55 p.m., five minutes before the Friday midnight deadline. They hastily exchanged a couple of dollar figures, but the team held firm with its offer of a $6 million bonus and minor league contract. Boras' asking price for months had been a major league contract worth $9.5 million but, seeing the clock tick in his California office, he relayed the Pirates' offer to Alvarez seated nearby.

Some with the team called it give-and-take. Others called it a staredown.

Back in the Alvarez family's Manhattan apartment, his closest kin gathered near a phone, waiting for a ring.

"It was pretty much a nervous time," recalled Yolayna Alvarez, his sister.

Pedro Alvarez approved of the offer, but he needed to speak it into the conference call to make it binding. A second call went to the Pirates, as did this ...

"I accept," Alvarez said.

No more than a moment passed before Huntington, still holding the phone, turned and shouted, "Send it!"

That order went to an administrative assistant who had every aspect of the contract drawn up, except the dollar figure, on an email to be sent to Major League Baseball headquarters. The $6 million was typed onto the screen, and off it went. -P-G

My one business law class has me thinking there's no way a deal covering longer than a year and at $6 million can possibly be valid if it isn't agreed to in writing but that doesn't seem to be the sticking point.

Incidentally, the above is massive speculation on my part.

Yeah, but isn't finding a way to get a highly regarded amateur declared a free agent Boras's white whale?

Maybe Boras is just embarrassed that another college position player picked lower than Alvarez managed to get a higher bonus than Alvarez. As soon as I heard both Alvarez and Posey's bonuses I knew Boras was going to be fuming.

While Boras called the union one hour after the agreement, I don't know why he kept quiet for almost a month.

Why doesn't Boras like the deadline anyway, there has always been a deadline of some sort (reporting to class, next years draft), does he think August 15 is just too soon after draft?


I think Alvarez is going to end up with the Pirates and not get any more money.

While Boras called the union one hour after the agreement, I don't know why he kept quiet for almost a month.

Why doesn't Boras like the deadline anyway, there has always been a deadline of some sort (reporting to class, next years draft), does he think August 15 is just too soon after draft?


I think Alvarez is going to end up with the Pirates and not get any more money.

While Boras called the union one hour after the agreement, I don't know why he kept quiet for almost a month.

Because he was trying to iron out the details (i.e. increase the bonus) on Alvarez's contract. Once thirty days had passed and the Pirates put Alvarez on the restricted list, that changed.

Why doesn't Boras like the deadline anyway, there has always been a deadline of some sort (reporting to class, next years draft), does he think August 15 is just too soon after draft?

My take is the agents like to use the leaked information of the other players' draft bonuses so they (the agents) can use those figures in negotiations. With a shorter window it's easier for teams to keep the figures under wraps until the deadline has passed.

It really seems like the deadline as helped Boras more than hurt him. OTOH he's always really liked to draw out negotiations and be super patient in the hope that the other side will make a rash offer to just resolve it. The deadline kind of renders that strategy null.

I just assumed that the extended deadline was a tad "fuzzy." The agreement has to be reached by both parties before the deadline, but MLB isn't going to hold the parties to having all of the paperwork signed because it's just too complex. The same thing happens with trade windows all the time. MLB isn't going to kill a transaction that everyone wants to happen because someone's email server breaks down or something. 99% of the time its not a problem...

Since Hosmer apparently wants to play for the Royals, I'm interested as to how Boras is planning to get PA's deal renegotiated, but without invalidating Hosmer's.

Even though this is one of baseball's most accomplished liars talking, it IS the Pirates we're talking about. It won't shock me if the Pirates really DID do something dastardly and/or dumb. Like I said once in the other thread... I don't think it's an accident Bora$ has chosen to pick on the Pirates, given their well-established record for quite spectacular incompetence.

But it wouldn't be dumb, it's genius. This Alvarez kid is dangerous. He might be real good, and cause an expectation that the Pirates will actually spend money on draft picks. If this blows up spectacularly, the Pirates can say "see, we told you so", and go back to signability picks.

That fits much better with your theory than simple incompetence ;-)

"According to Neyer, Boras's real problem is that he was such a jerk in negotiations that Alvarez ended up talking to the Pirates himself."

Link, plz?

It really seems like the deadline as helped Boras more than hurt him. OTOH he's always really liked to draw out negotiations and be super patient in the hope that the other side will make a rash offer to just resolve it. The deadline kind of renders that strategy null.

This is why I think the 8/15 deadline was most likely a specifically anti-Bora$ tactic by the owners.

This Alvarez kid is dangerous. He might be real good, and cause an expectation that the Pirates will actually spend money on draft picks. If this blows up spectacularly, the Pirates can say "see, we told you so", and go back to signability picks.

See, you're making fun of me, but it does make sense as a possible tactic they'd use.

My one business law class has me thinking there's no way a deal covering longer than a year and at $6 million can possibly be valid if it isn't agreed to in writing but that doesn't seem to be the sticking point.

My understanding is that verbal contracts are perfectly binding, the only difficulty is in verifying the terms. Art auction for way more than $6M are conducted verbally.

If there was a conference call with MLB on the line that shouldn't be an issue.

Since Dejan is saying that he doesn't know where the $200k thing came from, it was from an older version of this article, which has since been rewritten. It still includes this bit, though: "Multiple sources with knowledge of the dissension claimed that Boras was asking for an increase in Alvarez's bonus. While not directly citing a specific amount, these sources pointed to Giants Draft pick Buster Posey's $6.2 million bonus as being the amount Boras wished to match or exceed."

See, you're making fun of me, but it does make sense as a possible tactic they'd use.

I'm only half making fun. Your theory is just plausible enough that I can't outright dismiss it, but it's still a 1 in 1000 chance of being true, so I feel free to make fun of you a little :-)

After all, in the pre-salary floor days, the TB Buccaneers followed a strategy of losing, basically on purpose. They didn't really even try to hide it. The Marlins seem to have hit on the same thing, except they try to win once every 6 years or so.

Alvarez never signed anything to my knowledge. There may have been (probably was) an oral agreement.

Of COURSE there was an oral agreement. What party up to a few hours ago acted inconsistently with the idea that there was one? Did anyone contradict the myriad of public reports announcing it?

Maybe Boras is just embarrassed that another college position player picked lower than Alvarez managed to get a higher bonus than Alvarez. As soon as I heard both Alvarez and Posey's bonuses I knew Boras was going to be fuming.

Scotty the Middleman has now had two marquee players in the past few months -- Alex Rodriguez and the second pick in the draft -- ignore him and accept deals on their own. He can't have his incompetence and relative uselessness exposed for all the world to see.

My one business law class has me thinking there's no way a deal covering longer than a year and at $6 million can possibly be valid if it isn't agreed to in writing but that doesn't seem to be the sticking point.

It's essentially a letter of intent. This happens in business all the time and is pretty standard stuff.

It's essentially a letter of intent. This happens in business all the time and is pretty standard stuff.

Plus there's plainly a course of dealing among the parties that establishes that an oral agreement before the deadline suffices to beat the deadline.

It's essentially a letter of intent. This happens in business all the time and is pretty standard stuff.

Also, aren't most of the details of a minor league contract standard?

The only thing that really needs agreement is the signing bonus; or am I missing something?

The only thing that really needs agreement is the signing bonus; or am I missing something?


Nope, not a thing.

My understanding is that verbal contracts are perfectly binding, the only difficulty is in verifying the terms.

...sometimes. There's a contractual doctrine called the statute of frauds, which has (to the best of my knowledge) been adopted by every state in the country, under which certain contracts must be made in writing. One such type of contract is one in which the terms of the contract cannot possibly be performed within one year of the formation of the contract. My uninformed hunch (I'm sure there've been cases on the issue; I haven't bothered to look them up) is that a multi-year sports contract would fall into that rubric. So my hunch is that Miss R. is right.

standard disclaimer: the above is intended to be descriptive only and does not constitute legal advice yadda yadda

...sometimes. There's a contractual doctrine called the statute of frauds, which has (to the best of my knowledge) been adopted by every state in the country, under which certain contracts must be made in writing. One such type of contract is one in which the terms of the contract cannot possibly be performed within one year of the formation of the contract. My uninformed hunch (I'm sure there've been cases on the issue; I haven't bothered to look them up) is that a multi-year sports contract would fall into that rubric. So my hunch is that Miss R. is right.

But that has nothing to do with whether an oral agreement between the parties before the signing deadline suffices to beat the deadline. Of course, Scotty the Middleman can go scorched earth and try to say that beating the deadline can only be done in writing but he'd be potentially undoing the contracts of a lot more people than Alvarez (since the clubs would be free to renege also). The other agents might not be too happy about that.

My understanding is that verbal contracts are perfectly binding, the only difficulty is in verifying the terms. Art auction for way more than $6M are conducted verbally.

Verbal contracts are not binding if they violate the statute of frauds, in which this case, they would (performance to last at least one year). But that doesn't seem to be Boras' point of contention. Which I don't get, because if they did argue the contract violates the statute of frauds, that makes the contract voidable - Boras would have the option of taking the $6 million, or voiding it. The possibility of voiding it gives him leverage. But if he's just saying the contract is void, how can he get more money from the Pirates? They have no contract and the deadline has passed. Alvarez would have go back into the draft, delaying his chance at FA and arb by a year. So I guess he's banking on Alvarez being ruled a free agent, which seems like a long shot at best.

My understanding is that verbal contracts are perfectly binding, the only difficulty is in verifying the terms. Art auction for way more than $6M are conducted verbally.

Pedantry alert: virtually all contracts are verbal, which simply means "using words." You mean oral, not verbal. (Common mistake.)

And yes, for the most part, oral contracts are perfectly binding, with some exceptions, including as in post 41. (Also contracts for the sale of real estate, and, under the UCC, some contracts for the sale of goods over $500. Neither of these is applicable.) But as post 42 indicates, the issue here is whether an oral agreement complies with MLB rules, not the legal enforceability of the contract itself.

Which I don't get, because if they did argue the contract violates the statute of frauds, that makes the contract voidable - Boras would have the option of taking the $6 million, or voiding it.

And every other last-minute contract would be voidable or deemed not in conformance with the deadline.

But if he's just saying the contract is void, how can he get more money from the Pirates? They have no contract and the deadline has passed. Alvarez would have go back into the draft, delaying his chance at FA and arb by a year. So I guess he's banking on Alvarez being ruled a free agent, which seems like a long shot at best.


There's no chance Alvarez will be deemed a free agent since there's an established procedure for players who don't have valid contracts before the deadline.

At this point he's out for only himself and will throw out anything that might work. If he has to lie about some scenario that didn't happen ("Well, Pedro REALLY thought the Pirates were offering $6.3 million ..."), well, that comes as easy to him as breathing.

And yes, for the most part, oral contracts are perfectly binding, with some exceptions, including as in post 41. (Also contracts for the sale of real estate, and, under the UCC, some contracts for the sale of goods over $500. Neither of these is applicable.) But as post 42 indicates, the issue here is whether an oral agreement complies with MLB rules, not the legal enforceability of the contract itself.

I confess to having little more than law school, hornbook knowledge of the legal principles and it probably takes a little more here. Wouldn't an established pattern of dealing -- i.e. both parties agreeing through established action -- demonstrating that a valid "contract," even an employment contract for more than a year can be formed the way all amateur draftees' appear to be formed trump the statute of frauds?

If not, maybe Scotty has lucked into something, though I'm not sure what it gets him in the end, since it just means Alvarez is treated as someone who didn't sign before the deadline.

In any event, it's plain as day that the middleman has only his interests in mind, not his principal's.

I confess to having little more than law school, hornbook knowledge of the legal principles and it probably takes a little more here. Wouldn't an established pattern of dealing -- i.e. both parties agreeing through established action -- demonstrating that a valid "contract," even an employment contract for more than a year can be formed the way all amateur draftees' appear to be formed trump the statute of frauds?

Generally speaking, no. (Answer to everything: "It depends." But I can't think of any exceptions here.) Course of dealing can be employed to interpret ambiguities in a valid contract, but not to enforce an otherwise unenforceable contract under the statute of frauds. (There are other exceptions to the statute of frauds, but none are applicable here.)

Where course of dealing -- between MLB and the MLBPA -- could come into play here is in interpreting what the CBA requires to satisfy the 8/15 deadline. But again, that's an entirely separate issue from whether the contract between the Pirates and Alvarez is enforceable. (But nobody is trying to enforce that contract; it's not like the Pirates are suing Alvarez for breach.)

Yinzers rise up to defend Boras?

Scawt, quit jaggin' arahnd wit' dat cawntract 'n'at!

Can someone remind me how Boras got Travis Lee and Bobby Seay to be free agents? What was the loophole?

Course of dealing can be employed to interpret ambiguities in a valid contract, but not to enforce an otherwise unenforceable contract under the statute of frauds. (There are other exceptions to the statute of frauds, but none are applicable here.)

Custom is also valid in determining whether the parties intended for their oral agreement to constitute a binding contract.

In this case it doesn't matter (I don't think) because MLB uses written contracts.

(But nobody is trying to enforce that contract; it's not like the Pirates are suing Alvarez for breach.)

This is the part I've been mulling over. It seems the restricted list is the usual recourse for teams when they have a player violating an existing contract. The Pirates have yet to announce intentions to go after Alvarez financially but that doesn't mean they have no right to do so.

If the Pirates believed they had an enforceable contract don't you think they would behave in the fashion they have been thus far?

Can someone remind me how Boras got Travis Lee and Bobby Seay to be free agents? What was the loophole?

If your first name was two syllables and your last name was one syllable ending in "Ee", you technically were not subject to the draft.

AG1F, here's what Wikipedia says about Lee:

Lee was initially drafted as the second pick in the 1996 Rule 4 Draft by the Twins, but was declared a free agent by MLB after the Twins failed to tender him a contract within fifteen days of the end of the draft.

Can someone remind me how Boras got Travis Lee and Bobby Seay to be free agents? What was the loophole?

For Travis Lee, the old CBA required the team to make a contract offer within 15 days of the draft or else the player would become a free agent. The Twins called Boras/Lee and were told, "Lee's concentrating on the Atlanta Olympics. We'll negotiate with you as soon as they're over."

Of course, as soon as the Olympics were over, Boras said, "The Twins never offered us a contract."

Where course of dealing -- between MLB and the MLBPA -- could come into play here is in interpreting what the CBA requires to satisfy the 8/15 deadline. But again, that's an entirely separate issue from whether the contract between the Pirates and Alvarez is enforceable. (But nobody is trying to enforce that contract; it's not like the Pirates are suing Alvarez for breach.)

I can see some overlap in the issues if the argument becomes "an agreement by the deadline means a contract enforceable at law by the deadline." But arbitrator says, "Yeah, I agree," what happens then? All 2008 draftees who only had oral Ks by 8/15 go back in the draft? If Alvarez can get out of his oral committment, why not a club? You can certainly envision a scenario where it would want to -- maybe a top guy has proven to be awful in the minors, or has developed a bad arm.

Wouldn't MLB have an interest in forcing everyone back into the draft? It would push top talent lower in the draft and, theoretically, lower bonuses. MLBPA might even benefit because it could, again theoretically, raise the demand for free agents this off-season.

Is that nuts?

42.

But that has nothing to do with whether an oral agreement between the parties before the signing deadline suffices to beat the deadline.

That's true, but you're swinging at air: I didn't intend to imply that the statute of frauds was particularly important in this case; I was simply responding to Snapper's post, #32.

edit: Ah, I take it back. In my original post I also wrote: "So my hunch is that Miss R. is right." Shows me for responding too quickly: I meant to respond only to Snapper's post, and wound up agreeing with more than I actually agreed with.

So to clarify: I agree with Miss R. insofar as the statute of frauds would generally apply to contracts like the one at issue here; I disagree with him (her?) insofar as he asserts that the statute of frauds is of great importance in this instance. mea culpa.

Why did Travis Lee tank so badly after a somewhat promising rookie campaign?

Presumably, these contracts remain oral only for as long as it takes to finalize the picayune details and put pen to paper. What makes this case unique is that Alvarez has refused to do this (certainly on the urging of Boras).

I imagine that Hosmer and all other first round picks (besides Aaron Crow) actually has a written contract now, albeit one that was signed after the deadline.

You mean oral, not verbal.

So that's why hookers keep looking at me funny...

Why did Travis Lee tank so badly after a somewhat promising rookie campaign?

No "fire in the belly"- I read that about him somewhere- he had a "surfer dude" personality

Also a 103 OPS+ as a 23 year old 1B ? Here's every 23 year old 1B (from 1980-2008) with 400+ PAs and an OPS+ within 10 points of Lee's rookie year:

10 Darin Erstad 112 605 1997 23
11 Pat Burrell 106 474 2000 23
12 Gerald Perry 104 419 1984 23
13 Brad Fullmer 103 547 1998 23
14 Travis Lee 103 630 1998 23
15 Mark Teixeira 102 589 2003 23
16 David Green 101 478 1984 23
17 Nick Johnson 99 441 2002 23

He did later have a better year- in 2003 with Tampa, and a roughly equivalent year- 2001 with Philly- then he got hurt after 2003. It's not so much that he "tanked" it's that he never developed and had a disappointing career.

I imagine that Hosmer and all other first round picks (besides Aaron Crow) actually has a written contract now, albeit one that was signed after the deadline.

They would all be void under the Boras Principle.

Can someone remind me how Boras got Travis Lee and Bobby Seay to be free agents? What was the loophole?

The CBA required that after a player got drafted, his team tender him a contract within 10 days. Didn't require agreement or anything -- just that the contract actually be tendered. Apparently teams (and agents) were simply ignoring the rules.

That's what I meant in the other thread about Boras approaching these things like a lawyer rather than a broker. He's not in it just to get a deal done as quickly as possible. He actually reads the rules.


EDIT: I see other people responded while I was with a client. But this isn't right:

For Travis Lee, the old CBA required the team to make a contract offer within 15 days of the draft or else the player would become a free agent. The Twins called Boras/Lee and were told, "Lee's concentrating on the Atlanta Olympics. We'll negotiate with you as soon as they're over."

Of course, as soon as the Olympics were over, Boras said, "The Twins never offered us a contract."

I know it plays into the whole Boras is evil thing, but (a) negotiating has nothing to do with the rule, so there would be no reason that Boras's alleged quote there would be relevant, and (b) it was four players, not two, and Boras didn't even represent all of them.

That's what I meant in the other thread about Boras approaching these things like a lawyer rather than a broker. He's not in it just to get a deal done as quickly as possible. He actually reads the rules.

Sounds like "overlawyering" to me.

Sounds like "overlawyering" to me.

Not really. Teams got exclusive rights to a player by doing one simple thing -- tendering them a contract. You can't blame Boras (and the other agents) if the teams were stupid enough not to do that one simple thing.

That's what I meant in the other thread about Boras approaching these things like a lawyer rather than a broker. He's not in it just to get a deal done as quickly as possible. He actually reads the rules.

If that's the case, why is he still talking about keeping negotiations open with the Pirates? The rules say that Aug. 15 is the deadline, so doesn't that mean that Alvarez needs to wait until next year to talk to any team?

"The rules say that Aug. 15 is the deadline, so doesn't that mean that Alvarez needs to wait until next year to talk to any team?"

Assuming that the union "wins", then yeah.

I still think that Boras was aiming at a nice, quiet shakedown here, and he never dreamed that the Pirates would tell him to #### himself and then take the dispute public.

I still think that Boras was aiming at a nice, quiet shakedown here, and he never dreamed that the Pirates would tell him to #### himself and then take the dispute public.

I'm starting to think that's what happened too, teams and agents (Boras included) were making it a habit of violating the "deadline" and negotiating past it- Boras figured the Pirates wanted Alvarez and he could squeeze a few extra bucks out of them even past the deadline- so long as he had Alvarez hold out on signing the contract.

Not really. Teams got exclusive rights to a player by doing one simple thing -- tendering them a contract. You can't blame Boras (and the other agents) if the teams were stupid enough not to do that one simple thing.

It was a bad habit, it was in the rules and wasn't being honored - in the real world (ie outside sports arbitration) generally speaking courts are loath to suddenly enforce dormant rules, laws and regulations unless there is some prior warning - a party usually can't suddenly decide to unilaterally enforce a rule that same party had ignored in the past- that's what estoppel is for.

What Boras had going for him was that any course of past dealing he, Boras, had with teams in disregarding that rule was legally irrelevant* - the arbitrator would ask if Travis Lee had any past course of dealing with regard to ignoring that rule- and of course he had not- so he could not be estopped from enforcing a rule that had never been enforced.

*Of course what Boras did was morally and ethically questionable- he knew the rule was ignored- he himself had played along with ignoring the rule- then he sprung- without warning. Compare that with when Marvin Miller advised players to play out their option year and attempt to declare free agency- teams had fair warning they knew that was what some players intended to do.

JPWF13 Posted: August 28, 2008 at 01:27 PM (#2920295)

I still think that Boras was aiming at a nice, quiet shakedown here, and he never dreamed that the Pirates would tell him to #### himself and then take the dispute public.


I'm starting to think that's what happened too, teams and agents (Boras included) were making it a habit of violating the "deadline" and negotiating past it- Boras figured the Pirates wanted Alvarez and he could squeeze a few extra bucks out of them even past the deadline- so long as he had Alvarez hold out on signing the contract.

- i'm REALLY confused here

boras knows who coonelly is/was.
do yall really think he thought he could get his original asking price? or a ML contract without a physical? or even another 200K

boras is NOT stupid. so why would he do all this over 200 measly K??? and why would alvarez agree to this? i can't see how he would get alvarez declared a FA. unless the real truth is that alvarez doesn't really care about the $$$ but he does NOT want to play for the pirates and doesn't want to do the JD drew rejecting philly thing

does anyone think it is possible that it is the pirates who are not keeping their end of the oral agreement?

Dejan Kovacic refutes that this is over $200k. I suspect he's right. This is about abolishing the August 15 deadline.

or even another 200K

boras is NOT stupid. so why would he do all this over 200 measly K???

1: We don't know it was just $200K

2: I suspect that both this year and last year, agents (incl Boras) may have been able to squeeze a few post deadline concessions before contracts were finalized (ever notice how contracts and bonuses many times wind up being different than originally reported? We assume the original reports were wrong- but maybe they weren't...

3: I think it was DMN who mentioned that Boras acts more as a lawyer than a broker- oddly enough We may have had a role reversal here- he was trying to "broker", but Coonelly had the hammer and no compunctions about using it. Also Coonelly may have long since decided that he was not going to negotiate with Boras- he's observed Boras in operation from afar for years and may have decided that the best way to deal with Boras is simply to never move- go over the cliff if you have to, but never move (a tactic Boras has used himself- if his client allows it).

I don't think Boras has ever really faced someone willing to hold to that tactic to the bitter end. (Actually the Phillies did with JD Drew- the difference being that the Pirates don't stand to lose as much as the Phils did- the Phils lost the pick period- the Pirates can get #3 next year- also comparatively speaking the Phils low-balled Drew, whereas the Pirates didn't low-ball Alvarez- or at least not to nearly the same degree)

This is about abolishing the August 15 deadline.

Indubitably, but in the meantime, Mr. Alvarez is in danger of forgoing a substantial contract, as well as a year in organized baseball.

*Of course what Boras did was morally and ethically questionable- he knew the rule was ignored- he himself had played along with ignoring the rule- then he sprung- without warning. Compare that with when Marvin Miller advised players to play out their option year and attempt to declare free agency- teams had fair warning they knew that was what some players intended to do.

I don't have any problems with the ethics there: a lawyer is supposed to do what's in his clients' best interest. My problem's a little bit different. If Boras truly waited and "sprung" (which strikes me as completely plausible), then every client he had before Lee that could have taken advantage of the loophole received substandard, indeed unethical, representation.

If that's the case, why is he still talking about keeping negotiations open with the Pirates? The rules say that Aug. 15 is the deadline, so doesn't that mean that Alvarez needs to wait until next year to talk to any team?

He's probably trying to present that as a "middle road" type of solution.

"Dejan Kovacic refutes that this is over $200k."

It was in the original article on MLB.com, though it's since been removed, and replaced with a passage about Boras looking to match or exceed the Posey deal (which would be, coincidentally, an extra $200k).

It's going to be hilarious if Boras wins the right to re-negotiate. I bet the Pirates tell him (through the media) that the originall $6M is the only offer that'll be on the table, and he can take it or leave it. Maybe they'll even start taking money away, for every week he doesn't sign.

The title of this thread is rather vague. Why isn't it: Boras challenges Pirates to 'come clean'?

I don't have any problems with the ethics there: a lawyer is supposed to do what's in his clients' best interest.

I'd be interested to find out how Boras and other lawyer/agents deal with ethical problems. (Insert joke about lawyers and/or Boras and ethics here.) The way that MLB is set up (small number of individual players all going for the same cash) makes it look like a minefield. You're supposed to be representing your client's interest, but what if you have two competing clients on the market at the same time (like, the best two free agent first basemen?). And the idea of trying to take a stand for future clients by compromising a current client's livelihood is troublesome (as is the converse).

Fun fact: one of my law school classmates is Kobe Bryant's agent (and represents a number of other NBA players). I think he has had to deal with some ethical issues of his own (that's not me trying to be snide -- from what I saw, the guy was a freaking genius).

does anyone think it is possible that it is the pirates who are not keeping their end of the oral agreement?

I've seen nothing, not even Boras' statement that would lead to that conclusion, he's complaining that the Pirates didn't follow the rules- not that they reneged on anything.

I'd be interested to find out how Boras and other lawyer/agents deal with ethical problems.

Boras deals with them by ignoring them and acting in his own best interest. He's likely done things that could get him disbarred.

If you have two clients with conflicting interests (like the two first basemen), you counsel one of them to get another lawyer. In fairness to Boras, it's more a fundamental flaw in the MLBPA agent system than with him in particular. It's hard to ethically be both player agent and lawyer.

It's hard to ethically be both player agent and lawyer.

And, frankly, I don't know why players don't just hire good sports law attorneys. I'd rather pay a good lawyer $750+ per hour than pay an agent a percentage of my salary.

And, frankly, I don't know why players don't just hire good sports law attorneys. I'd rather pay a good lawyer $750+ per hour than pay an agent a percentage of my salary.

They do that in the NBA, because the cap (and various mid-level exceptions) firmly dictates the price which will be paid for many of the top free agents - there's no real negotiation, other than the number of years. In MLB, where the salary (and bonuses, and perks) that a player can claim is a lot more fluid, it probably makes more sense to have an agent who has dedicated himself to studying that specific industry.

They do that in the NBA, because the cap (and various mid-level exceptions) firmly dictates the price which will be paid for many of the top free agents - there's no real negotiation, other than the number of years. In MLB, where the salary (and bonuses, and perks) that a player can claim is a lot more fluid, it probably makes more sense to have an agent who has dedicated himself to studying that specific industry.

Yes; the other thing is that (good) agents handle far more than negotiations.

Yes; the other thing is that (good) agents handle far more than negotiations.

Completely true, and most of the NBA guys who hire a lawyer for their NBA contract negotiations keep an agent around specifically for the non-NBA contract stuff - both in terms of endorsements, media relations, non-contractual interactions between the player and front office, and so on.

There's a few footballers over here (Paul Scholes springs immediately to mind) who have never used agents only a good contract lawyer because they want nothing to do with endorsements, media relations and the other ancillary stuff. Just play and then go home and be left alone which is quite unusual, particularly for football.

i think dejan is an excellent reporter/writer and he is most likely right

- but again, the guy boras is dealing with is coonelly and he oughtta know ALL about coonelly. a nice quiet shakedown??? it is just really tough to believe.

IF it is all about getting rid of the aug 15 deadline, how could this help his client? that is the real question because it is obvious that alvarez IS going along with it. suppose boras got the entire contract called off. he can NOT seriously think that coonelly will give him more $$$ and since alvarez can't play college ball, he's got to go to the indys/back in the next draft.

i don't think boras is dumb enough to do the tommy tanzer thingy AND he is a LOT more experienced and he HAS to know the media and owners are just WAITING for him to fukkkup.

i don't think that alvarez would agree to be a curt floyd/andy messersmith for future generations

so the ONLY thing i can think of that makes sense is that something is wrong with alvarez wrist and so they are using a smoke screen to put off the physical

- sugar bear,

i SERIOUSLY doubt that boras has ever done anything that could get his azss disbarred. he KNOW bettern anyone else that mlb is drowning in $$$ and they would instantly spend whatever is necessary to get rid of him if he gave them even the teeniest sliver of something to grab at

i don't think that alvarez would agree to be a curt floyd/andy messersmith for future generations

I'm quoting somebody else here, but Alvarez would do that if Bora$ told him, 'look, I think I can get you made a free agent and get you at least $35 million guaranteed. And if it doesn't work out, I'll give you $3 million out of my own pocket.'

All Bora$ has to do is convince Alvarez that if he goes along with this, I can make you a free agent. The difference between $6 million guaranteed and $40 million guaranteed is large.

Also, I seem to recall Andy Messersmith's case worked out pretty darn well for him.

Also, I seem to recall Andy Messersmith's case worked out pretty darn well for him.

yes, But Curt Flood's didn't.

Boras is probably telling Alvarez, look, I'm not Tommy Tanzer, I've done this type of thing before, the worst thing that has ever happened to one of MY clients is instead of free agency or a huge increase in their offer they go back into the next year's draft- and that worked out well for guys like JD Drew and Luke Hochevar.

i SERIOUSLY doubt that boras has ever done anything that could get his azss disbarred. he KNOW bettern anyone else that mlb is drowning in $$$ and they would instantly spend whatever is necessary to get rid of him if he gave them even the teeniest sliver of something to grab at

You don't need to be a lawyer to be a MLB player agent, so Boras could be disbarred and still continue his business.

i SERIOUSLY doubt that boras has ever done anything that could get his azss disbarred.

There was an attempt a couple years ago to have him disbarred in Texas, due to the negotiations surrounding A-Rod. Essentially, he was accused of behaving unethically, in that he may have lied about other offers he had for his client's services.

I'm pretty sure it didn't go anywhere.

You don't need to be a lawyer to be a MLB player agent, so Boras could be disbarred and still continue his business.

He could, but getting disbarred would be a huge blow to his credibility, and would undoubtedly hurt his ability to attract clients.

There was an attempt a couple years ago to have him disbarred in Texas, due to the negotiations surrounding A-Rod. Essentially, he was accused of behaving unethically, in that he may have lied about other offers he had for his client's services.

I'm pretty sure it didn't go anywhere.

If lying could get an attorney disbarred, there wouldn't be enough left in the U.S. to serve the population of Bozeman, Montana; obviously it didn't go anywhere.

"Boras is probably telling Alvarez, look, I'm not Tommy Tanzer, I've done this type of thing before, the worst thing that has ever happened to one of MY clients is instead of free agency or a huge increase in their offer they go back into the next year's draft- and that worked out well for guys like JD Drew and Luke Hochevar."

Which would be pretty funny, since Boras was Harrington's second agent, after Harrington fired Tanzer. Boras is the guy who told Harrington to turn down the Padres' $1.25M offer the second time he was drafted and pitch indy ball instead. Which worked out great for him, as we all know.

justin,

i don't think boras coule get alvarez a FA, and not just a renegotiation or even nothing and back into the draft after a year in the indys. i don't think the agents can just give clients $$$

it does not make cents to me (hahahaha)

David Nieporent Posted: August 28, 2008 at 04:02 PM (#2920653)

If lying could get an attorney disbarred, there wouldn't be enough left in the U.S. to serve the population of Bozeman, Montana

- i remember once i told you that you got no sensa yuma.
i was ronggggggggg

i don't think boras coule get alvarez a FA, and not just a renegotiation or even nothing and back into the draft after a year in the indys.

I have my doubts too, but it's not me or you Bora$ needs to convince to be able to go ahead with his attempt at bringing down the 8/15 deadline or perhaps even the draft itself; he just has to convince Alvarez of it.

i don't think the agents can just give clients $$$

Of course they can't. That would be totally wrong. And politicians can't take bribes from special interest groups or wealthy individuals, either. There are ways to make these sorts of things either look technically legit or never come to anyone's attention.

Boras is the guy who told Harrington to turn down the Padres' $1.25M offer the second time he was drafted and pitch indy ball instead. Which worked out great for him, as we all know.

Actually Tanzer was still Harrington's agent when the Padres drafted him- he didn't fire Tanzer until some 5-6 months after that second draft.

Tanzer was the one who sent Harrington to the Northern League - where he got torched further eroding his value- Boras criticised that decision- afterall it was one thing to send a 21/22 year old JD Drew to the very hitter friendly Northern League- it was quite another to send a 19 year kid who hadn't pitched in a year there.

Harrington's bonus offer his first draft with Boras reputedly ranged from $5,000 to $20,000 - it was then that Boras advised Harrington that he might as well stay in Indy Ball to get himself into pitching shape- but Boras at least sent him to an easier league (American Association).

He had rotator cuff surgery a year after that...

I'm still trying to figure out the legal theory being espoused by people who claim that Boras's goal is to "bring down the 8/15 deadline or perhaps even the draft itself."

I'm still trying to figure out the legal theory being espoused by people who claim that Boras's goal is to "bring down the 8/15 deadline or perhaps even the draft itself."

I'm not sure myself, but I think it goes something like this: Boras tips off the Players' Association that the Commissioner's Office has unilaterally violated the CBA, MLBPA files a grievance, and then an arbiter finds for the MLBPA. In this scenario, part of the remedy is the discarding of the deadline or the draft. That last step seems pretty tenuous, though.

Legal theory??? Can't a layman just ignore his own ignorance (double ignorance!) and assume a highly paid lawyer will find some way to attack a law or rule he doesn't like?

I'm still trying to figure out the legal theory being espoused by people who claim that Boras's goal is to "bring down the 8/15 deadline or perhaps even the draft itself."

I hear that Phase 3 is "Profit." Hope that helps.