How exactly was he dishonest? Because Teixeira didn't sign with them and they apparently weren't his first choice?

Everyone hates Boras, until they actually need one of his clients. Still, it looks like slim pickings for Boras next year after Beltre and Holiday are signed

If the Braves can get over their well-chronicled dislike/distrust of Boras to sit down with him to negotiate re. Derek Lowe -- even knowing there's a pretty decent chance they are being used to up the ante for the Mets and might get left in the dust yet again -- then believe me . . . the Red Sox can, and will, deal with Boras eventually. He'll represent prospects they want to draft, free agents they want to sign, or players for whom they wish to trade. Are they unhappy about feeling like they were used as a stalking horse? I'm sure they are. Will they allow it to prevent them from doing what is best for their organization next time around.

Not gonna happen.

#1. I'm guessing that, based on things Boras said to them, they believed they were flying down to Texas to talk to Teixeira because he was almost ready to sign with them. That was a week before Christmas. Teixeira said when he was introduced as the latest true yankee that, 2 weeks before Christmas, his wife told him to be a yankee.

And, of course, they'll deal with him. But with even more reluctance and an even more circumspect attitude.

Whats a True Yankees, do their blood bleed pinstripes?

Whining.

Muted whining - this is a classic "one anonymous source" piece of Herald journamalism - but whoever signed off on ######## to the Herald was a whiner.

Why so sour, Theo? You got Boras on the Matsuzaka deal, one Bluffy McBluffer club member to the other

One well-placed source said the club will never deal with him again unless it can be guaranteed that talks are being conducted honestly.

And how exactly can Boras ensure such a promise? And what if Boras has his fingers crossed behind his back when he makes such a promise. That negates everything right?

Before Teixeira, it was the failed negotiations with another Boras client, right-handed high school pitcher Alex Meyer, the Sox’ 20th-round draft pick this past summer, who came close to signing but ultimately turned down what was estimated to be a $2 million signing bonus.

How is this Boras' fault?

Teixeira said when he was introduced as the latest true yankee that, 2 weeks before Christmas, his wife told him to be a yankee.

Sure, but he also made it clear that he wasn't going to sign with the Yankees regardless of their offer, they were going to have to at least come close to what the Red Sox were offering if not meet it. As of that time, the Yankees had not done so.

Maybe the Red Sox thought they would have him signed at that meeting, but unless they were actually told that by either Boars or Tex I don't see how they were misled.

*And I'm not buying that the Red Sox are done with Boras either. I'd like to see some direct quotes from named sources first. Until then I'll continue to believe this is just media BS, because the Red Sox FO is too samrt for this, IMO.

And really? Really. They're going to let negotiations over a 20th round draft pick take them out of the running for a bunch of top free agents. Really?

11/12/2008

Boras: Brian, let me do right by my client and go through this process. When we arrive at his market value, I'll call you guys. He wants to be here.

Cashman: Sounds good. You know we will match the highest offer. Just let me know when you guys are ready.

I seriously, seriously doubt they are going to swear off Boras clients. Peter Angelos, IIRC, did just that a few years ago, and the Orioles haven't signed any big free agent since. Say what you will about Boras and his tactics, but he gets his clients the best money, and he gets the best clients.

Let's assume that in a couple of years the Red Sox may very likely have a Lowe situation and they are stuck negotiating with Boras again. Does that make Boras' business practices any less unethical? I know most of the libertarian herd around here reflexively defend agents out of rote muscle reflex. One might call it a "knee jerk" or something. But if we can get past the likelihood that in the future the Red Sox may, like the Braves, be forced into a situation where they have to deal with an unethical agent again, does that really make it okay that the agent - and many of his proteges in the business - are in fact unethical?

I assume this article is just part of an ongoing meta-level negotiation with Boras. Of course they know they'll have to deal with him again, so this is just positioning for the future.

Peter Angelos, IIRC, did just that a few years ago, and the Orioles haven't signed any big free agent since.

Except that they then drafted Wieters and made an offer to Teixiera.

I'm 100% certain the Red Sox will continue to pursue Boras's clients, but I don't know if it's fair to call this whining. It certainly sounds like Boras wasn't negotiating in good faith with the Red Sox -- even by his standards -- and I can see the logic behind trying to take a shot across Boras's bow for future dealings. As one of the few teams that will be in the running for his top clients year in and year out, the Red Sox have a little bit of leverage over Boras (ok, very little), and they're probably thinking that it can't hurt to let him know how unhappy they are.

So what does that mean practically?
Is there a marquee free agent that Sox need/want that is represented by Boras?

This year this presumably this means that Varitek will not be resigned, even if he is willing to sign for peanuts.
I guess that means that the Red Sox aren't believers in Varitek's game calling skills, because
Varitek, Bard, Kottaras & Brown are all projected to be at the same level of 1-1.5 WAR mediocrity, leadershipity aside.

Next year the Sox will have a hole in LF to be filled. The premier LF on the market will be Matt Holliday, who is represented by Boras. The next best free agent is Jason Bay and after that is a bunch of junk, so the Sox should start negotiating a contract extension with Bay now.

In 2011, Joe Mauer is represented by Ron Shapiro. The Sox will definitely want to be in on an HOF-level player like that.
What about 2010? I couldn't find a list of free agents after the 2010 season, but so far looks like the Sox will be able to keep their no-Boras pledge for at least a couple of years.

Why does the NCAA allow college players to keep their 'advisers' in college baseball when they're discouraged in football and basketball?

I would endorse the Red Sox swearing off all Scott Boras clients until Jason Varitek is signed, or enters forced retirement. Then, and only then, will I be comfortable with Boras.

Does that make Boras' business practices any less unethical?

This kind of thing gets thrown around a lot - but no-one seems to specify what, if anything, Boras does that is unethical.

Boras certainly plays an extremely aggressive game to maximise his clients' value, and I've seen some persuasive argument around here that he's too aggressive. But that's a judgment call, he's playing against a stacked deck, Boras is presumably far more aware of the market than any of us here on BTF, and if his clients want a less aggressive agent then they don't need to sign with him. And it's certainly not unethical.

I would endorse the Red Sox swearing off all Scott Boras clients until Jason Varitek is signed, or enters forced retirement. Then, and only then, will I be comfortable with Boras.

Seconded.

Boras: Brian, let me do right by my client and go through this process. When we arrive at his market value, I'll call you guys. He wants to be here.

Cashman: Sounds good. You know we will match the highest offer. Just let me know when you guys are ready.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why would Boras allow a ballclub to stand outside of the bidding process? That seems like a good way to prevent your client from receiving maximum value. These Boras-Yankees conspiracies don't have any historical evidence behind them, and they don't make sense as a historical reconstruction.

I don't even understand the basis of the whining in this case.

When the winning team whines that Boras lied about another offer, causing it to spend too much, I understand the complaint. (Even if I think it's ludicrous -- Boras has a fiduciary duty to his client, not to the GM.) If, hypothetically, a team offered $X and Boras's client signed for less than $X with another team, I could see griping from the first team that the player never wanted to sign with them, was wasting their time, and was just using them to drive up the second team's bid.

But here, what's the complaint? The Yankees outbid them, right?

And how exactly can Boras ensure such a promise?

Next winter he could forward the Braves' offer sheet for Holliday to the Red Sox.

Varitek

So that's what this is about.

Peter Angelos, IIRC, did just that a few years ago, and the Orioles haven't signed any big free agent since.

Except that they then drafted Wieters and made an offer to Teixiera.

I'm not convinced that they ever made a serious offer to Teixeira.

What makes this time around so different is Sox principle owner John Henry was directly involved and for the first time Henry got a personal taste of the sleazy Boras modus operandi. The Sox will deal with Boras on a small scale but the days when they go hard after Boras elite free agents are over.
Looking at the Sox current roster they've got Varitek, Drew, Matsuzaka and Ellsbury in the Boras camp.
Tek may be re-signed for one year but only on the Red Sox terms and for much less than the 10 million arbitration offer he passed up.
Drew is a wimp and the Sox will gladly let him go after (ugghhh!) 3 more DL dominated years.
Matsukaza is signed through 2012 and will be 32 years old at contracts end. If he doesn't figure out how to become anything more than a 5 inning pitcher who burns out bullpens the Sox will let him go without a fight.
Ellsbury is a just a baby who the Sox contractually control for years to come.
As you can see the Red Sox won't be involved to any great degree with the Boras players on their roster and won't pursue many if any who aren't.
They don't need to!

But here, what's the complaint? The Yankees outbid them, right?

By a lot.

This kind of thing gets thrown around a lot - but no-one seems to specify what, if anything, Boras does that is unethical.

If Tiexiera had decided to sign with New York before Christmas as been reported then any negotiations Boras held with other teams were, by definition, not held in good faith. If Tiexiera didn't want to play in Boston Boras has an ethical duty to cease negotiations with Boston, even if that means his fiduciary duty is to his client. His client has made a decision and should be required to live with that decision, even if it means lost salary. If Boras knows his client is not going to play for a team any negotiations with that team, even in an attempt to drive up the player's salary from another team as part of his "fiduciary duty", is unethical.

If Tiexiera had decided to sign with New York before Christmas as been reported then any negotiations Boras held with other teams were, by definition, not held in good faith.

Except until the day they signed him, the Yankees had made no offer whatsoever to Teixeira.

Boras represents Drew, Matsuzaka, Baldelli, and Ellsbury so they obviously will have to deal with him again.

One well-placed source said the club will never deal with him again unless it can be guaranteed that talks are being conducted honestly.

And how exactly can Boras ensure such a promise?

Does he have children who can be used as hostage guarantees?

If Tiexiera didn't want to play in Boston Boras has an ethical duty to cease negotiations with Boston, even if that means his fiduciary duty is to his client. His client has made a decision and should be required to live with that decision, even if it means lost salary.

Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing how this necessarily follows. In the adversarial system of player-agent vs. team, is it incumbent upon Boras to cease negotiations with a team the player has said he doesn't want to play for?

And this is, of course, a theoretical question, as there is zero positive evidence of the scenario outlined in Sam's post.

I guess it depends on what you consider unethical. Kenny Rogers fired Boras, I believe because Boras wasn't representing Rogers'interest. Is that unethical, or just bad representation?

If Tiexiera didn't want to play in Boston Boras has an ethical duty to cease negotiations with Boston, even if that means his fiduciary duty is to his client.

Really? Where does this duty come from?

I need a new computer soon. I want a PC, but if a Mac is a much better deal I'll reluctantly buy one. Am I allowed to enquire as to the price of a Mac? That way I can say to the salesman, well, there's this other deal over there...

He represents Baldelli? That's awesome. So the Red Sox, after losing Teixeira, quite specifically held negotiations with Boras to get Baldelli. (And surely they're talking to Boras about Varitek.)

I think Chip's reading (#15) is the most sensible sympathetic interpretation of the article. This article is one leak among many in the various media battles between Boras and various ballclubs. The Red Sox aren't actually going to do anything as stupid as not negotiate with Boras (in fact, they already have), and they aren't so naive as to think that every word spoken in negotiations is true in a plain sense. They're just fighting for the best deals they can get.

I tend to think, given the multiple reports of Red Sox front-office infighting over the last few years, and given the known tendency of both Henry and Lucchino (if not also Epstein) to pop off in the media about their feelings, that this is just some dumbass in the front office blowing off steam.

You tried to #### him, and Lawrence Lucchino don't like to be #### by anybody, except Mrs. Lucchino. You read the Bible, Scott?

Yeah, I'm having trouble seeing how this necessarily follows. In the adversarial system of player-agent vs. team, is it incumbent upon Boras to cease negotiations with a team the player has said he doesn't want to play for?

Of course not. It would be unethical for Boras to make a promise that he couldn't live up to. It's not in the slightest bit unethical to explore what another team would be willing to offer.

I am all for more of this drama. There's too much at stake for anyone to actually follow up on these threats, but if both sides are leaking inside info in the press then at least I'll have something to read until spring training.

Scott Boras is not Rocco Baldelli's agent.

See this Boston Herald article: "Though Baldelli, agent Casey Close and the Red Sox didn’t agree to a deal until Wednesday"

This kind of thing gets thrown around a lot - but no-one seems to specify what, if anything, Boras does that is unethical.

After Johnny Damon signed with the Yankees he made comments to the media which made it quite apparent that he (Damon) was unaware i.e. was never told about a second and more lucrative offer the Sox had made to him through his agent Boras prior to him signing with the Yanks. Boras not only lies to the teams he's negotiating with but he lies to his own clients. This is why the Red Sox always demand face to face meetings with Boras free agents. They know Boras can't be trusted to tell the truth about what's being offered so they like to speak directly with the player. Nice uh??
The Sox ran into the same problems in the Matsuzaka negotiations but in that case the Sox had all the leverage because they had exclusive signing rights to Dice K.
Scott Boras is a sleaze and the Red Sox have had enough of his act.

Of course not. It would be unethical for Boras to make a promise that he couldn't live up to. It's not in the slightest bit unethical to explore what another team would be willing to offer.

Especially since the Yankees hadn't made an offer yet. What if they decided to sign Pettitte for $16.5 million and up their trade offer for Cameron instead? Teixeira probably wouldn't have fit into the budget anymore, and Boras would have been left without a home for his client.

You tried to #### him, and Lawrence Lucchino don't like to be #### by anybody, except Mrs. Lucchino. You read the Bible, Scott?

Mrs. Lucchino is one hot babe and an intelligent, articulate hot babe at that.
Good "free agent" signing there Larry!! heh heh heh heh

"If Tiexiera didn't want to play in Boston Boras has an ethical duty to cease negotiations with Boston, even if that means his fiduciary duty is to his client"

Sam, that's not how the real world works. I have been involved in many scenarios where a third party is brought in (or threatened to be brought in) to put pressure on the opposing party. If you let the other party know they are the only supplier or customer you are considering, you basically put yourself at their mercy to set the price. Boros may have used the Red Sox to set the price for the Yankees; oh well, move on. Are the Sox going to avoid drafting any Boros clients in the future? I doubt they will cut themselves off from future talent; they are too rational an organization to do so. If they did, I am sure the Yankees wouldn't mind picking up a 1st round talent in the 2nd or 3rd round.

After Johnny Damon signed with the Yankees he made comments to the media which made it quite apparent that he (Damon) was unaware i.e. was never told about a second and more lucrative offer the Sox had made to him through his agent Boras prior to him signing with the Yanks.

Really? I'm not sure I buy that, I never heard it and the most I've heard about the Red Sox and Damon was this, from "Feeding the Monster:"

That night, word began to trickle out that Damon was signing with the Yankees. This had been a scenario the Red Sox had been prepared for—back in September, Henry, Epstein, and assistant general manager Josh Byrnes had discussed how Damon could very well end up in the Bronx because of New York’s desperate need for a reliable center fielder. The Yankees, it seemed, where the mystery team who had offered the five-year, $65 million contract. But when the details of the deal finally emerged, the Red Sox were shocked to learn that Damon had signed only a four-year deal worth $13 million a year, for a total of $52 million. Damon later said he would have stayed in Boston for $11.5 million a year, just $500,000 less annually than the Red Sox had already agreed they were willing to pay him.

I guess it depends on what you consider unethical

Well that's the crux of it, isn't it? Personally, and I'm not a cornerstone of ethical behaviour by any means, but from what I have read about Boras over the years I would never consider him as my agent. I can't really fathom how much difference it really makes whether you make $14mil or $15.5mil per. Good money is nice but its not the be all and end all to life. In Tex's case, if his wife didn't like Boston for some reason, well I've been married 18 years, so I kind of get why he ended up in NY...and it was nice that they were the highest bidder anyway.

I reckon there are plenty of decent agents out there who can maximise your value without being overtly nasty about it as we see from various signings every year.

The reason you hire Boras is the same reason why you like money. Only an agent of Boras' caliber can get the kind of money he got for Eric Gagne, and Andruw Jones after the 2007 seasons they had.

Maybe this is the Red Sox plan for explaining to their fans why Tek is leaving. 'We would have loved to bring him back, but we just couldn't trust that Boras character." Otherwise, this is kind of stupid.

Let's say Tex never intended to sign with Boston and Boras used them to drive up the price of the contract he got from NY...
Either way Tex wasn't going to play for Boston and NY had to pay more to get him. It's never nice to be lied to I guess but really this only benefits Boston in the end.

I can believe the Damon story because I think Boras pulled a similar tact with Jeff Blauser. Blauser had said he'd take less to stay with Atlanta. Schuerholz told Boras of a new offer - 9m over 3 years. As Braves reporter Bill Zack tells it:

"Schuerholz called Boras and told him he was working on a deal with another shortstop and that he needed a response from Blauser immediately. Boras informed him that his client was on a hunting trip and would be unavailable for three days, though in reality Blauser was attending the NAPA 500 at Atlanta Motor Speedway."

Did Boras not relay the message to Blauser so he'd get more money from another team? I don't know. But at the least it looked fishy on the surface.

I think Schuerholz really hates him, though, for the (alleged) Maddux arbitration handshake agreement. That made Johnny S look like a fool.

I think Schuerholz really hates him, though, for the (alleged) Maddux arbitration handshake agreement. That made Johnny S look like a fool.

Since agreeing with a player to offer him arbitration that he will decline is at the very least a violation of the spirit of the CBA AND the partnership between the teams, I would have approximately zero sympathy for Schuerholz if this really happened. Basically, Schuerholz would have been wanting to screw over whichever team would sign Maddux, and have Maddux violate his moral obligations to the MLBPA and every friend of his in baseball, all so that Schuerholz could gain draft picks while Maddux's value on the free market was depressed.

I'm not convinced that they ever made a serious offer to Teixeira.

Spare me. They offered 7 years/$140M.

Wasn't it pretty common practice, though? Seemed like a lot of GMs did the ol' 'wink wink decline arbitration nudge nudge' and nobody much cared. It also gave teams a way to re-sign players if need be. I remember the Braves doing it with Lockhart several times. But I don't know if there ever was a 'handshake agreement' with Maddux, that's kinda conjecture that's been tossed around the rumor mill.

Maybe Schuerholz was just mad Boras made up all these 'multiple year offers' for Maddux and that's why he offered arb. I don't know. Can't remember if he touched on it in his book.

And I agree with Sam H. about Boras.

Let's say Tex never intended to sign with Boston and Boras used them to drive up the price of the contract he got from NY...
Either way Tex wasn't going to play for Boston and NY had to pay more to get him. It's never nice to be lied to I guess but really this only benefits Boston in the end.

Only in a very narrow sense. He's potentially driving up the price of all FAs, and that will hurt Boston in the long run. If he did so by essentially lying to Boston about Tex's interest, that's at least somewhat unethical. I'm amazed by how much leeway everyone is willing to give Boras. I know that Boras is sometimes treated unfairly by the press, but that doesn't mean the press is 100% wrong about Boras's tactics.

Wasn't it pretty common practice, though? Seemed like a lot of GMs did the ol' 'wink wink decline arbitration nudge nudge' and nobody much cared.

It's one thing to offer arbitration to a player you don't really want back, if you are confident that he will receive enough offers that it is against his financial interest to accept anyway. It'd be something else to offer it, expecting the player to decline it even though it is in his interest to accept it.

But even if it was done in practice, it was unethical - and expecting somebody else to go along with it when it was backfiring on them is a stretch, and not something I would feel any sympathy for Schuerholz on. If his underlying complaint against Boras is that he followed the fiduciary duty he had towards his client rather than help Schuerholz violate the spirit of various obligations - well, I'm more on Boras and Maddux's side on this.

I'm not convinced that they ever made a serious offer to Teixeira.

Spare me. They offered 7 years/$140M.

Huh? That's your rebuttal? You're supporting my point. When you <u>way</u> underbid everyone else out there, after those higher offers are already out there, that's a fake bid for public consumption, not a serious offer.

The Angels had already reportedly offered $160M. How can you pretend $140M is serious at that point? The Yankees and Red Sox, of course, both far surpassed the Orioles $140M. Even if you (and the Orioles) want to pretend that there ought to be some sort of local discount such that their $140M equaled the Angels' $160M, even if you (and the Orioles) want to pretend that the Yankees and Red Sox are not the standard by which serious offers ought to be measured, the Nats -- the Nats (!) -- reportedly bid $160M. How can the Orioles' $140M offer be deemed anything other than a joke at that point?

I know that Boras is sometimes treated unfairly by the press, but that doesn't mean the press is 100% wrong about Boras's tactics.

Boras, it seems to me, gives access and interviews. That goes a long way with the press.

I agree with Sam in that I think Boras is some extent unethical, but he's one unethical guy in a business inundated with unethical people. Just a few weeks ago we were talking about how whether or not Kinzer boned the Braves; at this point, agents playing GMs seems de rigueur.

Back when offering arbitration was mandatory to continue negotiations, teams would make handshake agreements for the player not to accept arbitration when the team planned to re-sign the player, and wanted to extend the deadline to negotiate. Quite a different animal than what Schuerholz was complaining about.

Schuerholz also whined that the Yankees didn't officially sign Gary Sheffield until after the arbitration deadline, even though they had agreed on a contract before then, costing them two draft picks. Except everyone knew that the Yankees were going to sign Sheffield, the Braves were just plain stupid for not offering arbitration, and whined about the Yankees gaming the system, even though they broke no rules.

Some people running baseball seem to act like children about these matters.

Again, I don't know that there was a handshake deal for Maddux to decline arbitration, that's just been speculation in ATL for years.

I agree with that not offering Sheffield arbitration was stupid. However, the situation was a bit of a mess. Sheffield HIMSELF claimed the Yankees had signed him before the arbitration deadline in a Baseball Weekly interview. So naturally the Braves were a little ticked off at the whole matter.

After he was allegedly signed, Sheffield started talking about how the Yankees needed to up the offer otherwise he would accept arbitration from the Braves. In short, it was Sheffield being Sheffield (he was negotiating for himself as well) and the Braves and Yankees (I guess?) didn't know what the heck was going on. Schuerholz, operating on a very strict Time Warner budget, decided he couldn't take any chances after the Maddux situation. I think it was the wrong move on JS's part, but it's also fair to point out the extenuating circumstances.

I am mostly a player's guy. I am happy Boras is able to get all that money for their clients and i dont think is unethical to string teams along in negotiations to drive up the price of their clients.

But, if there is something the red sox can complain about is how they wasted all the time and money traveling to Texas to meet with Boras, when, according to Tex's own version, a decision was already made.

One thing is to spend a few minutes on the phone or a conference call and another entirely different is to pack your things and do a 4 hour flight, stay the night away from your wife and kids just so that Boras' clients can get more money. That's unethical to me.

first inducing Manbam to quit on them...then getting used to set up Tex. Pretty blatant stuff, so sure Boras is heading their crap list of agents rather not deal with. So yea, negative factor for the optional free agents, but would it make a difference if the team really wants a particular guy..probably not since the agent's stench is only temporary and then don't have to deal with it for a while. On Borass's part, probably still pissed at getting reamed for 5-6 mil/yr contract-wise since he couldn't keep Dice off the plane.

But, if there is something the red sox can complain about is how they wasted all the time and money traveling to Texas to meet with Boras, when, according to Tex's own version, a decision was already made.

No it wasn't. According to him and the Yankees they had not made an actual offer yet, and he even said while the Yankees were his first choice, he would not rule out the other teams unless the Yankees made a competitive offer.

first inducing Manbam to quit on them

If this actually happened for strategic reasons, isn't it more Manny's doing than Boras's?

I'm not sure what Boras did other than feign minimal interest in the Red Sox, when there probably was minimal interest. I find it hard to believe that all agents don't hold discussions with all interested parties regardless of the intensity of their client's interest in that party. I find it very hard to believe Teixeira ever told Boras that he would never play for the Red Sox in any circumstances.

Sam, that's not how the real world works. I have been involved in many scenarios where a third party is brought in (or threatened to be brought in) to put pressure on the opposing party. If you let the other party know they are the only supplier or customer you are considering, you basically put yourself at their mercy to set the price. Boros may have used the Red Sox to set the price for the Yankees; oh well, move on. Are the Sox going to avoid drafting any Boros clients in the future? I doubt they will cut themselves off from future talent; they are too rational an organization to do so. If they did, I am sure the Yankees wouldn't mind picking up a 1st round talent in the 2nd or 3rd round.

That's ########.

A few years ago I was involved in bidding for a multi-million dollar contract with several competitors. We lost the bid and afterwards it was made apparent that the decision on who to go with had been made from the start (client preferane) and we were being used for a price check. That company is now blacklisted. We will not deal with them anymore.

A few years ago I was involved in bidding for a multi-million dollar contract with several competitors. We lost the bid and afterwards it was made apparent that the decision on who to go with had been made from the start (client preferane) and we were being used for a price check. That company is now blacklisted. We will not deal with them anymore.

It's certainly your prerogative not to deal with them anymore, but you can't possibly expect that this is the last time this will happen to your company. It's very common for buyers to shop around even if they have a preferred option early in the process.

Does he have children who can be used as hostage guarantees?

Check E-Bay.

Best Regards

John

Boras, it seems to me, gives access and interviews. That goes a long way with the press.

I just want to know how much Boras pays his media toadies like Jon Heyman to publish his spinning garbage everyday.
Can't believe Heyman would forever destroy his professional reputation as a legit baseball writer without some monetary compensation from his master.

It's certainly your prerogative not to deal with them anymore, but you can't possibly expect that this is the last time this will happen to your company. It's very common for buyers to shop around even if they have a preferred option early in the process

Again, even if this is common practice it is still unethical. Certainly there may be other unethical actors in the market, and certainly there may arise some circumstance, such as the Derek Lowe situation in Atlanta, where you have to go back, hold your nose and and deal with known unethical actors in the future. None of this changes the fact that it's unethical, and none of that changes the basic point of stating publicly "these people behave unethically and we would greatly prefer to never have to work with their ilk again." The fact that many people cheat on their spouses does not make infidelity more or less ethical. Morality is not a popularity game.

According to him and the Yankees they had not made an actual offer yet, and he even said while the Yankees were his first choice, he would not rule out the other teams unless the Yankees made a competitive offer.

Accepting Teixiera and Boras' claim on on this point is about as naive as believing the Red Sox won't ever do business with Boras again.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why would Boras allow a ballclub to stand outside of the bidding process? That seems like a good way to prevent your client from receiving maximum value. These Boras-Yankees conspiracies don't have any historical evidence behind them, and they don't make sense as a historical reconstruction.

New York's priority was Sabathia and, more broadly, pitching. Boston's priority was to get Teixeira. Teixeira's priority was to be a Yankee. New York would set the market on Sabathia but merely meet it for Tex since they knew he wanted to come to the Bronx.

So, very early on, the Yankees explained that they would not be actively pursuing Tex but that they they would happily hit the bid on whatever number the highest bidder landed on by Christmas. Yanks win, Boras wins, Tex wins.

Meanwhile the Red Sox never had a chance. They are of the belief that they were owed more forthright talks from Boras.

Again, even if this is common practice it is still unethical.

Well, one person saying something is unethical doesn't make it so. It is quite common in almost every setting for decision-makers to start out with some degree of preference among various bidders, based on past dealings or reputation in the industry. Price, presentation & other factors may or may not change that initial preference. However, I'm not aware of any ethical requirement for decision makers to tell bidders where they stand in the initial bidder pool or even later in the process. If bidders don't like that uncertainty, they aren't obligated to participate if they can make a go of it by other means. But it seems to me that if Boras had told Boston that all things being equal Teixeira would prefer NY, he would have violated his fiduciary duty to Teixeira by making it less likely that Boston would bid and bid high. That's Ethics 101.

Well, one person saying something is unethical doesn't make it so.

And a thousand people saying it is ethical doesn't make it so.

It is quite common in almost every setting for decision-makers to start out with some degree of preference among various bidders, based on past dealings or reputation in the industry.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Of course decision-makers will go into negotiations with some sort of baseline preferences and assumptions. But it should be assumeable that by entering into negotiations the decision-makers are negotiating in good-faith, that their pre-determined preferences are not pre-determined *decisions.* At that point the decision is made, an ethical actor will cease negotiations and sign a deal. Boras, by all accounts, will continue to negotiate in bad faith simply to drive the signing costs (and thus, of course, his percentage) as high as possible. That is unethical, and it doesn't require me to state as much for it to be obviously so.

New York's priority was Sabathia and, more broadly, pitching. Boston's priority was to get Teixeira. Teixeira's priority was to be a Yankee. New York would set the market on Sabathia but merely meet it for Tex since they knew he wanted to come to the Bronx.

1) You're taking Teixeira's New York PR blitz as unalloyed truth, and in fact, you're taking it much further than Teixeira did. He said his preference was to be a Yankee because his wife wanted to go to NY - he never said it was his sole priority.

2) That does not explain why Boras would accept the Yankees' choice. While it's good for him to have the Yankees in on the bidding at the end, it's much better for him to have the Yankees in the bidding the entire time. And, to reiterate, there's zero positive evidence of the scenario you've constructed.

Huh? That's your rebuttal? You're supporting my point. When you way underbid everyone else out there, after those higher offers are already out there, that's a fake bid for public consumption, not a serious offer.

The Angels had already reportedly offered $160M. How can you pretend $140M is serious at that point? The Yankees and Red Sox, of course, both far surpassed the Orioles $140M. Even if you (and the Orioles) want to pretend that there ought to be some sort of local discount such that their $140M equaled the Angels' $160M, even if you (and the Orioles) want to pretend that the Yankees and Red Sox are not the standard by which serious offers ought to be measured, the Nats -- the Nats (!) -- reportedly bid $160M. How can the Orioles' $140M offer be deemed anything other than a joke at that point?

Whatever. So if the orioles had offered another year at the same salary initially, that would have transformed it into a "serious" offer?

Let's be realistic -- it's clear that Tex had very little interest in signing with the Orioles, and the only way they could have gotten him was to blow away the Yankees. Signing Tex for something like 10 years/$240M would have been pretty stupid, so whining about the process is a waste of time.

I am offering the story as I know it. You can take my perspective for whatever you think it's worth.

Not only is it not "unethical," but I don't believe that anybody really thinks it is, once it's not looked at in the preconceived framework in which players aren't really supposed to treat this like a business at all. Have people who are claiming it's "unethical" ever gotten a bid from a contractor, or a quote from a car dealer, and then shipped around to try to get a better bid, but with the primary intention of trying to get the first contractor to meet that bid?

Boras's "sin" is that he treats baseball as a business, rather than as an old boy's club in which players aren't really supposed to do that. Look at post 44 above, which expresses surprise - if not disdain - for the thought that a player would make a decision over a small amount of money. People say things like that all the time, without remarking on the fact that it's symmetrical; if a player is allowing a small difference to sway him, then by definition so is the team.

Whatever. So if the orioles had offered another year at the same salary initially, that would have transformed it into a "serious" offer?

Yes. If they had made an offer that was not lower than the offers on the table, it would be a serious offer.

I believe Boras is very likely an unethical scum-bag, and it would be great if there was a way he could be excluded from being a sports agent.

However, I don't think this case demonstrates it, at all.

New York's priority was Sabathia and, more broadly, pitching. Boston's priority was to get Teixeira. Teixeira's priority was to be a Yankee. New York would set the market on Sabathia but merely meet it for Tex since they knew he wanted to come to the Bronx.

So, very early on, the Yankees explained that they would not be actively pursuing Tex but that they they would happily hit the bid on whatever number the highest bidder landed on by Christmas. Yanks win, Boras wins, Tex wins.

Meanwhile the Red Sox never had a chance. They are of the belief that they were owed more forthright talks from Boras.

I agree with this take on the negotiations. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Tex decided he wanted to be a Yankee early on if the Yankees were willing to pay him "market" value, so Boras tells the Yankees "hey, you're his first choice, but he's not willing to sign at a discount, so we have to let the market play out a bit." Cashman says "that's fine, come back to us when you're ready to talk numbers."

I also agree with Sam H and BFFB -- we tend to assume that "using team X to drive up the price for team Y" is an accepted business practice, but it's pretty unethical. It's one thing to threaten the party with whom you're negotiating by telling them that you'll go to a third party, it's another to actually go to the third party and negotiate with them in bad faith.

Yes. If they had made an offer that was not lower than the offers on the table, it would be a serious offer.

It was not lower in annual value. Sorry -- not buying the idea that 7/$140M is not serious, but 8/$160M is. I think a lot of orioles fans seem to think that, regardless of whether it would have improved their chances of getting Tex, they wanted the Orioles to offer 8/160 for PR purposes. That's seems very silly to me.

But it should be assumeable that by entering into negotiations the decision-makers are negotiating in good-faith, that their pre-determined preferences are not pre-determined *decisions.*

Yes, it should. So what is your factual basis for assuming that Teixeira's pre-determined preference was in fact a pre-determined *decision*? Fact is, you don't have one, and neither do the Red Sox.

I am offering the story as I know it.

No, you're offering the story as you choose to interpret and believe it. In reality, you know a lot less of the story than you have offered.

I have been involved in many scenarios where a third party is brought in (or threatened to be brought in) to put pressure on the opposing party.

I have an uncle in North Jersey who made a very nice living as the threatened third party.

EDIT: Forgot to add that using my uncle in your negotiations is unethical. What Boras did, not so much.

not buying the idea that 7/$140M is not serious, but 8/$160M is

It has nothing to do with the numbers in any general sense. It has to do with the fact that 8/160 was already on the table, and so 7/140 was an underbid. The bid is not evidence that the Orioles were actually interested in bidding for Teixeira. 7/140 is a PR move.

I agree that the Orioles shouldn't have bid 8/160 for PR purposes. I don't know whether they should have become more involved in the bidding for Teixeira, and certainly maybe they shouldn't. But an underbid from the Orioles should be classified as a PR move rather than a baseball move.

EDIT: not a fight I want to have

Not only is it not "unethical," but I don't believe that anybody really thinks it is,

That's because you wouldn't understand ethics if I slapped you in the face with a fish.

once it's not looked at in the preconceived framework in which players aren't really supposed to treat this like a business at all.

Oh yes, the "if you don't see these things in my own preferred mercenary view, where no ethics exist outside of the brute rule of selfish neo-anarchism, you must be agitating for the return of the reserve clause" canard. And to think I'd hoped you'd grown up some over the past decade.

Have people who are claiming it's "unethical" ever gotten a bid from a contractor, or a quote from a car dealer, and then shipped around to try to get a better bid, but with the primary intention of trying to get the first contractor to meet that bid?

I haven't. Then again, I tend to try to behave ethically, even in situations where unethical behavior might be of some fiduciary benefit to me.

When was the ANgels offer made? I seem to remember that both offers were given around the same time, so it's not clear that it was public knowledge that Tex was sitting on an 8/160 offer at the time the Orioles' offer was made.

So what is your factual basis for assuming that Teixeira's pre-determined preference was in fact a pre-determined *decision*? Fact is, you don't have one, and neither do the Red Sox.

Published statements from Tiexiera indicate that he had made his decision prior to Christmas. It is possible, of course, that he is lying, that this is part of his "NY PR blitz" or whatnot. In which case he's unethical for lying. I don't have any "factual basis" for assuming Boras smells of lavendar and roses while Tiex is lying, nor do I have any "factual basis" for assuming the inverse. Neither do you. I do have a trend line indicating that multiple teams, from Atlanta to Baltimore a now to Boston, have publicly stated that Scott Boras behaves unethically in his negotitations. As such, I tend to think there's a semi-reasonable assumption to be made that Scott Boras behaves unethically in his negotiations.

Furthermore, and quite tangentially I'm sure, I find your pedantic request for "factual basis" when you should know as well as I that everyone here is working off of press reports and fuzzy details, including yourself, and no one has "secret insider information" by which to skew the factual reporting, and are arguing their points and opinions accordingly, to be grating and adolescent.

I haven't. Then again, I tend to try to behave ethically, even in situations where unethical behavior might be of some fiduciary benefit to me.

Not only that, the notion that semi-public negotiations over a $180M+ contract are comparable to Nieporent's interactions with a car dealer is laughable.

Boras's "sin" is that he treats baseball as a business, rather than as an old boy's club in which players aren't really supposed to do that.

No, Boras' sin is that he lies.

Have people who are claiming it's "unethical" ever gotten a bid from a contractor, or a quote from a car dealer, and then shipped around to try to get a better bid, but with the primary intention of trying to get the first contractor to meet that bid

(emphasis mine) I think what bothers some people here is that in your example, the buyer would be willing to go to car dealer B if car dealer A doesn't meet the price. Based on Teixeira's comments there is reason to believe that he would not have gone to Boston in any circumstance. For the record I don't believe that to be true but if you buy the whole "NY was the only place I wanted to play" crap that is SOP for free agents then this is at least in the gray area ethically.

As I said, I think had the Sox' offer been the highest we would have been treated to "my wife always said she wished I had signed with Boston out of high school" or something equally as crap-filled.

Of course decision-makers will go into negotiations with some sort of baseline preferences and assumptions. But it should be assumeable that by entering into negotiations the decision-makers are negotiating in good-faith, that their pre-determined preferences are not pre-determined *decisions.* At that point the decision is made, an ethical actor will cease negotiations and sign a deal. Boras, by all accounts, will continue to negotiate in bad faith simply to drive the signing costs (and thus, of course, his percentage) as high as possible. That is unethical, and it doesn't require me to state as much for it to be obviously so.

Let's assume that all of the public statements of Teixeira and Boras on the matter are accurate. Specifically that:

1) Teixeira "decided" that he wanted to be a Yankee two weeks before Christmas (on which you have based your argument).

2) The Yankees did not have an offer on the table at that point.

What course of action do you believe Teixeira and Boras could have ethically taken? You've made clear that they have to cease all negotiations with other bidders. Do they have to publicly announce this? Can they ethically pretend other bidders are involved so as to get a better deal from the Yankees? Or do they have to go to the Yankees hat in hand?

It seems what you really want here is to bring the agent to his knees. Without an offer on the table from the Yankees that Teixeira would accept, it's just not feasible to treat his alleged decision as anything more than a preference. I decided yesterday that I want to be GM of the Mets. Do I have to tell my current employer that it's over, or can I continue to work at my current job until the Mets come calling? This isn't even in the same ballpark as the Furcal case. Until the Yankees put something on the table that Teixeira decided he wanted, an agent almost has to pretend that the Yankees don't exist as an option.

As I said, I think had the Sox' offer been the highest we would have been treated to "my wife always said she wished I had signed with Boston out of high school" or something equally as crap-filled.

That would be a hilarious money quote, given that they met in college.

I agree with this take on the negotiations. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Tex decided he wanted to be a Yankee early on if the Yankees were willing to pay him "market" value, so Boras tells the Yankees "hey, you're his first choice, but he's not willing to sign at a discount, so we have to let the market play out a bit." Cashman says "that's fine, come back to us when you're ready to talk numbers."

It seems to me perfectly plausible (though "plausible," of course, does not mean "established") that Tex decided he wanted to be a Yankee early on if the Yankees were willing to pay him "market" value. It seems utterly ludicrous to propose that Boras told the Yankees that all they had to do was match whatever offer was out there. What the hell kind of stupid strategy would that be?

What the hell kind of stupid strategy would that be?

The only one available to him that satisfies his client given New York's other priorities. And if the Yankees went higher, it was only nominally so. And Boston was never getting the last call.

It seems utterly ludicrous to propose that Boras told the Yankees that all they had to do was match whatever offer was out there. What the hell kind of stupid strategy would that be?

Very similar to the Beltran strategy, though the Yanks f'd that one up.

It seems what you really want here is to bring the agent to his knees. Without an offer on the table from the Yankees that Teixeira would accept, it's just not feasible to treat his alleged decision as anything more than a preference. I decided yesterday that I want to be GM of the Mets. Do I have to tell my current employer that it's over, or can I continue to work at my current job until the Mets come calling? This isn't even in the same ballpark as the Furcal case. Until the Yankees put something on the table that Teixeira decided he wanted, an agent almost has to pretend that the Yankees don't exist as an option.

What bothers me is that many here seem to view the teams as the villians and the players and agents as the heroes, so any action taken by the team is bad, and any action taken by the players and agents is good (or at least acceptable). I think many of us (and I include myself in this category) are so used to seeing the players portrayed as greedy a$$holes that we reflexively defend them and their representatives in situations like this. But neither side has a monopoly on virtue or vice.

I don't want to bring Boras or any other agent to their knees, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to negotiate honestly (within reason) and in good faith with the teams. Just as we expect the teams to the same. What if we reversed the story, and the Yankees had been negotiating with Tex solely to lower the price for Manny? They tell Manny "we think 2 years, $24M is a fair offer, but as you've heard, we in serious negotiations with Tex, and if you don't sign soon we'll go with him instead," and at the same time, they're stringing Tex along with no intention of ever making him a formal offer. I think that would be pretty sleazy, and the ethics don't change because it's a team and not a player.

And Boston was never getting the last call.

But, they were still in it, since they could have made an offer the Yankees wouldn't match. If Boston had offered 250/10 (and I'm being extreme just to make the point) Teixeira would be a Red Sox today. Now, they weren't going that high, but, somewhere between there and his current contract there was a price at which Teixeira signs with the Sox.

What course of action do you believe Teixeira and Boras could have ethically taken? You've made clear that they have to cease all negotiations with other bidders. Do they have to publicly announce this? Can they ethically pretend other bidders are involved so as to get a better deal from the Yankees? Or do they have to go to the Yankees hat in hand?

When a player decides he will only play for one team it is his agent's responsibility to negotiate the best possible deal with that team. An ethical actor will not lie during those negotiations, even if his client might suffer some form of penalty for his ethical behavior. This is the cost of the player making his decision. Once the decision is made, the agent should negotiate honestly and in good faith with the player's choice of employers. At no point should the agent return to false-negotiations with teams that have been eliminated by the player. Doing so is and can only be unethical. Your argument otherwise essentially shields the player from the consequences of his decisions. "I only want to play with New York" should carry the consequence of playing for what New York will pay at the time of the decision, not what New York might pay if the agent lies to Boston and continues to pretend the player hasn't decided on New York.

I have no problem with a player negotiating contrasting benefits and salaries between two teams. I have a problem with players using other teams to drive up the price for one team they really want to play for in order to avoid the practical and moral consequences of their decisions. It's unethical and wrong. Period.

It seems what you really want here is to bring the agent to his knees.

No, what I want is for people to behave ethically. The fact that it's a business doesn't give the player nor his agent the right to negotiate in bad faith. I'm not agitating for a return to the reserve clause. I'm simply stating that an agent has an ethical duty to cease negotiations with other clubs once a player has made a decision. The fact that this simple statement is somehow alien to some indicates a categorical failure of this audience to understand basic business ethics, much less basic common decency.

And to be clear, if Mark Teixeira made his decision to play for New York prior to New York making an offer then Mark Teixeira should be limited in his compensation to whatever New York would pay at the time of his decision. That is the consequence of his decision.

And to be clear, if Mark Teixeira made his decision to play for New York prior to New York making an offer the Mark Teixeira should be limited in his compensation to whatever New York would pay at the time of his decision. That is the consequence of his decision.

But, Sam, you know that's not really true.

Teixeira "only" wanted to play for NY if the offers were essentially equal. If the Yankees were only willing to offer 4/80, and the Red Sox/Angels/Nats were willing to go 8/160, he was perfectly willing to play for another team.

Its like me saying I only buy American cars. It's true as long as there are reasonable options. But, if all of a sudden the only American cars avaliable were sub-compact hybrids that cost $40,000, I'd be shopping for a European car right quick.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why would Boras allow a ballclub to stand outside of the bidding process? That seems like a good way to prevent your client from receiving maximum value. These Boras-Yankees conspiracies don't have any historical evidence behind them, and they don't make sense as a historical reconstruction.

New York's priority was Sabathia and, more broadly, pitching. Boston's priority was to get Teixeira. Teixeira's priority was to be a Yankee. New York would set the market on Sabathia but merely meet it for Tex since they knew he wanted to come to the Bronx.

So, very early on, the Yankees explained that they would not be actively pursuing Tex but that they they would happily hit the bid on whatever number the highest bidder landed on by Christmas. Yanks win, Boras wins, Tex wins.

Meanwhile the Red Sox never had a chance. They are of the belief that they were owed more forthright talks from Boras.

I think you're both right. I'm sure Boras wasn't thrilled that the Yankees were staying outside the process and he likely was strongly encouraging them to make an offer. I'm just as sure that when Teixeira received an acceptable offer from Boston, Boras was going to take it to the Yankees (whether they had previously made an offer or not) to give them a chance to top it. Just as I'm sure that after the Yankees did top Boston's offer, Boras went back to Boston to give them a chance to top the Yankees offer. It's Negotiations 101. Teixeira's "preference" has very little to do with it.

It seems to me perfectly plausible (though "plausible," of course, does not mean "established") that Tex decided he wanted to be a Yankee early on if the Yankees were willing to pay him "market" value.

Plausible? Yes. Established? As you say, no. Which means you're simply interpreting the situation via a preferred lens in order to create as little cognative dissonance as possible. From what I think I understand of you, this means an interpretation as player/agent friendly as possible, regardless of whether or not such benefit-of-doubt is actually deserved.

It was not lower in annual value.

Neither would $20M for one year be. WTF does that have to do with anything? Why on earth would you think that "annual value" is the sole measure by which a contract is evaluated? Players routinely make decisions based on whether a team is willing to offer an extra year on a contract.

Sorry -- not buying the idea that 7/$140M is not serious, but 8/$160M is.

Which explains why you're so often apologizing for the Orioles' front office failures. The Orioles have been pulling this for years, making noises about wanting to be in the bidding for a big name free agent (remember Vlad Guerrero several years ago?), and then never getting around to making a serious offer, and acting shocked that the player goes elsewhere. In fact, it often comes out that they never made any formal offer at all; they were just kind of chatting with the agent for the purpose of making it seem to the shills in the local media that they were willing to make a play for the player. (To be fair, that wasn't under MacPhail, but it was under Angelos.)

I think a lot of orioles fans seem to think that, regardless of whether it would have improved their chances of getting Tex, they wanted the Orioles to offer 8/160 for PR purposes. That's seems very silly to me.

I think that a lot of Orioles fans think -- correctly -- that making a market value offer would have improved their chances of getting Teixeira, over their chances when they woefully underbid.

I think a lot of Orioles fans think -- correctly -- that when other teams have already bid $20M more than your number, that a $140M/7 bid is solely "for PR purposes." In fact, you apparently agree with that, since you claim that everyone knew he wasn't going to sign with the Orioles, and yet they made a bid anyway:

Let's be realistic -- it's clear that Tex had very little interest in signing with the Orioles, and the only way they could have gotten him was to blow away the Yankees. Signing Tex for something like 10 years/$240M would have been pretty stupid, so whining about the process is a waste of time.

The problem is that it's only clear that he "had very little interest in signing with the Orioles" because they refused to make a serious bid.

This is the usual apology we see around here for the Orioles: I criticize them for making a bad decision, and then people defend them not on the merits of the decision, but by pointing out that the optimum decision wouldn't have been feasible. Here, I criticize them for not making a serious offer, and instead of admitting that they should have done so, you argue that they shouldn't have offered $240M/10. Well, I agree. They shouldn't have. But what on earth does that have to do with anything? I never said that they should have offered $240M/10. I said that they should have offered the same amount as other teams were, instead of inventing fantasies about what Teixeira would have wanted from them. If they offer him $160M and he doesn't take it, well, that's one thing. They tried but he didn't want it. But offering $140M is a joke.

Now, if they decide $160M is too much, and he's out of their price range, that may be a legitimate decision as well. But that doesn't change the fact that offering $140M is a joke.

As for your larger criticism, it's insane. You can't blame a team for the results; it can do everything right and still lose out on a player. The process is exactly what they should be evaluated on. The process is where this front office is ###### up, and the process is why they've had 11 straight losing seasons.

But, Sam, you know that's not really true.

If so, then Mark Teixeira should cease to lie about his motivations and intents.

Its like me saying I only buy American cars. It's true as long as there are reasonable options. But, if all of a sudden the only American cars avaliable were sub-compact hybrids that cost $40,000, I'd be shopping for a European car right quick.

Then you should not say you only buy American cars. You only buy cars where the combination of cost, efficiency and features satisfy your practical needs, and if you can find a car that satisfies those requirements and also is made in America you will use the nationality of the manufacturer as a deciding factor between comparable alternatives. That is the honest statement, not "I only buy American" with an unstated, secreted "but only if it's economically viable for me" rider.