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.

But, that other stuff is implied, just like the market price is implied when Teixeira says he wanted to play for the Yankees.

"Under reasonable conditions" is implied in almost any statement of preference anyone makes. To not spell it out, each and every time, is not lying.

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?

I didn't say that he told the Yankees that "all they had to do was match whatever offer was out there," and, indeed, the Yankees apparently offered the most money. Boras was simply telling the Yankees that, if they made a good offer based on the market conditions, Tex would sign with them. The only issue was figuring out what those market conditions were.

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.

Two points:

1) I think your framing of the issue is way off. I don't think Teixeira ever decided that he will only play for the Yankees and it's unreasonable to think that he did. If there was a $100 mil disparity between the offers, Teixeira would be a Red Sox. The only way your argument makes sense is if you believe Teixeira would prefer the Yankees to the Red Sox at any price. Do you honestly believe this?

2) Without an offer from the Yankees, Teixeira's decision is meaningless. I'm quite certain that Boras had been in contact with the Yankees throughout the process. The Yankees still had not put an offer on the table at the time Teixeira made his alleged decision. So long as the Yankees had not offered him a chance to play for them, Teixeira and Boras have to negotiate with the teams that appear to actually want Teixeira. Until the Yankees make an actual offer, they're just not an option.

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.

Again, only if his "decision" is completely independent of price. Nobody actually thinks that is true.

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.

What's a "serious" bid? Obviously he wouldn't have signed with them for 8/160 or even 8/180. SHould they have offered 10/250? Should they have given him a blank check?

Wah, wah...the Orioles didn't sign Tex. Get over it.

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.

Setting aside the point that all the assumptions as to the facts in these sorts of arguments are purely imaginary, let's unpack this for a second:

By the reasoning you guys are putting forth, if Teixeira's preference is to play for the Yankees all else being equal, and if the Yankees tell Teixeira up front that they're not going to bid, but will match whatever offer he gets from another team, then Teixeira is screwed.

According to Sam and a few other sanctimonious nitwits, at that point it becomes "unethical" for Teixeira to talk to any other team. He knows that he won't take any other team's offer, because he knows that the Yankees will match it and he'll take the Yankee offer instead. So therefore he can't ethically talk to any other teams at all, because he'd just be using them to drive up the Yankee bid. But then he has nothing to take back to the Yankees! So they have nothing to match! So he...?


The fact is, until he has a signed contract in hand from the Yankees, it is not definite that he will be playing for the Yankees. They could fail to come through with their expected offer. They could make the offer and then withdraw it before he accepts it. They could make the expected offer but attach a bunch of conditions that make it unappealing despite the dollar amount. So it can't be "unethical" for him to talk to other teams, even if he intends to sign with the Yankees.

But, that other stuff is implied, just like the market price is implied when Teixeira says he wanted to play for the Yankees.

That's fine. But that's what Teixeira should *say.* As events now stand, one of two things is going on. Either Teixeira is lying about his intent and preference, perhaps as part of his "NY PR blitz", or Scott Boras lied to Boston about his client's willingness to play for that franchise. (Or, possibly, both.) In either case, someone is behaving unethically. And even if we accept that one or both is standard behavior, neither is *ethical* behavior. If standard PR blitz behavior requires lying - or "spin" - then we ought not accept the nudge and wink and say "that's just the way it is." We ought to change standard PR behavior. If standard negotitating tactics include lieing to "competitor bidders" in order to artificially drive the "market price" of the player above what would otherwise be the case, we ought not accept that as status quo. We ought to demand a "market" that behaves ethically with player compensation falling if necessary. Because if we don't, we don't have a true market. We have an artificial bubble created by unethical behavior by insiders incented to ignore the common good in pursuit of their own private benefit. That's undesirable.

For the record, I am not sure where I come down on the ethical debate. I am just recounting how this thing went down (David's "imaginary" remark aside - as I said, folks can take my vantage point for what it's worth).

Again, only if his "decision" is completely independent of price. Nobody actually thinks that is true.

I am simply working off of the statements made by the player. If the player is a liar that is another set of moral calculus. The fact that we *assume* the player is a liar simply indicates the unethical state of the business model in general.

According to Sam and a few other sanctimonious nitwits, at that point it becomes "unethical" for Teixeira to talk to any other team. He knows that he won't take any other team's offer, because he knows that the Yankees will match it and he'll take the Yankee offer instead.

So in your world, David, it requires a "sanctimonious nitwit" to suggest that a man should abide by his given word. Okay. That confirms some assumptions about your unbalanced perceptions of right and wrong.

But, that other stuff is implied, just like the market price is implied when Teixeira says he wanted to play for the Yankees.

That's fine. But that's what Teixeira should *say.*

Once we got the contract figured out, it was a no-brainer for me.

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.

Well, it's consistent. Retarded, but consistent. Hey, if he makes that decision but then the Yankees don't come through with any formal offer at all, should he be limited to signing with an independent league team? (Or is he ethically forbidden from that, too?) Obviously, Sam doesn't actually believe any of this; he's just taking an absurd position because he dislikes Boras.

In any case, this is all based on the completely unfounded assumption that Teixeira would only play for the Yankees, something which is based solely on a decision to aggressively misread a single ex post facto quote from a newspaper article.

Once we got the contract figured out, it was a no-brainer for me.

As the question at hand revolves around how they "got the contract figured out" I'm not sure this quote advances anything.

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

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

After the press conference, he probably should have delivered an annotated copy to the press just to make clear what he really meant.

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.

Is this really your argument? As snapper notes in 101, the other stuff is implied and almost all reasonable people understand that to be the case. When speaking extemporaneously, I think it's forgivable if your words are not as precise as possible and perhaps overstate your position. If your meaning is understood by the vast majority of observers, I think you're ethically in the clear so that you can't be accused of lying by reasonable people without an agenda.

As the question at hand revolves around how they "got the contract figured out" I'm not sure this quote advances anything.

Er, genius, the point of that quote is that signing with the Yankees was contingent upon them offering an acceptable contract, which undercuts your ludicrous claims that he'd made a firm decision and was obligated to cease talks with other parties.

Well, it's consistent. Retarded, but consistent.

I do not believe the fact that you think moral behavior is "retarded" reflects poorly on me.

Hey, if he makes that decision but then the Yankees don't come through with any formal offer at all, should he be limited to signing with an independent league team? (Or is he ethically forbidden from that, too?)

If Teixeira honestly decided to play for the Yankees without a formal offer then he is ethically required to sign whatever offer the Yankees provide. If he makes such an irrational decision and never gets an offer from the Yankees he is free to change his mind about who he would be willing to play for (including independent league teams.) What he ought not be able to do is lie, via his agent or any other party, to other teams to artificially drive up his compensation package. Look up "in good faith" some time.

Obviously, Sam doesn't actually believe any of this; he's just taking an absurd position because he dislikes Boras.

Actually, no. I'm making good faith arguments about ethics and morality. I understand where they confuse you, what with your having no understanding whatsoever of either of those subjects.

As snapper notes in 101, the other stuff is implied and almost all reasonable people understand that to be the case. When speaking extemporaneously, I think it's forgivable if your words are not as precise as possible and perhaps overstate your position.

Which is why I did not begin by accusing Teixeira of lying. Rather, I began by stating that the Red Sox' claims that Boras negotiated in bad faith certainly seem to have some basis in fact. There is no "speaking extermporaneously" caveat to be applied to an agent's negotiations with a franchise. Precision is required and necessary, and it is becoming more and more obvious to observers who don't have "an agenda" - namely the preservation of their established "players good, owners bad" world view - that Boras behaves unethically in his dealings with clubs.

If standard negotitating tactics include lieing to "competitor bidders" in order to artificially drive the "market price" of the player above what would otherwise be the case, we ought not accept that as status quo. We ought to demand a "market" that behaves ethically with player compensation falling if necessary. Because if we don't, we don't have a true market. We have an artificial bubble created by unethical behavior by insiders incented to ignore the common good in pursuit of their own private benefit. That's undesirable.

Whether Boras acted unethically or not has no bearing on the market price. The market price is whatever a team is willing to pay for a player. Whether that team has any chance to sign that player doesn't matter. The market price for Teixeira is probably higher than what he actually signed for as its been reported that the National had the highest offer on the table. Just because Teixeira or any other player has an idiosyncratic preference which causes him to take less than market value doesn't mean we should graft those preferences on to every other player.

Just about every free agent in any professional sport says something to the effect that the team that signed him was always where he hoped to play, his favorite team from childhood and/or the best place to play for this reason or that. I'm surprised that anyone thinks that Teixeira's statement about his wife wanting him to be a Yankee is any different than the usual puffery or means that he would not have taken a significantly better offer from another team.

The ethics critics here have ignored the fact that Boras owed a fiduciary duty to Teixeira, not the Red Sox nor any of the teams in MLB. Telling teams not to bother bidding on Tex would have clearly violated that duty under most interpretations with which I'm familiar. There is nothing unethical in Boras encouraging teams to bid up the market value of his client even if he knows that his client may prefer some teams over others. It may be inconvenient for teams that lose out but that's inherent in a free agency process absent collusion.

the point of that quote is that signing with the Yankees was contingent upon them offering an acceptable contract

Then why is he now saying that he always wanted to play for New York, or that the decision was made prior to Christmas?

Which is why I did not begin by accusing Teixeira of lying. Rather, I began by stating that the Red Sox' claims that Boras negotiated in bad faith certainly seem to have some basis in fact. There is no "speaking extermporaneously" caveat to be applied to an agent's negotiations with a franchise.

But the only thing that makes those negotiations unethical is if you interpret Teixiera's words at his press conference in the manner you have.

The ethics critics here have ignored the fact that Boras owed a fiduciary duty to Teixeira, not the Red Sox nor any of the teams in MLB. Telling teams not to bother bidding on Tex would have clearly violated that duty under most interpretations with which I'm familiar. There is nothing unethical in Boras encouraging teams to bid up the market value of his client even if he knows that his client may prefer some teams over others.

A fiduciary duty to a client does not absolve an agent from ethical standards of behavior. If you think it does, you fail to grasp the basic components of ethics.

If Teixeira honestly decided to play for the Yankees without a formal offer then he is ethically required to sign whatever offer the Yankees provide.

I believe John Smoltz honestly decided he wanted to play for the Braves in 2009. I don't think there's anything unethical in the fact that he won't be.

But the only thing that makes those negotiations unethical is if you interpret Teixiera's words at his press conference in the manner you have.

Perhaps. But I'd argue that an established trend exists around Scott Boras' business practices, and that the Red Sox' reaction to the Teixeira deal amplifies that trend. So while I am willing to concede the point that Teixeira is probably guilty of speaking imprecisely rather than lying, I am not willing to concede the argument that Boras behaves unethically. There is too much compiling data to give him the on-going benefit of doubt, in this instance or any other. Absent evidence to the contrary I take the Red Sox assertion that Boras negotiated in bad faith at face value, not because of Teixeira's press conference (or because I have some sort of unnatural antipathy towards Boras), but because this very same charge has been levied against Boras repeatedly, by independent parties other than the Red Sox, in the past.

A fiduciary duty to a client does not absolve an agent from ethical standards of behavior. If you think it does, you fail to grasp the basic components of ethics.

Sam, I agree with your general point on Boras (i.e. he often lies, and behaves unethically), but, I think you've chosen a real bad example to argue it. I think what Boras often does is lie about competing offers he doesn't have.

But in this case, even if Teixeira had a very strong Yankee preference, it's absolutely irrelevent, they had the highest bid. If Boston had outbid the Yankees, and he still signed with NY, they might have some grounds for alleging they had been misled. But, when you're not the top bidder, how can you make that argument? There's no way you could expect Boras/Teixeira to tell all the other teams "don't bother making an offer". That's not ethical, it's just stupid. Until he signs with the Yankees, or has an offer, and an agreement in principal, it is completely ethical to solicit and entertain other offers, as long as you don't lie. Who knows, someone might do something foolish and blow you away with a 10/250 contract.

I believe John Smoltz honestly decided he wanted to play for the Braves in 2009.

Established evidence suggests you're incorrect in your belief.

I must not be understanding Sam Hutcheson's argument here. I think, Sam, you're saying that Teixeira acted unethically by not disclosing his personal thoughts in the middle of negotiations. By concealing his desire to play for the Yankees, by talking to other teams, he acted unethically, yes?

My question is, Why do you think this is unethical?

No, that's not right. I think I get that bit. He was dissembling, lying, being dishonest: if he had every intention of signing with the Yankees, he should have said so because to not say so is to "lead other teams on," yes? And lying, as we all know, is unethical, so if we define Teixeira to be lying, then Teixeira was being unethical.

Perhaps my question is, At what point is an individual in negotiations allowed to keep some information to himself? The point at which Teixeira fails for you is the second he decided with 'absolute certainty' that he only wanted to play for the Yankees. Every negotiation he had with other teams was dishonest at that point, yes? But what if it wasn't an absolute certainty? Is Teixeira required by your rules of ethics to disclose, "Look, I'm pretty sure I'll take the Yankees offer (assuming they eventually make one)?" Is he required to say, "Hey, everything else equal, I'll take a Yankees offer?" What if it's early in negotiations and all he's thinking is "You know, I always wanted to go to Broadway shows on my offdays during the season" -- is he required to divulge that for the sake of honesty? What if in the middle of an interview he thinks, "Wow, John Henry really has bad breath, I'm not sure I can sign with a team whose owner has such halitosis" -- is he required to say so?

Yes, these are silly examples, but that's because I'm struggling to find the line wherein Teixeira is allowed to keep his own counsel in a negotiation. I don't think he should have to share his every thought about every team and about every offer with every other team (and I'd assume you'd agree with this), so at what point do we draw the line? A vague "He should share his thoughts within reason" doesn't work for me -- I'm not sure where reason would draw the line.

I'm reminded of an old Augusta Stevenson children's book about Ulysses S Grant. (My dad had a lot of these books and I read quite a few. They theoretically, but almost certainly not actually, described the lives of young famous Americans, using almost certainly apocryphal yarns to help describe the people they would eventually grow up to be). In (something like) the first chapter of the Grant book, his dad asks him to go buy a horse for him from a stranger in town. (My memory may not get this exactly right, but since Augusta Stevenson almost certainly made it up, does it really matter?) His dad says to the young Grant: "I want you to take a look at a horse for me. The man's been asking for $18 for a horse. Offer him $16, but if you think he's worth it -- I trust your eye for horses -- you can go up to $18." Ulysses finds the man and says, "My dad sent me to buy the horse from you. I was told to offer you $16, but I can go up to $18 if I think he's worth it, and he certainly is! In fact, I think he's not worth a dollar less than $20 and my dad would be glad to pay it!" The man laughed (good-naturedly, appreciatively) at Grant's unerringly honest nature. And raised his asking price to $20 (and got it from Grant's dad, who joined in the laughter at the story, albeit slightly less happily since he was $2 poorer than he had ever intended to be).

Was Ulysses's action the only correct one ethically?

John Smoltz wants to pitch for Braves in 2009

Smoltz left open the possibility that he would consider pitching for another team next season after spending his entire major league career with the Braves. His first preference, however, is to stay in Atlanta.

“I really don’t even know why I’m answering that question,” he said. “I’ve been here for 21 years and I’m going to be here as long as there’s a position for me.”

Is there a way for the Yankees to trap an honest Yankee-leaning Teixeira by saying "We'll match any offer" at the beginning of negotiations. By Sam's ethical standards, the man has to tell teams that everything else equal, he'd sign with the Yankees. They never submit offers, and the Yankees get him for league minimum...

Except that he'd suddenly "undecide" to play for the Yankees if he thought that they were so completely lowballing him to such an extent. At which point he informs teams that he's now willing to consider other offers since without them, he'd be playing for less money than he's received in any season since his rookie season.

So they start offering. The Yankees start matching -- their league minimum offer wasn't their final offer -- and now he starts leaning towards the Yankees again... at which point other teams, properly informed by Teixeira, rescind their offers, causing the Yankees to lower their offer to the minimum again...

“I really don’t even know why I’m answering that question,” he said. “I’ve been here for 21 years and I’m going to be here as long as there’s a position for me.”

There is a position for him in Atlanta, even now. He is not in Atlanta. Therefore this statement is clearly untrue.

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.

What's a "serious" bid? Obviously he wouldn't have signed with them for 8/160 or even 8/180. SHould they have offered 10/250? Should they have given him a blank check?

No, they should have made a market value offer or no offer at all. It is not 'obvious' that he would not have signed with them for those prices; you're pulling that claim out of your ass. Is it probable that the Yankees (or Red Sox), because they're not losers like the Orioles, would have had the inside track on signing him? Sure. Is that definite? Absolutely not. We don't know that he wouldn't have chosen being home over being on a contender if the offer was close.

If the Orioles determined that Teixeira wasn't worth $160/8 -- and I'm not saying that such a determination would be unreasonable -- then they shouldn't bother to bid. Making an offer which is below that of all other teams is just a way to fool naive fans who don't pay any attention.

Wah, wah...the Orioles didn't sign Tex. Get over it.

Are you sure you're an Orioles fan? You seem a lot more like an Angelos fan, more interested in defending his regime than in the team's fortunes.

1) I think your framing of the issue is way off. I don't think Teixeira ever decided that he will only play for the Yankees and it's unreasonable to think that he did. If there was a $100 mil disparity between the offers, Teixeira would be a Red Sox. The only way your argument makes sense is if you believe Teixeira would prefer the Yankees to the Red Sox at any price. Do you honestly believe this?

Strawman. Obviously no team was going to offer $100M more than the Yankees, and just as obviously Tex wasn't going to sign with the Yankees "at any price." The issue is whether he lied to the Red Sox and other teams about his interest to inflate his market value.

But the only thing that makes those negotiations unethical is if you interpret Teixiera's words at his press conference in the manner you have.

This isn't just about his press conference. No one wants to take the Red Sox's comments that started this thread seriously, but the fact that they're saying that they won't deal with him again is evidence that they think something screwy happened. You can disagree with them or argue that they're not being honest either, but my instinct is that there's more to this story than any of us know, and that there's at least some truth to Tex's comments and the Red Sox's complaints.

Was Ulysses's action the only correct one ethically?

It was certainly the most ethical action, though taking the $2 bargain wouldn't have been notably unethical. If the seller's valuation had been markedly wrong - say $4 total for a $20 horse - then it would have been unethical for Grant to take advantage of the unsavvy seller. If I'm at an estate sale and Grandma Knownuthin is auctioning off a an armoire for slightly less than it's actual value, I'm not ethically required to up my bid just to save her a couple of percentage points. If, on the other hand, she's auctioning off a Picasso for $30 then I am behaving unethically if I take advantage of her ignorance.

No one wants to take the Red Sox's comments that started this thread seriously, but the fact that they're saying that they won't deal with him again is evidence that they think something screwy happened.

Or that they're covering their collective asses over losing out on Teixeira, and a new high-priced Yankee makes an excellent distraction. After all, the Boston management seems to be pretty skilled at the game of PR.

Note: I don't necessarily believe that this is the case, but it is a possibility.

Is there a way for the Yankees to trap an honest Yankee-leaning Teixeira...

Doubtlessly a team could trap an ethical player by behaving unethically themselves. That's why we should require all parties to behave in a moral manner.

Strawman.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Or that they're covering their collective asses over losing out on Teixeira, and a new high-priced Yankee makes an excellent distraction. After all, the Boston management seems to be pretty skilled at the game of PR.

No doubt. But those things aren't mutually exclusive.

He was dissembling, lying, being dishonest: if he had every intention of signing with the Yankees, he should have said so because to not say so is to "lead other teams on," yes?

I'd say it could be unethical if Boras negotiated with the Red Sox even though Teixeira had no intention of playing there. It wastes the Red Sox' time, and I imagine they put a lot of work and time into the negotiating process. I know I get annoyed when I'm trying to interview someone to hire who comes in to interview but has no intention of ever accepting the job. It's pretty rude.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Please explain. You suggested that those of us criticizing Boras are claiming that Tex preferred the Yankees "at any price." That's obviously false.

Firstly, I don't think there is anything to this. I don't believe it is likly the Red Sox have a problem with Boras, as they have in the past negotiated with him and by most accounts have a pretty good relationship with him.

If in fact it has soured, my guess would be that it will be repaired as both parties have a lot to loose if they aren't able to negotiate with each other. Who has more to lose? It's not clear, but certainly it's both.

My guess IF there are any hard feelings it is something of the nature that the Red Sox feel Boras wasn't negotiating in good faith, and that the a deal was closer than it appeared. Considering the widely reported leak that Mark signed with the Red Sox it doesn't too far fatched to think that someone thought a deal was agreed on, and since Mark quickly signed with the Yankees I think it's unlikly that it was Boras/Mark who misunderstood where they were in the process. I would expect if that was the case, communication between the parties would be better going forward since it is in both parties best interests.

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?

Certainly not if I was trying to maintain a long term relationship with the counterparty. If I wasn't then sure I would let someone hit his bid. I know in my business that a counterparty will figure out pretty quickly if I'm using him to just set levels for someone else to hit, and thats a quick way to not get calls taken.

No doubt. But those things aren't mutually exclusive.

I agree. It's just that we've seen a lot more about how Tex and Boras must be lying about things, and little comment on how the Red Sox may (or may not) be playing things up for PR reasons. It's entirely possible that all parties involved were (or are) behaving in a manner which some would consider to be unethical. We really don't know, as we only have a very limited insight into the actual events, and those are largely coming from an assortment of parties who all have a strong interest in portraying themselves in the best possible light.

Well, except for Boras, who seems to gain from being portrayed as unethical, since it seems to help him create the impression that he'll do anything to satisfy his clients (regardless of whether or not he's actually behaving in an unethical manner).

Please explain. You suggested that those of us criticizing Boras are claiming that Tex preferred the Yankees "at any price." That's obviously false.

No, I did not. What I actually said is that Sam's argument only makes sense if you believe Teixeira preferred the Yankees at any price. Because if you don't believe that, which, as you point out, few actually do, Teixiera's "decision" was really no more than a preference.

This isn't just about his press conference. No one wants to take the Red Sox's comments that started this thread seriously, but the fact that they're saying that they won't deal with him again is evidence that they think something screwy happened. You can disagree with them or argue that they're not being honest either, but my instinct is that there's more to this story than any of us know, and that there's at least some truth to Tex's comments and the Red Sox's complaints.

First, what "Red Sox's comments that started this thread"? There are no comments from the Red Sox. There's a comment from an unknown "well-placed source." (Who, incidentally, did not actually rule out dealing with Boras again.)

Second, yes, it is just about the press conference. The Red Sox's words logically can't be taken seriously. If they actually knew at the time that Teixeira would only sign with the Yankees, then they wouldn't have bid on him at all. (And if they did anyway, they wouldn't have any grounds for complaint, because they weren't deceived.) Therefore, their claim has to be that they didn't know before he signed, but they know now. But how on earth would they know now? Do you think Boras (or Teixeira) called them up and taunted them, saying, "Ha, ha! Wasted your time! We were never willing to sign with you at any price!" I think even loony Sam would agree that this is implausible.

That leaves either (a) they're reacting to the comment in the press conference, or (b) the fact that they're just expressing sour grapes, either out of a true feeling of sour grapes or for the sake of p.r. to explain to Sox fans why they lost out to the Yankees.

Caveat Emptor.

SAM

you got a very, uh, interesting idea of what "ethical" is

so if tiex wants to only play for the yankees, BUT they don't want him for even minimum, is he therefore obligated to retire from baseball?

and if teix wants to play for the yankees, then he is obligated to announce this under oath and then take whatever contract the yankees will offer? even if it is a minimum wage for 15 years?

he isn't allowed to say - well, let's see what teams will offer, then i'll consider the offers and pick the one i think suits me best

i suppose you would prefer an auction with the player being forced to go to the highest bidder?

how exactly do you propose to prevent the OWNER from being what you call "unethical"

how exactly do you expect a market value to be set?

do you think a team should be allowed to pay a player whatever they happen to want, no matter how little, if the player has a preference for a particular team?

and mind, you are speaking to a person who to this day despises carlos beltran for thoroughly effing the astros up the wazoo with a jackhammer (thatll teach mclane to think he's a GM - NOT)

The ethics critics here have ignored the fact that Boras owed a fiduciary duty to Teixeira, not the Red Sox nor any of the teams in MLB. Telling teams not to bother bidding on Tex would have clearly violated that duty under most interpretations with which I'm familiar. There is nothing unethical in Boras encouraging teams to bid up the market value of his client even if he knows that his client may prefer some teams over others.

A fiduciary duty to a client does not absolve an agent from ethical standards of behavior. If you think it does, you fail to grasp the basic components of ethics.

It appears Sam is trying to impose something inconsistent with Boras' fiduciary duty and calling it an ethical standard even though there is no authority for the existence of that standard. Suggesting Boras should have violated his fiduciary duty to Teixeira in order to conform to Sam's own personal sense of ethical behavior indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the requirements of a fiduciary duty.

This issue has been considered in many professions, perhaps most notably law & real estate. Neither agree with Sam's imposition of a general ethical requirement to inform bidders that the decision maker prefers to deal with another entity, no matter how strong that preference.

Huh. Turns out I'm morally and ethically bankrupt.

Baseball Chick, I don't think you're reading me very well. If Teix truly wants to limit himself to the Yankees he will take a pay cut. If he makes that decision, "I will only play for the New York Yankees", he shouldn't negotiate in bad faith with other teams. If the Yankees take some advantage of his refusal to play elsewhere, those are the consequences of the player's choice. Teix isn't required to play for the league minimum. He isn't *forced* to only play for the Yankees. But if he so chooses, any continued negotiations with other teams are, by definition, in bad faith. I'm agog that people are finding this hard to fathom. No one is suggesting a player can't shop his services around. We're simply suggesting that business ethics doesn't cease to apply at the player/agent's side of the table.

And for the record, I expect market value to be set by the player's good-faith interactions with the market. If the player REFUSES TO PLAY for other teams, his market value SHOULD DROP. Period. End of story. If he doesn't want his market value to drop, he should engage more teams in good faith. The problem is that many players, if you believe their own statements, seem to operate on the model that they should behave as if their "on the market" in order to "set their market price" even if they're not really on the market at all. If a player isn't going to play in NYC at any cost then NYC is NOT PART OF THE MARKET FOR HIS SERVICES, and if he falsely engages NYC as part of a false market in order to drive up the his price in his real market, he is behaving unethcially.

This really isn't that hard.

It appears Sam is trying to impose something inconsistent with Boras' fiduciary duty and calling it an ethical standard

Sam operates on the assumption that ethical standards are not defined by legal hair-splitting. If Sam wanted to argue legalese he would be making legal arguments instead of ethical arguments. It is not Sam's fault if your profession's standard of behavior fails to meet basic common ethical standards for business or life at large.

Huh. Turns out I'm morally and ethically bankrupt.

At least you're not lonely.

Isn't this (as usual) just semantics?

If the definition of "wanting to play for the Yankees" is "ONLY wanting to play for the Yankees", then Teix did not "want to play for the Yankees." If the Yankees offered him substantially less money than another team, he wouldn't have wanted to play for them anymore.

("Substantially less" might have been $1 less... we don't know. But certainly as you increase and increase the amount of discount the Yanks asked him to take, you'd get to the point eventually where he wouldn't have wanted to play for them anymore.)

So, I think the simplest answer to your objection is that it just doesn't come up in real life. Virtually no one wants to play for one specific team no matter how much money it means passing up. Tim Wakefield might be the lone exception. And guess what, he gets $4M a year or whatever, and he's ok with that, and that's great. Everyone else is willing to trade off their preferences for money. Thus, they're not negotiating in bad faith when they try to find out how much money the non-preferred teams are willing to give to entice them into making that tradeoff.

Whether Boras acted unethically or not has no bearing on the market price. The market price is whatever a team is willing to pay for a player.

That's one definition of market price, but not the only definition. I'd argue there actually has to be a sale for that to be the market price. If Bill Gates is on a desert island and says to himself "I'd pay a million dollars for a Big Mac," that doesn't set a market price, even if he is serious.

erhaps my question is, At what point is an individual in negotiations allowed to keep some information to himself? The point at which Teixeira fails for you is the second he decided with 'absolute certainty' that he only wanted to play for the Yankees. Every negotiation he had with other teams was dishonest at that point, yes? But what if it wasn't an absolute certainty? Is Teixeira required by your rules of ethics to disclose, "Look, I'm pretty sure I'll take the Yankees offer (assuming they eventually make one)?" Is he required to say, "Hey, everything else equal, I'll take a Yankees offer?"

I think Sam is saying, he doesn't necessarily have to tell the Yankees, but he is obliged to tell Scott Boras, and Boras is then obliged to use that information in good faith.

It appears Sam is trying to impose something inconsistent with Boras' fiduciary duty and calling it an ethical standard even though there is no authority for the existence of that standard. Suggesting Boras should have violated his fiduciary duty to Teixeira in order to conform to Sam's own personal sense of ethical behavior indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the requirements of a fiduciary duty.

Don't think I agree with this. If John Henry goes to the can during negotiations and leaves his notes on the table, does Boras have a fiduciary duty to look at them?

Don't think I agree with this. If John Henry goes to the can during negotiations and leaves his notes on the table, does Boras have a fiduciary duty to look at them?

I know lawyers who WOULD say yes, I also know lawyers who would say no.

Of course most lawyers who would say yes, and would look at Henry's notes would also worry too much that Henry left the notes as as set up and so would be unable to take sufficient advantage...

Sam Hutcheson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 01:21 PM (#3049646)

Baseball Chick, I don't think you're reading me very well. If Teix truly wants to limit himself to the Yankees he will take a pay cut.

- i am seriously not understanding why on earth a player should have to agree to whatever pittance a team he wants is going to then throw at him. where is the "ethics" part for the team?

- and you DO understand that top players like teix set the prices for other players, right? so if teix says he wants to play for the yankees and he therefore has to accept a waaaayyy below market contract at whatever terms the yankees set no matter how terrible for him, he sets a terrible precident for every other player. why would anyone pay adam dunn anything if teix has to take a minimum wage contract with virtually impossible incentives and unlimited team only options

If he makes that decision, "I will only play for the New York Yankees", he shouldn't negotiate in bad faith with other teams. If the Yankees take some advantage of his refusal to play elsewhere, those are the consequences of the player's choice.

- please explain how this absolves the yankees from ethics, seeing as then they therefore have the right to make the player take any contract they offer

Teix isn't required to play for the league minimum. He isn't *forced* to only play for the Yankees. But if he so chooses, any continued negotiations with other teams are, by definition, in bad faith.

- actually, they are not, for the simple reason that the yankees might not want him, or might only agree to tender a terrible contract, such as a tim wakefield type deal at minimum. why shouldn't teix be allowed to change his mind? ESPECIALLY after seeing a contract?

I'm agog that people are finding this hard to fathom. No one is suggesting a player can't shop his services around. We're simply suggesting that business ethics doesn't cease to apply at the player/agent's side of the table.

- i don't know who "we're" is because i am talking strictly to YOU. and the thing about pretending you are a "we" when you are a "you" is, um, bullstuff. ok. it is bullstuff when jayson stark pretends to be speaking for a bunch of people when he is giving his OWN opinion is just as bullstuff so you ain't zackly the only one.

- the problem is that your definition of business "ethics" means that you think that the player should have to place himself at a serious disadvantage with any team he happens to prefer and not actually HAVE a chance to establish market value for his services. why on earth you think a OWNER, a person who didn't exactly get to be a multi BILLIONAIRE on the back of ETHICS, would then offer a player a honest market value contract, is not understandable by anyone who has actually observed owners or even dealt with human beings

Huh. Turns out I'm morally and ethically bankrupt.

At least you're not lonely.

Hey, true! Awesome!

I know lawyers who WOULD say yes

So do I, and they're unethical sh*tstains of human beings. That there exist morally unbound actors does not validate being morally unbound.

I know lawyers who WOULD say yes, I also know lawyers who would say no.

Most lawyers I know would say no, but would also say that he's an idiot for leaving his notes out like that when he left the room.

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?

Certainly not if I was trying to maintain a long term relationship with the counterparty. If I wasn't then sure I would let someone hit his bid. I know in my business that a counterparty will figure out pretty quickly if I'm using him to just set levels for someone else to hit, and thats a quick way to not get calls taken.

Perhaps -- but that distinction is not a question of ethics; it's a question of negotiating tactics.

If people were saying "Boras is unwise to act this way, because it will make teams unwilling to take his calls," that would almost certainly be empirically false, but it's a valid theory. But that's not what Sam is whining about; he's whining that it's "unethical" to do that. (And if it is, it's unethical whether you're trying to maintain a long term relationship or not.)

Most lawyers I know would say no, but would also say that he's an idiot for leaving his notes out like that when he left the room.

"If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have dressed like that".

It appears Sam is trying to impose something inconsistent with Boras' fiduciary duty and calling it an ethical standard even though there is no authority for the existence of that standard. Suggesting Boras should have violated his fiduciary duty to Teixeira in order to conform to Sam's own personal sense of ethical behavior indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the requirements of a fiduciary duty.

Don't think I agree with this. If John Henry goes to the can during negotiations and leaves his notes on the table, does Boras have a fiduciary duty to look at them?

I wouldn't say that's comparable to Sam's proposal since many jurisdictions have ethical requirements (at least for attorneys) that prohibit snooping through your adversary's papers (although you might be able to look at what is in plain view). No profession that I'm aware of has Sam's requirement to disclose material adverse to your client to third-party bidders. How does it become an "ethical requirement" if it's not incorporated in law or professional standards? Sam's standards would seem to be only his own absent some broader enactment.

"If she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have dressed like that".

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you for summarizing things in such a concise manner.

I think many people, including Sam, are focusing too much on the Yankees side of things and the question of whether Tex was 100% committed to playing for them. What really matters is Boras's interactions with the Red Sox, and whether or not he was honest with them.

My sense is that the sequence of events went something like this: Boras tells the red sox that they're very close to a deal and asks the Red Sox brass to fly out to Texas to finalize everything; Boras tells them that they'll get Tex if they offer X years and Y money; the Red Sox make the new offer based on Boras's promises; Boras informs them that that offer isn't sufficient and that Tex isn't really sure about Boston; Henry is pissed and announces that the "Red Sox won't be players for Tex"; Tex then signs with the Yankees; Tex mentions at the press conference that he'd decided to go to the Yankees before the Red Sox flew to Texas. If that's what happened (and I understand that I can't prove it, but that's a silly standard for our purposes), the Red Sox have every right to feel that Boras was not being honest and was negotiating in bad faith.

No profession that I'm aware of has Sam's requirement to disclose material adverse to your client to third-party bidders.

Reel that back in, Hoss. I've never argued that an agent should disclose material adverse to his client. I've argued that negotiating with parties that have already been eliminated is verboten. Boras is free to negotiate with the Yankees as he can, though lying about another team's supposed interest would be clearly and obviously unethical. But even more unethical than that would be to *continue false-negotiations with another team* to maintain some sort of play-acting scenario where 'the market' is artificially inflated beyond it's actual value.

Boras, of course, stands accused of doing both of these things, by multiple independent parties.

That's one definition of market price, but not the only definition. I'd argue there actually has to be a sale for that to be the market price. If Bill Gates is on a desert island and says to himself "I'd pay a million dollars for a Big Mac," that doesn't set a market price, even if he is serious.

If there was only one Big Mac, it does set the market price. It's very difficult to set a market for a baseball player because baseball players are unique. They are also human beings who have idiosyncratic preferences which limit the market. But if Mark Teixeira came up for auction to the highest bidder, he would be worth more than the Yankees paid for him. The National's offer proved this. For unique products, the bidder who places the highest value on the product sets the market.

- i am seriously not understanding why on earth a player should have to agree to whatever pittance a team he wants is going to then throw at him. where is the "ethics" part for the team?

How do you get this from Sam's comments?

What are the Sox ######## about anyway? Using them to drive the price up _helps_ them because it costs the Yanks money.

I wouldn't say that's comparable to Sam's proposal since many jurisdictions have ethical requirements (at least for attorneys) that prohibit snooping through your adversary's papers (although you might be able to look at what is in plain view). No profession that I'm aware of has Sam's requirement to disclose material adverse to your client to third-party bidders. How does it become an "ethical requirement" if it's not incorporated in law or professional standards? Sam's standards would seem to be only his own absent some broader enactment.

If I may try to distill your point: There is a fairly robust set of precedent as to when an attorney or agent's ethical obligations trump one's fiduciary obligation to a client. If a particular set of circumstances does not fall within such established precedent, then then the attorney or agent's fiduciary obligations control.

I've argued that negotiating with parties that have already been eliminated is verboten.

How do you know they're eliminated until you get some sense of their maximum bid? There is a price at which Teixeira would have gladly signed for each MLB team.

I've argued that negotiating with parties that have already been eliminated is verboten

But no one is "eliminated" until it's clear that they're really not going to give you the most money, and to find that out, you have to keep talking to them.

EDIT: SNAPPPPPPPPPPPPERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!! *shakes fist*

i think there should be a LOT less shtt if a player was actually allowed (by the media, that bastion of ethics) to say - i'll consider contract offers and discuss it with my family/advisers and choose the offer that seems best for me

he shouldn't have to say the usual crap about playing for a winner/hometown team/yankees - but unfortunately, he does

and the media can't WAIT to portray a player as "greedy" unless he chooses to play for THEIR team at below market value

and THAT is supposed to be "ethical"

and i am damm tired of all the team PR putting down a player for deciding to be a FA/go to arb/refusing to sign a below market contract - and the red sox sure are good at that. where is the "ethics" THERE?????

please explain how this absolves the yankees from ethics, seeing as then they therefore have the right to make the player take any contract they offer

1. I have never so much as suggested that teams are "absolved" from ethics. In fact, in this very thread, I've argued the opposite.

2. I think I've been very clear and concise in this thread, yet you don't seem to be understanding the most basic points I'm trying to convey. I'm not sure how to address this problem. In the scenario we're talking about, the player (Teixeira) has a choice. He chooses where he wants to play. If he wants to set a high market value for his services he can entertain multiple teams. If he only wants to play for a certain team the value for his services decreases. That's basic supply and demand. If, in our scenario, a player of Teix' stature only wants to play for one team and that team low-balls him with the league minimum, I'm almost certain the player will revisit his desire to play for that team. But if his desire to play for the team outweighs his desire for monetary compensation, he'll take the low-ball offer. (Tim Wakefield.) In no case is it ethical for the player to engage false negotiations with competitors, knowing full well he won't play for them, just to drive up his signing price with another team. If he dies, he is LYING to the other teams. LYING is unethical.

After 114 posts, I've decided that Sam is either a moron or irrationally blinded by the Furcal incident. Its my moral duty to announce this to BTF at large.

Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 12, 2009 at 01:53 PM (#3049697)

- i am seriously not understanding why on earth a player should have to agree to whatever pittance a team he wants is going to then throw at him. where is the "ethics" part for the team?

How do you get this from Sam's comments?

- from his saying that IF a player wants to play for team X then he should HAVE to accept whatever below market contract they offer and he should HAVE to stop all negotiating with any other team

in other words, wanting to play for a certain team should by definition prevent him from being paid market value, or what he COULD be paid if he accepted bids from any team

he can't say - DAMM, i wanted to only play for the royals, but seeing as how they think i should be paid utility guy money for the rest of my playing life, i have changed my mind

Completely, totally unrelated: Rickey with 94.8%
Rice with 76.4%

How did >5% of the voters leave Rickey off?

------

I don't see the point of the skirmish over Teixeira's choice. He clearly was headed to the highest bidder, and his preference was to play for the team that could maximize his income. The New York Yankees, by virtue of their media market AND their offer were able to maximize this. That his wife may have preferred to live in Alpine or Scarsdale over an affluent Boston suburb was gravy.

But no one is "eliminated" until it's clear that they're really not going to give you the most money, and to find that out, you have to keep talking to them.

I have not, in this or any other forum, argued against good faith negotiations with multiple teams. In point of fact I've specifically called out the viability of such negotiations at least three times in this thread. The point, now, as always, is that when a player rules out a team - as Teix claims he ruled out Boston prior to Christmas - then negotiations with that team should cease. Any future negotiations are in bad faith.

i think there should be a LOT less shtt if a player was actually allowed (by the media, that bastion of ethics) to say - i'll consider contract offers and discuss it with my family/advisers and choose the offer that seems best for me

If this conversation is going to reel off into some unhinged rant about the evil media - how on earth does anyone think this has any relevance to the conversation being held to date? - I'll agree to disagree and find something else to do with my afternoon. No player is required, by the media or anyone else, to make any statement about his contract negotiations. About all he's required to do is show up for the photo with his new jersey.

How did >5% of the voters leave Rickey off?

They voted for Pat Buchanan instead. The ballot was confusing!

After 114 posts, I've decided that Sam is either a moron or irrationally blinded by the Furcal incident. Its my moral duty to announce this to BTF at large.

You're usually one of my favorite posters, but that was totally uncalled for.

In no case is it ethical for the player to engage false negotiations with competitors, knowing full well he won't play for them, just to drive up his signing price with another team. If he dies, he is LYING to the other teams. LYING is unethical.

That's fine. I just don't think it ever happens. Tex did not go into the Boston negotiations thinking "I am 100% signing with the Yankees. I am solely using Boston to drive up the Yankee bid. There is 0% chance I sign with Boston." Rather, he went into it thinking "If the money is equal, I'd prefer the Yankees. But let's see how much these guys are offering and how much the Yankees are."

It's kind of like safety schools, you don't prefer to go there but you'd be stupid not to apply to any ;)

The point, now, as always, is that when a player rules out a team - as Teix claims he ruled out Boston prior to Christmas - then negotiations with that team should cease.

Fine, that's baloney (i.e., he had not ruled them out) and he shouldn't say it.

from his saying that IF a player wants to play for team X then he should HAVE to accept whatever below market contract they offer and he should HAVE to stop all negotiating with any other team

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The market value of a player is determined by the market for that player's services. If the player artificially limits his market then the market value should naturally drop. The "market contract" for a player is not some sort of Platonic form hanging about in the ether.

No profession that I'm aware of has Sam's requirement to disclose material adverse to your client to third-party bidders.

Reel that back in, Hoss. I've never argued that an agent should disclose material adverse to his client. I've argued that negotiating with parties that have already been eliminated is verboten.

The non-Sam professions don't see it that way. Clearly a player (or a home-seller) has a right to determine what the market value is even if in the end he prefers that a certain bidder pay that market value. Perhaps the emotional baggage associated with Boras & the Yankees has clouded the issue for some. Try this: Dustin Pedroia is a free agent and he tells his agent, Mother Teressa, that he only wants to play for the Red Sox because he's developed an addiction to the local clam chowder and also doesn't want to disrupt his work with the widows and orphans. He and the agent are sure that because of his skill & popularity the Red Sox would pay market value since it is well within their means.

Why can't he entertain offers from other clubs and ask Boston to pay what he deems market value? The other teams certainly know there is a chance their offer will be used as a bargaining chip but they choose to bid anyway. If they didn't want to run the risk of having their offer shopped, they could have made an "exploding offer" that would expire in a set time or even have to be accepted immediately. What Sam sees as an ethical obligation is just his own quirky preference.

I just don't think it ever happens. Tex did not go into the Boston negotiations thinking "I am 100% signing with the Yankees. I am solely using Boston to drive up the Yankee bid. There is 0% chance I sign with Boston." Rather, he went into it thinking "If the money is equal, I'd prefer the Yankees. But let's see how much these guys are offering and how much the Yankees are."

Perhaps. Maybe even "probably." But we now have a third organization that claims Boras exceeds established norms on these issues. I will not write that trend off to "owners are greedier, and remember, the reserve clause!" That argument is a bit weather worn at this point.

sam

you haven't conveyed anything except that you think that lying is unethical (ok, i understand that) and that if a player only wants to play for one team, he should state this and be willing to accept his punishment as an unfair below market contract. yes, punishment. he doesn't have the right to so much as ESTABLISH his actual value. he just has to take whatever the team will pay

you haven't begin to explain the "ethics" part of the TEAMS involved, all of who are trying to get a player at the lowests price possible, below market, at terms that suit THEM best, at terms that are not in the PLAYER'S best interest, if possible.

and exactly HOW is that "ethics"

- i seriously doubt that there are real too many players who really REALLY will only agree to play for one specific team, regardless of the terms of the contract offered

sure, there are a lot who tell the team, honestly, yes, i WOULD like to play with this team, provided we can work out a contract we both can live with. if we can't, well then, i'll have to play somewhere else

however, that said, i think it is pretty clear that pretty much ALL top FA, with very few exceptions, WANT to play for NY/Boston/Chicago/LA and any FA of Boras is gonna take the contract with the most money offered, or at least the most money offered by one of the Big 4

AND both the player and the team will use the media to spin things their way

- one more thing -
none of us have ANY idea what exactly instructions any of these players actually GIVE to their agents, we only know what spin we hear from them
- some people can't handle "negotiation", maybe they tell the agent - i am paying you to deal with this mess. i want to play for the yecks/red sux/mess and do what you can to get me the best deal. if some other team seriously overbids them, well tell me so i can decide whether or not the extra $$$ is worth playing for a team i don't wanna play for. and i want you to do this so as the team/mdeia doesn't spin me as a virtual child raper or something

You're usually one of my favorite posters, but that was totally uncalled for.

Sam brings it on himself. Repeatedly informing other posters that they have no understandings of ethics is surely a sign of one or the other.

Sam Hutcheson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 02:08 PM (#3049734)

i think there should be a LOT less shtt if a player was actually allowed (by the media, that bastion of ethics) to say - i'll consider contract offers and discuss it with my family/advisers and choose the offer that seems best for me

If this conversation is going to reel off into some unhinged rant about the evil media - how on earth does anyone think this has any relevance to the conversation being held to date? - I'll agree to disagree and find something else to do with my afternoon. No player is required, by the media or anyone else, to make any statement about his contract negotiations. About all he's required to do is show up for the photo with his new jersey.

- no it is a hinged statement about PC reality in the modern world

players aren't "allowed" to say that any more than someone is "allowed" to say that he/she finds Black people physically unattractive

remember all those stupid bull durham lines that crash make nuke memorize?

you think he was making that shtt up? you should KNOW what kind of shtt a player gets from media/fans if he doesn't say exactly the correct PC bullstuff

players catch serious shtt if they say that MLB is first and foremost a BUSINESS for the simple reason that it disrupts peoples fantasies of innocent sweet boys Playing Only For The Love Of The Game like they used to In The Sainted Old Days when They Would Have Played For Free!!!!!

players are heaped with shtt if they don't make ANY comments, just show up for the photo op. ESPECIALLY when they are top FA. what they have to ACTUALLY do/say determines the spin machine, which is why they say all that crap

when is the last time you EVER heard a top FA say - i'm going to go to whoever offers the most money. or when asked - why did you choose the Rockies - say - because they offered the most money and most years.

never. you hear crap like - oh, denver has the best skool system (even though my kidz are going to super exclusive houston/scottsdale private skools)

it is like you don't want to deal with reality. do you REALLY think that males don't date whatever offers herself until they find a female who is younger/hotter/richer/looser/whatever? how many males really REALLY say - they will settle for female XX and no other female on the planet will do? we all make do, we all make excuses and except for ulysses grant screwing his father over in that horse deal, we all negotiate the best we can given what we want and don't want.

your insistance on portraying everything in sharply defined lines of what is supposedly "ethical" on the part of one of the 2 parties in a contract is a bit, um, tyrannical, to say the least

no it is a hinged statement about PC reality in the modern world

Sorry. I'm not playing this game. Make a cogent point and I'll reply. Rant like this and I'm ignoring you.

Sam brings it on himself. Repeatedly informing other posters that they have no understandings of ethics is surely a sign of one or the other.

Should the posters in question display a basic understanding of ethics Sam would not have to make such statements. David, in particular, has been ethically ignorant for a good decade or more now. Or did you think I was new to this particular crowd?

This is one of the ugliest and most absurd discussions I've seen on BBTF in a long time.

This is one of the ugliest and most absurd discussions I've seen on BBTF in a long time.

I took a little time off.

Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 12, 2009 at 02:52 PM (#3049884)

This is one of the ugliest and most absurd discussions I've seen on BBTF in a long time.

- sigh

unfortunately so

sam is a very VERY difficult person to talk to as he has beliefs not based on any semblance of reality. i remember the "discussion" we had during the 05 playoffs when brad ausmus hit a homer just above the yellow line on the LF wall at minute maid. in spite of TV replay, in spite of the fact that BOTH andruw jones, who had the absolute best view of the baseball, AND bobby cox, who will protest bout anything at the drop of a pin, thought it was a homer, couldn't shake him insisting that the call was wrong

double sigh

you can't actually CONVERSE with him because you are talking to a totally closed mind

triple sigh

then again, it is sad how many people have absolutely totally closed minds about most things

but, you know, i'm just as guilty. for example, you can't make me believe that brad ausmus is not The HOTTEST ASTRO EVAH!!!!!

I have not, in this or any other forum, argued against good faith negotiations with multiple teams. In point of fact I've specifically called out the viability of such negotiations at least three times in this thread. The point, now, as always, is that when a player rules out a team - as Teix claims he ruled out Boston prior to Christmas - then negotiations with that team should cease. Any future negotiations are in bad faith.

Just to be clear, even aside from Sam's warped definition of ethics, his facts are wrong. Teixeira did not claim that he ruled out Boston prior to Christmas.

The actual quote is: My wife and I decided probably two weeks before Christmas, ‘Hey, the Yankees is where we want to be.’

Nobody sane would interpret that as, "We decided we were only willing to sign with the Yankees, regardless of the respective offers made by the Yankees and other teams." He goes on to say:

I told (Cashman), I said you might want to give Leigh a hug, because when it was all said and done she finally told me, because I had been asking her for weeks and weeks, ‘Where do you want me to go, where do you want me to play?’ She said, ‘I just want you to be happy,’ finally she said, ‘I want you to be a Yankee.’ That’s when it was done, once we got the contract figured out, it was a no-brainer for me.

Although it's not crystal clear from the words, it's clear from the context that he's not saying that the entire decision was carved in stone before Christmas, because he explains in this part that it was a no-brainer, "once we got the contract figured out," not, as Sam would have it, before the negotiations were complete. (That is, if the contract was already finalized, then he couldn't have been using the Red Sox to boost his Yankee contract.)

This is one of the ugliest and most absurd discussions I've seen on BBTF in a long time.

Take note of the dominant posters.

I just finished reading The Journalist and the Murderer and found it relevant (as well as an engaging read). Anyone else read it? David, I'd be especially interested in your take, if you've read it.

Meanwhile, I'm getting a better handle on Sam's take (I think) thanks to his responses to the (apocryphal) Ulysses S Grant story (as well as his other responses).

If I understand Sam correctly, teams are morally obligated to give Teixeira exactly what they think he's worth -- to try to get him for less than that is to be dishonest in their dealings. ("We think you're worth $180 million but we're going to offer you $170 to see if you'll take it" is objectionable, if I read Sam right). Teixeira is morally obligated to take no more than what he thinks his services are worth. ("My services, by my reckoning, are worth about $130 million, but if you're willing to give me more money, I'm willing to take it" is also objectionable, if I read Sam right). I find it difficult to construct a way in which an agent would not be considered morally bankrupt, if I understand Sam's arguments.

If I understand Sam correctly, teams are morally obligated to give Teixeira exactly what they think he's worth -- to try to get him for less than that is to be dishonest in their dealings. ("We think you're worth $180 million but we're going to offer you $170 to see if you'll take it" is objectionable, if I read Sam right). Teixeira is morally obligated to take no more than what he thinks his services are worth. ("My services, by my reckoning, are worth about $130 million, but if you're willing to give me more money, I'm willing to take it" is also objectionable, if I read Sam right). I find it difficult to construct a way in which an agent would not be considered morally bankrupt, if I understand Sam's arguments.

I can't speak for Sam, but this has nothing to do with my objection. My complaint is simply this: if Boras lied to the REd Sox about Tex's interest and the terms that would be acceptable to him to drive up the price for the Yankees, he acted unethically.

but, you know, i'm just as guilty.

Yes, you are. Your rant in 182 added nothing to the conversation.

BLB

sorry
i usually get that complaint when i try to steer the conversations to talk about hot males taking their clothes off especially if those hot males were also all telling me i am teh HOTTEST check and <censored>

robert m

if you understand sams arguments you are a much smarter man than me

Yeaarrgghhhh,

can you sit there and tell me honestly that you believe that any top FA will not receive the tiniest bit of heck from the team/media or fans if he says absolutely zero but just shows up for a photo op after signing a contract?

or if asked any questions about the contract, he says "no comment on anything expect my on the field play" not even "glad to be here and i hope i can help the team. and we'll take it one day at a time..."

cmon, you know better

you know as well as i do that arod (for example) receives endless heck for all the stuff he says. and you know as well as i do that he would have received even more had he said - no comment

there is a reason these agents have PR guys to tell players what to say and how to say it

If I understand Sam correctly, teams are morally obligated to give Teixeira exactly what they think he's worth -- to try to get him for less than that is to be dishonest in their dealings. ("We think you're worth $180 million but we're going to offer you $170 to see if you'll take it" is objectionable, if I read Sam right). Teixeira is morally obligated to take no more than what he thinks his services are worth. ("My services, by my reckoning, are worth about $130 million, but if you're willing to give me more money, I'm willing to take it" is also objectionable, if I read Sam right). I find it difficult to construct a way in which an agent would not be considered morally bankrupt, if I understand Sam's arguments.

Not exactly. I think there is plenty of room to negotiate at the margins. I don't think the wiggle room between $150-180 is open to talks. But if the team came back and tried to exploit some other issue to sign the $160 player for $20, that's wrong. And to confirm another point, my overall issue is that continuing to negotiate after you've decided, using another team for nothing more than leverage, is wrong.

can you sit there and tell me honestly that you believe that any top FA will not receive the tiniest bit of heck from the team/media or fans if he says absolutely zero but just shows up for a photo op after signing a contract?

Why does the player care?

The point, now, as always, is that when a player rules out a team - as Teix claims he ruled out Boston prior to Christmas - then negotiations with that team should cease.

What do you think would have happened if Boras had said to the Red Sox, "Don't bother making your final pitch, because Mark has decided to go with the Yankees"?

In all likelihood, the Red Sox would have said, "Look, listen to our pitch before you sign anything. We think we can change his mind."

Is it then unethical for Boras to talk with the Red Sox? Obviously not. Would Boras consider the possibility that the Red Sox had the potential to change Teixeira's mind? Probably.

Negotiations are never over until somebody signs a sheet of paper. Even people who think their mind is made up have the potential to change their mind. Look at John Smoltz, for one.

re: 196

That might be so, but I think the Sox were upset because they went to Texas under the impression they were close to a deal and only had to close it.

Once there, they apparently -got- something that gave them the impression that they were being used to up the ante, and simply refused to negotiate any further, and said -that- was their last pitch, hence the John Henry quote from a few weeks ago. _THAT_ might be the source of where the Sox got soured on Scott Boras - giving them the impression a deal was close when in actuality he was wasting their time asking them to fly in just so he could up the ante.

Sam Hutcheson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 04:05 PM (#3049976)

can you sit there and tell me honestly that you believe that any top FA will not receive the tiniest bit of heck from the team/media or fans if he says absolutely zero but just shows up for a photo op after signing a contract?

Why does the player care?

- because, in my opinion, most big time athletes want to be "heroes" and want to be liked/admired/worshipped/have slutty chix throw themselves at them/get invited to parties/get paid for playing golf "charities"/etc. they WANT to be !!STARS!! and to be that, you have to front. these guys are also interested in fame, such as the Hall Of - and they can look and see what happens to borderline "good guys" as opposed to borderline "bad guys" (after all, almost all these guys have been top STARS!!! and idolized/adored since they were little kids and they want it to continue)

and if they don't say what they are "supposed" to say, then the media rips them a new one

now you might could say that this does not matter, but the teams use any negative media publicity to their advantage against the player to either underpay him or trade him and make the player, not the team, look bad

teams aren't exactly interested in living up to your definition of "ethics" - they are interested in making the most money possible

because, in my opinion, most big time athletes want to be "heroes" and want to be liked/admired/worshipped

If they want to be revered and worshipped they should behave in a manner conducive to reverence and worship. If they behave in a manner that doesn't convey that, well, that's not anyone's fault but their own. You're essentially arguing that the media should be propaganda arms for players in order to stroke the players' already over-inflated egos. That makes no sense to me at all. If John Smoltz wants to be a community icon he should live by his word and sacrifice a couple mil to stay at home. If John Smoltz wants to make a couple mil extra he should shut his yap and quit whinging about "respect." It's either a business or it's not.

For the record, I'm pretty sure the sluts come with the money regardless of what the media might say pro or con.

Negotiations are never over until somebody signs a sheet of paper.

I wouldn't quite go there. I do believe in handshake agreements, which is why the Furcal/Atlanta shennanigans are very damning (for the agent and Furcal).