Nice to hear a respected, baseball lifer tell Scott to STFU.

I wouldn't care if it was a disreputable guy kicked out of the game for gambling, anyone telling STFU to Boras is always going to earn a little of my respect.

Nice to hear a respected, baseball lifer tell Scott to STFU.

Who are you talking about? This article is about Jim Leyland telling Scott to STFU.

What Scott fails to acknowledge is that Magglio is paid to hit for power. Not just singles.

Classic debate dodge.

Classic debate dodge.

This is how pitiful my education(high school dropout) has been, I've never heard that term in my life. I can tell what it is, but it's a group of wording I've never seen before.(obviously I never participated in debate in school)

Boras is just doing his job. Leyland should just do his and bench Maggs.

This is how pitiful my education(high school dropout) has been, I've never heard that term in my life. I can tell what it is, but it's a group of wording I've never seen before.(obviously I never participated in debate in school)

I don't think it's a specific term. I have a pile of university degrees and I'd never heard of it, which isn't to say that it's not perfectly apt.

Leyland's comment is dumber than anything Boras said.

To translate the Leyland quote above: "When I'm wrong, don't try to rationally explain to me why I'm wrong, just hit me."

Now, as it happens, Ordonez's performance so far has been rather dreadful, so Leyland's not wrong.

But sure, with a "mere" 7 HR added in, Ordonez would be hitting about 296/370/457 which would be about a 113 OPS+ and that would be in line with what he did his first couple years in Detroit.

There are several types of structured competitive debate formats in HS and college. Lincoln-Douglas and Cross-EX.

I forget the Latin but Boras is saying X is just like Y save for Z. Only Z is fundamental to X and without Z X becomes meaningless.

Debate judges (like myself) would mock Boras both in the written evaluation of the debate round as well as during the Q/A after the round.

I'm not saying that Leyland is right or anything, just that I'm glad to see people attacking Boras. Yes I'm petty, but I just don't like the guy. Heck Boras isn't even wrong as Walt showed if he had as many homeruns as he had this time last year, then he would be back to the level he is being paid for.

I'm not sure this is really Boras's job to get the manager of one of his players ticked off at the representative for that player. I'm not sure how much of Boras job is about PR, but if he isn't going for a contract right now or if there isn't an extension in play, I'm not sure why Boras would open his mouth.

if it's a pure baseball decision, Ordenez plays - no replacement, passable stats, and the "old fart finds his swing" card still in the deck. Leyland's full of it.

You don't pay $18 million to a guy who has two homeruns, unless he's producing like Ty Cobb.

This is how pitiful my education(high school dropout) has been, I've never heard that term in my life. I can tell what it is, but it's a group of wording I've never seen before.(obviously I never participated in debate in school)

I don't think it's a specific term. I have a pile of university degrees and I'd never heard of it, which isn't to say that it's not perfectly apt.

We used that term all the time in competition, and other phrases to that effect. Dodge, dance, disco, ducking. I especially liked it when guys would actually do a little dance when they would accuse the other side of dancing.

What Boras is doing is just like in an academic debate round. He's not trying to make real-world sense, he's just trying to win.

Part of the problem is that Mags' 2008 numbers weren't worthy of $18 million, either. No one really expected 2007 replications, but it's been a quick, deep fall for Ordonez in two years.

Hey the Tigers scored 19 runs since benching Mags.

I especially liked it when guys would actually do a little dance

Would then then proceed to make a little love, prefatory to getting down tonight?

A lot of GMs rip on Boras, but then sign his free agents anyway.

Well, that would be after the last rounds. The joke at State and Nationals was that the two biggest dates of debate season were Nats, and 9 months after Nationals.

For the record, I failed to score at Nats. So close, though. So close.

I'm not sure this is really Boras's job to get the manager of one of his players ticked off at the representative for that player. I'm not sure how much of Boras job is about PR, but if he isn't going for a contract right now or if there isn't an extension in play, I'm not sure why Boras would open his mouth.

Boras is opening his mouth because the Tigers are ham-handedly (surprise surprise!) trying to reduce the chance that Magglio's 2010 option ($18 million) becomes guaranteed. According to Cot's, that happens if Maggs has 135 starts or 540 plate appearances in 2009 (or 270 starts or 1080 plate appearances for 2008-09). Current numbers:

Plate Appearances

2008: 623
2009: 242

So he needs only 215 more plate appearances this season to reach 1080 for 2008-09. That's about 51 games if his PAs per game stay at his career mark. (I'm ignoring the Games Started prong, as I think that's the harder to reach -- he'd need 97 more starts this season.)

Ten bucks says "(nonsense)" was "horsesh*t." Leyland's favorite word.

On a different note, what the hell has gotten into Brandon Inge?

I'm not saying that Leyland is right or anything, just that I'm glad to see people attacking Boras.

Oh I know and I wasn't trying to pick on you. I just meant that a normal person's reaction (compared to Leyland's) would be "Boras should shut up" or "I manage this team" or "why the **** should I care what Boras thinks?" Heck, even "if Boras doesn't like my decision, he can take a swing at me" would have at least been more sensible than what Leyland actually said.

And yes, I am just fascinated that this "old tough guy" attitude still survives.

Heck Boras isn't even wrong as Walt showed

Whoa now! I'm not defending Boras there, I'm making fun of him. Yes, Maggs' only problem is that he's on pace to hit 17 fewer HR than he needs to hit to be an average-hitting RF. He's THIS close. :-)

He's not trying to make real-world sense, he's just trying to win.

it's the Chewbacca defense.

The joke at State and Nationals was that the two biggest dates of debate season were Nats, and 9 months after Nationals.

This one time, at band camp ... my nerdy friends and I used to fantasize about what we'd do if a good-looking girl ever talked to us. :-)

He has 7 less HR and 6 less 2B. And most of those missing XBH are outs, as he only has 3 more singles.

I still don't see the problem though. Boras is defending his client. If anything, that's admirable, not flame-worthy. People just hate Boras for the sake of hating Boras at this point.

And Leyland's response is almost bizarrro. "Don't tell me my player doesn't stink! I know he sucks!"

indefinitely..since when is an old horse like Ordonez benched "indefinitely." Ordonez is going to "find" his swing sometime around the contract markers coming up just short. heck, yea, dont pay the 18 mil. Just don't get all aghast at Boras and pretend that everyone's a vegetron believing the bull about the contract having nothing to do with it. Think it's better to just shut up about the deal than to spew this crap.

I have a negative reaction anytime the player's agent gets involved in questioning on-field decisions by the manager. I agree with the idea that the manager and player should be the two people dealing with the lineup decision--which is a point Leyland makes. But I think it's inappropriate for the agent to be publicly questioning the manager's decisions. If every player's agent questioned the manager's decisions, where would it stop...you can't have every player's agent questioning the playing time decisions or the batting order, etc. If the issue involves Ordonez's contract, then Boras should be involved, and his involvement should be in the form of discussing the issue with the GM.

I have a negative reaction anytime the player's agent gets involved in questioning on-field decisions by the manager. I agree with the idea that the manager and player should be the two people dealing with the lineup decision--which is a point Leyland makes. But I think it's inappropriate for the agent to be publicly questioning the manager's decisions. If every player's agent questioned the manager's decisions, where would it stop.

I don't know where it would stop, but, strangely enough, I can't fault Boras here. The owners opened the door to exactly this kind of behavior when they agreed to an option that vests with playing time. As much as I'd like this kind of decision to remain strictly in the hands of team management, Boras, and even the union, have a responsibility to call BS on a team that's (if I remember the CBA correctly) may be trying to violate collectively bargained policy by benching a player to get out of a contractual obligation.

To translate the Leyland quote above

If you say so. I don't think you understood what he was trying to say, particularly when you read the whole article. I think he was reacting, in part, as he says, to suggestions that they were just doing this to keep Ordonez's option from vesting, and that ticked him off. Here is a fuller version of the quote:

"This is about Magglio Ordonez and a manager trying to do something that he thinks may help and get him right," Leyland said. "Is it the right thing? I don't know. But that is what this is about. And I'm not going to take shots from people in the newspaper that are untruths.

"If it's the truth and I'm wrong, then go ahead and punch me in the jaw, but don't give me this (nonsense)."

I don't read that as saying "don't try to rationally explain to me why I'm wrong." I don't think that's even close to a fair translation. I think a fairer translation is "If you show me that I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and go ahead and hit me, but what is coming from Boras is pure crap" -- and it is.

I don't know where it would stop, but, strangely enough, I can't fault Boras here. The owners opened the door to exactly this kind of behavior when they agreed to an option that vests with playing time. As much as I'd like this kind of decision to remain strictly in the hands of team management, Boras, and even the union, have a responsibility to call BS on a team that's (if I remember the CBA correctly) may be trying to violate collectively bargained policy by benching a player to get out of a contractual obligation.

the main point of options is a cocky way for a player to say I'm going to be good and healthy during this contract, I'll bet you this amount. If the player isn't worth the money he is getting, then it's perfectly legitimate for the team to bench the player to avoid the options. In fact it would be business stupid to not bench the player if he is being paid to be a more than.850 ops+ hitter and peforming at less than.700. Heck even if they don't have better options, if the team is playing well enough to survive with someone else that is less then sometimes the business decision may have to affect the baseball decision.

What cfb said in 29. It's a bet -- a bet that the player will be good enough for the team to want him in the option year. In addition, it gives the team an out if they fall short of their aspirations and need to rebuild or at least regroup. The player has already signed for x amount of guaranteed years; they should view club options as frosting. The club's risk is in the guaranteed years; the player's is in the club option years.

I'm not sure how much of Boras job is about PR, but if he isn't going for a contract right now or if there isn't an extension in play, I'm not sure why Boras would open his mouth.

Because he's a world-class douchenozzle. Scotty's narcissistic personality disorder has obviously progressed so far that he now seems to have convinced himself that he runs baseball. I wish Leyland or anyone would punch HIM in the jaw.

The owners opened the door to exactly this kind of behavior when they agreed to an option that vests with playing time.

Or, Boras opened the door for exactly this kind of situation when he and his client agreed to an option that vests with playing time.

The next few things said in complete affection:

Debate judges (like myself) would mock Boras both in the written evaluation of the debate round as well as during the Q/A after the round.

And everyone else would mock him for being on the Debate Team.

We used that term all the time in competition, and other phrases to that effect. Dodge, dance, disco, ducking. I especially liked it when guys would actually do a little dance when they would accuse the other side of dancing.

And this is why.

What Boras is doing is just like in an academic debate round. He's not trying to make real-world sense, he's just trying to win.

How is this different from most of BTF?

If the player isn't worth the money he is getting, then it's perfectly legitimate for the team to bench the player to avoid the options.

It would be, except that the CBA expressly forbids it. Teams are not allowed to make playing time decisions with variable compensation in mind. Of course, they do exactly that, and there's no way to prove that they are. I'll even agree that that might be a stupid clause to have in the CBA, but it's there.

It would be, except that the CBA expressly forbids it. Teams are not allowed to make playing time decisions with variable compensation in mind. Of course, they do exactly that, and there's no way to prove that they are. I'll even agree that that might be a stupid clause to have in the CBA, but it's there.

in my example the point was two parts, he wasn't performing close to the level he signed for, therefore he's not worth giving playing time and if you have almost equal players, may as well play the guys that are going to save you money. Your point clearly stands of course, and I agree they shouldn't make the decision purely based upon financial motivation, but it is also almost impossible for ownership to divorce themselves from their finances when it comes to looking at the big picture.

What Boras is doing is just like in an academic debate round. He's not trying to make real-world sense, he's just trying to win.

How is this different from most of BTF?

It's not. A lot of the arguments put forth here make sense only in an academic sense. Make the same arguments in the real world, and you might get punched for being an ass.

Perhaps what the Tigers should do to assure themselves of getting out of the 2010 option is to trade for somebody who is having a better season than Ordonez. He's hitting much better against lefties (.798 vs. .656 OPS), so tell him he's going to get every start against lefties...Hey, Russell Branyon hitting the crap out of the ball for Seattle, he's 34 years old, and he played a lot of right field a few years ago. Seattle's not going anywhere...there's got to be some AA prospect Detroit can flip for him....and it'll save Detroit $18 million next year...of course, the only difference between Ordonez and Branyon is the 14 extra HRs Branyon has hit...and the 300 points in OPS...screw Boras.