Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Agent Scott Boras believes free-agent process is corrupt - MLB News | FOX Sports on MSN

This is one part of the CBA which needs addressing next time around.

Ultimately, if amateur spending caps are deemed necessary by Major League Baseball and the players’ union, Boras would propose a hybrid solution – applying those limits only after the second round. That way, a team losing its top pick could apply its first-round budget to a second-round selection. Part of the reason to do that, Boras said, is to ensure that teams maintain or strengthen their current amateur scouting staffs. His point: Could teams justify investing substantial sums in scouts’ salaries and travel expenses if they aren’t going to actually sign the players those evaluators are watching?

“These clubs are investing $2 million to $3 million per year preparing for the draft,” Boras said. “There needs to be utility for that investment.”

Jim Furtado Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:50 AM | 33 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: free agency, free agent compensation, scott boras

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:25 AM (#4397471)
So... this proposal would increase spending on both amateur players and high level free agents? Yes, that's win-win for management (eyeroll).
   2. Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4397475)
So... this proposal would increase spending on both amateur players and high level free agents? Yes, that's win-win for management (eyeroll).

Ha!, but MLB will meet him in the middle and declare victory.
   3. JE (Jason) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4397476)
I am amazed to learn that Scott Boras gives the time of day to journalists not named Jon Heyman.
   4. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 09:31 AM (#4397477)
More money for my top clients, peanuts for the rest!
   5. John Northey Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4397502)
I say do the reverse... no limit for guys drafted after the 10th round. That way two sport athletes who say they won't sign could drop and be signed in those later rounds. Especially if they merge the international and US/Canada/PR based talent into one big draft.
   6. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:08 AM (#4397506)
don't think that will work - you end up with a more screwed up version of the donut hole we already have. (and teams spend more money, which they don't want to do)
   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4397510)
I say do the reverse... no limit for guys drafted after the 10th round. That way two sport athletes who say they won't sign could drop and be signed in those later rounds. Especially if they merge the international and US/Canada/PR based talent into one big draft.

I like the principle, but you can't have slotting for 10 rds and then no limits. Guys will be playing every trick in the book to fall in the draft: fake injuries, fake drug addictions, flee the country to Myanmar.

Slot for the 90th pick is about $500K.

I would suggest slotting for the first 3 rounds, and then unlimited spending thereafter, but a limit of $500K per player.

   8. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4397551)
unlimited spending thereafter, but a limit of $500K per player.


So unlimited spending but with a limit? :-)
   9. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4397618)
So unlimited spending but with a limit? :-)
I think he means that if you sign 10 players, you can spend $5MM total on the ten, divided up any way you like.
   10. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4397647)
I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but the amount of overlap between "things that will make the process more fair and less corrupt" and "things that will make Scott Boras more money" is astounding.
   11. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4397717)
I'm pretty certain that if the process is corrupt, Boras is the most likely individual to be at the center of the corruption.
   12. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4397725)
I'm pretty certain that if the process is corrupt, Boras is the most likely individual to be at the center of the corruption.


It's my understanding that for all his avarice, Mr. Boras believes in free markets and competition. If you're looking for signs of corruption you might want to look at those individuals who attempt to subvert and artificially restrict said markets for their own avaricious benefit.
   13. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 27, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4397730)
i highly doubt boras even comes to the line on corruption.

he has too much low hanging fruit in owners and gms incapable of effectively negotiating.
   14. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4397732)
agreed, hw.
   15. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4397811)
Radical idea - free market for labor, like every non-sports business.
   16. cmd600 Posted: March 27, 2013 at 03:49 PM (#4397827)
Radical idea - free market for labor, like every non-sports business.


Of course, they would have to be accompanied by freely allowing teams, both established and new, to enter whatever market they choose. Ten, twelve teams, all allowed to be a part of MLB, competing for NY dollars sounds fine by me.
   17. themiddle54 Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4397863)
he has too much low hanging fruit in owners and gms incapable of effectively negotiating.


The market this year might prove the contrary. Boras thought his ~2-win SP should get paid like a ~3-win SP and that didn't happen. His ~4-win OF (Bourn) got < 3-win money. Front offices are getting smarter, and the days of Boras getting 4 years and $60 million for a player not worthy of that money might be coming to an end.

This Lohse deal isn't a scandalous robbery of the middle-of-the-road free agent or a sign of needed reform. It's a market correction as front offices get smarter and pay league average players like they're league average players.
   18. AROM Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4397871)
Of course, they would have to be accompanied by freely allowing teams, both established and new, to enter whatever market they choose. Ten, twelve teams, all allowed to be a part of MLB, competing for NY dollars sounds fine by me.


That's where the free market breaks down. Sure, anybody can start a team, hire players, arrange for a place to play and sell tickets. But you can't compel other teams to schedule games with you.
   19. JJ1986 Posted: March 27, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4397877)
The market this year might prove the contrary. Boras thought his ~2-win SP should get paid like a ~3-win SP and that didn't happen. His ~4-win OF (Bourn) got < 3-win money. Front offices are getting smarter, and the days of Boras getting 4 years and $60 million for a player not worthy of that money might be coming to an end.


I don't think that's it. I think teams are valuing draft picks more in the Allotment-era. Lohse didn't get paid like a ~2-win SP, Lohse plus the loss of a draft pick got that salary. Same thing for Bourn.
   20. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4397927)
That's where the free market breaks down. Sure, anybody can start a team, hire players, arrange for a place to play and sell tickets. But you can't compel other teams to schedule games with you.


Well that's why you need agreements in place; obviously every team in the league wants the Yankees to come to town, as they are the most popular baseball franchise in the world and the biggest draw, capable of charging a premium in an open market. It's a fair concession to allow all teams to schedule games against their rivals, even if, like Kansas City or Pittsburgh, they tend to depress attendance on the road.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4397942)
I think he means that if you sign 10 players, you can spend $5MM total on the ten, divided up any way you like.

No, I meant you could spend $100M if you wanted, but you have to sign 200 players.

The per player limit is necessary (if there is any slotting) to avoid a player preferring to be a 10th rd pick over a first rounder.

If a late rounder could get paid more than the #1 pick, you'd have unbelievable corruption. The Yankees could have made a deal with Strasburg before his senior year to pay him $25M as a 4th rounder, if he completely tanked his senior season.
   22. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:02 PM (#4397952)
That's where the free market breaks down. Sure, anybody can start a team, hire players, arrange for a place to play and sell tickets. But you can't compel other teams to schedule games with you.

The free market would make teams want to schedule games with you. See, e.g., English soccer or, even better, American college basketball. Nobody could force Florida Gulf Coast to schedule games against it when it started as a college less than 20 years ago, yet here they are in the Sweet Sixteen.
   23. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:40 PM (#4397962)
Well that's why you need agreements in place; obviously every team in the league wants the Yankees to come to town, as they are the most popular baseball franchise in the world and the biggest draw, capable of charging a premium in an open market. It's a fair concession to allow all teams to schedule games against their rivals, even if, like Kansas City or Pittsburgh, they tend to depress attendance on the road.


If we have a free market, and put in the four/five teams that New York could legitimately sustain, then the Yankees popularity takes a massive hit. If the Yankees are demanding too much to visit our little hamlet, we'll be happy to ask the Brooklyn Dodgers to come out here instead. Inside of a couple of years, Yankee popularity would be reduced to what it feels like the rest to the rest of the world, as the Harlem Globetrotters to the Red Sox Generals.

   24. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:44 PM (#4397966)
If we have a free market, and put in the four/five teams that New York could legitimately sustain, then the Yankees popularity takes a massive hit. If the Yankees are demanding too much to visit our little hamlet, we'll be happy to ask the Brooklyn Dodgers to come out here instead. Inside of a couple of years, Yankee popularity would be reduced to what it feels like the rest to the rest of the world, as the Harlem Globetrotters to the Red Sox Generals.


Do you really believe that? Would you stop rooting for the Cardinals if they put another expansion team in St. Louis? You can't overcome 100 years of history and generations of loyalty in "a couple of years".

Add two more teams to NY, and you'd cut Yankee revenue 10%, make the Mets a permanent mid-market team, and have two teams that behave like TB.

The smartest thing the Yankees could do would be to open the NY market in exchange for no more revenue sharing. They could run a $300M payroll, and consign any other NY teams to irrelevancy.

Of course, no new teams would actually come, b/c there no way to raise $2B for a stadium and infrastructure.
   25. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4397968)
If we have a free market, and put in the four/five teams that New York could legitimately sustain, then the Yankees popularity takes a massive hit.


Is that what chased the Giants and Dodgers out? Are the Yankees suffering from Mets fatigue? All these empty articles of faith in support of the one grandest article of faith - Budshovism.

Let's make you happy and crush Young Masters Steinbrenners' spirits - let us all demand and end to territorial rights in the next CBA. Obviously all the welfare teams are champing at the bit for some real hard-nosed competition of the sort that made them such heroes of capitalism in the first place, so let's get it on the table from the start. More teams in that fat, uncompetitive New York market would mean more teams making massive Yankee-sized windfalls and thus more huge free agent signings, so you know the players association would be on board. Maybe the Yankees and Mets would whimper against it but they're but two teams against the hungry juggernaut.

How many teams would support this measure? 25? 27? It's time to stand up for the little guy for once! Who's with me?

   26. tfbg9 Posted: March 27, 2013 at 07:04 PM (#4397981)
But isn't the Yankee's decade's old fan base a result of an unfree market to begin with? There could have been 2 AL teams and Two NL teams for 60 years now.

Therefore, we need the revenue sharing AND a few a extra NY teams, to right the wrongs of the past!

Who's with me?
   27. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4397995)
Do you really believe that? Would you stop rooting for the Cardinals if they put another expansion team in St. Louis? You can't overcome 100 years of history and generations of loyalty in "a couple of years".



You are correct, but at the same time if the Yankees are asking for a 70% of gate receipts, and the Brooklyn Dodgers are asking for 30%, I think teams might be willing to go with the lower attendance for the higher margins. The point is that in a true free market the Yankees value would definitely take a hit.

The only reason that the Yankees are more popular than the Mets, is not the 100 years of history, it's the past 20 years of success. The Mets have on occasion have had better attendance than the Yankees. If you flip flop the last twenty years then the Mess are the team with all the marketability. There is no inherent value that is attached just because a team has history, that cannot be overcome with a string of success.

Heck it's very possible that inside of ten years the Nationals will be considered more popular than the Orioles in their area.


I'm not saying that opening up the market wouldn't be beneficial to the Yankees, I just think there is a legitimate argument to be made that their value is a direct result of there not being an open market.
   28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:06 PM (#4398008)

The only reason that the Yankees are more popular than the Mets, is not the 100 years of history, it's the past 20 years of success. The Mets have on occasion have had better attendance than the Yankees. If you flip flop the last twenty years then the Mess are the team with all the marketability. There is no inherent value that is attached just because a team has history, that cannot be overcome with a string of success.


Disagree. The Yankees have an edge. The only time the Mets have been more popular were brief windows from 1969-74 and 1985-90.

The recent sustained success, and the clown shoes Mets ownership has certainly widened the gap, but there is a natural advantage.

Today the Yankees have a 2:1 revenue edge (per Forbes). If both teams were equally successful, I'd guess it would be more like 1.4:1
   29. cardsfanboy Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:18 PM (#4398016)
If both teams were equally successful, I'd guess it would be more like 1.4:1


possibly, but if the Mets were successful(say Red Sox successful of the past 20 years) and the Yankees were Blue Jays successful over the past 20 years, the Mets would probably outvalue them. My argument is that sustained success would trump history 10 out of 10 times.

Once the gap is caught up for a few years, ultimately the history advantage would be eliminated.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 27, 2013 at 08:50 PM (#4398029)

Once the gap is caught up for a few years, ultimately the history advantage would be eliminated.


Well, the two times the Mets caught the Yankees, and were ahead for 5 years, it reverted as soon as they had a bad season or two.

I think it will take a lot for a team with a 50 year history and 2 Championships to overtake a team with 100+ years, and 27 Championships.

If the Mets ran off a late-90's Yankee streak, while the Yankees were below .500, yeah, it might shift. But that's a rare, rare occurrance.
   31. Walt Davis Posted: March 27, 2013 at 10:51 PM (#4398098)
But ... if you don't put more teams in NY then the Yanks just keep extending their massive advantage. The longterm solution has to be more teams in NY metro (well, assuming baseball retains its share of the entertainment/sports market, etc.)

The Expos/Nats are the first team to be placed into an "established" market in, what, 100 years? I guess you could count the A's (SF hadn't been there very long), Angels (the Dodgers even less) or the Brewers/Braves (if you consider Milwaukee too close to Chicago). Then again other sports don't put teams in established markets either but, when they have, it's been NY (Islanders, Devils, Nets). (The Nets are in Brooklyn now I see ... they shoulda changed their name.) Anyway, the Nats are off to an OK start (they slightly outdrew the O's last year despite the O's record) and it doesn't seem to me that the Rangers or the Knicks have exactly dominated their markets (in part because they tend to bring the Mets not the Yankees to mind).

Putting new teams into NY requires commitment but it's not a move to put a dent in the Yanks' market power in 2016, it would be to put a dent in their market power in 2036. Depending on your statistical area preference, we are talking about a market of 13 million (micropolitan), 19 million (metropolitan) or 23 million (consolidated). LA is kinda keeping up (18 M consolidated) but Chicago is only at 9 M. It's not growing very fast in percentage terms (middle of the pack) but it doesn't really need to -- it's 4th in total estimated growth 2011-12 (LA, Houston and Dallas).

So it's already 2.5 times Chicago. You could chop the market up into 4 bits and each of those bits would have about as many people as Houston or Dallas. We're talking 11-12 Milwaukees.

The feasibility of it all seems to be about zero though so I'll admit this is a thought experiment. But nobody in their right mind would have designed it this way and, even without free entry and exit, any remotely free market would have at least 3-4 teams in NY.

I wonder how things are going in the alternate universe where the PCL became a 3rd major league (or MLB expanded rather than relocated) and the Dodgers and Giants are still in NY.
   32. akrasian Posted: March 28, 2013 at 12:40 AM (#4398145)
I think if the rules changed to allow other teams, the next time there was a booming economy (which will happen) it would be easy enough to move two teams there.

Let's say the Royals and the Marlins both decide to move. In a booming economy, there would likely be a multitude of rich New Yorkers who would love to own a piece of a MLB team.

The Royals and Marlins could share a stadium. In one sense, it's not ideal since it would create difficulties. OTOH, it would mean there was 156-158 games a year there (with a home and home series for the two teams) which would make it easier for a local area to justify paying part of the price, and the two teams would then split the rest.

Even if they wouldn't get as much as the Yankees or Mets initially for TV rights, they would likely get more than they currently do. And it would put downward pressure on the current two NY teams, since many advertisers would be happy to save a little bit per viewer to go with the new teams. The reason that TV rights have soared is that sports are viewed live instead of on DVR with commercial skipping. Advertisers would love a slightly cheaper per viewer option than the Yankees provide. It would also be the case that when one of the new teams played the Yankees or Mets, the games would be on two channels instead of one, which would negatively affect the viewership of the established teams. If the new teams had less expensive tickets with better sightlines (both likely) then there would be a number of fans who would choose to go to the new stadium to see the Yankees or Mets play instead of the Yankees and Mets own stadiums. A lot of fans go to just a couple of games a year - those games would be sold out in the new stadium, with fewer fans (slightly) going to the Bronx for instance. Add in that there are a number of fans of the rest of the league in New York, who go to NYS or the Mets' monstrosity to see "their" teams. They would then have the option of seeing their teams in a cheaper ballpark that is likely to be better (it almost would have to be). Since the Yankees and Mets aren't selling out every game now, it would seem likely that this would put pressure on them to cut ticket prices. With four baseball broadcasts instead of two competing for ad dollars, this would undoubtedly hurt their ad revenues too.

They Yankees in particular might still come out ahead in the short term without revenue sharing - but at some point in time their performance on the field would stumble, and another team would take advantage.

Basically, I'm saying YR be careful what you wish for. It very well could have results that you wouldn't like.
   33. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 28, 2013 at 01:30 AM (#4398154)
Basically, I'm saying YR be careful what you wish for. It very well could have results that you wouldn't like.


I ain't bovvered. This is what y'all don't get. I'm all for real competition, not the rigged system of endless unearned windfalls Bolshevik Bud wants to lavish on his cronies. If the Marlins both want to make a go at the New York market maybe Miami can get a decent owner down there.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4648 - 12:21pm, Dec 18)
Last: zonk

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(26 - 12:21pm, Dec 18)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(41 - 12:07pm, Dec 18)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh Rises

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(78 - 12:04pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(649 - 11:56am, Dec 18)
Last: Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(50 - 11:49am, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9154 - 11:44am, Dec 18)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(156 - 11:32am, Dec 18)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogOpening of Relations Could Bring Cuban Stars to Major League Baseball
(2 - 11:25am, Dec 18)
Last: No Maas Cashman

NewsblogSource: Myers to Padres in 11-player deal with Rays, Nats | MLB.com
(6 - 11:20am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(9 - 11:19am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals Celebration Tour
(2 - 11:17am, Dec 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogNew York Mets Top 20 Prospects for 2015
(20 - 11:15am, Dec 18)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(10 - 10:36am, Dec 18)
Last: Hal Chase School of Professionalism

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(302 - 9:51am, Dec 18)
Last: I am going to be Frank

Page rendered in 0.3513 seconds
48 querie(s) executed