I commented on this when it happened - Boras is not stupid and the MLBPA doesn't arbitrarily decide to lodge complaints. There has to be merit behind the grievance.

And for all the bluster around the Pirates, what exactly did Frank Coonelly do in supressing draft bonuses? As far as I can see, the "smart" teams went ahead and signed the guys they wanted for deals everyone could live with. The teams that abided by slot shortchanged themselves to a degree, but still handed out large signing bonuses. What did Coonelly accomplish? After he left, MLB eased the restirctions regarding slot money. Coonelly was widely regarded as a bully by many front office personnel since he would often berate a team for going over slot, especially in the first round.

It may stink for Eric Hosmer and the Royals, depending on the arbitrator's ruling.

Um, if I were a betting man, I’d put my money and Weiner/Boras over Coonelly and anyone. That’s a lot of brain power on the player side.

I am not sure I would categorize Weiner/Boras as being on the players side in this case. At least the players directly or indirectly involved in this case. Weiner wants to uphold the integrity of the collective bargaining agreement. Boras is trying to make as much money as possible and perhaps if he gets really lucky beat a system which he can't stand. What happens to Alvarez and by extension Hosmer is secondary to Weiner in particular but also it seems to Boras.

The factual issues around this case should be easy to determine. Did the Pirates submit the Alvarez contract after the deadline? Did they do so with league approval? Archival records should easily determine such information. Whether or not the league has the legal right to extend the deadline w/o union approval and what are the ramifications will be the interesting parts.

Um, if I were a betting man, I’d put my money and Weiner/Boras over Coonelly and anyone. That’s a lot of brain power on the player side.

You're on. I'm going with the former ace of the Commissioner's staff.

Um, if I were a betting man, I’d put my money and Weiner/Boras over Coonelly and anyone. That’s a lot of brain power on the player side.

Perhaps, but I think there is a lot of law on the team's side.

The only way I can see Boras "winning" is if Alvarez is granted free agency, and I think that outcome is really, really unlikely. The worst that happens to the Pirates is they get pick #3 in next year's draft.

Perhaps, but I think there is a lot of law on the team's side.

The only scenarios I can see are:

1: Contract wasn't late, because Pedro said "I agree" by deadline.
Result: Pirates win.

2: Contract was late, even though Pedro said "I agree" because confirmation wasn't faxed to Commish deadline.
Result A: Pirates win anyway, violation was de minimis.
Result B: Pirates "lose", get comp pick next year and Pedro goes back in next year's draft.

3: Contract was late, and MLB knew it was late, but gave an extension
Result A: Slap on the wrist, naughty naughty MLB, notify the MLBPA ahead of time if you want to extend the deadline. Oh, and the Pirates keep Alvarez.
Result B: Naughty naughty, MLB, you can't unilaterally extend the deadline- Pirates "lose", get comp pick next year and Pedro goes back in next year's draft.

Pedro can't be made a free agent because:
He agreed to the Pirates' offer, he now wants to back out by saying it was late. Well if it was late he goes back into next year's draft- that's the rules.
The "bad" thing the MLBPA is complaining about is the MLB unilaterally altering a bargained for contractual provision. Freeing Alvarez doesn't address that- enforcing the rule addresses that- and enforcing the rule makes Alvarez wait until next June.

Arbitrators have been known to go off the reservation- so it is conceivable he could free Alvarez, but if he did, MLB would be fully justified in canning him (BOTH sides have to agree to an arbitrator)- the MLBPA knows that, I don't think the MLBPA gives a **** whether Alvarez (who is not yet a member) is an FA or not- so I doubt they are even asking that he be freed. They are either asking that he be forced to sit out until next June just for the principal of it, or they are asking for some other form of compensation from MLB.

I think alot of people are missing the point. I don't even think Boras is trying to make Alvarez a free agent.
All Boras is trying to do is blow some holes in the MLB deadline, which has been a major pain in his ass the last couple years. Thats it. Hes trying to blow the deadline away

Hard to see how the deadline gets blown away. MLB and the union have agreed to it. It's the arbitrator's job to enforce labor agreements, not invalidate them because somebody who's not a party to the agreement doesn't like it.

Hard to see how the deadline gets blown away. MLB and the union have agreed to it. It's the arbitrator's job to enforce labor agreements, not invalidate them because somebody who's not a party to the agreement doesn't like it.

It is a lot more likely to happen that Alvarez being an FA.
Boras is trying to say that if the deadline isn't even really a deadline, it shouldn't be in place

Boras is trying to say that if the deadline isn't even really a deadline, it shouldn't be in place

Which invalidates #10 how?

The arbitrator is responding to a complaint about a breech of a collectively bargained agreement. I assume that its a simple matter to enforce the rules of that agreement, but very unlikely that he'll rule parts of the agreement are null and void (which would have essentially scrap the new CBA for a lot of new negotiating).

I'm not saying that his argument makes sense, I was just clarifying what seems to be the obvious point of Boras' quest here.

I don't doubt that Boras is hoping against hope that Alvarez somehow becomes a FA, but that's about on a level with hoping to win the lottery.

As for the deadline, I expect the union would be opposed to any attempt to do away with it, even though it's something MLB and not the union wanted. It's the union's own explicit position in its grievance that labor agreements must be adhered to strictly to the letter. Can't exactly square that with asking the arbitrator to invalidate it. Besides, if an arbitrator can invalidate a provision the union doesn't like, it means he can also invalidate one MLB doesn't like. The union has always been very sensitive to precedent.

I'm guessing the Pirates end up on the backend of a lawsuit filed by Boras to free Alvarez. That will probably be based on Das' ruling that the Pirates didn't seek an extension so what transpired after 12:00 isn't material in their case. In the end, the Pirates end up without Alvarez nor the #3 pick as the lawsuit drags out past the 2009 draft.

I was just clarifying what seems to be the obvious point of Boras' quest here.

Seems to me that the obvious point of Boras's quest was to get his client a few extra hundred thousand dollars. He was using a technicality to try and extort more money from the Pirates. He was betting that the Pirates would think that making sure the Alvarez signing went smoothly was more important to them than some more money - he bet wrong.

Here's how it probably went down -

Step 1: Boras notes that Pirates are technically in violation of the CBA, and the agreement they and Alvarez arrived at should be void.

Step 2: Boras quietly approaches the Pirates, asks for more money in order not to make a big deal about this technicality.

Step 3: Pirates balk, go to media, say that Boras is reneging on a deal they arrived at, and tells fans (and Alvarez) that if Alvarez doesn't end up in the Pirates organization, it's Boras's fault, not theirs.

Step 4: MLBPA steps in, as is their right, and says that if there's been a CBA violation, appropriate steps need to be taken.

At this point, Boras is out of the loop. Unless there's something going on that I don't see, there's very little chance that this will redound to his, or his client's, benefit. If, as reported, we're talking about a difference of a few hundred thousand dollars, there's no way that it benefits Alvarez to sit out a season.

That will probably be based on Das' ruling that the Pirates didn't seek an extension so what transpired after 12:00 isn't material in their case.

It doesn't matter whether or not the Pirates sought an extension. They don't have to sign Alvarez, or even come close to signing Alvarez, in order to prevent him from becoming a Free Agent. All they have to do is draft him, and offer him a contract. If Alvarez won't sign, that's his problem - he waits until next year.

The worst that happens to the Pirates is they get pick #3 in next year's draft.

Is there any chance the arbitrator could rule that 1) the contract was agreed to after the deadline and therefore 2) Alvarez wasn't legally signed and goes back into the draft pool next year and 3) as punishment for trying to pull a fast one, Pittsburgh loses the compensatory pick next year?

#3 seems too harsh to me, but I could be persuaded otherwise...

hmmm so you could turn this speculation around...

what if the Pirates agreed to the final contract before the deadline and Boras playing his games delayed getting the signed copy back to the pirates until after the deadline, even though Alvarez signed before the deadline.

Arbitrator refuses to penalize the Bucs or Alvarez as they both followed the rules, the arbitrator instead penalizes Boras who violated his contract to represent Alvarez and bars Boras from representing mlb players for the next 3 years.

(BTW, I assume the signature by alvarez was dated, so that part of it should be cut and dried)

(BTW, I assume the signature by alvarez was dated, so that part of it should be cut and dried)

That's part of the issue. Alvarez still hasn't signed a contract. The Pirates got a verbal agreement from him. Originally it was reported that the agreement came before the deadline, but now Boras is saying that it didn't.

even worse..

Sounds to me like Alvarez and the Bucs made an agreement, and Boras refuses to have it put down on paper...

Again, this what they call malpractice...

I find it very hard to read this situation in any way that makes the Bucs the one at fault unless they a)had an agreement in writing and failed to file it in time or b)failed in providing Boras and Alvarez with a written proposed contract before the deadline, or c)misrepresented what was agreed to and the timing of the agreement.

All Boras is trying to do is blow some holes in the MLB deadline, which has been a major pain in his ass the last couple years. Thats it. Hes trying to blow the deadline away

I agree. Even if it can't be overturned outright because of the agreement in the CBA, it doesn't mean Boras is above trying to destroy it. If not for Matsuzaka's interference, Boras would have let the star go back to the JPL as the first shot in the battle to destroy the current posting system. Let's also not forget that, although it never seems to be attributed to him, the August 15 signing deadline was put in place to stop Boras from the Jared Weaver situation ever happening again. Yeah, it killed the draft-and-follow (destroying the Reds strategy and forcing the Pirates to make an early decision on a talent like Scheppers) as a casualty of the war. I think I'm the only guy who thinks that there is a place in Cooperstown for Scott Boras for the impact that he's had on the game and overshadows even labor legends like Gene Upshaw in their lasting impact on today's professional athlete.

But I'll get off of my soapbox. I think the most amazing thing about this whole grievance is that, with the multitudes of lawyers involved, no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly when Alvarez verbally agreed to the deal.

So after reading the article...

Boras implies that he was in conversation with the Bucs and Alvarez up until the deadline and then ceased conversation at the deadline because of CBA rules...

he then claimes that after he left the conversation, and therefore after the deadline, the Bucs and Alvarez reached an agreement.

The questions I would ask as Arbiter...

Had the Bucs and Alavarez reached a verbal agreement earlier that Boras was trying to change (once he got news of the Posey contract)? And is this the agreement that was finally filed with league?

What time exactly did Boras leave the conversation? And how long afterwards was the agreement filed?

Did either Boras or Alvarez mention that there was an agreement before the grievance was filed?

Do Boras and Alvarez agree on what the terms of the agreement are and that Alvarez voluntarily committed to it?

And I'll add to #23: Was another employee of the Scott Boras Corp present in any capacity when the verbal agreement was reached?

Sounds to me like Alvarez and the Bucs made an agreement, and Boras refuses to have it put down on paper...

Again, this what they call malpractice...

Why would you assume Boras is doing anything Alvarez doesn't want? He works for Alvarez, not the other way around, and if he wants to sign the contract he can do so without Boras.

Why would you assume Boras is doing anything Alvarez doesn't want? He works for Alvarez, not the other way around, and if he wants to sign the contract he can do so without Boras.

Alvarez is in the same boat all other Scott Boras clients are in; they realize that Boras is the best and will eventually get them the most money. His tactics are crude and he can be accused of being classless, but he's nevertheless effective. If I were Pedro Alvarez and Boras were telling me that this was the path to the most lucrative deal, I would do whatever he said, including upstaging the World Series.

Why would you assume Boras is doing anything Alvarez doesn't want? He works for Alvarez, not the other way around, and if he wants to sign the contract he can do so without Boras.

Alvarez is not an expert, which is precisely why he employes an agent. Alvarez is acting on good-faith that Boras is doing his job in representing Alvarez's best interests. If Boras is not, that is the very definition of malpractice.

If I were Pedro Alvarez and Boras were telling me that this was the path to the most lucrative deal, I would do whatever he said, including upstaging the World Series.

When you hire a hitman, you can't be upset if you happen to get blood on your suit.

Players know what they're getting when they agree to work with Boras. If Alvarez is sitting out the year because of this, he should have expected that this would be a possibility.

Why would you assume Boras is doing anything Alvarez doesn't want? He works for Alvarez, not the other way around, and if he wants to sign the contract he can do so without Boras.

Actually I assume that Alvarez totally busted Boras' play, panicking and agreeing to a contract once boras left the conversation...

once it became a broken play Boras tried to leverage more money from the bucs, or failing that best the deadline...

Alvarez is not an expert, which is precisely why he employes an agent. Alvarez is acting on good-faith that Boras is doing his job in representing Alvarez's best interests. If Boras is not, that is the very definition of malpractice.

Of course, but the choice isn't Boras or representing himself. There are plenty of other agents out there if Alvarez thinks Boras is not acting on his behalf. I would just like to see some evidence that Boras is doing this against Alvarez' will and/or he's not trying to improve Alvarez' deal.

Actually I assume that Alvarez totally busted Boras' play, panicking and agreeing to a contract once boras left the conversation...

once it became a broken play Boras tried to leverage more money from the bucs, or failing that best the deadline...

And if Alvarez wasn't okay with this move why would he retain Boras?

And if Alvarez wasn't okay with this move why would he retain Boras?

Or just go to Pittsburgh and sign the contract?

Here's how it probably went down -

That's what I think is the likeliest scenario

Boras implies that he was in conversation with the Bucs and Alvarez up until the deadline and then ceased conversation at the deadline because of CBA rules...

he then claimes that after he left the conversation, and therefore after the deadline, the Bucs and Alvarez reached an agreement.

If that's true Boras would have been screaming about it from day one- so I assume it's not-
I think #16 is right, Boras was delaying the actual signing of the contract to squeeze a few more bucks out of the Bucs (sorry), and didn't fully anticipate the Pirates reacting the way they did.

He's brilliant, but human- he made a mistake- but he's great at damage control so we'll see what happens next.

Actually I assume that Alvarez totally busted Boras' play, panicking and agreeing to a contract once boras left the conversation...

which is the Hochevar scenario...
except that one involved another agent trying to poach Boras' client.

Boras re-established control, got the deal Hoch's new agent agreed to nullified- and had Hoch go back to the draft-

then Boras got REAL lucky, Moore had a brain fart and grossly overdrafted Hoch.

Tom (and his broom) Posted: September 09, 2008 at 08:37 PM (#2934635)
the arbitrator instead penalizes Boras who violated his contract to represent Alvarez and bars Boras from representing mlb players for the next 3 years.

Can the arbitrator even do this? It is the MLBPA that certifies agents.

Can the arbitrator even do this?

No.

When you hire a hitman, you can't be upset if you happen to get blood on your suit.

You most certainly can. That's why one hires a hitman, no dry cleaning bill.

I agree with #16.

Boras is starting to remind me of Karl Rove. Rove is (or was until recently) usually described as a "genius," and lots of people on all sides -- liberal, conservative, and in the media -- often seem to assume that he's got a brilliant super double secret plan behind every decision he makes. Rove did a very good job for Bush, but he also made lots and lots of mistakes. Same with Boras: He's obviously a great agent, but that doesn't mean that he's infallible. Sometimes he screws the pooch just like everyone else. This looks like one of those times.

I don't believe Boras claim that he left conversation when deadline was reached (unless it was for a minute and he thought it would still be possible to reach a deal).

If he thought deadline was rigid and it was passed, why let Alvarez continue to talk to the Pirates? There would be no possibility of a deal being reached.

did Boras leave Alvarez to finish off Hosmer deal and then expect to come back and get Alvarez signed for $6.5 million or more and then faint when he found out that Alvarez had said yes?

I don't believe Boras claim that he left conversation when deadline was reached (unless it was for a minute and he thought it would still be possible to reach a deal).

Not only that, Jeff Passan mentioned in his column on Yahoo:

"The union allegedly has phone records that prove Boras spoke with the Pirates after midnight, and if so, the violation will be difficult to deny."

Best Regards

John

"The union allegedly has phone records that prove Boras spoke with the Pirates after midnight, and if so, the violation will be difficult to deny."

Let's assume Boras spoke with the Pirates after midnight- what does that prove?

1: Boras spoke with the Pirates after midnight.
2: Nothing much else.

It does not prove that the agreement was reached before midnight.

Let's assume Boras spoke with the Pirates after midnight- and the agreement was reached after midnight- what does that prove?
1: Boras spoke with the Pirates after midnight.
2: The agreement was reached after midnight
3: Boras was willing to go along with the midnight deadline violation- he merely saw it as an opportunity to continue bargaining.

Boras does not come off looking good no matter how this is spun, at worst the Pirates and MLB are down in the same gutter.

I think Boras is determined to queer this deal for his own reasons, just as he queered the deal Hoch made with the Dodgers- and given how that turned out, he's guessing that he can come out looking like a rose (to prospective clients)- in a way he's playing with house money- if he "loses" his client gets $6mm, if Alvarez goes back into the pool, who knows, maybe like Hoch last year he gets more (maybe he drops due to signability and the Yankees draft him).

It does raise the question whether Boras truly left the negotiation/conversation at midnight as he stated.

Best Regards

John

Boras is starting to remind me of Karl Rove. Rove is (or was until recently) usually described as a "genius," and lots of people on all sides -- liberal, conservative, and in the media -- often seem to assume that he's got a brilliant super double secret plan behind every decision he makes. Rove did a very good job for Bush, but he also made lots and lots of mistakes. Same with Boras: He's obviously a great agent, but that doesn't mean that he's infallible. Sometimes he screws the pooch just like everyone else. This looks like one of those times.

I agree with this analogy. Whether Boras made a mistake here, I don't know; I don't have nearly enough information. But the weird notion that he's trying to "take down the draft" or "destroy the 8/15 deadline" or whatever: huh? None of the people who pose these theories seem to have any explanation for how it's supposed to work. It's just that this can't be a simple dispute over the contract's validity; it must be something grand and nefarious.

(Hey, maybe this whole thing is a plot by Rove, not Boras at all.)

Do all of these guys have atomic clocks or something? What if the MLB guy's watch is a minute or two slow?

They don't need atomic clocks. Everybody watches the same tv station (probably CNN so that they are using the same time)

But the weird notion that he's trying to "take down the draft" or "destroy the 8/15 deadline" or whatever: huh? None of the people who pose these theories seem to have any explanation for how it's supposed to work. It's just that this can't be a simple dispute over the contract's validity; it must be something grand and nefarious.

It's always a relief to see somebody being rational about this.

I don't really follow the Boras-as-evil-genius arguments, especially the underlying assumption that he can be expected to run rings around MLB in court or in arbitrations. He does really well at getting money for his clients, but that's it. Unless I'm mistaken, whenever he's raised more fundamental challenges to MLB in legal proceedings, he's always lost.