Skip to main content

It was reported in BBA that 2 of Bores clients signed after 8/15 deadline Horsmer and Alvarez.
Bores claims the Commissioniers office extended the deadline which was in violation of collective bargaining agreement .

I don't know whats going on but Horsmer did not dress for yesterdays game and won't untill the matter is settled
Last edited {1}
Original Post
I would think that if MLB approved Hosmer's deal, that deal will stick. The union might seek some sanction against management, but that should not upset Hosmer's deal. The fact that the Commissioner's office may have breached the labor agreement by allowing Hosmer's deal does not make that deal illegal and should not stop it from being enforceable by both sides. At most it allows the union to seek some sanction against the Commissioner's office, but not against Hosmer.

If Alvarez never signed, though, I don't see how he can do much at this point except go to indy ball. He obviously has hired an agent, so I would think his NCAA eligibility is gone.

With that, Boras' reputation (and ability to recruit young clients) will suffer a major hit. But beyond that, it seems to me that MLB is out to break Boras' kneecaps if it can. In the end, if Alvarez didn't sign, he made the decision, no matter who gave him what advice. For MLB to hold up Hosmer to try to pressure Boras over the Alvarez situation, though, is despicable and an aspect of this that has not gotten enough attention if you ask me.

Hosmer didn't ask for this and he did nothing wrong, so this really bugs me that Selig's office is pulling this stuff on him.
Certainly sounds like they are in NO HURRY to resolve this issue. Meanwhile Alvarez (and Hosmer?) are in limbo. Boras, however "brilliant" of a lawyer he may be, is synonymous with greed, ego and a lack of scruples. I don't understand why the top dogs continue to employ him when there are other good agents out there that come without the drama. There are even some that actually have the best interest of the player in mind when they negotiate. Imagine that!!!
Allow me to shed a lil light to.... '...breaking knee caps....& "I don't understand"

“First and foremost,” says former Ga Tech catcher & Boston Captain Jason Varitek, a Boras client, “he represents the player and not the club. Always.”

Enough said.

Thus, Boras could be credited with adjusting the dynamics of the MLB amateur draft. Whether the advise, [to turn down a deal if the signing bonus was below an amount, or continue with either college-ball/independent ball], is sound, has promoted some MLB GM and owners to steer clear of signing/drafting Boras's clients.

(i.e. WSox owner Reinsdorf and Boras probably won't go fishing in the same boat, any time soon.

Best and Worst - Boras)

Will S. Boras [as the history books will write] have more business impact for the MLBPA (vs the MLB Owners) than.......Marvin Miller?

How about:
Marvin Miller, and Scott Boras, along with Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson, is one of the three or four most important men in baseball history?

I find this all sad. Hosmer got caught in a mess.

I think in Alvarez's case there is more to this than we know. Was Boras angry that Alvarez tried to negotiate on his own in the end? Why didn't he just sign? Does 200K make that much difference when you are getting 6M? Not in our house it wouldn't. Wink

What irks me is MLB allowing top picks and their agents to do business after the date imposed by the collective bargaining agreement. I am not sure if this will really hurt Boras in the end.
I hate to burst your bubble, but when you're drafted, there's nothing else for an "advisor" or agent to do except get you the most he can get for you. That is his job. He is not there to uphold "the best interests of baseball", especially given that most who use that phrase really only mean that they wish ownership could keep more money for themselves.

Boras has drawn the enmity of MLB management for one reason: He does it very, very well. I would think any player in whom Boras shows interest would normally want to let him do what he can for him.

What's deeply troubling here is MLB's seeming willingness to injure an innocent player as a way of "getting even" with Boras. Remember, Hosmer signed, and he didn't do anything that MLB and the Royals didn't agree to.

While the union is often uninterested in the draft (its job after all is to represent guys already in the majors, and many of them resent guys getting big bucks without even being proven yet), I would think the union would be very, very concerned about MLB taking retaliatory action against any agent (and/or his clients) just because he's been successful. Especially given that Scott Boras represents so many players already, and even those he does not represent benefit when they hit the market and Boras has driven up the market price for them.
Seeing as how Alvarez and Hosmer are not playing baseball right now, it seems that he is not taking care of the "best interests" of his clients either. There are "advisors" out there that manage to get the best for their players while keeping their own names out of the headlines. Alvarez commanded top dollar without Boras. Let Boras take a non ranked nobody and get them a seven figure contract and then he can put a feather in his cap.
I do beleive Hosmer was playing this summer in a league.
Alvarez hasn't signed, and most likely couldn't return to school anyway. I am not so sure if it is the extra $$, he could go all next year and still get drafted extremely high by another team. Is he looking for a ML contract for his client? If so, might be worth the wait, your MLB clock begins to tick immediately and an automatic roster spot.
As to what Superball has posted he is right and Boras' players who don't sign don't sit idle. They are top talent and will go pretty far, pretty fast anyway.
Why would Boras take on a non ranked player when he can have the best for his clients?
In Drew's case, as I recall, he gained about $7 million, at a time when there was no guarantee he would ever make it to the bigs. All it cost him was a year in indy ball, instead of in someone's farm system. See also: Luke Hochevar.

Could other advisors/agents get these deals? Maybe, but if you were one of the guys with that capability, would you take the chance on someone unproven? And if you were Boras, having earned the rep to recruit the guys capable of commanding top dollar, why would you go looking for the lower tier guys?

Boras would probably tell you, the players create their value. He simply tries to capture if for them, instead of letting management keep it. He's not in a position to take a 10th round guy and get him millions. But not every top-10 pick gets what Alvarez was offered (and apparently declined). So you have to wonder, why is it that Boras can get these offers, while others just sign their clients up for slot money and then take 5% of what they might've gotten on their own?

Just remember, most of the grumbling you hear about Boras comes from ownership and the Commissioner's office (which represents ownership). The rest comes from people who think it's ridiculous that A-Rod makes $27 m/year.

Though why people find it absurd that A-Rod makes half what Brittney Spears makes, I don't know. I guess they'd rather see the Steinbrenners, whose $10 m original investment is now worth billions, do even better, and at A-Rod's expense?

Meaning, there's an unfathomable money stream running through MLB right now, and everyone is trying to enlarge their share of the pie. Both sides are fighting over it. For a disinterested observer to attack Boras to me indicates lack of understanding of what's going on.

I completely understand that the Commissioner's office is trying to cut Boras off at the knees, as part of its pro-owner role. I think what they're doing is wrong, but I understand why they're trying it. Why anyone would think this is fair play, given the impact on someone like Hosmer, I cannot understand.

Let's face it: There's not one of us out there who, if we had the chance to make the A-Rod deal for ourselves or our sons, wouldn't do it. (Go ahead, tell me how you'd take $10m instead of $27m "for the good of the game.")

For a lot of players, their shelf life is short and they may never get another chance to cash in beyond the one immediately in front of them. This is even more so for draftees, who have no guarantee of ever playing a single game in MLB, much less accruing enough time to become free agents.
Finally, while I truly am a disinterested observer, I guess my un-businesslike romantic vision of players actually playing for "the love of the game" is not realistic? $$ can't buy you love and anyone signing up with Boras gets whatever comes their way whether its sitting, playing for un-enamored fans, riding the storm becasue of anothers signing complications as in Hosmer's case, or banking more money than they can spend in a lifetime. Tho I may not be happy that my son will never generate the interest of someone as "esteemed" as Boras, I am pleased that greed is not in his vocabulary.
If your son ever has the chance to play Milb, he/you will quickly learn that MLB is business, all business.
The billionaires will be more than happy to negotiate every penny so they have it and the player does not. I can assure you that whether you are negotiating on the front end when drafted or on the back end with a baseball career ending injury, it can be personal and, if you happen to learn of your rights, you will be told what you do not get.
The billionaires will release your son in a minute without ever looking back.
Boras is not perfect, I am sure. To MLB, he is fighting over rounding errors in these contracts, when you consider MLB is now considered to generate over $6,000,000,000.
For the player, it not only isn't a rounding error, it is an opportunity of a lifetime.
Some very courageous players like Curt Flood felt so strongly that they sacrificed their careers so that players and draftees today would have some chance of being other than property to be bought, sold and told their value.
There is nothing greedy, in my view, when a player negotiates these agreements,especially those being drafted. They have a unique skill that generates billions of dollars for the owners. They deserve to be compensated for the rounding errors that they truly are.
Last edited by infielddad

Your post is especially true considering that the draft already leans heavily in favor of ownership. The draft was instituted in order to keep player acquisition costs down, and though these costs have risen greatly and rapidly, the value of a player acquired through the draft is much lower than the value that same player would command in an open market. For example, the speculation is that Alvarez will get $15M+ if he's granted free agency by the arbitrator. The difference between a player's true value and his "drafted value" is all money that remains in a billionaires pockets.
Last edited by Emanski's Heroes
I think that Emanski is on to something, if he doesn't sign and the arbitrator rules in his favor does he become a FA because of the new signing deadline?

If so would not be surprised that Boras is testing that one and that's why he didn't want Alvarez to sign. There would be many teams waiting who wouldn't mind spending the money not having to ask the commissioner's permission.
The basic problem from the player's perspective is that, once drafted, he has only one team he can negotiate with. There is very little leverage for him to negotiate; his only option is not to sign at all. Boras apparently is willing to have his clients do that -- pull a year in indy ball instead of MiLB -- and I have to say, apparently it works, all the way from beta test J.D. Drew on up. At least, it works if you are the kind of player capable of starting a bidding war.

For those of us who've been through a draft now, I have to laugh at the romanticized idea that players should just play for peanuts while owners pocket the money. You wouldn't believe the stuff the teams pull to try to screw a player's price down. And I mean, nickle-dime stuff.

I know of one player who was pretty sure he was going to go to an elite university, one of the nation's top baseball programs as well. He was considered "unsignable" by many and not taken until day 2 of the draft. He had a price that never wavered. Well, at some point the team decided they really did want him. Did they pay his price to get him away from his college commitment?

Well, sort of. First, they offered him 1/3 less. He politely declined.

Then they offered him 1/6 less. He again politely declined.

Last minute, they came up to his number.

Who was being greedy? The player was actually expecting them to pass and to go to college for at least three years. He was perfectly happy to do that. He wasn't going to give that up unless it was "offer you can't refuse" money. The team was told this straight up, yet even after they determined they wanted him, their attitude was, "Hey, we pay $4 m/year for utility players, but let's see if we can get this hot prospect for a few dollars less than he says."

My own son was in a similar position. Prior to the draft, a scout called and offered him a pre-draft deal at about 1/5 of the price we'd set as a condition of bypassing college. I wasn't there. No advisor, just son on the phone. Son politely declined.

Would you take $(1/4 of asking price)? Son again politely declines and explains his position.

Scout indicates he fully understands. But what about $(40% of asking price)? Son declines again. Scout says, I'll have to talk to my scouting director.

I swear, when I heard this related by son, I thought we were buying a used car off the lot, not experiencing a dream come true. I fully expected our next call would say, "You'd better take that offer, someone else is looking at that draft slot."

Yeah, tell me more about how we should all be enraptured with the romantic idea that baseball is not a business at the pro level.

Alvarez should no more sign for less than his market value, than Russell Crowe should do his next movie for union scale. And maybe the Rolling Stones should play one last tour for nothing, just for the love of their music.
Didn' A-Rod fire Boras after he leaked his opting out of his contract with the Yankees in the middle of the last game of the world series? I heard A-
Rod on the radio and he was very upset and embarrased by that situation. Days later A-Rod fired/disregarded Boras and negotiated his own deal with the Yankees.
Not all of Boras' tactics are appreciated by his clients. If its all about the money go with Boras, if not go elsewhere.
No problem with players getting as much as possible.

It is well known in negotiating tactics that deadlines allow parties to create leverage. Almost all Boras clients wait until the deadline and that is their right. The issue is not whether the players are greedy but whether or not it is in their best interest to bypass almost one year of pro ball waiting for the deadline to occur. As a secondary issue, I think it does cause some loss of political capital with the fans when a holdout occurs. Not saying that is right either but perception sometimes is reality and holdout players may be given a shorter leesh by the fans when they fail.

IMHO, a player will likely not get all the money they may have gotten otherwise if they sign before the deadline. They may make up for it in the long run however if they get better fan support and possibly quicker development time to the big leagues.
Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
IMHO, a player will likely not get all the money they may have gotten otherwise if they sign before the deadline. They may make up for it in the long run however if they get better fan support and possibly quicker development time to the big leagues.

I understand the thinking about fan support being important however in the scope of things, does it really matter? If you perform they will love you anyway. Just ask the San Fransisco fans about Bonds. I have been watching the Pirates blogs and to this point it's not as much that Alvarez is the bad guy, it's Boras taking advantage of this poor young player. If they get him to sign they will love him, if not it really doesn't matter anyway does it.

I sometimes wonder about the "development" year lost argument. For most players I would agree however taking a top talent like Alvarez I don't know if by him sitting out a year that it is really going to hurt his timetable of making the major leagues.

In reality, sitting out isn't really sitting out. He will still be working out, probably playing independent ball and then signing with someone next year. The chances of him starting in rookie ball or short season ball wasn't going to happen. He would start in high A or AA anyway so how much does he really loose? Let's face it if he is tearing up the minor leagues he would move very fast (especially in the Pirates organization).

Individual players aside, Alvarez and Hosmer are just pawns in this game. It's Boras against MLB and he is getting the players union to do his work for him. If he can expose another loophole he will be king again.
Last edited by jerseydad
Congrats to Boras and Alvarez who re-finalized a deal with Pitt for 6.355 million. I am so glad that he got that extra .355 million as the cost of living and gas prices are so out of control. At least now Alvarez will be able to afford the necessities of life which would have been impossible at a mere 6 mill. Without ethical lawyers (is that an oxymoron??)like Boras where would Alvarez be now? I know, I's "fair market value" after playing 0.00 proven innings of major league ball.
I figured that it was teh ML cpontract he wanted to begin with (Boras). This actually gives teh Pirates some breathing room, as they won't have to pay him in two checks, but over several years, so the difference is most likely what he would have lost in interest.
I hoep that this means Hosmer can get on with his career.
What puzzles me is the the signing date was Aug 15, so if it remains in affect (which I doubt), it could cause a whole bit of a mess with other agents and their players.
Heard some chatter, signing deadline might be (when the current CBA expires) 15 days after the draft, except those still playing in the championship season, this is a suggestion that might be put forth by coaches. After all, they are truly the ones hanging in their until the last minute. Should be interesting to follow.
Originally posted by infielddad:
Some very courageous players like Curt Flood felt so strongly that they sacrificed their careers...

Being in the clubhouse at the end of Curt Flood's career, I assure you Flood's actions vs MLB did
NOT "sacrifice" his great career!

After receiving $90,000 in salary from the Cards in 1969, Flood collected his $110,000 salary in 1971, and hung on before ending his career, batting below the Mendoza (only .200) and lackluster play in CF. Despite Mr. Williams encouragement, Flood hung it up in and retired.

Although Flood's legal challenge and filing a $1 million lawsuit vs Bowie Kuhn and MLB, alleging that MLB had violated federal antitrust laws was unsuccessful, no active players testified, nor did any attend the trial.

Ultimately, the reserve clause was struck down as pitchers Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally played for one season without a contract, when an arbitrator ruled they could become free agents.

It was this decision that essentially dismantled the reserve clause and opened the door to widespread free agency and additional solidarity among players as they would continue to fight the owner's to become the untouchable Players Union they are today!
Last edited by Bear
Originally posted by Bear:
Originally posted by infielddad:
Some very courageous players like Curt Flood felt so strongly that they sacrificed their careers...

Being in the clubhouse at the end of Curt Flood's career, I assure you Flood's actions vs MLB did
NOT "sacrifice" his great career!

After receiving $90,000 in salary from the Cards in 1969, Flood collected his $110,000 salary in 1971, and hung on before ending his career, batting below the Mendoza (only .200) and lackluster play in CF. Despite Mr. Williams encouragement, Flood hung it up in and retired.

Although Flood's legal challenge and filing a $1 million lawsuit vs Bowie Kuhn and MLB, alleging that MLB had violated federal antitrust laws was unsuccessful, no active players testified, nor did any attend the trial.

I don't see where I said he sacrificed money. I said he sacrificed his career.
I'm, sorry, Bear, but the two are not the same. Before Curt Flood, thousands of players, for a lot of reasons, did not stand against the principal of being "property" with minimal rights, and none for free agency including "earning" a say in where you can/will play.
Curt Flood did.
When I say he sacrificed, it was in ways distinctly different than the way your posts suggest you think they are to be measured.
Last edited by infielddad

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.