What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
This is off topic from the Prince Fielder question from Joey's main thread yet related. I saw a few posters talk about Boras. I know Boras has stuck it to the Rangers a few times but is that Boras's fault or the managements fault for letting him. I guess I have always thought of Boras as a guy out for himself and bad for baseball but I listened to a lengthy interview of Scott on MLB and was extremely impressed.
Here are a few things that I have been paying attention to over the past few weeks. When K-Rod switched to Boras as his agent we all thought it was to wring the most out of some future contract. That may be true but he also said that K-Rod's previous agent had not executed the no-trade properly and the Mets were contenting that K-Rod did not in fact enjoy those rights. Boras it appears stepped in cleaned that up in helping to make sure K-Rod went somewhere he was happy with and renegotiated K-Rod's contract with Doug Melvin to make the contract more palatable for both parties.
The second thing is how Boras dealt with Weaver. Weaver wanted to stay in LA and Boras worked the deal out as his client asked.
The other thing that impressed me about Boras was his in-depth discussion about how they deal with players and how they set a player up to deal with a team rejecting offers or not offering enough in order to ensure that a compromise can be reached. There was other details about the business side of baseball.
So my question is this what is it that Boras did to so wrong the Texas Rangers. A Rod was on Tom Hicks and I just don't know the rest but I am interested because it has crossed my mind that if CJ Wilson wanted to leave the Rangers Boras would be the guy to hire. (I couldn't figure out who represents CJ with a quick Google search)
CJ is represented by Robert Garber, the same agent for Roy Oswalt. I don't know what Boras did so wrong to the Rangers. It's not Boras' fault the Rangers signed the mega-deal with A-Rod or the horrible deal with another of his clients, Chan Ho Park. The agent's job is to get the best possible deal for the client, as long as the agent is working within the parameters set by the client. Weaver could have gotten much more but obviously likes the situation in LA, so Boras negotiated a deal that is good for both Weaver and the Angels.
Ultimately, the blame must be put on the owner/general manager/organization for any and all deals signed, good and bad. No one forces the owner to sign off on a bad deal, or what eventually becomes a bad deal. I don't see how Boras, or any agent, is sticking it to a team when a bad contract is signed.
1) There truly is a clear separation between the business side of baseball and the actual on-field performance of a given team - two completely different realms. However, the two seemingly intermingle whenever a favorite player on a favorite team enters (or doesn't) into contractual-based labor negotiations with said team.
2) I guess I have never thought of Boras as the antichrist - just a really good agent. By definition, a really good agent will do what is right by the player, as the agent works for the player and not the team. Here is the rub - what is right for the player is not always going to be what is right for a particular team (including whichever one you or I happen to root for). This is why many fans view agents (including Boras) in a negative fashion.
3) The A-Rod debacle is 100% on Tom Hicks and the Rangers management team at the time. Boras did absolutely NOTHING wrong. Was it a terrible signing for the Rangers? Absolutely! But, the fact is that when the Rangers signed him, he was a 25 year old who had just put up an 11 WAR season at THE premium position on the diamond. Yeah – that guy is going to get a record contract every time. However, if you sign that guy, the value (to the team) of each of those added wins needs to be much greater than it was for the Rangers at the time. It was just a terrible job of managing/assessing the roster at the time. Plus, Hicks simply did not have the cash to maintain an annual payroll of $100MM+, which was the minimum required level to field a competitive team once you commit $250MM over 10 years to 1 player. The fact is, A-Rod performed very well for the Rangers – it wasn’t his fault that the chucklehead front office rolled this pathetic excuse for a starting rotation out there:
2003 Texas Rangers Projected Rotation
RHP Chan Ho ParkLHP John ThomsonRHP Ismael ValdesRHP Ryan DreseRHP Joaquin Benoit
4) CJ's (current) agent is Bob Garber. BTW - Baseball Reference is great for stuff like that:
Thanks Caleb and Alan.The Baseball Anti Christ is a bit by I believe Randy Galloway by the way.
I never liked Boras. I think he has his preferred teams with whom to deal with. That said, he does his job, and does it very well. I think the prevelant knock on him is that he "screws up" the market place. Teams like the Yankees don't help that issue. But the job of an agent is defined, and he plays by the rules and makes his clients the most money possible. Except for Jered Weaver. I don't get signing that extension for 5/$85M. He probably would've been 5/$100M plus, a year from now. If Weaver gets just 5/$85M, Then is C.J. really a 5/$75M? But I digress.
Hey Ricky - long time, no hear man...
Anyway - I really hope CJ is a 5/$75MM in favor of the Rangers. But I am not sure the situations are similar. In Weaver's case, he obviously wanted to stay in LA (a la Cliff Lee to Philly for below market value) AND Weaver got one of his arb eligible years bought out w/ this deal. To me, this is huge from a player's standpoint in a sport like baseball because every penny of the contract is guaranteed. So, in your example (from Weaver's perspective) - yes, I can probably get more in 1 year then the 5/$85M deal...However, if I blow out my elbow next spring training...you get the idea - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
On top of the two differences in the situations I outlined above, Weaver was never truly on the open market, much less on the open market in a year when the Yankees (renowned market-setters) will assuredly be making a run at any available free agent starting pitching.
Now, the one obvious caveat to all of this is that Weaver is clearly a superior pitcher to CJ (and younger to boot). But I am not sure we can make a true case for CJ's ceiling being X number of dollars, based on Weaver's deal...
Hey Caleb -
Good points. I get why he signed it. Angels fans should be happy. I just wish C.J. fealt the same about Texas. Again, he (C.J.) is only in his second year as a starter. I still contend he is not a #1, much less an Ace. If he were to go to LAA as Newberg suggested earlier, he'd be a #2 at best.
Yes, I totally agree. I think of CJ as a quality #2, who can flash #1 stuff at times - but he would have to be the #3 if he went to the LAA - Weaver and Haren are definitely #1 & #2 there. Wow - just thought of how scary good their rotation would be if that did happen:
Weaver Haren CJ Santana
Yikes - if they signed a bat or two (Beltran, Prince, etc.) they would take the division easily. If they do jump into the CJ sweepstakes - the Rangers may be forced into overpaying...
And back to your point about the money - the caliber of starter relative to the contract doesn’t really seem to matter once one of the Yanks/Sox gets into the bidding. I mean - Burnett and Lackey each at 5/$82.5M...CJ's agent will be force-feeding those numbers to any potential bidder....and it isn’t like either the yanks or the Sox thought they were getting a #1 caliber starter when they handed out those deals...
I am a capitalist so there is nothing wrong with Boras getting every last cent. That said, I think he is walking feces and cringe when we are dealing with one of his clients.
Caleb - In Jamey's scenario, Haren would be traded, thus it would be Weaver, Wilson, Santana, etc, Still a good start. Haren, in his scenario, would be traded for prospects to restock their farm system, which is poor. Haren becomes free in 2013.
Whoa fellas. I don't think the " laasses" are in position to go out and spend like the spankees this off season. Don't think they could get Fielder, CJ, and pay that awful Vernon Wells deal. And this Weaver deal I think will have very little to do with CJ deal. The yanks will probably set that market and unless CJ wants to stay put the Rangers will have to grossly overpay to keep him.
Is Scott Boras the Baseball Anti-Christ?
You bet he is!!!!!
Disclaimer: Don't believe everything you read!
Then I don't grossly over-pay. As for Fielder, there is this: "Buster Olney (ESPN) speculates that the Rangers could be a sleeper this winter for free agent Prince Fielder, with the Cubs and Nationals involved, the Brewers a candidate to keep him, and the Angels and Dodgers less likely suitors." I don't know why we would, nor would I endorse it. Just sharing the gossip.
The entire baseball ownership and player agency is a complete quandry that will never solve itself. Considering my self a Republican its hard for me to say this because naturally i do believe in a free market economy, along with all the other economic freedoms that go along with it. Do I b**** when CEOs get huge bonuses? H to the N, cuz if one day i'm lucky enough to bust my @$$ and be in that situation i'll be cashing my check. That being said, I think there needs to be some sort of regulation with the owner/player/agency relationship. Agents drive up the market ridiculously out of hand, However at the same time teams still pay these mega deals. Look at the Gary Matthews Jr. deal; Burnett; Werth and each year it gets worse and worse which inevitably effects the fans. Ticket prices get "adjusted" or they find other ways to cut expenses. Its really an injustice to us all. Is it all scott boras's fault? No. is he notorious for it... absolutely, but while teams keep over paying for his players not much can be said. Possibly further evidence that baseball might be in need of the dreaded SC word. Salary Cap. Thats an entirely diff debate however that i'm sure we could rip each other to shreds over. But like i said we cant blame the agents when the owners keep paying. However sometimes you see a deal like the werth deal last year.. and all you can do is shake your head and laugh if youre not a Nats fan, and get in the fetal position and cry if you are. Pujols, Fielder, Reyes...... we'll see the same thing this year. And i guarantee you one of those deals is gonna make you say WTF out loud. (i'd bet on reyes' deal)
The PA will never go for either, regulation, nor a salary cap. This is the CBA year. We'll see what happens come November.
To me, Boras isn't so much the anti-christ himself but a player who associates himself with Boras shows me that he only cares about his own bottom line, like Teixeira. I've always sorta held it against Chris Davis that the year he started to look like a prospect, he signed with Boras. I figured right then that he'd be looking for his 6 years and then catch the next bus out of town, providing it paid him 1 more dollars than the Rangers were willing to. So Boras is like a weapon, and the jerk (or player) is the one holding the weapon. And if memory serves, it was Mike "Hollywood" Rhyner that started to call him The Baseball Anti-Christ.
It was the Old Grey Wolf.
Ok Ricky it probably was.Funny that the Old Grey Wolf would feel that way. Wonder if he took less than market value for his shares in the Ticket.
Some of you sound ridiculous on here.
To quote the Late, Great George Carlin, "Have you ever noticed that THEIR stuff is SHIT? And YOUR shit is STUFF?"
You have aspirations to be a CEO, so you have no problem with CEOs making ungodly amounts of money (at the expense of the good of society). But since you have no aspirations to be a MLB player, you DO have a problem with them squeezing every dollar out of their careers, if it comes at the expense of your favorite ballclub. If a Free Market helps you in a particular area, then regulation in that area is evil. But if a Free Market doesn't help you in a particular area, then the economic freedoms of others should be curtailed for the greater good (read: your own selfish interests). Or, to quote the great Craig T "Coach" Nelson, "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No. "
Socialism is a good thing. Unfettered capitalism is a misery for the majority. You can't ask for unfettered capitalism when and only when it benefits you, and social regulation in areas where unfettered capitalism would harm you. You have to be for one or the other. You can't think unemployment insurace is a drag on all of society, and then demand your Social Security. You can't think food stamps represents the contributing members of society propping up a bunch of social leeches, and then seek bankruptcy protection.
Salary Caps are a good thing, they are good for the NFL, good for the NBA, would be good for Major League Baseball, and would be good for CEOs, too.
End of political rant.
Scooby that is the first post you have ever done that made me sad.
You are however correct about Salary Caps being good for the other leagues. I don't know that those things are Socialist however since they allow the rich to get richer.One other thing this country is not unfettered capitalism just like we are not an unfettered democracy.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.