Agents - what are they good for?
by biondino on Oct 9, 2009 7:59 AM MDT
Email
Print
In last night's game wrap, there was a critical discussion on the role of agents in baseball, in particular (of course) Scott Boras. On the whole, they're not viewed in a positive light, and it's easy to see why - the Fan, by definition, supports the Team, and the Team has to negotiate with the Agent to sign the Player. While I'm sure most Fans are happy for Mr Helton and his family to earn 9 figures by playing for the Rockies, they're also aware how much that takes out of the payroll and therefore directly affects the health of the team. Fair enough.
However, it's not really fair to think this way. An agent isn't a parasite, isn't a thief or a conman, stealing loyalties and betraying clubs. He's a professional adviser with specific skills, and I'll explain what he does after the jump.
First, a declaration of interest: I am an agent, representing writers and directors in film and television. So I know little of the specific ins and outs of sports representation and anything I claim about agenting is based on my knowledge and how it might transfer to baseball. Any mistakes and ommissions are made in good faith and I'd be happy to be corrected.
I'm sure most of you have a good idea what an agent does, and why we exist. Essentially, there is a real need for our services. Dealmaking is a signficant skill which involves a combination of experience, specialised knowledge, quick wits, and cojones. It's not something most people can do straight out of the box - even those who are brilliant debaters, skilled liggers, or journeyed hagglers will not have the savvy in terms of legal matters, precedents, statistics or, possibly most importantly, the network of personal and professional relationships which are central to the business.
As a result, most people are not able to negotiate as well, or as comprehensively, as someone trained and experienced in the role. I couldn't go into a classroom and teach, or a kitchen and cook, or onto a diamond and hit .270 in the minors. So expecting a young man without, necessarily much in the way of education or smarts (they may well have both, but that doesn't change much), to deal with a slick corporate machine playing financial hardball is ridiculous.
Many sports have a history of players being genuinely hard up, while the clubs, leagues or officials rake in the profits. As the stakes increase, it's only natural for the players to want a fair share of the rewards, and unions and agents, among others, proved an effective way of ensuring this. While some boggle at the astronomical salaries of top sportsmen, you have to remember two things: only a very few players earn the very biggest bucks, for a finite time; and all industries hugely reward their very best performers.
However, where the big money can be found, you'll also find the ruthlessness and greed of big business. And for the players to deal with this on anything approaching a level playing field, they need advisers, That's where the agents come in. Effectively, we are employed to find the place where supply and demand meet - and then to try and gain any benefit we can above and beyond that mark. We know the business, we know the precedents, and we can form a well-reasoned opinion as to the needs of the buyers and how they match up with our clients, and we do everything we can to take advantage of that.
We also know the small print - I don't know what it might be in baseball, but as an example in film, I know what rights to try to reserve for my client. A film writer will, for instance, want to retain stage, radio and publication rights for their script. They will want to get the material back after a set time period, if the producer doesn't make the film. They will want bonuses based on awards won, on box office figures. They will want an executive producer role, they will want creative approvals, they will want a share of net profits - it all sounds perfectly logical when it's written in front of you, but the producer won't offer a young, naive talent this up front - and without the knowledge that they should fight for it (and what results they can reasonably expect), how can they take on the movie exec at their own game?
On top of this, we have specific legal and accounting advice for our clients (supplemented, I'm sure, by PR people, managers, assistants and the like for top sportsmen), and we have the infrastructure to take care of all the administration. We also do a hell of a lot of work that doesn't have a positive outcome, but we don't charge for it. Not having to worry about any of that is a massive plus for the client.
There are also the "intangibles". If a player had to deal direct with the management, then any argument, any perceived lack of transparency or respct would undoubtedly cause a rift between the people who need, more than anything, to have a strong and uncomplicated working relationship. As agents, we take that role - we get into scraps, we give ultimatums, we bring up unpleasant truths - we can fundamentally be straight up with employers, because that's our job. We don't lie, or cheat, or betray - well, I'm sure it happens, but *I* don't do it and it's certainly not an essential part of the skillset. We DO make sure that everything is represented in the best possible light for the client - and the employer is, no doubt, doing the same for their interests.
In other words, it's a meeting of equals, in both of whose interests it is to make a deal work. A done deal is one which is mutually satisfactory to both parties. It may not turn out that way in the short or long term - Vernon Wells' agent is probably a lot happier about his last deal that Tulo's is (but when it comes to the NEXT deal, who do you think will be smiling?) - but the implicit fact is that all parties are making professionally informed decisions. A player cannot expected to be able to do this on his own.
Of course, all this doesn't change the fact that the existence of the Boras-type agent makes baseball that little bit more unfair, increasing the purchasing power of the big clubs to the detriment of the small ones. That's life. But if this factor is partly responsible for teams like the Rockies putting more into scouting, training, drafting and trading, then in a way it delivers a more satisfying result in terms of creating a team that's more like a community, a family we can feel part of. It must be hell to be a Yankees fan, everything so superficial and subject to the whims of fashion, celebrity and $$$.
So that's why agents exist. Please do comment on and question any of the above, and I'll do my best to respond. I don't think my job is "worthy" as such - not compared to teachers, doctors, firefighters, soldiers, social workers, or even entertainers - but we're an intergral part of the machinery that makes so much of what you take for granted in life work as well as it does.
Eat. Drink. Be Merry. But the above FanPost does not necessarily reflect the attitudes, opinions, or views of Purple Row's staff (unless, of course, it's written by the staff [and even then, it still might not]).
138 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I haven't actually read this yet, but I have to comment
Agents HUH What are they good for
absolutely nothing
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
I'd have laughed
and then deleted the fanpost
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 10:59 AM MDT up reply actions
Bahaha
Just an average guy with exceptional hair. Nothing more, nothing less.
by Bryan Kilpatrick on Oct 9, 2009 10:39 AM MDT up reply actions
First of all, I agree with everything you said here.
Agents make the power structure far more equitable in MLB between organizations and employees (e.g. players). This is how it should be—usually efficient markets produce the best results.
However, the reason that fans direct their righteous anger at agents, players, and owners is that the increased cost of labor due to agent involvement gets passed on directly to the paying customer. Ergo, negative sentiment against agents.
Like Alien vs. Predator, whoever wins, we lose.
Eschew Obfuscation!
you did not just make that connection there
you didn’t
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 10:59 AM MDT up reply actions
Oh yes, I went there.
Eschew Obfuscation!
by Jeff Aberle on Oct 9, 2009 1:09 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
So, you're saying baseball teams aren't profit maximizing organizations?
They set revenue goals to meet payroll without regard to what the market might actually bear? Wow.
Leave Dexter alone! You're lucky he even performs for you!
Oops, reply fail
meant to put this here:
I see your post below…So if I shouldn’t have already guess (and I should have), I read more in to what you said than I ought to have.
I would still say taking it out on agents and players for high ticket prices doesn’t make sense to me.
Leave Dexter alone! You're lucky he even performs for you!
the other thing is
“Righteous anger”? Oy.
How does baseball compare to other recreational pursuits? How much money do people blow on other spectator sports, participatory sports like skiing and golf, porn, booze, poker, concerts, etc?
Leave Dexter alone! You're lucky he even performs for you!
Righteous anger was meant to be facetious.
I’m a huge believer in free markets and that tickets are priced according to what they will pay. I was speaking, though, about the perception that fans have that increased player salaries directly leads to higher prices (not my own). For that, they extend blame toward the agents.
Eschew Obfuscation!
Great post
I hate it when people get angry over the necessary mechanics of a vibrant industry that we take for granted, and care for deeply. I guess people need a bogeyman to beat up on.
win
They do, and tbh I don't mind that agents fulfil that role
As Jabberwocky points out, if I do my job properly, people will have to pay more at the box office or whatever, so there is a legitimate complaint. Just not one where there’s a chance of changing things :)
Is an Agent really necessary however?
Some would argue that these professionals are agents of greed and represent a greedy culture. Player agents are banned in Japan and players there still earn a high salary. Ichiro earned more money in Japan than he did on his first contract for the Mariners.
Order a Rocktober t-shirt in time for the playoffs and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares
Look at it this way...
…do you think the clubs don’t have expert contract negotiation capabilities in their front office?
(And no LOLing about the Vernon Wells and Denny Neagle deals)
This is about leveling the playing field.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
But he'll still have professional advisers, even if he sits at the table himself.
Also, economics comes into this whether there’s an agent there or not. The superstars will have a bidding war around them whenever they’re in free agency, so the deals they make will be pretty great regardless.
The way agents earn their money is both by fanning the flames of the bidding war and by the margin they can add to this presumed starting point, whether it’s in terms of contract length, incentives, options, or an increase in the fee.
Ichiro, really?
Even if the facts are straight, best player in Japan by a lot vs. highly regarded but untested newcomer…could there be a legit difference there?
Leave Dexter alone! You're lucky he even performs for you!
alright, I see your post below
So if I shouldn’t have already guess (and I should have), I read more in to what you said than I ought to have.
I would still say taking it out on agents and players for high ticket prices doesn’t make sense to me.
Leave Dexter alone! You're lucky he even performs for you!
Ichiro was the highest paid player..
in Japan at a time when he was playing for the Orix Wave— one of the smallest market teams in the league. They eventually folded, merging with the Osaka Buffaloes in 2004. Orix could be compared to the Cleveland Indians, winning one Championship in its 60 year history.
Order a Rocktober t-shirt in time for the playoffs and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares
I feel that anger towards angents is somewhat misdirected.
Scott Boras would not be that big of a factor if not for teams like the Yankees. Really it is their fault for paying outrageous amounts. Why shouldn’t players want to get paid as much as the next player.
It is kind of the same arguement with scalping. I don’t get mad at the guy selling rockpile tickets for 100 for the NLDS. I get mad at the idiot who paid 100 bucks for them.
I get mad at both
because if the idiots don’t pay for it, then who is sitting there?
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 11:00 AM MDT up reply actions
But the argument's circular. The Yanks COULD reduce ticket prices etc.
And essentially give money back to the fans that way, but what business works on that principle? If people WANT to give you the money, you can but take it!
So basically it’s you, the fans, who are at fault ;)
I guess I'm arguing more about scalpers, not the team
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 11:13 AM MDT up reply actions
You are right on the mark here.
If we as fans are content to pay $32 for a ticket, $10 to park, $20 for a dog and a beer, $22 for a hat then those who are selling are going to continue to charge those prices.
I have for years been moaning about what Todd’s contract does to the team. But it hasn’t stopped me from continuing to follow and spend money to follow the Rockies.
Where my anger comes in is the players themselves deciding to “test the market” and leave the team that brought them up, trained them and is probably already paying them huge amounts of money right now. I have more than once said “How much is enough?”. There is no loyalty. I don’t blame Scott Boras for this. He’s probably just better at maximizing his clients’ return than most. But when someone signs Scott Boras as their agent, I automatically put that player in the category that he is just looking for the largest payday he can get.
People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring. ~Rogers Hornsby
by pedalpusher on Oct 23, 2009 10:00 AM MDT up reply actions
Right, but
Most scalpers only care about making money, they sell the ticket at the highest price they can. If they can sell it to someone at 100 bucks that is great for them, but they will lose money if they dont sell the ticket at all. Therefore they will lower the price. The market will set the price because scalpers only care about making money.
by PurpleRowRox on Oct 9, 2009 11:35 AM MDT up reply actions
In the same way
Boras could demand 150mil, 10 year deal for his client and it would never happen if the Yankees hadn’t already paid someone else more than that. The market sets the price and the Yankees are the biggest player. In essence they set the market, the agent is simply working that system to get his client the best deal he can.
by PurpleRowRox on Oct 9, 2009 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions
I always wait for the Yankees to hit saturation
and then watch how much contracts drop
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions
I hate that the Yankees signed A-Rod away from the Mariners for $252M
and Manny away from Cleveland for $160M, and Hampton away from Houston/Mets for $121M. They need to stop with the outrageous contracts.
Leave Dexter alone! You're lucky he even performs for you!
are you denying that the Yankees have more outrageous contracts than most of the rest of teams?
Sure, Zito, Soriano, those contracts get signed too, but when the Yankees have a hole to fill, they just fill it with the best guy possible for more than the next team can fill. Look at this offseason.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 3:25 PM MDT up reply actions
Oh I am with you
Other teams make huge deals as well, and I am not trying to bag on the Yankees only. I am just pointing out that they usually set the market for players and other teams are forced to pay up as well
oh and you're banned for making a fanpost after only 1400 comments
The threshold is 2250 comments.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 11:14 AM MDT up reply actions
But what if it says "Read and Learn" in the title?
Order a Rocktober t-shirt in time for the playoffs and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares
then you're permabanned
unless it’s really funny
or I learn by reading.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 1:57 PM MDT up reply actions
Thank you for your post, it was very interesting
I am an old lady and grew up in the era when a deal was made by a handshake and while I know that things have changed and the world is a much different place…
I also know that ethics( which you dismissed on the thread last night), are an important part of all things in life. As with a hand shake, you are only as good as the man that offers the deal . I respect your career , for I am sure you are very talented and do well by your clients. I do however, take offense at the blame being the United States and it’s capitalism.
I'm not sure you should take offence at that comment (which was tongue in cheek, about the US at least)
We have discovered that, more or less, the capitalist system works in the context of the west in the 20th and 21st centuries. I suspect this will change as resources run out, but it’s what we’ve got at the moment. This is the system that allows corporations and individuals to make massive profits and you, the customer/fan/taxpayer/purchaser or whatever, are ultimately paying for it. I’m not having a political dig, it’s just reality.
sounds like you've been hanging around writers and directors too much.
Don’t drink the kool-aid.
MLB is strong here in the lower 48. Compare that to say the fledgling leagues that toiled in obscurity behind the socialist Iron Curtain during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Where are Ivan and those leagues now? You probably haven’t even heard of them, right?
I rest my case.
oh god another one of these
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions
hahaha
bion gets really into the ethics arguments, and Rock Oax likes to debate it as well. I’d just as soon they email it, and I think both parties understand
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 4:33 PM MDT up reply actions
Yeah I totally see where you're coming from
This is a baseball site and we should keep ethics as far away from baseball as possible!
errr. ;-)
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
oh don't you act like you two don't have the full potential to turn a rockpile into a sociopolitical discussion
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 10, 2009 2:09 AM MDT up reply actions
Great post Biondino...interesting insights..
I tend to think of agents like I do attorneys..
Everyone hates them until they NEED one.
I was reading that Ubaldo fired his agent and negotiated his own contract. What are your thoughts?
Dear Rockies - Thank you for proving John Kruk is a pertinacious nincompoop.
Troy Tulowitzki - THE best SS in the game..nuff said
Yorvit Torrealba - En Fuego
Brad Hawpe- Big Bad Brad is Back BABY!
Dexter Fowler - prowling CF, WC in his talons, stalking the NL Pennant
I think it's accepted that Ubaldo's deal is very goo for the Rockies, is that right?
So I think that he probably could have got a significantly higher wage if he’d had professional representation. HOWEVER, if Ubaldo either feels that he’s earning enough (and, compared to most people, he most certainly is), or he feels that agents are a bad thing (and he’s entitled to such an opinion), then absolutely it’s his choice.
What probably happened is the agent in question got it wrong – read Ubaldo wrongly, emphasised the wrong things (greed etc.), maybe was slimy or borderline dishonest or whatever. They are a lot of sh!tty agents out there – perhaps he was just incompetent, and one or more of these experiences turned him off the idea.
Perhaps Ubaldo’s modesty and humility meant he couldn’t be a ruthless business machine at the negotiating table. Or perhaps he simply had no desire to be one. It’s 100% up to him, and I admire him for his decision.
What about Matt Holliday?
The Money
In 2008 he turned down a 4 yr $18 million/per deal for the chance to win a big free agency contract this winter. Through 2008 Matt had earned $14 million combined in his entire career, and he turned down $72 million with a $12 million player option for the fifth year. Which would have given his family $84 million in five years paying him through age 33. Now Matt hopes to win a Mark Texeira contract when Matt’s Avg/HR’s/2B’s/OPS have all steadily dropped over the past 3 years.
The Market
Also it should be noted that not even the Yankees have ever offered big money for an outfielder. Their largest outfielder contract for the Bronx Bombers was Johnny Damon’s 4yrs $52 million, and the only Yankee outfielder contract longer than the 5 yrs Colorado offer for Matt was in 1981 when New York signed Dave Winfield for 10yrs $23 million.
The Legend
By turning down the Rockies offer Matt Holliday has forced his family to move from Colorado, to Oakland, to St. Louis to whoknows-where-next. Colorado is a great place to raise a family with good schools, clean fresh air and low crime. Then after sliding on his chin to vault Colorado into the Playoffs and eventual World Series Matt was well on his way to winning Colorado’s heart. By turning down a contract with Colorado, Matt has given up not only money, but a strong family environment, and chance at establishing himself as a Colorado legend. Good job Scott Boras, I hope your proud. An agent didn’t help Matt make the right decision, they helped him realize how greed can overcome the important things in life.
Order a Rocktober t-shirt in time for the playoffs and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares
by Charlie77 on Oct 9, 2009 10:33 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
Excellent Post
There are always multiple facets to every story. Agents do get sensationalized in a negative light (as do many other topics in the media…negative seems to hold people’s attention better than positive for some reason). I understand and promote agents, as long as they do their job as ethically as they can. There are always limits to push, but not cross:D
Ticket Prices
Everyone seems to think that ticket prices are related to salaries. The market for sports tickets/movie tickets is totally independent from these salaries. Ticket prices are what they are because that’s the amount that people will pay for them. There is no correlation.
So to be clear, agents don’t affect our pocketbooks. Biondino is right. It’s the fans’ fault.
Nothing is completely independent of other factors...to a degree increased player salaries/labor costs are related to ticket costs.
But your point is valid in that ticket prices are what they are because we as fans will pay them.
Eschew Obfuscation!
Related
in the sense that high demand for tickets drives up the salaries. Not vice versa.
Yes. I didn't articulate my point properly.
My point is that Joe Fan doesn’t see it that way, but rather that the players’ salaries are the cause of the ticket price hike.
Eschew Obfuscation!
A salary cap and non-guaranteed contracts would make this whole discussion moot.
and who doesn’t like to moot things every once in a while?
was that the strike years?
Dear Rockies - Thank you for proving John Kruk is a pertinacious nincompoop.
Troy Tulowitzki - THE best SS in the game..nuff said
Yorvit Torrealba - En Fuego
Brad Hawpe- Big Bad Brad is Back BABY!
Dexter Fowler - prowling CF, WC in his talons, stalking the NL Pennant
Don't care. It's needed and very much so.
IMHO, the NFL is the model all major professional sports leagues should be working towards. The NHL got it mostly right a few years ago, but basketball and baseball are smarting from non-guaranteed bloated deals that hang like albotrosses around the necks of the FO of teams unfortunate (or stupid) enough to get mixed up in one.
If it takes a strike i’d be fine with that.
A salary cap would benefit baseball...in theory
It would be a good thing for baseball, no doubt. However, if it did start another strike, that would injure baseball in such a way that recovery might not be an option. The last strike really hurt baseball. The homerun race, ironically, helped baseball recover while creating a new problem that has also ended up hurting it.
Sometimes you have to go backwards before you can go forwards.
Also, think back to those strike years – who was more reviled by the general populus, management or the players? The ‘greed’ of the players was reviled. Putting in a salary cap would ensure that ‘greed’ was kept to a minimum.
Don’t get me wrong – i’m all for a guy trying to make as much as he possibly can. I just know that, if i land a contract/job that pays me XXX dollars, and it turns out i can’t do the work at that job, then they let me go and i never see another dime outside of the unemployment check. The same should apply to professional sports.
I’d be perfectly fine with locking the players out for a year and bringing in college kids to play.
Think of the parity that would envelop the league if that were the case (like the NFL).
Or we could live with 6 – 8 teams willing to outspend everyone considerably and making an unlevel playing field.
It would be good fun
to see a lockout and all those young kids just playing ball because they are good at it and it’s what they love to do and less because of the money they are paid to play the game.
Whaa??
if i land a contract/job that pays me XXX dollars, and it turns out i can’t do the work at that job, then they let me go and i never see another dime outside of the unemployment check.
If your contract says you’re due a certain amount of dollars, you better receive it unless there were unmet conditions. As long as the MLB player isn’t going into operation shutdown or something, he’s meeting the conditions of the standard player contract.
I also don’t like the arguments of the type “my job/pay conditions are like this, therefore the job/pay conditions of this other profession should also be just as bad.”
Leave Dexter alone! You're lucky he even performs for you!
The standard player contract should be non-guaranteed, which was one of my points.
Perhaps the word ‘contract’ is what is throwing my argument off.
Pay for performance is the ‘condition’ that i believe we’re referring to here, and yes i think that every profession should follow that tenet without exception. Just my humble opinion.
Non-Guaranteed "Contract"
Arguably, it’s not really a contract if one side can unilaterally cancel it.
That is the case with the NFL, which is why we have the Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall entertainment.
MLB allows incentives for various awards, selection to the All Star team, etc, and for milestones such as numbers of AB, IP, etc. But incentives for actual performance numbers such as HR, W, etc. are not allowed.
It would be a very different game, but short of the MLBPA following in the footsteps of the USSR or the air traffic controllers union, it’ll never happen.
MLB allows incentives for various awards, selection to the All Star team, etc, and for milestones such as numbers of AB, IP, etc. But incentives for actual performance numbers such as HR, W, etc. are not allowed.
This is the union’s doing, I’m pretty sure.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 10, 2009 2:11 AM MDT up reply actions
Do the owners have an income cap?
No?
/end thread
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
Are the owners guaranteed to make money?
No?
Which one employs thousands for a living and which one plays a kids game for a living?
Name me an owner who employs "thousands"
And “kids game” is rather irrelevent. These players are at the very top of their profession. Just like the very top lawyers, and very top doctors, and very top actors, etc., etc. etc.
It’s worth mentioning here that the Pirates have already trumpeted how their profits are significantly greater than last year, to the tune of something like $18m. And yes, they have one of the very smallest payrolls in the major leagues.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
How many work at Coors Field?
Perhaps ‘thousands’ isn’t accurate. Perhaps ‘hundreds’ would have been a better choice of words. It doesn’t change my point. Also, I understand that ballpark concessions are almost always contracted out – doesn’t change the fact the franchise owner created those jobs.
If a ‘top doctor’ has a bad year and amputates the wrong limbs on a few patients during his hospital residency, does the hospital have a right to terminate his contract prior to him/her completing his residency and if so should they compensate him/her the wages he/she was scheduled to earn for the remainder of that period?
Pay for performance. If you’re worth the money, it becomes a moot point even with teams releasing good players for cost-cutting purposes as their market value remains amongst the other teams in the league finding value in his services.
Part of the problem with a salary cap...
and why I don’t necessarily think it’ll work in MLB, is that the disparity between teams budgets, payrolls, and willingness to spend is just far too great.
Lets say a Salary Cap does get implemented. The Salary Cap would likely be around 125 Million. Or, rather, there’s certainly no way the big payroll clubs are going to let it be much lower than that.
It’s fine and good, and may help to level out the playing field somewhat. But Pittsburgh isn’t going to spend anywhere near the cap limit. Neither is San Diego. Or Kansas City. Or Colorado. Or Tampa Bay. Or a lot of other teams. Either they don’t feel they need to, or they just can’t afford to.
You’re going to have the same 6-8 teams spending up to the limit, and a lot of other teams who won’t spend 1/2 of that.
Also, I wonder how this would work for players that are brought up from the minors midseason due to performance and injury issues. Lets say you’re fielding a team for 124.9 million, right below the cap limit. 3 weeks into the season, your ace starter gets injured and you need to bring up a guy from AAA for the rest of the season. You’re only paying him league min, but it pushes you over 125 mil. How do we handle that, and what is the penalty for going over the cap?
welcome btw
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 1:59 PM MDT up reply actions
I hate salary caps
to me it says, “I give up. I can’t compete”….the Ray, Rockies, Angels, Twins and Brewers have competed well without a salary cap. Baseball is much more entertaining than football over a course of a season because it doesn’t reward the mediocre results that salary caps bring.
I guess the issue is a complete lack of parity
Top payroll clubs that are run smartly make it every year (or close to). Low payroll clubs make runs and then have to rebuild.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 2:17 PM MDT up reply actions
The Mets aren't run smartly
even ‘bottom’ rung teams like Tigers, Blue Jays, Giants, Mariners, and Cardinals are run better.
Anyway I agree with you but I think there are three other issues that people overlook in how well a club is run.
1. Quality front office…i.e. Brian Cashman, Billy Beane, Dan O’Dowd…they bring in great scouting and player development.
2. Ownership doesn’t meddle too much…until the FO is about to do something really stupid..
3. Average population and economic growth in the region. The Giants, Rockies and Mariners are a great example of how economic growth exceeded population growth in their fan base.
Wow, I’m covering way too much ground here.
by lizardlad01 on Oct 9, 2009 2:31 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
this was a good post
reccin dis
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 2:38 PM MDT up reply actions
Means he is going to
recommend the comment. I think that “reccin dis” is an example of “stupid-ese” ;-)
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
hardly
it’s more street slang
because you see I am hip
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 3:25 PM MDT up reply actions
Street slang, huh
did you pick it up from his blog?
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
Hippie..
cut your hair…AND GET OFF MY LAWN!!
Order a Rocktober t-shirt in time for the playoffs and donate to charity at:
Purple Row Cares
hey I have a nice haircut
and the beard of legends.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 10, 2009 2:11 AM MDT up reply actions
legends?
hardly…
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.
by rockieprogress on Oct 11, 2009 10:33 AM MDT up reply actions
What do the numbers say?
Does the NFL produce a greater diversity in playoff teams from year to year than MLB does? How about champions; how many teams in the last 10 years were SB champs, and how many were WS champs in the same time frame.
I haven’t looked recently, but everytime I hear this argument, it seems like MLB does pretty well in the "parity’ comparisons.
Ignorance of the American League is a sign of good moral character.
Look out Dodgers...Purple objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
I'll be the guy in a orange shirt EVERY Monday...Broncos are my team win or lose.
by RdRnnr on Oct 9, 2009 4:12 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
The NFL and MLB are two very different leagues
You can have an NFL season that’s almost entirely a fluke, but in MLB, with 162 games, most everyone regresses to the mean.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 4:34 PM MDT up reply actions
OK, so I did some quick research...
In the 90’s the NFL produced 7 different champions, with the Cowboys getting 3 and the Broncos getting 2. The NBA produced 4 different champions(!), with Chicago winning 6(!) and Houston winning 2. (LA and San Antonio were the other 2 winners, and they went on to get multiple championships in the following decade) In that same time frame MLB has produced 6 different champions, with the Yankees winning 3 and Toronto winning 2 (as well as one championship cancelled by the strike)
Since 2000, the NFL has produced 6 different champions, with New England getting 3 and the Steelers getting 2. The NBA produced 5 different champions, with LA winning 3 and San Antonio winning 3. In that same time frame MLB has produced 8 different champions, with only Boston repeating.
Remind me again how a salary cap leads fans to think their team will have a better chance to win it all? I’d say that the salary cap has not affected the top teams in the NBA at all, or given other fans hope that they are in the same league, and over the timeframe reviewed MLB compares favorably to the NFL for distinct championships. In short, a cap does not lead to more teams having a chance, as counter-intuitive as that might seem.
Ignorance of the American League is a sign of good moral character.
Look out Dodgers...Purple objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
I'll be the guy in a orange shirt EVERY Monday...Broncos are my team win or lose.
Baseball had a severe lack of parity long before the Players Association
You know, the Yankees have actually only won…6 (I may be off by one) World Series since the advent of collective bargaining in baseball. They won 21 before it.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
plus their dealings with the Royals were just pathetic
we joke about the Expos being MLB’s farm club, but the Royals literally were a feeder club to the Yankees.
FREE CHRIS IANNETTA
At least against LHP, I mean COME ON
by Andrew Martin on Oct 9, 2009 4:48 PM MDT up reply actions
Parity is competition, not mediocrity.
The Rays, Rockies, Angels, Twins, and Brewers have achieved some success despite the salary cap, not because of it.
When you play ball recreationally, do you tell the ump to ’let’s start the count 0 and 1’ when you first get to bat so that you can really compete? Why not level the playing field?
Hey, JaySantos
Politically I am more or less an idealistic socialist (though my pragmatic side tends to overrule the idealism in most actual situations), and would love to see a salary cap, especially as the NFL has proved that it’s not a hopeless idea. I don’t know if baseball has a political and emotional infrastructure within which a cap would work, but ideologically I am all for it.
I know this doesn’t quite tie in with my job, but on the other hand, most of my clients are small players at best and I honestly do feel it’s us vs the corporate monoliths most of the time :)
I was just ribbing you a little.
No harm meant whatsoever and, even though i disagree on some points, yours is a great post — look at all the discussion it generated.
The reason the NFL successfully has a salary cap...
…is that their union caved when the NFL tried using replacement players. The NFL “union” has, generally speaking, been more of an owners lapdog, especially during the Upshaw years.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
How did the NFL get it right?
You sign an NFL contract, tear your achilles during preseason, get waived, and you’re on the street with nothing. The only group the current NFL contract truly benefits is NFL ownership, and rookie 1st round draftees.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
Never said the NFL model couldn't be improved upon.
I agree about 1st round draft pick compensation (no pay for performance there).
You are not conscripted into the NFL or any other professional league. You play by choice. If you don’t like the terms of the deal, don’t sign it and you can enter the workforce employed in a more pedestrian profession.
Tear your ACL during preseason and miss out on the NFL? What kind of compensation would you expect from that?
You've never read much in the way of books about the business of baseball, I take it?
And no, I’m not talking Moneyball, I’m talking more of stuff like Lords of the Game.
Tear your ACL in the preseason and miss out on the NFL, and you’re not a first round draft pick with a massive guarantee? You’re waived, with no pension or anything else, quite often.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
Can't say the I've read any books about the business of baseball.
Labor law would dictate that the player, injured on the job, would be eligible for workers compensation claims and disability should the injury dictate.
Help me understand what you think a player, not meeting the three year of service in the league minimum to be eligible for the NFL’s pension plan, should receive?
I think the player should receive the value of the contract he signed
Unless his injuries are the direct result of the player’s specific misconduct (e.g. Burruss shooting himself in the leg).
The contract would be for that season. See, you keep trying to apply normal pay rules to players, but players don’t accrue sick leave, for instance. They are bound by specific terms of the contracts they sign with the teams. So the teams should equally be bound by the terms of the very same contract.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
We'll get started on that right after you accept salary caps in your industry
Seriously, I would bet my house, and my car’s pink slip, that there will never be a union agreement in baseball that makes contracts non-guaranteed. (That is not to say that there aren’t some players who sign non-guarantee contracts, but those are mostly minor-league deals with invites to spring training.)
There’s about 370 reasons why the MLBPA is the only successful players union. And frankly, the players in the other major sports usually with their own union had balls. The NBA union decertified itself, because the top 10-12 paid players whined during the lockout, and they sold out the rest of the membership. The NFLPA is effectively a non-union, where rookie players who’ve never played a down make more money than the majority of long term active players. And the NHL union? LOLOLOL
Hell, even into the early years of the MLBPA, players actually had to get offseason jobs selling used cars and insurance…you think future generations are going to go back to that mentality?
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
by Mondogarage on Oct 9, 2009 4:39 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Great point here.
My employer doesn’t need an externally dictated salary cap to keep it from spending itself into bankruptcy.
IMHO, the problem with baseball’s financial picture has more to do with the lack of revenue sharing among the owners, than with escalating payrolls. The Yankees and RedSox wouldn’t be able to collect big TV revenues is they don’t have other teams to play.
Biondino, sorry for letting this thread get off-track, but needed to explain my rec above.
Ignorance of the American League is a sign of good moral character.
Look out Dodgers...Purple objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
I'll be the guy in a orange shirt EVERY Monday...Broncos are my team win or lose.
Exactly
IMHO, the problem with baseball’s financial picture has more to do with the lack of revenue sharing among the owners, than with escalating payrolls. The Yankees and RedSox wouldn’t be able to collect big TV revenues is they don’t have other teams to play.
And yet, what caused the strike was the owners insistence on tying revenue sharing amongst themselves to imposing a salary cap on the players. It is not, nor shall it ever be, the players’ responsibility to determine how owners share revenue amongst themselves.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
The company i work for isn't in the business of playing a kids game.
Nor is how our company performs against its competitors part of the American fabric.
[quote]
Hell, even into the early years of the MLBPA, players actually had to get offseason jobs selling used cars and insurance…you think future generations are going to go back to that mentality?
[/quote]
That’s a strawman argument as i never indicated that the better course would be to go back to making players play for a pittance and have to work in the offseason. 25 players splitting let’s say $70M each year hardly puts them in the poor house.
But that's irrelevent, and bordering on advocating socialism
Nor would it ever lead to decreased ticket prices.
The owners will always charge what the market will bear, be that ticket prices, concession prices, stadium naming fees, or broadcast fees. So why should the players not charge what the market (in this case, the ownership) will bear?
When the owners agree to cap their own income, then we can have this discussion.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
'Advocating socialism'?
That’s quite a stretch. I think i’m advocating that a private industry, professional baseball, regulate itself for the purpose of leveling the playing field (no pun intended) and offering a more equitable opportunity for success for each team.
If i had advocated the government interfering, then your ‘advocating socialism’ argument may have some merit. But that’s not what i was arguing for.
Again, i’m not specifically against a player earning what the ‘market will bear’, but i’m against allowing them to so to the point where it diminishes the level of competition in the sport. Yes, there are teams that defy their purchasing power and are able to field teams organically that are competitive, but it still doesn’t void the point that a handful of teams can buy themselves into a position to win championships where others will never hold that advantage.
It is not at all a stretch to equate artifically capping an entire class of employee's pay
to socialism. At all.
What you’re advocating is that a private industry artificially cap salaries.
There is nothing, I repeat, nothing, preventing the owners from creating a greater revenue sharing methodology amongst themselves. You’re making the exact same argument (that is, that revenue sharing must be tied to a salary cap) that the owners tried to make 15 years ago, and failed. Miserably, I might add.
Baseball arguably regulates itself already, in that the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (and the last two) were signed willingly by both sides. Without a labor dispute.
You’ve already stated that you’ve not actually read any books or studies that actually explain the business of baseball (and thus the historical developments that have brought baseball labor/salary relations to where they are today). I would encourage you to do so before continuing this conversation further.
Again, i’m not specifically against a player earning what the ‘market will bear’, but i’m against allowing them to so to the point where it diminishes the level of competition in the sport.
You can’t have it both ways. If you’re arguing for a salary cap, you are arguing for specific limits on what a given player can earn. Maybe not a single specific player by name, but yes, you are arguing specifically against a player earning what the market will bear.
Watching the purple row from high atop the big brown monolith on California Ave
I don't think you know what "socialism" is...
Owners of industries conspiring to maintain (relatively in this case) low wages is capitalism not socialism. In fact we need elements of socialism to be installed to prevent this from always happening in capitalistic industries.
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
More like collusion than monopoly...
but the same end result.
Whatever it is it certainly isn’t “socialism”!
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
Opponents of socialism equate hardline communism with socialism
Whereas these days, functional socialism is much more akin to what is known as “liberalism”, which I know the fundamental right views as just as bad a word, but you don’t want to listen to them.
" fundamental right" view as a bad word...hmm
some do and some don’t. You have a way of making broad brush statements.
The word "socialism" is used as a bad word by those on the "right"
Look at the last election cycle. Maybe not each individual that is on the “right” but that is the way the word is used generally by that political segment.
We are drifting very far away from Rockies Baseball!
GO ROCKIES!!!
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
You have your policitical views, I have mine
I object to how the word “liberalism” is considered negative by some. I object to the right wing vilifying an ideology that cares about other people rather than purely looking after number 1. But it’s a free world.
GO ROCKIES!!!
I think we can agree on that..
by butterfly on Oct 11, 2009 3:34 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Biodino,
You are obviously a talented writer as well as an agent. If you were to write a book would you represent yourself in negotiations with publishers or would you hire your own agent?
People (agents) can advocate for others’ (clients) self interest much more powerfully than they can advocate for their own, even if they have all the skills to do so. You touch on this when discussing how direct negotiations could complicate the relationship between player and team, but I think it is deeper than that. As an agent you are doing a good job by going after as much as possible for your client, but as an individual you would just be shamelessly greedy to behave in the same way. Other people can pursue our own self interest on our behalf much better than we can pursue it for ourselves. Is this a good thing? What prevents us from pursuing our own self interest to the same extent? I would argue often the answers are no to the former and ethics to the latter. However, that is only half of the issue here. The team always uses their own representatives who are out to pursue the owners self interest. If the players did not have similar representation than they would be abused in the negotiations. So what you end up with is a negotiator arms race, and it seems that the players are winning. The “talent” is all going to the players side because they can represent more clients and get larger commissions.
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
You're right about the arms race
But because the money isn’t limitless you’ll get a finite finishing point to the arms race, and funnily enough, when three clubs are offering a player $200m, it’ll be the little things like does his best friend play for the club, or how easy are flights to [home town], or does it rain a lot that’ll make the difference between signing and not signing.
But the alternative to an arms race is one side dominating the other, and that’s going to be bad for someone.
Thank you for complimenting my writing! I enjoy this kind of article, and with a bit more humility and a lot more editing (oh, and a bit of actual research once in a while) I could probably do an okay job at it (I was briefly a columnist for an online lifestyle portal, lol).
The question about whether I would represent myself is a fascinating one! I think it comes down to expertise. If I was doing for myself the kind of deal I do on a daily basis for others, then yes, I would rep myself. In truth, most deals are done in a spirit of friendly rivalry, and because both sides know the game, we understand why we each make the demands we do. And if that avoids giving 10% (or 15% on books) to an agent, then I’m all for it! I wouldn’t feel greedy doing it, because it’s my job and I do it professionally – yes, at the bottom of it all is greed, but greed is an everyday part of life. Essentially, why would I undersell myself purely to seem un-greedy?
by biondino on Oct 9, 2009 3:27 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
It isn’t about "underselling" yourself.
Let’s step back and look at "value". There are three "values" whenever two parties engage in an exchange. There is the value that the club will (or thinks it will) receive from the player (A), there is the minimum value that the player will accept to play the game (B), and there is the negotiated exchange value that will necessarily fall between the other two values ©. In order for a deal to be met A must be greater than B. So A>C>B.
The agent’s job is to try to get a deal where C is closer to A, whereas the team’s negotiator’s job is to try to get a deal where C is closer to B. Who is to say what the "correct value" is. The correct value is a range. In a "fair" negotiation the two parties will acknowledge the values A and B and strike a deal that fairly splits the difference. In "hostile" negotiations that favor the player (because of the arms race) you will get a deal closer to A. In "hostile" negotiations that favor the team (the way it used to be) you will get a deal that is closer to B.
It sounds like the negotiations you engage in are reasonably fair. In that case, I could understand you representing yourself. The type of negotiations that Boras engages in are reasonably hostile. It is more like battle than "friendly rivalry". I could not imagine a socially well adjusted individual representing themselves the way that Boras represents his clients. Personal relationships and social norms would (rightly) prevent him from pursuing his own self interest to such extremes. Instead a well informed individual representing themselves would seek a "fair" negotiation, just like you likely would when representing yourself in negotiations for you manuscript!
As far as the point about side factors influencing a players decision if several teams offer similar deals that is perfectly expected and reasonable. The player may actually choose a smaller paycheck if it comes with fringe benefits like nice climate or convenient travel. This is just a case of paying for those other luxuries… an example of opportunity cost.
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
I suspect the friendliness/hostility argument is a bit of a red herring
Both sides have a duty to negotiate to the best of their abilities, which will lead by definition to compromises – but I’m unlikely to compromise on those compromises if I’ll get a worse deal out of it.
Boras may be aggressive but I’m sure even he can be kind and flattering and gentle when that will get him the best deal.
I don't think it is a red herring at all
I am bringing up the point of how an agent can follow the clients self interest without regard to many social, cultural and ethical norms that govern direct interaction between two people, especially shame and humility. I am surprised by the level of reluctance to this point. Other people can righteously pursue our self interest in ways that if we did ourselves would be shameful and immodest. This is one of the valuable things agents provide beyond the skills and knowledge of the trade. They can represent our self interest with out shame and humility getting in the way.
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
I apologize for misspelling your name, Biondino!
"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link of the chain of destiny can be handled at a time." ~W. Churchill
As a (future) lawyer
I agree whole-heartedly with the content of this post.
Most (if not all) agents are lawyers, or at the very least have a background in the law, and serve a similar function. If you’re an 18-year-old kid presented with your first professional contract, you probably have no idea what any of it means. You understand the basics — how much you’re going to get paid, how much your signing bonus is, etc. — but you probably don’t understand all the legal language in there and what it all means. Even seasoned veterans are still uncomfortable with the whole idea of negotiating a contract.
As with lawyers, there are good agents and bad agents. Good agents are looking out for their clients. In addition to negotiating the contract, they’re offering their clients help in other ways — accounting advice, legal advice, sometimes even investment advice. Bad agents, and there are certainly some out there, are out for themselves. They care little about their clients except for the bottom line, how much they (the agent) is going to get paid, and screw the client otherwise.
Is Scott Boras a good agent? Sure. From everything I’ve heard, he’s loyal to his clients to a fault. Boras gets criticized a lot, but ultimately he’s trying to get the best deal possible for his clients. A lot of the criticism comes as a result of his hardball tactics, but the fact of the matter is that if Boras doesn’t inform his client of certain loopholes — for example, when he told Pedro Alvarez that his contract with the Pirates might be void because it was signed after the deadline — he’s not doing his job. (And, of course, if Alvarez had told Boras to just let the matter drop, Boras would have been obligated to do exactly that.)
This is a very interesting FanPost
Thanks for writing it. I think that agents relationships with players are similar in a lot of ways to umpires and fans. You love to hate them, but when they do something in your favor, they’re your favorite people in the world.
I hate on agents as much as the next fan, particularly guys like Boras and Drew Rosenhaus, but I realize that they are a necessity, and for the most part do an excellent job. I guarantee you that, if I were a professional baseball player, Scott Boras would be my agent.
"You were born to be a player. You were meant to be here. This moment is yours." -- Coach Herb Brooks' pregame speech prior to the Miracle on Ice
Unless he chose not to rep you
After all, he only has a limited amount of time to look after these clients. While he’ll always make more time for the big ones, this will inevitably lead to his firing of ones who don’t live up to his expectations.
Hypothetically speaking, of course
"You were born to be a player. You were meant to be here. This moment is yours." -- Coach Herb Brooks' pregame speech prior to the Miracle on Ice
An agent, a future lawyer, and now a lawyer . . . .
. . . sounds like a punch line waiting to happen. I’m the lawyer; I negotiate on behalf of my clients almost every day.
Gotta say, great post, Biondino. It’s led to some great discussion. Thanks for sharing your insights as an agent.
Are we necessary? Some athletes, some litigants, some writers probably do well for themselves without our help.
Sometimes a potential client will ask me, “What can you do for me that I can’t do for myself?”
That list starts with knowledge. I know the system, the law, the range of likely outcomes and even the most probable outcomes if the case is litigated. That matters because possible and probable outcomes at trial largely define a party’s bargaining power. If I offer, on behalf of my client, “She wins; you lose,” then the other party has no incentive to do that deal; we’ll go to trial. So there will be a range of possible settlements, some more favorable, some less favorable, but none amounting to complete victory or defeat.
Also high on the list is analysis and objectivity. While I am an advocate for my client, that advocacy has to be based on evidence, facts and logic. My clients are people, with human emotions. I don’t expect them to be objective or analytical since we’re dealing with their lives. But if I buy into the emotion that they’re feeling and forego analysis and logic, then I am not effectively representing my client.
Many people, given sufficient knowledge, time and tools could do lots of things for themselves that they pay other people to do. With a couple of books, a big investment in tools and lots of time I probably could have done the brakes on my car last month. Instead, I paid a professional to do it. I hate to think of how long it would have taken me if It’d done it on my own. While I might have saved a few bucks, that’s only if I ignore the value of my time, whether in terms of billable hours or just making time for a ballgame or a visit to the local microbrewery. And on top of that, people I love ride with me sometimes.
As an attorney some of the procedural decisions are mine, but the big decisions belong to my client. My role in assisting a client with those decisions is to provide sufficient information so the client can make a fully informed decision. That info includes that evidence that both side have, or think they have, the relevant law, the likely cost of going to trial, the range of outcomes and my opinion as to the probable result at trial, if we do try the case.
Then comes the advice, along with why that is my advice. Yes, No, Here’s where we can improve. And here’s where we can give the other side something they think they want that costs you nothing.
Lots of similarities to the role of the agent, including that lots of people might dislike us until they need us.
Thanks again, Biondino.
by Sky Sox on Oct 9, 2009 9:15 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Curiosty kills me
what kind of law do you practice?
FYI, it does sound like a joke. An agent, a future lawyer and a lawyer….
by lizardlad01 on Oct 10, 2009 12:18 AM MDT up reply actions
My practice . . . .
is primarily family law (divorce, custody, child support, etc.). Also do criminal defense.
"You have no other choice, you MUST go on." Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority"
Of course, you've mentioned something that I really didn't emphasise
Every decision remains with the client. Sure, in my negotiations I don’t bother them about every small point, but they absolutely have the right to veto or disagree with what I suggest.
If this happens too much, then you’ll usually end up an ex-agent :)
This was a great read, biondino
Sometimes we forget that agents are just doing their job. I extremely dislike Boras, but I have to respect him for doing his job the best he can.
I hired one
following my promotion to AA in the early 80’s. Basically to handle all the tax situations, bat contracts, glove contracts, etc. It became too cumbersome on myself and my dad to manage, keep track and focus on the important things. I was college educated and handled everything my first two years with dads help. It is much more complex now than then. I have a nephew in the minors who asked me to do it for him a few years back and I refused as I felt the familiar aspect clouds one judgement and is COI.
by PinchHitLancePainter on Oct 12, 2009 10:39 PM MDT reply actions
You raise a lot of good points about agents in this post biondno
My issue however is not with agents in general but with Scott Boras. I have no problem with agents doing their job but I have a huge problem with them doing it unethically. There are many problems with Scott Boras but two examples stand out.
1) Multiple teams have been upset after negotiating with Boras because he makes up offers. (I think two of the biggest examples of this were when the Red Sox signed JD Drew for $70 million and when the Giants signed Barry Zito for $126 million. I can’t remember all of the details but I know this sort of thing happens repeatedly with Boras.) I have no problem with pitting teams against each other to drive up the cost of a player but using offers that don’t exist crosses a line with me.
2) Opting out during the World Series. I realize ARod needs to take some of the heat for this but there is more than enough blame to go around for that disgrace. Opting out during the World Series was the most classless tactic I’ve ever seen used to draw attention to a client. This screams “my client and I are more important than the two league champions and the traditional series they have played against each other for over 100 years”. Before that happened I didn’t like Boras but accepted that he was just doing his job. After this incident I lost all respect for the narcissistic, backstabbing, unethical AntiChrist of baseball.
I agree with your post overall though
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 23, 2009 12:19 AM MDT reply actions
biondino
Sorry
I'm still hoping to wake up from that nightmare I had about the 9th inning of Game 4.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 23, 2009 12:20 AM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
