merge?
just a thought...
Relax, I've seen worse.
merge?
just a thought...
"Baseball statistics are a lot like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything."-Toby Harrah
"It's hard to look pissed off eating Apple Jacks."-Sh*t my Dad Says
Dreamweaver
I think all those who think Boras is bad for baseball are misplacing their blame..I think it's the lack of a salary cap or something like that that creates the situations for Boras to operate the way he does. It isn't Boras' fault that there are huge market teams that can just spend so much money on players and therefore, enable Boras to negotiate the way he does. Boras simply works under the circumstances and does what is best for his client. If teams have the capability to give Tex 200+ million, why shouldn't Boras try for it??
If there were a salary cap or something of that sort, then it would be different and a lot of Boras' leverage would be gone...now, whether that situation would be good for baseball is a different issue...but as is, it's not Boras' fault that there is so much money available to players.
My runs created per 27 posts (RC/27p) was 12.4 last year. I should've been MVP.
Certifiable
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
Well, I can't speak for others, but this wasn't my reason for criticizing Boras. For me, I don't have a problem with players making lots of money. The fact is, there is lots of money to be made. If the players weren't making as much as they do, then the owners would be making obsene amounts. As far as I'm concerned, I'm for the players making as much as the market will bear. Good for them.
I listed one example of why Boras might be bad for baseball, that was all. I'm not even sure that one example does it for me, but I thought I'd post it as an example.
As for salary caps, I don't like em. Instead, I'd rather see much more revenue sharing so each team has roughly the same revenue, then each team can decide how much of that revenue to spend. As it is now, with little revenue parity, that leads to little talent parity, and IMO that's going to be bad for baseball in the long run.
And before anyone raises me the Tampa Bay Rays, I'll raise you back the Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals.
Registered User
see, we can agree. I also agree Boras & agents can be bad when they do this other statement you made;Well, I can't speak for others, but this wasn't my reason for criticizing Boras. For me, I don't have a problem with players making lots of money. The fact is, there is lots of money to be made. If the players weren't making as much as they do, then the owners would be making obsene amounts. As far as I'm concerned, I'm for the players making as much as the market will bear. Good for them.
I listed one example of why Boras might be bad for baseball, that was all. I'm not even sure that one example does it for me, but I thought I'd post it as an example.
As for salary caps, I don't like em. Instead, I'd rather see much more revenue sharing so each team has roughly the same revenue, then each team can decide how much of that revenue to spend. As it is now, with little revenue parity, that leads to little talent parity, and IMO that's going to be bad for baseball in the long run.
And before anyone raises me the Tampa Bay Rays, I'll raise you back the Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals.
My statements earlier regarding the UAW and Hockey were just that. The UAW and the hockey agents were doing what they should be doing, and what they are paid to do...represent their customers (players). When it gets to the point however that the 'kitty' of money gets uneven in the players favor, there has to be consessions or it becomes 'bad for baseball'. Whenever there's more going out than coming into any business, it's bad. Problem is agents/unions just as anyone with a job have to justify their position and live up to their predecessors or previous deals (ie. personal interests). They often try to squeeze the orange until its far past dry. Its human nature. When Boras does that, than I feel he's being 'bad for baseball'. I don't believe we are at that point, hence I don't believe Boras is 'bad for baseball'. As I mentioned, too often however we don't know we are at that point until it is in the rear view mirror.That's when they put personal interests above that of who they are representing.
Dreamweaver
The example of Boras you brought up is something that didn't happen. Manny is to blame for acting that way..nothing to do with Boras. If it was Boras, don't you think he'd make more players do that instead of just Manny..and don't you think we'd have heard about it by now?Well, I can't speak for others, but this wasn't my reason for criticizing Boras. For me, I don't have a problem with players making lots of money. The fact is, there is lots of money to be made. If the players weren't making as much as they do, then the owners would be making obsene amounts. As far as I'm concerned, I'm for the players making as much as the market will bear. Good for them.
I listed one example of why Boras might be bad for baseball, that was all. I'm not even sure that one example does it for me, but I thought I'd post it as an example.
As for salary caps, I don't like em. Instead, I'd rather see much more revenue sharing so each team has roughly the same revenue, then each team can decide how much of that revenue to spend. As it is now, with little revenue parity, that leads to little talent parity, and IMO that's going to be bad for baseball in the long run.
And before anyone raises me the Tampa Bay Rays, I'll raise you back the Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals.
I don't want a pure salary cap..I was just saying that the relative lack of limits on the big market teams is a lot more responsibile for the way Boras operates than anything else....Boras is getting the most money for his players.....if teams didn't have the ability to provide such enormous amounts of money, he wouldn't be able to do it, but in the current environment...it is the best strategy.
My runs created per 27 posts (RC/27p) was 12.4 last year. I should've been MVP.
E=I*R
Of course, but it's where you take that logic that can be problematic.When it gets to the point however that the 'kitty' of money gets uneven in the players favor, there has to be consessions or it becomes 'bad for baseball'.
Personally, I don't see the problem with the owners and the commissioner taking care of an issue like that on their own. If they don't have the money, then they don't make offers, renegotiate offers, release players, cut back on non-payroll expenses, etc... The only place that comes form is declining revenue. Which is a real possibility, here going into the next 10 years or so.
There are those (both fans and players union reps) who feel that anything that occurs like that should be considered collusion. I definitely don't agree with that stance... as with all things, the optimal place is somewhere in the middle. There's collusion, and then there's responsible ownership. We're not in the Curt Flood, reserve clause era any longer, after all.
On the owners side, the problem is the same issue that stock market investors run into sometimes. What's the expression that is used occasionally, something like "unbridled exuberance"? If the owners are not responsible, then run away payrolls are only their own fault. The problem there though is that they eventually end up taking it out on us by locking the players out (threatening, at least), or being so stubborn that they cause the players to strike (which can go both ways).
Luckily though, the current owners/commissioner and players union/players all seem to be better informed about all of this themselves now. The sense that I have is that everyone realizes where the limits are (barring unexpected sudden changes, of course). The current situation with Boras/Teix and the Boston Red Sox seems to be emblematic of that knowledge and awareness, actually.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Can you imagine MLB attendance dropping dramatically due to the 'recession' and them lowering their prices but having to 'honor' these contracts. The day our officials even consider 'bailing' out major league baseball is the day I consider moving to sweden lol.
παραλία
The economy here sucks...
*http://www.exchange-rates.org/history/SEK/USD/G
E=I*R
Yes, unfortunately I can.
The teams do have a consistent television revenue stream, which their still going to increase next year. They also have a ton of money coming in from MLBAM (the Internet). So, it'll be a while before they really start feeling the pinch no matter what occurs, and based on statements that I've been seeing the owners and GM's are already being more cautious...
Hey, baseball has survived two wars and the Great Depression already, and it's an entertainment industry product which are somewhat recession resistant, so I don't see catastrophe coming. There likely will be additional strife between the owners and players though, as the player's contracts do begin to decline over the next five years or so. We'll just have to wait and see what happens, is all.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
Actually the situation with Manny was rather unusal looking at the facts --
The contract Manny was currently under was not negotiated by Boras, If the Sox picked up his option then Boras would get Zero money.
If the Sox had picked up bot years, Manny value would be severely lower than it is now.
Now did Boras have anything todo with Manny's antics? Its hard to say, but looking at Manny's history it would be hard to argue with an opinion either way.
E=I*R
The whole thing about that is, there needs to be a certain level of trust between the agents and teams. Boras is dealing with the Sox right now, and will in the future as well. If the Sox really suspected anything, I seriously doubt that they would continue to deal with him, and they would let the reast of the league (and the press) know about it to add leverage.
Scott Boras actually telling a player to loaf would simply be bad for business (his business), and it would come out... I just don't see it.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Dreamweaver
actually, given Manny's history, it's incredibly easy to argue that he was doing it for his own selfish reasons and Boras had nothing to do with it.
I ain't saying Boras is a saint, but he's not bad for baseball. If anything is "bad" in baseball (on this issue), it's b/c of the way baseball has set things up on its own.
My runs created per 27 posts (RC/27p) was 12.4 last year. I should've been MVP.
Registered User
If the owners really want to stop the continuous increases in player contracts, what they need to do is to negotiate a new labor agreement that only allows 1-year contracts and makes all ML players free agents after each season. That would make it much less of a seller's market.
Registered User
sure, the MLBPA would go right along with that scheme
Master of Ale!
And how exactly would you suggest they go about successfully negotiating that one sided agreement?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote