A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[Kimmi]

Steve Pearce just did.

 

Yes, he did. And he earned a lot of respect and admiration from me for doing so.

[notin]

Why couldn't JDM feel the same way as Kershaw? Kershaw stayed where he was comfortable. Maybe JDM really likes where he is and playing for Cora? I'm just throwing it out there. There's a spectrum of possibilities.

 

He hired Scott Boras as his agent, unlike Kershaw. I expect most players who hire Boras know his MO, and his track record and those are big factors in that choice. Don’t you think so?

[Kimmi]

He hired Scott Boras as his agent, unlike Kershaw. I expect most players who hire Boras know his MO, and his track record and those are big factors in that choice. Don’t you think so?

 

Right or wrong, I always lose a bit of respect for a player when he signs with Boras.

[notin]

Right or wrong, I always lose a bit of respect for a player when he signs with Boras.

 

While I see why you and others do, in the end it is their careers and I don’t blame them for having the business aspect handled in their best interests...

[moonslav59]

Most people said the same thing about Price when we were getting ready to sign him, that he is a pitcher that would age well. The second year into the contract and he was dealing with some serious elbow issues. He seems to have overcome that with his 'magic, self-healing elbow', but who knows for sure?

 

Bottom line: Those huge, long term contracts are just too risky.

 

1) Pitchers are different.

2) The jury is still out on Price aging well. (His first 3 years were not really in question at the time of the signing>)

3) See below.

 

Mean OPS from 2008 to 2018 by age:

 

29 .746

30 .750

31 .734

32 .721

33 .714

34 .730

35 .715

36 .680

37 .708

38 .721

39 .705

 

Granted, older players that suck do not play as much as sucky younger players, so the sample sizes are skewed a bit, but the decline is not as steep as some think it is for everyday players.

 

If Betts declines by 40-70 points, he'd still be great. If he declines by 70-100, he'd still be pretty good.

[notin]

1) Pitchers are different.

2) The jury is still out on Price aging well. (His first 3 years were not really in question at the time of the signing>)

3) See below.

 

Mean OPS from 2008 to 2018 by age:

 

29 .746

30 .750

31 .734

32 .721

33 .714

34 .730

35 .715

36 .680

37 .708

38 .721

39 .705

 

Granted, older players that suck do not play as much as sucky younger players, so the sample sizes are skewed a bit, but the decline is not as steep as some think it is for everyday players.

 

If Betts declines by 40-70 points, he'd still be great. If he declines by 70-100, he'd still be pretty good.

 

There could be major flaws with this data that are very misleading...

[moonslav59]

Garrett Richards to sign with the Padres for $15.5M/2 with $2.5M in incentives.

 

I thought he might be a fall back for us, as he is a RH'er.

 

[moonslav59]

There could be major flaws with this data that are very misleading...

 

Yes, since 2017 had no PAs for 39 year olds.

[notin]

There could be major flaws with this data that are very misleading...

 

I can elaborate.

 

How does this sample account for retirees?

 

The problem is, you’re trying to show the decline over aging, but at some age on there, the worst samples that declined the most retired and were removed from the next year.

 

Simply put, this data could be removing every point that disproves your conclusion...

[moonslav59]

I mentioned the flaw in the data, and yes, it does go beyond what I brought up, but the numbers from 29 to 33 or 34 are pretty accurate and not much different from each other in sample size PAs and OPS results.

[notin]

I mentioned the flaw in the data, and yes, it does go beyond what I brought up, but the numbers from 29 to 33 or 34 are pretty accurate and not much different from each other in sample size PAs and OPS results.

 

But at some point, it turns into a survivor pool.

 

You can’t disprove a decline with a dataset that eliminates most of the declining data...

[moonslav59]

But at some point, it turns into a survivor pool.

 

You can’t disprove a decline with a dataset that eliminates most of the declining data...

 

I get it. My point was more about the years from 29-34 or 35.

[dgalehouse]

Right or wrong, I always lose a bit of respect for a player when he signs with Boras.

 

Wrong. These guys are professional athletes. Baseball is a big business. They sign with Boras because they think he will help them maximize their earnings . No reason to lose respect for them because of that.

[notin]

I get it. My point was more about the years from 29-34 or 35.

 

The problem happens almost every year regardless of age, what with the average MLB career being one season.

 

But when it comes to Betts, the peak looks so high that the first couple years of decline still leave him performing like an All Star...

[dgalehouse]

You pay Mookie whatever it takes to keep him . As long as you have enough left over to put a contender along with him. It is stupid to have the Mona Lisa while living in a run down house.

[S5Dewey]

Boras doesn't always make the decisions for his clients.

 

That's true but while Boras doesn't actually make the decisions for the players his opinion carries enough weight that the player usually does what Boras advises him to do.

 

IMO Boras advises them to do what's in the best interest of the player's pocketbooks but not in the best interest of the player.

 

Of course I've always seen a HUGE conflict of interest in Boras' negotiations. What's in the best interest of Scott Boras - who undoubtely works on a commission? What puts more money in Boras's wallet, a $30MM contract or a $20MM contract? If you were Scott Boras which contract would you encourage the player to take?

 

Jus' sayin'.

[notin]

 

IMO Boras advises them to do what's in the best interest of the player's pocketbooks but not in the best interest of the player.

 

Of course I've always seen a HUGE conflict of interest in Boras' negotiations. What's in the best interest of Scott Boras - who undoubtely works on a commission? What puts more money in Boras's wallet, a $30MM contract or a $20MM contract? If you were Scott Boras which contract would you encourage the player to take?

 

Jus' sayin'.

 

That’s not a conflict of interest at all. It’s an incentivized program. Players who hire Boras have interest in their finances. He gets them as much as possible. They pay him more for it.

 

No conflict of interest at all...

[moonslav59]

That’s not a conflict of interest at all. It’s an incentivized program. Players who hire Boras have interest in their finances. He gets them as much as possible. They pay him more for it.

 

No conflict of interest at all...

 

The conflict may arise when representing multiple players and playing one off another.

[Larry Cook]

The conflict may arise when representing multiple players and playing one off another.

 

So why don’t the players get that?

[notin]

The conflict may arise when representing multiple players and playing one off another.

 

 

Has he ever done that? He doesn’t seem to care who signs where....

[moonslav59]

Has he ever done that? He doesn’t seem to care who signs where....

 

I can't remember specifics, but I seem to recall an incident(s) where one of his players felt he was used when Boras got a team to sign another one his players instead of the one who felt he was used.

[S5Dewey]

That’s not a conflict of interest at all. It’s an incentivized program. Players who hire Boras have interest in their finances. He gets them as much as possible. They pay him more for it.

 

No conflict of interest at all...

 

Boras is hired to get the best financial offers from as many teams as possible. When he starts offering "advice" as to which teams a player signs with it becomes a conflict of interest.

[notin]

Boras is hired to get the best financial offers from as many teams as possible. When he starts offering "advice" as to which teams a player signs with it becomes a conflict of interest.

 

 

No. It’s a coincidence of interest. It would be a conflict if he had some vested interest in teams as well.

 

I might imagine he would influence a player to take a lesser offer from a team in a market where there were other marketing opportunities (TV commercials, etc), but this isn’t typically a big deal for baseball players. Generally he tries to get them more money and/or more years and he gets paid better for doing so.

 

Now if he was a part owner of a team and had interest in getting them better players for less money, that would be a conflict. But as he only seems interested in getting more money for players, there is none...

[Bellhorn04]

No. It’s a coincidence of interest. It would be a conflict if he had some vested interest in teams as well.

 

I might imagine he would influence a player to take a lesser offer from a team in a market where there were other marketing opportunities (TV commercials, etc), but this isn’t typically a big deal for baseball players. Generally he tries to get them more money and/or more years and he gets paid better for doing so.

 

Now if he was a part owner of a team and had interest in getting them better players for less money, that would be a conflict. But as he only seems interested in getting more money for players, there is none...

 

You may have already this article, which proposes that with so many clients Boras is in violation of the 'Zero-Sum Conflict'.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/the-truth-about-scott-boras/

[moonslav59]

Boras is hired to get the best financial offers from as many teams as possible. When he starts offering "advice" as to which teams a player signs with it becomes a conflict of interest.

 

Part of his job is to advise. He may mention state tax rates, advertisement opportunities, quality of life and other factors that go into choosing where to play. Now, if he's pushing a player towards a team just for his own personal gain, such as kick backs, owed "favors" or the like, then yes, he is not looking out for the best interests of his clients, but much of this is gray area. He may think money is the "best interest", and if he's pushing his client to take a $210M deal over a $200M deal just so he makes more commissions, but fails to tell his client he'll be paying $20M more in taxes, then he's doing wrong.

 

I'm not sure I ever heard of examples like that.

[moonslav59]

You may have already this article, which proposes that with so many clients Boras is in violation of the 'Zero-Sum Conflict'.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/the-truth-about-scott-boras/

 

Thanks. Yes, this is the article I read about conflicts of interest with agents representing multiple players.

[S5Dewey]

Part of his job is to advise. He may mention state tax rates, advertisement opportunities, quality of life and other factors that go into choosing where to play. Now, if he's pushing a player towards a team just for his own personal gain, such as kick backs, owed "favors" or the like, then yes, he is not looking out for the best interests of his clients, but much of this is gray area. He may think money is the "best interest", and if he's pushing his client to take a $210M deal over a $200M deal just so he makes more commissions, but fails to tell his client he'll be paying $20M more in taxes, then he's doing wrong.

 

I'm not sure I ever heard of examples like that.

 

As you say, we've never heard of examples like that. It could be because by admitting it he becomes admittedly unethical.

 

It comes down to whether you think Boras is ethical or not. IMO there's too much opportunity to be unethical for him to be scrupulously honest. If it's unquestionable proof you're looking for I don't have it. What I do have is knowledge of what money will do to a person's ethics. (There's an old saying that you never really know someone until you split an inheritance with them).

[notin]

You may have already this article, which proposes that with so many clients Boras is in violation of the 'Zero-Sum Conflict'.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/the-truth-about-scott-boras/

 

But that article represents a largely theoretical argument. Sure there is a limited amount of money to go around, but it’s not like teams also don’t target specific players.

 

For example, did Boras really misrepresent JDM last year by telling the Dodgers and Yankees to hold out for Harper and Machado? Or did those teams make that decision on their own and Boras did his best to get the best offer possible for JD? And given the lack of league wide interest in JD, did he get him a good offer despite falling well below expectations?

[moonslav59]

As you say, we've never heard of examples like that. It could be because by admitting it he becomes admittedly unethical.

 

It comes down to whether you think Boras is ethical or not. IMO there's too much opportunity to be unethical for him to be scrupulously honest. If it's unquestionable proof you're looking for I don't have it. What I do have is knowledge of what money will do to a person's ethics. (There's an old saying that you never really know someone until you split an inheritance with them).

 

Good points, but I'd expect some disgruntled player might speak out- not the agent admitting he failed to discuss higher taxes on one contract option vs another, just so he could make higher commissions.

 

 

I think, in general, players are very happy with the services Boras offers them, and that's one reason so many go to him for representation. They want the most money they can get, and he's one of the best at getting that.

[dgalehouse]

Boras has always been a convenient target . However , he is doing very well , his clients seem to be satisfied and the owners pretty much have to deal with him. So , I don't think the fans displeasure bothers him at all.