Elktonnick

To cite one article written over 8 years ago regarding Boras and attempting to lay at his feet an issue that is systematic throughout the entire Sport Agency community is disingenuous and misleading. This issue was raised earlier in a far more detailed and professional analysis in The UCLA Entertainment Law Review. The point of that article written more than a dozen years ago is that this type of conflict of interest is common throughout the sport agency industry including the NBA and NFL and in the entertainment industry. Furthermore to presume that any professional athlete or entertainer is so naïve that he or she is unaware that their agent whether it be Scott Boras or whomever is not representing other players who maybe on the same team is ludicrous. Moreover, it assumes that Boras or other agents of his stature are so sloppy that they are not insulating themselves against any allegation of any ethical conflict by taking the simple step of informing their client that they may be in fact be representing others negotiating or potentially negotiating with the same team etc. and having them sign a waiver. This simple step resolves any potential conflict. Boras can rightly claim that he can represent both clients fairly because of the nature of the baseball market and the results he has achieved throughout his career.

Hey that's a great idea. I wonder how Norway would handle assimilating 300 million Americans in their small homogeneous little country

Yeh an uprising over baseball players making too much money that's a real winning idea.

The example you give is both fanciful and inaccurate. Patrick Soon-Shiong is just one example.

It is called the free market. Bad Major League Baseball players are in higher demand than good teacher because there are so few people who can play baseball at the major leaguers compared to the number of people who can be good teachers. If you have a problem with the free market system but still want to watch baseball you may wish to try Venezuela or Cubal

Here are parts of a the ABA's Canon of Ethics. Based on your above post I presume you are not an attorney. dvocate Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. ( A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. © The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and ( continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

What ethical infractions has he committed? Do you know of any or are you just making an inference because you don't like the man. I for one believe sports agents like Boras are good for sports both in general and baseball in particular. Prior to free agency and the eventual rise of the sport's agent and sports attorneys, professional athletes were exploited and most major league baseball teams struggled to make a profit. Today professional athletes in general and professional baseball players earn fantastic sums and professional baseball has never been more profitable nor more successful. Sports agents such as Boras have played a large role in that success.

Then why does Boras get so many clients The answer because he is successful. Obviously those alleged GMs who boycott Boras clients don't seem to have either adversely affected Boras's attractiveness to players nor to his ability to deliver for his clients.

That is what I call ethical and being honest. I once worked with for a guy who was tremendously well respected and trusted in his field. He would frequently tell some one that he "could" do this or that. Inevitably, his interloculator would say to me that my boss agreed to his proposal. I would reply no he hadn't. He said that he could do what you proposed. He never said that he would do that. I think all the GMs that Boras deals with are big boys and understand how baseball negotiations are conducted. Precise use of language isn't the same as deliberate misrepresentation.

And you believe the Larry Lucchino Red Sox of the time.

Obviously I don't know Mr Boras personally nor do I know anyone who does, but clearly Mr Boras has an excellent reputation in baseball that's why he is so successful. Agents who aren't honest with the parties with whom they negotiate tend not to last long. Remember Boras has to treat the ballclubs with whom he deals ethically and fairly. That doesn't mean that he tells them everything he knows but it does mean he can't deliberately deceive them.

Douquette may be willing but the notorious mercurial Orioles owner Peter Angelos has repeatedly over ruled his baseball operations minions throughout the years. The key words in Douquette's statement is to anyone who offers "enough". Given Angelos's reputation "enough" is likely to be exorbitant. I believe any deal for Machado would fall in the category of the "juice not being worth the squeeze."

Yea, those kids Williams, Ortiz, Yastrzemski and Vaughn (1,2,3 and 7) on the all time Red Sox HR list sure had a tough time at Fenway.

I think your post accurately reflects Dombrowski's thinking. I suspect the holdup all along is the length of any contract and we will just have to wait to see how this plays out.

I surmise based on various comments I've heard on MLB radio and elsewhere that the issue with Martinez is the length of the contract not the am't of money per year. Most presume that Martinez is likely to get a longer contract from an AL club as opposed to a NL club because of the DH. Some have indicated that Hosmer ( also a Boras client) was looking for a deal longer than 7 years and that may be the issue with Martinez as well. We all know that Scott Boras's preferred MO is to wait. In any case, if the Red Sox really want Martinez for a reasonable length of time then they will just have to play this waiting game a bit longer.

So would I but I doubt Angelos would.

The point is that it wouldn't be in the Red Sox interest to give up what Angelos would demand to get Machado for a one year rental.

I think this whole Machado rumor out of Jon Morosi is much to do about nothing. I heard Morosi when made his report on MLB TV. It is very thin gruel. First of all Morosi is basing it mostly on the supposedly close relationship between Dave Dombrowski and Dan Duquette going back to their days in Montreal. Newsflash to Morosi. Peter Angelos is the owner of the Orioles. Nothing happens in Birdland unless Peter Angelos okays it. Peter Angelos absolutely hates to make deals within the division. He only allows such deals when the Orioles get much more than they give up. Angelos allowed the Miller E-Rod deal because the Orioles were a contender making a playoff run at the time and the Red Sox weren't. I'd be very surprised if the most stubborn mercurial owner in baseball lets this one happen without the Red Sox giving up a heck of a lot more than Machado is worth.

While Bradley is a very good even outstanding defensive center fielder, I think Red Sox fans tend to over value him. Quite frankly, his inconsistency at the plate drives me batty. I think the sox would be a much better club with him being traded if and when they sign Martinez.

Martinez is not that bad a defensive outfielder. Defensive metrics especially when one considers Fenway and the wall are not very reliable. If the Sox do land Martinez then Bradley will be shopped. The sox would be a better team with Martinez, Benintendi and Betts in the outfield with HR as the DH and what ever Bradley can bring than Martinez as DH minus HR. HR's salary makes him a less valuable trade asset than JBJ

I certainly agree.

I agree the idea of Ortiz coaching or managing is a non starter. Those who make the suggestion also forget another reason, why would Ortiz want to? He certainly doesn't need the money. He is beloved by virtually everyone in baseball, red sox fans or not. Why would he risk that? He has got one of the best deals going doing what he is doing. I just don't see him wanting to do anything else.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. Now if only Bogaerts could do the same.

As I have said elsewhere, David Ortiz would be both crazy and or suicidal to take any full time coaching or managerial job. Since he is neither I can't see him doing anything but what he is doing now. A paid behind the scenes coach or pr person is perfect. Why would he wish to put himself in the crosshairs. For Ortiz life is good he is a Boston icon. He doesn't need the headaches.

While neither criticizing nor praising John Henry, one has to recognize the fact the he has been very successful in every thing he has done by acting and reacting exactly the way he does.