Is Scott Boras the Most Influential Man in Baseball?
Although I generally write only about the Braves here, I also like to write about issues that affect baseball as a whole from time to time. This is one of those times. This piece is the first of two or three articles I will write leading up to the publication of my legal journal article, “Can Money Still Buy the Postseason in Major League Baseball? A 10-year retrospective on revenue sharing and the luxury tax,” which will be published in the University of Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal. My article focuses on the initial implementation of revenue sharing (as we know it today) and the luxury tax (later renamed the competitive balance tax) and the impact and evolution of those instrumentalities of internal taxation. Leading up to the impending publication, I will post two or three related articles here. This is the first in the series…
Though it pains me to ask, I often wonder if Scott Boras is the most influential man in baseball. Not just today, but in the past couple of decades. Players like Alex Rodriquez have him to thank for their unprecedented, multi-million, multi-year contracts. Use the search terms “Scott Boras is Satan” on Yahoo! or Google and you’ll find a host of baseball fans equating Boras with the man down under. If he’s not the most influential man in baseball, he certainly is the most hated.
As a fan, I’ve spent the past decade or so hating Scott Boras. I blamed everything that was wrong with the game on him and the players’ union. In reality, the pendulum has simply swung from one extreme to the other. Let me begin with a history lesson. In the beginning, the owners literally owned the players, in every literal sense of the term. Owners could unilaterally decide when to trade or sign a player and how much to raise his salary (subject to very little limitation). The reserve clause, in its inaugural form, allowed clubs to reserve only five players. However, it wasn’t long before the reserve clause was an integral part of every player contract. Owners convinced players that the reserve clause was essential to preserve what’s been called “competitive balance” in baseball. The idea of competitive balance was best stated by sports economist Simon Rottenberg, who said, “But in baseball no team can be successful unless its competitors also survive and prosper sufficiently so that the differences sin the quality of play among teams is not ‘too great’.” In fact, as late as the 1950s, baseball players testified in Congressional hearings that the reserve clause was vital to the preservation of baseball. And it wasn’t just any average player testifying, it was players like Ted Williams and Stan Musial. The reserve clause, by its very nature, depressed player salaries, however. This made it only a matter of time before the players would become discontent with the system.
Things came to a head in 1970 when Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause after being traded and refusing to report. There were cases before that, but I won’t belabor the point here (you can read my full article for that once it’s published). Unfortunately, Curt Flood lost his case and the reserve clause remained intact until Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally asserted they had achieved free agency for the 1976 season. The case proceeded to arbitration within MLB instead of to the Supreme Court as Flood had. Peter Seitz eventually ruled that Messersmith and McNally were indeed free agents and the business of baseball (and the game) were changed forever.
Fast forward to the present where Scott Boras represents free agents and negotiates for them multi-million dollar, often record-breaking, contracts. As fans, we hate him because at one point or another he’s represented someone on our team who ended up playing elsewhere because he demanded more money than our team could afford to pay to keep the player. We blame him for the inflated salaries in baseball and for making the game about money and not about playing out of team loyalty or for love of the game. Rob Dibble has said it before and I’ll say it again: “For Love of the Game” was just a movie. Yes, there are guys that seem to be more genuine and play for love of the game and not for money. For the Braves, these have been players like Andruw Jones, Chipper Jones and John Smoltz who have all given hometown discounts to the Braves to facilitate their resigning.
But in the end, we as fans need to realize that baseball players have a far more finite career than the average person, so it makes some sense that they make a lot more money than we do. When their career ends, either due to an injury or retirement, their earning capacity out in the real world may be very small. Sure, some of them go on to coaching and broadcasting careers, but that’s only a small percentage of the guys who have played the game. For those who retire young, they may not have any marketable skills out in the real world and may not have amassed very much during their playing years. For others, they began the game at such a young age that they lacked the ability to manage their money wisely (although I hear baseball has made strides in this area by providing education and counseling). There are a whole host of reasons why a baseball player would want to seek to maximize his earnings during his playing years, just like any other average person does in his career. Instead, we see the multi-million dollar contracts or we lose our favorite player to another team because our team couldn’t afford him and we have to find someone to blame. We blame the player, the union…and we blame Scott Boras.
Though my gut feeling is to dislike the guy, I have to admit that he’s simply doing his job. He’s supposed to be a zealous advocate for his client and his job is get his client the deal the client wants. If the client wants the most money he can get, Boras is the man for the job. He’s a sharp negotiator and great at his job. You really can’t blame him for that. Instead, blame the owners who negotiate with him. If no one would pay the big bucks, Boras wouldn’t be the infamous character he is. If the owners really thought he was a detriment to the game, they would all refuse to negotiate with him. Instead, they fork over the big bucks to one of his clients because they believe that player can make them, the owner, more cash. I guarantee you that in the long run the owner only spends what he thinks he’ll get back in revenue from increased ticket sales, advertising, apparel, etc.
The whole system is unbalanced and sometimes simply unfair. But it’s the business of baseball as a whole that is to blame, not simply Scott Boras. As I will explore in upcoming articles, and as I did explore in the legal analysis-based article being published, baseball as a business needs to change. In fact, if you’ll read my full-length article when it’s published, you’ll see that Boras actually has some interesting ideas that clearly show his regard for the game.
So, is Scott Boras the most influential man in baseball? Ever? No. This decade? Last decade? Some would certainly say so. Me, I think George Steinbrenner has a leg up on him, but I’ll leave it at that for now.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 27th, 2007 at 12:04 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
THE AUTHOR
RECENT ARTICLES BY DIVISION RIVALS
ARCHIVE
RECENT ARTICLES BY DIVISION RIVALS
SPONSORS
Online Seats
Atlanta Braves Tickets Atlanta Thrashers Tickets
Ticket Specialists
Braves Tickets Atlanta Hawks Tickets
Coast to Coast Tickets
Atlanta Braves Tickets Atlanta Hawks Tickets Atlanta Falcons Tickets Atlanta Event Tickets Theater Tickets Online
Tickets4U
Atlanta Braves Tickets World Series Tickets Atlanta Falcons Tickets
Great Seats
Atlanta Braves Tickets Atlanta Falcons Ticket Atlanta Hawks Tickets Chastain Park Tickets Atlanta Event Tickets
16 Responses to “Is Scott Boras the Most Influential Man in Baseball?”
June 27th, 2007 at 12:16 am
The only thing I really have a problem with in regards to Boras is the draft. The draft was designed to provide greater talent for the worse teams and the commissioner’s office put in slot values to try and keep it that way. The worse teams can’t afford the top talent now though and Boras is the worst because of it. Guys like Rick Porcello, Andrew Brackman, and Matt Harvey this year were considered top ten talent. All are represented by Boras. Where did they end up going? The Tigers snagged Porcello with the 27th pick, the Yanks got Brackman with their first round pick, and the Angels got Harvey in the third. All big market teams already on top and they just get better while a team like the Pirates had to go with a much more singable player like Dan Moskos, who was a huge overdraft but he was in their price range. Once they get to the majors and free agency, Boras is doing his job. I just don’t agree with the draft right now.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:23 am
That’s a really good point, Will. I talk about the draft some in my full-length legal journal article, but don’t delve into this too much because it was outside the scope of my topic. You’re absolutely right though. The other thing I point out is the control players themselves are starting to have on the draft. For example, Jeff Francouer made it widely known that if anyone other than the Braves drafted him, he’d go play on his football scholarship at Clemson. Everyone else accordingly left him alone and the Braves got him. That also kind of contravenes the system.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:27 am
I’m not really as against that. He had another opportunity and wasn’t just holding College baseball as leverage. He saved a team from losing a pick there. He knew that the only way he would turn down a football scholarship was if he could play for his hometown team. It isn’t demanding $10 million though like Porcello is.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Definitely different situations, just interesting to see how much the draft can be manipulated.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:00 am
[…] Original post by Kristi Dosh […]
June 27th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Will, you really can’t blame the draft on Scott Boras. Once again, he’s doing his job, getting the best possible deal for his players. And while it does hurt that the best players don’t go to the small teams, its not because the small teams can’t afford them, they just don’t want to pay for them. Indeed, ticket sales, TV revenue, merchandise, etc. do depend on whether the team is big market/small market, and this effects the bottom line, but the owners of these teams are multibillionaires and could put a great product on the field if they want to. But owners, like players, mostly care only about the money, so if they won’t be turning a profit, they won’t do it.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Kristi,
I totally agree with your last paragraph regarding George Steinbrenner. If anyone has change the dynamic of the game it is him. He has drastically increased the gap between “small market” and “big market teams.” Not to mention, the Yankee’s total disregard for the farm system (until recently anyway).
Will,
I also agree with your view of the draft. The baseball draft is a fallacy. Although, I don’t think we can single out baseball. All professional sports contracts are ludicrous, notwithstanding their short careers.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Ap,
In response to your comments I’ll briefly point out something else I discuss in my full-lenfth legal journal article. Many have suggested that baseball have a minimum (not a maximum) salary cap that would require all owners to put up a certain minimum in order to operate a club. The players association has never considered though because they think allowing it would weaken their argument against a maximum salary cap.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:07 am
This was an excellent article Kristi. Keep up the good work. You echoed all of my sentiments and the one I felt most strongly about- minimum salary cap- I look forward to reading.
I think it’s ridiculous that teams like the Marlins don’t spend money yet expect to collect a cheque from revenue sharing. The thing is our buddy “Bud” is a little short in a certain department and doesn’t have the guts to stand-up to ALL of the owners, but of course the union doesn’t make his job any easier.
I think baseball should have the minimum cap but not make it mandatory but if you don’t have the minimum cap…no revenue share for you!!
I also put a link to the article on my site hope you don’t mind
Have a read: skinnymoose.com/thebaseballguy
June 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
[…] Kristi Dosh over at MVN.com has a great article about Scott Boras…yes…that guy. It is a must read for all baseball fans. To get the article click here . […]
June 27th, 2007 at 11:41 am
You mention in the article; “If the owners really thought he was a detriment to the game, they would all refuse to negotiate with him.”, but could that not lead to a charge of collusion? So in a sense the owners seems stuck with him and paying the inflated salaries.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Perhaps I should have worded that comment a little differently. Basically, certain owners opened this can of worms by agreeing to pay such inflated salaries to players. Now, there seems to be no way out. If the owners all agree to avoid Scott Boras or refuse to pay such high sums to free agents, the players association will definitely scream collusion. The Major League Baseball Players Association is by far the most powerful player association in America. Between collusion claims and refusing to allow a salary cap, they’ve effectively made it impossible to keep salaries from continuing to sky rocket. There would have to be an entire overhaul in the system, which won’t happen until the player association agrees to it in collective bargaining. I’m afraid they’ll be unwilling to do this until the situation has reached a point where the future of baseball is threatened because small market teams are run out of business. Instead, the sides will simply keep having to make adjustments to revenue sharing and the luxury tax in order to ensure that small market teams can survive and can field a respectable team.
I don’t have the numbers on me right now, but I’ll post something later on the amount of revenue sharing dollars that have gone to certain small market teams whose payroll ends up being less than the amount of revenue sharing they take in.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
And many thanks to those who have linked to this article on your own sites. I’ve spent the last year researching and writing on this topic and am excited to share my thoughts and knowledge with everyone! I enjoy hearing what you all think on the matter, so keep the comments coming!
June 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Great article, found this via the sports site FanIQ. It’s interesting that the MLBPA is without a doubt the most powerful union in sports, and yet there are huge questions about the ability of probably half of the franchises in baseball as a whole to compete. Meanwhile, Gene Upshaw and the NFLPA are derided as being spineless and powerless, but the NFL is by far the healthiest and most powerful and popular league in North America. Is a certain amount of imbalance against the players (re: labor) required for success? Do we as fans care if pro athletes don’t have very much say in their working conditions, or do the perks on the side that they get make it impossible to feel bad for them?
June 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
As to the draft and Boras, the think that irks me about this is that Boras tries to portray himself as a protector of the exploited.
He’d have a lot more credibility in this regard if he did this pro bono. Instead he makes a very healthy chunk of change representing drafted players.
Boras is a lot closer to Booster Gold than the Lone Ranger in this regard.
A minor quibble to be sure.
Again, we all know that Boras would love to destroy both the amateur draft and the posting system, but he wants to do this–not for the good of these young men–but for himself. The only concrete alternatives he suggests, not surprisingly, are designed for his own benefit.
Other irks include his tactic of the mystery team offering 5 years $75M for his clients or getting teams to bid against themselves (Kevin Malone and Tom Hicks). Baseball players say they want an open market for their services and no collusion among the clubs–which is of course right and proper. But Boras abuses these provisions with the above tactics. If he wants honest and above board negotiations, then it behooves him to be honest and upfront himself.
That’s why you see teams that make offers to Boras’ free agents letting the media know what their offers are (although I’m pretty sure they’re not against spreading misinformation themselves) since that lack of knowledge facilitates overbidding.
Any of us would be ticked off if we were interested in buying a house and the real estate agent used phantom offers to get more out of us. You can say caveat emptor, but eventually it will cost the agent in the long run. Scott Boras might soon be reaching a saturation point where clubs might develop specific recommendations (to avoid collusion charges) in dealing with him that could end up costing his clients.
If Boras wants an open, honest system, then he needs to have the courage of his convictions. To me, Boras is no different than Charles Comiskey, or George Weiss–using any method, no matter how underhanded and deceitful to wring more money out of those he is doing business with; he really has no moral authority to complain about the skunks (and they are skunks) that own baseball clubs.
Further, while Boras says he tries to find the ‘best fit’ for his client–that’s male bovine fecal matter. Kevin Brown wanted to play closer to his family in Macon Georgia after he declared FA from the Padres and he ended up in LA. Boras negotiated the free use of a private plane to see his family to placate Brown and getting him to sign the 7 year $105M contract. A-Rod wanted to be a Met, but Boras knew he had a bigger sucker in Tom Hicks than in Steve Phillips and Fred Wilpon and Rodriguez went to Texas and was miserable (insofar as the team situation went).
Boras has done a good job making Rodriguez a lot of money, but it’s pretty obvious he has a lot of influence over A-Rod and he isn’t shy about using that to his advantage.
Boras (and other agents) has created (with the help of the MLBPA under Don Fehr) an environment where players seemingly have traded one set of masters for another. Both agent and union strongly recommend that players not leave money on the table even if that means not playing for the team of your choice under whatever conditions he can negotiate. They’re urged to do this in the best interests of MLBPA members.
Well, owners had the “reserve rule” and said it was in the best interests of baseball. In both cases, a player was foregoing rights because of someone else’s monetary concerns.
The player (and his family) should have the first, last, and only influence on a player that’s a free agent. If the union or an agent tries to get a player to choose a less preferable destination then, in my opinion, they’re not much different from owners pre- Messersmith/McNally. Curt Flood did not sacrifice his career just so major league players could change owners. As Flood put so famously: “A $90,000 slave is still a slave–well so is one who makes $30M/year.”
It’s like the joke about a wealthy man who offers a woman a million dollars for sex. She accepts. then he makes another offer of $10 to which she replies indignantly: “Just what kind of woman does he think she is?” to which the answer is: “We’ve established what kind of woman you are, now we’re just haggling over price.” Well, is a free agent, free or is he just a slave to agent/union and they’re just haggling over price?
That’s why the MLBPA is losing ground. Marvin Miller fought for an ideal–that ideal being that a baseball player, like any citizen of the United States, should be free to work where he chooses under whatever terms he can negotiate. Don Fehr, and agents like Boras, are just trying to see how high the salary bar can be pushed.
Freedom benefits all. Money splinters interests (which is why the MLBPA flourished under Miller–money splintered owners’ interests) and benefit’s a fairly small minority of players. Between the salary bar, and tied to that, the usage of performance-enhancing drugs (to increase pay) has splintered the union. Fehr and Gene Orza went with their own ideologies on these issues rather than forming a consensus among their constituents (Do you want PED in the game or not?) like Miller had.
I believe MLB needs a strong MLBPA because owners have shown themselves poor caretakers of the game and they need a counterbalancing force to keep things in check. From this point of view I think Scott Boras is a detriment to the game because his self-serving interests are weakening the union. Players, like most people, will fight for their rights and freedoms–whether scrub or superstar. However when you ask a journeyman player, with very limited time in the game to sacrifice what little he gets out of that, just so a minority of players can earn $20-$30M a year then you’ve caused a division of interests. If he perceives (whether true or not) that his interests are being sacrificed to benefit baseball’s salaried aristocracy then he’s gonna say “screw this!” If he thinks he fighting for his, and other’s freedom to choose, then he’ll stand up and be counted.
Don Fehr would be well-served to informing agents like Boras to simply collect offers and let players decide for themselves…and trying to gain a consensus in matters large and small from rookie, to journeyman, to superstar. Otherwise Boras will be finding himself negotiating for smaller pieces of the MLB revenue pie.
Best Regards
John
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
wow
its very unconventional point of view.
Good post.
realy good post
thank you
Leave a comment