Schilling Blames Boras/Hicks For Baseball's Woes

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by pwdennis


okay, I will


I think one of the big problems is an artificial solidarity caused by a lack of secret ballots in union voting - I suspect that a lot of players really don't like the MLBPA stance but are afraid to say so

Oh...and the gag order isn't a way for the owners to do the same thing??

Boras is an ***, and he's trying to wreck the one thing that did bring some balance to baseball (and the only thing that will work) but he's looking out for his clients.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


Oh...and the gag order isn't a way for the owners to do the same thing??

Boras is an ***, and he's trying to wreck the one thing that did bring some balance to baseball (and the only thing that will work) but he's looking out for his clients.

I agree but always thought that unions were supposed to be democratic

[KCBOOMER]

Boras is a blood sucker of the lowest order. As soon as a player signs with him expect problems. Just trade the player away and save yourself a lot of aggravation. Boras is only interested in top dollar and by extension so is the player he represents.

He is just a symptom of the problems in the game though. Fix the problems between the Owners and the Union and Boras just becomes a localized embarrassment.

[qtlaw]

Originally posted by VNV Nation


Schilling is making what...60 percent of what Mike Mussina gets?

A-Rod is Boras' and A-Rod's fault...There was no way Boras was going to let A-Rod take anything less than a groundbreaking contract, and all the talk of "Seattle's going to see just why they won last year ('00). Seattle offered 4 years, $80 million? A-Rod wanted to play for the Mets but Boras scared them off with some outrageous demands.

Coming out of any other player's mouth, the reaction would have been the same.

I find it hard to criticize the player for the size of a contract. It is basic supply and demand. The player supplies the commodity and the OWNER buys it. Since when does a player (commodity) dictate the market? The fact that an owner like Hicks, who owns the surrounding property next to the Ballpark at Arlington and stands to make billions if the Rangers ever become hot, is somehow snookered by a player and an agent is ludicrous. He is paying A-Rod $25M per year, big deal, what was the change in value in his properties this past year? I bet it far exceeded the $25M he paid, or to be safer, even the say $7M premium he paid. If the owners did not want to pay A-Rod what he wanted they could have just said no, would baseball have been over if A-Rod sat out a year? No. But Hicks went for it and he has no one to blame but himself.

An agent does not lead the player, the agent serves the player. Do you see anyone blaming Hicks' negotiating agent, the GM or President? No. The fact is Boras is a scapegoat. Before Schilling starts criticizing an agent he should look in the mirror at his mug and decide whether he would give up money "for the good of the game" even though he he knows that any money he gives up goes to Colangelo, not the fans at the BOB.

I am getting sick and tired of Schilling's pontification too, he's a very good player, that's it, he's not a leader of people, he's not the brightest, most enlightened player. If he truly wanted to be a leader he should be in the trenches, where Glavine is, front and center, not 2000 mi. away popping off. Remember, its always easier to criticize from afar than to contribute constructively and be a problem solver.

[VNV Nation]

I agree with you that Schilling's statement is not all that enlightened. However, it seems that you're an extreme hard-line (self-described) players' apologist, and the only thing that would make you happy is if Schilling had a similar stance to yours -- which is frankly much more radical than anyone in the union. Schilling is the only big star I know of that has ever come out and criticized Donald Fehr -- it takes a lot of guts to do something other than mouth the party line. By publicly representing the moderates on the players' side, he IS getting something done: putting pressure on leadership to get a deal done.

You're kidding yourself if you think that Boras doesn't exert a great deal of influence on his clients. A-Rod this week said that he had wanted to sign with the Mets. However, his initial demands of the Mets turned Phillips off so much that he didn't even want to negotiate.

[qtlaw]

I hold these "hard-line" views because I do not subscribe to the distorted view that somehow the players/agents dictate policy making in MLB. If the players are making demands which hurt the game, don't agree to those terms. The game is stronger than that. No one minimizes the results from 1941-1945 because some of the greatest players were serving in WWII. Would this year be any worst if A-Rod were sitting out? How about even without Bonds? No. Yet the owners continue to capitulate.

Where are the moderate owners? What is moderation with respect to the owners? They ask for huge givebacks without any showing of why.

I amend my response to acknowledge that it would be quite idealistic to think that agents do not influence their clients. However, the agents are only as strong as the assets their clients bring. Boras cannot bring a utility player a huge contract. Boras has merely utilized the rules that are set by MLB. Boras does not set any rules.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by qtlaw
Where are the moderate owners?

The same place the moderate players are -- sitting on the sidelines, afraid to open their mouths.

SI's feature article on Bud Selig earlier this summer was illuminating -- Selig said something to the effect of "I have the votes. I can do whatever I want."

The hawks on both sides, majority or not, are running the show.

[moose]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
Schilling is making what...60 percent of what Mike Mussina gets?

[(a)] mussina didn't bash scott boras.

[(b) mussina's (and any yankee's) contract does not put as much of a strain on his team's payroll as schilling's does on his. this matters (to me) a lot less than the above point]

[VNV Nation]

Originally posted by moose

[(a)] mussina didn't bash scott boras.

[(b) mussina's (and any yankee's) contract does not put as much of a strain on his team's payroll as schilling's does on his. this matters (to me) a lot less than the above point]

I don't think that's the problem, is it? I believe the "problem" referred to here is the accelerating pay scale and greedy players going after every dollar they can. If A-Rod signed with the Twins for $12 million no one would care. So what we have is a star player signing a contact far below his market value speaking out aginst ridiculous contracts.

FYI -- I don't dislike Boras to begin with. The fact that he's fighting for something he believes in is admirable. My problem with him is that, in pursuing his personal agenda, he's not serving his clients, as some have suggested.

[qtlaw]

Originally posted by VNV Nation


I don't think that's the problem, is it? I believe the "problem" referred to here is the accelerating pay scale and greedy players going after every dollar they can. If A-Rod signed with the Twins for $12 million no one would care. So what we have is a star player signing a contact far below his market value speaking out aginst ridiculous contracts.

FYI -- I don't dislike Boras to begin with. The fact that he's fighting for something he believes in is admirable. My problem with him is that, in pursuing his personal agenda, he's not serving his clients, as some have suggested.

How is one player greedy and another not? Is that because a player acquieses to putting more money in the owner's pocket? Or is it because you are presuming that the money saved on a contract somehow translates into lower ticket prices? History shows that inevitably prices rise due to the seller's inclination to maximize profits and the buyer's (ticket) estimation of worth. Yes costs factor into it but they are not the driving force for ticket increases. In fact, the owners have yet to show that increased salaries caused any ticket increases.

How has Boras not served his clients? I believe that an agent's goal is to maximize whatever the client desires, including salary. Sure Schilling has complained, he's not a client. Has a client complained? Where are the incidents of players switching from Boras? J.D. Drew, poster child, has not complained about sitting out a year. Bonds has not complained.

[VNV Nation]

Originally posted by qtlaw


How is one player greedy and another not?

I would define greed as putting absolute maximum market value ahead of any other priorities. A-Rod and Schilling were both on good teams. The Mariners offered to make A-Rod the highest-paid player (per season) in the history of the game. No one really believed that A-Rod signed with the Rangers because he had done a thorough job of analyzing their farm system and decided that they were going to be a powerhouse. The reaction to this, as I recall, was the same eyerolling that happened after Reggie White said God told him to go to Green Bay.

Schilling signed a deal that was far below his market value. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that he was less greedy than A-Rod. Ken Griffey is another player who could be considered not greedy.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by VNV Nation


I would define greed as putting absolute maximum market value ahead of any other priorities. A-Rod and Schilling were both on good teams. The Mariners offered to make A-Rod the highest-paid player (per season) in the history of the game. No one really believed that A-Rod signed with the Rangers because he had done a thorough job of analyzing their farm system and decided that they were going to be a powerhouse. The reaction to this, as I recall, was the same eyerolling that happened after Reggie White said God told him to go to Green Bay.

At least Green Bay became good with White there!

[VNV Nation]

So maybe God is a Packers fan.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
So maybe God is a Packers fan.

God's not a Bills or Vikings fan, that's for sure

[moose]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
Schilling signed a deal that was far below his market value. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that he was less greedy than A-Rod. Ken Griffey is another player who could be considered not greedy.

um, schilling, as I recall, signed a deal AT his market value, if not OVER.

in december of 2000, schilling got a 3-year extension worth $32.5M.

he had just come off of an 11-12 season with a 3.81 ERA. he had had a few good to very good seasons just prior to that off-year, but he certainly showed NO signs that he would be as valuable as he is right now.

arguing that schilling is doing good by playing for less that he's worth is like arguing that albert pujos is doing good by playing for less than he's worth -- when they signed the deals, they weren't worth what they are today.

so how is signing at your market value or maybe even above with a team near bankruptcy is being "less greedy" than a-rod?