Dumb Question RE: Players Representing Themselves

by fartballs on Nov 20, 2007 3:35 PM EST

This is probably a dumb question, but can someone give me a solid reason why more older ballplayers don't represent themselves during contract negotiations? Kenny Rogers situation made me ask that same question again. Note that this question only pertains to older established players that are in their final years (where their market value is pretty much established). I can totally understand a young player using an agent, as those players really need a 3rd part to "sell" themselves to teams during their prime years (how else could Zito get $126 mil?).

Take Mariano Rivera for example, who is represented by Fern Cuza. It was pretty clear all along that he was coming back to the Yanks, and while both parties were always in agreement with what his market value salary was, the only thing they were haggling about were the years (3 vs. 4). Assuming a 4-5% agent commission (just a random guess as I have no idea what the norm is), are you telling me that Mariano paid some guy almost $2 mill on his $45 mill contract just to file paperwork? Maybe I'm over simplifying things, but (for the most part) aren't all ball contract more or less the same (pretty boilerplate)? Clearly qualifying this as a simplification, isn't all you need to do is change the numbers and dates from his previous contract and BAMM......you got yourselves a new contract? Couldn't he have done this himself? At the least, couldn't he have hired some lower priced attorney? Even if my assumed commission rate is way off, it still sounds amazingly unnecessarily expensive. Guys like Schilling and Rogers in their twilight representing themselves make alot of sense.

Thoughts??? I hate to use-up a diary for this, but I would like more insight into the signing process if anyone can shed some light.

Thanks.

-Fartbals

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Stereotype

Not all ball players, like the rest of us, are exactly smart people. Especially when it comes to money. Some recognize this and decide it's worth the 5% to make sure they don't screw up. Some may not know they'd do better without an agent.
meanwhile, some others may feel it's worth the 5% (which i believe is standard) on the chance the agent can get them an extra 10%.
In many cases the agent handles more than just contract negotiation for the player such as marketing. this is going to be more important for some players (i.e. a superstar like Rivera) than others (i.e. a more blue-collar type pitcher like Rogers).

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Nov 20, 2007 3:25 PM EST reply actions

Time + legal issues

Agents will handle all of the legal issues and drawing up the contracts. These contracts are frequently very long and as someone with no legal experience, it would be very difficult to navigate. Also, for many of these players, they'd rather the agent just do the work. I assume they'd rather relax then bicker with their bosses about some money. Make some other guy do that.

by mckeeno on Nov 20, 2007 3:38 PM EST reply actions

Yes but....

....I can understand not wanting to get involved in all drafting legal paperwork and stuff, but what is stopping a player from just using their old contract (language and all) and just changing the numbers (kind of like doing a "find and replace" in Word). You don't need to be a PHD to do this, and all the legal mumbojumbo has already been taken care of with your last contract. At most its a one day exercise.

by fartballs on Nov 20, 2007 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

In the past...

Some players have brought in an attorney to review a contract. I remember NBAer Ray Allen did this one year. He agreed to the basic terms, had the Bucks I believe draw up the contract and paid two attorneys (Johnny Cochran and someone else I cannot remember ) $500 an hour to review the contract and make sure everything was appropriate. This seems like a fine alternative. I think this was in 2001 and it was for a 70+ million dollar contract. Why give up that honking percentage if you don't have to?

by joemorgansaysdeadredtoomuch on Nov 20, 2007 4:00 PM EST reply actions

I agree with you..

But it seems that a veteran player who has been around the block and knows what amount he is asking for doesn't really need an agent to negotiate it. For example if Mike Sweeney wants to come back to KC and they want him back, I am sure both sides could find a pretty easy middle ground without an agent in the mix.

by joemorgansaysdeadredtoomuch on Nov 20, 2007 4:23 PM EST up reply actions

Well...

the team has THEIR lawyers negotiating, for the most part. Let's say there's a middle ground for a player where he'd take anything over $2M, and the team would be willing to pay him up to $5M. Negotiating on his own, he's probably more likely to end up close to the 2M end, since he doesn't negotiate on a day to day basis. Having a negotiator on the player's side makes the negotiation more equitable, and the final number will probably end up being closer to $3.5M, or possibly higher. If you get an additional 75% in added value for having an agent, then you should be more than happy to pay them 5% of the contract.

Very different situation for NBA players who know they'll get max contracts.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Nov 20, 2007 4:32 PM EST up reply actions

The guys mentioned above...

Rogers, Mariano, Schilling all pretty much knew what they could get and where they were wanted I would imagine. They were all dealing with a somewhat fixed amount of time on a contract, not a really long term deal. I am not saying every player should try to go it alone, but established veteran guys nearing the end could save a lot of money doing this I believe.

by joemorgansaysdeadredtoomuch on Nov 20, 2007 4:38 PM EST up reply actions

Arbitration horror stories

Maybe players would like to avoid negotiations that might turn ugly/truthful and feel that the 5% is a reasonable price to pay to insulate their egos.

by cooper7d7 on Nov 20, 2007 4:32 PM EST up reply actions

Tax deduction?

Maybe the agents fee is deductable, similar to a tax preparer's fee?

Maybe it is a loyalty thing. Maybe the players do not trust lawyers, yet have faith in their agents.

Remember when Master P tried to be a sports agent?

by cooper7d7 on Nov 20, 2007 4:04 PM EST reply actions

Loyalty

I was thinking loyalty as well when I saw this post. If you know your agent for several years and he has helped to make you filthy rich I'd keep him around.

by colinadam on Nov 20, 2007 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

Lawyers

Most agents are lawyers.

by JFP on Nov 20, 2007 4:43 PM EST up reply actions

Semantics?

Yes, but some are not and those that are, are "agents" and not "lawyers".

by cooper7d7 on Nov 20, 2007 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

Kill all the lawyers

I thought agents usually take 3%. Also, a lawyer will just charge a flat fee, so on a big contract that is a lot of savings.

I think besides the money, there are all the perks and special clauses. I would not want to sign a multi-year baseball contract without a good agent. For the last year you could do it yourself, but why screw your agent out of 3% of that last 10 million when he made you so much money over the course of your career.

by elricsi on Nov 20, 2007 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

I always thought that it was a trust thing.....

I know that when Jamie Moyer negotiated his last deal with the M's he came out and said that he didn't think that he had anything to worry about when dealing with the front office so he felt assured dealing with them himself. I think I remember hearing something along the same lines from Tim Wakefield about the time he was given his "lifetime" contract. But, both of those guys are near the end of the road. So you might be onto something

by Terry Ryan Jr on Nov 20, 2007 11:27 PM EST reply actions

wakefield is definitely a special case

of course, it's also been said that he signed the worst contract ever, so it's a good thing he didn't care about the money and just wanted to stay in boston.

by jpahk on Nov 20, 2007 11:49 PM EST up reply actions

Worst?

Or the best? He's happy with it, the Sox are happy with it and the fans are and remain ECSTATIC that a player, especially one as well liked as Wakefield, made that kind of gesture of loyalty. If everyone's happy, how can that be a bad contract, much less the worst ever?
There's no mention of a No-Trade clause because the Sox have a VERY strict organizational ban on them but I have no doubt that promises were made and will be kept.
Wakefield is also the former head player rep to the union for the AL... he knew/knows what he is/was doing.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Nov 21, 2007 1:28 AM EST up reply actions

standard contract

All players sign a standard contract created by the Player's Union. Thus, the agent really negotiates the amount paid, bonuses, and other perks. An agent will generally network for clients finding him teams and handle negotiations. The more powerful agents have strong networks. This helps players find teams and increases the number of offers recieved. The agent "should" be a better negotiator, have a better feel for market value, know what bonuses or perks are typical, and saves the player the anger/hurt feelings that are common in negotiations.

It does seem that older, established players could do a lot of this on their own or use a lawyer charging a flat rate. However, there is a certain amount of work to be done and the player-team relationship to consider. Players may reward an agent for taking a chance on them early in their career or may use an agent for other things like marketing deals or investing. In those cases, the extra strings attached probably make it hard for a player to cut the agent out of the picture during negotiations.