Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

Pedro Alvarez NOT signing contract, Boras is prick

From Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

 

The Major League Baseball Players Assocation today will file a grievance against the Pirates regarding the signing of first-round draft pick Pedro Alvarez, according to two sources.

The union's contention is that Alvarez agreed to his contract after the Aug. 15 midnight deadline.

UPDATE 1:43 p.m.: The Pirates react by issuing a statement. This is it in full:

"At the Pirates' request, the Office of the Commissioner today placed Pedro Alvarez on Major League Baseball's Restricted List.  The Pirates were forced to request that Pedro be placed on the Restricted List because we were informed by his agent, Scott Boras, that Pedro will not sign the contract to which he agreed on August 15.  Boras further informed us that Pedro will not report to the Club unless we renegotiate his contract and agree to pay him more than the $6 million signing bonus to which he agreed.

"The Major League Rules provide that a player who refuses to sign a Uniform Player Contract to which he has agreed and report to the signing Club shall, upon a report of the signing Club, be placed on the Restricted List until he signs a contract reflecting the terms to which he has agreed.  Such a player may not sign a contract with or play for any other Club. While demanding that we renegotiate his contract and pay Pedro more than the $6 million signing bonus to which Pedro agreed, Mr. Boras has contended that the contract we reached with Pedro was consummated after the Aug. 15 deadline. This claim was not raised on the evening of the 15th when we informed Mr. Boras that Major League Baseball had confirmed that the contract was submitted in a timely fashion.  Mr. Boras asserted this claim several days later, after all of the draft signings had become publicized.

"The Pirates are confident that the contract reached with Pedro Alvarez was agreed to and submitted to Major League Baseball in a timely fashion and properly accepted by Major League Baseball. In fact, the contract between the Kansas City Royals and Eric Hosmer, another Boras client, was submitted to the Office of the Commissioner after our contract with Pedro was submitted. Mr. Boras is apparently satisfied with the $6 million bonus that he secured for Mr. Hosmer and has not challenged the validity of that contract. Mr. Boras has been informed that if he pursues a claim that our contract with Pedro was not timely he puts Eric Hosmer's contract with Kansas City in jeopardy.

"The Pirates made several attempts to commence negotiations immediately following the draft and were willing and ready to agree to pay Pedro a $6 million signing bonus from the very outset. Predictably, however, Mr. Boras refused to engage in any negotiations at all until shortly before the August 15 deadline and even then an agreement was reached only after Pedro took control of the negotiations.

"Regrettably, we are not surprised that Mr. Boras would attempt to raise a meritless legal claim in an effort to compel us to renegotiate Pedro's contract to one more to his liking.  We are, however, disappointed that Pedro would allow his agent to pursue this claim on his behalf.  Pedro showed tremendous fortitude and independent thinking when he agreed to his contract on August 15.

"The Office of the Commissioner has assured us that we have a valid contract with Pedro and that it will vigorously defend any claim to the contrary. Despite our disappointment, we continue to believe in Pedro Alvarez the person and the baseball player and remain excited to add Pedro to our system. We will sit down with Pedro and his family as soon as Mr. Boras' claim is rejected to chart a new and much more productive start to Pedro's career with the Pittsburgh Pirates."

0 recs  |  Comment 111 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

re

If it is indeed found that the contract was signed after the deadline, you can’t blame the agent for trying to exploit the loophole. Thats what they are paid to do.

If what the Pirates are saying is true, than yes, this adds to the already lengthy list of reasons why a club should enver do any business with him

by ScottAZ on Aug 27, 2008 2:48 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Why does it even matter if they agreed after the deadline?

What is to stop Boras from agreeing orally to a contract before the deadline, then after midnight , if he doesn’t get his demands, saying “give us more money or else we play for the Fort Worth Cats”? An oral contract is not binding in this circumstance (violates Statute of Frauds – performance for at least one year), so Alvarez is not bound (even if he was, what would be the damages? A court would likely not compel him to play for the Pirates, would they?)

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 27, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

paperwork

I believe the teams have to submit the contract paperwork to MLB before the deadline. The paperwork would require the players (possibly agents) signature. If Alvarez did negotiate the deal it is possible Boras didn’t find out about it until after the deadline.

Nolan Ryan should be the Rangers president, GM, manager and pitching coach.

by RangerMad on Aug 27, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Promissory estoppel

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 28, 2008 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Loophole

Is Boras going insane? If Alvarez signed too late, then he doesn’t get to renegotiate. He has to wait a FULL YEAR until he is drafted again before he can even begin to think about playing for another MLB team. PLUS, he almost certainly has to go to indy ball, since agreeing to a professional contract even if it is voided is (I think) grounds for a loss of college eligibility.

by aCone419 on Aug 27, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yea, that doesn't make sense to me either

Why say the contract is void? I’d instead argue that the contract is just an oral contract that is voidable and that we won’t void it if you promise to give us our salary demands.

But if he’s arguing the contract is void, well then even if he wants more money from the Pirates, he can’t get it, can he? The deadline has definitely passed.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 27, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

FA

If the contract is void he’s probably aiming to become a free agent.

by nheck on Aug 27, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

hes got

0% shot at that.
He is either signed by the Pirates or the contract was void because he didn’t sign on time, which simply means he reenters draft in09

by nms on Aug 27, 2008 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely

It would be the same as if he never signed. Essentially they didnt agree to a contract before the deadline so he would reenter the draft in 09.

by alskor on Aug 27, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nope

You don’t think MLB has lawyers on retainer who make 7-figure salaries going over the plain terms of the Alvarez and Hosmer contracts right now? If it was this simple, the issue would have been resolved by now and Alvarez would be getting ready for his senior year at Vanderbilt and Hosmer would be one angry dude.

The issue as I understand it is not that Boras is saying no deal was reached. His claim is that the Pirates failed to offer a contract in time. In that case, the player becomes a free agent. Whether he’s right or not has to do with interpreting the CBA rules and the actions of both negotiating parties. None of us have enough inside information on the contract language to make that determination.

This just underscores how much the draft screws talented kids over, in my opinion. I don’t have any problem with Boras exploiting loopholes to get his clients more money. He’s very good at what he does.

by slamcactus on Aug 31, 2008 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Huh?

Where do you see Boras claiming that the Pirates never offered a contract? His claim is they AGREED late, not that they never made an offer until too late. nms is correct. He either goes back into the draft and gets a do over on negotiations, or he is a pirate already.

The reason this hasn’t been resolved yet is the MLBPA and MLB are going to arbitration, and the date for that meeting hasn’t come yet.

by aCone419 on Sep 1, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Contract law...

If it was really in the plain terms of the contract, there would be no dispute. There’s an issue here because Boras is very good at contract law. The people on this site are illiterate by comparison.

The point is that an oral agreement was reached and terms sent over. No contract was signed, and Boras is exploiting some sort of clause in the contractual language.

There’s just no way a rudimentary understanding of how the draft deadline works qualifies you to talk about the merits of Boras’s case. He’s a contract lawyer, and a damned good one, and he’s made a compelling enough case that it’s going to arbitration. This is going to come down to very boring legal interpretations of contractual clauses in a binding legal document none of us has read. You don’t go to arbitration if there’s no reasonable supporting claim behind one party’s assertion. The legal system is smarter than that.

by slamcactus on Sep 1, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And...

the “illiterate” comment isn’t a dig at anyone, it’s just to illustrate that this is a pretty complicated area of the law. You need to study for three years to gain rudimentary understanding of this kind of thing, and then practice for 20 years or more to have anything resembling expertise. If the issue was open and shut it would have been summarily dismissed before going to arbitration. Since it wasn’t, we can at least assume Boras has an argument. Given the number of loopholes in the draft he’s found in the past, I wouldn’t count on him not having a valid point.

by slamcactus on Sep 1, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Missing the point

I’m sure Boras is much more versed in contract law that I am, but nothing to do with this situation. Boras did not file anything claims, nor is he exploiting any holes. The dispute in question is between the MLBPA and MLB with regards to the CBA; Boras is not one of the parties going to arbitration. And that is exactly what Boras said when reached for comment.

I don’t think you have a accurate understanding of what is going on here. I don’t need a JD to talk about the merits of Boras’ case because the case isn’t his. The complaint does not have to do with the “terms of the Alvarez contract,” but rather whether MLB violated their contractual obligations to the MLBPA, and thus whether those contracts are a priori even actionable.

You said that Boras wants to claim the Pirates never offered a contract and thus Alvarez is a free agent (a la Travis Lee) but the situation is not at all the same, and he hasn’t made any statements to that effect. Considering that no party has denied that they were negotiating at least nominally before the deadline, trying to duplicate the Lee outcome is incredibly unlikely. If Boras is trying to make Alvarez a FA, then he is playing a different angle.

by aCone419 on Sep 2, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes it does

The MLBPA is carrying Boras’s objections forward to the arbitration hearing. The objections have to be grounded in some sort of interpretation of the rules, or the case would not go to arbitration. I don’t pretend to understand the precise language of Boras’s claim, but I can guarantee that it is more complicated than “if there was no deal sent in time, Alvarez goes back into the 2009 draft class.”

One of the arbitors’ most important jobs is weeding out frivolous claims so that the system is not overloaded by frivolous claims. If it was as simple as most of the people on this site seem to believe, nobody would be listening to it.

by slamcactus on Sep 3, 2008 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What are you talking about...?

The issue is the MLBPA filing a grievance, per the CBA, about the extensions. The MLBPA is making a simple point: They collectively bargained a deadline for signing first round picks and that the Commissioners Office has unilaterally decided to allow extensions to a collectively bargained deadline without consulting the MLBPA.

The rest of this mess is over possible resolutions… but it sure seems like the MLBPA has a winner with regards to the extension issue.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2008 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You gotta realize

Boras will not do/say anything unless he is ok’ed by the client. While this is surely a rather low ball move by Boras, it was made possible by Pedro Alvarez.

by sagecoll on Aug 27, 2008 3:00 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Really?

Tell that to A-rod.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Aug 27, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That would be a pretty strong accusation to level

when we really have no idea what happened. It certainly is possible.

OTOH, you did remind me w/ regards to the Arod deal that Boras isnt afraid to make himself look like an idiot to please his clients.

I dont think he would act like he messed up here and didnt OK the deal with Alvarez though… that, again, would be an ethical violation for which he could be sanctioned, and likely opens himself to a negligence claim as well.

by alskor on Aug 27, 2008 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No

the Pit Post-Gazette said that, in front of family members and Pirates officials, Alvarez said “I accept” to a 6 mil bonus.

by nms on Aug 27, 2008 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

hopefully this is the kind of thing that causes an agent to lose his certification

i wouldn’t count on it, though.

to be honest, i’m in favor of a significantly more expensive rigid slotting system, and i think cases like this highlight the necessity to bite the bullet and get it done.

i’d be happy if it was just the first two rounds, to be honest. i think if you get this done, eliminate free agent compensation, and allow teams to trade picks, the draft would be a lot more productive.

by variablesdont on Aug 27, 2008 3:04 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I like the solidification of the slotting system

but I don’t like the part about trading picks. Part of baseball is not trading picks. We are the only major sport that doesn’t and I like it that way.

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Aug 28, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

First part of headline is news.

Second part is OLD news.

Wow. I hope Alvarez is a Met. I don’t care what position he plays.

by METSMETSMETS on Aug 27, 2008 3:10 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

how would

Alvarez ever become a Met? (excluding free agency/trades/ect in the future)

by nms on Aug 27, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps if Alvarez is declared a free agent, like Travis Lee and those other loophole guys 12 years ago.

by jonk1982 on Aug 27, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

but there isn't any reason why Alvarez would ever become a FA from this

None. Zero.
This is a totally different set of rules and happenings from the White, Lee, Seay, ect debacle.

Boras’ claim is that the Alvarez contract wasn’t signed on time. Even if he won that argument all that would mean is that Alvarez, and Hosmer as collateral damage, would simply become the same as Aaron Crow… he would just reenter the draft next June.
And, no matter the money demands, the odds of him falling to the Mets in next years draft would be super-minimal.
Plus, it isn’t like the Mets would take a run at him even though hes an NYC kid and would, maybe, help them reach out the Dominican or Puerto Rican (i forget which Alvarez is) kids in NYC because the Mets view keeping bonuses at slot as a supreme virtue.

by nms on Aug 27, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Boras could argue that the contract was agreed to before the deadline, but that the Pirates erred in not getting it signed. As such, he could argue, it would not be Alvarez’s fault and he shouldn’t be punished by having to wait until next year’s draft, thus being granted free agency.

Just sayin’.

by jonk1982 on Aug 27, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

He COULD....

He could argue that, but that’s an argument he’d have no chance of winning.

by aCone419 on Aug 27, 2008 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

the contract does not have to be signed...

MLB just needs to be informed that a verbal agreement has been reached before the deadline.

Little to no chance Alvarez becomes a free agent.

by sgrape13 on Aug 27, 2008 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i think that is what Boras wants?

Isn’t it?

i could be wrong.

by nms on Aug 27, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because the Pirates are saying Hosmer's contract was sent in later.

And if that’s the case, presumably, his contract would be void too. If he can get Alvarez to become a FA, then he could get Hosmer to become a FA (not saying this will happen, just assuming that’s the goal).

Tools Whore

Sign Bonds!

by Tyler on Aug 27, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hosmer also would just go back in the draft

No way Boras wants that. All he wants is more money from the Pirates. The worst case for him is two voided deals and two kids who have to sit out a year… that’s two pissed off clients who didnt get paid.

by alskor on Aug 27, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

exactly

Thats why the Pirates are the ones bringing it up as a threat.

I’m not sure if he’d have two pissed of clients though. Hosmer certainly but it doesn’t seem like Alvarez is objecting to the current track of things

by nms on Aug 27, 2008 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would think Alvarez would be happy to sign

but just feels he didnt get enough money – or all that Boras promised him. If he was imagining big money and signing before the deadline and now ends up not playing ball and no money he might be pretty angry at Mr. Boras.

by alskor on Aug 27, 2008 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

My guess

is that Alvarez agreed to the deal at the last minute, then later realized that Hosmer got the exact same offer. With time to think about it, he probably thought he got ripped off a bit since he was drafted earlier and is much more advanced. Now him and Boras are trying to go back on their word to get more money.

by deezle on Aug 27, 2008 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If this happens casue of Boras

is there a lawsuit for Hosmer…

Loss of Bonus, loss of ASU scholarship, loss of the chance to CC…

by laxtonto on Aug 27, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Very difficult to prove

The details are going to be very sketchy, I would wager. One issue might be whether Boras could adequately represent both clients if indeed he agreed to numbers but the deals werent submitted in time. That would be an ethical violation for an attorney (which is what Boras is and is acting as when he represents a player).

The damages are very real, of course, but what was negotiation/zealous advocacy and what was negligence by Boras is probably not going to be clear or easy to prove in court.

The best we might hope for is that he will be found guilty in the all important court of public opinion…

by alskor on Aug 27, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hosmer-ASU

Hosmer would be ruled ineligible by the NCAA as he (presumably) had Boras talk with Kansas City on his behalf.

by Koby Schellenger on Aug 27, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just read

on Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s site that Hosmer requested, and was granted, an extension by MLBPA and the commissioner’s office, so he’s ok.

The crux of the grievance is that MLBPA never approved an extension for Alvarez, thereby violating the CBA.

What I’m still failing to understand is how Alvarez is even covered by that, since they’re arguing that his contract is voidable. That would make him an unsigned amateur player.

by El Duq of Hurl on Aug 28, 2008 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

rights

But the MLBPA represents potential members as well as actual members and the agreement covers a players rights (that’s how they can bargain the draft).

As I understand it, if the agreement was in time, then his rights belong to the Pirates until he signs the agreed contract (point of the restricted list), so he’s stuck. If it isn’t a valid contract then he missed the deadline and must enter the draft next year. There’s no renegotiating.

As for Boras, if he advocated a position that was detrimental to a client he is in trouble. At the least he would have to drop the client and be responsible for any damages he caused. But if there was an approved waiver then this isn’t an issue. His other potential problem is if he signed the initial agreement (the one he is now disputing). Then he would be either barred from contesting it or totally screwed, his choice. But if he didn’t sign it and the client wants him to go through these gyrations then he isn’t doing anything ethically wrong (professionally at least).

Why any club deals with him is beyond me.

by B_Agate on Aug 28, 2008 1:30 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or Alvarez for that matter

Other than JD Drew, nobody’s ever sat out a year and ended up making more money than they would have had they signed, once you account for the year of lost income.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 28, 2008 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know this won't happen in this case

but what about Travis Lee and those people?

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Aug 28, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

They were loophole free agents

A player becomes a free agent if he isn’t tendered a contract in the first three days within getting drafted. Completely different situation, and obviously those guys made out like robber-barons.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 28, 2008 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Luke Hochevar?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 28, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

He got $2M more

than his offer from the Dodgers. However, where do you think he would have made more money, the $2M he got for sitting out a year, or the money he’s would have made had he hit arbitration and free agency a year earlier?

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 28, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Based on the way he's pitching

He will probably make more by sitting out a year.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 28, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Touche

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 28, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

that really is the rationale though

for holding out for bonus money now, instead of thinking about how that could cost you in FA/Arb.

You never know if you are going to make it, so that extra 1 mil could go along way towards having enough money to be set for a very early and comfortable retirement if you suck, wash out or get hurt and don’t have a baseball career of much.

The FA and arb money is the money that is kind of “gravy,” money that will allow you to live in luxury now and for the future

by nms on Aug 29, 2008 2:04 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Um, Hochevar?

Hochevar signed for $4 million, $1.2 million more than the Dodgers were offering.

Minor leaguers don’t make $1.2 million/year. They don’t make 1/20th of that.

by slamcactus on Aug 31, 2008 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yea

That would be awesome for two teams that need the talent.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Aug 27, 2008 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Collateral damage

I dont particularly dislike either team, but it seems to me a small price to pay to take down Scott Boras for good! :)

by alskor on Aug 27, 2008 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's no skin off Pittsburgh or KC's nose

assuming they get comp picks, which I believe they would since they did offer a valid contract to their draftees. They just get a player of similar value next year.

The losers here would be Hosmer and Alvarez.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 27, 2008 8:48 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Not so

They wouldn’t get the guys they wanted this year. We have no way of knowing how much the teams would prefer Hosmer/Alvarez vs. whoever from next year, a draft that is currently looking heavy on college arms.
And even if whoever they pick next year would be equal in talent it is a lot more valueable to an org to have a talent now than an equal talent a year from now.
Also, they would have little leverage to sign next years selections from the comp picks since comp picks do not yield a comp pick. So they would HAVE to sign the guys or completely lose the pick.

by nms on Aug 27, 2008 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hogwash

And even if whoever they pick next year would be equal in talent it is a lot more valueable to an org to have a talent now than an equal talent a year from now.

You could make a very strong argument that for a rebuilding team in Pittsburgh’s position, it’s much more valuable to have a player next year, because he’ll mature (/ be in his cost-controlled years) in a period when the team is theoretically more competitive. At the very least, there’s no reason to believe a player this year is NECESSARILY better than a player next year.

A win is a win. It is not less valuable because it happens in 2012 instead of 2011.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 28, 2008 4:23 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hogwash?

I disagree (and not simply with your language). Even if one could decide whether to add a win in 2012 or 2011, the first choice is almost always to add it earlier, because in the real world, one lacks both prophecy and retrospect. If you can strengthen your team now, you do, and don’t wait for the possibility of maybe strengthening it somewhere down the line.

Second, I don’t understand your argument about a rebuilding team like Pittsburgh. In your own example, the decision is between making the Pirates better in 2011 or 2012 – 3 or 4 years down the line. How long of a rebuilding process are you expecting? Granted that the likelihood of the Pirates successfully rebuilding isn’t especially high, especially if they fail to sign Alvarez, but why should the team expect to only be competitive 4 years down the road and not 3? In 3 years, Nate McLouth will be 29, Steve Pearce 28, Andy Laroche will be 27, Jose Tabata 22, Craig Hansen 27, Ryan Doumit 30, Paul Malholm 29, and if they get Pedro Alvarez, he’ll be 25. Stupidly or not, these are the players the Pirates are betting a franchise on, so they better hope that by 2011 they’re in a position to compete. Furthermore, the period that a player is cost-controlled is more than 3 or 4 years – it’s 6. In 6 years, Laroche will be 30, Tabata 25, etc etc – surely by then you’d want a star of Alvarez’s caliber on your team, rebuilding now or not, right?

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Aug 28, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you can strengthen your team now, you do, and don’t wait for the possibility of maybe strengthening it somewhere down the line.

Yes. It is never correct to rebuild. You should always buy and never sell players. Of course, this means no one will ever trade anything because everyone is a buyer, but who cares. Get that win NOW! Even though it’s useless to your team because it’s 30 games under .500.

I think Pirates fans have seen enough of that strategy lately, as the fact that Matt Morris is still collecting a paycheck demonstrates.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 28, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hahaha

Point taken, and on your comment below on compound interest and that not applying here. Where you’re wrong, however, is we’re not talking about buying a veteran for a win now or investing in a prospect for a win later; we’re talking about getting a prospect now to win in 3 years or a prospect next year to win in 4 years. When given the choice, you act now. And nms is right – that is common sense.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Aug 28, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

OldPs post was good, so I won't repeat those solid points but

I will just add that in ANY FIELD an asset now is worth more than a similar asset a year from now. It is common sense

by nms on Aug 28, 2008 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No. It isn't.

The reason money now is worth more than money a year from now is twofold: you can lend that money out at interest, and also inflation will reduce its future value.

That’s it.

Last time I checked, you could not lend a player out at interest, and I’m not aware of any such thing as “player inflation.” Your “common sense” is wrong. The factors that make future money worth less than current money are not applicable here at all.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 28, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

...

A good player this year means a good player (or a chance at a good player or whatever) in the majors a year earlier. A good player in the majors a year earlier means a winning team a year earlier. A winning team a year earlier means higher revenues a year earlier.

And we’ve already agreed that money is worth more now than it is a year from now.

by mraver on Aug 28, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

But don forget about the attrition rates of minor leaguers

Crow or Alvarez or Hosmer, or…. may never make it to the point to reach arbitration much less even just reaching the majors.

Its not a great idea to assume that these players will automatically make it,and therefore hurting their long term value.

by laxtonto on Aug 28, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Given the rate at which MLB's revenues are increasing,

I’d venture to say that from a purely fiscal standpoint, a win next year is highly likely to be worth more (after adjusting for inflation and opportunity cost, per the above) than it is this year. Piece of a bigger pie and all that. Granted, if baseball revenues were in decline the opposite would be true.

The real key here, though, is that there’s a threshold effect for what players are worth. Taking a team to the playoffs is worth a lot more than not doing so. So you want to concentrate your talent in a certain time frame. Is it clear that getting someone in the ’09 draft will do a better job of that for Pittsburgh than getting Alvarez? No, the opposite is probably true… which is why they were willing to go after him at all.

My point is not a specific one about Pedro Alvarez. Pittsburgh is probably better off if they get him than if they don’t and take a new pick next year, so in that sense my original post was a little misleading. (In my defense, “it’s only the outer epidermis off of Pittsburgh’s nose” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.) It’s a general critique of the notion that a player now is ALWAYS better than a player later. Which is, as I’ve said, hogwash.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2008 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

than why would you ever sign your guy now

under your logic if the future is so much better than the present.

At some point you have to win, and it is ALWAYS better to win now than next year.. why would you want to dawdle ?

by nms on Aug 29, 2008 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What?

It is always better to win now than next year?

Hm. You’d better tell that to Billy Beane, I don’t think he agrees with you.

Once again you have managed to utterly miss the point of my post, which is not that “the future is so much better than the present” but that the value of a player this year vis a vis the value of a player next year is profoundly situational and team-dependent, and thus you can’t sum up the right move in a pithy one-liner. Perhaps you find that disappointing.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2008 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree except for one point

“The real key here, though, is that there’s a threshold effect for what players are worth. Taking a team to the playoffs is worth a lot more than not doing so. So you want to concentrate your talent in a certain time frame.”

And what time frame would that be? Who has the predictive powers to know when precisely a team’s talent will be concentrated enough? I can tell you that the Pirates next year won’t be making the playoffs, and I can even tell you that in 5 years the As will probably be stronger than they are next year. I have no idea, though, whether they’re be stronger in 2012 or in 2013, or whether they’ll be a championship-caliber team or simply above average. I can tell you that next year the Rays will be good, but I have no idea whether they can win the World Series without adding a veteran or not. You’re talking like a mixture of a baseball historian and a baseball prophet, who can see precisely when a team is just a game or two beneath making the playoffs or the World Series and that year, will add the crucial player. Your team may always have a reserve 1B for Bill Buckner and a lefty specialist to handle Reggie Jackson, but that team will also only be imaginary. In the real world, people don’t know, they guess, they imagine, they make mistakes. You can’t plot your team to just make the playoffs by one game, because there isn’t that much of an advantage to winning your division by 7, so you might as well trade the extra 6 games for more revenues or another prospect. (I know you’re going to love this but) you’re dealing with human beings, not computers. (And yes, I’m fully aware of the importance of advanced statistics, but also aware that them dealing with human beings, there is a margin of error built into them. That error is my point)

As to what was apparently your original point, that oftentimes it’s better to get a prospect rather than a veteran, to get a player for later rather than now, you are, of course, right.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Aug 29, 2008 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Of course we can't predict perfectly

Nonetheless, if you come to the realization that you want a guy who peaks in 2012 about 45% of the time and a guy who peaks in 2013 about 55% of the time, you take the guy in 2013. Obviously, you have a very high likelihood of being wrong. It is almost a coin flip. But building a winning team depends on accumulating small edges like that.

You have to play the percentages, and surely we can all agree that any competent front office should have a probabilistic idea of when they’ll have the highest likelihood of success with their current group of guys.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 29, 2008 7:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Huh?

“Nonetheless, if you come to the realization that you want a guy who peaks in 2012 about 45% of the time and a guy who peaks in 2013 about 55% of the time, you take the guy in 2013.”

Seriously; what does this mean? We’re now betting on when a player’s career season will be, in 4 or 5 years? What statistical program even exists for such a thing? Do you really want your front office people spending time trying to figure out whether Melky Cabrera or Miguel Cabrera will peak in 2012 or 2013 rather than which of those players is, you know, better? What sort of idiots would have to populate a front office in order to spend all of their time trying to plot a championship victory in just 2012 or 2013, rather than simply trying to construct a successful team?

I wouldn’t say your argument has so much jumped the shark as leaped so far over it you’re deep in the desert. I think what happened was that you made a comment that nobody apparently quite understood, and now feel obligated to defend an absurd idea that you yourself are probably too smart to actually believe. Do you seriously think that even the best statistical program can predict so precisely how a player will do 4-5 years from now? When did life become an Isaac Asimov novel?!

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Aug 30, 2008 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

We’re now betting on when a player’s career season will be, in 4 or 5 years? What statistical program even exists for such a thing?

OP, meet PECOTA. PECOTA, OP.

I’d hope that, again, any competent front office has a system of player projection which is as good or better than PECOTA.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 31, 2008 1:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Are you seriously saying

that a- a team should choose a particular year 5 years in advance in which to compete, b- they should then project the players that are most likely to peak in that particular year and accumulate them?

Not to be rude, but if you are arguing that, then you’re sort of an idiot. If you’re not arguing that, then you’re simply being argumentative. Either way, I have better things to do with my time.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Aug 31, 2008 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You seem to be having problems with the concept of "all else being equal"

It’s kind of obvious that many other factors can trump a relatively small factor like this one when you’re making a decision about player personnel. If you really want a high schooler to balance out your farm system but a college draftee is clearly the best player remaining, it’s not much of a decision. You take the better player.

But if you think two guys are very similar in value, and one of them will peak a year later than the other one, and you think you’re more likely to compete in that later year… I mean, why would you NOT choose the guy who’s further away? Unless you’re so bad at player projection that you actually get it wrong more often than you get it right, you will improve your expectations by doing that.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Aug 31, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

WTF?

players are not commodities – Pittsburgh and/or KC could view Alvarez and Hosmer as elite prospects. Just because they get a comp pick for next year’s draft doesn’t mean that they will definitely get equal or even similar value back in their eyes.

Considering KC has Hosmer signed, sealed, and delivered since he’s already playing and has had multiple press conferences, I’m guessing they’re furious about even being involved in this BS thanks to Pittsburgh. Cooley needs to handle his own shit instead of acting like a 5 year old and tattling on the other kid on the playground.

by deezle on Aug 27, 2008 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

double standard?

So, it’s okay for Boras to play dirty (over a reported $200K), but not the Pirates? I think it’s brilliant of them to use the Hosmer situation as leverage. If you can use that situation to get him to back off and let his client honor his contract, good for them.

I don’t get why there’s even discussion of further negotiation between the Pirates and Boras in the first place. The deadline has passed, either he’s got a contract to honor or he waits until next year. There shouldn’t be any of this “give me more money or make me a free agent” crap.

by astrosfan76 on Aug 28, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So IF Alverez has to reenter next year, what does it do to his stock?

He’ll be out of leverage. He won’t get the same amount in an offer and have to go to Independent ball. He’d be a free agent but what would he be offered? Who would go after him?

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Aug 28, 2008 3:58 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Hosmer now sitting out until Alvarez situation resolved

Alvarez deadlock affects Hosmer, Royals

Royals Corner sources have confirmed that Hosmer did not dress for Thursday night’s game, and that it was indeed directly related to the situation with Alvarez and the Pirates. All parties involved are reportedly tight-lipped about the situation, and we still do not know whether Hosmer’s exclusion from the lineup came at the request of Boras, minor league baseball, or Hosmer himself, but we understand that he isn’t likely to suit up again until baseball resolves the impasse. At issue is the question of whether or not a contract signed after the midnight August 15 deadline is valid, even if, as in the case of both Hosmer’s and

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Aug 29, 2008 3:46 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

character

Alvarez apparently broke a verbal agreement with the Pirates, all sources agree. To me, this indicates lack of character. We already knew Boras was a snake. Alvarez is either a weak-willed wuss who can’t stand up to his agent, or a bald-faced liar.

by John Sickels on Aug 29, 2008 4:28 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

the wire, and lawyers

i’m reminded of the scene with d’angelo barksdale after the interrogation for the gant shooting, when the lawyer finally gets there and says: ‘what the fuck? stop writing…shut up…get up…go, walk…listen to me, you don’t say anything, you don’t write anything…shut up…how many times do i have to tell you people the same damn thing..’

i’d put boras at a level just a hair better than levy.

by variablesdont on Aug 29, 2008 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh please. . .

and the MLB owners are the poor citizens of Baltimore victimized by drug crime. Right-o.

by clubberlang on Aug 29, 2008 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i grew up a phillies fan

i think you can count the number of pro-owner phillies fans on one hand.

but watch the scene on youtube, it comes in at 9 minutes in, and tell me that you don’t see boras interacting with his client in the exact same way as levy.

http://www.youtube.com/v/SWsRsQXXJvo

by variablesdont on Aug 29, 2008 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow

So there really is no scenario here where I could see myself siding with Alvarez, given what we know…

by alskor on Aug 29, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Please

As if owners deserve all the credit for doing everything right in this situation. Name calling Alvarez when we have only heard ONE side of the story is uncalled for. Did you ever think that Boras has instructed him not to speak in case this does go to trial? Calling Pedro a ‘weak-willed wuss’ when you don’t REALLY know what happened in those negotiations is a cheap shot and not based on all the facts. If the owners did in fact sign him after midnight and lied about the dealing being complete, then shouldn’t they also be labled ‘bald-faced liars’?

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Aug 30, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also

It is a lot easier to criticize somebody when you are not sitting in their shoes. Alvarez is represented by the best agent in the business (sorry people, but who would you want your kid represented by?) and he would be stupid not to take his advice on a 6+million dollar decision. Boras may or not be a ‘snake’, but it would depend on which side of the negotiating table you are on. As if anyone in this room would not listen to the best in the business when they are talking about a decision that will impact their financial stability for the rest of their lives.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Aug 30, 2008 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

alvarez

True, eventually we will find out what happened. But according to every report I read, BOTH SIDES agree that Alvarez verbally agreed to the $6 million before the deadline with the Pirates. In other words, he has reneged on that agreement. He has broken his word. I can’t see anyway that reflects well on him. If that report turns out to not be true, I will retract my statement.

by John Sickels on Aug 30, 2008 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Question

Can you give me a quote from the Boras camp where they concur that they did indeed agree to a $6 million deal before the deadline? I haven’t read such a quote at this time, and thus I only know of ONE SIDE that agree that Alvarez agreed to a deal. I may be wrong, but I don’t recall Boras or Pedro making this claim to date.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Aug 30, 2008 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I dont believe that it was Boras/Alvarez are arguing

From all accounts they arent contesting that they agreed to a deal. They are saying that the deal they agreed to was after the deadline and thereby void. That’s completely different.

by alskor on Aug 30, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Alvarez

http://pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080828&content_id=3381483&vkey=news_pit&fext=.jsp&c_id=pit

“The Boras camp source said Boras was simply removing himself from the process because he was aware the deadline was approaching very quickly, and it would not be acceptable for an agent to negotiate with a Major League team past that deadline. At any rate, Alvarez quickly accepted the terms of the Minor League contract and the $6 million offer. Both sides agree this occurred. With a verbal agreement in hand, the Pirates e-mailed confirmation to the Commssioner’s Office in New York.”

I have had private communication with other sources confirming this.

Now, maybe that’s inaccurate. But it is what I’ve heard from more than one source.

by John Sickels on Aug 30, 2008 12:06 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

A Damn Fine Mess

One that nobody will “win”. I’m sure there have been multiple instances of players signing after the deadline in the past that got swept under the rug. This is the only time that an agent tried to squeeze/extort/swindle/leverage more money out of a ML team to keep quiet.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Aug 30, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The only way he can "win"

is to get the Pirates to give Alvarez more money to make this problem go away. The way it looks right now there is zero chance of that happening and the odds are going down every day.

Any other possible outcome is basically a nuclear scenario where all the parties involved lose.

by alskor on Aug 30, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not going to happen

The union grievance doesn’t specify any specific players because they aren’t union members and signed minor league deals. There are no buried CBA rules regarding this action.

If you want to look at precedent, go back to Drew’s case. Boras wanted Drew to be declared a FA, but because Drew wasn’t a member of the union, the arbitrator ruled that he couldn’t rule on the player. Only MLB could declare him an FA.

Most likely, nothing will happen with Alvarez or Hosmer. The ruling will likely only affect future draftees.

by ej6687 on Aug 31, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So...

So Boras sat out from the negotiations and the Pirates signed a deal with Alvarez without him?

That’s crazy unethical. Nobody should be crying for the cheapest ownership group in baseball. The millions are there, and it’s Boras’s job to funnel as many of them as he can to his clients.

by slamcactus on Aug 31, 2008 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

again, i'll point out that if you think money is all that matters,

you’re probably not looking out for the best interests of your client.

by variablesdont on Aug 31, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And again,

you’re wrong.

Jerry Maguire notwithstanding, agents aren’t there to coddle players. Literally the agent’s only job for draft picks is to maximize dollar value. They can’t help clients pick the best fit, because the players don’t get to decide who drafts them. The system is ridiculously stacked against talent, giving teams exclusive negotiating rights and leaving the athletes with about 25% of what they would get on the free agent market. Agents are there to handle the money and get the players the best deal they possibly can. When free agency comes around, you can talk about the agent having other duties to the player.

There are a lot of first round draft picks for whom their signing bonus is the only big money they ever see, and no matter how highly touted, every single draft pick has that possibility hanging over them. An agent who gets as much money as possible for his/her client is a good agent. Period.

by slamcactus on Sep 1, 2008 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

You aren’t hiring Boras if you aren’t concerned about the maximum money.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Sep 1, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Aug 31, 2008 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

if you only value money, i could see having that opinion

but he’s now looked like a jackass for 3 days, and he’s turned alvarez into a pariah having not even played a professional game yet. alvarez isn’t getting a new contract, so he’s either pirates property or going back into the draft as a 22 year old with an injury history and a track record of leaving heaping handfuls of money on the table.

it’s not about the money to alvarez, and it’s clearly not about the game, so there;s a serious question left to be answered about whether he has the right frame of mind to play 162 games each year.

by variablesdont on Aug 30, 2008 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think Boras is particularly concerned about what Joe Fan thinks. . .

. . .and somehow I don’t think this is going to cost him any clients in the future.

Serious question though re: Alvarez: would you have said the same thing about JD Drew? Haha would you STILL say the same thing about JD Drew is probably a better question actually.

It seems like it is about money with Alvarez and since it’s clearly about money for the Pirates, I don’t see why Alvarez should get to be treated like he’s the scum of the earth and the Pirates’ GM/Ownership get to play the victim card (esp. since the latter are wholely complicit in a system which prevents Alvarez from anything close to a fair approximation of his real value.) Sucks to be a Pirates’ fan, I guess, but somehow that doesn’t seem like anything new.

by clubberlang on Aug 30, 2008 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

again, phillies fan here.

and yeah, there’s still a good deal of animosity towards JD drew.

today’s fans are tomorrow’s players. shit, they have to come from somewhere, and if you’re not a fan, you’re probably not playing.

the pirates have a payroll for their major league team that was 48 million on opening day. they offered 6 to someone who had yet to play a single professional game. 6 was enough to be the 2nd highest bonus paid to anyone this year.

i understand why you might take the side of the player in negotiations like these, but they made a fair offer, the player accepted, and then something happened.

to make this big of a deal about this amount of money for this player, i’d have to think that boras is looking for 40% more than he was offered. i don’t see how this could possibly be worthwhile for alvarez, and the only way it’s worthwhile for boras, is if he gets alvarez 10+ million, which is about 67% more .

if this is about 200K, and about alvarez being the highest paid player in this draft class, ahead of buster posey, this is most definitely about boras, and it’s horrible and reprehensible.

and for hosmer to get wrapped up in this, there is no winning situation for boras.

by variablesdont on Aug 30, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think ultimately. . .

. . .Boras is looking to end the farce that is the amateur draft as we know it or at the very least damage it so severely that he can get his clients something closer to their actual value from it. Whether you think that’s makes him a monster or not, depends on how unfair you think the amateur draft is (hint: I think it’s pretty unfair.)

by clubberlang on Aug 30, 2008 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

what was fair value for john van benschoten?

or colt griffin? or matt bush?

if you’re paying fair value for a player’s upside, and you get burned 8 times out of 10, there;s gonna be a lot of wasted money going around, and that’s not good for anyone.

by variablesdont on Aug 30, 2008 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You can get burned with any contract, sure, because. . .

it’s hard to predict the future. But do you really think that if Alvarez was declared a free agent right now, $6M would be anywhere close to the amount that teams would sign him for? Try three times that.

Teams’ seem to be doing a pretty fair job of wasting money now (hi Ned Coletti) not sure why the amateur draft should be any different.

by clubberlang on Aug 30, 2008 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wasted money...

Have you seen the contracts being handed out for mediocre veterans? Slot money is a drop in the bucket compared to payroll as a hole, and the MLBPA has worked as hard as it possibly can to keep it that way so that the major leaguers get the largest slice of the pie possible.

A draft pick that signs for a couple million and returns any value whatsoever at the major league level is one of the biggest bargains in baseball. If Pedro Alvarez becomes what most people thinks he will, he’s 3 solid professional seasons away from making as much money per season as Willie Bloomquist will likely get next year as a free agent.

That signing bonus gets you 6 years of a player at a fraction of market price. The only bigger bargain is a once every couple of years Carlos Pena-type NRI made good. And that’s factoring in attrition rate.

by slamcactus on Sep 1, 2008 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow

Anarchy, anarchy – I don’t know what that means but I love it!

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Sep 1, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed
Start posting on Minor League Ball »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Arizona Fall League 2009 Video Posted
Small
Top-10 Prospects of the Last 20 years: Hitters

Recent FanPosts

Adam_jones_small
Dustin Ackley to 2nd base
Super_grover_small
Throwing stuff against the wall: What would it cost the A's to trade for Florida's Josh Johnson?
Small
AFL Championship Game Thread
Small
Last year's rookies, top community prospects for future performance #10
Small
Any surprises with your team's 40 man protection today?
Small
Mock MLB offseason: Should A's trade for Reid Brignac?
Small
This Stephen Strasburg guy
Deadhorse_small
BP's Indians Top 15
Small
BA Astros Top 10

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Carew_small John Sickels


Site Meter