Author Topic: Boras  (Read 650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online imref

  • Posts: 37806
  • Re-contending in 2023
Re: Boras
« Reply #25: August 04, 2022, 10:35:35 AM »
I know the guy does the best by his clients, but I don’t care about that. It’s awful having a team that’s so full of his clients. Why do such a high percentage of our stars have him as representation? It’s not just because he has all the elite talent. One of the reason the braves will be competitive for years is because their stars aren’t represented by him.
And it would be one thing if there was a two way street, but the only time it seems we get a break are with contracts no one else would have signed anyway (second Strasburg extension, Wieters [spit]).

So why are we in bed with him so much? Or is it just in my head?

Edit: I realize this is whining.

Boras represents a lot of top name guys so we have to deal with him, but he's been adamant that he won't let his clients sign the kinds of deals that Atlanta is using to lock up their young players. He's been highly critical of those deals, referring to them as snuff contracts - https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/04/07/scott-boras-calls-young-players-contract-extensions-snuff-contracts/

So long as that's his position, and we aren't going to overpay for FAs, we're going to keep losing guys who use him as an agent.

Ruiz is next up, FA in 2028, Boras client.

Offline bluestreak

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 11151
Re: Boras
« Reply #26: August 04, 2022, 10:37:39 AM »
I think that reinforces what I said.

How though. The only reason those got done is because there were no other reasonable suitors for Strasburg. Not because of resolve on the part of ownership

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 4695
Re: Boras
« Reply #27: August 04, 2022, 10:38:42 AM »
I think he didn’t do himself any favors this time around. He could’ve had Soto making bank here, incentivizing a timely retooling including his clients and have the other teams bidding up other clients. Now, a previously big spending team in a market that can sustain that might not return that way for who knows how long.

And if there is a return to free agency, it might just be one of the big spending teams using up the big money on him rather than another client. Given the limited number of teams for his clients and the cyclical nature of that, incentivizing his client to make a deal there seems to be more towards his interest rather than risking one sizable market potentially tapping out for quite a while.

The MLB CBA seems pretty broken to me.   To get these guys, you basically have to pay tens or hundreds of millions in years they are not likely to be very productive, and yeah, that takes money from the guys who are performing now.   It's a problem with having a CBT but no limit on lengths of contract.   These star players just end up with the teams who don't care about a bunch of dead weight on their books in the later years, which sets them up to be on crappy teams.   

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Re: Boras
« Reply #28: August 04, 2022, 10:38:53 AM »
How though. The only reason those got done is because there were no other reasonable suitors for Strasburg. Not because of resolve on the part of ownership
They bid against themselves and overpaid.

Offline Duke of Earl

  • Posts: 721
Re: Boras
« Reply #29: August 04, 2022, 10:39:26 AM »

Ruiz is next up, FA in 2028, Boras client.
How does that work? For the next six years, Boras gets a cut of his Ruiz's salary (how much, 10 percent?) and does nothing for him (unless the Nationals want to extend him)?

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Re: Boras
« Reply #30: August 04, 2022, 10:41:55 AM »
How does that work? For the next six years, Boras gets a cut of his Ruiz's salary (how much, 10 percent?) and does nothing for him (unless the Nationals want to extend him)?
TRADE HIM IN THE OFF-SEASON. 

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 4695
Re: Boras
« Reply #31: August 04, 2022, 10:43:04 AM »
How though. The only reason those got done is because there were no other reasonable suitors for Strasburg. Not because of resolve on the part of ownership
That first contract was a sort of ridiculous "have your cake and eat it too" player friendly contract.   It put all the risks on the Nats with the reward being we get to sign him to an even worse contract if he plays well.   We did get a World Series and Strasburg and Boras team controlled guys were a huge part of it.   If you take a Boras guy, you just have to accept that you get his team controlled years as an asset and that is it.   We probably could have got more for Soto if he didn't have Boras as an agent.  It just is what it is.

Online imref

  • Posts: 37806
  • Re-contending in 2023
Re: Boras
« Reply #32: August 04, 2022, 10:44:34 AM »
How does that work? For the next six years, Boras gets a cut of his Ruiz's salary (how much, 10 percent?) and does nothing for him (unless the Nationals want to extend him)?

that's basically it, except Boras hypes him as the greatest catcher since Bench.

Online imref

  • Posts: 37806
  • Re-contending in 2023
Re: Boras
« Reply #33: August 04, 2022, 10:46:26 AM »
The MLB CBA seems pretty broken to me.   To get these guys, you basically have to pay tens or hundreds of millions in years they are not likely to be very productive, and yeah, that takes money from the guys who are performing now.   It's a problem with having a CBT but no limit on lengths of contract.   These star players just end up with the teams who don't care about a bunch of dead weight on their books in the later years, which sets them up to be on crappy teams.   

you have to do what Tampa is doing if you want to succeed without going the big name FA route. Easier said than done.

Offline bluestreak

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 11151
Re: Boras
« Reply #34: August 04, 2022, 10:53:10 AM »
Boras represents a lot of top name guys so we have to deal with him, but he's been adamant that he won't let his clients sign the kinds of deals that Atlanta is using to lock up their young players. He's been highly critical of those deals, referring to them as snuff contracts - https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/04/07/scott-boras-calls-young-players-contract-extensions-snuff-contracts/

So long as that's his position, and we aren't going to overpay for FAs, we're going to keep losing guys who use him as an agent.

Ruiz is next up, FA in 2028, Boras client.

Yeah, I have a problem with a guy telling someone to give up security so that future players (and by extension, him) can make more cash in the future.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Boras
« Reply #35: August 04, 2022, 11:05:46 AM »
Yeah, I have a problem with a guy telling someone to give up security so that future players (and by extension, him) can make more cash in the future.
Assume you make $100K per year. Would you accept a guaranteed contract with your company for 10 years at $750K? I get that it's not a perfect analogy since our jobs don't carry injury risk, but still, it's exactly what these players are thinking about. They're trying to maximize their earnings over the course of their career and these long term deals may guarantee security and may even make sense for some players, but certainly not for all players. It makes less sense the better the player is.

Online nfotiu

  • Posts: 4695
Re: Boras
« Reply #36: August 04, 2022, 11:13:39 AM »
you have to do what Tampa is doing if you want to succeed without going the big name FA route. Easier said than done.
You can spend to the cbt cap without committing to contracts that pay out long past the player is useful.  That’s the spot the nats should be in.  I don’t care if they’re not willing to go 500 million for Soto as long as they build towards a smart spending to the cap team. 

Offline bluestreak

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 11151
Re: Boras
« Reply #37: August 04, 2022, 11:14:03 AM »
Assume you make $100K per year. Would you accept a guaranteed contract with your company for 10 years at $750K? I get that it's not a perfect analogy since our jobs don't carry injury risk, but still, it's exactly what these players are thinking about. They're trying to maximize their earnings over the course of their career and these long term deals may guarantee security and may even make sense for some players, but certainly not for all players. It makes less sense the better the player is.

I am unclear what side your on. If you mean would I take $750K for 10 years so ($7.5 million total), then of course I’d take it.  I’d probably pull a muscle running to sign that. If you mean $750 K total (so $75K per year) I’d tell them to kick rocks.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21066
Re: Boras
« Reply #38: August 04, 2022, 11:23:36 AM »
Assume you make $100K per year. Would you accept a guaranteed contract with your company for 10 years at $750K? I get that it's not a perfect analogy since our jobs don't carry injury risk, but still, it's exactly what these players are thinking about. They're trying to maximize their earnings over the course of their career and these long term deals may guarantee security and may even make sense for some players, but certainly not for all players. It makes less sense the better the player is.

If I was offered enough money to make sure my great grand kids were rich now vs. the possibility for 10% more in three years, I'd take the money now.

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 13619
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, doge.
Re: Boras
« Reply #39: August 04, 2022, 11:27:07 AM »
If you get a reputation for not doing right by your players, you can kiss your future free agent signings goodbye. These are still human beings. You mess with their career and earnings that much, and it's not only immoral, but also sends a message to every other player in baseball who might have otherwise considered playing for you.

This! When you look at the words from Soto, Rizzo, and Boras, it's clear that the Lerner's rep is burned.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21066
Re: Boras
« Reply #40: August 04, 2022, 11:29:19 AM »
This! When you look at the words from Soto, Rizzo, and Boras, it's clear that the Lerner's rep is burned.

They rushed his clients to the majors, gave offers that would have been record breaking at the time and ended up with a broken pitcher resigning. I’m not sure how a burned rep is going to hurt them- will the continue to not be able to resign his clients?

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 13619
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, doge.
Re: Boras
« Reply #41: August 04, 2022, 11:59:47 AM »
They rushed his clients to the majors, gave offers that would have been record breaking at the time and ended up with a broken pitcher resigning. I’m not sure how a burned rep is going to hurt them- will the continue to not be able to resign his clients?

They are selling the team, so it doesn't matter. But they leaked contract negotiation details and tried to turn the public against Soto (and Boras) right before he went to the All Star game! This would have been bad even if it wasn't leaked for the ASG, but it makes it all the more insulting. It's not an okay way to do business. 

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 60290
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Boras
« Reply #42: August 04, 2022, 12:05:02 PM »
Boras is the best agency. The best players will gravitate towards him.

Dodgers have/had plenty of Boras clients: https://www.ranker.com/list/boras-corporation-clients-athletes/ranker-sports

Its probably more in your head.


Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Boras
« Reply #43: August 04, 2022, 12:19:14 PM »
If I was offered enough money to make sure my great grand kids were rich now vs. the possibility for 10% more in three years, I'd take the money now.
In the case of the Soto offer, it's way, way more than 10%. A 15 year contract should pay him about $600 million, but even that is actually an underpay because if he took two shorter deals, he'd actually make even more on the next contract which would be scaled to inflation at that point. That's the thing about these long term deals. Inflation absolutely decimates them in the long run especially because inflation in sports contracts is much higher than general inflation. This is money stuff everyone should fundamentally understand. Most people unfortunately don't. But you can bet any agent worth their salt understands this. Soto taking our deal probably costed him between 25-40% of the value he should expect to make over that time.

EDIT: And none of what I just said even factors in how the MLBPA would have reacted to someone taking that deal for "security." Hint: They'd be really, really pissed.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21066
Re: Boras
« Reply #44: August 04, 2022, 12:26:46 PM »
In the case of the Soto offer, it's way, way more than 10%. A 15 year contract should pay him about $600 million, but even that is actually an underpay because if he took two shorter deals, he'd actually make even more on the next contract which would be scaled to inflation at that point. That's the thing about these long term deals. Inflation absolutely decimates them in the long run especially because inflation in sports contracts is much higher than general inflation. This is money stuff everyone should fundamentally understand. Most people unfortunately don't. But you can bet any agent worth their salt understands this. Soto taking our deal probably costed him between 25-40% of the value he should expect to make over that time.

EDIT: And none of what I just said even factors in how the MLBPA would have reacted to someone taking that deal for "security." Hint: They'd be really, really pissed.

Players take deals for security all the time- just look at the Braves roster or the Cardinals

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: Boras
« Reply #45: August 04, 2022, 12:29:37 PM »
Players take deals for security all the time- just look at the Braves roster or the Cardinals
Sure, they might take a small percentage less, but not something projected to be 25-40% over 15 years, which is effectively their career. No one has ever done that. It's totally unfair to ask Juan Soto to be the first dude to do that.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Re: Boras
« Reply #46: August 04, 2022, 12:33:43 PM »
Players who want to go big gravitate to Boras.

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 13619
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, doge.
Re: Boras
« Reply #47: August 04, 2022, 12:36:02 PM »
You can't offer him security with a contract at this point. He's making $17M this year. He already has security.

Offline HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 21066
Re: Boras
« Reply #48: August 04, 2022, 12:36:59 PM »
You can't offer him security with a contract at this point. He's making $17M this year. He already has security.

Pre-arbitration is the time to offer it. I can't remember the nats ever doing that though

Online Kevrock

  • Posts: 13619
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, doge.
Re: Boras
« Reply #49: August 04, 2022, 12:38:46 PM »
You offer security when they are in AAA or in their first year. Not after arbitration. Soto could retire today and him and his kids would be fine.

The contract the Nats offered was a joke. It was some combination of a home town discount in case he was in love with DC (lol), a PR stunt to enable trading him, and a deal slim enough that would add a few million to the sale of the team.