Author Topic: Boras  (Read 649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 4695
Re: Boras
« Reply #75: August 05, 2022, 02:02:42 PM »
No. That is an additional 60 million per team for just the ESPN/TBS deal. Thats plus the Apple TV money. None of that counts regional sports, of which, at a minumum, each team is getting at least 40 million a year.

BTW, just so we're clear, the Dodgers brought in half a billion last year: https://www.statista.com/statistics/196665/revenue-of-the-los-angeles-dodgers/

Padres where 282 million: https://www.statista.com/statistics/196680/revenue-of-the-san-diego-padres-since-2006/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20revenue%20of,revenue%20between%202020%20and%202021.

The point is that, regardless of location or payroll, every team in baseball makes 100 million a year in TV money.

There are no poor teams in baseball. There are only ownership groups that dont want to spend on players.

I can agree that most teams have about 100 a year in tv money, although that local money could disappear in a year or two.    That doesn't necessarily mean Padres are making enough to pay 250 million in player expenses.

282 million in revenue doesn't seem like it would cover 250 in player expenses plus other expenses.

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7930
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Boras
« Reply #76: August 05, 2022, 02:57:32 PM »
One thing I've been wondering about Boras for a while is how he gets his players to all disregard any benefit of taking the money right now vs the risk of waiting 2-5 years for a marginally higher amount.   In some of these cases, they are saying no to 400-450 million guaranteed in hopes of 450-500, but risk getting a whole lot less if they have a career altering injury or hit a slump they can't get out of.   There's no way this can make logical sense at the individual level.    I can see it making sense at Boras's level.  He can take a hit if he maximizes everyone's value and one out of every 10 doesn't pan out.   

How does he convince his players to all disregard that risk?   I get they can get some insurance for a career ending injury, but is it going to pay out 500 million if Soto has a career ending or altering injury?   Does Boras take a 5% tax on everyone to put in a kitty that pays out when a player holding out for free agency is a bust?   Is that legal?   Would it be public knowledge?

It breaks the market factors of the CBA when he has his players disregard any benefit to re-signing.   It's his right to do so, but it is bad for baseball in the long run.   Teams losing their star players they've grown attached to kills fan bases.   Teams paying stars for years after their prime is not ideal for anyone either.     

I am convinced he feeds their egos. Ultimately, he does seem to read the market well in terms of what the player will get in FA versus signing an extension with the current team. But a big motivator for many of these guys is one upping people they grew up with or compared themselves to. It's like wanting to have better rims on their truck's wheels than the guy they played with at the same academy back in the DR. Even though it may be fleeting, they all want those bragging rights.  Very few do the calculation on what an injury may do to exponentially reduce their fortune.

Offline raleighnat

  • Posts: 628
Re: Boras
« Reply #77: August 05, 2022, 03:42:03 PM »
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.


One thing that's on the Nats is they don't go in early enough.  If they want cheap contracts, they have to move after years 1 or 2 of service when the player faces more risk.  You've got another year or so to make the move on Ruiz, for example.  Soto after 4 years and all the arbitration money in the bank is more likely to turn you down.  What were Acuna's and Albie's service time when they were extended?

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22810
Re: Boras
« Reply #78: August 05, 2022, 03:45:04 PM »
Acuna signed in 19 at age 21. His rookie season was 18.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 4695
Re: Boras
« Reply #79: August 05, 2022, 03:53:34 PM »

One thing that's on the Nats is they don't go in early enough.  If they want cheap contracts, they have to move after years 1 or 2 of service when the player faces more risk.  You've got another year or so to make the move on Ruiz, for example.  Soto after 4 years and all the arbitration money in the bank is more likely to turn you down.  What were Acuna's and Albie's service time when they were extended?
Soto made 500,000 in 2019.   If we signed him for 30-40 million, that means not having one of max or Stras.  Or not having Corbin, Dozier, Gomes and Howie.    I don't think we would have won a world series in 2019 with that money going to Soto instead of the other pieces.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Re: Boras
« Reply #80: August 05, 2022, 04:56:28 PM »
Soto made 500,000 in 2019.   If we signed him for 30-40 million, that means not having one of max or Stras.  Or not having Corbin, Dozier, Gomes and Howie.    I don't think we would have won a world series in 2019 with that money going to Soto instead of the other pieces.
The time to sign him would have been 2020. And would not have taken $30-40 million. The risk is you have is what happened to the Phillies with Scott Kingery.  MLB salary to a guy now stuck in the minors.

  In any event it’s water under the bridge. New owners coming.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 37805
  • Re-contending in 2023
Re: Boras
« Reply #81: August 05, 2022, 05:07:20 PM »
The time to sign him would have been 2020. And would not have taken $30-40 million. The risk is you have is what happened to the Phillies with Scott Kingery.  MLB salary to a guy now stuck in the minors.

  In any event it’s water under the bridge. New owners coming.

there's no guarantee, with boras as his agent, that he would have signed.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Re: Boras
« Reply #82: August 05, 2022, 05:12:44 PM »
there's no guarantee, with boras as his agent, that he would have signed.
Of course not. But as others have noted they wait too long. 

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 4695
Re: Boras
« Reply #83: August 05, 2022, 05:31:07 PM »
Of course not. But as others have noted they wait too long. 

We were a cap team in 2020 as well.   An extra 35 million to Soto would have meant getting rid of other guys.  Not that it worked out well, but the plan was for a couple more years of max and Stras and cheap Soto.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 22207
Re: Boras
« Reply #84: August 05, 2022, 06:04:22 PM »
We were a cap team in 2020 as well.   An extra 35 million to Soto would have meant getting rid of other guys.  Not that it worked out well, but the plan was for a couple more years of max and Stras and cheap Soto.
Well the Stras part was what made no sense. You need hitters also and they have up Rendon and did not replace him. We all know what came next.  No reason why the Lerners could not have gone over the luxury tax line a bit to have another shot.