Boras

[imref]

You can't offer him security with a contract at this point. He's making $17M this year. He already has security.

Maybe Acuna is an argument for taking a 15 year deal even if underpaid. Acuna the last 3 years since his injury:
42/86/62 games, 2.3 / 3.6 / 1.4 WAR after 3.9 and 5.1 in his first two years.

[Kevrock]

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

Right! We don't do this enough IMO. Look at the Rays and the Braves.

I will say that several years ago I heard someone ask Rizzo about extending Soto preemptively to a long-term contract. Rizzo said they would love that but didn't think that's what Juan was looking for. So, they probably actually did explore it in this case.

[bluestreak]

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

This. You could probably lock up Ruiz if you made him a decent offer now. But we won’t do that.
Should have locked up Trea when he was second in ROY voting in 2016. Bet we didn’t do that either.

[HalfSmokes]

This. You could probably lock up Ruiz if you made him a decent offer now. But we won’t do that.
Should have locked up Trea when he was second in ROY voting in 2016. Bet we didn’t do that either.

Some times I think Mark Lerner is one of those sports talk radio stereotypes who thinks a player needs to 'prove it' before they get extended without realizing that by the time they 'prove it' it's too late.

[Slateman]

I'm actually wondering about the other side of the coin.  How does Boras ethically represent so many players on the same team or in the same free agent class, who are fighting over the same pot of money? 

For example, there's a reasonable guess that the money for a Soto extension wasn't there because of money owed to Strasburg (and Scherzer, deferred); Correa got a worse contract because teams (well, team) had already paid guys like Seager and Semien; and so on.  For lawyers, those conflicts would likely be non-consentable, so it sorta astounds me that players put up with them.   

Because there isnt a pot of money, but 30 pots. He isnt going out and trying to sell the players. The teams want the player. He just negotiates

[comish4lif]

You can't offer him security with a contract at this point. He's making $17M this year. He already has security.

And Soto has 2 more rounds of arbitration. He'll be in the $60+ million range in career earnings before hitting free agency.

From my perspective, he's playing with house money at this point and has no incentive to take a team friendly deal.

[comish4lif]

Here's a real interesting podcast with Boras as the guest from this July.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/19/the-show-with-joel-sherman-jon-heyman-mlb-all-star-podcast-feat-scott-boras/

[Elvir Ovcina]

Because there isnt a pot of money, but 30 pots. He isnt going out and trying to sell the players. The teams want the player. He just negotiates

He negotiates on behalf of two or more players competing for the small number same jobs, though: for example, Seager and Correa would have had highly overlapping teams looking at them.  There's no way to negotiate on behalf of one without affecting the market for the other when the markets are as thin and shallow as they are.

[Slateman]

He negotiates on behalf of two or more players competing for the small number same jobs, though: for example, Seager and Correa would have had highly overlapping teams looking at them.  There's no way to negotiate on behalf of one without affecting the market for the other when the markets are as thin and shallow as they are.

The markets arent thin and shallow.

[Elvir Ovcina]

The markets arent thin and shallow.

  Okay.  A market with a theoretical maximum of 30 buyers (functionally far, far fewer for most free agents at anything approaching the market-clearing price) and with those buyers as the only potential sources of investment on unique goods is neither thin nor shallow. 

Well, ya learn something every day.  It's not like 80% of the value of an agent is broadening the market for a player or anything.

[SkinsNatFan21RIP]

Boras doesn’t care about Soto or any of the players he represents. He cares about maximizing their value and he’s totally okay risking it because if Soto ends up with a career-ending injury he’s got 10 more guys lined up to take his place. Declining a guaranteed $440M is a big risk no matter how you slice it but the risk isn’t on Boras’ side. If you want to see how badly something like this could end up just look at Isiah Thomas from a few years ago.

[Slateman]

Okay.  A market with a theoretical maximum of 30 buyers (functionally far, far fewer for most free agents at anything approaching the market-clearing price) and with those buyers as the only potential sources of investment on unique goods is neither thin nor shallow. 

Well, ya learn something every day.  It's not like 80% of the value of an agent is broadening the market for a player or anything.

23rd media market has two 300+ million contracts on the books. Every team owner is a billionare. There is literally no other marketplace other than sports where 30 multi-billion dollar companies bid on something. So no, the market is not thing.

Agents dont go selling players to team. Boras isnt out there only offering Seager to the Rangers. The teams contact Boras and Boras negotiates the price. There's no conflict of interest. And it would be really really hard to convinve anyone that Boras shortchanged one of his clients.

[nfotiu]

This. You could probably lock up Ruiz if you made him a decent offer now. But we won’t do that.
Should have locked up Trea when he was second in ROY voting in 2016. Bet we didn’t do that either.

It's not always simple like that though.   

A few years ago, when we were a max to the CBT team, we needed the guys like Soto and Turner to be cost controlled bargains, so we could spend money on pitching and other pieces to build a contender.   

Now, we are in a much better position to make an offer like that if we have someone we want to bet on.

There is the problem with Boras almost always saying no to these types of things.

[Elvir Ovcina]

23rd media market has two 300+ million contracts on the books. Every team owner is a billionare. There is literally no other marketplace other than sports where 30 multi-billion dollar companies bid on something. So no, the market is not thing.

Agents dont go selling players to team. Boras isnt out there only offering Seager to the Rangers. The teams contact Boras and Boras negotiates the price. There's no conflict of interest. And it would be really really hard to convinve anyone that Boras shortchanged one of his clients.

Dude, what?  Energy, commercial real estate, tech, pharma... even decent sized M&A in those spaces routinely gets way more than that number of billion-dollar parties as potential buyers.  I've seen decks for even niche assets in one of those industries that listed fifty or so potential buyers with valuations over a billion.  And let's not pretend that all thirty teams are in on most players.  They're just not.  For most FAs, you're dealing with well less than that.

And do you seriously think agents don't go out there trying to make a player's market look wider than it is when negotiating?  I didn't say agents sell players to individual teams, so please stop rebutting a point that nobody made.

[Slateman]

Dude, what?  Energy, commercial real estate, tech, pharma... even decent sized M&A in those spaces routinely gets way more than that number of billion-dollar parties as potential buyers.  I've seen decks for even niche assets in one of those industries that listed fifty or so potential buyers with valuations over a billion.  And let's not pretend that all thirty teams are in on most players.  They're just not.  For most FAs, you're dealing with well less than that.

And do you seriously think agents don't go out there trying to make a player's market look wider than it is when negotiating?  I didn't say agents sell players to individual teams, so please stop rebutting a point that nobody made.

There is no industry where 30 multi-billion dollar companies all bid for the same resource. None. Just stop.

Every team in major league baseball can afford Juan Soto. Every. Team. They are literally all getting an extra 60 million dollars a year from MLB streaming. There is no team in MLB that doesnt have the revenue to pay a big contract.

And you keep trying to make an arguement but there isn't one. The job of the agent is to get the client the best deal possible. The team picks who they want. Boras wasnt trying to sell Correra to the Rangers. The Rangers wanted Seager.

And oh by the way, getting Seager and Semien huge contracts from the same team only proves the point further.

[Elvir Ovcina]

There is no industry where 30 multi-billion dollar companies all bid for the same resource. None. Just stop.

Every team in major league baseball can afford Juan Soto. Every. Team. They are literally all getting an extra 60 million dollars a year from MLB streaming. There is no team in MLB that doesnt have the revenue to pay a big contract.

And you keep trying to make an arguement but there isn't one. The job of the agent is to get the client the best deal possible. The team picks who they want. Boras wasnt trying to sell Correra to the Rangers. The Rangers wanted Seager.

And oh by the way, getting Seager and Semien huge contracts from the same team only proves the point further.

Yes, I'm sure every team will make an offer to Soto and try to stay in the bidding, because any more than about 5 of them will think they have a chance.  Okay.  The theoretical ability of 30 entities to afford him doesn't mean that any more than a handful will be at all serious bidders.

And you've been involved in all the bidding processes I have.  Sorted through stacks of initial interest indications from literally dozens of entities.  Negotiated on behalf of numerous multi-billion dollar businesses.  Okay.   

Cool, I get it.  You know everything about everything, even when you clearly don't.  Have fun with that.

[Slateman]

Yes, I'm sure every team will make an offer to Soto, because any more than about 5 of them will think they have a chance.  Okay.  The theoretical ability of 30 entities to afford him doesn't mean that any more than a handful will be at all serious bidders.

And you've been involved in all the bidding processes I have.  Sorted through stacks of initial interest indications from literally dozens of entities.  Negotiated on behalf of numerous multi-billion dollar businesses.  Okay.   

Cool, I get it.  You know everything about everything, even when you clearly don't.  Have fun with that.

23rd media market team.currently paying out 60 million AAV to two players.

None of these teams are poor. Stop pretending like they are.

[Elvir Ovcina]

23rd media market team.currently paying out 60 million AAV to two players.

None of these teams are poor. Stop pretending like they are.

I'm not the one pretending they are.  It's the people who own them.  One counterexample does not disprove the rule.  It's not what they can do, it's what they do do.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Lol @ Slate thinking any MLB owner would be willing to deal with a net loss just to field a winning team.

I still remember the deep dive into club finances that came out around 2009, and the only owner willing to deal with a substantial loss was Mike Ilitch of Detroit, and that was because he was really old and wanted to see his team finally win a World Series before he died.

And he's also conflating media market size with a team's overall capacity to generate revenue (not the same thing, as proven by the Nats), but that's somehow not the most delusional part of his argument.

[nfotiu]

Where is Slate getting this 60 million in new streaming revenue per team?   The Apple deal was 85 million and Peacock was 30 million.   Where does the other 56.2 million per team come from?

[Slateman]

Where is Slate getting this 60 million in new streaming revenue per team?   The Apple deal was 85 million and Peacock was 30 million.   Where does the other 56.2 million per team come from?

https://dodgerblue.com/mlb-teams-receive-at-least-100-million-annually-from-tv-rights-contracts/2022/02/12/

MLB signed a deal with ESPN for 550 million a year. Every team gets 60 million.

This means that every team in baseball is bringing in at least 100 million a year without selling a ticket.

[Slateman]

Lol @ Slate thinking any MLB owner would be willing to deal with a net loss just to field a winning team.

I still remember the deep dive into club finances that came out around 2009, and the only owner willing to deal with a substantial loss was Mike Ilitch of Detroit, and that was because he was really old and wanted to see his team finally win a World Series before he died.

And he's also conflating media market size with a team's overall capacity to generate revenue (not the same thing, as proven by the Nats), but that's somehow not the most delusional part of his argument.

There are no teams running a deficit. None.

[nfotiu]

https://dodgerblue.com/mlb-teams-receive-at-least-100-million-annually-from-tv-rights-contracts/2022/02/12/

MLB signed a deal with ESPN for 550 million a year. Every team gets 60 million.

60 million each for all combined national TV and streaming deals?    Probably up from what 45-50 million in years past?   Padres local TV deal is 60 million a year.   So 120 million in all combined TV and media money.   Their gate receipts are estimated at 50 million per year range.   

Revenue from those sources is about 170 million, their payroll is $220 million.  Probably 250ish after benefits and CBT payments.    I'm sure there are plenty of other revenue sources, but also plenty of expenses too.    How can you be so sure they're not losing money?

[Slateman]

60 million each for all combined national TV and streaming deals?    Probably up from what 45-50 million in years past?   Padres local TV deal is 60 million a year.   So 120 million in all combined TV and media money.   Their gate receipts are estimated at 50 million per year range.   

Revenue from those sources is about 170 million, their payroll is $220 million.  Probably 250ish after benefits and CBT payments.    I'm sure there are plenty of other revenue sources, but also plenty of expenses too.    How can you be so sure they're not losing money?

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.

[Natsinpwc]

60 million each for all combined national TV and streaming deals?    Probably up from what 45-50 million in years past?   Padres local TV deal is 60 million a year.   So 120 million in all combined TV and media money.   Their gate receipts are estimated at 50 million per year range.   

Revenue from those sources is about 170 million, their payroll is $220 million.  Probably 250ish after benefits and CBT payments.    I'm sure there are plenty of other revenue sources, but also plenty of expenses too.    How can you be so sure they're not losing money?

Believe he means 60’million each team from just the ESPN deal.