Anyone an E!SPN Insider?

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I'd love to read the column by Scott Boras, but refuse to directly give E!SPN my money.

 

[steveringo]

I'd love to read the column by Scott Boras, but refuse to directly give E!SPN my money.

Somehow, his proposed changes will make him more money.... Unless he's going all Tom Cruise on us....


"You had me at 'Hello'!"

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Somehow, his proposed changes will make him more money.... Unless he's going all Tom Cruise on us....


"You had me at 'Hello'!"

Well, I figured they would, but I'm interested to see his take and his ideas.

 

[HammerDown]

I'd love to read the column by Scott Boras, but refuse to directly give E!SPN my money.

This. I did it for years and just can't keep giving them $$$. And their magazine is a rag anyway.

 

[donaldson79]

This. I did it for years and just can't keep giving them $$$. And their magazine is a rag anyway.

Must admit, I am an Insider subscriber. But I agree the mag is a rag! However, I do like reading some of their material online and this is why I'm doing what I'm doing.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Must admit, I am an Insider subscriber. But I agree the mag is a rag! However, I do like reading some of their material online and this is why I'm doing what I'm doing.

Could you cut and paste the article? I'd really like to read it.

That's what I was hoping someone would do here.

 

[moxie]

Even though I cancelled my subscription after the FB conversion, I somehow still have insider. Here you go:



Buster Olney is on vacation this week, so guest columnists are writing the lead of his column in his absence. So far, D-backs reliever Brad Ziegler wrote about MLBPA head Michael Weiner; Oakland reliever Sean Doolittle discussed what it's like to play for the A's; and ESPN NFL draft guru Mel Kiper Jr. discussed his love of baseball. Today, Scott Boras takes over.

In my 30-plus years representing players as a baseball attorney and observing the business of baseball, I’ve seen the game's revenues grow to record levels. Baseball is thriving and more popular than ever. But that’s not to say the business model is perfect.

In recent years, baseball has tinkered with free agency and the draft, and the result has had numerous unintended consequences. This has created headaches for players and front-office executives alike. Two major unintended consequences that need to be remedied involve the qualifying offer system and the fixed draft pool.

The qualifying offer system damages the integrity of free agency

The qualifying offer system for free agents is being skewed by the fixed pools of money in the new draft system. Each pick in the top 10 rounds is assigned a dollar value, and teams may not exceed the sum of their picks' values without being penalized. Because teams that sign top free agents lose both a draft pick and the "draft dollars" that come along with it, each "draft dollar" is worth far more than its face value, thanks to their artificial scarcity.

Suddenly, free agents who perform well enough to receive a qualifying offer find themselves in a diminished market with fewer bidders. Why? Scouting directors and GMs don’t want to see their draft budgets gutted. The acquisition of young, affordable, controllable talent is too important.

The proof is clear based on how the market worked last year.Kyle Lohse (one of my clients) turned in a 16-3 record and 2.86 ERA in 211 innings last season at age 33 and was less valued in the market than Ryan Dempster after his 12-8 record and 3.38 ERA at age 35. Dempster was traded midseason and had no draft compensation attached to him. Adam LaRoche (33 homers, 100 RBIs, .853 OPS at age 32) signed for two years and $24 million in the same market where Shane Victorino (.704 OPS at age 31) signed for three years and $39 million. Why? Because Victorino did not carry draft compensation. That undermines the merit-based nature of free agency.

So what is the resolution? I suggest that free agents age 31 or older who have received qualifying offers should not cost the signing club a draft pick or any draft dollars. Give the former team a new pick instead. Don't punish veteran players who have done nothing wrong except have an excellent walk year. The way it works now, LaRoche would have been better off performing like Victorino, and Lohse like Dempster, and lesser performance is not the sort of incentive anyone in baseball wants to create.

Let the draft reward savvy front offices

Along those same lines, baseball would be better served if each team's scouting staff was allowed to pursue the player of its dreams each year in the draft. Right now, the pool system is totally inflexible. Like any other inflexible system, it's creating illogical outcomes.


Last year, to take a notable example, the Pittsburgh Pirates selected Stanford's Mark Appel with the No. 8 overall pick, which had an assigned value of $2.9 million. They failed to come to terms with the right-hander, who was valued as a $6.2 million player in this year's draft. I certainly think this year's Pirates would have been happy to have Appel (also one of my clients) in their system, either to help the club directly or as a valuable trade piece.

What's more, draft talent comes in waves. It's not linear. There's no factory churning out exactly 30 first-round talents every year. With an inflexible system, in some years there will be more players worth sizable signing bonuses than there are clubs able to pay them. That's when we will get Appel-type situations. Other years, there won't be enough players.

So what's the resolution? I think each team's first pick in a season should not be subject to any signing limits. Look at it from the team perspective: One player is not going to break any team's budget, big market or small, and the flexibility to pursue one elite player of its choice will reward scouting and player development personnel who properly identify and value talent as it fluctuates from year to year. The remaining rounds could still be subject to the pool system, striking a balance between cost certainty and healthy competition.

Stop artificially punishing American players

Another unintended consequence of the current system is the windfall it gives any player not subject to its restrictions. For example, U.S. players and international players age 23 and lower are now subject to a salary cap, while other international players are not. There are also relatively few premium free agents on the market because clubs and players are frequently signing contract extensions years before free agency. That leaves teams with a lot of "hot money" from their revenue increases looking for someplace to go. We can see the result in the spike in contracts given to Cuban players.

In 2004, the Angels signed Cuban defector Kendrys Morales for a $4.5 million guarantee. Since then, the price for Cuban free agents has jumped dramatically, starting with Aroldis Chapman at $30.25 million and followed by Yoenis Cespedes ($36 million) and Yasiel Puig ($42 million). Teams have money to spend and understand the value of top amateur talent.

My question, though, is this: Why are great, young American talents such as Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper forced to face restrictions on their earnings when Cuban players do not? It's illogical and unfair. Kris Bryant, the top power hitter in this year’s draft, signed for $6.7 million. A top Cuban will now get six to seven times that amount.

Let's take action

If we enacted the two changes discussed above -- adjusting the effects of a qualifying offer for veteran free agents and giving teams one cap-free pick in the draft -- we would go a long way toward restoring the proper balance. But any market intervention is going to have unintended consequences, so we should remain vigilant and take corrective action as soon as any problems are identified.

The collective bargaining agreement does not expire until after the 2016 season. Counting the remainder of 2013, that's four seasons, an eternity in the relatively short timeline of a player's career. The same goes for front offices that are trying to win before owners and fans run out of patience. As stewards of the game, we owe it to everyone involved to repair systemic problems that were not intentionally introduced. The flaws in the system hurt everyone. We've got a lot of smart people in the game. Let's put our heads together and resolve them now.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Many thanks.

 

[cezero]

99% of the time, if Boras wants it, it's categorically bad for baseball.

 

[Chef99]

99% of the time, if Boras wants it, it's categorically bad for baseball.

I'm not sure how up to date this list is, but I think Mr. Boras would like some more Cuban clients. :rollseyes:

Scott Boras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[depraved]

I know he's saying all this for selfish reasons but he is right about Cuban players having an unfair market.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I've just never been a fan of the crap ESPN prints, and I'm to busy to be reading a lot of fiction and fiction pretty much describes those guys on ESPN

 

[Bannister19]

Ignore the fact that it's Scott Boras writing it. He has a few points.

Things such as making a limit-free first pick probably won't happen. It's because of those first picks that the limit was put in to begin with. Players, with agents like Boras, will go back to demanding crazy contracts and hurting smaller market teams who can't afford them. The current system is a little flawed as well though, for the reasons Boras outlined. The solution would be something in the middle: maybe not have it count towards the full draft cap, but still have a slot value assigned to it.

The real pressing issue is the qualifying offer system, and Boras nailed that one. It hurts older players to have a good season.

 

[moxie]

Many thanks.

You're welcome.

And apparently, they are still taking my money because I just got the new issue yesterday.

Sooo... if you (or anyone, for that matter) want to read any of their damn "IN" articles, let me know and I'll C&P away. Bastards.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

You're welcome.

And apparently, they are still taking my money because I just got the new issue yesterday.

Sooo... if you (or anyone, for that matter) want to read any of their damn "IN" articles, let me know and I'll C&P away. Bastards.

I'd also be tempted to read some of Jim Bowden's "articles" for comedic value. That guy is completely braindead, and all his posts are about nonsensical trades that will never happen.

 

[steveringo]

Ignore the fact that it's Scott Boras writing it. He has a few points.

Things such as making a limit-free first pick probably won't happen. It's because of those first picks that the limit was put in to begin with. Players, with agents like Boras, will go back to demanding crazy contracts and hurting smaller market teams who can't afford them. The current system is a little flawed as well though, for the reasons Boras outlined. The solution would be something in the middle: maybe not have it count towards the full draft cap, but still have a slot value assigned to it.

The real pressing issue is the qualifying offer system, and Boras nailed that one. It hurts older players to have a good season.

I agree. He is pointing ot the flaws that would benefit his players (and thus, his pockets), but they are flaws - even though they have good intent.

I have noticed a lot of the changes from Selig haven't been completely though out... At least he is willing to change (a la more instant replay next year).... maybe he'll tweak some of these new draft rules.

 

[steveringo]

I'd also be tempted to read some of Jim Bowden's "articles" for comedic value. That guy is completely braindead, and all his posts are about nonsensical trades that will never happen.

Isn't it odd who gets "Insider" status? The Boston Globe recently made San Shaughnessy's articles for-payers-only. I was actually glad becasue it stopped me from accidentally reading ono of that idiots stories (and, I let them know it)...

 

[DragonfromTO]

I agree. He is pointing ot the flaws that would benefit his players (and thus, his pockets), but they are flaws - even though they have good intent.

I have noticed a lot of the changes from Selig haven't been completely though out... At least he is willing to change (a la more instant replay next year).... maybe he'll tweak some of these new draft rules.

Instant replay isn't a change that affects the pocketbooks of his owner buddies though.

 

[beefman138]

Stop artificially punishing American players

Another unintended consequence of the current system is the windfall it gives any player not subject to its restrictions. For example, U.S. players and international players age 23 and lower are now subject to a salary cap, while other international players are not. There are also relatively few premium free agents on the market because clubs and players are frequently signing contract extensions years before free agency. That leaves teams with a lot of "hot money" from their revenue increases looking for someplace to go. We can see the result in the spike in contracts given to Cuban players.

In 2004, the Angels signed Cuban defector Kendrys Morales for a $4.5 million guarantee. Since then, the price for Cuban free agents has jumped dramatically, starting with Aroldis Chapman at $30.25 million and followed by Yoenis Cespedes ($36 million) and Yasiel Puig ($42 million). Teams have money to spend and understand the value of top amateur talent.

My question, though, is this: Why are great, young American talents such as Stephen Strasburg and Bryce Harper forced to face restrictions on their earnings when Cuban players do not? It's illogical and unfair. Kris Bryant, the top power hitter in this year’s draft, signed for $6.7 million. A top Cuban will now get six to seven times that amount.

To me, this reads as follows : "Nearly all of my clients are not Cuban. I want to get a large slice of their negotiation/sign-on fees as their Agent. Change the system so I can make more money."

Call me a cynic, but that's what I heard in my head while I was reading this.

Also, cheers to Moxie for letting us read it!

Beef