
From the Windup is Matt Snyder's extended look at some aspect of America's pastime each Thursday.
Among the general population of sports fans, Scott Boras is a very unpopular individual. He's referred to as greedy, a snake, and "Bor-ass" (what a clever way to use his name in a derogatory fashion, huh?), among other things. Teams threaten to never deal with him again. Fans claim he's ruining baseball and is everything wrong with professional sports. And on and on -- just check out the reader comments on this Jeff Fletcher piece.
You know what I call him? The best agent in the history of sports.
Now, I might not exactly be a fan of how Boras conducts his business in every case. That hardly matters, though. His job isn't to make baseball fans happy. His job is to best represent the interests of his clients, and he does that better than any other agent. The fans who whine about how much money he makes for his clients are jealous hypocrites.
Why jealous? There is money in baseball -- likely much more money than the fields in which we are all presently employed. I hear people complain about them making more than teachers, for example. My response is pretty simple: When tens of thousands of people pay to watch someone teach -- and hundreds of thousands of people tune in to watch that lesson on TV -- 162 times a year, the teachers can make as much money as baseball players. Until then, welcome to capitalism.
Why hypocrites? I love FanHouse, and I love working here. If someone else came around and offered me twice as much money, though, am I seriously gonna turn that down to "stay loyal?" I mean, obviously I'd ask my bosses to match the offer because I do feel some sense of loyalty. If they couldn't, though, I'd leave -- and they'd understand. The same goes for accountants, construction workers, bartenders, truck drivers, salesmen and pretty much any other job you can name. If you can make more money for a different company doing the exact same thing you do now, are you seriously not going to take it? Please.
Enter Scott Boras. When a baseball player becomes a free agent, Boras' job is to do what his client wants. In most cases, the client wants the most amount of money possible. Again, please stop complaining about greed and how it's ruining your life. All employees in America should fight to make as much money as they can to provide for themselves and/or their families. This is not a socialist society. What if you knew you were better at your job than someone making 15 percent more than you? Would you just stand idly by and let it happen -- "Oh well, that's life" -- or try to find ways to get a raise? In sports, this is what Boras does. He presents the market in a manner that garners the best possible deal for his clients.
Now, there are complaints about Boras' introductory figures, but those are always laughable and part of the negotiating process. A-Rod was never gonna get $500 million. Stephen Strasburg isn't going to get $50 million. Boras initially claimed it would take $100 million to sign Daisuke Matsuzaka -- after the posting fee -- and the Red Sox signed him for just over half of that. The asking price for Manny Ramirez this past offseason came down severely. These guys all -- except Strasburg -- eventually signed for much less than Boras' initial asking price. It's the simple art of negotiation. You don't go into your boss and ask for a 3 percent raise after 10 years on the job without a raise, because he or she will just say, "OK, sounds good," and go on with their day. You shoot high and end up meeting in the middle. It's only common sense.
Another complaint about Boras is the implication that he's self-serving and only trying to make himself more money. First of all, God forbid anyone try to make himself money. He should be doing pro bono work, right? Watching all this money he's making his clients and just pushing it away. He should just do it for the love of being an agent. Again, please, how hypocritical. If you made Mark Teixeira $50 million more than any other agent could have, would you not want a piece of that? Secondly, he does what his clients -- who are, by the way, adults fully capable of expressing their desires -- want him to do. He works for them and they can fire him at any moment.
Joe Oliver, for example, fired Boras after his salary severely dwindled in a span of three years. That's his right and it's the right of every client when it comes to their agent. Boras obviously failed Oliver due to his falling salary at a time when his play wasn't drastically tailing off. It's a rare black mark on the otherwise lofty Boras resume. Could I offer up the thought that maybe he wasn't paying enough attention to Oliver in lieu of other, more lucrative, clients? If so, can you blame him? Donald Trump doesn't dabble in low-income housing. Large insurance companies don't waste their time with clients who don't make them money. This is business, not charity, and time is money. On the flip side, Boras doesn't manipulate his clients for personal gain, because he works for them.
Robb Nen was offered a contract extension to stay with the San Francisco Giants in 2001. He took it. His agent was Boras. Nen was a 31-year-old closer just coming off a league-leading 45-save season. He could have easily jacked up his price on the open market, and -- being the good agent he was -- you know Boras told him this. Still, he wanted to remain in San Francisco, and Boras didn't stand in his way. Greg Maddux could have made a lot more money in his career had he accepted a move to the American League or expanded his list of acceptable teams. The Yankees offered Maddux much more money than the Braves in 1992 following a Cy Young-winning season, for example. Maddux always weighed his options and did what he wanted, while Boras never blinked.
"Greg, above all, wanted to win," said Boras. "The Braves offered him the most substantial degree of assurity of taking the World Series."In the end, he works for his clients and does what they want.
Thus, let us not sit here and act like Boras is manipulating innocent children. His clients sign with him for a reason and they have a plethora of other options. They sign with Boras because they want the best agent who will get them the best deal possible. For some people (Nen and Maddux), that might mean accepting less money to play where they want. For others (pretty much everyone else), they just want more money. Unless you've ever turned down a massive amount of money to do the same job for a different company, you aren't in a position to judge, lest you be a hypocrite when presented with the option for more money down the road.
The threats of teams to never deal with Boras again are always empty ones. Everyone talks to him. His clients represent many of the best players in the league. If anyone wants to cut themselves off of access to a good chunk of the best talent, they won't be able to field the most competitive on-field product. Having all 30 teams decide to do so will never, ever happen. The Scott Boras Corporation will continue to thrive due to his unparalled skill in the field.
Some call Boras a snake, but I call him great at his job. I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree, but I'll tell you one thing: It's much more problematic to our society that people would rather sit around whining about a hard-working, successful person than trying to be better at their own jobs.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-11-2009 @ 1:16PM
Moonshine Mike said...
Very true. I quit a job to go someone that pays double the salary, and I am a happy man. Same should be for athletes.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 2:03PM
waterdog said...
Sorry but you miss the point: Even when multi-millions are concerned, ethics and honor can still rule the day.Boras has clearly shown that he has none. It's the mentality that the greedy grabbing of the almighty dollar is the end that justifies unethical dishonest and underhanded behavior that has put this country in the mess it is in - over and above MLB.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 2:34PM
Wade said...
Agree with everything you wrote, but I think you left one thing out. One thing I don't like Boras (and pretty much all agents) is their relationship with high school/college kids well before the draft, ie Bryce Harper.
However, that's more of an MLB/NCAA (?) problem and not limited to Boras.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 3:07PM
Odie said...
Well written article.
It is easy to understand why fans detest Boras, right or wrong, which I don't think there is one. It is simply because the everyday fan that can barely afford a ticket to the ballpark just can't comprehend the amounts of money these athletes are paid. Many "diehard" fans stick by there team through the best and worst, you Mr. Snyder can understand this. Many of these same fans want to believe that their favorite player cares about the name on the front of his uniform as much as they do, the sensible ones know this is rarely true.
I can't blame a fan though for not understanding why a player needs an extra $2 million a season to play somewhere else when they are already receiving $12 million, why should we? To the common fan this is absurd, and when you hear these same athletes talking about feeding their families and nonsense like that, it only becomes more absurd to the fan. Yes, 99% of us would turn into hypocrites if we ever were placed in the shoes of the athletes getting paid, but we won't ever be there so we can easily lie and say we would never hold out for that extra million that we don't need.
Boras is very good at his job, but his profession is one that being good at your job often makes you a target for dislike. When your job is to get more money for mostly self-indulgent millionaires, you generally don't garner a lot of respect from the public. In fact most people will think you are an ass-bag, and that is o.k. too. So what, you think he cares? If he does, he can just go buy another home on a tropical island, and I'm sure he will feel all better.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 3:24PM
Matt Snyder said...
My only response to this, Odie, would be that baseball already has the money. Owners wouldn't pay players what they could not afford. There's a reason they are rich enough to afford a major league team.
For people in the mindset you described above, I'd like to ask them if they'd rather billionaire owners keep that or if the players physically playing the game deserve that money.
Everyday worker example: If a factory worker could bleed the owner of the factory for a higher yearly salary, why wouldn't he?
Obviously, the owner is going to make the most money. It is the prerogative of the owner and it's why people own businesses ... so they can make the most money.
But for fans to take out anger on the players -- and, in turn, the agents -- for wanting a bigger piece of the pie when the money is already in the league is misplaced. That's where the players' extra 2 million dollars comes into play. It's available and if they don't get it an owner pockets it.
In fact, the everyday worker you describe should want the players to make more...if they thought it through.
Anyway, thanks for the compliment and the well thought out comment.
6-11-2009 @ 4:09PM
Odie said...
I don't disagree with any of that. Most fans will say that the only thing worse than the athlete crying for more money, would be the owners that pocket the money rather than spending it to put a better product on the field.
Once again though, it is a business, and as an owner, your ultimate goal is to turn a profit, even if we as the fan want the ultimate goal to be a championship. So if the money rolls in without having to upgrade the product on the field, why should an owner bother changing things? Oh, the detriment of being a fan.
The least of my worries as a fan is where the owner of my favorite ball club, is going to get the money to pay the players. I'd grab him by the ankles and shake him upside down to empty the pennies out of his pocket if it meant paying a star free agent to sign or star player what he wants to stick around.
Good points, it is a topic that will never go away so long as there is such a disparity in salaries between athletes and, well, just about everyone else.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 4:11PM
Matt Snyder said...
True ...
As to your last sentence, don't ignore movie stars and musicians. For some reason we don't hear near as many complaints about them as athletes. I never understood why the entertainers got more of a free pass.
6-11-2009 @ 4:45PM
ddward6 said...
This is all very true. I would also like to point out to you. A time will come when the fans will not be able to fill the stadium because ticket prices have gone too far. Which is happening small scale now. This will eventually correct the issue. With people all around sounding off on the amount of money the ceo of the world were making and the bonuses that were being handed out. The working class is showing its muscle. With out the good ole working american consumer or fan mr ceo and mr baseball are likely to have to get used to a less money.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 5:48PM
tom said...
Yeah he's good at his job, but why should I care. Am I supposed to ignore the fact that he seems to be a terrible person? It is possible to be a good agent and a despicable human being and I don't gave a damn if he's a good agent he isn't representing me, so I'll hate him.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 5:48PM
tom said...
Also if players shouldn't have any attachment to a team why do old players like Glavine whine when their teams release them. If they don't stick around for less money, the teams shouldn't let these players who have lost their skills play the game anymore.
Reply
6-11-2009 @ 6:07PM
Matt Snyder said...
Because he's bitter he got cut. The Braves had every right to do that.
6-12-2009 @ 3:01PM
Geezer said...
I don't think it's as much the players getting attached to their teams as it is the teams' fans getting attached to the players. That's why star players are almost always branded as turncoats and scum when they leave to play elsewhere.
6-12-2009 @ 10:28AM
nedfarn25 said...
we are a socialist country-just look at what nobama is doing
Reply
6-12-2009 @ 2:04PM
jzz3skys said...
It makes one wonder how an agent as astute as Boras could have so badly misread the free agent market for A-Rod. Or was there some kind of unspoken agreement among owners, short of collusion, that we don't know about?
It seems to me that Hank Steinbrenner manipulated the fan disapprobation for both agent and player "greed" so perfectly that A-Rod had to disasssociate himself from Boras, at least temporarily, in order to get back in the fans' good graces. It reminds me of the way Selig is manipulating the fans' distaste for "cheaters" in general and certain less-than-personable old superstars like Bonds and Clemens in particular, in order to let the fans's disapproval sort everything out.
In the Steinbrenner v. A-Rod and other case like it, I totally agree. I'll always side with the player against the owner, however, Boras's relationship to the baseball owners seems more like a *parasitic symbiosis* than something worth waving the flag for. Furthermore, it's silly to try and paint Boras, Steinbrenner, and A-Rod as just trying to put food on the table and provide for their families. That would be us.
As you know, MLB gets an antitrust exemption, tax subsidies, and as Fanhouse reported last fall, the taxpayer dollars of all New Yorkers, courtesy of certain members of congress, if I remember correctly, were used to build the new stadium in NYC, so we pay even if we don't go. If you do go you pay more and if you could barely afford it before, now you can't. It wasn't always like that.
I don't know what the answer is, but it's not always about money. Personally, I think you bloggers are writing more intelligent sports commentary than the "professional" writers who blog here (and apologies if you are a professional writer because like many of the Fanhouse cats, you certainly know your sports, more than I do.
I'm just as American as anybody and like a lot of people, I played some form of organized baseball and football well into high school, so sports are a part of the culture for everyone.
To me, Scott Boras is no kind of capitalist folk hero and I hate to see "socialism" used as a bogey just as we're trying to pass healthcare coverage passed in this country. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States.
Anyway, thanks for the good article, I don't mean to sound hypercritical.
Reply