|2016-09-08 19:00:00 (link to chat)||Do you think Mookie deserves to get more money then his original contract of only 566,000 because of how well he's played this year ? |
(Tink22 from Rhode Island )
|What's up Tink? I think now is the time to explore a long-term extension with Betts where they buy out his remaining arbitration years. Unlike Xander Bogaerts, he's not a Scott Boras client, so I think there is an opportunity here. The Red Sox have the financial flexibility long-term to get it done and if they were smart, it happens this offseason. (George Bissell)|
|2016-05-11 13:00:00 (link to chat)||Why did a Scott Boras client leave so much money on the table? |
(Lyin Ted from Texas)
|I spent about three and a half hours with Boras for an ESPN piece this winter. It was an odd conversation, because I went there to try to convince him that the sport has grown cynical and teams can't be trusted with players anymore, and he was the idealist arguing that in fact teams do do right by their players, usually. The point he kept repeating was that a team that treats its players right, and that doesn't harm their careers for the sake of the team or the bottom line, will be rewarded by players who want to play for them. He pointed to the Strasburg/2012 playoffs situation, and then to Max Scherzer signing with them, and drew a dotted line between those... suggesting that they're not unrelated. I'm sure he would say the same about the Strasburg extension, only maybe with a solid line, not dotted.
Long answer short: Strasburg still got life-changing money, he knows how much risk he was willing to bear, he envisioned this contract and it made him happy, and oh by the way sometimes "money left on the table" extensions turn into Jered Weaver. (Sam Miller)
|2015-06-30 19:00:00 (link to chat)||Thoughts on a worldwide draft?
Seems to make too much sense to a casual fan.
Though I'm not sure of its impact on academies, DSL, etc.
(Budd from Brooding in the corner)
|It seems like a great idea but there are a lot of hurdles to clear as you kind of allude to in your question. You'd have to get agents on board with the process, and I'm certain the savvier agents like Scott Boras would fight this tooth and nail. It could happen eventually, but I'm skeptical it ever will. (Mike Gianella)|
|2014-08-06 16:30:00 (link to chat)||Are you guys signed to BP?|
(Tim from Washington)
|Still holding out for our above slot demands. Might go to JuCo. Scott Boras is busy so we found a Russian dude at the train station named Boris and he'll be our agent from now on. (Cespedes Family BBQ)|
|2013-01-29 14:00:00 (link to chat)||Thanks for coming back to chat Daniel. While guys such as Bourn and Lohse are stuck in "free-agent purgatory"; do you know if MLB is looking at their situation and thinking about changing the draft-pick compensation rules for players?|
(BobcatBaseball from Athens, OH)
|I do think that both the league and the union are paying close attention to the situation (especially with the Mets' draft-pick story), but I doubt that either of them will be rescued in any way (besides choosing to wait until after the draft to sign). I also would not count out the possibility of Scott Boras finding a lucrative deal for both of them during the coming weeks.
More likely, if Bourn and Lohse are unable to secure long-term contracts, I think you'll see agents reevaluate their players' markets with a greater weight placed on the draft pick that it would cost to sign them. It will be interesting to see how this affects decisions regarding qualifying offers next year. (Daniel Rathman)
|2012-05-29 15:00:00 (link to chat)||Scott Boras had thrown the idea out there that the amateur draft signing bonus pools should have been done for a five year period instead of a one year period to allow for team flexibility. What are your thoughts on this and why do you think MLB and MLBPA didn't go this route?|
(kenny285 from Brooklyn, NY)
|I'd say that Boras was thinking abou this somewhat selfishly, which makes sense. In a 5-year period, it would allow clubs to spend far over slot for a given year, and then they'd have to pull back. In fairness to Boras, you could easily make a case that not all draft years provide the same level of talent, and therefore, spending more in a given year based upon availability makes sense.
But, I'll get back to why I think this really didn't come about and that's to keep clubs in a position of control somewhat over agents and players in signings. You open up the pool to more than a year, you open up agents backing clubs into corners on how they sign. If the Luxury Tax on total player payroll was really about the Yankees, the pools and tax on draft bonuses was done to control agents, and maybe just Boras. (Maury Brown)
|2012-02-20 13:00:00 (link to chat)||Give me 1 good reason why Marvin Miller and Scott Boras aren't in the Hall Of Fame?|
(Keith from Arizona)
|There are exactly zero good reasons why Miller isn't in the Hall. Pettiness over the fact that you or your daddy was on the wrong side of the battle - which seems to be the case among the group of owner/execs on the VC panels that have voted him down - isn't a good reason. As for Boras, it will probably be a cold day in hell before anyone votes an agent into the Hall, but at the very least, we should wait until he retires in order to get a fuller perspective on his career. (Jay Jaffe)|