Bucs Dugout: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Post-UNC Thoughts

Breaking Down the Pedro Alvarez Situation

 

2648248131_3ab545d38e_b_medium

Who is Julio Borbon, and should he be really angry with Scott 
Boras right now? (Photo: Rich Anderson)

If Dejan Kovacevic got all the details right, he should be really proud of this story, which is very interesting and clear despite the situation being really complex and without precedent, and despite the story only having broken hours ago. Still, there are a couple details that need to be teased out.

Basically, Kovacevic makes it sound like the players' association will file a grievance. That grievance will be argued before an arbitrator on September 10. If the arbitrator decides in favor of Major League Baseball (which is accused of "unilaterally" deciding to extend the draft signing deadline past midnight), I take it that the Pirates' contract with Alvarez will be binding. If the arbitrator decides in favor of the players' association, then I assume there would have to be some separate process to determine whether the Pirates and Alvarez actually failed to agree to the contract before midnight (since that point still seems to be in dispute), although Kovacevic does not say what this process would be. 

If, by whatever process, it were determined that Alvarez didn't sign until after midnight, then Kovacevic reports that three things could happen:

1) Boras could be allowed to re-negotiate the contract.

2) The contract could be voided and Alvarez could be allowed to re-enter the draft.

3) The contract could stand and the commissioner's office could be prevented from allowing teams to negotiate past midnight.

Possibility 1 would obviously be Boras' first choice, but it seems highly unlikely that would happen, since it's so weirdly arbitrary. If the issue is that Alvarez did not agree to the contract until a few minutes after the deadline, why would the proper remedy be to allow Boras and the Pirates to negotiate a month after the deadline? Wouldn't the proper remedy be to either just scrap the contract entirely or to let it stand?

I can't imagine that anyone--not the Pirates, not Alvarez and probably not even Boras--wants option number two. Alvarez would re-enter the draft next year as a college senior (if he's even allowed to go back and play for Vanderbilt, which I doubt) and have less leverage than he has now. And if Kansas City Royals top pick and Boras client Eric Hosmer did, in fact, agree to a contract after the deadline, as Baseball America reported, then Boras could be getting himself in big trouble by allowing option number two to occur. (The Royals, incidentally, say Hosmer was signed by the deadline.) Hosmer, like Alvarez, got $6 million, and I have seen no indication he is unhappy with that. Hosmer would presumably be incensed with Boras if Boras got his contract voided for no other reason than to wrangle a few more dollars for another client.

Kovacevic reports that another Boras client, Rangers minor leaguer Julio Borbon (mistakenly named "Pedro Borbon" in the article) received an extension in last year's draft. Would that contract have to be voided as well, and all the bonus money returned? I don't think Borbon, who hasn't been terribly exciting this year, would appreciate that very much. Basically, he's a 22-year-old outfield prospect in Class AA who has no plate discipline and no power but is really fast. Next year, he'd be 23 if he re-entered the draft. Think anyone would pony up a big league contract for him? It's possible, but if I were him I might worry about it. The funny thing is that Major League Baseball will argue that the players' union has no grounds to argue about minor league contracts, and the Alvarez and Hosmer contracts were minor league contracts. Borbon's is actually a four-year major league contract. So Boras is opening quite a can of worms here. He didn't have any problem with Borbon's contract, and that's the one that would seem to be most problematic at this point. If you were Julio Borbon, how would you feel about your choice of agents right now?

(UPDATE: A number of people, here and elsewhere, have disagreed with my assessment of Borbon's abilities, which may disprove my overall point about his contract. I wouldn't pick the guy in the first round, but perhaps I'm in the minority there. Frankly, though, he strikes as a version of Chris Duffy --a better prospect than Duffy was, certainly, but the same type of player, and to me he's doing things to succeed in the minors that won't work in the majors, where players can do things like field and throw baserunners out and locate their pitches. Rare is the player who succeeds as a hitter in the majors these days without either plate discipline or power. You don't need both, and at Borbon's age the power doesn't have to be home run power, but having at least one of those abilities helps, and Borbon doesn't have either. Without that, I think there's very little upside there, because his foot speed isn't likely to increase as he gets older and major league defenders are going to be a lot better than minor leaguers at keeping up with him. People still fall in love with these sorts of players all the time, mostly, I think, because they ignore the issue of walks. Borbon, for example, has been compared to Johnny Damon and Kenny Lofton. To me, that's apples and oranges, because both Damon and Lofton drew enough walks in the minors that it appeared they'd be able sustain OBPs high enough to make them productive leadoff hitters. I don't know--maybe the yeasayers will turn out to be right, but I'm not buying what Borbon is selling at all. Again, it appears that I'm in the minority... but, if Borbon had to give back his bonus and wait nine months for the next draft, I can't imagine he'd be too happy about that. That's unlikely, but based on what's been reported so far, I don't know why it would be impossible.)

I think, then, that option number three--in which the contracts stand--is most likely, if the situation even gets to that point, which I'm not sure it will. All of which means that Boras has engineered a lengthy process that isn't likely to net Alvarez another dime, and in the meantime will delay the start of Alvarez's professional career by several months, likely prevent him from getting to the majors next season, and anger the Pirates' entire fanbase. All of which suggests to me that Scott Boras is a jerk, and Pedro Alvarez, Eric Hosmer and Julio Borbon need to get new agents.

Again, you lawyers in the house, correct me if I've made any mistakes.

0 recs  |  Comment 54 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I'm not a lawyer.

But I think it is important to point out that KC was granted an extension for Hosmer; however, according to DK the players union was consulted before the extension and approved the extension. Thus I don’t see Hosmer’s contract being voided by all this stuff. I definitely hate Boras now. Alvarez and his family sound like idiots for going along with this too. He will cost himself money by going into the draft next year. He has a $6 million dollar contract with Pittsburgh if he wants it. $6 million dollars. That is so much money for normal human beings (not Boras, who probably craps in a gold-plated toilet). I don’t see why a person would jeopardize a basically guaranteed $6 million dollars like this. BTW, if you haven’t already looked at this, it is funny:

www.thebrushback.com/scottboras_full.htm

by houksyndrome on Aug 28, 2008 1:52 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

But I think it is important to point out that KC was granted an extension for Hosmer; however, according to DK the players union was consulted before the extension and approved the extension.

Where does DK say this?

by Charlie on Aug 28, 2008 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, it looks like he reported this, then took it down once WTM contested it. I couldn’t find it in the BA article, either.

by Charlie on Aug 28, 2008 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

DK says later in the thread that he misread BA.

by Charlie on Aug 28, 2008 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Hosmer's extension was also not union approved then I feel that can only help our position.

If other teams consulted the union about the extension and we did not, then it could be construed as negligence on our part. Whereas if we were basically doing the exact same procedure as the other teams then I don’t think we could be singled out.

by houksyndrome on Aug 28, 2008 2:20 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Julio Borbon

.328/.369/.451 as a gold glove-calibur centerfielder.

The reason the majority of his teammates also hit really well is because they’re either minor league veterans (Majeweski), guys on hot-streaks (Whittleman, maybe) or good-great prospects themselves (Tracy, Vallejo and Elvis Andrus)

Are you saying a 23 year-old gold-glove caliber centerfielder who could be in the ML by next July would not go in the 1st round?

by FirebatM3 on Aug 28, 2008 2:52 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Maybe not the first round

but probably the 2nd/3rd round at worst.

I say late 1st if his D is truly GG caliber and he has no injuries

I see the future. I see cake.

by Blicks on Aug 28, 2008 7:05 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You’re right about the park factor. It’s not nearly as crazy as I thought.

That .328/.369/.451 doesn’t include a thoroughly unimpressive half-season in the California League.

I just don’t think Borbon is going to hit. But I agree that it’s more debatable than I made it sound.

by Charlie on Aug 28, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I know it’s not a typical Cal League park. It still wasn’t an impressive performance.

by Charlie on Aug 30, 2008 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Really makes you wonder...

why ANYONE would pick Scott Boras as their agent. Unless you wanted to screw up the beginning of your MLB career,of course…

by rissaldar on Aug 28, 2008 8:23 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

$$$$$$$$

I mean, isn’t that obvious? He has a pretty good track record of getting the money for his clients.

by IAPiratesFan on Aug 28, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

FWIW...

And since you asked for lawyer’s to chime in…

It is my understanding that the Union’s argument is that the Clubs benefitted from an improper extension of the deadline, which I think is a great argument if the deadline was in fact unilaterally extended. Further, as the Union, I would argue that all post-midnight contracts should be voided. I would expect Boras (who apparently doesn’t have a seat at the table but appears to have the Union’s ear – if not something else), to argue that because the deadline created false leverage, ALL deals should be voided with the only deadline now in effect being the start of next year’s draft.

Boras’ presumed argument & proposed remedy above is intellectually fair, but not practical and thus likely to be rejected. However, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a compromised ruling from the arbitrator wherein the deadline cannot be extended in future years but all post-midnight deals this year are voided with a new deadline set. The next step – which could be greuling – would be separate findings of fact to determine which deals took place after midnight.

I think this whole thing is terribly interesting and it is great to have Coonelly on our side. His statement yesterday was beautiful on so many levels.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Aug 28, 2008 8:25 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Option 3

If Option 3 happens, then Boras will get what he ultimately wants. Pedro Alvarez will get what he probably wants, which is his current agreement. The Pirates will eventually get what they want, which is Alvarez playing in the Fall. The only loser would be MLB which loses it’s deadline that it likes so much.

If this is Boras’ ultimate goal, then it’s actually a smart move even though we hate it. He could only pull this stunt with Alvarez, assuming it’s true that an extension for Hosmer was granted.

by EStreet on Aug 28, 2008 8:27 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

sorry

Don’t know how I did a double post. Is there a way to remove these?

by EStreet on Aug 28, 2008 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Option 3

If Option 3 happens, then Boras will get what he ultimately wants. Pedro Alvarez will get what he probably wants, which is his current agreement. The Pirates will eventually get what they want, which is Alvarez playing in the Fall. The only loser would be MLB which loses it’s deadline that it likes so much.

If this is Boras’ ultimate goal, then it’s actually a smart move even though we hate it. He could only pull this stunt with Alvarez, assuming it’s true that an extension for Hosmer was granted.

by EStreet on Aug 28, 2008 8:48 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I would be very surprised...

if the arbitrator ruled in favor of Boras considering the vast experience Coonely had at the Commisioner’s Office. As I recall, this is the sort of stuff Coonely was so good at that prompted the various teams to think so highly of him. Besides, if the salary process is any indicator then the arbitrator has only two choices: either rule in favor of MLB or the Player’s Association. I don’t think he is allowed to exhibit the wisdom of Solomon and arrive at some unexpected conclusion such as cutting Alvarez in half.

If all of my assumptions prove to be true then I fully expect him to rule in our favor and finally begin disclosing the chinks in Boras’ armor. There is one other potential benefit that could be achieved and that is the possibility that some of the teams might finally reach the conclusion that it’s best to avoid negotiations with clients of Boras—but I wouldn’t expect them to be that smart…they’re just as greedy as Boras. Just remember one thing when dealing with Boras: if you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Aug 28, 2008 9:55 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I think the Bucs will ultimately "win" here,

but if they don’t, I can’t help but think Boras’ end goal is to make Pedro a free Agent.

Charlie, your option 2 suggests if the contract is voided Pedro would re enter the draft. But later you correctly note that the NCAA probably wouldn’t let him play his senior year. So will he sit out a year?

If the player’s association and Boars “win”—in the sense that they get the contract voided—I have to believe they will push to make Pedro a free agent THIS YEAR. As much as I hate Boras, I refuse to believe he is doing all this to save his reputation after failing to squeeze the Bucs out of all their money. He has a goal, and judging by his past, free agency for Pedro may be that goal.

by DITO on Aug 28, 2008 10:53 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Pedro's options

He could sit out for a year (maybe paying his own way to finish classes at school, for example), or he could sign with a team that isn’t affiliated with the majors: Atlantic League, American Association, etc. Or he could sign with a foreign league that doesn’t have a transfer agreement with MLB, such as Korea or Taiwan (though NOT Japan, and possibly not Mexico).

Of course, he’d need to wait for a resolution of some kind before signing with any of those leagues, as signing while he’s still on a ML team’s reserve list could get him a lifetime ban from MLB for contract jumping. It hasn’t been done in a while (the last cases were some players who went to Mexico in the ‘50s), but there’s ample precedent, and while he could apply for reinstatement after the fact, it’d certainly be a complicating factor.

Since he’s rehabbing the wrist, he might not want to play anywhere, anyway. Hamate injuries temporarily decrease power, and if he went to the Atlantic League and got the bat knocked out of his hands, it might damage his draft position in ’09.

by Vlad on Aug 28, 2008 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Makes sense

but what I am saying is that I think Boras might see some loophole where he thinks he has, or that he can create, another option: discredit the way the contract was accepted and declare Pedro a free agent right now.

by DITO on Aug 28, 2008 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nope

The pirates own his right don’t they or at least until the end of August 15th. and then If Boras were to win. Alvarez would have to go back to getting re-drafted in 2009 imo. Any player drafted and not signed has to re-enter the draft in 2009. It happened with J.D. Drew didn’t it? why should Alvarez be any different?

1. So I think Boras is barking up the wrong tree. If it was past the midnite signing, he would have to put Alvarez back into the pool for next year. Alvarez could go back to school but not play college ball because at this point he has hired Boras as his agent and not advisor.
2. Free agency imo means you have had several years or more of MLB experience to declare for it? Otherwise, why have a draft at all? If any player could wait past midnite of august 15th and declare for it.

Here’s to hoping this resolves itself soon.

by lfhlaw on Aug 28, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

But with players who weren't tendered and offer w/in 15 days (years back)

Boras got them free agency. I am not saying it’s going to happen, just that he is a tricky guy and very well might see an opportunity that none of us can.

by DITO on Aug 28, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Eligible, but undrafted players are free agents

so in the case I am talking about, Boras may somehow try to get Alvarez granted that right.

He got some high school junior a GED a while ago, filed with the MLB to make him eligible, didn’t tell any teams, and then the kid was a free agent after the draft.

He may have planned this all along…holding out until after midnight, that is, in order to fight it and try to pursue free agency.

by DITO on Aug 28, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view Dito

Unless Boras really screwed up he must have had something like possible free agency in mind, otherwise there is not much sense to all of this.

I kind of hope it was just a Boras’ mistake at this point. I think I would like to see the contract voided with Alvarez unable to play and forced to wait until next year’s draft. I don’t really want him to be a Pirate very much any more.

by WestCoastBuc on Aug 28, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

MLB's argument

Seems like there is a hole in MLB’s argument that the union lacks standing to challenge the Alvarez signing because it was a minor league contract. The midnight deadline is part of the bargaining agreement between MLB and the union. The vast majority of the contracts with draftees are minor league contracts. If MLB were allowed to unilaterally extend the deadline on a contract, or bunch of contracts,without union approval, that would make the bargaining agreement pretty meaningless.

The union says it is filing a blanket protest, not challenging the signing of any particualr player. Of course, they will have to show that at least one player was signed after midnight and Alvarez is likely to be one of the cases used.

If the arbiter finds that MLB did violate the CBA, then the dispute on the Alvarez signing shifts to whether it was done by midnight, and if not, what is the proper remedy, as Charlie has explained so well.

Before judging Alvarez too harshly, consider this. Suppose Boras told him about the union’s protest and that his case was going to be on those used. Hold tight, he says. Alavarez isn’t going to suit up for the Pirates before next spring anyway, so he agrees. Unfortunately the chance that Alvarez will get anything more than he already has from the resolution of this mess is extremely remote, and there is some chance at least that he will end up worse off.

by rogero on Aug 28, 2008 11:10 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Pedro

How can Pedro be represented by the union if doesn’t have a valid contract and is therefore not a member of the union? If he is allowed to be represented by the union then it follows that he is a member of the union and has indeed a valid contract. I rest my case.

by BigJim71 on Aug 28, 2008 11:29 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

i think

that the Union must represent the players drafted in the amateur baseball draft. Players must have some kind of protection from being shafted by Baseball teams in general. Plus it is the MLB and Player’s union that agreed to the Aug 15th deadline to sign draft picks. So it is in the union contract, and so must cover the drafted players as soon as they’re drafted. Otherwise the aug 15th deadline would be a unilateral date set by MLB and I don’t think that’s possible.

by lfhlaw on Aug 28, 2008 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Union...

…is alleging a violation of the CBA they negotiated with MLB, which includes a hard deadline for the signing of drafted players. The interests of any individual player don’t come into it.

by Vlad on Aug 28, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vlad

If it is determined that MLB violated the “hard deadline” and Alvarez has no valid contract with the team, wouldn`t such a decision invalidate Hosmer`s contract as well?

by patthatt on Aug 28, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Presumably.

Would’ve killed Crow’s deal, too, if he’d been able to make one.

by Vlad on Aug 28, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly, Vlad. The union does not represent the amateur players. They don’t have to tell why they want to enforce it in this instance, but the owners won’t contest that because they’re the ones who wanted the deadline in the first place.

Boras’s goal here is to show collusion between MLB and the Pirates, with Coonelly as the essential link, that resulted in a denial of Alvarez’s right to a fair negotiation. I don’t know what the timestamps will eventually show, but if Coonelly allowed this thing to turn into an informal extension with Boras, then Coonelly messed up big-time.

by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 28, 2008 12:42 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm not a lawyer

But it’s my understanding that the granting of brief extensions upon request has been common industry practice for a while now, not limited to just the Pirates. As such, it’d be hard to allege collusion based around Coonelly, if other teams that don’t employ Coonelly have been doing it too (unless they can dig up examples of people requesting extensions and being denied, which would at least establish an arbitrary standard).

by Vlad on Aug 28, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If it’s used to help some but not others, that can actually be evidence of collusion. If there’s any hint in the files that the Pirates figured all along that they could rescue the deal at 12:05, then Alvarez is going to go free.

by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 28, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If it's awarded selectively, that's maybe evidence of collusion.

If it’s given every time it’s requested, which seems to be the case here, then it’s really not.

by Vlad on Aug 28, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes.

The Pirates have been colluding with the league for something along the lines of 16 years….

And the Cubs for 100.

Actually its an implication I didn’t really think about.

by poorboywilly on Aug 28, 2008 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

But therein lies the rub

It is “Alvarez’s right to a fair negotiation” that I believe creates the Union’s standing problem. As best I can tell, MLB’s position is that the Union has no more “standing” to argue this point that they have to complain about how long Bud Selig gives his secretary for lunch. Bud maybe violating his secretary’s rights under FLSA, but how is it that the Union can complain to a NLRB arbitrator (and the arbitrator can rule) about this alleged violation of the secretary’s rights?

The Union’s has to find some way that it is injured by this allleged violation. The fact that the midnight 8/15 deadline is apparently part of the collective bargaining agreement is fundamental for the Union, but may not be enough. Not every violation of every clause in the collective bargaining agreement can give rise to NLRB jurisdiction — the union has to show that the violation creates some kind of injury to itself and its members (which does not include Alvarez).

This seems like a close call to me. The union may claim some kind of indirect injury — if the player, his agent, the team and the MLB can agree to waive the midnight deadline (which they apparently did here), MLB will argue that everyone who’s consent is required has given consent. The union has to claim that an extension to the deadline somehow indiirectly undermines the entire free agency concept which the Andy Messersmith decision created.

I am far from convinced they can sell this — virtually every MLB player waives free agency after his 6th year by a contract with a team (though I believe the ARod almost-contract w/ Boston a few years ago shows that the Union has some kind of approval rights on these contracts). So why can’t the drafted player agree to waive the midnight deadline? (To show standing, the union would have to agree that the waiver was consensual — again they can’t take on cooercion or duress claims of someone they don’t represent, like Bud’s secretary — and have to argue that even a totally consensual waiver is invalid without the Union’s approval.)

I would like to see whatever MLB was talking about in it’s y’day statement when it said the issue of standing was “well settled law.” When attorneys say that, it’s usually either completely true, or a gross overstatement. I think it might be the later, not the former in this case. So I’m really pretty close to the position of Mr. Rothstein (loved your work with the 1919 Black Sox, btw).

by WstCstBucco on Aug 28, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The union is not taking this to court, they’re just following the arbitration procedures that are set up in the CBA. If MLB didn’t want the deadline to be the union’s business, MLB shouldn’t have put it in the agreement.

The drafted player doesn’t have any effective right to waive the deadline. Both the union and MLB own that right. I’m thinking that Boras already has the union’s commitment to such a waiver in his pocket, so that he’ll be able to renegotiate if the agreement is voided.

by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 28, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I still think

that Boras’ goal here is to attack the deadline that he hates so much. As I’ve said before, I think he has grounds to do so because the ability for one side to obtain a unilateral extension means that the deadline isn’t a deadline; it undermines it’s very purpose.

I think Boras’s main goal is to attack the deadline. He will succeed if the deadline is abolished (which I think is unlikely) or the unilateral extension practice is abolished (which I think is likely). What happens with Pedro is a secondary goal.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Aug 28, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Uncle Nate: Your logic was very convincing

Boras does envision the deadline as an advantage to MLB who can unilaterally extend the time at their own discretion thus placing him at a distinct disadvantage when negotiating for his clients. A reasonable outcome from this suit would be to alter the PA to require both sides to agree as to any deadline extensions and so I would be very surprised if Boras does not succeed in obtaining this concession which would then place him on even footing with MLB.

by Illinois Pirate Fan on Aug 28, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

MLB doesn’t want mutual extensions. That’s what the draft and follow used to be. It was just automatic instead of requiring consent. If mutual extensions were possible, they would very quickly become the norm.

by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 28, 2008 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Arnie is correct!!

The midnight 8/15 deadline only helps the MLB and the clubs, and hurts the agents and the players. That’s why Boras hates it.

The PBC gets to put pressure on Boras by saying — if poor Pedro don’t sign in the next 5 minutes then he’s got to wait a whole year for his bonus and a whole other year 6+ years from now to be a free agent. Your choice Boras. (Final Jeopardy theme music playing in the background. Or maybe the final verse of “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” to keep to the baseball theme “yes or no — what’ll it be”.)

So Boras hates the MLB deadline — he wants to blow it up it anyway he can, and this is just a handy pipe bomb. He wants to get back to the good old days of Jared Weaver.

by WstCstBucco on Aug 28, 2008 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Counterproductive

As I see it, if the arbitrator decides against MLB, the two most likely outcomes from a CBA perspective are:

1) The practice of granting extensions (which Boras has used to get guys like Hosmer and Borbon signed) comes to an end, and the deadline stays in place, but becomes even harder than before. Boras is in a worse position than he was when he started.

2) During the next set of negotiations, MLB gives the union some small concession (on pensions or whatever) in exchange for the right to briefly extend the window unilaterally. The players should be fine with that, since none of them will ever be getting a draft bonus again, so they’re basically paying with someone else’s wallet, and in any event most established players hate that a bunch of unproven kids are making more money than they are.

by Vlad on Aug 29, 2008 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pedro

I think there’s a pretty good chance that this is all a stunt by Boras to get rid of the extensions. Boras, whether right or wrong, obviously thinks that waiting until the last minute for these contracts gives him the best chance for a favorable deal. If MLB teams know they can just call up Selig and get an extra half hour, they’re not going to give Boras a better deal until they absolutely have to, at the end of the extension. It gives them an advantage that Boras doesn’t have.

If Boras is smart and resourceful, he’s not going to put himself in a position where it’s unlikely that he’ll get what he’s looking for. I find it much more likely that he’s making a big stink about (and using) Alvarez in order to get something other than what he seems to be on the surface (i.e. a new contract). Alvarez doesn’t want to go back to college (and probably can’t) or be backlisted by the MLB, so he really has no choice but to show up eventually. If he’s not able to sign this year, Alvarez is going to be pissed and Boras will look like a baby who made sure if he didn’t get his way, no one did. I can’t see how that helps him in the short or long term. My guess is he’s more of a diabolically calculated guy than a guy that has to prove he’s right or that he won.

I think we’ll be alright, Alvarez will be alright, and Boras will still get what he was looking for.

charity standing orders

by BadMaafala on Aug 28, 2008 3:02 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Chewbacca Defense

Boras can set any deadline he wants whenever he wants — unilaterally. He just says — "Sorry it’s one minute after midnight on the Fifth of Whatever. I told you my Pedro wouldn’t talk or sign after that. We’re done. Buh-bye. " If Boras did that, there would be no contract.

The question here is whether the Union can void a contract that the following all agreed was valid when it was entered into – the MLB, the PBC, Pedro (and Boras).

Boras ain’t saying Pedro didn’t agree to his contract — he’s saying Pedro’s agreement is unavailing (worthless) because it occured after midnight. Big difference!!!

by WstCstBucco on Aug 28, 2008 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

According to the article at Pirates.com

there is no way that going back to Vandy and playing baseball is possible. A paragraph from the article…bolding is mine.

“The Boras camp source said Boras was simply removing himself from the process because he was aware the deadline was approaching very quickly, and it would not be acceptable for an agent to negotiate with a Major League team past that deadline. At any rate, Alvarez quickly accepted the terms of the Minor League contract and the $6 million offer. Both sides agree this occurred. With a verbal agreement in hand, the Pirates e-mailed confirmation to the Commssioner’s Office in New York.”

Boras was PA’s agent, not advisor, as admitted by the camp. Boras acted as a negotiator between Alvarez and the Pirates. NCAA is very clear about the difference between an agent and an advisor. IF the article is accurate…there is no way that Pedro Alvarez can be declared eligible to play baseball at Vanderbilt for the 2009 season.

by Thunder on Aug 28, 2008 4:07 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Remedy Question

So what happens if the arbitrator rules in favor of the Players’ Union? Hard to say.

You’ve got to start that the Union’s official position has got to be that the player and his agent violated the rules just as much as PBC and MLB. The player and his agent are required under the rule to stop talking at midnight on 8/15 and did not.

Unofficially, it’ll be the big bad PBC scared poor Mr. Alvarez (and poor Mr. Boras) and they temporarily lost their minds and in an heightened emotional state agreed to keep talking and then agreed to a deal after midnight. They are to be pitied and not punished. Background music = “Poor, poor pitiful me.”

Arbitrators have wide latitude to fashion remedies so very little is actually not “on the table.” I wish I could say there’s no chance that Alaverz could be declared a free agent, but the best I can say is that it’s only a small chance. The Union will argue that a big remedy is needed to keep MLB and PBC from disrepecting the collective bargaining agreement in the future and free agency is just the thing.

I doubt the arbitrator will go this far — this appears like a little boo boo, and not a major felony. If MLB can argue that the union was aware of this situation for year(s) and only acted now, that would mean they have to some extent agreed with this course of dealing. So this is the least likely remedy.

Putting Pedro in next year’s draft is the most legal remedy — if the contract was signed in violation of the CBA there’s no contract so Pedro has to go back in the draft next year, and the PBC gets a second Round 1 draft pick next year (3rd pick overall?). But the Union will argue that this is the least equitable remedy — it’s not fair to poor poor Pedro who was beat up by the big bad PBC.

I am afraid a arbitrator might think a “do over” is the most equitable remedy. Give the PBC and Pedro another week to work things out with a new, real, hard midnight deadline. That’s what Boras wants (the arbitrator knows this) and Boras gets his way a lot so this wouldn’t be surprising. (Marvin Miller proved that bullies rule when it comes to MLB arbitration.)

Remember — this issue only arises if the arbitrator first rules (a) that the union has standing to object to player, agent, MLB and PBC waiving midnight deadline, and (b) that Alvarez contract was not a contract by midnight 8/15 (meaning not that each and every term were agreed to, but that the enough terms were agreed to to make it a valid contract).

Can anyone ask DK to ask MLB/PBC to televise or stream the arbitration online?? I’d love to watch Coonley in action.

by WstCstBucco on Aug 28, 2008 9:19 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Your last couple of paras

would mean that Hosmer’s signing is just as dead in the water as Pedro’s.

by Thunder on Aug 28, 2008 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

From DK's column

In the pittsburgh Postgazette online..

The Pirates’ disputed contract agreement with Pedro Alvarez will be the primary focus — and not that of any other player — of the Major League Baseball Players Association’s grievance with commissioner Bud Selig’s office, a source disclosed today.

So This arbitration is solely restricted to Alvarez.

by lfhlaw on Aug 29, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Again, the contract is between the union and MLB. The arbitrator doesn’t have to find any wrongdoing by the player or agent.

I don’t see any reason that Boras would want another short deadline to negotiate in. He already lost that one.

by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 29, 2008 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think...

that people are overstating the case when they say that Boras lost the negotiation resulting in the tentative Alvarez contract. Despite recent rules changes that drastically reduced his leverage, his client still ended up with a market value deal that I presume is one of the 10 largest in history for a draftee – and that is based upon a perspective that did not include the recent rule changes.

His strategy may not have worked out as planned and he is a greedy, self absorbed prick; but that doesn’t mean he did a bad job. The “disappointment” is that he didn’t get a clear win for himself/his client, but that shouldn’t be confused with a loss. I’d say it was more of a draw.

Now the outcome of the grievance process and this horse manure about the timing of the contract may render him I loser. I very much hope that it does. But he hasn’t lost anything yet.

And I need to disagree with an above post: Boras wants another short deadline because time = leverage. At the end of the day, the Pirates want Pedro and everyone knows it. Boras/Pedro would have more leverage if the contract is voided than they would if it is not. That said, if I’m the Bucs, I think about taking a very hardline stance with Boras on this – perhaps even reducing the offer – if a new deadline is imposed.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Aug 29, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hate Boras

Pedro just needs to sneak out of Boras’ window and catch a bus over to Pittsburgh…we won’t tell Papa Boras

10 Quality Starts in a row/Aug. 08 - BUT now we can't hit:(

by .500 Please on Aug 28, 2008 11:05 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.
Start posting about the Pirates »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

101_0170_small
40-Man Moves
18470r_small
Rule 5 possibilities
20080124sgrammy_330_small
Small Market Teams Pocketing Spare Change
Small
Jeebus Cracker
Small
McCutchen's defense
Small
Roberto calling
20090612mf_fleury_cup_500hp_small
Pirates would trade Doumit!
Leo4_small
John Sickels' Comments on Donnie Veal
Pitt20_small
LaRoche to the Phils?
Bloody_mary_small
Ohlendorf Blogging: USDA can't keep him "down on the farm."

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Mariners Eyeing Doumit
Tabata 5-5 w/3 Ribbies - Hitting .390 @ EOS
Bay rejects $60M over 4 years
"[Chase D'Arnaud] does everything well enough," said an American League...
Pirates hire Steve Williams as Major League scout
Jim Tracy, Baby! NL Manager of the Year!
2009 Minor League Six-Year Free Agent Listing
NL Rookie of the Year: Chris Coghlan
2010 CHONE Projections
2010 UZR Projections

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SPONSORS


Managers

Charlie_small Charlie