Latest on Pedro Alvarez

by Charlie on Aug 30, 2008 12:52 AM EDT Comment 16 comments

In case any of the following paragraphs are confusing, just remember: Scott Boras is Pedro Alvarez's and Eric Hosmer's agent, and his side of the grievance is being argued by the union. The Pirates' side is being argued by the commissioner's office or Major League Baseball.

* * *

It looks like the union will argue that there was a phone call from Scott Boras to the Pirates at 12:02 AM, and that was the phone call in which Alvarez agreed to sign with the Bucs. Unless Boras recorded all his calls that evening (and I wouldn't put it past him), this looks like a he-said-she-said type of situation, since it appears there were also calls between the two parties that took place before midnight. It looks like the Pirates will claim that Alvarez's "I accept" claim came at 11:58, and it appears to me that it will be difficult for Boras to prove otherwise. (I'm not sure who has the burden of proof in this situation, but my guess is that it would have to be the union, which is the party making the allegation.)

Barring some new piece of evidence emerging, it looks like the union's strongest case will involve making the case that the signing had not been formalized with the commissioner's office until after the deadline. Even the Pirates concede this, Kovacevic reports.

This is where Royals prospect Eric Hosmer comes in. Hosmer is also a Boras client, and there's no indication that he or Boras are unhappy with his bonus, which (it appears) also was not official until after the deadline. If the union makes the case that the Alvarez signing was not official until after the deadline passed, they would seem to be screwing up the Hosmer signing too, and nobody wants that.

Kovacevic also reports that Hosmer's removal from game action has been requested by Major League Baseball. So the commissioner's office is effectively holding Hosmer hostage until after the grievance is resolved. They're telling Boras that if Alvarez goes down, they're going to try to take Hosmer down with him. Based on all the evidence I've seen, they will probably be successful, if it comes to that point. It seems to me that you can't get rid of one signing and keep another that happened under similar circumstances just because the agent behind both wants to change one and not the other. It's both, or neither.

Because of this, it seems very likely to me that Hosmer ends up staying with the Royals, and Alvarez with the Pirates. It's possible that the arbitrator will agree that the commissioner's office should stop granting deadline extensions, but that the ruling will apply to future cases. Beyond that, I can't believe Boras will sacrifice Hosmer's massive bonus and potentially seriously damage his career. If Boras did that, I can't imagine why another amateur would want to work with him. So I don't think it's likely that this action does anything positive for the careers of Alvarez or Hosmer. This seems to be all about Boras flexing his muscles.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Your analysis seems spot on

And, as WTM mentions on the PG baseball blog, the lack of rigor in these proceedings makes giving the Commissioner the power to grant brief extensions reasonable. It’s not a given that the Arbitrator will rule in favor of the MLBPA even if he accepts its version of the facts. Nor may he provide a remedy greater than setting down a procedure meant to rationalize situations like this.

But I believe it’s clear that Boras is not representing the better or best interests of his clients.

Steve Z

by steve_z on Aug 30, 2008 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I Still Don't Get It

What does Borass get out of doing this? If the arbiter says that the signing were late and rules the contracts invalid, then Alvarez and Hosmer are out until next year. How does that help anyone? Sitting out for a year isn’t going to make them more money.

I hope they fire Borass’ ass!

by zogger on Aug 30, 2008 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think

Boras was bluffing, and Coonelly called it. I don’t think Boras actually wanted this to go to arbitration. He just wanted to extort $200K out of the Pirates.

by matskralc on Aug 30, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And just to expand

Once Boras told the union after Coonelly still wouldn’t budge (raising the stakes of his extortion effort), it was out of his hands. The union’s interest in this whole thing has nothing to do with Boras or Alvarez, and everything to do with protecting the CBA. The union, frankly, can’t NOT challenge the commissioner on this, or else they risk a precedent in which MLB can tinker with the CBA elsewhere.

by matskralc on Aug 30, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hasn`t Dejan said in the past few days

that there is nothing to this rumor of Boras simply wanting to get at least $200,000 to match what Buster Posey got?

by patthatt on Aug 30, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is what Boras get out of it...

… a challenge of the deadline. A deadline creates leverage for both sides (albeit more for the clubs in this case). A deadline that the clubs can unilaterally postpone emasculates the leverage (such as it is) otherwise held by the player.

That is what Boras and the PA stand to gain.

Good day.

by Uncle Nate on Aug 31, 2008 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keep in mind that, at least as far as Dejan’s stories are concerned, the sources regarding possible outcomes are MLB executives. Union officials might have a more expansive view.

One possible silver lining: with the extension of this thing to Hosmer, maybe the Crow kid can be rolled into any settlement. No one has any interest in keeping him out of baseball.

by Arnold Rothstein on Aug 30, 2008 1:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Boras

Wondering if there might be any chance of Boras being disciplined somewhere along the line for unethical conduct,or something along those lines?

by rissaldar on Aug 30, 2008 2:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hope so...

Boras is just as bad for baseball as Bud Selig.

by Deaner on Aug 30, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Read today's (8/30) Baseball Prospectus article by Kevin Goldstein

It may open your eyes about Scott Boras. He has been doing this for nearly 25 years, and you will discover, after reading the article, that he is no dummy and that he has been pretty successful with his shenanigans.

by thegunner on Aug 30, 2008 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Very good read

Sorry, this is kinda long, but . . .

The key part of the BP article is the description of Boras’ efforts to get JD Drew declared a free agent. Boras had Drew sign with an indy league team, then claimed he wasn’t eligible for the draft because he was a pro. Under existing rules, Boras was right, but MLB changed the rules after Boras filed a grievance. The arbitrator ruled against MLB, but awarded no relief to Drew because he had no jurisdiction over a non-union member. He left Drew’s eligibility to MLB, which ruled against Drew.

I think what the union will do to get around this—this point was actually laid out by Mike Emeigh at the Pirates’ listserv—is argue that its interests were affected by MLB granting extensions, hence the union’s insistence that it’s not filing on Alvarez’ behalf. (Of course, the union also has to prove there was no deal without the extension.) The argument goes like this: Because of draft pick compensation, the value of a draft pick affects the value to a team of signing a top free agent. If the draft pick has more value, teams will pay less to sign free agents if they lose picks in the process. MLB, by granting extensions beyond the deadline, has increased the value of a draft pick and therefore hurt the potential return that a free agent might get. Therefore, some relief to discourage this process is appropriate. No doubt at Boras’ urging, the union will argue that relief should be free agency for Alvarez, or at least voiding his deal.

If this or something like it is the argument, it has huge problems. It’s going to be extremely difficult for the union to show that allowing an extra couple minutes for signing draft picks will have any meaningful impact on free agent contracts. This is especially true where the players involved, like Alvarez and Hosmer, were drafted early in the first round, because picks in the top half of the first round can’t be used as compensation.

This leads to the second problem, which is that voiding Alvarez’ deal, or even worse, making him a free agent, is wildly out of proportion to the supposed harm to the union, especially considering that Alvarez isn’t even a union member. It’s all the more disproportionate when you’re talking about a $6M contract that Alvarez agreed to. MLB could also argue that extensions were a reasonable measure to prevent agents like Boras from abusing the system. Boras has a practice of refusing to negotiate until the last minute, which can, and here apparently did, create confusion when he’s representing multiple top picks. The Pirates also will apparently claim that Boras stalled putting Alvarez on the phone and that the call was mysteriously cut off at a key moment.

I think Goldstein is correct at the end of the article in saying that, even if the union has a slam dunk case, it may have a lot of trouble getting any relief.

by WTM on Aug 30, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To me it seems a clearer argument that allowing these contracts to

stand harms current MLBPA members is that if the players involved are forced to wait a year and then reenter the draft, it is likely that their debuts in the majors will also be delayed. If that happens it is probable that a current MLBPA member will get the roster spots that would have been won my Alverez and Hosmer had their contracts been allowed to stand.

by WestCoastBuc on Aug 30, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trouble with that is

that rosters, and therefore MLBPA membership, change all the time. It’s hard to say the union or its membership is harmed by Alvarez making a roster because, if he does, he’s a member.

You could just as easily argue that, by reducing the chance of Alvarez wasting a year in indy ball, you increase what he’ll earn over the course of his time as a union member.

by WTM on Aug 30, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The issues is a ambigous

When considered as an institution, the Player’s Association would not be harmed by the inclusion of Alvarez as a member. But one current or future Association member would loss his job if Alvarez makes a roster. That member, whomever it might be, would have an interest in protecting his roster spot. So, it’s possible — if improbable — that this member would hinder or undermine Alvarez’s entry into the union and onto a roster.

It’s improbable because the player in question — Bixler! — would have little influence on the workings of the Player’s Association. However, the overall point reflects the reasonable suspicion that the Association’s current members would rather protect their interests by sacrificing some of the interests of its future members. This can be seen when active players criticize the bonuses offered to some draftees.

Steve Z

by steve_z on Aug 30, 2008 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs