Ironic thoughts about Scott Boras and the Pirates
by steve_z on Sep 5, 2011 1:28 PM EDT
Email
PrintWhen the Pirates were guided by the McClatchyfield regime, it was said that they would pass over a Boras client because they considered a Boras client a signability risk. Moreover, Littlefield reportedly avoided drafting Boras clients because he did not want to negotiate with Scott Boras. The meat of the claim: The Pirates would never pay a market price for a Boras client and Boras would never permit his ‘advisee' to sign a below market contract. Since the Pirates often had a Top-10 pick late in the McClatchyfield era, they often passed over the top talents ‘advised' by the so-called Super Agent during that time.
Littlefield's refusal to draft Matt Weiters, a Boras client, remains a conspicuous example of this strategy in action and the failure to draft Weiters appeared to be a factor that convinced Bob Nutting to fire Dave Littlefield.
The Coonelly-Huntington regime quickly revealed that it had a different strategy when it took Pedro Alvarez, a Boras client, in their first draft. Although the Alvarez negotiations were difficult and produced controversy at the end, they concluded nevertheless with a contract that satisfied both parties. The Pirates, is seemed, were committed to building through the draft and would not let an agent deter them from taking the players they wanted.
How has the organization fared since the 2008 Draft?
Since that Draft, the Pirates have established themselves as the market leader in acquiring talent through the Draft. Support for this claim comes from the quantity of money the team has spent in the 2009-11 drafts, the agents it has worked with and, more importantly, from the high quality of the players it has acquired during that time. Succinctly put, the Coonelly-Huntington Pirates took risks in their Drafts and made good on the risks they took. The Pirates leadership position in this market became hard to deny when the team took and signed Josh Bell in 2011, a player that had already indicated his desire to go to a college to play baseball. It is noteworthy that Scott Boras ‘advised' Bell during the negotiations, and that the two sides reached an agreement which satisfied both parties. Bell did not go to college. They Pirates convinced Bell and his family that their concerns would be met. What made the Bell signing significant was the fact that the Pirates added another top in Garret Cole, also a Boras client and the first pick in the 2011 Draft.
So, I would say that it is now plainly obvious that the Pirates will work with any agent, will not low-ball top talents and can bring difficult negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion.
And the Pirates became the market leader in the Draft even though the organization is a small-market, low-revenue-team.
This is just conjecture on my part, but I suspect Boras now considers the Pirates to be one of the better organizations for his clients. Previously, it was alleged that Boras told the Pirates to draft players he did not ‘advise.' Today, however, the Pirates can get contracts done, will develop the players they draft and, more importantly, will pay the market rate for those prospects they consider worthy of their projected asking price.
There is a bit of irony in this situation just as there is a bit of irony in the possible fact that Nutting might have retained Littlefield as the Pirates General Manger had Littlefield taken Matt Weiters in the 2007 Draft. Who in 2007 would have thought that working with Scott Boras would have signaled a return to health by the Pirates? Who would have believed it would happen?
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is just conjecture on my part, but I suspect Boras now considers the Pirates to be one of the better organizations for his clients.
I kept looking to hope to find that you were kidding with this statement, but I’m going to make the assumption that you were dead serious.
Boras has clients with all 30 teams. With many of those teams he has negotiated huge long-term deals, something he has yet to do with the Pirates. He’s negotiated 100 million dollar deals, do you really think that the Pirates spending 8 is going to suddenly thrust the Pirates’ into the top level in Boras’ mind? I find that almost impossibly unlikely.
Boras’ job is to get the most money for his clients. He may have his favorites in dealing with, but I assume he treats and thinks of each team at the same level of interest, as in “what can you do for my client.”
Far from being one of the “better organizations” for his clients, I’m assuming the Pirates were barely on his radar and now he thinks of them as “finally, you’ve joined the game, get in line with the others!!”
The ironies would be
1. Nutting firing Littlefield because Littlefield failed to draft and sign a Boras client (ironic because Littlefield would not draft Boras clients because doing so would somehow threaten his job security)
2. The development of a good working relationship between Boras and the Pirates does not conform to the perception most have of their relationship (ironic because Boras’ efforts on behalf of his Pirates’ draftees were meant only to alter the financial well-being of his advisees, not to provide a means for the Pirates to become a market leader in the Draft, and because this good working relationship seemed all but impossible not too long ago and was not an outcome both wanted to achieve)
s.zielinski
Incomplete, convoluted, speculative, and illogical
1. Nutting fired Littlefield for a whole lot more (and bigger) reasons than his failure to draft Wieters. Hence, the assertion that DL’s failure to draft a Boras client is direct cause-and-effect for his firing is invalid. And without that validity, there is no irony.
2. The development of a “good working relationship” between Boras and the Pirates is speculation. The Pirates have become a market leader in draft spending for two reasons:
- They decided that acquiring talent through the draft is their best approach for building a competitive team.
- They chose the players they chose and were determined to sign them, regardless of what agent was involved.
Boras’s role is incidental. Again, no irony.
Nutting fired Littlefield for a whole lot more (and bigger) reasons than his failure to draft Wieters.
Reports at the time suggest otherwise.
Hence, the assertion that DL’s failure to draft a Boras client is direct cause-and-effect for his firing is invalid.
Hmmm, I wrote:
Littlefield’s refusal to draft Matt Weiters, a Boras client, remains a conspicuous example of this strategy in action and the failure to draft Weiters appeared to be a factor that convinced Bob Nutting to fire Dave Littlefield.
Where in that passage did I claim that a direct and wholly sufficient causal relationship existed between the Weiters’ pick and Littlefield’s termination? I didn’t make that claim, did I?
The development of a "good working relationship" between Boras and the Pirates is speculation.
Not really. The two get difficult contracts done. That’s prima facie evidence that the two sides have developed a good working relationship.
They chose the players they chose and were determined to sign them, regardless of what agent was involved.
Boras’ role could not be incidental. He ‘advises’ too many top draftees for his place in this situation to be incidental.
s.zielinski
Right...it appears that before
(and I’ve only been in Pittsburgh since 07, but from reading the history of Littlefield’s term) that he actively chose to avoid Boras clients (who are almost all the time, the best players in the draft).
Signing Alvarez was a big test.
Signing both Taillon and Allie was another big test even though Taillion and Allie had the Hendricks Brothers as their ‘advisers.’ Signing Bell, a Boras ‘advisee,’ marked the Pirates as a serious team in the draft. The fact that the Pirates paid a mere $5M for Bell makes the signing all the more important because of the belief that $5M would not be enough. Boras and the Pirates got that contract done, and the Bell family is happy with the deal, according to reports.
Working with Boras is a key to building through the draft.
s.zielinski
If you want the best, you’ll have to deal with him, like it or not. If not, you’ll end up with a terrible farm system like the White Sox.
by NastyNate82 on Sep 5, 2011 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've wasted too much time on this already.
No, the reports at the time did NOT suggest otherwise. And the extensive reporting since the time confirm the many more significant reasons for Littlefield’s firing.
Without the direct cause-effect relationship, your claim of irony is invalid.
Sorry, but getting the contracts done is NOT prima facie evidence of a good working relationship. Contracts getting done is an objective. A good working relationship is about the process by which contracts get done.
Boras’s role is not incidental to the Pirates signing some draftees. But his role IS incidental in terms of producing irony. The Pirates would have become a market leader in spending, because they chose players who would cost a lot of money to sign regardless of the agent.
I’ll not read further than the title and then reply to what you wrote because I wouldn’t want to waste your time.
s.zielinski
I thought you weren't going to waste your time on this
Silly me, I took you at your word.
s.zielinski
I wonder that "word" that was?
Anyone can read my post above, which says “I have wasted too much time on this already.” I DID NOT say that I wasn’t going to post (or waste my time) again. That is yet another misrepresentation on your part. “Silly you” is the only accurate thing you said in that post.
Some posts and assertions are so outrageous as to demand a response. Just a sampling in this thread already:
- You found a bunch of irony where there wasn’t any (as has been pointed out by several responders).
- You made the statement that “Boras now considers the Pirates to be one of the better organizations for his clients.” (When poster impliedi challenged that assertion, and rightfully so, your reply was to call him “hopeless.” )
- After poster BlindSquirrel was the first to oppose your notion of irony, you stated: “The ironies would be: 1. Nutting firing Littlefield because Littlefield failed to draft and sign a Boras client…” Then in your response to my first post, you ask, “Where in that passage did I claim that a direct and wholly sufficient causal relationship existed between the Weiters’ pick and Littlefield’s termination? I didn’t make that claim, did I?” Yes, you did make that claim in your reply to BlindSquirrel.
- You claimed that getting two difficult contracts done is “prima facie evidence that the two sides have developed a good working relationship.” Any logical reader can see the fallacy in that nonsense.
- You stated that “the Pirates have established themselves as the market leader in acquiring talent through the Draft” when they are the market leader ONLY in spending money so far. In another post you state, “I do not consider the demand that prospects succeed in the majors a relevant condition for judging whether the Pirates are market leader in acquiring talent.” That’s just….. wow.
There are other examples, but that’s quite enough to illustrate the point.
Apparently, you don’t subscribe to the old saying, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
Gee
For some reason, I now believe you to be insincere. I wonder how that happened?
s.zielinski
Call me whatever name you wish.
That merely illustrates your inability to refute logical challenges to your nonsense. Those who have no decent arguments often resort to namecalling.
Wow
arguing a point of irony really IS a way to incite arguments…
who knew?
(for the record, I still disagree that it is irony; I think Littlefield did not draft from Boras stock more because the owners in previous iterations weren’t willing to go through the rigmarole and cost of dealing with him – than because it would threaten his job security per se.)
by BlindSquirrel on Sep 6, 2011 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions
A point of irony has not incited any argument
s.zielinski
Nor do I.....
…..see irony there.
And the thoughts in the quote below seem off-base, as well:
Since that Draft, the Pirates have established themselves as the market leader in acquiring talent through the Draft. Support for this claim comes from the quantity of money the team has spent in the 2009-11 drafts, the agents it has worked with and, more importantly, from the high quality of the players it has acquired during that time. Succinctly put, the Coonelly-Huntington Pirates took risks in their Drafts and made good on the risks they took.
.
Perhaps the Pirates have established themselves as the market leader in spending money on the draft, but they will not have established themselves as the market leader in acquiring talent through the dratt until some of that talent begins to help the major league club become competitive. Until then, such a claim is premature at best.
By the same token, while the Coonelly-Huntington Pirates certainly have taken risks in their drafts, I don’t see how just signing draftees (regardless of the potential of those players) qualifies as making good on those risks. The whole purpose of the draft is to select and sign players who will help the major league team become competitive. No, all prospects will not pan out. But I can’t give them credit for making good until some of those players become productive major leaguers.
Perhaps the Pirates have established themselves as the market leader in spending money on the draft, but they will not have established themselves as the market leader in acquiring talent through the dratt until some of that talent begins to help the major league club become competitive. Until then, such a claim is premature at best.
I do not consider the demand that prospects succeed in the majors a relevant condition for judging whether the Pirates are market leader in acquiring talent. The only relevant conditions is quantity of spending and quality of players acquired. There are too many risks when developing prospects for that to be a relevant criterion when judging the place of a team in a market.
while the Coonelly-Huntington Pirates certainly have taken risks in their drafts, I don’t see how just signing draftees (regardless of the potential of those players) qualifies as making good on those risks.
The Pirates made good on the risks they took in some drafts when they signed the hard-to-sign players they drafted. Allie and Bell are the obvious data points.
s.zielinski
Sorry but.....
…..I can’t and won’t accept such a low standard.
The quality of the players acquired is ultimately measured by their contributions to the competitiveness of the major league team. That’s the purpose of the draft. That’s why the team is spending money on the draft.
If signing players can be defined as making good, then there’s no point in playing the games.. If those players (at least some of them) don’t contribute at the major league level, the draft is useless.
It's not a low standard....
…it’s a realistic standard for evaluating a draft class and strategy. It’s realistic because a highly talented draft pick can fail to reach the majors despite his talent. In other words, a team can have a strong and successful draft strategy while failing to develop those players drafted. Drafting is not identical to development.
s.zielinski
I understand the difference.....
…..between drafting and development. However, the two processes are related and cannot be separated in terms of their purpose, i.e., to produce a steady stream of talent to the major league team.
Hence, I choose to maintain that merely signing players is too low a standard. If you choose to accept that standard, help yourself.
Actually, the immediate purpose of the draft and of the development of draftees (or prospects) differ. The teleological purpose of the two activities are the same. Your argument merely simplifies — makes simplistic and thus inaccurate — the relationship between the two activities.
s.zielinski
No, it doesn't
The drafting and development of draftees are two inextricably connected processes which have the same purpose. That is not an oversimplification, nor is it simplistic. It is fact.
There would be no purpose for drafting players if they were not to be developed toward becoming productive major leaguers.
There would be no development process without a draft (or some other process for acquiring amateur players).
Any “immediate purpose” of the either process is not meaningful without the other process.
How is a draft class evaluated?
- A draft class IS NOT evaluated by players signed.
- A draft class IS evaluated by the players from that class who make it to the major leagues and how they perform.
If you don’t believe that, I can’t help you.
You evelaute draft classes as you want
I’ll evaluate them as I see fit.
s.zielinski
Steve: how do you see it fit, then?
I mean…if you do not judge a draft, several years later, by how the draftees produce for the ML club…then how do you do it?
I’ve read your other posts. I can’t see you arguing that future performance has nothing to do with a draft’s “success”…are you just posting what you are here for argument’s sake? Because that’s what this is coming across as…
by insane_sanity on Sep 6, 2011 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions
How is a draft class evaluated?
- A draft class IS NOT evaluated by players signed.
- A draft class IS evaluated by the players from that class who make it to the major leagues and how they perform.
If you don’t believe that, I can’t help you.
Says who? You?
There are plenty of reasons to disagree with this. I’m going to judge the draft on the process. If the process is solid, but the results are bad, I’m going to chalk it up to bad luck, or maybe bad player development. As dumb as it sounds, a draft class is too small a sample size to let results determine whether the GM knows what he is doing.
Now, admittedly, results can lend themselves to determine if we (me?) are correctly evaluating whether or not the process is good or bad, but the sample size needs to be 5 draft classes not just 1.
For example, I was a fun of the process in 2009. I agreed with Neal Huntington that there was no clear player to choose at #4 nor a group of two or three players (for example, Taillon was not the #2 consensus player in the 2010 draft, but Machado and he were the consensus pool for the #2 and #3 picks). Money was still spent on four high upside high school arms.
If all four 2009 arms fail, but then the 2010 and 2011 drafts produce solid high school arms, say Hafrner, Kingham, Holmes, and Burnette all go on to be solid major league pitchers, that’s 4/8 overall to me, not 0/4 in 2009, etc.
I wouldn’t lower the draft grade in 2009 just because the specific players in 2009 didn’t pan out and I will still believe the process. If from 2008 to 2012, an acceptable number of players pan out well, then the results will justify grading NH’s drafts on process, in my opinion.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Sep 6, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I realize
this is more rambling than anything. To summarize and clarify.
Both the process and results are factors when grading/evaluating a draft class.
I think the process is more important, especially when talking about an individual draft class. I think that, mainly because one draft class is too small a sample size to make an important determination regarding the ability of a front office to draft well (talent evaluation) and develop players (talent development). Personally, I also like to separate and differentiate between those two processes (talent evaluation and talent development) as best as is possible.
If after many draft classes, the product is still poor, I believe that is an indication for an evaluator (myself in this instance) to step back and determine if the method used to evaluate the process (of drafting) is efficient and effective. I DO NOT think that is a reason to stop evaluating drafts based on process and only on results, rather I believe that means how the process was judged was incorrect.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Sep 6, 2011 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d say one can initially judge the success of the draft by identifying the baseball value of the players drafted. The Pirates had a successful 2011 draft because they took and signed two potential star players along with additional high quality players.
One can later judge a draft’s success — e.g. the 2011 class — by the number of players who reach the majors and who reach or approach their ceiling. If for instance, Cole were to suffer a career ending shoulder injury, I’d not count his injury as diminishing the initial success of the draft because Cole supposedly was the best available player. If, however, Cole failed to reach his potential because the Pirates could not develop his talent, then I’d say that drafting him was the right move and thus successful but that the organization failed to exploit this initial draft success. If, finally, Cole was vastly over-rated, then that fact would greatly diminish the value of the draft.
For instance, Kris Benson was a successful draft choice — the team picked and signed him when he was the best available player. But their may have been problems with the Pirates development of Benson and the team certainly had its fingerprints on Benson’s initial arm injury. Benson was the right pick in his draft class, but the Pirates bungled his development. Benson also may have been overrated. But, as of a few years agao, BA still considered Benson to be one of the top 20 picks of the last 20 years.
And, no, I’m not posting here for argument’s sake.
s.zielinski
But
is one single draft class a big enough sample size to determine if a front office is going through the draft process correctly or incorrectly if results are used to determine?
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Sep 6, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
possibly not
but the question (or the one magnumo posed at least) was: how do you evaluate a draft class?
And I agree that you evaluate it based on results.
If you wanted to evaluate the FO, you look at all the draft classes, and you’re right, while one draft class may bust entirely, there should be others that take the total closer to their true drafting level.
Fair
enough. I’m going to continue evaluating based on the process. It’s too easy to give into hindsight bias later, and actually it’s almost impossible not too.
Case in point, Pedro Alvarez. If he busts or ends up as a Mark Reynolds (defense included) people are going to clamor about Neal Huntington making the wrong choice. That irks me.
If a person honestly thought Pedro would be a bust want to complain, I’m a bit less irritated (although I think those people are few and far between; most just preferred Posey a bit, but those who found Pedro to be a good pick at the time and now are second guessing the front office make me scratch my head.
Pedro was the right pick at the time. He was (and is) super talented. The Front Office took the best player available (and the best player in the draft according to basically everyone) and opened up the checkbook to do it. Now suddenly the notion Pedro Alvarez was a bad pick because three years later he didn’t develop as anticipated is beyond me. There are so many other factors and prospects, even top ones, are so unpredictable it’s wrong to blame a scouting department.
Just to add a bit to that discussion (Pedro) this was written by John Sickels (who I respect the most out of all the experts) 21 months ago (Dec 16, 2009), which isn’t too long in the past.
1) Pedro Alvarez, 3B, Grade A: Bat looks excellent. Even if he moves to first base, his bat will be good enough for him to be an All-Star. Upside: David Ortiz.
That’s about 18 months after the day Pedro was drafted. The pick would have been graded an A or A- at that moment. Now 21 months later it’s going to be an “F” to some. That’s so over-reactionary I’m not sure what to say, and proves how influential hindsight bias is, which is a reason I’d rather avoid it and grade the process.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Sep 6, 2011 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Your failure to see what I see is not my problem
I make a case. You can choose to accept, reject or ignore it. Such is the way of the world.
s.zielinski
If you had to pick one 'Matt' blunder that cost Littlefield his job
Then I think it would be Morris>>Wieters.
But we don't have to pick one "Matt" blunder
There were two “Matt” blunders. Both contributed in to Nutting firing Littlefield.
s.zielinski
was letting the Capper go
a Huntington blunder?
It brought us McDonald and Lambo!
by BlindSquirrel on Sep 6, 2011 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I know
I was thinking there may have been one for NH as well, then discarded it.
by BlindSquirrel on Sep 7, 2011 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions
If a group of players that Boras represents pooled their money, started a sports management agency,
and stole all of Boras’ clients, that would be irony.
by Central*Scrutinizer on Sep 6, 2011 2:37 AM EDT reply actions
It actaully makes sense people
its ironic in that DL and Co not dealing with Boras led to a poor team and them being fired. Turn the ship around and look at NH and FC. DO DEAL with Boras clients and all of a sudden they appear to be in line for extensions and are putting a better product/minor league system on the field.
So in a sense, what one group did not do lead to their firing and in turn what the new group is doing is leading to their “hiring” (trying to rhyme.)
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
by C Shint on Sep 6, 2011 1:47 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
i·ro·ny
1 [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
noun, plural -nies.
1.the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, "How nice!" when I said I had to work all weekend.
2.Literature .
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.(especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3.Socratic irony.
4.dramatic irony.
5.an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
Ironic
i·ron·ic
[ahy-ron-ik]
adjective
1.containing or exemplifying irony: an ironic novel; an ironic remark.
2.ironical.
3.coincidental; unexpected: It was ironic that I was seated next to my ex-husband at the dinner.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 7, 2011 9:14 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I'll take Door 5 for...
…,well, being right on this matter.
Thanks!
s.zielinski
yeah....
…not so much.
Nor the good advice that you just can’t take.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Sep 8, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
Related FanShots on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
