Did Scott Boras Blow Up The CBA Deal?

[DocBauer]

2 hours ago, Seth Stohs said:

This kind of stuff is why I have a hard time getting too upset at either side... Hard to know for sure what's going on. 

Honestly, if it's just these two things, I don't know why they couldn't reach an agreement: 

Min Wage: Players ($750K), Owners ($700K)... Midpoint ($725K... easy)
CBT: Players ($238M), Owners ($220M)... Midpoint ($229M... easy) 

The Players have done pretty well, from what we know... Big increase in minimum salary. New money for players with 0-3 years of service time what wasn't there before, got 12 playoff teams instead of 14. 

There has to be more because right now, I don't get why they're so far apart. 

Seth, you nailed pretty much what I was going to say. 

Again, my only "side" is with baseball and what is best for it. I think BOTH sides are at fault here; the players to re-capture what they lost the last time AND gain more, and the owners for being stubborn, short-sighted, and yes, even greedy.

I offered up an opinion a couple weeks ago that the union offered up proposals that would NEVER fly but did so deliberatly in an attempt to then lower demands. I don't like it, but I get it. But I've also been of the opinion, over and over again, that the owners were being stubborn and short-sighted. 

On the surface at least, as an outsider looking in, without HOURS of reading in to every detail, I have to admit that the owners last proposal does make sense to me. The "minimum salary" is a HUGE increase with further increases. I recognize that the pre-aritration pool of money is new, and not as much as the union asked for initially.  Am I wrong? Isn't this a new pool of funds? If so, it's even more money to be spread out. Now I don't understand or pretend to understand all the parameters of the dispersal of said funds. I DO object if those funds go to a select few, regardless of who the agent is. I would be on ownerships side if those additional funds were broad based. I see real relevance to eliminating a draft pick for FA signings. And I see real value to a draft of international players for the good of the game. Playoff money benefits the owners, but also creates additional money for the players, yes? And weren't a few concessions made by the owners in regard to service time and FA status? 

I'm no expert, but doesn't this all sound pretty good for the players? I'm not crazy about the "lottery" because I think it's a publicity stunt brought on by the NBA, and proven in larger roster sports like the NFL and the history of the MLB draft to not make a definitive difference.  The only major stumbling block I can see is either the union is trying desperately hard to correct 10yrs of changes all at once, or the "tax cap" has to be the issue.

And I don’t know if Manfred is an idiot, or a puppet...and I'm trying to be nice here, I really am...but his claims about lost revenue and the stock market are simply ridiculous. I'm just a middle class schlub when it comes to high finance and a billionaire industry. But I can appreciate making "less" money in one of my investments. But that is entirely different than actually losing money! So any idea that the penalty tax floor actually makes a major difference in competitive balance is a mediocre difference at best.

But it is a starting point. And right or wrong, proven or not, I COULD see where an agent as powerful as Boras could have an affect. The counter arguement, of course, is he also represents milb talent, not just ML talent. But, those milb players also represent his "next wave" of players to reap benefits of a new CBA. So I can't but dismiss milb players vs current ML players in this accusation. 

IMO, Boras may be part of the problem. He may be a major part of the problem. Maybe not. Time will tell.. But I doubt few would argue he has a voice beind the scenes. While the union is right to fight for all they can get, does it happen in a single CBA? Was the offer from the owners really bad?

Personally, Boras or not, I think the union blew this negotiation from the start. For the first time EVER, they should have asked for some kind of cap/ceiling with a FLOOR in addition to the changes in revenue sharing and FA and service time.  They can't strike now. Holding out is the best they can do. But they could have taken a whole different approach way before this. And the owners could have also done things differently way before we got to this point. 

 

[East Coast Twin]

12 hours ago, Seth Stohs said:

Min Wage: Players ($750K), Owners ($700K)... Midpoint ($725K... easy)

CBT: Players ($238M), Owners ($220M)... Midpoint ($229M... easy) 

 

Except that four owners voted against the latest MLB proposal,  According to Andy Martino, additional owners would have voted "no" to any proposal with an increased CBT above $220M.  Since 75% of ownership group have to agree to any agreement, reaching a midpoint compromise doesn't seem so easy.

[Major League Ready]

14 hours ago, Seth Stohs said:

This kind of stuff is why I have a hard time getting too upset at either side... Hard to know for sure what's going on. 

Honestly, if it's just these two things, I don't know why they couldn't reach an agreement: 

Min Wage: Players ($750K), Owners ($700K)... Midpoint ($725K... easy)
CBT: Players ($238M), Owners ($220M)... Midpoint ($229M... easy) 

The Players have done pretty well, from what we know... Big increase in minimum salary. New money for players with 0-3 years of service time what wasn't there before, got 12 playoff teams instead of 14. 

There has to be more because right now, I don't get why they're so far apart. 

It's not that surprising and we are getting exactly what I expected.  The players have been very animated in their resolve to get what they are demanding.  How much have we heard about their resolve and war chest, etc.  During the much talked about six weeks with no offer and the six months prior, the players were told the 5 year free agency was a non-starter.  We all know that was never going to happen.  We know for a fact they had not come off this demand nor had they come off of any of the other demands until recently.  All of these demands were individually substantial and collectively were extreme beyond reason.  Yet, the players held firm.  We also know that in the Pandemic year they literally did not budge 1% and let's keep in mind they were given service time for a full year. 

The major hang-up now appears to be the increase in the CBT.  Smaller market teams clearly understand their disadvantage.  3 below average revenue teams have won the WS in the past 25 years.  Why wouldn't we expect the owners to hold the line on this issue, especially given the other increases and elimination of draft pick compensation.  More importantly why wouldn't any twins fan share their unwillingness to exacerbate the existing problem.  With all the complaining about losing free agents, why would any Twins fan want any increase at all in the advantage held by top revenue teams?  I would bet, they could have gotten the $20M in the minimum had they agreed to the CBT.  I would also bet that they are not willing.

[FrankQuilicy]

This whole thing makes me cry

[Doctor Gast]

Let's look at this at face value. Competitive Balance tax is a good thing, it helps bring parity of the small market teams with big market teams, which is great for the sport. It penalize these super rich owners from buying up all the high demand player thus help increase competetiveness of the game. Higher the tax more parity it brings to the game. Those who wants a low or no CB tax are the very few super rich owners, highest paid players and their agents. 

The owners agreed to raise the minimium salary which affects every single player coming through the minor league. This too will help the game by helping the struggling players so they can focus more on their game.

While I don't doubt that the majority of the owners help leak this. At the same time I don't doubt that Boras had something to do with it. The feeling before the final talks were that they were close (I didn't hear anything contrary to that). For the good of the majority of players and the sport, a deal needed to be done. Then everything exploded.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

During the much talked about six weeks with no offer and the six months prior, the players were told the 5 year free agency was a non-starter.  We all know that was never going to happen.  We know for a fact they had not come off this demand nor had they come off of any of the other demands until recently.

Okay, that's enough. You're just making stuff up now. The players backed off their free agency demands weeks ago, it was one of the first things they conceded when negotiations began. Were they supposed to back off their demands while owners refused to talk to them?

You're allowed your own opinions but not your own facts. If you continue to just make stuff up, I will remove your ability to post in this thread and future threads about labor negotiations.

[Major League Ready]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Okay, that's enough. You're just making stuff up now. The players backed off their free agency demands weeks ago, it was one of the first things they conceded when negotiations began. Were they supposed to back off their demands while owners refused to talk to them?

You're allowed your own opinions but not your own facts. If you continue to just make stuff up, I will remove your ability to post in this thread and future threads about labor negotiations.

They did not drop this until Jan 24th.  How long before that do you think these negotiations have been going on.  At that point they had literally not made any concessions from a list of demands that in aggregate were absurd.  Dukette and Bowden discussed this on their show right before they dropped this demand.  Both said this thing was going nowhere until the players realized lower the years of control was never happening and that they were not going to get everything they asked.  They both were frustrated specifically with the people the MLBPA had put in charge.   

Are you really going to suggest their message has not been we are going to stand united until we get everything we want.  Are you really going to suggest the offer that was not made was not reasonable?  You don't like the facts so now you want to pull the I will shut you up card.  Go. ahead.  Prove you can't stand someone pointing out facts you don't like.

[Brock Beauchamp]

37 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

They did not drop this until Jan 24th.  How long before that do you think these negotiations have been going on.  At that point they had literally not made any concessions from a list of demands that in aggregate were absurd.

The players were locked out on December 2nd.

MLB gave the players their first proposal on January 13th.

At literally the next meeting on January 24th, the players (by your own admission) dropped their free agency request.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-timeline-of-cba-negotiations-between-mlbpa-and-owners-as-rob-manfred-cancels-regular-season-games/

Again, stop it. You're allowed your own opinions but not your own facts.

For those who don't want to click the link, here's the actual timeline from a third party, CBS Sports. I have edited and omitted nothing, this is literally the first three bullet points of the piece.

From CBS Sports:

Dec. 2: The lockout began shortly after midnight on December 2, or with the official expiration of the previous CBA. Commissioner Rob Manfred announced in a statement that the 30 owners had voted unanimously in support of the lockout: "We hope that the lockout will jumpstart the negotiations and get us to an agreement that will allow the season to start on time."

Jan. 13: Despite Manfred claiming they intended the lockout to "jumpstart" negotiations, the league waited more than six weeks to make its first proposal, with that coming on Thursday, January 13. The proposal, which was not received well by the union, included an increase in the minimum salary; tweaks to draft-pick compensation; and adjustments to a draft lottery system that would be implemented to curb tanking.

Jan. 24, 25: The two sides met, on consecutive days this time, with the union rejecting most of, if not all of the league's proposal during those sessions. Both sides did concede on various issues during these meetings. The players walked away from asking for age-based free agency and earlier arbitration, and the league scrapped its original request to do away with the "Super Two" tier of the arbitration system. 

[bean5302]

21 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

And most MLB players never hit arbitration (average career is 2.7 years), yet the union has been fighting for arbitration numbers to go up since the day it was implemented. That a Boras plot, too? Even fewer players get extensions, let alone lucrative ones, yet the union has been fighting for no cap and higher amounts of revenue going their way since the start of time. Some Boras shenanigans there, too?

Look, Boras represents less than 15% of all major leaguers. You're literally claiming the other 85% are so dumb and gullible that they're doing his bidding in the name of that 15%. Their agents can't convince them that all of his plots and tricks are just ways to take money out of their pockets? Dude should be president or world czar or something if he can convince 1100 guys to agree with each other and fight so hard in lockstep to their own detriment just so everyone gets along. We may have a shot at world peace.

As for the MiLB numbers...I get that. But MLR is suggesting that MiLB don't matter in a discussion about a pre-arb pool of which graduating MiLB will make up the vast majority! That argument is saying Pete Alonso and Aaron Judge didn't matter before their rookie seasons because they were MiLB and that pool is for MLB players. That's absurd. It being some Boras in the shadows maneuver to have that pool go towards the elite young players is suggesting that the current pre-arb guys who wouldn't have made any money off that deal think it's a good idea despite it not helping them at all just because almighty Boras said it was. I'm sorry that I believe the other 85% of MLBPA members can think for themselves. Or have agents who are self-serving enough to convince them it's better if the money is distributed differently. 

Are you saying players who aren't good enough to produce at the MLB level should be paid more than the $500-800k they're going to be making?

Boras clients may only represent 15% of all MLB players, but it was reported in this thread (I didn't verify) his clients represent 30% of the representatives who are leading negotiations. Those reps determine whether or not the players get to vote at all. Aside from that, I'm firm in the belief Max Scherzer and Kris Bryant absolutely have dramatically more pull than Ryan Jeffers and Jorge Alcala and the elite players (disproportionately represented by Boras) in the game have more pull than the non-elite.

MiLB players do not have a vote and are not part of the CBA. MLB players do not care about MiLB players and they've shown that for decades. Again, because you're building a strawman here, I don't think Boras is some sort of puppeteer. I do think the amount of power he wields is bad for the process. People do not think for themselves. It's rare. Most people listen to whatever biased and probably inaccurate source they've decided to believe. Viewership of major news channels should prove my point there.

[Major League Ready]

49 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The players were locked out on December 2nd.

MLB gave the players their first proposal on January 13th.

At literally the next meeting on January 24th, the players (by your own admission) dropped their free agency request.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-timeline-of-cba-negotiations-between-mlbpa-and-owners-as-rob-manfred-cancels-regular-season-games/

Again, stop it. You're allowed your own opinions but not your own facts.

For those who don't want to click the link, here's the actual timeline from a third party, CBS Sports. I have edited and omitted nothing, this is literally the first three bullet points of the piece.

From CBS Sports:

Dec. 2: The lockout began shortly after midnight on December 2, or with the official expiration of the previous CBA. Commissioner Rob Manfred announced in a statement that the 30 owners had voted unanimously in support of the lockout: "We hope that the lockout will jumpstart the negotiations and get us to an agreement that will allow the season to start on time."

Jan. 13: Despite Manfred claiming they intended the lockout to "jumpstart" negotiations, the league waited more than six weeks to make its first proposal, with that coming on Thursday, January 13. The proposal, which was not received well by the union, included an increase in the minimum salary; tweaks to draft-pick compensation; and adjustments to a draft lottery system that would be implemented to curb tanking.

Jan. 24, 25: The two sides met, on consecutive days this time, with the union rejecting most of, if not all of the league's proposal during those sessions. Both sides did concede on various issues during these meetings. The players walked away from asking for age-based free agency and earlier arbitration, and the league scrapped its original request to do away with the "Super Two" tier of the arbitration system. 

The way it works in this type of negotiation, at least the ones I have been part of when there is a non-starter, one side will say we can talk when the non-starter is no longer an issue.  They started talking again when it was removed.  This is exactly what I would have expected.  You also fail to recognize these framework for these talks had started months earlier.  It is very hard to believe the reduced time to free agency had not been addressed months earlier.  Yet, the players held to this demand along with a very long and aggressive list of other demands.  It was not until 1/24 that they actually did anything but insist on 100% of everything they wanted.   Once again, this is consistent with the message they started with which was basically we are holding out.  We are unified, we are driven, bla, bla, bla.  Not exactly the tone of people looking to find a solution via compromise and if you look back to my posts in January and stated this would happen.

[Brock Beauchamp]

13 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

The way it works in this type of negotiation, at least the ones I have been part of when there is a non-starter, one side will say we can talk when the non-starter is no longer an issue.  They started talking again when it was removed.  This is exactly what I would have expected.  You also fail to recognize these framework for these talks had started months earlier.  It is very hard to believe the reduced time to free agency had not been addressed months earlier.  Yet, the players held to this demand along with a very long and aggressive list of other demands.  It was not until 1/24 that they actually did anything but insist on 100% of everything they wanted.   Once again, this is consistent with the message they started with which was basically we are holding out.  We are unified, we are driven, bla, bla, bla.  Not exactly the tone of people looking to find a solution via compromise and if you look back to my posts in January and stated this would happen.

I'm presenting facts from a third party source. You are hypothesizing.

And therein lies the problem here. Stop it and right now. This is the last time I'm going to say it. You have been warned by countless mods about how you approach labor conversations and your tone within those conversations. Find a different way to talk about this or I will remove your ability to do so, you've been given miles of rope on this subject and we're now at the end of it.

[Major League Ready]

16 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Are you saying players who aren't good enough to produce at the MLB level should be paid more than the $500-800k they're going to be making?

Boras clients may only represent 15% of all MLB players, but it was reported in this thread (I didn't verify) his clients represent 30% of the representatives who are leading negotiations. Those reps determine whether or not the players get to vote at all. Aside from that, I'm firm in the belief Max Scherzer and Kris Bryant absolutely have dramatically more pull than Ryan Jeffers and Jorge Alcala and the elite players (disproportionately represented by Boras) in the game have more pull than the non-elite.

MiLB players do not have a vote and are not part of the CBA. MLB players do not care about MiLB players and they've shown that for decades. Again, because you're building a strawman here, I don't think Boras is some sort of puppeteer. I do think the amount of power he wields is bad for the process. People do not think for themselves. It's rare. Most people listen to whatever biased and probably inaccurate source they've decided to believe. Viewership of major news channels should prove my point there.

I hear the short career argument often and like you never understand the point.  Using the players that are not good enough to remain in MLB to make any point about compensation makes absolutely no sense.  Thousands never make it to MLB at all.  Should we bake that into the calculations as well?  The average career is 2.7 years because the guy that plays 4 games go into the denominator.  Take all of the guys out that play less than 1 year and what's the average then?

 

[RJA]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Okay, that's enough. You're just making stuff up now. The players backed off their free agency demands weeks ago, it was one of the first things they conceded when negotiations began. Were they supposed to back off their demands while owners refused to talk to them?

You're allowed your own opinions but not your own facts. If you continue to just make stuff up, I will remove your ability to post in this thread and future threads about labor negotiations.

In my  humble opinion, you are out of line.  You are not a party to the negotiations any more than the rest of us.  TD should be a free marketplace of opinions, with people being able to post without a threat of being kicked off the site.  My gosh, man, this isn't the war in Ukraine, it is baseball.  Do you not think I am smart enough to sort out the facts on my own.  I do not need you to arbitrate for me.  Seth, you are a sensible man.  Is this type of censorship what TD stands for?  It insults all of us readers.

[TheLeviathan]

7 minutes ago, RJA said:

In my  humble opinion, you are out of line.  You are not a party to the negotiations any more than the rest of us.  TD should be a free marketplace of opinions, with people being able to post without a threat of being kicked off the site.  My gosh, man, this isn't the war in Ukraine, it is baseball.  Do you not think I am smart enough to sort out the facts on my own.  I do not need you to arbitrate for me.  Seth, you are a sensible man.  Is this type of censorship what TD stands for?  It insults all of us readers.

Speaking as a regular contributor, I think this move is way overdue. The poster in question has continued to ignore counterpoints presented to his argument, he has regurgitated the same posts Ad nauseam, and he isn't facilitating any actual discussion.  Perhaps worst of all...he presents hypotheticals as facts and demeans other posters' contributions as less than his due to his supposed line of work. Contributors like @Vanimal46and @Nick Nelsonhave asked great questions to challenge his viewpoints and been met with silence other than the same regurgitated views.  This is the definition of trolling.

I for one am glad the rope finally ran out.  These threads might be interesting again.

[RJA]

3 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Speaking as a regular contributor, I think this move is way overdue. The poster in question has continued to ignore counterpoints presented to his argument, he has regurgitated the same posts Ad nauseam, and he isn't facilitating any actual discussion.  Contributors like @Vanimal46and @Nick Nelsonhave asked great questions to challenge his viewpoints and been met with silence other than the same regurgitated views.  This is the definition of trolling.

I for one am glad the rope finally ran out.  These threads might be interesting again.

I have to respectfully disagree.  I understand your frustration, but once you start banning people it is a slippery slope.  Just ignore the guy.  We are all smart enough to see through comments like these.  I think this topic generated a large number of quality responses from all sides.  He is a mosquito.  Ignore him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

8 minutes ago, RJA said:

I have to respectfully disagree.  I understand your frustration, but once you start banning people it is a slippery slope.  Just ignore the guy.  We are all smart enough to see through comments like these.  I think this topic generated a large number of quality responses from all sides.  He is a mosquito.  Ignore him.

There is no slippery slope. We have clearly defined rules on what is allowed in the community and we have no obligation to allow users to run rampant with their own agendas. This is not the town square, this is our private website. 

[KirbyDome89]

On 3/4/2022 at 1:37 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

If anyone wants a good, nuanced take on the lockout and where the two sides are right now, Effectively Wild (as usual) does a great job of it. Today, they brought in Evan Drellich, who has probably been the best reporter through this process.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-1818-smile-youre-on-manfred-camera/

Drellich was on Ryen Russillo's latest Ringer podcast as well. Also worth a listen.

[KirbyDome89]

43 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Speaking as a regular contributor, I think this move is way overdue. The poster in question has continued to ignore counterpoints presented to his argument, he has regurgitated the same posts Ad nauseam, and he isn't facilitating any actual discussion.  Perhaps worst of all...he presents hypotheticals as facts and demeans other posters' contributions as less than his due to his supposed line of work. Contributors like @Vanimal46and @Nick Nelsonhave asked great questions to challenge his viewpoints and been met with silence other than the same regurgitated views.  This is the definition of trolling.

I for one am glad the rope finally ran out.  These threads might be interesting again.

Chef's kiss.

[RJA]

1 hour ago, RJA said:

I have to respectfully disagree.  I understand your frustration, but once you start banning people it is a slippery slope.  Just ignore the guy.  We are all smart enough to see through comments like these.  I think this topic generated a large number of quality responses from all sides.  He is a mosquito.  Ignore him.

Please chill, Brock.  You and others obviously have a history with this guy that predates me.  Your anger indicates that I must have gotten accidentally into the middle of something that has been simmering for some time .  I did not know that.  I am not suggesting that you don't have the right to ban someone, but simply questioning if it is the right thing to do.  I would just respectfully suggest that you contact the person directly--and privately--and kick him off.  That way it won't seem so arbitrary to those of us that have just become active on the site. I just was shocked by your comment because it seemed contrary to normal positive and encouraging tone of TD postings.  There has been a long history of problematic behavior, I get it now.  Please forgive my ignorance.  I apologize if you felt I was out of line.  I have no animosity toward you.  I love the site. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, RJA said:

Please chill, Brock.  You and others obviously have a history with this guy that predates me.  Your anger indicates that I must have gotten accidentally into the middle of something that has been simmering for some time .  I did not know that.  I am not suggesting that you don't have the right to ban someone, but simply questioning if it is the right thing to do.  I would just respectfully suggest that you contact the person directly--and privately--and kick him off.  That way it won't seem so arbitrary to those of us that have just become active on the site. I just was shocked by your comment because it seemed contrary to normal positive and encouraging tone of TD postings.  There has been a long history of problematic behavior, I get it now.  Please forgive my ignorance.  I apologize if you felt I was out of line.  I have no animosity toward you.  I love the site. 

Oh, no worries at all, I wasn't angry at your response, I was just outlining our policy. I'm sorry if I came across as brusque, as it was not my intent.

[chpettit19]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Are you saying players who aren't good enough to produce at the MLB level should be paid more than the $500-800k they're going to be making?

Boras clients may only represent 15% of all MLB players, but it was reported in this thread (I didn't verify) his clients represent 30% of the representatives who are leading negotiations. Those reps determine whether or not the players get to vote at all. Aside from that, I'm firm in the belief Max Scherzer and Kris Bryant absolutely have dramatically more pull than Ryan Jeffers and Jorge Alcala and the elite players (disproportionately represented by Boras) in the game have more pull than the non-elite.

MiLB players do not have a vote and are not part of the CBA. MLB players do not care about MiLB players and they've shown that for decades. Again, because you're building a strawman here, I don't think Boras is some sort of puppeteer. I do think the amount of power he wields is bad for the process. People do not think for themselves. It's rare. Most people listen to whatever biased and probably inaccurate source they've decided to believe. Viewership of major news channels should prove my point there.

No, I'm not saying they should earn more than that. I'm arguing the opposite point in that I don't have a problem with the pre-arb pool going to the best pre-arb players and not being spread evenly. And I'm saying I don't think that's some Boras power play as you and MLR have been suggesting.

You talked about the committee like they're just making stuff up as they go. They aren't. The union has been planning for these negotiations for literally years. The committee knows what the entire union wants and aren't going to bring offers that are short of their threshold to a vote as that'd be a waste of time. The suggestion that the committee is just doing whatever they want is crazy to me. That idea is saying that the committee rejected an offer the union would've passed if brought to a vote and thus knowingly got their teammates paychecks withheld despite knowing the rest of the union would've wanted that deal. Where our opinions differ is in that I'm coming at this from the idea that the CBA has been talked about in clubhouses and union meetings for years. The committee, and Boras/his clients, aren't changing the gameplan on the fly to fit their needs while ignoring the rest of the union's desires. 

I'm well aware that MiLB players don't vote and aren't part of the CBA. I've never suggested anything different. You really think 85% of players, and their agents, and their inner circle, and their hangers on, and everyone else around them are so unable to think for themselves that Boras and his 15% can manipulate them for literally years to get them to give up millions, be willing to sacrifice paychecks, and miss games? Because that's what you're suggesting. The rest of the players have owners who want their fees to be coming from bigger paychecks, too. You think those agents have so little pull with their clients that Boras can convince them all to go along with his plan because they just can't think for themselves? This isn't people watching mainstream news (although, I do agree with your sentiment there), this is people fighting for their chunk of billions of dollars with money managers and agents who want their chunk of millions. Those people are thinking for themselves.

[tony&rodney]

The idea that Boras is manipulating the entire CBA is preposterous. Other than irrational fear of a boogie man or jealousy, this entire concept runs anathema to his career as a promoter of the welfare of baseball. He is a player rep, a really good one, but that is it. Scott Boras will retire in a few years and those who disparage his performance will likely miss him  more than is necessary. 

The dispute still breaks down to about $5 million or so per team. The owners can adjust quickly to recoup that number. Similar to a Screen Actors' Guild clash, this entertainment mess could be resolved very quickly if each side sees fit and the owners hold the best cards. A little resolve, a little humility, and a little give from both is actually possible - within a week and play a full schedule.

[bean5302]

6 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

No, I'm not saying they should earn more than that. I'm arguing the opposite point in that I don't have a problem with the pre-arb pool going to the best pre-arb players and not being spread evenly. And I'm saying I don't think that's some Boras power play as you and MLR have been suggesting.

You talked about the committee like they're just making stuff up as they go. They aren't. The union has been planning for these negotiations for literally years. The committee knows what the entire union wants and aren't going to bring offers that are short of their threshold to a vote as that'd be a waste of time. The suggestion that the committee is just doing whatever they want is crazy to me. That idea is saying that the committee rejected an offer the union would've passed if brought to a vote and thus knowingly got their teammates paychecks withheld despite knowing the rest of the union would've wanted that deal. Where our opinions differ is in that I'm coming at this from the idea that the CBA has been talked about in clubhouses and union meetings for years. The committee, and Boras/his clients, aren't changing the gameplan on the fly to fit their needs while ignoring the rest of the union's desires. 

I'm well aware that MiLB players don't vote and aren't part of the CBA. I've never suggested anything different. You really think 85% of players, and their agents, and their inner circle, and their hangers on, and everyone else around them are so unable to think for themselves that Boras and his 15% can manipulate them for literally years to get them to give up millions, be willing to sacrifice paychecks, and miss games? Because that's what you're suggesting. The rest of the players have owners who want their fees to be coming from bigger paychecks, too. You think those agents have so little pull with their clients that Boras can convince them all to go along with his plan because they just can't think for themselves? This isn't people watching mainstream news (although, I do agree with your sentiment there), this is people fighting for their chunk of billions of dollars with money managers and agents who want their chunk of millions. Those people are thinking for themselves.

Anytime you feel like stopping with the misquotes, let me know...

 

[chpettit19]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Anytime you feel like stopping with the misquotes, let me know...

 

Let me know what I'm misquoting. 

"I do believe the amount of power he wields is bad for the business."

That's the quote I'm refuting. I don't believe he wields the power you think he does and I've provided the reasoning for that. Anytime you feel like giving any explanation beyond "he represents a number of the most talent players" let me know...