Post by Yankees GM (A) on Jan 28, 2009 14:50:04 GMT -5
From a legal stand point. Here:
www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-truth-about-scott-boras/
He's no doubt effective but I've always had a problem, from an ethical standpoint, about how he goes about his business.
I left this comment below the article:
Fascinating article. As a lawyer who spent 3 years interning at a sports agency while in law school, I enjoyed and agree w/ your analysis. There is another area where, I feel, Boras has breached his duty of loyalty to his clients repeatedly over the years. It can really best be described best in the way he has managed Jason Varitek's career. Varitek was drafted in the 1st round in 1993 by the Minnesota Twins. Varitek did not sign in 93, re-entered the draft and was drafted in 1994 by the Mariners. He did not sign that contract until April of 1995. (all according to baseball-reference) In effect, Boras held out Varitek for 2 crucial years of development, and, more importantly for Varitek, 2 years of his prime that he wouldn't be making free agent money. This undoubtedly cost Varitek untold millions by postponing his free agency years all in the name of making a few more dollars at the front end. As it stands, Varitek did not become a free agent until after the 2004 season, his 32 year old season. He left GT as one of the best hitting college catchers in history and was probably on the fast track but for a two year lay off. The difference in contract value for a free agent catcher at 29-30 and 32 would have been significant. More importantly, it seems that Boras allowed Varitek (and players like him) to fall on the sword for the greater good of Boras' other clients. Boras needs other teams to know that he is willing to let his players walk if the team doesn't bend to his demands. If he needs a few well known examples, so be it; it benefits the rest of his players. If the player holding out has any chance of having a lengthy career, however, the cost in service and development time is almost never worth it compares to the jackpot that is free agency. Therein lies the problem. A lawyer owes a duty of undivided loyalty to each and every client as stated in the article. He does not owe that duty to his stable in general, but to each person individually. If you induce a client to take a stance that would be adverse to their career for the good of your present and future clients in general, you've breached your duty to the individual player. All in all, don't feel bad for Varitek. It was, after all, his ultimate decision and he is a wealthy man no matter how you cut it. Between the draft hold out and refusing arbitration this year, however, Boras has cost Jason Varitek millions upon millions of hard earned dollars.
www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-truth-about-scott-boras/
He's no doubt effective but I've always had a problem, from an ethical standpoint, about how he goes about his business.
I left this comment below the article:
Fascinating article. As a lawyer who spent 3 years interning at a sports agency while in law school, I enjoyed and agree w/ your analysis. There is another area where, I feel, Boras has breached his duty of loyalty to his clients repeatedly over the years. It can really best be described best in the way he has managed Jason Varitek's career. Varitek was drafted in the 1st round in 1993 by the Minnesota Twins. Varitek did not sign in 93, re-entered the draft and was drafted in 1994 by the Mariners. He did not sign that contract until April of 1995. (all according to baseball-reference) In effect, Boras held out Varitek for 2 crucial years of development, and, more importantly for Varitek, 2 years of his prime that he wouldn't be making free agent money. This undoubtedly cost Varitek untold millions by postponing his free agency years all in the name of making a few more dollars at the front end. As it stands, Varitek did not become a free agent until after the 2004 season, his 32 year old season. He left GT as one of the best hitting college catchers in history and was probably on the fast track but for a two year lay off. The difference in contract value for a free agent catcher at 29-30 and 32 would have been significant. More importantly, it seems that Boras allowed Varitek (and players like him) to fall on the sword for the greater good of Boras' other clients. Boras needs other teams to know that he is willing to let his players walk if the team doesn't bend to his demands. If he needs a few well known examples, so be it; it benefits the rest of his players. If the player holding out has any chance of having a lengthy career, however, the cost in service and development time is almost never worth it compares to the jackpot that is free agency. Therein lies the problem. A lawyer owes a duty of undivided loyalty to each and every client as stated in the article. He does not owe that duty to his stable in general, but to each person individually. If you induce a client to take a stance that would be adverse to their career for the good of your present and future clients in general, you've breached your duty to the individual player. All in all, don't feel bad for Varitek. It was, after all, his ultimate decision and he is a wealthy man no matter how you cut it. Between the draft hold out and refusing arbitration this year, however, Boras has cost Jason Varitek millions upon millions of hard earned dollars.