Comments on: Even after Boras was cleared, the New York Times continues to pound him

By: tominma

tominma — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:44:06 +0000

Boras is a dirtbag!!

By: jimbeetle

jimbeetle — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 16:33:53 +0000

“But while the judge has now essentially cleared the defendant, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly remains unsatisfied.”

He, he. That reference is kind of fun. Substitute “Police Department” for the Commissioner and you have another NYT article published today:

How One Police Dept. Reached 2 Rulings on a Shooting
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/nyregion/05chair.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:47:21 +0000

Salcedo actually left Boras after the loan was made and subsequently returned, so he obviously didn’t feel obligated. And there’s no bargaining between the agent and the player. Agent’s cuts are standard. And indeed, Salcedo got a multi-million bonus a year ago and still hasn’t paid the $70K loan back. If Boras had some sort of power over him as a result, you think he might’ve at least started by getting paid back yet?

And there is nothing preventing loans to players. As of October of 2010, however, they merely must be disclosed. Any agent can do it, and several do. And banks and individuals can loan people to anyone. Are you concerned that they might “make someone do something they might otherwise not do?” Boras is regulated. If he screws with people the union can decertify him. He’s not some loan shark.

By: evanhartford

evanhartford — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:42:45 +0000

It’s dirty because:

A) The player is indebted to his agent. It makes it much more difficult for him from a bargaining standpoint and makes it near impossible to switch agents. It opens the door for Boras to exploit the player. When someone owes you money, you can make them do a lot of things they wouldn’t otherwise do.

B) It incentivises young aspiring POOR baseball players all over the world to sign with him since he will lend them money. This creates an extremely unfair competitive advantage to other agents with less financial resources; as if Boras didn’t already have a representation monopoly in baseball.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:24:18 +0000

How is it dirty? Salcedo was already a Boras client. The loans were not designed to get him to switch allegiances. There is no NCAA-style amateurism at stake here. Salcedo remains a Boras client.

Please explain to me what aspect of this is dirty.

By: evanhartford

evanhartford — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:21:16 +0000

Craig, the whole thing’s dirty.

And just as you criticize sports writers for how they make their HOF votes, despite the fact that they’re following the “rules”, you shouldn’t criticize the NY Times for essentially doing the same thing when it comes to Boras. He might be following the rules, but the whole thing stinks of bribery, coercion, exploitation, .

I suppose you and the NY Times need to “stop hating the players and start hating the game”.

By: evanhartford

evanhartford — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:20:58 +0000

Craig, the whole thing’s dirty.

And just as you criticize sports writers for how they make their HOF votes, despite the fact that they’re following the “rules”, you shouldn’t criticize the NY Times for essentially doing the same thing when it comes to Boras. He might be following hte rules, but the whole thing stinks of bribery, coercion, exploitation, .

I suppose you and the NY Times need to “stop hating the players and start hating the game”.

By: JM Lattanzi

JM Lattanzi — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:56:43 +0000

Great fisk.

Eisegetical reporting is obnoxious, no matter what section of the paper it is.

By: BC

BC — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:44:10 +0000

Oh. I thought it was MLB that gave the accreditation. My bad.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:31:56 +0000

The union gives accreditation to agents, so they have jurisdiction over Boras regardless of Salcedo’s status.

By: BC

BC — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:29:25 +0000

But if Salcedo is not (yet) in the union, what the heck jurisdiction does the union have? And what does their opinion matter?