McCourt to Boras: Drop Dead

[heyabbott]

"We want Manny back, but we feel we are negotiating against ourselves," Dodgers owner Frank McCourt said in a statement. "When his agent finds those 'serious offers' from other clubs, we'll be happy to restart the negotiations."
...
"Even with an economy that has substantially eroded since last November, out of respect for Manny and his talents, we actually improved our offer," McCourt said.

 

[indiansnetwork]

Boras is on his way out as a agent. Manny or Varitek were not smart enough to see he was screwing them. How many players will he screw before he is forced into retirement.

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

Boras is on his way out as a agent. Manny or Varitek were not smart enough to see he was screwing them. How many players will he screw before he is forced into retirement.

Probably just as many as Alyssa Milano, if not more.

 

[outofplace]

I posted this on the Spring Training thread, too.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgOPdsXqwz2XEHhrQw9rF_Y5nYcB?slug=sh-ramirezclose022709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

According to Steve Henson, the offer Boras turned down would have paid Ramirez only $15 million for 2009, $22.5 million in 2010 with a club option for $22.5 million in 2011. That option would come with a $7.5 million buyout.

Boras is still holding out for $25 million in 2009 and a $20 million player option in 2010. I hate to defend the guy, but the decision to turn down the Dodgers' latest offer makes a little more sense if this report is true.

 

[heyabbott]

I posted this on the Spring Training thread, too.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgOPdsXqwz2XEHhrQw9rF_Y5nYcB?slug=sh-ramirezclose022709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

According to Steve Henson, the offer Boras turned down would have paid Ramirez only $15 million for 2009, $22.5 million in 2010 with a club option for $22.5 million in 2011. That option would come with a $7.5 million buyout.

Boras is still holding out for $25 million in 2009 and a $20 million player option in 2010. I hate to defend the guy, but the decision to turn down the Dodgers' latest offer makes a little more sense if this report is true.

When owners start to act like they only have to pay a dollar more than the next guy, Boras will be **** out of luck

 

[poindexter]

I posted this on the Spring Training thread, too.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgOPdsXqwz2XEHhrQw9rF_Y5nYcB?slug=sh-ramirezclose022709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

According to Steve Henson, the offer Boras turned down would have paid Ramirez only $15 million for 2009, $22.5 million in 2010 with a club option for $22.5 million in 2011. That option would come with a $7.5 million buyout.

Boras is still holding out for $25 million in 2009 and a $20 million player option in 2010. I hate to defend the guy, but the decision to turn down the Dodgers' latest offer makes a little more sense if this report is true.

Maybe Boras should have taken the offer given in November, without all the deferred money, instead of inferring that it was insulting.

Boras is acting like he's selling a house and clinging to 2006 sales comps. The market has changed.

 

[outofplace]

I posted this on the Spring Training thread, too.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgOPdsXqwz2XEHhrQw9rF_Y5nYcB?slug=sh-ramirezclose022709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

According to Steve Henson, the offer Boras turned down would have paid Ramirez only $15 million for 2009, $22.5 million in 2010 with a club option for $22.5 million in 2011. That option would come with a $7.5 million buyout.

Boras is still holding out for $25 million in 2009 and a $20 million player option in 2010. I hate to defend the guy, but the decision to turn down the Dodgers' latest offer makes a little more sense if this report is true.

Maybe Boras should have taken the offer given in November, without all the deferred money, instead of inferring that it was insulting.

Boras is acting like he's selling a house and clinging to 2006 sales comps. The market has changed.

No doubt. i'm just saying it makes more to me now. I had been under the impression that they turned down $45 million over two years from the Dodgers, with $25 million in '09 and an opt-out for '10.

 

[cranberry]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

Isn't he deeply involved in directing his clients' funds to Allen Stanford?

 

[heyabbott]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

Boras is not as disliked as David FalkFaulk, though.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

Boras is not as disliked as David Faulk, though.

Falk.

Speaking of which.... as awful as this is, the headline just drops me to the floor.

http://www.tmz.com/2008/04/23/peter-falk-runs-amok-refuses-help-and-comb/

 

[cranberry]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

Isn't he deeply involved in directing his clients' funds to Allen Stanford?

I don't know. Here's what the NYTimes story says:

(Boras) said that his company did not invest any of his clients’ money. But one of the company’s subsidiaries, Personal Management Consultants, audits the investment advisers chosen by players, raising red flags when necessary. It also keeps track of the players’ paychecks and other financial matters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/sports/baseball/26boras.html?ref=sports

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I think Mark Teixeira has a different opinion of Boras these days than is being expressed here. Frank McCourt is a noisy balloon who thinks all of life is a real-estate deal. He'll pony up.

 

[BYH]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

Isn't he deeply involved in directing his clients' funds to Allen Stanford?

I don't know. Here's what the NYTimes story says:

(Boras) said that his company did not invest any of his clients’ money. But one of the company’s subsidiaries, Personal Management Consultants, audits the investment advisers chosen by players, raising red flags when necessary. It also keeps track of the players’ paychecks and other financial matters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/sports/baseball/26boras.html?ref=sports

I don't believe for a second that Boras hasn't steered his guys to Stanford.

I agree that one should never bury Boras, but I really wonder if the news of A-Rod's positive test wasn't as much to nail Boras as it was to nail A-Rod. Boras is so proud of his multi-tiered agency, one that offers its very own personal trainers to the stable of stars. At some point, if enough Boras clients are outed, don't we begin to wonder where they all got the goods?

Combine that with his clients potentially losing their fortunes with investors whom Boras recommended and I wonder if the beginning of the end is on the horizon. Because it's one thing for a player to get nailed for steroids. quite another to see his 11 figures dwindling to five thanks to a guy Boras recommended.

Or I could just be crazy. Will be interesting to see the names of the other 103, though.

 

[poindexter]

I think Mark Teixeira has a different opinion of Boras these days than is being expressed here.

Sure he does.

And Jason Varitek, who was advised to decline arbitration this year, has a different view about Boras than Teix.

 

[poindexter]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

Isn't he deeply involved in directing his clients' funds to Allen Stanford?

I don't know. Here's what the NYTimes story says:

(Boras) said that his company did not invest any of his clients’ money. But one of the company’s subsidiaries, Personal Management Consultants, audits the investment advisers chosen by players, raising red flags when necessary. It also keeps track of the players’ paychecks and other financial matters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/sports/baseball/26boras.html?ref=sports

Damon and (Nady?) had their funds frozen because of some sort of Stanford involvement. That is a huge black eye for Boras' firm. Damon didn't find Stanford from combing the yellow pages.

 

[cranberry]

I have no idea about the status of Manny's contract discussions with the Dodgers. I will say, however, that predicting the demise of Scott Boras has proven time and time again to be a futile endeavor.

Isn't he deeply involved in directing his clients' funds to Allen Stanford?

I don't know. Here's what the NYTimes story says:

(Boras) said that his company did not invest any of his clients’ money. But one of the company’s subsidiaries, Personal Management Consultants, audits the investment advisers chosen by players, raising red flags when necessary. It also keeps track of the players’ paychecks and other financial matters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/sports/baseball/26boras.html?ref=sports

I don't believe for a second that Boras hasn't steered his guys to Stanford.

I agree that one should never bury Boras, but I really wonder if the news of A-Rod's positive test wasn't as much to nail Boras as it was to nail A-Rod. Boras is so proud of his multi-tiered agency, one that offers its very own personal trainers to the stable of stars. At some point, if enough Boras clients are outed, don't we begin to wonder where they all got the goods?

Combine that with his clients potentially losing their fortunes with investors whom Boras recommended and I wonder if the beginning of the end is on the horizon. Because it's one thing for a player to get nailed for steroids. quite another to see his 11 figures dwindling to five thanks to a guy Boras recommended.

Or I could just be crazy. Will be interesting to see the names of the other 103, though.

It requires an awful lot of extrapolation to get to the point where Scott Boras is liable for any of his clients' PED use and/or financial decisions. And there's nothing out there at this point that suggests any of it to be true.

[Damon and (Nady?) had their funds frozen because of some sort of Stanford involvement. That is a huge black eye for Boras' firm. Damon didn't find Stanford from combing the yellow pages.

Well, we really don't know the answers to how or why they retained their teams of financial advisors, money managers and accountants. We don't even know very much about the level of involvement with Stanford of any of the players or what their exposure might be, either.

 

[poindexter]

Well, we really don't know the answers to how or why they retained their teams of financial advisors, money managers and accountants. We don't even know very much about the level of involvement with Stanford of any of the players or what their exposure might be, either.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090221&content_id=3861654&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
The players are both represented by the Scott Boras agency, which referred them to Stanford companies.

That's not good for business.

 

[cranberry]

Well, we really don't know the answers to how or why they retained their teams of financial advisors, money managers and accountants. We don't even know very much about the level of involvement with Stanford of any of the players or what their exposure might be, either.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090221&content_id=3861654&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
The players are both represented by the Scott Boras agency, which referred them to Stanford companies.

That's not good for business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/sports/baseball/26boras.html?ref=sports

The players did not invest directly in Stanford funds, but their investment advisers used Stanford as their broker-dealer. Regulators, who have frozen all of Stanford’s accounts, are trying to unravel what role, if any, the Stanford group’s broker-dealer played in the $8 billion financial fraud that Stanford is accused of orchestrating.

“There’s no risk of loss in their funds, but the government, in an attempt to protect everyone involved, put a wide net over the funds,” Boras said in a telephone interview. “Then, of course, in a short period of time that net will shrink.”

 

[BYH]

It requires an awful lot of extrapolation to get to the point where Scott Boras is liable for any of his clients' PED use and/or financial decisions. And there's nothing out there at this point that suggests any of it to be true.

Maybe on point A. Absolutely not on point B. Is it that unreasonable to assume that an agent who knows where every dime is located is going to steer his players to a selected money manager? As Poindexter says: These guys aren't finding Stanford on their own.

As for point A...Boras is involved with every facet of his clients' lives. At the very least, he should know what his clients are putting into their bodies...if he's not overseeing their nutritional programs himself.

He can't brag about his all-inclusive operation and then say, oh, they're on their own when it comes to managing their money or putting **** into their bodies.

I'm just saying it's going to be very interesting to see the 103 names.