You've got the power

[duan]

by the way, I can't understand how american sports get away with
1) 18-22 year old athletes performing in a quasi professional environment for no compensation
2) The lack of rights for young workers - rights which are being signed away by the top 1% of their sport - that the draft involves
3) The lack of rights for any worker that 'trading' involves.

[Guest AG/DC]

Let's start union for minor league players.

Really, the introduction of affiliation and farm systems hurt baseball culture and American culture in myriad ways.

[Frayed Knot]

The main difference is that a million years ago (give or take) English football and American baseball started and then grew in very different ways; one very much a 'top-down' situation (MLB) and the other more akin to 'bottom-up'

The forerunners of MLB were created to seperate themselves from amateur baseball rather than as an extension of it. Then, once all those initial leagues shook out and the NL/AL merger created just one remaining two-headed giant, that top dog took the role as gatekeeper into the pro ranks as well.
England's FA is more all-encompansing in the bottom-up 'pyramid' structure that Duan mentions. The closest we have here to that kind of set up is the way USGA runs golf in this country.

Changing any of the team sports in this country so that they could handle a promotion/relegation system would require, if not blowing things up and starting again, then at least a severe overhaul.

[Guest Iubitul]

1. Have a constitutional ammendment written that outlaws the DH at every level of organized baseball.

2. Stop Interleague play and go back to an unbalanced schedule with two divisions in each league, and no wild card. This would involve contracting two teams, and making each league 14 teams deep.

3. shortening the commercial time between innings.

4. instituting a minimum salary cap

5. World Series = weekend day games.

6. Instituting a World-Wide amateur draft - this would include any player coming out of the Japanese leagues.

7. Revoking Scott Boras' license.

[duan]

Iubitul wrote: 7. Revoking Scott Boras' license.

I have to say, I don't understand the hatred for Scott Boras either. If his job is to get the best possible price for his players he's very good at it. The reality is, MLB will try and get the most for the TV rights it can - it doesn't go "hey it'd be great to have MLB on PBS because that would mean that a whole raft of people who don't get exposed to that kind of quality programming on a regular basis might hang around after watching the ball game and see what's on."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that money *should* be the only motivation, but with people it often is.

[Guest AG/DC]

He makes players millionaires. Why should we resent him and them and not the billionaire owners?

Nor do I agree with the extension of the draft. That too would just give the owners more anti-competitive leverage over players. Destroy the draft. Blow it up.

[metirish]

Yeah it's not like The Players Union don't put their own pressure on certain big ticket players to take the most money.

[Guest Iubitul]

AG/DC wrote: Nor do I agree with the extension of the draft. That too would just give the owners more anti-competitive leverage over players. Destroy the draft. Blow it up.

And we'll have big market teams like the Yankees, Mets, etc., hoarding minor leaguers like the Yankees and Cardinals did in the 40's and 50's...

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think Boras' bad rep comes from the perception (and maybe it's true) that he'll always chase the last penny and disregards his client's wishes.

For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market.

No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got.

It's frustrating for the fans. If Pelfrey said, "Scott, I want to be a Met for a long time. Let's sign a six-year contract now" the perception (again) is that Boras wouldn't allow it.

If in fact he doesn't consider any of the player's non-monetary desires, then it's up to the player to fire or replace or overrule him, like Alex Rodriguez appeared to do last year. I don't really think he should get any more "blame" than the players who go along with his plan. They're the bosses, after all, in the agent-player relationship.

[TransMonk]

Iubitul wrote: 2. Stop Interleague play and go back to an unbalanced schedule with two divisions in each league, and no wild card. This would involve contracting two teams, and making each league 14 teams deep.

Yes, please. Except for the WC...I don't mid it.

[Guest AG/DC]

Iubitul wrote: ="AG/DC"] Nor do I agree with the extension of the draft. That too would just give the owners more anti-competitive leverage over players. Destroy the draft. Blow it up. And we'll have big market teams like the Yankees, Mets, etc., hoarding minor leaguers like the Yankees and Cardinals did in the 40's and 50's...

The answer then is to restrict the anti-competitive rights of the big market teams to control their markets without challenge --- not to further whack the players who have limited opportunities to sell their skills.

In real dollars, minor leaguers today make less than they did in sixties. I heard some yo-yo on the LIRR my last trip to Shea insisting that minor leaugers make $400,000. Totally wrong. The only big dollars come in bonuses, and they're only what you'd call large for the first round and a half. They get one crack at those and then they're slaves for 10 years --- no rights, no union, no leverage, and very limited opportunitites if they walk away.

Drafting is an abomination. Could you imagine if you were drafted into your career?

[Benjamin Grimm]

They're not going to want to lose the extra round of playoffs.

The other way to go would be to expand to 32 teams and have four four-team divisions in each league. That way only first-place teams would make the playoffs

[Guest AG/DC]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They're not going to want to lose the extra round of playoffs.

Well, acknowledging impracticeablity is part of the game.

Is that a word? Impracticeablity?

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: He makes players millionaires. Why should we resent him and them and not the billionaire owners?.

The billionaire owners who never ever truly opened up their books to the public.

You're right.

[batmagadanleadoff]

duan wrote: and before you go "but the playoffs ... etc etc etc" isn't the goal to decide *the best* team?

I think you've made an excellent point. This is also precisely why I lose interest in post-season baseball if the Mets aren't involved. Baseball is the worst team sport in which to have expanded playoffs.

I don't like that more than half of all NBA teams make the playoffs, for example. But at least in basketball, a four out of seven series is a reliable, though not perfect way to advance the better team. It doesn't work in baseball. The difference between two very good baseball teams is subtle enough that it would take many many more than seven games to reliably determine the better of the two teams. That, and there's a lot more luck at play in baseball than in the other team sports. That's why these short series' in basebal are crap shoots, as they say.

[duan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think Boras' bad rep comes from the perception (and maybe it's true) that he'll always chase the last penny and disregards his client's wishes. For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market. No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got. It's frustrating for the fans. If Pelfrey said, "Scott, I want to be a Met for a long time. Let's sign a six-year contract now" the perception (again) is that Boras wouldn't allow it. If in fact he doesn't consider any of the player's non-monetary desires, then it's up to the player to fire or replace or overrule him, like Alex Rodriguez appeared to do last year. I don't really think he should get any more "blame" than the players who go along with his plan. They're the bosses, after all, in the agent-player relationship.

that's the thing isn't it. The senior player ALWAYS knows what the agent is doing (I'm sure there are some young ones who do get swept along). I guarantee you that Boras is more then happy to be the shield for his clients and indeed, that's probably part of the plan.

[duan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: For example, if the Mets were to go to Mike Pelfrey after the 2009 season and offer him a five-year contract that would eat up one or two years of his free-agency, Boras would turn it down. If Pelfrey follows the track of other Boras clients, he won't sign anything that delays free agency and the Mets won't be able to guarantee his long-term Metness until after they've been forced to compete with other teams on the open market. No deals like the ones that Wright and Reyes got.

that's a calculated risk on both sides. Because of his slightly more circuitous career path it's not a direct comparison (I didn't find one easily) but by your reckoning, Chris Carpenter would be (if represented by Scott Boras) facing into Free Agency this winter
Instead he's 19 million into a 65 million deal. One that he's made 4 starts since signing.

[Guest AG/DC]

Excellent point.

If I were Chris Carpenter
And Scott was my lady
I would love him anyway
He could have my baby

[Guest Vince Coleman Firecracker]

The only players that are "forced" into a contract by Scott Boras are the ones that choose him to be their agent. All the anti-Boras nonsense spat out by the sports media is just another example of how labor is vilified in this country while owners are given free reign to hoard an unreasonable percentage of the income.

Hmm, when I'm commissioner, my league might be a little different than I first envisioned:
- The DH will be considered the opiate of the sponsors, and any practice of it, from the majors down to little league will be outlawed
- All income will be centralized in the Kommisioner's office, and owners will be paid based upon how many games their team has won.
- The Cleveland Indians will be the Cleveland Bourgeoisie, and their offensive American Indian logo will be replaced by an offensive grinning WASP with a pig's nose wearing a monocle and a top hat.
- 4.00 ERA good, 2.00 ERA better

On second thought, maybe the major league player's association should really start working for minor league players' rights, since, basically, all major leaguers were once minor leaguers.

[soupcan]

Since you guys were discussing Boras...

] October 10, 2008 Baseball Playoff Analysis Baseball�s Super Agent Is in the Game By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT Scott Boras at Angels Stadium in August. Boras's field-level luxury box behind home plate gave him plenty of airtime during the A.L.D.S. Scott Boras has had more airtime this postseason than a lot of players and managers. For nearly every pitch of the two division-series games played at Angels Stadium in Anaheim, Calif., he stood in his field-level luxury box behind home plate. His position placed him directly over the umpire�s right shoulder and on millions of television screens and served as a direct reminder that Boras is front and center as always, impervious to the fuming and fussing he stirs up as baseball�s most visible and unrelenting player agent. It was only last October that Boras came in for the heaviest criticism of his career when word got out during Game 4 of the World Series that Alex Rodriguez, his client of clients, had decided to opt out of his contract with the Yankees. People within baseball, and many who write about it, were infuriated, saying that Boras had showed a lack of respect for baseball�s traditions by letting Rodriguez�s intentions be known just as the Boston Red Sox were about to capture their second World Series in four season. Many suspected, and said, that Boras had deliberately leaked the news, thereby stealing attention away from the Red Sox. But a year later, there are no discernible signs that Boras suffered as a result. He remains the happy warrior of agents, finding himself in new controversies and moving right through them. As baseball�s league championship series begin on Thursday, Boras will be represented everywhere, with 10 active players on the four teams. Boras will not be as visible on TV because the Los Angeles Angels, and Boras client Mark Teixeira, were eliminated in the division round by the Red Sox. But Boras will be up the road in Chavez Ravine, sitting in his box at Dodgers Stadium (although not behind home plate) and watching another client, the slugger Manny Ramirez, lead his Los Angeles teammates against the Philadelphia Phillies in the N.L.C.S. And rather than upstaging the World Series this year, Boras could be casting it. Should the Dodgers and Red Sox advance to the World Series, there could be an all-Boras moment among his clients, with Daisuke Matsuzaka on the mound for Boston, Ramirez in the batter�s box, Jason Varitek squatting behind the plate and outfielder Jacoby Ellsbury and J.D. Drew converging on the ball in right-center field, if Ramirez hits it to the opposite field. Of all the Boras clients still playing this October, Ramirez looms largest. He drove the Red Sox to distraction in the first half of the season with assorted forms of misbehavior, and they finally traded him to Los Angeles, where he proceeded to tear into National League pitching for two months and carry the Dodgers into the playoffs. But that is only part of the story. As a member of the Red Sox, Ramirez was not automatically eligible for free agency. Boston could simply pick up his option for 2009. But the theory among many in baseball is that Ramirez was acting out deliberately in the hope that the Red Sox would trade him, and that Boras went along, knowing that if a trade did occur, he could insist on Ramirez becoming a free agent after the World Series. Indeed, the trade will allow Ramirez to become a free agent and Boras will collect a healthy commission on a new deal. All of this caught the attention of Commissioner Bud Selig, who asked one of his deputies to look into the matter without it apparently leading anywhere. None of this makes any sense to Boras, who during a recent interview in his posh offices in Newport Beach � a 45-minute drive from the Angels, an hour from the Dodgers � lamented that media coverage of him is overwhelmingly unfavorable. Sipping hot tea from a mug with his name on it, Boras zeroed in on July, when Ramirez was still playing for Boston. �Everyone said we went to Manny and said, �Don�t do things on the field that you would normally do,�� Boras said. �I can only say this when people raise that question: Manny hit .360 in July, led the team in home runs, r.b.i.�s, the whole thing. What is it that Manny wasn�t doing? I would like to be responsible for Manny hitting .360.� Actually, Ramirez batted .347, not .360, and Kevin Youkilis slightly outdid him in home runs and r.b.i. But the numbers were only part of Boras�s counterargument; he was also willing to take on the notion that Ramirez wasn�t always running hard in Boston, wasn�t always trying. �I�ve played the game a long time,� Boras said, �and there are a lot of players that don�t run particularly hard a lot and they are great hitters because they are trying to save their legs. I see it as a matter of practice that you would like to see him run hard, but the fact is they don�t want to wear him out and that�s the pace they play at.� Whatever the merits of the controversy, Boras will almost certainly have the last word because Ramirez�s onslaught with the Dodgers virtually guarantees that some team � the Dodgers? the Mets? � will give him a lot of money for the next couple of seasons. Boras also seemed to come out on top in the other client controversy he encountered this summer, this one involving Pedro Alvarez, a third baseman from Vanderbilt, whom the Pittsburgh Pirates took with the No. 2 pick in the June draft. After Alvarez agreed to a $6 million signing bonus and a minor league contract with the Pirates, the deal was held up by a dispute about whether Major League Baseball improperly extended the negotiating deadline. Some questioned whether Boras was using technicalities to get more money out of the Pirates, particularly because a player picked after Alvarez had received a signing bonus of $6.2 million. Ultimately, the Pirates and Boras agreed to a new contract that will pay Alvarez at least $6.4 million and as much as $8 million over four years. Reflecting on the criticism, Boras said: �I only get the negativity because it�s written so much, about here he goes again doing something different, it�s always about money. Seventy percent of what we do is not about money; it�s about advancing players and getting players to be better. �When I have families come in when we represent the premium people in the draft and they look at me � mothers, fathers, players � and thank me for what you do,� Boras said, nothing else matters, especially the criticism. And certainly not, he added, when the criticism is coming from �a writer who is without the facts.� Boras again maintained that he was unfairly made the fall guy in last October�s Rodriguez uproar. �I didn�t disclose anything,� he said unapologetically. �I tell everybody I didn�t.� The disclosure �certainly didn�t help me,� he added, �because it hurt my negotiating position with the Yankees.� Rodriguez ultimately re-signed with the Yankees for a fortune and won�t be in play this off-season. But Ramirez is, as is Texeira, who could end up with the biggest free-agent contract of any position player. That will mean more spotlight time for Boras, even if he isn�t standing behind home plate.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think this is just the start of the Manny-to-the-Mets rumors we'll be hearing this winter.

[HahnSolo]

Is it asking too much of the New York Times to know how to spell Ellsbury and Varitek?