Boras told Moustakas not to sign with Royals

by James Quinn on Dec 27, 2007 10:23 AM EST

Some interesting news in Flanagan's column today in the KC Star:

About those negotiations between the Royals and first-round pick Mike Moustakas last summer: You'll recall that those were the negotiations that went down to the wire, right until 15 minutes before the signing deadline.
According to the Rocky Mountain News, the deciding factor apparently was Moustakas' father, who overruled agent Scott Boras' desire to have Moustakas hold out and made his son live up to an oral promise he gave the Royals that he would sign.

Had Moustakas not signed the contract at the last minute the Royals would not have been able to talk to him further and he would have been put back into the draft in 2008 unless he enrolled in college. It seems Boras is increasingly having trouble getting his clients to follow his hard-line approach. I take a little joy in that development.

This story is particularly maddening given that Boras told the Royals the day before the draft that signing Moustakas would not be a problem.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm glad Moore/Ladnier read Moustakas right

Clearly they read him right and knew that he really wanted to play and not holdout.

This is more evidence that Boras doesn't run his clients; he does their bidding. When he goes balls to the wall to get the most money for his clients, it is because that is what they want. When they sign, it is because that is what they want.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 26, 2007 8:34 PM EST reply actions

Point taken

and no one can fault Boras for attempting to maximize his clients' dollars [and therefore also his own cut].

But the issue here is ethics. You simply don't say one thing and do another. The strong strong strong indication from Alex Rodriguez in his post contract interviews is that Boras lied to him---his highest grossing client---when choosing to leak A-Rod's opt out during Game Four of the World Series.

If, in fact, Boras said one thing to KC and then did another and/or did the same to A-Rod that's bad ethics and bad business besides. One can be a revenue maximizer without being a liar.

by howserfan on Dec 27, 2007 3:02 AM EST reply actions

I agree

and behavior like this may eventually cost his clients money. I know several clubs are reluctant to draft Boras clients already, potentially causing some of them to drop in the draft. Given the Royals' experience with Boras over the last two drafts (Hochevar and Moustakas) I am sure Moore will pause before he is willing to expend an early pick on one of his clients in the future.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 27, 2007 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

His draftees who drop

Don't they end up getting the money from someone? J.D. Drew, Hochevar, Porcello and others. Porcello dropped until late in the first round and got the huge money he wanted. Drew and Hochevar had to sit out a year, and got the money they wanted.

There is some risk in Boras's strategy, but it usually pays off. There is less risk in going with another agent, but you'll probably get less of a payoff.

I dislike Boras and the effect he's had on MLB as much as anyone, but in the end, he's just doing what his clients want. They want to get the most money, or they wouldn't have chosen him for an agent.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 11:07 AM EST up reply actions

The worse case scenario is Matt Harrison

"I'm tired of all these stupid a$$ questions every day. Why the f**k would I hit Brett for Miller?" The rest is history.

by DC Royal on Dec 28, 2007 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Good post.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 29, 2007 8:24 PM EST up reply actions

Olivo signs with Royals

Will he serve as the backup?

http://mlbfleecefactor.com/2007/12/27/royals-sign-c-miguel-olivo/

by ET90210 on Dec 27, 2007 11:37 AM EST reply actions

Nice!

I've been calling for this for weeks. He's a good backup catcher who is excellent defensively. One-year deal plus mutual option for 2009.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 12:29 PM EST reply actions

boras

players are starting to realize that there are disadvantages in dealing w/ scott boras. while he nearly always gets the best financial package available for his clients, he really does not honor their wishes in terms of teams and other personal desires. i'm glad this trend is taking shape. a-rod is simply the most recent example.

Never giving up on your team is what makes you a good fan.

by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Dec 27, 2007 2:37 PM EST reply actions

One other factor,

several of Boras' clients have held out and missed one season of minor league ball. This effectively reduces their career by one year. That missing year always comes out of the players peak age (27-32 years).

A truly good player who hits free agency at 27 will earn more than one who hits freedom at 28.

Plus, there is something to be said about the fans liking or hating a player and his earning power. Boras tends to make his players unpopular by making them look uncaring and greedy and difficult to manage. Teams tend to be more open to retaining popular players.

I do think in most cases Boras does get his clients more money, but it is not an entirely simple equation. If I had a fabulously talented son I would strongly encourage him to not work with Boras.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 27, 2007 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

Really?

A truly good player who hits free agency at 27 will earn more than one who hits freedom at 28.

If you are a young, good free agent, there are going to be multiple teams bidding on you and your price is going to go high. Given that both players are quite young, will that one year actually make any difference?

And you are leaving out of the overall calculus the possibility that a prospect might bust. Most do. In that case, their signing bonus is the only significant money they'll ever make, so it makes sense to maximize it.

Do you have any examples? He's gotten J.D. Drew huge money. Do "unpopular" players actually make less money? I think performance talks and everything else amounts to very little. Players who have significant negatives who have gotten huge money regardless include A-Rod, Bonds, Guillen, Kent. The list goes on and on. I can't think of any player who has been harmed either in the short-term or long-term by holding out.

I do think in most cases Boras does get his clients more money, but it is not an entirely simple equation. If I had a fabulously talented son I would strongly encourage him to not work with Boras.

I wouldn't encourage my son to work with Boras either. But what if your #1 priority was maximizing money? Wouldn't you want to go with Boras then? He certainly does a better job of it than anyone else.

I probably disagree with you.

by Scott McKinney on Dec 27, 2007 3:37 PM EST up reply actions

Moustakas Signing

I absolutely loved how the Moustakas signing went down. I, too, was quite anxious about it, but I loved that GMDM basically stared Boras down in a game of high stakes poker and beat him. Yes, that's what I think happened. If I recall correctly, we increased from 3 to 4 Million (signing bonus) and then said that was it, take it or leave it. Boras said they wouldn't take it. GMDM held firm and at the 11th hour (it was actually later than that), Boras and Mous accepted it.

GMDM was able to do this because of three things: (1) MLB new system for signing players (it provides MLB teams with leverage because they get a draft pick at about the same point in the draft the following year if they don't sign their guy); (2) they read Mous correctly (ie, they believed he really wanted to play and didn't want to go to college), and (3) he has balls.

This was one of my favorite moments as a Royals' fan. Okay, I like the on-field stuff better, but this was really cool.

I don't fight extra players.

by paleblueeyes on Dec 27, 2007 3:18 PM EST reply actions

Interesting

The August 15 deadline may have really put the hammer in the hands of management.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 29, 2007 8:24 PM EST reply actions

Draft Pick

I believe it was the Aug 15 deadline coupled with the draft pick that the MLB team would receive the following year that gave them a much, much better negotiating position. MLB teams are now able to walk away from signing their draft pick on the player/agent's terms without losing everything as they did previously. And as we all know, if both sides are negotiating to the hilt, the side that can walk away from the deal the easiest is the one that can most often negotiate the best deal. Previously, the MLB teams were at a huge disadvantage.

I don't fight extra players.

by paleblueeyes on Dec 30, 2007 6:49 PM EST up reply actions

In the past,

if a team did not sign its early round draft pick (I think for only rounds one through three) they received a compensation sandwhich pick between rounds. So if KC did not sign Moustakas they would have received the 31st pick in next year's draft instead of the 2nd pick.

That rule was changed effective this year so now teams receive the same pick as they were not able to sign.

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU College Baseball Coverage

by James Quinn on Dec 30, 2007 8:39 PM EST up reply actions