The Curious Case of Pedro Alvarez

by The Cheat on Aug 28, 2008 12:12 AM CDT Comment 16 comments

Pedro Alvarez, the number two overall pick in June's draft and the subject of this very website's sub-heading at this time last year, has been placed on the restricted list in a bizarre scenario. Alvarez is represented by Scott Boras, the slimiest of agents, who in 1996 found himself a little loophole in the draft rules whereby he could get some of his clients, including the White Sox pick Bobby Seay, declared free agents. That loophole has since been closed, with major league baseball instituting an August 15th signing deadline for everyone but college seniors, but it appears as if Boras and Alvarez are trying to find, or perhaps create, another such loophole.

The center of the dispute seems to surround the timing of signing. MLB, as it did with Boras clients Julio Bourbon and Eric Hosmer, allowed a nominal extension after the August 15th deadline. Boras seems to be claiming that this somehow makes the deal void, and wants to renegotiate the contract (read: get more money). Upon reading the Pirates "600 word statement" on the matter, Boras issued one of his own.

"The Pirates violated Major League Baseball rules and have issued a nearly 600-word statement, made their actions look to be my fault. I think it's time for the Pirates and Mr. Coonelly to come clean with the fans of Pittsburgh and let everyone know about their dealings with Mr. Alvarez."

As of this moment, it appears that an aribter will decide the fate of Alvarez. It's likely that he'll have three possible courses of action (as stated by the Post-Gazette):

Scrap the previous agreement and send the Pirates and Alvarez into new negotiations. This is known to be the preference of Alvarez's renowned agent, Scott Boras, who would welcome the chance at a higher bonus. But there is no precedent for such a decision.

Allow Alvarez to go back into the draft class for next year. The Pirates picked him No. 2 overall June 5, and they would be compensated with No. 3 overall next year.

Decide that his ruling should apply only to future instances.

It's easy to see why the Sox choose not to deal with Boras.

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

1 recs | Comment 16 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

slick mutha that boras

nothing gets ‘em wetter than infrequent postings on the city’s second favorite team

by colintj on Aug 28, 2008 1:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Most of his clients love him.

Until the owners refuse to deal with him (and reduce the chances of getting a good deal for his clients) he’ll be a popular choice. It ain’t show friends…

"I suck... the Sox don’t." reply actions 25 recs
by SSH2005 on Aug 6, 2008 1:08 AM EDT

by winningugly on Aug 28, 2008 9:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

he's like aj.

"you're pathetic and you're weak. you're a fake and you lie. i'd like to crush you like an insect but i don't want to do the time."

by Toonderstrook on Aug 28, 2008 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is a wonderful comparison.

Everyone hates him except his teammates (and, somethimes, even then). Does anything, fair or unfair, to win.

"I suck... the Sox don’t." reply actions 25 recs
by SSH2005 on Aug 6, 2008 1:08 AM EDT

by winningugly on Aug 28, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not sure about that. pedro (apparently) went on his own to get this "deal" done. just like arod did when he was drafted and did again last year.

"Suck it up Bunky, we gotta go.'" - ron gardenhire

by larry on Aug 28, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, he may not control his clients 100%

but he knows how to make use of every loophole. (Not that I disagree with his right to do so.) I think we’ve had this discussion last year – it’s mostly stylistic/philisophy, not execution.

"I suck... the Sox don’t." reply actions 25 recs
by SSH2005 on Aug 6, 2008 1:08 AM EDT

by winningugly on Aug 28, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure.

i’m not quite sure as of yet what loophole this presumes to be exploiting, however. or what benefit any arbitrator’s ruling would actually provide.

"Suck it up Bunky, we gotta go.'" - ron gardenhire

by larry on Aug 28, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's cute that the mlbpa thinks it should get involved in minor league contracts.

"Suck it up Bunky, we gotta go.'" - ron gardenhire

by larry on Aug 28, 2008 9:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Boras has a strange interpretation of the rules.

If the Pirates missed the deadline, as he claims (and this is by no means clear), then negotiations should be over. Alvarez should re-enter the draft next year, not continue to negotiate with the Pirates.

It seems that Boras is trying to use this as a test case to eliminate or modify the Aug. 15 deadline. I think ultimately he’s trying to get rid of the draft altogether.

In a worst-case scenario for Alvarez, he plays indy ball for a year and tries to come back next year. It’ll be interesting to see how this impacts his career.

by The Jerry Royster Experience on Aug 28, 2008 11:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

BA's interpretation

Baseball America has a slightly different interpretation of what is happening: http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/news/2008/266761.html

Sounds more reasonable. The CBA that was agreed to by MLB and MLBPA provides for a hard dealine for these contracts. MLB unilaterally gave signing extensions. So this should be reviewed by an arbitrator. Without knowledge of the particulars this seems at least a logical (if not accurate) argument. Of course Boras appears to be exacerbating the situation by advising Alvarez to not report.

But it seems more like a “well OK don’t do that again” situation than “OK Hosmer and Alvarez’s deals are invalid they go back in the draft next year”. That would be particularly injurious to Hosmer and potentially injurious to Boras. We shall see. If nothing else Boras is always good for a little extra drama.

I think we ought to call Thome and Konerko the "Cholesterol Brothers" because of the way they clog the bases.

by bhoov on Aug 28, 2008 1:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i just find the mlbpa's stance on this hilarious.

a firm deadline is what the clubs, not the players, wanted. the new cba helped the clubs with leverage, not the players. furthermore, extending the deadline a bit helps both the club and the player. i don’t understand, outside of being a lackey for boras, what the mlbpa is doing with this because i’m having trouble determining what interest they hope to gain/protect by doing so.

"Suck it up Bunky, we gotta go.'" - ron gardenhire

by larry on Aug 28, 2008 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is rather odd

It is rather hard to see how this benefits MLBPA. Maybe they are trying to introduce another concession that MLB will have to bargain for in the next CBA (the ability to “unilaterally” extend the deadline). That seems like such a small insignificant thing but that’s the only motivation I can see.

By the way, Are you excited about the acceptance speech tonight? I am.

I think we ought to call Thome and Konerko the "Cholesterol Brothers" because of the way they clog the bases.

by bhoov on Aug 28, 2008 3:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i'll be watching, that's for sure.

it is insignificant. and it’s something that doesn’t even really make sense. it’s in the player’s interest for the deadline to be extended, too. it’s not like the mlbpa would, in practice, say no to an extension. they’d just be fucking the player (who, by the way, isn’t part of the union – which opens another can of worms).

"Suck it up Bunky, we gotta go.'" - ron gardenhire

by larry on Aug 28, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unintended consequences?

The Kansas City Star reports Major League Baseball has asked the Royals to keep first-round pick Eric Hosmer out of the lineup with Rookie-level Idaho Falls until the grievance filed by the Major League Baseball Players Association regarding the Aug. 15 signing deadline is resolved.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Aug 29, 2008 7:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

goldstein

Update: While the Royals have yet to comment, the commissioner’s office has, at least temporarily unapproved Hosmer’s contract, pending the September 10th hearing and the results within. While this certainly makes sense given the facts, it still seems like MLB extending their middle finger to Boras, when in the end, if Boras wins, it just gives him one more client he could end up getting extra money for. Just like the deadline extensions that were handed out, MLB fails to see the big picture at times, it seems.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1000

"Suck it up Bunky, we gotta go.'" - ron gardenhire

by larry on Aug 30, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

goldstein has a very nice exploration of boras' history of draft creativity.

including, for all you youngsters, one of the primary reasons the white sox (nice job ron!) do not deal with boras; i believe the article is free.

1996: An Obscure Rule Turns Into Big Money

This is by far Boras’ biggest win, when he took on the rules of the draft, stomped them into the ground, and earned his client at least $25 million in extra money. As with most drafts, Boras entered the year representing a great number of top talents. As with most drafts, those players were taken early in the first round, and as with most years, Boras had little if any communication with the drafting team within the first two weeks of the selection. A little more than two weeks after the draft, Boras had his clients, and others, declared as free agents. The CBA at the time contained a clause that required teams to either tender an offer to players within 15 days, or relinquish their rights to them, but the rule was buried so deep within the agreement that many teams did not even know of its existence. Boras initially filed a grievance for a single player, left-hander Bobby Seay, and baseball lost that grievance in late September, as they really had no case—the rule was the rule. Four players in all were granted free agency: second overall pick Travis Lee (Twins), fifth overall pick John Patterson (Expos), seventh overall pick Matt White (Giants), and Seay, the 12th overall pick by the White Sox.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8012

"Suck it up Bunky, we gotta go.'" - ron gardenhire

by larry on Aug 30, 2008 10:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs