IMO, Boras is just one of the parts that is wrong with the current MLB.
Yes, he is supposed to fight for his clients and get the most for them.
But, I think there is enough evidence that points him as being self serving for his own agenda and his client advice is not always in their best interest.
Usually, the two sides present their side of things, each one tilted towards what they want.
But realistic people understand, that its a give and take and come up with a compromise so that each side can declare they win.
These two sides, dont appear to have that intellectual properties to accomplish this.
No. He should be. If you're going to put in a guy like Kirby Puckett who's career was cut short then you have to look at Belle.
The differences here are that everyone loved Puckett and he had glaucoma. Everyone hated Belle and he had a bad hip. Glaucoma and loss of eyesight in a guy that everyone loves gets sympathy. A bad hip on a guy that everyone hates gets ignored.
Puckett: .318/.360/.477 for an .837 OPS, 124 OPS+ 51.1 WAR. 2,304 hits, 207 homers, 1085 RBI in 7,244 at bats. Pretty confident that if he played out his career he'd have gotten 3,000 hits. Also worth mentioning his 6 Gold Gloves.
Belle: .295/.369/.564 for a .933 OPS, 144 OPS+ 40.1 WAR. 1,726 hits, 381 homers, 1,239 RBI in 5,853 at bats. Pretty confident that if he played out his career he would have passed 500 homers, maybe approached 600.
Belle had 1,391 less at bats and trailed only by 11 WAR. If I'm doing my math correctly, had Belle been able to have an equal number of at bats, he would have slightly exceeded Puckett's value.
But Belle was a bad guy, threw baseballs at people, terrorized trick or treaters, was surly and didn't like the press. So the press took joy in letting him drop off the ballot. Don't get me wrong, I understand it and I'm not saying Belle is a shoe-in by any stretch. But I feel like there have been less deserving players who have stayed on the ballot longer. If Belle was an angel, he'd have a different legacy, IMO.
The two options are to (1) pay the players to play what you have agreed to pay them in front of no fans or (2) cancel the season. Logically, the only way that paying the players becomes economically infeasible is if it is cheaper to cancel the season completely.
Economic feasibility isn't based on maximizing profitability or minimizing losses to the owners by modifying the other portions of the agreement. It is based on the difference between those two binary choices.