Boras conflict of interest

[scOtt]

With the Nationals and Dusty back in the Chapman chase again and now Heyward they have decided to spend some serious money. The Cardinals will sign Davis if they lose Heyward. Boras is going to make a lot of money off of CD and after the 2014 season he probably thought he had a lesser client going into 2015. We really need the Nats to sign Heyward soon and the Cards to sign Davis. We can then up our offers to Gordon, Upton and Alvarez.

Or some folks might say we really need the Cards to step up and sign Heyward, leaving CD no market but our own. Opinions vary.

[Roll Tide]

Or some folks might say we really need the Cards to step up and sign Heyward, leaving CD no market but our own. Opinions vary.

There will always be another interested team.

[Frobby]

My point is assume the Orioles offer client A 150 million over 7 years. Boras comes back to the Orioles and says Client A wants 200 million over 8 years. The Orioles then in turn say we are no longer interested in Client A but want to offer your Client B lets say 4 years 48 million. You know Client B will jump at the offer. Problem is Client A told you to get the best deal you could and there are no other offers above the 150 million for Client A. Client A also told you all things being equal I will take the Orioles offer. What is Boras obligation to give the offer to Client B or tell Client A that may be the best offer you are going to get?

It's a great hypothetical, and it illustrates why Boras does have a potential conflict of interest in practical terms. I do think any agent has an obligation to inform his client of any offers that are on the table, so he certainly needs to inform Client B. But he probably also needs to keep Client A informed. It is easy to see how, in a situation like this, Boras could time his conversations with his clients to reach the outcome that he prefers.

[Frobby]

I was looking through the MLBPA player agent rules today. Under section 5(B)(12), the MLBPA does reserve the right to require an agent to withdraw from representing a player if he is representing two players who are "similarly situated." http://reg.mlbpaagent.org/Documents/AgentForms/Agent%20Regulations.pdf

[abbott]

To me it is a clear conflict of interest for Boras to represent both Chris Davis and Alvarez when the Orioles most likely would not sign both. It is like representing both the husband and wife of a divorce case.

Absolutely right. Angelos should sue. Sue hard and sue long. Take Boras to court, and wipe him clean. That's the Orioles Way

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Roll Tide]

I was looking through the MLBPA player agent rules today. Under section 5(B)(12), the MLBPA does reserve the right to require an agent to withdraw from representing a player if he is representing two players who are "similarly situated." http://reg.mlbpaagent.org/Documents/AgentForms/Agent%20Regulations.pdf

Has this ever been enforced?

[TheBee]

My point is assume the Orioles offer client A 150 million over 7 years. Boras comes back to the Orioles and says Client A wants 200 million over 8 years. The Orioles then in turn say we are no longer interested in Client A but want to offer your Client B lets say 4 years 48 million. You know Client B will jump at the offer. Problem is Client A told you to get the best deal you could and there are no other offers above the 150 million for Client A. Client A also told you all things being equal I will take the Orioles offer. What is Boras obligation to give the offer to Client B or tell Client A that may be the best offer you are going to get?

I am reminded of Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven..."Deserve has got nothin to do with it." Obligation...hmmm. Boras would take care of player A first and foremost because his percentage of the deal is likely to be three times more. Player B's day will come later and at that point Boras will get him every single penny he can. My guess is players have probably switched agents over these things whether or not MLB would ever step in.

[weams]

I was looking through the MLBPA player agent rules today. Under section 5(B)(12), the MLBPA does reserve the right to require an agent to withdraw from representing a player if he is representing two players who are "similarly situated." http://reg.mlbpaagent.org/Documents/AgentForms/Agent%20Regulations.pdf

Excellent stuff in that document. Thanks.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Has this ever been enforced?

I believe it would be tough. How do you determine similarly situated? In the same FA class? Playing the same position?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TheBee]

I know an agent who reps some big musical acts and athletes, and he has had jealousy between those disparate groups as far as his attentions are concerned. They can move towards finding new representation if they feel they aren't being properly served.