Scott Boras is Evil...Isn't He?

Something about us needs a bad guy, a villain, someone at which to direct some justified hate. In our country's history we've had "Charlie", the Commies, Middle Eastern terrorists...and in baseball it often works the same way. The Yankees usually get cast in that starring role, other times it has been the owners (or specific owners, like another "Charlie"...Comiskey). Recently it has been Scott Boras, superagent.

We all know he is the most shrewd, effective negotiator for Major League players, the guy that every GM hates dealing with and many players wants getting them a deal. He is the guy that forces teams into a corner they don't want to be in...can't afford to be in. Boras will manipulate and twist data to paint his client in the best light possible, maybe even a false light. We know he wraps his coils around a team and squeezes until they have to give in or miss out to someone who will. He is the bad guy. Not just a villain, but a supervillain. Right?

It is easy to buy into. I have for a few years now after seeing deal after deal go down with players reaping massive paychecks and teams struggling to carry the weight of it all. Or so it would seem. But after reading a recent interview with Boras about the Holliday negotiations, I have begun to wonder if we have it all wrong. Have we been duped by ownership and media into seeing him as the "problem with baseball economics"?

Commenting on the Cardinals and their ability to afford Holliday (and Pujols coming soon after), Boras not only tried to dismantle the idea that St. Louis is a small market (in terms of viewership and revenue, not population, etc.) he also attempted to pull back the curtain on spending philosophy. His claim is that teams like the Cardinals are not operating at their current budget out of necessity, but out of priority. In order to maintain a certain level of profit, they choose to limit things like payroll. Specifically he compared the Cards to the Phillies, saying the only difference is that Philly is willing to spend the extra $25-35mil and only make say, $30mil instead of $60mil. If the Cardinals so chose, they could do the same, jumping from near $100mil to $130mil+.

Whether this is true to the facts or not, I don't know. What I do know is this hints at something fans rarely think about or get let in on. It is the old debate in professional sports...is it a game or a business? Is it about winning championships or making a profit? Yes, of course it is both. But we fans would like to believe it really is primarily about winning and the game itself.

It reminds me of Connie Mack's old stance that it was better for his team to be competitive all season, near the top, but finish second or third so they would draw crowds, but not have to pay players bonuses. Nice. So, it is about the money. Hall of Famer, by the way.

As a Cardinal fan it is tough to hear that maybe the Cardinal ownership might value a profit as much or more than winning. But it should hardly be surprising if it is true (which they have claimed it is not--other factors have been left out, etc). After all, everyone is trying to make money on this game. Having a degree in Economics, I should know this. The market is dictated not just by what an agent/player demands, but also on what teams are actually willing to pay. Salaries are high because teams are willing to pay them. If teams stopped "giving in" to the demands, salaries would go down. This is where many would cry competetive imbalance. There is some truth when a handful of teams are willing/able to pay those salaries and be profitable while others are not. Perhaps it would take agreement across the board to make that happen. I'm not suggesting to have collusion, just stating a fact.

Anyway, I am now tuned in to see different things, to ask different questions about these negotiations. But my main question is still -will Matt Holliday sign with the Cardinals? We need a bat behind Albert, so here's to hoping!