Writing about the Red Sox and Mark Teixeira seems so old. Eventually, we all are going to have to move on. But even as the Red Sox do their best to forget the loss of the marquee free agent to the Yankees and get on with their lives, let’s not sweep under the rug the significant damage left behind, because the aftermath affects the future.
We’re not talking about the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, either. We mean Red Sox-Scott Boras.
Before getting to the wounds the Red Sox are still licking, if we were to address this from the perspective of Boras, Teixeira’s agent, we would likely discover the viewpoint that the Red Sox never had enough nerve to step up and do what it took to convince Teixeira to sign. Teixeira and his wife’s preference for the Yankees was real and it was strong, but we’ve yet to see compelling evidence that it was insurmountable. It is way too simplistic to say that the Red Sox failed to pony up enough cash, but there is a good argument to be made that the Red Sox did not place the proper value on Teixeira and never went for the kill. Maybe they could not get over a history of antagonistic negotiations with Boras. Perhas some portions of the face-to-face negotiations with Teixeira in Dallas could have been handled better, with Teixeira reportedly put off by insinuations from the Red Sox about his agent and other offers.
In the fallout from those talks, which resulted in an e-mail from perturbed Red Sox principal owner John Henry to the media, Boras’ reputation was also besmirched by an editorial on the Boston Globe’s op-ed page on Dec. 20, three days before the negotiations ended. The editorial applauded the Red Sox’ decision to walk away from the “con” perpetuated by the “devious” Boras, who had “rooked” the Red Sox in the past. The piece drew a parallel between the victims of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and victims of past Boras negotiations. The editorial failed to mention that the Globe’s owner, the New York Times [NYT] (even though it is trying to sell it) owns 17 percent of the Red Sox, a pertinent disclaimer in this case given the ownership’s direct involvement in the Teixeira talks.
Boras has frequently pointed out that no matter how often he gets vilified by nameless front-office sources for allegedly concocting phantom offers or shopping around concrete offers, the only thing that has been proven is his ability to continue to haul in massive contracts. It is a safe bet that being compared to a swindler like Madoff did not go over well with Boras.
The Sox, meanwhile, are, at least for now, done with Boras. One well-placed source said the club will never deal with him again unless it can be guaranteed that talks are being conducted honestly. We would take that threat a little more seriously if Boras’ clientele list were to shrink dramatically, but since that is not realistic, we will take it as a sign of just how badly the club felt it got stung by lies from Boras. They are in a “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” mode right now, with the Teixeira talks feeling like the last straw to them.
The storyline here that we are led to believe is that the Sox are upset that Teixeira didnt sign with them, due to some sort of shadiness on Scott Boras' part. Of course, they did not match the Yankees (or Nationals) offer, and generally did the worst recruiting job, all of which should be besides the point. No, I think there is something else at play here.
As I wrote here, I have long felt that the Red Sox are trying to find a way to get fan approval to say goodbye to Varitek, so they can make a deal for a younger catcher without alienating their fans who have always loved Varitek. Suddenly a temper tantrum at Scott Boras is very well timed.
Meanwhile, Matt Snyder at MLB Fanhouse also hates Scott Boras but still comes to a somewhat rational conclusion:
Look, I hate Boras and his methods as much as the next guy, and I realize -- with the state of the current economy -- how much it angers people to hear about players' gargantuan salaries. What the argument boils down to, however, is who you want to make the money. The money is there. Baseball has a colossal stream of revenue. The players are the ones on the field. They are the product. Would you rather Mark Teixeira get a bigger piece of the money for playing the game, or John Henry keep it all from his cushy sky-box? That's not even a question to me. I will always side with the players over ownership in terms of payroll, because they are the ones actually earning the money.
Recent Comments