THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Before you have an opinion on Scott Boras’ claims:

By Tangotiger, 11:00 AM

Read p.117-119 of the CBA, which I will cut/paste for you:


(2) Right to Information
The Administrator shall provide to the Association, upon request,
any relevant information necessary to the Association’s performance
of its functions under this Article as collective bargaining representative.
More specifically, and not by way of limitation, the
Administrator shall promptly provide to the Association on a regular
basis for each Revenue Sharing Year of this Agreement, copies
of the following documents
(in hard copy and computer readable
form, if available) within 10 days following preparation by or
receipt by the Administrator of such data, except that (i) copies of
documents responsive to subparagraph (k) shall be provided with
the notice provided pursuant to Section A(13)(b)(ii) of this Article;
(ii) copies of documents responsive to subparagraphs (e), (n) and (p)
shall be provided within 30 days following preparation of such data
by the Clubs (or the Administrator); and, if requested, (iii) copies of
documents responsive to subparagraph (m) shall be provided within
10 days following the Association’s request, as the case may be:

(a) the form FIQ to be submitted by Clubs, together with any
form SIQ or other forms requiring the submission of supplemental
information to the Administrator by Clubs;
(b) any proposed changes in the form FIQ, SIQ or other forms
to be submitted to the Administrator by the Clubs, together with
explanatory reports, if any, regarding such proposed changes;
(c) completed FIQs, SIQs or other supplemental information
forms submitted to the Administrator by each Club;
(d) audited financial statements submitted by each Club;
(e) summaries of local media contracts (and/or of any other
individual Club contracts) submitted by each Club to, or maintained
under the supervision of, the Office of the Commissioner
(or the Administrator);
(f) any industry-wide compilation of revenue and expense
data, whether broken out by individual Club or groups of Clubs;
(g) any completed forms submitted by the Clubs to the
Administrator in connection with the preparation of estimates of
net payments or net receipts under any component of the Plan;
(h) any preliminary estimated partial payment calculations or
preliminary calculations by the Administrator of net payments
and net receipts due under any component of the Plan;
(i) any document reflecting a distribution to a Club under any
component of the Plan;

(j) any document prepared by or on behalf of the Administrator
in connection with a full or partial independent audit of any
Club conducted by or on behalf of the Administrator as described
in Section C(2)(b) and Section D(3)(a) of this Article;
(k) any correspondence to or from the Administrator or the
Office of the Commissioner regarding a contemplated distribution,
noticed pursuant to Section A(13)(b)(ii) of this Article,
including but not limited to the written request submitted pursuant
to subparagraph (b)(i) of that Section and any documents
considered by the Commissioner during his review of the
request;

(l) reports filed with the Commissioner pursuant to Section
B(5)(a) of this Article and any correspondence from or to the
Commissioner relating to his enforcement of Section B(5)(a) of
this Article;
(m) upon specific request by the Association, any unsuccessful
request made pursuant to Section A(13)(b)(i) of this Article,
any correspondence responsive to such submission and any document
that the Commissioner considered in connection with his
rejection of such request;
(n) upon specific request by the Association, any Club document(
s) examined or required to be examined by or on behalf of
the Administrator in connection with a full or partial independent
audit of any Club conducted by or on behalf of the Administrator
as described in Section C(2)(b) and Section D(3)(a) of this Article;
(o) any final calculations by the Administrator of estimated
partial payments, net payments and net receipts due under the
Plan; and
(p) upon specific request by the Association, a description of
the methodologies, assumptions and procedures used by the
Administrator to calculate and/or reconcile items reported in
Club FIQs and Club audited financial statements.

***

The next section is entitled “Right to Audit”.

#1    Xeifrank      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 13:26

What are Scott Boras’ claims???????
vr, Xei



#3          (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 14:49

I dont get it.  Just reads like a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo to me.


#4    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 15:33

The union gets all the financial data it needs in order for them to be able to verify that revenue sharing is happening in accordance to the agreement.

The data is NOT being kept away from the union.  The union has it.


#5          (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 15:44

If the union has the data, wouldn’t Manfred just come out and say that? 

I can’t find that Daily News report.  Does it claim that the books delivered to the union are cooked?


#6    Hizouse      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 16:16

1.  Boras isn’t claiming he got any information from the union.
2.  There’s no way final numbers for 2009 exist at this point in time.


#7    RedRobot8      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 16:29

Maybe I’m misunderstanding this situation, Tango, but here’s how I read it:

[1] Boras knows the accurate financial data, presumably via the required disclosures made to the MLBPA.

[2] Boras talks in the media about teams that get $200M revenue sharing but only spend $70M in MLB payroll.  He emphasizes that this info is publicly available presumably because there is some sort of confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement in play.

[3] Boras wants to leverage fan outrage over that revenue sharing/payroll discrepancy into pressure on team management to spend more money on payroll.

[4] Thus, Boras wants MLB teams to be forced to disclose revenue sharing PUBLICLY, not just to the MLBPA.  “Fans have a right to know what money their team is given”.

Does that make sense?


#8    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 16:39

Red: makes perfect sense, though for [1], he would only know unofficially.

The MLBPA has the NDA, and only the exec committee would know the details.

The shame is that the media isn’t as sharp as you are, because they give Boras the platform.

Then again, giving him the platform is a good way to drum up a storyline.


#9    KY      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 18:11

If this is what Boras is doing (and it does sound like it) ... why hasn’t he tried it before?


#10    RedRobot8      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 18:19

I think that the media does understand Boras’s goal here; he isn’t exactly subtle.  Jayson Stark interviewed Boras today and accused him of acting solely out of concern for his personal bottom line (see link).

Anyway, why shouldn’t the media give Boras this platform?  For what it’s worth, it is not clear to me that Boras’s suggestion (public disclosure of revenue sharing data) isn’t a good one.  He isn’t proposing the more aggressive salary floor idea that is often floated out there.  Twins fans would love to know what Carl Pohlad is doing with his money, and I assume many other fanbases feel the same way.  If seeing financials helps put pressure on Pohlad to re-sign Joe Mauer, so be it.


#11          (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 18:22

Perhaps he hasn’t needed it before.  If he has a bunch of players he needs to sell to teams that won’t actually make a market against themselves like the Cubs, Dodgers, Yankees or Red Sox in previous years, then he needs to put some pressure on some of the other teams to get into the bidding (or start a case for Collusion 3 or 4 or whatever number we’re on).


#12    NaOH      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 18:34

For what it’s worth, it is not clear to me that Boras’s suggestion (public disclosure of revenue sharing data) isn’t a good one.

I’d enjoy it if that information became viewable, and there are plenty of people who would truly find it valuable, but why should a business which is not publicly traded nor given tax-exempt benefits have to do this?


#13    NaOH      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 18:51

To be clear, by “tax-exempt benefits” I mean a non-profit organization.


#14    RedRobot8      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 19:10

If this is what Boras is doing (and it does sound like it) ... why hasn’t he tried it before?

He is preparing the ground for the next round of CBA negotiations.  It seems to me that Boras is attempting to see how much power to shape the game he has.

I’d enjoy it if that information became viewable, and there are plenty of people who would truly find it valuable, but why should a business which is not publicly traded nor given tax-exempt benefits have to do this?

Surely they don’t _have_ to, but why does that matter?  I (the generalized “fan") think cutting ticket prices is a good idea, but the Mets don’t have to listen to me.  Boras is playing a PR game to get something of value to his clients that may or may not provide some ancillary benefit to fans.

If Boras can convince the MLBPA that public disclosure is important, it may be on the table during negotiations for the next CBA.  If Boras can convince the fans (aka customers) that it is important, that can only help his cause.


#15          (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 19:27

Boras wants a greater percentage of the revenues to go to the players, instead of to the owners (so that he can get a cut of it).  In general, I like this idea.  Nice for the employees to get a good share of the pie.  Back before free agency when the players didnt make much, the situation was unfair.

I’d take Beltre at $6 million for one year easily.

It would make me happy to see Mike Cameron get 2 years / $20M, but I expect him to be more undervalued than that.  Unless suddenly everyone has realized his value.  He’ll be 37, so I dont expect him to get 2 years.


#16          (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 19:28

Ack, I was writing posts in response to two threads at once, went to check fangraphs, and came back to the wrong thread.

Ignore the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of my post, theyre for another thread smile


#17          (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 20:34

NaOH - you’re approaching a steep slope here.  MLB teams get to legally operate as a cartel, have received billions in corporate welfare, and are party to a labor agreement that allows them to control the labor of non-union members at a fraction of their true value.  And while they release information about their player contracts to the public (which tends to not be in the players’ favor), they maintain public secrecy around their own finances.

Privately-run businesses are welcome to keep secrets, but MLB is no ordinary business.  In fact, it’s not technically a business.


#18    NaOH      (see all posts) 2009/11/19 (Thu) @ 22:27

Hawerchuck, you’re correct in every regard. But there’s nothing I’m aware of in those unique aspects of MLB that means they the books should be opened for all to see.


#19    SM      (see all posts) 2009/11/20 (Fri) @ 09:22

NaOH, what about the various Tax Exempt financing? Also, with yanks I think the Stadium is city owned, it would not be out of normal to know the finances of your main tenant.


#20    Toffer Peak      (see all posts) 2009/11/20 (Fri) @ 15:34

NaOH, while you’re correct that right now there is no legal reason why MLB should HAVE to release their finances that doesn’t mean that with their antitrust exemption and numerous tax advantages at stake they wouldn’t quickly release their numbers if a congressman or two started inquiring. I think Boras is just trying to stir up public support for open finances and if he’s able to get the fan’s on his side then Congress won’t be too far behind.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

May 25 02:54
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?

May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion

May 25 01:43
Neal Huntington’s best moves

May 25 00:36
Help needed with sticky issue…

May 24 23:50
Rooting for laundry

May 24 17:04
Firefox, IE, or Chrome?

May 24 12:07
How to beat the shift

May 24 11:11
Incredible story

May 24 09:41
Racial bias in card collecting: not the collectors, but the players on the cards

May 24 08:13
espnW for hockey: CBC’s WhileTheMenWatch.com