Agents’ Role Acknowledged : Baseball: Dodgers’ O’Malley says their influence over the players should not be overlooked during negotiations.

While baseball’s labor dispute has been painted as the owners against the players, Dodger owner Peter O’Malley said Wednesday that the players are not alone. He said they are being influenced by the same people who assist them in contract negotiations and directly benefit from those deals--players’ agents.

“The agents play a major role in this,” O’Malley said on Day 28 of the owners’ lockout. “The agents have the confidence of the players, they are definitely a constituency to be recognized. And both sides should be aware of that.”

While O’Malley refused to criticize the agents’ involvement, or even speculate on its effect, such influence is apparently not helping the parties reach an agreement. Most agents polled Wednesday said they do not trust management or agree with its current bargaining position. The ones who have younger players are particularly sensitive about the union’s push to move arbitration eligibility back from three years to two.

And while most agents would not admit to having influence in negotiations, they say they do not hesitate to tell their players how they feel.

Said Tom Reich, who regularly mails negotiation updates to about 52 clients: “I feel we have very, very little influence. But some of the agents are pretty well plugged into negotiations, and we are free to express our ideas. And I feel this impasse is almost completely the owners’ fault. Starting that lockout was a blunder, pure and simple. And since then, feelings had just gotten real hard.”

Sam Fernandez, the Dodgers’ general counsel, said that with this sort of opinion, agents don’t exactly serve as intermediaries.

“Some agents are a very key in all this. . . . They have a direct effect on what’s happening,” Fernandez said. “They are looked to by the player for guidance on all matters, so why not this? In the case of individuals or firms who represent a large number of players, these guys can have a large impact.”

Fernandez cited the original pay-for-performance proposal that was refused by the union as an example of possible agent interference.

“That proposed system had a direct impact on the agents,” Fernandez said. “Someone ought to bring into the picture, what is the agent’s role in something like that.”

Don Fehr, executive director of the players’ association, admitted that the owners’ original proposal did not help their cause with these players’ allies.

“Agents understand that the owners started this by trying to knock them out of business,” Fehr said Wednesday, noting that agents are indeed involved. “We’ve gotten a heavy number of calls from agents just wanting to be updated. I occasionally ask them if they have any brilliant idea, and they usually don’t, or their ideas don’t turn out so brilliant.”

Fehr said, though, that the owners are forgetting one thing: “The agents work for the players,” he said. “To that end, I don’t think they have a big influence.”

Alan Hendricks, whose firm represents about 66 clients, agreed.

“We have a lot of personal contact with our clients, but it is questionable whether that is influence,” Hendricks said. “If I’m asked, I am willing to discuss how I feel about the issue . . . but is that influence?”

Tim Belcher, a Dodger player negotiator, said that any discussion about agent influence isn’t giving the players enough credit for a basic trait.

“Not to sound selfish,” Belcher said, “but as players, we take care of ourselves first. The agents work for us. The reputable ones won’t try to pass on any vindictiveness against the owners. At least I wouldn’t think so.

Belcher paused, then sighed.

“But I guess at this point, anything is possible.”