Drawing Wrath of Baseball : Only Player Clients Adore Agent Boras

The Angels blame him for the trade of pitcher Jim Abbott. The Chicago Cubs condemn him for Cy Young winner Greg Maddux’s departure. Baseball general managers accuse him of ruining their amateur draft.

His name is Scott Boras, and according to an informal survey of general managers, he has surpassed everyone in his profession as the most hated player-agent in the business.

The same general managers, of course, will also tell you there’s no one more feared.

“My labor law professor one told me,” Boras said, “that when you’re an effective lawyer, a lot of people are going to say a lot of bad things about you. He told me, ‘Get used to it, because if they’re saying good things about you, you’re not doing your job.

“ ‘Your client will be perceived as the white knight. You’re the bad guy. Don’t ever forget it.’ ”

Never in one winter has an agent drawn the wrath of so many in baseball. If it wasn’t the Angels chastising him, it was the Cubs. If it wasn’t the seven teams in baseball complaining about the damage caused by Andy Benes’ arbitration victory, it was the Cincinnati Reds complaining about losing Bip Roberts’ $3.9-million arbitration case.

And if it wasn’t San Diego Padres General Manager Joe McIlvaine ridiculing him, it was Angel Manager Buck Rodgers.

“I think Jim Abbott wanted to sign with us all along,” Rodgers said after Abbott’s trade to the Yankees, “and I hate to think we had to coddle up to his agent. We had to make an agent trade. . . . I don’t want to be vindictive, but it’s hard not to be vindictive.”

The Angels traded Abbott only after he rejected their four-year, $16-million proposal. Abbott sought $19 million, and eventually was willing to compromise to $17.5 million. It still wasn’t good enough, and Abbott was traded for first baseman J.T. Snow, and pitchers Russ Springer and Jerry Nielsen.

The Cubs offered Maddux a five-year, $27.5-million contract in mid-summer, which was rejected. Maddux wanted to test the free agent market, particularly considering that he would eventually win the Cy Young award. Maddux eventually turned down $35 million from the Yankees, signing for $28 million with the Atlanta Braves.

It’s little wonder why Boras is rated as one of the 25 most influential men in sports by The Sporting News, and one of baseball’s top power brokers by Baseball America. Certainly, no Orange County resident is more powerful in baseball.

Boras, who earned his law degree from the University of the Pacific, became the first agent to persuade a first-round draft pick to return to school when Tim Belcher rejected the Minnesota Twins’ $110,000 offer in 1983. He’s solely responsible for changing the fate of the amateur draft, and challenges the arbitration process more than any agent.

While baseball owners and general managers swear at him, his clients swear by him. He has represented 29 first-round draft picks, and obtained a record $1.55-million signing bonus from the New York Yankees for an 18-year-old high school pitcher named Brien Taylor. Taylor is considered the finest minor league prospect in baseball.

His clientele reads like a Who’s Who of Young Baseball Superstars: Greg Maddux, Jim Abbott, Carlos Baerga, Bip Roberts, Benito Santiago, Ivan Rodriguez, Kevin Brown, Steve Avery, Tim Belcher, Andy Benes, Alex Fernandez, Ben McDonald, Todd Van Poppel and Taylor.

“There’s no one any general manager hates dealing with more than Scott Boras,” said Jack McKeon, former Padres general manager. “I had my share of battles with him, believe me. But you know what, there’s no one that goes to the wall more for his clients.

“If I had a son that was going into the major leagues, I couldn’t think of anyone that would represent him any better.”

In a two-hour interview, Boras finally gives his side as to why Abbott no longer is an Angel, and addresses some of the key issues the game faces today.

Q: Considering Abbott’s mass popularity--perhaps Southern California’s favorite athlete since Magic Johnson’s retirement--were you surprised the Angels traded him?

A: I know baseball is a business, but what troubles me is that I still clearly believe the Angels would have been much better served economically and for the best interests for their club if they signed Jim Abbott. The best business decision was to pay Jim Abbott what he’s worth.

To show you that the Angels’ offer was below standard, we only have to look to John Smoltz’s contract (who recently signed a four-year, $16-million deal with the Atlanta Braves). John Smoltz is a good pitcher, don’t get me wrong, but the contract that was offered to Smoltz does not reflect Jim Abbott’s worth. We know Jim Abbott is worth more to a major league team than John Smoltz.

Jim was willing to compromise, too. He agreed to take $17.5 million instead of $19 million, which would have been a great deal for the Angels.

Q: The Angels contend that they never knew Abbott was willing to accept $17.5 million. Is it possible there was miscommunication?

A: Well, it’s my understanding that was communicated. If the Angels wanted to know before they traded him, all they’d have to do is call. You know what I mean (laughter). If there was any question about what they really wanted to do--if they really wanted to make a last-ditch effort to sign him--they could have called me. The call never came.

Q: When was the last time you talked to the Angels?

A: We last talked to the Angels in October, and he was traded in December. If there was a strong effort on the part of the Angels to sign Jim, I’d assume they’d have called and said, “Is there any way to get this done?”

Q: Did it surprise you that there were no attempts to further negotiate after October?

A: No, it was very clear to me the Angels’ direction. Whitey (Herzog) was very candid. He said, “If you don’t take this contract by Nov. 1, we’re going to trade him. So I told Jim, “You’ve got to make a decision. You and Dana (Abbott’s wife) decide if this is something you want, and if it is, go ahead and take it. If it isn’t, you can expect that Whitey will live up to his word and trade you.”

Q: So what was the next step in the process?

A: Well, Jim was willing to compromise, but the Angels’ position was that’s all they were going to offer. At the same time, the philosophy of the club changed. They’re going into a youthful direction. They’re taking more of a Cleveland Indians approach--well, maybe not that extreme--but something along that line. It no longer became urgent for the Angels to sign him.

Q: Did you always believe Abbott would remain in the Angel organization forever?

A: I certainly never anticipated Jim going anywhere. Mr. Autry has said many times that Jim Abbott was his favorite player of all time. Why would a man of his means and owner of the team trade his favorite player of all time? I never thought that would happen.

Q: Were you equally surprised that Maddux did not remain a Cub, particularly since the Atlanta Braves outbid them by only $500,000?

A: The Cubs ultimately made that decision by not participating in the free-agent market. They offered us $27.5 million in July, and we simply wanted to wait. (Cub General Manager) Larry Himes came to me in November and said, “I’ll give you four days. Otherwise, I’m going to go out and sign another pitcher.” I said, “Larry, our position is that we’ve waited six years, and we want to hear what the market has to say. If you want to make an offer, make one, and we’ll evaluate it.”

He said, “Well, if you’re going to go out and look at the market, we’re not going to make an offer other than the one we made you last July.” So it was just a situation where the Cubs did not want to be part of the free-agent process. They either wanted to sign Greg Maddux right then, or not sign him at all.

Q: While you were heavily criticized in Chicago for Maddux’s departure, were you bothered by Rodgers’ comments?

A: The most disappointing aspect about those statements was that Buck didn’t understand that Jim Abbott is the captain of the ship. Sure, I gave him advice, but Jim was the man who made the decision. Buck wanted to take out his frustrations on someone because I’m sure he wanted Jim Abbott on his team.

I just don’t know whether he had the perspective to look to his ownership to question the business decision. The immediate response was, “How can someone turn down $16 million?” That sounds ridiculous to the average fan.

When I came to Chicago for arbitration hearings, one of the bellmen came up to me and said, “Oh, you’re the guy that took the Greg Maddux out of town.”

The one thing I learned about my role in this business is that I am the person that must take the heat for what is perceived to be a negative influence on baseball. My job is to represent individuals and advise them, and fans on the whole do not have much empathy or care for someone who is responsible for making an athlete a multimillionaire.

Q: Then where does the fault lie that Abbott no longer is an Angel?

A: I don’t fault Jackie Autry or any of the other Angel personnel because they can do what they want to do. But from a baseball perspective, I fault them greatly. Jim Abbott is what I call a “decade player.” If you find one in a decade, you’re lucky, and I don’t think you ever let those kind of players go. And I’m talking about Robin Yount, George Brett . . . those kind of special talents.

Q: Considering that Abbott lost his arbitration hearing and will earn $2.35 million this season instead of $3.5 million, do you regret not accepting the Angels’ offer?

A: If someone came up to me beforehand and asked me, “Would you rather have Jim Abbott making $2.2 million this year, or the Angels’ offer?” I’d take this contract without a doubt. The Angels offer for the first year was something in the area of $2.8 to $3 million. But what you have to understand is that in the following year he would have made $3.5 million, and I can assure you that Jim Abbott will be making a lot more than that.

Q: But isn’t the baseball industry in dire trouble?

A: I don’t believe that for a second. Look, there’s never been a major league team in the last 100 years that has lost money. There has never been a major league team in the last 100 years that has not been sold for a profit.

Q: So you don’t believe the Angels when they say they lost $7.5 million last season?

A: Anyone can say they’re losing money, and rightfully create an accounting structure that would probably point that out. Look at the Angels. The franchise value of the Angels may be in the $175 million range, and Mr. Autry bought that team for $2 million. When they say they’re losing, that’s no different from owning stock, it goes up and down. It’s just a reflex of the short-term.

When owners sell their team, and when they sell that at a loss, then I will agree that a team is losing money.

Q: Do you think a salary cap is needed for baseball owners to govern themselves?

A: I don’t think salary caps are needed at all. The one in the NBA is totally artificial. There has never been a major league owner who has put himself in bankruptcy because he overpaid his labor force. Owners have a pulse on their major league teams. Before they ever sign that player, they have the opportunity to prevent the very consequence they’re so concerned about. They control their destiny with their pens.

Q: Do you believe racism is prevalent among ownership and baseball management, and have you ever encountered any incidents involving your players?

A: There’s still an old guard of baseball that’s sticking to their rudiments and their beliefs. But I will say that in my dealings with teams the racial element has not been a factor. If the player can play, teams have no real interest in a player’s background.

I will say, however, that major league baseball needs to take some very, very concerted steps in dealing with the Latin players. I just think the Latin players are really thrust into this program, and they’re left without a broad cultural understanding of what it’s like to be a corporate employee, because that’s what they are. They still think they’re only baseball players, and the point is, they’re not. They have to understand the responsibility that’s required of them in the infrastructure of baseball, and that takes time. That takes time, and a lot of pro teams just don’t want to get interested in it unless the player has extreme ability.”

For the black player, I believe the perception still is that management is still dominantly of that of white America. However, I have not heard of any substantial cries from my players relating to desperate treatment of their well-being. I’m also waiting for the major decision-maker in an organization to be black. That day needs to come.

Q: What do you foresee will happen to the baseball industry in the next 10 years?

A: I think pay-per-view will be huge in major league baseball. I think that the international doors of major league baseball will begin to prosper. I think the Seattle ownership is the beginning of a foundation and infrastructure where we’re going to see more of corporate ownership in baseball--a product identification that will be associated with it.

There’s no need for the antitrust exemption, and I think the free-market behavior will allow this industry to become more prosperous, more uniform and better for the fans. I also believe we’ll have a three-divisional-type system and playoffs that will include four teams.

I know a lot of people hate to see the traditional barriers in the game eroded, but it’s time for the game to take the steps it needs to fulfill its true value.