Dec 11, 2013; Orlando, FL, USA; MLB agent Scott Boras is interviewed during the MLB Winter Meetings at the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort. Mandatory Credit: David Manning-USA TODAY Sports

Scott Boras continues to blame others for the Stephen Drew/Kendrys Morales situation


Scott Boras, who represents free agents Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales, is continuing to blame everyone but himself for the predicament the unsigned Drew and Morales are in.

In a report for CBS Sports, Jon Heyman says that Boras has asked MLB to investigate remarks that were made by unnamed team executives in a recent article that appeared on ESPN.

The article speculated on what Drew and Morales may eventually get paid (with some estimating they’d only make $5 or $6 million), and Boras contends that those comments have “damaged” his clients:

It’s a clear violation of the CBA. As many as five executives continue to use ESPN as a conduit to violate the collective bargaining agreement. The bell is rung. Kendrys Morales and Stephen Drew were damaged by these comments.

According to Heyman, while MLB will investigate where the comments came from, they’re not of the opinion that a story on ESPN is in any way to blame for the fact that both Drew and Morales are still unsigned. Said MLB COO Rob Manfred:

It is ludicrous, absurd, that one [internet] report somehow alters the market for players who have been out there for months.

Thoughts:

While Boras is right that executives are not supposed to comment on the potential value of free agents, this is something that happens all the time and is in no way exclusive to the Drew/Morales situation.

Moreover, these comments were made during the second week of April – more than five months after both Drew and Morales hit the open market.

As he’s been doing since advising both Drew and Morales to turn down their $14.1 million qualifying offers, Boras is trying to blame the system and/or others for the fact that neither of his clients have signed.

While the draft pick compensation that is attached to both Drew and Morales certainly isn’t a positive thing for either of them, it’s also not something that’s preventing them from getting contract offers.

The Mets have been connected to Drew for months, but were apparently only willing to pay him a shade over $9 million on a one-year deal. Lately, Boras has claimed that Drew has a three-year offer in hand, something that’s simply impossible to believe.

 

Thanks for reading! Be sure to follow@RisingAppleBlog on Twitter and Instagram, and Like Rising Apple’s Facebook page to keep up with the latest news, rumors, and opinion.

Tags: Featured Kendrys Morales Popular Scott Boras Stephen Drew

  • derek

    I read a story where Boras said he had a 3 year 39 million dollar offer for Drew. Does he think that may have been part of the reason no one is offering?

    The Red Sox offered him a one year 14.1 mil contract and it was declined. It is also said that another team offered him a 1 year 14 million later in the off season and there was a rumor of a 3 year 30 million that were declined. There are also rumors of several other offers all declined. Who’s fault were those offers not being accepted?

    So after the season begins, some anonymous sources say that they will not get more that 6 million. Most teams have a short stop or DH and have spent most of their yearly budget, of course they are not going to spend $15 mil a year on these players. By the time June roles around 1/3 of the season will be gone. And if the were thought of as 10 mil players, then they become 6.5 million. And by that time they will have to take an offer or sit. So a team has the upper hand. So 5 or 6 million seems reasonable.

    Scott Boras is upset because no one fell for his bluff. It Almost happened last year. Both were not going to get 14 mil. on the open market. They are 10 mil a year players. So if they had taken the qualifying offer at 14.1 and played well and got another qualifying offer, (which will be higher than this year) They would have almost got the 30 mil in 2 years instead of 3.