Word around the 'net is that Scott Boras, attempting to save face, is running the Opt-Out swing pass. I don't know if that is the case, but if it is, then you have a situation that is nauseating even by the toilet-bowly standards of Scott Boras.
Last week, ML execs negotiated in the press. Hey, Scott, what about 3-to-5 years and then hit the market again. When we know whether Prince is going to be under 350. Call it the William "Refigerator" Perry Safety Valve.
Scott huffed, in the press. "That's delusional. We are about win-win scenarios and you guys are about nothing but money. How does 3 years achieve the goals of the franchise? Prince's new franchise is getting an icon. Somebody for the 10-year-olds to grow up with."
That's what he said. Now, though, Scott has finished his paragraph. "Although if you commit $220M and your city to His Iconage, bear in mind that Prince retains the right to pass on the statue thing if he feels like it."
That second statement clearly exposes the first statement as --- > lies and hypocrisy. This is the kind of hypocrisy that doesn't even do you the courtesy of calling it politics.
You say, sure it's hypocrisy; it's Boras. I reply, Boras is a professional and in business negotations there are certain minimal codes of conduct. With the "delusional" remark, and the "needs of the franchise" remark, and the opt-out proposal, Boras has gone over the line.
=== Devil's Advocate, Dept. ===
Earl used to forbid his shortstops from making the phantom base-tag on the double play. "You are leaving yourself wide open" to an umpire with a grudge...
The Mariners, because they are losers, have left themselves wide open to Prince Fielder's question. "How do I know whether you'll be fighting the Rangers and Angels in three years? How do I know I won't be buried in Kansas City for the rest of my life?"
It's a fair question, and the fact is that it would be a fair compromise to --- > to let Prince out of the contract if three years go by and the Mariners are still losers then.
I don't know if it's MLB-legal to put in a clause that says "Prince can opt out if the Mariners have not had a 90-win season by 2014." I suspect not.
In a practical sense, I'm not worried about giving Prince 8 x $23M with an opt-out after three years. What, when he's 31 and older heavier, how much more is he going to make than $23M per year? 5 / $110, for an older Fielder, will be good money for him then. In fact, you're giving him years 7-8 now, in order to get years 1-5.
But suppose he does opt out. Fine. You've gotten your 3-year run out of him. If you haven't developed hitting in three long years, even including the draft pick this June, then that's on you. The last time Boras used this, with ARod, the Rangers lost 90 games in ARod's first year, and then 90 again in his second, and then 90 again in his third. ARod went to the Yankees, and Hicks already had his TV deal, and nobody got hurt.
As an expediency, I am just fine with a Fielder opt-out. It would work out just spiffy for the M's.
In principle, it's retch-worthy. "I'll be your icon until I'm not. I hope to go into the Hall of Fame wearing a Rangers cap." Yeah, fine, whatever you say. Just go up and hit, chump. We'll cheer for Pineda.
SSI signs off, holding its nose, on the Fielder opt-out. Although for our $200M it would be nice to get a partner in this rebuild.