The Relationship between Players, Agents and Teams

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,690
Montana Fan said:
His agents are outstanding negotiators. They are extracting every dime and will lay out the offers for Lester to choose from.
 
I know that agents have to play nice with teams and not burn any bridges, but I wonder if the Levinsons are taking this opportunity to stick it to the Red Sox.  The stories have been out there that they weren't happy when they did the Pedroia deal and the player left money on the table.  They were probably determined to go for the huge contract this time around with Jon.  They knew the Sox would likely start quite low (the FO reportedly did the same with Dustin) and leveraged this with Jon, hence the reports that the team never received a counteroffer from his side despite 4/$70 being only a starting point and subsequent discussions of other ways to structure a deal.  I'm not saying by any means that Jon Lester is a passive pawn, but I do wonder if his agents took advantage of him, although obviously to his great financial gain.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,829
Deep inside Muppet Labs
JimD said:
 
I know that agents have to plan nice with teams and not burn any bridges, but I wonder if the Levinsons are taking this opportunity to stick it to the Red Sox.  The stories have been out there that they weren't happy when they did the Pedroia deal and the player left money on the table.  They were probably determined to go for the huge contract this time around with Jon.  They knew the Sox would likely start quite low (the FO reportedly did the same with Dustin) and leveraged this with Jon, hence the reports that the team never received a counteroffer from his side despite 4/$70 being only a starting point and subsequent discussions of other ways to structure a deal.  I'm not saying by any means that Jon Lester is a passive pawn, but I do wonder if his agents took advantage of him, although obviously to his great financial gain.
 
The agents work for the player at all times. The player wanted to sign that deal. If the player is happy then good agents would be happy for their player.
 
If Lester told his agents that he wanted to accept the 4/70 offer this spring, then while they would have told him there would be bigger offers this fall they would have helped him sign that contract. That's their job.
 

BarrettsHiddenBall

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
438
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
The agents work for the player at all times. The player wanted to sign that deal. If the player is happy then good agents would be happy for their player.
 
If Lester told his agents that he wanted to accept the 4/70 offer this spring, then while they would have told him there would be bigger offers this fall they would have helped him sign that contract. That's their job.
True in theory, but in practice players delegate a *lot* of the negotiating; see the disconnect between Jason Heyward and the Braves earlier this offseason about what extension talks had been conducted prior to his trade.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
JimD said:
I know that agents have to play nice with teams and not burn any bridges, but I wonder if the Levinsons are taking this opportunity to stick it to the Red Sox.  The stories have been out there that they weren't happy when they did the Pedroia deal and the player left money on the table.  They were probably determined to go for the huge contract this time around with Jon.  They knew the Sox would likely start quite low (the FO reportedly did the same with Dustin) and leveraged this with Jon, hence the reports that the team never received a counteroffer from his side despite 4/$70 being only a starting point and subsequent discussions of other ways to structure a deal.  I'm not saying by any means that Jon Lester is a passive pawn, but I do wonder if his agents took advantage of him, although obviously to his great financial gain.
It's just as plausible that Lester and his team are doing the Red Sox a favor by delaying an anniouncment that he's going elsewhere...allowing Cherrington to line up an alternative deal without eroding his negotiating position with the public knowledge that the Red Sox lost the Lester sweepstakes.

Lots of possibilities...not all suck.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,404
Southwestern CT
BarrettsHiddenBall said:
True in theory, but in practice players delegate a *lot* of the negotiating; see the disconnect between Jason Heyward and the Braves earlier this offseason about what extension talks had been conducted prior to his trade.
 
This is nonsensical.
 
Almost without exception, players delegate 100% of the negotiating to the agents.  This does not change the fact that the guidelines are established by the player.
 

BarrettsHiddenBall

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
438
Average Reds said:
 
This is nonsensical.
 
Almost without exception, players delegate 100% of the negotiating to the agents.  This does not change the fact that the guidelines are established by the player.
Huh? Heyward had no idea what his agent had discussed and rejected, or what the parameters of the discussion were.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,404
Southwestern CT
BarrettsHiddenBall said:
Huh? Heyward had no idea what his agent had discussed and rejected, or what the parameters of the discussion were.
 
If Heyward had no idea what his agent had discussed and rejected, then his agent committed malpractice.  And to point to an instance where an agent acted unethically and assume it's the norm is ridiculous.
 

BarrettsHiddenBall

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
438
Average Reds said:
 
If Heyward had no idea what his agent had discussed and rejected, then his agent committed malpractice.  And to point to an instance where an agent acted unethically and assume it's the norm is ridiculous.
So we've gone from it being nonsensical to just unusual? Works for me. I never claimed it was the norm, but the dynamics of agent/player relationships do allow it to happen, Heyward being the most recent example.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,404
Southwestern CT
BarrettsHiddenBall said:
So we've gone from it being nonsensical to just unusual? Works for me. I never claimed it was the norm, but the dynamics of agent/player relationships do allow it to happen, Heyward being the most recent example.
 
If you would stop shifting your argument to suit your needs, perhaps you'd be able to follow along.
 
Using the Jason Heyward example to prove your contention is nonsensical, because the actions of his agent were unethical.  Agents who take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously understand that they work for the player and the player makes all of the decisions.