Via Metsblog.com, Scott Boras comes down on the Mets ownership, and big market owners who don’t spend in general:
“The major franchises who are getting the majority of revenues should provide a product, or an attempt at a product, that has the near-highest payrolls commensurate with the markets they are in.”
Boras also said that “the betterment of the game requires us often to look beyond the personal needs of an ownership.”
He added: “If a player does not perform for the betterment of their team, then teams bring in other players. On the other side, there has to be an equation where there are requirements for ownership to perform at certain levels, and if they don’t, they would lose their right to own a club and be replaced. I believe if we do that, we’re going to have a better game.”
Of course Scott wants owners to spend more money, since he makes more money that way. Owners, however, want to win while spending the least amount of money, since they make more money that way. Boras should try to be a little less transparent.
That’s just funny. Maybe if he didn’t keep selling the Mets bad players for too much money (e.g. Oliver Perez), they wouldn’t be in the situation that they’re now in: no money, no fans, not enough wins.
The team also paid a fortune for Beltran.
Boras makes me physically sick. He’s up there Fehr in being obsessed with money. It’s all they talk about.
There is a reasonable point hidden in there. There should be a minimum amount of required spending on “product” (player and coach salaries, training facilities, scouting, etc.) for a team to be part of the Major Leagues. If an owner can’t or won’t do this the team should be relegated to the minors. And if they put in a floor on spending, then the owners have a stronger case for the cap on spending most of them want.