Scott Boras Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot

So he apparently told the New York Times, anyway, after being asked whether the Mets’ current financial woes meant the team should have new ownership.

Instead of answering the question directly, he went on a long rant about teams spending commensurately with their market size and fan base, finishing up with:

”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.“The Mets’ payroll is dropping from $143 million in 2011 to $91 million in 2012, which is the largest single-season payroll reduction in major-league history. The reasons for that are pretty obvious, with the Mets in legal hot water over the Bernie Madoff scandal and just yesterday being ordered to pay $83 million to the Madoff trustee.

Even so, as Maury Brown points out:

And Boras himself is apparently backing off his comments, at least a bit:

“I didn’t speak of anyone’s name,” Boras said. “I didn’t speak of anyone’s franchise.“Let’s see. From the Times article:

“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.”

And the Mets, up until this year. I’m guessing Boras wasn’t referring to the teams in Boston, Texas, Los Angeles or the Bronx. It would be disingenuous of anyone, including Boras, to suggest he wasn’t referring to the Mets.

Friendly suggestion, Scott: go back to doing what you’re good at, like signing your clients to immensely long deals for megadollars. If the Mets aren’t out there with contract offers, you’ll surely find another sucker taker.