Scott Boras went on MLB Network Radio on SIRIUS XM this afternoon and spoke with hosts Jim Duquette and Kevin Kennedy about the Edward Salcedo loan story, which we’ve been following since yesterday. Boras had three main points he wanted to make:
- While everyone’s ears prick up when they hear about agents loaning money to kids, that is a function of U.S. audiences hearing about it in the context of the NCAA and amateurism rules and finding it distasteful and wrong. It is wrong in the latter context, Boras, agrees, but not the former. He believes that the New York Times story was written because it hits on the latter, hot button issues. Oh, and because people are very eager to “finally get to attack someone we want to.” Meaning himself, of course;
- Salcedo was poor and in need, and that if it weren’t for the loans — and he stressed that it was a “loans,” over time, not one check for $70,000 — Salcedo would have had to abandon his baseball career due to financial need; and
- No MLBPA rules were violated in making the loans.
I still think that the agenda involved as a lot to do with Major League Baseball’s designs on restraining the market in the Dominican, but I’ll concede that Boras’ answer is more satisfying on an Occam’s Razor level. The Times does likely have an interest in getting in on the “agents loaning young players money” story even if, in this case, there is nothing wrong with it. People do like to take swings at Boras if they get a chance. Of course, the paper isn’t doing this on its own. It quoted some Major League Baseball sources pretty prominently in yesterday’s piece, so my theory could be working right alongside Boras’.
I have yet to see a statement from the MLBPA blessing the loans, so there may still be an issue here with respect to technical compliance. But at the same time, I have yet to see anything that suggests that this is a dire problem like it was portrayed to be in yesterday’s New York Times story.