My struggle is more philosophical in nature than practical as I understand that what athletes, even the wealthiest, earn can often pale in comparison to corporate executives and many other white collar folks - John Henry is case in point. 

It just grate me the wrong way that one of the wealthiest teams in sports (i.e. Yankees) has the gall to request the level of public financing they have and then break the bank in signing players.  They reap all the benefits of capitalism while seeking financing via corporate welfare. 

My frustration is also with communities that vote for public financing agreements or do not challenge their legislators/elected officials that push such funding schemes while voting down schools levies and recoil if a tax for the public good is ever discussed.  Because of the careers both my wife and I have pursued we see the negative effects that lack of public funding can have as my wife sees it at the macro level and I deal with it on a more personal level.

I am a Columbus Bluejackets fan in large part because John McConnell and Nationwide step to the plate after Columbus voted down funding a hockey arena and spent their own monies to build Nationwide Arena.  I wish more cities voted down these financing schemes making the wealthy communities members step up if it truly is in the best interest of the community to have such a franchise.

To be honest, I don’t really hate Boras, at all.  I understand every complaint with him, but as I see it, he’s just representing his clients as vigorously as possible, putting their apparent desires above any sort of ethical quandaries. 

That said, I love that the Red Sox have decided that they don’t want to play Boras’ games.  Whether they sniffed an attempt to make them bid against themselves, or if they just don’t think Teixeira is worth more than they’re offering, I think it’s fabulous that (finally) a team has realized that the consumers can (and do) dictate the market.  Boras is a grocer trying to tell you apples are worth $10 a pound, because, I mean, damnit, they’re good apples.  But if you’ll take the somewhat smaller apples down the road for $1.50 a pound, then you do it, right?

Pete, I’m not saying Teixeira should accept less than what someone is willing to pay him.  I’m arguing that the means to get to that point are unethical and not consistent with the system baseball has set up to sign free agents. 

In my opinion there is a huge difference in these two statements:

1. “Based on this data that I’ve compiled, the price for Teixeira is $250 million.”

vs

2. “Based on this offer we already have (which doesn’t really exist) for $249 million, the price for Teixeira is $250 million.”

One is ethical and one is not.  Is that not true?  It doesn’t really matter which side gets/pays the extra money - as a business person, I feel the process needs to be kept aboveboard, otherwise it’s going to escalate into an even bigger mess.

As for your example of teams telling players, “We can’t afford to pay you X,” of course it’s unethical if it’s a lie.  And I would be against that.  But “afford” is also a very ambiguous term - teams have budgets with broad categories and can easily (without lying) justify that statement to virtually anyone.  Because owners can say: “You want $10 million, but our budget says that we only have $8 million to spend here, because we have $X mil here and $Z mil here, and that gives us a bottom line of $50 million, which is the required rate of return our investors have specified.”  It’s then an agent’s job to explain how an extra $2 million in salary would actually increase the rate of return, etc.  There’s actual negotiations taking place with no dishonesty.

Boras, on the other hand, CANNOT justify telling a team there’s a certain offer on the table when that offer doesn’t exist.  It’s blatant lying and disrupts the system in a way that doesn’t jive with free market principles.