RuntheDamnBall Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Player agent Jeff Moorad is going to become CEO of the Arizona Diamondbacks. (He's represented Shawn Green, Manny Ramirez, tons of others). anyone with ESPN insider can view this: http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=1861912 Anyone see this as opening up a potentially dangerous can of worms? Agents who are friendly with players don't even have to tamper as CEOs of teams, they already have cozy prior records with them -- and in essence, first dibs on particular free agents. On the flipside, if this agent-turned CEO pissed off another agent, teams may not even get a crack at these agents' players. Look at it this way. Say McGahee's agent takes over the Bills, and floods them with some of his former clients. Is this a good thing because an agent knows some things a team generally may not because he has the confidence of the player? Or are loyalties completely mixed up here? Players are already way more loyal to agents (they show them the money, of course) than to teams. What does this mean now? I know this is kind of a murky philosophical discussion, and having just read about it I haven't formed any real opinion other than that it brings up some difficult issues. Interested to hear others' thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BADOL Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Nothing new, Ray Anderson was a former agent and he is an executive for the Falcons even though he has many former clients in the NFL on other teams. Doesn't seem like a major issue to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.