The Non-Logic of `Mercer's Agent

[Way Of The Ray <wayray@ix.netcom.com>]

      Boston Herald 

      Mercer agent shoots airball on logic
      NBA Notes/by Mark Cofman <snips>
      Sunday, August 22, 1999
      Tevester Scott is Ron Mercer's agent. He is paid to represent his client 
      to the best of his ability.
      If that meant discouraging Mercer from signing with the Celtics, as Scott 
      did before Mercer was dealt to Denver earlier this month, so be it. 
      Business is business, and Scott believed the Celtics were low-balling his 
      client.
      But exactly what obligation were the Celtics under to satisfy Scott's 
      needs once it became apparent the sides would never get together on a 
      contract extension? The agent, at least by the public stance he has taken 
      in the weeks following the deal, seems to believe the Celtics should have 
      consulted him regarding Mercer's future place of employment.
      Please.
      Scott forced the Celtics' hand in negotiations. Asked if he were seeking 
      the maximum salary allowed players with six or less years of experience 
      for his client, Scott would only say if Mercer was not at the six-year, 
      $73 million level, he was ``as close as a player can be.''
      One could argue the merits of that perspective, but Mercer's market value 
      is not the issue here. The ex-Celtics guard, through Scott's 
      representation, is entitled to ask for every penny he feels he deserves. 
      Conversely, the Celtics are entitled to walk away from the table if the 
      price appears too steep.
      As it turned out, they did. Celtics coach Rick Pitino and general manager 
      Chris Wallace proceeded to shop Mercer to the highest bidder, finally 
      packaging him in a six-player deal with Denver that brought back Danny 
      Fortson and Eric Williams. Scott claimed better deals were out there for 
      his client.
      How touching it is that he should be concerned with the value the Celtics 
      were getting in return. Or was it that Scott felt more confident he could 
      secure a contract extension for Mercer with some of the other teams in the 
      bidding for his client. You make the call.
      As for the post-trade claims from the Mercer camp that the Celtics told 
      him he could expect to receive a contract extension in Denver, why would 
      Pitino or Wallace lie to him? It's not as if Mercer had a no-trade 
      contract that he waived as a result of this misinformation. He was history 
      in Boston, regardless.
      Scott's behavior is symbolic of the tail-wagging-the-dog mentality of many 
      sports agents. Their primary function is to ascertain and exploit whatever 
      bargaining power they have in negotiating for a client. There's nothing 
      wrong with that. If owners are willing to sign on to stupid-money 
      contracts, that's not the agent's fault. He's doing his job.
      But in this particular case, Scott dealt with a front office that 
      understood a little something about bargaining power. That front office 
      chose to use the only bargaining chip it had before Mercer walked as a 
      free agent next season. That bargaining chip was a trade - one that didn't 
      suit the agent.
      Why should anybody care about that?