Last June the Philadelphia Phillies used their fifth- and sixth-round draft picks to select Pac 10 talents Ben Wetzler (LHP, Oregon State) and Jason Monda (OF, Washington State), ultimately failing to sign each. Earlier this week Baseball America’s Aaron Fitt broke the news that last fall the Phillies turned in both Wetzler and Monda to the NCAA, claiming that both violated NCAA regulations that prevent an amateur player from using an agent to negotiate a contract on the player’s behalf. Violation of those regulations has the potential to negate the player’s NCAA eligibility. Monda has since been cleared to play, while Wetzler sits on the sidelines with his case still under review.

It is commonplace for amateur players to solicit the assistance of an agent when dealing with major league clubs and the draft, though the relationship is technically supposed to be limited to the agent serving in an advisory capacity whereby the agent can give advice to the athlete and his family but cannot directly represent the player in dealings with major league teams. Almost every drafted player utilizes an agent advisor, with a portion relying on family members or a close friend to assist in contract negotiations.

Whether the accusations of Monda’s and Wetzler’s alleged improprieties were a result of a decision somewhere up the Philly food chain or the actions of a lone wolf, the act itself cannot be classified as anything but a spiteful response to the organization’s interaction with these players last summer. Media members, agents, and college reps have reacted to the story in a uniform manner, expressing anger, distaste, and dismay that a major league organization would take such actions with nothing to gain outside of terminating the eligibility of two collegiate athletes who ultimately decided they were not prepared to start their pro career.

Scouts with whom I have spoken over the last 24 hours have neglected to comment on the record but have generally expressed a lack of understanding of the motivation behind the Phillies’ actions, given the absence of any actual benefit to the organization and the potential for both a short- and long-term negative impact on their amateur scouting efforts. Area scouts rely on agent advisors and college reps to assist in collecting info on players, from obtaining playing schedules to gaining access to facilities or the players themselves. Both groups have vociferously denounced the Phillies’ actions, with some agent advisors insisting that this will have a dramatic impact on the Phillies’ ability to gain access to their student athletes this spring.

One agent advisor, however, had a more pragmatic response:

It definitely will not help [the Phillies] for the draft, and I think the trust level has gone down to zero. I think they will see some backlash, and they may have to alter their draft board a little, but in the end money still talks…they will still draft and sign quality players. I have seen quotes today from agents stating that the ‘Phillies are not getting into any more of our households’ and I have to laugh. I thought the advisor/agent works for the client and the client determines who he does and does not talk to?

The agent advisor’s point is well taken, and while it is important for these representatives to come out loud and angry in light of the Philly/Wetzler revelations, at the end of the day it is not their place to battle with a major league organization at the expense of their current clients’ future.

So what is the ultimate takeaway from this scandal? One certainty is that there is plenty of blame to go around.

NCAA’s Nonsensical No-Agent Rule
Without question the largest issue at play here is the NCAA’s insistence that amateur athletes, negotiating terms of employment with executives in a multi-billion dollar industry, should be denied legal representation. College baseball players do not declare for the draft, and they can retain their amateur status even after being drafted, provided they abide by certain rules and regulations, one of which is NCAA Bylaw, which states:

…a lawyer may not be present during discussions between a student-athlete and a professional team or have any direct contact (in person, by telephone or by mail) with a professional sports organization on behalf of” a student-athlete.”

Of course, this makes absolutely no sense. The mere act of discussing potential employment does not bestow upon the amateur player any financial benefit, which is the crux of the professional/amateur distinction. Moreover, technical default under this language could be argued to include basic interactions outside of formal contract negotiations. For example, some agent advisors refuse to speak to major league scouts about matters as simple as team schedules and will go so far as to avoid making any contact with their players immediately before and after games at certain high-traffic high school tournaments, the time when most scouts will chat the players up, due to past scrutiny of interactions of this type.

Quite simply, the NCAA is placing its amateur baseball players at a massive disadvantage throughout a process that involves some of the players’ biggest professional life decisions. The rules operate to no one’s benefit and carry tragic consequences for the players. That’s not to mention the woefully incompetent manner in which the NCAA handles its investigations of supposed infractions. It is inexcusable that Wetzler’s status is still undetermined, and the delay means that if the Oregon State ace is in fact ruled ineligible, he will likely be forced to leave school if he wants to enter the 2014 draft, as it is too late in the season for him to transfer to a school outside of the NCAA’s purview. Says another agent advisor:

I think the time is not too far off when someone sues the NCAA again over the ‘no agent’ rule and actually refuses to accept a settlement, unlike Andy Oliver did back in '09. To prevent inexperienced and easily-influenced young men from having legal counsel help negotiate an employment services contract on their behalf with a corporation is ludicrous, insane, immoral, and unjust. And we already have a court of law saying as much.

What Were the Phillies Thinking?
As noted earlier, the actions of the Philadelphia Phillies regarding Wetzler, Monda, and the NCAA are irrational as well as petty and spiteful. If Wetzler is ruled ineligible, the Phillies will not benefit in any way. It would not dissuade future players from returning to school, and in fact might lead to additional hurdles for the organization’s evaluators to overcome in the draft arena.

As the agent advisor noted above, money talks, and the Phillies will still be able to draft and sign quality players. Where they could be hurt is if players ultimately decide they do not want to give any information to the Phillies regarding “their number” (the dollar amount for which they’d be willing to sign a contract upon being drafted), for fear that any deviation from that number will be met with acts of retribution.

Particularly under the new CBA draft rules, it is important for teams to have a solid understanding of their targets, the signability of their targets, and the areas of the draft that are likely to provide them allotment savings (signing a player for less than the amount allotted by Major League Baseball for that particular draft slot) and allotment overages (signing a player for more than the amount allotted by Major League Baseball for that particular draft slot). In this planning stage, knowledge is power. If the Phillies have narrowed the information pipeline even a little, they have done themselves a huge disservice. Additionally, there remains the threat that universities could begin limiting access (a full ban seems highly unlikely) of Phillies scouts to players before and after games. Coaches may also be less likely to keep the Phillies’ area scouts equally informed about workouts, rotation schedules, and the like, even if the slips are only periodic.

The impact on the Phillies as a whole will not be cataclysmic, but having your scouts operate at any disadvantage at all is a big deal. The club has yet to release a statement regarding the situation, but most feel that some public amends will need to be made to avoid the risk of being forced to deal with uncooperative partners on the side of the players, including the agent advisors and the schools themselves.

It can be highly frustrating for an organization, and an area scout in particular, to have a player move the goalposts by changing “their number” after being drafted. A large responsibility of the area scout is to determine that number, as well as the makeup of the player and the player’s desire to start his professional career. Failing to sign an early pick can reflect poorly on the area scout, both inside and outside of the organization, and reputation is important in a close-knit industry that can at times require an evaluator to search for jobs in multiple organizations throughout his career.

Ironically, the presence of high-quality agent advisors in the process helps both parties avoid these non-signings, as an agent advisor has the experience and the contextual knowledge to help ground a player’s (and his player’s family’s) expectations. Most of the instances of post-draft changes in demands and ultimate non-signings have been a result of unreasonable expectations on the part of the parents of the player. The system works best when a player and his family receive good counsel from an experienced agent advisor, which points our finger at the final culprit.

The Responsibility of the Agent Advisor
The concept of the agent advisor is problematic, demanding a “man behind the curtain” approach that complicates and retards interactions between would-be signees and the teams while carrying with it the risk of ruining any chance the player has of going to college and playing ball. Still, there are general best practices that can be followed to help minimize the chances of an NCAA sanction being levied, as one agent advisor explains:

It's like the speed limit of 55 mph on our highways. Everyone knows it's an old and outdated speed limit and nobody ever drives 55 mph. But if you get caught going more than 55, you will still be pulled over and issued a ticket. However, if you know how the system works, you can exceed 55 and not get a ticket. [For example,] it's a well-known unwritten rule that unless you are [driving recklessly], police officers will not stop you for going up to 9 mph over the stated limit. Even the tickets themselves only give options for the officers to state the speed was ‘10 or more over.’ Use a radar detector, know the hiding spots of the cops, never be the fastest car on the road, etc. Same thing applies to advising kids for the MLB Draft.

Obviously the entire issue is non-existent if the NCAA does away with its ridiculous no-agent rule, but the point remains that there is a real responsibility for agent advisors to find a way to work within the best practices of the industry. The same agent advisor had this to say about the actions of his contemporary in this instance (assuming, of course, that the Phillies’ accusations are upheld):

This particular advisor was either too stupid or too negligent in not being aware of the NCAA rules and how they pertain to his client. Clearly, this advisor did not have the best interests of his client in mind; only his own. There are ways of getting around the NCAA rules and regulations to help your client and also not be violative such that you put your client's collegiate eligibility in jeopardy. Good advisors know how to do this.

As a practicing attorney myself, this sentiment rings true. Agent advisors are in the unenviable position of being forced to aggressively represent the interests of their amateur baseball clients without being given full latitude to do so. Should they be forced to tap dance around the no-agent requirements of the NCAA? Of course not. But for the time being that’s the world we live in.

Without question, the current Wetzler situation involves a truckload of blame that can be attributed to multiple parties. The unfortunate reality is that ultimately, Wetzler and his Oregon State teammates are the only ones who truly suffer. Until forced to alter its ways via court action, the NCAA will continue to mete out punishment for nonsensical rules as it sees fit. The Phillies will continue to draft and sign talented amateur players. Agent advisors, good and bad, will continue to profit from the process. My advice to players and their families: Retain the services of an agent advisor, and make sure he knows exactly what he is doing. Your interests are the only interests not being protected throughout this process. I’d also keep the Phillies toward the back of my in-home visit list for the time being.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
The mere act of discussing potential employment does bestow upon the amateur player any financial benefit, which is the crux of the professional/amateur distinction.

I think you mean "does not."

Feel free to delete this comment.
I know the agent/advisors for the elite draft prospects are all widely known and reported. Is it public knowledge who the advisor(s) were for Wetzler and Monda? A lot of the public scrutiny has fallen on the Phillies since the individuals (Amaro, Wolever) are publicly known and nobody wants to blame the players for getting caught up in a stupid rule. Some of the questions being put to the Phillies (and not answered) should also be going to the advisor(s).

I think it's worth noting that both players are likely in the area of the same scout. I believe most teams have a Pacific Northwest scout that will cover Oregon and Wash. Of course, the buck stops with Wolever and then Amaro, but this doesn't seem a coincidence. Anyone with a 2013 Phils Media Guide or a BA Directory can at least put the area scouts name out there. I do wonder if these allegations came from this scout to cover his ass for TWO of his players not signing in the same draft.
I heard that they do not have the same advisor.
I agree with philly that identifying the agent or agents is very important to the story. With no disrespect intended to sdinsmore, he offers no evidence that it was two difference agents and his comment is the only place I have seen it asserted that there were two different agents. I also have no evidence, but since neither player signed, both players seemed to have been poorly represented and both players were subject to an NCAA investigation, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it seems reasonable to speculate that Wetzler and Monda had the same agent. (The fact that Monda was cleared and Wetzler was not hurts my argument but I am going to run with it anyway). Under the single agent theory, it would also not be much of a further reach to guess that this same agent was the source of the story.

Just making up a scenario, perhaps the agent demanded that Wolever sign both players for 3 times the suggested slot money or have neither player sign. Perhaps Wolever threatened to report the NCAA violation unless the agent represented each player independently and at a reasonable value. The agent called Wolever's bluff and forced Wolever to act to maintain his own and the organization's negotiating credibility.

In addition to not knowing the name of Wetzler's and Monda's agent, we don't know the names of any of the agents quoted or used as sources in this or any article that I have read on the topic.

Wolever has had a lot of good signings over the years including Ryan Howard and Cole Hamels. If he was the guy that made the call to report this to the NCAA -- and I don't know that he was -- I am guessing that he thought he had a good reason. I am just trying to paint a scenario where it isn't a complete self-immolation.
My understanding is Monda and Wetzler were not represented by the same advisor.
I also believe that the person(s) who reported the alleged violations to the NCAA believes he/they were justified in doing so.
"With no disrespect intended to sdinsmore, he offers no evidence that it was two difference agents and his comment is the only place I have seen it asserted that there were two different agents."

Aaron Fitt, the guy who wrote the initial article, reported that there were two different agents involved.

So keep painting, Rembrandt.
As a Phillies fan, will be interesting to see their response (if it ever comes -- it better).

The Phillies do A LOT of stupid things, but until now, it's stemmed entirely from the way they evaluate players/talent, not the way they treat people.

You listen to how guys like Halladay and Lee talk about how they wanted to come to Philly because of how much they liked the organization and their values and this makes no sense.

I'm guessing at the end of the day, whoever it was, the Phillies will scapegoat someone and fire them and sell that to agents/players.
Lee also said the Yankees were too old compared to the Phillies, even though at the time the Phillies average age was higher than the Yankees and (I think) highest in the bigs. A player's always gonna say good things about the team he signs with.
It is impossible to imagine that experienced baseball executives would take this action without a severe provocation from the agent side. And I mean the type of provocation that would be viewed as a "developing practice".

This would be the rare case where it would be interesting to see it land in court and all of the facts come out.
Were they seriously provoked by both agents?
The NCAA should just amend the rule to open it for players subject to a professional draft once their sports regular season has concluded.
Agreed, problem is that Baseball has two disadvantages. It is both NOT a money sport and requiring unique rules and oversight to properly adjudicate it. The financial logic isn't there to do it. Because players can be drafted without declaring (rightly so because it gives them proper bargaining power), they are uniquely at risk for losing eligibility by hiring a professional to attempt to get their proper worth.

It won't happen anytime soon unless Baseball becomes May Madness of some sort.
Probably wasn't worded quite right...but hopefully my point comes through
The entire NCAA philosophy is to prevent players from receiving compensation for the entertainment they provide. Accusing them of having one unjust rule is like accusing Antarctica of having one snowflake.
Fair point -- the piece's focus on the no-agent rule is really meant to highlight the fact that the existence of one silly rule has the potential to dramatically, and unfairly, impact the life of a young ballplayer.
There are two villains here, the Phillies and the NCAA. Neither with the kids best interests at hand. But of course, the ones who suffer are the kids.
My best guess is that this is the next move in the Phillies "only old guys" strategy of composing a roster. During next year's draft I wouldn't be surprised if they just said "pass" when it was their turn to pick.
"To prevent inexperienced and easily-influenced young men from having legal counsel help negotiate an employment services contract on their behalf with a corporation is ludicrous, insane, immoral, and unjust."

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. And I would add that it is unfair, too, for all the reasons Nick mentions and one more.

If I am a good college baseball player, it should not matter what the profession of my parents and close relatives are - I should be able to obtain quality advice without jeopardizing my eligibility. Yet the player who has a dad or mom or aunt or uncle that is a lawyer is potentially ahead of this game.

It is madness.
Minor question re:
…a lawyer may not be present during discussions between a student-athlete and a professional team or have any direct contact (in person, by telephone or by mail) with a professional sports organization on behalf of” a student-athlete.”

Not all agents are lawyers so this wording puzzles me. Clearly a non-lawyer agent can't do these things either, right?
Correct -- lawyer in that context is interchangeable with advisor. I believe only parents/legal guardians are permitted direct involvement without jeopardizing eligibility.
So why not get Scott Boras to be your legal guardian?

What an asinine system. But I expect nothing less from the NCAA.
Scott Boras to prospect: "I am your father."