In 1998, baseball history was made when Mark McGwire shattered the single-season home run record, hitting 70 home runs in a single year. As the season came to a close, there was intense speculation about what the record-breaking baseballs might be worth.

One lucky fan, Philip Ozersky, was sitting in the stands when McGwire hit his 70th home run, and by sheer luck, he ended up with the ball. Almost immediately, offers started rolling in. One interested buyer quickly offered him $1 million. For most people, a sudden seven-figure windfall would be hard to turn down.

But Ozersky didn’t accept. Instead, he put the ball up for auction through Guernsey’s Auction House in New York. The decision paid off—big time. When the bidding was over, the ball sold for $2.7 million.

The buyer? Todd McFarlane, the comic book creator behind Spawn.

Had Ozersky taken the initial offer, he would have left $1.7 million on the table and never would have known about it. McFarlane wasn’t on anyone’s radar as the “likely” buyer, yet he was the one willing to pay the most. The highest bidder wasn’t a billionaire baseball collector, nor a sports museum, nor even a known memorabilia investor. It was someone completely unexpected—but he never would have entered the picture if the ball hadn’t been taken to auction. Too many brokers believe they’ve done their jobs when their listing is closed. They have only done their job when the listing is closed at the highest price the market is willing to pay.

The Flawed Assumption That Costs Sellers Millions

Stories like Ozersky’s aren’t unique to sports memorabilia. The same thing happens time and time again in high-value transactions—whether it’s art, jewelry, or even historic documents.

Consider Leonardo da Vinci’s Codex Leicester, a 72-page collection of his scientific writings. Before it went to auction in 1994, experts estimated it might sell for around $7 million. If a seller had privately negotiated a deal at that price, it would have seemed reasonable. But once again, an auction changed everything. The bidding escalated rapidly, far beyond initial expectations. The final sale price? $30.8 million.

And the winning bidder? Bill Gates.

Like Todd McFarlane in the McGwire auction, Gates was an unexpected contender, not someone you’d assume would pay a record-setting price for a centuries-old manuscript. Yet, he emerged as the top bidder—because he was given the opportunity.

If the Codex Leicester had been sold privately, the seller never would have known what the market was truly willing to pay.

A Lesson from the Dallas Mavericks Trade with the Los Angeles Lakers

If you're a Mavericks fan—or just a Texan who loves a good deal—this might be a painful read. But just like a bad real estate transaction, there's a lesson to be learned.

Imagine selling your $12 million property, but instead of putting it in front of thousands of qualified buyers, you quietly hand it over to your neighbor’s cousin for $8 million because it is convenient. That would be insane, right?

Well, that’s essentially what the Mavericks just did with Luka Dončić.

Instead of marketing him to all 29 other NBA teams, sparking a bidding war, and maximizing his value, they rushed into a deal with the Lakers—leaving potential better offers on the table. If this sounds like a nightmare, that’s because it is. And for Mavs fans, it might be even worse than when they let Steve Nash walk… okay, maybe not that bad, but it’s close.

One NBA executive not affiliated with the Mavericks or Lakers called the move “shortsighted,” explaining:

“If you want to do this, shop the guy. The deals you could have gotten for him are ridiculous.”

Had the Mavericks truly marketed Dončić—engaging with all teams, leveraging multiple offers, and using competitive pressure to drive up the return—they could have secured a much better deal.

Sports analyst Bill Simmons put it even more humorously: “It’s like selling your house to your neighbor before listing it. Sure, it’s convenient, but you’re probably leaving a few million on the table.”

ESPN analyst Zach Lowe added, “The Mavericks had a prime asset, and instead of testing the waters and maximizing return, they took the easiest deal. You can't just assume the first offer is the best one—especially when you have someone like Luka Dončić on your roster who needs help now.”

Veteran NBA writer Kelly Dwyer stated:

“Dallas did not put the effort in to create as much equity as it could from the sort of talent that turns into statues—career-ending move.”

The Lakers, of course, were happy to take advantage. One anonymous executive from another Western Conference team noted, “It was a gift. The Mavs basically handed over a valuable asset without seeing what the rest of the league was willing to pay.”

So, Mavericks fans, take heart—you’re not alone in suffering from limited exposure. It happens in sports, in business, and unfortunately, in real estate transactions every single day. And just like the Codex Leicester or McGwire’s baseball, the only way to truly know your property’s worth is to let the market decide.

The same lessons apply to commercial real estate.  Let’s look at some examples that exemplify this point.

The Plaza Hotel

The historic Plaza Hotel in New York City has long been considered one of the most prestigious properties in the world. In 2018, the property was quietly sold to the Qatar Investment Authority for $600 million. While this may seem like a substantial price, market analysts speculated that had the property been fully marketed and opened to a broad pool of institutional, international, and other qualified buyers, it could have fetched significantly more. Given its global prestige, an auction-style competitive process might have driven the price far higher, much like what we see in high-stakes real estate bidding wars.

St. Regis Aspen Resort

Unlike the Plaza Hotel, the St. Regis Aspen Resort took a different approach when it was put up for sale. Instead of a traditional listing process, it was offered via an auction model. The auction attracted bidders from around the world, ultimately resulting in a 30% premium over initial valuation estimates. This case exemplifies how maximum exposure and a competitive environment can drive pricing well beyond initial expectations.

One57

One57, the luxury condominium tower on Manhattan’s Billionaire’s Row, made headlines when a penthouse that originally sold for $100.5 million in 2014 was resold in 2021 for just $45.6 million—a staggering 55% loss. While market conditions played a role, the sale was conducted as a private transaction with limited exposure. Experts speculated that had the property been broadly marketed through an international campaign targeting multiple buyers, the seller would have attracted competing bids that would have driven the price significantly higher.

The Resurgence of Flipping Deals in Escrow

A growing trend that has resurfaced in recent years is the practice of double escrowing, wholesaling, and flipping properties while still in escrow. Investors secure off-market deals at favorable prices, only to resell them to another buyer before closing—often at a substantial markup. This practice reinforces a fundamental truth: selling off-market almost always means leaving money on the table. If an investor can find a new buyer willing to pay significantly more in just a few weeks or months, it means the original seller likely accepted too low a price. This underscores the importance of full-market exposure, competitive bidding, and broad marketing strategies to ensure that the true top-dollar buyer—not just the first available buyer—sets the price.

A Change in Mindset is needed

Despite overwhelming evidence that competition drives value, many commercial real estate brokerages continue to operate under a model that prioritizes control over competition.

Rather than putting a property in front of the broadest possible audience, many brokers:

• Keep listings within their own networks.
• Quietly shop deals to a select group of investors.
• Wait until the listing is about to expire before they fully market the property
• Shop offers
• Assume the most obvious buyer will pay the highest price.

This isn’t marketing—it’s limiting the market.

The right approach to selling commercial real estate is to create an auction-like environment where every potential buyer knows about the opportunity, has time to analyze it, and competes against other buyers to secure it. That competition is what drives pricing upward.

To achieve this, brokers should:

• Market properties nationally and internationally, not just locally.
• Use digital and direct marketing campaigns to reach a broad audience.
• Engage diverse buyer groups, including institutional investors, private buyers, and 1031 exchange candidates.
• Be willing to work with other brokers on an equal basis

A Problem That Won’t Go Away by Itself—How Sellers Can Change It

The reality is that many brokerage firms are not motivated to maximize exposure—they are motivated to control it.

Why? Because the fewer outside buyers they introduce, the easier it is to control both sides of the transaction. In many cases, brokers are incentivized to double-end deals, collecting commissions from both the buyer and seller. This creates a built-in conflict of interest: is the broker truly seeking the best offer or just the easiest deal to close?

To see how flawed this model is, consider how project leasing brokers operate compared to investment sales brokers.

In project leasing, brokers understand that broad market exposure is critical. Their success depends on cooperation with other brokers, ensuring that every potential tenant is made aware of the available space. When a project leasing broker takes on a new assignment, their primary job is to market the property widely—through signage, broker emails, cold calls, digital marketing, and direct outreach to tenant rep brokers—because they know the right tenant could come from anywhere. They don’t attempt to control the deal by restricting access to only their personal client list. In fact, their entire business depends on working with other brokers to bring in the best possible tenants.

Yet, in investment sales, many brokers take the exact opposite approach. Instead of openly collaborating to find the best buyer, they limit exposure, keeping deals within a controlled environment where they—or their firm—can maintain influence over both sides. This is the equivalent of a leasing broker refusing to work with tenant reps and insisting that only tenants they personally bring forward can lease the space. It would never happen in project leasing, because it’s bad business.

So why is it accepted in investment sales?

Until property owners start demanding more from their brokers, this cycle will continue. As long as sellers are willing to accept limited marketing, restricted exposure, and private negotiations over full-market competition, brokers will have no reason to change their approach.

But change is possible. Sellers who insist on a competitive, open-market strategy will not only get better results—they will set a new standard for how commercial real estate should be marketed. At the end of the day, a property only sells for what the market will bear. But if a seller never sees the full market, they will never truly know what their property was worth.

And that’s not just a failure of marketing—it’s a failure of representation.

Scott Lunine is a Partner and EVP at Partners Real Estate. He is the author of the soon-to-be-released book The Commercial Real Estate Compass: Navigate, Negotiate, Dominate. He can be reached at [email protected]