There is a problem with players being free to sign with anyone. That would help those that are now early round draft picks. Those are not the majority of minor leaguers. So what do you pay a back up catcher at the lowest level of minor league ball. Would he get more from one team than he would get from another team?
The question puzzles me as it seems so disconnected.
The issue is about a "minimum" wage that's at a level for someone to support themselves without having to depend on the charity of others. Some player's families have the means to support a player; many do not, and in any case the player should be able to be self sufficient and you can't do that when being paid at a level so far below what considered poverty level.
The back up catcher would get at least the "minimum wage" no matter which team he was on.
The current system tells the player what the club feels his value is. And they will waste no time getting rid of a player that they feel has no value to the organization.
A minimum value should be in place for any player. If the player is not worth that minimum, then yes. . ..they should not take on such a player or get rid of that player. Anyone who works for an employer should be held to a minimum wage. Minor League players, who are typically adults, are employees of their baseball team and should be entitled to that.
I'm all for players getting more money. You would think those high paid MLB players that went through the same thing would care. However, they did go through the same thing before making it to the Big Leagues.
The fact that they made it through is irrelevant to the issue and doesn't address those who didn't.
It has always amazed me to see a multi millionaire first 5 pick, living and being teammates with someone that is making very little money. But once again, the club has a way of telling players what they are worth. Those players in that situation have to prove they are worth more.
I do find it an amazing situation for player millionaire living with someone making below poverty level wage. And it wonderful to see that some of these guys show empathy and compassion for the financial hardship their teammates are in and and will occasionally help them out (e.g. buy meals, casually pay for this or that). But who really enjoys taking charity because they don't have a choice, other than to quit their job.
Since you emphasize "worth", I would say that any playing worth playing on any of these teams should be worth a MINIMUM wage.
Bottom line, if young men wouldn't be lined up for the opportunity, maybe the pay scale would go up. But there are many that would play for no money at all. I doubt if there are very many willing to work in fast food restaurants for no money.
Hmmmm??? So, I'm to understand you position is that a "minimum wage" is unjustifiable for any employee who doesn't have that "worth" to an employer? And of course it's only the employer who gets to establish that "worth", and exploit the employee without any moral regard for the well being of the employee. If the employee doesn't like it, the employer can always find some other willing soul to exploit. Have I got that right? If not, please explain.
In the one article there is some inaccuracies. They are comparing salaries for 5 months with salaries for 12 months.
Yeah, I noted that too. And I didn't get the idea that they were suggesting that a player should get a salary over 5 months equivalent to 12 months of minimum wages. So, let's be clear on that.
Anyway, I would like to see beginning minor league players receive a fair salary. But HS coaching is also a profession and many make $3,000 or less a year. Add those hours up and how fair is that? Yet many want that job.
This is what's called a logical fallacy as are a couple previous such statements you've made. And as an example, it's completely irrelevant.
From what I've observed, baseball can easily afford to have in place a salary structure with a minimum salary equivalent to a minimum wage for the time played during the season. And I see it as a moral issue.