Average Minor League baseball salary

In an attempt to get back onto the topic - some thoughts.

Can you imagine someone making statements about current life in the minors - yet they have no experience with that? In any way.

Can you imagine someone making comments about the finances of major sports teams - yet they have no experience with that?

Can you imagine a steel worker commenting on open heart surgery?

How about this.

We should listen to the folks like futureback and bighit and OPP and Fungo and infield, etc....

That is relevance - and it is persuasive - and it is COGENT.

IMO.

The rest is bs.

quote:

Originally posted by mifdad:
Thanks It's...your post seemed a bit addled but I think I sort of see where you're coming from.

I missed it the first time, but a second review of your contributions to this thread did reveal a sentence or two that were on-point...unfortunately it was hidden amongst all of the remarks questioning RR's right to formulate an opinion...that's why I missed it.

MIF,

I have been called so much worse here - I will take "addled" as a compliment. LOL

(Yes - I do know what it means)

Merry Christmas.



P.S. RR has a right to formulate any opinion he wants - as long as it doesnt break the rules of the HSBBWEB.

And I have the right - in my "addled" way - to dispute his opinions/theories - and the opinions/theories of all his other aliases - every time. Every day.

Just the way it is.

Can we imagine those things? On an internet bulletin board? People from all walks of life sharing their thoughts and opinions on a myriad of subjects that interest them? Dare we imagine such things? I say yes! Be not afraid...

And a very Merry Christmas to you

quote:

Originally posted by mifdad:
Can we imagine those things? On an internet bulletin board? People from all walks of life sharing their thoughts and opinions on a myriad of subjects that interest them? Dare we imagine such things?

No need to imagine.

Its a reality - called the HSBBWEB.

Welcome.

This sure is interesting! I hope it doesn’t get too personal! Everyone is welcome to have their own opinion.

Here's my opinion

I wonder just how many college players would be more than willing to play Minor League Baseball for ZERO money, if they only had the chance. It’s a job that everyone (for the most part) who has ever played baseball wants. It’s not about money in their mind, it’s a chance to play the “GAME” they love at the highest level. Yes, it’s a chance to live their dream. And now days… It’s the only way to reach the top!

It’s a “GAME”… Many who don’t sign pro contracts continue to play in Town Leagues… Even more go on to play softball… not for money but because they love playing the “GAME”!

Those that are underpaid should not include those that made 100s of thousands of dollars in signing bonus’. Only those who did not receive much or any money are the ones who suffer. And the simple truth is (like it or not) the MLB Club thinks that is all those guys are worth at that time. However, they are willing to give some of those guys the chance to hit it big and sometimes that happens. When it does the player gets paid extremely well.

It’s a business (big business) for those in the front office. It’s not big business to those who sign for nothing and make very little. It’s a “GAME” and yes, it’s Mommy, Daddy and most of all the son who is so happy for the opportunity. And they should be! After all, they could always join the workforce if they want to. They didn’t have to play in college either and many do that while they and their parents pay a lot of money. Surely the education is the education with or without playing the “GAME”! Do they play just because of the few thousand in scholarship money? We all know why most people play… it’s because they love the game!

That said, I agree with ramrod and beenthere. It is too bad when one player can make 15 million and young players are struggling to stay above board. I really wish someone could figure out a way for the low level minor leaguers to make more money. But, it is a business and what is someone (employee) really worth if he doesn’t ever help your business (MLB Club)? If you pay a player $1,150 a month, hire people to instruct and coach him, hire people to follow him and report on his progress, and pay everything else associated with his employment including insurance and then most often there will be absolutely no return on this investment. What business owner would think that is a good deal? Who else would do that?

Those that prove their value are treated very well financially. Those who don’t prove valuable are not treated so well financially. Isn’t it that way in most sports, isn’t it that way in life? There are the lower levels (minor leagues) of football and basketball where players don’t get paid much. How does someone make it big in Golf or Tennis without going through the proving grounds. Many actors start out making peanuts, or nothing at all, just to have the chance for stardom. Some people flip burgers and then go on to become executives. It’s not really a new concept.

My opinion is that the Players Union could get more done on behalf of the minor league players. After all, some of these minor leaguers will be members one day. Yet, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of interest in minor leaguers. There’s a whole lot of interest in Major Leaguers! It’s not just the owners who feel that way!

quote:

posted by It's: I love listening to people talk about what pro teams make - or dont make - yet they have never spent a single day working for one.

Not even in the mailroom

ah yes, the mailroom

windowed office, 4 weeks vacation, year-end bonus, pension, stock options, club membership
AND a car with a personal parking space

where can I apply??




.

We

quote:

Originally posted by Novice Dad:
Besides the personal barbs back and forth this is an interesting subject for those of us with kids in school and with the dream of playing professional ball.

Thanks for the information!

Shortly,I will start my first year at the HS level.I know exactly what Im capable of and hope to one day play proffesional ball.The thing that interests me in this is that what happens after a player gets drafted or signs.Its good to know the average salary indeed

Its...You don't have to work for a professional sports organization to know how it works/or doesn't work, financially.

Sounds like you wouldn't believe a football coach could coach because he didn't play football at the highest level.

These franchises that are worth $300,000,000 to $600,000,000 million and more are making lots of money or they have the benefit of some substantial tax loss carryforwards.

Sounds like you worked for a front office and got "screwed", too. Just as the minor leaguers did/do.

Baseball, in my humble opinion, is still the greatest game.

...just needs some fine tuning.

As PGStaff notes, until the MLBPA thinks that minor leaguers need support and assistance, which they never will, things are unlikely to change no matter how many think the situation is unfair.
As a parent, one little known aspect of professional baseball that is very intriguing is the ownership...at the minor league level. The franchises are rapidly becoming investment opportunities and the investors are making nice profits annually and very tidy appreciation of the asset. Why? MILB is growing by leaps and bounds. It is affordable, very well marketed usually and plays where it is the only game in town. Combine that with the fact the stadiums are municipally owned and maintained and the players are paid by the MLB team and you have a wonderful situation. Not many industries, even MLB, where the two biggest capital items, the field and the players, are the financial responsibility of others. You get to charge admission to a stadium others pay to build, to watch the baseball players you don't have to pay, and keep the net income from the tickets/marketing/food and beverage/merchandising/etc. IMO, that is capitalism at its best, and worst.

Great points, infieldad.

bbscout, that history from 1965 to present is amazing. Seems like one of two things happened. Either major league rookies are a lot better players now than in 1965 or area scouts and minor leaguers need to consider a "union?"
Eventually, I would not be surprised if another market force does not come into play. I alluded to it in my earlier post. If MILB franchises continue to be profitable and escalate in value, minor league players may eventually have some leverage. It seems logical the cities will want good franchises for the financial return to pay off the bonds on the stadiums. The MILB owners want the best players to attact crowds/increase revenue and financial value. If minor league players were to organize against such a financial dynamic,hmmmmmmm????????????

For those who actually make it to MLB,they are well compensated but I agree 100% that they deserve to be compensated for thos early years.Im not saying pay them hundreds of thousands but for the average year they should get 50thousand at worst.Thats just my opinion,and thats AA and AAA

quote:

Originally posted by BeenthereIL:
Its...You don't have to work for a professional sports organization to know how it works/or doesn't work, financially.

Sounds like you wouldn't believe a football coach could coach because he didn't play football at the highest level.

These franchises that are worth $300,000,000 to $600,000,000 million and more are making lots of money or they have the benefit of some substantial tax loss carryforwards.

Sounds like you worked for a front office and got "screwed", too. Just as the minor leaguers did/do.

Baseball, in my humble opinion, is still the greatest game.

...just needs some fine tuning.

Been,

IMO - I disagree - I think you do need to work for an MLB owner/corporation to see the reality of the financials. All the rest is just guesswork.

I didnt say anything about football - or coaching.

Most pro sports teams are money losing dogs. Tax loss carryforward or not.

I most definitely did not get screwed by my corporation. It was the best thing that ever happened to me in my whole career. I loved every minute of it and have zero complaints. (It ended when we sold the whole company)

The overwhelming majority of the strain on resources comes from the salary line. Nowadays - you have zero chance of making money as an owner without having the top talent. And the top talent - represented by the union and player agents - scrape the bowl clean.

Until that changes - minor leaguers will continue to earn relatively low wages.

IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
RR,

Lame response IMO.

Answer the questions.

And please - debate my contention that a move towards higher salaries - immediately as you contend - in the minor leagues is not a move consistent with socialist economic policy.

Give it a shot. LOL

P.S. You WILL lose. And then we can further discuss the concept of cogency - without all the fancy words. LOL

***********************************************

I'm not obligated to answer your questions, power over others is earned not entitled...however I will answer to further the discussion.

This is 2005 and on the verge of a new year. Baseball is operating in a time warp that was created at the turn of the 20th Century. It methods and assumptions are antiquated and have no place in the modern employer/employee relationship. It has continued on this track because it has an exemption for viability as a "real" business. It is not a "real" business.

The current financial model it operates under now if run as a "real" business would drive it into complete bankruptcy. It is more like a government entitlement pyramid system with a bureaucracy with very top down management with a "priveleged" plantation demeanor.

It needs to change into a 21st Century model with players, who are in personal service contracts now, become corporate partners and owners in the endeavor as shareholders and stock participants. Salaries need to be reevaluated for a more realistic paradigm that includes an understanding that the "privelege" to be a member of the industry belongs to the player as a concrete recognition of his effort to achieve excellence and manifested in the fact that he has earned his right to be considered as that member. Then and only then can he rightly assume that the pride that is so spoken of belonging by the MLB has some substance and "real" meaning to him.

The true capitalist model spawns ownership, and sovereignty in personal freedom to invest, both in time and money, and is based upon negotiated legal agreements that offer protections to avoid the disparaties that serve only to alienate the producer from the owner.

But it does not produce raw inequities of the kind we see now. Socialist command models produce that, and baseball falls in that category.

First, let me say that the preface to your long winded meaningless essay is rather silly.

Now - Lets take a peek at each very wordy paragraph:

RR - "This is 2005 and on the verge of a new year. Baseball is operating in a time warp that was created at the turn of the 20th Century. It methods and assumptions are antiquated and have no place in the modern employer/employee relationship. It has continued on this track because it has an exemption for viability as a "real" business. It is not a "real" business."

Actually - baseball's economic structure has evolved in dramatic fashion over the last 25 years. It does have an antitrust exemption - but to state it isnt a real business is foolish. It is a multi billion $ industry.

RR - "The current financial model it operates under now if run as a "real" business would drive it into complete bankruptcy. It is more like a government entitlement pyramid system with a bureaucracy with very top down management with a "priveleged" plantation demeanor."

So - you would prefer to bankrupt baseball? As for a government entitlement analogy - (with the possible exception of the bonds used to finance stadiums) - your comment makes no sense IMO.

RR - "It needs to change into a 21st Century model with players, who are in personal service contracts now, become corporate partners and owners in the endeavor as shareholders and stock participants. Salaries need to be reevaluated for a more realistic paradigm that includes an understanding that the "privelege" to be a member of the industry belongs to the player as a concrete recognition of his effort to achieve excellence and manifested in the fact that he has earned his right to be considered as that member. Then and only then can he rightly assume that the pride that is so spoken of belonging by the MLB has some substance and "real" meaning to him."

Stock ownership? - Do the players also get to share in the losses if and when they occur? The players would be have to really dumb to do that IMO. As for salaries being reevaluated - by whom? The market dictates salaries. Sounds like you want to interfere with the free market system and have salaries dictated by a "higher"power" Very scary. The last 3 lines or so of this paragraph are meaningless.

RR - "The true capitalist model spawns ownership, and sovereignty in personal freedom to invest, both in time and money, and is based upon negotiated legal agreements that offer protections to avoid the disparaties that serve only to alienate the producer from the owner."

I see alot of spawning in alot of sports. In fact - new leagues and number of teams have exploded the last 10 years. Many fail - and others succeed. As for the legal agreement thing you mention - what does that mean?"

RR - "But it does not produce raw inequities of the kind we see now. Socialist command models produce that, and baseball falls in that category."

Socialists didnt make millions per year - like so many athletes in the US make now. No socialist command model that ever existed on this planet ever yielded anything even closely resembling that. The statement just makes absolutely no sense. And socialists wouldnt allow business failures - like the myriad number of failures we have seen the last 20 years.

My sense is - (based on what I can decipher from your deluge of words) - that you want income redistribution in the game of baseball - and perhaps even more that that.

That is in direct contradiction to your prior statements concerning your embrace of capitalism.

Rather confusing.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/

For those of you looking for a job in the front (or back) office.

itsinthegame

Though dismissive in tone the only point made is a contention that baseball is a big industry and big business.

Actually the "small" businesses (employee/revenue) ratio, that are represented by each baseball organization function as bilateral monopolies with a single buyer and single seller in effect caused by the institutional (rules) structure of the MLB.

But because baseball has an exemption from competition it cannot be considered a legitimate business in a capitalist system.

It in effect functions as an institutional entity that is governed as though a public utility. Institutions are usually entities that operate at a loss or are non-profits.

Though the organization may be sold for what seems an enormous profit its annualized offsets and carryforwards are such that most don't even break even.

In effect the "business" is based upon false notion that it operates for profit. The "organizations" function as tax writeoffs for very wealthy entrepreneurs who use the entity to reduce their taxable exposure.

Your assertion that baseball is an industry may be loosely fall within "biz" jargon, of that of businesses who are similar or identical in what they produce, but baseball is not like any other business industry in this country.

Baseball would do better as a legitimate business, as consortiums, made up of three entities...the management eg., or private stock investors, the community in which they operate as investors with stock offered, and the players/owners with a private stock holding in all ball clubs.

The remuneration packages are to varied to discuss but it would assure that college level players would stop been treated the same as HS players as far as compensation is concerned. The socialist model that puts the HS Single A player, and college AA player at the same level whether he is coming out of HS or college would cease.

Geeze - you are relentless.

My previous post was dismissive in tone because I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Not disrespectful - just dismissive.

Your 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs are just alot of words dressing up the antitrust exemption.
As for not being considered a legitimate industry - you couldnt be more wrong.

The 4th paragraph seems to agree - I think - with my statement that most lose money. Not all - most.

The 5th - many an owner would take issue with what you perceive as the "goals" of a sports team owner.

6th paragraph - baseball - and most pro sports - are in fact unique as industrys are normally defined. Not everything fits neatly into the capitalist model.

7th paragraph - would result in disaster - for investors and players - in most cases.

8th paragraph - makes no sense - once you get out of school - and join professional ranks - noone really cares where you came from. Just the business world. Only thing that matters is what can you do for me and my organization. Until you prove - at the pro level - that you have value or potential value - you have none. And you get squat.

Just like real life.

RR - sans the personal insults - we can agree on one thing - I hope.

It is an interesting discussion - isnt it?

You're KILLING me, its!!!!

Mom - It is supposed to be fun - I think.

AGREED!! Thanks for the wit!

RR, I have been reading with interest!
I have a question or two?
Why would George Steinbrenner want to make Johnny Damon and Randy Johnson, in effect, part owners of the Yankees and what would it cost Randy and Johnny to become owners? Equally, why would Damon want to have the risk of ownership as opposed to guanteed payments over the next 4 years of $52,000,000?
To be honest, if someone pays me a guaranteed $52,000,000 for 4 years to play baseball and I get that even if I am hurt and cannot play, why do I not take that, assume no risk, and be happy as can be? While I think your effort to turn baseball upside down and have it run for the benefit of minor league players is laudatory, I think it is not the real world.
On the other hand, if you have $100,000,000 or so and are starting a league, could you keep my son in mind?

itsinthegame

As you were...

Being in denial that baseball doesn't need reorganization and new structure may keep status quo going but go to any COO with an MBA, or any private investment group that does risk assessment and present the baseball business model and they will laugh you out of the room. The only people who would agree with it are guys who are looking for tax shelters and understand that as long as baseball has the "exemption" it can be useful.

Fans and players now may go along with and allow owners to manipulate the game because they have the dollars to throw around but don't think that all is well in Camelot.

You may like it the way it is, and as long as there is TV money as a fallback things will probably remain the way they are now, but if baseball loses its exemption it will have to join tthe 21 Century and compete as a "real" business.

I suspect for now there are enough suck ups to allow things to go on as is, at the expense of the players.

RR - I certainly wouldn't call the folks involved in the business side of baseball "suck ups".

They may be hard core businessmen - but "suck ups" - nah. That is way too emotional a phrase when you are dealing with billions IMO.

As for status quo - and required improvements to the game - that is a tough question. I think your ideas stink. Just my opinion. I dont have any new solutions - else I would be working for one of them - but I do think your ideas reek of naivete.

As for COO's - with or without an MBA - and CEO's as well - I have never been laughed out of the room - so far at least. I am curious - how many COO's and CEO's have you dealt with? LOL

And how many private investment groups have you dealt with?

If you say none - then I question your assertion that they would laugh me out of the room. They didnt in the past.



BTW - You never answered my question. Isnt this discussion interesting? And what is the "As you were" preface thing all about?
LOL

Ramrod,

Am I being "Cogent" enough?

itsinthegame

Can't take a lot of time with a post...to bizzy.

Your post though condescending are amusing.

You don't have to run a "baseball" team with its current business model in order to understand how to avoid the deficiencies in licensing, franchising, etc., within the context of how to run a business that uses 1099's, like baseball.

The problem with franchising is in quality control. Unless the parent organization has perfected how to transfer the operations discipline to the operating entities, the end result can be disastrous. That is exactly what you see happening in the baseball franchises. They are so poorly run, most of them teeter on the verge of bankruptcy, and the parent organization is so undisciplined in its quality control that franchises are akin to the supposed investor at the end of the chain letter.

You can't have independent business franchises competing against each other in an oligopoly. Trying to run the MLB as a McDonalds franchiser without controls in the discipline in pricing and quality control of the products as does McDonalds, will put 80% of the baseball franchises into bankruptcy.

Its apparent your understanding is more baseball jargon then substance otherwise your understanding of how to run a franchising business model would have been apparent to you just understanding the greatest franchising experiment in the history of our country...McDonalds.

But you take a look at what McDonalds does in their operations, and compare that to the franchising model and operations in baseball and you have to scratch your head and wonder what the hey are these guys thinking at the top of the food chain in baseball. But then you see where baseball started out with all their silly assumptions and you get to the reason why they need protection from competition...why because they are their own worse enemy.

JMO

BTW: "As you were"... is a term in the military, when an officer enters the room, to relax the troops from having to stand to attention...

Good executives hire good people with expertise in the areas needed to take care of the functions of business eg., Capitalization & finance, R&D, marketing, operations, MFGing, Quality Control & production, Sales & Distribution, human resources, etc...get the point.

...and yes I have run my own hi-tech company, though I don't know what that has to do with the exchange of opinions.

cogent

adj 1: having the power to influence or convince; "a cogent analysis of the problem"; "potent arguments" [syn: potent, powerful] 2: powerfully persuasive; "a cogent argument"; "a telling presentation"; "a weighty argument" [syn: telling, weighty]

Using McDonalds as a comparative model is total and utter nonsense - IMO.

You have answered none of the many questions I have posed to you. (Other than the inane reference and use of a military command).

And you are now officially boring me.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:
RR, I have been reading with interest!
I have a question or two?
Why would George Steinbrenner want to make Johnny Damon and Randy Johnson, in effect, part owners of the Yankees and what would it cost Randy and Johnny to become owners? Equally, why would Damon want to have the risk of ownership as opposed to guanteed payments over the next 4 years of $52,000,000?
To be honest, if someone pays me a guaranteed $52,000,000 for 4 years to play baseball and I get that even if I am hurt and cannot play, why do I not take that, assume no risk, and be happy as can be? While I think your effort to turn baseball upside down and have it run for the benefit of minor league players is laudatory, I think it is not the real world.
On the other hand, if you have $100,000,000 or so and are starting a league, could you keep my son in mind?

*****************************************************

The short answer is...the minors make the Majors.

Ramrod,

I do not believe you have answered infieldd's questions either.

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
Using McDonalds as a comparative model is total and utter nonsense - IMO.

You have answered none of the many questions I have posed to you. (Other than the inane reference and use of a military command).

And you are now officially boring me.

******************************************************

The short answer is...more baseball jargon.

A review:

During the course of this discussion, RR has used the following terms to preface each essay:

1) We are "good troopers" - going along to get along.
2) We succumb to peer pressure to avoid dissent.
3) Itsinthegame slings "S"
4) Itsinthegame is not cogent.
5) Itsinthegame has to "earn" RR's answers. He is not entitled to them.
6) Itsinthegame's posts are dismissive (You were right about this one)
7) Itsinthegame apparently is in the the military now (LOL)
8) Itsinthegame uses baseball jargon.
9) Itsinthegame's post is condescending.

Yet you havent answered a single relevant question posed to you. Not one.

That is not a very cogent approach - IMO.

"As You Were"...didn't care much for it...not Barbra's or Redford's best IMAO... In My Addlebrained Opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by gotwood4sale:
"As You Were"...didn't care much for it...not Barbra's or Redford's best IMAO... In My Addlebrained Opinion.

**********************************************

I assume you meant "The Way We Were" ..and don't like either one of them, don't buy their music or movies. Da!mn, commies.

quote:

Originally posted by itsinthegame:
A review:

During the course of this discussion, RR has used the following terms to preface each essay:

1) We are "good troopers" - going along to get along.
2) We succumb to peer pressure to avoid dissent.
3) Itsinthegame slings "S"
4) Itsinthegame is not cogent.
5) Itsinthegame has to "earn" RR's answers. He is not entitled to them.
6) Itsinthegame's posts are dismissive (You were right about this one)
7) Itsinthegame apparently is in the the military now (LOL)
8) Itsinthegame uses baseball jargon.
9) Itsinthegame's post is condescending.

Yet you havent answered a single relevant question posed to you. Not one.

That is not a very cogent approach - IMO.

***************************************************

A very good rendition of selective inarticulation...now go crawl up with your Teddy-Bear.

Got to go Christmas Shopping...peace.

RR

get out of the quicksand before you go under--- you keep sinking


Also knowing "its" background in the business world and not having any inkling as to yours I am with him--- the man knows what he speaks of


do you/ --I am not sure

I have been away from the computer for three days, and only have a couple minutes right now. In addition, I have read less than ten of the posts in this thread.

In any profession, and in any endeavor for that matter, one must understand that, for lack of better terms as I hurry, one needs to jump through whatever hoops are presented in order to achieve a specific goal. This happens if you hope to be a major league baseball player, a teacher, a doctor, a nurse, etc., etc.

In baseball, if one has the ability and the willingness to persevere, the ultimate goal can be achieved. Without just one of those, one will fall short. Baseball players generally can choose to persevere, but the extent of their God-given ability is not chosen.

How badly does one want it? Whether it is baseball or something else......jump through the hoops. If one doesn't want to, then jumping through hoops in pursuit of another profession is always an option.

interesting discussion
I'm always wiiling to learn something, tho I thought "cogent" was a "bald cop"

RR's business model should be easy to test

pitch it to an Independent League or team (ie: Frontier) -
they have no anti-trust exemption & plenty of free market competion

RR theory-

start all players at $100k per year
all but a few of the best players would bypass the MLB draft and sign with them
they would lock up much of the best talent
Indy team would make out when MLB purchased a "new high dollar contract"
players would be well paid

or am I missing something?



ps- let me know which teams will be



.

quote:

start all players at $100k per year
all but a few of the best players would bypass the MLB draft and sign with them
they would lock up much of the best talent

Well they sorta tried that in football. It was called the USFL and the World League before that. The AFL was actually successful in getting most of its teams merged.