milb wages may be exempted by lobbyists

“We’re in 42 states, 160 cities. We’ve got over $3 billion of infrastructure, much of which is still being paid off by the clubs and the communities where they exist,” he said. “This is about constituents, this is about jobs at home, and this is about quality of life at home.”

This is the biggest nauseating lie. Yes, "clubs" are paying it off; THE MILB CLUB pays this. The MLB club pays the salaries of the players - a non-expense of the MILB club. Indeed, paying the players more would DIRECTLY benefit the local community where the MILB plays. Unfortunately, today most MILB clubs are owned by entities (owning multiple teams) and have no real tie to the local community. The days of the local car dealer owning the team are past. This provision actually hurts the communities it is broadcast to help.

I don't see how this preempts a lawsuit,   players still have a strong case.  

Doesn't matter how strong the case for paying minimum wage is, Congress can pass a law - the very law proposed in 2016 - exempting Minor league players from the minimum wage laws. That law would override current federal law, pre-empt state wage laws, and end the suit. (Once MLB has an exemption, it can even reduce wages for MILB players.)

(The law could be written to "clarify" MLB's position that minor leaguers were always intended to be exempt.)

I'm surprised that mayors from the towns affected aren't complaining - the law would directly impact and adversely effect their towns. Increasing pay by even a few hundred dollars a month would help all a town's businesses as the players would turn around and spend their largesse at local businesses.

There is something that parents/players can do: call your local representative and educate them. Most don't get deep in the weeds to understand a bill; in this case your rep would need to understand the difference between MLB, MILB, who pays what costs, who owes what obligations and who would be hurt (local towns) and who would benefit (large corporate absentee owners). If your local representative has an MILB franchise in the district, it should be easier to educate him/her.

So, make the calls!

Perhaps a bulleted list of fact points that people could utilize when contacting reps would be helpful to members??  We have enough members here who have son's who played MiLB ball to understand the issues.  Just a thought.

Mot sure how it would pre-empt the suit since any suit could only consider the state of the law during the time period they are suing for. It would preempt future action.

I'm not sure which is worse....greedy owners or the politicians that protect the interests of the greedy owners. 

Goosegg posted:

“We’re in 42 states, 160 cities. We’ve got over $3 billion of infrastructure, much of which is still being paid off by the clubs and the communities where they exist,” he said. “This is about constituents, this is about jobs at home, and this is about quality of life at home.”

This is the biggest nauseating lie. Yes, "clubs" are paying it off; THE MILB CLUB pays this. The MLB club pays the salaries of the players - a non-expense of the MILB club. Indeed, paying the players more would DIRECTLY benefit the local community where the MILB plays. Unfortunately, today most MILB clubs are owned by entities (owning multiple teams) and have no real tie to the local community. The days of the local car dealer owning the team are past. This provision actually hurts the communities it is broadcast to help.

I think that major factual point is that there is a distinct divide between the financial health of a MiLB team and the wages paid to the players who are rostered on that team (whose payroll is paid by MLB teams).  There is some argument that higher wages might reduce the number of teams affiliated with MLB, but the dollar amounts being tossed around would not seem to justify this argument.  It is relatively certain that all AA and AAA teams would survive without question as would all the short season leagues simply out of necessity.  The comments made about infrastructure "still being paid off" is along the lines of fear mongering and simply not true as are all the other fears laid out.  

Does anyone know what role "Minor League Baseball" (whose president was quoted) plays as it relates to players and owners in MiLB?

Also, does anyone know what laws, if any, govern seasonal employees or apprentices?  Is there anything like those which govern tipped employees?

I like the idea of lobbying. If someone has the knowledge to put out a few bullets, I think it's well worth the time. We do some lobbying on newspaper related issues here in Iowa and it's very effective. Seems crazy people have time to worry about an issue like this when the whole government might shut down, but heck. Money talks. And if the clubs and the owners are the only ones talking, it talks even louder.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blog...ve-americas-pastime/

Nice article about the proposed 2016 legislation that failed, but I assume would be the template for any new legislation.

Root, it may go something like this: the players argue the law should be interpreted one way and the owners in another way. The court would then look to legislative intent in devining a meaning and resolving ambiguities. The amended law would be clear that it's purpose (the amended law) is NOT TO CHANGE EXISTING law, rather, to clarify existing law. The court then hangs its hat on that.

Of the issues I have with Washington this one is not in top 100

Goosegg posted:

Root, it may go something like this: the players argue the law should be interpreted one way and the owners in another way. The court would then look to legislative intent in devining a meaning and resolving ambiguities. The amended law would be clear that it's purpose (the amended law) is NOT TO CHANGE EXISTING law, rather, to clarify existing law. The court then hangs its hat on that.

No, they can't do that. Any analysis of legislative intent cannot be derived from sources that did not exist at the time legislation was passed. Not to mention, an existing legislative body can't clear up what a previous legislative body intended.

fenwaysouth posted:

I'm not sure which is worse....greedy owners or the politicians that protect the interests of the greedy owners. 

 

I understand from the corrupt politician’s point of view. MLB purchased his vote. It allows him/her to get re-elected and be bought off by more special interest groups. By the time the politician leaves Washington he’s wealthy. 

The problem is now they don’t leave. Being a congressman or a senator is just a 174K per year internship for becoming a 2M per year lobbyist. 

In 1975 A level players made $600 per month. Just adjusted for inflation A level players should make $2,850 per month. It’s a difficult argument to make their salaries shouldn’t be adjusted for inflation. That is, unless you have politicians in your back pocket.

84% of American MLB players come from the top ten rounds of the draft. A tenth rounder averages signing for about 100K. The top Caribbean prospects get decent to high priced bonuses. I’m sure MLB figures if many of the rest of the prospects give up and go home baseball will be just fine. 

The minor leaguers don’t have anyone with clout behind them. They don’t have money to buy politicians. 

Root, that's what I always thought. But here is a quick find:

"Subsequent Legislation

If the views of a later Congress are expressed in a duly enacted statute, then the views embodied in that statute must be interpreted and applied. Occasionally a later enactment declares congressional intent about interpretation of an earlier enactment rather than directly amending or clarifying the earlier law. Such action can be given prospective effect because, “however inartistic, it ... stands on its own feet as a valid enactment.”332 “Subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to great weight in statutory construction.”333

332 F. REED DICKERSON, THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF STATUTES 179 (1975).

333 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 380-81 (1969). By contrast, a “mere statement in a conference report ... as to what the Committee believes an earlier statute meant is obviously less weighty” because Congress has not “proceeded formally through the legislative process.” South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 379 n.17 (1984)."

I guess we can debate whether or not a yet undecided case on a not yet interpreted law is prospective or not. But, the court doesn't even need to go that far; the court can simply rule without explaining, or it could rule by adopting MLB's interpretation without even referencing the new amendment. 

Goosegg posted:

Root, that's what I always thought. But here is a quick find:

"Subsequent Legislation

If the views of a later Congress are expressed in a duly enacted statute, then the views embodied in that statute must be interpreted and applied. Occasionally a later enactment declares congressional intent about interpretation of an earlier enactment rather than directly amending or clarifying the earlier law. Such action can be given prospective effect because, “however inartistic, it ... stands on its own feet as a valid enactment.”332 “Subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to great weight in statutory construction.”333

332 F. REED DICKERSON, THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF STATUTES 179 (1975).

333 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 380-81 (1969). By contrast, a “mere statement in a conference report ... as to what the Committee believes an earlier statute meant is obviously less weighty” because Congress has not “proceeded formally through the legislative process.” South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, 379 n.17 (1984)."

I guess we can debate whether or not a yet undecided case on a not yet interpreted law is prospective or not. But, the court doesn't even need to go that far; the court can simply rule without explaining, or it could rule by adopting MLB's interpretation without even referencing the new amendment. 

The key word in the statement "Such action can be given prospective effect," is prospective. Red Lion found that the Federal Communications Commission's expressed interpretation carried great in case concerning the issuance of licenses after  that interpretation was issued.

But here, there are no merit rulings so the underlying law didn't change; it was merely "clarified" before the court ruled.  If there had been rulings on the merits - by this court or any other - a new law would change the result. But here, there is no result to be changed, so the rulings are prospective based on the law (but, retrospective on the facts).

This isn't a case of the court ruling a contract unenforceable retroactively; it's simply applying an ambigious law to the facts in a way which is in harmony with the now amended law - in which the new law specifically makes clear the new congressional intent (whether applied retroactively or not).

New laws do impact cases - statue of limitations changes make former non-actionable behavior actionable for example. But it's an area in which I lack true depth of knowledge and, therefore, will not be a hill I die on!

PS. And all this skirts the issue of what if the new law specifically states it's meant to apply retroactively?

Goosegg posted:

But here, there are no merit rulings so the underlying law didn't change; it was merely "clarified" before the court ruled.  If there had been rulings on the merits - by this court or any other - a new law would change the result. But here, there is no result to be changed, so the rulings are prospective based on the law (but, retrospective on the facts).

This isn't a case of the court ruling a contract unenforceable retroactively; it's simply applying an ambigious law to the facts in a way which is in harmony with the now amended law - in which the new law specifically makes clear the new congressional intent (whether applied retroactively or not).

New laws do impact cases - statue of limitations changes make former non-actionable behavior actionable for example. But it's an area in which I lack true depth of knowledge and, therefore, will not be a hill I die on!

There is some merit to the notion that when a court looks at the entire legislative history of an act, they naturally compare the current clarification with past application and, if it matches closely, they will implicitly give it weight. So, yeah, any legislation like that would likely affect the current cases.

Don't you guys need some type of disclaimer about the quality of services provided is no greater is no greater than the services provided by others?

I've got to ask again - assuming an individual is deemed a "seasonal employee" or "artist", what, if any, labor requirements must be made relating to wages?  Does this line up with the idea of someone being an unpaid intern (a practice that many companies have abandoned)?

"allowing its clubs to pay players as little as $1,100 a month"

Boohoo. Remind me again how much college players make for doing the same job.

SultanofSwat posted:

"allowing its clubs to pay players as little as $1,100 a month"

Boohoo. Remind me again how much college players make for doing the same job.

There are some colleges out there that pay $6,000 cash plus food/lodging (not all, but some) not counting the extra check for any time after the school year ends.  These guys end up taking a hefty pay cut when they leave school and sign.

It's not the same job - not even close. Except, the tools looks somewhat the same (if you don't consider the bat or the ball- a minor tool - or the strike zone).

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

I've decided to start a custom ditch digging service.  We will provide hand-dug ditches to the customer's specifications.  I am starting to put together my team and am looking for lots of able bodied folks who wish to learn the "art" of ditch digging.  As such, we are looking for folks interested in summer internships - below is a brief outline of this exciting opportunity.

- Work in nature and enjoy all the elements that exist outdoors

- Learn the art of hand digging ditches to include equipment maintenance and form (sharp shovel strong back)

- In addition to free training in this exciting field, you will receive $10/day and all the bark you can eat

- Work during the summer months only but you will be expected to train during the "off season" with some opportunity for winter digging on your dime.

- If you desire a second year, you will be invited to a spring ditch digging event where you will compete with other returning ditch diggers (no cost for this exciting opportunity - discounted accommodations available and some free bark)

- If injured, we will work to stop all bleeding and drop you off at the nearest hospital.  You are welcomed to heal thy self and return for the spring dig.

We welcome you to sign up for this exciting opportunity and enhance your skills in this exciting industry.  You will be one of a very few hand ditch diggers and if you can convince someone to pay you, you should do OK.  Otherwise you can always read the instructions for the ditchwitch and get a real job paying 5x this opportunity simply walking behind this wonderful machine.  

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Don't you guys need some type of disclaimer about the quality of services provided is no greater is no greater than the services provided by others?

I've got to ask again - assuming an individual is deemed a "seasonal employee" or "artist", what, if any, labor requirements must be made relating to wages?  Does this line up with the idea of someone being an unpaid intern (a practice that many companies have abandoned)?

The legal guidelines for an unpaid intern are pretty strict. The internship must be an extension of an already paid job - any performance must be a compliment to the work of a paid employee. You can't take on an intern to do a job that you would otherwise have to hire an employee to do. The test is that if the intern weren't around and you'd have to actually pay someone to do what the intern is doing then it's not an internship. This is the legality of it. However, in the real world, it doesn't really work that way. I spent 9 months after law school working as an "unpaid intern" 40+/hrs a week as a law clerk just to be in place when funding came through for the position to be paid. My work definitely didn't legal fit into the definition of "intern."

Out of players gross income they pay taxes , rent , meals, weekly dues (players pay clubbie to wash uniforms and spread) Players provide their own equipment,cleats, turf shoes ,bats.   If your lucky you have a agent who helps out

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

roothog66 posted:

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

No other field I can think of offers the opportunity to make $10M, $20M or more per year if you are really good at it.  Obviously this is what keeps the "worker" pipeline filled. If MLB paid $50k to start and offered 5% annual raises + health insurance we probably wouldn't have an MiLB.  Baseball is a unique field and really doesn't compare to corporate internships or seasonal employees.  Having said that, I think it is time to pay these guys a living wage.

Smitty28 posted:

roothog66 posted:

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

No other field I can think of offers the opportunity to make $10M, $20M or more per year if you are really good at it.  Obviously this is what keeps the "worker" pipeline filled. If MLB paid $50k to start and offered 5% annual raises + health insurance we probably wouldn't have an MiLB.  Baseball is a unique field and really doesn't compare to corporate internships or seasonal employees.  Having said that, I think it is time to pay these guys a living wage.

If you look back before free agency MLB players worked second jobs in the off season. In 1967 Jim Lonborg wrote 10K on his glove. It was to remind him when he took the mound in the World Series how badly he needed the money. 

100k was outrageous pay in 1967 reserved for the best players. The Red Sox were called crazy for giving Yastrzemski 500Kfor three years. The minimum salary in 1967 was 6K

The net present value of 100k in 1967 is 793K. It hardly compares to the best players now making 20-30M per season. The net present value of 6K in 1967 is 45K. Minimum pay is now 507K.

My point is players before free agency were willing to play because they loved the game rather than big bucks. 

Pro sports has changed. When I was a kid a NBA player lived down the street. He didn’t have the nicest house on the street. He probably wasn’t in the top 50% of income on the street. 

Back in the 1940s, pro athletes and celebs were also drafted for the war. It's a different time.

I give credit to the player's unions for the various pro sports here in the US, they have done well for their players, of course with continued room for improvement. The interesting thing to note here is that prior to the big-time salaries, back in the days when these guys also worked 2nd jobs, the income the teams were making were also a fraction of what it is now. Sure, they were still being paid a pittance compared to team incomes, but teams became wealthier in the era of cable television.

MiLB is a known evil. You either go into it with a signing bonus to hold you over or you have a support system to help you out (family, wife, etc). Caveat Emptor

What is wrong with the milb model is they haven’t kept the wages in line with inflation. But MLB franchises know what they’re doing. 84% of American players who make the majors come from the first ten rounds of the draft. Slot bonus money for round ten is about $150K. The bonus money helps support the player for the time it takes him to make the majors or pack it in. The rest of milb are long shots used a single A roster filler for two or three years. 94% of American MLBers come from the top twenty rounds. After the twentieth round players are extreme long shots to make it to the majors. But the prospects need minor league teammates. 

If the clubs can't afford to pay more imo they should have less affiliates.

90% of the minor leaguers are "fillers" anyway and while sometimes a late round draft becomes somebody most don't.

If pro ball says it can't afford to pay restrict the draft to 20 rounds, limit the number of affilates to 5 and then pay the remaining guys better.

I think teams could cut their number of minor league guys by 30% without missing much.

RJM posted:

Smitty28 posted:

roothog66 posted:

Goosegg posted:

If a player is deemed to be a seasonal employee - similar to teenage camp counselors or summer carnival workers (which were the reasons for the exemptions in the first place) - working less then six months, there is no federal minimum wage.

Players report in late February and play through Labor Day. Then for some there are the Instructional Leagues, Arizona Fall League, and mini-camps; as well as year round drug testing and year round contract requirements which dictate behavior (must remain in first class condition) and prohibit certain behavior (skiing, rock climbing, etc.).

If a player only plays ST and the season, it's more then six months. So, except for the very first draft year, the minimum a player plays exceeds the statutory exception of seasonal. That's why MLB insists that ST doesn't count - and pays about $25 per day, plus two hots and a cot for it. 

Not to mention they are under contract which doesn't allow them to take their services in their profession elsewhere even during the "off-season" when they supposedly aren't working. Could you imagine other "seasonal workers" being under those restrictions?

No other field I can think of offers the opportunity to make $10M, $20M or more per year if you are really good at it.  Obviously this is what keeps the "worker" pipeline filled. If MLB paid $50k to start and offered 5% annual raises + health insurance we probably wouldn't have an MiLB.  Baseball is a unique field and really doesn't compare to corporate internships or seasonal employees.  Having said that, I think it is time to pay these guys a living wage.

If you look back before free agency MLB players worked second jobs in the off season. In 1967 Jim Lonborg wrote 10K on his glove. It was to remind him when he took the mound in the World Series how badly he needed the money. 

100k was outrageous pay in 1967 reserved for the best players. The Red Sox were called crazy for giving Yastrzemski 500Kfor three years. The minimum salary in 1967 was 6K

The net present value of 100k in 1967 is 793K. It hardly compares to the best players now making 20-30M per season. The net present value of 6K in 1967 is 45K. Minimum pay is now 507K.

My point is players before free agency were willing to play because they loved the game rather than big bucks. 

Pro sports has changed. When I was a kid a NBA player lived down the street. He didn’t have the nicest house on the street. He probably wasn’t in the top 50% of income on the street. 

Totally agree sports changed when the revenue went from a few million to a few billion over the last 50 years.  Players in US Professional Sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) generate more revenue per capita than almost any other labor in the world.  Apple generates $1.9MM per employee.  For a MLB baseball team that would be $50MM.  The A's generated over $200MM last year and that was the lowest number in the sport.  Payers should get paid, they earn it.  IMO there is a decent argument that they are underpaid for the physical trauma many endure. 

As for the idea players played "For the love of the game" is way over romantic nostalgia.  The Players hated the Reserve Clause as much as blacks hated Sharecropping - mostly because they were brothers as approaches to labor.  They hated it so much they created the Federal League 100 years ago and nearly broke the hold of MLB.  

In todays day and age - they might have been able to do it but because of Free Agency 40 years ago it became unnecessary.  Although the thought of watching the players running the sport would be amusing.  We'd get to see what happens when labor makes decisions....my bet is it would end badly.

As for Milb and the lobbyists...it is just more evidence that our government is not working correctly.  Paying people minimum wage and OT should not be too controversial.  If you figure the average MilB player probably puts in close to 80 hours a week when travel is factored in - that would be the equivalent of 100 hours at $7.50 which is $750 per week.  Or roughly $3,000 per month.  Currently in low minors most make $1,100 to $2,200 per month.  If you assume all were at $1,100 for 25 players that means the cost would increase would be $250-$300k for a season.  For the 4 or 5 low level Milb teams this would impact costs about $1.0MM per club max.  More likely it would be less than that by a fair amount.

This is the kind of thing that happens all over the place every day because people are not paying close enough attention to what our representatives are really doing. 

Follow the money - In God We Trust.

Pointing out players played for a lot less before free agency isn’t romantic nostalgia. Who wouldn’t want to be paid more? But because they loved the game pro athletes played for what they could get rather than chose other careers less physically demanding. 

This is a simple free market capitalism question.  You are either for it, or you are not informed, or an idiot.

If you artificially raise wages, you WILL HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE.  The pie does not get bigger, there is only so much pie.

I want as many people as possible to have a chance at making it to the Show.  Raising wages, kills dreams.

SultanofSwat posted:

This is a simple free market capitalism question.  You are either for it, or you are not informed, or an idiot.

If you artificially raise wages, you WILL HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE.  The pie does not get bigger, there is only so much pie.

In a market with low wages (for example, fast food) this would be true. In a market with high salaries and/or large profits only one of these would be affected. It would probably be profits if the organization wanted to have continued success. However, the big money in pro sports is the value of the team for sale purposes. It’s not the annual bottom line.

Every major league organization is not the same. A financially successful large market organization could probabaly afford to pay minor leaguers more and not affect the big picture significantly. A small market organization probably couldn’t. What would happen is the rich get richer. There would be more competitive imbalance than already exists. 

Baseball has already made moves regarding minor leaguers to attempt to remove team imbalance. Teams like the Red Sox and Yankees used to be able to draft players late out of high school who insisted they were headed for college.Then they offered enough money to sway them to sign. Now each team has a limit on how much they can spend on draft picks.

If MLB organizations were all forced to pay minor leaguers a certain amount it would place a financial strain in some teams. 

What could have worked is keeping up with inflation annually or every two or three years from the beginning. But like a previously stated signing bonuses procises the players expected to make it extra money. Even the better Latin players now receive significant signing bonuses.

You want make better money get promoted, or get real job. 

Supplu and demand dictates that MiLB players hold no value. It is that simple IMO

Becoming a pro baseball player is a high risk, high reward process. By the way, what do minor league actors make? Do they have to sleep six to an apartment?

old_school posted:

You want make better money get promoted, or get real job. 

Supplu and demand dictates that MiLB players hold no value. It is that simple IMO

I don't agree. If you don't want to pay them  that is fine but then don't make them team controlled for 5 years and allow them free employer choice.

European soccer is capitalism but american sports is actually socialism (revenue sharing, draft, team control).

If mlb wants free demand and supply market get rid of team control and make everyone a free agent so you have to pay 20yo mike trout 50m per year.

But owners don't want that and have instead created a socialist system.

I'm open for teams having to pay minor leaguers nothing but then also don't have demands at them and let them sign with every team they want.

I mean google can also have unpaid interns, but they don't control the guy, if apple makes him an offer he is gone within a week.

Imo the very restrictive team control over players also means monetary responsibility, there are many low paid "minor leagues" in other industries but none of them controls the guy for a decade.

A minor league actor might not make anything either but if he gets an offer by Spielberg his former employer never sees him again.

If owners don't want to pay minor leaguers make minor leagues an independent league and make anyone a free agent. But don't keep them as slaves who can't change employer for half a decade.

If minor leaguers had no value teams should allow them to change franchise without getting anything back on a week's notice, shouldn't they.

How about all the players drafted beyond the tenth round who don’t get a 100k signing bonus refuse to sign? 

Nothing would change. Baseball would just go find some players who are willing to be single A roster filler  while taking a long shot at the dream. 

MiLB could switch to unpaid 3 year tryout and 10,000+ kids would join up.

SultanofSwat posted:

MiLB could switch to unpaid 3 year tryout and 10,000+ kids would join up.

MLB could Charge $1,000 per participant and make a lot of money.

SultanofSwat posted:

"allowing its clubs to pay players as little as $1,100 a month"

Boohoo. Remind me again how much college players make for doing the same job.

Actually an interesting point.  Many of them make $20k or more.  If you assume an out of state student at a $45k university getting a 1/3 scholarship that is $15k plus the incidentals probably pushing it up to $20k.  Then if you factor in the hours committed they probably earn significantly more than any low minor league player.  BTW at Michigan out of state tuition is over $60k and most are at $40-45.

Then there is the idea that College Sports might be one of the only other places that labor is abused MORE than in Milb - especially in Football and basketball.  Migrant workers would be the other group.

Dominik85 posted:

old_school posted:

You want make better money get promoted, or get real job. 

Supplu and demand dictates that MiLB players hold no value. It is that simple IMO

I don't agree. If you don't want to pay them  that is fine but then don't make them team controlled for 5 years and allow them free employer choice.

European soccer is capitalism but american sports is actually socialism (revenue sharing, draft, team control).

 

If mlb wants free demand and supply market get rid of team control and make everyone a free agent so you have to pay 20yo mike trout 50m per year.

But owners don't want that and have instead created a socialist system.

I'm open for teams having to pay minor leaguers nothing but then also don't have demands at them and let them sign with every team they want.

I mean google can also have unpaid interns, but they don't control the guy, if apple makes him an offer he is gone within a week.

Imo the very restrictive team control over players also means monetary responsibility, there are many low paid "minor leagues" in other industries but none of them controls the guy for a decade.

A minor league actor might not make anything either but if he gets an offer by Spielberg his former employer never sees him again.

If owners don't want to pay minor leaguers make minor leagues an independent league and make anyone a free agent. But don't keep them as slaves who can't change employer for half a decade.

If minor leaguers had no value teams should allow them to change franchise without getting anything back on a week's notice, shouldn't they.

 

 

This is a negotiated system with the MLBPA.  Marvin Miller understood that it was in the players interest that the game thrive and Free Agents trickle on the market rather than flood it.  

He understood that full free agency where every player being up for grabs after every season would create utter chaos and leave fans confused every season about who was on their team.  Instead he persuaded the players to the current system where the huge money is funneled to veteran players.  He also counted on guys like Steinbrenner to drive up salaries as revenue increased.  And that is exactly what happened.  I am not sure he would have been for revenue sharing and salary caps - but I doubt it.

I think going forward the players are going to want Free Agency sooner because without steroids the value of 30 year old players will not be what it has been.  31/32 year old players will not get 5/6 year contracts any longer.  They will get 1/2 year deals while clubs will continue to look to lock up promising 23-25 year olds on 5 year deals 2 years before they reach free agency.  The effect will be that very few players will be what Harper and Machado are this year which are top players at the height of their careers hitting the market.

RJM posted:

Pointing out players played for a lot less before free agency isn’t romantic nostalgia. Who wouldn’t want to be paid more? But because they loved the game pro athletes played for what they could get rather than chose other careers less physically demanding. 

RJM - players didn't play for less money before Free Agency for any more or less love of the game than current players.  The Reserve Clause simply gave them no choice. 

The Romantic Nostalgia people have is that guys like Williams, DiMaAggio, Mantel, Mays, Musial, Aaron spent entire careers having to take whatever the club offered and that somehow they liked it that way.  We like it that Teddy Ballgame always has a Red Sox jersey on and not a Yankee one like say Clemons or Boggs later on when they took Steinbrenners dough and the chance to win the World Series. 

salary for MLB and MiLB aren't comparable - there is no demand for MiLB from advertisers, fans, merchandise. If there were demand the price would rise...maybe not fast enough for some, maybe not high enough for others but it would still rise.

The sad truth nobody cares who the 3rd outfielder is at most any random MiLB game. It is just irrelevant, they are holding places for others. Nobody in the entire world cares except a very small percentage of people who are the 1% Reference Jamie Moyer, Chris Coste, Eric Kratz...there are others who have cashed in. The rest hopefully had a plan B...you know kinda like the college kids who didn't get drafted.

If you want the chance to share the dream and the potential huge $'s you prove it for virtually nothing on the farm. It isn't really different then life outside of public corporations, you want big money you make the personal guarantees to the banks and investors, the winners win huge, the losers walk with nothing.

MLB players and their representatives will always view the demand for higher MiLB salaries as a zero-sum game; with a dollar given to minor league players as a dollar taken from MLB players' pockets. Plus, they view the minor league experience as a ticket to be punched  in order to qualify for the potential for MLB riches and fame.

Meanwhile, I will always carry the opinion that major league front offices would prefer that minor league players "self-select" themselves from minor league rosters; rather than releasing them, outright. The more onerous the compensation and overall conditions, the more likely that players at the margin will decide to move on to other pursuits.

Someone mentioned restricting the affiliates. Remember, in many cases the affiliates are not  owned by the MLB franchise. They are owned by individuals and in some cases communities. Most of the affiliates removed from the MiLB system, would simply fold. They do not pay the players salaries and could not afford to do so. Very few would become independent.

luv baseball posted:

RJM posted:

Pointing out players played for a lot less before free agency isn’t romantic nostalgia. Who wouldn’t want to be paid more? But because they loved the game pro athletes played for what they could get rather than chose other careers less physically demanding. 

RJM - players didn't play for less money before Free Agency for any more or less love of the game than current players.  The Reserve Clause simply gave them no choice. 

The Romantic Nostalgia people have is that guys like Williams, DiMaAggio, Mantel, Mays, Musial, Aaron spent entire careers having to take whatever the club offered and that somehow they liked it that way.  We like it that Teddy Ballgame always has a Red Sox jersey on and not a Yankee one like say Clemons or Boggs later on when they took Steinbrenners dough and the chance to win the World Series. 

The Reserve Clause didn’t force them to choose baseball as a career. They chose to play baseball even though there may have been less physically demanding and higher paid jobs elsewhere.

Jim Lonborg went to Stanford. He eventually went to Tufts Dental School. He made more as a dentist than he did as a baseball player. But he played baseball until his arm and knees wouldn’t let him even though it paid less.

luv baseball posted:

Dominik85 posted:

old_school posted:

You want make better money get promoted, or get real job. 

Supplu and demand dictates that MiLB players hold no value. It is that simple IMO

I don't agree. If you don't want to pay them  that is fine but then don't make them team controlled for 5 years and allow them free employer choice.

European soccer is capitalism but american sports is actually socialism (revenue sharing, draft, team control).

 

If mlb wants free demand and supply market get rid of team control and make everyone a free agent so you have to pay 20yo mike trout 50m per year.

But owners don't want that and have instead created a socialist system.

I'm open for teams having to pay minor leaguers nothing but then also don't have demands at them and let them sign with every team they want.

I mean google can also have unpaid interns, but they don't control the guy, if apple makes him an offer he is gone within a week.

Imo the very restrictive team control over players also means monetary responsibility, there are many low paid "minor leagues" in other industries but none of them controls the guy for a decade.

A minor league actor might not make anything either but if he gets an offer by Spielberg his former employer never sees him again.

If owners don't want to pay minor leaguers make minor leagues an independent league and make anyone a free agent. But don't keep them as slaves who can't change employer for half a decade.

If minor leaguers had no value teams should allow them to change franchise without getting anything back on a week's notice, shouldn't they.

 

 

This is a negotiated system with the MLBPA.  Marvin Miller understood that it was in the players interest that the game thrive and Free Agents trickle on the market rather than flood it.  

He understood that full free agency where every player being up for grabs after every season would create utter chaos and leave fans confused every season about who was on their team.  Instead he persuaded the players to the current system where the huge money is funneled to veteran players.  He also counted on guys like Steinbrenner to drive up salaries as revenue increased.  And that is exactly what happened.  I am not sure he would have been for revenue sharing and salary caps - but I doubt it.

I think going forward the players are going to want Free Agency sooner because without steroids the value of 30 year old players will not be what it has been.  31/32 year old players will not get 5/6 year contracts any longer.  They will get 1/2 year deals while clubs will continue to look to lock up promising 23-25 year olds on 5 year deals 2 years before they reach free agency.  The effect will be that very few players will be what Harper and Machado are this year which are top players at the height of their careers hitting the market.

 

Yes the union essentially sold the young guys. They essentially made a deal with the owners to overpay the veterans and underpay the young guys.

This worked well for both sides but the new smart GMs got greedy nd decided to stop overpaying old veterans which is a smart thing since they are bad but a problem because it broke the old agreement between union and owners.

old_school posted:

salary for MLB and MiLB aren't comparable - there is no demand for MiLB from advertisers, fans, merchandise. If there were demand the price would rise...maybe not fast enough for some, maybe not high enough for others but it would still rise.

The sad truth nobody cares who the 3rd outfielder is at most any random MiLB game. It is just irrelevant, they are holding places for others. Nobody in the entire world cares except a very small percentage of people who are the 1% Reference Jamie Moyer, Chris Coste, Eric Kratz...there are others who have cashed in. The rest hopefully had a plan B...you know kinda like the college kids who didn't get drafted.

If you want the chance to share the dream and the potential huge $'s you prove it for virtually nothing on the farm. It isn't really different then life outside of public corporations, you want big money you make the personal guarantees to the banks and investors, the winners win huge, the losers walk with nothing.

School 

To say that nobody cares about the 3rd outfielder at any given league is undoubtedly true.  It is also true about almost all of the 125 million other people in the US workforce doing whatever job it is that they are doing.  Yet we have decided as a society to have minimum wage laws which everyone knows will not make anyone rich by any standard in the US.  But you can get a starting job and claw your way up the chain to better paying jobs.   No one is talking about paying them $100k or anything like that.  $7.50 and hour plus OT just like any other job.

Argue the merits of such things (probably a different web site) but that 3rd outfielder is working in the US and  should be subject to the laws of the workforce and not having our government making a special cutout in the labor law to his detriment.  I don't care what his job entails - he is working and should be paid.  

C'mon think about it.  Let's have the government focus on the national debt for example rather sticking their beak into baseball so they can raise some campaign money from ownership.   This one isn't that hard - it really isn't.

luv baseball posted:

old_school posted:

salary for MLB and MiLB aren't comparable - there is no demand for MiLB from advertisers, fans, merchandise. If there were demand the price would rise...maybe not fast enough for some, maybe not high enough for others but it would still rise.

The sad truth nobody cares who the 3rd outfielder is at most any random MiLB game. It is just irrelevant, they are holding places for others. Nobody in the entire world cares except a very small percentage of people who are the 1% Reference Jamie Moyer, Chris Coste, Eric Kratz...there are others who have cashed in. The rest hopefully had a plan B...you know kinda like the college kids who didn't get drafted.

If you want the chance to share the dream and the potential huge $'s you prove it for virtually nothing on the farm. It isn't really different then life outside of public corporations, you want big money you make the personal guarantees to the banks and investors, the winners win huge, the losers walk with nothing.

School 

To say that nobody cares about the 3rd outfielder at any given league is undoubtedly true.  It is also true about almost all of the 125 million other people in the US workforce doing whatever job it is that they are doing.  Yet we have decided as a society to have minimum wage laws which everyone knows will not make anyone rich by any standard in the US.  But you can get a starting job and claw your way up the chain to better paying jobs.   No one is talking about paying them $100k or anything like that.  $7.50 and hour plus OT just like any other job.

Argue the merits of such things (probably a different web site) but that 3rd outfielder is working in the US and  should be subject to the laws of the workforce and not having our government making a special cutout in the labor law to his detriment.  I don't care what his job entails - he is working and should be paid.  

C'mon think about it.  Let's have the government focus on the national debt for example rather sticking their beak into baseball so they can raise some campaign money from ownership.   This one isn't that hard - it really isn't.

actually I can totally support the free market concept. It is extremly rare I would want the government anywhere in my life.

I am not sure baseball players are employees, I think most of them are independent contractors. Assuming they are contractors aren't they essentially self employed and have no minimum wages?

The key concept here is nobody wants to pay them and there are thousands of them every year who want the job...it is a bad business model. As our friend from sharktank Kevin O'Leary likes to tell people. It is a bad idea, take it out back and shoot it....

Example son of friend of family, I played ball with his father for years, I threw the kid a tremendous amount of BP as young child, I would love to see him succeed. The boy was HS stud, D2 college stud, drafted in 30 something round, played rookie ball, A ball short season 2 years gets released...works out, gets independent offer does well, gets picked up again by MLB team, back in A ball....he is now 26 - should be applauded for chasing the dream? Should he take a reality break and decide what he wants to do with his life? He is one of thousands...this is why he has no tangible value and nor do any of the others.

IMO the ship has sailed, son you need to move on but it is what it is.

old_school posted:

luv baseball posted:

old_school posted:

salary for MLB and MiLB aren't comparable - there is no demand for MiLB from advertisers, fans, merchandise. If there were demand the price would rise...maybe not fast enough for some, maybe not high enough for others but it would still rise.

The sad truth nobody cares who the 3rd outfielder is at most any random MiLB game. It is just irrelevant, they are holding places for others. Nobody in the entire world cares except a very small percentage of people who are the 1% Reference Jamie Moyer, Chris Coste, Eric Kratz...there are others who have cashed in. The rest hopefully had a plan B...you know kinda like the college kids who didn't get drafted.

If you want the chance to share the dream and the potential huge $'s you prove it for virtually nothing on the farm. It isn't really different then life outside of public corporations, you want big money you make the personal guarantees to the banks and investors, the winners win huge, the losers walk with nothing.

School 

To say that nobody cares about the 3rd outfielder at any given league is undoubtedly true.  It is also true about almost all of the 125 million other people in the US workforce doing whatever job it is that they are doing.  Yet we have decided as a society to have minimum wage laws which everyone knows will not make anyone rich by any standard in the US.  But you can get a starting job and claw your way up the chain to better paying jobs.   No one is talking about paying them $100k or anything like that.  $7.50 and hour plus OT just like any other job.

Argue the merits of such things (probably a different web site) but that 3rd outfielder is working in the US and  should be subject to the laws of the workforce and not having our government making a special cutout in the labor law to his detriment.  I don't care what his job entails - he is working and should be paid.  

C'mon think about it.  Let's have the government focus on the national debt for example rather sticking their beak into baseball so they can raise some campaign money from ownership.   This one isn't that hard - it really isn't.

actually I can totally support the free market concept. It is extremly rare I would want the government anywhere in my life.

I am not sure baseball players are employees, I think most of them are independent contractors. Assuming they are contractors aren't they essentially self employed and have no minimum wages?

The key concept here is nobody wants to pay them and there are thousands of them every year who want the job...it is a bad business model. As our friend from sharktank Kevin O'Leary likes to tell people. It is a bad idea, take it out back and shoot it....

Example son of friend of family, I played ball with his father for years, I threw the kid a tremendous amount of BP as young child, I would love to see him succeed. The boy was HS stud, D2 college stud, drafted in 30 something round, played rookie ball, A ball short season 2 years gets released...works out, gets independent offer does well, gets picked up again by MLB team, back in A ball....he is now 26 - should be applauded for chasing the dream? Should he take a reality break and decide what he wants to do with his life? He is one of thousands...this is why he has no tangible value and nor do any of the others.

IMO the ship has sailed, son you need to move on but it is what it is.

 

They are most certainly employees. They cannot work for other entities, the employer dictates how they will do the job, they are not free to turn down work without termination...etc, etc.

SultanofSwat posted:

This is a simple free market capitalism question.  You are either for it, or you are not informed, or an idiot.

If you artificially raise wages, you WILL HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE.  The pie does not get bigger, there is only so much pie.

I want as many people as possible to have a chance at making it to the Show.  Raising wages, kills dreams.

I would caution against having such a strong lede when the rest of your post is not supported by any economic fact.

I agree with Matt here.  They are employees - even though there is a contract the fact that this string exists because baseball is pushing the Feds to codify the exemption tells me enough to believe that THEY think these guys are employees and they want a law to say they are not.

The guys that own MLB are not inclined to take unnecessary chances on this front.  They want the Feds to shield them from paying their labor like any other employer. 

In the crassest way - politicians are taking the campaign money from this special interest precisely because there will be no backlash that baseball players will protest or get any widespread public support.  

Do the same thing for McDonald's or Walmart and there is a shitstorm of protest and probably charges of racism and misogyny as cherries on top.  Not a politician in the land will go there.  But screw a couple of thousand kids playing baseball - a bunch of whom aren't citizens that can vote while picking up campaign loot.  JACKPOT!  

I call BS today and twice on Sunday.

To add to LUV’s post there’s no threat of backlash because most people believe pro athletes are grossly overpaid. They don’t have a clue regarding the minor league pay scale.

So the moral of the story is stay in school unless you are drafted in the 5th round or higher. If you graduate and don't want to play for shitty money go get a job somewhere else. If you studied hard that shouldn't be to tough but if you didn't Walmart pays better then single A!!

I guess kids coming of college should listen what the recruiters told them years before, grades matter, apparently more kids need to study then to worry about making the Bigs.

Honestly this thread is about as silly as thinking the minimum wage should be 15.00 - the minors are a stepping stone not a career. If they become a career you are doing something wrong.

old_school posted:

So the moral of the story is stay in school unless you are drafted in the 5th round or higher. If you graduate and don't want to play for shitty money go get a job somewhere else. If you studied hard that shouldn't be to tough but if you didn't Walmart pays better then single A!!

I guess kids coming of college should listen what the recruiters told them years before, grades matter, apparently more kids need to study then to worry about making the Bigs.

Honestly this thread is about as silly as thinking the minimum wage should be 15.00 - the minors are a stepping stone not a career. If they become a career you are doing something wrong.

In the big picture I agree. However, if a player can get to AAA or be what’s called a AAAA player (MLB injury roster filler) he can be making 65-100k per year. A friend’s son played AAA until he was 34. He told people there was nowhere else he was going to be offered 80k per year.

When they tore the uniform off his back he became a minor league coach. By age 28 he knew that’s where he was eventually headed. Now he’s back at the A level working his way up again. 

I know kids who went into the minors knowing it was likely to only last two or three years. But their plan was to eventually become a teacher and a coach. Playing in the minors was resume building. 

Some kids want their shot no matter how long it is. For other kids they hear about long bus rides, cheap hotels, greasy food and decide it’s time to move on with their life. 

old_school posted:

So the moral of the story is stay in school unless you are drafted in the 5th round or higher. If you graduate and don't want to play for shitty money go get a job somewhere else. If you studied hard that shouldn't be to tough but if you didn't Walmart pays better then single A!!

I guess kids coming of college should listen what the recruiters told them years before, grades matter, apparently more kids need to study then to worry about making the Bigs.

Honestly this thread is about as silly as thinking the minimum wage should be 15.00 - the minors are a stepping stone not a career. If they become a career you are doing something wrong.

Pursuing your dream is every American's birthright just as getting paid according to the law is.  Sarcastic moralizing aside the big shot manager at Walmart now earning $100k that started out stocking shelves got paid....da da da ….minimum wage when he stocked the shelves.  What the minimum wage should be is a different discussion, it exists and isn't going away.

And you are right this whole thing is silly because it is billionaires buying off our representatives to avoid paying a few extra dollars to their labor that is the proximate cause of much of the political angst in our country.  Our government isn't working correctly and this is a perfect example of what is wrong.  We  know this junk happens on all kinds of things we never really know about but this string is highlighting one thing that people on this site can grab ahold of.

What is not silly is that we have discussed this issue in a pretty rational and respectful way ...which is why I enjoy this site over all the others I occasion. 

I get your view - just don't buy the government needs to be spending time writing laws designed to specifically screw baseball players...or anyone else for that matter.  If this kind of stuff in the government stopped I think it would be good for the country.  

luv baseball posted:

old_school posted:

So the moral of the story is stay in school unless you are drafted in the 5th round or higher. If you graduate and don't want to play for shitty money go get a job somewhere else. If you studied hard that shouldn't be to tough but if you didn't Walmart pays better then single A!!

I guess kids coming of college should listen what the recruiters told them years before, grades matter, apparently more kids need to study then to worry about making the Bigs.

Honestly this thread is about as silly as thinking the minimum wage should be 15.00 - the minors are a stepping stone not a career. If they become a career you are doing something wrong.

Pursuing your dream is every American's birthright just as getting paid according to the law is.  Sarcastic moralizing aside the big shot manager at Walmart now earning $100k that started out stocking shelves got paid....da da da ….minimum wage when he stocked the shelves.  What the minimum wage should be is a different discussion, it exists and isn't going away.

And you are right this whole thing is silly because it is billionaires buying off our representatives to avoid paying a few extra dollars to their labor that is the proximate cause of much of the political angst in our country.  Our government isn't working correctly and this is a perfect example of what is wrong.  We  know this junk happens on all kinds of things we never really know about but this string is highlighting one thing that people on this site can grab ahold of.

What is not silly is that we have discussed this issue in a pretty rational and respectful way ...which is why I enjoy this site over all the others I occasion. 

I get your view - just don't buy the government needs to be spending time writing laws designed to specifically screw baseball players...or anyone else for that matter.  If this kind of stuff in the government stopped I think it would be good for the country.  

The attorneys keep coming after them and losing.  Maybe MLB is trying to shut the door on the attorneys.  I find this similar to ambulance chasers looking at the abundance of the well.  When was the last time an independent baseball league was sued over wages?  They pay less than MiLB... 

real green posted:

luv baseball posted:

old_school posted:

So the moral of the story is stay in school unless you are drafted in the 5th round or higher. If you graduate and don't want to play for shitty money go get a job somewhere else. If you studied hard that shouldn't be to tough but if you didn't Walmart pays better then single A!!

I guess kids coming of college should listen what the recruiters told them years before, grades matter, apparently more kids need to study then to worry about making the Bigs.

Honestly this thread is about as silly as thinking the minimum wage should be 15.00 - the minors are a stepping stone not a career. If they become a career you are doing something wrong.

Pursuing your dream is every American's birthright just as getting paid according to the law is.  Sarcastic moralizing aside the big shot manager at Walmart now earning $100k that started out stocking shelves got paid....da da da ….minimum wage when he stocked the shelves.  What the minimum wage should be is a different discussion, it exists and isn't going away.

And you are right this whole thing is silly because it is billionaires buying off our representatives to avoid paying a few extra dollars to their labor that is the proximate cause of much of the political angst in our country.  Our government isn't working correctly and this is a perfect example of what is wrong.  We  know this junk happens on all kinds of things we never really know about but this string is highlighting one thing that people on this site can grab ahold of.

What is not silly is that we have discussed this issue in a pretty rational and respectful way ...which is why I enjoy this site over all the others I occasion. 

I get your view - just don't buy the government needs to be spending time writing laws designed to specifically screw baseball players...or anyone else for that matter.  If this kind of stuff in the government stopped I think it would be good for the country.  

The attorneys keep coming after them and losing.  Maybe MLB is trying to shut the door on the attorneys.  I find this similar to ambulance chasers looking at the abundance of the well.  When was the last time an independent baseball league was sued over wages?  They pay less than MiLB... 

Real,

Now you want to introduce Tort Reform?  As they say in Oz...Why didn't you say so before - that is a horse of a different color!

It is fair to say deep pockets doing borderline things will attract sharks which explains the independent leagues getting the free skate.

The Lords of baseball have decided throwing money at Congress is cheaper than paying the players.  So they will exhaust every avenue available to them before doing so.  If they get their exemption they might just pull it off...but if they don't I would expect like the Reserve Clause they will lose in court...eventually.  

luv baseball posted:

real green posted

The attorneys keep coming after them and losing.  Maybe MLB is trying to shut the door on the attorneys.  I find this similar to ambulance chasers looking at the abundance of the well.  When was the last time an independent baseball league was sued over wages?  They pay less than MiLB... 

Real,

Now you want to introduce Tort Reform?  As they say in Oz...Why didn't you say so before - that is a horse of a different color!

It is fair to say deep pockets doing borderline things will attract sharks which explains the independent leagues getting the free skate.

The Lords of baseball have decided throwing money at Congress is cheaper than paying the players.  So they will exhaust every avenue available to them before doing so.  If they get their exemption they might just pull it off...but if they don't I would expect like the Reserve Clause they will lose in court...eventually.  

 

you do realize there is no value correct? All changing the rules will do is get rid of players faster, the cheapest "place holders" will stay and the rest are gone. Plus you will absolutely see a contraction of minor league teams and independents will be devastated...I don't care what they get paid, change the damn law for all I care - it doesn't change the supply side being hopelessly out of whack.

How is "the supply side being hopelessly out of whack[?]"

My daughter is involved with a local dinner theater.  She gets "reimbursed" $300 for 100's of hours of work to perform for the theater.  By all accounts she is an employee of the theater.  She inspires to be on Broadway one day.  Is the theater circumventing minimum wage laws?    

real green posted:

My daughter is involved with a local dinner theater.  She gets "reimbursed" $300 for 100's of hours of work to perform for the theater.  By all accounts she is an employee of the theater.  She inspires to be on Broadway one day.  Is the theater circumventing minimum wage laws?    

Possibly. 

real green posted:

My daughter is involved with a local dinner theater.  She gets "reimbursed" $300 for 100's of hours of work to perform for the theater.  By all accounts she is an employee of the theater.  She inspires to be on Broadway one day.  Is the theater circumventing minimum wage laws?    

doubtful, she is probably classified as service staff working of for tips.

Goosegg posted:

How is "the supply side being hopelessly out of whack[?]"

there are somewhere around 5k or so new college kids available every year correct? plus the HS kids not going to school, plus internationals being brought in from all around the globe. The existing rosters are already full and the players remove themselves from the system at much much much slower rate then they enter. there are 30 teams in the MLB they have what 5 MiLB teams each...do the math.

Supply outweighs demand but an staggering number - there is little value...it is very simple.

I guess if you define "supply" as every person who is draft eligible and who plays baseball, it's an over supply.

By this definition there is an over supply of people for every single profession, job, internship, college spot, etc., in the world. 

Except, that's not how it works - or defined.

Supply is defined - and initially limited - by persons meeting the initial qualifications sought by (lets say) the relevant industry/profession. For example, a law firm looking to add an attorney has an initial qualification (limiting supply) of a law degree. That law firm further limits supply to accredited law schools, then specific law schools (e.g., Ivy), then certain achievements within that school (e.g., Law Review, top 10%, etc.). From that resulting supply the firm satisfies it's demand.

No one views employers' prerequites as truly limiting supply (essentially what supply means in this context are those people meeting the minimim qualifications of that job) - the job definition limits the potential near infinite supply of humans. Supply is not defined as "those wanting the job."

While it's easy to be flip about the 90+% of professional signees as stable ponies, that's only looking backwards (i.e., after release/retirement).  Every signeee (absent some nepotism) was evaluated by an expert (i.e. scouting side of each organization) who concluded that the signee had at least one potential MLB tool. THAT IS PROBALL'S PREREQUISITE: ONE POTENTIAL MLB TOOL. Proball's prerequisite is NOT everyone who wears a uniform (though that's where the scouts start).

Over the years, organizations have become more proficient (quicker) at determining whose POTENTIAL MLB tool will not develop. (Each organization used to have way more milb teams. But then came a more structured development system which allowed quicker evaluations. Now, statistical advances and mathematicians have/are making the process even faster.)

It's not the cost of the players salaries in low milb which will drive elimination of teams/levels, it's quicker analysis which determines who has a shot of reaching MLB. (Increasing salaries to minimim wage adds roughly 1 mil/yr per team for each organization - a pittance.)

(As an aside, less then 100 players make huge FA salaries. When you look at Investment Banking (as an example), there are way more people earning that - yet that industry pays it's starting analysts over 100k to start (works out to about $20 - 35/hr).  Virtually every business/economics major in the country wants that job; yet despite that huge supply, the IB firms pay a hefty, above minimum wage, starting salary (because they limit the supply to top students or top schools) (I'm sure many would work for free to get in the door - yet the firms don't go that route.) And, 90% of those first year analysts will be gone by year 5. The 90% are not stable ponies; they leave for the same reasons milb players leave (burnout, life balance, not suited, other opportunity). The top legal firms are the same. These industries cast a wide net expecting huge attrition - and all but baseball pays minimum wage.)

What makes baseball unique?(indeed, an argument could be made that incoming baseball players, having played and focused on baseball for over a decade, are more qualified then a law student who has acquired 3 years of specialized learning or a first year analyst who knows nothing about IB.)

MILB players get screwed with money!!!! To my son it didn’t and doesn’t matter as his passion for the game outweighs anything else.

My son who played Division 1 college baseball with very little cost to him and the family was drafted as a red shirt senior at age of 23. Got small signing bonus as no leverage. Worked his way through minor league system. Made his MLB debut in June of 2017. Was traded this June to another team, unfortunately went on DL in July 2018 for first time in his career. Is rehabbing to be ready for spring training. Makes a very decent salary. More then in any regular job. Went back in second off season to complete his college degree for free with help from school and his MLB team. Gives private pitching lessons in off season with a waiting list. 

Moral of his story

He would have played for free. If he had a do over would play for free!!! His passion for the game outweighs anything else in his life. When he chooses to walk away from this crazy journey he will do something in his life related to baseball

The fact that MLB spent money on lobbyist to get Congress to specifically protect baseball from wage laws makes it clear that that MLB owners were concerned they were doing something wrong and needed to try to get ahead of the issue. 

Very few MiLB players are playing for the money.  They have spent most of their lives developing skills to simply have the opportunity to compete at the highest levels possible with the dream of making the Show.  A basic living wage would not be enough to motivate a person to dedicate the time and effort to succeed at what is essentially an elite level of a profession.  I do believe they have earned the opportunity to be paid a wage adequate to live on.  $5,500 a season for an entry level player is truly absurd.  Considering they pay for insurance, club house dues, etc... they don't have to worry about taxes.  MLB owners are simply pinching pennies where they can legally do so and where the employees have no legitimate way to fight the issue.  MiLB players have little leverage even if they had their own union.  The other real culprit is the MLB Players association that is taking from the poor to pay the rich.  Simply reducing the MLB payrolls by 2-4% would be enough to pay all MiLB players a minimum of $30K.  This is not a significant wage to get excited about.

Congress clearly should focus on other issues. 

One big problem of the low salaries is that is discriminates poor Americans. The Latin players will do it regardless because in the Dominican 1000 bucks a month is actually a lot but for the US born players it means apart from the high bonus guys only families with money who can pay for that "hobby" can afford it.

Imo this is not very smart for mlb clubs. Player development becomes more and more important and worry about money and shitty food are not a good environment to develop. I mean a minor league player who has to work all winter likely won't train and recuperate as well as a guy who can train full time.