Minor League Poverty

Truman : sending you a PM,lost your email

There is a problem with players being free to sign with anyone.  That would help those that are now early round draft picks.  Those are not the majority of minor leaguers.  So what do you pay a back up catcher at the lowest level of minor league ball.  Would he get more from one team than he would get from another team?

The current system tells the player what the club feels his value is.  And they will waste no time getting rid of a player that they feel has no value to the organization.

I'm all for players getting more money.  You would think those high paid MLB players that went through the same thing would care.  However, they did go through the same thing before making it to the Big Leagues.  It has always amazed me to see a multi millionaire first 5 pick, living and being teammates with someone that is making very little money.  But once again, the club has a way of telling players what they are worth.  Those players in that situation have to prove they are worth more.

Bottom line, if young men wouldn't be lined up for the opportunity, maybe the pay scale would go up.  But there are many that would play for no money at all.  I doubt if there are very many willing to work in fast food restaurants for no money.

In the one article there is some inaccuracies.  They are comparing salaries for 5 months with salaries for 12 months.  

Anyway, I would like to see beginning minor league players receive a fair salary. But HS coaching is also a profession and many make $3,000 or less a year. Add those hours up and how fair is that?  Yet many want that job.

So you're saying or at least implying, that there are no circumstances outside of professional sports where young people with ambitions of succeeding in a highly competitive field would, in conflict with their own financial best interest, willingly work for either low pay, or no pay, or at least less than legal minimum wage. This is not true. I have seen exactly the opposite happen in two industries. I'm sure it happens in others as well.  It's easy to say, fine, these are jobs that anybody would be lucky to have, so it doesn't matter that they pay less than minimum wage.  I get that. But some people said the  same thing about low wages for picking turnips in the 1930's in California's Central Valley.  "Oh, well, they're lucky to have that job. If they don't like the pay somebody else will take it."  Tom Joad had a different take on that.

The question puzzles me as it seems so disconnected. 

The issue is about a "minimum" wage that's at a level for someone to support themselves without having to depend on the charity of others.   Some player's families have the means to support a player; many do not, and in any case the player should be able to be self sufficient and you can't do that when being paid at a level so far below what considered poverty level.

The back up catcher would get at least the "minimum wage" no matter which team he was on.

A minimum value should be in place for any player.  If the player is not worth that minimum, then yes. . ..they should not take on such a player or get rid of that player. Anyone who works for an employer should be held to a minimum wage.  Minor League players, who are typically adults, are employees of their baseball team and should be entitled to that.

The fact that they made it through is irrelevant to the issue and doesn't address those who didn't.

I do find it an amazing situation for player millionaire living with someone making below poverty level wage.  And it wonderful to see that some of these guys show empathy and compassion for the financial hardship their teammates are in and and will occasionally help them out (e.g. buy meals, casually pay for this or that).  But who really enjoys taking charity because they don't have a choice, other than to quit their job.  

Since you emphasize "worth", I would say that any playing worth playing on any of these teams should be worth a MINIMUM wage.

Hmmmm???   So, I'm to understand you position is that a "minimum wage" is unjustifiable for any employee who doesn't have that "worth" to an employer?   And of course it's only the employer who gets to establish that "worth", and exploit the employee without any moral regard for the well being of the employee. If the employee doesn't like it, the employer can always find some other willing soul to exploit.  Have I got that right?   If not, please explain.

Yeah, I noted that too.  And I didn't get the idea that they were suggesting that a player should get a salary over 5 months equivalent to 12 months of minimum wages.  So, let's be clear on that.

This is what's called a logical fallacy as are a couple previous such statements you've made.  And as an example, it's completely irrelevant.

From what I've observed, baseball can easily afford to have in place a salary structure with a minimum salary equivalent to a minimum wage for the time played during the season.  And I see it as a moral issue.

Two killer issues for MiLB players are owners and MLBPA being on the same side:

1)  3 guys for every job.  At the low minors there are readily available replacements to take the job.  So the opportunity is value and allows wages to be driven down without significant risk to the game on the field being so bad no one will attend.

2)  No representation - There is no one specifically looking to manage and improve the deal they have.  MLBPA cannot negotiate for them, beyond the draft and how that works and they sold the kids down the river 5-7 years ago.

They sold the bonus's for those kids down the river for a better deal for themselves a few years back because Scot Boras was driving up the signing bonus for all kinds of players.  So baseball wanted "structure" and got it and the MLB guys got some things back at the expense of future members.  

They sold the bonus's for those kids down the river for a better deal for themselves a few years back because Scot Boras was driving up the signing bonus for all kinds of players.  So baseball wanted "structure" and got it and the MLB guys got some things back at the expense of future members.

This ^.

Kind of off topic, but what is independent league lifestyle like? Is the pay and lifestyle very similar to the affiliated minor league levels? Or does it vary league to league? I watched at TV show on the Pecos League and they only make $50 a week or something like that. Gotta imagine that's way way tougher than affiliated minor leagues.

Not independent league but my son plays Pro ball in Europe.  He gets transportation to and from Europe, shares an apartment with another" Ïmport Player", gets meals on game days and road trips and gets 350 euros a month.  He's not making any money but he's able to live just fine on what he gets.  His apartment is within 100 yards of the field and public transportation in Europe is great.  We supplement him if he's going on a trip like an off weekend in Portugal or a trip to Oktoberfest in Munich, but what a life for a 22 year old who just graduated from a D1 school this spring and thought his last game was when they lost in the NCAA regionals.

Oh one negative is that since they play on a converted soccer field the right center fence is over 650 feet away, lol.

Come on, they're not even working.  They're just playing a sport.

Free travel, food, uniforms, training, healthcare.  Women. Fans. All the sunflower seeds you can eat.

MLB should just call this a camp, and make the players pay to join.

/hey, it's a slow news day

Oh one negative is that since they play on a converted soccer field the right center fence is over 650 feet away, 

You just created a flashback. Several years ago I was watching a baseball game at Northeastern. Center field was 460 in the back corner of the end zone. A kid from UNCW skied a 458 foot fly out. He came back to the dugout muttering. The next at bat he turned on one and hit it off a house behind the sports complex. I recollect him saying something to the effect of, "Catch that bleep'n one!"

c-o-c --- I am not sure why my post is off topic.  It is the reason the pay structure is what it is, which is the subject of this thread...or at least that is what I thought. 

When Boras starting getting $20MM+ deals for draft picks he was starting to cost real money.  Owners can't control themselves and players saw it as a threat to the rank & file if hundreds of millions started getting poured into prospects instead of the membership.  Both sides agreed it had to stop and that is exactly what they did.

Professional Baseball is not a game.  It is a business.  First and always...money. 

I cannot argue the points made above.

Again I do feel that they should raise the level minimum, not opposed to that at all. However due to the unique circumstances in which this business is run, I don't see how anyone here can determine a $$ amount as fair or unfair (IMO).

I wonder (and I am sure), if the teams do an analysis of their entire season cost for each of their affiliate teams and award a dollar amount  onhow much the actual cost would be per player, including transportation costs, health care, health insurance, uniforms, personnel, equipment, etc. And seeds of course.  I am sure that we all would be surprised of the breakdown.

I wonder how many here that are complaining have had players in affiliated ball?  How would you know what it costs to run a milb affiliate on a daily, monthly or seasonal basis? How would you know that your son couldn't find a way to make it work?

Most do.

Here's the deal.  The entire business model is built on developing players for the ML level and based on talent.  The more talented you are, the more you are worth, the larger the bonus, the faster you will move up the ladder. 

I do believe that most american born players are educated upon considering to sign, what it entails and how the player might have to "suffer" a year or two to play professional ball.  Its easy to understand why latin players are very much preferred these days. They seem to get by very nicely on what is considered the poverty level and even send their money home to help out families.  In other words, they require less comforts and toys than our children do.

Again, each and every player should understand the expectations and the opportunity to  make a lot of money in this game or to just chalk it up to a life experience like no other.

My advice to give to your children if you feel the salary is unacceptable, go to college, improve your game if things do not work out you have a nice plan B.

How much a team gives out in bonus or FA has nothing to do with what players make in milb. 

The draft was changed so that there would be more parity across the board and equality, so that a small market team could compete against very rich teams. 

In a sense that is true.  However, if you have a kid that grew up his whole life wanting to be a fireman, would it be fair to pay him $3.00 an hour to be a fireman because it is what he's always wanted to do for a living?  Besides, firemen just sit around the firehouse 90% of the time waiting for the alarm to go off, right?

I know it's not the same exact thing, but in principle it is.  Just because someone chooses a certain profession that they have a passion about doesn't mean that they should not get paid a reasonable amount to work in that profession.

I'm somewhat conflicted about this because I am a capitalist at heart - even though I live paycheck to paycheck, not having much money.  And I don't really know what the answer is.  However, I think that MiLB is enough of a monopoly that some kind of intervention should be made.  Maybe not coming up with a minimum wage, per se.  But some kind of market economy within the system.  

People have said that MiLB is not unionized and is not effected by the CBA of MLB.  But that is not entirely true.  I believe once a player is signed, he falls under the MLB rules in terms of being able to leave his team/become a free agent.  Is the player not bound for something like 4-5 years before he can become a free agent and sign somewhere else?  Unless of course the MLB team wants to trade him or cut him, right?  Maybe I'm wrong, but the MLB and MiLB are intertwined.  MiLB may not have their own union, but the players are bound under MLB rules to some extent.

Maybe I'm way off base and someone can correct me if I'm totally wrong.

Oh, my wouldn't the Yankees and Dodger love that?

The problem with the argument is that when there are jobs people want to do, it makes it easy to take advantage of them. I'm sure if you got rid of songwriting and mechanical royalties, there would still be music, but all the money would be in the hands of a very few, taking advantage of those that produce the product out of love for what it is they are doing. It's why there are specific laws governing internships. Interns aren't allowed to take the position and place of an actual employee. This is to make sure they aren't taken advantage of. Without such laws, I guarantee you that Law firms, hospitals, etc. would be taking advantage of people in the profession. The maekt does indeed have a way of telling people what their value is, but it also has a floor so that labor isn't taken advantage of. There is no floor in baseball, the one business that is legally exempt from all the checks on the free market system.

When a player is drafted by MLB. You either sign a milb contract or you sign a ML contract (the player becomes a part of the 40 man roster). 40 man roster pay starts around 30-40K per season.  The player gets to go to spring training where he has an opportunity to earn about 1000K a week cash.   The team determines where the player will begin his service time.  Each contract has different years under a teams control, 6 for milb or 4 for ML until offered a contract over the minimum.At this point the player is making 500K per season. Free agency is totally different. I think I got the above right for years of service.

Milb has a players union and the player pays dues, but it is NOT the ML players union.

By the way, there are  AAA guys making lots of money as milb free agents. Not too many, as the experience has given way to youth.

The whole idea is that you have to reach that level.  If a milb player is let go he becomes a FA, but most teams will not give a lower level player as a FA.  Lower level is rookie league or low A level.

I think that teams try to do the best they can for their lower level players.  Host families are available as well as the team covering housing costs for complex league levels.  In other words, it really isn't as bad as many of you think it is, it is a more or less an apprenticeship.

As far as the fireman analogy, I know people who are VOLUNTEER fireman, they don't get paid a dime to serve. They do what they do for free because its what they love doing.

And it seems to be working for those small market teams.  But, looking at how the system is now being used these last two years, it seems like it's less advantageous for the draftees than is used to be.

True, my father was a volunteer fireman.  But those are mostly in small town situations where they don't have the budget to staff a full force.  In the bigger towns and cities, you don't have volunteers.

TPM, you know a lot more about the whole process than me for sure.  You have lived through most of it.  I'm just saying that, in general, you get drafted by a team or sign as a FA, you take what they give you and it isn't a lot.  If you choose not to take it and go try out for a different team, they are basically going to give you the same thing, if they take you at all.  It's not like you will make more money going somewhere else.  I'm not sure if this is the industry colluding to pay low wages or if it is them paying what the market demands.  Probably more of the latter.  As someone pointed out (PG maybe), there is an over abundance of willing job applicants in this industry.  If you don't want what they are willing to pay, there is someone else standing in the wings to take it.  Just not sure how much is related to there only being one organization offering this job, or the fact about the labor pool being abundant.  

Guess we'll find out as the original law suit unfolds.

Sorry Luv, your post and another earlier in the thread with the off topic line were just posts I copied but I guess I didn't do it right because they didn't say quote.  The off topic line was from the fifth quote down.