SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
MLB discussing significant increase in pay for MILB players
|
Post by grandsalami on Mar 18, 2019 19:28:59 GMT -5
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,769
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 18, 2019 20:01:31 GMT -5
Looks like the Blue Jays are doing a 45-55% increase themselves this year. Per athletic (no subscription)
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Mar 18, 2019 23:10:54 GMT -5
I’ll take “It’s About Damn Time” for 1,000, Alex.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Mar 19, 2019 2:37:13 GMT -5
Honestly this is a bigger issue than Bryce Harper not getting a 350 million dollar contract.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 19, 2019 5:05:09 GMT -5
There was a time when MiLB teams belonged to the parent team anyway. Could be headed back to that. Imagine local/private ownership began as another cost cutting measure to begin with.
Remember back in the day Boston owned several of their minor league franchises, tho not the stadiums themselves. Cities themselves did pay for those and crowds in the 70's were not huge, like in some earlier decades when minor league ball was at it's hey day.
See no reason why local communities and clubs could not do this once again and get away from the for profit mode with regards to MiLB ball to pay kids a proper salary. Some current MiLB owners want to attempt it, go for it but don't see how they can on their own.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 19, 2019 6:28:08 GMT -5
Honestly this is a bigger issue than Bryce Harper not getting a 350 million dollar contract. Without getting into the specifics of Harper's value, it's possible to work on fixing two inequities at the same time. ---- Anyhow, this is obviously good news. And yet, it's another example of MLB overplaying its hand - if they hadn't been before Congress last year trying to get Congress to allow them skirt minimum wage laws then I don't there there'd have been the public scrutiny of minor league conditions. So hooray for MLB's pathetically inept PR and lobbying machine!
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,769
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 19, 2019 6:51:14 GMT -5
Honestly this is a bigger issue than Bryce Harper not getting a 350 million dollar contract. Without getting into the specifics of Harper's value, it's possible to work on fixing two inequities at the same time. ---- Anyhow, this is obviously good news. And yet, it's another example of MLB overplaying its hand - if they hadn't been before Congress last year trying to get Congress to allow them skirt minimum wage laws then I don't there there'd have been the public scrutiny of minor league conditions. So hooray for MLB's pathetically inept PR and lobbying machine! It was a pretty dumb hill to die on. Glad they probably have.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2019 7:16:29 GMT -5
It's a good step, although given that this comes so closely on the heels of MLB literally lobbying Congress for a bill locking in the pitiful minor league salaries, I'm a bit skeptical this would go nearly far enough. I fear that this is just an attempt to raise minor league wages and while locking them in at a level that's still not really a living wage. I'm hopeful that I'm wrong though. There was a time when MiLB teams belonged to the parent team anyway. Could be headed back to that. Imagine local/private ownership began as another cost cutting measure to begin with. Remember back in the day Boston owned several of their minor league franchises, tho not the stadiums themselves. Cities themselves did pay for those and crowds in the 70's were not huge, like in some earlier decades when minor league ball was at it's hey day. See no reason why local communities and clubs could not do this once again and get away from the for profit mode with regards to MiLB ball to pay kids a proper salary. Some current MiLB owners want to attempt it, go for it but don't see how they can on their own. This is not going to be part of the discussion. The only thing that matters is that the MLB teams provide and pay the players and field staffs. I don't understand why adding more costs for MLB clubs would make any sense. MLB is not going to buy back minor league franchises en masse from private owners. I'm not even sure what the point would be. (NB: FSG owns the Salem franchise.)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 19, 2019 8:19:24 GMT -5
It's a good step, although given that this comes so closely on the heels of MLB literally lobbying Congress for a bill locking in the pitiful minor league salaries, I'm a bit skeptical this would go nearly far enough. I fear that this is just an attempt to raise minor league wages and while locking them in at a level that's still not really a living wage. I'm hopeful that I'm wrong though. Do you have any sense at all of the extent to which baseball operations people have been exerting pressure on this issue? I know those folks don't get paid to express their views on economic justice or whatever, nor would I expect them to get any traction if they did. But maybe the "hey idiots, you're throwing away multi-million dollar talents to save $15 a day on a per diem" argument was a little more persuasive? And like you said, they probably feel more comfortable doing this now that it's completely at their discretion.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 19, 2019 9:19:14 GMT -5
Long overdue. The terrible publicity certainly played a role. The idea that they could sneak something through Congress in the age of 24x7 social media was never going to fly something they finally seem to have understood. It also preempts the issue in the court of public opinion. That's if they can get it completed.
The article mentions the negotiations between MLB teams and the MiLB owners to see who pays what. I'm surprised that the big league owners aren't just taking that on themselves. So this isn't a done deal just yet.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 19, 2019 9:24:57 GMT -5
This is long overdue, but I HIGHLY doubt that the end result is actually going to pay MILB guys even close to a realistic living wage.
Sure, if it's an across the board 50% increase like Toronto, it helps, but that's still MASSIVELY shy of what it really should be
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,769
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 19, 2019 10:04:37 GMT -5
This is long overdue, but I HIGHLY doubt that the end result is actually going to pay MILB guys even close to a realistic living wage. Sure, if it's an across the board 50% increase like Toronto, it helps, but that's still MASSIVELY shy of what it really should be 50% more than nothing is still next to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 19, 2019 10:50:47 GMT -5
It's a good step, although given that this comes so closely on the heels of MLB literally lobbying Congress for a bill locking in the pitiful minor league salaries, I'm a bit skeptical this would go nearly far enough. I fear that this is just an attempt to raise minor league wages and while locking them in at a level that's still not really a living wage. I'm hopeful that I'm wrong though. Do you have any sense at all of the extent to which baseball operations people have been exerting pressure on this issue? I know those folks don't get paid to express their views on economic justice or whatever, nor would I expect them to get any traction if they did. But maybe the "hey idiots, you're throwing away multi-million dollar talents to save $15 a day on a per diem" argument was a little more persuasive? And like you said, they probably feel more comfortable doing this now that it's completely at their discretion. Gabe Kapler certainly was vocal about it.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 19, 2019 11:03:01 GMT -5
Maybe/maybe not. Read on 1 site (MLBTR) in an article where a combo of MLB teams along with private MILB teams combined might just have together pay for the additional monies is a proposition being kicked around currently.
Idea I brought up isn't anything new, only how MiLB teams were operated (parent club) previously and if current private ownership of them does not work out if parent clubs see fit to not pay all the new additional payroll increases currently being negotiated.. What then? Fold a team and say.. No AA team for a club, or whatever rather than not be club owned? Of course it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 19, 2019 11:04:58 GMT -5
I can't imagine that, in this day and age, the dietitians and conditioning folks aren't making themselves heard. That's probably where Kapler was coming from. It is insanely stupid not to take premium care of the goods even if the majority will never play in the majors. It's a small investment that can pay big dividends.
Old habits die hard. Reminds me of hearing Waylon Jennings perform Are you sure Hank done it this way in Vegas way back when. There's a better way to do this than channeling players off to fast food joints.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2019 11:09:03 GMT -5
Maybe/maybe not. Read on 1 site (MLBTR) in an article where a combo of MLB teams along with private MILB teams combined might just have together pay for the additional monies is a proposition being kicked around currently. Idea I brought up isn't anything new, only how MiLB teams were operated (parent club) previously and if current private ownership of them does not work out if parent clubs see fit to not pay all the new additional payroll increases currently being negotiated.. What then? Fold a team and say.. No AA team for a club, or whatever rather than not be club owned? Of course it makes sense. Have a link? Not seeing that on MLBTR and would like to read to see what they're saying.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 19, 2019 12:19:20 GMT -5
This is long overdue, but I HIGHLY doubt that the end result is actually going to pay MILB guys even close to a realistic living wage. Sure, if it's an across the board 50% increase like Toronto, it helps, but that's still MASSIVELY shy of what it really should be 50% more than nothing is still next to nothing. Correct. They should be getting paid 4x or more what they're currently getting. Raising it .5x is like a quarter of a step in the right direction. At least it appears that they seem to be interested in maybe fixing the problem, but a 50% raise off of garbage #'s still results in garbage numbers
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2019 12:51:52 GMT -5
For reference, these are the numbers we're starting from.
Rookie … $1,150/month Low-A … $1,300/month High-A … $1,500/month Double-A … $1,700/month Triple-A … $2,150/month
And this is for 6 months. No pay at all (save maybe per diem) during spring training, Instructs, mini camps, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2019 13:29:27 GMT -5
For reference, these are the numbers we're starting from. Rookie … $1,150/month Low-A … $1,300/month High-A … $1,500/month Double-A … $1,700/month Triple-A … $2,150/month And this is for 6 months. No pay at all (save maybe per diem) during spring training, Instructs, mini camps, etc. I don’t know how the owners will eat after those raises. I’m not going to bother italicizing that.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Mar 19, 2019 14:41:02 GMT -5
I looked and looked also Chris and cannot find it. Sometimes they update posts, maybe that's it, but it flat out ain't there. Will look over other sites later to make sure no other sports site. not that many others bother to check now, mostly NE ones, along with The Athletic. There is a really good piece on MiLB pay from a player's prospective at the Athletic: MiLB Pay
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2019 17:28:16 GMT -5
I looked and looked also Chris and cannot find it. Sometimes they update posts, maybe that's it, but it flat out ain't there. Will look over other sites later to make sure no other sports site. not that many others bother to check now, mostly NE ones, along with The Athletic. There is a really good piece on MiLB pay from a player's prospective at the Athletic: MiLB PayI got it, I think. www.mlbtraderumors.com/2019/03/minor-league-labor-changes-under-consideration.htmlThe MLBTR piece is largely just reposting (but does clarify some points in) the Passan article in the first post, which contains this quote:
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Mar 19, 2019 18:24:42 GMT -5
For reference, these are the numbers we're starting from. Rookie … $1,150/month Low-A … $1,300/month High-A … $1,500/month Double-A … $1,700/month Triple-A … $2,150/month And this is for 6 months. No pay at all (save maybe per diem) during spring training, Instructs, mini camps, etc. It's despicable. Those that are able to have franchises that include options for no cost host families can barely stay above water. How the players who play for teams that have no assistance with housing, which requires the player/players to pay for an apartment, they're well under water. It's mind blowing for an industry running $10B+ a year
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 28, 2019 7:46:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 30, 2019 5:42:11 GMT -5
Talk is incredibly inexpensive.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 30, 2019 11:31:58 GMT -5
Talk is incredibly inexpensive. Yup, and I thought it was a very key point in the FanGraphs article that MLB's insistence on passing some of the cost onto the affiliates, many of which almost certainly can't afford to do so, could very likely be designed to make this "plan" a non-starter to begin with. That said, I've played in parks better than some of the places I've seen games, and I wasn't even good in HS or anything. I recall being in the visitors' clubhouse in Lynchburg once and being appalled that a 25-man baseball team was being asked to get ready for a game in there.
|
|
|