Minor Leaguers and Minimum Wage

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Have you stopped to consider it might be necessary to prevent a landslide of lawsuits and buy some time to negotiate a long-term solution with the union. The union will have something to say because paying MiLB players more reduces the "pot" available to MLB salaries. Fans are simply to bias to even consider such things. It's the nature of this type of forum to run with a portion of the information but in this case, fans likely have a tiny fraction of the information. 

 

Perhaps the legal action is centered around preventing an operational nightmare in the form of identifying what is overtime? Everyone here sees and reacts to very surface level implications and there is no doubt more to the story.  

You're taking a rather condescending tone when history has shown us that MLB will fight MiLB players gaining any kind of rights. You're laying out an elaborate scenario that, while not impossible, is highly unlikely given MLB's track record.

 

The "reducing the MLB pot" argument doesn't really hold much water. You can increase the payroll of an entire MiLB team to a living wage for the cost of one minimum salary MLB player.

 

Besides, the union having no interest in protecting MiLB players is one of the biggest problems in this entire system. I'm not exactly optimistic about them doing anything good for MiLB players, as they have a pretty miserable track record in that regard as well.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Have you stopped to consider it might be necessary to prevent a landslide of lawsuits and buy some time to negotiate a long-term solution with the union. The union will have something to say because paying MiLB players more reduces the "pot" available to MLB salaries. Fans are simply to bias to even consider such things. It's the nature of this type of forum to run with a portion of the information but in this case, fans likely have a tiny fraction of the information. 

 

Perhaps the legal action is centered around preventing an operational nightmare in the form of identifying what is overtime? Everyone here sees and reacts to very surface level implications and there is no doubt more to the story.  

 

You keep trying to suggest everyone is "fanatically" on the side of the players.  And multiple posters have directly refuted that in this thread, it'd be nice if you would actually absorb that at some point in the discussion.

 

Many of us blame the veteran, MLB level players for using those guys as leverage and cutting them out of the pie.  It's why I have no rooting interest in a labor war except that fans eventually stop getting screwed.

 

However, the league and the owners trying to leverage political clout into a further devaluing of minor leaguers? That's another level of slimey.  They're trying to bypass the admittedly flawed CBA process by going through Congress.  You can make up whatever explanation you want to give the owners shade on that, but for me it does nothing to change how underhanded it is.

[ashbury]

Everyone here sees and reacts to very surface level implications and there is no doubt more to the story.  

PR has a bad reputation in the general populace but this case is what PR departments are for.

 

I've been in situations where we've said among ourselves, "we can't just go open-kimono with the public regarding our plans, but we can't let the current optics play out either." And probably so have you.

 

MLB essentially defaulting on the message means fans are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm not sure why people think the MLB union should be fighting for the milb players.

Although they play the same sport, the MLBPA represents major league ballplayers, it's right there in the name.

This seems to me like expecting an electrician union to fight for, and give up money to the plumbers that happen to work for the same contractor.

[ashbury]

I'm not sure why people think the MLB union should be fighting for the milb players.

Although they play the same sport, the MLBPA represents major league ballplayers, it's right there in the name.

This seems to me like expecting an electrician union to fight for, and give up money to the plumbers that happen to work for the same contractor.

Wouldn't it be more like the journeymen fighting for the apprentices?

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm not sure why people think the MLB union should be fighting for the milb players.

Although they play the same sport, the MLBPA represents major league ballplayers, it's right there in the name.

This seems to me like expecting an electrician union to fight for, and give up money to the plumbers that happen to work for the same contractor.

Yet the MLBPA gets to negotiate all sorts of rights for minor leaguers in the draft, international signings, and team control rights.

 

Doesn’t exactly seem right, does it?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not sure why people think the MLB union should be fighting for the milb players.
Although they play the same sport, the MLBPA represents major league ballplayers, it's right there in the name.
This seems to me like expecting an electrician union to fight for, and give up money to the plumbers that happen to work for the same contractor.

 

As Brock pointed - the electricians are already deciding how the plumbers get paid.  

 

If you want to advocate for a minor league union - go for it.  Probably necessary.  But the reality is that MLBPA uses them for leverage when it suits them and abandons them when they don't.  It's a bridge already crossed.

[Major League Ready]

 

You're taking a rather condescending tone when history has shown us that MLB will fight MiLB players gaining any kind of rights. You're laying out an elaborate scenario that, while not impossible, is highly unlikely given MLB's track record.

 

The "reducing the MLB pot" argument doesn't really hold much water. You can increase the payroll of an entire MiLB team to a living wage for the cost of one minimum salary MLB player.

 

Besides, the union having no interest in protecting MiLB players is one of the biggest problems in this entire system. I'm not exactly optimistic about them doing anything good for MiLB players, as they have a pretty miserable track record in that regard as well.

 

There was no condescension intended.  I honestly wondered if you had considered that possibility because I was wondering myself if that was part of what was going on.   If the MLB union is not negotiating the bonus structure for draftees ... How the heck is it determined?

[Major League Ready]

 

You keep trying to suggest everyone is "fanatically" on the side of the players.  And multiple posters have directly refuted that in this thread, it'd be nice if you would actually absorb that at some point in the discussion.

 

Many of us blame the veteran, MLB level players for using those guys as leverage and cutting them out of the pie.  It's why I have no rooting interest in a labor war except that fans eventually stop getting screwed.

 

However, the league and the owners trying to leverage political clout into a further devaluing of minor leaguers? That's another level of slimey.  They're trying to bypass the admittedly flawed CBA process by going through Congress.  You can make up whatever explanation you want to give the owners shade on that, but for me it does nothing to change how underhanded it is.

Just because you insist that their is not bias at play here does not make it so. I have negotiated these types of scenarios in dozens of the largest organizations in North America. There people all insist that their positions are not biased as well.  Yet, everyone thinks their function is the most important and they are underpaid individuals that deserve more of something or another.

 

BTW ... you don't have nearly enough information to render a meaningful opinion about what exactly is in play and why.

[Major League Ready]

 

Yet the MLBPA gets to negotiate all sorts of rights for minor leaguers in the draft, international signings, and team control rights.

Doesn’t exactly seem right, does it?

The others are suggesting the players union does not represent MiLB players and why should they be expected to look out for their interests. You are saying something very different. I am trying to figure out who is responsible for what.

 

Can anyone tell me how the draft bonuses were determined. Are the amount negotiated by the union. Reallocating 15% of the draft bonuses would pretty much alleviate this problem and 20% would solve it completely. The sport is not going to lose any prospects by reducing signing bonuses by 15-20% and reallocating the funds to player salaries.  This make me believe the Owners can't do this without the consent of the union.  If that's the case, we have a very different scenario.  

[Mike Sixel]

Does anyone think union members paid any attention to minor league bonuses in the last vote? I don't, not for one minute.

 

The athletic has a great article on how much these guys work, and have to pay for gloves, shoes, supplements, training, clubhouse food, how they don't get paid for spring training, or extended spring training, or so called voluntary of season workouts, or travel.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

Just because you insist that their is not bias at play here does not make it so. I have negotiated these types of scenarios in dozens of the largest organizations in North America. There people all insist that their positions are not biased as well.  Yet, everyone thinks their function is the most important and they are underpaid individuals that deserve more of something or another.

 

BTW ... you don't have nearly enough information to render a meaningful opinion about what exactly is in play and why.

 

Just because you insist there is bias in play does not make it so.  So maybe you should drop it.  

 

I have enough information on what bothers me - MLB is trying to use Congress to enforce low wages on minor leaguers.  I don't care what their motives are - nothing reasonably possible would justify it.

[ashbury]

Moderator's note: This is starting to descend into bickering. Please either make sure you have something new to add, or move on.

[Riverbrian]

 

The others are suggesting the players union does not represent MiLB players and why should they be expected to look out for their interests. You are saying something very different. I am trying to figure out who is responsible for what.

 

Can anyone tell me how the draft bonuses were determined. Are the amount negotiated by the union. Reallocating 15% of the draft bonuses would pretty much alleviate this problem and 20% would solve it completely. The sport is not going to lose any prospects by reducing signing bonuses by 15-20% and reallocating the funds to player salaries.  This make me believe the Owners can't do this without the consent of the union.  If that's the case, we have a very different scenario.  

 

The draft bonuses/slot values were agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Owners and Major League Player representatives saying in unison... We are OK with all of this.

 

The owners are guilty and the players are guilty... the players are seemingly OK with the farm hands paying their dues because they had to and the owners are perfectly happy to control them for a decade while the young players are seemingly happy to give up all leverage for the chance to pursue their dream as long as they have a Mom and Dad, Wife or Girlfriend with a full time job at Target that makes enough money to support the player with that long shot dream.   

 

The Baseball draft is different than the NFL Draft or NBA Draft. In Baseball... Sign-ability is a major consideration, sign-ability is a relevant buzzword, therefore the bonus might as well be called a sign on bonus and that's why they are paid all that money upfront. The clubs need to throw a big chunk of cash at the top players to entice them to not attend college because attending college is that last bit of leverage that they will see in quite some time.

 

I personally think it's funny that the owners need to insist upon slot values and bonus pools in order to keep themselves in check. Just like I think it's funny that the owners need to negotiate the competitive balance tax into the free agent system to keep themselves in line. Without the bonus pool system... Bryce Harper could insist the Nationals pay him a 50 million bonus or else he is going to attend UNLV and re-enter the draft after his junior season.

 

I think it's funny that the players are ok with this because they don't want some young Bryce Harper getting a 50 million dollar contract before he has even destroyed a single major league pitch while Brian Harper has to hope that some team will offer him a 2 year deal for 10 million after 6 years of waiting for that free agency freedom. If the teams have to spend 50 million on a young Royce Lewis they will have less money to spend on an experienced Colby Lewis. Both the owners and players are clearly complicit in what is... (in my opinion)... questionable labor practices. 

 

The slotted bonuses are (shockingly) just enough to entice a player to forego college and yet capped so he can't fully enjoy the total fruits of his leverage.    

 

Once the player agrees to this sign on bonus. Leverage is gone and nobody cares anymore. The kid is locked up and under firm control.

 

At least until he can take enough steroids (I'm joking) to rise above the fierce competition and get himself on a 40 man roster as a mid-season call up after super-two status is gone. 

 

All of this is actually kind of understandable because the system is perfectly designed... to get them exactly where they are. 

 

The bigger questions are:

 

Why would Minor League Players be exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime laws in the first place?

 

Why did Brett Guthrie a Republican from Kentucky and Cheri Bustos a Democrat from Illinois introduce the Save America's Pastime Act in 2016?

 

Why was the impression that some minor league baseball teams would fold if required to pay minimum wage and overtime when the minor league salaries are paid by the major league owners and nowhere near folding. 

 

Why do representatives from the Kentucky 2nd and Illinois 17th feel the need to band together across party lines to protect the minimum wage and overtime exemptions of baseball while a lawsuit was pending in a California Federal Court challenging those very exemptions.  

 

And perhaps more importantly... after the Save America's Pastime Act quickly failed in 2016. After representative Bustos who was a co-author of the legislation did a quick 180 because she was immediately maligned by her local newspaper (Quad Cities Times). After H.R. 5580 died a quick death because it was so obviously wrong... How do the same provisions secretly and without discussion make it on page 1,967 of the recent 2,232 page emergency 1.3 trillion dollar omni-bus spending bill in 2018 after not existing in any of the previous drafts?  

 

Here's another question... Why does Major League Baseball spend approximately 1.32 Million yearly in lobbying efforts when they used to spend nothing prior to Rob Manfred landing in the big chair? Why is there an actual thing called the Major League Baseball Commissioner's Office Political Action Committee making campaign contributions to a wide variety of congressman and senators(not capitalized on purpose)?  

 

Apparently keeping minor league baseball players under poverty levels played an important role in keeping the government from shutting down because there it was attached to the spending bill.  

 

Keep digging and it gets dirtier and dirtier. 

 

 

[Major League Ready]

 

The draft bonuses/slot values were agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Owners and Major League Player representatives saying in unison... We are OK with all of this.

 

The owners are guilty and the players are guilty... the players are seemingly OK with the farm hands paying their dues because they had to and the owners are perfectly happy to control them for a decade while the young players are seemingly happy to give up all leverage for the chance to pursue their dream as long as they have a Mom and Dad, Wife or Girlfriend with a full time job at Target that makes enough money to support the player with that long shot dream.   

 

The Baseball draft is different than the NFL Draft or NBA Draft. In Baseball... Sign-ability is a major consideration, sign-ability is a relevant buzzword, therefore the bonus might as well be called a sign on bonus and that's why they are paid all that money upfront. The clubs need to throw a big chunk of cash at the top players to entice them to not attend college because attending college is that last bit of leverage that they will see in quite some time.

 

I personally think it's funny that the owners need to insist upon slot values and bonus pools in order to keep themselves in check. Just like I think it's funny that the owners need to negotiate the competitive balance tax into the free agent system to keep themselves in line. Without the bonus pool system... Bryce Harper could insist the Nationals pay him a 50 million bonus or else he is going to attend UNLV and re-enter the draft after his junior season.

 

I think it's funny that the players are ok with this because they don't want some young Bryce Harper getting a 50 million dollar contract before he has even destroyed a single major league pitch while Brian Harper has to hope that some team will offer him a 2 year deal for 10 million after 6 years of waiting for that free agency freedom. If the teams have to spend 50 million on a young Royce Lewis they will have less money to spend on an experienced Colby Lewis. Both the owners and players are clearly complicit in what is... (in my opinion)... questionable labor practices. 

 

The slotted bonuses are (shockingly) just enough to entice a player to forego college and yet capped so he can't fully enjoy the total fruits of his leverage.    

 

Once the player agrees to this sign on bonus. Leverage is gone and nobody cares anymore. The kid is locked up and under firm control.

 

At least until he can take enough steroids (I'm joking) to rise above the fierce competition and get himself on a 40 man roster as a mid-season call up after super-two status is gone. 

 

All of this is actually kind of understandable because the system is perfectly designed... to get them exactly where they are. 

 

The bigger questions are:

 

Why would Minor League Players be exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime laws in the first place?

 

Why did Brett Guthrie a Republican from Kentucky and Cheri Bustos a Democrat from Illinois introduce the Save America's Pastime Act in 2016?

 

Why was the impression that some minor league baseball teams would fold if required to pay minimum wage and overtime when the minor league salaries are paid by the major league owners and nowhere near folding. 

 

Why do representatives from the Kentucky 2nd and Illinois 17th feel the need to band together across party lines to protect the minimum wage and overtime exemptions of baseball while a lawsuit was pending in a California Federal Court challenging those very exemptions.  

 

And perhaps more importantly... after the Save America's Pastime Act quickly failed in 2016. After representative Bustos who was a co-author of the legislation did a quick 180 because she was immediately maligned by her local newspaper (Quad Cities Times). After H.R. 5580 died a quick death because it was so obviously wrong... How do the same provisions secretly and without discussion make it on page 1,967 of the recent 2,232 page emergency 1.3 trillion dollar omni-bus spending bill in 2018 after not existing in any of the previous drafts?  

 

Here's another question... Why does Major League Baseball spend approximately 1.32 Million yearly in lobbying efforts when they used to spend nothing prior to Rob Manfred landing in the big chair? Why is there an actual thing called the Major League Baseball Commissioner's Office Political Action Committee making campaign contributions to a wide variety of congressman and senators(not capitalized on purpose)?  

 

Apparently keeping minor league baseball players under poverty levels played an important role in keeping the government from shutting down because there it was attached to the spending bill.  

 

Keep digging and it gets dirtier and dirtier. 

Great post. I thought this was the case.  There is so much we don't know but iy is common for organizations to hire consulting firms to assess potential alternatives. I would love to be on that team and the first question would be ... why take on this problem when reallocating a fraction of the signing bonuses would take care of this problem? What's the problem if a high school player won't sign for 80% of the current rate.  Given the rate HS players wash-out, it would not take long before agents and the players recognize $5.6M (instead of $7M) is still great for someone who has proven so little.  Plus, this is not going to impact top 20 recruits given their upside for waiting does not change that much.  

 

Bottom line is the sport does not lose these guys. It changes the timeline and no team would gain an advantage if their entry to MiLB is delayed. AT the rate high-school players bust, I don't see the issue for the teams. I generally find in these situations the answer to why this simple solution has not been employed is because there are other forces are in play we have yet to uncover. The legal action could be purely about defining and limiting overtime because of the various difficulties of defining and accounting for overtime. That still leaves to question why not just reallocate some bonus dollars. Regardless, the implication are not nearly as obvious as most seem to think here. The bonus pool was not a problem when it was 20% less so why would it be a problem to reduce the bonus pool and allocate those dollars to salaries?

 

BTW ... my firm has assessed infrastructure expenditures and operating costs and presented reports to the legislaturure in several states. These reports are public record under the freedom of information act. Don't request them If you don't want to be outraged.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Can seasonal employees be paid salary? If yes, the way around this overtime issue is obvious and rather cheap (each minor leaguer would be paid for 5-7 months depending on league, which tops out around $28,000-$30,000 per season).

[Mike Sixel]

Free athletic article

 

https://theathletic.com/288633/2018/03/27/sarris-three-days-in-the-life-and-finances-of-a-minor-league-baseball-player/

[Riverbrian]

 

Free athletic article

https://theathletic.com/288633/2018/03/27/sarris-three-days-in-the-life-and-finances-of-a-minor-league-baseball-player/

 

It's the expenses that kill me. 

 

The players are spending more than they make in equipment costs. I'm not sure if they still do but a few years back I read that teams were charging players for locker space. 

 

They were paying rent for their locker in the clubhouse. 

[Mike Sixel]

Imagine an intern paying for her computer, phone, desk space, internet access.....

[Riverbrian]

 

Great post. I thought this was the case.  There is so much we don't know but iy is common for organizations to hire consulting firms to assess potential alternatives. I would love to be on that team and the first question would be ... why take on this problem when reallocating a fraction of the signing bonuses would take care of this problem? What's the problem if a high school player won't sign for 80% of the current rate.  Given the rate HS players wash-out, it would not take long before agents and the players recognize $5.6M (instead of $7M) is still great for someone who has proven so little.  Plus, this is not going to impact top 20 recruits given their upside for waiting does not change that much.  

 

Bottom line is the sport does not lose these guys. It changes the timeline and no team would gain an advantage if their entry to MiLB is delayed. AT the rate high-school players bust, I don't see the issue for the teams. I generally find in these situations the answer to why this simple solution has not been employed is because there are other forces are in play we have yet to uncover. The legal action could be purely about defining and limiting overtime because of the various difficulties of defining and accounting for overtime. That still leaves to question why not just reallocate some bonus dollars. Regardless, the implication are not nearly as obvious as most seem to think here. The bonus pool was not a problem when it was 20% less so why would it be a problem to reduce the bonus pool and allocate those dollars to salaries?

 

BTW ... my firm has assessed infrastructure expenditures and operating costs and presented reports to the legislaturure in several states. These reports are public record under the freedom of information act. Don't request them If you don't want to be outraged.

 

I find it interesting that minor league players do not have a union. The Major League Baseball Players Association represents Major League Players. Nobody has a dog in the fight. 

 

The situation isn't causing a shortage of supply so nobody is going to put their dog in the fight. 

 

In regards to the draft... I'd imagine Tony Clark is going to be primarily concerned with anything that provides incentive for tanking or anything that creates an imbalance and that's about it. The players union will want to avoid higher bonuses for draft picks because it might adjust major league pay downward. The owners are going to want to offer bonuses high enough to get the John Hancock so they may not be inclined to reallocate the bonus money. They just want the bonus slots so they can look Bryce Harper in the eye and say... "Sorry you are capped... we can't pay you 50 million" and we can't pay you 50 million in a couple of years either. 

 

The only people who will benefit from lower slot money to pay the farm hands a decent wage are the farm hands themselves and they don't have representation. 

 

Your solution makes sense... but sadly... it's going to take charity from a couple of Lions that are still hungry. 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

[Major League Ready]

 

I find it interesting that minor league players do not have a union. The Major League Baseball Players Association represents Major League Players. Nobody has a dog in the fight. 

 

The situation isn't causing a shortage of supply so nobody is going to put their dog in the fight. 

 

In regards to the draft... I'd imagine Tony Clark is going to be primarily concerned with anything that provides incentive for tanking or anything that creates an imbalance and that's about it. The players union will want to avoid higher bonuses for draft picks because it might adjust major league pay downward. The owners are going to want to offer bonuses high enough to get the John Hancock so they may not be inclined to reallocate the bonus money. They just want the bonus slots so they can look Bryce Harper in the eye and say... "Sorry you are capped... we can't pay you 50 million" and we can't pay you 50 million in a couple of years either. 

 

The only people who will benefit from lower slot money to pay the farm hands a decent wage are the farm hands themselves and they don't have representation. 

 

Your solution makes sense... but sadly... it's going to take charity from a couple of Lions that are still hungry. 

 

Is it really that important to MLB teams to be able to dissuade players from going to college? I don’t know why MLB owners would care if the system pushed players outside the first 3-4 rounds to college. The teams are still on equal footing in terms of getting these players. The players just arrive later. If this is all about money, all of those years of expense go away. Why put yourself in a legal bind for the ability dissuade prospects outside the first 3 or 4 rounds from going to college?

Why as fans are we not concerned about the fact these young men forego an education for a very small chance to play MLB. We say we are concerned about these young men but I don’t hear any concern that most will fail and then have a limited education.

 

It does not change the ability to attract a Bryce Harper.  He went #1 overall so going to college was not going to improve his draft position. What is his alternative? Let’s also keep in mind the top players signed for over $7M. 80% of that number is $5.6M.  Even at $5M, we are talking about double what the average American makes in their entire life. This does not even consider the time value of money. I would think that’s ample incentive for virtually any HS draftee.

Why take the black eye if you are the MLB owners when you could just change the bonus system and rid yourself of the bad press permanently?

[Riverbrian]

 

Is it really that important to MLB teams to be able to dissuade players from going to college? I don’t know why MLB owners would care if the system pushed players outside the first 3-4 rounds to college. The teams are still on equal footing in terms of getting these players. The players just arrive later. If this is all about money, all of those years of expense go away. Why put yourself in a legal bind for the ability dissuade prospects outside the first 3 or 4 rounds from going to college?

Why as fans are we not concerned about the fact these young men forego an education for a very small chance to play MLB. We say we are concerned about these young men but I don’t hear any concern that most will fail and then have a limited education.

 

It does not change the ability to attract a Bryce Harper.  He went #1 overall so going to college was not going to improve his draft position. What is his alternative? Let’s also keep in mind the top players signed for over $7M. 80% of that number is $5.6M.  Even at $5M, we are talking about double what the average American makes in their entire life. This does not even consider the time value of money. I would think that’s ample incentive for virtually any HS draftee.

Why take the black eye if you are the MLB owners when you could just change the bonus system and rid yourself of the bad press permanently?

 

I think you clearly see it and your solution makes perfect sense but only until they make adjustments with the next CBA. The way things stand now, it is extremely important to the clubs to dissuade them.

 

If they don't sign the high school draftees... if they go to college. They can't re-enter the draft until after their junior season and when they do, the team has to compete again with the other 29 teams to get him. The club will most likely lose a player they want. If they convince them to sign... they get the player. If they don't... they won't. 

 

Someone like Seth Stohs may be able to explain it better but it is my understanding that the current system already pushes players who are going to college past the first 10 rounds and that's why sign-ability has become a huge factor.

 

Scouts are making the determination who will sign for X amount and who will be going to college. If the scout believes that the player will attend the University of Minnesota. The team won't draft him until after the 10th round. At that point the clubs feel they can take flyers on players in case they have a last minute change of heart. If somebody is drafted in the first 10 round and doesn't sign. The scout screwed up and will probably get yelled at for the wrong assessment.  

 

Sign-Ability plays a factor inside of each round. Royce Lewis wasn't the consensus #1 pick but he let it be known that he would sign for less than what was slotted for the 1st pick and that probably jumped him into the #1 slot because the Twins could take the savings and offer their 2nd or 3rd round pick more money than slotted which improves the quality of multiple picks in theory. If Brandon McKay for example would have said that he would have taken a lower than slot bonus... McKay may have been the guy the Twins took.      

 

It doesn't matter to Bryce Harper types as it stands right now because the owners have capped themselves. They can tell Bryce, "Sorry the most we can pay you is X and it's same amount in 3 years after you attend college". So Bryce will sign if he wants to start his career... but if there wasn't a cap... Bryce Harper can use college as leverage. Demanding 50 million to sign or he goes to school and re-enter the draft... at which point the Nationals won't get him unless they have the 1st pick overall again. The owners (and players) are able to use the cap to keep the bonuses from getting out of control on those special players because neither the players or owners want Bryce Harper from getting 50 million before he puts on a major league uniform. If the bonus wasn't slotted. Nobody could rule out the possibility that the Nationals wouldn't pay the 50 million to not lose someone special like that. 

 

Dropping Bryce Harper from 7 million to 5 million in bonus money to fix it is an easy solution in the next CBA but there is no incentive to do so apart from simple human kindness and that human kindness isn't necessary because players are willingly signing on the dotted line as things stand. There is simply no incentive. 

 

It's going to take the players banding together and refusing to play for below poverty levels OR a change in Federal Law and right now the politicians are busy collecting campaign donations from the MLB Commissior's office PAC so that ain't gonna happen. 

 

In order to pay the minor league players a better sum. The money is going to come from the owners and they don't want to or it's going to come from the players union and they don't want to. 

 

In my opinion... If a court somewhere forces it. The owners will probably eliminate a minor league club to make up the difference and the Twins won't have a team in Cedar Rapids anymore.

 

As for the Fans... They don't care either... I think the Fans like the idea of Royce Lewis staying in the Twins organization for as long we want him to. Fans would probably prefer if Free Agency was done away with so Brian Dozier could never leave until we cut him. 

 

A lot of people will sit around and feel sorry for the minor league players if they were aware of it but nobody has incentive to actually change it other than the minor league players and they just ain't strong enough as long as they are remain individual players and not a strength in numbers group. 

[Mike Sixel]

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/4/20/17259846/minor-league-baseball-anti-labor-ronald-acuna-scott-kingery

 

drop in the bucket, but they don't care about these humans.

 

The article doesn't even mention that minor league players need to pay for their equipment....

[laloesch]

 

https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/15/st-paul-saints-seek-minimum-wage-exemption-salary-cap-threatens-operations/

 

We've had a lot of discussion about how the minor leaguers often do not earn a livable wage. Wouldn't it be great if a minimum wage law by Minnesota forces the issue? I wouldn't want and wouldn't expect the Saints to fold, but they're the marquee team in the AA, make the league pay these players more.

 

Get the ball rolling and hopefully the bad press baseball gets for dragging it's feet carries over to the affiliated leagues which are bankrolled by actual billionaires.

 

Like any other business they will just pass the costs along to the consumers.  So those 11 or 12 dollar tickets are gonna jump significantly along with concessions.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Like any other business they will just pass the costs along to the consumers.  So those 11 or 12 dollar tickets are gonna jump significantly along with concessions.

 

MLB is coming close to a breaking point on that front.  Attendance is a problem in a growing number of markets, I'm not sure it's that easy.

[ashbury]

Like any other business they will just pass the costs along to the consumers.

That may be how it goes in businesses that deal in necessities of life. I'm not sure entertainment business do (or can) operate along those lines whatsoever. Charge what the market will bear, bring expenses into line with that or else go under - that would seem to be the business model.

[old nurse]

 

Like any other business they will just pass the costs along to the consumers.  So those 11 or 12 dollar tickets are gonna jump significantly along with concessions.

Minor league team player salaries are paid for by the parent club.   I couldn't find any 11-12 dollar tickets for Target field.  Even the Oakland A's do not have that cheap of ticket.

 

[laloesch]

 

Minor league team player salaries are paid for by the parent club.   I couldn't find any 11-12 dollar tickets for Target field.  Even the Oakland A's do not have that cheap of ticket.

 

I think we are talking about minor league teams here.

[laloesch]

 

That may be how it goes in businesses that deal in necessities of life. I'm not sure entertainment business do (or can) operate along those lines whatsoever. Charge what the market will bear, bring expenses into line with that or else go under - that would seem to be the business model.

 

Entertainment is a business.  How do they make money?  By ticket sales, concessions and TV / cable deals.  If the league or labor laws change and minor leaguers begin earning wages (whatever the dollar amount) the teams will incur more cost from this.  The amount?  who knows.  But if it's a substantial hit they WILL pass along a good deal of that cost via ticket prices etc., i promise you.  Any business even baseball teams still operate as a profitable business at a fundamental level.  I am not saying whose right or whose wrong regarding the salary debate.