2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

I think the owners would gladly accept a compensation system in the new CBA that reallocated bonus pool money to Milb salaries.  In other words, the new CBA would set salary guidelines that included these funds into Milb salaries.  Why would owners care.  This would be relatively easy.  You have to ask yourself why the emphasis on such a small portion of players.

Those bonuses benefit a relatively small portion of players.  In this case the system is benefiting the players who will eventually become the highest paid players,  At least in theory.  Seems like another Boras influence.  All they need to do to right this system is pay them when they actually earn it at the MLB level.  Playing baseball should not have to be a financial struggle for any Milb players given the amount of money in the game.  They could make life much better for  Take 80% of the already existing bonus pool and pay it out in salary.  That money would fund (roughly) an additional $60K in salary for all players.  The goal should be a system that pays $100K at the AAA level.  

I modeled a system that started at a $1M bonus at 1/1 and decreased by 2% for each pick until it reaches 30K.  The end of the 2nd round is $250K and it gets down to $30K after the 6th round.  It's really a matter of taking care of everyone or only focusing on top picks.  Like I said, seems like another Boras influence.  Lety's pay them when they earn it and eliminate financial hardship for all Milb players.

The MiLB players are not part of the union and their salaries cannot be negotiated. That is the entire point here. You're taking away the 1 piece of minor league pay that the MLBPA can influence, the singing bonus system. You've also suggested never giving up the 6th year of team control which is another way the owners get away with paying young players very little (compared to their older peers). 

There's no point in discussing what the minor league pay (beyond the bonus money) should look like coming out of this CBA because this CBA cannot, and will not, have anything in it about MiLB pay. It simply won't. Bonus pool money can be negotiated because it's part of the MLB draft before the players are assigned to minor league teams where the MLBPA no longer has say in what they're paid. It's that simple. The MLBPA simply cannot negotiate a deal that forces the owners to pay minor leaguers better salaries. It's impossible. They can't do it. So at that point you're taking away large bonuses and hoping the owners will pay better for no reason at all other than they're good hearted people who want to pay players what they're worth. And I don't think anyone disagree that that is not how the owners work.

 

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

The MiLB players are not part of the union and their salaries cannot be negotiated. That is the entire point here. You're taking away the 1 piece of minor league pay that the MLBPA can influence, the singing bonus system. You've also suggested never giving up the 6th year of team control which is another way the owners get away with paying young players very little (compared to their older peers). 

There's no point in discussing what the minor league pay (beyond the bonus money) should look like coming out of this CBA because this CBA cannot, and will not, have anything in it about MiLB pay. It simply won't. Bonus pool money can be negotiated because it's part of the MLB draft before the players are assigned to minor league teams where the MLBPA no longer has say in what they're paid. It's that simple. The MLBPA simply cannot negotiate a deal that forces the owners to pay minor leaguers better salaries. It's impossible. They can't do it. So at that point you're taking away large bonuses and hoping the owners will pay better for no reason at all other than they're good hearted people who want to pay players what they're worth. And I don't think anyone disagree that that is not how the owners work.

 

I understand where you are coming from.  That said ... What would stop the two sides from agreeing to form a contract outside the CBA stating  that IF the league instituted a salary structure of X, they would agree to the bonus structure I suggested.  It is their legal right to enter into such a contract, is it not?  They don't have to represent Milb players in order to make a contract.  Who would challenge such an agreement?

Perhaps a different question is more pertinent.  If these two parties are responsible for negotiating a bonus structure, why can't they negotiate a pay increase?  I am not a lawyer.  I am asking what would prohibit such a pact?  Who would object? 

32 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I understand where you are coming from.  That said ... What would stop the two sides from agreeing to form a contract outside the CBA stating  that IF the league instituted a salary structure of X, they would agree to the bonus structure I suggested.  It is their legal right to enter into such a contract, is it not?  They don't have to represent Milb players in order to make a contract.  Who would challenge such an agreement?

Perhaps a different question is more pertinent.  If these two parties are responsible for negotiating a bonus structure, why can't they negotiate a pay increase?  I am not a lawyer.  I am asking what would prohibit such a pact?  Who would object? 

It doesn't need to be a contract.  The two sides could agree to one, reduce the bonus structure as part of the agreement; provided the owner's unilaterally increase minor league salaries by X, Y and Z at the various levels.  Yes, the owner's could later change back, but there has to be some good faith or we ain't gonna see baseball for a long time.

2 hours ago, roger said:

It doesn't need to be a contract.  The two sides could agree to one, reduce the bonus structure as part of the agreement; provided the owner's unilaterally increase minor league salaries by X, Y and Z at the various levels.  Yes, the owner's could later change back, but there has to be some good faith or we ain't gonna see baseball for a long time.

I agree.  If the agreement was made it would become very public and the league would not go back on it.  However, what I am floating here is what would prevent a contractual setting of salary levels as you stated?  If they wanted to include that the teams all give X dollars to charity, they could do that, right?  So, why can't they contractually agree to reduce bonuses while increasing Milb salaries by $200M or whatever number is agreed upon?