Mark Appel Solutions for MiLB problems

[Richie the Rally Goat]

On 2/16/2022 at 5:28 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

Ignoring of course that I feel the same about your positions.  Also, I will apparently have to be clearer, as you seem to not comprehend my position; I have no problem with MLB deciding to invest more in the minor leagues.  I'd have no problem if the Twins bought 15 3BR houses near each of their MiLB teams' stadiums for their players to live in for free.  I'd have no problem with the Twins hiring a chef to provide two meals daily, free of charge, at the stadium, and up the per diem to $50 a day when on the road.  I'd have no problem with the Twins increasing the pay for their minor leaguers.

The issue I have is when the greedy, wrong, evil terms start to get thrown around, as if the owners are somehow exploiting MiLB players--they are not.  Absent a nice signing bonus, playing MiLB ball will not be a luxurious existence--that's generally how it goes for 18-24 year-olds trying to get their foot in the door--I know because I worked 60 hours a week for about what MiLB players are making at a minimum.  When I budgeted, I was fine.  When I moved into a one-bedroom apartment with no roommate, and insisted on having cable TV, paying for covered parking and an in-unit W/D, eating out multiple times a week, etc. I had money issues.

As I pointed out before, if MLB draws a hard line on what teams can do with their MiLB players, in terms of pay and perks, then that explains why teams have so little "care and concern" for investments--they're not allowed to have those things.  If any MLB team is allowed to enact those perks, and yet they haven't, what does that say?  I've posed this hypothetical multiple times, and yet never received an answer; does anyone think that teams like The Rays, A's, or Guardians would not take supposed burdens off their MiLB players if they were reasonably certain the return would be significantly improved performance?  I say no; that means either those teams are simply not allowed to do that, or that they have looked into it, and feel the money is better spent elsewhere.  There is no third conclusion to be drawn.

I don’t like the hyperbole either. Name calling gets us nowhere.

we can’t draw any conclusions. We’re making assumptions based on what we think we know. I don’t think the two assumptions you laid out, are really comprehensive.

1) not able to because of the rules. Possible, seems unlikely at first blush but with collective bargaining happening at one level, maybe there’s some threat mitigation rules with MLB/MiLB owners.

2) don’t want to for competitive reasons. There hasn’t been a compelling reason cost/benefit wise.

3) don’t care. Ambivalence is also a possibility. The cost benefit analysis has been done, but won’t see the light of day just because “it’s how we’ve always done it”. This is a league that is very steeped in tradition.

[roger]

11 hours ago, Shaitan said:

Very few restaurants serve healthy food...

Just sayin' that they like their creams, and butters, and oils. 

There's a big difference between a cook and a nutritionist.

Most restaurants serve healthy food.  The question is what their customers choose to order and each individuals definition of what healthy is.

The point I was making and as usual didn't explain clearly was that teams could work with the chosen restaurants to have them provide meals that are healthy.  Wouldn't have to be off their regular menu.  If they know they are getting 30 players coming in for breakfast between 8 and 10 a.m. every day, they have a daily menu available to them.  Could be done without many of the hurdles related to building kitchens and finding qualified chefs in places like Beloit, WI, Clinton, IA, etc.

And yes, Shaitan, I know what the difference is between a cook and a nutritionist as my granddaughter is a dietician and my son employs about 750 chefs.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

17 minutes ago, roger said:

Most restaurants serve healthy food.  The question is what their customers choose to order and each individuals definition of what healthy is.

The point I was making and as usual didn't explain clearly was that teams could work with the chosen restaurants to have them provide meals that are healthy.  Wouldn't have to be off their regular menu.  If they know they are getting 30 players coming in for breakfast between 8 and 10 a.m. every day, they have a daily menu available to them.  Could be done without many of the hurdles related to building kitchens and finding qualified chefs in places like Beloit, WI, Clinton, IA, etc.

And yes, Shaitan, I know what the difference is between a cook and a nutritionist as my granddaughter is a dietician and my son employs about 750 chefs.

Very interesting idea! Ghost kitchens would be a great investment for an owner, and fill a part-time need for the team with a full time revenue generator. Options in small to medium cities can be very sparse. 
 

doordash food to whoever wants it, stock and staff it for your player’s enhanced nutritional needs.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Prince William said:

The draft last year was 20 rounds. There really isn't a reason to have more than that now that there is no longer a rookie league and there is proposals to cap the number of minor league players to 150.  A quick look through a half dozen or so team's draft last year shows that there were very few players with signing bonuses les than 75K.  Of the 20 drafted usually it was 18-19 signed. Of those signed the most any team had was 5 players signing for a pittance. Usually it was 3. The players have money, it just comes up front. 

Players aren't taking home 75K on a 75K signing bonus. Taxes and agent fees alone drop that down a significant amount. They are then expected to live on that far diminished amount plus 11k a year for the next 4-5 years. Let's call it 60k take home after taxes and agent fees, etc. Plus 44-55k. So for the next 4-5 years of their lives they have 104-115k to live on. That's 23 to 26k a year. Not nothing, but teams can certainly afford to pay more than $11/hr to their minor leaguers.

[chpettit19]

On 2/16/2022 at 4:26 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

 Do you really think the Rays, who have built their success on doing things differently and developing their minor leaguers, wouldn't gladly shave $2M-$3M from their MLB payroll if it would take their MiLB development to an even higher level?

Just last Friday in federal court Major League Baseball had a lawyer argue that minor league players shouldn't be paid during spring training. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep their minimum wage exemption. So, no, I don't think the Rays, or any team, would gladly shave any money anywhere to pay minor leaguers any more money than the absolute minimum they're forced to.

[DJL44]

On 2/16/2022 at 5:44 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

It's most interesting to me that the MLBPA won't allow MiLB players to join--what could they possibly have to lose? 

Everything. The minor leaguers would become the overwhelming majority of votes for a contract agreement.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

15 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Everything. The minor leaguers would become the overwhelming majority of votes for a contract agreement.

Agreed, adding that minor leaguers have very different bargaining positions than major leaguers.

it’s amazing to me that the minor leaguers haven’t organized separately.

[Prince William]

35 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Players aren't taking home 75K on a 75K signing bonus. Taxes and agent fees alone drop that down a significant amount. They are then expected to live on that far diminished amount plus 11k a year for the next 4-5 years. Let's call it 60k take home after taxes and agent fees, etc. Plus 44-55k. So for the next 4-5 years of their lives they have 104-115k to live on. That's 23 to 26k a year. Not nothing, but teams can certainly afford to pay more than $11/hr to their minor leaguers.

The assumption is that the player will have a 4-5 year career as a minor league player as a 75k signing bonus is nowhere near universal.

[Prince William]

40 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Everything. The minor leaguers would become the overwhelming majority of votes for a contract agreement.

organizing separately would cost money, the thread is about lack of money. As an organization what power would they have? The bonus babies have money so why would they risk their future striking? The effect of 2020 on player development shows the downside on not playing, especially for starting pitchers.

[chpettit19]

10 minutes ago, Prince William said:

The assumption is that the player will have a 4-5 year career as a minor league player as a 75k signing bonus is nowhere near universal.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting they'd have a longer or shorter minor league career than 4-5 years? 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Just last Friday in federal court Major League Baseball had a lawyer argue that minor league players shouldn't be paid during spring training. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep their minimum wage exemption. So, no, I don't think the Rays, or any team, would gladly shave any money anywhere to pay minor leaguers any more money than the absolute minimum they're forced to.

I'm so glad someone brought this up. This is the investment vs. commodity I was alluding to earlier, but maybe that's not quite right.  It's closer to investment vs. asset/property.  

The teams clearly know spring training has value for the minor leaguers, otherwise they wouldn't invite/require them to be there.  They also clearly think their time is worth some compensation.  Yet they fight tooth and nail to keep that compensation at the absolute minimum, even in situations where they fully acknowledge the value.

This entire situation stinks of "yeah, those investments might be really fruitful....but I'll be damned if they get one red cent from me!"  And, yes, this is behavior and thinking completely in lock-step with a variety of issues from the CBA to funding stadiums to building facilities, etc.  This is precisely how the MLB owners think across a variety of topics, why are we at all shocked it exists with the lowest rung of players?

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, Prince William said:

The draft last year was 20 rounds. There really isn't a reason to have more than that now that there is no longer a rookie league and there is proposals to cap the number of minor league players to 150.  A quick look through a half dozen or so team's draft last year shows that there were very few players with signing bonuses les than 75K.  Of the 20 drafted usually it was 18-19 signed. Of those signed the most any team had was 5 players signing for a pittance. Usually it was 3. The players have money, it just comes up front. 

I can't believe anyone types this, not if they've read all the stories by minor league players living 7 to an apartment with 2 bedrooms. The stories are all over the internet. 

The players don't have plenty of money. 75K? To live off for years in the minors? To pay for your own equipment? To pay for off season training? To pay for rent and food for years? 

[Prince William]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting they'd have a longer or shorter minor league career than 4-5 years? 

Take a look, you will find they have a short career

[roger]

20 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I can't believe anyone types this, not if they've read all the stories by minor league players living 7 to an apartment with 2 bedrooms. The stories are all over the internet. 

The players don't have plenty of money. 75K? To live off for years in the minors? To pay for your own equipment? To pay for off season training? To pay for rent and food for years? 

Don't know about others, but I am hopeful that the first of Appel's concerns (housing) has been dealt with.  We don't know how the teams will handle this, but the news over the winter was that the housing issue would become the obligation of the teams.  I expect teams may handle this in different manners.  Also don't know whether the MLB teams will do this or dump it onto the local franchises to solve for them, if that is allowed by the new regulations. 

Personally, whereas other steps have been small, I see this as a HUGE step forward in improving the conditions minor league players live under while working their way up the ladder.

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, roger said:

Don't know about others, but I am hopeful that the first of Appel's concerns (housing) has been dealt with.  We don't know how the teams will handle this, but the news over the winter was that the housing issue would become the obligation of the teams.  I expect teams may handle this in different manners.  Also don't know whether the MLB teams will be doing so or whether or not they will dump it onto the local franchises to solve for them.  

Personally, whereas other steps have been small, I see this as a HUGE step forward in improving the conditions minor league players live under while working their way up the ladder.

Truth. Real housing is a big deal. I don' think we know details yet, though, and I'm guessing it won't look as pretty as we all hope. I mean, seriously, they don't even want to pay players for spring training. How anyone can side with ownership on this is mind boggling to me.

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, Prince William said:

Take a look, you will find they have a short career

Sure, about 3 years for the average minor leaguer. So your argument is that they should plan to fail and thus spend their bonus money and yearly salary as if they'll only be in the minors for 3 years?

[KirbyDome89]

18 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

MLB pays 0% of their MiLB players minimum wage.  The minimum MiLB salary is $500 a week, which when divided by the federal minimum wage is just under 69 hours.  Try again.

Appel is hardly an exception.  The majority of players in MiLB have received significant signing bonuses (some more significant than others).  Even if they hadn't, $1700 every 4 weeks (an estimate of what an MiLB player would make post-tax) is enough for a decent, if somewhat austere lifestlye.  MiLB players might not be able to have multiple streaming services, or live by themselves, or get a new car, etc. but a player who finds roommates, pools grocery money, hangs on to his older car, and lives a more spartan life will have no problem living on what he is paid.  That's even more true if a signing bonus is split over multiple years.  In 2021 for example, every player picked in the first 10 rounds gets at least $142k in a signing bonus (source).  Even if 60% of that goes to taxes/agent fees, that's still $57k; use $1000 to supplement income every month, and they won't run out for almost 5 years.

The Rays have 4 straight years of 90 or more wins (if you pro-rate 2020, where they played at 108 win pace; I think we can all agree a team that finished 40-20 despite only playing AL/NL East teams would not have gone 49-53 in the 100 games that weren't played, had 2020 been normal).  Maybe the Rays don't spend because they understand the concept of diminishing returns; why pay $10M/$20M/$30M more every year to win maybe 3-5 more games, when that is not the difference between making the playoffs or not? 

That said, do you really think that the team which relies on prospect development more than any other team in the game, if given the option to significantly enhance their already best-in-class prospect development for only $3M-$4M a year, wouldn't do that immediately?  Do you think the Rays would rather add 5 to the FV of every prospect in their system, or sign Michael Wacha?  The Rays spent $70M on MLB payroll last year--if investing $750k to $1M in each of their MiLB teams would be so impactful in improved performance, you don't think they would be happy to go down to $66M-$67M in order to offset that?  Especially because, and this is they key point, if $4M buys greatly improved performance from MiLB players, in 2-4 years, the Rays would be able to build their roster almost entirely with players with less than 4 years of service time, meaning they could have a payroll of $40M--SAVING THEM $30M A YEAR.  If indeed the owners are so greedy that all they care about is money, wouldn't they gladly invest $3M today to save $30M in 2 years, especially when they can take the money for said investment from somewhere else?

Paying entry level workers an entry level wage is not exploitation.  A very low percentage of the people in 2022 America are truly exploited, and just because someone feels that they are does not make it so.

Ah yes, the federal minimum, no controversy there. I guess we'll set aside the fact that the $500 is pre-tax and assume the players aren't putting in more than 40 hours (unlikely) which still leaves us at $12.50 per hour, or Minneapolis minimum; i.e. a s*** wage. 

We get it, soup kitchens, workouts on the beach, squeezing multiple grown men into a single bedroom, on and on. There are a million ways you can "budget," yet these "solutions,"  only address the symptoms, not the underlying problem. Ninja'd on the bonus spreading.

We'll ignore that a 5 game swing very well could determine whether a team makes the playoffs. The Rays' on field success isn't because they don't spend. That same lack of spending shouldn't therefore be taken to mean that they're privy to some data telling them that paying a fair wage to minor leaguers isn't a prudent investment. 

Do I believe that spending $4M, what teams piss away on washed vets + other camp invites, would go a long way in making the lives of minor leaguers more "livable?" Absolutely. Is anybody arguing that teams will save $30M annually by doing so? Not by a long shot. There's the possibility that added care/attention yields better results, and worst case, these players start earning wages they've actually earned. I have zero faith that billionaire owners/investment groups, who benefit greatly from a system skewed in their favor, are willing to concede even a sliver unless forced by pressure internal, external, or some combination of the two. They've made that much clear. 

Churning through candidates while offering substandard compensation because the pool is ever replenishing is textbook exploitation. "Entry level," is a convenient misnomer to hide behind. 

[Prince William]

9 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I can't believe anyone types this, not if they've read all the stories by minor league players living 7 to an apartment with 2 bedrooms. The stories are all over the internet. 

The players don't have plenty of money. 75K? To live off for years in the minors? To pay for your own equipment? To pay for off season training? To pay for rent and food for years? 

75 k was a low base, Some teams were none were less than 100k.  The team with the 5 lowball signees had almost all of the rest above 125k. What dollar amount is fair.? Be realistic. Some are college educated but so are a lot of baristas

[Cap'n Piranha]

20 hours ago, Sconnie said:

AAA is up to 150 games this season which fits.

AA, A+ and A- only play 120, it’s April to August

rookie ball is 75 games July/August

spring training isn’t paid , and the players pay for their own transportation to report.

Dobnak was an Uber driver, lots of players have seasonal/part-time jobs. Growing up, my next door neighbor was a minor league player and went to Florida every summer… he was a truck driver.

if you are an MLB owner and you want to improve your team’s development better than anyone else, wouldn’t you want your players developing full time compared to other team’s part time? Wouldn’t that be a competitive advantage?

again, what’s the motivation for the parties involved?

So this actually furthers my point then--players below AAA have even more time to supplement their income--practically half the year.  There are any number of jobs available for $10+ an hour whereby a AA or down player could make $9.2k pre-tax (10*40*23 weeks).

Spring Training isn't paid in the traditional sense (which I very much disagree with--if an employer is requiring you to work, they are required to pay you), although housing is made available, 2 meals a day are provided, and a weekly stipend is paid.  I think that should change to the standard MiLB wage PLUS the housing and meals.

It seems not shocking to me that entry level employees working half the year would have other jobs in the other half of the year.

This is the crux of the entire debate; I agree it conceptually makes sense that enhanced pay + perks allowing MiLB players to be full-time would enhance development.  However; is there any real-world data to support this?  There are plenty of first-round picks who can worry about nothing other than development, and yet don't make the majors, or flame out quickly when they do.  As such, my contention is that teams have either undertaken the studies that show minimal or no return to this enhanced package, or they are barred from doing so from the MLB level.

It's also possible that any gains made in performance by an MiLB player disappear on getting to MLB (that is, if enhanced pay + perks yields a 10% increase in performance, does that gap continue over an MiLB player who didn't get the pay + perks once both players hit the majors?)

[Cap'n Piranha]

18 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Baseball did not use analytics until recently.  It could have been done just as well in 1908 as 2022.  The advantage such a strategy could lead to didn't just come into existence in the universe in 1977.  It was always a possibility, only no on had thought to consider it.  Meaning through some combination of ignorance, oversight, stubborn behavior, or whatever else they were eschewing an otherwise wonderful tool.  Your contention that the same couldn't be the case right now with investing in minor leaguers is a point with no merit.  It's demonstrably false and your fallacious reasoning is the root of that false claim.

I see, yet again, you declined to name even one MLB team that isn't using analytics.  As your contention can be boiled down to "If teams weren't so opposed to analytics, they would realize the value in paying MiLB", your consistent refusal (inability?) to name even on team opposed to analytics shows your entire argument to be baseless and without merit.  I reject it categorically, along with your bizarre attempts to paint me as the one employing fallacious thinking.

[DJL44]

I think major league baseball would prefer that players took on $30,000 - $100,000 in college debt to pay for their own development. If they make things too nice nobody would play college ball.

[TheLeviathan]

14 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I see, yet again, you declined to name even one MLB team that isn't using analytics.  As your contention can be boiled down to "If teams weren't so opposed to analytics, they would realize the value in paying MiLB", your consistent refusal (inability?) to name even on team opposed to analytics shows your entire argument to be baseless and without merit.  I reject it categorically, along with your bizarre attempts to paint me as the one employing fallacious thinking.

Cool.  Fun fact: I never said anything like this strawman.  Like, even remotely.  I know, I went back and reread to be sure.  So, yes, I am declining to acknowledge a thing I never said.  It's why I declined previously, I didn't want to engage your strawman.  However, you appear intent to grasp at that straw (pun intended) because it's being made obvious by a host of other posters that you're delivering false conclusions.

To clarify, cuz I'm nice like that, I said baseball ignored and/or didn't discover analytics until the game was a century old.  It was always there to be used had some enterprising team wanted to employ it. Yet they didn't.  Maybe that was purely ignorance of the value.  But then...even now people brought up in the pre-analytics tradition still rail against it.  Meaning there is a history of baseball ignoring things out of traditional thinking.  Or out of stubborn, greedy thinking. Which is, you know, what I actually said.  Apologies to your strawman, but the third path is pretty obvious and as as baseball as apple pie (Or some other clever turn of phrase): MLB is really good at inexplicably ignoring good ideas because it's cheap, ignorant, or weird.

[Cap'n Piranha]

10 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Are you saying you made literally the same amount when you were a young adult and you were able to survive by budgeting or are you saying you made the same amount as adjusted for inflation? Because those are 2 very different things. Your profile says you were born in 1983 which puts you in the 18-24 age range in the early 2000s. During that time the average rent was about $600-650 per month. Average rent now is $1100 per month. You living with 2-3 roommates meant you were paying $200-$300 a month, they'd be paying $360 to $550 a month. And that's just rent, not even taking into account the rise in cost of literally everything else. So I think you can see why comparing making 11K now is not in any way comparable to making 11K in 2001 or 2007. Even making $18,560 or $15,080 now compared to 2001 or 2007 is an awful comparison. If their MiLB team is located in a big city prices could be significantly higher. Living on $20,000 a year in 2022 is absolutely not an easy thing to do, even with budgeting and roommates. And 50K spread out over 4 or 5 years is not "substantial financial reserves." It's not nothing, but it's certainly not substantial.

$11000 in 2001 is just over $17000 today. $18000 in 2001 is over $28,500 today. So that "substantial financial reserve" the players in the top 10 rounds get is wiped out completely simply by the cost of inflation over what you were making back in the early 2000s.

Where are these average rent figures coming from?  I definitely paid more than $650 a month when I lived on my own.  Searches I did in a handful of MiLB cities a few months ago showed 4 BR houses for rent for $1000-$1200 in most of them.  This idea that MiLB players are paying half their wages for rent, or have no option other than to cram 7 people into 3 bedrooms just cannot happen without irresponsible budgeting.  It just can't.  3 guys on one team can split a $1500/month place (which will almost assuredly have 3BR), $1500 a month for groceries ($375 a week is surely enough to feed 3 people so long as they're not spending wastefully), and they could still have $700-$800 a month to pay for all other bills.  As I've always said, that's not a cushy existence, but it's not an impossible one to achieve either.

$50k over 4-5 years is a significant reserve.  According to this article, people under 35 have a median net worth of $13.9k.  That means an MiLB player who cleared $50k on their bonus could spread it out over 4 years, and still be better off (from a net worth standpoint) than 50% off their age peers, even if you assume there is no further striation within the under 35 group (I would imagine the further you are from 35, the more likely you are to below the median).  If you make $11k while playing, $9k in the offseason ($10/hr times 40 hours times 23 weeks), $2k from per diems and ST stipends, that should be about $19k after taxes.  Add $11k a year from a bonus, and they can now spend $2500 a month for 4.5 years before the bonus is out.  $2500 is more than enough for a single 18-24 year old to live on, unless they are not budgeting.

[Cap'n Piranha]

7 hours ago, Sconnie said:

I don’t like the hyperbole either. Name calling gets us nowhere.

we can’t draw any conclusions. We’re making assumptions based on what we think we know. I don’t think the two assumptions you laid out, are really comprehensive.

1) not able to because of the rules. Possible, seems unlikely at first blush but with collective bargaining happening at one level, maybe there’s some threat mitigation rules with MLB/MiLB owners.

2) don’t want to for competitive reasons. There hasn’t been a compelling reason cost/benefit wise.

3) don’t care. Ambivalence is also a possibility. The cost benefit analysis has been done, but won’t see the light of day just because “it’s how we’ve always done it”. This is a league that is very steeped in tradition.

Some parts of the league are steeped in tradition.  Most are not.  It's why starting pitchers get pulled after 2 times through the order.  It's why every team carries 8 relievers.  It's why every team employs shifts.  It's why every team has dozens upon dozens of people working in analytics departments.  It's why every team invests substantial money in machinery to quantify things like launch angle, spin rate, foot speed, etc.

I just refuse to believe that teams who have invested literally millions of dollars over the past decade into finding any way possible to improve performance would be aware of a way to improve performance, have the freedom to implement that way, and have that way cost a relative pittance, but still just shrug their shoulders and, essentially, say "meh, I don't care if I have better players than my competitors".  It just defies any kind of reasonable viewpoint to think that way, unless you are hopelessly, irretrievably committed to the idea that mLb TeAmS BaD!!!

[Mike Sixel]

 

14 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Where are these average rent figures coming from?  I definitely paid more than $650 a month when I lived on my own.  Searches I did in a handful of MiLB cities a few months ago showed 4 BR houses for rent for $1000-$1200 in most of them.  This idea that MiLB players are paying half their wages for rent, or have no option other than to cram 7 people into 3 bedrooms just cannot happen without irresponsible budgeting.  It just can't.  3 guys on one team can split a $1500/month place (which will almost assuredly have 3BR), $1500 a month for groceries ($375 a week is surely enough to feed 3 people so long as they're not spending wastefully), and they could still have $700-$800 a month to pay for all other bills.  As I've always said, that's not a cushy existence, but it's not an impossible one to achieve either.

$50k over 4-5 years is a significant reserve.  According to this article, people under 35 have a median net worth of $13.9k.  That means an MiLB player who cleared $50k on their bonus could spread it out over 4 years, and still be better off (from a net worth standpoint) than 50% off their age peers, even if you assume there is no further striation within the under 35 group (I would imagine the further you are from 35, the more likely you are to below the median).  If you make $11k while playing, $9k in the offseason ($10/hr times 40 hours times 23 weeks), $2k from per diems and ST stipends, that should be about $19k after taxes.  Add $11k a year from a bonus, and they can now spend $2500 a month for 4.5 years before the bonus is out.  $2500 is more than enough for a single 18-24 year old to live on, unless they are not budgeting.

"budgeting" the answer to everyone that thinks workers are the problem, and not unfair pay.

There are literally stories all over the internet, about how little they are paid, how they don't get paid for a lot of time they work, how they have to pay for their own training and equipment, etc. About how they sleep on floors. About how they get moved from city to city, so they can't rent a place the same way normal people can. You can keep typing this stuff over and over, but it doesn't change the actual experiences they are having, rather than some hypothetical that isn't real.

 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

49 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So this actually furthers my point then--players below AAA have even more time to supplement their income--practically half the year.  There are any number of jobs available for $10+ an hour whereby a AA or down player could make $9.2k pre-tax (10*40*23 weeks).

Spring Training isn't paid in the traditional sense (which I very much disagree with--if an employer is requiring you to work, they are required to pay you), although housing is made available, 2 meals a day are provided, and a weekly stipend is paid.  I think that should change to the standard MiLB wage PLUS the housing and meals.

It seems not shocking to me that entry level employees working half the year would have other jobs in the other half of the year.

This is the crux of the entire debate; I agree it conceptually makes sense that enhanced pay + perks allowing MiLB players to be full-time would enhance development.  However; is there any real-world data to support this?  There are plenty of first-round picks who can worry about nothing other than development, and yet don't make the majors, or flame out quickly when they do.  As such, my contention is that teams have either undertaken the studies that show minimal or no return to this enhanced package, or they are barred from doing so from the MLB level.

It's also possible that any gains made in performance by an MiLB player disappear on getting to MLB (that is, if enhanced pay + perks yields a 10% increase in performance, does that gap continue over an MiLB player who didn't get the pay + perks once both players hit the majors?)

Clearly I don’t have data to present, but if time value of money assumptions hold accurate, I use a 15% discount rate as back of the napkin math.

Older players get higher salaries, even if the benefit evaporated upon graduation, 10% development faster (opposed to “better” is cheaper especially if the CBA is negotiated to a fixed age arbitration/free agency as major leaguers. Instead of letting players fit their offseason development time around a job, $25k per year per player (over a couple hundred players $5m) could save $15-20m per year in salaries pretty reasonably. An extra year, 2 years maybe at $600k vs paying arbitration up to free agency for 10+ players (rolling) seems feasible

[Richie the Rally Goat]

32 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Some parts of the league are steeped in tradition.  Most are not.  It's why starting pitchers get pulled after 2 times through the order.  It's why every team carries 8 relievers.  It's why every team employs shifts.  It's why every team has dozens upon dozens of people working in analytics departments.  It's why every team invests substantial money in machinery to quantify things like launch angle, spin rate, foot speed, etc.

I just refuse to believe that teams who have invested literally millions of dollars over the past decade into finding any way possible to improve performance would be aware of a way to improve performance, have the freedom to implement that way, and have that way cost a relative pittance, but still just shrug their shoulders and, essentially, say "meh, I don't care if I have better players than my competitors".  It just defies any kind of reasonable viewpoint to think that way, unless you are hopelessly, irretrievably committed to the idea that mLb TeAmS BaD!!!

That was the whole point of the vaccine comment. Presumption of intent or halo effect misses the premises that the decisions actually use.

my assumption is there is a reason owners don’t do the things outlined by Appel, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the team. My assumption is very few owners of baseball teams make any decisions based on trying to improve the quality of the team.

My assertion is that Appel’s ideas make a lot of sense. Nothing more

[Prince William]

55 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Cool.  Fun fact: I never said anything like this strawman.  Like, even remotely.  I know, I went back and reread to be sure.  So, yes, I am declining to acknowledge a thing I never said.  It's why I declined previously, I didn't want to engage your strawman.  However, you appear intent to grasp at that straw (pun intended) because it's being made obvious by a host of other posters that you're delivering false conclusions.

To clarify, cuz I'm nice like that, I said baseball ignored and/or didn't discover analytics until the game was a century old.  It was always there to be used had some enterprising team wanted to employ it. Yet they didn't.  Maybe that was purely ignorance of the value.  But then...even now people brought up in the pre-analytics tradition still rail against it.  Meaning there is a history of baseball ignoring things out of traditional thinking.  Or out of stubborn, greedy thinking. Which is, you know, what I actually said.  Apologies to your strawman, but the third path is pretty obvious and as as baseball as apple pie (Or some other clever turn of phrase): MLB is really good at inexplicably ignoring good ideas because it's cheap, ignorant, or weird.

I have a fun fact. The 2010, 2012 and 2014 WS was won by a team that largely ignored analytics. Tampa and Oakland have won how many?  

[Cap'n Piranha]

6 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Just last Friday in federal court Major League Baseball had a lawyer argue that minor league players shouldn't be paid during spring training. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep their minimum wage exemption. So, no, I don't think the Rays, or any team, would gladly shave any money anywhere to pay minor leaguers any more money than the absolute minimum they're forced to.

Just because an entity would like to keep their legal obligations at one level doesn't mean they wouldn't operate at another level of their own free will. According to the US government, only 0.3% of hourly workers make minimum wage (source).  I'm not aware of some great push by companies to bring the minimum wage up; why are employers in the United States paying more than they are required to 99.7% of the time?  Trust me--if the Rays were allowed by MLB to spend $3M for a marked improvement in the quality of their MiLB players (bearing in mind the Rays repeatedly trade established big leaguers in years they expect to compete for MiLB players), they would.

[Cap'n Piranha]

8 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Everything. The minor leaguers would become the overwhelming majority of votes for a contract agreement.

Which doesn't necessarily mean it would be bad.  Far more players make under $1M than make over $15M, yet the MLBPA is still holding out for an increased luxury tax (which benefits the majority of the MLBPA not at all).  Alternatively, MiLB players could be granted junior status, say 1/10 of a vote, or no vote at all, but an agreement to join the MLBPA should a strike occur, in return for access to a cash pool (if every MLB player donated 1% of their pay every year, the pool increases by $40M a year.  The burden on a player making the $650k minimum is $40 a game.  Seems a small price to pay for the complete removal of replacement players from the board).