CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
Skewed Left: What Is A... (07/15)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Baseball Therapy: What... (07/08)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Trad... (07/29)
Next Article >>
The BP Wayback Machine... (07/16)

July 15, 2014

Baseball Therapy

Why Are We Playing Hunger Games with Minor Leaguers?

by Russell A. Carleton


I think the secret is out. Minor league players get paid very little. Not just a little bit compared to the millionaires they hope to become. They put in long hours and have a couple hundred dollars at the end of the month (plus some per diem) to show for it. In fact, there’s a lawsuit on the subject that’s been filed by some former minor leaguers, alleging that teams have broken federal minimum wage law. (I’ll leave the issue of legality to the courts.) Some end up eating poorly because they can’t afford nutritious food and have no means to cook it. They share small apartments with teammates. They sleep on the floor. Plenty retire because they can’t afford to chase the dream any more. I’m sure some retire because they get sick of living hand-to-mouth (which would be a balk).

Baseball can be cruel. Consider how hard a young man must work and how much he has to dream to get to a point where he’s one of the best 200 or so high school seniors in the country (because he’s number 193). He might get drafted in a single-digit round (maybe), but there are only 25 spots on the big league roster and draftees and international signings from so many other years who want them. His chances aren’t great for making the majors, but to him, it’s all he’s ever dreamed about. So, for him, it’s for the love of the game. He is a starving (sometimes literally?) artist for his craft. Until he gets cut.

That’s the romanticized notion. That players accept such poor living conditions because it’s part of “the hunger” (sometimes literally?) for the game. Teams accept these conditions for their players because, well, it’s cheap. Teams do hand out large bonuses to certain players, usually the high draftees and big-ticket international signings. Those are the guys the team brass believe will eventually make an impact on the MLB roster. Because of those bonuses, those guys have a cash reserve for supplementing that meager salary, and the rest of the team ... they’re really just there to fill out numbers, aren’t they? Oh sure, if one develops into something nice, then that’s well and good, but teams seem to be of the opinion that they shouldn’t bother wasting resources on players who probably aren’t going to make any sort of difference.

What I most commonly hear from fans when they hear the truth about minor league life boils down to “You’re going to be making millions in a few years anyway” (most minor leaguers never get even the proverbial cup of coffee, much less a million dollars) or “You’re getting paid to play baseball, please stop whining. Why, if I had a chance to, I totally would trade places with you.” It’s not polite to complain. In fact, when I reached out to a few minor leaguers, none of them wanted to talk, even anonymously, about the issue. The words “rock the boat” were used and no, we weren’t talking about Guys and Dolls. The therapist in me always perks up when people are afraid to talk about something.

I hope you all have life jackets on.

What baseball has is a system where teams keep costs down, and the players accept that this is just the natural order of things. It’s not even Stockholm Syndrome. After all, if the dream is to play Major League Baseball, what other options do they have?

The rest of this article is restricted to Baseball Prospectus Subscribers.

Not a subscriber?

Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get access to the best baseball content on the web.


Cancel anytime.


That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!


That's a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

51 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

Mike Schieve

Would it be possible to create the MiLBPA to ensure that these players are receiving a fair wage? I imagine the owners might not like to battle two unions. Perhaps the MiLBPA could be an arm of the MLBPA.

Jul 15, 2014 03:41 AM
rating: 1
 
ChicagoOriole

Minor leaguers have off-season jobs that pay more, UPS in particular being famous for giving athletes flexible schedule jobs with decent pay.

It would be interesting for you to talk to a GM for a minor league team about the finances of the team itself. I don't know if Cal Ripken would take your call on the matter as owner of his own team. If minor league baseball were a profitable business in an operating sense, then higher pay would make more sense.

So how much money are we talking about... 6 levels x 25 players x $100 = $15,000 for one major league club is an increment.

Jul 15, 2014 04:34 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Craig Goldstein
BP staff

Presumably any time dedicated to an off-season job is time that could be spent playing winter or fall ball, and if you're not doing that, do you *really* want it? (I don't buy this line of reasoning of course, but it's certainly out there).

Additionally, the financial viability of minor league baseball teams shouldn't have a bearing on this as the MLB team is the one that cuts the checks for the players. Any increase in their pay wouldn't be coming from the minor league owner/operator, as is my understanding.

Jul 15, 2014 06:54 AM
 
apbadogs

This topic seems to be gaining momentum...there was also a recent article in Sports Illustrated I believe (or it may have been ESPN The Mag). I honestly did not know their pay was this bad, very eye opening.

Jul 15, 2014 05:10 AM
rating: 1
 
Kyle Matte

The poor wages are bad, but the fact these organizations worth hundreds of millions of dollars make these kids buy their own gloves/bats/cleats is downright embarassing.

Jul 15, 2014 05:29 AM
rating: 7
 
anderson721

My initial reaction to your comment was: have you spoken to a teacher lately? we spend an average of $500 plus on materials that districts should be providing. But upon reflection, that's just getting in the race to the bottom that hurts everybody. So, yeah, it is shameful. No owner is going to go broke buying bats and gloves.

Jul 15, 2014 09:00 AM
rating: 3
 
BigAl_LittleAl

Great article Russell; I'm glad you're paying attention to these big problems. I'm wondering if BP would be willing to take this article out from behind the paywall so that a lot more eyes could see it. The plight of a lot of minor league players is real and more attention paid to it might help a movement to mitigate their circumstances.

Jul 15, 2014 07:00 AM
rating: 10
 
BillJohnson

The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption that teams want all of their prospects to become major leaguers. They can't. Something approaching 50 guys enter a farm system every year, between the amateur draft and IFA signings, and even if every last one of them manages to play at the major-league replacement level (no small accomplishment), there will still be no more than 7 or 8 on average who actually reach the Show. There just isn't room for more.

The huge majority of the guys who are signed down-draft serve their organizations not by becoming major leaguers, but by providing the rest of a minor-league team so the the fortunate few who do have what it takes can actually play games. What they get out of it is a meager living plus the ability to say "hey, I played rookie-league ball with Joe Superstar in East Poison Spider, Wyoming!" when they cash it in and go back home to live their lives and tell stories. This is no small thing, those who have that privilege are enriched by it, and in my experience, they are uniformly grateful to their former team for letting them play with Mike Trout or Albert Pujols or Greg Maddux. But paying them more than the bare minimum is not necessarily in a team's best interest.

Jul 15, 2014 07:05 AM
rating: 0
 
frqtflyr

Interesting spin. Minor leagues as essentially the equivalent of sparring partners in boxing. Or backroom brawlers for those who prefer a bread and circuses model.

Nonetheless, fascinating article, Russell.

Jul 15, 2014 07:41 AM
rating: 0
 
Dubey89

I disagree somewhat. If a team could consistently generate MLB ready talent at a higher level than other teams, the benefits are huge, even just as trading chips. I agree that if minor leaguers across the board are increasing in quality and this is happening for every team, there is no advantage, as there are only a set number of roster spots available in the major leagues.

Jul 15, 2014 08:01 AM
rating: 6
 
okteds

But the flaw in THIS reasoning, is that teams assume to have a fixed number of viable major league talent in their system, and the rest are just "sparring partners". If, with proper nurturing, a team can elevate just one or two more career-minor league guys a year to replacement-level major leaguers, then the investment would pay for itself.

Jul 15, 2014 09:19 AM
rating: 1
 
BillJohnson

I don't see it. The whole point of replacement-level players is that there are more of them around than there is room for on major-league rosters. I'd guess that at any given time, about two thirds of all active players with skill levels that are replacement-level to plus or minus, say, half a game over a season, are in the minors rather than the majors -- maybe (pure guess) 5 in the majors, 8 or 9 at AAA, and maybe one oddball stuck at AA. What good does it do a team to raise that 8-or-9 figure to 13-or-15? Not obvious that it's enough to justify the cost.

Of course, the story changes if greater spending in the minors produces two or three additional guys a year who are clearly better than replacement level. However, I don't see that happening. As far as I can tell, very few players with >1-WAR talent call it quits in the low minors because they're so poorly paid -- but I may be wrong.

Jul 15, 2014 12:57 PM
rating: 0
 
doncoffin
(422)

I don't think Russell thinks every player in the minors can make the majors--and I don't think it's reasonable to read this post as an argument that every player in the minors can make the majors. It's an argument that for a small annual investment a major league team is likely to earn a positive return. It may be just one additional player who makes the majors and contributes--over his MLB career--5-10 WAR (and that's all it would take, I think).

To the issues raised here, I'd add one more thing--the need to improve coaching at the minor league level. I know that coaching in the minors has improved, dramatically, over the last 50 years. Teams now have roving pitching, hitting, and fielding instructors (1-2 of each). For another fairly small investment, teams could easily double their minor league coaching staffs.

Jul 16, 2014 19:41 PM
rating: 0
 
cdt719

Downvoting comments like the above is really pathetic. I don't know if I agree with the line of reasoning, but it's a reasonable, non-trolling counterpoint.

Jul 17, 2014 13:17 PM
rating: -1
 
jfranco77

Isn't this just a prisoner's dilemma? Or maybe the opposite where everyone is better off not cooperating?

If I'm Billy Beane and I think my team is 10% better at developing players than my competition, am I going to lose my advantage if I invest this 5mil and everyone else does too?

Now on the flip side if I'm Brian Cashman and I'm pretty sure I'm 10% WORSE than everyone else, maybe I should do it. Then again, maybe that takes away my advantage of being able to spend in free agency.

Jul 15, 2014 07:09 AM
rating: 0
 
johnnynyc

Most of this takes perspective that players are self (non-)sufficient. Some minor leaguers I have known had their families support them in their minor league years. It's a long shot, and most don't hang around very long trying. It's a life choice.

Jul 15, 2014 07:19 AM
rating: 3
 
Dubey89

I think this is a situation where a single team, or a few teams, could gain themselves an advantage, for a time, by increasing minor league salaries. Eventually, if it showed good results, the rest of the league would catch on, and any percieved advantage would be lost. Quality of minor league play across the board would increase, but if every team is doing it, nobody is gaining a distinct advantage, and the teams would not be realizing any additional value for their dollars spent.

Jul 15, 2014 07:51 AM
rating: 1
 
Shawnykid23

But isn't that how most competitive advantages end up? While only temporary, it's still an advantage for a period of time. While the other teams are catching up, the pioneering team could focus their efforts on the next competitive advantage. If teams decide to do this, then it may not be a huge advantage, but it may create a disadvantage for a team that doesn't do it. Also, it causes teams to spend money- money they in theory may not have to spend elsewhere. Not to mention if the sole result of this is a better quality of life for minor leaguers, I think that's a good thing.

Jul 15, 2014 08:34 AM
rating: 1
 
jdeich

A hypothetical system where all minor leaguers are trained extremely well would raise the level of play at both the major and minor league levels. Given the fraction of each team's income derived from selling tickets and merchandise, that's in the interest of every owner, even in the unlikely scenario where adoption is league-wide and simultaneous.

In practice, of course, not all teams innovate at the same rate, and those that did this early could create a competitive advantage for a few years. With wins priced at $5-7M on the free agent market, this is a possible path to cheaper wins, and it doesn't even cost you draft picks.

Jul 15, 2014 09:45 AM
rating: 4
 
joshturnes

Interesting how people (comment section) see this as a labor issue. I read this as something an innovative owner and general manager of the MLB team would try in order improve their chances of developing Major League talent. An MiLBPA would only serve as a detriment to the minor league affiliate and it's ownership.

Jul 15, 2014 08:57 AM
rating: 1
 
oloughla

The problem you are describing (young people whose income stream is insufficient to cover living expenses) extends far beyond baseball. Given how quickly the cost of education has increased without an accompanying increase in starting salaries, a very large portion of recent college graduates are in the same position, unable to cover living expenses after deducting the cost of their student loans. It's a huge problem for our economy moving forward.

Jul 15, 2014 09:06 AM
rating: 7
 
escroll

If I'm not mistaken, some teams do this already in a limited fashion, the first example coming to mind being Pirate City in Bradenton; dorm-style living and cafeteria for player in the Pirates' GCL, A+ and extended spring training teams.

Additionally, one should account of the fact that salaries increase as one moves up the ladder; IIRC some players in AAA make 50 or 60K per year (permitting them to become career minor leaguers).

Jul 15, 2014 09:53 AM
rating: 1
 
Dodger300

Spoiled owners! (Thank you for the billion extra credit points, Russell.)

I find it demoralizing that most of these comments focus on whether this would give a team a competitive advantage, and that many believe it would be a pointless waste of money if it does not.

Only one comment comes close to alluding that providing ones employees with a decent living is the right thing to do.

That such corporate greed has become the accepted standard in America today, even among the workers, and across all class lines, speaks to the number one challenge confronting our country.

Jul 15, 2014 10:41 AM
rating: 5
 
Dubey89

It's a business. Business owners in every single industry look to maximize profits and reduce costs. Business owners in this society aren't raising salaries to be charitable. They are raising (or lowering) salaries because tha is what the job Market demands. The Job Market may not be truly efficient, but it is still a market, and prices (Salaries) are determined by the market conditions. In the case of MiLB salaries, the market is such that there is little or no viable alternative path to the Major leagues other than MiLB. There is also a long, long history of players accepting poor wages and not really complaining, or making a stink about it. There has certainly been very little negative press given to MiLB salaries over the years. Therefore, all of the power is in the hands of the owners currently, and the only way a change is going to happen is if the MiLB were to unionize somehow, or the owners could realize a financial gain from increasing MiLB salaries.

While it may be romantic to envision a scenario where MLB owners truly care enough about their players/employees to cough up several million dollars per year without realizing a future financial gain from it, it is probably not realistic.

Therefore, it is natural for the discussion to gravitate towards the cost/benefit analysis that has unfolded here.

Jul 15, 2014 14:42 PM
rating: 0
 
Dodger300

Thank you for giving a number of reasons that support the need for having a minimum wage, and ultimately, the need for it to be raised significantly.

Including for baseball players, NFL cheerleaders, and many more desirable occupations.

I agree that the vast majority of the benighted "job creators" couldn't care less about how their employees must live.

Jul 15, 2014 15:58 PM
rating: 0
 
evo34

Like any other union, the MLBPA is designed solely to line the pockets of its most senior members, at the expense of junior member, non-members and the union's employers. Who do you think is paying for guaranteed contracts of aging veteran players? It's the guys in the minors, and those MLBers who get washed out or injured before hitting free agency. It's essentially financial hazing in a fraternity where < 5% of the rushees get in. If it sounds like an unfair deal, it is. But I highly doubt it will ever change.

Jul 15, 2014 23:22 PM
rating: -1
 
BP staff member Jason Wojciechowski
BP staff

Whatever your personal beliefs on the matter, that is not what a union is "designed solely" to do.

Jul 16, 2014 00:38 AM
 
evo34

Publicly, of course not. Privately and functionally, it is. It's not my "personal belief"; it's how the majority of present-day unions operate in practice.

Jul 16, 2014 03:07 AM
rating: -2
 
Dodger300

I think you"ve got the wrong adversary there, evo.

Would you actually deny that the primary purpose of a labor union is to extract the nest possible working conditions, wages, and benefits from the owner/management of the company or government where the union members work?

Seriously?

Jul 17, 2014 02:21 AM
rating: 0
 
Plucky

This kind of pay structure is ubiquitous in pretty much all entertainment industries-not just pro sports, but music and acting and the like. The basic reason is that enormous numbers of people want to do it and only comparatively few will 'make it', and the value produced by the people that don't is extremely low. There has to be some meachnism to weed out the people that won't make it and low pay is part of it. Is it fair or just? It's pretty easy to say 'no', but on the other hand, insisting the world owes you a middle class wage at age 20-22 for something with minimal economic value while you chase your dream is also a bit rich. The average starting salary of college graduates nowadays is only $35k.

On the intrinsic economics of the matter, the relevent group for this article is really only the <$100k bonus group (which of course is the majority of minor leaguers)- For players getting north of 100k bonuses, the implicit arrangement is that your bonus ought to be enough for you to avoid poverty and deprivation for at least 2-3 years, at which point it's time for you to be moving up or moving on. Players in the 100-250 bucket would of course want to live frugally since that has to last them until they either wash out or make it, but that ought to be sufficient to avoid any serious deprivation for a couple years.

On the table above, the difference in percentage of players who produce >1 WAR between the <$100k group and the $100-$250k group is only 2.1 pct points. At a 5-WAR threshold it's only 0.8 pct points. If we were to assume that entire difference was due to detrimental effects of low pay (i.e. that teams collectively have no skill whatsoever evaulating the potential talent between the two groups), then the payoff from the 'investment' model (i.e. that paying them more will make them better) is that percentage increase times the WAR the team captures below FA market rates conditional on the player making it. If that's say 4 WAR, then your expected value payoff for that 2% chance is only 0.08 WAR. 0.08 WAR is not worth $10m.

For the investment model to work at a cost of $10m, you have to assume that you are increasing the odds of players making it on the order of at least 10-15 pct points, and that the players that make it will be real contributors rather than marginal bench/bullpen guys. In order to do that, you also have to assume based on the table above that the detrimental effects from low pay extend to guys who got $200k bonuses, which seems like a stretch.

Jul 15, 2014 11:04 AM
rating: 6
 
Plucky

Before people rip me, I did notice a logical error- I mixed aggregate vs individual costs. the 0.08 WAR is of course individual and the 10m is aggregate. 0.08 WAR would be worth about %560k at $7m/WAR, or basically th eLM min

While that is massively higher that what they are paid, that number assume the entirety of the discrepancy in outcome is the reult of low pay, which is ludicrous. To get to a $50k salary, you would have to impute 10% of the discrepancy to that effect. This is plausiblee, but certainly not obvious

Jul 15, 2014 11:33 AM
rating: 0
 
Dodger300

Plucky, where did you come up with the .08 WAR figure? Please explain.

The only thing I see close is the increase of players who contribute 5 WAR from 2.4% to 3.2 %, which is an increase of .8 % of the players, or .08. But that represents .8% PLAYERS, not .8% WAR.

I don't know how many players that would be, do you?
But at $7 million per WAR, each one of those players would add $28 million in value to their team over the ones who contributed only 1 WAR.

At that rate, it the system would need top produce one additional 5 WAR players every 2.8 years to break even. But if it also adds more 1.0 WAR players, the break even number would even would be less than that.

Jul 15, 2014 19:39 PM
rating: 0
 
Plucky

.08 is an expected value, which was explained in the first post. You get it if you assume 1) The entire difference in performance between the <$100k bonus group and $100-250k bonus group is due to low pay 2) The $100-250k bonus group does not suffer low-pay effects 3) That of the players in the <$100k group who eventually produce >1 WAR, the average career WAR captured by the team below open market cost is 4. I invented this 4 WAR number by asssuming actual production would be 5 WAR (based on the % who produce >5 WAR and >1 WAR, 5 seems about the median) and that the amount captured by the team would be a little less (i.e. that under team control the player woudl get paid for some of that production). Under these assumptions, the expected value of paying your <100k bonus guys enough to avoid detrimental effects is the increase inprobability they produce non-negligible WAR for the team times the expected WAR the team captures conditional on the player being a non-neglible WAR producer. That would be 2% (from the table) * 4 WAR (my assumption, which can be argued but is quite reasonable) = .08 WAR.

Given that assumption 1) above is flat-out silly, I would think this .08 WAR estimate (which is an individual player figure) would be essentially the maximum possible benefit. If you take the realistic view that teams have some scouting skill and the intrinsic talent of the 100-250k bonus group (which based on slot values means mid 6th through maybe the 12th round) is higher than the <$100k bonus group, that .08 expected WAR figure would drop

A last note is that if you are looking at player level rather than aggregate, the investment model is not 'pay him 50k more one time, get .08 expected WAR' but rather 'pay him 50k more every year he's in the minors, get .08 WAR'. For college draftees it typically takes 3 years to crack the roster, for high schoolers 4-5. If you are applying this model to a HS draftee, your total cost gets up to $250k. If you are a fully bought-in believer that low pay accounts for more of the difference in outcomes than intrinsic ability, you can make a plausible economic case for the investment model. That's a real stretch though. "Plausible if you make extreme assumptions" is generally not a good enough threshold to get organizations to spend $10m on, and probably why none of them have

Jul 16, 2014 07:13 AM
rating: -1
 
Dodger300
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

Thank you for your response. You explained your calculations perfectly when you wrote:

"I invented this..."

Jul 16, 2014 15:06 PM
rating: -4
 
Plucky

Thanks for replying with substance rather than snark.

If you don't like that number, you are of course free to argue for another one. I gave a reason for using the number I did, if you're going to be that way at least come up with a reason you think it's wrong

Jul 16, 2014 19:12 PM
rating: -2
 
Dodger300
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

I have no desire to play games by "inventing" a number like you did. Rather, I reject your entire thesis.

Jul 17, 2014 04:26 AM
rating: -4
 
Isaac Dix

We do this with our military. Food, shelter, medical, everything is covered and the only expectation of you is to put 100% focus in learning your job and how to be a soldier. Seems to be pretty effective.

Jul 15, 2014 11:11 AM
rating: 7
 
oltarzewskt1

I would think that better access to nutrition, either through higher salaries or team sponsored food-access, would help prevent players from risking eating food that has .... SPOILED.

I'll take my extra credit points now, thank you.

Jul 15, 2014 11:19 AM
rating: 2
 
manbearpig9789

One simple solution would be for the draft to be only 3 rounds and just pay these players well so they don't worry about where they will lay their head down at night and whether or not they can afford Outback. Seriously, why do you need to field six affiliates when three would be more then enough to develop your players?

Also, you could pay these players well and some are going to miss manage their money to the point they would be better off with a 15 dollar a day per diem. For some of these players, being broke is keeping them out of trouble.

Jul 15, 2014 11:23 AM
rating: -3
 
Dodger300

Wow, did you just discover the solution to the crime problem?

Keeping people in poverty will keep them out of trouble.

It's genius!

Jul 15, 2014 16:04 PM
rating: 1
 
wonkothesane1
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

When the player gets to the majors he's going to have to deal with the fact that he has enough money to get him in trouble. Those years of being broke and staying out of trouble will not have turned over any lessons. Better for the youngster to learn how to manage money like at least a lower middle class person than a below-the-poverty-line person.

Jul 15, 2014 17:21 PM
rating: -4
 
Dodger300

How offensive of you to assume that the problem with people living below the poverty level is their inability to manage money, rather than the fact that they don't have enough money in the first place.

I would submit that paying the rent, feeding the kids, and paying the bills takes an incredible amount of skill when one has very little money to work with. That some can't pull it off is to be expected, considering that there are plenty of middle class and wealthy people who can't keep up with their bills either.

To assume that most people in their 20s have not yet learned how to stay out of trouble and are in need of several years of being broke is utterly ridiculous.

Next, I expect someone to try to pass on the myth that poor people don't work and live the easy life, rather than acknowledging that most work very hard for long hours at difficult jobs for very little pay.



Jul 15, 2014 19:56 PM
rating: 2
 
therealn0d

Very thought provoking article, Russell. A lot of good questions come to mind after reading this. That's what I like about a lot of your articles. Sometimes the answer IS the question.

Jul 15, 2014 14:02 PM
rating: -1
 
oldbopper

I was shocked that these professional baseball players had to buy their own equipment. I have taught and coached, another sport, golf, for over 50 years. Presently one of my pupils is playing professionally at the lower level of the PGA Tour family of tours on the PGA Tour Latin America. He has everything provided to him. Equipment companies outfit him with anything he wants, 2 dozen balls and 3 gloves are in his locker when he arrives at each event. A lavish food spread is available throughout the tournaments and courtesy transportation is also free. Travel and lodging, a considerable expense, are the players responsibility but the point is, even at the lowest level of the PGA ladder everything is first class. MLB should be ashamed for putting these very young adults in this situation.

Jul 15, 2014 15:42 PM
rating: 5
 
Wyomissing

I'm not sure the object is to produce more and more stars, but this idea might just speed the learning curve a bit. If you've read John Feinstein's newest book, "Where Nobody Knows Your Name" you've already heard from career fringe players that organizations do very little for their development as young men after signing day. They pretty much go from teenagers rolling out of the rack each day, skipping high school classes, and playing baseball all fall, spring, and summer to being paid "professionals" with no discernible change in mentality. It's pretty well known that they know nothing about living on their own, cooking, shopping, or (most importantly) having a career. If the team only taught them about proper nutrition and how to care for their bodies (workout routines, core strengthening, etc.)you'd see an uptick in the production of the farm system. Even the high-end bonus babies are responsible for their food and workouts. You take these kids away from their homes and families, plunk them in some podunk town, and tell them to hone their craft. We've all seen cases of this where they become "didn't he used to be ...?" Maybe in order to reduce the cost, the teams could pick up on this idea at AA ball once those who "want it" more have separated themselves from the rest. Overall, this isn't likely to yield a massive windfall of star players for anyone ... it might help those fringe guys get to the Show and stay there instead of riding the shuttle back and forth to some AAA shangri-la for several seasons before finding the "right situation" for them to hang on and eke out an existence at the ML level. Maybe it would let your favorite club acquire a better LOOGY at the deadline. But it might also show those guys who really don't have it the door quicker (yes, it might mean fewer "organizational soldiers") thus producing about the same number of MLers as they get now and not necessarily clogging up the farm systems. A good follow-up to this article would be how much cash are the big clubs throwing at young players and them letting them fend for themselves in the wilds of wherever, most of which never attain their potential and die on the vine?

Are you listening Jesse Biddle??

Jul 15, 2014 16:42 PM
rating: 2
 
drmorris75

I think this might be one of the most important articles I've read on BP in my 10 years as a reader.

Jul 15, 2014 21:06 PM
rating: 2
 
sldetckl16

If this proposed construct of increased wages and franchise investment proves profitable, I have no doubt that it will become the norm. I've never understood the dichotomy of those who insist that 'corporate America' is a bunch of money-hungry greed mongers but then marvel when the evil empire doesn't act in the most greed mongery fashion they are suggesting. BP has graduated staff to inside baseball positions, if this is a logical leap, then plenty of ears will be bent by its advantages. And to those who rant and rave against the 'job-creators' - please, for the love of God, go out and start a business, employ 50+ people, manage the ins and out of governmental compliance, provide a product that consumers find valuable now and in the sustainable long-run, and then come back to me and say everyone you employ should make a 'livable' wage (whatever subjective number that may be) or else you are a capitalist hack and we'll talk. Your tune will have changed. But then again, we'll never talk because you're all emotional drivel and no real-world experience.

Jul 15, 2014 22:03 PM
rating: -3
 
Lou Doench

Remember folks, only the experience of the job creators counts as "real world experience". Those 50 plus employees evidently perform their labor on some lower level of the space time continuum that doesnt count as reality. Whether their wages are sufficient to live on is a squishy, emotional subjective number, not a hard strong manly logical number like a robust cost/benefit analysis.

Jul 16, 2014 05:32 AM
rating: 3
 
sldetckl16
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.

So enlighten me, what counts as a "livable wage"? And who gets the privilege to determine this subjective (by nature) number? Let's create a whole federal agency that can sit around determining what amount of fresh produce someone should be able to purchase with their wages to eat an adequately nutritious diet, adjusted seasonally by region and expected price fluctuations. If someone is 18 and lives in mom's basement, does he get paid less because he requires less to "live" than the 40 year old with three children and a mortgage doing the same job? And yes, a cost/benefit (or profit and loss) is actually, shockingly, objective numbers that tell a story. Read the Jeter article from today. Do you tend to favor metrics or do you like a good story line and buy into romantic notions? I'm pretty sure I know where we both fall.

Jul 16, 2014 08:42 AM
rating: -4
 
Lou Doench

Seriously, you don't get to accuse people of attacking a straw man if they come upon you halfway through the second verse of "If I only had a Brain".

Jul 16, 2014 05:35 AM
rating: 2
 
R.A.Wagman

I think there will eventually be change in the wages - or at least the living conditions - of minor leaguers, but $50K across the board will never happen in the current inflation era.
If the current - or a future similar - case gains traction, MLB will place a value of some kind on the training provided to players, thereby deducting that from the minimum stipulated by the courts, or agreed upon in any settlement. They will also likely find a cost benefit to providing better food to its players, again with some kind of deduction to the minimum. And more clubs will eventually take the step taken by Pittsburgh as described in a comment above, to provide living space for its players, at least through the low minors (likely up through High A ball).
Once those elements are accounted for, and deducted from salaries accordingly, players may see a small, but not insignificant, raise in their salaries during the months of the season.
Also, while this was not mentioned in the article, nor in any of the comments, how is it that players do not get paid during spring training?

Jul 16, 2014 06:38 AM
rating: 1
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
Skewed Left: What Is A... (07/15)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Baseball Therapy: What... (07/08)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Trad... (07/29)
Next Article >>
The BP Wayback Machine... (07/16)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Every Team's Moneyball: Cincinnati Reds: Go ...
Every Team's Moneyball: Chicago White Sox: T...
Premium Article Some Projection Left: The Moran Mystery
Notes from the Field: Seven Days and 32 Pros...
Spring Training Notebook: Cactus League
Premium Article Rubbing Mud: The Demise of the Two-Out Rally
Some Projection Left: Matuella has Tommy Joh...

MORE FROM JULY 15, 2014
Skewed Left: What Is An All-Star Pitcher?
Premium Article Transaction Analysis: The Man Who Would Repl...
Fantasy Article Fantasy Freestyle: 10 Crazy Predictions Fant...
Premium Article Minor League Update: Games of Monday, July 1...
Fantasy Article Deep Impact: Week 15
The State of Prospectus

MORE BY RUSSELL A. CARLETON
2014-08-05 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Big Extension, Big Mistake...
2014-07-30 - BP Unfiltered: The Ultimate Showdown of Ulti...
2014-07-29 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Trading Ryan Howard For No...
2014-07-15 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Why Are We Playing Hunger ...
2014-07-08 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: What is a Fast Runner Wort...
2014-07-04 - BP Daily Podcast: Effectively Wild Episode 4...
2014-07-03 - BP Daily Podcast: Effectively Wild Episode 4...
More...

MORE BASEBALL THERAPY
2014-08-12 - Baseball Therapy: I Believe In Clutch Hittin...
2014-08-05 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Big Extension, Big Mistake...
2014-07-29 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Trading Ryan Howard For No...
2014-07-15 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Why Are We Playing Hunger ...
2014-07-08 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: What is a Fast Runner Wort...
2014-07-01 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Do Some Pitches Do More Da...
2014-06-24 - Premium Article Baseball Therapy: Is it Really Harder to Sco...
More...