Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

What is the end game?

  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#141 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,519 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 09:39 PM

You completely ignored my response/question. Of course, they would strike. I am not debating this point and never even remotely suggested they would not fight for every penny. This is not the question or position I have stated. If you want to answer the questions I posed do so. You are changing the question so that you don't have to address the position I posed. The truth is there is no competition for MLB players paying anywhere near what they earn. In other words, normal market forces do not apply.


You are the one claiming they are overpaid. The burden is on you to show that they make more than athletes in other sports do.
I disagree that normal market forces don't apply.
  • Mike Sixel and jimmer like this

#142 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,088 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 09 February 2018 - 11:04 PM

 

 The truth is there is no competition for MLB players paying anywhere near what they earn.In other words, normal market forces do not apply. 

 

Baseball is a monopoly. The normal requirements of attracting and retaining talent obviously does not apply. 

 

I can move from Grand Rapids to Cedar Rapids and continue my chosen career. 

 

Baseball players can't.

 

Businesses have to offer competitive wages to retain my services if I have value. 

 

Baseball obviously does not... players can be stashed in the minor leagues at below poverty levels for 5 years with no leverage and have no choice but to work in Grand Rapids if that is where they are instructed to report. 

 

 

Why are you trying so hard to make this point? 

 

 

  • Mike Sixel, DaveW, Platoon and 1 other like this

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#143 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 08:26 AM

 

Baseball is a monopoly. The normal requirements of attracting and retaining talent obviously does not apply. 

 

I can move from Grand Rapids to Cedar Rapids and continue my chosen career. 

 

Baseball players can't.

 

Businesses have to offer competitive wages to retain my services if I have value. 

 

Baseball obviously does not... players can be stashed in the minor leagues at below poverty levels for 5 years with no leverage and have no choice but to work in Grand Rapids if that is where they are instructed to report. 

 

 

Why are you trying so hard to make this point? 

 

Because I find the premise baseball players are underpaid ludicrous.A US marine deployed to a combat zone receives "combat pay" at the rate of $225-250 per month.The median pay for a Marine Lance Corporal is $22,800.Annual compensation while in combat = $25,800.Clayton Kershaw get paid roughly $1M per start.That equates to 38.75X the annual salary of a deployed Marine Corporal for one game.That Corporal would need to fight in combat for 1,279 years to receive the same compensation for 1 year of Kershaw’s contract.He would have to fight in combat or 7,093 years to equal Joe Mauers contract or 12,596 years to equal Giancarlo Stanton contract.

 

How about a Homeland Security Agent Special Agent. They would have to work roughly 3,000 years to equal Stanton’s contract or we could say it takes 300 Homeland Security agents to equal one Giancarlo Stanton.The notion baseball players are underpaid is a product of fanaticism.

 

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly.Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly.If the government said the MLB monopoly has pushed ticket prices to a point of being prohibitive to many families paying taxes for these stadiums or the revenue just was not there and MLB paid half of the $4.4M average compensation would we lose any talent?Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game?Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money? Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB?Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

  • ewen21 likes this

#144 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 25,903 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 08:54 AM

They aren't playing a game. They are doing a job. A job that pills in sufficient revenue that no owner has ever not made millions or billions. Suggesting that labor get more of the revenue seems reasonable, given that it is an entertainment industry. We apparently disagree. No biggie.
  • Vanimal46 and Nine of twelve like this

One of the best opening day rosters in years. Now go get 'em.


#145 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 18,485 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:05 AM

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly.Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly.

Maybe the reason it's not being answered is that people feel it's a blind alley.

 

Big-time pro sports are different from most other lines of work. They are different from small-time sports because of the incredible concentration of revenues. They are different from jobs you gave as examples because of the incredible scarcity of the talent.

 

The latter aspect is what gives the players bargaining power, and the former is why they stand firm. Barrier to entry, in any industry, is a powerful thing. And if you believe the players are lining up to collect easy money, being a team owner in such circumstances but in the absence of collective bargaining is even easier money.

 

With that as where I'm coming from, I'm sorry but I just can't find any aspect of your question that I want to delve into. Only in a benignly authoritarian economy would the important workers you named get paid "fairly".

Everyone hates me because I got cured of paranoia and they didn't.


#146 Riverbrian

Riverbrian

    Goofy Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,088 posts
  • LocationGrand Forks, ND

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:11 AM

 

Because I find the premise baseball players are underpaid ludicrous.A US marine deployed to a combat zone receives "combat pay" at the rate of $225-250 per month.The median pay for a Marine Lance Corporal is $22,800.Annual compensation while in combat = $25,800.Clayton Kershaw get paid roughly $1M per start.That equates to 38.75X the annual salary of a deployed Marine Corporal for one game.That Corporal would need to fight in combat for 1,279 years to receive the same compensation for 1 year of Kershaw’s contract.He would have to fight in combat or 7,093 years to equal Joe Mauers contract or 12,596 years to equal Giancarlo Stanton contract.

 

How about a Homeland Security Agent Special Agent. They would have to work roughly 3,000 years to equal Stanton’s contract or we could say it takes 300 Homeland Security agents to equal one Giancarlo Stanton.The notion baseball players are underpaid is a product of fanaticism.

 

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly.Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly.If the government said the MLB monopoly has pushed ticket prices to a point of being prohibitive to many families paying taxes for these stadiums or the revenue just was not there and MLB paid half of the $4.4M average compensation would we lose any talent?Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game?Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money? Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB?Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

 

OK... I'll bite.

 

would we lose any talent?

 

I don't believe that baseball would have a massive talent drain if compensation were cut in half for whatever reason. You might lose a couple of the multi sport guys to another sport if it fell far enough but the player has no other legitimate place to go at this current juncture.

 

Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game?

 

Obviously Yes. There are Doctors who consider the major league minimum to be incredibly lucrative. 

 

Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money?  

 

Hard to answer this one... Depends if they knew better or not. 

 

Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB? 

 

At this moment...It seems the AAAA guy can go to Japan or Korea and make significantly more. Yu Darvish woud make significantly less. 

 

Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

 

Task completed 

A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

 

President of the "Baseball Player Positional Flexibility" Club 

Founded 4-23-16 

 

Strike Zone Automation Advocate


#147 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 918 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:32 AM

Agreed.This is the only circumstance I would pull for the owners that I can recall.The last strike I saw so much of Donald Fehr it just made me totally ambivalent to the game and the process.
 
There seems to be an almost cite-wide defense of the players here and that is what I am quizzical about.To me, there is no justifying the player salaries.The players union is unlike any other in the world. Why are they so entitled?

The players are entitled because ultimately they are the ones who bring in the revenue.

#148 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 918 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:35 AM

I can watch H.S. ball, college ball, town ball, make a short road trip to minor league ball, even watch some little league if I want.
 
Love me some Target Field, but I can go to the other end of the light rail and watch the Saints for a fraction of the price, get much better seats for much less money, better selection of cheaper brew, etc.
 
Depends whether you are a baseball fan or a MLB fan only.
 
The greed vs. entitlement battle has no appeal to me.

I'm a baseball fan, and the reason I prefer MLB is because that's where the best baseball is played. It's like the difference between hearing the Minnesota Orchestra and the Minnetonka Orchestra.
  • USAFChief, TheLeviathan and Vanimal46 like this

#149 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,519 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:40 AM

Because I find the premise baseball players are underpaid ludicrous. A US marine deployed to a combat zone receives "combat pay" at the rate of $225-250 per month. The median pay for a Marine Lance Corporal is $22,800. Annual compensation while in combat = $25,800. Clayton Kershaw get paid roughly $1M per start. That equates to 38.75X the annual salary of a deployed Marine Corporal for one game. That Corporal would need to fight in combat for 1,279 years to receive the same compensation for 1 year of Kershaw’s contract. He would have to fight in combat or 7,093 years to equal Joe Mauers contract or 12,596 years to equal Giancarlo Stanton contract.

How about a Homeland Security Agent Special Agent. They would have to work roughly 3,000 years to equal Stanton’s contract or we could say it takes 300 Homeland Security agents to equal one Giancarlo Stanton. The notion baseball players are underpaid is a product of fanaticism.

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly. Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly. If the government said the MLB monopoly has pushed ticket prices to a point of being prohibitive to many families paying taxes for these stadiums or the revenue just was not there and MLB paid half of the $4.4M average compensation would we lose any talent? Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game? Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money? Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB? Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.


If the premise is pay equates to human contribution, then yes, of course baseball players are overpaid. Then again, under that premise, so are millions of people who work in "normal" industries. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that is the path you were trying to go down. I previously thought you meant from a % of revenue standpoint.
Of course, if we are using that logic, then the owners also don't "deserve" much of the insane money they are earning.

I've also never suggested that the players are underpaid. I've simply tried to give the viewpoint that if the market is there for these massive profits, then I respect BOTH sides trying to maximize their earning potential.

I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.

1) Sure, if the government declares a monopoly, and cuts revenue potential, then it makes sense for both sides to make less money. That argument has not previously been presented in this thread, unless I missed it. My arguments have been on the premise that the owners would still be making as much revenue as the market would allow. If the players portion were to go down, only to further line the pockets of the owners though, that would not be reasonable, IMO.

2) Would they lose any talent? Tougher to answer, but I'd say yes. Maybe not a lot in the short term, as it would obviously be too late for most of them to successfully transition to another sport.
Over the long term, I think the talent level would drain dramatically. I think you'd see elite young athletes focus more on other sports, if salary were cut that drastically in baseball only.

3) As Mike said, it stops being a game once you are paid to do it. This is a career, just like the majority of other non essential industries. So, I can't say if they'd still find it lucrative or not.
Keep in mind, they don't earn that salary for decades, like most workers do. How long is the average career in MLB?
Some potential mlb players might decide that going to college, and persuing a career in Engineering, or Finance, or Law will be safer, and just as lucrative, if salary is lowered enough.
Is 50% enough to persuade many to take another route? I can't say, probably for some, yes.

4) Not sure that Korea or Japan would be the competition. Perhaps in the short term, some lower to mid level talent guys would go over there. Long term, I think it would be other sports, or other career types.

#150 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 918 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 10 February 2018 - 10:12 AM

I choose not to pay either of them PERIOD if i can help it because BOTH sides are spoiled self entitled rich elitists who collectively make rediculous huge amounts of money off hard working Americans for a silly game.

I'd amend this to say that hard working Americans (and Canadians, Dominicans, Japanese, etc.etc.etc.) willingly spend a ridiculous huge amount of money for a silly game.

#151 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 918 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 10 February 2018 - 10:15 AM

That's why i like minor league ball and college sports. For the most part you don't have to deal with the political BS being inserted into athletic events as well as owners and players squabbling like whining babies over ludicrous amounts of money.

Now that i live in Charlotte i go to many Knights games (AAA white sox affiliate). They have a beautiful brand new stadium downtown. The sight lines are amazing, the food great, ticket prices are cheap and the beer reasonable. Not at all a white sox fan but i love the sport so i go.

It should also be mentioned that the baseball is not as good as MLB.
  • USAFChief likes this

#152 AlwaysinModeration

AlwaysinModeration

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 03:02 PM

With Darvish signing a contract at $21million a year, instead of the $26.7 million a year he was predicted by MLB Trade Rumors, it seems like the players are relenting. Frazier signed for 2/17, considerably less than envisioned.

The owners are winning at resetting the market prices. How did they manage to reset the prices all at once?

#153 Twins33

Twins33

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 10 February 2018 - 10:29 PM

The owners are winning at resetting the market prices. How did they manage to reset the prices all at once?

Easier to do when the Yankees or Dodgers need to clear space in order to add him. Sounds like the Dodgers did offer him a contract but it was like 20M lower or something like that and contingent on trading Kemp.

#154 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 09:08 AM

 

If the premise is pay equates to human contribution, then yes, of course baseball players are overpaid. Then again, under that premise, so are millions of people who work in "normal" industries. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that is the path you were trying to go down. I previously thought you meant from a % of revenue standpoint.
Of course, if we are using that logic, then the owners also don't "deserve" much of the insane money they are earning.

I've also never suggested that the players are underpaid. I've simply tried to give the viewpoint that if the market is there for these massive profits, then I respect BOTH sides trying to maximize their earning potential.

I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.

1) Sure, if the government declares a monopoly, and cuts revenue potential, then it makes sense for both sides to make less money. That argument has not previously been presented in this thread, unless I missed it. My arguments have been on the premise that the owners would still be making as much revenue as the market would allow. If the players portion were to go down, only to further line the pockets of the owners though, that would not be reasonable, IMO.

2) Would they lose any talent? Tougher to answer, but I'd say yes. Maybe not a lot in the short term, as it would obviously be too late for most of them to successfully transition to another sport.
Over the long term, I think the talent level would drain dramatically. I think you'd see elite young athletes focus more on other sports, if salary were cut that drastically in baseball only.

3) As Mike said, it stops being a game once you are paid to do it. This is a career, just like the majority of other non essential industries. So, I can't say if they'd still find it lucrative or not.
Keep in mind, they don't earn that salary for decades, like most workers do. How long is the average career in MLB?
Some potential mlb players might decide that going to college, and persuing a career in Engineering, or Finance, or Law will be safer, and just as lucrative, if salary is lowered enough.
Is 50% enough to persuade many to take another route? I can't say, probably for some, yes.

4) Not sure that Korea or Japan would be the competition. Perhaps in the short term, some lower to mid level talent guys would go over there. Long term, I think it would be other sports, or other career types.

 

I never once addressed revenue split in any fashion which is why I was so ardent.You insisted on remaining on revenue split when my questions clearly indicated my argument was from a different perspective.What’s a fair split does not dictate salaries in a free economy.What’s fair is also very dependent on who’s perspective is being given.I have been in literally hundreds, probably thousands of conversation/negotiations in dozens of companies across numerous industries.There is a strong tendency for individuals or groups to over value their function.John Kennedy once said “success has a thousand fathers and failure is a orphan? 

 

We all believe analytics are extremely important to winning.Are the analytics guys get a piece of the pie or are they paid based on alternatives employment options for those involved.The developmental guys in the minors can have a huge impact, right? I bet they feel they deserve more.How about the marketing guys that have contributed to annual growth and popularity of the game. The list goes on.Who is entitled to what is very difficult to justify or quantify which I why I focused on other forms of valuation.

 

One of the angles I was addressing was could owners pay less and retain talent level and therefore the popularity of the game.You answered we would lose talent but offer no data or even logic.Are there even enough 2-sport players to make a difference? Most are football players, right?How do NFL salaries compare?The average NFL salary is 1.9M and MLB is 4.4Mhttps://www.forbes.c...s/#558d4fb21050 Is it likely players that are football and baseball prospects would opt for MLB even if the salaries were equal because of guaranteed contracts and to protect their bodies. 

 

We have always been able to attract and retain talent in the past.I think so.Has baseball not kept pace with inflation?The average salary in 1995 was $1.1M According to this Forbes article, https://www.forbes.c...8/#3ccff70a3e48the average salary in 1995 was 1,110,766.Adjusted for inflation suing this online toolhttps://inflationdat..._calculator.asp that would equate to $1,621,718.Players earned an average of 4.4M in 2017 which is 270% of the rate paid in 1995 after adjusting for inflation.

 

My opinion is that fans are extremely bias.For example, your position that players are underpaid but owners are making insane profits.There were 15 MLB teams that made less than the top players (single player) in 2016.Four teams lost money.Compensation levels and models in all other industries include a risk component.Players bare no risk.Fans ignore all these things.I fully expect very biased perspectives and perhaps that’s the real point here.How many people do you think would characterize executive compensation at 1,000 times the average American income as underpaid?


#155 DaveW

DaveW

    Aaron Hicks update (5/17): .326 BA .464 OBP .616 SLG 1.080 OPS

  • Banned
  • 13,014 posts
  • LocationNYC aka Aaron Hicks Ville

Posted 12 February 2018 - 09:30 AM

There is no way a single team, much less 4 teams actually “lost” money.

Your a business guy as am I, you know exactly how accountants can work the numbers to be advantageous for pretty much any scenario.
  • Platoon likes this
<p>Aaron Hicks 2017 stats so far (5/17/17): .326 BA .464 OBP .616 SLG 1.080 OPS 7 HR 19 RBI 6 SB 22 BBs 1.8WAR

#156 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 10:37 AM

 

There is no way a single team, much less 4 teams actually “lost” money.

Your a business guy as am I, you know exactly how accountants can work the numbers to be advantageous for pretty much any scenario.

 

Dave,

 

You are sure right in regard to the potential to manipulate numbers. However, these numbers were not supplied by the team. Detailed financials are simply not available so I got that information from Forbes. I am sure they are estimating these numbers. There is no way the teams are giving them even remotely complete information. 

 

https://www.forbes.c...st/#tab:overall

 

This is not too tough for me to believe. Revenue suffers when the team does not perform for whatever reason. There is not much you can do to trim costs unless you bail on the bigger contracts.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 12 February 2018 - 10:42 AM.


#157 Mr. Brooks

Mr. Brooks

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5,519 posts

Posted 12 February 2018 - 06:11 PM

I never once addressed revenue split in any fashion which is why I was so ardent. You insisted on remaining on revenue split when my questions clearly indicated my argument was from a different perspective. What’s a fair split does not dictate salaries in a free economy. What’s fair is also very dependent on who’s perspective is being given. I have been in literally hundreds, probably thousands of conversation/negotiations in dozens of companies across numerous industries. There is a strong tendency for individuals or groups to over value their function. John Kennedy once said “success has a thousand fathers and failure is a orphan?

We all believe analytics are extremely important to winning. Are the analytics guys get a piece of the pie or are they paid based on alternatives employment options for those involved. The developmental guys in the minors can have a huge impact, right? I bet they feel they deserve more. How about the marketing guys that have contributed to annual growth and popularity of the game. The list goes on. Who is entitled to what is very difficult to justify or quantify which I why I focused on other forms of valuation.

One of the angles I was addressing was could owners pay less and retain talent level and therefore the popularity of the game. You answered we would lose talent but offer no data or even logic. Are there even enough 2-sport players to make a difference? Most are football players, right? How do NFL salaries compare? The average NFL salary is 1.9M and MLB is 4.4M https://www.forbes.c...s/#558d4fb21050 Is it likely players that are football and baseball prospects would opt for MLB even if the salaries were equal because of guaranteed contracts and to protect their bodies.

We have always been able to attract and retain talent in the past. I think so. Has baseball not kept pace with inflation? The average salary in 1995 was $1.1M According to this Forbes article, https://www.forbes.c...8/#3ccff70a3e48 the average salary in 1995 was 1,110,766. Adjusted for inflation suing this online tool https://inflationdat..._calculator.asp that would equate to $1,621,718. Players earned an average of 4.4M in 2017 which is 270% of the rate paid in 1995 after adjusting for inflation.

My opinion is that fans are extremely bias. For example, your position that players are underpaid but owners are making insane profits. There were 15 MLB teams that made less than the top players (single player) in 2016. Four teams lost money. Compensation levels and models in all other industries include a risk component. Players bare no risk. Fans ignore all these things. I fully expect very biased perspectives and perhaps that’s the real point here. How many people do you think would characterize executive compensation at 1,000 times the average American income as underpaid?


Well I've never once stated that I think mlb players are underpaid. I've even gone out of my way to remind you of that more than once in this thread.
This has been a fascinating discussion, but I won't continue an argument against words being put in my mouth.

#158 Sconnie

Sconnie

    Touch ‘em all!

  • Members
  • 3,675 posts
  • LocationNW Wisconsin

Posted 18 February 2018 - 02:20 PM

Because I find the premise baseball players are underpaid ludicrous. A US marine deployed to a combat zone receives "combat pay" at the rate of $225-250 per month. The median pay for a Marine Lance Corporal is $22,800. Annual compensation while in combat = $25,800. Clayton Kershaw get paid roughly $1M per start. That equates to 38.75X the annual salary of a deployed Marine Corporal for one game. That Corporal would need to fight in combat for 1,279 years to receive the same compensation for 1 year of Kershaw’s contract. He would have to fight in combat or 7,093 years to equal Joe Mauers contract or 12,596 years to equal Giancarlo Stanton contract.

How about a Homeland Security Agent Special Agent. They would have to work roughly 3,000 years to equal Stanton’s contract or we could say it takes 300 Homeland Security agents to equal one Giancarlo Stanton. The notion baseball players are underpaid is a product of fanaticism.

Mostly, I just wanted someone to actually address the question I posed directly. Let’s try again and see if anyone is actually willing to answer a question directly. If the government said the MLB monopoly has pushed ticket prices to a point of being prohibitive to many families paying taxes for these stadiums or the revenue just was not there and MLB paid half of the $4.4M average compensation would we lose any talent? Would an average compensation of $2,2M be considered incredibly lucrative for playing a game? Would players be thrilled to play for that amount of money? Could they go to Japan or Korea and make ½ of what they make in MLB? Let’s see if anyone is actually willing to address these questions.

the government is a monopoly too. It is illegal to build an army additional to the sanctioned, and the government uses its monopoly power to depress wages.

As evidenced by the dwindling numbers in the military, rarely does one sign up for the money. They sign up for the sense of duty. Comparing baseball and national defense is a bad comparison.

Of course the MLB could impose its will and drive down labor prices but that isn’t an indication of what the market rate “should be” its an indication of a market flaw. There has been competing markets in baseball but the government allowed monopolization and the league flourished, but the players pay didn’t rise at the same rate. That’s why it’s unionized labor. If management was good and good to the players, the players wouldn’t need to unionize.

So no, players are not over paid. They are underpaid with a very select minority ever making a major league minimum. The union currently fails 90% of its members because the major league players (who already make 10X and up over the next highest pay scale and 25x the majority of its players) are the decision makers. MLBPA is great for the richest players, and terrible for the minor leaguers, and not near hard enough on the owners.

Our nations service members are also badly under paid. 22k is a crime, but entirely unrelated.

Edited by Sconnie, 18 February 2018 - 02:20 PM.

  • diehardtwinsfan likes this

#159 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,402 posts

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:06 AM

 

the government is a monopoly too. It is illegal to build an army additional to the sanctioned, and the government uses its monopoly power to depress wages.

As evidenced by the dwindling numbers in the military, rarely does one sign up for the money. They sign up for the sense of duty. Comparing baseball and national defense is a bad comparison.

Of course the MLB could impose its will and drive down labor prices but that isn’t an indication of what the market rate “should be” its an indication of a market flaw. There has been competing markets in baseball but the government allowed monopolization and the league flourished, but the players pay didn’t rise at the same rate. That’s why it’s unionized labor. If management was good and good to the players, the players wouldn’t need to unionize.

So no, players are not over paid. They are underpaid with a very select minority ever making a major league minimum. The union currently fails 90% of its members because the major league players (who already make 10X and up over the next highest pay scale and 25x the majority of its players) are the decision makers. MLBPA is great for the richest players, and terrible for the minor leaguers, and not near hard enough on the owners.

Our nations service members are also badly under paid. 22k is a crime, but entirely unrelated.

 

Monopoly status is irrelevant in this context as monopolies do not drive down wages and the laws protecting wages have nothing to do with monopolies.This is a link to the Department of labor Laws. https://www.dol.gov/...utdol/majorlawsIf there is an effect of monopoly status it would be to create the capacity for excess profits and therefore higher than normal wages.

 

You are also mischaracterizing these statement. The OP suggested players were not treated fairly.I wanted to know from what perspective.The comparison to US Military and Homeleand security was a measure of sociological value. So, the comparison is obviously relevant in context. If its not a sociological perspective the other pertinent perspective is that of free market economics which is a perspective most fans look at from an emotional point of view.For example, a primary disagreement here is that we would lose two sport players.Fans say sure we would without any real consideration of the economic factors at play. For example, there are not enough two sport players to make a significant difference or that all of the others sports except the NBA pay considerable less. Fans make this sort of statement don’t stop to consider baseball contracts are guaranteed and NFL contracts are not.

 

You also completely ignored the fact that I posted right after the quote you posted that this was not a debate of what anyone deserves. Anyone who has been part of related negotiation knows eveyone believes their function is where all the value is formed. There were no coaches that helped these players develop and marketing people had nothing to do with the growth of the league, etc.

Edited by Major Leauge Ready, 19 February 2018 - 09:07 AM.


#160 Rosterman

Rosterman

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2,947 posts

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:27 AM

Can you sign a player that is a difference maker, and for how much. That is the question.

Or do you continue to develop players to replace players when they walk.

Who's available and for what STARTING jobs on each team...but always, at what price. When you start looking at mid-tier free agents, you have to weigh them against inexperienced prospects that DO have an upside.

Joel Thingvall
www.joelthingvall.com
rosterman at www.twinscards.com