mlhouse

Nice list. IT is fun to see the ranking discussion. Just for fun, here is my list and their "rating". The rating is my own qualitative measure but anyone over 85 is a legitimate MLB prospect, below that number they are still prospects with certain issues that need to be resolved with time/experience. It is used just to show the drop in the prospect rankings that a "1-50" list doesn't show. And I do not consider Byron Buxton a prospect anymore. 1. JO Berrios 97 2. Max Kepler 95 3. Jorge Polanco 91 4. Kohl Stewart 90 5. Nick Gordon 89 6. Stephen Gonslaves 89 7. Tyler Jay 87 8. Nick Burdi 84 9. Louis Thorpe 83 10. JT Chargois 81 11. Adam Walker 80 12. Alex Meyer 80 13. Jake Reed 78 14. Stuart Turner 76 15. Luke Bard 76 16. Ryan Eades 74 17. Travis Blankenship 73 18. Felix Jorge 73 19. WAnder Javier 70 20. Pat Dean 70

One of the problems of Minnesota Twins organization and fans is that they overvalue prospects, while in the real world prospects are overvalued in MLB trades. With the Twins unexpectedy in contention for a wild card playoff birth it makes sense to trade a couple of lower end minor league prospects for a reliever that may help us maintain that position, propping up a bullpen that has been struggling a bit. If we were not in contention for this playoff spot my attitude would be different. So, if trading Hu, at best the 4th or 5th best pitching prospect AT FT MYERS alone (Stewart, Gonsleves, Jay, and Eades with Slegers, Batts, Van Stesnsel, etc all in the same ballpark) and Tapia, a long shot prospect at best, is such a terrible trade then that is hyperbole at its best. Jensen can help us this season. Hu is not going to be in the majors for at least 2-3 years and Tapia even longer. And that also means that many of the pitching prospects that are higher up the ladder all fail. In the end, accumulating talent in the minor leagues is a good thing. But, you need to evaluate them quickly, move them quickly, and if you have the opportunity to get known value for them make many of those moves. Look at how many prospects have failed after waiting for a long time for them to move through the majors. And think about this: if 2-3 years ago we could have made a major trade using Oswaldo Acia as the prime trade value everyone would be screaming what a bad trade it was. But, reality changes perceptions.

The Twins have made huge mistakes the past few years by stalling the call up of their young players. The conservative, step by step approach they have taken made sense when they had a team that won games. But after several 90+ loss seasons they had the ability to "rush" some of these prospects and see what they could do. Instead they populated the roster with a bunch of mediocrities that will never be anything more. Look at the 1982 Twins season. That should have been the model for the rebuild from the start. Some prospects fail: for example the "original" centerfielder of the Twins 80 rebuild was Jim Eisenreich. When he unfortunately did not work out we just found someone else named Kirby Puckett. But where would the Twins be if they would have waited another year or two on Eisenrreich, or Lenny Faedo, or several other prospects? That would have delayed Puckett's emergence and the World Series championships of 87 and 91 might never have happened.

I was at Saturday's game and he hit the ball really hard several times. It was just right at someone or hit to the deepest part of the field. His struggle right now is against LHP and the Twins should show patience and develop the ability to work with struggling young players at the major league level. Without that, what are we going to do with Sano and Buxton, Rosario and others when they come up? Continue to bounce them back and forth if they go through a slump?

I think catching is still a major weakness of this team's organization even after making significant draft picks last year. From my database here are the catching prospects in the organization: [TABLE=width: 583] [TD=width: 135]Fryer, Eric[/TD] [TD=width: 75, align: right]1985[/TD] [TD=width: 36, align: right]29[/TD] [TD=width: 75]C[/TD] [TD=width: 112]Ohio St[/TD] [TD=width: 75]2012FA[/TD] [TD=width: 75]ROC[/TD] Rodriguez, Jairo [TD=align: right]1988[/TD] [TD=align: right]26[/TD] C VZ 2007VZ NBR Knudson, Kyle [TD=align: right]1987[/TD] [TD=align: right]27[/TD] C Minnesota [TD=class: xl24]2010D9[/TD] NBR Koch, Matt [TD=align: right]1988[/TD] [TD=align: right]26[/TD] C Loyola Marymount [TD=class: xl25]2011D12[/TD] NBR Qusada, Michael [TD=align: right]1990[/TD] [TD=align: right]24[/TD] C Sierra CC GA [TD=class: xl24]2010D24[/TD] CRK Altobelli, Bo [TD=align: right]1991[/TD] [TD=align: right]23[/TD] C Texas Tech [TD=class: xl26]2012D21[/TD] CRK Garver, Mitch [TD=align: right]1991[/TD] [TD=align: right]23[/TD] C New Mexico [TD=class: xl27]2013D9[/TD] CRK Grimes, Tyler [TD=align: right]1990[/TD] [TD=align: right]24[/TD] C Wichita St [TD=class: xl25]2011D5[/TD] FSM Swim, Alex [TD=align: right]1991[/TD] [TD=align: right]23[/TD] C Elon [TD=class: xl27]2013D22[/TD] FSM Turner, Stuart [TD=align: right]1991[/TD] [TD=align: right]23[/TD] C Mississippi [TD=class: xl27]2013D3[/TD] FSM Navvarreto, Brian [TD=align: right]1994[/TD] [TD=align: right]20[/TD] C FL HS [TD=class: xl27]2013D6[/TD] GCL [/TABLE] [TABLE=width: 583] [TD=align: right][/TD] [TD=align: right][/TD] [/TD] [TD=class: xl27] [/TABLE] At the top of the organization you can see that the catchers are older, journeyman types than anything else. I think they want to just find a catcher or two to follow last year's selections: Turner, Garver, and Navvarreto up the rungs. Looking at the organization, there is a significant talent gap in the top two levels of the minors. Many of those spots are held by long time minor league veterans rather than true prospects. It is something perhaps to be expected given that there are several prospects at the MLB level and most of our high level prospects were just recently drafted. But it is also a function of the Twins slow method of advancing minor league players.

With the MLB Draft going on I put together a database of the Twins minor league system and wanted to see the impact the draft has had on the Twins organization. Some interesting (at least to me) notes. 1. The oldest draft year still represented in the Twins organization is 2007, with Dan Rohfling a light hitting catcher drafted out of Missouri high school and playing in Rochester (AAA). The Twins top draft pick that year was Ben Revere. 2. The oldest college players drafted that are still in the organization are from the 2008 draft. Mike Gonzales (9) and Nate Hanson (28) are still in the organization from the draft that yielded Aaron Hicks as a first round pick. Three HS players from that draft are still in the organization, Daniel Ortiz, BJ Hermsen, and Michael Tonkin (would be nice to see Ortiz get a shot in September call ups). 3. Only one player from the 2009 draft is still in the organization, 6th round pick Chris Hermann. Kyle Gibson(1) and Brian Dozier(8) are two players on the major league team from that draft. 4. The big cut for draft years is between the 2009 and 2010. While only 1 player from the 2009 draft still remains in the minor league system, 13 from the 2010 draft are still playing minor league ball. Only one has had a taste of the big leagues, 6th round pick Logan Darnell and only 46th round pick AJ Achter has joined Darnell at the AAA level. Most likely, only a couple of these guys will still be in the organization next year.

One thing that really needs to be mentioned is that sometimes we only look at a journey like A.J. Petterson's as a means to an end, and forget that sometimes the journey is an ends in itself. Minor league baseball is a special thing, and too often the game is clouded over when it is only seen as a dream. Anyone who has been to a game knows it is more than that. It is worthwhile in itself. Congratulations on a great baseball career A.J.

Why?

If I want to be a manager at Target I have to go up the ladder too. If you want to be a doctor you have to go to medical school, most likely live in similar poverty, and work even more insane hours. That there is a "monopoly" is immaterial. If you want to play professional baseball you have to play for a professional baseball team. And if that is what a professional baseball team will offer you to play professional baseball, you can take it or leave it. The guys at the higher end of the food chain can negotiate the signing bonuses. The guys at the bottom cannot. They are only worth the minor league contract, nothing more or nothing less. And the "dream" is what is valuable to them so if that is what they want then that is the consequences of their own choices.

Morality? When someone decides to willingly exchange their labor services to an employer that willing agrees to pay them for those services, how much more moral can it be?

Again, these rights and privileges are subject to a labor agreement reached in a collective bargaining agreement between the employers and the player union. Almost all of the "monopolistic" issues are covered by the agreements, and hence, the players "individual rights" are moot. For a new employee of major league baseball and a new employee at a unionized automobile plant the issues are both the same. In a sense, for the employee it is a take it or leave it proposition. The starting wages and work rules have been predetermined by other people. You can accept those rules/wages/benefits or you can choose another option. That only leaves wage and hour issues to settle with the minor league players. I think the preponderance of evidence supports the employers side in this. A baseball player is paid a salary that is not subject to normal definitions of hours and overtime. For example, consider a game that goes into extra innings........it is a game. But, you never know with judges. A lot of the challenges to professional sport employment issues were originally decided by lower courts the opposite way that appeals courts have ruled (the appeals court rulings have always been consistent with more robust legal precedence). So, I would not be surprised if the minor league players win the on the first level of the case (they obviously have judge shopped). The one avenue of approach that I would try (and I am not sure if it has been attempted or if they are looking at this in this lawsuit) is to try to split the major and minor league. I would argue that for the minor league players that never received a signing bonus, that they are not employees of the major league team and that they are not subject to the same work and compensation rules of major league baseball. I doubt it would work, but that gives them some hope.

1. There is no such thing as a "living wage". Employers do not control a person's life. They cannot tell an employee when to have children. Where to live. What to buy. Whom or when to marry. A living wage implies control over another person's life. That is also called slavery. 2. Something that is willingly exchanged is not a burden. So, the local families that host players are not "burdened". They provide these services for a variety of reasons, including financial. 3. There isn't collusion. The law is clear, when certain issues are negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement: drafts, bonus structure, minor league free agency, wage structures, that such market limiting issues can exist. This has been tested in the court, over and over again. It isn't going to change. 4. You can decide what is fair or unfair, JUST AS the minor league players did. No one forced them to become minor league baseball players. No one forced them to sign a professional baseball contract. But, when they did they determined that given all of their other alternatives the baseball contract WAS FAIR, by definition. If it was not, then they would have not signed the contract and chosen an alternative. THIS IS THE FACT OF EVERY ECONOMIC TRANSACTION. You consider your alternatives and choose the best one for you.

I believe that the anti-trust exemption will trump any wage claims made by the minor league players. Baseball will argue that a professional athlete is exempt from overtime pay, that they are essentially salaried employees, and that the players, often represented by professional agents, agreed to the terms of their contract. The basic economic argument is that the unit of output of a player is not an "hour", but the game. Because of the anti-trust exemption this will be enough to prevail on the legal front. And, I totally agree with that position. Maybe the professional teams should provide more economic resources to the lower drafted players that do not receive any signing bonus to help them financially. But, in the end the teams are focusing millions of dollars on the players they best feel will help them in the future and that the marginal players maketheir ouw choices to pursue a professional baseball career. Fair or not, it is an economically rational approach.

Clearly, minor league baseball has not sewn up the entire labor market. A player is totally free to negotiate a signing bonus with the team, sign a professional baseball contract, or choose to go a different route with their lives, including for HS players a college baseball career.

No. THey have a choice. They can sign a professional baseball contract or do something else. If they do not feel they will be adequately compensated they can choose a different option. IF Major League Baseball did not pay enough to their minor league players then too many athletes would choose other options and they would not be able to field minor league operations. That is not the situation. So, there is no evidence that minor league baseball players are underpaid.

The question of getting the best athletes is address in the signing bonuses and relative salary level of the major league system. A person does not decide at a young age to become a baseball player versus another sport based on the magnitude of the minor league salary. And, it is very true that many minor league players do not get a signing bonus. Yet, they make the decision to play minor league baseball anyways. Maybe with a higher salary in the minors more players that are drafted would sign professional baseball contracts, but that is something that the franchises themselves need to measure. If they think that they are not getting enough talent to populate their minor league systems then they could increase their salaries or offer bonuses to players drafted outside of the slotted draft range.

The Twins certainly do seem to run their drafts based on a "theme". I guess there is some argument to the quantity theory of drafting.

Here are the economic facts. If an employer does not pay a high enough salary they will have a labor shortage. Lets say you are an employer and you need 25 employees. You offer $1,100/month as a salary. You get (more than) 25 employees that are qualified for the job to agree to work for you. If that is the case, you are paying enough. If you were not paying enough then you would have to increase the salary you offer to attract enough qualified employees. This works the same way no matter what type of employees you are looking for. Minor league baseball does not have a labor shortage. In fact, since many minor league baseball players are involuntarily released each year they actually have a labor surplus. Therefore, any reasonable person would conclude that minor league baseball does not pay too little. And, as other people have brought up, the arguments that their salaries are too low completely ignore the sizable signing bonuses that these players receive. For example, looking at the Twins Daily draft thread, the 10th round draft pick will receive a slotted signing bonus of $140,700. So, all of the overblown claims about how major league baseball doesn't care are just rhetoric that ignores reality.

Auto spell is so funny. A few other observations. Adam Brett Walker - he certainly looks like a baseball player. Supremely athletic. Hit the ball pretty hard. Travis Harrison - has a nice swing but has a quirky movement with his lead foot that seemed to put him off balance at times. Also, stole Tyler Jones' hat as he headed out to the field for the 9th inning. I guess since they both have a 7 in their numbers that can be excused for a A+ minor league player. Dalton Hicks - He is certainly big and lumbering but he seems to have a knack for getting hits when needed.

Was at Miracle game tonight. The outstanding player of the game was Tyler Jones. Fastball was heavy at 94 and slider awesome at 82. Threw strikes and looked unfit table.

You are overstating what I said. Unless you are paying wages your opinion is really meaningless. The only opinions that are important is the employee and the employer in wage matters. All other opinions are meaningless. Almost all wages set in the United States are market rates. When you accept a job that is what you are worth. AS you gain experience and improve your productivity you might be worth more. Then your employer might give you a raise. If you believe that you are worth more you might look to another job. But just because you believe you are worth more does not mean you are worth more. THe market must make that judgement. So, I pay my employees a certain wage. That is what they are worth. If they are worth more they might attract another offer and go work for another company. I pay 100% of my employees above the minimum wage and above any proposed minimum wage(how anyone can straight face seek to raise the miniumum wage more than 40% while teenage unemployment levels are over 16% is absolute crazy economic policy). So, your opinions about what I pay or should pay my employees are completely meanignless. And, the same goes for every employer out there, including minor league baseball. Again, if the wages were too low for minor league baseball players they would not have enough players. THen they would have to increase the wage rate to bring the numebr of employees to the required level. The fact is, minor league baseball does not have a labor shortage, and if anything, a labor surplus (they need to release players). Thus claims that they are paid too little are false.

1. The shareholders set the wages of the CEO to the same extent they set the wages of the lowerest paid employees. Like I said in a previous related response, when you own your own company you can set the salaries of the janitors equal to the salary of the CEO. I DOUBT YOU WOULD though. You would pay the market wage for your managers and janitors. Nothing more, and nothing less. 2. Your comments on education are ridiculous. We pour money into the education of the lowest class. More money per student is spent on low income areas than the highest end. THe problem is more cultural than money. The poor have very poor habits and make very poor choices. THey are burdened with children before they are ready and are more prone to drug and alchohol abuse. THese are their choices, culturally influenced. 3, Based on the undisputed facts of the above, the only way that you can "equalize" education is to tear down the people who are successful......great policy. 4. As far as anecdotal evidence about the liberals being hypocrites. Two words: Al Franken. The fact is that liberals are more into telling others what they should pay rather than creating jobs and paying wages themselves.

Lol. I can tell all of these advocates do not and never will employ people. Your tune changes when you pay FICA taxes, workers comp insurance, federal and state unemployment insurance. Then your "deserving" employees file bogus work comp and unemployment claims, and then run off to file bogus civil rights claims. Here are is the deal. Stop talking about wages unless you are going to employ people yourself. An employee's wage is a mutual agreement between the employer and employee. Once the agreement is made other's opinions are meaningless.

And, I forgot to address the issues of collusion and/or monopoly. THe reason why restrictions on monopolistic practices, of which collusion is one, is that it leads to a undersupply of a commodity and economic rents being paid to that monopolist. Under a competitive market, the market would demand more at a lower price and suppliers would supply more at a lower price. This articfial situation hurts the overall welfare of society while benefiting one party. Now, there are situations were monoplies do exist. We recognize that there are some products that require extensive capital infrastructure investment that it would be very difficult to create a truly competitive market. Electiralc power and cable television are two examples of such monopolies. HOWEVER, we also understand that in such situations that these monopolies need to be regulated. So, public commissions usually regulate the rates that these monopolies can charge, usually guaranteeing them a profit over cost. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to create a monopoly anymore. Think of the telephone company and how technology pretty much destroyed the monopolistic practices of the Bell system. Right now, the biggest monopoly players is the government and they are incredibly immune to challenges to their monopoly powers. Government Public Education is probably the biggest monopoly operated in the world, with entrenched bureacrats and unionized teachers that are adapt at the nasty politics of defending their turf. And, the American public suffers for this because their product is not efficient or effectie.

A gas station isn't a monopoly. If all of the gas stations "got together" that would be a violation of US anti-trust laws. And even if such a cartel did exist they are almost impossible to keep together. Such cartels can only be maintained by agreeing on market share. But there is more money to be made if you cheat and members of cartels will almost certainly cheat over their quotas. (if you are ever in Orlando there is a gas station that charges $5.99/gallon hoping to sucker tourist. It is by the outlet mall. Dont go there). Next, monopoly or not, pricing in a free amrket means that those that are willing to pay $5.50 will and those that are unwilling will not. And, this means that those that value the product at least as much as $5.50 will buy and those that do not value the product as high will not. This is how the free market place polices the economy and creates teh hidden hand that maximizes everone's utility (welfare). When something interrupts such a process, then the right buyers are not buying the resources that value those resources the most, usually because some government entity lets them get better deals. AS far as the max salary issue in lieu of a players union, that would essentially be illegal (again, the CBA freely negotiated with a union and employers allows these types of restrictions) collusion amongst owners and most owners would cheat such a value out of existence although there is a conceivable max salary that could be created that is a max salary because it would be economically impossible to pay, lets say $150 million/year.