Major League Ready

You make a good point. I failed to take that into consideration. However, you did not mention the remainder of the post which was the primary point. It does not makes sense for the Twins to offer a similar deal at this point. IMO, what you have really done here is substantiate the Blackmon contract was probably ill-advised.

Another year of evaluating the potential replacements will put the team in a better position to determine what to do about Dozier at the end of this year. We would also have to pay him top dollar and 5 years to sign him now. There is no upside of signing the deal now. I would think they will also have a much better idea of the likelihood of Lewis sticking at SS. This is no small part of the decision. This team has a number of prospects that could (probably should) continue to elevate this team for the next few years. We don't need a Jacoby Ellsbury scenario of our own.

Dozier's OPS for the last 3 years = .751 / .886 / .856 Blackmon's OPS for the last 3 years = .797 / .933 / .1000 Plus CF vs 2B Is the team better in 2018 with Gordon at 2B and an additional 20M to spend on a FA, especially given Santana is gone next year? It really becomes a bad idea if Lewis sticks at SS. Polanco to 2B, Lewis at SS and 20M to spend on FAs 2019-2022. I love Dozier but let him go. Take the money coming off the books next year and lock up some of our core. If you get those guys locked up, we have some great additions in the wings. Romero and Gonsalves are close and Graterol is probably not far off either. Thorpe and Mejia add depth and Thorpe is a good candidate to jump up on prospects lists. Let's maintain the ability to keep the core around instead of spending the money required to keep them on players likely to decline. Let's lock some guys up next year on contract that won't require us to go to age 35 or 36.

Really great article. I try to watch the box scores for all of the farm teams to see if there is anyone that might break-out. This is a nice heads up on who to watch.

Is it really that important to MLB teams to be able to dissuade players from going to college? I don’t know why MLB owners would care if the system pushed players outside the first 3-4 rounds to college. The teams are still on equal footing in terms of getting these players. The players just arrive later. If this is all about money, all of those years of expense go away. Why put yourself in a legal bind for the ability dissuade prospects outside the first 3 or 4 rounds from going to college? Why as fans are we not concerned about the fact these young men forego an education for a very small chance to play MLB. We say we are concerned about these young men but I don’t hear any concern that most will fail and then have a limited education. It does not change the ability to attract a Bryce Harper. He went #1 overall so going to college was not going to improve his draft position. What is his alternative? Let’s also keep in mind the top players signed for over $7M. 80% of that number is $5.6M. Even at $5M, we are talking about double what the average American makes in their entire life. This does not even consider the time value of money. I would think that’s ample incentive for virtually any HS draftee. Why take the black eye if you are the MLB owners when you could just change the bonus system and rid yourself of the bad press permanently?

Great post. I thought this was the case. There is so much we don't know but iy is common for organizations to hire consulting firms to assess potential alternatives. I would love to be on that team and the first question would be ... why take on this problem when reallocating a fraction of the signing bonuses would take care of this problem? What's the problem if a high school player won't sign for 80% of the current rate. Given the rate HS players wash-out, it would not take long before agents and the players recognize $5.6M (instead of $7M) is still great for someone who has proven so little. Plus, this is not going to impact top 20 recruits given their upside for waiting does not change that much. Bottom line is the sport does not lose these guys. It changes the timeline and no team would gain an advantage if their entry to MiLB is delayed. AT the rate high-school players bust, I don't see the issue for the teams. I generally find in these situations the answer to why this simple solution has not been employed is because there are other forces are in play we have yet to uncover. The legal action could be purely about defining and limiting overtime because of the various difficulties of defining and accounting for overtime. That still leaves to question why not just reallocate some bonus dollars. Regardless, the implication are not nearly as obvious as most seem to think here. The bonus pool was not a problem when it was 20% less so why would it be a problem to reduce the bonus pool and allocate those dollars to salaries? BTW ... my firm has assessed infrastructure expenditures and operating costs and presented reports to the legislaturure in several states. These reports are public record under the freedom of information act. Don't request them If you don't want to be outraged.

The others are suggesting the players union does not represent MiLB players and why should they be expected to look out for their interests. You are saying something very different. I am trying to figure out who is responsible for what. Can anyone tell me how the draft bonuses were determined. Are the amount negotiated by the union. Reallocating 15% of the draft bonuses would pretty much alleviate this problem and 20% would solve it completely. The sport is not going to lose any prospects by reducing signing bonuses by 15-20% and reallocating the funds to player salaries. This make me believe the Owners can't do this without the consent of the union. If that's the case, we have a very different scenario.

Just because you insist that their is not bias at play here does not make it so. I have negotiated these types of scenarios in dozens of the largest organizations in North America. There people all insist that their positions are not biased as well. Yet, everyone thinks their function is the most important and they are underpaid individuals that deserve more of something or another. BTW ... you don't have nearly enough information to render a meaningful opinion about what exactly is in play and why.

There was no condescension intended. I honestly wondered if you had considered that possibility because I was wondering myself if that was part of what was going on. If the MLB union is not negotiating the bonus structure for draftees ... How the heck is it determined?

Right, because Japanese players can opt to come here anytime they want and just sign a contract. The MLB screws these guys so bad they only make 10X on average what players in the next highest paid country get for the same job. Just terrible how bad MLB players have it.

Have you stopped to consider it might be necessary to prevent a landslide of lawsuits and buy some time to negotiate a long-term solution with the union. The union will have something to say because paying MiLB players more reduces the "pot" available to MLB salaries. Fans are simply to bias to even consider such things. It's the nature of this type of forum to run with a portion of the information but in this case, fans likely have a tiny fraction of the information. Perhaps the legal action is centered around preventing an operational nightmare in the form of identifying what is overtime? Everyone here sees and reacts to very surface level implications and there is no doubt more to the story.

Are the draft slot allocations a product of the CBA? I find it very difficult to look at a situation where a quarter billion in signing bonuses are paid out and conclude "those greedy owners" are unwilling to pay MiLB players. This would be incredibly easy to fix. Take half of the bonus money, allocate to wages and you have well-compensated minor league players. What I don't understand why the owners allowed this potential liability to be created. All they needed to do was reallocate the money they are already spending so I have to ask if the bonus structure was negotiated by the other side. Regardless, to look at this problem and not blame the players equally is a product of fanatical bias against owners because fans love the players. Given the growth of wages, the players could have very easily looked out for MiLB players but they obviously want every penny too, Somehow, fans conclude players deserve every penny and the owners are greedy which is as absurd as some of the MiLB players playing for scraps and others getting paid millions before they every play in a MLB game. Some of you also equate MiLB pay to normal jobs and suggest players are trapped therefore need minimum wage. They are not trapped. Playing baseball is not their best option. They certainly have the option to do something else and chose not to. They are just delaying the inevitable by a couple years so to suggest the situation is the same as any other minimum wage situation is a big stretch.

I would appreciate an accurate characterization of my position? Most of the solutions I have suggested center around reallocation of the salaries or bonuses being paid by the team and wouldn’t it be nice if the players were willing to contribute a tiny bit of the massive increases they have gotten over the past couple of decades. Why is it a problem to reallocate 10 or even 20% of the bonus money paid to prospects, especially given most of the high bonus players will never make it in MLB. Why are you asking why players should pay when I have provided suggestions that require to player participation? You are showing a very clear bias that prevents a reasonable assessment of the facts and alternative compensation models. The suggestion that suggested player participation was to take a tiny percentage of the top paid player’s s salaries. Why shouldn’t these extremely fortunate individuals help alleviate the problem? Please explain to me why you object to taking a tiny percentage of a player’s salary why makes literally 400X the average American? Of course, you won’t actually address this question you will comeback with something else and ignore the question. All of the complaining here and most of the articles conveniently ignore the nearly quarter billion/year paid in bonus and then calculate compensation without considering this money. It takes some pretty extreme bias or financial ignorance to represent the compensation without considering the bonus compensation as part of total compensation.

You missed that one by a country mile. The industry/owners have paid out BIG-TIME. The very players who went through the minor league system have opted to share none of the dramatic increase with the players who now in that system. It amazes me that you can sit here and put this all on owners. Why can't the players take 1% less? That would be enough to pay every minor league player an additional $20hr.

How do you come to the conclusion this is 100% the owners fault. Clearly, the teams have increased player compensation astronomically. Is it there fault the MLB players Union has elected to keep 100% of the increase. The teams paid out $246M in draft bonuses last year. That's enough to give every player on a minor league contract a raise of roughly $200 per HR assuming 35 players on a roster and 50 hours required/week. Is there documentation that this allocation was insisted upon my MLB owners or was it the union or a joint decision. Unless this allocation was insisted upon my the owners, how can you assert the wage issue is 100% the fault of MLB owners? Here is a simple solution. Take 10% of the bonus pool and reallocate it by giving every MiLB player an additional $20HR.

I guess you are right but does it change the premise of the original post? It's still $7K/month without any participation from MLB players. Is the problem how much is being paid to MiLB players or is it how the money is distributed. Additionally, is it or is it not a problem that MLB salaries have gone up 2500% since the original CBA and MiLB salaries have gone up less than 100%?

10 rounds or 40 rounds, if you look at a compensation program that pays out $246M/year in bonuses + monthy comp, housing and meal and determine there is a problem with what owners are spending, the problem is your assessment of the problem. The problem is how the money is distributed. $246M divided by 1220 players (40 rounds + comp rounds) is an average of $201,639 per player. If the average player has a 5 year career and plays 7 months out of the year that equates to $5,761 month plus the existing monthly comp, meals and housing. That’s at least $7,500 month. Now, how about if the MLB players contribute equally? Minor league players could be paid $15K month on average or if the players would contribute even half the amount of owners, MiLB players would make 11,400 month on average. Pay them all the same or pay them on a scale depending on level or draft round. There are many variations that could be put in place to rectify the current inequity. Regardless of what you might think is the most equitable, the problem is not MLB owner contribution to minor league salaries. BTW… If the players contributed half of what the teams are already contributing in the form of bonuses, average pay would go down from 4.4M to 4.24M or double the average NFL salary or roughly 8 times the next highest baseball league in the world.

This is a poor depiction of the actual situation. The 131,000 is not their total comp so why are you comparing based on $131,000? You have not considered the monthly pay or that the difference between college players and 16 year olds. $131,000 is well-above the pay for an average 16-18 y/o. You also failed to consider housing and meals. Take all these things into consideration and the situation is not what you have depicted here. It’s a 6 month job and you are considering the relative fairness based on a 12 month standard. You also fail to consider a college player that takes more than 3 years in the minors might need to face the fact they probably won’t make it. Owners should not be held accountable because a guy who is never going to make it wants to continue to play baseball because it’s a lot cooler than a real job. Based on 3 years $131,000 + monthly comp and meals is roughly $50,000/year or about the same amount as the average American. A 16-18 year old on average makes about the same as MilB players in the lower levels and that does not consider the signing bonus. You have also failed to consider the fact that teams paid out $245,806,800 in draft bonuses. Go ahead and complain how the money is distributed to b!%$h about the amount is ludicrous. This topic tends to elicit irrational thought processes for most people. Rushing to the conclusion that it’s the greedy owners fault is very parochial thinking. Why shouldn’t bonus amount be considered in compensation? The actually disparity where income is concerned is always portrayed without considering the compensation paid up front. That makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps more to the point is the fact the distribution of those bonus funds need to be reallocated. This problem could be very easily rectified by taking even 10% of the bonus money and reallocating it to MiLB wages. Take 20% and all MilB players would be doing great.

What do you mean by "forced to"?

I have to admit the college comparison is a real stretch. At the same time the guys who are just "cannon fodder" have the option to get a real job anytime they chose. Perhaps if the did move on the teams would have to pay a wage to retain them. How does any of this detract from the fact the revenue allocated to players has increased by an almost unimaginable amount and the MLB players have not shared this with MiLB players? Posters here are outraged with owners when the people who were in the same position don't feel MiLB players should share in the massive increase in the pool of $$$ available to players. The union could have bargained for 3% of the salaries of the top 60 players in the league to be allocated to MiLB player salaries. Those players made an average of $22,465,892. The 3% would equate to $673,977. The salaries of those top players would be reduced to an average of $21,791,915 per year or to put it in perspective well over 400X what the average Amercian makes. Isnt $22M/year enough? Are the owners the primary reason that none of the massive increase has made it's way to MiLB players?

Mike, we don't agree at all in terms of the nature of this action. MiLB is professional preparation not all that different from college. It's just a lot more fun than college. I did not get paid anything for the 8 years of profession preparation I went through. As a matter of fact, I paid a substantial amount to acquire that preparation. In addition, had the MLB players shared some of the wealth, this would be absolutely no issue.

Here are the facts … The average salary in 1970 when the first CBA was established was 29,303. Adjusted for inflation 188,046. Therefore, after adjusting for inflation MLB salaries have increased 23 X the level of 1970. In 1980 when the amount of revenue allocated to player salaries increased by 4.5X 1970 levels, the players could have opted to share some of that increase with the MiLB players. However, they opted to keep 100 of that increase. In 1990 when the amount of revenue allocated to player salaries increased by 20X 1970 levels. The players have opted to keep 10% of that increase. In 2000, MLB player salaries increased to $1,895,630 or an increase of 64X the level of 1970 compensation. The MLB players have opted to keep 100 of that increase. In 2010, MLB player salaries increased to 3,014,572 which is an increase of over 100X 1970 compensation. The MLB players have opted to keep 100 of that increase. The average salary in 2017 was 4.4M or roughly 150X 1970 compensation which equates to 23X 2017 salaries. The average MLB player makes nearly 100 times the average American. The Player’s union has had a very longtime and ample opportunity to share with MiLB players. Perhaps it’s time for MLB players to share the wealth. The owners are not without fault but it is difficult to mandate how the other side of a CBA allocates funds. The Player's association has done a relatively poor job of representing the bulk of MLB players. Superstars are collecting a very large percentage of the total dollars. While the relative fairness of this outcome is debatable, what is not debatable is that MiLB players have been completely ignored. The premise that this all falls on the owners is wildly biased. BTW … MLB salaries are roughly 10X Japanese players which is the next highest league. If the owners were as greedy as the players, MLB players would not be making 10X the amount paid by the next highest paying alternative.

So, you are going to quit watching because of the owners greed. Apparently, the players greed is not a problem. It is well-established virtually every player has no loyalty to their fans or teammates one free agency arrives. Not sure I blame them but that's not the point.

Doc, I am impressed You just proved an ability to be objective that is obviously not present in the vast majority here. Salaries have risen astronomically. In other words, the owners have ponied up. The players could have elected to let minor league players participate in this good fortune. However, the people who should be the most sympathetic could have chosen to include MiLB players and they said we will going to keep every penny for ourselves. This group someone ignores this and make the owners out to be 100% at fault. BTW ... The salaried employee is a very good solution to MiLB players.

The MLBPA does not fight for better wages for MiLB players because it would come out of the MLB player’s pockets. There is X amount of dollars available for player salaries. If Forbes is to be believed and I think that’s a credible source, the teams are spending those dollars except when they are in an obvious rebuild mode. There are players who individually make more than some of the teams every year. It cracks me up that the vast majority of fans put all the blame on the owners. Players and their agents have shown the players are out to get every dime they can get. Yet, somehow it’s only the owners that are greedy. It would be great if the owners came out and stated the want to REALLOCATE $1.5M/year to payroll for minor league players. The major league minimum would not change so the only players impacted would be those in arbitration or beyond. If the average pay is 4.4M, I would guess the average pay for this segment of players is at least $6M year. If on average 15 of the 25 players on MLB rosters are in this group it would cost those players 100,000 year of 1.66 percent of their salary. MLB pays their players 10 what Japanese players make which is the next highest paid league and the average pay of MLB players has tripled (after being adjusted for inflation) in the past 20 years. The player's association could have opted to include minor MiLB players in this tremendous increase in player wages and they chose not to do so.