tobi0040

The other day Dan Gladden called Buxton "Brian". Maybe when this kid gets more national attention he will figure out his name?

Thank you. The NCAA actually has players sign a contract that says they are students first, and sports is an extra-curricular activity, what a joke. Coach K and every other big basketball coach hopped on their private jet and traveled to Apple Valley High School dozens of times because they had a really good student. You said it best, collusion riddled institutions that suppress player pay.

I do agree, but I think it can be a negative when your best player and role model is too passive. If you are up 10 runs in the 9th inning and your best hitter gets a ball in the middle of his back, I want him to tell the pitcher where to go intead of put his head down and trot to first.

I am having a real tough time reconciling your various opinions. They seem inconsistent and contradictory to me. “My son plays Division III college football and is an academic all conference player. He plays for free. Every player that plays athletics for a college/university should play for free too” “Here is another fact of economics. When you are paid for a job, you are paid EXACTLY what you are worth. IF another employer offered you more you would leave for that job” “When you work for an employer only two things are important. 1. What you produce and 2. what your total compensation is” If everyone is paid based on what they produce, why should college athletes play for free? Why are they not paid based on what they produce? Do you not believe they are working or producing value? If they were paid based on what they produce, why is the value of Johnny Manziel’s pay the same as the third string guard? Do star players not produce incremental sales of tickets, jerseys, concessions, etc.? The “pay” of a player at Harvard is actually higher than the pay of a player at Alabama (cost of school is higher at Harvard). Is the Harvard player “producing” more value? You have also been very vocal that if their pay was out of line they would go work elsewhere and they willingly knew the what the offer was when they accepted it, therefore they must not be underpaid. Why do so many players willingly play for profitable schools in the SEC, University of Texas, UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, etc. when they are clearly producing more economic value then they receive? Are all of these people dumb? Or is it because this is not a free market? I would argue this is a clear monopoly and these players have no other choice. If they wanted to pursue being a professional football player, this is the only game in town and therefore, they play for well below market value and they have to accept equal pay across positions, players that play versus those that don’t, and equal pay among profitable programs and not profitable programs. The NFL is a free market and very few of us know who the backup QB for the Patriots is. Nobody wears his jersey, and he is not making the same as Tom Brady. If this was a real market, the profitable NCAA schools would put the not-profitable out of business. Wal-Mart and Target would not be supporting Kmart. But don’t take it from me, a panel of economists from Harvard ranked the NCAA as the biggest monopoly in the world. Bigger than OPEC, bigger than Microsoft (in 2002), bigger than the post office. While this article is dated, the principles remain the same. A quick google search of “ncaa monopoly” will yield many stories, some from the press and others from academic sources identifying the NCAA as a clear monopoly. That explains the bizarre phenomenons above that defy economics. http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/02_1209_monopoly_bw.pdf

The first 7 people, including myself picked over for the Twins. No bias here.

Above.

Agreed. This is not a free market. I would expect this to change in the next few years, and minor leaguers to be paid above minimum wage at a minimum and possibly receive representation.

Let me explain, again why almost everyone else on this thread thinks they are underpaid. $1,150 a month / 8 hours a day / 30 days a month = $4.79 an hour. It is illegal to pay someone $4.79 in this country. Mr. Wood, in 1984 dollars was paid seven times more than todays minimim wage. It really is not that complicated.

Just a philosophical difference then. The immigrants from latin america that illegally make $2 an hour are not underpaid. What if we smuggled immigrants from Ethiopia and paid them 20 cents an hour? Some would be willing. 1.60 a day sounds reasonable with your line of reasoning. Can we find anyone to go lower? What about a child from Ethiopia? This is really fun and not at all morally objectionable.

This is not charity work. This check is the livelihood of thoustands of people. A big difference. Many illegal immigrants farm for $2-3 dollars an hour, which is illegal. It happens though, so given no shortage of people willing to do it, I guess they are paid fine?

Wood v. NBA has absolutely nothing to do with the point most of the people on this site are making. True, in both cases a union or league is setting salaries for players. However, Mr. Wood sued the NBA because his 1 year, $75,000 contract was not a market value offer. He wanted more money and sued that he was being harmed because he was not paid enough. This lawsuit was in 1984. In 1984 you could buy a gigantic house for $75,000. Certainly that was hundreds of multiples above minimum wage. The point most have made here is that $1,150 a month, given the hours these guys put in playing, practicing, training, and traveling is below minimum wage. http://www.leagle.com/decision/19841127602FSupp525_11023

You're making my point here, lottery-wise. I'm saying the "lottery" odds are much better as a minor league ballplayer than as a burger flipper (or lotto player). You agreed with me on this. But the fact the league has no shortage of players willing to play for the going rate tells me the wage is not too low. I follow you now regarding the lotto ticket analogy. I still don't think the sub-minimum wage is acceptable, but it looks like we agree on that. The logic of no shortage of the labor exists, therefore this is not a big issue doesn't make sense to me. A) we don't know how much labor would exist if they paid more. I would guess every MLB team has lost a player that would have eventually contributed to their MLB club because he was struggling in the minors and not making any money. Most men have a complex about being able to support their wife/girlfriend and kids if they have any. More labor would mean higher qualify of labor, i.e. a better MLB team. in the mail room example I used earlier. This is a guy that is starting out and wants to climb the ranks. Our society protects him and pays him at least a minimum of $7.15 an hour. Competition within that industry, i.e. he could work at any mail room creates a situation where a premium is added to the role, so this guy is probably making $10 an hour. $10 an hour is $20,800 a year, or about $8K more than the annualized $1,150 a month over six months. The competition is lacking for MILB players, therefore no premium is attached and they should not be exempted from minimum wage considerations.

You quoted my earlier post. My point is, for most players the minor leagues are like playing the lottery. The odds are against them. Adding up the salary (most here are disregarding the signing bonus) and hours and comparing it to a regular job is not an apples to apples comparison. No one gets a burger flipping job with the intention of achieving a 7 figure salary in the same business within 5 or 6 years. That's not an unrealistic result in baseball. Every minor league ballplayer is gambling that they'll be one of the millionaires. A much better percentage win that gamble than win the lotto. Should many of the low round players quit and start a real career? Probably, their odds are much worse than the high picks. As an earlier poster said, if they didn't think it was worth it they wouldn't be doing it, and the league might have to pay higher wages to fill the roster. I think most people aspire to rise through the ranks wherever they are. I work for a company with 300,000 employees and a CEO that makes $20M a year. In fact, if you took the 25 highest paid executives in MN their salaries would dwarf the Twins payroll. So the lotto ticket theory does not really apply, as the odds are much worse in the real world. If you get that first job in the mail room, our society says you deserve at least minimum wage while you start your ascent, which is not the case for a minor league player. The fact that he has a potential payoff down the road should not justify a salary of $6k a year.

Torii was my favorite player and I was sad when he left. I usually get upset when a guy kicks the team that drafted him to the curb for an extra million. But in Torii's case, we offered 3 years 45 million and he got 5 years and 90 million. On top of that he approached us a year before being a free agent in both occasions where his contract was coming up and he was denied. I guess I don't blame him. As far as standing up for minor league.players.He could.But so could one of the several hundred other veterans. It isn't solely his responsibility.I do know he has started a succesful charity that encourages young african americans to play and stick with baseball. He also encourages other players to donate.

Here is the press release from ESPN. The twins cited "philosophical differences" regarding the direction of the club. We had a $115M payroll, came of a 99 loss season, and in the next 1-2 months several key free agent decisions needed to be made. From there, many concluded with the logic that Smith wanted to re-sign veterans, which would have kept payroll around $115M. People speculated Pohlad thought, why would I pay $115M to lose 99 games when I can have an $80M payroll and lose 99 games. So you have some evidence and a dash of speculation. We can all conclude that the return on investment was very low. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7204414/minnesota-twins-dismiss-general-manager-bill-smith-return-terry-ryan-interim

Gardy also loves hard throwing right handers in the pen. So Bill got him one in Hoey. Nice work.

In the definition of a monopoly (below), "a single company....owns all of the market for a given type of a product or service". In this case, the given type of service is the labor market for baseball players. Specifically, baseball players aspiring to become professionals. So, they could quit and go into another line of work. But the government enforces competitive practices in every other field. For example, they keep blocking mergers in the cell phone market to ensure we have 4 or more competitors. This keeps prices fair. If we had one cell phone carrier we would all spend $200 a month. A minor league baseball player quitting due to wages would be the equivalent of a cell phone customer, facing a monopoly not using a cell phone and in turn, yelling really loud, using a pigoen, or not communicate at all. Monopoly A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products. (in this case a monopoy on the supply of baseball players keeps prices low). Monopoly is the extreme case in capitalism. Most believe that, with few exceptions, the system just doesn't work when there is only one provider of a good or service because there is no incentive to improve it to meet the demands of consumers. Governments attempt to prevent monopolies from arising through the use of antitrust laws. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp free market noun an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+market

I am not following you here. They could have made at least 3 times this amount by doing nothing. So clearly they are not doing this for the money, they are trying to get to the big leagues and this is the only way to achieve that.

Nobody from the US is in the minor leagues for the paycheck. They are trying to be professional baseball players and that is the only way to do it. Even college players go to the minors. You could literally make way more than 6k a year on unemployment, food stamps, and section 8 housing.

In a perfectly functioning market, you are correct. But an 18 year old kid or 16 year old international player that wants to play pro baseball has no choice. He doesn't ultimately get to pick between competing leagues that have to compete for his labor and drive up his price. You are applying market principles to a monopoly. If that kid had his pick between three competing leagues, all with ties to MLB clubs, then the league offering 1,150 a month to professional baseball players would have a shortage of labor. The same economic lesson explains why a bag of four peanuts are $4 on an airplane and why people drink before a Twins game at $4 a beer at a bar downtown, then go in the stadium and pay $8.

Agreed. In the documentary "Schooled: the price of college sports" they gave a similar but slightly different example. The english student, even one on an academic full ride can make money on the side writing a book or a poem. But an athelete can't make money playing the sport, coaching that sport on the side, or even something completely unrelated such as working at a car wash.

These are definitely complex issues, so different opinions are the norm, rather than the exception. Here is my two cents regarding both the MILB and NCAA: MILB The numbers I have seen are rookie league players make $1,150 a month and AAA players making about double that (on top of $25 a day for food). This check is only for the baseball season. It is true they get signing bonuses, which can be large for top picks. The average bonus for a 10th round pick is about $100K before taxes and agent fee's. I think the draft is 20 rounds. The monthly check has to be below minimum wage if you view "work" like a business would, the time at the ball-park, practice, and travel time would all need to be paid. I completely agree these players are assets of a team that should be invested in. If each team has roughly 150 player in the minors, $1M dollars would roughly double the salary of the rookie league players and provide a 50% raise to AAA players. If every 5-10 years that keeps one borderline player that is 22 with a kid from quitting and this kid turns out and make the big leagues......then it seems like it is a win-win. NCAA The NCAA is as close to a monopoly as it gets. If you are 18 and dream of being a professional, that is about your only option. In basketball you can go oversees like Brandon Jennings, but then people question your motives and in Europe, etc. they tend to play each player about 10 minutes a game. So it typically would hurt your draft stock and how much money you make. Consider a few things. The big schools make millions a year on their sports programs. Between tickets, TV deals, concessions, jerseys, etc. it is crazy. Their is a huge correlation between good sports and alumni donations as well. Texas, last year received $740M in donations, which was $300M more than any year in their history. Many attribute that to the resurgance of their football team. If I was Manziel I would feel exploited. A good documentary for anyone interested is called "Schooled: The price of college sports". It is on Netflix. This was eye opening to me for two reasons. 1) It highlighted that many years ago, the NCAA was worried about lawsuits relating to sports injuries. So each player signs an agreement that in effect says they are students first and athletics are an extra-curricular activity. These players miss weeks of school at a time and are dumped the second they don't produce, so it is clearly the other way around. The issue is when a player gets a major injury such as paralysis on the field, the school is not liable for their medical bills and can and have actually removed the players scholarship in a few intances. 2) The scholarship money does not cover the full cost of going to school (additional school fees, parking, etc.). A football player at UCLA receives a scholarship of $28K and the school esimates the annual cost of attending UCLA at $31K. So the players are $12K short over four years and are not able to get a job due to NCAA rules. Like I said, a complex issue. My take is the NCAA should at a minimum cover the full cost of school and any medical related issues players have. The way I think you allow players to benefit without actually paying them is allowing them to make money on their autograph, so long as it is not associated with the school. That is a voluntary exchange between the person signing and the person paying for the autograph. That way the market dictates that Johnny Manziel makes more than the badminton player.

Bo had 7 years with some sick numbers. He finished with a .780 OPS and was close to 30-30 a few times. I would see the downside as more dramatic than that. Think Andy Marte. 18 year old in A - .831 OPS, 18 HR 19 year old in A+ - .840 OPS, 19 HR 20 year old in AA - .910 OPS, 20 HR At that point he was a top prospect. 10 years later he had a .635 OPS in 930 AB's, over 8 seasons. With Buxton you would think he will be above average in the field and on the bases, barring a series of injuries. At a very minimum.