Jump to content

Manfred: If MiLB Players Get Raise, Teams will Be Folded


weams

Recommended Posts

Further, minor league baseball can be treated as a low paying job like an internship because the supply outweighs the demand for low skilled amateur players. Why pay a bunch of people MORE money when there are thousands of people beating the door down to play in the low minors?

Manfred is absolutely correct in his assertion that a raised wage would ruin the balance. If these players want to get paid more then they need to be prepared for the reality that only the best will get paid at all. That would mean severe reductions in the number of minor league teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Further, minor league baseball can be treated as a low paying job like an internship because the supply outweighs the demand for low skilled amateur players. Why pay a bunch of people MORE money when there are thousands of people beating the door down to play in the low minors?

Manfred is absolutely correct in his assertion that a raised wage would ruin the balance. If these players want to get paid more then they need to be prepared for the reality that only the best will get paid at all. That would mean severe reductions in the number of minor league teams.

They are for the most part like sparing partners. Who in no way share in the gate from the main event. They get a little part time seasonal work. Day labor as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, minor league baseball can be treated as a low paying job like an internship because the supply outweighs the demand for low skilled amateur players. Why pay a bunch of people MORE money when there are thousands of people beating the door down to play in the low minors?

Manfred is absolutely correct in his assertion that a raised wage would ruin the balance. If these players want to get paid more then they need to be prepared for the reality that only the best will get paid at all. That would mean severe reductions in the number of minor league teams.

Union extras in movies and TV make $18.50 an hour -- non-union around $100 a day -- still probably a lot better than what these filler minor leaguers are making. And these are just extras! You can't get less skilled than an extra.

But yep, in a nutshell I agree what you're describing is probably the situation. It's a two-tiered or multi-tiered system where the players considered to be future major leaguers or at least possible future major leaguers make bank or make decent money -- and then all the other players who are considered low-skilled are mainly filler. And the supply of filler players likely outweighs the demand by a significant amount.

I suppose anything beyond that is covered by existing labor laws, and it looks like the next step is in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Total <a href="https://twitter.com/MLBDraft">@MLBDraft</a> bonus spending is $267,351,610. Breaks record, set last year, of $248,831,830.</p>— Jim Callis (@jimcallisMLB) <a href="

">July 15, 2016</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Or an average of 167 thousand per draftee. Plus the monthly stipend until they quit or make it big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<twitterwidget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-0" data-tweet-id="754084848998940672" style="position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 500px; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"></twitterwidget>

<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Or an average of 167 thousand per draftee. Plus the monthly stipend until they quit or make it big.

Average of $167k, but the median is probably, what, $30k? I'd guess that the first 30 picks get close to $100M(?) while the top five rounds probably get 80% of the bonus money.<iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;"></iframe>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, minor league baseball can be treated as a low paying job like an internship because the supply outweighs the demand for low skilled amateur players. Why pay a bunch of people MORE money when there are thousands of people beating the door down to play in the low minors?

Manfred is absolutely correct in his assertion that a raised wage would ruin the balance. If these players want to get paid more then they need to be prepared for the reality that only the best will get paid at all. That would mean severe reductions in the number of minor league teams.

MLB would be largely unchanged if each team had half as many minor league players. There would be an expansion of independent ball to fill in where teams disappeared. I think inertia is the main reason we have the current Rookie, short-season, low-A, high-A, AA, AAA setup. Most players would be just fine if there were just 2-3 tiers and a bunch of assorted indy leagues of varying quality. The world wouldn't blow up if the best players on Aberdeen, Delmarva and Frederick were on one team and the Orioles didn't own 38 Tucker Nathans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, minor league baseball can be treated as a low paying job like an internship because the supply outweighs the demand for low skilled amateur players. Why pay a bunch of people MORE money when there are thousands of people beating the door down to play in the low minors?

Manfred is absolutely correct in his assertion that a raised wage would ruin the balance. If these players want to get paid more then they need to be prepared for the reality that only the best will get paid at all. That would mean severe reductions in the number of minor league teams.

You trust this guy?

If X number of minor league teams are valuable to player development, then MLB will support that number of teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You trust this guy?

If X number of minor league teams are valuable to player development, then MLB will support that number of teams.

But we don't know that. All we know is that in the distant past teams got by with no affiliates. That rapidly grew to a situation where the Cardinals had 44 and the Senators one. Then stabilized into 7-8 for almost everyone. That's probably a compromise between cost and developmental needs and markets that can support teams and build taxpayer financed stadiums and other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we don't know that. All we know is that in the distant past teams got by with no affiliates. That rapidly grew to a situation where the Cardinals had 44 and the Senators one. Then stabilized into 7-8 for almost everyone. That's probably a compromise between cost and developmental needs and markets that can support teams and build taxpayer financed stadiums and other factors.

I don't think I was clear: I think X is lower than the number that now exists. I don't know the number, but it seems clear that the O's and other teams don't really need all of the current rosters to develop players. Heck, there's no reason why MLB couldn't use the Arizona Fall League model and, gasp, have a full season league with teams composed of players from multiple organizations. You are totally correct, of course, that the current model is driven by many factors beyond what the MLB club really needs for development. A lot of towns/small and medium cities are willing to pony up money for a new or renovated ballpark, MLB clubs like to stake out territory and use minor league clubs for that a little bit, etc.

BTW, I love minor league ball and don't want to see fewer minor league teams, but I agree that MLB would be just as healthy with fewer teams. I regret that I don't live near a MiL team, although when I attend local games in the Texas summer league for college players I'm reminded that I live on the surface of the sun and maybe it's ok to just stay home and watch the O's while enjoying air conditioning. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You trust this guy?

If X number of minor league teams are valuable to player development, then MLB will support that number of teams.

It's just basic economics, you don't need to trust Manfred to understand that fringe baseball players don't earn more because their skills aren't as valuable.

You know, I love dinking around in Excel looking at baseball stats, but I wouldn't expect the the Orioles to hire me to their data team to run regression models on BABIP, and then demand they pay me a living wage. I know this because they advertise those positions on Fangraphs and they're unpaid. They have tons of people apply anyway because the supply is so low and it's basically a dream job for a baseball fan/stat expert. It's not different when you have a bunch of barely talented players that basically volunteer to play baseball for a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just basic economics, you don't need to trust Manfred to understand that fringe baseball players don't earn more because their skills aren't as valuable.

You know, I love dinking around in Excel looking at baseball stats, but I wouldn't expect the the Orioles to hire me to their data team to run regression models on BABIP, and then demand they pay me a living wage. I know this because they advertise those positions on Fangraphs and they're unpaid. They have tons of people apply anyway because the supply is so low and it's basically a dream job for a baseball fan/stat expert. It's not different when you have a bunch of barely talented players that basically volunteer to play baseball for a living.

Talent in baseball is distributed logarithmically. More-or-less. There is one Mike Trout, 50 guys as good as Adam Jones, 500 as good as Ryan Flaherty or Joey Rickard, 5000 as good as (pick org guy in Bowie), and probably 10s of thousands as good as the mid-range guy in rookie ball. Most of them at the low end aren't in professional baseball because there are only a few hundred teams and less than 10k jobs in the world. The economics make the supply of jobs much lower than the number of players, so anyone who isn't a MLB prospect gets weeded out, and if they won't an indy league job at $1000 a month they leave baseball. There are certainly many thousands of 33-year-olds with A ball talent who are now teachers and insurance salesmen and grad students and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a direct path from the mail room to the board room based on skill?

There are a lot of "respectable" professions that are extremely competitive and not everyone will make it. There are millions of artists, writers, and academics who did not make it through the system to full time employment. Some of those industries should be streamlined too, but I don't think they should be blown up if there are people out there who want to chase their dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of "respectable" professions that are extremely competitive and not everyone will make it. There are millions of artists, writers, and academics who did not make it through the system to full time employment. Some of those industries should be streamlined too, but I don't think they should be blown up if there are people out there who want to chase their dream.

Very few "professions" where there are 700 jobs World Wide. Now internationally the net casts a larger paying net if the Asian leagues are included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few "professions" where there are 700 jobs World Wide. Now internationally the net casts a larger paying net if the Asian leagues are included.

How about artist, musician, and novelist. Even if there are more jobs in these professions, there are more potential workers. I doubt the success rate is much better than minor league baseball player. Either way, you are talking very long odds of making it big, and no sure thing to end up gainfully employed based on your skill set. But people do give it a shot for a time while they are young (and there are industries built on exploiting them while they are doing so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...