Jump to content

Boemmel: Pandemic and MiLB


weams

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Except a lot of them probably are for a good hunk of the season. 

If you are a year two guy, like say Zoellner, and you can't get out of the GCL you don't deserve to make 30K.

 

30k isn’t much money.  If the team doesn’t think he is worth 30k they can cut him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'd still go full season/short season as a cutoff.  I think a reward should exist for making a full season team.  Not more travel and games for the same money.

My understanding is that a distinction between short season pay and low A pay was already in the works for 2021.    Weekly pay:

Short season $290 —> $400

A/A+ $290 —> $500

AA $350 —> $600

AAA $502 —> $700

These are all minimum figures; higher amounts apply to players on the 40-man roster and players who have major league service time.

While one can argue that the revised weekly figures are still stingy, my bigger issue is that they don’t kick in until the regular season starts.     So, you have a bunch of guys showing up for camp in February/early March who get nothing but meal money until early June when short season ball begins.    That just strikes me as very wrong.     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

My understanding is that a distinction between short season pay and low A pay was already in the works for 2021.    Weekly pay:

Short season $290 —> $400

A/A+ $290 —> $500

AA $350 —> $600

AAA $502 —> $700

These are all minimum figures; higher amounts apply to players on the 40-man roster and players who have major league service time.

While one can argue that the revised weekly figures are still stingy, my bigger issue is that they don’t kick in until the regular season starts.     So, you have a bunch of guys showing up for camp in February/early March who get nothing but meal money until early June when short season ball begins.    That just strikes me as very wrong.     

 

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

My understanding is that a distinction between short season pay and low A pay was already in the works for 2021.    Weekly pay:

Short season $290 —> $400

A/A+ $290 —> $500

AA $350 —> $600

AAA $502 —> $700

These are all minimum figures; higher amounts apply to players on the 40-man roster and players who have major league service time.

While one can argue that the revised weekly figures are still stingy, my bigger issue is that they don’t kick in until the regular season starts.     So, you have a bunch of guys showing up for camp in February/early March who get nothing but meal money until early June when short season ball begins.    That just strikes me as very wrong.     

 

On a moral level I completely agree.  If you have a $10B organization that uses loopholes and arguments like MLB does to avoid paying players even minimum wage while expecting them to pay a significant part of their meager salary for clubhouse dues for the peanut butter-and-ham-sandwich spread they should be ashamed.  If they don't cough up a significant amount to help out these players during this pandemic they should be ashamed.

But on the other hand, there is essentially an endless supply of young men who willingly spend their late teens and early 20s making $8000 a year because they absolutely know that they're going to be one of less than a 1000 players in the Show (some of whom are) making $millions any minute now.  From an owner's perspective it's hard to logically justify paying $30k a head for a job that you have thousands upon thousands of people eagerly willing to do for (essentially) free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

On a moral level I completely agree.  If you have a $10B organization that uses loopholes and arguments like MLB does to avoid paying players even minimum wage while expecting them to pay a significant part of their meager salary for clubhouse dues for the peanut butter-and-ham-sandwich spread they should be ashamed.  If they don't cough up a significant amount to help out these players during this pandemic they should be ashamed.

But on the other hand, there is essentially an endless supply of young men who willingly spend their late teens and early 20s making $8000 a year because they absolutely know that they're going to be one of less than a 1000 players in the Show (some of whom are) making $millions any minute now.  From an owner's perspective it's hard to logically justify paying $30k a head for a job that you have thousands upon thousands of people eagerly willing to do for (essentially) free. 

Ewww.... peanut butter and ham?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

On a moral level I completely agree.  If you have a $10B organization that uses loopholes and arguments like MLB does to avoid paying players even minimum wage while expecting them to pay a significant part of their meager salary for clubhouse dues for the peanut butter-and-ham-sandwich spread they should be ashamed.  If they don't cough up a significant amount to help out these players during this pandemic they should be ashamed.

But on the other hand, there is essentially an endless supply of young men who willingly spend their late teens and early 20s making $8000 a year because they absolutely know that they're going to be one of less than a 1000 players in the Show (some of whom are) making $millions any minute now.  From an owner's perspective it's hard to logically justify paying $30k a head for a job that you have thousands upon thousands of people eagerly willing to do for (essentially) free. 

The MLBPA needs to be a union for all baseball players. Not just for an elite club of superior athletes. Their mega contracts were built on the backs of career minor leaguers who earned very little.

Owners are always going to be owners. The MLBPA needs to step up on behalf of all workers within their industry. And all of us, collectively as common-folk workers, need to make our voices heard and demand this change as well, through the power that our collective wallets have over the owners.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

The MLBPA needs to be a union for all baseball players. Not just for an elite club of superior athletes. Their mega contracts were built on the backs of career minor leaguers who earned very little.

Owners are always going to be owners. The MLBPA needs to step up on behalf of all workers within their industry. And all of us, collectively as common-folk workers, need to make our voices heard and demand this change as well, through the power that our collective wallets have over the owners.

 

Why should they?  What's in it for current players to vote to include minor league players into their union? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why should they?  What's in it for current players to vote to include minor league players into their union? 

 

They have nothing to gain from it financially. That's why they haven't done it yet.

But if they care about their ex-teamates, friends, and even sons who might play the game one day - they should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why should they?  What's in it for current players to vote to include minor league players into their union? 

 

What do they lose?  If the union's leadership can't figure out a way for a fully united pool of players to extract minor leaguer gains solely from ownership then perhaps they should step aside for a more capable bunch.  I suspect the lack of incentive isn't with the players, but primarily with complacent union leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 24fps said:

What do they lose?  If the union's leadership can't figure out a way for a fully united pool of players to extract minor leaguer gains solely from ownership then perhaps they should step aside for a more capable bunch.  I suspect the lack of incentive isn't with the players, but primarily with complacent union leadership.

Hmm what could ML players have to lose by making things easier for those guys in the minors that want their jobs?

Any capital the players use to forward the causes of the minor league players in collective bargaining would be capital that could be used to forward their own cases. 

ML players also pay $85 a day in union dues, the guys in the minors can't pay that yet they will be benefiting from the money the ML players are contributing.

It makes little sense for ML players to want to expand their Union. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Hmm what could ML players have to lose by making things easier for those guys in the minors that want their jobs?

Any capital the players use to forward the causes of the minor league players in collective bargaining would be capital that could be used to forward their own cases. 

ML players also pay $85 a day in union dues, the guys in the minors can't pay that yet they will be benefiting from the money the ML players are contributing.

It makes little sense for ML players to want to expand their Union.

It makes little sense from a transactional standpoint.  It makes a lot of sense from a moral standpoint.

Also, the players who've already run the gauntlet are much less likely to want to make it easier on the next set of guys coming through.  Someone like George Sherrill spent several years in indy leagues making $1000 a month, he's not going to have a whole lot of sympathy for the next generation.  It's a little like Depression kids who grew up eating the rinds of the watermelon and taking four jobs maybe not being the best advocates for later kids who wanted to spend their 20s finding themselves and turning down jobs that weren't meaningful enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Hmm what could ML players have to lose by making things easier for those guys in the minors that want their jobs?

Any capital the players use to forward the causes of the minor league players in collective bargaining would be capital that could be used to forward their own cases. 

ML players also pay $85 a day in union dues, the guys in the minors can't pay that yet they will be benefiting from the money the ML players are contributing.

It makes little sense for ML players to want to expand their Union. 

 

 

There is something worse than greed and selfishness and that's calculated greed and selfishness.  Even worse is calculated greed and selfishness made public and worst of all is that mix displayed by a one-percenter.  We have entered a time when entertainers who want to include niceguycommunitypillarsaltoftheearthdogloverfolkhero in their "brand" need to be cognizant of that danger.

The person you describe is little more than a cartoon.  There may be a handful of players who approximate that description, but certainly no more.

To me the burden is on union leadership to bring the rank-and-file on board with the new trend towards inclusivity.  Lord knows it couldn't hurt regardless of the outcome.  They could start by describing the larger pie that ownership will create and put the problem squarely in their lap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 24fps said:

There is something worse than greed and selfishness and that's calculated greed and selfishness.  Even worse is calculated greed and selfishness made public and worst of all is that mix displayed by a one-percenter.  We have entered a time when entertainers who want to include niceguycommunitypillarsaltoftheearthdogloverfolkhero in their "brand" need to be cognizant of that danger.

The person you describe is little more than a cartoon.  There may be a handful of players who approximate that description, but certainly no more.

To me the burden is on union leadership to bring the rank-and-file on board with the new trend towards inclusivity.  Lord knows it couldn't hurt regardless of the outcome.  They could start by describing the larger pie that ownership will create and put the problem squarely in their lap.

Cartoon like?  It wasn't long ago that the Union collectively bargined:

  1. An end to ML contracts for draftees.
  2. Hard slots for draftees.
  3. International pools.

The players have shown a willingness to put their own needs ahead of those that haven't made it yet.

 

Since they are in a union they have insulation from criticism.  They can profess sympathy while stating it was beyond their ability to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Posts

    • Brecht has TOR upside.  We’re good at finding #3-#5 types just in developing them, but we need that TOR arm upside and develop. 
    • I thought Baker had a better chance of getting a strikeout. Even though he created that mess it looked like he could have worked out of it.  Generally not in favor of bringing in guys for bases loaded situations unless they’re absolute nails and have an extremely high K rate.  Akin’s K rate is higher this year but I still don’t believe he was the better option than Baker. 
    • We’ve been picking really athletic types when not picking high in rd 1. Position player wise.   2023 - EBJ, Horvath, Josenberger, Cunningham, Etzel Not that are prior picks haven’t been athletic, if you know what I’m trying to say. We don’t take plodders as position players. 
    • Your complete mischaracterization of Os players aside, Miller is likely nothing more than a 60-70 IP reliever with high arm injury potential. (Note: when I say nothing more, I mean that as I don’t think they convert him to a starter next year or even if they do, I think he’s a ticking time bomb) I don’t care how old Kjerstad is, he’s a high end prospect that you control for 6 years and Stowers is an everyday OFer with big power potential. Sure, in a perfect world you get younger talent and if so, that’s fine..but if they got offered that and that was the best deal on the table, they should make the deal. FWIW, I think that deal would get beaten or they would get someone that maybe isn’t ranked as high as Kjerstad but someone younger and maybe more all around upside even if they come with a bigger risk.  
    • 100% in on Kirby. Wouldn’t require much on the prospect front. And has some track record.  That’ll require the Rangers to throw in the towel. Not sure they’re there, yet.
    • Yes to Crochet, absolutely not for Miller, yes to Skubal. Skubal will require a haul, though.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...