Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

  1. #46
    Member mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31,935

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Teams flush $3M down the toilet every year. That’s how much the Reds paid Jason Marquis and Kevin Gregg in 2015.

    I’d rather they flush it towards people who could use it.
    From a pure human level, I would too, but the organization's mission statement is to make money and win at the big league level. That money to Marquis or Kevin Gregg, while not the smartest choice, was directly invested in trying to win at the big league level. Those minor league teams have at best 5 or 6 guys that might be able to help the big league team at some point. The rest of those players are there solely for the purpose of fielding a team so they can play games. The cost of those guys is pure expense no different than office supplies or the electric bill. If they can consolidate the real prospects into fewer teams and pay less for the other guys who are just there to be able to fill all the positions and put on the games it should be reviewed. The current model works because the business is willing to pay for it when these guys are making these non-livable wages. If the higher wages become necessary, then every business in the world would try to offset the increase by reducing the number of players they are paying it to. For every guy whose salary triples, two others need to be reduced to offset the cost. At some point every business needs to determine if the cost of any activity is worth it. Playing a game in front of a couple thousand fans who are there on cheap tickets in some small town might be working if the cost of the game is low. Triple the cost by paying all the non-prospect minor league players triple what they make now changes the equation. The decision will come down to whether they think the loss of minor league levels will stunt the growth of the guys they are keeping around as prospects. I don't think the fate of the minor league filler is even a consideration in the decision.

    As a human being, I'd love to see these teams show some generosity by paying these guys a livable wage and keeping all these teams intact, but other businesses don't work that way. I'm not sure why we expect the major league organizations to do so. The guys cut loose will land in Mexico, Korea, Japan or independent ball and teams can still sign guys who are playing in those leagues should any of them develop beyond expectations. The ones who aren't even good enough to get jobs in those places should probably get on with their lives instead of spending the next 5 years kicking around the minor leagues for $15K per year. The hard truth hurts sometimes, but it doesn't make it any less true.
    All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!

  2. Likes:

    Bunting Bad (05-04-2020)


  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    970

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by Kinsm View Post
    The average major league debut age has been 25 (give or take a handful of days) every year for the past 2 decades. So that would work, if players were ready at age 21 or 22 after playing in college ball, but with rare exception they just aren't.
    No one says that as soon as a player joins the club that he must be a starter. It's kind of like the NFL where a QB will back up another QB for a few years. Each team would probably only be adding 3 or 4 new players a year so it wouldn't be like the team would be entirely made up of 22 year olds.

  5. #48
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Venice
    Posts
    33,291

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    From a pure human level, I would too, but the organization's mission statement is to make money and win at the big league level. That money to Marquis or Kevin Gregg, while not the smartest choice, was directly invested in trying to win at the big league level. Those minor league teams have at best 5 or 6 guys that might be able to help the big league team at some point. The rest of those players are there solely for the purpose of fielding a team so they can play games. The cost of those guys is pure expense no different than office supplies or the electric bill. If they can consolidate the real prospects into fewer teams and pay less for the other guys who are just there to be able to fill all the positions and put on the games it should be reviewed. The current model works because the business is willing to pay for it when these guys are making these non-livable wages. If the higher wages become necessary, then every business in the world would try to offset the increase by reducing the number of players they are paying it to. For every guy whose salary triples, two others need to be reduced to offset the cost. At some point every business needs to determine if the cost of any activity is worth it. Playing a game in front of a couple thousand fans who are there on cheap tickets in some small town might be working if the cost of the game is low. Triple the cost by paying all the non-prospect minor league players triple what they make now changes the equation. The decision will come down to whether they think the loss of minor league levels will stunt the growth of the guys they are keeping around as prospects. I don't think the fate of the minor league filler is even a consideration in the decision.

    As a human being, I'd love to see these teams show some generosity by paying these guys a livable wage and keeping all these teams intact, but other businesses don't work that way. I'm not sure why we expect the major league organizations to do so. The guys cut loose will land in Mexico, Korea, Japan or independent ball and teams can still sign guys who are playing in those leagues should any of them develop beyond expectations. The ones who aren't even good enough to get jobs in those places should probably get on with their lives instead of spending the next 5 years kicking around the minor leagues for $15K per year. The hard truth hurts sometimes, but it doesn't make it any less true.
    First, there are plenty of billion dollar companies that treat their employees well, who focus on keeping everyone happy and satisfied, even if that means spending extra dollars that aren’t necessary. They do this not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s good business. Happy, satisfied workers are more productive workers.

    We don’t know that paying an extra $3M a season won’t result in better players, more wins, and more money overall. It’s never been tried. When the MLB players started their union, many people made your argument that paying players more would hurt the bottom line for teams and was unnecessary. In fact, it resulted in the opposite. MLB popularity soared and profits exploded.

    It’s quite possible the same will be true if MILB players were paid a living wage. It could result in an improvement in player development. True prospects playing with and against other players who are better paid and thus better prepared and trained, likely makes them better as well.

    I’d like to see MLB take that chance and see what happens.
    Hoping to change my username to 75769023

  6. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    35,391

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    First, there are plenty of billion dollar companies that treat their employees well, who focus on keeping everyone happy and satisfied, even if that means spending extra dollars that aren’t necessary. They do this not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s good business. Happy, satisfied workers are more productive workers.

    We don’t know that paying an extra $3M a season won’t result in better players, more wins, and more money overall. It’s never been tried. When the MLB players started their union, many people made your argument that paying players more would hurt the bottom line for teams and was unnecessary. In fact, it resulted in the opposite. MLB popularity soared and profits exploded.

    It’s quite possible the same will be true if MILB players were paid a living wage. It could result in an improvement in player development. True prospects playing with and against other players who are better paid and thus better prepared and trained, likely makes them better as well.

    I’d like to see MLB take that chance and see what happens.
    I think the discussion is being oversimplified and, to some extent, premature.

    For example - In February MLB announced an increase in minor league minimum pay effective 2021. The pay increases range (depending on level) from 38% to 72%. SI article of Feb 14 spells it out. So while some minor leaguers will lose out, some will gain financially.

    Further, while the “minor league system” would be reduced, if there’s a demand, independent teams could substitute and potentially pay players more than they’d currently earn. Ultimately a new system could improve some minor league player salaries although probably hurting others.

    We just don’t know how this will all shake out and there are details being omitted by some.
    Last edited by Kc61; 05-02-2020 at 02:59 PM.

  7. #50
    Member mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31,935

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    First, there are plenty of billion dollar companies that treat their employees well, who focus on keeping everyone happy and satisfied, even if that means spending extra dollars that aren’t necessary. They do this not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s good business. Happy, satisfied workers are more productive workers.

    We don’t know that paying an extra $3M a season won’t result in better players, more wins, and more money overall. It’s never been tried. When the MLB players started their union, many people made your argument that paying players more would hurt the bottom line for teams and was unnecessary. In fact, it resulted in the opposite. MLB popularity soared and profits exploded.

    It’s quite possible the same will be true if MILB players were paid a living wage. It could result in an improvement in player development. True prospects playing with and against other players who are better paid and thus better prepared and trained, likely makes them better as well.

    I’d like to see MLB take that chance and see what happens.
    There are companies who treat their employees well, but they don't keep extra ones around just because. When the cost goes up, they implement a countermeasure. Some pack-up and move to Mexico, India or Eastern Europe where the cost is less. Others find ways to eliminate jobs so they can continue to pay the ones they value. I think that is what MLB is doing with this minor league consolidation. Its not a pleasant thing, but just about every business does it. There are ghost towns (or worse) all over America to prove it.
    Last edited by mth123; 05-02-2020 at 04:09 PM.
    All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!

  8. #51
    Sprinkles are for winners dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    49,393

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    There are companies who treat their employees well, but they don't keep extra ones around just because. When the cost goes up, they implement a countermeasure. Some pack-up and move to Mexico, India or Eastern Europe where the cost is less. Others find ways to eliminate jobs so they can continue to pay the ones they value. I think that is what MLB is doing with this minor league consolidation. Its not a pleasant thing, but just about every business does it. There are ghost towns (or worse) all over America to prove it.
    The first 8 words of this post go against every other word that follows it.

  9. #52
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Venice
    Posts
    33,291

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    There are companies who treat their employees well, but they don't keep extra ones around just because. When the cost goes up, they implement a countermeasure. Some pack-up and move to Mexico, India or Eastern Europe where the cost is less. Others find ways to eliminate jobs so they can continue to pay the ones they value. I think that is what MLB is doing with this minor league consolidation. Its not a pleasant thing, but just about every business does it. There are ghost towns (or worse) all over America to prove it.
    If a business is making money, especially the kind of money that MLB is making, they don't fire people just because either. Companies that are profitable keep all their employees. Firings happen when profits are down. Remember, this idea came about before the coronavirus even existed.
    Hoping to change my username to 75769023

  10. Likes:

    Hoosier Red (05-11-2020)

  11. #53
    Member mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31,935

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    If a business is making money, especially the kind of money that MLB is making, they don't fire people just because either. Companies that are profitable keep all their employees. Firings happen when profits are down. Remember, this idea came about before the coronavirus even existed.
    It doesn't matter what a business is doing. Cutting unnecessary cost is always a priority.
    All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!

  12. Likes:

    bm1475 (05-02-2020),Bunting Bad (05-04-2020),Hoosier Red (05-11-2020)

  13. #54
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Venice
    Posts
    33,291

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    It doesn't matter what a business is doing. Cutting unnecessary cost is always a priority.
    Most businesses maintain unnecessary costs, as long as they are profitable. Most companies are loaded with “fat.” They only cut it when they need to. Our unemployment rate would be astronomical if companies were always perfectly lean.
    Hoping to change my username to 75769023

  14. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    35,391

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Most businesses maintain unnecessary costs, as long as they are profitable. Most companies are loaded with “fat.” They only cut it when they need to. Our unemployment rate would be astronomical if companies were always perfectly lean.
    This is not a realistic view of business in a competitive environment. And if your argument is, well, there’s “fat” in the budget, might as well spend it on the minors, no business person would accept that.

    The issue is here is whether these additional minor league teams and players are IMPORTANT for the game of baseball. If not, if they represent “unnecessary costs” as you suggest, then there’s very little argument for retaining them.
    Last edited by Kc61; 05-02-2020 at 07:53 PM.

  15. #56
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Venice
    Posts
    33,291

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    This is not a realistic view of business in a competitive environment. And if your argument is, well, there’s “fat” in the budget, might as well spend it on the minors, no business person would accept that.

    The issue is here is whether these additional minor league teams and players are IMPORTANT for the game of baseball. If not, if they represent “unnecessary costs” as you suggest, then there’s very little argument for retaining them.
    MLB is not in a competitive market. They literally have anti-trust exemption.

    I’m guessing each team spends around $3M a year on hiring friends and family.

    I’ve also argued that they are not unnecessary costs. I’m don’t even think this is a smart business move.
    Hoping to change my username to 75769023

  16. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    35,391

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    MLB is not in a competitive market. They literally have anti-trust exemption.

    .

    You are wrong. MLB teams compete with each other on and off the field. MLB competes for the entertainment dollar with other industries.. All competition in baseball has not been eradicated.

    The decision to restructure the minors was undoubtedly a cost/benefit analysis on the owners’ part. They may turn out incorrect, but it’s not just a matter of allocating corporate “fat” sitting around on their books.
    Last edited by Kc61; 05-02-2020 at 09:33 PM.

  17. #58
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Venice
    Posts
    33,291

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    You are wrong. MLB teams compete with each other on and off the field. MLB competes for the entertainment dollar with other industries.. That competition has not been eliminated.

    The decision to restructure the minors was undoubtedly a cost/benefit analysis on the owners’ part. They may turn out incorrect, but it’s not a matter of allocating corporate “fat.”
    This move reminds me of Marge’s embarrassing cost cutting moves when she was the owner. Most absolutely were justified from a cost/benefit perspective, but that doesn’t mean they were smart business moves.
    Hoping to change my username to 75769023

  18. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    778

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    Quote Originally Posted by TNRED View Post
    No one says that as soon as a player joins the club that he must be a starter. It's kind of like the NFL where a QB will back up another QB for a few years. Each team would probably only be adding 3 or 4 new players a year so it wouldn't be like the team would be entirely made up of 22 year olds.
    If only there was a way for players to grow their skills for a few years and then be able to contribute to the team. Almost like a farm system of sorts.

  19. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    35,391

    Re: MLB Draft - new limits per Nightengale

    According to Athletic article, this year’s draft:

    June 10 - 11.

    Five rounds.

    Bonus levels same as 2019.

    Undrafted players can be signed for up to $20,000 each.
    Last edited by Kc61; 05-08-2020 at 07:35 PM.

  20. Likes:

    REDREAD (05-22-2020)


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | The Operator