Thread: MLB News

Welcome! You are invited to wander around and read all of the comments that have been posted here at Patton & Co., but as soon as you register you can see the bid limits that Alex, Peter and Mike propose for each player, and you can post your own comments. Registering is free, so please join us!

Not unrelated:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/sports/nfl-panthers-sale.html

The rich get richer, and richer.

Alex Patton Alex
Mar 28 '18

Audio highlights from last weekend’s SABR Analytics Conference can be found here.

Howard Lynch LynchMob
Mar 26 '18

And why can't the MLBPA let the minors guys in? You would think that standing up for the minors brethren would be the exact top cause for those who have made it and who have all mostly gone through the system. 

It's not about letting them in.  The law only allows unions to represent employees if they've been voluntarily recognized by the employer usually after making a showing of interest (signed petition or individual cards of the employees with significantly more than 50% of the employees stating they want the union to represent them) or an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board for an appropriate unit after a showing of interest of at least 30% of the employees petitioned for.  Most unions attempt to get about 2/3 to 3/4 because of employer anti-union campaigns.

I'm sure it would be difficult to establish an appropriate unit because the employer would argue that the community of interest is different in each minor league.  That would mean the International League would have to be one bargaining unit seeking election, the Pacific Coast League another, then the lower minors separate and separate and separate again.  Plus, the electorate would change between the signing of cards and the showing of interest. The employer would object.  The same between the showing and the election.  

On top of that, the Administration is attempting to close a lot of the NLRB regional offices and change the election rules to slow them down.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Mar 20 '18

Why is it a "Major League Baseball Players Assoc" and not an organization that also represents the minor league players whose baseball careers are controlled by MLB?

Probably because those 'One-Percenters' Major League Players are getting rich off the backs of the 99% of minor league ballplayers. (I really AM getting closer to voting for Bernie)

Snark off.

Thanks for the clarification, Eugene. I'd really like to know what the rules are. For instance, does the Angels owner even own the Angels AA team, or A team? Is he responsible for them? My only knowledge of how this works comes from Bull Durham. (which is also the reason I always give candlesticks as a wedding gift).

And why can't the MLBPA let the minors guys in? You would think that standing up for the minors brethren would be the exact top cause for those who have made it and who have all mostly gone through the system.

Keith Prosseda andypro
Mar 20 '18

Why is it a "Major League Baseball Players Assoc" and not an organization that also represents the minor league players whose baseball careers are controlled by MLB?

Howard Lynch LynchMob
Mar 20 '18

But the really big question I would have, assuming these minor league guys really are in dire straits, is this: 
Does the MLBPA Union bring this up when negotiating with the owners?

It's outside the duty to bargain.  If they brought it up, the owners would say, next topic.  The Union cannot bargain on behalf of a group that it is not certified to represent.  The Union could continue to bring it up throughout negotiations, but they cannot insist to impasse on a subject outside the mandatory duty to bargain.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Mar 20 '18

Yea, I had already read that. Some math is as good as no math (and sometimes worse) if you act as if the some math is all of the math.
And while I like that the author is suggesting that his proposed minimum salary structure would actually be beneficial to the big club (Rational Self-Interest!), I then have to wonder why no team has tried it.
If it really would work for the major league team from a cost/benefit analysis, AND it would give you a big leg up on the competition (you would be the organization that takes care of it's players, etc), then some team would have thought of it by now and tried it.

But the really big question I would have, assuming these minor league guys really are in dire straits, is this:
Does the MLBPA Union bring this up when negotiating with the owners?

I'm going to eliminate anyone who gets a six-figure or more signing bonus. For a five year plan that player would be making 20K per year from the bonus plus another several thousand a year for playing plus whatever else, so he might not be living in a mansion, but he's not in the Hunger Games either.

But what about those who get less than 100K signing bonus? The author says that 15% of them make it to the bigs. So those 15% would know if the conditions for an A ball middle reliever are really bad much more so than the owner of the Angels would.

And thus, there should be a strong push during negotiations with the owners to force the owners to fix the problem. If the MLBPA Union (who should know) isn't making it a top priority, then I'd have a hard time believing that it's a dire as they say (call it the 'Al Gore Corollary')

Keith Prosseda andypro
Mar 20 '18

Trying to move the "Biz of baseball, re: tanking" topic from Kenley Jansen to here ...

Andy asks for some math ... BP asks: "Why Are We Playing Hunger Games with Minor Leaguers?" ... it's not an exact hit, but it gets at part of the issue ... with some math :-)

Howard Lynch LynchMob
Mar 19 '18

Not crazy about that idea.   The length of extra-inning games is not the issue.

Mike Dean TMU2009
Mar 14 '18