MLB teams *alleged* to collude to screw over scouts

[Rough Carrigan]

It's the american way.  Become a rich scumbag, heading a computer company or own a baseball team and get together with your peers and . . *allegedly* collude to fuck over the lowest paid of your employees.
 
Kansas City Royals scout Jordan Wyckoff has filed suit against MLB alleging that teams have colluded to not compete with each other over scouts in order to keep their pay as low as possible. 
 
If true, not only do MLB teams fuck over the employees they have the power to fuck over, they go the extra step of acting illegally to do so. 
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/scout-hiring-and-pay-practices-challenged-in-new-lawsuit/
 
 

 

[Rasputin]

While I have no problem believing that the owners who colluded against players would collude against scouts, don't the scouts move around a TON, and wouldn't that argue fairly convincingly against collusion?

 

[Rough Carrigan]

While I have no problem believing that the owners who colluded against players would collude against scouts, don't the scouts move around a TON, and wouldn't that argue fairly convincingly against collusion?

Yeah, they move around.  There's no reserve clause for scouts.  But the article says that Wyckoff alleges that they collude to never offer a scout more money for the same job unless his first team has let him go.  So, if Ras is doing a great job for the Sox and being paid $XX,000 per year, he will never get an offer from the Dodgers or Yankees etc for 25% more than that to work for them in the same position.  He *could* be offered a job at the next step up, cross checker or whatever.  But this tends to keep the scouting pay level down as each category of job is sort of frozen in place salary wise.  I think it's more about collusion in keeping the pay of each category of scouting job from rising.  They're paying some of these guys less than minimum wage fer chrissakes.  The owners should be ASHAMED to do that.  One can't help but imagine the owners, with all their protestations of high minded feelings saying (To paraphrase the great Harold Ramis's introduction of his character, Russell Zisky in the movie Stripes) "I've always been a committed progressive.  I believe you should never take economic advantage of another person and force him to live in undeserved squalor . . . unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it."

 

[Rough Carrigan]

I was PM'd by another site member who said that he can confirm the existence of collusion as alleged by Wyckoff:
 

A couple years ago, my friend wanted to leave the organization he worked for and take a job with another team. He already had a relationship with the other team, he interviewed with them, and was given an informal offer with an official offer inevitably on the way. He then told his current boss (the GM of the team) about the other opportunity (this was dumb), and to his surprise, no offer ever came. When he followed up with the other team, they told him they were no longer interested. He was able to pretty conclusively confirm that the GM specifically told the other team not to make an offer.

My understanding is situations like this are pretty widespread. Once you work in a team's front office, the only way to get an offer from another team tends to involve getting fired or quitting first. Part of it is I'm sure paranoia that guys may take info from one team to another, but I have no doubt it's largely motivated by an effort to keep compensation down
 
 

So, the henchmen of billionaires work illegally to ensure that the billionaires can pay men of lower and lower middle class incomes absolutely as little as possible.  Lovely. 

 

[RG33]

While I wouldn't doubt these guys weren't drastically underpaid for all of the hours and travel they put in, it seems like a stretch to think that MLB teams are colluding in any grand way to keep costs down. It just doesn't seem like it would be something teams would worry about too much considering MLB did $9 billion in revenue in 2014 and the average MLB team has about 50 scouts (from what I could find from google). I mean, pay all of them $50,000 and you are talking about $2,500,000 per MLB team in expenses for teams who average about $250,000,000 in annual revenue. Pay them all only $20,000 a year and each team saves $1,500,000 or roughly what their 2nd Round draft pick salary slot would be.

Edit: typo

 

[jose melendez]

While I wouldn't doubt these guys weren't drastically underpaid for all of the hours and travel they put in, it seems like a stretch to think that MLB teams are colluding in any grand way to keep costs down. It just doesn't seem like it would be something teams would worry about too much considering MLB did $9 billion in revenue in 2014 and the average MLB team has about 50 scouts (from what I could find from google). I mean, pay all of them $50,000 and you are talking about $2,500,000 per MLB team in expenses for teams who average about $250,000,000 in annual revenue. Pay them all only $20,000 a year and each team saves $1,500,000 or roughly what their 2nd Round draft pick salary slot would be.

Edit: typo

Since when has having massive revenue ever stopped MLB from doing the wrong thing to screw over the little guy?

 

[Spacemans Bong]

While I wouldn't doubt these guys weren't drastically underpaid for all of the hours and travel they put in, it seems like a stretch to think that MLB teams are colluding in any grand way to keep costs down. It just doesn't seem like it would be something teams would worry about too much considering MLB did $9 billion in revenue in 2014 and the average MLB team has about 50 scouts (from what I could find from google). I mean, pay all of them $50,000 and you are talking about $2,500,000 per MLB team in expenses for teams who average about $250,000,000 in annual revenue. Pay them all only $20,000 a year and each team saves $1,500,000 or roughly what their 2nd Round draft pick salary slot would be.

Edit: typo

 
You do realize that MLB voted 29-1 - Jerry Reinsdorf, of all people, was the lone dissenter and made several impassioned pleas privately and publicly - to strip scouts and other staff of their pension plan in order to save a few bucks, right?
 
This is an industry that can absolutely afford a final salary pension plan for everybody, because it makes bajillions in taxpayer-subsidized profits every year. But hey, somebody's nephew wasn't gonna get a yacht that year.

 

[Average Reds]

I was PM'd by another site member who said that he can confirm the existence of collusion as alleged by Wyckoff:
 

So, the henchmen of billionaires work illegally to ensure that the billionaires can pay men of lower and lower middle class incomes absolutely as little as possible.  Lovely.

I have no doubt that the allegations are true, but this story is an example of why the situation is a bit more complex than just "they are trying to screw the little guy!"

When a scout leaves one organization and goes to another, they are, by definition, going to a competitive organization. And regardless of what they leave behind, they will be taking all sorts of proprietary information with them in their head.

This is a huge problem for any industry. And as front offices become more sophisticated in their analysis of player evaluation and basic organizational strategy, the industry is incentivized to find ways to (collectively) limit movement of key employees with access to that information. This appears to have been the logic that drove the Cardinals to break the law to keep tabs on a former employee.

This is not to defend baseball. It's to point out that the issue here would appear to run deeper than simply "let's screw the little guy." That's just a side benefit.

 

[Jnai]

Most scouts do not have access to that kind of information. Scouting directors, sure. There are obviously guys who work in higher-level / special assignment / etc roles that are given the 'Scout' designation on the MLB.com front office list or whatever, but most guys that are on the road and evaluating players are not actually privy to that kind of information.

 

[Harry Hooper]

While I wouldn't doubt these guys weren't drastically underpaid for all of the hours and travel they put in, it seems like a stretch to think that MLB teams are colluding in any grand way to keep costs down. It just doesn't seem like it would be something teams would worry about too much considering MLB did $9 billion in revenue in 2014 and the average MLB team has about 50 scouts (from what I could find from google). I mean, pay all of them $50,000 and you are talking about $2,500,000 per MLB team in expenses for teams who average about $250,000,000 in annual revenue. Pay them all only $20,000 a year and each team saves $1,500,000 or roughly what their 2nd Round draft pick salary slot would be.

Edit: typo

You do recall the NFL trampling on the "integrity of the game" by running replacement officials onto the field to claw back agreed-to pension benefits with its game officials? Also, if EricV is to be believed, the Sox flushed a batch of analysts a few years ago to save what amounted to loose change in the team's sofa.

 

[RG33]

You do recall the NFL trampling on the "integrity of the game" by running replacement officials onto the field to claw back agreed-to pension benefits with its game officials? Also, if EricV is to be believed, the Sox flushed a batch of analysts a few years ago to save what amounted to loose change in the team's sofa.

The NFL acting as an entity to fight the union is very different from 30 independent teams colluding to crush compensation or career advancement opportunities for a relatively small group of workers though. Again, I don't doubt these guys get screwed over, but the lawsuit is alleging a pretty big conpsiracy on behalf of 30 independent teams. It would be one thing if MLB was doing it, but the lawsuit is alleging the individual teams themselves are doing it. That is what I think is a bit of a stretch to believe.

 

[Rasputin]

The NFL acting as an entity to fight the union is very different from 30 independent teams colluding to crush compensation or career advancement opportunities for a relatively small group of workers though. Again, I don't doubt these guys get screwed over, but the lawsuit is alleging a pretty big conpsiracy on behalf of 30 independent teams. It would be one thing if MLB was doing it, but the lawsuit is alleging the individual teams themselves are doing it. That is what I think is a bit of a stretch to believe.

 
It's not remotely different. It's not like the MLB owners are too stupid to recognize that they have more in common with each other than they do with the scouts.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

The NFL acting as an entity to fight the union is very different from 30 independent teams colluding to crush compensation or career advancement opportunities for a relatively small group of workers though. Again, I don't doubt these guys get screwed over, but the lawsuit is alleging a pretty big conpsiracy on behalf of 30 independent teams. It would be one thing if MLB was doing it, but the lawsuit is alleging the individual teams themselves are doing it. That is what I think is a bit of a stretch to believe.

 
Hey, 30 teams were cool crushing compensation or career advancement opportunities for major league baseball players, several times, so again I have no clue why you think this isn't possible.

 

[RG33]

Hey, 30 teams were cool crushing compensation or career advancement opportunities for major league baseball players, several times, so again I have no clue why you think this isn't possible.

I don't think it isn't possible, it just seems like it wouldn't be a high priority for teams to give a shit about. Your example is talking about 60-80% of the expenditures of a major league team. I could understand the rationale for 30 different front offices making a concerted effort to keep those costs down. I just don't understand or think likely the rationale for 30 different teams to be making a concerted effort to impact what is an almost completely irrelevant cost for them. Again, I don't think it is unlikely that a team or teams may have screwed guys over to pinch pennies, it just seems like the "collusion" part that is the main point of the lawsuit is a stretch.

 

[RG33]

It's not remotely different. It's not like the MLB owners are too stupid to recognize that they have more in common with each other than they do with the scouts.

It is different in that you wouldn't have 6 guys in the MLB or NFL offices working on it or doing it, you would need 6 guys in every front office from 30 teams working on doing it, and working on doing it together in a concerted manner. The teams colluding is totally different than the NFL or MLB doing something to strike down a union or whatever. There's a helluva lot more working parts involved in the former, would take a concerted effort and a level of organizing, and for something as relatively small potatoes like keeping the scouts already pittance of a pay down seems like more effort and risk than it would be worth to me.

 

[RG33]

"Wyckoff’s complaint (available here) begins by accusing MLB and its teams of forming an illegal conspiracy to decrease the competition for scouts. In particular, the lawsuit contends that MLB prevents its teams from negotiating with or hiring away any scout currently under contract with another franchise, unless that team has expressly granted the scout permission to talk with other clubs. Wyckoff asserts that teams will typically only grant permission in cases where the new franchise would be giving the scout a promotion (such as by hiring another team’s area scout as one of its cross-checkers), and alleges that even then teams have been known to fire a scout simply for requesting permission to talk to another club."

Replace "scout" with "general manager" in that paragraph and does it seem like a nefarious conspiracy to hold down salaries? I just don't see it.

 

[zenter]

"Wyckoffs complaint (available here) begins by accusing MLB and its teams of forming an illegal conspiracy to decrease the competition for scouts. In particular, the lawsuit contends that MLB prevents its teams from negotiating with or hiring away any scout currently under contract with another franchise, unless that team has expressly granted the scout permission to talk with other clubs. Wyckoff asserts that teams will typically only grant permission in cases where the new franchise would be giving the scout a promotion (such as by hiring another teams area scout as one of its cross-checkers), and alleges that even then teams have been known to fire a scout simply for requesting permission to talk to another club."

Replace "scout" with "general manager" in that paragraph and does it seem like a nefarious conspiracy to hold down salaries? I just don't see it.

Actually... Yes. Unless here's a collective bargaining agreement, at-will employment should really be at will, you know? In other words, several silicon valley non-competes have been found invalid. If I want to play the market to take a pay cut for a promotion or get a raise with a lesser title, my current employer should have no say in that. Scout, GM, whatever.

Now teams can force individuals to protect proprietary information, but that's basically a separate issue.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

It is different in that you wouldn't have 6 guys in the MLB or NFL offices working on it or doing it, you would need 6 guys in every front office from 30 teams working on doing it, and working on doing it together in a concerted manner. The teams colluding is totally different than the NFL or MLB doing something to strike down a union or whatever. There's a helluva lot more working parts involved in the former, would take a concerted effort and a level of organizing, and for something as relatively small potatoes like keeping the scouts already pittance of a pay down seems like more effort and risk than it would be worth to me.

Actually, one would imagine that it takes almost at all.  The yankees, run by the Steinbrenner family for decades now don't have to be told how they're supposed to act.  They know that they're not expected to poach anyone else's scouts with offers of more money.  The same goes for every team that isn't under new ownership.  There's zero effort involved.  Every few years there's something like this conversation:
 
Scouting director:  "Hey, GM, we were thinking of hiring that scout X away from our rival by offering him 50% more than they pay him now."
GM:  "You know the deal.  We can't do that."
 
Annnnd that ends it.  So much effort.

 

[timlinin8th]

Actually... Yes. Unless here's a collective bargaining agreement, at-will employment should really be at will, you know? In other words, several silicon valley non-competes have been found invalid. If I want to play the market to take a pay cut for a promotion or get a raise with a lesser title, my current employer should have no say in that. Scout, GM, whatever.

Now teams can force individuals to protect proprietary information, but that's basically a separate issue.

Two separate issues. The Silicon Valley non-competes got struck down because like most, they applied to post-employment with a specific company. If they are contracted employees, once the term of the contract is over you can't really dictate what a contractor does after. That'd be akin to me telling a roofer once he's done with my roof he can't work on my neighbor's vecause only I am allowed to have a new roof on my block.

From the sounds of this article, we're talking about currently under contract employees are not allowed to pursue other opportunities, which if they just leave and go somewhere else, is a breach of contract. I don't think anyone is saying that at the conclusion of their contract with a team they are not allowed to not renew and go seek other opportunities, rather that teams are not pursuing people they know to be currently under contract because it would create a legal issue. When I fill out a job app usually there's a section that asks the question if I am currently under contract that would make me unhireable.

Now if these guys are working 80 hr weeks and the "contracted pay" isnt meeting per-hour minimum wage standards, that is a whole separate issue and one MLB will lose.

*edit to say - I'll admit I am not aware exactly how scout contracts work - but, if they are term contracts then there is expectation by the team contracting and the contractor that the term of the contract be met. I'm guaranteeing you will be paid for three years, in exchange I expect you to work for three years. If they sign these contracts they are aware of this.*