Red Sox are poised to break their international bonus pool this year

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Via the SP international thread
According to Baseball America the Red Sox are poised to break their bonus cushion this year. Here is there excerpt from Badler's new July 2nd column:

Red Sox Push For Pitching

After picking up some of the top position players in the Dominican Republic over the last few years like Rafael Devers, Wendell Rijo and Manuel Margot, the Red Sox appear focused on pitching this year. They have a $1.88 million bonus pool, the second-lowest in baseball, but it looks like they will go well beyond that this year and face the maximum penalty.

The Red Sox are considered the favorites to sign 16-year-old Venezuelan righthander Andres Espinoza (video), who some scouts consider the No. 1 pitcher available this year and will likely fetch the highest bonus among July 2 pitchers. Like Dominican righthander Marcos Diplan, who signed with the Rangers for $1.3 million last year, Espinoza has big-time stuff packed into a smaller frame.

Reports vary about Espinoza’s height. He was around 5-foot-10, 160 pounds last year, and while he hasn’t showcased much recently, those who’ve seen him say he’s grown since then and put on another 20 or so pounds. Espinoza has pitched in multiple national and international tournaments, and his experience is evident in his command and savvy. He has good mechanics and throws strikes with one of the best fastballs in the class, ranging from 90-94 mph. He has good feel for a potentially above-average curveball and a developing changeup. He’s trained at the 9Stars Sports Management academy run by Felix Luzon.

Dominican righthander Christopher Acosta stood out at the MLB showcase in San Pedro de Macoris in January. Acosta threw strikes—a rare occurrence at the event—and didn’t walk anyone or allow a hit in two scoreless innings with four strikeouts. Acosta, 16, is a tall, lanky pitcher (6-foot-3, 180 pounds) with good pitchability and the three-pitch mix to project as a starter. He has a loose arm and a lively fastball that touches the low-90s. He throws a mid-70s curveball that has some loose rotation but has power and good depth. Some think his best pitch is his lively changeup, which he mixes in more frequently than most pitchers his age. Acosta trains with Alberto “Chico” Fana and is expected to command more than $1 million.

http://bit.ly/1kIrvqq
 

Manramsclan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
3,371
I don't know anything about projection of these prospects, or anything about them individually.
 
That said, I think paying a max penalty for going over the bonus allotment for international FA's is a sound way to leverage the Red Sox revenue streams. Much better than paying a luxury tax because you are paying older vets exorbitant FA contracts.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
Not to mention the penalty had to be much smaller. Intriguing. Our already deep farm system looks to be getting another boost this year.
 

SaveBooFerriss

twenty foreskins
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2001
6,179
Robin' it
I believe a few teams broke the limits last year and the article says four teams, including the Red Sox and the Yankees, are expected to break the limits this year.  
 
Looking at this as a fairly simple value equation.  If a team thinks that under the system if would get more value in breaking the system in one year and having the penalty the next year regarding than following the limits over those two years without any penalty, then why not.   
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I could not be lazy and look this up, but what are the penalty formulas?
 
Also, this could be a response to being so far under the luxury tax limit this year, whereas in the past they spent up to it or a bit above. Kudos to the organization for looking to do right by the fans, as they almost always do.
 
Another factor is what is the ROI on these big ticket Latin American signings?  Philly Sox Fan once did a great analysis of the expected value of players in the first few rounds of the draft, but I don't know of any comprehensive analysis of the hit rate on these bonus babies.  Hypothetically, hitting on one out of every 25 might be enough, holding everything else constant.  But, if you're really going to say that you'd rather spend $25 million on 25 bonus babies in the hopes that one turns into a star instead of spending that $25 million on a proven major leaguer from age 32-35, then you're not holding everything else constant.  Even with the typical flameouts among older veterans, I have to believe the odds are better than that.  But, to maket he determination, we'd need those numbers.  And I bet the Red Sox have at least tried to run them.
 

SaveBooFerriss

twenty foreskins
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2001
6,179
Robin' it
Plympton91 said:
I could not be lazy and look this up, but what are the penalty formulas?
 
 
 This is what I found:
 
The penalty for a club paying signing bonuses in excess of its ISBP is a tax (no draft picks are forfeited) and a restriction on bonuses that can be paid to international players during the next ISP: 

1. A club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2013-14 ISBP by 5% or less must pay a 75% tax on the ISBP overage, but there are no restrictions on bonuses in the 2014-15 ISP; a club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2014-15 ISBP by 5% or less must pay a 100% tax on the ISBP overage, but there are no restrictions on bonuses in the 2015-16 ISP.
2. A club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2013-14 ISBP by 5-10% must pay a 75% tax on the ISBP overage, and is permitted to sign only one international first-year player to a bonus of $500K or more in the 2014-15 ISP; a club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2014-15 ISBP by 5-10% must pay a 100% tax on the ISBP overage, and no player may be signed to a bonus of $500K or more in the 2015-16 ISP. 

3. A club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2013-14 ISBP by 10-15% must pay a 100% tax on the overage, and is prohibited from paying a bonus in excess of $500K to any international first-year player in the 2014-15 ISP; a club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2014-15 ISBP by 10-15% must pay a 100% tax on the ISBP overage, and no player may be signed to a bonus of $300K or more in the 2015-16 ISP.   

4. A club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2013-14 ISBP by 15%+ must pay a 100% tax on the overage, and is prohibited from paying a bonus in excess of $250K to any international first-year player in the next ISP; a club that pays signing bonuses that exceed its 2014-15 ISBP by 10-15% must pay a 100% tax on the ISBP overage, and no player may be signed to a bonus of $300K or more in both the 2015-16 and 2016-17 ISPs. 
 

timelysarcasm

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2010
1,360
Los Angeles by way of Roxbury
CoRP said:
Kid looks to be throwing pretty free and easy.
 
And he's doing that off a mound that looks like a plastic shingle over a crater. I'm cautiously excited.
 
Glad to hear the Red Sox will make the appropriate moves when they feel it's prudent. Still a tiny bit bitter about Jose Abreu.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Two things keep in mind. One is that being the favorite is not the same as having him signed, but it does imply there is a strong relationship formed with the kid and probably his family. That's a very good sign. The second is that there are ways to increase pool money through trades as the a Cubs did last year so the extent to which they go over may be minimized between now and July 2nd.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
timelysarcasm said:
 
And he's doing that off a mound that looks like a plastic shingle over a crater. I'm cautiously excited.
 
Glad to hear the Red Sox will make the appropriate moves when they feel it's prudent. Still a tiny bit bitter about Jose Abreu.
 
Abreu was the one guy I *really* wanted the Sox to get this offseason.  Cost nothing in prospects, they could afford his salary, and having that power RH bat for the next 6-8 years sure would have been nice.  Really not much reason not to go for it.
 
Napoli isn't a bad alternative for the time being, but still.  
 

CoRP

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2007
9,457
The Epicenter
chrisfont9 said:
My reaction too. I'd be lucky to hit 50 on the gun throwing that easily.
My kid turns 16 next month. Pitches for his HS team. He's astounded that Espinoza can generate that kind of velocity given his size and easy delivery. My kid has 4" on Espinoza but throws 10-15mph slower. He's pissed.
 

SaveBooFerriss

twenty foreskins
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2001
6,179
Robin' it
CoRP said:
My kid turns 16 next month. Pitches for his HS team. He's astounded that Espinoza can generate that kind of velocity given his size and easy delivery. My kid has 4" on Espinoza but throws 10-15mph slower. He's pissed.
 
Your kid should obviously blame you for bad genes. :) 
 

tbrown_01923

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2006
780
Apologies if this is off topic, but where is the velocity generated from?  Having studied Kung-Fu for a few years they continue to emphasize the importance having everything moving in synch, such that the strength of the punch i more about having the body twisting into the punch at the right time as it is about the strength of your arm.  It seems that this would apply to pitching as well -  and if it did I would think working on balance and flexibility (more than touching their toes) would help improve velocity.  
 
SO the question here is, "is the ease in motion and velocity a result of superior core strength, balance and flexibility (throughout the entire body) so much that they are never "working against themselves"? And if  so, is yoga / pilates / etc part of professional training?
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
It is amazing isn't it? It's not like you can hit the weight room 6 days a week for 2 years and all of a sudden throw 95. Is it as simple as you're born with you shoulder/arm being created the way it is and that's it? You can improve the "it" but you have to have "it" or else forget it.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Its a good thing we have these bonus pool rules to limit how much Dominican and Venezuelan teenagers can take advantage of all these poor multibillion dollar businesses.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I think it's a shame the union didn't insist on making minor league pay competitive with that of Walmart cashiers as a condition of agreeing to the draft slotting and internatial bonus pools. Competitive balance is great, but I don't need to be paying taxes to support food stamps for John Henry's A-ball players. If you're going to artificially limit signing bonuses, then artificially inflate the annual salaries to at least be equal to a full time minimum wage.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Plympton91 said:
I think it's a shame the union didn't insist on making minor league pay competitive with that of Walmart cashiers as a condition of agreeing to the draft slotting and internatial bonus pools. Competitive balance is great, but I don't need to be paying taxes to support food stamps for John Henry's A-ball players. If you're going to artificially limit signing bonuses, then artificially inflate the annual salaries to at least be equal to a full time minimum wage.
 
I've never heard of any union caring about non-union members.  And John Henry and the other 29 gazailionaires didn't make their fortunes worrying about the "little people."  If Walmart could get away with paying their cashiers less than minimum wage, they'd do it in a split second.  And customers would still flock to Walmart, just like fans still go to minor league games because it's such a bargain given a cheap labor force.  This is all part of the Amerikan Way.  What should be done is Congress should address the ramifications of the Anti-Trust exemption, which apparently allows some minor league ball-players to be paid less than minimum wage.  Now if only we could get the Koch Brothers to get on board... not likely.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Ooh, you're on the the Koch Brothers as boogiemen White House rampage?

I love it when politicians personally demonize individual private citizens. Hope and change! No red or blue states, but United States! indeed, until someone disagrees with any part of the regimes platform, then it's Rules for Radicals time.

/v&n
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Plympton91 said:
Ooh, you're on the the Koch Brothers as boogiemen White House rampage?

I love it when politicians personally demonize individual private citizens. Hope and change! No red or blue states, but United States! indeed, until someone disagrees with any part of the regimes platform, then it's Rules for Radicals time.

/v&n
 
It's hypocritical when Democrats criticize the Koch brothers, since plenty of them still take the money.  At least the GOP take the Koch money and keep quiet.
 
But back to the topic, why do you blame the MLBPA for minor league slave wages?  If you've paid your dues, why do you want to make it easier for kids who are trying to come and take your jobs from you?
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,855
Mtigawi
WenZink said:
 
I've never heard of any union caring about non-union members.  .
Yet they care enough to insist on negotiating -and setting - signing bonuses and salary guidelines.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
AlNipper49 said:
Yet they care enough to insist on negotiating -and setting - signing bonuses and salary guidelines.
 
Exactly.  It's just a case of a union, in this case the MLBPA, restricting the entry of foreign competition.  There's nothing egregious or unnatural to it.  The only part that's unusual is that, in this case, the union was strong enough to pull it off.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
WenZink said:
Exactly.  It's just a case of a union, in this case the MLBPA, restricting the entry of foreign competition.  There's nothing egregious or unnatural to it.  The only that that's unusual is that, in this case, the union was strong enough to pull it off.
Yeah, the union really put one over on the owners there. Major concession.

Plus the restraint on the number of foreign players, which is what the union really cares about, is reinforced by the U.S. Immigration laws.

I agree completely with your point about the anti-trust exemption, it should be repealed completely. There's no justification for it.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Yes, because that's why the system is in place, to save owners money and strike down the poor international player.

Can you really not understand the principle here or are you just in the boat of decrying owners at every opportunity like some others here?

Jesus, the cap on ISP, in conjunction with salary slots in the rule iv draft, are aimed at providing competitive balance. Complain all you like about how smart or effective they are (for various reasons) but they are aimed to eliminate the advantage the big money teams had to flex their wallet and blow smaller market teams out of the water for international players and late round draft picks that are hard signs. If you put in hard slots and allot draft pools to prevent that advantage, the next logical place to exploit would be internationally.

It's not about keeping down the little guy and saving money for the big bad billionaire owner. It's about keeping every significant international FA from going to teams with the deepest pockets.
Not sure why the official rationale should be believed? Could you provide some evidence that this kind of system leads to "competitive balance" in practice, or that the parties negotiating the CBA believed it would? In the years leading up to these caps such large market teams as the Pittsburgh Pirates and Kansas City Royals were routinely among the top 5-10 spenders in the international market. Yes, maybe more and more teams in both large and small markets are realizing that it's crucial to build a good minor league system to stay competitive at the MLB level, and perhaps we'd have seen a shift toward more and more large market teams at the top of the international spending charts if these caps had not been put in place, but one of the few absolutely unmistakable results of this new system is less money for Latin American teenagers, more money for owners, no matter what it was supposed to be "about" in the first place.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
tbrown_01923 said:
Apologies if this is off topic, but where is the velocity generated from?  Having studied Kung-Fu for a few years they continue to emphasize the importance having everything moving in synch, such that the strength of the punch i more about having the body twisting into the punch at the right time as it is about the strength of your arm.  It seems that this would apply to pitching as well -  and if it did I would think working on balance and flexibility (more than touching their toes) would help improve velocity.  
 
SO the question here is, "is the ease in motion and velocity a result of superior core strength, balance and flexibility (throughout the entire body) so much that they are never "working against themselves"? And if  so, is yoga / pilates / etc part of professional training?
 
There are members here who know more about this than I do (plus, obviously, G38), but my understanding from a few former pro pitchers is that the answer to your question is "legs".  If you look at any pro pitcher, they have legs like tree trunks.  The difference between an average push-off from the mound and a great one can be 5-10mph easily.  A lot of their training isn't cardio (obviously) or flexibility so much as leg strength.  Plus shoulder and back, of course, but that's pretty much what you'd expect.  The basics are important, genetics matter (ever seen those close-ups of Pedro's hands?) but legs are where a player can differentiate themselves.
 
Just like how a good punch or kick starts from your hips, and rolls up or down through your body to generate the snap, a good pitch starts from the push-off and rolls up to the shoulder, elbow and wrist.  If things don't snap smoothly, or have unequal power so that one part pushes much more than another, it's like waves being out-of-sync and interfering with each other rather than amplifying each other.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Yes, because that's why the system is in place, to save owners money and strike down the poor international player.

Can you really not understand the principle here or are you just in the boat of decrying owners at every opportunity like some others here?

Jesus, the cap on ISP, in conjunction with salary slots in the rule iv draft, are aimed at providing competitive balance. Complain all you like about how smart or effective they are (for various reasons) but they are aimed to eliminate the advantage the big money teams had to flex their wallet and blow smaller market teams out of the water for international players and late round draft picks that are hard signs. If you put in hard slots and allot draft pools to prevent that advantage, the next logical place to exploit would be internationally.

It's not about keeping down the little guy and saving money for the big bad billionaire owner. It's about keeping every significant international FA from going to teams with the deepest pockets.
Well. It's certainly a system that transferred wealth from young international players to owners. I suppose you can choose whether to see that as the real intention, or not. 
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
4,167
WenZink said:
 
I've never heard of any union caring about non-union members.  ...
when i was a faculty member at a state university in ohio the temp/adjuncts had no union, but our union included them in all negotiations and required the administration to respond to temp/adjunct interests. the admin, often, would try to separate our interests and deal with us alone, with no temp/adjuncts. our union refused to operate that way and realized that the union could serve more than just its own members.
 
so, at least one example exists in our universe.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
WenZink said:
 
It's just a case of a union, in this case the MLBPA, restricting the entry of foreign competition.  There's nothing egregious or unnatural to it.
How on earth do you reconcile these two sentences? You basically said "It's a way for big businesses to collude to underpay poor third world or underage players who aren't part of their cartel. That's perfectly moral and capitalist!"
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,441
Haiku
soxhop411 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FE9tDqgHlw&feature=youtu.be


In his first minutes, he dwells comfortably on the lower outside corner to RHB. How long in a single appearance can he spot the fastball like that? Once he works in the breaking pitches, he seems to lose pinpoint control on the fastball.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
SumnerH said:
How on earth do you reconcile these two sentences? You basically said "It's a way for big businesses to collude to underpay poor third world or underage players who aren't part of their cartel. That's perfectly moral and capitalist!"
Sorry, but I don't quite comprehend your point, and it might be my fault, but I don't know what needs to be reconciled.
 
My point was that there was nothing egregious or unnatural for a union to restrict entry into their workforce.  I also added that the only thing unnatural about was that in this day and age, a union would be successful in that effort (since it runs counter to big businesses' aim to get cheaper sources of labor), but we know that the MLBPA is a strong union.
 
I believe that my only tangential criticism of big business in this thread was that they were able to influence Congress in allowing the anti-trust exemption to somehow exempt them from minimum wage standards.  And, in fact, I'm really not criticizing big business (since they're only doing what's natural) as much as the system that allows Congress to be bought.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,044
WenZink said:
Sorry, but I don't quite comprehend your point, and it might be my fault, but I don't know what needs to be reconciled.
 
My point was that there was nothing egregious or unnatural for a union to restrict entry into their workforce.  I also added that the only thing unnatural about was that in this day and age, a union would be successful in that effort (since it runs counter to big businesses' aim to get cheaper sources of labor), but we know that the MLBPA is a strong union.
 
I believe that my only tangential criticism of big business in this thread was that they were able to influence Congress in allowing the anti-trust exemption to somehow exempt them from minimum wage standards.  And, in fact, I'm really not criticizing big business (since they're only doing what's natural) as much as the system that allows Congress to be bought.
 
I don't think Sumner was accusing you of criticizing big business. Indeed, your defense against this perceived criticism is... weird.
 
As to the earlier issue of whether or not the bonus pool caps are about competitive balance or saving money for the owners, isn't it obviously both? Any given owner has to think in terms of their own bottom line and also the relationships with the other members of the cartel that makes them so much money. This kind of arrangement is exactly what you would expect in that it satisfies all the owners in the aspect of their relationship where they are in competition (in the market for players) as well as in the aspect where they share a common interest (to minimize payments to international players).
 
There's a lot of different ways to characterize the different effects of such a deal, but shouting at someone who says "there is light that is red," "No, there is light that is blue!" seems to sorta miss the point.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Reverend said:
 
I don't think Sumner was accusing you of criticizing big business. Indeed, your defense against this perceived criticism is... weird.
 
As to the earlier issue of whether or not the bonus pool caps are about competitive balance or saving money for the owners, isn't it obviously both? ...
 
Well damn, I feel old, because now I'm doubly confused.  I don't think I've made any comment on whether or not the International signing cap will or won't bring about more competitive balance.  And I do have an opinion, but not yet expressed, and not about to express it any time soon.  I just entered the discussion to counter Plympton's attack on the MLBPA's support of the plan and not caring about the "Walmart" wages of many, lower minor league serfs.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,044
WenZink said:
 
Well damn, I feel old, because now I'm doubly confused.  I don't think I've made any comment on whether or not the International signing cap will or won't bring about more competitive balance.  And I do have an opinion, but not yet expressed, and not about to express it any time soon.  I just entered the discussion to counter Plympton's attack on the MLBPA's support of the plan and not caring about the "Walmart" wages of many, lower minor league serfs.
 
The second part wasn't directed at you but at the preceding discussion, hence, "earlier issue of..." Sorry for any confusion.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Ben Badler ‏@BenBadler  9m
Story at BA tomorrow with scouts' views on 5 exciting pitching prospects for July 2. Fun one to write. Especially rec'd for Red Sox fans.
 
 
 
Scouting Grades: Fastball: 65 | Curve: 55 | Changeup: 65 | Control: 60
Many consider Acosta the best pitcher on the international market this year, and it's easy to see why he has garnered so much attention. Scouts like Acosta's tall and lean body along with his loose and easy arm actions on the mound. His fastball hovers in the 88 to 92 mph range, but his changeup might be his best overall pitch, and he can throw it in any count. Acosta's curveball has good rotation with bite, and he uses it in the strike zone early in counts and as a strikeout pitch.
Scouts like Acosta's command of all of his pitches and his overall feel for pitching. Some scouts believe he can look disinterested at times, and his delivery could use some work, but there is no denying his potential.
Acosta is based in La Vega, Dominican Republic, and is trained by Alberto Faña. The Red Sox have expressed serious interest in the right-handed pitcher
 
 
 
 
 
scouting Grades: Fastball: 65 | Curve: 60 | Changeup: 55 | Control: 50
Could Anderson Espinoza be the next Pedro Martinez? Some scouts believe the 5-foot-10, 150-pound teenager from Caracas, Venezuela, might be the next closest thing.
Espinoza has three projectable pitches with command and he's a plus-athlete that has a chance to be a top of the rotation starter. Some scouts question his size and strength, but there is no denying the effectiveness of his power arm and his breaking ball.
The right-hander's fastball hovers in the 91 to 93 mph range and his curveball comes in between 71 and 73 mph. Espinoza's changeup also has some sinking action and some scouts think he could be the best overall pitcher on the market.
Espinoza doesn't look like the prototypical pitching prospect, but like Martinez, he could be the exception to the rule. He is trained by Felix Luzon. Several teams have expressed interest in Espinoza, but the Red Sox are considered the frontrunners to land him.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/prospects/watch/y2014/#list=int
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sprowl said:


In his first minutes, he dwells comfortably on the lower outside corner to RHB. How long in a single appearance can he spot the fastball like that? Once he works in the breaking pitches, he seems to lose pinpoint control on the fastball.
I think this is fairly common even with established pros.  I really noticed it the other day.  The Indians brought in John Axford.  His control was off and he walked a couple guys.  Then, all of a sudden, his fastball control was dead on.  Then the catcher called for a curve and the next fastball Axford threw was three feet off.  I think it might've gone one more cycle like that.  No fastball control, finally good control, a curveball to break up the monotony and fastball release point again goes MIA.  It was very noticeable with Axford. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,044
rodderick said:
Oh, so kinda like the NBA, the NHL, QBs, kickers and punters in the NFL? Calm down about the "diving" guys, trying to sell contact as being harsher than it really was happens in every single sport when a player has something to gain from it.
 
I think you're being unduly hard on Espinoza here...
 

zenter

indian sweet
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2005
5,641
Astoria, NY
WenZink said:
My point was that there was nothing egregious or unnatural for a union to restrict entry into their workforce.  I also added that the only thing unnatural about was that in this day and age, a union would be successful in that effort (since it runs counter to big businesses' aim to get cheaper sources of labor), but we know that the MLBPA is a strong union.
 
P91's (I think correct) point was simple and sort of irrespective of whether it's normal - he's talking about what should be. In allowing the bonus pool limits and NOT having international signees (let alone the minor leaguers) into the union, it's almost as if the union is colluding with owners to depress the value of non-major-leaguers.
 
Basically: Irrespective of how it got the way it is... Why shouldn't minor leaguers and international draftees be unionized, as part of the MLBPA (preferably)? Why shouldn't they have a voice in a CBA that directly affects their salaries? What's "collective" about that CBA if the largest percentage of people affected are voiceless? Are some animals more equal than other animals?
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,613
Row 14
Plympton91 said:
I think it's a shame the union didn't insist on making minor league pay competitive with that of Walmart cashiers as a condition of agreeing to the draft slotting and internatial bonus pools. Competitive balance is great, but I don't need to be paying taxes to support food stamps for John Henry's A-ball players. If you're going to artificially limit signing bonuses, then artificially inflate the annual salaries to at least be equal to a full time minimum wage.
 
I mean the union has very little reason to fight for non union members at the expensive of their own negotiating capital.