Disabled List Salary

[klonewarrior]

I thought I read somewhere that players on the DL, as well as players in the minors with ML contracts only cost you 10% of their salary.

I have looked at the online manual and can't seem to find where that is.

Any help here would be grand.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by klonewarrior

I thought I read somewhere that players on the DL, as well as players in the minors with ML contracts only cost you 10% of their salary.

I have looked at the online manual and can't seem to find where that is.

Any help here would be grand.

Nope, you pay their full salary whether they are on the DL or not. You may be thinking of a real-life scenario where a team has an insurance policy on a player that pays a big chunk of their contract if they miss a significant amount of time. That's the case with David Wright of the Mets right now.

[r0nster]

yes you are correct in real life the team would only have to pay 10% of salary while spending time on DL as the insurance company pays the rest of it.
In the game it is where the team pays 100%

[NoOne]

they'd have to add costs of the premiums too. it's not 10% off, net.

insurance is a profitable industry. they charge more than what they provide AND invest your money to gain interest. it probably costs the team more to insure all the players than it will to just pay them when it happens -- otherwise the insurance company would not be in business. no way around it.

can't beat market in long term.. ~6% growth will always be what you are drawn back to. all other results are small sample BS. that allws for possibly providing a very small cost benefit to the insured.. a large company cna do better on its own if teh assets are properly managed. (instead of premiums going to Lloyds, you manage your own rainy day fund.)

honestly, some old companies i cannot understand why they aren't deeply invested and reaping the rewards of the yearly payouts... if you've been around for 100+years it's stupid not to implement this kind of strategy. after 100 years you'd easily have enough to cover anything that insurance does and save a %@#-load of money. *not applicable to small and "smaller" big business. mlb isn't small big business.

insurance is a huge scam in all but a few cases... essentially if it's not heavily regulated you are paying twice as much as you should. there should be a law that limits the % profit they are allowed to skim off the top.

never buy a warranty in retail unless you plan to take advantage of it, no matter the means. e.g. if it covers power surges, fry it, lol. (most do not! read fine print)

OR, in the US there are laws agains a practice ccalled "in-boarding" warranties. if they sell you the warranty and knock down the price of the product to get you to buy, you can immediately return that warranty at it's full price and reap the benefits of the price reduction they just gave you.... if they try to charge more in the refund, that is illegal. if they refues, you call th 1800# for the warranty and you tell them you want to cancel the service contract immediately and that the storre is refusing to do so.

you'll just have to wait for the cehck to come, but you save that $100-200+ they knocked off the product.

you can cancel a service contract/warranty at any time and get a pro-rated refund.. they are required by law to do so. in the first 10 days it's usually 100% (fine print, maybe law? 3-days for sure.) and usually in-store. after that you call the warranty's service dept to cancel. if they give any static, you'll win in the end, and they know it.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

they'd have to add costs of the premiums too. it's not 10% off, net.

That's not the only cost real-life clubs have to pay; there are many others. For example, they have to pay for all the various player benefits—in 2016, that amounted to nearly $13 million per club.

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's not the only cost real-life clubs have to pay; there are many others. For example, they have to pay for all the various player benefits—in 2016, that amounted to nearly $13 million per club.

Interesting, can the low revenue teams use what they receive in profit sharing to cover that cost?

This is a much bigger deal to the Rays than the Yankees and I'm not sure how it's equitable across the league.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RchW]

Originally Posted by r0nster

yes you are correct in real life the team would only have to pay 10% of salary while spending time on DL as the insurance company pays the rest of it.
In the game it is where the team pays 100%

Not a chance this is true IRL. With a guaranteed contact the player gets paid 100%.

Insurance only covers CEI. Nothing else.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

Interesting, can the low revenue teams use what they receive in profit sharing to cover that cost?

This is a much bigger deal to the Rays than the Yankees and I'm not sure how it's equitable across the league.

The benefits costs are included as part of a club's payroll for luxury tax purposes. In 2016, while the amount paid out by Milwaukee for player salaries and bonuses for the purposes of the luxury tax was $58,855,501, its total luxury tax payroll was $71,808,702. That other $12,953,201 was the club's share of the player benefits costs.

Now, of course, that sum might really be just a paper transaction, as the club may not actually have to cut a cheque for that amount, it might instead simply be deducted from the Central Fund revenue (which is primarily the television income) each team earns. But whether a direct payment or a reduction from central revenue, it's a cost.

(Fun fact: the total cost of player benefits appears to be tied to total payroll for the season. In the seasons immediately prior to 2013, it came to slightly over 10% of the attributable luxury tax player earnings for that season. It's been 9.4% since, and the consistency in that figure, even as player earnings rose, makes me suspect it is actually negotiated between MLB and the Players Association as a defined percentage. The benefits themselves are mostly spelled out in the CBA, and include such things as meal and tip money, moving costs when traded to another team, etc.)

[NoOne]

thnk you answered the fun fact question as you wrote it.

it's clearly not random in nature. tied to something as spelled out by cba.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

it's clearly not random in nature. tied to something as spelled out by cba.

There's nothing spelled out in the CBA itself about it, which is why I hesitate to say it's an absolute fact.

[NoOne]

the values are specifically defined in article VII part B, so it's going to remain a fairly consistent % if average payroll remains consistent.

when average payroll shifts, it might change a bit? 2014-2017 it's been fairly consistent. that superficially coincides with what you said above.. not writing a research paper or anything

http://www.mlbplayers.com/pdf9/5464230.pdf

% remained steady for other reasons, then. just a product of the context. payroll is essentially limited by the cba.. defines % of profit that will be spent etc.. so, tied together loosely. still shouldn't eliminate growth.. maybe mlb hasn't grown much the last few years relative to income.

heh, further proof they are artificially stagnating salaries.. greedy bastages, all of them. (owners more so than players, of course... never fault a person for wanting more than an ort from "the man" lol - they most certainly can afford it. maybe 1 person doesn't need billions of dollars? and shouldn't. turns them into sociopaths)

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

the values are specifically defined in article VII part B, so it's going to remain a fairly consistent % if average payroll remains consistent.

That sets out the benefits covered, but does not includes a specific passage saying, "benefits must total x percent of luxury tax payroll". Though I would expect both MLB and MLBPA have economists who work out exactly what it all amounts to overall.

Originally Posted by NoOne

when average payroll shifts, it might change a bit? 2014-2017 it's been fairly consistent.

That the percentage has decreased slightly suggests that benefits amounts are not quite keeping up with the growth in salaries and bonuses.

One thing I've noticed is that, over the years, the mandated minor league minimum salary for players with at least one day of major league service, as a percentage of the major league minimum salary, has declined. In the late 1980s, it was one-third. In 1990 it dropped to one-quarter. In 1999 it dropped to one-fifth. In 2003 it dropped to one-sixth, which is about where it stands now. (Technically, it is currently slightly below one-sixth, at 16.1%, as compared to 16.3% a few years back, and then 16.7%, or one-sixth, before that.)

[r0nster]

I certainly learned a lot with this article and is interesting to say the least


https://metsmerizedonline.com/2013/0...ontracts.html/

[NoOne]

@dawn, thats what i was inferring on the first portion.

it looks like it's some % of total, but it's just the result of growth stagnating for a few years. the money they can take is nearly 'fixed' relative to X number of players in the mlb -- slight changes year-to-year, but inevitably stays ~consistent... what player won't take the money given to them? maybe they forget once in a hile or logistics gets in way? whatver creative cuase you can think of that would cause slight deviation - maybe one team keeps 24 for a few days etc. not "fixed" but basically fixed.

the mil thing- well that's evidence that money doesn't "trickle down."

That's just how it works.. people at the bottom get paid the least and get the fewest increases to pay... hence pay gap has increased astronomically since the 50's/60's.. baseball is not immune to this force even if the line drawn is a little further up the heirarchy due to Collective Bargaining power of the talent. honestly, mlb players still get paid peanuts, relatively speaking.

mil poriton of total revenue doesn't get CoLA or general pay raises easily. so the percentage dwindles over time. this is, politically, the very goal of conservative backed financial policies. keep the money at the top. then watch it never trickle down.

mlb players hve seen a >20,000% increase to pay since FA began. the pros were paid fairly well.. 3-4X a teacher's salary if i recall the correct example. a college education < playing basebal, wtf is wrong with us? mil will never keep up with that.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by r0nster

I certainly learned a lot with this article and is interesting to say the least


https://metsmerizedonline.com/2013/0...ontracts.html/

So based on that we can say the Mets paid approx $13.8 M to insure Wright. In 2015 they got 75% coverage but I'd bet some money they are not getting close to that payout 3 seasons later. There would be a rider in place to account for increased injury risk with age as the contract progresses. Probably the games missed threshold increases too. These companies are not idiots. It's likely that there is a max payout clause that limits the liability if the injury exists for multiple seasons as it has.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by NoOne

mlb players hve seen a >20,000% increase to pay since FA began. the pros were paid fairly well.. 3-4X a teacher's salary if i recall the correct example. a college education < playing basebal, wtf is wrong with us? mil will never keep up with that.

Even in the 1950s being a pro major league ballplayer was well-paid, relatively speaking. Back then, the average major league player's salary was three times that of the average non-agricultural salary; and ballplayers only worked for six months.

The reason MLB players' salaries have surged is because baseball's revenue has surged, and the artificial wage restraint imposed by the reserve clause was removed. MLB's revenue rose into the 1950s with the advent of television, but salaries of players did not keep pace. The extra money instead went to signing bonuses for amateur players, where there was fierce competition to sign such free agent talent. MLB tried various rules to curb this competition, none of which really worked. It took the creation of the amateur draft to finally stop the rise in signing bonuses. (And even then, that only lasted until the early 1990s, when, even in spite of the draft, signing bonuses again began a quick rise.)

Players would not be earning those salaries if the revenue the sport generates couldn't support it.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Even in the 1950s being a pro major league ballplayer was well-paid, relatively speaking. Back then, the average major league player's salary was three times that of the average non-agricultural salary; and ballplayers only worked for six months.

The reason MLB players' salaries have surged is because baseball's revenue has surged, and the artificial wage restraint imposed by the reserve clause was removed. MLB's revenue rose into the 1950s with the advent of television, but salaries of players did not keep pace. The extra money instead went to signing bonuses for amateur players, where there was fierce competition to sign such free agent talent. MLB tried various rules to curb this competition, none of which really worked. It took the creation of the amateur draft to finally stop the rise in signing bonuses. (And even then, that only lasted until the early 1990s, when, even in spite of the draft, signing bonuses again began a quick rise.)

Players would not be earning those salaries if the revenue the sport generates couldn't support it.

It always amazes me that the same people who will criticize an athletes salary will willingly go to a lousy movie where the star or stars make $20-$50 million for 3-6 months work. Where is the outrage?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by RchW

It always amazes me that the same people who will criticize an athletes salary will willingly go to a lousy movie where the star or stars make $20-$50 million for 3-6 months work. Where is the outrage?

Well, there is outrage at the pay packets of CEOs of major corporations. At least from some folks. But then, outrage often tends to be curiously selective in its expression.

The two things that free agency ushered in: (1) a rise in salaries for all players; and (2) a much greater amount of stratification in salaries (i.e. the range between minimum, average, and highest salaries).

I suspect, though I haven't actually crunched the numbers to check, that the distribution of salaries in MLB these days exhibit a Pareto distribution.