SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Radical changes to minor league baseball possible in 2021
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Oct 18, 2019 13:58:19 GMT -5
The International League would grow to 20 teams as they want to make things more regional. Seems like the Spinners could be affected the most, but it seems like they are in a good spot geographically.
|
|
|
Post by SALNotes on Oct 18, 2019 14:45:36 GMT -5
I've heard rumblings for months about contraction but this is far more reaching then I think anyone anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 18, 2019 15:42:19 GMT -5
It makes perfect sense and is exactly what I thought would happen with all the pressure to raise minor Leaguers pay. Real world, for some to get more, others get less. Draft goes to 20-25 rounds, 25% of minor league teams gone. They create an independent league where they'll now get less and it will be that much harder to make the bigs.
The so-so players that got no bonus money. The ones that everyone felt sorry for and that they needed more so they could eat well and not work second jobs are mostly gone in this proposal. The guys that got a $100,000 plus bonus money now get more.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 18, 2019 17:27:10 GMT -5
Yay billionaires get to make more money even while handing out raises that still don't bring players up to minimum wage.
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on Oct 18, 2019 19:50:59 GMT -5
I love baseball, but owners just seem like vile human beings.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 19, 2019 8:19:43 GMT -5
Some random thoughts.
I'm assuming the Sox will lose Lowell and DSL2.
If #1 is true, the Yankees will lose three teams because they have 3 short season teams.
A guy getting a $100,000 bonus isn't as good as it looks. That's before taxes, they likely aren't married and have few deductions and income averaging doesn't exist anymore. Most of these guys are going to have to spread that out over about 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 19, 2019 11:38:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Oct 19, 2019 15:43:46 GMT -5
I love baseball, but owners just seem like vile human beings. Probably a response to increased costs related to paying minor league players more money and, more importantly, having to give up more of the gross to MLB players in the next CBA.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 20, 2019 17:54:01 GMT -5
Homework assignment for someone with too much time on their hands - what percentage of the 2014 farm played in the majors, and what were those players' WAR totals?
Honestly, if the owners' response to raising player pay is "fine, but get rid of 30 of the players in each system who everyone knows have no shot at making the majors," I think that's kind of rational, really.
Will probably make this a big talking point on the next podcast, whenever I free up at work enough to do one.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 20, 2019 19:49:10 GMT -5
So, 42 towns around the country where kids will grow up without the opportunity to go to a live game. Good thinking. Smart idea. Ought to help the game in the long run, in a real enlightened self-interest kind of way.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 20, 2019 21:31:23 GMT -5
All part of a mad scramble, it seems, now that minor league serfs have called MLB's bluff.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 20, 2019 22:42:19 GMT -5
So, 42 towns around the country where kids will grow up without the opportunity to go to a live game. Good thinking. Smart idea. Ought to help the game in the long run, in a real enlightened self-interest kind of way. I mean, it really depends on what teams, right? For one thing, there are areas where there's a decent amount of geographical overlap. Check out www.milb.com/milb/tickets/geographical.jsp for the map. Also, they're not telling those teams to fold. They're just not going to be affiliated.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 20, 2019 22:49:37 GMT -5
So in 2014, the Red Sox had the #2 system in baseball per Baseball America. - By my count, 126 guys got at least one plate appearance who weren't pitchers. Remove players who'd already exhausted rookie eligibility, which helpfully also pulls out the rehabbers (Victorino, Kelly Johnson, Allen Craig, Mike Carp, Stephen Drew, Andres Torres, Nava, Middlebrooks, Brandon Snyder, Lavarnway, Ryan Roberts, Mike McCoy, Jonathan Herrera, Ivan De Jesus) gives you 112.
Here they are, with career bWAR so far:
Mookie Betts 42.0 Jackie Bradley Jr. 15.0 Travis Shaw 10.6 Brock Holt 7.5 Rafael Devers 6.6 Manuel Margot 6.4 Christian Vazquez 3.2 Michael Chavis 0.7 Tzu-Wei Lin 0.6 Mauricio Dubon 0.4 (will go up - progress was slowed by ACL tear) Javier Guerra - 8 appearances as a pitcher, 0.0 Deven Marrero -0.6 Carlos Asuaje -0.6 Blake Swihart -0.7 Sam Travis -1.3
Still lurking in the minors: Aybar (having converted), Longhi, Ockimey, LAX Basabe, LAJ Basabe, roughly in that order (Longhi had a pretty good year in AAA, actually)
(Plus the following guys who've barely played in MLB such that they never exhausted rookie status Corey Brown - 39 games, 36 of which were before that season Bryce Brentz - 34 games Garin Cecchini - 13 games Carson Blair - 11 games Dan Butler - 9 games Carlos Rivero - 4 games Alex Hassan - 3 games Mike Miller - 1 game)
But in other words, they paid 112 hitters to get 15 real major leaguers, at most 20. Of those, there are like, 14-ish guys who might hold down roster spots going forward maybe?
Looking at how this new plan might affect things, Dubon is maybe the one guy that might slip through the cracks. He was drafted in the 26th round, so that round goes away, but maybe they don't mess around with one or more of the 5 guys before him who didn't sign. The other draft guys all get drafted in rounds that still exist, and none were ever in danger of getting cut or anything. The international guys were all big bonuses (I think Guerra's 250k was the smallest), so they all still get signed. Maybe Longhi doesn't get drafted and goes to LSU, which is fine for him.
I can see why they might think that's not a great ROI. And this is one of the best systems in the game at the time. (I'll do the pitchers at some point as well.)
Would lopping off the bottom 18-20 hitters and getting rid of an affiliate really be that bad? And honestly, wouldn't some of the players you get rid of be the MLB retreads in AAA?
If everyone gets rid of the same SSA level, you just wind up with a reshuffling of the levels a bit - guys get pushed up sooner, which "weakens" those levels. I could also see them adding a few more roster spots in Rookie ball, and bet you'd get more teams who do two rookie league affiliates like the Yankees and others do now. You get rid of Lowell, but you aren't getting rid of the Lowell players - you're probably spreading that among the affiliates and pushing guys up.
So if we want the owners to raise pay for players (and we do), I think cutting down on affiliates to help get there is kind of reasonable, looking at these hitters at least.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 21, 2019 2:32:00 GMT -5
Giving 200 players a $20,000 raise would only cost each club 4 million dollars. This really shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Oct 21, 2019 6:45:31 GMT -5
I think the minor leaguers should have their own union.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2019 7:30:19 GMT -5
Giving 200 players a $20,000 raise would only cost each club 4 million dollars. This really shouldn't be an issue. Very true. My point wasn't they don't have enough money. Fair point. My point was more that examining the minor leagues to see if the current structure is really the most efficient one is a fair thing to do in a vacuum, and if instituting a raise in pay is when they decide to do it, I kind of get it. We kind of assume that, oh, this structure of the minor leagues of course makes sense, but does it necessarily? Would getting rid of short season, moving the draft later, and expanding the complex leagues a little, while adding what is essentially something like the G League for undrafted players be better? It could be.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 21, 2019 7:54:13 GMT -5
If employing that many minor leaguers didn't make sense, teams wouldn't do it. What they want is to codify rules that allow them to cut costs without other teams hoarding that talent. Teams should be able to eliminate their lowest level or two if it makes financial or developmental sense to do so. And likewise, a team should be able to hoard and pay 300 guys if they want to. There was that article a couple months ago about the Astros cutting a couple affiliates. If that model works better - fewer minor players getting more focused and higher-level instruction - then teams will do it organically. Reorganizing the minor leagues to do it is unnecessary.
There are also "grow the game" arguments toward subsidizing more affiliates, though I'm really not sure the Gulf Coast League helps with that.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Oct 21, 2019 9:43:28 GMT -5
Financially, a lot of the teams aren't viable. There's quite a few teams in locations with tiny populations with terrible attendance numbers and facilities that are not conducive to properly developing talent.
The argument about towns losing teams and therefore kids not growing up going to these games is flawed considering the numbers suggest they aren't attending much to start with.
Keith Law highlighted a few teams (i think mostly in the Appalachian league) where average attendance was 1,100 or below which is sad. I have felt for a while that there were too many minor league teams and too many guys with minimal talent that dilutes the product and makes going to the games less interesting than it could be.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2019 9:55:42 GMT -5
If employing that many minor leaguers didn't make sense, teams wouldn't do it. What they want is to codify rules that allow them to cut costs without other teams hoarding that talent. Teams should be able to eliminate their lowest level or two if it makes financial or developmental sense to do so. And likewise, a team should be able to hoard and pay 300 guys if they want to. There was that article a couple months ago about the Astros cutting a couple affiliates. If that model works better - fewer minor players getting more focused and higher-level instruction - then teams will do it organically. Reorganizing the minor leagues to do it is unnecessary. There are also "grow the game" arguments toward subsidizing more affiliates, though I'm really not sure the Gulf Coast League helps with that. Well, there may be an amount of players that it makes sense to pay below poverty wages, and there may be an amount of players that it makes sense to play something closer to a living wage. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a team to be okay paying the 16th reliever on the Spinners $10k but not $30k. On a separate point, we've focused on parks and attendance, but not all minor league franchises are run particularly well. This org has mostly been free of that, and it's easy not to realize or think of that when you are mostly dealing with model franchises like we do, but the Red Sox org hasn't been immune to it either, and I'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 21, 2019 10:30:11 GMT -5
Well, there may be an amount of players that it makes sense to pay below poverty wages, and there may be an amount of players that it makes sense to play something closer to a living wage. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a team to be okay paying the 16th reliever on the Spinners $10k but not $30k. That'll work itself out less radically though, no? I'm fine with individual franchises deciding that individual levels are no longer sensible/practicle/"efficient." If the Yankees or Braves decide that the advantage they have from fielding two extra teams continues to exist even at a couple million dollars more, they should be allowed to do that. And, to get ahead of the question (not one Chris is making, but one I've seen others make in this thread and others) - the whole "see what you did by raising wages, you took a job away from these kids" point won't stand. The population of people willing and able to play baseball for $8,000 a year is different from the one able to do it for $30,000 a year. The argument has never been that MLB should subsidize the dream for as many kids as possible - it's that the healthiest way for the game to grow is not making "being financially sufficient enough to subsist on $8K a year" a barrier to playing pro baseball. The reason tech companies and media companies and so many other groups are so homogeneous is because the kids who are able to take unpaid internship "opportunities" are the rich ones who don't need to bring home a paycheck to eat. Baseball is worse off if it treats the low-level minors as an internship that's available based not on talent but on the independent means to play for nearly free. For sure. A Short Season affiliate not far from me just installed artificial turf in the Year of Our Lord 2019. I cannot understand how an MLB team would affiliate with a team that can't maintain a grass field. Yes, grass fields are expensive to maintain if you're running a little league or even a high school program, but not for a multi-billion dollar baseball organization.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 21, 2019 10:33:12 GMT -5
It makes perfect sense and is exactly what I thought would happen with all the pressure to raise minor Leaguers pay. Real world, for some to get more, others get less. Draft goes to 20-25 rounds, 25% of minor league teams gone. They create an independent league where they'll now get less and it will be that much harder to make the bigs. The so-so players that got no bonus money. The ones that everyone felt sorry for and that they needed more so they could eat well and not work second jobs are mostly gone in this proposal. The guys that got a $100,000 plus bonus money now get more. No different than $15. minimum wage. Only so much cash is going to be spent and workers in the end are going to pay the price thru job losses. Ball players in this case of course need and deserved more money, but sure would have liked to seen this issue dealt with decades ago in ANY CBA by the MLBPA, now it's the owner's themselves apparently about to unilaterally enforce some kind of cut, with or without the consent of the union and to the angst of many half season locations from what read yesterday. I've seen nothing in this topic but blame thrown at ownership.. Where was the union fighting for these people the last 40+ years? Were those frivolous late additions always more important than any thoughts for MiLB people?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 21, 2019 10:46:12 GMT -5
Financially, a lot of the teams aren't viable. There's quite a few teams in locations with tiny populations with terrible attendance numbers and facilities that are not conducive to properly developing talent. The argument about towns losing teams and therefore kids not growing up going to these games is flawed considering the numbers suggest they aren't attending much to start with. Keith Law highlighted a few teams (i think mostly in the Appalachian league) where average attendance was 1,100 or below which is sad. I have felt for a while that there were too many minor league teams and too many guys with minimal talent that dilutes the product and makes going to the games less interesting than it could be. Apologies for 2 posts back to back. I'm guessing FSL teams (many) are at/below the 1100 average. I've been to many Lakeland Tigers games where attendance is below that during the week. Free nights, weekends over of course and just bringing this up.. Olden days when Winter Haven had the Red Sox FSL team, never got as high as 200, unless it was free. Tampa draws good (yankees) few times have been there for FSL. They even manage 25 or so for the freebie GCL games. LOL
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 21, 2019 10:59:40 GMT -5
Some big gaps in the FSL. Dunedin drew 11,757 fans all season. Average attendance of 203.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 21, 2019 11:44:51 GMT -5
Well, there may be an amount of players that it makes sense to pay below poverty wages, and there may be an amount of players that it makes sense to play something closer to a living wage. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a team to be okay paying the 16th reliever on the Spinners $10k but not $30k. That'll work itself out less radically though, no? I'm fine with individual franchises deciding that individual levels are no longer sensible/practicle/"efficient." If the Yankees or Braves decide that the advantage they have from fielding two extra teams continues to exist even at a couple million dollars more, they should be allowed to do that. And, to get ahead of the question (not one Chris is making, but one I've seen others make in this thread and others) - the whole "see what you did by raising wages, you took a job away from these kids" point won't stand. The population of people willing and able to play baseball for $8,000 a year is different from the one able to do it for $30,000 a year. The argument has never been that MLB should subsidize the dream for as many kids as possible - it's that the healthiest way for the game to grow is not making "being financially sufficient enough to subsist on $8K a year" a barrier to playing pro baseball. The reason tech companies and media companies and so many other groups are so homogeneous is because the kids who are able to take unpaid internship "opportunities" are the rich ones who don't need to bring home a paycheck to eat. Baseball is worse off if it treats the low-level minors as an internship that's available based not on talent but on the independent means to play for nearly free. For sure. A Short Season affiliate not far from me just installed artificial turf in the Year of Our Lord 2019. I cannot understand how an MLB team would affiliate with a team that can't maintain a grass field. Yes, grass fields are expensive to maintain if you're running a little league or even a high school program, but not for a multi-billion dollar baseball organization. I guess I don't understand your take because the talented players have always gotten paid. The majority of the players they feel are talented get over a $100,000. They give them the money needed so they can develop. Sure there are always a few that slip through the cracks. Yet overall they do a good job paying the guys that will eventually make the majors and the ones that are important. The signing bonus is the mechanism that gets people to the MLB, not the wages. They brought in so many other players not because you need them. They aren't crazy important to Baseball, but because the cost was so low it made sense. You bring in 30 extra guys a year because maybe you find a guy or two out of those 30 players and the cost made sense. It doesn't make sense if you need to pay them 3-4 times more, along with the other guys. Like if only the rich were playing in the minors for the experience of it, would we have this issue? The lawsuits and stories show that the non rich are also chasing a dream and they are the ones complaining and filing lawsuits. Those are the guys posting about being roofers in the off-season. Frankly it's why they never raised salaries, they didn't need to. They got more players they they ever needed willing to play for very little money. Minor league Baseball isn't a Billion dollar business though and most of these stadiums are privately owned. The teams that draw big got to pick and choose they good parks and the others needed to settle. Frankly it's a big part of these move getting rid of the crappy stadiums and locations. Like Pittsfield Mass has a crappy stadium, it used to host minor league ball. They stopped years ago, town was going to spend a crap load to build a new stadium but needed assurances they could get a local team to play there and couldn't get it. A team like the Red Sox, Yankees or Mets. I hope they fix that issue because having one of those teams in Western Mass is a lot better than in NC. So hopefully they realign the minors and the minor league teams are closer to the major league teams. That will help attendance and help these parks be maintained. It's not all about city size, people want to see the hometown teams. Nevermind giving Western Mass an option of seeing minor league Baseball. Plus places like Albany and Springfield are an hour away, over two hours closer than going to New York or Boston.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2019 11:59:48 GMT -5
It makes perfect sense and is exactly what I thought would happen with all the pressure to raise minor Leaguers pay. Real world, for some to get more, others get less. Draft goes to 20-25 rounds, 25% of minor league teams gone. They create an independent league where they'll now get less and it will be that much harder to make the bigs. The so-so players that got no bonus money. The ones that everyone felt sorry for and that they needed more so they could eat well and not work second jobs are mostly gone in this proposal. The guys that got a $100,000 plus bonus money now get more. No different than $15. minimum wage. Only so much cash is going to be spent and workers in the end are going to pay the price thru job losses. Ball players in this case of course need and deserved more money, but sure would have liked to seen this issue dealt with decades ago in ANY CBA by the MLBPA, now it's the owner's themselves apparently about to unilaterally enforce some kind of cut, with or without the consent of the union and to the angst of many half season locations from what read yesterday. I've seen nothing in this topic but blame thrown at ownership.. Where was the union fighting for these people the last 40+ years? Were those frivolous late additions always more important than any thoughts for MiLB people? MLBPA doesn't represent the minor league players, and at any rate, this isn't about the players but the minor league franchises. This is a different agreement being negotiated between MLB and Minor League Baseball.
|
|
|