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 jimed14 on Nov 24, 2019 18:27:09 GMT -5
Closing restaurants opens opportunities for other restaurants. Dissolving MILB teams doesn't create any opportunities.
Nobody can convince me that this is anything more than saving some pocket change for billionaires. They don't give a damn about player facilities or excessive travel conditions when they're paying players a little more than slaves. When they start paying for quality food and housing for every minor league player, in addition to actually paying for flights in lieu of 8 hour bus rides *gasp*, I may be swayed. These are things that would demonstrateably improve their prospects' health and make it easier for them to be as good as they can be.
Clearly, they only care about money above all else.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 24, 2019 21:04:37 GMT -5
Good points, but is the number of these 42 teams failing to contribute to the local economy or to local baseball or to baseball as the national pastime really as high as 30? To say that only a handful of teams like Lowell have value seems a stretch. And while it is certainly true that large national chains add more to the local economy than some or even most of these 42 teams, all of these teams are, in fact, important to many elements of those economies. Small towns and small businesses depend on such minor engines of the local economy. It’s not just a matter of scale, nor even the number of full or part time jobs, it’s that these teams are often important sources of local revenues. It’s only good money after bad for teams and communities which have failed despite best efforts. That doesn’t seem to apply to all 42 teams. Stakeholders usually get the wrong end of corporate efficiency moves. And corporate contraction to enhance the bottom line is often a precursor to more such efficiencies; which seem to be the likely narratives here. IMO, such a major move as reorganizing the minors should enhance the game and benefit its stakeholders. Such reform would be good for everyone and the sport. I have seen enough CFO so called “rightsizing” and quarterly-report-necessitated-downsizing to recognize that this one is not about improving the game or honoring its stakeholders. It truly worries me. I can't say I've been to a minor league ballpark that contributes to the local economy in the way you describe. Major League parks, sure. Closest might be the Fisher Cats park in Manchester, and maaaaaayyyyybe Greenville, which are both located right downtown. Lowell would be an enormous stretch, but I have gone to Beer Works after a game with Mellen before, so, maybe that's more common than I'm thinking. But off the top of my head, I don't think of Pawtucket (which is why they needed to move, in large part), Salem, Lynchburg, Potomac (see note re: Pawtucket), Bowie, Aberdeen, Frederick, or Hagerstown as even minor drivers of the local economy. The parks are in isolated places surrounded by parking. People come to the park and spend money at the park, for sure, but I don't see them being important to the surrounding area the way an MLB park is. I won't name names, but even the concessions in at least two of those parks were terrible - think bad carnival fare from two stands. Closing restaurants opens opportunities for other restaurants. Dissolving MILB teams doesn't create any opportunities. Nobody can convince me that this is anything more than saving some pocket change for billionaires. They don't give a damn about player facilities or excessive travel conditions when they're paying players a little more than slaves. When they start paying for quality food and housing for every minor league player, in addition to actually paying for flights in lieu of 8 hour bus rides *gasp*, I may be swayed. These are things that would demonstrateably improve their prospects' health and make it easier for them to be as good as they can be. Clearly, they only care about money above all else. You're focusing only on the removing teams portion of the plan. They would also be reorganizing each league to be more geographically compact, eliminating the particularly awful bus rides. The South Atlantic League, for example, is getting split in two, geographically. A bunch of teams from the geographically huge Pacific Coast League are going to move over to the International League. THAT'S the part of the plan that addresses the long bus ride piece. So I guess you're correct in saying that contracting teams doesn't have anything to do with that - it doesn't. I know it's behind a pay wall, but for those with ESPN Insider, I strongly suggest reading Buster Olney on the subject today: www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/28153448
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 25, 2019 14:13:10 GMT -5
One thing I keep coming back to is that the plan to essentially eliminate short-season ball eliminates a lot of the less well-run franchises, but also a lot that draw well and have strong fanbases but aren't entirely feasible for full season for one reason or another - Lowell, State College, Vermont, places like that. But, I still can't get on board with eliminating that step in the first place. Someone like Nick Decker probably wasn't ready for the SAL last year, but also probably wouldn't have gotten a ton out of a year in the complexes either. To get those types of prospects against the right level of competition, you'd want to have some sort of stratification... but then you're going to need to fill out those rosters, and you're in the same boat you were last year.
The competition at the minor league levels have kind of worked themselves out over a long time. I'm unconvinced that by eliminating a level, you're just going to be able to cut the 15% of no chancers without an effect on development. You're either going to have Triston Casas facing worse competition in the Carolina League next year, or pushed to the Eastern League? I don't exactly know who that benefits. That gap between A Ball and Double-A is well chronicled. That's not going away, because the talent level is always going to be dictated by the level of play of the actual prospects.
If paying the players more - and like we've said, it should be a LOT more, not 50% more or even twice as much - means that it makes sense to employ fewer players, let that work itself out. Let teams disaffiliate. If a team thinks it's not worthwhile to have a Short-Season team, they can just not have one - they've always had that right! But if another team considers having one a competitive advantage, then they should be paying the extra $600K relative pittance it takes to field enough players to do it. There's a collusion-y aspect to this plan. A "hey guys, we're going to pay the minor leaguers more, but you Yankees over there can't go effing everything up by signing more of them with all that money you have in order to get better." If the Astros want to go super efficient with four affiliates and no scouts and brain implants then that's their business. If the Yankees want to run 25 affiliates and sign every living human who can throw 88, let 'em do that. Then the Astros can get rid of that Hudson Valley team they don't need, and one of the teams in a Short-Season backwater can move into Hudson Valley (which also has or had turf which should be ripped up).
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Nov 25, 2019 14:50:45 GMT -5
Nice Fangraphs piece detailing the potential impact (laid out geographically) of this proposal on access to MiLB teams for fans across the country.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2019 15:02:16 GMT -5
www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/55518/prospectus-feature-mlb-shrinking-milb-is-a-microcosm-of-the-nations-deepening-divide/So I guess no one cares if none of the people growing up in Iowa grow up to be baseball players or fans. They'll have almost zero exposure to any baseball at all. Obviously it's not about just Iowa, but about all rural areas across the country. On its own, it sounds like it's not a big deal, but really, we're still talking about millions and millions of people who will never even have a chance to be baseball fans or players. Maybe if they got rid of the f'ing stupid aggravating ridiculous blackout restrictions, I'd be a little tiny bit more positive about the way MLB is handling this. There should be zero blackouts in any area where it's impossible to get the game on any cable that's available to purchase. Like I have Baltimore and Washington games blacked out in Raleigh/Durham. It's 4-5 hours away by car and I cannot get the Baltimore/Washington regional sports network even if I wanted to. So please MLB, tell me how you gain anything from me being blacked out and unable to see or go to any Baltimore or Washington games? And that restriction isn't 1/100th as absurd as some of the other areas in the country. I don't remember where I read it, but some politician who's pissed about Lowell being eliminated said they'd be re-visiting the anti-trust exemption if this plan goes through. I hope it is.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 25, 2019 15:15:02 GMT -5
That's an issue with the blackout restriction being moronic, not minor league baseball. Those are two separate issues. Baseball needs to adapt to 21st century technology, but that has nothing to do with whether it needs to subsidize affiliated baseball there. The former is a much, much bigger issue. People who don't go to games still become fans. People who don't get the opportunity to watch games do not.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2019 15:19:44 GMT -5
That's an issue with the blackout restriction being moronic, not minor league baseball. Those are two separate issues. Baseball needs to adapt to 21st century technology, but that has nothing to do with whether it needs to subsidize affiliated baseball there. The former is a much, much bigger issue. People who don't go to games still become fans. People who don't get the opportunity to watch games do not. Well they are related because these rural areas will have zero access to watching or attending baseball games. Isn't part of minor league baseball promotion for the sport in general?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 25, 2019 15:26:58 GMT -5
Won't quote because the posts were long.
@james, I think the issue is that as long as some teams have short-season clubs, they all kind of need to. In order to eliminate a level, the organizations kind of need to collude. This may be a poor analogy, but it reminds me of the "slot recommendation" era of the draft. I'm sure some owners were like "ooo, we need to follow the recommendations" but others just ignored them because MLB had no teeth to enforce them. The clubs had to agree to a hard cap to actually cap spending. Same here, if allowed to have 1 or more short season A/advanced rookie clubs, everyone in MLB did. 10 had two. I don't think it's terribly concerning that the clubs would say, hey, we want to do a few things here, one way we do that is eliminate ssa/adv rk, but we all need to do it at once for it to work.
@jimed, What Dunne said. The blackout thing is stupid on its own, whether or not there are milb teams in rural areas. There's no good reason for it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who backs that. It's independently stupid regardless of this plan. Now, issues with this plan may be exacerbated by the existing blackout issue, but they're better fixed by fixing the blackout issue.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Nov 25, 2019 15:52:23 GMT -5
Never understood the radius of the blackout reach myself. Where you are has to be several hundred miles away. I'm for instance, 200m away from Miami and not blacked out. Tad over 3hrs on most driving conditions, via straight shot I4-I-75 to the stadium.
Have seen posts elsewhere of fans with handful of teams blacked out
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2019 18:47:46 GMT -5
Never understood the radius of the blackout reach myself. Where you are has to be several hundred miles away. I'm for instance, 200m away from Miami and not blacked out. Tad over 3hrs on most driving conditions, via straight shot I4-I-75 to the stadium. Have seen posts elsewhere of fans with handful of teams blacked out In Las Vegas, you cannot watch the A's, Diamondbacks, Giants, Padres, Angels or Dodgers. Iowa cannot watch the Cubs, Cardinals, Brewers, Twins, Royals, and White Sox. If you live in Hawaii, you cannot watch any of the west coast teams at all.
|
|
|
Post by nhdave on Nov 27, 2019 5:28:32 GMT -5
Taking my baseball fan hat off at the moment. Curious. Does an milb team create economic activity for a city or does it redirect spending that would be otherwise spent elsewhere? Fishercats are $15 to get in, say $10 for parking. (Free if you know where to go) plus Concessions, easily down $50 before a pitch is thrown. The jobs, certainly not great paying jobs. Internships, sure you can work your way up but very tough for most young people. On a side note. Not bashing nh. I like the park and happy they’re here. If you look at that part of the city, there is a tangible revitalization in that area of the city. (The snhu arena jump started it 20 years ago) I know the fishercats have to hustle to attract fans in what is imho not a natural baseball city. btw Love the spinners but am nervous about them. Close to Boston and now Worcester. They play in a league where even when it is fully populated with teams, they are one of the outliers geographically. You could almost make a case that even with lelaucher they could possibly host a aa team but I think a) a non red six affiliate not as easy to market. (See NH) and they would now have a host of difficult to sell dates in April and May.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Nov 27, 2019 6:16:20 GMT -5
Interesting thread that shows how difficult change can be. Does it make sense or is it just about greed?
Bottom line, teams don't need the number of prospects and minor league facilities that are currently being supported, they just don't. And when you are asking owners to invest more to make the lives of these minor leaguers better, to play a game mind you, then you have to start thinking about being more efficient. The current system is a long ways away from being efficient and I don't think anyone can argue that. On top of that I would have to say it would be better for the development of many to have them at the clubs facilities being coached a little bit more. Just another opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 3, 2019 15:49:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 3, 2019 15:54:25 GMT -5
Silverman is the only one writing the Spinners stories and neither one (I believe there have been only 2 - the one you just linked is more than a week old) includes interviews with anyone other than Heller. Neither notes that Heller owns 4 teams scattered across the country, including 2 others set to lose their affiliation. He raises some legitimate points, but there are holes in the story and questions not being asked.
I mean, he's about to lose money on an investment, of course he's mad.
And as we've said here, the Spinners issue probably isn't about facilities. If they get rid of short season baseball, Lelacheur may not be able to host a full-season team.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 3, 2019 15:59:02 GMT -5
If the stadium won't work for a full season league and they're not doing Short-Season affiliated baseball anymnore, then what should the do? That's not a rhetorical question. You keep bringing up "facility standards" as if that's the be-all/end-all, but there are teams with very solid facilities that are losing affiliations for other reasons: attendance, lack of tenability for a different league, whatever else. State College, PA, which also draws very well and has good facilities, is in the same boat: they share their park with Penn State baseball. (EDIT: What Hatfield said better than I did)
The better argument is that Lowell and State College show that there is a really strong market for short season baseball in a lot of these places that can't really host full-season affiliates, so eliminating Short Season ball outside of the complexes is short-sighted.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 3, 2019 16:07:01 GMT -5
Copying tweet below for 2 purposes:
1) Manfred met with Bernie on this topic today 2) I kind of like Lance's take. There were like 10 teams on the list that were either headscratchers or seemed a bit unfair. The only problem is that if they keep short season, I'm not sure how that works without having 30 teams at the level.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 7, 2019 16:17:37 GMT -5
I've posted something in the Non-Red Sox offseason thread with a link that may be of interest. It's about the Astros and Luhnow's involvement in the proposal to shrink the minor leagues. It's about a lot more as well, so I wrote it up there.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Dec 8, 2019 13:17:24 GMT -5
So $$$$ to MLB owners, a screw to miLB owners (take note currently unaffected owners), a sop to suddenly litigious miLB players, a dramatic reduction in baseball’s presence and support in small town America at a time of legitimate concern over baseball’s future. This was sold as an effort to improve the Minors. It is not that. Sure some teams are problematic, but most bring pro baseball to thousands and thousands of fans and future fans while contributing to player development. It is not reform, it is not fixing or improving the system ... as it claims to be. It is the ruinous, short sighted, needlessly but deliberately painful dollar squeezing of corporate downsizing. We have seen this shareholder driven game before.
For a couple of summers a friend of mine brought regular reports on how his son has been doing as a pitcher in a MLB affiliate, most recently a low-A team in a small town. The dream ended this past summer because he got a good paying job to properly support his young family, but everyone involved in their circle of perhaps 50 family and friends followed that wonderful dream and were tied to baseball through it. Multiply that 50 deep dream times 42 x 25 x the next 10 years. And that does not include thousands of American jobs.
My Christmas wish for the thousands of young players and their many thousands of families and friends who support them, and the countless thousands of fans of those 42 teams, and the thousand employees of and local businesses and towns which support those teams is that MLB stops this fake reform (and transparent corporate downsizing effort.) Here’s wishing that Bernie and his Congressional colleagues burn MLB like a Yuletide log for this Scrooge-like fiasco.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2019 13:53:58 GMT -5
Gerry unfortunately, Bernie probably already sold out with the promise that the Vermont Lake Monsters would be spared along with another dozen teams or so. Bernie gets his win by giving his blessing to what MLB wanted all along.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,660
|
Post by gerry on Dec 8, 2019 14:30:24 GMT -5
Gerry unfortunately, Bernie probably already sold out with the promise that the Vermont Lake Monsters would be spared along with another dozen teams or so. Bernie gets his win by giving his blessing to what MLB wanted all along. Well, I understand politics, but hope he and his colleagues don’t stop with their local constituent teams. miLB, including player benefits and other elements, does need legitimate improvement. This downsizing fiasco could be the opportunity to drive such improvements.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 8, 2019 15:52:42 GMT -5
Gerry unfortunately, Bernie probably already sold out with the promise that the Vermont Lake Monsters would be spared along with another dozen teams or so. Bernie gets his win by giving his blessing to what MLB wanted all along. Do people not realize that random US Senators have, like, zero authority over any of this? You can't "sell out" something you have no control over in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 8, 2019 15:58:26 GMT -5
Gerry unfortunately, Bernie probably already sold out with the promise that the Vermont Lake Monsters would be spared along with another dozen teams or so. Bernie gets his win by giving his blessing to what MLB wanted all along. Do people not realize that random US Senators have, like, zero authority over any of this? You can't "sell out" something you have no control over in the first place. Withdrawing his criticism of it and dropping the issue after he met with MLB gives him a "win" for doing nothing. He looks like he cared, it looks like he got something and MLB got exactly what they wanted from the beginning. Politics is always like this. Of course MLB knows that he has no authority over it. But they still played along by meeting with him.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Dec 11, 2019 16:12:29 GMT -5
Curious about Manfred's apparent alternative interpretation of "A Tale of Two Cities." Is MILB Paris or London? Who does he think got guillotined? I have questions.
|
|
|
Post by RedSoxStats on Dec 11, 2019 19:20:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Canseco on Dec 11, 2019 19:54:47 GMT -5
Curious about Manfred's apparent alternative interpretation of "A Tale of Two Cities." Is MILB Paris or London? Who does he think got guillotined? I have questions. It sounds like Manfred is comparing the MiLB owners to Madame Defarge.
|
|
|