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 Chris Hatfield on Oct 21, 2019 12:03:53 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. Yes and no. I think it's reasonable that if they're going to institute across-the-board pay raises that the teams could all come to the conclusion that they want to cut out a level at that same time. If this were being done in a vacuum with no other significant changes, then yes, I'd agree. Like I said above, I think you'll wind up with more complex-level teams as a result. I'd put 50-50 odds on the Red Sox adding another, for example.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 21, 2019 12:15:35 GMT -5
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. Bobby Poyner got $10K and Trevor Kelley got $1K and both made it to the majors.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 21, 2019 13:46:52 GMT -5
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. Bobby Poyner got $10K and Trevor Kelley got $1K and both made it to the majors. What's the point? That they are rich and you'd have more of them if the salaries were higher? The top three guys from that draft Benny, Lakins and Allen all got $320,000 plus. Poyner is a guy I feel for as he was a legit prospect, drafted 14th round and was rated rather high. Yet only got $10,000 because he had zero leverage. Was injured coming out of high school and was then a late bloomer. He's the type the new system helps though no? He likely still gets drafted and gets a lot more. Which is a good thing right? Kelley is at the other end, he likely doesn't get drafted and has to work his way up and will get less. Yet from a team point of view isn't this what you want? Poyner getting more, the guy that was a legit prospect over a guy that isn't top 60 even with his crazy stats? Put another way do you pay 30 extra guys a year a lot more so you get a Kelley type player each year? If your point was a Kelley type now walks away from the game instead of going to Indy ball, is that a horrible thing?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 21, 2019 14:01:59 GMT -5
Put another way do you pay 30 extra guys a year a lot more so you get a Kelley type player each year? Your question is whether I think billionaires should pay an extra $600,000 a year in order to have the best possible talent and also so that their minor leaguers make enough money to eat dinner? Is that your question?
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 21, 2019 14:20:51 GMT -5
Come on Chris. Be real about the entire pay issue that has surrounded minor league players as long as there has been minor leagues and a MLBPA with teeth.
The union could have gone to bat for them had they chose to, those (some) were future dues paying members. Throwing this issue entirely on 1 side is wrong and am pretty sure you realize it, even if won't admit it publicly.
Using only current proposals and ignoring what could have happened since Marvin Miller was in charge 45+ years ago is not going to cut it.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 21, 2019 23:22:52 GMT -5
Reading through the entire article, it's obvious that MLB wants to leverage the increased pay to minor league players as a way to force the hand of teams on the margin. They want the minor league team owners to help foot the bill for the salary raises. The devil will certainly be hiding in the details there. That could squeeze out quite a few. I do see this as an attempt by MLB to rationalize an antiquated business model.
But if that happens, let me make an argument for substantially increasing the pay of players on the remaining teams. It stands to reason that more talent will be drawn to the minors with, say a $50K salary at the highest level, with perhaps $5K decreases at each level below that along with decent housing and good nutrition. That's all seat of the pants conjecture of course.
What does an approach like that do but increase the level of competition? That gives the players who will be moving on to the majors a much better gauntlet to run and certainly better training. It will likely surface additional talent as well.
MLB has been losing out on many great athletes because the apprenticeship is so long and drawn out and for what reward? Slave wages? That's a tough, tough sell these days. This isn't 1920, we're coming on 2020 real fast.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 22, 2019 6:34:29 GMT -5
Come on Chris. Be real about the entire pay issue that has surrounded minor league players as long as there has been minor leagues and a MLBPA with teeth. The union could have gone to bat for them had they chose to, those (some) were future dues paying members. Throwing this issue entirely on 1 side is wrong and am pretty sure you realize it, even if won't admit it publicly. Using only current proposals and ignoring what could have happened since Marvin Miller was in charge 45+ years ago is not going to cut it. I have no idea what you're saying here. I've pretty clearly been in favor of paying minor leaguers more for a long time. I made a point that the agreement being negotiated here is not one in which the MLBPA is involved. Is that what you're referring to? Or is it that in OK getting rid of affiliates? By the way, it's a pretty uniform opinion in the game that the draft is way too long.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 22, 2019 8:05:50 GMT -5
Same thing I have said for a long time. MiLB players need to make more money also and doubt MLB Franchise owner's are going to go about doing it out of their own free will, but choose to see it as some kind of bargaining issue. Maybe not with outright increases in pay, but with tie ins to draft changes in general you mentioned and I left out.
Many moving pieces in play and believe were it up to organizations as it used to be setup.. That is before so many penny pinching teams came about, that this could be worked out and half season possibly turned into full season? Just a guess there of course.
The negative in what is being talked of is these "complex" based leagues which seem to have passed ok. I go to GCL Tiger games sometimes and might be the only *1* there, or 1 of less than 5 at the minor league complex. The entire FSL high A league is a complex league. Imagine most every league out draws them in the half season league.
Went off topic last paragraph Chris. Hope explained however.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 22, 2019 12:42:45 GMT -5
Same thing I have said for a long time. MiLB players need to make more money also and doubt MLB Franchise owner's are going to go about doing it out of their own free will, but choose to see it as some kind of bargaining issue. Maybe not with outright increases in pay, but with tie ins to draft changes in general you mentioned and I left out. Many moving pieces in play and believe were it up to organizations as it used to be setup.. That is before so many penny pinching teams came about, that this could be worked out and half season possibly turned into full season? Just a guess there of course. The negative in what is being talked of is these "complex" based leagues which seem to have passed ok. I go to GCL Tiger games sometimes and might be the only *1* there, or 1 of less than 5 at the minor league complex. The entire FSL high A league is a complex league. Imagine most every league out draws them in the half season league. Went off topic last paragraph Chris. Hope explained however. Well don't expect the MLBPA to fight for MiLB players who aren't in their union. That's what you're really asking for. It's not even a negotiating point for either side in any of these discussions. That's just how it is. MLB should pay MiLB players more just to get more major league talent that hasn't been eating Taco Bell for 4 years if not out of the goodness of their hearts.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 23, 2019 5:49:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Oct 23, 2019 7:33:18 GMT -5
Speaking purely from my own self-interest, I will miss seeing the Pawsox come to Charlotte as it makes sense that this is exactly the kind of ridiculously long road trip a realignment would eliminate.
On the other hand, I will likely move to Charleston, SC in a year or so and the Riverdogs draw very well even if they are a NYY affiliate. Maybe that'll change too.
I agree with the thoughts that a major change is long overdue and the puny salaries paid to MILB players is badly in need of a very large adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 23, 2019 7:42:52 GMT -5
Speaking purely from my own self-interest, I will miss seeing the Pawsox come to Charlotte as it makes sense that this is exactly the kind of ridiculously long road trip a realignment would eliminate. And some of those longer trips were created when the American Association folded, with half the teams going to the IL and the other half going, even more ridiculously, to the PCL. Of course, some of those were ridiculous too, like Charlotte being in the IL while Buffalo was in the AA. The other crazy thing with Charlotte is that they might have the nicest park in minor league baseball right now, but building it very possibly cost them their chance at an MLB franchise. It'd be an obvious place for expansion, but I don't know that BB&T is on a big enough footprint to upgrade, and I can't see the city/county subsidizing a new stadium after just opening one five years ago. There is definitely a level of the minor leagues and their teams being beholden somewhat to very long traditions in their cities that really don't make sense anymore beyond that traditionalism. Like how it was a big deal when the PCL moved a team from Colorado Springs to San Antonio, which... both geographically and in terms of size that's a blindingly obvious move.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 23, 2019 13:04:45 GMT -5
Put another way do you pay 30 extra guys a year a lot more so you get a Kelley type player each year? Your question is whether I think billionaires should pay an extra $600,000 a year in order to have the best possible talent and also so that their minor leaguers make enough money to eat dinner? Is that your question? No my question is about this statement "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". Then something about why only the rich can do basically unpaid internships. You make it sound like you'll see a big increase in talent due to raising the pay. Who are these players that will now join the MLB because they'll make an extra $22,000? Top talent gets paid and signing bonus money is going to play a huge roll in that, not $22,000 extra a year. Your reply was Poyner got 10k and Kelley got 1k and reached the majors. My reply is what's your point? Has a Poyner type ever walked away because of the money? The fact you can sign so many guys like Kelley for nothing shows the pool of guys willing to play for $8,000 is massive. These are guys coming from high school and college. Most still likely live with their parents and haven't ever made a ton of money. I worked the 4 months I wasn't in College and made about $10,000 per year. I don't see any benefit from getting extra talent if that means you get another Kelley. He's not a legit prospect and doesn't look to have the stuff to do anything in the majors. That is totally different than should minor Leaguers have enough to eat. I'm on record saying teams should provide meals and housing free of charge. I like the new proposed system. Giving more money, resources, and time to fewer higher quality prospects seems like a smart move. I don't see the value of trying to develop 30 extra guys a year if it means getting a Kelley type guy. Nevermind talking about an even bigger pool if you now feel more guys like him are willing to play Baseball because of an extra $22,000 a year. Frankly they haven't raised wages because everyone was willing to play for those amounts. Even now it's public pressure and bad media press that has the owners wanting to make changes, not guys not willing to play. Which isn't the same as do they deserve more.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 25, 2019 3:24:53 GMT -5
The big problem here is that you really can't eliminate all of A- (short-season A) ball. So I don't think the Baseball Ops division of any team will like this; it's strictly an ownership proposal. I explained this in an answer on Quora: What might work is 16 teams in A-, with each being a co-op between one AL and one NL team. (Until they expand to 32 teams, the 16th team could be an unsigned college player best-of, or one extra player from each organization). That would allow them to trim from 160 teams to 136 (instead of 120).
Another possibility would be to have some High-Rookie leagues that played in the complexes, for college guys. But I bet that the number of cities / towns that really can't support a minor league team is closer to 24 (15%) than 40 (25%).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 25, 2019 6:30:59 GMT -5
You're missing the part where they'd move the draft into August and probably just have the college guys do something like an extended Instructs.
Also, if you eliminate short season, then everyone in short season goes to a different level. The remaining levels aren't going to stay static - they're going to change. I think Low A is going to get "worse" and the complex leagues are going to get a little better (might they spring to send guys further in the GCL now maybe?). The gap would get filled in.
Repeating the complex probably would become more acceptable too, I bet.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 25, 2019 13:51:24 GMT -5
You're missing the part where they'd move the draft into August and probably just have the college guys do something like an extended Instructs. Also, if you eliminate short season, then everyone in short season goes to a different level. The remaining levels aren't going to stay static - they're going to change. I think Low A is going to get "worse" and the complex leagues are going to get a little better (might they spring to send guys further in the GCL now maybe?). The gap would get filled in. Repeating the complex probably would become more acceptable too, I bet. I read a correction to the original story: the draft was going to be moved not to August (which makes little sense) but to after the College World Series was over, which is to say the last week of June.
You're right about what would happen if they eliminated short-season A. What you're missing is that the jump from rookie ball to low-A would then become the largest a player ever has to make. Any change to the ml system that has any likelihood of making it harder for players that have the tools to thrive in MLB to turn those tolls into skills -- that's a catastrophically bad idea.
I believe that the biggest filter at present, the biggest reason that guys get drafted very high and wash out, is that they cannot deal psychologically with the inevitable failures on the path from rookie ball to MLB. (I think that a lot of others have made the same observation.) They begin to doubt themselves, and if that doubt takes root and starts to grow, they're toast. This was actually a thing that I talked about with Theo, Jed, and Josh Byrnes the day I was hired -- my idea is that the players who can deal with failure have either high or low cognitive flexibility, and that the risky guys are the guys who are average.
You really do not want to change the minors to increase the opportunities for failure. I take it you've read Spier's book, so you know that Mookie Betts seriously thought about quitting. So you'd have to say that lowering the OPS and raising the ERA of every high school player in rookie ball is not a good idea, and ditto for having more players see their numbers decline when they go from rookie ball to low-A because the leap is so big.
See my next post (later today) for why eliminating that many teams does not seem driven by reality. But the short version of the starting point is that if you simply graph the attendance of every ml team from highest to lowest, in sequence, you do see a point where the descending curve steepens. It's after the top 135 teams, leaving 25 teams as obvious candidates for contraction. So in fact eliminating 24 teams is a natural thing to do.
(The bottom 25: 9 of the 12 teams in the FSL, 8 of the 10 teams in the Appalachian league, and 2 each from the Midwest, SAL, NYP, and Pioneer.)
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 25, 2019 13:56:24 GMT -5
You're missing the part where they'd move the draft into August and probably just have the college guys do something like an extended Instructs. Also, if you eliminate short season, then everyone in short season goes to a different level. The remaining levels aren't going to stay static - they're going to change. I think Low A is going to get "worse" and the complex leagues are going to get a little better (might they spring to send guys further in the GCL now maybe?). The gap would get filled in. Repeating the complex probably would become more acceptable too, I bet. Could also have rookie leagues go full season. Tie it into an instructional league with players half the year on a rookie roster and half the year playing intersquad games with close by teams which of course don't count like they used to do in the winter and during ST. It is a way to attempt keeping more players, if they will pay them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 25, 2019 14:03:27 GMT -5
What's amusing/infuriating is that all the new independent "Dream Teams" which (will be) formerly affiliated will pay even less than they're paying now.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 26, 2019 4:29:13 GMT -5
I'm still messing around with possible re-alignments, but in the meantime, is anyone else aware of this ranking of average team attendance and ballpark size? I certainly didn't know all of it.
Midwest South Atlantic Southern Carolina California Fl State
That's right, not only do both low-A leagues outdraw (and play in bigger stadiums) than all three high-A leagues, both beat the AA Southern League.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 17, 2019 12:58:10 GMT -5
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 17, 2019 14:40:52 GMT -5
Some of these are shocking. I guess there is a common thread for why these cities and stadiums are chosen. How do organizations like the Reds handle losing 3 of their teams? Is it attendance, local, or facilities? What does an organization do when they may lose their Double A team? Do they then have to choose a new city? Since I live in SW Florida, does this mean the GCL is spared? Appreciate any responses.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by gerry on Nov 17, 2019 15:46:19 GMT -5
We need more baseball awareness and support. Not less. This is monumentally arrogant and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 17, 2019 17:24:28 GMT -5
Some of these are shocking. I guess there is a common thread for why these cities and stadiums are chosen. How do organizations like the Reds handle losing 3 of their teams? Is it attendance, local, or facilities? What does an organization do when they may lose their Double A team? Do they then have to choose a new city? Since I live in SW Florida, does this mean the GCL is spared? Appreciate any responses. As previously reported, the complex leagues will still exist. The Reds had one more affiliate than the Sox because they had an Advanced Rookie team in addition to a Short-Season A team. So that's not as hard a hit as it seems. Some of the short-season teams would, in this proposal, be "promoted," to use a term, up to full-season. Aberdeen, for example, would be a NYPL team that still exists and would take the place of a full-season team that gets removed. No system would be particularly disadvantaged in the new system (except for losing having more affiliates than other orgs, I guess, where that's the case). Every organization would have 4 full-season affiliates and the complex, and that's it. The word was the teams were chosen based on their facilities and whether the area can support a team (which is probably a combination of attendance and the city itself). I'm sure there are other things they looked at. As Ian said on the podcast, and as I reiterated on Twitter this morning, it's possible Lowell just doesn't work as a full-season affiliate. The city owns the park and the Spinners share it with UMass-Lowell. The scheduling probably wouldn't work in the spring. If the Spinners owned the park, maybe they could just force UMass to find another home, but the city probably wouldn't be down with that. I also thought it interesting that three of the four teams owned by Main Street Baseball, LLC, which bought the Spinners from the Webers, would lose their affiliation in the plan. I'll leave it at that for that point. I really can't recommend enough that folks listen to the podcast Ian and I did on this topic. Might put my thoughts on the News Page at some point as well. news.soxprospects.com/2019/11/podcast-ep-168-scott-boras-is-genius.html
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 17, 2019 19:07:46 GMT -5
Thanks Chris. So just to be certain I understand....no short-season teams? No more GCL?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 17, 2019 19:40:35 GMT -5
Thanks Chris. So just to be certain I understand....no short-season teams? No more GCL? I don't believe that is correct. I believe that is what is referred to as a "complex league" but that is how I am interpreting it. Complex as a nown not an adjective.
|
|
|