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
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 10, 2020 4:33:59 GMT -5
I suspect the Red Sox will do the same. Poor Mike. On our 2021 page, we had projected this, then JJ Cooper reported the potential 150-player limit and he converted it to a single team. Now they've expanded it back out to 180 and he's going to have to edit it all over again. But yeah there's no question they're going to run two of them. I can't see how you can have 2 DSL teams and not, really. Even with a reduced draft, where would you put everyone in rookie ball between the DSL grads, new draftees, and prior year's draftees who aren't ready for Greenville yet? I expect most or all teams to field 2 teams this year. And I expect that most or all of those that do so will split them into a team of college draftees and rookie repeaters, and a team of high school draftees and DSL graduates. IOW, precisely what used to be short-season A ball and rookie ball.
As soon as the elimination of the former was announced, I pointed out that you couldn't get rid of that distinct level of play without messing up development. The first thing I ever did for the Sox was create a set of minor-league translations, and the distance between rookie and A-, and A- and low-A, was not a lot less than the other level gaps ... it was something like 80% of them.
The ease of moving guys between the two virtual levels will be a boon, as will having the older group in the complex for extra developmental attention.
The question is, how long will it take before they formally divide them into high-rookie and low-rookie (or rookie-plus and rookie, whatever)? For those who think the formal designation will happen as soon as 2022 ... I hope so, too, but it took years for the high-A versus low-A distinction (former class B and C) to be formalized.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Dec 10, 2020 10:00:04 GMT -5
Is there any reason the Sox would not move their A affiliate in Greenville to Pawtucket ? Is McCoy stadium unsafe ? Is it inferior to the ballpark in Greenville ?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 10, 2020 10:47:25 GMT -5
Although it's what we focused on when this first came out (including me!), it's very clear this doesn't have anything to with the clubs drawing.
MLB wanted more control over the minor leagues and to cut the number of affiliates. That's really what it comes down to. In the cut-down, part of the argument was travel, part was facilities, etc.
A few affiliates definitely got shafted though.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 10, 2020 10:51:03 GMT -5
I expect most or all teams to field 2 teams this year. Hard disagree. Given that at one point systems were going to be capped at 150 players, there's likely a good number of teams who only want to pay that many minor leaguers. It's silly, but that's always been part of this. Teams want to pay fewer guys. It may eventually grow into that, but I expect the majority will field one team for the near future, although there will be a decent number of teams who add a second complex league team. Is there any reason the Sox would not move their A affiliate in Greenville to Pawtucket ? Is McCoy stadium unsafe ? Is it inferior to the ballpark in Greenville ? Many reasons, the first among them being that the Red Sox don't own the Greenville Drive and can't dictate that their owner move the team even if they wanted them to. Also Fluor Field is a much better park than McCoy anyway.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 10, 2020 13:51:27 GMT -5
I expect most or all teams to field 2 teams this year. Hard disagree. Given that at one point systems were going to be capped at 150 players, there's likely a good number of teams who only want to pay that many minor leaguers. It's silly, but that's always been part of this. Teams want to pay fewer guys. It may eventually grow into that, but I expect the majority will field one team for the near future, although there will be a decent number of teams who add a second complex league team. Is there any reason the Sox would not move their A affiliate in Greenville to Pawtucket ? Is McCoy stadium unsafe ? Is it inferior to the ballpark in Greenville ? Many reasons, the first among them being that the Red Sox don't own the Greenville Drive and can't dictate that their owner move the team even if they wanted them to. Also Fluor Field is a much better park than McCoy anyway. Yeah, I forgot about the money thing, especially re this year. But how much do 30 prospects cost, exactly? I think the teams that don't use all 180 players will soon realize they're being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
The bigger concern, for me, is not that one of the 151st to 180th player guys is going to be productive in MLB. It's that a bunch of high school players are going to struggle facing college guys half the time, and every single one of them who is not good at dealing with failure and under-performance is going to have their career path damaged. That can be irreparable, q.v. Lars Andereson.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 10, 2020 14:50:03 GMT -5
Oh they don't cost a lot at all. I'm not saying it's a rational reason! Teams could legit pay guys a living wage by adding like $2-3M to their budget but they don't, and meanwhile Kevin Plawecki is getting that to be the backup catcher. It's all so silly.
As I've said before, I think each of the full-season levels is going to get younger to compensate. That, plus the more fluid nature of the rosters if what Cooper has reported about the removal of roster limits is true, might just lead to the delta on talent at each level might broaden.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 10, 2020 15:54:46 GMT -5
Oh they don't cost a lot at all. I'm not saying it's a rational reason! Teams could legit pay guys a living wage by adding like $2-3M to their budget but they don't, and meanwhile Kevin Plawecki is getting that to be the backup catcher. It's all so silly. As I've said before, I think each of the full-season levels is going to get younger to compensate. That, plus the more fluid nature of the rosters if what Cooper has reported about the removal of roster limits is true, might just lead to the delta on talent at each level might broaden.That's a really interesting idea (which I forgot!). You're saying that a team that goes with fewer than 180 players isn't stinting on the young guys, but creating more room by putting more of the best former short-season-A guys in low-A, with a corresponding ripple effect, all the way to AAA. It's all org guys being trimmed, with their roster spots being taken by players from the lower level in the old system.
One problem with this is that the org guys are usually bench players, and you want prospects to play every day. But the solution to that is to have a more fluid regular / bench dichotomy. This fits with the idea of doing more instructs at higher levels. You can accommodate two prospects at one position if they swap starting and bench roles every 2 weeks or so, with the bench guy getting full days of instructs to make up for the missing PT. It's especially easy to accommodate four legit OF prospects, or four 2B / SS / 3B.
If you do this at AAA, you're trimming a bunch of the guys who are hoping for a comeback or breakout season that will get them [back] into the show. That makes AAA more of a prospect league, which is good.
And if there's a bunch of AAA vets who lose their jobs, they can go to the Partner leagues and make them much more competitive. The bulk of NRI guys who don't make your team end up here, too. Guys can pick a city they like; it would be great for the clubs if every one had a couple of local guys. MLB scouts will be looking for comeback and breakouts.
(Note that you might need two levels of Partner leagues, one for guys hoping to get a crack at the show and one for guys just dreaming on affiliated ball, as is pretty much the case at present.)
And that in turn suggests that you need some some sort of system for drafting players from that league, or else the big-payroll clubs will grab all of the injured pitchers who are suddenly throwing gas again. Now no one who is pitching well enough to help an MLB club gets buried for a season because they essentially guessed wrong when they decided where to sign their NRI contract, and didn't get themselves an opt-out in their deal, and are now being saved as a depth option by a contender.
The simplest thing would be: if you want to sign a player from a Partner league, you have to pass him through waivers, and a team ahead of you can claim him. That in turn allows the weaker teams to protect more prospects, whille contenders need to make sure that their AAA clubs still have depth options. You might want to institute a standard contract amount based on MLB service time.
I'm still not sure about the effects on competition of the increased delta of talent within each league. Chris, do you have an estimate of how many pure org guys the average team has at each level, from low-A to AAA? That'll help with that analysis.
One thing that's for sure: knowing which guys can handle an aggressive promotion with the attendant risk of failure, and which guys should be treated gently, will become more important than ever.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 10, 2020 16:51:07 GMT -5
Yes but I think you're combining two different ideas. You have it right, but I think that's going to happen regardless of whether teams field two complex teams. I do think you're on to something that it will dull the effect if many clubs do a second complex team though.
I think that what you're describing with the "bench," etc. kind of already happens anyway. For example, very rarely is there a true DH, right? So you rotate guys through that spot regularly. The Red Sox had 2 guys play >130 games in 2019, Dalbec and Duran, and only 13 guys played more than 120 (add Netzer, Fitzgerald, Granberg, Ockimey, Gorkys Hernandez, Grant Williams, Tendler, Casas, Rusney). That means everyone else sat for at least 24 games. Yes, injuries account for some of that, but not all of it. 36 lineup spots and only 2 guys played 90 % of their team's games.
I do think you're going to see AAAA guys taking some of the brunt of it, but AAA still needs to serve as a taxi squad of sorts, so I don't think it's going to go full prospect league.
Not sure how other orgs handle org guys, but put it this way - we rank out to 60. Look at the type of guy we're ranking at 60. A system with 180 guys has 120 guys that are worse.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Dec 10, 2020 21:33:00 GMT -5
BA has the list of orphaned clubs. I'll add the rank of the ballpark's seating capacity, plus attendance per game in 2018-9, out of the 160 clubs. I've bolded the clubs that got shafted most obviously.
Triple-A: Fresno Grizzlies (16 / 26, PCL) if they don't join the California League
Double-A: Jackson Generals (97 / 134, Southern), Trenton Thunder (86 / 39, Eastern) High Class A: Charlotte Stone Crabs (68 / 135, Florida State), Florida Fire Frogs (TBD / 159, Florida State), Frederick Keys (105 / 62, Carolina), Lancaster JetHawks (73 / 115) if it's replaced by Fresno (California) Low Class A: Burlington Bees (146 / 152, Midwest), Clinton LumberKings (116 / 128, Midwest), Hagerstown Suns (123 / 148, South Atlantic), Lexington Legends (70 / 63, South Atlantic), Kane County Cougars (14 / 34, Midwest), West Virginia Power (91 / 130, South Atlantic)
Short-season: Salem-Keizer Volcanoes (131 / 121, Northwest) and 7 clubs from the NYP: Auburn Doubledays (149 / 141), Batavia Muckdogs (150 / 151), Norwich / Connecticut Tigers (89 / 124), Lowell Spinners (122 / 88), Staten Island Yankees (63 / 124), Tri-City Valley Cats (125 / 66), and Vermont Lake Monsters (129 / 117).
Purely from a geographical lens: It's strange to me that none of the California teams jumped on Fresno, especially with the Dodgers and Padres in the central time zone. It just seems too obvious that Fresno and Sacramento should host the Giants and Athletics. That was the case for most of the 21st century until Sacramento switched from the A's to the Giants in 2015. I'd move the Dodgers back west to Vegas, the A's up north to Fresno. Trenton would have been a great candidate for the 6th team in the northern division of the Mid Atlantic league. Or Frederick. Bowling Green makes no sense in this league, although the Rays have a long history there. With Trenton instead of Bowling Green, there would be a north cluster (NY to DE) and a south cluster (NC to GA).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2020 6:01:06 GMT -5
Yes but I think you're combining two different ideas. You have it right, but I think that's going to happen regardless of whether teams field two complex teams. I do think you're on to something that it will dull the effect if many clubs do a second complex team though. I think that what you're describing with the "bench," etc. kind of already happens anyway. For example, very rarely is there a true DH, right? So you rotate guys through that spot regularly. The Red Sox had 2 guys play >130 games in 2019, Dalbec and Duran, and only 13 guys played more than 120 (add Netzer, Fitzgerald, Granberg, Ockimey, Gorkys Hernandez, Grant Williams, Tendler, Casas, Rusney). That means everyone else sat for at least 24 games. Yes, injuries account for some of that, but not all of it. 36 lineup spots and only 2 guys played 90 % of their team's games. I do think you're going to see AAAA guys taking some of the brunt of it, but AAA still needs to serve as a taxi squad of sorts, so I don't think it's going to go full prospect league. Not sure how other orgs handle org guys, but put it this way - we rank out to 60. Look at the type of guy we're ranking at 60. A system with 180 guys has 120 guys that are worse. I disagree ... I think I was combining three different ideas!
I've been looking for way to improve the fates of career AAAA playerrs for a long time. The idea of a non-affiliated league for them was tantalizing, but it runs into a huge problem: where do you put it? So I'm at work tweaking some older ideas of mine, about mid-season Rule-5-like drafts. The goal is to assure that every AAA veteran playing well enough to play in MLB gets the chance, without making the acquisition of veteran AAA depth any less valuable. Tricky, eh? But with AAA teams spread across the nation, I really like the idea of guys playing for hometown teams for several years in a row, working on bringing their game to the next level, instead of shopping every year for a different club that is thin at their position. Thier families would love that.
You're right, of course, that my idea of more PT sharing within a roster is an extension of what teams already do. So it's a seamless way of trimming some org guys from the bench and replacing them with some actual prospects.
The third thread here is the effect of trying to spread six distinct levels of play over 5, and what that does to development, and how much it will be resisted by clubs who build two separate rosters at their complexes, separated the old way. It would be very easy for a GM to call another and verify that they have the same idea, and work it out that when they play each other in the GCL, it will be their 1 team against 1, or 2 against 2. Note that if you go to 168 players instead of all the way to 180, you can field two 28-player teams, and in fact you could have 2 teams of 25 with 162 players, a seemingly fortuitous number! Or make it 27 x 6 = 162.
Once a critical mass of teams decide to do this, and it seems to show a competitive edge, it likely becomes universal, eventually. Teams sporting one GCL club may see their college guys being not challenged enough when playing other team's 2 clubs, and their high school kids being overmatched when playing the 1 clubs. That would be fairly obvious. But I agree that it might take two years to be very widely adopted, and possibly 3 or 4 before everyone is onboard and they can formalize the levels.
|
|
|
Post by patford on Dec 11, 2020 7:50:12 GMT -5
I expect most or all teams to field 2 teams this year. Hard disagree. Given that at one point systems were going to be capped at 150 players, there's likely a good number of teams who only want to pay that many minor leaguers. It's silly, but that's always been part of this. Teams want to pay fewer guys. It may eventually grow into that, but I expect the majority will field one team for the near future, although there will be a decent number of teams who add a second complex league team. Is there any reason the Sox would not move their A affiliate in Greenville to Pawtucket ? Is McCoy stadium unsafe ? Is it inferior to the ballpark in Greenville ? Many reasons, the first among them being that the Red Sox don't own the Greenville Drive and can't dictate that their owner move the team even if they wanted them to. Also Fluor Field is a much better park than McCoy anyway. Thanks. It seems odd to me that the MLB clubs don't own all their affiliates. After all it's the MLB clubs which sign and pay the players. I guess I have a soft spot for old ballparks and wish that McCoy was able to remain part of the system.
|
|
|
Post by sittingstill on Dec 11, 2020 10:42:12 GMT -5
I guess I have a soft spot for old ballparks and wish that McCoy was able to remain part of the system. McCoy had some serious issues that would have had to be addressed--just fixing its problems, with no true improvements, was estimated at $35 million. The roof leaked into the park structure itself. (In 2019 photographers got a lot of use out of one of the third base suites because the water damage was so severe they couldn't use it for patrons.) Add in the fact that it's built on a swamp and you have issues with the foundation. Field drainage was nearly nonexistent. I wish the team has stayed in Rhode Island, but something had to give as far as the facility itself.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 11, 2020 15:25:17 GMT -5
I guess I have a soft spot for old ballparks and wish that McCoy was able to remain part of the system. McCoy had some serious issues that would have had to be addressed--just fixing its problems, with no true improvements, was estimated at $35 million. The roof leaked into the park structure itself. (In 2019 photographers got a lot of use out of one of the third base suites because the water damage was so severe they couldn't use it for patrons.) Add in the fact that it's built on a swamp and you have issues with the foundation. Field drainage was nearly nonexistent. I wish the team has stayed in Rhode Island, but something had to give as far as the facility itself. And the area McCoy was in was just not great. It wasn't unsafe but there was just nothing there. It was between a residential area and an industrial area (where you had to park if you weren't early!), and there was nowhere nearby to, say, get dinner. There was one bar nearby that was tiny. There was a reason the current ownership group basically immediately started pursuing a park in Providence after they bought the team. McCoy had a certain charm, but the PawSox' attendance was dropping year-after-year. The park just wasn't up to snuff in the year 2020. Even if a team eventually returns to RI, they're not going to be able to just slip right into McCoy without renovations, like Kelly said.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by shagworthy on Dec 11, 2020 15:37:46 GMT -5
McCoy had some serious issues that would have had to be addressed--just fixing its problems, with no true improvements, was estimated at $35 million. The roof leaked into the park structure itself. (In 2019 photographers got a lot of use out of one of the third base suites because the water damage was so severe they couldn't use it for patrons.) Add in the fact that it's built on a swamp and you have issues with the foundation. Field drainage was nearly nonexistent. I wish the team has stayed in Rhode Island, but something had to give as far as the facility itself. And the area McCoy was in was just not great. It was between a residential area and an industrial area, and there was nowhere nearby to, say, get dinner. There was one bar nearby that was tiny. There was a reason the current ownership group basically immediately started pursuing a park in Providence after they bought the team. Still feels like Pawtucket got a raw deal, even knowing these things. An organization like Fenway Sports could have rewarded a community that supported them for so many years, built the kind of park, and amenities around the park you speak of, and would have been viewed as a local hero. Instead the slinked away to Worcester. Baseball is grown in places like Pawtucket, Lowell, the APPY leagues and thousands of small communities throughout the U.S. Maybe I'm being hyperbolic here, but I feel like MLB is it's own worst enemy when they make the decisions they make. I grew up in Bristol, CT, and for a time the Red Sox were there, and then just down the road in New Britain. Having access to my favorite teams next crop of stars strengthened my love of the game and my team. I just think the move, and the MILB changes are so short sighted, and punitive to the very communities that have kept them relevant all of these years...
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 11, 2020 17:50:10 GMT -5
Fenway Sports Group does not own the Paw/WooSox. There is a bit of overlap between the two ownership groups but FSG isn't the investor like they are in, say, the Salem Red Sox. Also, you should read this: www.providencejournal.com/news/20180907/mark-patinkin-how-rhode-island-lost-pawsox--audioThe ownership group gave Rhode Island every opportunity to pull itself together. This isn't a situation where they bought the team and just bailed. They tried to make it work. Say what you want about public funding for a minor league baseball team, but they'd have been stupid to turn down money from Worcester after the many chances Rhode Island got to get its act together.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by shagworthy on Dec 12, 2020 5:47:14 GMT -5
Fenway Sports Group does not own the Paw/WooSox. There is a bit of overlap between the two ownership groups but FSG isn't the investor like they are in, say, the Salem Red Sox. Also, you should read this: www.providencejournal.com/news/20180907/mark-patinkin-how-rhode-island-lost-pawsox--audioThe ownership group gave Rhode Island every opportunity to pull itself together. This isn't a situation where they bought the team and just bailed. They tried to make it work. Say what you want about public funding for a minor league baseball team, but they'd have been stupid to turn down money from Worcester after the many chances Rhode Island got to get its act together. Wow.. what a colossal cock up. Thank you for the article.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Dec 12, 2020 6:53:52 GMT -5
"Cock up"? Do we have a Brit in here?
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Dec 12, 2020 8:42:12 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. It's a microcosm of how society is set up.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 12, 2020 13:09:59 GMT -5
Fenway Sports Group does not own the Paw/WooSox. There is a bit of overlap between the two ownership groups but FSG isn't the investor like they are in, say, the Salem Red Sox. Also, you should read this: www.providencejournal.com/news/20180907/mark-patinkin-how-rhode-island-lost-pawsox--audioThe ownership group gave Rhode Island every opportunity to pull itself together. This isn't a situation where they bought the team and just bailed. They tried to make it work. Say what you want about public funding for a minor league baseball team, but they'd have been stupid to turn down money from Worcester after the many chances Rhode Island got to get its act together. The autopsy done right. Not having followed all that closely, this story really cleared it up for me. Three things immediately came to mind: - I had not realized how deeply Schilling's misadventure had poisoned the well, and $78 million in debt is a lot of poison.
- There was, as you state, a sincere effort to keep the team in Pawtucket, one that actually put more on the line from ownership than many similar ventures.
- If we lose all of the outstanding local news sources like the Journal, we will be much poorer for it.
This one had me rethinking some of my knee-jerk assumptions about community involvement in funding this sort of thing. Assigning half the naming rights to Pawtucket and the assessment on premium tickets were a good faith gesture in the proposed agreement that would have kept them there - along with the pile of cash they were throwing in. Most impressive was the Worcester city manager, Augustus. He obviously had a plan for a taxable district around the park that would bring business and revenue in, and he pursued the team relentlessly once he saw there was an opening. The writer deserves enormous credit for surfacing the story, if only to inform Rhode Islanders about what went down politically and financially. A great read.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 12, 2020 17:29:52 GMT -5
Fenway Sports Group does not own the Paw/WooSox. There is a bit of overlap between the two ownership groups but FSG isn't the investor like they are in, say, the Salem Red Sox. Also, you should read this: www.providencejournal.com/news/20180907/mark-patinkin-how-rhode-island-lost-pawsox--audioThe ownership group gave Rhode Island every opportunity to pull itself together. This isn't a situation where they bought the team and just bailed. They tried to make it work. Say what you want about public funding for a minor league baseball team, but they'd have been stupid to turn down money from Worcester after the many chances Rhode Island got to get its act together. The autopsy done right. Not having followed all that closely, this story really cleared it up for me. Three things immediately came to mind: - I had not realized how deeply Schilling's misadventure had poisoned the well, and $78 million in debt is a lot of poison.
- There was, as you state, a sincere effort to keep the team in Pawtucket, one that actually put more on the line from ownership than many similar ventures.
- If we lose all of the outstanding local news sources like the Journal, we will be much poorer for it.
This one had me rethinking some of my knee-jerk assumptions about community involvement in funding this sort of thing. Assigning half the naming rights to Pawtucket and the assessment on premium tickets were a good faith gesture in the proposed agreement that would have kept them there - along with the pile of cash they were throwing in. Most impressive was the Worcester city manager, Augustus. He obviously had a plan for a taxable district around the park that would bring business and revenue in, and he pursued the team relentlessly once he saw there was an opening. The writer deserves enormous credit for surfacing the story, if only to inform Rhode Islanders about what went down politically and financially. A great read. Great story. Some observations: 1) If it had been Matt Damon and Ben Affleck who were video game fanatics and lost $78M of the state's money, how strongly would people have connected that fiasco to a new baseball stadium proposal? That Schilling was a baseball player strongly connected the two efforts in people's minds, in a completely irrational way. 2) As just said, this screw-up is characteristic of the way things get done now. How much hate did 38 Studios get on talk radio? So now you have a vocal and uninformed populace who oppose a beneficial government action for no rational reason, and politicians who are far, far, far more concerned with winning re-election that doing what is actually right for their constituents. "I can't sell it to my people," everyone told the House Speaker. This is particularly true if you make no effort. (It's true that the PawSox ownership did a poor job of doing so, as well.)
3) Asks House Speaker, "Why put a bill on the floor that the public and my colleagues didn’t want? Why would you do that?” Translation: why would we want a vote on record as to who supported and opposed the bill, so that those who opposed it out of sheer cowardice, self-interest, and /or laziness might be held accountable later when it became clear that not passing the bill was a huge mistake? Make no mistake: when it turns out that the new park in Worcester is a huge success, so it's clear that not passing that bill was a colossal cock-up (I like that term!), there will be anger. What there won't be is a single attack ad saying "Joe Rep voted against the bill that would have kept the PawSox in town and revitalized the city center as happened in Worcester." And Joe Rep will take Speaker Mattiello out to dinner.
(This, BTW, is how Mitch McConnell has been running the Senate. But it's not a partisan thing.)
4) Mattiello conducted a poll that asked "Do you favor or oppose the use of public funds to help finance a new stadium?” That's obviously a leading question, as Lucchino pointed out, since it omits the key context that the new stadium will be profitable. So, why not ask a fair question? Because it's easier not to, and you'll never be held accountable for failing to do it right.
Meanwhile, I have fond memories of Worcester and will be looking forward to attending WooSox games. The science fiction convention / literary conference I helped run was in Worcester from our 4th to 7th years, and Readercon 7, when we convinced the late Ursula K. Le Guin to break a 15-20-year embargo and be our Guest of Honor (which in turn attracted big-name writers from all over the country), may have been the best such get-together ever. Our Program Guides for these cons featured a 3-part "Welcome to Woostah" by ace hard sf writer and former Worcester journalist Allen Steele. I just re-read them, and I think I'll repost the first installment at the appropriate time in the appropriate place!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 5, 2021 17:39:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 5, 2021 19:06:54 GMT -5
Speaking for Syracuse, trading in those freezing, rainy, raw early-April games for a season that continues into September, unquestionably the best month here in terms of weather, is a monumental upgrade. Same is true for basicslly the whole northeast. Portland, Manchester, Worcester, Rochester, Buffalo, Hartford, Scranton... Yes, that is one change I am on board with.
|
|
|
Post by cba82 on Jan 6, 2021 13:43:09 GMT -5
“No MiLB playoffs” — This I don’t get, especially with the season going into October.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 6, 2021 14:22:16 GMT -5
“No MiLB playoffs” — This I don’t get, especially with the season going into October. The actual season might extend into October because they're going to start a month or two late. Playoffs would've been on top of that. It's the minor leagues. The more important part is the regular season. They're not going to have minor league players doing playoff games in mid-October.
|
|
|
Post by jimmydugan on Jan 6, 2021 17:39:27 GMT -5
The autopsy done right. Not having followed all that closely, this story really cleared it up for me. Three things immediately came to mind: - I had not realized how deeply Schilling's misadventure had poisoned the well, and $78 million in debt is a lot of poison.
- There was, as you state, a sincere effort to keep the team in Pawtucket, one that actually put more on the line from ownership than many similar ventures.
- If we lose all of the outstanding local news sources like the Journal, we will be much poorer for it.
This one had me rethinking some of my knee-jerk assumptions about community involvement in funding this sort of thing. Assigning half the naming rights to Pawtucket and the assessment on premium tickets were a good faith gesture in the proposed agreement that would have kept them there - along with the pile of cash they were throwing in. Most impressive was the Worcester city manager, Augustus. He obviously had a plan for a taxable district around the park that would bring business and revenue in, and he pursued the team relentlessly once he saw there was an opening. The writer deserves enormous credit for surfacing the story, if only to inform Rhode Islanders about what went down politically and financially. A great read. Great story. Some observations: 1) If it had been Matt Damon and Ben Affleck who were video game fanatics and lost $78M of the state's money, how strongly would people have connected that fiasco to a new baseball stadium proposal? That Schilling was a baseball player strongly connected the two efforts in people's minds, in a completely irrational way. 2) As just said, this screw-up is characteristic of the way things get done now. How much hate did 38 Studios get on talk radio? So now you have a vocal and uninformed populace who oppose a beneficial government action for no rational reason, and politicians who are far, far, far more concerned with winning re-election that doing what is actually right for their constituents. "I can't sell it to my people," everyone told the House Speaker. This is particularly true if you make no effort. (It's true that the PawSox ownership did a poor job of doing so, as well.)
3) Asks House Speaker, "Why put a bill on the floor that the public and my colleagues didn’t want? Why would you do that?” Translation: why would we want a vote on record as to who supported and opposed the bill, so that those who opposed it out of sheer cowardice, self-interest, and /or laziness might be held accountable later when it became clear that not passing the bill was a huge mistake? Make no mistake: when it turns out that the new park in Worcester is a huge success, so it's clear that not passing that bill was a colossal cock-up (I like that term!), there will be anger. What there won't be is a single attack ad saying "Joe Rep voted against the bill that would have kept the PawSox in town and revitalized the city center as happened in Worcester." And Joe Rep will take Speaker Mattiello out to dinner.
(This, BTW, is how Mitch McConnell has been running the Senate. But it's not a partisan thing.)
4) Mattiello conducted a poll that asked "Do you favor or oppose the use of public funds to help finance a new stadium?” That's obviously a leading question, as Lucchino pointed out, since it omits the key context that the new stadium will be profitable. So, why not ask a fair question? Because it's easier not to, and you'll never be held accountable for failing to do it right.
Meanwhile, I have fond memories of Worcester and will be looking forward to attending WooSox games. The science fiction convention / literary conference I helped run was in Worcester from our 4th to 7th years, and Readercon 7, when we convinced the late Ursula K. Le Guin to break a 15-20-year embargo and be our Guest of Honor (which in turn attracted big-name writers from all over the country), may have been the best such get-together ever. Our Program Guides for these cons featured a 3-part "Welcome to Woostah" by ace hard sf writer and former Worcester journalist Allen Steele. I just re-read them, and I think I'll repost the first installment at the appropriate time in the appropriate place!
I honestly only skimmed the article and plan on reading it in full tonight, but nowhere does it show how a new stadium would be profitable in RI, correct? It mentions that the team was willing to share profits, but it doesn't define what the team meant exactly by "profit, nor does that prove that it would be profitable. Is Lucchino just referencing Andrew Zimbalist's work? Because he was a paid consultant and this is worth mentioning: "After the announcement by the city and the team Friday of their signing a letter of intent to build a stadium in the Canal District, WBJ sent copies of the financing details to 10 economists and stadium experts around the nation to gauge whether Worcester’s claims over the stadium development paying for itself – without the need for current tax dollars – would come true. Of those experts, the only one who spoke positively about the deal was the Smith College professor who was hired by the city to judge the economic viability of the offer to the PawSox. The rest doubted the stadium-pays-for-itself claims would come to fruition" www.wbjournal.com/article/sports-economists-101m-woosox-stadium-deal-unlikely-to-beat-the-odds(obviously the RI and MA deals were different deals, but i'm not sure that the results would be any different if they asked about the RI deal)
|
|
|