The Coming Minor League Apocalypse

julio 2019-11-17 01:37:34 UTC #41

This. It would probably only work in markets where the clubs can draw consistently, and maybe only with some increase in ticket prices (would a $9 first-row seat in Williamsport - currently $9.75 - still be attractive at, say, $15? It would be to me!). Part of the challenge would be how to market the players - as it is now, Williamsport, Lakewood, Reading, Allentown can market "future Phillies." That's probably not a huge hook in Williamsport - Yankee country, in many ways, with lots of Pirates fans, too. Still, it would be a loss.

Looking at the 'Cutters as representative, they probably gated about $575k in 2019 (attendance was 64,148; I assumed average ticket of $9 - they start at $8 for upper reserved, go up from there). To cover the additional costs of player/coach salaries, they'd probably need to increase the gate to something like $850,000 (or a bit more). Assuming some elasticity of demand - which could be offset with PR promoting them as a "real" Williamsport team now - if they could draw 60,000, they'd need an average ticket price of about $14. That's a $5 increase - but it's also about 50%, so not trivial.

So I don't know whether that market would be viable.

zambonir 2019-11-17 01:55:02 UTC #42

Yeah, I'm not sure what the model/talent pool would be to make it work. It would actually work better in bigger markets (St. Paul and Sugarland, for instance, aren't necessarily interested in accepting the invitation to be affiliated). In a bigger-market league you'd want to match or beat AAA salaries, maybe even set up a system where every team has two players who make six figures. But I mean all that more in a world with no reserve clause.

The Pioneer League, for instance, is a perfectly viable league, but those markets are too remote and small to carry those sort of expenses. For them semi-pro or wood bat college might work.

Based on my experience in Montana I think in the smaller markets at the lower level the actual affiliation doesn't matter as much of just having one. Missoula could care less about the Diamondbacks but they are proud they had Paul Goldschmidt. Williamsport fans may prefer the Yankees or Pirates but I'm sure they still take in an interest in Hoskins etc.

julio 2019-11-17 02:05:59 UTC #43

There are also questions about the impact of moving the draft to August. - which means the draft will be quite close to the start of classes at colleges and universities. What effect will that have on actually signing draftees who have college options? I'm thinking, in particular, of high school kids, who will have only a couple of weeks to negotiate/decide whether to sign or to matriculate. (I figure college juniors will decide rapidly - they lose all leverage if they go back to college.) What will the HS kids do all summer? Legion ball, I suppose? Some places in summer wood-bat "college" leagues? Are colleges permitted to organize summer workout camps for kids they've offered admission/scholarships to, before the kids actually enroll? (Even if they're not currently, the NCAA could change the rules...might tip the odds in favor of colleges actually getting their recruits to enroll.)

Looks to me as if the Law of Unintended Consequences may loom rather large over all this. It will be... interesting... to see how it all plays out.

andyb 2019-11-17 03:42:01 UTC #44

150 player limit in organizations is a huge cut. Phillies must be over 250 now if not 300 counting the DSL teams.

julio 2019-11-17 04:59:36 UTC #45

It's not clear from the linked article that these limits would impact the DSL clubs, nor players in an "academy" setting.

Given current active roster and reserve list limits, 150 players would be enough to stock five clubs - one AAA, AA, A+, A and GCL (complex) team. That's 135 players on active rosters, plus a margin of 15 for ILs, inactive/suspended players, etc.

As of the end of August, the Phils had about 100 players on the Williamsport and two GCL rosters. Assuming they don't reduce the number of clubs in 2020, we're looking at releasing something like 50-60 players next fall. What remains to be seen is whether that occurs through cutting marginal prospect kids, or whether clubs instead purge the minors entirely of veteran players who aren't major-league caliber, but who want to continue playing.

There will also be questions about what kind of informal (or under-the-table) relationships can be developed between MLB franchises and foreign clubs - Mexican League clubs, Dominican summer league clubs, etc. - to create additional talent development/pipelines. Franchises with lots of money to burn (the wealthy ones) will have lots of incentive to find creative ways to use that money to improve their access to players who aren't added through the draft.

Also, if MLB decides to prohibit clubs from adding talent other than through a short draft and limited international signings... well, there will be an accumulation of talent that gets excluded - and that suggests there may be opportunities for new leagues, or for growth of existing independent leagues who suddenly have access to more talented players (American Association, Atlantic League, etc.) If MLB isn't careful, some of their clubs could find themselves with cross-town competitors for baseball fans - competitors who don't answer to the MLB Commissioner.

andyb 2019-11-17 13:46:12 UTC #46

The article is more specific than you imply though. "With the elimination of the four Rookie Leagues, there will be a limit of 150 players each organization can have in its minor league system among teams at Triple-A, Double-A, High A, Low A and their minor league “complex” teams. (Presently, there is no limit. The Yankees, with nine minor league teams, have well over 200.)"

This mentions 9 affiliates. That includes the Yankees DSL team. It also says there are no rookie or complex leagues specifically, so no GCL or DSL at all.

It seems to be a system where teams have 110-120 players on 4 full season teams and then the last 30-40 spots are held by young draftees in some league-wide prospect league or simply hanging around in some version of extended Spring for a year or two. It does not explicitly say no DSL, but it sure implies that.

The big thing here is the MLB clubs do not seem to want the DSL or rookie leagues at all. A HS draftee really needs to be able to play full season ball within 2 years to be worth drafting (so goodbye picks like Logan O'Hoppe). And then they add only the 10 best Latin American kids a year because if they can't move to full season ball in 2 years they are taking up a spot.

MLB does not want to develop these 17 year olds. They want them to not get signed, play in a prospect league for a couple of years and then maybe sign at age 19. Good for MLB. Bad for 500+ kids a year who don't get a signing bonus now and need to fight their way through a prospect league just to get signed in a few years.

I get the analytics people that says the major league product won't change much. Think of MLB as a corporation that just moved 5,000 jobs to China because it is less expensive there. Those jobs no longer run expensive minor league franchises and don't even need nominal $10,000 bonuses (because they will go to the prospect league and get $500 a month).

julio 2019-11-17 15:15:45 UTC #47

It's complicated. The article says:

Forty-two of the 160 minor league teams (26%) guaranteed under the present, expiring Professional Baseball Agreement between the majors and minors will be eliminated, most of them from the four short season Rookie Leagues — the New York-Penn, Appalachian, Northwest and Pioneer.

But...the NY-Penn and Northwest Leagues aren't "Rookie Leagues" - they're Summer Class A, which is a tier above the Rookie Leagues. It's not clear to me exactly which teams are targeted - but it looks like the current 160 clubs guaranteed under the PBA do not include the "complex leagues" - the Arizona League and the GCL. There are exactly 160 franchises total, in the AA, AA, A+, A, SA, and the two non-complex Rookie Leagues.

This makes sense to me, since the complex teams aren't necessarily included in the Professional Baseball Agreement (they're not independently owned).

The article says they're going to eliminate 42 franchises - this would leave them with 118. That is interesting - because it's two franchises LESS than would be necessary to give each organization one franchise in each of the four full-season levels. Two clubs are abandoning a single-A franchise?

The article does not indicate that complex teams will be eliminated. It says:

With the elimination of the four Rookie Leagues, there will be a limit of 150 players each organization can have in its minor league system among teams at Triple-A, Double-A, High A, Low A and their minor league “complex” teams.

The article also says that three NY-Penn franchises are being "upgraded" to full-season class A - Brooklyn, Hudson Valley, and one other (probably Tri-City, based on 2019 attendance). If they're going to eliminate the 18 non-complex Rookie clubs, and 19 Summer-A clubs, but 42 total, that means that five clubs from higher levels (Single-A?) are also being targeted. I'd love to see the full list.

At some level, I can understand the inclination to eliminate short-season leagues outside the complexes (Florida and Arizona) - particularly if they're going to push the draft back to August, and reduce the number of kids under contract. The development strategy thus becomes to hold new players in the complexes until they're ready for Single-A. What's not clear is how MLB will integrate players who aren't drafted, but who demonstrate in independent leagues (amateur or professional) that they have value. Will signing of UDFAs be permitted at all? Will it be permitted if a club clears a "150 man roster" spot to make room for such a signing?

andyb 2019-11-17 16:07:54 UTC #48

It doesn't not not indicate it though. And it does have the word complex teams in the sentence with the 150 limit. It is really hard to equate that limit with any sort of complex team other than having 30-40 extra guys on contract total, which means there might be 10-20 players per organization that get sent to some MLB combined prospect league in both FL or AZ or the Dominican. Phillies teams would cease to exist and those extra 100 players would not be signed to any organization.

Clearly these are words not worth parsing, but the intent of this whole thing is CLEARLY FOR MLB TO SAVE MONEY and the best way to save money is to eliminate a whole category of player development (like the NFL and the NBA leave to colleges). Maybe they'll let players be drafted and play in this prospect league and not count against the 150 limit (like the NHL and junior leagues), but if I had to bet they really will stop drafting and signing kids who are not ready for full season ball in a year or two. Let someone else pay to develop them.

phillychuck 2019-11-17 16:20:40 UTC #49

If there are not enough teams for all teams to field teams at all future levels some teams might be co-ops between franchises.

We're all guessing a little bit here.

For me it's a sad change (anything is)--I like following the current system.

zambonir 2019-11-17 18:00:57 UTC #50

This is still just a proposal, but one MLB is clearly committed to.

Also, you can scroll up to the beginning of the thread to read the original articles about it. It's been suggested the two "missing teams' would be St. Paul and Sugarland, but there will also be some other flip-flopping between higher and lower levels (with teams either being compensated for the demotion or paying for the upgrade).

I don't know if the NYDN article has more specifics that BA did not have. BA wrote:

MLB teams would be limited in the proposal to fielding five minor league clubs in the United States. That’s four full-season teams plus one complex-based Rookie affiliate. In addition to their 40-man roster players, each MLB team club would be limited to 150-200 players under minor league contracts on MiLB rosters. The proposal does not address roster limits for international players playing in the Dominican Summer League.

The intent seems to be for the "dream league" to still serve a development function but it wouldn't be for drafted players. Heck, there'd probably be a reality show where players try to earn their contract with a major league team (further exploiting their labor as they probably wouldn't be paid extra for being part of a show).

zambonir 2019-11-17 19:01:15 UTC #51

Another NY Times story today too

It's such a racket

Officials in Elizabethton, Tenn., population 14,000, faced a choice a couple of years ago. They could either renovate the police station or meet a condition of the Minnesota Twins: to spend more than $1 million modernizing the clubhouse at the city-owned ballpark, home to its beloved minor league affiliate.

They deferred the police station renovation, and now the Elizabethton Twins have a huge locker room, an upgraded kitchen, a training room, and space to relax and study game video.

allentown 2019-11-17 20:30:47 UTC #52

Not 'MLB clubs'. If that were the case, the Phillies wouldn't have joined other teams in having 2 DSL teams or 2 GCL teams. It is 'small-market', aka 'cheap' teams. This is just another part of the battle between the low-spending teams and the high-spending teams, with the low-spending teams getting another assist from the commissioner. What this really does is close out another way in which the teams which want to spend can spend in a way unregulated by MLB.

I think baseball wants to move toward an approach like football and basketball have, where the colleges do a far bigger share of the player development.

zambonir 2019-11-17 21:37:52 UTC #53

Well supposedly the owners voted on this 30-0. Even profligate teams love to save money and squeeze labor, if not in the name of profit, then "efficiency." I mean, the Astros - while an historically cheap team despite playing in a giant market, just like the Phillies - could afford to keep all their human scouts if they wanted to. But they decided they'd get a better return on their spending with the computer and video guys.

I would argue the small-market teams aren't the real bad guys here. While it would no doubt take $ out of the player's pockets too, I'd say it's more wrong that the big-market teams won't agree to meaningful revenue-sharing or a true salary cap than it is that the small-market teams want to further restrict what the rich teams can do that they can't.

And I don't figure the Yankees and Phillies would step to the front of the line and offer to pay minor leaguers more, or pay for a minor league stadiums locker room renovation, any more than the Twins would. But if such expenses are untenable for low-budget teams at a time when baseball is making more money than ever, MLB should fix it at a leaguewide level.

The other big change that could yet happen in the cord-cutting era is local TV deals will no longer be separate (or if they are, there won't be so much disparity). But that process still has a ways to go.

Of course you could argue that some of the struggling markets simply shouldn't be in the league anymore. Both newer (Florida) and old (Oakland, some Midwestern cities).

You would think Manfred might want to fold expansion into this proposal, which could save another 10 teams. But they probably prefer to put this squeeze on, and then make cities/teams promise them all kinds of stuff to get back into the affiliated system. (Plus, of course, they have no idea where those two new teams will be, and need to resolve Tampa and Oakland first.)

BostonRoss 2019-11-18 00:45:55 UTC #54

It’s a shame that MLB is always focused on bleeding every dollar they can get. I understand that it’s a business, and the owners have no obligation to spend their money to make things better for the fans. But every time they make a decision based more on the bottom line than what’s best for the game, the game gets worse, and they lose fans.

I think any dream league will end up being pretty small. Most areas won’t be able to support an unaffiliated team. A lot of cities in New England that used to have unaffiliated minor league teams (Worcester, Lynn, Nashua, Brockton, Pittsfield) now have summer wood bat leagues featuring college players. If they had to pay those players, they would have the same fate as their unaffiliated predecessors. Cities with affiliated teams (Lowell, Portland, Manchester, Hartford) do much better. Pawtucket is moving to Worcester, but it’s not because of lack of support. The Red Sox tried to hold up Rhode Island for a new stadium, and they didn't get it.

andyb 2019-11-18 00:48:55 UTC #55

It was a 30-0 vote. It is disappointing the Phillies seem to be letting another potential advantage in using money for player development slip away, but haven't we seen this story repeatedly over the years? We never broke the rules in international spending. We have failed to spend to the international max the last few years for the most part (we have traded for more slots, but not maximum slots). We have not exceeded the luxury cap. We could have spent $10 million more last year.

There are lots of examples that place the Phillies in line with all those cheap teams. Baseball collectively wants to save money here and the Phillies seem to be part of that sentiment. I just don't have confidence in them being any good without being a top spender.

zambonir 2019-11-18 00:56:28 UTC #56

The Daily News story implies the other owners didn't give the proposal a lot of consideration. The Astros put it together (with the Brewers and Orioles, both led by former Lunhnow assistants) and Manfred probably had everyone on board already. Their party line is this will help us improve the minors and improve things for players while also saving money and there's no ownership in baseball with the wherewithal to question that.

The short-sightedness is losing a not insignificant number of opportunities to develop in-person fans, and this also can't be good for Little League or Legion baseball either. But I bet they're shrugging their shoulders at that too, since they figure most of their future customers are just on their phones or gaming devices now.

zambonir 2019-11-19 21:25:10 UTC #57

I'll believe any actual Congressional action when I see it, but they're weighing in. I think this is just the House (and very much bi-partisan). Bernie Sanders also tweeted about it today.

Philsmania 2019-11-20 13:21:05 UTC #58

In the past, MLB has acquiesced to congressional threats to take away its precious antitrust exemption. I've often wondered why that antitrust exemption is so valuable though. It's not like a viable competitor to MLB is going to come along. The NFL and NBA get by fine without similar exemptions seem to have nothing to fear.

Having said that, I hate MLB's proposal.

andyb 2019-11-20 14:16:34 UTC #59

42 teams are going to be in close to 42 districts in 10-20 states. That is 60-80 members of both parties that have something to lose. Minor league baseball is kind of like those planes that have parts built in 44 states which make it tough to kill them.

Philsmania 2019-11-20 14:52:10 UTC #60

And, interestingly, a lot of the teams that would probably end up on the chopping block are in "red" America making the Republican Representatives particularly insistent on killing this idea.