I wonder which teams. I'd think the Phillies love having two teams one level apart at Clearwater for development purposes - and would not want to be forced to have players jump to Jersey Shore.
My local team would certainly be on the block due to low attendance, but again from the GM we are one of the few teams in the Carolina League that have done all the required upgrades which has cost the city millions. So if they left, the city will certainly be rightfully upset since we have two of the poorest zip codes in the state. I can see why teams and locales might sue.
MLB probably needs the lower rungs of the minors more than the upper rungs if one purely talks about development. One can sign older independent players and get them to the majors pretty quickly. Now if they curtailed the draft even further and expanded something like the MLB draft league to full season ball it might be better, but the most important development probably occurs among younger (age 18-22) prospects than older (23+).
I think MLB will be happy to stay where they are for the time being. Teams like control of prospects. It is one big way smaller market teams can compete - by having a stocked minor league system. Paring back the minors further would just push more money into the things where rich clubs have an advantage (free agency, trading for soon to be expensive players).
I think if what Bcat says is true they would probably target a mix of low and high markets to end up with just one A level. In the Phillies case that would be losing Lakewood and keeping Clearwater I'm sure.
I'm also sure that GM isn't wrong. But don't forget the minors have a union and a five-year CBA now. From what I'm Googling no contraction is allowed during that time (for one thing the entire salary and benefits structure is based on the existence of the current levels). But I have no doubt MLB will be eager to remove hundreds of union members/jobs from the next CBA. I doubt the smaller market owners can see the forest for the trees in terms of that not favoring them.
Also the current PDLs with the minor league teams don't expire until 2030. You'll have to ask your GM about all this in the spring!
Despite ten-year Professional Development Licenses (PDLs) that were signed in 2020 as part of the overhauling of the minors, MLB agreed not to further contract the minors from 120 teams during the length of the new deal. As these PDLs are set to expire after 2030 and the deal lasts until 2027, this was unlikely to happen anyway, but âthe MLBPA wanted to get that clause on the booksâ for future deals, as well as for âpeace of mindâ.
My former GM works for the Texas Rangers, but in the scope of his duties is to run an independent team in Texas and oversee the building of two stadiums in Indiana and Louisiana for future independent teams. Not sure how this works but perhaps Texas gets first shot at getting players. Seemed to indicate other teams are heading in this direction. Also indicated that money is the bottom line for mlb - less players and travel. They could care less about the fan experience and connecting with history of milb team. Yes there are PDLâs in place, but indicated that there are ways to get around that if really desired by mlb. I donât expect my team will leave soon, but the current owners are not doing a good job at connecting with the community and history of the team. This is key in a small milb market. When we first got here we had a local ownership group. Once sold it has gone downhill. With new stadiums being built, I see these getting priority in the future and stadiums like mine being converted to independents or bat leagues. I donât think that will work in my situation for long.
Do you know if the PDLs are transferrable or assignable? I suppose I could imagine a world (similar to the Arizona League structure) where if assignable teams could transfer a license to an independant operation, enter into a multiple team staffing arrangement (similar to the Arizona League) and then keep the residual number of represented players at their training complex if that would allow them to eliminate a level of their overhead structure.
Interesting that it only seems like 10 years ago (?) there were articles everywhere about how MiLB was the hot investment opportunity. Small towns like Pulaski, VA where the town provided the park, MLB teams provided the core players and the local communities supported the teams because there just wasn't much else to do in town. As you say, local long term ownership. Idealized world. Then the smart money entered and the structure morphed into a true business relationship, on both sides of the street.
You're going a little over my head here but in most cases why would a current privately-owned team and city who just had to make considerable infrastructure investments to maintain their precious affiliate agreement and is also bound to some kind of lease do that? I suppose there might be stipulations about being able to sell or not sell both your team and your affiliate agreement but I can't see any kind of large changes coming about unless you had a dozen or more teams in great distress, or if MLB was trying to make it happen.
I don't think you'd reallly save that much on overhead anyway. If you moved the entire Lakewood roster to Clearwater their salaries, benefits, food, accomodations and travel requirements per the CBA would all still have to be the same. Perhaps the team saves some money on those latter categories due to being able to double up, and shorter travel. But not enough to really pursue that as a loophole (at least for the five years of the CBA if not the longer period remaining on the PDLs) IMO.
Pulaski had a strong fan base as a Yankee affiliate and do much remodeling to the basic structure of the stadium. Agreed not much else to do there, but took off when associated with Yanks over Blue Jays. I have not been there since they became a draft league. Likewise I have only been to Danville 2x and Burlington 1x in 3 yrs, where before the change I probably would go ~6 games / yr. The whole league seems to successfully rebranded and crowds seemed on par with previous games.
Some teams in the Carolina League have decided to do upgrades either due to finances or stadium limitations. Kinston and Mudcats are set to move to other locations. Kinston is a great old stadium and I love going to games there, but the stadium canât be upgraded to MLB standards. Mudcats have fallen from AA to A+ to low A. Stadium is not one of my favorites and is in the middle of nowhere. Great mascot though!
Sorry rambling, I guess I donât like change. My main point I think is that there will be teams that can upgrade and some that canât. How do you determine which stay and which go? If you get rid of teams that complied, there will be rightfully lawsuits. My city has supported the Hillcats, but there is only so far they can go. The new owners donât seem interested in connecting with the community. They have done good things, but the connection is lacking IMO. I would hate to lose them, but I am mulling over not being a season ticket holder due to prices and lack of connection to community and team history. I donât think they care if season ticket holders go down; gives grounds to move team when they can to a bigger market.
I think that keeping travel expenses down is a primary consideration as to which places retain minor league teams. More remote areas have lost a lot of teams, both affiliated and independent. The Florida State League does not draw well, but travel costs are lower with all of the teams in the same state.
The Lowell Spinners were a moderately successful Red Sox affiliate; they were decommissioned in the purge while the Sox retained Salem in the Carolina League. Salem drew fewer fans than Lowell, perhaps not surprising because people cared more about the Red Sox in New England. But the NYP League didn't draw that well as a while and was more spread out--and travel expenses to the two NYC teams were probably high.
Sadly for me, apparently New England is too remote for minor leagues. Maybe weather was an issue, too--though not for the short season NYP League. There are only four affiliated teams left, and independent ball has vanished completely (though I hear a new team may be coming next year). I live in the dense northeast in one of the largest metro areas in the U.S., but I would have to travel four hours to see a game below AA. Gone are the days when I could watch a very young Seranthony Dominguez pitch in person.
I agree. Contraction and the current minor league schedule make it harder for me to see the Phils in the minors. It helps me be a fan of the team if I see minors since I canât get to Philly very often. I did manage to see Orion once as a member of JS. Since most teams only get one trip in to teams around me, if I miss those games, I often donât see them at all. But at least I do have a chance. Since I donât see many MLB games, the minors help me see the stars of tomorrow regardless of team. However Cleveland does not send its top prospects to low A, but thankfully other teams do.
The issue is less about minor league markets and more about whether the minor leagues as constructed make baseball a better game. I would argue they do. Most minor league teams are profitable. The major league investment per team is actually greater now after contraction, though that was MLB's idea to save money by concentrating their resources in fewer places.
For me the minor leagues produce better ballplayers compared to a more independent league driven system. Indy development would save MLB money, but more young athletes would choose other sports since they are not paid well in indy ball (think same low pay, zero draft bonus). Baseball already limits draft bonuses like other sports, though their development path is longer. Athletes are just going to play other sports.