- This topic has 486 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
While I would like to see closer parity (not total) in MLB payrolls I like the idea of teams being able to differentiate themselves on the margins especially in the minor leagues and in player development If an organization wants 10 affiliates and another organization wants 5 I dont see the problem.
I think the organizations that want 5 affiliates have a problem with the organizations that want 10 affiliates, as if that was any of their business.
Heck at one point many years ago the Cardinals had over 30 affiliates in a single season.
Yes I referenced the Branch Rickey years in my post.
gscottar
In theory I suppose that is true but it is difficult to prove. But why stop at 9 affiliates? Why not have 15 or 25 like back in the day with Branch Rickey? If we had 25 then surely no player would fall through the cracks. I just think quality over quantity makes more sense.
I know it could be determined whether teams with more minor league teams produce more major leaguers. The only problem is the amount of time it would take to analyze the data.
As far as the Cardinals go, I can only assume that they have reached the point where they consider more minor league teams would be a waste of money in comparison to what they might get from it.
As far as quality vs. quantity, sometimes quality depends on where you draft. We usually draft in the 2nd half of the rounds.
Why are you assuming that every organization (and specifically the Cardinals) support every detail of Manfred’s ideas?
In my experience, getting 30 diverse people to agree on anything is a major challenge. While I like CC’s free market idea, the low-revenue teams will never buy an inequitable implementation that could disadvantage themselves as dramatically as a 2:1 gap.
If I had to hazard a guess, mine would be that the poorer MLB teams would be most in favor of cutbacks with the better-off clubs less in support. The Cardinals could be in this latter group. But like everyone else’s view here, it is only a reasoned guess.
Several years ago, some organizations bailed out of the rookie advanced level (with the Appy and Pioneer Leagues). Just 18 systems have teams. So 12 MLB teams already decided they didn’t need that level. The Cards were NOT among them.
When you currently see the Pirates, Royals and Rays with 9 affiliates each it is hard to make the case that this would be a small mkt vs. Big mkt issue.
I was only stating the 5 and 10 example as an possibility that could currently exists because as far as I know their is no current maximum or minimum (though I could be wrong).
Limiting the number of affiliates a team can have will mean that teams with less developed minor league systems will have access to more talent because the teams with the more advanced systems will not have a place to hold talent that they want to develop.
I still have a feeling that the MLBPA has something to do with this. Last offseason there was quite a bit of complaining about experienced, card-carrying union players being replaced by prospects. Our own Jack Flaherty was one of the major league players that ran his mouth about that. This proposal could very well reduce the number of prospects coming up through the minor leagues.
IMHO, this all boils down to less work for individuals, and more dependence on a system.
(On a personal note, I just want to say that I generally support the union cause, although like anything else, a union can get twisted up.)
The Athletic, Evan Drellich wrote about the economic importance of MiLB to MLB, citing ongoing research by a company run by social psychologist Rich Luker.
“I can’t overemphasize how important minor league baseball is to the whole of the (history) of baseball and the future,” Luker said. “That is what makes it approachable, and allows people to have access in ways that are affordable, and then, in fact, makes it aspirational to attend games later on in life.”
.
The popularity in the sport is already waning.The New York Times published the list of 42 minor league teams that could lose their MLB affiliations. They begin as high as Double-A. As expected, two #stlcards short-season affiliates are among the 42: State College and Johnson City. https://t.co/9WAPJVWvQ7 pic.twitter.com/SlG2QdZPaE
— Brian Walton (@B_Walton) November 17, 2019
It looks like the NYP PIO and APP leagues will disband. I can’t even imagine how the lower level leagues will be put together with so many teams being eliminated. But can you believe anything you read in the NYT?
That raise is more than the most amount of money I made in an entire MiLB season.
$7,290 is what I made in 2018. My seventh MiLB season. https://t.co/XUCbAMxPMY
— Todd Van Steensel (@toddvs35) November 17, 2019
2021. The article I wrote last month and posted on page 1 of this thread has all the details. Here it is again.
14NyquisT opined:
The popularity in the sport is already waning.
Fact check:
“A total of 41,504,077 fans passed through the gates at Minor League Baseball games in 2019, marking the 15th consecutive season that Minor League Baseball’s 176 teams in 15 leagues drew more than 40 million fans.”
2019 attendance was 2.6 percent higher than 2018, when bad April weather killed the first month.
This is not about popularity. Minor League Baseball is quite healthy. (For example, JC set a new attendance record for the fourth straight year.) This is about MLB saving money to increase player salaries for those who remain.
Do MLB teams really need as many minor league players/teams as they currently have? I believe the Cardinals have 225 players at any one time.
Yes. It allows players more of an opportunity to develop. Players like Tommy Pham or even Jose Martinez would not have the opportunity to reach the majors if the number of teams are reduced.
No one knows the optimal number. Baseball is very different from other sports. In the NFL and NBA, for example, the best players can step directly off college campuses into being top contributors. (In the NBA, even high schools.) This is not the case in baseball, where multiple years of further development are needed even for the very top draft picks. Now, with baseball signing more and more 16-year olds from overseas, there must be a hierarchy of teams of different skill levels for them to play and develop over a number of years. It would be great if organizations could know from the start which players will make it and which will not, and only invest in the very best, but it is far from an exact science.
MLB seems to be saying that you can’t have increased salaries for MILB and keep the current number of players. Would it hurt the Cardinals and other organizations to reduce the number from say 225 to 175?
I think it would hurt the Cardinals. They have historically been able to develop from within very well. Some of the fringe players or slow developers will not be given as much time. That will hurt the team in the long run.
Those aren’t the right numbers, but of course, the absolute impacts are unknown and difficult to predict. There are also considerations other than just the organizations – jobs lost by players, coaches, staff and stadium and team personnel as well as the impact on the local cities’ economies.
Minor leaguers are not organized with no one to protect their interests. No checks and balances are in the system other than the new agreement negotiated every five years. Same lack of voice by the municipalities affected, though some may choose to fight before losing their teams.
P.S. I should also clarify that MLB is not using player expense as their battleground, but instead facilities. It will be interesting to see if cities can get taken off the extinction list if they agree to upgrades. Frankly, I think this is a smokescreen, as State College for example, is one of the nicest minor league parks around, very modern and up to date, and JC recently invested a lot of money to upgrade their ballpark.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.