- This topic has 492 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
gscottar, since the amounts of money involved between MLB and MiLB are so wildly different, I cannot draw such a tight comparison. I do agree the owners want to minimize expense at every turn and their behavior is consistent with that.
I have always struggled over time with the segment of fans who let owners off the hook, yet there are many other fans who are wildly unrealistic in their expectations, as well. Trying to pick any quotes that represent all fans, or even the majority of them, is a futile effort.
Back to the matter on the table. The MLB players have a union that is supposed to protect them. If the MLB players accept a bad contract, they have no one to blame but themselves. On the other hand, no one represents minor leaguers, so the owners can stick it to them with no recourse. Same with MiLB. As we saw in Manfred’s arrogant comments over the weekend, MLB will just start their own new minor leagues if they see fit.
<gscottar wrote: The owners are actually showing their true colors and are being very consistent.>
I guess the true colors of the owner of any business is to maximize profits. But in the case of a silent 2018 off season, the players who deserved to be moved for big bucks got moved. The problem in my view is that there where just not that many to make the market very active. This season, quite a few more quality free agents are in the mix. So kick me but I still say there ain’t nobody worth $30 million dollars for 6 months ‘work’. Just the pay for one of these ‘stars’ could raise the pay of every single minor leaguer to a living wage. Perhaps something like a tax on all MLB salaries could be used to bring minor league salaries up to something that is not an embarrassment to mention.
Questions regarding restructuring… Is this only about saving money? Or is it also about bringing order to MiLB in general? If all teams are limited to seven minor league affiliates, would that keep some organizations from hoarding players and thereby bring more parity to MLB? Is MLB trying to bring MiLB more under control and so that MiLB can be managed more directly, including salary standards, housing, and hours worked? Does it really make sense to be hosting a ‘workplace’ for boys who have almost no chance of ever making it to the big leagues when these same boys could be getting going on a viable future for themselves?
I don’t think restructuring is all about saving a few dollars. I have a feeling that MLB sees the lawsuits coming their way, so they’re trying to get MiLB under control before it’s too late.
mud, I really do not understand your last paragraph. The lawsuits coming their way are precisely about dollars – substandard pay for minor leaguers. In their view, covering that increased expense can best be accomplished by having fewer players (and fewer teams).
All the talk about working conditions is total BS smokescreen. If MLB cared about conditions in the minors, which they do not, they would work with MiLB on standards, not threaten to shut down entire leagues, including teams with excellent facilities. Ever been to State College? I am guessing not. MLB put a lot of money into Williamsport to make it a showcase for their annual Little League Classic. Then they turned around and put the team on the contraction list because it is part of the NY-Penn League. MLB is whining about the expense for the bus trips the players in those leagues have to make. Give me a break! They are grasping at every possible explanation to try to divert attention away from the real issue – a $10.3 billion business wants to invest less in its future.
What I was implying is that, if MLB can get MiLB under its control and more organized, it can then start setting salary structure, requiring improved housing standards, and establishing work weeks which are more humane. It’s better for MLB to do that than to wait for one of the lawsuits to do it for them.
Thanks for clarifying. My take is that they can and should have been doing those things all along and can do it without threatening to eliminate 42 teams. It does not need to be an either-or.
I had a knee replaced three weeks ago. So I haven’t had much else to do but check this forum twenty times a day, and post my thoughts when I think of something that might be worth posting.
I hope you will be up and around again soon and there will be more news to discuss. If it is dead now, wait until the time between Christmas and New Year’s.
I am keeping focused by alternating between writing player top 50 capsules and top stories of the year.
MLB's proposal to trim the minor leagues risks undercutting part of what makes the sport special, writes @TylerKepner. https://t.co/sAsPKf2KYd
— NYT Sports (@NYTSports) December 23, 2019
The above article includes an interesting section about Mike Shildt, who starting in 2004 until he was promoted to Springfield for 2012 spent most of his years coaching and managing teams that will be eliminated in MLB’s proposal.
They might miss future managers, too. The St. Louis Cardinals’ Mike Shildt, the National League manager of the year, grew up around the minors because his mother worked for a team in Norfolk, Va. Shildt never played professional baseball, but started working at the Cardinals’ short-season teams and ascended to the majors.
“I feel strongly about it because I may not be where I’m at without it,” Shildt said. “I got to thankfully cut my teeth at a lower level where a lot of people, players and staff, do just that. So if you’re eliminating that opportunity, you’re taking away some people that could be difference-makers in our sport, on or off the field.”
Worse than missing the next Shildt, they will likely miss the next Eckstein and possibly the next Altuve.
Yes, in fact the player concern was mentioned in the section just ahead of the Shildt part. Though it is legitimate, I did not include that here because the impact to players of a smaller draft and fewer low-level teams has been pretty well covered, in my opinion. But the lesser opportunity for all the player development personnel is just as real.
There will no doubt be fallout, but I do think that the political fallout is just saber-rattling. There is only one major politician who is (pick your adjective: dumb, nutty, ballsy, crazy) enough to put up a full frontal attack on a major sports league. The people who control MLB’s needed policies are too concerned with reelection to take them on.
A bipartisan congressional committee has been formed. We will have to see if they do more than talk, but in my prediction, these legislators will be more concerned about the economic loss to their districts and what their constituents think than worry over the impact of a potential loss of MLB lobbying funds. We shall see.
Four U.S. Representatives Announce Formation of Bipartisan Save Minor League Baseball Task Force
Certainly the 42 members who have potentially contracted teams will put up a fight. But then they need 176 more members to vote with them. And even if they cross that hurdle, they’d need to get it through the Senate, which is unlikely.
Like I said, saber-rattling.
And the MLB lobby isn’t much of one. However, the bully pulpit which these leagues have to tell a ready-made audience that Washington is trying to harm the game – that’s a powerful tool.
It came into my mind that high schoolers with the most athleticism that play multi sports say football and baseball will see more opportunity with going on with football or basketball. Interest in college baseball is so far behind those two sports as it is so what premier athletes will choose baseball?.Would this drain the talent pool? Is this a factor?
Major League Baseball can look at all the ‘sabermetrics’ it wants, but what they don’t understand is the serious impact that losing these baseball teams will have on our communities,” said Congressman Rose. “You won’t see it in any formula, but my colleagues and I have all seen the impact teams like the Staten Island Yankees can have on the faces of the children who show up at the ballpark every year. I’m proud to join this effort to urge the MLB to reconsider.
The Staten Island Yankees, in one of the most densely populated areas in the U.S., drew 1848 fans per game last season (note: this is not paid attendance). The economic fallout from them closing shop would be devastating, assuming that you have an alternative definition to devastating that Miriam-Webster does not share.
The legislators are just covering their rear ends (see, we tried!). The idea that sports teams provide some economic boon to local economies has been disproven over and over, and relies on paid studies that start with a conclusion and work backward.
Baseball is America’s pastime and that pastime should not be exclusive to a select number of cities.
This is possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, and only a politician could say it with a straight face. Self-defeating logic is an amazing tool over the mentally handicapped, I suppose.
It came into my mind that high schoolers with the most athleticism that play multi sports say football and baseball will see more opportunity with going on with football or basketball. Interest in college baseball is so far behind those two sports as it is so what premier athletes will choose baseball?.Would this drain the talent pool? Is this a factor?
Not sure what you mean by the first sentence, but I’m not sure it would drain the talent pool at all. It would certainly drive a lot more players to play college baseball. Honestly, I think MLB’s plan is to do what the NFL and NBA have been doing for a long time – use college more as a developmental league. Perhaps a model closer to hockey. The NHL has one affiliated developmental league (and a few decent independent feeder leagues). I don’t think MLB would ever go less than two teams deep into their minors, but college, could provide a free alternative for them – at least moreso than they have.
I think you will see the number of high school kids drafted go way down, and, the number of kids total drafter go way down. And you will see more of the latin players playing in latin leagues for longer.
I have seen references in articles that speculate that more athletes may gravitate to baseball rather than football, basketball or other sports if pay is improved. I don’t know how to assess that, however.
atriple said:
Certainly the 42 members who have potentially contracted teams will put up a fight. But then they need 176 more members to vote with them.
Rarely do a majority of congressional members care deeply about any bill. That is where logrolling or vote trading comes in. Stepping back, Congress passed the Save Americas Pastime Act, so enough of them could also certainly ban together to back a “feel-good” bill like one to “save the minor leagues” or they could slip it under the covers of another bill.
So you’re suggesting that Congress use the same trick to fool themselves into switching sides? I suppose it is worth a try.
Time will tell who is correct here, but I’d be willing to bet a sizable sum that I am. The first trick was pulled by the side holding the bully pulpit. It’s a lot harder to wield against them. Minor leaguers don’t have someone reading every piece of legislation before committees, and, even if they did, they don’t have the power to do anything but scream out to an audience that doesn’t listen to them. MLB doesn’t have those same issues.
I forgot to mention earlier that over 100 legislators signed the initial protest letter to Manfred, and that was immediately after the 42 teams were disclosed. So the real number of lawmakers in support is much more than the 42 you suggested.
If you want to dig into this, BlackHillsCard did a nice analysis of the 100+ members of Congress who participated. It is back several pages in this thread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.