RealGM

Posted: **Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:08 am**

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/mlb-floats-proposal-that-would-eliminate-42-minor-league-teams/

The proposal is described as a preliminary offering subject to alteration. But if the proposal, or some version of it, is adopted, it will lead to the most dramatic restructuring of the minor leagues in more than half a century. Under the proposal, not only would more than 25 percent of MiLB teams be eliminated, but the remaining leagues would also be dramatically reworked with some leagues getting much smaller, others getting bigger, and teams switching classification levels all around the country.

At the root of the disagreement is a preliminary proposal MLB has offered to reduce its number of Player Development Contracts (the affiliation agreement by which MLB teams provide players and staff to MiLB teams) from 160 to 120. That reduction would completely eliminate the four, non-complex Rookie-level and short-season classifications from the minor leagues.

The proposal also completely reorganizes the full-season minor leagues. While there would still be Triple-A, Double-A, high Class A and low Class A, those four levels would be completely reworked to make the leagues much more geographically compact. In Triple-A, the Pacific Coast League would shift from 16 teams to 10. The International League would grow to 20 teams. The 14-team low Class A South Atlantic League would be turned into a six-team league with a new Mid-Atlantic league springing up.

The short-season Northwest League would move to full-season ball.

Under MLB’s proposal, some teams would be asked to move from Class A to Triple-A. Others would be asked to move from Triple-A to Class A, and there would be other less dramatic moves as well.

The proposal lays out valuations for the different levels. Triple-A is valued at $20 million. Double-A is valued at $15 million. High Class A is valued at $10 million. Low Class A is valued at $8 million, and short-season/Rookie-level teams are valued at $6 million. A team moving up from low Class A to Triple-A would be asked to pay $12 million to move up. A team asked to move from Triple-A to high Class A would receive $10 million in compensation for the move down to a lower level.

Posted: **Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:43 pm**

"If we're gonna have to pay these guys, then we're gonna get rid of a bunch of them first."

Posted: **Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:00 pm**

Skin Blues wrote:"If we're gonna have to pay these guys, then we're gonna get rid of a bunch of them first."

That sounds about right.

But what happens to the other teams? Would they join or form an independent league?

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:35 pm**

Skin Blues wrote:"If we're gonna have to pay these guys, then we're gonna get rid of a bunch of them first."

I also love the immediate reaction of suddenly taking the potential to actually monetize their AAA teams seriously. I have no idea which teams do or don't make money and sometimes certain dynamics can change things in larger markets with more competition and smaller markets without competition but it seems odd that Toledo is a AAA team while San Jose is A+, for example, but owners likely didn't care at that point.

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:06 am**

Whatever the reason, major change to the minor leagues is long overdue.

Posted: **Fri Nov 8, 2019 3:44 pm**

raptorsfan2018 wrote:
Skin Blues wrote:"If we're gonna have to pay these guys, then we're gonna get rid of a bunch of them first."

That sounds about right.

But what happens to the other teams? Would they join or form an independent league?

Most likely. As long as MLB teams aren't footing the bill they really won't care.

I personally don't think this is a bad idea on the surface, but I think the part where AAA and A teams might switch leagues is extremely short sighted. There are communities out there who have a single A franchise because they don't have the ballpark or the fan support to carry a team in a higher league. And there are bigger cities that if you throw their AAA team down to A ball, the fans probably won't care enough to support it anymore.

Posted: **Fri Nov 8, 2019 4:06 pm**

The_Hater wrote:I think the part where AAA and A teams might switch leagues is extremely short sighted. There are communities out there who have a single A franchise because they don't have the ballpark or the fan support to carry a team in a higher league. And there are bigger cities that if you throw their AAA team down to A ball, the fans probably won't care enough to support it anymore.

It depends a bit. I'm waiting to see the kinds of changes they make before judging. If you go based on population figures, there are some curious choices. And if you go by attendance figures, the Gwinnett Stripers are pulling in fewer fans than teams like Fayetteville and Frederick. I don't know what the changes will be but there are some cases for changes to be made overall on those lines.

Posted: **Fri Nov 8, 2019 4:19 pm**

I_Like_Dirt wrote:
The_Hater wrote:I think the part where AAA and A teams might switch leagues is extremely short sighted. There are communities out there who have a single A franchise because they don't have the ballpark or the fan support to carry a team in a higher league. And there are bigger cities that if you throw their AAA team down to A ball, the fans probably won't care enough to support it anymore.

It depends a bit. I'm waiting to see the kinds of changes they make before judging. If you go based on population figures, there are some curious choices. And if you go by attendance figures, the Gwinnett Stripers are pulling in fewer fans than teams like Fayetteville and Frederick. I don't know what the changes will be but there are some cases for changes to be made overall on those lines.

Good points, but you also have to factor in ticket prices and stadium renovations. If a single A team needs to renovate their stadium in order to be big enough for a AAA team, who’s paying that bill? And if they have to jump ticket prices significantly to play in the higher league, do the fans revolt on that and stop coming.

Either way, it appears they’re making these changes primary for geographic reasons. There’s undoubtedly going to be some problems if they jump some several teams 2 different divisions.

Posted: **Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:44 pm**

Good article on what MLB's rather narrow economic reading of the minors misses...namely, that all of those players who are perhaps AA quality but will never make the majors are valuable in that they serve as more-polished gatekeepers for the true prospects:

https://www.marcnormandin.com/2019/11/18/mlb-thinks-paying-milb-players-is-a-waste/

I think that he's right; even if you aren't losing prospects who will, against the odds, make the majors (and you probably are), the gradual step up in competition is essential for all but elite prospects. If you're facing mostly other prospects who have similar weaknesses to your own, you aren't going to be ready. It's something that hitters who have gone to Korea, as an example, comment on all the time: in the lower minors, you're more likely to face guys with blazing fastballs and mediocre off-speed stuff, which doesn't prepare you that well for elite pitching, but in Korea you'll get junkballed to death, which forces players to improve their pitch identification and patience. A lot of the players who'd be culled are of that variety...not enough fastball or RPMs on their off-speed stuff, but the pitchability to serve as a hurdle for future major leaguers.

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:15 pm**

I'm not seeing the issue with this. I don't know enough about minor league teams to know the history of them, so I'm sure fans in those areas will miss having a team, but in the grand scheme of things, this seems like a necessary change. You want the minor leagues as a whole to be filled with as many real prospects as possible. Not only does that improve the quality of play, but also the quality of player development. Also, minor league pay is a real issue. Minor leaguers need to be paid more. That possibly becomes more likely if the sheer quantity of players (especially those with no chance in hell of being big leaguers) are weeded out and the quality of talent increases. Then there is the travel issue. Ask a player like Kyler Murray who has options to do something else to sit on a smelly bus all summer traveling to god knows where and he'll bolt for the NFL in 10 seconds. Limiting travel would be a good change.

Is MLB being cheap and self serving? Of course they are. That will never change. But in this case, this might actually help the game. MLB doesn't need 100 rounds in the draft. They don't need teams with 20 affiliates. Give prospects more development with better competition in better stadiums with less travel time and more pay.

Posted: **Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:06 am**

Teams should be paying players more anyway, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because it improves the chances of those players becoming productive major leaguers early in their careers if six of them aren't stuffed into a two-bedroom apartment eating ramen. There's no reason for it to be an either/or...paying more is a good decision financially without getting into any other considerations.

Beyond that, baseball more than any other sport relies on its minor leagues to determine who is and isn't a 'good prospect'. Condensing the minors means that each step will have a much larger difference in degree of difficulty; that might weed out more non-prospects early, but it might also make life really difficult for rawer prospects...like your Kyler Murrays, for that matter. Beyond that, it will make for more challenging position-time battles in the lower minors; you can already get bottlenecks higher up in the minors, this will simply create more of them in the lower minors, leading teams to make draft decisions made on roster concerns as much as on talent.

Posted: **Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:04 am**

If there are fewer players in the minors, then prospects will be paid more. At least they should. If you want to argue they should be paid more regardless then that's another story, but by MLB decreasing the amount of levels and prospects all teams can have, it should remove the quantity and replace it was quality. It will be easier and faster to weed out the bad prospects as the level of competition in each level should in theory be a lot better. Sure maybe it might hurt the super raw 18 year old's who might take longer to develop due to age and other factors, the reality is beating up on **** competition isn't going to make them better. It's when they start seeing those high spin breaking balls earlier in their development, or face hitters who can hit high velocity fastballs, etc, that will make them better.

Imagine if the G League was twice the size as it is now and twice the amount of teams. At some point you'd notice the quality of basketball decreasing and the league would be filled with players who wouldn't ever be good enough to become the 15th man on the worst NBA team. That's what the MLB minor league system is right now. Way, way too much filler and young kids being taken advantage of in the hopes of a catching a dream.

I'm not sure how the elimination of affiliates and lowering the draft to 20 rounds will affect how much a team can spend on the draft, but if the allocated draft pools are going to stay more or less the same, except condensed into 20 rounds instead of 50 (or whatever it is now), then even better. Pay the real amateur talent more. Maybe we won't see as many Pillar's becoming big leaguers, but in the long run it should help the quality of baseball if done right.

Posted: **Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:25 am**

vancouver's situation will be interesting. They have had solid support from the local fan base as a short-season A team. Moving them to a full season higher league will be an interesting challenge, considering they lose the Jays' affiliation (presumably) and have a smallish stadium, capacity 6,500, that's been around since 1951. They were a AAA team until 1999. In 2000, a new team was created to play in the Northwest League.

Posted: **Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:32 am**

Tanner wrote:If there are fewer players in the minors, then prospects will be paid more. At least they should. If you want to argue they should be paid more regardless then that's another story, but by MLB decreasing the amount of levels and prospects all teams can have, it should remove the quantity and replace it was quality. It will be easier and faster to weed out the bad prospects as the level of competition in each level should in theory be a lot better. Sure maybe it might hurt the super raw 18 year old's who might take longer to develop due to age and other factors, the reality is beating up on **** competition isn't going to make them better. It's when they start seeing those high spin breaking balls earlier in their development, or face hitters who can hit high velocity fastballs, etc, that will make them better.

The shrinkage is going to be happening on the low end of the pyramid, where right now the total amount paid to the players is, effectively, a rounding error. The total player wage bill for a short-season team is in the $40-50k range per month. Spread that money over all the players at higher levels and they'd be looking at a raise of $200/month, for the few months of the season for which they're paid.

To give you a sense of scale here, we once spent a sum that exceeded the combined annual player wage budget for our two short-season teams at the time in order to trade for and immediately buy out a player to get the 57th pick in a draft.

Imagine if the G League was twice the size as it is now and twice the amount of teams. At some point you'd notice the quality of basketball decreasing and the league would be filled with players who wouldn't ever be good enough to become the 15th man on the worst NBA team. That's what the MLB minor league system is right now. Way, way too much filler and young kids being taken advantage of in the hopes of a catching a dream.

The G-League expanded in recent years, specifically because there was recognition that the league could benefit from i) a better distribution of playing time, so that prospects weren't crowding out other prospects, and ii) a desire to keep some Good Pros in the fold, where they can provide a higher level of competition for raw 19 year olds rather than plying their trade overseas.

And basketball is a sport with much smaller rosters, and where there is far less variance in the production of drafted players...if you took the top 30 players in the NBA draft, and pitted them five years later in a seven-game series against any other basketball player in the world who was draft-eligible in that year, the players from the top 30 would win each and every year. It'd be rare for them to lose a single game, such would be the disparity. If you did that in baseball, they'd lose a great deal of the time. Probably most of the time.

I'm not sure how the elimination of affiliates and lowering the draft to 20 rounds will affect how much a team can spend on the draft, but if the allocated draft pools are going to stay more or less the same, except condensed into 20 rounds instead of 50 (or whatever it is now), then even better. Pay the real amateur talent more. Maybe we won't see as many Pillar's becoming big leaguers, but in the long run it should help the quality of baseball if done right.

It will have no tangible effect on how teams spend in the draft. First, after the top ten rounds, no player is guaranteed a bonus...any bonus they get is purely out of the team's desire to sign the player. $1000 bonuses are not uncommon. Any team with half a clue already spends every cent allowed under the capped bonus pool rules.

Posted: **Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:54 pm**

Tanner wrote:If there are fewer players in the minors, then prospects will be paid more. At least they should.

Should and will are two entirely different things. The costs involved relative to MLB in terms of minor league salaries are extremely minimal. There is nothing stopping teams from paying their players more in the minors right now and streamlining teams won't create any major financial wiggle room to change that. The Jays doubled their minor league salaries last season without the streamlined minor league system and any other team could have done it. Just because the idea is "it should" - baseball teams (and most other businesses, really) tend not to find a way to save money and then immediately give it back. We will see, but I'm entirely skeptical on that end. Player salary and total number of players in the minors aren't linked issues.

Posted: **Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:08 am**

Also, look at our farm system: until AA's tenure, we only had two short-season teams, the GCL Jays and the Auburn Doubledays of the NY-Penn League (the latter now replaced by Vancouver). He then got the club to add another short-season team, in advanced rookie ball.

The additional team was brought in purely for competitive reasons, as we drafted pretty young and it was deemed a worthwhile expense to maximize our lower minors talent. When Rogers is willing to throw (a small amount of) money at something, it's probably because they've been convinced that it's a positive ROI.

And that was a move from six stateside teams to seven! The proposal is to take teams down to five. That creates a strong disincentive to draft young, because your single complex team is going to end up overcrowded, or raw prospects are going to be thrown to the wolves.

Posted: **Sun Dec 1, 2019 7:40 am**

Small cities around the country are fighting a Major League Baseball restructuring proposal that would cut the league's association with 42 minor league teams, AP reports.

Why it matters: The cities argue that the teams are a vital part of their communities — and some have invested significant municipal funds in stadium construction and upgrades to draw in fans.

The big picture: MLB is renegotiating its agreement — the current one is set to expire in 2020 — with the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues.

The minor leagues' current 176 teams that are affiliated with the NAPBL attracted 41.5 million fans this year.What they're saying: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote that the plan "would be an absolute disaster for baseball fans, workers and communities throughout the country" in a letter he sent to MLB commissioner Robert Manfred Jr.

bipartisan letter

The other side: In a letter sent to Congress, the league said dozens of minor league teams do not have proper training and medical facilities, locker rooms and playing fields.

MLB deputy commissioner Daniel Halem wrote that "the majority of major league club owners believe that there are too many players in the minor league system."

Posted: **Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:14 pm**

Update:

As part of MLB's desire to overhaul the minor league system and streamline player development, it wants to sever its parent-club relationship with 42 minor league teams, entirely eliminating some and reorganizing others into a lower-quality "Dream League."

The 42 teams, listed alphabetically:

Bluefield Blue Jays (W.Va.)

D-I: Danville Braves (Va.), Daytona Tortugas (Fla.), Elizabethton Twins (Tenn.), Erie SeaWolves (Pa.), Florida Fire Frogs, Frederick Keys (Md.), Grand Junction Rockies (Colo.), Great Falls Voyagers (Mont.), Greeneville Reds (Tenn.), Hagerstown Suns (Md.), Idaho Falls Chukars

J-Q: Jackson Generals (Tenn.), Johnson City Cardinals (Tenn.) (13), Kingsport Mets (Tenn.), Lancaster Jethawks (Calif.), Lexington Legends (Ky.), Lowell Spinners (Mass.), Mahoning Valley Scrappers (Ohio), Missoula PaddleHeads (Mont.), Ogden Raptors (Utah), Orem Owlz (Utah), Princeton Rays (W.Va.)

R-W: Quad Cities River Bandits (Iowa), Rocky Mountain Vibes (Colo.), Salem-Keizer Volcanoes (Ore.), State College Spikes (Pa.), Staten Island Yankees (N.Y.), Tri-City Dust Devils (Wash.), Vermont Lake Monsters, West Virginia Power, Williamsport Crosscutters (Pa.)Why it matters: Major league clubs currently provide and pay for the farm club's players and staff, leaving the minor league organization to cover things like fields, equipment and travel.

If that support disappears

It's got everything: Jobs, corporate greed and the blatant juxtaposition of billionaire owners trying to maximize profits while small-town baseball teams — organizations that provide their communities with an identity and a place to gather — suffer.

The other side: MLB contends that its plan is necessary to improve working conditions, and that eliminating hundreds of low-level players from the system will allow the league to increase minor league salaries across the board — an issue that was recently contended in the California Supreme Court.

The minor league system is old and bloated,

What to watch: MLB's current agreement with the minor league teams expires at the end of this upcoming campaign, which could "cast a certain pall over the 2020 season, as teams aim to, perhaps, play their way off the proverbial bubble."

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:08 am**

Read on Twitter

I'm gonna keep hammering this, because it remains just the dumbest thing. Teams will not bat an eye at spending $5m on a prospect in the draft, and they're right not to bat an eye! They will then give them a ham, cheese and sadness sandwich for sustenance during the time when they're meant to be building up their fitness. How all the galaxy-brained ex-McKinsey types can square the logic of "investing millions in young players is important" with "feeding young players like they were the unloved product of a failed marriage is smart business" remains beyond me.

Posted: **Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:18 am**

That is why I am in favor of Manfred's plan to gut the minor leagues. Kids are being taken advantage of for a dream they will never achieve. For every Kevin Pillar, there are hundreds of guys who stall in A ball. Cut the amount of minor league teams and players, give the actual prospects more money, and stop taking advantage of the kids who have little to no shot.

RealGM

MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball

Re: MLB proposing huge minor league revamp - eliminating 42 teams, short season ball