I actually live in a town with one of the teams that will be deleted, or at least I'm pretty sure it's on the list. I don't really care about the team. I haven't seen one of their games in over a decade. That's partly because I've seen enough live sporting events to last a lifetime, but mostly because no or almost no prospects are playing down at the bottom levels any more.
So I don't think this particular move, shocking though it may be, is all that tragic. It'd be nice if there were truly free minor leagues everywhere and hometown teams worth rooting for, like I suppose there were in the 1930's, but there are all kinds of great things from the past that don't exist any more. Unpopular things die out.
I wonder how many minor leaguers' living wages Jacoby Ellsbury could pay with his 2020 salary?
I am curious to see how the entire process for player development changes over the next several years. From the inception of free agency until now, the basic deal has been that teams front the cost of player development - say, from the time they were 18 until about age 23. In return teams have gotten 6 cheap or relatively cheap years of service (generally with little or no risk), til the player was say 29 or so. Up to the last year or two, even average players were then in line for a big payoff, as it was assumed they were at the peak of their careers. (Even though Bill James had pretty well debunked this by the mid-80s.)
Now that the MLB teams have figured out that 30-something players aren’t as valuable as they once thought, the players are finding they’ve given up their best years only to arrive at a point when their bargaining power is diminished greatly. (There are exceptions of course; Harper, Cole, Lindor in a couple years.) The grand bargain doesn’t look nearly as fair from even very good players’ perspective.
I don’t see how the next basic agreement doesn’t take this shift into consideration. I don’t see how we get to that without a strike - but apart from that, these changes seem likely to have implications that will extend to the minor leagues. I wonder if the idea of contracting the minor leagues is an opening move in this negotiation.
At various points in this article, both indirectly and directly, you approach the incredibly overlooked yet vital issue: what's good for Major League Baseball, Inc. is not always what's good for baseball, existentially. I'll also expand and say that what's good for Major League Baseball, Inc. is not always what's good for fans of Major League Baseball, Inc., nor always good for fans of baseball, existentially. However, the set/venn diagram of what's good for fans of baseball, existentially and what's good for baseball, existentially is in my opinion a single circle. And I'm one of those people who thinks that many of the people in charge of Major League Baseball, Inc. are not fans of baseball, existentially. If you see what I'm getting at! It's a problem.
There is something that I have wondered for a while why MLB teams haven't done it. With this plan, though, I think it may be really on its way. Within 10-15 years, an MLB team is going to consolidate their entire development structure at a single location, be it a spring training base or near their home city. It will save money on facilities and coaching and travel, and allow better opportunities for keeping one organizational message among all the teams and players.
It will also destroy minor league baseball once and for all. Although, the real question is, would it inspire an opportunity for competition by cities like Charlotte and Nashville and Columbus and Norfolk and Las Vegas as a new league?
Do you mean having the AAA, AA, and A teams all at the same site? Because I can see that happening. I don't think it'd save on travel, though.
I think the major cause of this minor league contraction may be Statcast. MLB teams want the latest data on their prospects, and I bet not all the Rookie or A league teams have the full Statcast devices.
I've never fully understood exactly how the minor leagues work. But if MLB has a monopoly on baseball in this country, wouldn't eliminating those 42 minor league teams create an opportunity for non-MLB affiliated leagues to move into those cities? Teams that wouldn't be at the same whims of their MLB parents? (But teams that would surely be selling contracts of valuable players to the MLB.)
Independent leagues are few and far between these days, and it's really really hard to be successful. For example, Kansas City has an independent team, the T-Bones, who has a stadium right next to the MLS Sporting team. The stadium is owned by the city of KC Kansas, so the team is technically a tenant. The city formally evicted them a few weeks ago for months and months of non-payments. And this is a team that's been around over 10 years and won their league LAST YEAR.
Then they would be the independent leagues. Many independent / unaffiliated leagues do exist, but because they do not offer a direct path to the majors, they have a very low quality of play - the best are maybe slightly above A ball.
Independent leagues would likely try to fill the gaps in those communities.
If none of the minor league teams was affiliated with a major league team, you would likely see higher wages for minor league players, as minors teams competed for the best players. But right now, that is a less viable business model than the current minor league model of essentially leasing space to stage events, where you contract with a third party (MLB teams) to provide the performers.
As Joe mentioned, the best players on minor league teams pass through quickly and there is little continuity. As a fan of a minor league team, wouldn't it be better to have slightly lower quality of play, but players who stay on the team longer and develop more continuity?
I think it would certainly be a good thing, yes. However, I don’t think that’s what happens with independent leagues in practice. I think there actually tends to be greater turnover there, because the good players tend to jump to affiliated ball if given the chance.
There’s a really good book by Ben Lindbergh and Sam Miller “The Only Rule is it has to Work” about a season in the independent leagues. They come in as outsiders applying a sabermetric mindset to being a GM for the teams. One of the difficulties they face is the amount of turnover mid season, and how important relationships (which they don’t have) are to filling rosters amidst that turnover.
love the newsletter format.
I actually live in a town with one of the teams that will be deleted, or at least I'm pretty sure it's on the list. I don't really care about the team. I haven't seen one of their games in over a decade. That's partly because I've seen enough live sporting events to last a lifetime, but mostly because no or almost no prospects are playing down at the bottom levels any more.
So I don't think this particular move, shocking though it may be, is all that tragic. It'd be nice if there were truly free minor leagues everywhere and hometown teams worth rooting for, like I suppose there were in the 1930's, but there are all kinds of great things from the past that don't exist any more. Unpopular things die out.
I wonder how many minor leaguers' living wages Jacoby Ellsbury could pay with his 2020 salary?
$26M / $30,000 = ~871
I am curious to see how the entire process for player development changes over the next several years. From the inception of free agency until now, the basic deal has been that teams front the cost of player development - say, from the time they were 18 until about age 23. In return teams have gotten 6 cheap or relatively cheap years of service (generally with little or no risk), til the player was say 29 or so. Up to the last year or two, even average players were then in line for a big payoff, as it was assumed they were at the peak of their careers. (Even though Bill James had pretty well debunked this by the mid-80s.)
Now that the MLB teams have figured out that 30-something players aren’t as valuable as they once thought, the players are finding they’ve given up their best years only to arrive at a point when their bargaining power is diminished greatly. (There are exceptions of course; Harper, Cole, Lindor in a couple years.) The grand bargain doesn’t look nearly as fair from even very good players’ perspective.
I don’t see how the next basic agreement doesn’t take this shift into consideration. I don’t see how we get to that without a strike - but apart from that, these changes seem likely to have implications that will extend to the minor leagues. I wonder if the idea of contracting the minor leagues is an opening move in this negotiation.
At various points in this article, both indirectly and directly, you approach the incredibly overlooked yet vital issue: what's good for Major League Baseball, Inc. is not always what's good for baseball, existentially. I'll also expand and say that what's good for Major League Baseball, Inc. is not always what's good for fans of Major League Baseball, Inc., nor always good for fans of baseball, existentially. However, the set/venn diagram of what's good for fans of baseball, existentially and what's good for baseball, existentially is in my opinion a single circle. And I'm one of those people who thinks that many of the people in charge of Major League Baseball, Inc. are not fans of baseball, existentially. If you see what I'm getting at! It's a problem.
There is something that I have wondered for a while why MLB teams haven't done it. With this plan, though, I think it may be really on its way. Within 10-15 years, an MLB team is going to consolidate their entire development structure at a single location, be it a spring training base or near their home city. It will save money on facilities and coaching and travel, and allow better opportunities for keeping one organizational message among all the teams and players.
It will also destroy minor league baseball once and for all. Although, the real question is, would it inspire an opportunity for competition by cities like Charlotte and Nashville and Columbus and Norfolk and Las Vegas as a new league?
Do you mean having the AAA, AA, and A teams all at the same site? Because I can see that happening. I don't think it'd save on travel, though.
I think the major cause of this minor league contraction may be Statcast. MLB teams want the latest data on their prospects, and I bet not all the Rookie or A league teams have the full Statcast devices.
I've never fully understood exactly how the minor leagues work. But if MLB has a monopoly on baseball in this country, wouldn't eliminating those 42 minor league teams create an opportunity for non-MLB affiliated leagues to move into those cities? Teams that wouldn't be at the same whims of their MLB parents? (But teams that would surely be selling contracts of valuable players to the MLB.)
Independent leagues are few and far between these days, and it's really really hard to be successful. For example, Kansas City has an independent team, the T-Bones, who has a stadium right next to the MLS Sporting team. The stadium is owned by the city of KC Kansas, so the team is technically a tenant. The city formally evicted them a few weeks ago for months and months of non-payments. And this is a team that's been around over 10 years and won their league LAST YEAR.
Then they would be the independent leagues. Many independent / unaffiliated leagues do exist, but because they do not offer a direct path to the majors, they have a very low quality of play - the best are maybe slightly above A ball.
Independent leagues would likely try to fill the gaps in those communities.
If none of the minor league teams was affiliated with a major league team, you would likely see higher wages for minor league players, as minors teams competed for the best players. But right now, that is a less viable business model than the current minor league model of essentially leasing space to stage events, where you contract with a third party (MLB teams) to provide the performers.
As Joe mentioned, the best players on minor league teams pass through quickly and there is little continuity. As a fan of a minor league team, wouldn't it be better to have slightly lower quality of play, but players who stay on the team longer and develop more continuity?
I think it would certainly be a good thing, yes. However, I don’t think that’s what happens with independent leagues in practice. I think there actually tends to be greater turnover there, because the good players tend to jump to affiliated ball if given the chance.
There’s a really good book by Ben Lindbergh and Sam Miller “The Only Rule is it has to Work” about a season in the independent leagues. They come in as outsiders applying a sabermetric mindset to being a GM for the teams. One of the difficulties they face is the amount of turnover mid season, and how important relationships (which they don’t have) are to filling rosters amidst that turnover.
Fantastic book
Loved that book.