- Thread Author
- #71,561
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 194,596
MLB Executives Weigh in on the Implications of MiLB Contraction.
Almost inexplicably, the proposed contraction of 42 minor league teams has largely become second-page news. Baseball?s biggest story just a few short months ago, a potentially cataclysmic alteration of the game?s landscape has found itself overshadowed by cheating scandals, managerial mayhem, and the controversial trade of a superstar by a deep-pocketed team. In arguably one of the most-tumultuous off-seasons ever, a hugely-important issue lies almost dormant within the news cycle.
Here at FanGraphs, we?re doing our best not to let that happen. My colleague Craig Edwards is taking an in-depth look at the situation ? expect those articles in the coming days ? and what you?re seeing here serves as a lead-in to his efforts. My own opinions aren?t included. What follows are the thoughts of a handful of high-ranking MLB executives, the bulk of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In the opinion of one GM, lawsuits are likely, if not inevitable. Speaking on the record would thus be an invitation to trouble. Another pointed out that the ongoing discussions are at the league level, and independent of individual teams. For that reason, offering a public opinion wouldn?t be in his best interest.
With no exception, each executive expressed that his organization?s bottom line is to optimize player development, regardless of the structure of the minor leagues. An American League GM put it this way:
?I don?t think [contraction] would change our operations that much in terms of what we?re focused on internally. We want to put the best resources in front of our players, and whether we have 10 minor league teams, five minor league teams, or somewhere in between, we?re going to do the same thing.?
Continuity came up multiple times. Asked if all organizations would be impacted equally by contraction, one executive pointed out that some organizations have multiple DSL teams, or multiple rookie-league teams, while others don?t. As he put it, ?I?m of the camp that the more consistent we are in terms of number of teams, and number of players across minor-league baseball? that?s something I?d be supportive of.?
All agreed that losing a short-season team could prove problematic in terms of promotions. For instance, what do you do if a player in the Gulf Coast League is deemed ready for the New York-Penn League, but not for the South-Atlantic League? In essence, you?d either have to leave him stagnant or double-jump him to a level potentially deleterious to his development. Again, the importance of continuity. If all organizations face the same challenges, you have a more-level playing field.
A National League GM who weighed in on the question agreed. He also rued the idea that an indeterminate number of potential overachievers would never get that chance.
?There is definitely a subset of players that shouldn?t be making that double jump. With a lot of affiliates, you don?t face that challenge. The more players you have? it makes for a lot of good stories. Guys come out of nowhere. In that sense, I don?t love the idea of reducing it down.?
And then there are the towns. Losing a baseball team impacts a community, not just in terms of the fan experience, but also economically. One executive in particular was thoughtful when addressing that issue:
?Philosophically, is minor-league baseball entirely for player development, or is it also a business for these towns? We have prospects here, but we also have 12 kids who were drafted in order to give those other 12 someone to play with. Are we OK that this is part development, part entertainment business? We?re spending money on kids who are drafted and developed, in order to give players to that business. This is a philosophical question that needs to be answered.?
It is widely recognized that MLB owners have the money to continue ?subsidizing,? and they could afford to do so more generously. This is especially true when it comes to minor-league salaries, which are a drop in the bucket compared to other expenditures. Eliminating affiliates isn?t necessary for that to happen. Therein lies the business part of the equation, which is intertwined with the greater good of the game. One executive I spoke to freely admitted that the best interests of MLB owners and the best interests of baseball as a whole aren?t the same thing.
The timing of June?s amateur draft came up multiple times. The consensus was that the draft should be pushed back, perhaps to the All-Star break, and that?s whether contraction goes forward or not.
Which brings us to the contentious negotiations between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball. As one of the aforementioned executives pointed out, those are taking place beyond the purview of individual teams ? all he and his brethren can do is wait for a resolution, and then act according. Which doesn?t mean there aren?t things they?d like to see happen.
?I just want it to be well thought out,? expressed one of the NL execs. ?I don?t want the tail to wag the dog. I think that?s the way it is now: the tail wags the dog. We have all these short-season affiliates, we have to draft 40 rounds, we?re filling out rosters. What we have now isn?t ideal. The way it?s set up could definitely be optimized.?
Fangraphs
Almost inexplicably, the proposed contraction of 42 minor league teams has largely become second-page news. Baseball?s biggest story just a few short months ago, a potentially cataclysmic alteration of the game?s landscape has found itself overshadowed by cheating scandals, managerial mayhem, and the controversial trade of a superstar by a deep-pocketed team. In arguably one of the most-tumultuous off-seasons ever, a hugely-important issue lies almost dormant within the news cycle.
Here at FanGraphs, we?re doing our best not to let that happen. My colleague Craig Edwards is taking an in-depth look at the situation ? expect those articles in the coming days ? and what you?re seeing here serves as a lead-in to his efforts. My own opinions aren?t included. What follows are the thoughts of a handful of high-ranking MLB executives, the bulk of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In the opinion of one GM, lawsuits are likely, if not inevitable. Speaking on the record would thus be an invitation to trouble. Another pointed out that the ongoing discussions are at the league level, and independent of individual teams. For that reason, offering a public opinion wouldn?t be in his best interest.
With no exception, each executive expressed that his organization?s bottom line is to optimize player development, regardless of the structure of the minor leagues. An American League GM put it this way:
?I don?t think [contraction] would change our operations that much in terms of what we?re focused on internally. We want to put the best resources in front of our players, and whether we have 10 minor league teams, five minor league teams, or somewhere in between, we?re going to do the same thing.?
Continuity came up multiple times. Asked if all organizations would be impacted equally by contraction, one executive pointed out that some organizations have multiple DSL teams, or multiple rookie-league teams, while others don?t. As he put it, ?I?m of the camp that the more consistent we are in terms of number of teams, and number of players across minor-league baseball? that?s something I?d be supportive of.?
All agreed that losing a short-season team could prove problematic in terms of promotions. For instance, what do you do if a player in the Gulf Coast League is deemed ready for the New York-Penn League, but not for the South-Atlantic League? In essence, you?d either have to leave him stagnant or double-jump him to a level potentially deleterious to his development. Again, the importance of continuity. If all organizations face the same challenges, you have a more-level playing field.
A National League GM who weighed in on the question agreed. He also rued the idea that an indeterminate number of potential overachievers would never get that chance.
?There is definitely a subset of players that shouldn?t be making that double jump. With a lot of affiliates, you don?t face that challenge. The more players you have? it makes for a lot of good stories. Guys come out of nowhere. In that sense, I don?t love the idea of reducing it down.?
And then there are the towns. Losing a baseball team impacts a community, not just in terms of the fan experience, but also economically. One executive in particular was thoughtful when addressing that issue:
?Philosophically, is minor-league baseball entirely for player development, or is it also a business for these towns? We have prospects here, but we also have 12 kids who were drafted in order to give those other 12 someone to play with. Are we OK that this is part development, part entertainment business? We?re spending money on kids who are drafted and developed, in order to give players to that business. This is a philosophical question that needs to be answered.?
It is widely recognized that MLB owners have the money to continue ?subsidizing,? and they could afford to do so more generously. This is especially true when it comes to minor-league salaries, which are a drop in the bucket compared to other expenditures. Eliminating affiliates isn?t necessary for that to happen. Therein lies the business part of the equation, which is intertwined with the greater good of the game. One executive I spoke to freely admitted that the best interests of MLB owners and the best interests of baseball as a whole aren?t the same thing.
The timing of June?s amateur draft came up multiple times. The consensus was that the draft should be pushed back, perhaps to the All-Star break, and that?s whether contraction goes forward or not.
Which brings us to the contentious negotiations between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball. As one of the aforementioned executives pointed out, those are taking place beyond the purview of individual teams ? all he and his brethren can do is wait for a resolution, and then act according. Which doesn?t mean there aren?t things they?d like to see happen.
?I just want it to be well thought out,? expressed one of the NL execs. ?I don?t want the tail to wag the dog. I think that?s the way it is now: the tail wags the dog. We have all these short-season affiliates, we have to draft 40 rounds, we?re filling out rosters. What we have now isn?t ideal. The way it?s set up could definitely be optimized.?
Fangraphs
