2019 MLB Winter Meetings Grande Thread

[weams]

4 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Good article. Best explanation I've read of MLB's side of the story.

Thanks. I thought so. 

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

Good article. Best explanation I've read of MLB's side of the story.

It's a solid argument.

[7Mo]

So help me here. Most teams have 6-7 affiliates and this plan would reduce that to 5. Most teams support 212 players and this would reduce that number to 160.

Are major league teams committed, now, to keeping 6-7 affiliates and 212 players? Why wouldn't each MLB team make their own choices and decisions about reducing?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

So help me here. Most teams have 6-7 affiliates and this plan would reduce that to 5. Most teams support 212 players and this would reduce that number to 160.

Are major league teams committed, now, to keeping 6-7 affiliates and 212 players? Why wouldn't each MLB team make their own choices and decisions about reducing?

Teams can add or drop affiliates, the O's dropped one not too long ago. 

 

[weams]

5 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

So help me here. Most teams have 6-7 affiliates and this plan would reduce that to 5. Most teams support 212 players and this would reduce that number to 160.

Are major league teams committed, now, to keeping 6-7 affiliates and 212 players? Why wouldn't each MLB team make their own choices and decisions about reducing?

They will. And they will find places for them to play. If not at the current affiliated locations. 

[weams]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Teams can add or drop affiliates, the O's dropped one not too long ago. 

 

Bluefield, Haggerstown, Ottawa and Rochester.  Maybe more. 

[7Mo]

1 minute ago, weams said:

They will. And they will find places for them to play. If not at the current affiliated locations. 

I understand independent leagues and teams.

I'm trying to figure out why MLB is making an issue of this when each team should be able to make their own choices. Is MLB just carrying the sword on behalf of teams who would prefer not to be the first to drop affiliates down to 5 total?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, 7Mo said:

I understand independent leagues and teams.

I'm trying to figure out why MLB is making an issue of this when each team should be able to make their own choices. Is MLB just carrying the sword on behalf of teams who would prefer not to be the first to drop affiliates down to 5 total?

It is a total restructuring, not only are teams being cut leagues will be altered and eliminated.. 

[7Mo]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

It is a total restructuring, not only are teams being cut leagues will be altered and eliminated.. 

I get that. But I still don't understand why the league is doing this rather than individual clubs. 

Maybe the answer is sweeping and drastic changes all at once because the bargaining power is so much greater that way. 

[Satyr3206]

This ties in to a thread I posted a while back. It's all about the money. They say the players will be paid more and better conditions blah, blah, blah. I doubt it. Once they eliminate teams, if they do, then they hold an even stronger position over the Minors. 

Some of the statements in the article about the Majors side are laughable. One said the Minors don't make a profit. Well they help produce Major League players that people pay to see and help TV ratings, jersey sales, etc. So I say they do help the ML club profit. If MLB is so concerned about facilities work out an arrangement with the Colleges and HS teams they mention. MLB won't improve the facilities with their money and I doubt the local governments will bail them out.

I think part of the logic of MLB is to winnow the field hoping more people will watch and attend MLB games because there are fewer choices. But I doubt they come out and admit it.

My bottom line is that this is a terrible long term decision and it will hurt Baseball in the long term. They should look at this from a long term perspective. Not how much it puts back in their pockets right now.

[Tryptamine]

It's a guise to put more money in mlb owner pockets. They've done it over and over. They added the slotting system to lower draft costs pretending it was for competitive reasons. They instituted a soft salary cap that only escalates 2M a year pretending, once again, pretending that it was for competitive reasons.  They're pushing for an international draft pretending it's going to keep the kids from getting taken advantage of when all it does is lower their signing bonuses. Now they want to cut MILB teams and just recently Manfred mentioned removing milb entirely and creating their own minor league system. This would allow them to negotiate with milb park owners individually, essentially crushing their union and removing just about all their leverage. Manfred isn't there to make baseball better, he's an owner mouthpiece tasked with putting money in their pockets. 

[Oriole1940]

I have not studied this topic, so I cannot get specific. However, after having watched  MLB operate for many years, it just might be a perceived short term solution to a perceived problem, but I would bet that in the long run it will not help the players.  Sure some players salaries MIGHT rise slightly, but there will be fewer players, fewer teams, and less help to local economies as the result of this proposal. Remember. minor leagues are the life blood of MLB.