MLB: New PBA Proposal would Eliminate 25% of Minor League Baseball in 2021

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
MiLB: We’re in the endgame now
@KevFu it seems MLB wants a New Orleans back at The AAA level.

Or at least AA.

BTW, I said it would be "easier now" because so many of the minor league teams are going to be in dire financial straits with no 2020 season.

MLB can basically "bail out" 120 teams they want if they leave MILB and join the "MLB Affiliates" program. Or start buying the clubs they want to fold. The teams MLB wanted to cut were those with predominantly bad/old facilities, most of whom had lackluster attendance. The poorest 25 Minor League teams are probably on the MLB cut list.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
Or at least AA.

BTW, I said it would be "easier now" because so many of the minor league teams are going to be in dire financial straits with no 2020 season.

MLB can basically "bail out" 120 teams they want if they leave MILB and join the "MLB Affiliates" program. Or start buying the clubs they want to fold. The teams MLB wanted to cut were those with predominantly bad/old facilities, most of whom had lackluster attendance. The poorest 25 Minor League teams are probably on the MLB cut list.
Law: Even with baseball shut down, specter of minor-league... Paywall
One of the reasons behind the proposal is that is completely understandable is MLB is tired of having no say on where there prospects play with the current system of guaranteed PDC's for milb owners. The article above states that MLB want's to demote Fresno To High A and San Antonio and Wichita to AA in favor of Sugarland and Saint Paul and Another unnamed market New Orleans, Dayton or Richmond maybe?
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
A lot of that shows just how dumb some of their planning truly is.

The biggest reason the minors needs an overhaul is the allocations of teams not fitting geography: East coast teams with affiliates in the West.
Washington AAA is Fresno
Cincinnati, Chicago WS, Kansas City and Milwaukee have A+ teams in Montana, Idaho and Colorado
San Francisco has AA in Virginia
Tampa Bay has a A+ team in Ohio, while the Chicago teams in A+ are in North Carolina.
LA Dodgers have teams in Oklahoma, Alabama and Michigan


The smart way to do the minors is to:
Make an 8-team Western League at every level of the minors, and limit their affiliations to ONLY the Western MLB teams: LAA, LAD, SD, SF, OAK, ARZ, COL, SEA
Make an 8-team Central League at every level of the minors, and limit their affiliations to ONLY the Central MLB teams: MIN, MIL, CHC, CWS, STL, KC, HOU, TEX
Make two leagues, one 8 teams, one 6 teams (or a 14-team league geography permitting) at each level of the minors for the eastern teams.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
A lot of that shows just how dumb some of their planning truly is.

The biggest reason the minors needs an overhaul is the allocations of teams not fitting geography: East coast teams with affiliates in the West.
Washington AAA is Fresno
Cincinnati, Chicago WS, Kansas City and Milwaukee have A+ teams in Montana, Idaho and Colorado
San Francisco has AA in Virginia
Tampa Bay has a A+ team in Ohio, while the Chicago teams in A+ are in North Carolina.
LA Dodgers have teams in Oklahoma, Alabama and Michigan


The smart way to do the minors is to:
Make an 8-team Western League at every level of the minors, and limit their affiliations to ONLY the Western MLB teams: LAA, LAD, SD, SF, OAK, ARZ, COL, SEA
Make an 8-team Central League at every level of the minors, and limit their affiliations to ONLY the Central MLB teams: MIN, MIL, CHC, CWS, STL, KC, HOU, TEX
Make two leagues, one 8 teams, one 6 teams (or a 14-team league geography permitting) at each level of the minors for the eastern teams.
what does the above have to do with the elimination of 40 teams.....or in some cases entire established leagues?
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
what does the above have to do with the elimination of 40 teams.....or in some cases entire established leagues?

Only one whole league was getting dropped (which is a bad idea because it is an 8-team league in the West).
The entirety of MiLB is getting reorganized and only one league was untouched in the plan (the full details haven't leaked out yet).

The number of affiliated minor league teams is being dropped by 40, when MLB is a 30-team league because there isn't a rule that says every MLB team gets only one affiliate per level (just one per league), so eliminating one level of minor league ball (Short Season A Ball) and instituting a "one per level" rule ends up being a reduction of 40 teams and not 30. (The other 2 teams would be replaced by Sugarland and St. Paul independent ball teams.

And how they picked their teams was based on facility (team amenities, not fan amenities) and geography (allegedly).
The geography thing is semi-important when carving up 120 teams into different leagues. The result of this is going to be a mass shuffling of which MLB team is affiliated with which MiLB team, because they didn't cut one affiliate per team and then have each team shuffle up and down; they cut the worst facilities and then matched affiliates to teams (because lack of a geographic sense was part of the issue they were trying to solve).

For example, the list of 42 teams has zero Cubs affiliates on the list. So they'd have one team too many. So one of the Cubs affiliates would get a new parent club.








The overhaul isn't just eliminating teams. It's a total reorganization of the minors.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
Only one whole league was getting dropped (which is a bad idea because it is an 8-team league in the West).
The entirety of MiLB is getting reorganized and only one league was untouched in the plan (the full details haven't leaked out yet).

The number of affiliated minor league teams is being dropped by 40, when MLB is a 30-team league because there isn't a rule that says every MLB team gets only one affiliate per level (just one per league), so eliminating one level of minor league ball (Short Season A Ball) and instituting a "one per level" rule ends up being a reduction of 40 teams and not 30. (The other 2 teams would be replaced by Sugarland and St. Paul independent ball teams.

And how they picked their teams was based on facility (team amenities, not fan amenities) and geography (allegedly).
The geography thing is semi-important when carving up 120 teams into different leagues. The result of this is going to be a mass shuffling of which MLB team is affiliated with which MiLB team, because they didn't cut one affiliate per team and then have each team shuffle up and down; they cut the worst facilities and then matched affiliates to teams (because lack of a geographic sense was part of the issue they were trying to solve).

For example, the list of 42 teams has zero Cubs affiliates on the list. So they'd have one team too many. So one of the Cubs affiliates would get a new parent club.

so the only 2 clubs in jeopardy at Double A Eastern is Erie and Binghamton, Kev..... we're not realigning Richmond JUST BECAUSE the Giants are the affiliation








The overhaul isn't just eliminating teams. It's a total reorganization of the minors.
 

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,516
2,813
NW Burbs
A lot of that shows just how dumb some of their planning truly is.

The biggest reason the minors needs an overhaul is the allocations of teams not fitting geography: East coast teams with affiliates in the West.
Washington AAA is Fresno
Cincinnati, Chicago WS, Kansas City and Milwaukee have A+ teams in Montana, Idaho and Colorado
San Francisco has AA in Virginia
Tampa Bay has a A+ team in Ohio, while the Chicago teams in A+ are in North Carolina.
LA Dodgers have teams in Oklahoma, Alabama and Michigan


The smart way to do the minors is to:
Make an 8-team Western League at every level of the minors, and limit their affiliations to ONLY the Western MLB teams: LAA, LAD, SD, SF, OAK, ARZ, COL, SEA
Make an 8-team Central League at every level of the minors, and limit their affiliations to ONLY the Central MLB teams: MIN, MIL, CHC, CWS, STL, KC, HOU, TEX
Make two leagues, one 8 teams, one 6 teams (or a 14-team league geography permitting) at each level of the minors for the eastern teams.

The White Sox only have a Rookie ball team in Montana. Everything from A up is in NC or Alabama.

Chicago to Charlotte is a 2 hour flight, and Birmingham to Charlotte is 90 minutes. There's no need to have all their teams in the Midwest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHRDANHUTCH

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
so the only 2 clubs in jeopardy at Double A Eastern is Erie and Binghamton, Kev..... we're not realigning Richmond JUST BECAUSE the Giants are the affiliation

You're misinterpreting. The realignment is based on efficiency, travel, and the fact that MLB teams don't need to harvest thousands of minor leaguers to turn out a few major leaguers each year now that it's no longer 1964 anymore.

With that realignment comes to the opportunity to fix some of the ridiculous affiliation match-ups that have evolved over time. They're trying to jam round pegs into square holes because the system has evolved with zero geographic protections. Someone just loses a game of musical chairs every year. This is an opportunity to put the chairs in ideal spots.

The Padres called a kid up from SINGLE A to pitch in the majors because they couldn't get a AAA or AA pitcher to San Diego in time. Their A-ball team is in Southern California.



The White Sox only have a Rookie ball team in Montana. Everything from A up is in NC or Alabama.

Chicago to Charlotte is a 2 hour flight, and Birmingham to Charlotte is 90 minutes. There's no need to have all their teams in the Midwest.

It's not just about getting a player from point A to point B, it's really more about the team evaluating the players within their own system.
You're going to put your minor league directors on a loop from Chicago-North Carolina-Birmingham-Montana-Arizona.


You guys want to talk about how to optimize it, I'm game. But if you guys don't understand that things are jacked up down there, I don't know what to tell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Centrum Hockey

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
You're misinterpreting. The realignment is based on efficiency, travel, and the fact that MLB teams don't need to harvest thousands of minor leaguers to turn out a few major leaguers each year now that it's no longer 1964 anymore.

With that realignment comes to the opportunity to fix some of the ridiculous affiliation match-ups that have evolved over time. They're trying to jam round pegs into square holes because the system has evolved with zero geographic protections. Someone just loses a game of musical chairs every year. This is an opportunity to put the chairs in ideal spots.

The Padres called a kid up from SINGLE A to pitch in the majors because they couldn't get a AAA or AA pitcher to San Diego in time. Their A-ball team is in Southern California.





It's not just about getting a player from point A to point B, it's really more about the team evaluating the players within their own system.
You're going to put your minor league directors on a loop from Chicago-North Carolina-Birmingham-Montana-Arizona.

incorrect and not factual....


You guys want to talk about how to optimize it, I'm game. But if you guys don't understand that things are jacked up down there, I don't know what to tell you.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Let me put it this way... create a sports league in any sport, complete with a 4-tiered minor league system of affiliations, from scratch, on a blank piece of paper.

The end result would be no where close to what Minor League Baseball looks like.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
Let me put it this way... create a sports league in any sport, complete with a 4-tiered minor league system of affiliations, from scratch, on a blank piece of paper.

The end result would be no where close to what Minor League Baseball looks like.
your original post makes no sense, Kev.... WHO replaces Detroit if Erie goes away..... it has nothing to do with SF/Richmond
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
your original post makes no sense, Kev.... WHO replaces Detroit if Erie goes away..... it has nothing to do with SF/Richmond
We don’t know who replaces who yet the list isn’t out there. JJ cooper’s article in Baseball America says it’s coming soon.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
your original post makes no sense, Kev.... WHO replaces Detroit if Erie goes away..... it has nothing to do with SF/Richmond

The original post was simply listing a bunch of things that are jacked up and need to be resolved in any reorganization plan.

Who replaces Detroit if Erie goes away? (I assume you mean, who is Detroit's AA affiliate without Erie), that depends who's moving in and out of the AA level.
Erie, Binghamton (Eastern League) and Chattanooga and Jackson (Southern League) would be cut. Brooklyn (Mets' A+ team) is replacing Binghamton (Mets AA team) in the Eastern League.

So there'd be three AA spots filled by teams moving up from A or down from AAA. But it's also possible that OTHER AA teams would be dropping to A, and different A or AA would be joining AA.

Pulaski TN would be the only Appalachian League team to survive, so they could be going to the Southern League.
Pulaski is the Yankees affiliate, and they have a AA team already in Trenton, so the Yankees would have to sever ties with one; likely Pulaski.

Detroit, Cincinnati and Arizona would need new AA affiliations, and have to play musical chairs with Pulaski and 2 others.
But again, possible that other AA teams would be dropping to A, and different A or AA would be joining AA.


You're getting hung up on tiny details of a plan not fully unveiled yet. Think big picture. Does it make sense to cut Western teams? No. Not with San Francisco, Colorado, Los Angeles and Arizona having affiliates in Richmond, Hartford, and Tennessee.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
The original post was simply listing a bunch of things that are jacked up and need to be resolved in any reorganization plan.

Who replaces Detroit if Erie goes away? (I assume you mean, who is Detroit's AA affiliate without Erie), that depends who's moving in and out of the AA level.
Erie, Binghamton (Eastern League) and Chattanooga and Jackson (Southern League) would be cut. Brooklyn (Mets' A+ team) is replacing Binghamton (Mets AA team) in the Eastern League.

So there'd be three AA spots filled by teams moving up from A or down from AAA. But it's also possible that OTHER AA teams would be dropping to A, and different A or AA would be joining AA.

Pulaski TN would be the only Appalachian League team to survive, so they could be going to the Southern League.
Pulaski is the Yankees affiliate, and they have a AA team already in Trenton, so the Yankees would have to sever ties with one; likely Pulaski.

Detroit, Cincinnati and Arizona would need new AA affiliations, and have to play musical chairs with Pulaski and 2 others.
But again, possible that other AA teams would be dropping to A, and different A or AA would be joining AA.


You're getting hung up on tiny details of a plan not fully unveiled yet. Think big picture. Does it make sense to cut Western teams? No. Not with San Francisco, Colorado, Los Angeles and Arizona having affiliates in Richmond, Hartford, and Tennessee.
The 2019 list has been reported as outdated. Recently there has been talk about San Antonio and Wichita moving to the Texas league.
 

Centrum Hockey

Registered User
Aug 2, 2018
2,089
727
Yeah, people are cutting deals. I'd love to see the current concept and rip it to shreds.
Buying teams outright for cheap is a good tactic to get the more outspoken milb owners to go away.
 
Last edited:

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
The original post was simply listing a bunch of things that are jacked up and need to be resolved in any reorganization plan.

Who replaces Detroit if Erie goes away? (I assume you mean, who is Detroit's AA affiliate without Erie), that depends who's moving in and out of the AA level.
Erie, Binghamton (Eastern League) and Chattanooga and Jackson (Southern League) would be cut. Brooklyn (Mets' A+ team) is replacing Binghamton (Mets AA team) in the Eastern League.

So there'd be three AA spots filled by teams moving up from A or down from AAA. But it's also possible that OTHER AA teams would be dropping to A, and different A or AA would be joining AA.

Pulaski TN would be the only Appalachian League team to survive, so they could be going to the Southern League.
Pulaski is the Yankees affiliate, and they have a AA team already in Trenton, so the Yankees would have to sever ties with one; likely Pulaski.

Detroit, Cincinnati and Arizona would need new AA affiliations, and have to play musical chairs with Pulaski and 2 others.
But again, possible that other AA teams would be dropping to A, and different A or AA would be joining AA.


You're getting hung up on tiny details of a plan not fully unveiled yet. Think big picture. Does it make sense to cut Western teams? No. Not with San Francisco, Colorado, Los Angeles and Arizona having affiliates in Richmond, Hartford, and Tennessee.

not buying any of your opinionated posts, Kev
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->