What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
I was curious about what's happening with prospects not assigned to the 60 man so I googled it. I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on how this will affect prospects, how many will comeback, how the coming reduction in minor league teams will affect next year's prospect pools and how players are trainng in the interim. It appears there are no camps and players are on their own. Anyone have links to stories about guys training themselves? Surely teams are not just letting guys like Austin Hendrick and Rece Hinds just sit uninstructed - not with the investment they have in them already....
https://sports.yahoo.com/with-their-...023305479.html
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
I personally think you will see a massive number of minor leaguers released all over baseball. The top 50 or so real prospects in each organization will remain and all the others will be free agents and teams will sign whoever they need to fill holes. There may be a few organizational guys who may be kept around because the team has plans for a future in coaching or scouting. I'm guessing as the season goes on and teams figure out which AAAA guys they need and which they don't, some of the guys on the 60 man roster get let go and teams fill with prospects not already there just to get a look at them for 2 or 3 weeks.
This is all just a guess of course.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedlegJake
Surely teams are not just letting guys like Austin Hendrick and Rece Hinds just sit uninstructed - not with the investment they have in them already....
Williams, Boddy, and others have discussed this in various interviews. Instructors and coaches apparently spend a bunch of time watching video. They also push prospects to go to places like Driveline (or the equivalent in hitting) to work out and work on their craft. For some prospects, they have much more stringent one-on-one working relationships and expectations than others. (I'd guess Hendricks and Hinds are two of those.)
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RedlegJake
I was curious about what's happening with prospects not assigned to the 60 man so I googled it. I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on how this will affect prospects, how many will comeback, how the coming reduction in minor league teams will affect next year's prospect pools and how players are trainng in the interim. It appears there are no camps and players are on their own. Anyone have links to stories about guys training themselves? Surely teams are not just letting guys like Austin Hendrick and Rece Hinds just sit uninstructed - not with the investment they have in them already....
https://sports.yahoo.com/with-their-...023305479.html
Rece Hinds was recently added to the 60-player pool. https://redlegnation.com/2020/08/07/...n-player-pool/
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mth123
I personally think you will see a massive number of minor leaguers released all over baseball. The top 50 or so real prospects in each organization will remain and all the others will be free agents and teams will sign whoever they need to fill holes.
That would be two minor league teams in total.
I just don't think they can make it work with just 50 guys.
I suspect they'll have 75 - 100 legitimate prospect guys and a few "lifers", but set up differently. There won't be as many teams or leagues, obviously, and rosters will be remarkably fluid. This will likely (IMO) result in limited eyes on minor leaguers and a difficult time scouting or assessing those in lower levels especially. Lots of intrasquad and intracomplex "games" with no score kept too.
In short, it's going to be next to impossible to gauge the building of a farm until guys start playing "real" games in an advanced league. Even then, the information will be limited.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
If the minors are reduced to 4 teams from A- thru AAA that's a 100 players, right now teams have as many as 225 under contract so we'll probably see 2-3 thousand cut. Independent leagues will likely get better talent (like my local Saint Jospeh Mustangs in the MINK league) but I guess a lot of fringe prospects will get on with new careers outside of baseball. I wonder if training leagues like Arizona will still have a bunch of players unassigned to the 4 regular MiL teams and whether or not the Instructional leagues will expand to keep a pool of players. I'd think so, if nothing else just to have a ready feeder system for affiliates.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
I wonder if it'll be similar to the Cuban Leagues, wherein super young guys get limited playing time behind veterans for a couple of years before taking their spot?
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
This pandemic season seems to perfectly play into a permanent minor league reduction. Not entirely sure on the status of the four minor league team proposal (A- to AAA), but after a year of no minor league baseball, it'll be easy slim things down. There will be less general awareness of teams and players, poof, some teams will be no more or retain their identity as part of an independent league. Worst, they'll play it off as a financial necessity.
The popularity of baseball is shrinking. No idea if the finances are in-line, but this is how a sport starts to dwindle. Start getting rid of the nonessentials, like the minor league teams that spur interest in small cities all across the country. I don't care if McKinsey says it's the smart financial play, it's terrible for the game of baseball. It will result in less baseball being played, in less baseball players being paid and less small town enthusiasm for baseball. It's short-sighted and serves nobody but ownership.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bourgeois Zee
That would be two minor league teams in total.
I just don't think they can make it work with just 50 guys.
I suspect they'll have 75 - 100 legitimate prospect guys and a few "lifers", but set up differently. There won't be as many teams or leagues, obviously, and rosters will be remarkably fluid. This will likely (IMO) result in limited eyes on minor leaguers and a difficult time scouting or assessing those in lower levels especially. Lots of intrasquad and intracomplex "games" with no score kept too.
In short, it's going to be next to impossible to gauge the building of a farm until guys start playing "real" games in an advanced league. Even then, the information will be limited.
Maybe, but my guess is the top 50 or even 100 has a lot of redundancy at some positions and not enough at others, so 50 players might include say 5 SS and 8 Catchers and only Six outfielders. If they want say, 4 teams, some of those players will be non-prospects just to fill the holes. 50 May not be the right number, but it will be less than taking however many teams remain after the purge and filling those team with internal guys. Again, my opinion. They could go the other way and keep everybody and let them fight it out in Spring training, but I don't see the point in reducing the number of teams if they do that.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BillDoran
This pandemic season seems to perfectly play into a permanent minor league reduction. Not entirely sure on the status of the four minor league team proposal (A- to AAA), but after a year of no minor league baseball, it'll be easy slim things down. There will be less general awareness of teams and players, poof, some teams will be no more or retain their identity as part of an independent league. Worst, they'll play it off as a financial necessity.
The popularity of baseball is shrinking. No idea if the finances are in-line, but this is how a sport starts to dwindle. Start getting rid of the nonessentials, like the minor league teams that spur interest in small cities all across the country. I don't care if McKinsey says it's the smart financial play, it's terrible for the game of baseball. It will result in less baseball being played, in less baseball players being paid and less small town enthusiasm for baseball. It's short-sighted and serves nobody but ownership.
I've thought this too, but I really wonder how much those minor league teams spur interest. Back in the old days, it was the only way to see baseball. Now you can watch almost every major league game every day from anywhere in the country. That whole "going to see the the local A Ball team" thing isn't the only option any more. If I was a kid today, I'd rather stay home and watch the big leaguers. Heck, I was a kid who grew up in a minor league town in the 60s and even then, I'd have rather stayed home and listened to the Reds on Radio as opposed to going to see the local minor league team.
I think this notion is more nostalgia than reality any more. Just my opinion, but I can't imagine the few fans who do end up being reached through a mino rle ague team in town is worth the cost.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mth123
I've thought this too, but I really wonder how much those minor league teams spur interest. Back in the old days, it was the only way to see baseball. Now you can watch almost every major league game every day from anywhere in the country. That whole "going to see the the local A Ball team" thing isn't the only option any more. If I was a kid today, I'd rather stay home and watch the big leaguers. Heck, I was a kid who grew up in a minor league town in the 60s and even then, I'd have rather stayed home and listened to the Reds on Radio as opposed to going to see the local minor league team.
I think this notion is more nostalgia than reality any more. Just my opinion, but I can't imagine the few fans who do end up being reached through a mino rle ague team in town is worth the cost.
I don't think minor league baseball is meant to primarily spur interest. That's secondary or tertiary to just having fun watching the game in person.
Minor league baseball is also much, much, much cheaper than the alternate MLB offering. Drinking a $3 beer while watching a game is tough to beat.
Attendance is up five-fold over the 1970s so it must be doing pretty well.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mth123
I've thought this too, but I really wonder how much those minor league teams spur interest. Back in the old days, it was the only way to see baseball. Now you can watch almost every major league game every day from anywhere in the country. That whole "going to see the the local A Ball team" thing isn't the only option any more. If I was a kid today, I'd rather stay home and watch the big leaguers. Heck, I was a kid who grew up in a minor league town in the 60s and even then, I'd have rather stayed home and listened to the Reds on Radio as opposed to going to see the local minor league team.
I think this notion is more nostalgia than reality any more. Just my opinion, but I can't imagine the few fans who do end up being reached through a mino rle ague team in town is worth the cost.
There's certainly some nostalgia and personal sentiment mixed into my thoughts on the subject.
But as someone that grew up in the Dayton area when the Dragons arrived, it's hard to state what it meant, and continues to mean, to the city. I've also bounced around the country in my early adulthood, and in each city the minor league team was a central summer attraction. Crowds were never huge--and in Portland the Beavers were booted for an MLS team--but it was community, and the smaller the city the more the team seemed to mean to the community. As I've lived in some smaller cities in the Midwest where there is an incredible cloud of pessimism amidst departing businesses and declining populations, the baseball team seemed to be one of the anchors of civic pride. The bailing of minor league baseball seems to be one more divestment from cities that have little to cheer for.
Minor league teams, even drawing 1,500 people a night, were entertainment, but they were also a connection to the other cities in the league; and probably most important a tie to the Major Leagues. Stars, on their way up or down, or rehabbing, gave everybody something to cheer for, sometime to be excited about. It was something to do in cities where there is increasingly less; to do, to see, to be proud of. I'm probably being a bit to dire here, but the small cities in the Midwest are hurting. It's an ongoing barrage of struggling school systems, difficult city finances and a general sense of decline. It's hard, and these games were always a bright spot, and in many cases had been a part of the civic fabric for decades.
So, my thoughts on MLB pulling up stakes in these towns is tied to my feelings on the reality of life in the contemporary Midwest. It feels unnecessary and cold-hearted, but when the bottom-line is king, this is how things always unfold.
Re: What about the minor leaguers not on the 60?
As a kid I never would have been as much of a fan if the Charleston Wheelers weren't ten minutes down the road, even if I only went to four games a year or whatever my family was willing to go to. I never would have had a ton of cool experiences (and done a lot of growing up) if I hadn't worked later for the Alley Cats. Even if the WV Power only draw 1800 a game (shocking how much their attendance has decreased in the last decade), I believe people value the franchise, and you can't tell me with a straight face that a ballpark that opened in 2005 is in the bottom 25% of minor league stadiums.
I see Manfred's bottom-line obsession as being hand in glove with the general trend of the game, and indeed the world: min/max everything, save $20 now even if it'll cost you $200 later, screw sentimentality and what fans want, gimme mine.
