The Independent Minors - Post Anti-Trust

[SmedIndy]

How would the minors be affected without an anti-trust exemption, and if the minors were declared free, (or would desire some freedom).

If the minors were totally free from the National Agreement, I don't think it would cause anarchy or chaos. What could happen would be a system where:

1. MLB owns some minor league clubs.

2. Each MLB team could have separate agreements to provide a certain amount of players to minor league clubs at all levels.

3. Each minor league team would be free to sign its own players in accordance to league rules.

4. Each minor league would set salary caps, veteran limits (defining vets as over 25 or over 4 years of pro experience, or something like that) depending on what level they want to compete.

5. Each MLB team would probably only control 30 to 50 players, and they would be who they consider the top prospects.

6. The other minor league teams could sell their players to major league teams or higher level minor league teams. This would eliminate the over-use of a player because it will be in the best interest of a team to make sure they are not peddling damaged goods. And the players could make decisions on where they would like to play in order to move up, or get signed by a major league team that needs help at their particular positon.

A lot of this looks like AAA baseball the way it is now, where there's only a few prospects and the rest of the guys are just waiting for catastrophe. But it would mean the teams in the minors would be trying to win, not just develop players or sell merchandise.

I have reservations about consistent coaching in this system, but if the anti-trust exemption goes, and there's a push to free up the minors, it could work without catastrophe. It worked before during the halcyon days of the minor leagues.

Mind you, I'm not a zealot for the free minors, but if it happens, it won't be death of the minors. It may be another rebirth.

[sweaver]

Judge Landis was a benefit to baseball on the whole, but he made two major mistakes as Commissioner, IMO. His prejudice held up the integration of the major leagues for at least a few years, and he allowed the major leagues to take over the minors.

In the 1920s and 30s, as Branch Rickey began building the St. Louis Cardinals minor league system (soon imitated by others), Landis objected, set up roadblocks, named free agents, and other actions, but allowed minor league systems to be built, against his better judgment. I think he should have disallowed major league clubs owning minor league teams from the beginning.

Can we ever go back to a free minor leagues? Good question. We've gone the other way for so long, it would be difficult. A structure would have to be set up, where clubs would be able to get money from teams in higher leagues purchasing contracts of their players, a certain amount of control of player contracts for a certain amount of time. It would take innovation and vision.

In other words, Bud Selig could never manage it.

[satchel]

Thanks for the post, Smed. Your perspective as a person knowledgable about minor league ball is illuminating. I hope it's all right if I ask a few questions.

I wonder if you could elaborate on some of the advantages of this system over the existing system? You have mentioned that current minor league teams don't compete to win, since they view their primary role as farms for the majors. Wouldn't the minor league playing at the highest level still suffer from this problem, as the prospects associated with major league clubs will be essentially like today's AAA players? I am also not entirely clear why you would have point 1, MLB owning some minor league clubs. Do you mean MLB, or MLB teams? I am also not clear why this scheme needs the end of the antitrust exemption to go forward. Is it only because while there's an exemption there is simply no incentive to change the present system?

I appreciate your taking the time to educate me (and all of us) on how the minors could be changed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The free minor leagues were fixed when they weren't broke. This diminished minor league baseball severely, because the local teams weren't free to win.

In the past minor leagues were "minor" because they played in smaller cities. The better minors were somewhat like Japanese baseball is now, in relation to the majors, particularly the Pacific Coast League. The International League's Baltimore Orioles were probably better than a number of major league teams in the early 1920s. A career minor leaguer purchased by a major league team at age 29 wasn't a "rookie" any more than Ichiro was last year.

The obstacle to re-forming this is two-fold:

1. The ever-prevailing "big-league" mentality that limits allegiance to free minor league teams, and:

2. A free minor league system would probably (and show me if I'm wrong on this, please) work against the small market teams, who need the present lord/vassal relationship to keep the farm going to churn out young players in order to stay competitive. They can't afford too much messing with that.

Over the long haul, I suspect that the colleges will replace the minor leagues as the developmental vehicle for young players. It's already happening, to some degree; college players are more MLB ready than ever before.

[moose]

i think that in terms of fan base, the minors fair better when linked to major league teams. thus people think they're seeing the "Cubs Minor League Team," not just the Whoville Marauders (or whatever).

Then again, this can create a problem. One of my best friends is a lifelong Indians fan and hates the Yankees. His problem is that he's from Columbus, and used to go the AAA games and root for all the guys on the Yankees now!

[pathogan]

Smed, that post was illuminating...can you explain how that would keep the richest teams again from scooping up the best talent outside their"pool'? Maybe im simply dense, though I dont understand that...thanks

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by satchel
Thanks for the post, Smed. Your perspective as a person knowledgable about minor league ball is illuminating. I hope it's all right if I ask a few questions.

I wonder if you could elaborate on some of the advantages of this system over the existing system? You have mentioned that current minor league teams don't compete to win, since they view their primary role as farms for the majors. Wouldn't the minor league playing at the highest level still suffer from this problem, as the prospects associated with major league clubs will be essentially like today's AAA players? I am also not entirely clear why you would have point 1, MLB owning some minor league clubs. Do you mean MLB, or MLB teams? I am also not clear why this scheme needs the end of the antitrust exemption to go forward. Is it only because while there's an exemption there is simply no incentive to change the present system?

I appreciate your taking the time to educate me (and all of us) on how the minors could be changed.

It would be MLB teams. Many NHL teams own their AHL franchises outright.

And yes, there would still be some development issues in the higher level , but since the teams would be of higher quality, then it wouldn't be as farcical as it is now. Teams would probably want to put their prospects in an age-sensitive enviornment at first, and AAA would be as it is now. And of all the minors, in AAA the teams play to win for the most part.

The anti-trust exemption would take away the "monopoly" that is minor league baseball, I believe. Although the independent minors are competing, and some competing well.

Basically, this would only happen if the minor league owners had enough of the current system, or it was mandated by the court, and I don't see the former happening but the latter could.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by pathogan
Smed, that post was illuminating...can you explain how that would keep the richest teams again from scooping up the best talent outside their"pool'? Maybe im simply dense, though I dont understand that...thanks

Well, I'd assume there'd still be a draft for talent, but it may be smaller in scope, only 10 - 12 rounds or so.

The talent that is not drafted would need to sign deals that is in their best interest as a player. If you are a starting pitcher, and are independent and could sign with any team, you'd want to sign with a team that gives you a legit shot to make the bigs this season.

[satchel]

That's quite an interesting idea. I wonder what the ultimate effect on the major league product would be, if any. Perhaps teams will be less likely to sign overrated veterans and keep their prospects locked in the minors, because the prospects can flee and sign with teams that give them a better chance to make the bigs. If so, that would obviously be great. On the other hand, a prospect that hasn't been a long-term investment might be overlooked. Major league clubs might have to expand the scale of their scouting operations. And the minor leagues will have to scout each other extensively as well.

I've been thinking about the occasional player you hear about like Mike Piazza, who was something like the 1000th player drafted, the very very last pick. Such players are not likely to become starts like Piazza did but some of them probably do make the majors in utility roles (Menechino comes to mind as another similar example). In Smed's proposal, these guys might take paying jobs with the lower-level leagues and hope to climb the ladder. Maybe not that different from how it worked for them within a farm system though.