THE BIG CHANGE IN THE LITTLE SHOW

 The current MLB and minor league cooperative contract has expired. MLB is making a dramatic move on how it treats the minor league system.

In the past, the minor leagues were independent ball clubs. Minor league teams created their own leagues. Those leagues then made agreements with MLB in regard to player contracts. MLB teams draft and sign players to contracts. Those contracts are "assigned" to a minor a league club that has a working developmental agreement. Major league teams helps pay certain costs and provides staff such as head coach and pitching staff to minor league teams. Minor league teams were responsible for scheduling games, paying players, and coaching them for promotion. But not all players on a minor league roster have a major league agreement. During a season, a minor league team can "sell" or assign their player contracts to their affiliate major league team. In the past, this is how many smaller minor league owners made a good deal of money for their teams.

In 2020, the minor league system, relying on attendance as a major revenue source, shut down. 

As a result, MLB teams decided to create 60 man squads (40 man roster plus another 20 players). The teams split them into an active roster (for most of the season) and a training squad at a separate location to fill in for injured players. It did provide top prospects the opportunity to reach the major leagues quicker than the normal path.

The MLB split squad concept worked well. We thought that MLB may decide to eliminate the minor league system in favor of a modified in-house training squad. But MLB had a bigger fish to catch.

MLB had been hinting that it wanted to eliminate at least 40 minor league teams from their affiliate status with major league clubs. Minor league baseball teams, especially the lower classes in small rural markets, were upset by that proposal. 

MLBTR reports that changes for MLB and MiLB’s working partnership have been moved forward.  The agreement between the two entities recently expired, and MLB now plans to bring the minor league system under their governance. MLB took a big step towards accomplishing their goals this week.

MLB released a statement announcing their plans to transplant the minor league offices to MLB’s headquarters in New York City, per Bill Shaikin of the Los Angeles Times. Shaikin also notes that MLB is now referring to minor league clubs as “licensed affiliates.”

By joining the offices to MLB headquarters, the minors are now a branch of MLB, notes Maury Brown of Forbes. Part of this process is the hiring of Peter Freund and Trinity Sports Consultants to help MLB and their new “licensed affiliates” transition. Freund owns minor league clubs at three levels, and he is a partner with the Yankees. His broader responsibilities will be in spearheading MLB’s efforts to build a cohesive minor league system and “implementing a modern approach to player development,” per MLB’s statement.

It would seem that the old independent clubs are now being turned into minor league "MLB franchises" like your local McDonald's or Burger King. If true, MLB (and/or MLB clubs) will get to set standards and practices that all minor league teams must follow.

MLB has taken a lot of heat for their movement in this direction, specifically for insufficient minor league players salaries and the cutting of some 40 teams from the minor league system. Minor league ballplayers recently won early round of class action litigation when the Supreme Court denied MLB’s appeal, thereby granting players to move forward on their labor payroll lawsuit against Major League Baseball. Basically any minor league player since 2009 can now join the suit in suing MLB for violation of minimum wage laws. This is one of the many issues that MLB hopes to address over the coming months.

But one thing is certain: the traditional minor league system is going to drastically changed by MLB.

THE FUTURE

There has been one constant throughout the history of baseball: owners desire to make a profit.

In order to keep a competitive balance (and profit sharing), MLB has a luxury tax on payrolls currently pegged at $195 million. The penalty for going over the ceiling is 50 percent to 92 percent. This is a soft salary cap where big market teams like the Dodgers and Yankees can easily absorb.

But the future is rapidly changing that overspend model. The Yankees sold most of their interest in the YES Network, which was the cash cow that fueled those free agent filled teams. The Dodgers got a billion dollar team network deal with TW, which turned into a bust when cable operators balked at paying high subscription fees.

The cable industry, the tinder for the rapid rise in profits and player salaries, is losing three million subscribers a quarter. The biggest reason was the surcharge of sports network fees on monthly bills.  The second reason was the internet and other means of consuming sports than television sets. The third, and possibly most glaring reason, is that the younger generation is less interested in traditional sports franchises. Young kids are more involved in their technology of video games and e-sports than play baseball in the park. In addition, teams have made it almost cost prohibitive for a family to go attend a major league game.

The outside profit center for many teams, the publicly financed sweetheart ball park deal, like the cable money is going to go extinct. Not one publicly financed sports stadium has created an "economic boom" for the municipality. In fact, the associated debt with those deals can be crippling taxpayers. With more and more cities, counties and states in massive fiscal holes and bankruptcy, the community revolt against such capitalism welfare projects will end.

But on the other side, star players are looking for massive contracts. Bryce Harper nears free agency with agent speculation that he will demand anywhere from $30 million to $50 million per season. ESPN opined that Harper could easily become the first $500 million player in sports history. When baseball franchises are worth at the high tide level of $1.5 billion, a superstar player's demand for a third of the team value makes the business model absurd.

Teams are no longer owned or controlled by millionaires looking to massage their country club egos with sports championships. Most teams are corporations who have to answer to shareholders. Investors demand return on their capital in the form of dividends, earnings and appreciation. The easy cost control item on a team is payroll.

In the near future, baseball as a game will fundamentally change. There are growing calls to eliminate much of the subjective, human element of game by turning ball and strike calls over to computer grid technology. In essence, the game will be played without umpires - - - merely sensors and real time play reviews at the league office. But even the elimination of umpires will not drastically alter the erosion of the economics of the game.

If the next generation of fans accept virtual reality for reality, then baseball will probably forge ahead to create a digital platform to replace the timeless past time. Whether it be 3D or holographic representation of past, present or computer generated players, baseball could morph into super computer super charged video game.

Fans like their fantasy leagues. They like their smart phone apps. If baseball was compressed into a graphic rich, high octane video game, many would watch. The elimination of players, ball parks, infrastructure costs, team travel, etc. is like a dream to a team accountant.  If the owners can keep a fan base happy without incurring normal costs, then it is virtual game on.

Since most states have privacy and image rights laws, the new virtual baseball game would probably be run by superstar programmers than old player profiles. Instead of expensive Bryce Harper batting third for the Nationals, it could be RobotOF127. The league could set input parameters for team programmers in setting up algorithms for player stats/performance guides. The league would then run on its own servers simulated games using those team rosters. Whether there would be an real time manager making decisions or strategy calls would be possible. It would also be possible that teams would employ a few gamers to act as pitcher, hitters and fielders to add a "human" element to the simulated game.

Simulated games could be played quicker than real ones. Simulated seasons could be finished rather quickly. Playoff games could be subscription or theater events across the country (or across the globe).

One could argue that this is merely a technological fantasy. That there will always be enough players wanting to play professional sports to field teams. That may be true, but in some sports there is a major shift on whether the health risks outweigh the playing time. More parents are taking their children out of contact football at earlier ages. Even professional players are retiring early because of the current research on the ramifications of concussions. Football could be the first major sport to have a serious personnel shortage. In addition, marketing executives note that in order to capture fans early, those kids need to appreciate the sport, i.e. have played it at some level. That is the fantasy connection between seeing your favorite player juke through the line for a touchdown then going outside to play football with friends.

The same could hold true for baseball. It is a time consuming and expensive spectator sport. The lure of going to the ball park for a game is that it was a social event. There was enough time between pitches to converse with friends. But in this internet age, people are less social. They don't see the need to spend three hours talking to other people at an event. They can poke, text or email them.

All consumption of all forms of entertainment are under fire. Baseball is just one option in this ever changing landscape.

THE NEW RULES

In the age where sports executives make new rules for the sake of making rules, the 2017 baseball will have the following changes:

1. THE NO PITCH INTENTIONAL WALK

Debated for years, baseball has decided the time has come to "speed up" the game by discarding the traditional four intentional pitches outside the zone to create a "clear pass" to first base.  Instead of lobbing four pitches to the catcher standing nowhere near home plate, the pitching team's manager now just needs to signal to the umpire  that he wants an intentional walk and the batter gets to go to first base with no pitches thrown.

This is a dumb and unnecessary rule change. One of the basic tenets of the game is that the pitcher has to throw a ball to a batter at home plate. Professional baseball is not youth tee-ball. The rule rule takes out strategy from the game. I have seen a batter with going from an 0-2 count in a clutch situation get to 2-2, when the pitching manager calls for an intentional walk. The 3-2 pitch was thrown to the catcher in the opposite batter's box. But the next pitch was fired down the middle for a called strike three. The pitching team lulled the batter to sleep. Also, I have seen numerous times a team try to intentionally walk a batter to load the bases for a force out at home plate with runners at second and third. I have seen pitchers throw wild pitches on the intentional walk leading to the runner on third scoring on the play. These examples are part of the history and drama of a baseball game.

Struggling pitchers will like the new rule. For many, intentional walks disrupt their mechanics and location for the next batter, usually causes a big inning to erupt. In an era of closely guarded pitch counts, the batting team wants a starter to throw 4 pitches, even if lobs, to get an intentional walk. It will get a pitcher out of the game quicker if he has to throw more pitches. This is especially true for closers - - - if you have to walk 2 players for a home force, that is 8 pitches throw against a normal inning of 12 to 18. If you make a closer throw more than 20 pitches in an inning, that could cause him to be unavailable in the next game of the series.

The stated reason for the move, "speeding up the pace of play," is spurious once you consider that the batter's stepping out after each pitch to re-set their gloves and guard equipment takes more time than a four pitch walk.

2. TIME DEADLINE FOR REPLAY CALL

A manager now has only 30 seconds to decide if he wants to challenge a play or invoke replay review.

Every team has a replay employee in the suite or clubhouse who calls to the dugout on whether it is a good challenge. Managers cannot always take their players word or reaction.

The stated reason for replay in general is to get the call on the field right. The unstated reason for replay is that it calmed the gambling industry against blown calls and irate bettor conspiracies.  Human umpire judgment has always been part of the game. But only subjective judgment calls are reviewable (balls and strikes are not) so if it is so important to "get it right," then every play should be subject to replay review. But an open ended replay discussion would bog down the pace of play.

3. UMPIRE REVIEWS MOVE TO THE 8TH

After a manager is out of challenges, umpires can get a replay review going starting in the eight inning instead of the seventh.

Again, if you want to get calls correct, why is there an arbitrary after the 7th inning condition on umpires reviewing a play? A game could be won or lost on a play in the 5th, 6th or 7th and not just in the 8th or 9th innings.

4. SHORTER REPLAY REVIEW TIME

A new rule requires a  conditional two-minute guideline for replay officials to make a decision during a replay review, though there are exceptions.

The league office wants to speed up the game to keep it under 3 hours. Replays can be time consuming delays, especially for a pitcher on the mound.  If it is beyond 3 minutes, many pitchers start soft tossing with their catcher to keep their arm loose. The problem with this hard deadline for review is that it is counter-productive to the goal of getting the call right. Rushing a call may not get a full review of all angles of the play. What happens at the two minute mark? Does the line to the league office cut off? Does a manager lose his challenge if nothing is decided? Won't there be more managerial conferences if someone wants to protest going over 2 minutes?

5. FIELDERS CANNOT MARK THE FIELD

Fielders are now prohibited from the use of a marker of any kind on the field to create a type of reference system.

It has recently come to the attention of fans that players on the field carry with them "defensive position" sheets, whether in their pocket or on a wrist band (like NFL quarterbacks with plays).  With all the data mining analysis of baseball, defensive play charts per batter (and his tendencies) can be very valuable to defenders.

So some infielders have begun leaving marks on the dirt to where to position themselves. So what? It is just dirt. What is the competitive advantage or disadvantage to the other club. Their fielders can go out and erase those marks in the next half inning, or put down their own guide posts. Also, this rule does not affect baser runners from marking their leads against pitchers.

6. DEFINED ILLEGAL PITCH MOVES

Baseball was confronted with quirky pitchers who have herky-jerky wind-ups that start and stop (to confuse the batter). Many players believe these motions were balks.  Baseball now bans abnormal wind-ups by stipulating that a pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. With runners on base, it's a balk, with no one on base, it's an illegal pitch.

This rule goes to the mechanics of pitching. Before a valid pitch can be thrown home, a pitcher must have one part of his anchor foot touching the rubber. In order to make a valid pick off move, the pitcher must disengage from the rubber and not move more than 45 degrees toward home plate when throwing to a base.

Deception is part of baseball. But uniformity as to the standard of pitching in general is more important.

7. COACHING BOX RULES

Base coaches must now stand in their coach's box prior to a pitch being delivered. They are  allowed to move outside the box after a ball is put into play.

When 110 mile per hour pulled screamers down the line hit a base coach, fans groan because of the inherent danger. But it makes little sense to require a base coach to start the pitch sequence near the foul line, in harm's way, when he can move immediately after the pitch is thrown. It makes more sense to move the base coach box nearer to the dugout. But more ball parks have less foul ground (including Wrigley Field) so most coaching boxes will always be nearer to the playing field than the dugout. 

This is a rule that will never be enforced. Umpires only care that the base coaches are not interfering with their line-of-sight in making their calls. The better rule would be to allow the coaches to set themselves anywhere they feel comfortable.  Or, eliminate base coaches all together if safety is a major concern.

WILL THE AXE FALL?

Baseball has been steeped in history. It is that the game has fundamentally NOT changed is why the game continues to survive.

Nothing is more true than with the layout of the diamond dimensions. Nothing is as true as the shape and construction of a baseball, its seams and its skin. And the baseball bat, a simple rounded stick of wood.

Until now.

Jeff Passon of Yahoo Sports reports that the simple bat handle is about change.

The man who may help create the change is Red Sox infielder Dustin Pedroia. He is the only major leaguer currently using a bat that has an axe handle. Pedroia has spent a month using it as his lone bat, and the results are promising: Over the 28 games since he switched, he is hitting .353/.386/.504. His 42 hits over the past month are tied for the fourth most in baseball.

Now, unless you were a boy scout or a mountain logger, most kids today have no idea what an axe is or what is its purpose. The flattened wood frame is put through a heavy metal cutting tool to create a powerful yet top heavy tree cutter and wood splitter. This long used axe shape seems to have developed to maximize the power of the arm through the hands (palm).
 

"I think it's only a matter of time before the axe-shaped handle is the standard," said Hugh Tompkins, the director of research and development for Baden Sports, a Seattle-area company that created the Axe Bat, which this year received permission from Major League Baseball for in-game use. "The round-handled bat will be like a rotary telephone."

The Axe Bat replaces the knob with an oval-shaped handle that tapers into a curved, angled bottom. The Axe bat that grew out of a simple question: Why does the knob – the one piece of the bat known to hurt players, particularly those who grip it on the lower edge of the palm and put their hamate bones in danger – still exist when it imperils those it's supposed to help?

The current shape of most bats with the knob at the bottom is to keep the lower hand on the bat during the swing motion. If the knob was not at the bottom, the bat could be fly out of the players' hands. Even the Axe bat has a contoured bottom to keep the hand from slipping off.

Can a flatter hand surface help create more power and stability of a batter than a round bat?  There is not enough statistical evidence to draw any conclusion. But it is an interesting innovation.

 

TAKING A TUMBLE

The Los Angeles Times reported late last week that the Dodgers local TV ratings have tumbled.

Badly.

The new TW-Dodger Channel is still not available in 70% of the LA market due to carrier fee disputes.

The Dodgers new owners signed a multi-billion dollar cable channel deal with TW which now seems to be a money pit disaster.

The Dodgers kicked off the 2015 season with two stadium sellouts and falling TV ratings.

Monday afternoon's opening day telecast on the team-owned cable channel, SportsNet LA, generated a .79 household rating and an estimated 58,146 viewers. That's slightly more than turned out at Dodger Stadium for the sold-out game that culminated with a win over the San Diego Padres.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, which were on the road Monday against the Seattle Mariners, generated a 1.35 household TV rating in Southern California and 88,415 viewers. The Fox Sports West cable channel carries the Angels' games.

The Dodgers and Angels both grew their TV audiences on rain-soaked Tuesday night -- the teams' first prime-time telecasts of the season. The Dodgers captured a 1.04 household rating and 81,670 viewers. The Angels notched a 1.65 household rating and 132,500 viewers.

Fox Sports West is carried by all of the major pay-TV distributors -- making it available in nearly 4.5 million homes in the region.

But because of a bitter fee dispute, Time Warner Cable, which distributes SportsNet LA, is the only major pay-TV provider that offers that channel in Southern California. Other providers have balked at the price that Time Warner Cable has been demanding to carry the channel, leaving more than 70% of the region without regular TV access to Dodger games.

The Dodgers' TV audience took a tumble on Wednesday. The game mustered a .58 household rating and just 35,000 viewers -- far fewer than showed up at Dodger Stadium for the sold-out game.

This is the new reality: that viewers will not pay "extra" for a team channel. Too many cable operators have been burned by these new deals, including Houston. If the Cubs are banking on a huge Cubs channel windfall in 2020, they are probably delusional since the entertainment distribution landscape is shifting dramatically.

THE SHIFT

There is sudden push to change happening inside the Cubs.

Veteran journeymen are getting pushed off the roster by younger, untested players.

It seems that around August 1st, there were new marching orders on the North Side: bring in the kids.

The team is still on pace to lose more than 90 games this season.  Attendance trends continue to be moving lower. Less attendance means less top line revenue. Less top line revenue means less money to pay for the expensive and now four year Wrigley reconstruction projects.

The end of this season is a litmus test for the organization: what kind of players do we have now.

Despite having their best player, Kris Bryant, stuck in AAA for the rest of the year to avoid the service time running to free agency, the Cubs seem desperate to change the major league roster and to energize new ticket sales or recapture the "hope" for the future. The Javy Baez HOF coronation seems to be tempered now that in his first 5 games he has gone 6 for 23, 3 HRs and 10 Ks. He has made some mistakes at second base, and most observers believe he is not suited for that position.

Jacob Turner, who was claimed off waivers, has quickly arrived at Wrigley to bolster the fading bullpen. Turner, however, projects more as a starter or at least that is what the front office is hoping for next year. 

The shift from veteran journeymen to young minimum salary players can be cynically said to be a cost savings move by Ricketts. But the media continues to harp that the Cubs would be in the position to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on ace free agent pitchers like Jon Lester or James Shields. But it would have been more cost efficient to keep Jeff Samardzija than try to land a Lester for a 2015 team that still does not project to win 75 games. Star pitchers want to go to teams that can win championships. Despite the change of the new youth movement, the Cubs do not project as a championship caliber team. That is why it is very rare for a Marlins, Rays or Padres team signing an ace free agent pitcher - - - their culture and roster is not appealing to free agents who want to win now.