Elktonnick

Really now!! So the Red Sox have not created a buyers market on Price further depressing his value.

What does that have to do with what a major league club would be willing to pay?

The market determines the value. Boston's problem is the rest of baseball thinks they are desperate to cut payroll. So it becomes a buyers market depressing Price's value.

This talk of trading David Price is becoming a saga unto itself. Is anyone getting the feeling that this may turn out to be a salary dump with Boston still stuck paying most of his salary.

To quote Churchill "He is a small man with much to be small about!"

The union told agents and players this week that, in 2019, the average salary for players dipped for a second straight year — the first time in the union’s history that consecutive declines have been recorded. The players have seen the Lux Tax become a de facto salary cap. The players problem is analytics have changed the calculation so much that the trend is towards younger players. The younger players are concerned that the current system rewards older players. These are just a few of the issues facing the players as they enter negotiations. They have not yet resolved all the questions among themselves to be able to present any kind of unified approach towards the owners. They know that they don't want a salary cap but have seen the Luxury Tax essentially become one. Whatever the outcome the only certainty is change.

First of all the CBA will expire and with it the penalty regime. Second until a new CBA no one knows or has any indication whether the Lux Tax will exist or what the penalties would be since that would one of the items to be negotiated with the players Association who have already expressed their opposition to it. Thirdly it remains to be seen if Bloom actually gets below the LT. Sam Kennedy clearly said that getting below the LT is a goal not a mandate and seems to be walking back the notion that a "reset" will actually happen. Unless and until the Sox get below the LT there can be no reset by definition. Finally we can talk about Price being traded ( which by the way I love to see) if and when Bloom seals the deal. Other than that I agree with everything you posted.

If it were, there are lot of people taking him quite seriously. Like I posted earlier this has been under discussion on the MLB network. These highly respected and knowledgeable baseball people have offered up some interesting scenarios some of which I shared. There are simply too many variables to say where exactly this could lead but if I were MLB the last thing I would want is Congress getting involved because that opens up another can of worms. Baseball wants to maintain its anti trust exemption at all costs. Congressional scrutney especially if it's bipartisan in an election threatens that. In any case, the long knives are out for the commissioner and Manifred is in a very potentially precarious position especially with the CBA coming for renegotiation. All of this Is interconnected. Quite frankly I am stunned it isn't getting more attention then it has.

The question is not whether it will be resolved but how it will be resolved. The end result could be a dramatic change. The economics of the game are changing. You may not recall but I do there was a time when minor league owners were free to "sell" their players to any club. The PCL league had this right well into the mid fifties. One of the ramifications of Manfred's threat is a potential return to some form of the " open classification" designation that the PCL enjoyed in the 1950s.

For anyone who doesn't believe that there is about to be a major battle between MLB and the Minor Leagues here is the article in Ballpark Digest: Manfred: We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Minor Leagues By Kevin Reichard on December 16, 2019 in Major-League Baseball, Minor-League Baseball In a threat that was as unexpected as it was shocking, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred escalated the war of words between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball by threatening to completely walk away from MiLB. The two sides are negotiating a new Professional Baseball Agreement (PBA). The current PBA expires at the end of the 2020 MiLB season. The current PBA was negotiated in 2011 and was basically an extension of the previous PBA, guaranteeing 160 MiLB teams and setting forth the standards for facilities, umpiring and player-development contracts. (Ballpark Digest has been intensively covering the ongoing PBA negotiations between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball, from the initial public revelation of MLB’s plan for MiLB realignment to the release of specific insight into MLB’s realignment proposal and the reaction of elected officials on MiLB’s behalf around the country. Recently, Ballpark Digest publisher Kevin Reichard outlined how MiLB could address MLB’s concerns without full-scale contraction and reported on the latest from the Winter Meetings, while contributing editor Jesse Goldberg-Strassler looked at the last time MiLB suffered a mass contraction.) The talks between MLB and MiLB have grown increasingly contentious: MLB clearly didn’t expect a high level of pushback to its proposal to lop off a quarter of the industry and has been playing defense since the proposal to eliminate 42 teams became public. At last week’s Winter Meetings, the two sides met and exchanged ideas, with MLB negotiators asking for a counter-proposal from the MiLB negotiators. (By the way, the MiLB negotiating team is now being advised by a select group that includes Chuck Greenberg, Andy Sandler, D.G. Elmore and Dave Heller.) We’ve covered the main issues involved in the negotiations, which have not changed. And then Rob Manfred went on the offensive, first accusing MiLB owners of not being willing to negotiate in good faith (a laughable and provably false assertion), an assertion we addressed here. MiLB followed up with a point-by-point rebuttal of Manfred’s accusations, which you can read here. Take away some of the rhetoric and one thing stands out (something we’ve been reporting): MiLB is clearly willing to address concerns raised by MLB negotiators, but specifics on things like facilities need to be released. (We’ve always found that most MiLB owners will use any excuse to improve their ballparks: they love building things. Imposing new facilities standards on these folks is basically catnip.) That rebuttal did not sit well with MLB. The response was swift: play ball or else we can find alternatives in the form of indy ballparks and investors willing to bring pro baseball alternatives to existing MiLB cities. Nice ballpark you got there, MiLB; be a shame if anything happened to it. From the Los Angeles Times: “If the National Association [of Minor League Clubs] has an interest in an agreement with Major League Baseball, it must address the very significant issues with the current system at the bargaining table,” the statement read. “Otherwise, MLB clubs will be free to affiliate with any minor league team or potential team in the United States, including independent league teams and cities which are not permitted to compete for an affiliate under the current agreement.” And the MLB statement contained this whopper: “But whatever the outcome, MLB has assured every public official who has contacted us that MLB will work diligently to preserve organized baseball in a compelling, fan-friendly format in every American city that currently has an affiliate. MILB has not made such a commitment, and even now multiple teams are actively trying to leave their communities for better deals elsewhere.” True. And some of those teams include MiLB affiliates owned or partially owned by the Milwaukee Brewers, Texas Rangers and the Boston Red Sox. Not all of the public officials concerned about contraction have bought into the MLB argument. As we’ve noted, opposing MiLB contraction has been a truly bipartisan endeavor, with U.S. senators like Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) speaking out against the MLB proposal. In addition, we’re guessing the creation of a Congressional Task Force on the subject, joined by 106 U.S. Representatives of all political stripes, was probably a surprise as well to MLB officials. Congress does have some power in this situation, with the power to limit MLB visas and remove MLB anti-trust and FLSA exemptions and protections. In particular, presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has hammered home the need to protect MiLB teams, meeting yesterday with Burlington Bees (Low A; Midwest League) officials, fans and former players about the plan to contract the team. He went to Twitter once again to criticize the MLB plan: This isn't any joke folks because no one is laughing. This could become quite nasty.

Attendance actually increased in the minor leagues which is one of the reasons that MLB is proposing these changes they want an increased share of minor league revenues. As for MLB, ticket prices have skyrocketed this and bad weather probably accounts for the decline in total attendance. The higher ticket prices would still result in an increase to revenues despite a decline in attendance.but it isn' t a healthy trend economically. Ad revenue and merchandising probably account for the increase. With the economy booming the broadcasters can charge more despite declining viewership. Again though this not a healthy trend economically in the long term.

Baseball total revenues was 9.7 billion in 2018. The American economy is booming. I do not how it is doing in Canada by comparison.

Boston had total revenue totally nearly a half a billion dollars in 2018. Tampa Bay had half that. Many of the small market teams will struggle to support. a comprehensive farm system if minor league salaries double or triple since the vast majority of minor leaguers will never see the majors. If the commissioners plan is adopted it will only increase the disparity between the rich teams and the poor ones. Also lurking is the new CBA and the threat of congressional oversight. The latter threat is more real. than many care to admit. The future looks to be quite challenging with many changes on the horizon. Professional baseball could look quite different in 2021 with changes few envisage.

The proof will be how things change. Look for more players moving quickly through teams systems, up or out. Basically the same system the military has for its professional officer corps. If teams are limited to between 150 and 200 contracts 40 of which are for the big club that obviously means 110 to 160 for the minor leagues. There will be a lot of turnover considering each year there will be a new crop of draftees. Bogaerts and a Pedroia were able make the big club in only three years so unless draftees are real blue choppers club's will avoid drafting them. There will be more emphasis on scouting and player evaluation before offering someone a contract or drafting. Major changes are in the air believe it.

Minors will gradually become glorified taxi squads. There will however be greater emphasis on scouting and player appraisals but the idea of a system that major league clubs will have to slowly taking years to develop players is going to pass away. Players will have less time to prove they are major league ready probably no more than 2 to 3 years at the most. Triple A will become more and more for players to rehab and for the players on the 40 man roster who aren't with the big club.

It is no joke. I know you are so full of yourself that you think your threat to ignore is somehow meaningful but here are some articles on what is going on. New York Post Nov 22, 2019 ARLINGTON, Texas — In order to run a sport, one must be able to wage battle on multiple fronts. Exhibit A occurred Thursday as, just seconds after running down the Players Association, baseball commissioner Rob Manfred turned his gaze toward the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, known to commoners as Minor League Baseball. Yes, the majors and minors are clashing like frustrated parents and fed-up children at the moment. With one year left on their working agreement, Major League Baseball proposed a dramatic realignment that called for the elimination of 42 affiliated clubs as well as a reorganization of the leagues that will continue to exist. MLB’s concerns, as reiterated by Manfred, fall into four categories: 1. Too many affiliates’ facilities are outdated in terms of capacity for expanded staff, workout equipment and even a space for players to eat. 2. Too many leagues are so widespread geographically that players suffer physically from long bus rides. 3. The affiliates feature too many players who face little to no chance of reaching the majors, and in tandem with that … 4. The players currently get paid too little, so if there are fewer players, then they can get paid more generously. As per MLB’s proposal, the 120 affiliates with the best facilities and geographical positioning would stay put, with each major league team running four of them. The leagues would be dramatically reformed for geographical integrity. Moreover, the amateur draft would be cut about in half from its current 50 rounds (that has to be collectively bargained with the Players Association) and would take place after the conclusion of the College World Series. The short-season leagues, like the New York-Penn League that features both the Staten Island Yankees and the Brooklyn Cyclones (a Mets affiliate) would be replaced by extended spring training at team’s minor league complexes; the SI Yankees are designated by MLB as a team that would lose its affiliation while the Cyclones wouldn’t, although that list is fluid. The teams losing their affiliations would receive the option of entering a “Dream League,” an independent league that would be partially funded by MLB. At the end of the day, Minor League Baseball needs to make an agreement with us,” Manfred said. “I’m sure we probably will make an agreement at some point. But we are not going to stand by and let the dialogue or the story that’s out there be a misrepresentation of what happened.” In another article published San Diego in October : Unless you’re big on the minutia of how baseball leagues work, this one might have slipped under your radar. However, it carries some pretty serious ramifications for us Padres fans, and MLB fans in general. Baseball America recently published a very well-researched story regarding the on-going negotiations for a new Professional Baseball Agreement (PBA) between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball. While it’s still early in the negotiations, MLB floated a pretty radical proposal, one that, if accepted, would dramatically reshape Minor League ball as we currently know it. I’ll try to break this down to the key implications, but seriously, give the article a read; it’s well worth your time. Wait, what’s going on? Ostensibly, this is about MLB seeking dramatically improved MiLB stadium facilities, as well as taking control of how the Minors are organized, to include geographic locations of clubs, and wanting MiLB to share in increased costs that will be coming from increased player pay. These are all long-standing issues between MLB and MiLB, as according to MLB, roughly 25% of MiLB clubs’ facilities fall below the level of facilities they view as needed for their minor league players. MLB essentially wants MiLB Also, MLB also wants to completely rework the PDC process to ensure MLB clubs can have MiLB affiliates that meet their desires geographically. Simply, MLB teams want Minor League teams closer together to cut down on costs, both in terms of team travel, and for players going back and forth from the MLB level or to receive quality care when injured/rehabbing. Simply, MLB wants to eliminate the number of PDCs, going from the current system of 160, down to 120, specifically eliminating the 4, non-complex Rookie-level and short-season classifications from the minor leagues. Additionally, the full-season minor leagues would get completely reorganized: In AAA, the Pacific Coast League would shrink from 16 teams, to 10. The International League would grow to 20 teams. The 14-team low A South Atlantic League would turn into a 6-team league, with a new Mid-Atlantic league springing up. The short-season Northwest League would move to full-season ball. This proposal also calls for some teams to move from A to AAA, and vice versa, with less dramatic moves included as well, all with the goal of bringing clubs closer together geographically (teams that get moved in classification would get compensated, likely another sticking point). The key point to all this? Each MLB team would get limited to fielding 5 minor league clubs in the U.S. total, breaking down as 4 full-season teams, and 1 complex-based Rookie level team. Additionally, each MLB team would be limited to 150-200 players on contract, meaning some clubs (like the Padres and the Yankees) would have to cut minor leaguers loose to meet the new restrictions, as currently, there are no restrictions on how many teams (and, therefore, how many players) a team can field. You can believe MLB’s talking points I listed above, because most of them are true or at least based on fact. Some minor league facilities are barely better than some high school fields (I exaggerate, but you get the point). The minor leagues are spread out throughout the U.S., which sometimes makes it tough to get a player from one team to another, or to get a player to quality treatment. Additionally, MLB teams are responsible for paying for the salaries and benefits of players and coaches on all affiliated minor league teams, while minor league teams pay for the minor league staff, travel and other expenses. In the case of a short-season or Rookie-level club, players’ and coaches’ salaries (and the worker’s compensation insurance that comes with it) can be a significant share of a team’s total expenses. Let’s not sugarcoat this, though. Mostly, it’s about money. Many expect MLB to raise salaries for minor league players in the near future, with most expecting minimum salaries to rise by 50%. Reducing the total number of affiliates (and thereby, the total number of players) allows teams to pay an increased salary without increasing their total costs. MLB is also currently involved in a class-action lawsuit filed by minor league players who contend they should have been paid for their time in spring training and extended spring training (which, in my mind, they totally should be). So there you have it. This proposal is still initial, so it’s still likely to be changed. However, if it’s accepted, even in part, it’d mark the most dramatic reworking of the minor leagues since they were reorganized in 1962. Also, there’s no guarantee MLB won’t come back to this idea of reducing PDCs in future PBA negotiations. T MLB suggests setting up what they call the “Dream League,” a quasi-independent league supported jointly by MLB and MiLB, with teams fielding undrafted players. But suffice to say, those players and teams would be largely on their own, looking for a path to the Majors they otherwise had with affiliated teams. It would also greatly heighten the differences between the minor league haves (teams with a PDC) and the have-nots (teams without a PDC). Finally and more importantly Chicago Tribune Dec 15 2019 Sanders said before Sunday's batting practice that Congress could intervene if baseball goes through with its contraction plan. He noted the sport's antitrust exemption and the public dollars some teams have received to build stadiums, and cited lucrative television contracts that he said are “sometimes designed in unusual ways."

It was obvious to Aristotle that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter ones. It was obvious to Ptolemy that the fixed stars were 20,000 times the radius of earth and sun revolved around the earth. What I am saying is all that is going to be done quite differently in the future than we have seen in the past. If you have been listening to the discussions on the MLB radio and elsewhere you would understand that developing prospects up through the lower minors, the short season leagues, lower A, upper A and double AA is going to be outdated probably by the next CBA and be radically changed. Major league clubs know over 90% of minor leaguers will never have a cup of coffee in the bigs. The are just sparring partners for the few bona fide blue chippers that each club has. You will see the NCAA baseball be relied upon more and more for developing players. The FARM systems as clubs currently have them could disappear. We are about to embark on a major controversy between the major leagues and the minor leagues. The living wage for minor leaguers will be driving it. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that minor league clubs will be affiliated with more than one club or several clubs or possibly none at all. To make matters worse Congress will likely step in. Senator Sanders has already sent a strong letter to the commissioner. This could well be a bipartisan issue with broad support from both political parties. It is going to get very interesting. So the idea of a team having strong farm system could well become meaningless.

Like I said the farm is only good if you have one or two valued prospects that you can trade. I'm any case, the farm system as we currently know it will be unrecognizable in the next two years. Teams will have much smaller systems. Congress will force legislation to require teams to pay minor leaguers a living wage. Low revenue club's will be unable to afford to maintain the number players under minor league contracts like they have today. It all is going to change big time.

So you can not prove your hypothesis that strong farms keep teams winning on the field and revenues pouring in. As for your challenge about weak farms they prove nothing since they are meaningless in the grand scheme of things which is exactly the reason why MLB is proposing its radical overhaul of the minor leagues. Moreover it is going to become increasingly more expensive for club's especially the low revenue teams such as the Rays to maintain large farm systems that currently exist.

You are the one making the contention. Besides any first year student of logic knows you can not prove a negative like proving some one is not guilty of something .

So you do not actually need a strong farm since you can win with a weak one. Or do you need a strong farm so you can trade it away for a weak one so you can win. Does that summarize your argument which means you can win with either a strong farm or a weak one but not both or neither?

So the strong farm is good for trading proven talent. But if you are the GM who trades away the strong farm and you no longer have one, you get fired because you traded away the strong farm. Is that how it works. Sort of like the self licking ice cream cone.

If it is then cite the causality and statistical data that proves the hypothesis.

Valuing prospects does not necessarily translate into a strong farm. Teams need only a few highly valued solid prospects not an entire farm system. That is the argument and rationale behind MLBs restructuring of the minor leagues. The game is about change radically in the next few years. No one is going recognize the system that is coming. MLB will subsidize the independent leagues to a greater degree. We are about to enter into an era where farm teams will be far fewer than today and more player moving directly from College ball to the major leagues all driven by higher payroll costs at the minor league level forced by legislation.

Does it! I love to see the empirical proof of such a contention in the era of free agency.