Quote from fenn68 on July 1, 2020, 6:58 pm

For some teams probably an issue but this is not necessarily a pure cash flow issue. It would be an asset purchase which could be financed via loan (at pretty low rates these days) and paid off over years.

If the minors play next season .... MLB clubs might just be OK with a break even cash flow for 2021 and since most minor league teams did make some positive cash flow based on attendance they may even have enough to pay the interest and principle annual payments with some left over.

MLB wants more control over the minors ... this would achieve their goal for the long term ... maybe worth the investment stretch.

 

 

Quote from fenn68 on July 16, 2020, 9:35 am

Quote from fenn68 on July 1, 2020, 6:58 pm

For some teams probably an issue but this is not necessarily a pure cash flow issue. It would be an asset purchase which could be financed via loan (at pretty low rates these days) and paid off over years.

If the minors play next season .... MLB clubs might just be OK with a break even cash flow for 2021 and since most minor league teams did make some positive cash flow based on attendance they may even have enough to pay the interest and principle annual payments with some left over.

MLB wants more control over the minors ... this would achieve their goal for the long term ... maybe worth the investment stretch.

 

 

Saw a note that a minor league franchise is worth anywhere between $3MM and $25MM (no idea if that is accurate). Probably scales from lower minors to upper minors ... maybe $60MM +/- gets the Padres all four full season franchises?

Not a huge investment decision. Something to watch out for next winter during the MiLB negotiations.

Quote from fenn68 on July 16, 2020, 9:50 am

Another technical issue that impacts the 40 man roster this winter depending how the rules are established.

With no minor league season ... do minor league players get credit for service time? Is a potential “6 year minor league FA” get his FA pushed back a year?

Does not having the season impact eligibility to be selected in Rule 5 this winter. A player like Lawson would be eligible under normal conditions ... will the Padres be able to avoid adding him to the 40 man while keeping him protected from Rule 5? Note I think the rule is time from signing ... so there would have to be a condition that adjusts that based on not being on a roster or not have a season.

Take that the next step ... if a player such as Lawson gets pushed back a year for Rule 5 ... does that also apply to someone like Arias who is on the “60” but does not get activated?

From the ML team standpoint ... considering the Rule 5 conditions ... all teams would benefit of an across the board one year delay on prospect not near ML ready. A 2021 minor league season is needed for the development without using that as their first option year while preserving some 40 man roster slots for some more “mature”, ML ready prospects.

Would think MLB teams and the MLBPA would both see benefits of the delay ... minor league players really have no say.

Quote from Randy Manese on July 17, 2020, 2:37 pm

These are very interesting questions and situations to mull over but I have to go forward with the assumption that there will be no change.   Therefore, I compiled a list of 31 position players (originally 32,  but found that Tirso Ornelas didn't sign until March 2017) and 33 pitchers that are currently potentially going to be exposed.  Of these, Patino and Trammell are locks to be on the 40 man, with G. Arias, Marcano and Lawson close behind.  That makes 5, with  Potts a possible 6th.  Beyond that maybe the Rosarios (Jeisson and Eguy) and the Ruiz' (Esteury and Agustin) and any number of lower tier pitchers like Bachar, A. Martinez, J. Guerrero, Henry, et.al.  Because of this depth, won't be surprised to see some of these players moved in trades as the major league team roster is further refined.  We'll also need to find roster space for Gore, Abrams and Campusano in the near future.  Wouldn't Lindor or Betts like good in brown and gold?  One can only dream.

Quote from Brian Connelly on July 17, 2020, 3:10 pm

My opinion is it's unfair for 6 year Minors guys to NOT be allowed to become free agents.  They can always re-up with their current team/system, but if there's competition for their services, it should work to their benefit.  Even if they are granted "normal" FA, it's going to be a miserable market, but at least they'd have more options.

Rule 5 is a bigger issue.  Almost no unprotected player eligible for Rule 5 would have even been on a 60-man roster this year.... so you're selecting a guy who is low minors that hasn't played in 1 year+.  BUT if 5-10 teams decide to slash & burn their payroll to the bare bone, there could be a lot more R5 selections than we think.  It's to the players benefit to be able to move up, but think in this stiuation it makes sense to "roll" R5 eligibility by 1 year for all players... i.e. no Rule 5 in 2021.

Going forward, I know a lot of people want to scrap it, but I think it REALLY helps players:  think more about all the guys who DO get added to a 40-man roster (& it's MLB pay scale & benefits) to avoid them from being exposed to R5.  There are things about R5 that need to get fixed, like starting INTL signees clock 1 year later than HS draftees, etc.  But if anything, I think they should "expand" it & make it easier for the selecting team to keep a guy:  maybe 75% active roster in MLB vs 100%; something like that.

Quote from fenn68 on July 22, 2020, 11:56 am

Kevin Charity:

JJ reporting that Low-A and High-A could just switch, so the Cal League becomes a Low-A League. Midwest League becomes High-A. Going to be really interesting to see how this plays out.

==========

Will be interesting to see the rationale. Guessing the Midwest League (overall) has better facilities and maybe cities with better populations with less travel. Potential for better attendance / local TV for a higher level club?

All of these moves have a financial undertone ... wonder about the future of the CAL League? Only eight teams with 4 south pretty distanced from the 4 north / central. A lot of travel costs. Plus a couple of questionable franchises in Lancaster and Visalia.

Padres four affiliates are stronger than most in both facilities and attendance (for their league) ... so maybe not representative of the state of MiLB. For reference from 2019 attendance:

EP ..... 7578 / home game

AMA.. 6291

LE .... 2500

FW ... 5500 (I guess FW "earned" a promotion ... plus the MWL averages more attendance than the CAL League.)

IF the CAL League becomes low A ... generates that low level of attendance (revenue) ... has what appears to be a high cost of travel which also wears on the prospects, then is there a chance the Cal League is dissolved with the affiliations finding home in the eastern/central part of the US (new league)? Don't think there are many new cities in CA to expand (or improve) on the current structure to minimize travel ... but a league that averages only about 2300 per game attendance (with very low cost tickets) could be purchased by the MLB team that would not have to subsidize too much to keep it afloat but would get enhanced control of the facility, et. al.

Quote from Randy Manese on July 22, 2020, 3:30 pm

Love the Lake Elsinore facility, particularly because of its proximity to San Diego and the opportunity to see prospects coming up from the lower minors.  Agree, however, that CAL league is not the most stable and little room to keep or expand into a high A venue without substantial growth and investment in other cities/franchises.  Would going north, into Oregon, Washington, Nevada and northern California and eliminate most of those in the south make it any better travel-wise?  Probably not.  I hope we can keep LE but the Padres are very fortunate to have El Paso, Amarillo and Ft. Wayne as solid minor league clubs.   Before COVID, we had planned to make a swing to all these 3 cities and see them in person - maybe next year.

Quote from LynchMob on July 23, 2020, 7:05 am

Seems like El Paso and Amarillo may be "solid minor league clubs" but Padres would benefit if they reconfig'd the parks to be less hitter-friendly ...

Quote from hoffy51 on July 26, 2020, 8:02 am

Ben,

Do you know if someone from MadFriars will be able to periodically interview the coaches that are working with the minor league guys at USD and give us an update on their development?