Making Sense of Smaller MiLB Rosters

[bean5302]

The owners recently proposed the commissioner should have the power to reduce MiLB roster size maximums to 150, down from 180 during the season and 190 during the offseason.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/02/mlbs-cba-proposal-included-ability-to-reduce-number-of-available-minor-league-roster-spots.html#:~:text=Currently%2C teams are permitted to,including the Dominican Summer League).

Of course, fans critical of owners and the commissioner immediately framed it as a dirty cost cutting measure by MLB. While the proposal supposedly comes with no expectation to enact the 150 player maximum, it's hard to understand why the commissioner would need the ability to reduce MiLB roster sizes if he had no intention of using the ability... The roster size limits apparently do not impact the international rookie league (Dominican Summer League). After the MiLB team contraction, the leagues and roster limits for leagues is as follows.

• AAA = 28
• AA = 28 (total 56)
• High A = 30 (total 86)
• Low A = 30 (total 116)
• Rookie = unlimited

Some quick math suggests MLB teams would be allowed to have 34 players on the roster in rookie ball at 150 with some teams under 150 and some teams are in excess of 180 players on the roster. I'm guessing the additional rostered players may have come from hanging onto players in the eliminated minor league teams. Essentially, MLB teams are rostering players who don't actually play for them. I'm not sure if that's good or bad (team control over players they don't actually use) and I'm not sure how much those players get paid since they're not actively on a MiLB roster or playing games for those teams. I suspect the cost savings which might be seen by this measure could be for providing housing for MiLB players? If MiLB housing money comes from pooled resources rather than the teams directly, it might explain MLB's interest as the MLBPA's proposals severely curtail revenue sharing money. 

I also don't understand what business the MLBPA has deciding on MiLB roster sizes, but I suppose it's just part of the bizzare pseudo-relationship the MLBPA has in determining rights for players they don't actually represent.

[Dman]

I probably don't understand this issue but if some teams are only rostering 150 then maybe just have everyone do the same thing?  Even out of 150 Minor league players only 5% to 10% max will even play at the MLB level so if you can't make the first cut at 150 what are the odds you are cut out to make it at all?  

Still you could make the same argument for 180 I guess as in what difference does it make if teams want to keep those guys around?  There might be pen arm in there somewhere. Maybe I am callous or like I said earlier just don't understand but from what I currently know I don't see this as a big deal either way.

[Vanimal46]

It’s a weird thing for MLB to address in current negotiations. When we’re talking about ~$500k in salary cost savings. It’s easy to say in the aggregate that the 30 job cuts won’t have a shot at making it to the show. What if one of those 30 cuts is a young Jose Altuve who signed for $15k? Or 13th round pick Albert Pujols who signed for a measly $60k? Development is development.

I’m not sure why MLB wants to continue cutting paying jobs where they pay pennies for the opportunity to hit a big ROI. Or at the very least, continue growing the game by employing people who will become advocates for the game at all levels. 

[bean5302]

Well, the commissioner is saying they have no plans to reduce the roster size right now so we're talking about $0 in savings. Even if they reduced it to 150 (the maximum), only something like 5 teams have 180+ players on the roster. Most have fewer and some have less than 150 already. It just feels weird to do this from a cost savings aspect.

If a young Jose Altuve or Albert Pujols was cut, they could just move on to one of the independent or summer league teams which were removed from MLB affiliation, yes? Or instead of coming up through the Astros, maybe Atuve gets a tryout with the Twins because the Astros relinquish their rights.

The biggest mess of this is there was no explanation from MLB for which I'm aware. It was just a blunder of a delivery regardless of their intent. It could be for anything from cost savings due to new housing requirements to forcing teams to stop hoarding players they're not willing to play to increase competition for free agent minor league prospects or just simply balancing the farm systems so deep pocket teams can't control an extra 30-40 players over small market teams.

 

[Vanimal46]

Why would a $15k flyer get picked up by another team? There’s a limited amount of seats available and every team has their own $15k flyer. 

The 5 teams above 180 players were not named, so it’s only an assumption that they’re deep pocket teams. If anything, cash strapped teams should be loading up on this concept because it’s their best chance to hit a substantial ROI. 

This really shows how short sighted baseball is thinking. God forbid providing an extra 30 people reasonable housing and comfort while they pursue their dream. If 1 out of 30 of those players becomes a major leaguer, they’re already well ahead of their initial investment. 

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Why would a $15k flyer get picked up by another team? There’s a limited amount of seats available and every team has their own $15k flyer. 

The 5 teams above 180 players were not named, so it’s only an assumption that they’re deep pocket teams. If anything, cash strapped teams should be loading up on this concept because it’s their best chance to hit a substantial ROI. 

This really shows how short sighted baseball is thinking. God forbid providing an extra 30 people reasonable housing and comfort while they pursue their dream. If 1 out of 30 of those players becomes a major leaguer, they’re already well ahead of their initial investment. 

Why would any team ever pick up a released or waived player?

I'm just guessing at possible reasons MLB might be doing this in the same way I'm guessing they're deep pocket teams with the resources to spend, I'm also speculating maybe it's the cost of housing. It's all assumptions, either way which brings me to my real complaint.

It's a cryptic request from MLB in the middle of an extremely contentious CBA negotiating process and the cryptic nature of the request provided fuel for the fire of discontent and public anger (not that public outrage is hard to stir up these days).

[roger]

I'm scratching my head and am puzzled by the term, "rostered players."  Am I correct that it would not include all MiLB players who are on the injured list?  Or not? 

With four full-season teams and the complex league team, they need at least 130 players to play the games once the short-season league is up and running.  If they are limited to a maximum 150, doesn't leave a lot of room for extra players to fill in for injuries, etc.  And if the full-season teams have rosters of say, 28, then you are at 142 healthy players...assuming the GCL is at 30.  I understand having some limit, but, 150 seems awfully tight and expect it will lead to lots of players being signed during the season to fill gaps in rosters.

[DJL44]

12 hours ago, bean5302 said:

deep pocket teams can't control an extra 30-40 players over small market teams.

 

You don't have to have very deep pockets to pay 30 minor league players. Any small market team could afford that. Hell, small market teams SHOULD be hoarding minor leaguers. It's the cheapest way to acquire talent.

[gman]

I really enjoyed the cut in tickets prices and beer due to all the cuts baseball made last year. I would expect similar if not higher cuts inn ticket prices this year.

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

You don't have to have very deep pockets to pay 30 minor league players. Any small market team could afford that. Hell, small market teams SHOULD be hoarding minor leaguers. It's the cheapest way to acquire talent.

$5MM is not chump change when it comes to operational expenses. The entire front office staff of most teams is probably in the $10MM / year area. Beyond that, those players are not really playing, anyway because there's no open spot on the field, and honestly, no room in the dugouts for 140 players per game of rookie league play. Funding teams operational expenses out of personal assets is a no-go for business owners and baseball team operating incomes are pretty modest. $5MM is 20% of all estimated operating income (operational profit) for many teams.

 

3 hours ago, roger said:

I'm scratching my head and am puzzled by the term, "rostered players."  Am I correct that it would not include all MiLB players who are on the injured list?  Or not? 

With four full-season teams and the complex league team, they need at least 130 players to play the games once the short-season league is up and running.  If they are limited to a maximum 150, doesn't leave a lot of room for extra players to fill in for injuries, etc.  And if the full-season teams have rosters of say, 28, then you are at 142 healthy players...assuming the GCL is at 30.  I understand having some limit, but, 150 seems awfully tight and expect it will lead to lots of players being signed during the season to fill gaps in rosters.

I wondered that as well, but only players on the 60 day IL are removed from typical rosters and I found no record of MLB changing the roster size when they contracted a leagues worth of teams. It makes sense as forcing teams to make 30+ immediate cuts to contracted talent would have been pretty draconian. In addition, there are already teams under 150 which means it's entirely possible to do it. In short, 60 day IL doesn't seem to factor in.

[Trov]

I do not see why the players really care.  I also do not know why the league would need to impose the lower number on some organizations.  I mean there is no requirement they have that many is my understanding, the league is looking to have a lower max.  If I where the players I would be all for that.  I would like to know more about why this is an issue really, but to me it just shows they are both pulling the Marx brother, "whatever it is I am against it" routine.  If one side has an idea the other is against it because it was the other side that wants it so must be bad for me. 

[DJL44]

39 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

$5MM is not chump change when it comes to operational expenses.

Since when do minor leaguers cost $165,000 a year? 30 minor league players at $12,000 in salary is $360,000. Add in benefits and that's going to be the cost of one rostered minimum-salary player.

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Since when do minor leaguers cost $165,000 a year? 30 minor league players at $12,000 in salary is $360,000. Add in benefits and that's going to be the cost of one rostered minimum-salary player.

I wonder if I misplaced a zero or saw $5MM someplace else and just rolled with it? I agree, $500k would be easily absorbed into any MLB team.