Burnt last winter, A's threaten to sit out free agency

Leave a comment

Let down by Jason Giambi, Orlando Cabrera and Nomar Garciaparra last winter, the A’s plan to sit out free agency this time, GM Billy Beane told MLB.com on Wednesday. Instead, he wants to go the trade route.

“We’re going to look at young players to fill spots, first and foremost,” Beane said. “If those players we’d like to acquire aren’t obtainable, we’ll consider bringing in guys who can hold the positions down. We’re going to stay disciplined and try to do everything we can to fill those spots with young players.
“So the next step is to continue to bring guys like Andrew [Bailey] up here. That’s our responsibility, and I know the deal. To sign a couple free agents and have three or four press conferences during the winter doesn’t get it done. We’re going to be disciplined.”

With the Angels certain to be in the mix again and both the Mariners and Rangers coming on in a big way, the A’s are certain to need some reinforcements to succeed next year. As things stand now, they’re likely looking at the following lineup:
CF Rajai Davis
RF Ryan Sweeney
LF Scott Hairston
DH Jack Cust
C Kurt Suzuki
3B Eric Chavez
2B Mark Ellis
1B Daric Barton
SS Cliff Pennington
There is some nice outfield depth in the form of Aaron Cunningham, Travis Buck and Eric Patterson, but that’s a lineup without a lot of punch and the team will have to bring in a quality alternative to Chavez at third base in the event that free agent Adam Kennedy departs.
The rotation has Brett Anderson, Dallas Braden and a bunch of question marks. Trevor Cahill is a top talent, but he might need some additional minor league time. Vin Mazzaro and Gio Gonzalez both had ERAs in the mid-5.00s last season. Josh Outman probably won’t be an option until the second half following Tommy John surgery.
The bullpen will remain a strong point, especially if Joey Devine makes it back, and the defense should be very good if Cust can be limited to DH duties for the most part. The A’s, though, simply must bring in a couple of quality players if they hope to challenge for the AL West. As is, it looks like they’re in for a rebuilding season. Fortunately, they’ll finally shed Chavez’s contract after next year, potentially putting them into pretty good position for 2011.

Rob Manfred explains reasoning behind proposal to cut 42 minor league teams

Cody Glenn/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images
1 Comment

As we learned earlier this week, Major League Baseball wants to contract 42 minor league teams, mostly in short-season and rookie ball. The proposal earned a lot of backlash, including from some of the teams on the chopping block and from Congress. MLB responded with its own letter to Congress, written by deputy commissioner Dan Halem, explaining the league’s reasoning.

In the letter, Halem complains about the lack of competition between minor league teams and independent teams. Halem wrote, “The lack of competition among operators of teams for an affiliation with a Major League Club has reduced the incentive for some affiliated Minor League teams to improve their facilities and player amenities.” It is an interesting thing to write as someone representing a $10 billion business that has benefited for a century from an antitrust exemption.

Halem also noted that MLB has several goals that are supposedly attained by cutting 26 percent of the minors: ensuring the quality of the facilities for the players, reducing the travel burden, improving the “compensation, accommodations, and amenities” for players, improving the affiliation process between minor league and major league teams.

Commissioner Rob Manfred essentially echoed that sentiment on Thursday, per Newsday’s Laura Albanese. He gave four reasons behind the proposal: inadequate facilities, travel, poor pay, drafting and signing players who don’t have a realistic shot to make it to the majors. The last reason is a new one, but let’s go over those four reasons in context.

It is true that some, perhaps even most, of the facilities of the 42 named teams are inadequate. It’s not all of them. As NECN’s Jack Thurston reports, the owner of the short-season Lowell Spinners, Dave Heller, said that his team’s stadium is “arguably the best facility in the New York-Penn League,” speaking highly of its lighting and field conditions. The Quad Cities River Bandits, the Astros’ Single-A affiliate and also on the chopping block, renovated their stadium a handful of times over the last 12 years. In fact, it earned an award from BallparkDigest.com for “Best Ballpark Improvement” in both 2008 and ’09, and finished third in the 2018 running for “Best View in the Minors.” At any rate, if facility quality is such a big issue, why did the Athletics continue to play in a stadium that repeatedly had its sewage system overflow in 2013?

Travel is certainly a big issue for minor leaguers because they mostly travel by bus, not plane. Having teams located closer to each other would be more beneficial in this regard. Or — and hear me out, here — major league teams could take on the extra expenditure of paying for their minor leaguers’ airfare. Several years ago, the Phillies took on the extra expenditure of making sure their minor leaguers ate healthy food and that has worked out well. The Blue Jays took on the extra expenditure of giving their minor leaguers a pay raise and that has worked out well. The Red Sox took on the extra expenditure of installing a sleep room at Fenway Park to ensure their players were well-rested and that has worked out well. No one is suggesting that Single-A players have to fly first class on every flight, but the travel issue is an easy fix that doesn’t require contracting 42 teams. Teams have individually chosen to improve their players’ quality of life and it has yielded positive results. Imagine it on a league-wide scale for thousands of players in their formative years.

Manfred citing minor league pay as a basis for the proposal is laughable. His own league successfully lobbied Congress to amend language in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, classifying minor league players as seasonal workers. That means they are not entitled to a minimum wage or overtime pay, among other worker protections. If the pay of minor league players was so important to Major League Baseball, it wouldn’t have pressured the government to legally ensure they didn’t have to pay them a living wage. Every baseball team is worth at least a billion dollars. The league has set year-over-year revenue records for 16 consecutive years, crossing $10 billion in 2018. Minor leaguers could be compensated well without robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Lastly, it is true that a majority of minor league players will never reach the major leagues. That doesn’t mean that their presence in the minor leagues or their effort to realize their dreams have zero value. Lopping off the bottom 26 percent of minor leaguers might nominally increase the level of skill on each roster, but it eliminates so many jobs — well over 1,000. Furthermore, there are few incentives for athletes to want to slog through several years of the minors as it is, as Kyler Murray recently showed, but there would be even fewer incentives by shrinking the minors (and, consequently, the draft). Shrinking the minors and the draft could lead to more minor league free agents, but if baseball is actually interested in a free market (it’s not) then it should abolish the draft entirely as well as the arbitration system.

These reasons, each uniquely fallacious, hide the real reason behind the proposal: shifting money around so Major League Baseball can say it will award pay raises to minor leaguers, ending a years-long stretch of bad P.R., without actually cutting into profits. MLB could have afforded to pay minor leaguers a living wage years ago and it chose not to. MLB could have chosen not to lobby Congress for the ability to continue underpaying minor leaguers years ago, but it chose to do so. Everything since has been the league trying to avoid lying in the bed it made for itself.