|
Bill Johanesen -> RE: General Twins Talk (10/27/2026 2:49:39 PM)
|
And this:
Yup, but there's also some other structural quirks. On average, each MLB club is supporting around 225 players in the minors. MLB teams pay for coaching staffs, equipment, player salaries, housing stipends, etc. Minor league team owners cover facility costs, transportation, and other expenses. There's a split.
Player development operations are costly, and so few of those 225 players are ever going to play a single game in the bigs. Even fewer are going to be everyday players. And fewer still will ever be stars.
The way owners recoup costs is through the current system in place now - young players who make it to the bigs are subsidizing 10 other prospects who will never make it. Players that costs organizations money to develop, but clubs never see a return on their investment.
Again, more quirks. Unlike the NHL, NBA or NFL, draft order is less of a predictor of future success. Players drafted with the top 10 picks in the NHL draft have a 90%+ likelihood they will be come NHL regulars. Players drafted in the 7th round have an an extremely small chance of ever playing a single NHL game, let alone becoming a star.
Contrast that to the MLB. Skubal was a 9th round draft pick. Wrobleski was a 13th round draft pick. The MLB draft is a poorer predictor how a player's career will unfold. So, teams have to fill up the minors warm bodies, giving them all a chance to develop and see how they pan out.
Player development timelines are also on the long side. You'll get top draft picks in the NHL and NBA making debuts their draft year. NHL drafts at 18, NBA at 19. Those players are providing value right away. And most guys break into the league before they're 21. Average age for an NHL rookie is 22. Average age for an MLBer is 25.
So, an 18 year old an MLB drafts is spending, on average, 7-years developing them in the minors. NFL and NBA primarily use college sports as their developmental leagues, too.
That's sort of why MLB is so reticent relaxing service time rules in any meaningful way. If they spend 7-years developing a player only for them to walk 2-years later, they're not getting much payback on their investment.
Crunch the numbers. By the time a player has "paid back" development costs, 6-years later they are going to be past their prime if they debut at 25. So few players are still viable into their 30's. Only 25% ever make it into free agency. Teams who want to spend-to-win are left with very few options, competing against each other on the open market. Since there's so much money in baseball in larger markets, UFA salaries explode.
It's an imperfect system the way it is now. Yet it's probably the most sensible for both sides.
Some of the concerns fans have regarding competitive balance are valid. The Dodgers absolutely have an "unfair" advantage. Revenue sharing tweaks and a requirement small-market teams use those funds on player salaries would go a long way closing the gap. Owners can work amongst themselves to make that happen and not make the players responsible for it.
|
|
|
|