Goodbye Lancaster. Can't say this is all that surprising, but the Red Sox are returning to the Carolina League:



http://www.roanoke.com/sports/breaking/wb/177446

Maybe this has been covered somewhere - but why don't MLB clubs own more of their own affiliates? I'm seeing some instances where this is happening, will we begin seeing more? Seems to me that the economies of scale and opportunity to leverage a lot of rescources would make minor league ownership a generally profitable enterprise for most MLB ownership groups. I would think that being able to offer essentially your same product at a different price-point, sometimes in geograhically diverse areas, or even in your home area, could make a lot of sense.

Also - Is there a specific prohibition in place that would prevent a major league team ownership group from owning all or part of an independent league team? Is it possible in any way that one MLB team could own another team's affiliate?

Lancaster definitely had its uses. I won't miss it and we can do without it but it was definitely telling that the two out of our three top pitching prospects who played this year who passed through Lancaster successfully are also the two who took on the challenge of the big leagues successfully (SSS, obviously, on Bowden). Sort of like how the Rockies try to treat their Colorado Springs affiliate which exists to acclimate their kids to the altutude.

If you play in a hitters' league, Lancaster isn't a bad affiliate to have around. If nothing else, you'll know that the graduates can survive unfriendly park effects.

Erm this isn't exactly new information.....

And I think it's worth saying Lancaster was a great gig, good fans the players did very well but the whole league makes it tough to just hitters and pitchers and Lancaster is an extreme park.

That said I wish I'd got to a game and the reports on fan sites show true affection from local fans.

Well, actually, it is. The official announcement came out today, which makes it new.

Now, I know what you are saying London. It was going to happen once FSG bought Salem last year. But, until the announcement happened...

Welcome Home to the Carolina League, boyos ! You should have never left.....

Will see you at Kinston in the spring......

Christmas in September for me....thanks go to the front office. Well done....returning to what has historically been a good pitchers league.

Many minor league teams are either unprofitable or barely profitable. For the most part, it makes more sense for the big clubs to put up with the movement of their affiliates every two or four years than to have a separate unit dealing with all the financials and operations of a minor league club. There are more than enough private ownership groups willing to put up with that stuff themselves.

That said, there probably will be some MLB clubs acquiring their minor league affiliates pretty soon. Specifically, there are a few teams that have privately expressed interest in acquiring other Carolina League teams as soon as next season. The California League will almost certainly be losing two teams after next season and there are very few teams that want to be stuck with a High A affiliate in that league (west coast teams excluded). Minor League baseball is shifting eastward.

I don't know of any specific rules barring one club from owning another club's affiliate. I think the rules on that might actually be determined more by the leagues that the minor league teams belong to than Major League baseball itself. From a player development standpoint, I don't see how it would do anyone any harm. However, there would be almost no reason for a Major League club to own another club's affiliate.

Somewhat off-topic, forgive me, but this is something that interests me but I have no practical experience with...

These two bolded statements seem to be incongruous. Is the implication that private ownership groups have little to no profit motive? Just for fun?

I would think that given current player development tracts, owning a AA franchise in a decent-sized, or ideally, major metro area is the optimal way to be sustainably profitable unless (underscore this) you are in those handful of areas that sustain a AAA team (Buffalo, etc.) because there are few natural options.

I am in a major metro area (read: ML-ready) with a AAA team and attendance sucks, because the top-tier talent we see is akin to, oh, say, Matt Cassel's brother. I have a genuine interest in this topic. How could someone fix this? Solicit better affiliations with AA teams? More free beer? Honestly, I don't have the answer, and would love any opinions.

Among other reasons is that the the owner of the minor league club has to pay for the stadium and its operations and team travel. There are other items for which they foot the bill. The MLB club's major expenses are salaries and meal money.

On the other hand, these days, with a popular team whose farm system is getting attention, having the Red Sox as an affiliate is a draw itself, meaning Boston-affiliated teams are more likely to make money just because they're Boston-affiliated teams.

Lancaster is now officially an Astros affiliate.

What are the forces behind this? Is it related to needs of MLB to have more eastern affiliates, or is it simply due to more demand in eastern markets for non-MLB baseball?

I guess the question is; Are teams moving because they're losing money/making less money than they can in the west, or are they moving because their MLB affiliates are pressuring/forcing them to? If it is the latter, will independent league teams pop up to fill the void?

Also - you missed one piece of my question about MLB ownership...is there anything to prevent a MLB team from owning an independent league team?

A quick thought on owning other team's affiliates (which I guess the Red Sox did this season in Salem - or was that sale not "official" until the end of the season?); In hockey, some NHL teams own Jr teams - which are not affiliated with either their owner, or any other team...but, they will have players on those teams who are under contract to other NHL teams.

baseball has been shifting westward for decades, with most of the expansion teams coming into the league in the last 40 years focusing west of the Mississippi or replacing teams that moved west of the Mississippi. Only one team has actually moved back east in the last 50 years (two if you count the Seattle Pilots to Milwaukee to replace, the other Eastward team: the Braves). Two expansion teams have been started in Eastern towns that never had a major league team -- Toronto and Tampa Bay.

In the meantime we've had baseball expand at or move into Houston, Kansas City (twice), Milwaukee, Oakland, Los Angeles (twice), San Francisco, Seattle (twice), Minnesota and Arlington, while Eastern teams teams that have left for good include the towns of Philidelphia, Boston, Washington (twice), and Montreal (but the team stayed in the East).

Baseball went west a long time ago, but if "going eastward" means "moving into the American heartland," then maybe that's where you're right.

I was more interested in the migration patterns and regional demand for and success of minor and independent league teams over the past 10-20 years, and some thoughts as to what they may be in the future.

I found an interesting article in Forbes that backs up your claim- a lot of the highest-profit minor league teams are American heartland or west.

Sox change name from Avalanche to Red Sox, per Bloomberg.com.

I have no problem changing away from the Avalanche (While I suppose the Blue Ridge Mountains do have avalanches... the name is a result of their initial affiliation with the Rockies)... I really would rather have a name that fits the community first. I like the fact that Greenville, Lowell and Portland (even though there is some reason to believe Sea Dogs worked with the Marlins motif, it still seems fine even out of that context) have names that are not Red Sox.

Perhaps it is a temporary change... and the FSG will seek community involvement on a name that works for the Sox and the community.

[Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the name Red Sox. I just happen to like the uniqueness of many minor league names.]

I doubt it's temporary. They've designed a new logo with the Red Sox in thr foreground and the Blue Ridge Mtns in the background.

The Red Sox have a history in that area starting in 1943 with the Roanoke Red Sox (Class-B Piedmont League), lasting through 1953. They were called the Roanoke Red Sox until 1951 when they became known as the Roanoke Ro-Sox. Salem and Roanoke are about six miles apart, as the crow flies.

I agree with Cuzitt that minor league names can be more fun: names like the Amsterdam Rugmakers, Waterbury Timers, Tampa Smokers, Mayfield Clothiers, Hammond Berries, Gainesville G-Men, Moultrie To-baks--to pick some from the past.

I do admit to liking the new Salem Red Sox logo.

The reason that Greenville, Lowell and Portland can have the names they do is that they are not owned by the Red Sox. This is really no different than say the Tampa Yankees.

While this is true, there is no reason a FSG owned team would have to be named the Red Sox. Branding the team the Red Sox may very well help generate more fan interest in Virginia... but it was not like the Jethawks avoided selling the Red Sox connection (Jethawks Nation) while keeping a locally significant name.

Minor league teams derive a fair amount of income from the sale of their paraphenalia. Indeed, some found it so profitable that they were changing their logos, team nicknames so frequently that the rulers stepped in and restricted how often they can do that. This is from a USAToday article (6/21/2004): Rules demand that a minor league team maintain its logo for a three-year period and notify governing officials by June 1 of a change for the following year. It could be that the Red Sox made using their name part of the purchase agreement or it could be that they think the strength of the Red Sox name is enough to help generate sales.

Update on the Uniforms...

* Caps
* Home/Away Uniforms
* Alternate/BP Jerseys

I love the road uni. Thanks for the pics.