Can anyone explain MLB's minor league affiliates disparity?

[mabrowndog]

The Red Sox have seven teams stocked with their prospects (Pawtucket, Portland, Salem, Greenville, Lowell, GCL Sox, DSL Sox).
 
This puts them on a level field with 13 other MLB franchises who also have seven minor league squads (ATL, CLE, COL, LAD, MIA, LAA, MIL, MIN, OAK, SDP, SFG, TEX, WAS). Surprisingly (to me, anyway), it also places them in the bottom half as far as the number of affiliates.
 
Ten franchises have eight minor league clubs (BAL, ARI, CHC, CIN, DET, HOU, KCR, PHI, STL, TOR). And there are five MLB teams with a whopping nine affiliates (NYM, NYY, PIT, SEA, TBR).
 
Then there's the lone outlier, the White Sox, who for some reason have just six (6) minor league teams.
 
I haven't looked, but I assume there's nothing in the MLB Constitution or rules that places any minimum or maximum limits on (a) the number of players you can have under minor league contracts, or (b) the number of affiliates you can stock them with.
 
For the franchises with 8 or 9 affiliates, the surpluses lie in countries whose citizens aren't yet subject to an MLB amateur draft. That makes perfect sense since the only real restriction at present seems to be the international bonus pool. Otherwise it's just find a shitload of players and sign 'em up before your competitors do. The 9-affiliate club members all have two teams in such countries. The Yankees, Mets & Pirates each have a pair of DSL teams, while the Mariners & Rays have one each in the DSL and VSL.
 
I guess having as many players as possible in your development chain is ostensibly supposed to increase your chances of developing MLB talent. So why are the Red Sox fielding two fewer minor league clubs than a pair of their division rivals? Why aren't they fielding a full team in Venezuela as well as the Dominican? Do they feel that it's better to follow the "smaller class size" model, whereby they have fewer (but more gifted) players, and then provide them with more individual attention and personalized instruction?
 
And what's the White Sox' logic behind having three fewer affiliates than 17% of their MLB competitors? While they do have a DSL team, they're the only franchise that doesn't have a rookie-level affiliate based at their spring training camp. The other 29 clubs all have such teams in Arizona or Florida.
 
It's all... screwy.
 
So, WTF?

 

[JimBoSox9]

Assuming the existing selection funnels are mostly functional, the extra 25-75 guys in your pipeline are going to by definition be the fringe of the fringe, no? Even for a big-market club I could see the cost-benefit for more chances at Nava or Burkhart-like lottery tickets not lining up right. In other words, I'd assume each club controls enough prospects that they don't lose out on guys they want because of space.

The real lunacy is the lack of real conditioning and nutrition programs, ml-wide. With what we know about that shit, I dunno why ml complexes aren't all Oregon-style.

 

[I miss FJM]

Thanks for educating me mabrowndog. I never realized such a difference even existed and the disparity between the the Red Sox and the MFY, Rays and others is IMHO surprising and intriguing. Which leads to a couple of questions at the least (I know embarrassingly little about anything below AA):
 
Do the clubs with more affiliates actually have 25-75 more total players under minor league contract than do the Red Sox? Or, are the totals closer than the number of affiliates make it appear? That is, are the roster sizes of all the lower levels limited, in that, do some clubs carry more players at certain levels than others such that the total players by club are in fact essentially equal? Obviously, as a pradtial matter, playing time would be limited by a grossly inflated roster at any given level, but spread across several, perhaps not materially. Especially considering the very low levels are mostly lottery tickets or somewhat flyers (I know I am assuming here please recognize I do not mean all of them).

 

[tmorgan]

Pretty sure the Sox shut down their VSL team after 2005 because they didn't trust the political/league situation long term and had just built the Dominican complex where they started sending all of their players from Latin America. It seems like the Sox have been investing a lot more in LA in mid-range players who have been getting 5-6 figure bonuses rather than just taking a bunch of almost no bonus try-outs. Since all the teams that have more affiliates have them at rookie ball either in the states or in LA that means that there is probably a mix of- more guys in extended spring training or rehab assignments in Ft Myers and fewer guys who would probably have gotten weeded out before a trip to Greenville. I think that last year the Astros were piggybacking like all of their starters in A ball so none of them were actually getting enough work to evaluate actually as starters, since they had two rookie leagues feeding in and a lot of SP draft picks. That's as much an organizational decision about inning and pitch limits, but it's really not the Sox philosophy and the Sox have done pretty well on SP development in the last 10 years.  Still, I guess it doesn't seem unreasonable to just scout the minors and indy ball and grab the Navas or the Devern Hansacks when they succeed in Indy ball, Mexico or get dropped and scouts had seen something there that seemed useful if unfulfilled.  Since the Sox actually got those guys, and Tazawa maybe they just trust the marginal pro scout over the marginal rookie ball managerial staff and amateur scouting signing.

 

[mabrowndog]

 
Do the clubs with more affiliates actually have 25-75 more total players under minor league contract than do the Red Sox? Or, are the totals closer than the number of affiliates make it appear? That is, are the roster sizes of all the lower levels limited, in that, do some clubs carry more players at certain levels than others such that the total players by club are in fact essentially equal? Obviously, as a pradtial matter, playing time would be limited by a grossly inflated roster at any given level, but spread across several, perhaps not materially. Especially considering the very low levels are mostly lottery tickets or somewhat flyers (I know I am assuming here please recognize I do not mean all of them).

 
Yes, they're all limited. Just like MLB, there's an Active and Reserve limit for each level (and league). In MLB, the active limit is 25 (26 on days when doubleheaders are played), while the reserve limit is 40. However, in the majors, players who are suspended, on the restricted list, or on the 60-day DL don't count toward the 40-man limit.
 
Active/Reserve limits for minor levels are as follows (leagues in parentheses):
 
25/38 - AAA (International, Pacific Coast)
25/37 - AA (Eastern, Southern, Texas)
25/35 - High A (Carolina, California, Florida State)
25/35 - Low A (Midwest, South Atlantic)
30/35 - Short Season A (NY-Penn, Northwest)
35/35 - Rookie Advanced (Appalachian, Pioneer)
35/35 - Rookie (Arizona, Gulf Coast, Dominican Summer, Venezuelan Summer)
 
Players on the following lists do not count against active roster limits, and those with a # sign also don't count against reserve limits:
 
* Bereavement List
* Disabled List
* Extended Spring Training (#)
* Major League Rehab Assignment (#)
* Restricted List (#)
* Reserved List
* Suspended List (#)
* Temporarily Inactive List
 
The Yankees, Rays, Mets, Pirates & Mariners can have up to 105 more players assigned to their minor league reserve rosters than the White Sox can, and they can have up to 75 more active players than the Chisox at any given time during the season. But I don't believe there are any limitations on how many players can be sent to Extended Spring Training or placed on the Restricted List. The latter is typically used for players serving military commitments (for example, catcher J.T. Watkins), and for athletes who have reached an agreement with the club to pursue a sport other than baseball (such as football players Shaq Thompson, Brandon Magee and Jeff Driskel).
 
Getting back to your question, I don't see anything that suggests teams like the Yankees or Mets are keeping their upper-level (A, AA, AAA) reserve and active rosters at or close to the same numbers to reach some sort of "total system-wide minor leaguers" parity with teams like the White Sox (or Red Sox for that matter). If they did, one problem is they'd have few extra players available to replace those who wind up on any of the above lists. Also, it would only account for a maximum of 50 players (the collective difference between all active and reserve roster limits).

 

[TomRicardo]

Per the MLB Rule 56 no major league team can have more than one full season minor league team per level (AAA, AA, Advanced A, and A).  Now a team can own or have PDC with multiple short season or rookie level teams however remember there is a service limit for all of A baseball.
 
Advanced A can only have two players with six years or more service in the minor leagues
 
Single A can only have two players with five or more years
 
Short Season A can only have two player with four or more years
 
Rookie level can only have three years of service or less
 
 
Any player can play one season of short season or rookie if they switch from pitcher to positional or vice versa.
 
There is no service time gained for extended spring training.