Appalachian League president Lee Landers is an optimist. He's not ready yet to say there won't be minor-league baseball in Pulaski next summer, and he's ready to consider any idea. But with no club or clubs willing and able to put a team together, Calfee Park could be empty for at least one season, Landers acknowledged in a Dec. 19 interview:
Last we spoke, you were waiting on a proposal from Joe Garagiola Jr., MLB's senior vice president of baseball operations. What was he was so excited about?
A: Yeah, it was a hybrid type of a co-op, not unlike we have been trying to put together ourselves. It all comes down to funding. It's who's going to fund it. We're going to have to get some help, because the nine major-league clubs in the [Appalachian] League are not going to fund it. The whole thing is it's not in their budget. Now, if it's spread to all 30 major-league clubs and it comes out of the commissioner's office, that's one thing. If it's left up to the individual clubs in the league, at this time it's not feasible.
Won't all major-league clubs have their budgets fairly set by now?
A: [That's why] to me, the plan has to be formulated by the commissioner's office and they say, 'This is the way we're going to do it.' I can't see it happening on a voluntary type of basis. Even if it was going to be, you know, some hybrid co-op of all the ideas we had brainstormed with. ... Let's just throw a figure out there. If it costs $350,000 or $400,000 for a major-league club to operate a club in the league – that's with payroll and equipment and all that other kind of stuff that goes into it – then to break that down nine ways is one thing. If you broke it down 30 ways – because those players ... could be signed to contracts through Major League Baseball, and then at the end they would go through a re-entry draft. All 30 clubs would have the same rights. And if all 30 clubs would have the same right to choose somebody off the Pulaski – in this case Pulaski – roster, then all 30 clubs should participate in the funding of it. Now, that has not really particularly been discussed.
Does this whole enterprise, then, depend on how much the commissioner's office wants a 10th team for the Appalachian League?
A: To me, that's going to be the bottom line now.
In talking with Garagiola and Sylvia Lind, MLB's senior manager of minor-league operations, how important is it to them?
A: They were excited, but my sense now from Sylvia is when they reduced their figures and approached the nine clubs in our league with their figures, the excitement wasn't there. It was, 'Yeah, let's go ahead and let's see how this would work,' and when they came back with ... [specific] figures, there was no excitement.
So is the commissioner's office just thinking of it as a proposition for the nine clubs already in the league? What about the full 30?
A: They haven't thrown anything out, with the possible exception that the commissioner's office fund it themselves. They just said they won't do that. Now that's Sylvia Lind saying that. I haven't talked to Joe about that, because Sylvia is my conduit to the higher authorities. That's where it stands right now. They're looking at all options over the holiday. To me, realistically, there's a point in time that we have to worry about the other nine members of our league, and we can't go much longer. I know that we have dates out there, but some of those aren't really practical, because you get a couple clubs that their major sponsor or advertiser is on a certain night. ... A 10- and a nine-team schedule don't overlap. The Saturday in June that you would have on one might not be there on the other.
So is the commissioner's office saying they won't fund a co-op team?
A: Everything is still a possibility until we get a definite answer. I think it's a long shot.
Does the commissioner's office make that decision internally or in discussion with the clubs?
A: My feeling is this: If the commissioner's office were to say that they were going to fund it, it could be a done deal, because they have already talked to the other clubs in the league, which were pretty much all for it. They would rather have a 10th team – until it came back, 'OK, this is how much it's going to cost you.' That's when the appetite went down real quick. That's one thing. And then you look, if we're told we're going to have to do this, then we might as well put our own players there. Would the cost be the same? Realistically, it would probably not be as much, but then again, you don't know. And it's one of those things, the unknown's going to get you, because you don't want to get to July and say, 'Whoa, we didn't figure on this.'
So Garagiola's nine-team co-op was more of a brainstorm than a thought-out proposal?
A: There was a lot of ways brought to the table that this could happen, and they put a hybrid together using all the scenarios, and that's what they came up with. It had been talked about before ... if it wasn't players already on somebody's roster, that after the draft, undrafted players that the scouting bureau was really high on – and that happens every year, that somebody doesn't get drafted – and since the draft rules have been changed so it appears there won't be as many rounds to the draft, there's going to be more players available. They could put them in a pool, so to speak, and form a club out of them. ... I mean, we have tryouts all over the country.
Would that be a pretty unique setup for a team?
A: Yeah, it'd be unique. But I've always thought outside the box. I'm a maverick.
How is the draft changing?
A: It's just the draft-and-follows. ... And from talking to scouting directors, they've come to the same opinion, so in all probability, you won't be drafting as many players as you've had in the past – of the draft-and-follow [variety]. I think the time limit that they can be under your control, still yours, is a shorter period of time, so there's no use drafting somebody if you know you probably won't sign him until the next year.
Do you expect to kind of check back after the holidays and see where it stands then, maybe have to make a tough decision then?
A: Yes. And to be fair, it was my contention all along if we didn't get something by last Friday, it's going to be after the holidays – and then there's no doubt in my mind the first day back from the holidays, the decision makers' desks are going to be sky high and by the time they dig through they're going to say, 'Whoa, we're going to spring training now. We can't, you know.' I think the urgency could have been there until Friday [Dec. 15] and then it'll get snowed under for a while. ... I have calls in up there right now. The biggest thing is to make sure that we still have a dialogue. … Some of them have camps before spring training starts. The Phillies are going to have a tryout camp in the next couple of weeks – an invitation-only type of thing – and other clubs do the same thing. So the player personnel people are going a different direction. Budgets are implemented. They’re not being set.
And at this point, you're pretty comfortable you've done all you can do to raise awareness, right?
A: Nobody in baseball can say that – first of all, they know who the Appalachian League is, and they have been contacted on multiple occasions, both electronically and face to face. Believe me, I've talked to all the league presidents about it. Everybody understands our problem. Our problem is not being realistic, in that we don't want to accept our fate right now. That's why I'm trying to make things happen. Until somebody higher than me pulls the plug, I'm going to keep doing it. I've been on the phone today with people, getting a lot of good advice and people calling to say, you know, 'Hang in there. We hope something will break for you.' And it's not Lee Landers; I'm worried about the people in Pulaski. They've really, really built up a good core of fans and they've probably tripled or quadrupled in the last five years – that base that you know it's going to be there every night. Well, if it goes dark for one year, like anything else, that base is going to find something else to do with their leisure time. If your favorite restaurant's not in town, you don't like it, but you find another one.
Teams switch around every off-season without this much turmoil. Was Toronto late in its decision here?
A: Well, we had two scenarios going on. First of all, if you go just on black and white, by the book, Toronto was not late. They didn't particularly do anything wrong in that their management contract, 2006 was the last year of it. They didn't renew it. I was dealing in hypotheticals with major-league clubs, because I don't like surprises in anything, trying to make sure that, hypothetically, if there was an opening in the league, would they be interested? And as soon as a hypothetical turned into 'this is what's going to be,' I let the clubs that had said that they would be very interested, I made them aware of it.
Was it too late for them?
A: No, not particularly. I mean, I could use that as a crutch. You'd have liked to have known last June if somebody was going to pull out. I was aware that one of them might entertain that thought and was told and the president of that club, or the one that had that operating agreement in Burlington, they were aware of it – not that [the Indians would leave], but 'we haven't made a decision yet.' ... So it was a surprise but not a shock when Toronto left. For me, having been in player development all my life, I was looking at it to see how they expect to send a young man from the Dominican Summer League to the New York-Penn League. The computer might say that'll work, but in reality, that doesn't work that often. So that part did surprise me. I was trying to poke around, see where they were going to put a club. When they said they were just going to drop a club, that did raise my eyebrows. ...
It was really prominent at the winter meetings that they wanted to go into the Gulf Coast League because they had come to the same conclusion that they might have acted too fast in dropping a club. But with the Appy League making noises – 'we need a 10th club' – I think they pulled their reins in a little bit, because it was really going to be a commotion if all of the sudden they added a club in the Gulf Coast League. That decision has not been made yet, officially. I've been told that they haven't decided yet. My gut feeling is that they're going to try to go to the Gulf Coast League. And there's nothing in the rules that says they can't, except I was told that hypothetically, a ballclub would have make that decision by the end of the winter meetings or they wouldn't be allowed to. Well, it's after the winter meetings and my feeling is they've said 'we need to go there.' You know, they're worried about the repercussions. Because I'm out there saying nobody burned bridges. Let them go back there for one year and give us a year to work on this.
What does Toronto say to that idea?
A: I haven't been able to talk to them. I've left messages, but they know what I'm calling about. But that's where the commissioner of baseball's office comes in. That comes under 'in the best interest of baseball.' And it's my opinion that the best interest of baseball would be served if Toronto was now allowed to have a club, that they be told, 'You go back to the Appy League for one year.' Now that's me, but I'm prejudiced.
With Baltimore and St. Louis adding Gulf Coast League teams, can another GCL team move to the Appy League?
A: No. No, because they use the Gulf Coast League for different reasons. Some of them are rehab facilities – not that they're going to use the rehab players in a game down there, but they have the facilities open year-round down there. To me it's a good idea to have a club in this league – and look at the successful clubs, from small-market and big-market. Atlanta's had a club in the Gulf Coast League and at Danville, and they've been pretty successful in player development. At the same token, so has Minnesota. That's big-market, small-market, but the philosophy is sound. So now you have those two clubs. You have the Mets. You've got Baltimore and St. Louis and Kansas City. Of the clubs that are going that way, they're pretty well represented in our league. Now, hopefully next year Washington will add a club.
What do the Nationals think about joining the league, especially with former Braves president Stan Kasten running things?
A: Well, the player development people said they would like to be in the Appalachian League. They weren't in a position this year – you know, the ownership just got there – to add a budget like that this year. Now, I'm very optimistic that in future years they would like to be represented in the Appalachian League. If rules were different, hypothetically, I'm certain they would like to have been here this year [2007]. But the only way to be in the Appy League this year was to add a club, if another major-league organization that was not now represented would have taken their spot in a PDC league that they were in. ... In other words, the only way that Washington could go to Pulaski was they would have to add a club. They might have the money, but [they're] in the first year of that ownership, number one. Number two, you don't like to sign players just to fill up a roster. Not saying that that would happen, but it could. ... [Are] there 35 more ballplayers that you really think can help us? ... I think we have a good chance with Washington, with their management team in place. A good share of it has come from Atlanta, that built that system up, and one of the pieces to that puzzle was they added a club.
Anyone else besides Washington in the mix for 2008?
A: I would hope that. I don't know that. You don't want to put all your bets on one thing. But as of right now, from the people that I talk to, the ones that I would be more optimistic next year would be Washington. And because it makes [geographic] sense for them also.
Is it hard to get West Coast clubs to put teams in the Appalachian League?
A: Yeah, it really is. Now, we had dialogue with the Dodgers a few years ago, and I think we were going to be successful. But now that the Dodgers have been sold and they’re moving their clubs to the West Coast. … [When the Rangers left to go west] it was nothing against Pulaski. In fact, Reid Nichols, who was the farm director then ... now he’s farm director in Milwaukee. He’s gone out of his way to help me. They would contribute players.
Milwaukee would contribute to a Pulaski co-op?
A: Yeah. But they’re not going to add a club.
Are there other teams that would contribute players?
A: Oh, there’s other clubs that would. ... It’s the most important thing on our docket right now. In the grand scheme of things at the winter meetings, you couldn’t sit down with the powers that be and talk about just that or have them go in a room and call a special meeting to talk about just that, because of everything else that goes on at the winter meetings.
Are you worried that with the holidays upon us, it’s too late to get a team’s attention?
A: That definitely is a concern, and that’s why I said that in my own mind I thought we had the week. The best chance we had was from the Tuesday after the winter meetings, to work on it all last week, because the puzzle pieces for everything else in baseball were kind of set in place. The trades at the winter meetings were done. The Rule 5 Draft was over. The rosters had been set. You were signing your own free agents. Contracts had gone out. ...
And again, [the biggest problem is] how does this fit with the great people in Pulaski and Tom Compton and Wayne Carpenter? Unfortunately, it’s the downside of this, because they certainly have done everything they asked and it’s not fair. … Until they pull the plug and say it’s over, I’m keeping out there. ...
[The question] appears sometimes that why wasn’t all this going on before? It was in back rooms ... [but] I wasn’t going to be vocal about it. I thought we could get more things done not being vocal -- I mean, not being well publicized what we were doing. … It’s the top priority I have right now, and it’s tough to say, well, it’s not fair to the other nine clubs in the league so we’re going to have to make a decision. Fortunately we have the type of people that understand that.
No comments yet