Poll: Trading Draft Picks

[Greg Pappas]

Would you like to see MLB institute a new plan allowing for the trading of draft choices?

This will be a simple Yes/No vote. Comments are welcome and encouraged. :)

[bird watcher]

In lieu of a salary cap they need to allow it so teams can compete. If low income teams are going to pass on top talent then they need to be able to get compensation for letting other teams in the door.

This wouldn't help the Orioles though because we are one of the teams who can afford to take the Weiters of the world.

[Greg Pappas]

I voted yes, so strongly it could have counted 20 times. :D

I would implement a system allowing it, on a three year probationary basis. That way if it needs changes or needs to revert back to it's current format, it can do so.

[ATO UMD]

I just think it'd be a lot easier for teams in the bottom half to trade up because, unlike the NBA and NFL drafts, the value placed on a top 5 pick is unknown in the MLB draft.

The Ravens would have had a much better idea of what they would have gotten had they decided to trade up and get somebody like a Matt Ryan-- though he could still end up being a bust. And to take that gamble they would have had to pay a hefty reward.

The same could be said for any team in the upcoming NBA draft trying to jump the board and get Michael Beasley.

But I feel like the commodities are so risky in the MLB draft that it wouldn't cost nearly that much to jump up the board, and teams like the Yankees and Red Sox could take advantage of a cash-strapped team by swapping a slew of picks for a top-three pick. And making it easier for the successful teams to get the top talent is not the point of ordering it the way they do; it's supposed to serve as an equalizer by letting the bad teams get first crack at the impact players.

For example, I think there were some teams ahead of us last year who gladly would have traded their spot to a big-market winner because they didn't want to deal with Boras on Wieters.

And Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew falling to their respective teams several years ago is a bigger flaw. You could probably argue the same with Wieters falling to us. I guess the point I've been trying to make in the past two paragraphs is that the slotting system needs to be more concrete.

[Greg Pappas]

Poster paulcoates started a good thread earlier this year about this. Go here (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62065&highlight=Trading+Draft+Picks).

[crawdad]

Before you can trade them, I think you need to have a tiered salary system. As in everyone who gets draft in the first round costs the same amount of money. I think with respect to competition, one might worry that moves are based on financial reasons as opposed to baseball reasons. A free system would be simpler and has a certain elegance to it, but we are viewing a closed system of competition and the need for a free market really isn't a greater pressing issue than that of long-term competition.

[Greg Pappas]

I just think it'd be a lot easier for teams in the bottom half to trade up because, unlike the NBA and NFL drafts, the value placed on a top 5 pick is the MLB draft.

The Ravens would have had a much better idea of what they would have gotten had they decided to trade up and get somebody like a Matt Ryan-- though he could still end up being a bust. And to take that gamble they would have had to pay a hefty reward.

The same could be said for any team in the upcoming NBA draft trying to jump the board and get Michael Beasley.

But I feel like the commodities are so unknown in the MLB draft that it wouldn't cost nearly that much to jump up the board, and teams like the Yankees and Red Sox could take advantage of a cash-strapped team by swapping a slew of picks for a top-three pick. And making it easier for the successful teams to get the top talent is not the point of ordering it the way they do; it's supposed to serve as an equalizer by letting the bad teams get first crack at the impact players.

For example, I think there are some teams ahead of us last year who gladly would have traded their spot to a big-market winner because they didn't want to deal with Boras on Wieters.

And Jered Weaver and Stephen Drew falling to their respective teams several years ago is a bigger flaw. You could probably argue the same with Wieters falling to us. I guess the point I've been trying to make in the past two paragraphs is that the slotting system needs to be more concrete.

The cream of the crop in baseball rise to the top about as often as other sports. I'd love to see a study on the true success rates of each top ten draftee in the three sports. It could surprise.

As far as the Yanks, Red Sox, and other spenders moving up to take a top three prospect... sure it can happen, but they'd have to pay a hefty price. Say the Red Sox really wanted Smoak this year. They make a deal with SF for the #5 pick, right after the Orioles choose, as Smoak is now available at that pick. The Sawx get their man, but would have to give up their #1 (30), supplemental pick (45) & #2 (77) this year as well as next year's #1 and #3. SF has many holes and might take that deal.

That was an example... but the point is that teams are not giving up position without making it worthwhile. Currently some teams are forced by financial issues to let better players slide past them, so why not get the proper value?

[ATO UMD]

The cream of the crop in baseball rise to the top about as often as other sports. I'd love to see a study on the true success rates of each top ten draftee in the three sports. It could surprise.

As far as the Yanks, Red Sox, and other spenders moving up to take a top three prospect... sure it can happen, but they'd have to pay a hefty price. Say the Red Sox really wanted Smoak this year. They make a deal with SF for the #5 pick, right after the Orioles choose, as Smoak is now available at that pick. The Sawx get their man, but would have to give up their #1 (30), supplemental pick (45) & #2 (77) this year as well as next year's #1 and #3. SF has many holes and might take that deal.

That was an example... but the point is that teams are not giving up position without making it worthwhile. Currently some teams are forced by financial issues to let better players slide past them, so why not get the proper value?

See, I don't even know if the value assessed in that trade would be the case because when somebody from the MLB draft doesn't make it, that means they never set foot on a major league field.

At least with NBA and NFL players they contribute, in some capacity, at the pro-level. Though Kyle Boller is a bust and borders on a pariah in this town, he still played as an NFL QB and was league average some years. Many baseball players never even see action in the bigs, and I don't think teams would be willing to mortgage all of the picks you listed above for such a commodity, which is why I think much less would be needed to move up.

[Greg Pappas]

See, I don't even know if the value assessed in that trade would be the case because when somebody from the MLB draft doesn't make it, that means they never set foot on a major league field.

At least with NBA and NFL players they contribute, in some capacity, at the pro-level. Though Kyle Boller is a bust and borders on a pariah in this town, he still played as an NFL QB and was league average some years. Many baseball players never even see action in the bigs, and I don't think teams would be willing to mortgage all of the picks you listed above for such a commodity, which is why I think much less would be needed to move up.

The following has been copied from a thread (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57155) I created a bit ago...


Last year, before the 2007 MLB Draft, I had made a comment roughly to the effect that it was my belief that regarding first-round picks, and especially high first-round picks, Hitters seemed to be the most likely choice to be successful ML'ers, in comparison to Pitchers. I also felt that H.S. Hitters were perhaps the best choice overall.

The choices were:
1] High School Hitters
2] High School Pitchers
3] College Hitters
4] College Pitchers

I decided that I had better do some research to determine if my recollection of past drafts were accurate, and did so. To conclude a pick's success or failure, I determined that I should use the most recent time period to use as a reference point, so I went back ten years and began with the 1997 draft. Moving forward, I collected data on the next five drafts as well, stopping at the 2002 draft, as the fairness of concluding one's success or failure was a bit premature beginning in '03, for many of the picks had not yet made the big leagues. The basis of what I determined as 'successful vs not' is simply opinion based and therefore subjective.

Please download the attachment if you'd like to have my Excel spreadsheet, containing the research results for your own.

The results showed, albeit in a small sample size, and using the top ten choices as a focal point, that indeed; hitters were far more likely to be successful when choosing a top-ten draft pick.


1] High School Hitters > 72% good picks
2] College Hitters > 57% good picks
3] High School Pitchers > 31% good picks
4] College Pitchers > 28% good picks

These numbers may change, and likely would to some degree going back in time, however, it's my belief that scouts have more advantages than in years past. More tournaments, showcases, better equipment such as speed guns, scouting services to pull more resources from, and the advent of a new way of how to view talent (Moneyball, etc...) gives the modern scout an outstanding chance to determine the best talent out there.

Why are hitters more likely to be successful? I think the answer lies in the underlying issues of being a stud pitcher, whether in High School or College. Overuse and overthrowing are the likely causes, as the extra stress on their young arms often is evident within a few years of being drafted. Tommy John and other surgeries abound, and some of these youngsters are never the same. Another reason, and one that is just as likely as injury is that these youngsters never learn how to pitch. They never develop the skill to have command, or cannot master the all-important need for secondary pitches. Throwing 95 mph is great and certainly cannot be taught, but taking a pitcher who throws hard and may someday be able to harness his talents, is walking on thin ice. There are great early first round success stories among pitchers, that cannot be and is not being debated, but taking a hitter appears to be a much safer way to early-pick success.

...........From the same thread........

I just updated my research to contain the years '93-'96, so now we have a full ten year period to pull numbers from.

The new overall results for the success rates of top ten picks?

College Hitter > 63% (10/16)
HS Hitter > 63% (17/27)
HS Pitcher > 35% (8/23)
College Pitcher > 34% (11/32)

Conclusion: Hitters are nearly twice as likely to be better choices.

[Sports Guy]

I have yet to see a good reason why you shouldn't be allowed to trade them.

[420gamewinners]

If teams could trade picks. The O's could trade up to get Alvarez from Pittsburgh.:)

[Greg Pappas]

I have yet to see a good reason why you shouldn't be allowed to trade them.

We agree. There are far greater viewers at MLB.com at draft time as compared to the World Series. Interesting. People want to see the Draft become an event, and if MLB makes some smart changes to allow the trading of these picks, it would be a big deal. MLB needs interest in these youngsters, as they lag behind in promoting the game in comparison to the other sports.

[Stotle]

We agree. There are far greater viewers at MLB.com at draft time as compared to the World Series. Interesting. People want to see the Draft become an event, and if MLB makes some smart changes to allow the trading of these picks, it would be a big deal. MLB needs interest in these youngsters, as they lag behind in promoting the game in comparison to the other sports.

It would help if ESPN could 1) get rights to more college games, and 2) show them!

On topic, I'm all for trading picks but agree with Craw regarding a tiered system.

[allstar1579]

They should be allowed to trade them, and they should also be allowed to deal a player that was drafted that year, or the rights to a player before they are signed.

[Greg Pappas]

Before you can trade them, I think you need to have a tiered salary system. As in everyone who gets draft in the first round costs the same amount of money. I think with respect to competition, one might worry that moves are based on financial reasons as opposed to baseball reasons. A free system would be simpler and has a certain elegance to it, but we are viewing a closed system of competition and the need for a free market really isn't a greater pressing issue than that of long-term competition.

I'm not sure how I feel about a tiered system, but moves NOT being made, such as Pittsburgh and Wieters last year, would have been avoided somewhat if Pittsburgh would have traded the pick to the highest bidder, knowing Wieters had serious value. As it was/is, they got nothing but a lesser talented player. Having the freedom to deal that pick would have helped Pittsburgh a great deal more.

[crawdad]

I'm not sure how I feel about a tiered system, but moves NOT being made, such as Pittsburgh and Wieters last year, would have been avoided somewhat if Pittsburgh would have traded the pick to the highest bidder, knowing Wieters had serious value. As it was/is, they got nothing but a lesser talented player. Having the freedom to deal that pick would have helped Pittsburgh a great deal more.

Eh, I'm not sure how it helps baseball to be more competitive to allow such a thing if decisions will be made with regard to money. Right now we have an imperfect system. Flushing an imperfect system with cash will results in something much worse. I'm not sure how Pittsburg would have gotten anything close to value for that selection.

[Greg Pappas]

Eh, I'm not sure how it helps baseball to be more competitive to allow such a thing if decisions will be made with regard to money. Right now we have an imperfect system. Flushing an imperfect system with cash will results in something much worse. I'm not sure how Pittsburg would have gotten anything close to value for that selection.

So the alternative is to let Pittsburgh just take the inferior player? They would gain by dealing the pick to a team clamoring for Matt Wieters.

We agree that the system stinks as is, but simply disagree on how to fix it. It's a start. :)

[SevisonJN]

Allowing teams to trade draft picks makes perfect sense in any sport. MLB is the only major sport to not allow it. Here is why I think it should be allowed (1st 5 rounds only).

1.) Let's say the Orioles wanted to deal Jay Payton, but couldn't get the right minor or major league player for him. The Mets for an example could send their third or fourth round pick to the Orioles for Payton.

The Orioles could also move up to grab that guy they may covet.

2.) Slotting is still slotting no matter where a guy was drafted. Slotting is a big joke anyhow. "We recommend that you stay within a predetermined salary range". Are you kidding me? That is how some of the good teams landed top notch talent. Some teams try to play fair, others just do not care.

3.) It could make it easier for small market teams (Florida Marlins, Kansas City Royals, Pittsburgh) to rebuild quicker.

4.) It adds intrigue to an otherwise boring draft format.

I know that MLB draftees miss more often than other sports, but how is the numbers game any different if trades are allowed? A team may have 3 first round draft picks, but other teams could too if that is how they chose to do things.

[crawdad]

So the alternative is to let Pittsburgh just take the inferior player? They would gain by dealing the pick to a team clamoring for Matt Wieters.

We agree that the system stinks as is, but simply disagree on how to fix it. It's a start. :)

Yeah, having Pittsburgh take an inferior player instead of trading it to someone who can buy it from them is better. I think if you keep the rules as is and only change whether or not you can trades picks what it could do is cause greater seperation between rich and less rich teams.

Basically here is what we have right now:
1. Somewhat competently run franchises typically finish in the back 15 of the first round.
2. If anyone drops this far, they will snatch him up. often the best player will not drop past the first 15 picks.
3. Rich teams can buy great talent, typically, in their decline years. along with this they lose their draft pick because they are often in the back 15 and give it up with compensation.

This current system runs inefficiently but does drive talent to the worse teams, which are often poorly run, lower budget teams.

If we allow for trading, but keep everything else the same:
1. Top prospects are now up for the bidding. These are selections that have some, but not a lot of worth. You would not trade a prime ballplayer for a 1st round pick . . . they just are not worth the same. Most likely, the other team would get a mid-range talent on an MLB squad or a high second tier prospect in AAA.
2. The end result is that the rich teams are likely more capable of hoarding free agent talent and first round talent. Poorer teams will collect more marginal talent.

If we go to a tiered price system where shared revenue is place in a amateur draft signing pool (with excess given to the teams as is now the practice):
1. Controls are placed on draft signee demands.
2. Poorer teams are making pick trades based more on talent than price (though price will still be a factor to some extent, but much less so).
1. Picks are based on talent.

[markpolis]

The following has been copied from a thread (http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57155) I created a bit ago...


Last year, before the 2007 MLB Draft, I had made a comment roughly to the effect that it was my belief that regarding first-round picks, and especially high first-round picks, Hitters seemed to be the most likely choice to be successful ML'ers, in comparison to Pitchers. I also felt that H.S. Hitters were perhaps the best choice overall.

The choices were:
1] High School Hitters
2] High School Pitchers
3] College Hitters
4] College Pitchers
I decided that I had better do some research to determine if my recollection of past drafts were accurate, and did so. To conclude a pick's success or failure, I determined that I should use the most recent time period to use as a reference point, so I went back ten years and began with the 1997 draft. Moving forward, I collected data on the next five drafts as well, stopping at the 2002 draft, as the fairness of concluding one's success or failure was a bit premature beginning in '03, for many of the picks had not yet made the big leagues. The basis of what I determined as 'successful vs not' is simply opinion based and therefore subjective.

Please download the attachment if you'd like to have my Excel spreadsheet, containing the research results for your own.

The results showed, albeit in a small sample size, and using the top ten choices as a focal point, that indeed; hitters were far more likely to be successful when choosing a top-ten draft pick.


1] High School Hitters > 72% good picks
2] College Hitters > 57% good picks
3] High School Pitchers > 31% good picks
4] College Pitchers > 28% good picks

These numbers may change, and likely would to some degree going back in time, however, it's my belief that scouts have more advantages than in years past. More tournaments, showcases, better equipment such as speed guns, scouting services to pull more resources from, and the advent of a new way of how to view talent (Moneyball, etc...) gives the modern scout an outstanding chance to determine the best talent out there.

Why are hitters more likely to be successful? I think the answer lies in the underlying issues of being a stud pitcher, whether in High School or College. Overuse and overthrowing are the likely causes, as the extra stress on their young arms often is evident within a few years of being drafted. Tommy John and other surgeries abound, and some of these youngsters are never the same. Another reason, and one that is just as likely as injury is that these youngsters never learn how to pitch. They never develop the skill to have command, or cannot master the all-important need for secondary pitches. Throwing 95 mph is great and certainly cannot be taught, but taking a pitcher who throws hard and may someday be able to harness his talents, is walking on thin ice. There are great early first round success stories among pitchers, that cannot be and is not being debated, but taking a hitter appears to be a much safer way to early-pick success.

...........From the same thread........

I just updated my research to contain the years '93-'96, so now we have a full ten year period to pull numbers from.

The new overall results for the success rates of top ten picks?

College Hitter > 69% (11/16)
HS Hitter > 63% (17/27)
HS Pitcher > 35% (8/23)
College Pitcher > 34% (11/32)

Conclusion: Hitters are nearly twice as likely to be better choices.

Greg, I know it's a bit early but look at the 2006 draft. At this point, it strongly goes against your argument.

1. Royals - Luke Hochevar, College pitcher - (Tennessee), in the pro's.
2. Rockies - Greg Reynolds, college pitcher (Stanford), in the pro's.
3. Devil Rays - Evan Longoria, college hitter (Long Beach State), pro.
4. Pirates - Brad Lincoln, college pitcher (Houston), TJ surgery in 2007
5. Mariners - Brandon Morrow, college pitcher (Cal), in the pro's
6. Tigers - Andrew Miller, college pitcher (UNC) in the pro's with Florida
7. Dodgers - Clayton Kershaw, High School pitcher, making his pro debut
8. Reds - Drew Stubbs, college outfielder(Texas),
9. Orioles - Billy Rowell, high school
10. Giants - Tim Lincecum, college pitcher (Washington), in the pro's

Let me throw in these college pitchers from the same 2006 draft:

11 - D- Backs - Max Scherzer, college pitcher (Missouri), in the pro's
21 - Yankees - Ian Kennedy, college pitcher (USC), in the pro's
42 - Yankees - Joba Chamberlain, college pitcher (Nebraska), in the pro's

It may be a bit too early to say the above college pitchers will have successful professional careers, but it's very clear they are providing very fast returns for their clubs. It clearly contradicts your theory of "taking a hitter appears to be a much safer way to early-pick success".

The 2006 draft probably was the deepest in recent history in terms of college pitchers. What this does prove is that you should take the very best player available, albeit hitter or pitcher, college or high school. You only draft a high school hitter over a college pitcher if you clearly think that player projects better in the long term. You do not draft a high school hitter over a college pitcher just because statistical analysis shows they have a better rate of long term success.

I'm sure if Joe Jordan selects Brian Matusz over Eric Hosmer, Tim or Gordon Beckham or Justin Smoak it's because he's feels Matusz is the best player available.

[Greg Pappas]

Greg, I know it's a bit early but look at the 2006 draft. At this point, it strongly goes against your argument.

1. Royals - Luke Hochevar, College pitcher - (Tennessee), in the pro's.
2. Rockies - Greg Reynolds, college pitcher (Stanford), in the pro's.
3. Devil Rays - Evan Longoria, college hitter (Long Beach State), pro.
4. Pirates - Brad Lincoln, college pitcher (Houston), TJ surgery in 2007
5. Mariners - Brandon Morrow, college pitcher (Cal), in the pro's
6. Tigers - Andrew Miller, college pitcher (UNC) in the pro's with Florida
7. Dodgers - Clayton Kershaw, High School pitcher, making his pro debut
8. Reds - Drew Stubbs, college outfielder(Texas),
9. Orioles - Billy Rowell, high school
10. Giants - Tim Lincecum, college pitcher (Washington), in the pro's

Let me throw in these college pitchers from the same 2006 draft:

11 - D- Backs - Max Scherzer, college pitcher (Missouri), in the pro's
21 - Yankees - Ian Kennedy, college pitcher (USC), in the pro's
42 - Yankees - Joba Chamberlain, college pitcher (Nebraska), in the pro's

It may be a bit too early to say the above college pitchers will have successful professional careers, but it's very clear they are providing very fast returns for their clubs. It clearly contradicts your theory of "taking a hitter appears to be a much safer way to early-pick success".

The 2006 draft probably was the deepest in recent history in terms of college pitchers. What this does prove is that you should take the very best player available, albeit hitter or pitcher, college or high school. You only draft a high school hitter over a college pitcher if you clearly think that player projects better in the long term. You do not draft a high school hitter over a college pitcher just because statistical analysis shows they have a better rate of long term success.

I'm sure if Joe Jordan selects Brian Matusz over Eric Hosmer, Tim or Gordon Beckham or Justin Smoak it's because he's feels Matusz is the best player available.

I appreciate that in 2006 the returns may be much greater than in years past (it's still early), however, that's just one year. Being in the pros doesn't make one a success, performing well as a ML'er over a period of time does. My research simply shows the results as it is over a long period of time, and those figures show something quite clearly. Perhaps scouting has improved a great deal in recent years and the chances of success for these youngsters goes up. Time will tell. Perhaps we'll look back again in ten years and redo the analysis to see what changes took place. :)

[markpolis]

I appreciate that in 2006 the returns may be much greater than in years past (it's still early), however, that's just one year. Being in the pros doesn't make one a success, performing well as a ML'er over a period of time does. My research simply shows the results as it is over a long period of time, and those figures show something quite clearly. Perhaps scouting has improved a great deal in recent years and the chances of success for these youngsters goes up. Time will tell. Perhaps we'll look back again in ten years and redo the analysis to see what changes took place. :)

Yeah, I realize it's much too early to say the 2006 college pitching class will be successful in the long term, but early on it's very impressive how many of them have made it to the big leagues in less than two years. This class has a chance to be very, very special.

[Greg Pappas]

I have yet to see a good reason why you shouldn't be allowed to trade them.

In the same vein... What do you think needs to happen to get MLB to do this?