Jump to content

Trading draft picks

paulcoates

By paulcoates
in MLB

Recommended Posts

glorydays Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

glorydays

Posted
Posted
I know it is against the rules, but I am curious to know what the real reason against it? All the other sports do it.

This is my opinion, but I wonder if it is because MLB has like 60 rounds and if they started trading picks the draft would take about 5 years to complete...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NastyRonald A-Ball

NastyRonald

Posted
Posted
This is my opinion, but I wonder if it is because MLB has like 60 rounds and if they started trading picks the draft would take about 5 years to complete...

Also, the picks are never really set in stone until after the free agent signings. Its hard to trade a first round draft pick if you end up loosing yours because you signed a type a or b free agent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg Pappas Hangout Grand Counsel

Greg Pappas

Posted
Posted
Also, the picks are never really set in stone until after the free agent signings. Its hard to trade a first round draft pick if you end up loosing yours because you signed a type a or b free agent.

Yeah... it's a shame that the powers-that-be cannot devise a method to allow for it. Perhaps keeping the trades to a maximum of 2 or 3 per team, and capping the rounds in which deals can be made (1-3?) would suffice.

Trading would bring a new and exciting element to the draft and would cause an even higher following from the intrigue alone. Would the Yankees or Red Sox try to move up to #2 overall this year and grab Alvarez? Perhaps we send Huff to the Brewers for a 2nd rounder in '09?... etc.

I'm all for it, with restrictions certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RShack Hangout Grand Counsel

RShack

Posted
Posted

I'm just guessing... I assume it's because the draft is portrayed as an equalizer between rich and poor teams (although there is a more cynical take on it)... and if you let teams sell them (for either players or money), then it would be just another tool that enables rich teams to load up, thereby defeating that purpose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SevisonJN Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

SevisonJN

Posted
Posted
This is my opinion, but I wonder if it is because MLB has like 60 rounds and if they started trading picks the draft would take about 5 years to complete...

I think the remedy would be to allow trading during the first 5 rounds.

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SevisonJN Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

SevisonJN

Posted
Posted
I'm just guessing... I assume it's because the draft is portrayed as an equalizer between rich and poor teams (although there is a more cynical take on it)... and if you let teams sell them (for either players or money), then it would be just another tool that enables rich teams to load up, thereby defeating that purpose...

On the flip side, it would allow poor teams to require cheaper and longer term talent. That is the other side of the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SevisonJN Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

SevisonJN

Posted
Posted
Also, the picks are never really set in stone until after the free agent signings. Its hard to trade a first round draft pick if you end up loosing yours because you signed a type a or b free agent.

Then make the team liable during the following years draft. Doesn't football do it this way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RShack Hangout Grand Counsel

RShack

Posted
Posted
On the flip side, it would allow poor teams to require cheaper and longer term talent. That is the other side of the argument.

Why? You mean because they could trade expensive top-tier picks for cheaper young guys who wouldn't cost them as much to sign? If that's it, then you could be right. Or cheap cheezy owners could just take the money and run. Either way, I don't think megabuck signings existed when they made the rules about this (but I'm not sure).

The whole real point of the draft to begin with was to make players cheap to sign by preventing competition between teams for young talent. It was mainly about MLB being one unified monopoly rather than individual teams who competed against each other. So, I'm kinda surprised that they even let this Round-1 megabuck stuff happen. Why would they let that happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChaosLex Hangout Grand Counsel

ChaosLex

Posted
Posted

I'm a strong proponent of the adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Considering how the Royals and Rays have built their farms up the last few years, I'm perfectly happy with the current drafting process.

The only thing that sucks for us is that the guy's who drafted for us in the past (before Jordan) were dumb and/or handicapped by the FO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NCRaven Hangout Grand Counsel

NCRaven

Posted
Posted
I'm just guessing... I assume it's because the draft is portrayed as an equalizer between rich and poor teams (although there is a more cynical take on it)... and if you let teams sell them (for either players or money), then it would be just another tool that enables rich teams to load up, thereby defeating that purpose...

This is correct. It would allow the Yankees, for example, to trade their pick, typically near the bottom of the 1st round, for a historical cheap and bad team like Pittsburgh's or Kansas City's pick at the top of the round, say a #2 or #3. This would allow cheap ownership to move down and save money, and the rich teams like either New York, LA, or Chicago team or Boston to totally dominate the draft. It's enough that they can afford to sign any free agent they want, but trading draft picks would also allow them to cherry pick the best amateurs, as well. As it is, the Yanks have the highest paid shortstop (Jeter), third baseman (Rodriguez), right fielder (Abreu), catcher (Posada), left handed starter (Pettite) and reliever (Rivera) in the American League (several of them for all of the majors). Baseball shouldn't also let them have the best prospects as well. The draft is meant to spread talent throughout the league, not concentrate it.

Note: Brian Roberts is the highest paid second baseman in the AL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan4Life Hangout Veteran Council

Fan4Life

Posted
Posted
This is correct. It would allow the Yankees, for example, to trade their pick, typically near the bottom of the 1st round, for a historical cheap and bad team like Pittsburgh's or Kansas City's pick at the top of the round, say a #2 or #3. This would allow cheap ownership to move down and save money, and the rich teams like either New York, LA, or Chicago team or Boston to totally dominate the draft. It's enough that they can afford to sign any free agent they want, but trading draft picks would also allow them to cherry pick the best amateurs, as well. As it is, the Yanks have the highest paid shortstop (Jeter), third baseman (Rodriguez), right fielder (Abreu), catcher (Posada), left handed starter (Pettite) and reliever (Rivera) in the American League (several of them for all of the majors). Baseball shouldn't also let them have the best prospects as well. The draft is meant to spread talent throughout the league, not concentrate it.

Note: Brian Roberts is the highest paid second baseman in the AL.

This makes sense, but it doesn't seem to work the way it is designed. When a drafted player can "hold out" for $$$ and re-enter the draft the next season, to me, that ruins the system. They need to make a player ineligible for the draft for like 2-3 years if they hold out and are not signed. The bad teams need to have some power over the players in the draft, otherwise what's the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
osfan83 Major Leaguer Rising Star

osfan83

Posted
Posted
This makes sense, but it doesn't seem to work the way it is designed. When a drafted player can "hold out" for $$$ and re-enter the draft the next season, to me, that ruins the system. They need to make a player ineligible for the draft for like 2-3 years if they hold out and are not signed. The bad teams need to have some power over the players in the draft, otherwise what's the point.

Exactly. Right now small market teams run a risk when drafting the best players available in the first round, because they may night be able to sign them. (look how close we came to not signing Weiters) So sometimes the Royals, Pirates and Rays draft lesser talent guys just because they are easier to sign, allowing the better talent to fall to Boston, and New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davearm All-Star

davearm

Posted
Posted
This is correct. It would allow the Yankees, for example, to trade their pick, typically near the bottom of the 1st round, for a historical cheap and bad team like Pittsburgh's or Kansas City's pick at the top of the round, say a #2 or #3. This would allow cheap ownership to move down and save money, and the rich teams like either New York, LA, or Chicago team or Boston to totally dominate the draft. It's enough that they can afford to sign any free agent they want, but trading draft picks would also allow them to cherry pick the best amateurs, as well. As it is, the Yanks have the highest paid shortstop (Jeter), third baseman (Rodriguez), right fielder (Abreu), catcher (Posada), left handed starter (Pettite) and reliever (Rivera) in the American League (several of them for all of the majors). Baseball shouldn't also let them have the best prospects as well. The draft is meant to spread talent throughout the league, not concentrate it.

Note: Brian Roberts is the highest paid second baseman in the AL.

I understand your point, however of the six players you listed, four are products of the Yankees' farm system, and the other two were acquired by trading away products of the Yankees' farm system. There's no basis for dinging the Yankees if the strength of their minor league system allows them to dominate. Every team seeks to achieve this.

What needs to be counterbalanced is the Yankees' ability to buy up guys like Giambi and Damon and Matsui and Mussina, etc.

As has been mentioned, baseball has attempted to position the draft as the great equalizer, by allowing small-market teams equal or greater access to the amateur talent that, if carefully selected and properly developed, can become the backbone for sustained excellence.

Of course right now this entire notion is being undermined by the rampant disregard for the slot recommendations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan4Life Hangout Veteran Council

Fan4Life

Posted
Posted
I know it is against the rules, but I am curious to know what the real reason against it? All the other sports do it.

Just a thought here, but perhaps a salary cap in the NBA and NFL is the reason they allow trading draft picks... it provides the ultimate equalizer in how teams build their rosters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • SouthernBird
      Injury updates

      By SouthernBird · Posted

      Well, I guess I need to get to the stadium by 11 AM today to watch Urias and Westburg here in Nashville! The stadium is 50 feet from my office window.
    • MCO'sFan
      Elias…DFA Kimbrel now!! (9/18: Kimbrel DFA'd, Baker recalled)

      By MCO'sFan · Posted

      No, It is my understanding that he is now a FA. Any team that picks him up is on the hook for prorated minimum this year only. The O's owe him the buy out. 
    • Fiver6565
      O’s look done

      By Fiver6565 · Posted

      Burnes starting won’t help anyone hit. And I have minimal expectations for Westburg in his very first game back.    We just gave up 15 runs to a pretty damn pedestrian SF lineup last two games. I don’t think a ‘hangover lineup’ is going to help as much as you think. Plus again, if we can’t score it doesn’t matter much what the opposing lineup looks like.    I did just realize we have 10 games left, not 11. 3-7 seems even less likely than 3-8, ha.   
    • Just Regular
      O’s look done

      By Just Regular · Posted

      Game 1 Corbin Burnes, and Sunday Jordan Westburg and a bullpen game before an off day? We'll see in 10 days, but I think the Tigers run of good play at the end will have helped protect OPACY home field for the ALWC round. Very happy flight for the Tigers, and I'd guess they are asleep at their Baltimore hotel by now, waiting for tomorrow night.    Tigers home next week with two Skubal starts if necessary and a White Sox series, so the Royals and Twins are probably cheering pretty hard for us. If we finish this week 0-4, the Yankees might have that hangover lineup the day after division clinching one of our games there.    It looks pretty likely while we are in New York, the guys will have a front row seat handing over the AL East champion honor.
    • Fiver6565
      AL playoff picture

      By Fiver6565 · Posted

      They still need to win a few games to get there. I still don’t understand why people are acting like that is so certain (quoting you but not referring to you, per se).    3-8 in the last 11. 11 games left. In all seriousness, what makes anyone think we can even go 3-8 in the next 11?  We are bad in every single phase of the game and we’re playing against teams who have everything to play for (other than SF today, and they’ve pretty easily handled us this week already).    These last two games against SF, especially last night, have convinced me they’re going to fully blow this. We’ve already shown that Detroit can handle us. Probably going to lose to Webb today. Then it’s NY in NY. When is the last time we beat the Yanks in a late season series that mattered to both teams?  Ever? This team certainly isn’t the one to do it. And then it’s do or die in MIN. Anybody believe we can take 2/3 there?  I just don’t see a path to more than three wins, and even getting three doesn’t seem remotely certain. I think we’ll be lucky to win one game each of these last three series. Maybe that’s enough, but I’m far from sure they can even do that.    What’s the counterpoint to this?  Injury returns?  Too late for that IMO. Just start playing better?  What would make anyone believe that’s going to happen after 3.5 months of bad baseball? For real, someone tell me what they’re seeing that makes them think even 3-8 is going to happen in the next 11. 
    • gtman55
      O’s look done

      By gtman55 · Posted

      We traded far too much for what we got in return IMO. You can't totally judge trades this early but as it stands now, Elias gets a well deserved D for his trade deadline performance. I've said this before. He's done a fantastic job bringing this club back to relevancy. I just question some of his roster construction and trade decisions.
    • Tony-OH
      O’s look done

      By Tony-OH · Posted

      Since July 1st, the Orioles are 31-37 and since the Trading deadline when Elias was supposed to make the team better they've gone 19-24 (.441). Now grant it the team lost Westburg and Grayson as well as Eflin for a little bit, but what can't be swept under the rug is that Elias traded a decent part of his minor league league prospects and the team has done worse. The acquisitions of Rogers, Jimenez and Soto have not improved the team. Eflin has kept them from being even worse and we have him for next year, and the same goes for Dominguez. Hopefully Soto will figure it out or Elias wasted two pitching prospects (Chace being probably being the one with the most upside of any pitcher traded).  

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...