Poll: Trading Draft Picks

[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 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?