Jump to content

Would you favor being able to trade the 1:1 pick?


Frobby

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, scOtt said:

Trading picks? YES!

Trading 1:1... not for a bazillion dollars,

 

edit: 2:1 maybe.

Oh, I’d trade 1:1 in the right deal.   Let’s say Grayson Rodriguez was in another organization.   If I were the O’s, I’d seriously consider trading 1:1 for him.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

Yes!  This year, Elias could have traded the 5th pick and gotten maybe the 10th pick and maybe a top 100 SS prospect.  Then Elias could have likely picked Cowser at #10.

It seems like it would benefit the O's because their analytics result in a different order of the top draft picks than the experts.  I guess we'll know in a few years if the O's analytics are right or wrong. 

 

Would you give up a top 100 SS prospect to move from 10 to five in the draft? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

It could make sense for a team who feels they could pick a SS who projects to be a possible All Star vs. a SS who is around the 100th prospect and projects to be a solid regular. 

In a vacuum I don't make that trade.

I'd need more.

Not every fifth pick even makes a top 100 list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

But I don't think anyone is in favor is being able to sell draft picks, but no reason they should be able to trade for them. 

Could you bundle a pick with a bad contract?

So, for instance, the O's could have traded the second overall pick and Cobb for something.

That's basically selling it.

We know teams would do it because the O's have already done it twice with the competitive balance picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

In a vacuum I don't make that trade.

I'd need more.

Not every fifth pick even makes a top 100 list.

Hmmm, they probably do unless they’re Hobgood.   

I agree though that baseball operates a lot differently than football or basketball.  Probably the only way a team pays a lot to trade up is if they are going for a top 1 or 2 pick, or if a player at the top of their board has slipped for some reason and the team really wants that player.   I could have imagined a team trading up and giving good value to get Wieters at 1:5 for example, since most people pegged Wieters as a higher than no. 5 quality pick who fell due to signability issues.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a fan, no. Not because I am afraid of what Mike Elias would want to do. But, it does scare me what ownership or a later GM might do. This is a group of owners who traditionally cannot help themselves and get out of their own way. They cannot stand prosperity for the sport. They are quick to take a quick buck. The game would be even more lopsided than it is now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...