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

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

That part is easy.  The pool is attached to the pick.  That's how it already works.

Sure and I agree thats the way to do it.  I just wonder if MLB does it in the simple way.

Are they ok with a team having a 20+M draft pool?  Would they make it so if you trade a pick, you have to get similar draft pool money in return?  (which would mean multiple picks coming your way). 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Sure and I agree thats the way to do it.  I just wonder if MLB does it in the simple way.

Are they ok with a team having a 20+M draft pool?  Would they make it so if you trade a pick, you have to get similar draft pool money in return?  (which would mean multiple picks coming your way). 

That's how it's done currently.

The O's trade a pick to shed Matusz's contract and the Braves get the pool money. 

Arizona had a pool of $16,093,700 in 2019.  The 2015 Astros had a pool of $17,289,200.   No one said boo about it.

[Frobby]

No. 5 picks post-Hobgood.

2010 Drew Pomeranz got to # 30 on BA.

2011 Bubba Starling 24

2012 Kyle Zimmer 23

2013 Clint Frazier 39

2014 Nick Gordon 53

2015 Kyle Tucker 12

2016 Corey Ray 42

2017 Kyle Wright 35

2018 Jonathan India 51

2019 Riley Greene 31

2020 Austin Martin 19

So yeah, I do think you could see a team trade a fringe top 100 guy to move from 10 to 5 in the right circumstances.  

[jamalshw]

Honestly, I don't care. But I don't think it would be that big of a boon for the Orioles. Sure, they could've traded back from 5 to 10 and still gotten Cowser...but that would have defeated the purposes of taking Cowser. The whole point was to take a guy that would get paid as the 10th best guy in a spot that comes with a pool of money higher than that so that they had money to spend later in the draft. So if the Orioles traded down, they would have gotten the prospect in the deal, but would have drafted differently the rest of the draft and missed a couple guys Elias and company were clearly targeting because they wouldn't have had the same money. Would that prospect they got for moving down made up the difference? Maybe. Did Elias pick Cowser because he truly felt he was the best player available despite consensus disagreeing with him? Maybe. 

Overall, just a lot of moving parts. One thing is for sure, it would give infinite more possibilities to the outcome of the draft. Could the Orioles benefit? Maybe. 

In the end, the difference between baseball and other sports in the draft is far more than the ability to trade picks...or not. We are also talking about players far more removed (in most cases) from the highest level of the sport. I think it makes sense that baseball is the only sport to not allow it. But, I wouldn't lose sleep if that changed. 

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I would have loved to see the O's trade the 1:2 pick to get out of the Cobb contract.

On second thought maybe it’s a bad idea.

How many first round picks would the Orioles need to trade to get out of Chris Davis’ contract? My first guess is five first round selections. 

[Moose Milligan]

I don't know how popular it would be, though.

In the NFL, say you've got the 1:5 pick.  You get offered to trade back to the 1:10 spot and the team also throws in and 2nd rounder this year and a 2nd rounder next year.

That's immediate value.  2nd rounders provide a tremendous amount of value.  

There would be a benefit to hoarding picks in the MLB draft simply because it's so wide open and a huge crap shoot.  But if you're 1:5 in the MLB draft, how much of a hurry would you be in to trade back to 1:10 and get picks in the later rounds?  

I can see it both ways.  I'm sure a lot of this would depend on how creative MLB would allow teams to be in order to trade picks but it's something that should be done.  MLB does a terrible job of making itself interesting, trading picks is something the NFL/NBA has to generate interest and the MLB fails to get with the times.

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

On second thought maybe it’s a bad idea.

How many first round picks would the Orioles need to trade to get out of Chris Davis’ contract? My first guess is five first round selections. 

Davis had no trade protection so bundling him with picks probably wouldn't have been an option.

[Snutchy]

I'm in favor of trading, but not selling. 

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, Snutchy said:

I'm in favor of trading, but not selling. 

Like Corn implied, how do you allow one and prevent the other?

[Moose Milligan]

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Davis had no trade protection so bundling him with picks probably wouldn't have been an option.

Unless you got him to lift his no trade clause. 

[Sports Guy]

6 hours ago, NCRaven said:

Like Corn implied, how do you allow one and prevent the other?

But why should it matter?  If teams would rather sell the pick to get out from a terrible contract, why is that a bad thing?   
 

And if a team like the Yankees wants to take on an awful contract to get a high pick, so be it.  
 

It’s not like the move is definitely going to work out for the Yankees in that  scenario and if that is so prevalent, why don’t we see teams coupling top prospects with awful contracts in trades?  
 

 

[wildcard]

No,   Not in favor of trading draft choices.   That would just be another way for the Yankees, Dodgers and Boston to buy high draft choices.   Sounds like a bad idea to be.

[Sports Guy]

11 minutes ago, wildcard said:

No,   Not in favor of trading draft choices.   That would just be another way for the Yankees, Dodgers and Boston to buy high draft choices.   Sounds like a bad idea to be.

Then why aren’t low budget teams selling their top prospects to those teams already?

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Then why aren’t low budget teams selling their top prospects to those teams already?

League wouldn't approve it.

[Sports Guy]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

League wouldn't approve it.

How do we know?  Who is to say the league would turn down Myers, Hosmer and Abrams for Dean Kremer?  That’s essentially buying Abrams.

  And if that’s the issue, why are people worried about this for the draft?