Anyone know why MLB does not allow for trading of draft picks?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Yea they have and to take on a few million, a team would do that but I doubt they would take on 100+M to take on an awful player and even if they did, you can make the argument that it’s worth it for the team to do it. 
 

I don't think you can make that case.  Didn't you yourself say the Davis contract didn't stop the Orioles from making moves?  How much help would getting rid of it be?

The team could release the player in question.  All this would do is save the owners money.

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think you can make that case.  Didn't you yourself say the Davis contract didn't stop the Orioles from making moves?  How much help would getting rid of it be?

The team could release the player in question.  All this would do is save the owners money.

Ok, so? If the Padres want to trade 3 draft picks and Tatis’ contract because they think they made a mistake, so what? 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Sports Guy said:

Ok, so? If the Padres want to trade 3 draft picks and Tatis’ contract because they think they made a mistake, so what? 

Was that you admitting you were wrong?

The so what is that the other owners have the right to stop them, and they have.

[Gurgi]

I never thought of trading prospects and attaching the pick with a horrible existing contract.  

[86this]

Just now, Gurgi said:

I never thought of trading prospects and attaching the pick with a horrible existing contract.  

Happens a lot in hockey.

[Sports Guy]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Was that you admitting you were wrong?

The so what is that the other owners have the right to stop them, and they have.

And if it comes to that, so be it. But these are very stupid reasons to not allow draft picks to be dealt. 
 

If there are conditions and some scenario where things need to be agreed to, fine but if I want to tack on a pick on a 9 figure contract to get rid of it, I should be able to. I bet lots of owners would love to be able to do that. 

I think you are, as usual, greatly over exaggerating things and picking some scenario that is highly unlikely to occur and again, even if it does occur, they should be allowed to do it.  
 

 

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Gurgi said:

I never thought of trading prospects and attaching the pick with a horrible existing contract.  

It makes sense. It’s an incentive but no team is trading a top pick to save a few dollars. This would be to save 9 figures. This would be to get out of horrendous contracts that never should have been signed to begin with.

If the Yankees want to buy the 6th pick in the draft for 150M, so be it. Let them be dumb. That 6th pick is probably 50/50 to fail and you to pay out the contract.

Again, if you saw teams attaching top prospects to terrible contracts and these deals happened all the time, I think this scenario would have validity. But it’s just not likely to happen.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

And if it comes to that, so be it. But these are very stupid reasons to not allow draft picks to be dealt. 
 

If there are conditions and some scenario where things need to be agreed to, fine but if I want to tack on a pick on a 9 figure contract to get rid of it, I should be able to. I bet lots of owners would love to be able to do that. 

I think you are, as usual, greatly over exaggerating things and picking some scenario that is highly unlikely to occur and again, even if it does occur, they should be allowed to do it.  
 

 

So one owner should be able to do something the sport has collectively decided that they don't think they should be allowed to do because they feel it would be damaging to the sport.

I don't agree.

 

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, Gurgi said:

I never thought of trading prospects and attaching the pick with a horrible existing contract.  

The O's gave away two draft picks to dump contracts.

You don't think the Orioles actually wanted Brandon Barker and Trevor Belicek do you?

[Gurgi]

41 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The O's gave away two draft picks to dump contracts.

You don't think the Orioles actually wanted Brandon Barker and Trevor Belicek do you?

Just looked that trade up.  Both players the Orioles got were not trash but it does seem to be a salary dump and selling the draft pick for 3.2 million owed to Matusz.  

Matusz was such a disappointment. 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Gurgi said:

Just looked that trade up.  Both players the Orioles got were not trash but it does seem to be a salary dump and selling the draft pick for 3.2 million owed to Matusz.  

Matusz was such a disappointment. 

It was a pair of 16th round college arms if I remember correctly.  They were organizational depth.

[sevastras]

Wow, me being very much a capitalist, I see both @Sports Guy and @Can_of_corns points. 
My only thought would be yes, owners should be able to do whatever they want with their business. However, this is kind of like belonging to a home owners association. So, you signed up for some external rules when you moved in. 

[LookinUp]

So it's a work around to compensate for the revenue inequities in the sport. Makes sense.

I don't think we realize how good the NFL has it with their revenue sharing. We're literally watching Cincinnati, Kansas City, Green Bay and Buffalo dominate the sport. I hate the concept of socialism/communism, but professional sports aren't open marketplaces. They're closed off to direct competition, so you'd think they'd create a level-ish playing field within their closed market system. Alas, the NFL did. Baseball has not.

But I give them some credit. They've lucked into a model where the smartest teams actually have a chance over time to compete even with less revenue. I'm not sure how long this will last, but the draft and international budget caps certainly help make that happen.