Greg Pappas Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 If the trading of draft picks were now possible, with Free Agency/Arbitration changed to halt the loss of draft choices, and some restrictions on the # of picks able to be dealt (top two rounds only?)... how would you feel about that? Would the Nats deal the #1 to the Yanks, Boston, Atlanta, etc...? Would that be in their best interest pending a huge return? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedwitch Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 If the trading of draft picks were now possible, with Free Agency/Arbitration changed to halt the loss of draft choices, and some restrictions on the # of picks able to be dealt (top two rounds only?)... how would you feel about that? Would the Nats deal the #1 to the Yanks, Boston, Atlanta, etc...? Would that be in their best interest pending a huge return? Thoughts? It would be in the Nats' best interest but not in the best interest for the rest of baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTrea81 Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 It would be in the Nats' best interest but not in the best interest for the rest of baseball. See I don't get this because if the Yankees were to trade say Joba Chamberlain and Austin Jackson for the #1 pick, I don't see a problem there. They are giving up talent to get talent. Obviously with somebody like Strasburg available at #1, the pick would be worth a ton and the club would use that to their advantage. There aren't too many stupid GMs anymore so I wouldn't be too worried about teams like the Yankees or Red Sox ripping a team off. And there is always the risk of that draft pick not turning out vs. the established player the team trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allstar1579 Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 If the trading of draft picks were now possible, with Free Agency/Arbitration changed to halt the loss of draft choices, and some restrictions on the # of picks able to be dealt (top two rounds only?)... how would you feel about that? Would the Nats deal the #1 to the Yanks, Boston, Atlanta, etc...? Would that be in their best interest pending a huge return? Thoughts? I think instead of picks, teams shouldn't have a block on when they can trade drafted players like they do now. It would have just about the same effect you are going for here, but would also allow for more deals after the draft instead of a flurry of deals at the draft early in the season. If teams could trade guys from last year's draft it would change the landscape of teams that have enough pieces to deal that next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedwitch Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 See I don't get this because if the Yankees were to trade say Joba Chamberlain and Austin Jackson for the #1 pick, I don't see a problem there. They are giving up talent to get talent.Obviously with somebody like Strasburg available at #1, the pick would be worth a ton and the club would use that to their advantage. There aren't too many stupid GMs anymore so I wouldn't be too worried about teams like the Yankees or Red Sox ripping a team off. And there is always the risk of that draft pick not turning out vs. the established player the team trades. My concern would be the Yanks essentially buying the 1st draft pick by buying up bad contracts. Say we had the #1 pick last season. The Yanks could offer us a good player in exchange for the pick, a little bit of cash, Payton, Millar, Baez, and Walker, which would have saved us over $20 million. But they'd be essentially buying that pick. So there would have to be a hard limit to what was exchanged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur_Bryant Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 My concern would be the Yanks essentially buying the 1st draft pick by buying up bad contracts. Say we had the #1 pick last season. The Yanks could offer us a good player in exchange for the pick, a little bit of cash, Payton, Millar, Baez, and Walker, which would have saved us over $20 million. But they'd be essentially buying that pick. So there would have to be a hard limit to what was exchanged. I agree. Right now the loss of the draft pick through FA signings is a big potential equalizer. Trades involving an assumption of contractual obligations would allow cash-rich teams to pursue an aggressive FA strategy on one hand while still dipping into the cream of the developmental talent pool. Ugh. Unfortunately, there are organizations that would cooperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.