Why can´t you trade draft picks??

[davearm]

The very simple point here is that you're all going too deep. The fact is that allowing draft picks to be traded empowers teams with higher picks (the worse-off teams).

While there are MINOR concerns such as signability, that's a problem that already exists.

I cannot think of a single example where a team with the #1 draft pick would be worse off for being able to trade it. Any takers?

What MLB doesn't want to happen:

The DRays have the #1 pick.

They trade it to the Yankees for $10M cash.

The Yankees use it on David Price.

Price kicks the DRays' tail for the next decade while the $10M is pocketed by DRays' ownership and the team flounders.

What MLB wants to happen:

DRays can't trade the pick, so they select Price, who helps make the DRays competitive with the Yankees for the next decade.

Now the latter outcome is being compromised by the signability issues that sometimes force teams to pass on the BPA. Allowing picks to be traded is not the solution to that problem. In fact that probably would make things worse.

[davearm]

Yea, but draft budgets are a small fraction of payroll budgets. Most teams spend more on a Jay Payton contract or two (realizing that's a generalization - not everyone is as dumb as the Orioles have been) every single year than they do on their entire draft class. I think most teams could be players in the market for players who slip because of signability concerns (or I suppose that market shouldn't even exist), but they choose to limit how much they allocate to picks.

The magnitude is different, yes, but the issue is the same -- the Yankees of the world have more money to spend than the Marlins of the world, which inherently creates an advantage.

[DrungoHazewood]

What MLB doesn't want to happen:

The DRays have the #1 pick.

They trade it to the Yankees for $10M cash.

The Yankees use it on David Price.

Price kicks the DRays' tail for the next decade while the $10M is pocketed by DRays' ownership and the team flounders.

What MLB wants to happen:

DRays can't trade the pick, so they select Price, who helps make the DRays competitive with the Yankees for the next decade.

Now the latter outcome is being compromised by the signability issues that sometimes force teams to pass on the BPA. Allowing picks to be traded is not the solution to that problem. In fact that probably would make things worse.

The other side of that coin is the Rays would be able to trade away the rights to David Price for, say, Jose Tabata. Or Ian Kennedy. The Yanks will have paid the bonus for both players, but the Rays get still a pretty high prospect out of the deal. Or they could trade the rights to Price for Shelley Duncan. Or Melky Cabrera. Useful players, still cheap, and unable to tell the Rays to stick their bonus and refuse to sign.

Now the smaller, poorer team might draft Price, fail to sign him, and then go through the whole process over again a year later with some other player. And the other player the next year might be drafted in part because he's less of a signing hassle and the Rays don't want a debacle two years in a row.

Trading picks gives teams choices. I don't think baseball should be in the habit of protecting teams from their own poor choices. If that is baseball's goal, can we have a do-over for the O's on the last decade?

[RShack]

As a general rule-of-thumb, if the dang owners make a rule preventing something, it's for a not-good reason. I can't think of any other profitable industry that is owned by such a bunch of morons. A lot of these guys have perfectly good judgment in running whatever business made them rich, but as soon as they buy a baseball team, they just get in line with the others and say "Moo".

[davearm]

The other side of that coin is the Rays would be able to trade away the rights to David Price for, say, Jose Tabata. Or Ian Kennedy. The Yanks will have paid the bonus for both players, but the Rays get still a pretty high prospect out of the deal. Or they could trade the rights to Price for Shelley Duncan. Or Melky Cabrera. Useful players, still cheap, and unable to tell the Rays to stick their bonus and refuse to sign.

Now the smaller, poorer team might draft Price, fail to sign him, and then go through the whole process over again a year later with some other player. And the other player the next year might be drafted in part because he's less of a signing hassle and the Rays don't want a debacle two years in a row.

Trading picks gives teams choices. I don't think baseball should be in the habit of protecting teams from their own poor choices. If that is baseball's goal, can we have a do-over for the O's on the last decade?

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with much of what's being said here.

The question was asked, "why are things done this way," and I'm answering that question with my MLB hat on, giving the party line.

That said, I personally don't think allowing draft picks to be traded is some sort of panacea, and I do think there are some legitimate issues with it.