Trading draft picks

[torts]

this is something ive always wondered about, and with the new CBA, never understood why this was never implemented. Is there a reason why MLB does not allow the trading of draft picks? Every other major league allows it (NHL, NBA, NFL), and can help struggling teams quickly rebuild. Is it because of how long it takes players to develop in the minors? Is it something the union is against? owners? Ive never been able to understand it, and was hoping that someone here might help shed some light on it. I, for one, am a fan of teams being able to do this in the NHL (major players for 1st rd picks + players), and I think its interesting in the NFL to see teams trade picks in the draft (like what the vikings did, trading multiple rds of picks for extra 1st rd picks).

[narwhalattack]

I don't know. I have a feeling that if this was implemented, the Brewers would somehow screw that up. Not a logical hypothesis by any means. More of a gut feeling.

[nate82]

this is something ive always wondered about, and with the new CBA, never understood why this was never implemented. Is there a reason why MLB does not allow the trading of draft picks? Every other major league allows it (NHL, NBA, NFL), and can help struggling teams quickly rebuild. Is it because of how long it takes players to develop in the minors? Is it something the union is against? owners? Ive never been able to understand it, and was hoping that someone here might help shed some light on it. I, for one, am a fan of teams being able to do this in the NHL (major players for 1st rd picks + players), and I think its interesting in the NFL to see teams trade picks in the draft (like what the vikings did, trading multiple rds of picks for extra 1st rd picks).

 

MLB allows for the trading of the compensatory draft picks but not of the regular draft picks or compensation draft picks for the loss of a free agent that was offered a qualifying offer.

 

I would love to see MLB allow the trading of all draft picks and it should be coming when will it be coming is when the large market teams will allow it. The only picks that a team would not be able to trade would be the compensation picks because they are tied to a player and the players association would have to agree to allow those to be traded. There are a few hurdles that will need to be jumped over before you will see any of this. Also with the current structure of the draft you would have to trade the allotted money and the picks to the team since the acquiring team wouldn't be able to sign an extra first round pick if they do not have the allotted funds to do so.

 

With the current CBA it is way to complicated to do it now but I could see it happening in the future but it probably will not happen at all.

[torts]

thats right, the compensatory picks being traded was added in the current CBA, but those can only be traded before the trade deadline at the end of July

[paul253]

It's different in baseball than most other sports. Are there any other sports where a team loses a draft pick if they sign a certain free agent? Can you imagine how pissed people would be if the Brewers traded, say, Ramirez to the Yankees for a first round draft pick and then the Yankees sign a player who turned down a QO and lose their first round pick? Then what?

 

I think what could work would be to allow the trading of picks on draft day. It would have to come with the stipulation that the bonus pool remains unchanged. Right now teams are avoiding drafting the best players anyway because they want save money to help sign another pick. So instead of, for instance, the Royals taking a "signable" player with the #8 pick instead of taking the best player available, let them trade that #8 pick for either additional picks or a prospect and then they can draft that same player 20 spots lower where he should have been drafted in the first place. Meanwhile, if the good teams want to trade up they still have the same bonus pool to work around.

[torts]

if the draft still has the signing pool, i dont think you could ever trade picks and NOT attach that money along with it.

[Roderick]

My guess is they haven't implemented the trading of draft picks to save some teams from themselves.

 

Also I suppose a savvy "poor" team may trade away players and be terrible for a couple of years to try to acquire a bunch of picks in a couple of drafts in a row to have the talent come up at the same time. I assume the "rich" teams are probably happy with the status quo.

[brewcrewdue80]

I'm wondering if it just deals with the money slot, and the idea of "protecting teams from themselves" or say protecting the franchises fans.

Take Pittsburgh/Miami/ any small market team. Hey great they have top ten draft picks 7years out of 10. But you're a small market. The higher you draft the more money comes attached and I'd think some of these small market clubs would consistently trade down for 2nd/3rd round picks to save money avoiding that top of the class pick.

 

Maybe its because there's 40rounds of draft picks. How do you even put a value on the picks after round 10? Trade away rounds 13-30 picks for 1 4th round pick? Trade away 4-9round picks for 1 2nd?

 

It does have appeal to me in trading away say a costly player mid-season for picks. Say 1st round only or 2nd+3rd that it offsets say acquiring a guy like Ethier/Werth and the 20mil owed to them. You can say whoa way too much money...but wait we have a 2nd 1st rd pick by paying these overpaid players. Ethier and Werth aren't terrible players, they just aren't worth 20mil/yr.

Really don't know why. I found an article and it seems to point to the GMs believing the Small Markets would sell their picks away to the Big Markets. Rich get Richer. Poor stay Poor. Here: http://a.espncdn.com/mlb/columns/schwarz_alan/1383197.html

 

I think what would need to happen is maybe lock up the draft rounds a team can use for a trade. Say only the first 4 rounds of picks. While the small clubs would be expected to tank what about trading say a successful season's #1 pick the 20s and their competitive balance pick say to another small market club's top 10 pick?

I like that they slotted the money pool tied to picks. Pretty much summing up what that selection is worth and giving way to what the small market club can negotiate with that selection and not getting burned. I'd have to think the money alotted to that draft slot has to be transferred to the acquiring team. I think this would work out if the combo of the 2 lower picks attained resulted in a little more money from their slots than what the higher slot had. Say #10 is 1.7mil and numbers 20 and 32 combine for 1.8mil. This would then justify a smaller club trading down to maybe take on riskier prospects while the club moving up likely gets the player they want on the money involved. If it works the other way though #10 is 2mil and #s 20 and 32 combine for 1.7mil it completely looks like the poorer team is trading out of money due in their picks as well as away from building in talent.

 

Does it surprise anyone Miami traded their pick down? I read it as almost 700k less in pool money. That's a nice down payment on a houst for Loria....

[LouisEly]

Two things have made trading draft picks even possible - protection for an unsigned pick w/a comparable pick in the next year's draft, and the bonus pool spending limits. Prior to that there would have been high incentive for low revenue teams to dump top picks for whatever they could than spend millions on a prospect that may or may not ever amount to anything. The rich would have gotten even richer. Then again, trading picks may have prevented the debacle known as Matt Bush. Part of me still thinks that pick was a statement by the Padres to MLB that things needed to change.

 

I think baseball is generally conservative and wants to see how the bonus pool rules play for a few years out before considering trading picks.

[brewcrewdue80]

Something else that you still wonder in what MLB can do, Kansas City taking Hunter Dozier with their #8 pick and were scrutinized for it as being a player they likely could have drafted with their 2nd round selection.

Kansas City signed him for 2.2mil or 937,800 below slot value. Given Manaea was a top ten consideration or around 3mil to slot value and KC having 1.623mil on the 34th pick on Manaea you're looking at roughly 2.5mil then to try to sign him.

It's just odd to see the better player drafted later all because of potential cost. I guess the ability to return to college(while having an Agent) unlike in other sports dampens the idea in trading picks.

I'm reading the Royals draft plan is on the fact that by selecting Dozier and paying below slot value and then selecting Manaea with only a 1.623mil slot value they stood to lose less money on their draft pool should Manaea turn around and not sign at #8.

That move right there though shows how trading draft picks could be a positive as instead of worrying about losing the slot money w/o a signing they could trade down say with the Yankees to avoid losing so much without signing.

 

It is tough to make this work when these kids have guys like Boras representing them predraft at a high school age on through college talking in to these kids ears. Telling them that their worth is above 3mil like Appel to try to gain the 5mil he now gets on top a year later. A guy like Ryan Boldt who, for awhile was mocked pre-Lohse as a Brewers pick, suffers an injury, falls down draft boards and then easily becomes a non-signee pick. He was clearly thrown a dollar figure of his worth and once that became unrealistic to where he's selected, it was I'm heading to college. So, not only does draft selections come with so much bust potential but ability to sign the Best Player Available to a deal away from going/returning to college also comes with bust potential. In the end, you would have to think the small market clubs just continue to trade down to save money even if it results in a franchise devoid of top level prospects.

[jerichoholicninja]

There are so many things that need to be fixed with the draft but brewcrewdude80 you point out one of the biggest. If you declare for the draft, there should be no turning back. No not signing because you don't like who drafted you. No not signing because they won't offer you enough money. Once you're picked that team has your rights whether you sign or not. They can trade your rights if you refuse to sign but you can't just take your ball and go home until next year.

[torts]

good points, everyone. I would think that they would probably have to restrict the rounds available to be traded, like the top 10 rounds, those tied to slot money. But I disagree with the argument that poor teams would stay poor. If anything, using Pittsburgh as an example, this could be the year that they could go after a big bat, or big arm, with dangling their 1st rd pick of 2014, to help the franchise push itself over the .500 hump for the first time in 20 years. Would losing a top 10 pick for 2 years of control of a solid pitcher be worth it to a team on the cusp of winning? I think so.

 

In the other leagues i guess you just dont see the parity you see in MLB, with certain franchises always winning and others always losing. I think the ability to get additional picks in rounds would help those struggling teams turn around quicker than normal..

[Invader3K]

I know Doug Melvin has commented on this topic before, and he thinks teams shouldn't be able to trade at least their first round picks because he felt the big market teams would be able to take advantage of it too much.

 

I do really agree with a couple posters above who said a player shouldn't be able to essentially "pull out" after being drafted and regain eligibility a year later. I don't know why MLB hasn't fixed that yet. I think at least, a drafted player should remain under a team's "control" for a minimum of five years.

 

Remember the circus that happened with Stephen Strasburg where he didn't sign until literally the final hour of the signing deadline? That kind of stuff shouldn't happen, as it just puts the small market teams at an even bigger disadvantage and gives agents like Boras way too much leverage.

[brewcrewdue80]

That too is a good point Torts. Trading away your pick to get to the Playoffs. Though if you are in the Playoff hunt that team is really only getting a 20s pick in return not some top 10 pick.

 

Just due to the bust potential I get the ability of Players being able to return to school. Teams could just let a guy slide in to a lower slot pool of money degrading his value and bargaining ability if they got to own him for 5years just due to drafting him. How would that work overall? Does the team have to draft him again anyhow? Or do they own him and just have to use a different amount of money under a new/different set of rules the following year?

 

I don't get why the draft is 40..previously 50 rounds long? Why can't it just be 20 rounds? With Free Agent signings after the draft like Football does it on the pool of players not drafted? I'd say that HS players not taken have to go the College route as well as any non-graduated College Players that made themselves available for the draft. It's the Seniors that aren't drafted that are mixed in the Free Agent pool then.

This would then result in to higher slot money to be pooled for all of the 20 draft picks. And then allowing more of the teams to offer more money to the High Ceiling Players that otherwise they wouldn't risk taking due to signability concerns.

 

Of course, the roundabout to that would be, why draft any Senior College Player. Just sign them as a Free Agent right?

The other key to this is to maybe work to lower amounts signed away. the top ten picks slot money broke down as:

#1:7.79mil

#2:6.70mil

#3:5.62mil

#4:4.54mil

#5:3.78mil

#6:3.51mil

#7:3.24mil

#8:3.13mil

#9:3.02mil

#10:2.92mil

 

By the time you get down to the end of the 2nd round it's 760k roughly at pick 73.

Why is it that the 5th player taken is worth less than half of what the first player taken?

The 2nd player worth half as much as the 6th? But then the 11th only worth half as much as the 3rd?

Since the Values drop so quickly 1 to 10. I'd propose setting #1 at 4mil and then a much less regression in pool money on down the line. so that by the time you got to #73 it would be around 900k slot allotment.

Now I can see the top picks being against that so I'd propose only a 5year stand of Team Control vs. 6 so they get to Free Agency quicker. 2 Pre Arbs then 3 Arb years.

One would think with the lesser impact being a top 10 pick resulting in more money or top 5 pick for that matter while still having the ability to sign away picks in the 2nd round for 1mil or more would result in more BPA drafting and less Signability drafting.

The end of the 3rd round was 491k and I'd think setting it at 700k like today's end of 2nd round would also help in drafting BPA. It would be at that point the money really drops off say a flat 300k round 4. A flat 250k round 5. flat 200k round 6. flat 150k round 7. Flat 125k round 8. Flat 100k round 9 to 20. End draft. Draft picks are protected in the first 3 rounds and are available for trade then as well. Since busts happen so frequently, the teams aren't throwing higher guaranteed signing bonus money to players that in all likelihood never make the team. Plus, by throwing the huge cutoff in slot money in the top 3 rounds over the 4th, if a team wants a higher ceiling player they have to draft them early.

 

I mean looking at how the money slot worked out the #1 pick ALONE left Houston with the 8th highest Team allotment before their other 10picks. The 2nd pick worth 13th Alone in team allotment. That's just not right. 1 Houston should expect to spend more money on the draft on more often than not busts. but 2. If they select a signability pick so a 10-15th rated prospect who agrees to sign only for 3mil. That's 4.7mil now the Astros can work with drafting higher upside players other teams pass on because they cant afford them. The problem though is Houston in turn loses out on the best talent they could add on their team for more overall talent depth.

Going 3 rounds with the compensation is paying off top 100 players in the draft and then letting the rest of them likely go on to school or be cheap projects.

Another Rule could be added that a team must use 85% or more of the slot allotment provided regardless who they chose. Thus forcing them to sign BPA players and not signability players or saving money later in the draft.

Long enough post...fun discussion

[paul253]

MLB should change the rule so that a HS can declare for the draft, get drafted and still go to college. However the MLB team would retain his rights for a certain amount of time (say 6 years). Kind of like how the NHL does it.

 

In my opinion there is so much wrong with the MLB draft. The bonus pool alone doesn't solve anything really.

[torts]

MLB should change the rule so that a HS can declare for the draft, get drafted and still go to college. However the MLB team would retain his rights for a certain amount of time (say 6 years). Kind of like how the NHL does it.

 

In my opinion there is so much wrong with the MLB draft. The bonus pool alone doesn't solve anything really.

 

I love that about the NHL.

[jerichoholicninja]

MLB should change the rule so that a HS can declare for the draft, get drafted and still go to college. However the MLB team would retain his rights for a certain amount of time (say 6 years). Kind of like how the NHL does it.

 

In my opinion there is so much wrong with the MLB draft. The bonus pool alone doesn't solve anything really.

 

Isn't this the draft and follow rule that got eliminated a few years ago?

[TheCrew07]

MLB should change the rule so that a HS can declare for the draft, get drafted and still go to college. However the MLB team would retain his rights for a certain amount of time (say 6 years). Kind of like how the NHL does it.

 

In my opinion there is so much wrong with the MLB draft. The bonus pool alone doesn't solve anything really.

 

Isn't this the draft and follow rule that got eliminated a few years ago?

 

Kind of, but if I recall correctly the drafting team only retained the rights until the next draft.