the MLB draft

by FusilliJerry88 on Oct 20, 2009 10:53 PM EDT

Does anyone know why Major League Baseball does not allow a team to trade their draft pick or swamp positions with another team? You see it all the time in the NFL Draft; it seems to really allow GMs alot of flexibility, and options plus being exciting to watch. I bring it up, because if this rule did'nt exist in baseball, I think the Pirates would be a team that could really gain alot from trading down from the 1st round selection. As we all know the Pirates are always picking in the top 5, but never really have the money to pay the best player. It'd be nice to see the Pirates trade down and stock pile more picks plus they'd end up getting the player they wanted anyway. Take last year for example; they could have traded down in the 1st round, and gotten a major league ready player or prospect, and still would have been able to select Sanchez (most likely). Does anyone know if they even plan on changing that rule?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yet another rule...

that was implemented, I believe, to protect small market teams. The theory was to stop small market teams from trading away costly higher draft picks to the big markets. Unlike the other professional sport franchises there is no salary caps for draft picks so in theory there would be more incentive for small market teams in baseball to trade away picks. I believe that if MLB is successful getting signing caps implemented for draft picks you may see some progress made towards dealing draft picks.

by Slick1 on Oct 20, 2009 11:23 PM EDT reply actions

I think it also is because MLB is afraid that by trading picks it would give more power to agents. If the whole process is thought out, I think it could have potential because it gives small-market teams more options, at least. For instance, it may have helped the Natinals if they could have traded Strasburg for a slew of picks and/or prospects from another teams farm system. Anyways, if it was passed, it would certainly raise interest in the draft.

by NastyNate82 on Oct 21, 2009 12:36 AM EDT reply actions

Stockpiling picks...

..in the MLB draft really isn’t a problem for most teams to begin with. The best solution would be to cap the draft picks and then enable teams to trade picks for whatever they want (I’m assuming in most cases it wouldn’t be more picks)

For example, my guess is that if this was implemented last year, the Pirates would have traded the #4 pick to the Blue Jays (just an example) for pick #19 (And still taken Sanchez) and an AA mid-level player.

by jlk9697 on Oct 21, 2009 9:25 AM EDT reply actions

Yeah, I don’t think stockpiling picks would be a problem. Especially since each team will only sign about 1/2 to 2/3 the players they draft anyway. The farm system logistics prevent you from signing what would be too many amateur players.

by wickethewok on Oct 22, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

MLB didn't want players...

…to be able to dictate the markets in which they’d be willing to sign.

If trading picks were allowed, for example, Harper could refuse to sign with any team but the Yankees next year, and thus force the drafting team to trade him for less-than-fair value.

by Vlad on Oct 21, 2009 10:12 AM EDT reply actions

Doesn't game theory suggest that Harper's strategy wouldn't work?

He could say that he wouldn’t sign with any team but the Yankees, but if another team drafted him and refused to trade him, his choices wouldn’t be any different than the ones he has under the current system.

by WestCoastBuc on Oct 21, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

It works in the NFL

For John Elway and Eli Manning, anyway.

by maguro on Oct 21, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions

The point is not that trades won't happen

just that there is no theoretical reason to think that a team can’t get full value for the pick.

I don’t follow the NFL that closely but didn’t San Diego end up with Drew Brees instead of Manning in that deal? If so, It doesn’t seem altogether clear that Manning is better but maybe it is.

Also, isn’t it true that an NFL team that fails to sign a high pick gets no compensation? If so, the dynamics are vastly different and shouldn’t be compared.

by WestCoastBuc on Oct 21, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions

It wasn't Brees.

It was Philip Rivers plus picks. Which has turned out OK for them as well, but could just as easily have been a problem.

The Colts didn’t get back great value in the Elway trade.

by Vlad on Oct 21, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

I've always despised Smellway

…for just that reason.

Free your ass and your mind will follow.

by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 21, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Franchises' inability to trade picks...

…is what gives them leverage in the current setup, since the player has no alternative but to sign or sit out and re-enter the next year. If pick-trading were possible, the agent could negotiate through the media and use the fan base to pressure the team’s ownership into making a deal, by arguing that they should move the pick for some value, rather than lose it.

by Vlad on Oct 21, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions

What gives teams leverage in the current setup is

the fact that teams get a compensating high pick the next year. As long as that is not changed, there is no reason that a small market team can’t get full value for trading a high pick.

by WestCoastBuc on Oct 21, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions

The value of that pick...

…depends on the strength of the next year’s draft. If we’re talking about a truly top talent, there’s no guarantee that an equivalent player will be available the next year. Not to mention the opportunity cost of having to wait an extra year to get that player into your system, or the loss of leverage in those negotiations (since comp picks aren’t protected).

by Vlad on Oct 21, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions

If we're going to make changes to the draft...

…then I’d only sign off on trading picks if drafting a player allowed you to control his draft rights for life, like they do in the NBA. That’d give the team enough leverage to make it a worthwhile proposition.

by Vlad on Oct 21, 2009 12:06 PM EDT reply actions

That seems dangerously anti-player. At least in the NBA there are viable alternative leagues in Europe.

by wickethewok on Oct 22, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

And if a baseball prospect doesn't like his offer in MLB...

…he can play in Japan or Mexico or Korea or Taiwan, or in one of the independent American leagues.

by Vlad on Oct 22, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions

The Euro basketball teams have already shown though that they are willing to throw around money of a similar magnitude to potential world-class players. I don’t know if any Asian or alternative North American baseball leagues have done this, have they?

by wickethewok on Oct 23, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Not generally, no.

But they’ll certainly pay a player a living wage, if he doesn’t feel like playing for his drafting team in MLB. And if a greater number of high-caliber US amateurs were available to foreign leagues, perhaps they’d be more aggressive in pursuing them.

by Vlad on Oct 26, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions

I just think that the current set up

really does not help the Pirates in anyway, and we all know the Pirates need all the help they can get. Neal I believe has us on the right path, but us being a small market team like we are we need to build through the draft. I think we would be alot more affective through the draft if we were able to trade picks.

Take the 2007 draft for example…We could’nt take the best player available, because we knew we could’nt afford him which shows the system is flawed. However we should have been able to trade down from our 4th overall pick to a team that could afford to draft Weiters, and we could have recieved more draft picks, a prospect, or a major league ready player, and still drafted Moskos….

by FusilliJerry88 on Oct 21, 2009 11:28 PM EDT reply actions

The Pirates could have easily afforded Wieters’s $6M bonus, since they shelled out $15M for a washed-up Matt Morris a few weeks after the draft. The fact that they passed on Wieters is on DL, not the system.

by maguro on Oct 21, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions