Change Draft Rules

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 29, 2008 2:26 AM EDT Comment 8 comments

Does anyone else think it's time for MLB to allow trading of draft picks? MLB began televising the draft this year, but there's very little drama unless you're a little too interested in baseball for your own good. However, allowing teams to trade their picks will have multiple positive outcomes. First, it can add drama to the telecast, with teams making last minute trades. Second, low-revenue teams can trade down for multiple draft choices, thereby increasing their talent pool. Low-revenue teams currently tend to draft based on signability, and the high-revenue teams end up get the best players anyway, so why not let the bad teams get an extra pick or two? Third, teams can use future draft picks in trades. When a team trades away a star player, they would be able to squeeze a draft pick or two out of their trade partner, in addition to prospects. I realize that getting future draft picks isn't as good as getting players whose bonuses are already paid, but it could be a way of sweetening a trade package without sacrificing additional good prospects. Any thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don’t really like the idea of teams trading picks because of how different the game is compared to the NBA and NFL. In the NBA you’re talking about two rounds and in the NFL it’s only seven, where you’ve got fifty in MLB. Also, the players drafted in those leagues, with a few expections, are going directly to the team, while MLB draftees aren’t going to get there for several years. It’s just a different structure and I think trying to figure out the value of a future draft pick, particularly taking into account that they can be lost as free agent compensation, is too difficult in baseball.
I’d also disagree that teams draft in the first round based on signability anymore. A few years ago this was definitely true, Matt Bush is a great example, but the last few years teams have proven they’re willing to put up the money for better talent in the draft, realizing it is more likely to pay off than spending it directly on the major league team. After the first round, I’d agree, teams tend to draft with an eye more toward signability, though really, after the first fifty or a hundred players the depth charts for each team vary so widely that they rarely have the same players in mind.
The baseball draft is just so nebulous and high risk that I don’t really see teams being interested int trading picks. I also think that it would be a system that would only benefit big money teams, when the draft is supposed to help the smaller teams more. Also, I just don’t see it happening because that’s not how it’s been done, and people in baseball tend to be afraid of change.

by cbwilk on Sep 29, 2008 7:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good Points

Baseball could probably get away with only having 30 rounds. I also think that it would be better if there were some sort of hard slotting system similar to the NBA. That way, we wouldn’t have to deal with the kind of Pedro Alvarez or Aaron Crow situations we saw this year. Also, the talent would be drafted in the slot befitting their talent. Now, we have teams taking flyers on ultra-talented players in later rounds, in the hope that they can throw enough money at them so they’ll sign.

I completely agree with your sentiment on why none of this will happen, but I also think it’s a subject that should be seriously debated.

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 30, 2008 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m all for the hard slotting system. I love that about the NBA that when a guy is picked you know exactly how much his contract will be worth. To me, it’s more incentive for the player to perform better and to be picked higher, instead of some of the crazy posturing that baseball players try to work themselves to the team they want to be picked by. Of all the proposed changes to the draft this one seems like the most reasonable and most plausible.

by cbwilk on Sep 30, 2008 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hard slotting could make trades more viable. It makes more sense to trade up in the draft to acquire a guy when you know he’ll sign, and for how much. As you said, the slotting system will remove the posturing. One thing I don’t know about is the draft application process. Do players apply, or do teams just have the ability to draft whoever is eligible?

by buzzdeadwax on Sep 30, 2008 7:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There isn’t any kind of application, teams just draft players who are available. As far as I know, that includes players from the U.S., Puerto Rico (likely any of the other U.S. holdings like Guam or the Phillipines, but there are very few of them), and Canada. A player is first eligible when they finish high school. If they go to a four year school, they aren’t eligible again until they have been out of high school for three years (this is why you sometimes see sophmores drafted) and then every year after that. If they go to a junior college they are eligible after each season.

A good example of how this system is a little tricky is Landon Powell. He worked hard at school and ended up graduating after his junior year. He was eligible for the draft and nobody knew it so nobody picked him. He was a free agent but didn’t sign (I believe the Commisoner’s office had a hand in making sure nobody signed him since the whole thing was orchestrated by Scott Boras) and he went to South Carolina instead, where he was drafted after his junior season by the Cubs, but didn’t sign until after his senior season when he was drafted in the first round by the Athletics.

I forgot to mention I liked the idea of cutting the draft down to 30 rounds. It’s only been a few years since they cut it from infinity to 50, but with the loss of the draft and follow system, very few of the guys taken after the 25th round or so really have a shot at getting signed anyway.

by cbwilk on Sep 30, 2008 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs