If you like the idea of trading draft picks, you may be in luck. ESPN.com's Jayson Stark hears from an American League official who says "just about everyone I talk to is in agreement with" the idea that "there's no reason not to [trade picks] anymore." The MLBPA doesn't oppose the idea either, so perhaps teams will be able to trade picks after the next collective bargaining agreement expires in 2011. Here are the rest of Stark's rumors:
- Stark hears that the Cubs don't intend to pursue "celebrity managers" this offseason. They have signed Dusty Baker and Lou Piniella, but may go for an under-the-radar candidate this time.
- Manny Ramirez has to play well between now and the end of the season if he wants a significant amount of guaranteed money for 2011, but one executive predicted that he could make $6-7MM as a DH if he finishes strong.
- Teams that have been in contact with the Dodgers don't get the sense that the team has interest in trading Ted Lilly. They may want to re-sign him, though recent history suggests they'll be hesitant to offer arbitration.
- Jamie Moyer says he hasn't given up on pitching this year and doesn't want his career to end because of his current elbow strain.
I like the idea of trading picks, and I think it could actually benefit the smaller market teams by allowing them to trade risky draft picks, for prospects that other team’s have that presumably would be further along in their development in someone else’s organization. It could also allow them to stock up on picks and trade them for current MLB’ers if the team suddenly finds itself in a win-now situation
Personally think it’ll lead to problems.
I’d MUCH, MUCH rather see them put in sort of draft cap in place where the teams picking at the top are allowed to spend more than teams like hte Yanks or Red Sox picking near the bottom.
This will prevent stud players from dropping to the big market clubs due to high bonus demands. They can still make those demands, but they run the risk of falling to a team that won’t have the cap space available to give it to him.
I’ve mentioned this many times over the last 2 years, and even a few wrtiers over at ESPN are picking up on the idea as soemthing that actually “could” fly with the Players Union (since it would likely mean more money for them, versus unproven players).
If you allow the trading of picks, it sort of defeats this purpose as it would allow teams like the Yanks to trade up.
And you WILL get teams that are hurting financially that will just trade down to avoid having to give out big bonuses….which will not help, but HURT small market clubs, and continue to feed the big market clubs like the Yanks and BoSox.
So you want to penalize teams that put money back into their teams? I’m not saying trading picks is the answer, but “small market team” owners have everyone so brainwashed it’s ridiculous.
The Pirates owner, for example, has a personal worth north of $2 Billion. He can MORE than afford to put a competitive team on the field. Those “large market” draft bonuses should not prevent him to draft whoever will help the club, but they do. Is it really fair to reward him for pocketing team revenue rather than putting it back into the team?
I’m curious to hear of a team, other than the 2009 Texas Rangers, that is actually “hurting” financially. There’s a big difference between “hurting” and “willing to spend.” We just need to face it, some ownership groups look at their teams as another way to make themselves rich. They have no intentions of winning and, if they happen to win, it’s likely by chance or due to a small window of opportunity created by several years of losing (and selling) seasons (think rays).
The Inidans lost over $16M last year….I’d call that hurting financially. The Rays are going to have to cut payroll by $20M according to reports (no chance to bring back Crawford or Pena).
And what you’re not getting is that baseball (whether we like it or not) is a business. No one in their right mind would consistently lose money in any business. So while the Pirates owner may have a net worth over $2B…..it doesn’t mean that he should spend to the point of losing money.
And where did I say I want to penalize teams that put money back into their teams? I said I want to limit big market clubs from spending huge on the draft AND in free agency. Give them one or hte other, but not both.
Come on Ryne Sandberg! Would that be a “celebrity” pick?
And Manny: Would he retire if the 8+ Milllion 1 year-guaranteed deal is not out there for 2011? With nothing left to prove I think he might hang it up in that case. I believe it is essential that he has a healthy and strong finish to get additional consideration from more teams. If he would consider an incentive contract based on At Bats (Yeah Right) he would probably be considered by several teams.
I hope Moyer returns for the post season
I disagree. Manny has a very good shot at 600 HRs as he’s only 46 short at the moment. Figure he gets 4 more this year….he’s looking at 42 heading into his 39-year old season in 2011. In the AL, with a DH….I think he can last 2 more years. Can he average 21 a year? I think he can….though will be tough.
Even with this “steroid” suspsension (again, he NEVER got caught taking any PED), 600 HRs will be hard to ignore for the Hall of Fame.
And if he’s in the AL and DHing….he probably plays 130 games…..he’s have a legit shot at 140-145 hits…..would need like 3 seasons of that to get to 3000 hits as well (he’ll be about 430 short after this year).
Not likely…but there’s only 2 guys in baseball with 3000 hits and 600 HRs…..Mays and Aaron….
Worst case I think the Indians would offer him a $2-3M deal to play some LF/DH (Grady is still a question mark health wise, Brantley is young, and Hafner can’t play everday). He has said he wants to come back……so evne if there is no $7-8M deal out there, he will play in 2011.
Note though, I’m not saying I think he will come to Cleveland…he’s not. Just saying that if no team offers him a contract, he will find a home and play.