Today’s deal between the Padres and Twins will colloquially be known by fans as “the Phil Hughes trade” due to the veteran righty’s prominence. “The extra Competitive Balance draft pick trade” may not quite roll off the tongue as well, though from San Diego’s perspective, the trade was really all about securing the 74th overall pick of next week’s amateur draft, at the cost of paying $7.5MM of Hughes’ remaining salary obligations and sending catching prospect Janigson Villalobos to the Twins.
This is the latest in the series of trades involving the Competitive Balance Round picks since the extra selections were instituted in the 2012-2017 collective bargaining agreement. (Here is the full listing of the order for Competitive Balance Rounds A and B in the 2018 draft — some of the exact numbering of the picks has changed due to the addition of free agent compensation picks being added ahead of CBR-A.) The Competitive Balance Round picks are unique since they are the only selections that can actually be traded, and they have become a unique bargaining chip in several deals, with such names as Hughes, Craig Kimbrel, Alex Wood, Jim Johnson, Jose Peraza, Bryan Morris, Brian Matusz, and Bud Norris switching teams as part of trades involving these picks.
None of these deals have exactly been blockbusters; several have been little more than salary dumps, with teams willing to surrender this extra pick to get some money off the books (i.e. the Twins and Hughes). Still, just the fact that some picks are available at all has added another layer of strategy in recent years, leading one to wonder just what would happen if Major League Baseball decided to make any and all draft picks eligible to be dealt.
Jayson Stark explored this same question in a piece for ESPN.com back in 2015, with several unnamed front office executives arguing in favor of picks being traded. The general consensus was that the ability to trade picks would greatly elevate fan interest in the draft — trades are, of course, major reasons why the NFL, NBA, and NHL drafts carry a higher profile than MLB’s amateur selection process. One American League exec claimed widespread support for the pick-trading idea (“I don’t know anybody who’s not in favor of that at this point“) around the game, though no changes of this nature were implemented when the new collective bargaining agreement was agreed upon in the 2016-17 offseason.
The stricter slotting and draft pool system, Stark argues, has already helped dampen long-standing concerns that trading picks could lead to big-market teams dealing picks for high-salaried players, or agents being able to manipulate their young clients’ landing spots. Both of these things already happen to some extent anyway (dumping salary in exchange for a draft pick isn’t really any different than dumping salary for a prospect already in someone’s farm system), and it’s possible that the ability to trade picks could actually help smaller-market teams get competitive quicker, given the criticisms leveled at the draft pool process.
Along these same lines, I would argue that if MLB is worried about draft trades leading to some type of seismic shift in the player movement market, the league probably has little to worry about. We’ve already seen how the greater value teams put on draft picks has impacted the free agent market (particularly with qualifying offer free agents), so there isn’t as much chance you’d see a team unload several picks for an established superstar. Such deals are more common in the NBA or the NFL given how the addition of one star rookie can instantly turn a team around, whereas in baseball, even the bluest of blue-chip prospects generally spend at least a couple of years in the minors and are rarely superstars from day one. As added precaution, perhaps baseball could institute its own version of the NBA’s “Ted Stepien Rule,” or maybe a cap could be instituted on the number of extra picks a team could acquire in any one given draft.
While any changes to the draft wouldn’t happen until the next CBA, the Competitive Balance Round deals and teams’ ability to deal international draft pool slots have indicated that the league is showing some flexibility when it comes to trades involving amateur talent movement, as one NL executive noted to Stark. I’d argue that another potential next step would be to allow teams to deal the other “extra” picks available in the current format — namely, the compensatory picks given to teams after their free agents reject qualifying offers to sign elsewhere. These picks are currently available either after the first round, after Competitive Balance Round B, or after the fourth round.
Let’s open the debate up to the MLBTR readership. (poll link for app users)
They should just make only 1st round picks available to trade to keep it from getting out of hand.
1 through 10 is better and easily manageable.
Picks 1-10 or rounds 1-10?
No way
If anything, it’s should only be the comp a and b and a 3rd round only for those big markets
If only comp picks can be traded then the only teams that can trade their picks away is the small market teams.
Every team should be able to trade away their picks and the slot money that goes along with it, but it has to be very limited. 3-4 rounds at the absolute most. Otherwise, it becomes a nightmare to police.
Exactly. There are 40 rounds of baseball drafting and 7 for the NFL. The competitive balance picks are fine to trade as far as I’m concerned but I think I’d leave the rest alone.
No way, the opposite of that. Make teams keep the 1st round and let 2nd round onwards be trade-able. If they really want to trade their 1st round pick they can just draft him, keep him for a couple months, then trade him for Shelby Miller.
I think they should! Teams might be willing to trade their best player for less prospects with picks
I’d say maybe trade rounds 1-10 around that but that’s it though.
1-5 have the majority of the bonus money and would be fine by me but 10 would be an absolute max, in my opinion. Dealing away the slot money is more valuable after round 2 than the actual pick so I personally like the idea of limiting it to 5, making the first day of the draft much more exciting and keeping it relatively simple for more casual fans to enjoy.
I’m for it. Could help teams accelerate a rebuild while good teams may not have to decimate all their active prospects by leveraging picks instead.
Easy answer… yes. It just makes no sense why picks aren’t traded. And the amount of fan interest it’ll generate is huge to the game. Also, when they eventually allow this the first draft is going to be so interesting. It’ll be fun to see what value GMs place on certain picks.
What is everybody talking about, out of hand
I’d much rather see a 26th round pick traded than a player to be named later who is never named. That just sets my OCD off when I see things like when the cubs acquired Austin Jackson for a PTBNL that was never announced
Because there are 40 rounds. Being able to trade every pick you have would be messy.
Teams wouldn’t trade “every pick”. I’m with Phillies.
Imagine your side really wants a specific college guy in the 14th Round. Clearly top of your board. However, you aren’t up for 8 picks. You trade your 14th this time and next time to move up 8 spots.
How is that hurting anything?
.
Love this topic! Very passionate about this topic! No!
-Suffering NY Knick fans, during Isiah days; they worked hard to suck, and picks that ended up being LA Aldridge, Gordon Heyward traded before-hand.
Don’t even get me started on the Nets. They make the Knicks look good. They traded three unprotected first round picks, with right of other team to swap a fourth year if they want (means if Celtics get #30, they can exercise their right to swap theirs with the Nets’ pick, if it’s higher)
Trading picks has been so destructive in the past in the NBA, they have rules you can’t trade your first round picks, in back-to-back years. So stupid teams whom trade away their first-draft draft picks, circumvent this rule, by giving the other team, the right to *swap* picks as described above. SHOULD NEVER BELONG IN MLB. Picks GIVE HOPE,
I’m extremely biased. NFL trades have 1st round picks traded, more than NBA, but been hurt often by stupid moves from NY Knicks, Brooklyn Nets— with hindsight, even though most thought trading three future firsts was a lot, nobody would care had they won.. It backfired hard. How hard? One of picks was main trade-piece, used to acquire all-star, in his prime, put on trade-block unexpectedly because of public trade request. (Kyrie)
Then again, first round picks, are more impactful in the NBA, than NFL. quite fascinating topic, but still say No.
So, because your NY basketball teams fail to make a successful trade involving draft picks, the MLB should not allow trades involving draft picks? Valid reason.
You wanna go there? LA too. Steve Nash trade. LA traded four draft picks, including, two first for former back-to-back MVP, Steve Nash. The Suns received first rounders in 2013 and 2015.
The 2015 pick was top-5 protected in 2015 which means Lakers keep its top-5 (LA did), top-3 protected in 2016 and 2017. (LA did) and unprotected in 2018.
Finally, protections ran out, and trade made more than a half-decade ago, cost LA the #10 overall pick, in 2018 draft. You’re living in the past. You could make the argument NYK’s better run than LA today.
Summary: Steve Nash-trade was a miserable failure for Lakers, he barely played for them, and cost LA valuable draft picks they could’ve used today. (Bad NBA team that could use the infusion of talent, unless you think FA will go there and change their trajectory. (I don’t)
I don’t care where you go honestly. It is unfair to make comparisons with your anecdotal basketball trades. You can throw in a hundred bad NBA trades, and I can throw you 100 good NBA trades. Lastly, why NBA? Basketball uses mostly 5 players in a game. Baseball has 9 on the field at one time, and probably 15 actually play, 25 on the active roster, it is not a fair comparison… anyways, you can run your terrible NBA trades all you want, but you don’t make a good argument.
@andrewgauldin Your argument is spurious.
Yankees have 25 straight winning seasons.
This doesn’t affect me, as NYY doesn’t pick high. Seeing as NYY are set up well farm and team-wise, NYY shouldn’t be expected to pick high for the foreseeable future.
Doesn’t mean the other teams wont suffer.
NBA is worse-case scenario. Kyrie trade (and I told you I was biased? based on my “anecdotal basketball trades” that I’m assuming you have no idea of any of those names.
It’s a fair example. Time and time again, trading first rounder backfires, sets teams back, years to come. I can provide you with NFL examples as well.
FYI, Kyrie-trade was recent. Happened 2017. Everything connects, moves, and Nets saw their own draft pick traded half a decade ago, used as major asset for a blockbuster trade, right before their eyes. You’d be a fool if you don’t think this won’t happen in MLB.
Picks are controllable assets, should stay, to give small-market team fans hope — for lost seasons. They could still trade the player after he’s drafted.
Can you imagine if the Marlins didn’t have ownership of their first round pick this year, because they included it to get rid of Chen and Prado?
“Time and time again, trading first rounders backfires . . . “
Let’s cut to the chase, xabial. The prohibition against trading high draft picks is designed to protect teams from themselves. MLB doesn’t trust that teams won’t make the same sort of disastrous trades you list. Which is odd logic as they are assuming those same incompetent teams will use the pick they are unable to trade wisely.
But the larger point is: Why protect them from themselves? Some teams would make smart moves while others would continue to make dumb moves, the ability to trade picks doesn’t change that. Why not let the free market decide who wins and loses.
Why shouldn’t the Yanks be able to trade a player + money (or just money) to the Marlins, Orioles, White Sox, etc for their first round pick? Isn’t baseball all about competition? Well, why not let teams compete here as well. If a MLB organization can’t be trusted to handle its draft picks responsibly perhaps someone else should be running the team.
“This doesn’t affect me, as NYY doesn’t pick high.”
Sure it does. For one thing I’d expect Cashman to be a buyer rather than a seller of draft picks. No quicker way to get his attention than by offering him a high pick. The fear is that once the picks have been monetized teams like your Yanquis will accumulate high picks and use them to draft future superstars thus defeating the whole purpose of the draft. What’s the difference between trading for Gleyber Torres as a minor leaguer and trading for the pick that’s used to select him?
“Yankees have 25 straight winning seasons.”
And? Still trying to figure out how that relates to the topic at hand.
“And? Still trying to figure out how that relates to the topic at hand.”
More damaging to annual high-lottery teams.
All the Lakers ended up losing was the #10 pick this season. Not the end of the world for Nash considering the horrible potential it had.
“More damaging to annual high-lottery teams.”
That’s a rather patronizing approach, xabial. It could also be beneficial to perennial high-lottery teams, aka “losers”, if used correctly. Why shouldn’t Theo Epstein have been able to trade for picks when rebuilding and trade picks for players when plugging holes for a playoff run?
Why don’t you trust the owners and their GMs to make ordinary business decisions for themselves—and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences thereof?
How about this pics can be traded but only in deals involving other draft picks. that way people can move up and down the draft but can’t take their future like you said.It creates more of an interest in the draft without any of the problems
So just require teams to
1. only trade picks rounds 1 – 10
2. The picks can only be in the next upcoming draft (ie teams can trade them now) but after the draft they can only trade picks for next years draft.
Problem with the NBA is they only get 2 draft picks, A 1st and 2nd. The MLB has like 30 rounds so if teams trade their 1 through 10 they still have like 20 picks.
My 16th this year for your 16th five spots before me. I give you my 16th next year.
Neither organization is ruined. Both sides get what they want.
Basketball teams have 15 man rosters and one player makes a difference between lottery pick and 50 wins , no relevance to baseball.
People like you, deserve to lose Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg, had your team won those two unusual drafts (I say unusual because these two #1 picks were much more sure-things than most #1)
biasisrelitive found an amazing compromise: trade picks-for-picks, in current drafts. Don’t trade future picks! You don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, and it’s long 162-game
If a team is stupid enough to makes a trade that screws them, that’s their fault.
I mean, the Sixers sucked for half a decade, but it worked out well for them so far. Ben Simmons, Joel Embiid, possibly Markelle Fultz, it all depends on who you have running your team.
It would probably be the same in the MLB- with current front offices, the Yankees, White Sox, Cubs etc. would be good, while the Rays and the Orioles would trade their 2nd round pick for a Class A Advanced back-up catcher and a 34th round pick in 2019
No because the A’s would unload all of their players each year for any pick in any round they could get
Absolutely
Yes they should.
Draft pick instead of PTBNL, teams who are rebuilding have more incentive to take on bad contracts if they could get draft picks attached as well as players, and it also gives teams additional resources to bid who may not have the strongest farms right now.
Nope. All it would do it increase the gap between the haves and have nots. Draft picks in baseball are not nearly as valuable as in football or basketball just because of how long it takes them to get to the top level. However if they were able to be traded, I believe the perceived value of them would rise and teams like Oakland or Pittsburgh would inevitably trade their best players for draft picks and miss far more than they hit. Prospects fail too, but at least with them there is a little more information known about their ability as pros.
How?
If you would read farther than my first sentence, you would see how.
You raise a bunch of great points, but my one counter argument is the idea that the team with the draft pick can select essentially whoever they want, giving them more freedom than trying to pry a top prospect away from another organization.
It also gives organizations with lesser farm systems more opportunity to bargain in deals. For example, let’s say the Mariners wanted Machado, right now, they couldn’t do it unless they gave up literally everything they had left, but in this scenario, they could give up one of their good prospects, say Carlson or Brigman as well as a 2nd round pick or something.
Of course your argument lessens the need to even have a good farm system. Why reward franchises that have failed to develop talent? Plus, is there a limit to how far in the future you can trade draft picks? Could Seattle trade their 1st rounder for the next five years in separate deals for Manny Machado, Cole Hamels, Raisel Iglesias, Danny Duffy, and Josh Donaldson? You might be able to build 3-4 different “All Star teams” for October, but it would really make for a very uninteresting season for everyone else.
No. Baseball has things that the other Big 4 Sports do not- a massive minor league system affiliated with specific teams and no salary cap. It makes trading options much more plentiful than other sports. I also think this would just be another way for richer teams to have an advantage over poorer ones. Not only can they now part with more prospects and make up the talent gap with free agency, they’d be able to part with the draft picks too.
Oh please no. At least not while Jerry Dipoto is in charge of my Mariners.
I would say that Jerry is a good reason for it to happen. It would make things so interesting.
Jerry’s trades aren’t interesting. He’s made the postseason as a GM once in 8 years. It doesn’t work.
Shut up and go away
“I’ll trade my 2084 7th rounder for your 2084 7th rounder and we’ll see what happens.”
Another problem would be the potential for teams to limit salaries of top picks. Let’s say a selling team accumulates several first rounders and builds up a sizable amount of money to spend under the rookie cap. What would stop them from lowballing all the players in the hopes that a couple would sign and the ones that didn’t would still net the team a first rounder in the next draft. That could easily be done.
I might be okay with it if only draft picks could be traded for draft picks. Like move up a few picks in the first round and trade your third. I don’t really want to see big leaguers traded for draft picks.
It would make tanking a lot easier, and I don’t think it should be encouraged
I don’t see how it makes any difference to be honest. I find it interesting that “fans would be more interested in the draft” if you could trade for picks. I just don’t find this to be true. First off, college football and basketball are more popular than baseball, so the average fan knows the key players that will be drafted. Second, Players drafted take 4+ years to make it to the bigs. So not only will fans not know the players getting drafted but also they won’t even be relevant for those 4 years.
And for all of you commenting that “I’d rather see a draft pick traded than a PTBNL” that doesn’t make any sense to me besides easing your own mind. If a draft pick would be traded, you would still have to wait however much time it is till the draft to see who your team picked. Look back at the last paragraph as for what it really means for you (you still have to wait a long time to really see him). At least in the PTBNL the player has been playing professional baseball for x amount of time and there is a actual professional scouting report on him so you have some sort of clue what he projects to be and what he has done against equal competition.
This doesn’t factor in all the top 10 round picks that get drafted and you never hear of again. Trading picks would do nothing more than sound interesting but in reality it does nothing.
Personally I am fine the way it is trading comp picks and leaving the other picks alone. But as I said I don’t think it matters either way, teams only make trades when they get the value they want and this won’t change if you add picks or not. Interest level As a fan should be equal either way.
Actually, it would completely rework how a team approaches trades.
For instance, now teams can only trade players they’ve spent time developing.
You suddenly allow teams to trade picks- essentially players who won’t be ready for 4 to 5 years down the road, you will probably see teams on the cusp of contention going out, trading those picks to add cost controlled assets from rebuilding teams (who’d probably want to add 1st 2nd 3rd round picks) while maintaining majority of their own players they’ve developed you’ve suddenly added more competitiveness in baseball.
Imagine if the Brewers had traded their 1st 2nd 3rd 4th round picks plus Brinson the Marlins for Yelich. Brewers have such a deep farm they could of afforded sacrificing one draft to add Yelich while the Marlins get exactly what they’d need- draft capital
Im sure the brewers would have been more inclined to trade 4 or 5 draft picks along with a top prospect for Yelich and keeping the other prospects for other deals like starting pitching or something. .
I will give you the one positive thing about the idea of trading draft picks would be now teams literally have thousands of players to choose from (in the draft) instead of the PTBNL who at most is a pool of 5. Also, it is a guy that you want and that fits your system the best. Whereas now you are making a trade for a player that has been apart of another system for a few years. So you have complete control of this draft pick.
My one worry is that if you have 40rounds in the draft, all of a sudden teams are going to make even more trades because they have more assets. For example, the Yankees would have an endless amount of draft picks, so if they wanted to make a trade they always could. And since they don’t really have a salercap to adhere too, it doesn’t matter. But the way the system is now, the only assets they have are the guys they trade for or develop. Though the MLB may be the only league that can’t trade picks, the system is not broke, so don’t fix it.
The only thing that complicates it is just the sheer number of picks and the depth of the minors, in comparison to the other leagues. Is a 16th round pick and a High-A shortstop worth more than a 17th and an 18th round pick and a rookie ball LHP?
Who cares? The front offices will figure that all out and that’s all that matters.
The reason that the NFL, NBA and NHL drafts hold a higher interest for fans is that they see the players drafted playing in the major sport, not a minor league, the very same year they are drafted. In baseball it can take 4-5 years until drafted players make the majors if they ever make it at all
Not only that, but the players being drafted in the NFL and NBA are far more known to the average fan. The average fan has no clue about some 18 year old OF from Chattanooga or wherever, but they probably know the RB that played in the Rose Bowl or the PF that helped them win a game in their NCAA tourney pool. I would also argue that the NHL draft does not have the following of those other two, at least in the US..
And the NFL and NBA are way more popular sports…
Yes, cause it’s just crazy there’s a hypothetical poll instead of it already being practiced.
Maybe… You’d have to implement certain rules like 1.). can’t trade back to back first round picks. Or allow teams to add protections to the picks (top 3, top 5, top 8). Maybe even a draft lottery for the top 8-10 picks. I highly doubt it’ll be done though. I don’t see enough of the league agreeing with this.
I do believe it would generate an interest in the draft that is lacking. (I also think a showcase like the combine would help)
My concern is how the eligible picks are already dealt. Teams could sell picks with the intent of offoading bad contracts. The rich would get richer.
Example: Chris Davis and contract and the #11 pick to the Yankees for Billy Fleming
The NHL has stuff like that happen though where teams who never spend up to the cap take on an injured player’s salary for picks or prospects. Like Pavel Datsyuk plays in Europe now after he retired from Detroit, but I believe Arizona is paying his contract because Detroit sent them some picks.
LA Clippers had this overpaid player, bad contract, or Chris Davis of his day, named Baron Davis.
To dump his contract on the Cavs, Clippers included a future first. The pick ended up being #1 overall— And The Cavs selected Kyrie Irving — Sorry Clippers.
I see this happening more in MLB than in the NBA. (Dumping of bad contracts for draft picks)
the big difference is there is no salary cap in MLB. so many decisions in NFL and NBA are based on the cap and the manipulation of salaries. and i don’t see bad teams wanting to go out and pick up Jason Hayward or Shin Soo Choo because of draft picks.
It wouldn’t create more fan interest imo because most casual fans have no idea that the draft is even next week let alone who the top players in this draft are. The Mlb draft will always be less interesting from a media hype standpoint because the players don’t make any significant impact (if at all) for a few years after the fact. If you made draft picks tradeable then fine I don’t really care but don’t give me this nonsense that it would spur fan interest
Make all picks traceable and add an actual salary cap, both ideas work for every other sport. The good front offices will still have success when they draft, trade, groom prospects and resign contracts.
I like draft pick trading in the NHL. I like draft pick trading in the NFL. The NBA doesn’t exist to me so I don’t what they do. But, in MLB, I actually think they do it right for their particular sport and wouldn’t want to see a change…or at least, one of any significance. Maybe allow each team to trade one pick each year.
The change I would like to see is the length of the draft. Teams knowingly and intentionally draft kids that they have no plans to sign. What possible sense does that make?
Yes they should
MLB is one league where virtually every team has fielded a winner in the last twenty years. That is not true in other sports. Leave well enough alone.
Every team won a title in the last 20 years? Really? And while some team can run a team out there that can have a big year or two, the stars must totally align to win it all and then forget about being able to sustain it. A team like KC has such a small window of opportunity they have to get lucky to win it and then cringe as it all falls apart just as quickly. Then teams like Houston have to tank it to get to where they currently are at. These teams can’t weather a bad contract and it could cripple long term plans while the big boys can eat bad contracts and/or dump them and not blink. An actual hard cap works everywhere else and should be in MLB as well, properly run organizations will still have success.
Teams already tank Houston and Cubs both won ws. If you trade picks you better go back to signing picks to whatever so if a team wants to draft Josh Bell and give him 5 million it’s worth it. If not and you stay with the slotting system who cares
draft picks in MLB are way overrated. at least with the NBA/NFL, you have a slightly better indication of how a player might before but there are of course always a lot of misses. with MLB, even more. so if a team can become better for a stretch run by trading a pick for a player……why not?
The other side of the envelope.
If “everyone” wants it, why is it fiction? It takes 23 of 30 owners, and half plus one of the MLBPA. Who’s balking?
Hell yes they should! It will make trade season all the more better! Teams can have more annoying trade. I also believe it will give the Tampa Bay’s a chance to stockpile more young talent to compete before their first big contract when they leave town
I say do it. What is the harm? It’s no different than trading for prospects already in a system. Of course there would need to be some rules involved to keep it from getting out of hand.
What could go wrong? An incompetent GM who might be on the brink of losing his job could trade away an entire draft or two for a last ditch effort, in doing so he could damage an organization for 2 decades. Don’t think that can happen? I’ll bet most fans can name at least 1 GM that would have done it in the past 10 years or so, I know I can.
I support the trading of some draft picks. However any draft pick in the top 10 rounds (which is where 50% of all major leaugers come from) should be untouchable.. A team should be unable to trade more than 10 picks in any draft. A team can only trade picks for the upcoming draft, no future drafts beyond that date. Etc…
It would increase interest in the draft. Also maybe cut draft to 25 or 30 rounds?
How/Why would it increase interest? Nobody cares about players who have to go play in the minors for 5 or more years. It’s nothing like the NBA/NHL/NFL where guys are drafted in the first round and are immediately making an impact on the playing court/ice/field.
This move would make trades easier…so it would make it even easier to keep young players in the minors for an inordinate amount of time. (when you don’t have room for someone on the 40 man, you no longer have to choose between calling him up or losing him, you can more easily trade him to someone who has the room, for a draft pick).
So absolutely not. At least not without a corresponding move to limit team control, to make players drafted 19 or younger automatic free agents for their age 27 season, and players drafted age 20+ free agents after seven full years (minor and major combined) of service time.
This would make all the maneuvers teams do, to extend team control, pointless, and the PA would no longer have any serious reason to object to whatever trades owners wish to make. They could even start trading players for money (I mean big money, like it’s done in soccer), if they wish.