Major League Baseball has set the order for Competitive Balance Rounds A and B of next year’s draft, reports Jonathan Mayo of MLB.com. Those rounds, which take place after the completion of the first and second rounds, respectively, are comprised of picks awarded to teams that are considered in the bottom 10 in terms of market size and/or revenue.
As Mayo explains, MLB now utilizes a new approach to determining Competitive Balance order rather than a lottery, as had been done in previous drafts since the Competitive Balance rounds’ inception prior to the 2013 season. The league applied a formula that took into account total revenue and winning percentage among the 14 teams that received Competitive Balance picks. Based on the results of that formula, the Rays, Reds, A’s, Brewers, Twins and Marlins were awarded the six picks in Comp Round A in 2017, with the other eight teams (D-backs, Padres, Rockies, Indians, Royals, Pirates, Orioles, Cardinals) all falling into Comp Round B.
Under the new system, those two groups will simply flip on an annual basis, meaning the six teams that were awarded Comp Round A picks in 2017 comprised the teams selecting in Comp Round B. Likewise, the eight teams that comprised Comp Round B in 2017 swapped to Comp Round A in 2018. Now, of course, we’re back to the starting point, with the formula spitting out new ordering for each group of teams. Notably, the Pirates will pick in both rounds, as they’ve received the No. 37 overall pick as compensation for failing to sign last year’s No. 36 overall pick, Gunnar Hoglund.
According to Mayo, the rounds will play out as follows:
Round A
34. Marlins
35. Rays
36. Reds
37. Pirates (compensation for Hoglund)
38. Athletics
39. Brewers
40. Twins
Round B
71. Royals
72. Orioles
73. Pirates
74. Padres
75. Diamondbacks
76. Rockies
77. Indians
78. Cardinals
It should also be noted that this isn’t yet likely to represent the final draft order. Competitive Balance draft selections are the only picks that are eligible to be traded from one team to another under baseball’s collective bargaining agreement. These picks can only be traded during the regular season, though, and each pick can only be traded one time.
The specific placement of these picks in the overall draft order figures to change as well as draft-pick compensation from qualified offers slightly alters the ordering of the picks both surrounding the Competitive Balance rounds. (We recently broke down the possible impact to teams that could lose qualified free agents and also to those that could sign them.) Generally speaking, though, this serves as a rough guideline for next summer’s draft and helps to provide a clearer picture of which teams will have the largest draft pools.
I skipped the article and went straight to tge comments to be tge first. Whats the article saying?
It says you have fat thumbs
What does that mean? Unless you’re insinuating that I am using one of those cellular gadgets, your sadly mistaken young fella. I am using my computer keyboard that I picked up at a yard sale for a bargain. The “h” and “g” are a little sticky from the previous owner who may have spilled something on the keyboard.
Never mind his ignorance. “Tge” is just Latin for the. It means the same. Trust me, I took Latin in highschool.
Yeah “spilled something”….
Lol. You win.
So you have fat fingers♂️
Ohhh, well now that makes alot more sense!!…
I was wondering, because I thought cool white guys stopped using “boi” in 2005!!
It was supposed to be “y” but I made a typo in typing out my username and following submission I was unable to change it my good sir. Im not what you might call computer literate.
Don’t ever talk to me or my Avril Lavigne again
Not sure, I did the same. I’ll give you an upvote for your efforts.
More comments from you
Manfred talks about updating the game to entice the next generation with things like pitch clock, runner at 2nd in extra innings among other horrible idea.
Want to increase interest? Make draft picks tradeable 1st 10 rounds. Every sport BUT the MLB lets teams deal draft picks and thats part of the excitement is leading up to draft day players on the trading block could be dealt for draft capital .
I mean imagine if a contender trades away its 1st round pick thinking theyd contend and wind up in a Houston Texans situation where this past year you wound up giving the browns the 4th overall pick and the 3rd or 4th pick in the 2nd round for Deshaun Watson and taking Brock Osweiler or a Net Celtics situation where Nets traded a huge draft haul for Pierce Garnett and others and Celtics wound up getting great assets like Jayson Tatum. Or imagine a team getting a kings ransom in draft picks ala Robert Griffin III Herschel Walker type deal.
With the capital placed on prospects these days, it would be incredibly interesting to see what draft picks would be worth at the deadline.
Unlike other sports, MLB gives teams x amount of money which they can under or over spend, up to like 5% over max pool allotment. I mean it would be interesting to see a team increase their draft pool allotment by acquiring picks in which case offers more financial ability to lure talent away from collegiate commitments. You acquire a 1st round pick its easily 2 mill extra in draft allotment. Which could be used on a 3rd or 4th rounder in hopes of allocating majority of that money to stealing them from college.
Also, I think you could see teams trade draft pick “slot range” for IFA money as well. Say 750K in IFA money for idk 3rd or 4th rounder wherever that falls.
You also have the chance to create conditional picks depending on player performance much like the NFL does.
I think trading draft picks is an easy way to get people invested more in baseball when their team stands to benefit in some way from another teams success or failure.
I don’t think it is necessary. The reason the NFL and NBA have to trade draft picks is because they don’t have the vast minor league systems from which to add prospects to trades. Baseball already has 150-250 minor league players per team. If teams can’t find anything they want in that big of a group, then maybe the problem lies with them. Giving such an indecisive and/or picky front office control of a draft pick is probably going to do no good anyway.
An indecisive picky front office is no good for drafts regardless of sport.
Its not necessary, but it is an easy way to drum up more interest in the sport.
Baseball has 150-250 because teams are given what 40 draft picks and unlimited IFA additions? Its safe to assume a team adding a 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th round draft pick would have a better shot of netting value than 300k or less IFA player or a draft pick in the 30-40 round.
MLBTR and other sites have done pieces on draft player production at the ML level where 1-5 1st rond has produced more war as a group than 10-15 1st round over the course of a 5 or 10 year period.
You bring up another problem. If a team needs to trade draft picks because there isn’t enough value in their farm system to trade, then wouldn’t it be more necessary for that team to keep its draft picks?
In addition, this just seems like it would be an even bigger gap between the haves and have nots. After this season when the AL playoffs were virtually set with two months left in the season, I think we need to work toward more teams trying to field competitive teams now instead of having even more teams rebuilding in order to accumulate future draft picks.
I am not against rebuilding. I realize it is necessary. But it is not necessary for so many teams to be rebuilding at the same time. If Cleveland sells this winter as has been speculated, the entire AL Central will be in some stage of rebuilding. We could actually have a club that is selling off players in the playoffs in 2019. Not due to overcoming odds, but just because one team is guaranteed from that division. That is RIDICULOUS. There shouldn’t be any more than 1-2 teams per division in any stage of a rebuild at any given time.
I realize I went off on a tangent there, but I really think with the trading of draft picks, this will cause these problems to become worse.
To answer your question- it depends why the team with no prospects is trading its draft capital.
Are they trading it cause theyre in contention and are using picks to get a rental?
Are they buying a cost controlled asset?
Are they attaching picks to unload bad contracts to rebuilding clubs?
If a team has no farm to speak of 2 of those 3 scenarios benefits said team in the long run.
If they’re using picks for a cost controlled player that benefits them.
If they’re using picks to unload bad contracts means theyre gonna put money elsewhere to be competitive theoretically.
You can rebuild a farm in 2 years. Plenty of teams have.
But you could also put the stipulation teams cannot trade consecutive year picks. So they can’t do 2019 2020 1st rounders but can do 2019 2021. Nba has a similar rule. You could also put draft order restrictions on picks. Say 1st round top 10 protected. Nba has these kinds of rules abour draft picks.
I dont see this as a way to bring more interest. You have to already be interested before the trade. No way this makes a person on the fringe start enjoying baseball. Even the ones that do will only be interested for a short time. It will still take 3 years at least to make the majors after the draft.
Consider this.
The padres have the top rated farm in baseball. White Sox Braves have top 5 as well.
Imagine if they could trade 2019 picks to acquire what they need rather than sacrificing current assets on the farm.
I think its be huge if the padres traded a haul in draft picks to the mets for Noah Syndergaard instead of parting with current players.
The braves have a top 10 pick from failing to sign their 1st rounder last year. Imagine dangling that out there for OF and RP help.
Trading draft picks allows for smaller market clubs like padres athletics etc to make a push for contention quicker which winning brings fans.
The only way to fix baseball is to even the financial playing field. Large market teams can afford to pay players 80 bazillion dollars while small market teams have to be almost perfect to compete
This is exactly the point, to prevent teams from pulling a Nets and making themselves irrelevant for half a generation for no reason.
Not that I am necessarily totally against making a change.
The celtics nets trade isnt what killed the nets. It’s the nba stupid rule you have to spend like 90% of the cap room. Which is why you have such disparity in the league.
Teams arent bad in the nba cause theyre losing draft picks. Theyre bad cause the nba is forcing them to hand out bad contracts to players just to meet the stupid spending rule or face disciplinary action.
Players typically dont want to go play for rebuilding clubs yet the nba forces rebuild teams to spend money which cripples their ability to spend later on. It’s ridiculous and bad.
The main reason you don’t see draft picks moved in the MLB goes back to the argument that surfaced in the late 90s- early 00’s about retracting teams. At the time, baseball had about 4 to 6 team owners that literally kept their organizations stripped down to the bare minimum so they could turn small profits. They did this because the fallout from the ’94 strike nearly destroyed the game, especially the smaller markets.
These particular owners would tell GMs to draft based on who was the cheapest option, not who was the best player. This kept certain teams in a vicious (cheap) financial cycle such as the Expos, Twins (at the time) to name a couple.
So the reason you don’t see draft picks moved in the MLB isn’t because they should or could, It’s mainly done to protect organizations from trigger happy owners and GMs that will sacrifice everything for one playoff run, and then endure 5 years of terrible baseball..
Every other sport also has their draft in their offseason. I have a hard time imagining a lot of draft-day trade excitement around the MLB draft.
Trading draft picks would be a terrible idea. Imagine if Dombrowski had been able to trade draft picks when he was the Tiger GM… The Tigers wouldn’t have a top draft pick for the next 10 years. He would have traded them for someone like Soria or Papelbon. Baseball GM’s have a very short career. They seldom last more than 3 years. The players they draft seldom make the majors before the GM that drafted them gets fired.
Just looked it up… only 10 of the current 30 GM’s have been with their current team since 2015.
I wonder how much of that lack of longevity is actually a historical truth and how much is just due to the fact that 2015-2017 saw three teams employ total rebuilds with new GMs and win it all. Now that’s the hot new thing so everybody wants a new GM to do it. Similar to the turnover in the early 00s when advanced metrics became a thing. Out with the old and all
As mentioned above the nba and NFL have draft pick models that could work in tandem for the mlb.
Nba- you can’t trade 1st round picks in consecutive years. Has to be every other year.
Mlb version- you can’t trade consecutive picks in rounds 1-5.
Nba other rule- teams are allowed to add protection clauses- top 3 top 15 top 45 protected. If the pick winds up being protected it turns into 2nd rounders or goes unprotected after 3 or 4 years.
Mlb version- add protection clauses. Add dealing picks rounds 1-5 every other year cant be consecutive.
Nfl- limit number of draft picks a team can own in an particular draft.
Mlb version- limit of 25 picks or 20 (double rounds 1 through 10) in any given draft.
Otee NFL rule- you can add conditions to increase a puck value. Chargers traded Antonio cromartie for a 4th round pick but due to performance of cromartie and team it turned into a 2nd round pick. Say a 7th rounder turns into a 3rd if the team makes the champ game or 2nd if ws.
Two entities decide rule changes. The owners and players.
While I’d dig draft pick trades, the reason they aren’t openly traded is that….
a. the players don’t want them to happen.
b. the owners don’t want them to happen
c. both a and b.
I doubt the players care. The owners likely don’t want trades of draft picks, as they would suddenly represent value far more than players receive in signing bonuses..
^^This! Also, the players association has clearly made the more senior players the priority. Anything that changes the dynamics of older players getting larger contracts never happens, no matter how good it would be over the long run.
Since they have 14 picks to award (not counting the extra Pirates pick), is there a good reason why they are not divided 7 and 7 instead of 6 and 8? It makes no sense, especially since the order flips from year to year. It’s almost as bad as the old days of uneven National and American Leagues.
Looks like the plan is to give comp picks to the same 14 clubs every year, regardless of any changes in winning record or market size data. The Tigers would qualify in both categories now that they’ve gone from winning and spending to tanking, They will now receive revenue sharing, but it doesn’t look like they can crack the losers club to get one of these coveted draft picks, which are after the first round.
The winning percentage and revenue part of the equation must be a very small part of how they figure this. It’s ridiculous to include the Cardinals in this every year.
Oh look a cubs fan.
How? That’s an incredibly logical stance.
Not to mention the Cardinals’ ability to spend. If they are truly in on Machado and/or Harper, I think they shouldn’t be given any “competitive balance” pick. They simply don’t need it.
Oh look a cardinals fan.
I think it’s funny how I have never seen a non-Cardinals fan that believes the Cardinals should get a competitive balance pick. And no, I’m not a Cubs fan.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to complain about the cardinals getting the last pick in the B category lol…get over it
Why?
It’s absolute garbage that Major League Baseball is handing the Cardinals extra draft picks. They don’t need them. They haven’t needed them. And they should stop getting them.
Could you imagine the reactions if the NFL just gave the Packers an extra second round draft pick every year simply because Green Bay is a small city?
They love to pretend to be a small market so they keep getting free picks. But when the of season comes around they want to swim in the deep end of the pool
Obligatory “it’s bs that the cardinals get a pick post”
This entire “competitive balance” is bs. Many of these same teams get these high picks every year and they still aren’t competitive… you also have teams that share markets with other teams. These picks won’t make a difference for years down the road. The picks won’t change the team’s competitive balance results. I say if a team is having trouble drawing fans, move them to markets that will support them.
Please name all those cities without a team that can support an MLB team.
Manfred has talked about expansion. Cities he’s listed as possible destinations are Portland, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Nashville, Vancouver, and Montreal. You could also add to that list Mexico City and maybe San Juan.
Las Vegas, San Antonio, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Nashville, Portland, Indianapolis. That’s just in the U.S.
Go outside of the US: Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, Mexico City, London.
Are all of them realistic? By no means.
But all could support a Major League team and bring a good dose of fans to the ballpark every night.
I really like the idea of Mexico City or some Caribbean city. They are fairly close and the people love the sport. .
The Expos need to make a comeback.
Not sure why someone voted down the idea of Mexico City getting a team… I think that would be awesome! It’s a city with 20 million people… I can’t understand why they don’t have one already. It is a neighboring country and baseball is already doing well there.
The same reason the NFL is not already there or in London. You would have a serious problem getting players to sign there. Espically pitchers
Because?
I agree 100%
They tried to take on Stantons whole contract, and have offered Price and Heyward 200 million. I dont think they have any competitive balance issues
The Cardinals had the 8th highest payroll last year. They don’t need an extra pick and shouldn’t get one.
I’m not a fan of competitive balance picks especially when we have no cap floor. I also cannot understand why a team such as the cardinals get a pick and have been getting picks all these years when they have great attendance. They have the ability to spend!
Why do the Cards get a pick? They have been competitive for years. They have a strong minor league system. They draw great crowds (They were third in average attendance).
Why do the Rays get a pick? They have been competitive the past two years. They have a top farm system. From ’08 to ’13 they were a playoff team 4 times. They had a quick rebuild and now they are close again.
I remember when the Marlins and Rays were begging to get a major league baseball team to support. They claimed they had the fan base to support them. Even when these teams made the world series, they couldn’t get a sellout crowd.
I mean St. Louis is a smaller media market. #21 Nielsen Designated Market for 2019. It’s likely the media market size that applies to the Cardinals.
The owners should really vote on this and change the entire draft system. Allow picks to be traded. Get rid of competitive balance picks. It’s nonsense.
It’s part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. It will require agreement between the league and the players’ union.
And this years participation trophies go too….
Why do Red Sox get last pick??
Thats total BS
Competitive balance picks should be handed out based on records alone, not market size or revenue. You can have lots of money and still suck, as my favorite team the Giants have been demonstrating for the last 2 and a half years.
Record should be a very, very small factor.
The fact is, large market teams have a much easier path to success. They can buy whatever they want. The Dodgers were able take on massive, stupid contracts to help build their team (i.e. Mike Morse, Mat Latos, Bronson Arroyo, etc.)
The Yankees and Red Sox are able to take on upside down contracts and win with them not involved (Ellsbury, Sandoval, Hanley Ramirez).
The Rays and Pirates can’t do that.
And so small market teams have a much tougher path to success. They have to be extremely smart, they usually can’t hand out massive contracts to guys like Harper or Machado, and often, success means catching lightning in a bottle.
I’m fine with the competitive balance picks. (I’m not okay with the Cardinals getting one.)
Stupidest thing in sports. Lets give teams free draft picks because they suck and they can’t draw fans. Boo hoo.
Trading draft picks is a BAD idea. That way, the “small market” teams would put another 2-5M a year in their pockets instead of spending it on talent. And the “big boys” could accumulate picks by sending marginal minor league talent to those teams for the picks. We’ve seen it happen with International Slots; teams like the Dodgers trade 3 guys named Harry to some team in exchange for “slots”, and sign the better talents. The exact same thing would happen with draft choices.
Revenue Sharing encourages teams in smaller markets to be in constant re-build mode, which decreases brand appeal throughout the sport (the AL was decided by Memorial Day; it’s little wonder attendance was down everywhere).
Yes, there’s revenue disparity; no one doubts it. But ownership in those small markets (and how “small” are they? Tampa supports an NFL and NHL team quite nicely, thank you) have to be controlled against just lining their pockets with monies other teams have earned.
A salary “floor” is urgently needed in the sport. And no draft pick trading.
Small market teams need to stop whining. Under rules that have been in place for 5-7 years now, Betts, Bradley, Benetendi, Boegarts, Judge, Sanchez, Severino etc. could have all been Rays, or Reds, or Rangers, etc. It’s NOT all about the money. SOME is….but not ALL.
Great insight, Bob.
I do think there are several small market teams who have done a remarkable job of using the resources (however limited they may be) to put a competitive and entertaining product on the field. The Brewers, Indians, and Reds, specifically (probably a few others) have really sought to use that money wisely.
I think baseball needs to crack down on teams who aren’t using that revenue sharing money to put better players on the field.
The Rays, for example serve to earn over 40M in revenue sharing this year, but their payroll will be projected around that same number. So where’s the money going? And what purpose does the money serve?
So yeah, if trading draft picks was allowed, we know full well a handful of teams would take full advantage of it.
No question the Rays are one of the biggest offenders. But there are others. And yes, kudos to the Brewers, especially, to using their sheckles wisely.
No one says it’s easy. Drayton Moore did a GREAT job in KC building a moribund, low revenue franchise during the early part of this decade. But he neglected the light of the oncoming train; arbitration, free agency, etc. Those are difficult, difficult decisions smaller revenue teams have to make, I emphasize with the pain of letting Alex Gordon go, a few years ago….but it should have been done.
And small revenue teams are sickening sometimes with their whining. Steinberg spent 265M to buy the Rays; Henry spent 700M to buy the Sox. In what universe should Steinberg expect to make the same profit as Henry?
And BTW, when Henry bought the Sox, Steinbrenner called it the “dumbest deal in the history of sports: bad team, horrible park, lousy TV”. So Henry turned it into a good team, turned the dump that was Fenway into a national landmark, and took control of the TV. Stuie did none of those things in Tampa.
If the Rays spent 51% of their revenues on the team like the Sox do, they could have had a 110M payroll this year. Make no mistake: Neander, Bloom, etc. are pretty sharp guys. They would have used that money wisely. And made the playoffs.