Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred spoke on various topics today, including possibly loosening the rules on trading draft picks. Per J.J. Cooper of Baseball America, Manfred suggested the owners have some openness to allowing teams more freedom to trade picks but he also noted that changes would have to be collectively bargained with the MLB Players Association.
Under the current rules, teams can only trade competitive balance picks. Only the clubs with smaller markets/revenues get those and they make up a small portion of the overall number of picks in the draft.
Plenty of other sports allow the trading of draft picks, which adds an element of excitement to the draft itself as well as trades during the rest of the year. Many have argued for MLB to follow suit and allow picks to be traded, but the counterargument has been that teams might send away too many picks and doom themselves to years of fielding ineffective teams.
The counter to that argument has usually been that teams can already do themselves plenty of harm by trading away prospects and that things wouldn’t meaningfully change by adding draft picks to the equation. Furthermore, it has been argued that teams should be subject to the consequences of their own actions as opposed to being preemptively protected from them. This latter point seems to be something that Manfred is receptive to.
“The positions the clubs have taken over time in terms of what they want us to do at the table has been a product of a balance between flexibility in terms of utilizing the resources available to you on the one hand and paternalism on the other—that is I’m going to prevent you from doing acts because I think it would be stupid,” Manfred said. “I don’t think we have that many stupid clubs. We’ll see how it shakes out. We will go through our (collective) bargaining prep,” he continued. “The clubs are really sophisticated now. I do think that there’s a really good argument for allowing them to decide how to use their resources.”
The MLBPA clearly has some level of concern about tanking, the practice of teams intentionally making themselves worse in the present in order to improve their chances of winning in the future. They have tried to push back against the practice by looking for things in CBA negotiations like a salary floor or draft lottery, successfully getting the latter but not the former.
A team that hamstrung itself by trading away numerous draft picks could perhaps impact free agent earning power, as such a franchise might get into such a poor long-term state that they effectively sit out free agency for a while. But as mentioned, that’s not too similar from a team under the present system that has traded away significant prospect capital and spend many years in rebuilding mode. It could also be argued that such a club may be incentivized to sign free agents who could then be traded for draft picks, making up for those that were traded away in previous years.
Whether the two sides can agree to change the rules will be known in the next few years, as the current CBA extends through the 2026 season. They will have many other issues to address, such as the competitive balance tax, minimum salaries, TV/streaming revenue plans, expansion and other topics, but perhaps there’s a glimmer of hope for those who want to see draft picks trade hands in the future.
The argument is…
The counter argument to that argument is..
The counter argument to that counter argument is..
The counter argument to that counter arguments counter argument is..
The argument is they should be able to trade draft picks
The ca to that a is teams will be cheap and just load up cheap draft picks and not spend
The ca to that ca is you implement a spending floor into the cba that teams must adhere to in return for a hard cap on salaries (double or 2.5x the floor).
The ca to that ca is even if you increase / cap spending requirements teams can still screw themselves by trading away future draft picks so you’d need to have an nba style system where teams can’t trade back to back years picks and possibly limit picks you can trade for rounds 1-10 or something. Pick swaps should be allowed.
Teams like the White Sox and Rockies are both run by idiot owners. When it comes to tanking, Reinsdorf leads the way. He has his flunky GM trade away anyone with ability or is making more than $7m a year and replaces them with retreads and has-beens. They shouldn’t even have a draft pick.
grifols is the problem with the White Sox. Bsts a .192 hitter second and tinkers with the pitching almost every game.
The Rockies are an interesting case. The Bryant signing was certainly one of the most idiotic signings in MLB history. However, they have good young talent in: Tovar, McMahon, Nolan Jones, Doyle and Toglia. They made the right move in staying away from Story long term.
They perennially lack pitching, but is that a location issue?
Only at MLBTR can you get truly galaxy brained takes like “the biggest problem with the White Sox is the manager”
Are you suggesting that the problem might be a lack of talent?
There’s a couple reasons baseball is different from the NFL or NBA. One in those sports players may still be maturing and getting better they come in ready to contribute right away. With a few exceptions MLB draft picks spend years in the minors before they’re major league ready. Assessing a guy with a few seasons at AA and AAA is a lot easier than assessing a draft slot on a pick that could produce Aaron Judge or never make it to the big leagues. Theres been decent parody in the league and im afraid lower markets will just go for as many draft slots as they can while big markets will pry away small market stars even more than they do now. You trade a fist round pick in the NFL that’s huge but is it really in baseball? It takes too long to know what you have and I like teams having a better idea on the return if they’re giving up a superstar.
seth – Excellent post, I totally agree!!
I like teams having a better idea on the return if they’re giving up a superstar.
==============================
I like it better when there is more uncertainty. Uncertainty generally favors the better-prepared and more patient GMs.
The smarter GMs probably just hired another physics major to calculate the value of the top 150 draft picks relative to their version of WAR, and relative to that players salary.
FWIW, I think Theo is a 1st ballot HOF, but maybe the smartest thing he ever did was to play Type A/Type B FA game, same as TB. This will be similar.
About time, Rob
Can we trade Manfred for say George
Clooney? He’d stay around for the picture and then someone real could take over….
How about Will Ferrell, but he sticks around for a few years.
Curly: I’m all for that. The word “stupid” came out if his mouth. He should look in the mirror and say that.
Still maybe the best GM in BB history.
About time. Trading is a slam dunk. I have no idea why a star player can be traded, but not a 5th round pick.
MLB moves at a snail pace, but sure enough it’s catching up to the other sports in the country…
There is no reason whatsoever draft picks can’t be traded. None.
Except that the rules prohibit it.
I do see the flip side, can you imagine if this was in place 3-4 years ago as Oakland tore down? They wouldn’t even be able to field an mlb product.
I like the idea of it as long as it’s strongly controlled, no picking in the top 5 or 10 year over year, bonus pool needs to be spent, need to keep atleast one pick in the first 3 rounds etc.
Cheap owners could have a field day with this if it goes unchecked
I dint understand what Oakland could have or would have done if they were allowed to trade their draft picks. I don’t see what you think would have happened.
They would have traded all their mlb talent for picks instead of prospects to avoid paying any salaries over the minimum and would field an even worse product then they are now.
But aren’t picks and prospects pretty similar? Identical perhaps, separated by one year.
experience, information, time. bringing in guys from other mlb orgs gives you more value than guys from high school or even college programs
I mean they already traded all their good MLB players for guys who were several years out, did they not?
If they do allow trading of the picks, does the dollar allotment go with that trade to the new team? For example, if the Yankees traded their first round pick (let’s say #28) to the Reds, who already had a #4, would the Reds get that allotment money as well? How would this new allotment money be spendable by the new team?
Well, since none of this is formalized and/or approved via CBA formalities… I guess the best we can say is “probably”!!
That would be something that the players association would definitely fight for.
Why? MLBPA happily rolled over and played dead when owners brought in hard slotting. What makes anyone think they would do anything different when non union interests here are involved?
MLBPA, like the owners themselves are nothing more than groups of self entitled jerks, out for nobody but themselves. The amateurs are on their own, nobody represents their interests and are pretyy much left twisting in the wind every time rules are changed.. For the worst.
Agreed all Manfred has done is dismantle the game in some form or another just to pull in more $.
Pulling in more $ for the owners is the commissioner’s entire job description, so complaining about that is like complaining about water being wet. All complaints about the dismantlement of the game lead back inevitably to its being taken over by analytics.
“MLBPA, like owners…groups of self entitled jerks..nobody represents their interests”…MLBPA is essentially run for the top 5% of players. They agree to many things that undermine the overwhelming majority of their so called “union”, to benefit the Boras top 5% of members.
I agree that the commish is the scapegoat all the time. But imo if someone does unethical things because it’s apart of their job description on some level, it doesn’t take them away from the responsibility of their actions. He is the one who has done these things. It’s like saying the president is a stooge to special interests and his job description includes doing things like “protecting interests foreign and domestic”. It doesn’t mean he’s relieved of responsibility. Like saying the job of a franchise is to make money: in support of the lack of effort the owner makes to win.
@john The MLB players ultimately vote for a CBA the issue with the amateurs or future players, they don’t vote because they don’t exist as far as being on MLB rosters yet
What “unethical things” are you talking about here? Be specific. The commissioner serves at the pleasure of the owners, and their pleasure is maximizing profits for themselves, so that is how he gets his job and how he keeps it. Someone is shocked by this?
The irony here (one of many) is all the recent changes to the game to speed it up that many fans say they hate are a direct response to the way analytics changed the game, something most current fans claim to love. Not being able to make this connection is no excuse for blaming someone or something else for it.
Conspiracy theory city.
He does the same thing as presidents do with constant executive orders. He oversteps what his position is meant to be. Just recently it was reported he would override the managers starting pitcher choice in the all-star game if it weren’t Skenes. I would say it was ethically wrong to promise ATL the all-star game only to take that revenue and exposure away at the time when it was most needed to help financially over a bill that simply returned voter laws back to pre-covid conditions (actually making them a bit more lenient!). There isn’t strong relation between analytics and speeding up the game. First Id point to the obvious fact that analytics is one of the original factors that slowed games down. For years former players who were commentators (fans as well) spoke up during the constant pitcher changes. It’s been well known that pitchers take too long to throw the ball. Anyone who watched games before this era should know that. Speaking of analytics as a sort of monolithic one-word entity is also misleading. “Analytics did this”. I mean you are basically saying diving deeper into things did this. I’m not referring to anything he did with pace of play. Even his speech is not that typical of a commish. He says things he shouldn’t say. Oakland fans for instance? Idk why you are even bringing up analytics. Everyone knew the games were longer on average. Everyone knows society has no attention span. How is this analytics? You are basically saying people who think differently than the old guys it seems. Well in their day games didn’t take that long. The “old school” people knew this!
I guess I meant saying that the average person in favor of something like a pitch clock was a person of a saber mindset isn’t the same as saying it was saber metrics that made it happen. It happened as a business decision because of attention spans and long games. Old school people were generally against it but many weren’t.
Pulling in more $ for the owners is the commissioner’s entire job description,
==========================
LOL!
The only way a business increases its revenue is by giving the customers something they want. One other poster mentioned ‘anything to boost the ratings’. That’s a feature, not a bug.
More revenue means more people watching, which means happier customers.
changes to the game to speed it up that many fans say they hate
==============================
Actually, very few fans say that. I’d bet that, for the die-hard fans, it might be close to 90%. I doubt that there is a single person in America that wants to spend 2 minutes a game watching Pedey adjust his gloves.
I’m an old dude, and the clocks were maybe the best change that I’ve seen in my life.
I really tried to understand what you said here, but it isn’t easy since the parts that aren’t unsubstantiated are contradictory. First, you have’t backed up your “unethical things” charge in any way shape or form. The commissioner is responsible only to his employers, the 30 MLB team owners. Not to fans, not to players, not to anyone else. Period. Full stop. The owners hired Manfred and extended his contract because they are delighted by his work. What we as fans think about him is irrelevant.
Second, the contradictions. You say on the one hand that the changes to the game were the result of analytics and then say they weren’t. That can’t possibly make sense. You were right the first time. Analytics slowed down the pace of play, which lengthened games and spawned rules to speed it up again. Direct cause and effect. When analytics created the infield shift and reduced offense, rules had to be created to minimize shifting. When analytics killed the running game, further rule changes were made to revive it. And so on.
We hear fans pissing and moaning all the time about in-game moves made by managers as if they made them on a whim — when we all know they were made by the numbers. But where do they direct their hate? At the manager, of course. He’s the wrong target. Bottom line, analytics have changed the game, and not for the better. Even the team owners seem to know it. Every fan should too.
Well I misunderstood your analytics comments. We are not really disagreeing on that. I don’t see why what we think of as fans about him is irrelevant. Sure, I blame the owners. But it doesn’t mean I don’t dislike Manfred. How is the Braves thing not unethical? Throwing an entire city under the bus. You think if he didn’t do that they wouldn’t have given him an extension as GM? Maybe so. But he was the commish. He had the job. If he decides to not do every little thing that goes against his conscience and they don’t extend him so what? He can make more money writing a book about it all. If my boss tells me to do something I don’t wanna do I don’t do it. I’ll do something else. It’s like ya know the kinda guy who generally becomes a police officer? A guy who is unethical (not always). So does hating on the commish accomplish anything? No. But why not throw some hate at a guy who is clearly a d-bag. He’s the symbol. He’s the face of the owners. On some level it has the effect of saying “we fans aren’t happy”. I’m not sure they can just replace Manfred as easily as you suggest. He knows his way around the game. He knows his job. The commissioner doesn’t have to do every single little detail the owners want in order to keep his job. It isn’t as if all the owners agree on everything. How many owners wanted to move the all-star game. Surely not all of them. You appease generally. You can’t, by definition, do what everyone wants every time. So it isn’t quite that simple.
Anyone who has ever had multiple bosses can tell you it’s important to always be able to count to 50% plus one. So long as you can do that, you keep your job. Manfred has more than kept his job, he was hired for more years. You may have decided in your own mind that something done was “unethical” just because you didn’t like it yourself, but the results should provide you with all the information you need to comprehend the relevance of your personal opinion. I realize we live in a day and age when everyone is supposed to have opinions about everybody and everything whether they are informed about them or not. I personally have no opinion about Rob Manfred because I can’t see the point of having one. I know how decisions are made in MLB, so if I have an issue with them I take it back to the source where they originated, not to the people they hire to carry them out.
I’d assume the spending allotment would go to the acquiring team cause it’s technically their pick.
We can already trade certain picks (competitive balance picks round an and b are what they’re called right?) anyways certain picks are already trade able – KC just traded one to the Nationals prior to the draft. That pick went to the nationals and so did the money associated with it. KC lost that pick and $ from their pool, Nats gained that pick and $ for their pool.
Yes, I’m fairly certain that’s what happened when KC traded their competitive balance pick to the Nationals.
One would assume so, otherwise it’d be pointless to try to acquire any pick in the top half of the first round. You’d have no money to spend and would have to go so far underslot that it’s not worth it.
Better question is whether they can trade the next year’s picks? Probably not, but it’d make it even more entertaining.
They should be able to. If someone wants to trade picks for Crochet, it would have to be next year’s picks.
Yes you get the pick and the money that goes along with it. For sure.
Currently when a Competiive Balance pick is traded the allotment for that slot is included with the pick. I would assume that would continue if other picks were allowed to be traded.
I do believe that it would add a lot intrigue to the draft and basically would also add it to the trade deadline. Win Win
There’s very little intrigue that can be added to the draft once you get past the 10th pick.
I would disagree since a vast majority of Hall of Famers were drafted after the 10th overall pick. Most of todays stars were drafted after the 10th pick.
And do these draft picks have a little “I’m going to the Hall of Fame” button on their shirts?
I guess that’s why it’s good to have an attention span of more than a seven year old and realize most good players aren’t taken at the beginning of the draft. I doubt you know much about the top ten players in the draft either.
I think it’s a whole lot more fun going to minor league games and watching these guys play or even college games and watching them play and even sometimes high school games and watching them play or summer leagues and watching them play or grabbing a bite to eat somewhere a future major leaguer is working or having a catch with a high school kid who gets drafted or blah, blah, blah. Let’s go Mets!
That is a numbers game though. 10 picks vs 600 picks. I’m sure the top 10 has a higher % of picks go to the Hall of Fame.
You can easily purchase a ticket for admission!!!!
There’s very little intrigue
=====================
There would still be some fun. Sooner or later, some team will wind up with 6 picks in the first round. Every fan would want to see the results.
Agreed, JB. It would add another avenue for rebuilding teams to get good quickly. Top rentals could land you a second-rounder. If picks were conditional like some in the NFL, there would be added interest in season-ending standings.
They’ll be some fun scenarios, same as in other leagues.
1-The GM about to be fired (Atkins?) trading away the future.
2-The team that thinks it will be top-5 and lands bottom-5.
3-Teams that have loaded farms, so won’t mind trading away their entire draft allotment.
Anything for the ratings!
Traded draft picks would make draft day much more exciting. I love watching NFL draft and reacting when there’s a pick trade during the draft too!
Novel idea…
Maybe every club should aim to be competitive every singe year.
That’s it. Nothing more to it. If that wasn’t an issue, then this wouldn’t be either.
Maybe local TV money could be equally shared across the league too.
Maybe I can watch Cubs games on my MLB TV subscription without blackouts because I don’t have the Cubs stupid Marquee subscription…
I can’t watch the Orioles and Nationals and I live 5 hours away in NC and wouldn’t be able to watch a local broadcast if I wanted to. MLB definitely doesn’t want fans sometimes.
Maybe every club should aim to be competitive every singe year.
=======================
Impossible.
In the real world, many companies are cyclical. Sometimes they lose money and sometimes they make scads of money.
And no matter what the writers tell you, it is impossible for all teams to be simultaneously over .500.
JoeBrady, they could juice the numbers like the NHL does, make an extra column for extra innings losses. Instead of 76-86, a club would be 76-74-12!
That’s not really going to help, except for the players’ wallets. League win-loss wouldn’t change. Maybe the Pirates wouldn’t have been so bad for so long, but more teams would be like the Sox were before they committed to their first rebuild: mired in mediocrity. Never contenders, never awful. Just flat boring.
Somebody has to lose the games, and sometimes it’s obvious your odds are so bad it’s best to look to the future.
Otherwise, you get the Colorado Rockies. Probably one of Manfred’s stupid teams.
i cant begin to understand why draft picks werent allowed to be traded before.
can manfraud also get rid of this $ slot system? its ridiculous
Great idea, 20 yrs late, but what the heck.
Manfred said. “I don’t think we have that many stupid clubs.”…..Why didnt he identify the few clubs who apparently are stupid? That list might be longer than he’s letting on….
The Angels and Rockies.
And the White Sox. FO may be improving, but Reinsdorf is still a terrible owner.
I agree.
I second aragon and hyraxwithaflamethrower, and further nominate the Marlins.
They could expand the rules all they want, I don’t see it making a huge difference. Yeah the first few rounds are the big ticket guys but those last 15+ rounds are how you build your farm system. In that sense, I could see a team in the right situation give up some top picks in a major trade. But on the flip side, teams value that control and those picks are so damn valuable. Even if they allowed every single pick to be traded, I still don’t see a scenario where picks are regularly traded like in the NFL or NBA. MAYBE a couple picks a year get swapped but that’s it.
The Guardians are trying to win in 2024 they might have traded the first overall pick if they could have.
The Royals traded the 39th pick. They had the 6th pick they might have traded that too if they could have.
All kinds of possibilities.
Granted, I am no executive and I don’t know how they think, but in absolutely no WORLD would the Guardians have traded the 1st overall pick unless they’re getting like, PRIME Aaron Judge or Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera in return, and maybe even then probably not.
They could have traded down. And yes they could have simply traded the pick away. That has happened in other sports.
Competitive balance picks have to be the dumbest thing ever. Let’s help out a team like stl that doesn’t have issues being competitive year in and year out.
St Louis hasn’t had a competitive balance pick for a few years now.
Ironically they haven’t been competitive for a few years also.
93 wins in 2022. Pretty sure they are in the playoffs if they started today. Seems competitive to me…….
I agree. For years, it seemed like Baltimore would get competitive balance picks, while Washington did not-even though Baltimore owns both tv rights. This year I could see it with ROY award. Serious question, how are competitive balance picks determined? Market size? Revenues? Both? Neither?
CBP is determined by payroll and market size. 10 smallest payrolls get a pick and the 10 smallest markets get a pick. Teams that fit into either catagory are enetered into a lottery system for the CBP,
Thank you.
I think it would be good.
I’d love to see teams able to trade draft picks, but one thing I dislike is when a team trades draft picks from future years. Trading Player A for the next 5 first-round picks just seems like a terrible idea.
I think that is what the rules against trading picks had in mind. Trading prospects in baseball is like trading picks in other sports because you are giving away something to help in the next 1-2 years. A pick in baseball is mortgaging your future 3-4 down the line.
I think a possible reason MLB doesn’t allow trading draft choices is the fear (real or imagined) of agents manipulating the draft to get their clients to the large market team of their choice. Let’s look at the example of Skenes last year. Orange County kid would probably prefer to play on the West Coast. But he also wants to be the #1 overall pick to get the 9.2 million bonus he wants. So his agent tells the Pirates not to draft him and trade the pick to the Dodgers. And since the slotting money would transfer to the Dodgers he would still get his 9 million and play for his team of choice. Don’t know if that’s their reasoning but this way small market teams aren’t manipulated to pass on talent because a player doesn’t want to play there.
JD Drew?
The issue with Drew was money. He (and Boras) wanted 10 million to sign and the Phillies didn’t want to pay that much ( this was before the current slotting system). Drew had no animus towards Philadelphia ( although Philadelphia would have an animus towards him). But Boras didn’t discourage Philadelphia from drafting Drew. He would have signed for 10 million
I think what you describe is the only set back to being able to trade draft picks. This already happens when teams with high draft allotments “slide” players down the draft because they take a “cheaper” yet good prospect earlier in the draft because the “hard slots” are not hard slots.
I would also like to see prospects having to declare one way or the other for the draft. All of these high schoolers who are good prospects who don’t get drafted because of college commitments seems silly. Declare for the draft and if you get drafted sign, if you are dying to go to college, don’t declare and go to school.
okay but what leverage does Paul Skenes’ agent have in this situation? If the Dodgers wont offer equal value in return for the first pick, the agent can’t force the pirates to trade it to them any way. Even if Skenes and his agent say they will refuse to sign with the pirates at #1, they can just draft someone else. No player or agent is entitled to being drafted at that slot
Before Rob Manfred is done, you won’t be able to recognize the MLB league you grew up always watching.
There’s a reason he was booed every time he announced a draft pick.
You have to enjoy Robby the robot getting booed.
I don’t know about you but I’m totally watching the Moon Series. And here’s Neil Armstrong to throw out the first pitch. Whoops. There it goes.
According to some, Rob Manfred ruins baseball by just waking up in the morning. At some point this thinking just gets too absurd, and it started out that way.
We all understand why you like him, at least.
You understand nothing.
Probably the best commissioner that BB ever had.
I started following baseball in the 80s. It’s different today as it is – 4 division winners, Type A and B free agents, catchers getting barreled at the plate, bench-clearing brawls, Billy Martin, etc. The sport evolved and I’m OK with that.
I still don’t recognize it from the 1800s. Changed so much. It’s not even baseball anymore. It’s Slugball now.
They should allow for trading, and get rid of the lottery. Guardians getting the first pick this year and the White Sox getting the 10th pick next year (at best) does NOT help parity issues. The Astros and Cubs WS rebuilds don’t happen without high picks, the Os rebuild right now would be good but not great if they couldn’t pick top 5.
Most teams aren’t intentionally tanking imo, some of them just have been fortune and/or made bad decisions. Although I like the idea of encouraging the owners to spend their money (and yes, no one should feel sorry for the cheap Jerry Reinsdorf), I’m not sure the goal should be to force teams to buy championships and punish them if they do it poorly.
Any major changes to baseball have to be collectively bargained. Boo the players too if you don’t like the state of the game. They gave something to get something. Huh sounds to me like that’s how business is done.
“Manfred said. “I don’t think we have that many stupid clubs.”
Let’s follow this statement and discuss which are the “stupid clubs” that he was referring to…
I’ll go ahead and go first…
Orioles under John Angelos and pre-Elias. John’s late father did not want to participate in the Latin American scouting and signing process as it was and still is a bit shady with early non-binding handshake deals between coaches and clubs to effectively sign very young kids. Add to that some very short sided miserly spending and reliance on free agents (many times washed up ones) and also in later years, extremely anemic payrolls in comparison to the league… add a dash of arrogance and animosity towards their own fans and Baltimore was up until very recently, a stupid club.
I say this as a lifelong fan. The “Dark Years” were like a huge abscess in the otherwise pretty decent history of the Orioles.
I don’t like any of what I wrote here but it’s generally the truth about our club.
Since you have a top farm and MLB team, plus the owner, you are so Out of the stupid teams club.
oh, the Orioles are not *currently* active in the stupid race.
Oakland Athletics are on the clock to make their argument… lol
Feel ya brother, from 1993 to 2024, the Angelos family ran the O’s. It was brutal, they did spend in late ’90s on free agents but then it was a long hard road n they didn’t care. They knew w/their Nats MASN TV deal plus the 17,000 die hard fans still attending gms they would be profitable w/puke inexpensive product on field. Not too mention revenue sharing as Angelos’ cried poor. Whew, the nightmare is over. Let’s Go O’s!
The refusal to sign foreign amateurs is crazy. I happened to be looking at baseball-reference contracts. Every player has how they were acquired. The Orioles still don’t have a single player acquired as an “Amateur Free Agent”.
Unilaterally deciding not to participate in a major avenue of player acquisition is insane! God love you sticking with a team like that. Hope you’re enjoying the fruits of being a loyal fan!
TV viewership would jump if trades possibilities could be made that would give team owners more money something the MLBPA should take advantage of and ask for something good in return
It would absolutely add interest and intrigue. Take this year with the Guardians picking first and also in first place but have a definite weak spot in their rotation. They could have looked at trading the first pick to the White Sox for Crochet. Or a team like the Jays who have some talent and wanted to improve their number of draft picks to jump start their rebuild dangling Guerrero for a first round pick and a prospect or two with the Cubs. Those are just a few of endless possibilities that teams would need to consider.
“If a fan of your team says something hateful about the Astros, you forfeit all draft picks. Thx”
MLB logic would be you can only trade even round draft picks on traded odd number years when you haven’t exceeded luxury tax with in the 2.276 years or 2.45 seasons whichever is less calculated based on player traded performance unless tax payer signed unqualified free agents to contracts less then 12.25 mm total guarantee
Article B3, Chapter 6- Upon successfully triggering these qualification factors, you then have to play Death at Chess and Backgammon. If you win 4 out of 7, you then obtain the right to trade said pick(s)… but only if it’s Tuesday and sunny.
You forgot to add and refrain from eating tacos on Taco Tuesday.
Great, so now the Dodgers will be able to sign free agents and pay them 20 years from now AND buy current players by trading away a 10 year old kid that won’t be drafted for a decade.
I just hate the idea 100% which means Manfred will undoubtedly implement it.
If a team trades away most of their picks, does it even matter? Let’s say the Yankee$ trade away most of their top 10 (round) picks for 2-3 bigger name players. What’s to say they don’t sign more free agents to make up for it? Doesn’t really hurt the rich teams, just hurts poor ones or owners who don’t want to spend money. Have fun, Yankee$, Dodger$, Padre$, Met$, and Cardinal$, and Red $ox.
They can already do that by trading the prospects they drafted last year.
To start Why not get rid of the welfare competitive balance picks ?
Because that is literally the only advantage that small market teams get. Meanwhile the Dodgers just spent $1.5 billion dollars this past offseason, more than all 29 other teams combined on free agents. But yeah, giving the Rays and Rockies an extra draft pick is the biggest problem right now.
The large market apologists just can’t help themselves.
“Many have argued for MLB to follow suit and allow picks to be traded, but the counterargument has been that teams might send away too many picks and doom themselves to years of fielding ineffective teams.”
That’s horseshit. If the MLB can allow owners like Jeffrey Loria and Bruce Sherman to doom their team to years of fielding ineffective teams with tanking, bad trades, and refusing to spend money, they should have no problem allowing teams to trade draft picks.
Mr. Manfred!! Follow up Question!! You mentioned you think we don’t have many stupid teams. That implies there are some. Could you please name the stupid teams?
Everyone knows he was talking about Miami and the White Sox, even the Marlins and the Sox.
Add the Angels and Rockies to the list.
The Rockies aren’t stupid, they just don’t follow the trends. If their ideas worked, like with Tampa, they would be considered geniuses. If they don’t people want to call them stupid. In reality, neither is true. Both franchises just go their own way.
A’s too. And until recently, Dbacks
You could have added the Pirates if they had not drafted Skenes. For once they did not make a bad first pick. If they had made more good first round picks in the past Skenes would be pitching for a first place club, not one that struggles to reach .500.
Skenes would not be pitching for the Bucs if they made more good first round picks because they would have been too good to qualify for the first overall pick.
Changing rules is his specialty.
I like this idea of trading draft picks.
I’d wager most baseball fans are in favor.
Why not allow draft pick trading? Would allow alittle shaking up of things
If they want teams to still have draft choices evey year make it so a team either cant trade there 1st or only 1 of 1st or 2nd and must have 3 of there top 5 picks every year; something along those lines. The biggest change is the amount of bonus pool money teams will have. I mean if a team has 3 1st rounders or there own 1st and 2nd plus 3 other teams 2nds it allows for a huge bonus pool. If the team has a a 8M pool to start they add 4-6M for a 1st and 1.4-2M for 2nds. All of a sudden they have 13M and could get 3-5 top 50 guys in the draft
I can see why players might have some concern, especially with some teams looking to sign under slot to pay more to others. If you are effectively traded to a team that needs to spend less, you will get less.
San Diego traded all of its prospects for a .500 team. I don’t see how this benefits a team trading away a top player, pending free agency to a team playoff bound when the return is a draft from a lower round.
“as such a franchise might get into such a poor long-term state that they effectively sit out free agency for a while”
Sounds like the A’s…
hey mlbpa .. what impactful free agents are the A’s signing ? the largest contract they’ve ever signed any player was back in 2004
In answer to trading draft picks, why not just create different leagues for the 6 rich teams to play and use the other 24 teams as their minor-league teams. Teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, etc. have the money to sign 700 million dollar players without batting an eye. They are already loaded with the top superstars in the league and why not let them trade fringe players for the number one draft player. The team then stockpiles talent for years to come and alienates the other teams. Houston acquired the top pick by finishing last,. The same thing with the Orioles. i’m sure the Dodgers would have given Pittsburgh their top draft pick for Skeens, or Baltimore would be happy with Taylor or Lux from the Dodgers for Gunnerson or Adley. Fans don’t have a clue and are likely fans of the top teams so why would they care if they destroy the league to see their teams grabbing the top picks every year.
Every team can spend money, some just choose not to do it. Those owners just want you to believe they’re poor.
Do you really believe that big market teams like the Dodgers and Yankees don’t have an advantage over teams like the Pirates? I don’t blame owners of the Pirates for not using their personal fortunes. Baseball is a business. In a business you use the revenue of the business to implement improvements. Teams like the Pirates and Rays do not have the same revenue as the Dodgers.
You seem to be missing the main point. Baseball’s revenue disparities are only an issue for the fans because many have to root teams with little or no hope year after year. But these teams are essentially guaranteed to be profitable losers, which is what the owners of these teams care about most.
Hiflew, I do believe teams like the Dodgers and Yankees have an advantage over the Pirates- and that advantage is more competent ownership. I get so tired of hearing these billionaire owners crying poor when they’re receiving massive amounts of revenue sharing, brand new stadiums completely funded by taxpayers, in addition to whatever revenue the team generates on it’s own. Then they’ll turn around and sell the team for 10x what they paid for it.
They have money, they just won’t spend it. If they really didn’t, just open the books. It’d be real easy to shut people like me up and prove me wrong. Why is it they won’t do that?
Also, baseball isn’t a business the way Walmart is a business. Obviously I’m not saying they should spend every cent of their personal fortune to field teams. I don’t believe ANY owner should be actively profiting off a sports team though. A lot of these “small market” owners are.
On the contrary, I believe it’s helpful to think of baseball as a business in the way Walmart is a business. One company, 30 stores. Teams “compete” with each other only to the extent a game is their product. On revenue, they don’t compete, they decide collectively how to divide up the business’s revenue. Teams that have naturally larger revenues because of their market size share it with teams that naturally have less. In effect they subsidize them such that they can exist profitably and maintain the 30 “stores” selling the game.
Every team can spend money, some just choose not to do it.
==============================
That’s a bit disingenuous. There is no chance that TB, FL, etc., can spend close to what LAD, the NYY, etc., can spend.
thank you texas for booing that clown everything he took the stage. Like our ‘president’ he should be asking himself why.
All commissioners get booed.
If Manfred is the one determining who is and isn’t stupid, then that’s stupid.
So the only reason is to keep stupid teams… From being stupid? Let it happen. With or without this rule, dumb teams will make dumb decisions.
Although it doesn’t seem like much, the switch from waiting to trade the prospect, under the current structure, to viewing it as a pick first and a player second would alter practice. I’m not entirely certain how teams would act, however, it introduces another layer a of speculation. Ultimately, this suggestion seems like owners are testing whether the union knows what is going on. It seems like a shuffle to some larger goal that the owners want to alter the landscape of their business. It certainly needs more thoughts and debate what the effects could result.
Generally speaking, the best players are not usually 1st round draft picks and player won’t change the team. Now MLB is trying to make it feel as it it will. It will be agents’ heaven.
Of course the field (rounds 2-20) tend to have plenty of successful players but that is because there are a lot more total picks. On a per pick basis the first round is better than the later rounds.
Your question for the day.
Skenes for the entire 2024 Red Sox draft board. Who says no?
Manfred: “I don’t think we have that many stupid clubs.”
Rockies’ FO: “Hold our beer.”
angels, mets also chime in.
saying “that many” is saying you have stupid clubs. saying mlb has no stupid clubs is what manfred should have said.
Good. It offers the Reds another revenue stream. They will be happy to sell their draft picks. Ownership will be estatic!