Draft Picks - 2012 draft (not the upcoming one)

[Deleted]

Want to get the league's general feeling on this topic, going to keep this poll up for a very long time, no decisions going to be made quickly. Probably not until at least 20 teams have voted.

Note this discussion does not pertain to the upcoming 2011 draft as we have already had open trading for that one. Any decision made on this will only effect the 2012 draft and moving forward.

I'm sure many of you have seen the TRC's varying levels of concern on this in the trade posts. How much is too much? Should a team conceivably be allowed to give itself ten #1 picks if he trades for them?

Please use this thread to vote, discuss, argue and what have you.

[Deleted]

I meant to put an "Other" option as well. If you want that simply reply Other here and tell us your idea.

[Deleted]

As a guy who loads up on draft picks this may be a surprise but I kind of think we should stop trading them. They are very hard to place a value on in trades as everyone sees them very differently, they seem to gain value closer to the draft when people are thinking about it. Just kind of a headache. The actual MLB doesn't trade draft picks (they do have that supplemental round stuff for free agents though). While I like that they can be used to either help you in the future or traded to help you now just don't know if it is better to have everyone get involved in drafting. Of course some owners just aren't ever going to pay attention to the draft and would get autopicked everyone so they should be able to trade. I haven't voted yet myself, still on the fence.

[Deleted]

We think the new Collective Bargaining Argeement will/might/is supposed to address the topic of MLB teams trading Draft Picks.

It seems even more difficult to value the picks when the Trade Review members view them differently -- and differently in every deal. If the pick is going to a team that is already loaded with picks, the pick seems more valuable. If the pick is traded for a quality players, it seems to go down in value. In neither instance is the inherent vaule of the pick itself addressed. That makes it hard for anyone to ascribe value to the picks themselves or the trading of them.

Picks seem distinct from players or cap $$$, yet a teams possessing them seems to have enormous clout. As is the case with permanent cap $$$, we all need to pay attention to how they are distributed. Not sure how we will vote on this, but we have been among the most vocal in calling for their governence. Maybe if every team knew how to use them (and how to use its cap $$$), the issues would take care of themselves -- and they still may, gradually, over the years. But every owner either doesn't value them the same or doesn't understand the significance of their impact.

Maybe that means the league has to create a rule? Or, maybe the Trade Review has to meet and discuss the issue, so at least it has some standard to follow when picks and $$$ issues come up in voting. Maybe discussing the issues in this forum will help resolve the problem.

Dunno...maybe just we're rambling... We certainly think the issue needs discussing.

[WhiteSox]

I mean I dont mind if there is a set limit on how many a team can get but by no means should there be no trading of picks. Picks are very important pieces of trade bait. If a team is doing bad and rather trade for players who are already established rather than take the risk path then sure why not I mean its hard to determine the worth of some teams picks during the early part of the year but its that teams decision on whether or not they feel like taking a more sure rout with either a prospect who is doing well and on their way to the mlb vs having to wait 2 or 3 or more years for a prospect to pan out

[Deleted]

I don't think there should be a limit on acquiring draft picks and that's the way that I voted, but I do think there should be a standard that the league uses for valuing draft picks. The trade review committee needs to decide as a group how much a 1st rd pick, 2nd rd pick, etc. is worth. My opinion is that when trading draft picks, for current players, you know that those draft picks might end up being better players, but you will have to wait several seasons for those picks to come to fruition. So in a way their value goes down. But there is definitely a gray area, and different values of picks around the league.

[Deleted]

Here's an article from ESPN that discusses the real MLB First Year Player Draft and it's problems. Some of these items and their potential solutions might shed light on how we approach draft picks in our league.


Hard Slotting

This has been a subject thrown around quite a bit the past year as the potential for hard slotting may impact the class of 2011 and how many kids sign rather than head to school. The idea is that capping the bonus money a club can offer a drafted player evens the playing field and limits the influence of the advisors.

It's also, however, a way for owners to grab a much larger piece of the pie and may be cause for concern for the players union that next on the owners' checklist is a salary cap, which would likely cause a long lockout or strike.

While I'm all for leveling the playing field and honoring the initial point of the draft, which is to assist struggling franchises, the draft is already the most economical manner in which to add talent to an organization. It's hard to imagine that hard slotting is better for the game considering the potential long-term consequences.


Draft Pick Compensation

Like the draft in and of itself, draft pick compensation awarded to clubs that attempted to retain but lost key free agents is designed to help those teams that cannot afford to spend freely to hang onto their own stars or land them on the open market. But the current setup isn't working, and there are several adjustments that need to be made.


First off, the ranking system that designates type A and type B free agents is flawed and outdated. With all the new, advanced metrics that can more accurately offer a quantified value to a player's past performance, it shouldn't be too complicated to improve the method to get better results.

Furthermore, the sacrificing of first or second-round picks for signing such free agents is hurting the players, especially those with type A status tagged to their names. If a team signs a type A, they have to sacrifice a draft pick, which hurts the free agents market value. Rather than teams giving up first- or second-round selections, perhaps the price should be a third- or fourth-round pick, depending on the status of the player lost. Or maybe there's no draft pick cost at all. As of now, type B free agents do not cost the signing team a pick, but the team that lost a player gets a compensatory pick.


The Trading of Draft Picks

Allowing the trading of draft picks would be an accounting nightmare, unless there are strict limitations on how many and how often picks can be traded. The NBA has a rule prohibiting teams from trading first-round picks in two consecutive drafts, which might serve as a strong starting parameter for MLB if it ever seriously entertains the idea.

The positives for allowing such transactions are endless. Trades are the best way for clubs to acquire proven big-league talent without shelling out long, multi-million dollar contracts. If draft picks could be dealt, clubs such as the Pittsburgh Pirates or Kansas City Royals could swap their picks for major league talent. One of the major concerns, however, is that teams would be able to trade their first-round choices and avoid spending money on young talent, which isn't the best idea for small-market teams trying to contend. However, when the Bucs or Royals do manage to contend, that's exactly the kind of trade that might be then over the top.

However, If clubs were prohibited from trading their first-round pick in consecutive drafts or there were limits in how often teams could trade out of the first round, such a concern may vanish enough to satisfy the players association.

There probably would have to be some restrictions on how many picks in all could be traded, which is where the accounting nightmare comes into play. With 50 rounds and more than 1,500 picks annually, there's no organized manner in which the league can operate a draft and allow unlimited trades.


Worldwide Draft

There has been some talk about making all of the available international talent subject to the draft as well, expanding on North America, Puerto Rico and other U.S. Territories, but like the trading of picks, the sheer volume makes for a difficult process.

Clubs would benefit from such a draft financially, especially if hard slotting becomes part of it all. However, teams that have done a good job of scouting and building relationships in Latin America would be penalized, since you wouldn't need to cultivate a relationship with a kid in ordeer to sign him, which is a big part of the current process.


Timing of the Draft

The draft has been held exclusively in June for several years, but there might be plenty of benefits to pushing it back to the end of June. One of those advantages is that it could help make the draft even more of a spectacle as more of the top college players would be available to attend the draft. The Division I season doesn't typically end until the third week of the month.

The signing deadline, which was changed late last decade to the middle of August when the draft-and-follow process was eliminated, is likely to move up by at least a few weeks and as much as a month, and might be the most likely rule change coming to the draft under the new CBA.

As it stands, those eligible for the draft include all junior-college players, high school players in their graduating year, or four-year college players in their third or fourth year or who will turn 21 within 45 days of the draft.

Perhaps some adjustments would appease the players association, such as allowing all college players to be eligible for the draft every season until they graduate or sign a professional contract. This is a move that could help the college game because it's likely fewer star players would pass on college if they knew the rules only mandated they stay one season.

Another idea is to force players to declare for the draft and set a deadline for them to pull their name out of the hat, a fairly popular option in the NBA. Such a rule change would purge the risk attached to the draft that can leave clubs empty-handed if the player decides he doesn't want to play for the club that selected him or changes his mind on going to school or heading back to college for another season or two.

There are other ideas I have talked about with players, agents and scouts, such as a lottery for the top half of the first round -- or for those clubs that did not make the playoffs the previous season, but with the differential in leagues and strength of schedules, the draft order isn't perfect from 1 through 30 and more than a lottery is needed to fix that mess.

[St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew)]

I must admit I try to work out where the pick is likely to fall when voting. If it's likely to be top 5-10 then I will give it a much higher value than a pick likely to fall in the 25-30 bracket.

Also, I take into account the strength of the team trading it away and what they are getting back. I have seen too many times weaker teams with weak minor systems trading away a likely top 10 pick for a collection of useless rabble.

A top 10 pick is something that should have real currency and value and I try to make sure the weaker franchise is not getting screwed in the process.

I don't see the problem with allowing trading of them but the value has to be there in return.

It's virtually impossible to put an exact value on any pick (or player), what may be worth little to one team could be worth heaps to another.

[St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew)]

maybe "useless rabble" was harsh but a top 10 pick should result in a premium prospect and the value in trade should be allocated accordingly.

[Deleted]

Research is the key. Paying attention and doing the homework allows teams to make astute picks, not how high the picks are.

Having said that, allowing the owners who do the most homework/research to stockpile picks will lead to league dominance. It is just like the cap $$$ issue. We think the league will run better if there are set limits on salary cap $$$ and pick accummulation.

The smarter owners will always manage to make the better trades, smarter picks and sounder financial decisions no matter how we structure the league. But, restricting owners from steamrolling weaker teams with massive picks and salary cap $$$ accummulation would help the league's stability. It serves the same purpose as having a Trade Review -- league watchdog.

Just saying, setting reasonable limits -- in salary caps and draft picks accummulation -- will go a long way to maintaining league balance over the long haul.

Let's make winning more about how a team spends its money than how much money it has accummulated; let's make league success more about smart picking than how many picks a team gets.

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2011 7:57:23 GMT -5 @cigarcity said:

Research is the key. Paying attention and doing the homework allows teams to make astute picks, not how high the picks are.

Having said that, allowing the owners who do the most homework/research to stockpile picks will lead to league dominance. It is just like the cap $$$ issue. We think the league will run better if there are set limits on salary cap $$$ and pick accummulation.

The smarter owners will always manage to make the better trades, smarter picks and sounder financial decisions no matter how we structure the league. But, restricting owners from steamrolling weaker teams with massive picks and salary cap $$$ accummulation would help the league's stability. It serves the same purpose as having a Trade Review -- league watchdog.

Just saying, setting reasonable limits -- in salary caps and draft picks accummulation -- will go a long way to maintaining league balance over the long haul.

Let's make winning more about how a team spends its money than how much money it has accummulated; let's make league success more about smart picking than how many picks a team gets.

I agree, it is basically impossible to make owners start doing their homework and having them educate themselves on the best way to use draft picks though. I would be in favor of eliminating the trade of draft picks but it is pretty clear the league doesn't want to do it. And I obviously love to collect high draft picks but in all reality look at the first round picks through the last 10 years. More busts than guys that pan out. Obviously the more picks you get the more likely you will get a guy that pans out though. Seems like each draft has 3 or 4 guys that are pretty good bets to make an impact then it is a lot of luck/guesswork. Really a shrewd owner can help his club much more effectively using the milb waiver claim system where you can get prospects that are on the rise, proving their salt in pro ball. I'm not advocating getting rid of that claim system by any means but I think waiver claims is a much bigger culprit of promoting "league dominance" than draft pick accumulation. We could outlaw waiver claim pickups and instead hold back any minor leaguers that are unowned for our draft instead. That would make things very interesting.

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

I know I'm new and haven't been around to see the usage (or abuse) of draft pick trading that much, but I certainly don't think there shouldn't be draft pick trading allowed. As you may have noticed, I value draft picks a lot (as I currently own 16 and need to shop some, but am still trying to acquire some). I also have a fairly weak team. For someone like me, the draft is something I look forward to. It is a chance for me to get a promising player. I'm working on building a strong team for the future. If I can move a player who is hot right now, but will most likely be useless to me in the future when I hope to be competitive for a prospect or pick that I think will be useful, I will. Now, while I don't think trading should be disallowed, I do see a need for monitoring. From the few team rosters I've looked at, I've noticed a huge variance of pick value. Some teams have lots of picks while others have traded away most of there picks except for some late round picks. I feel like there needs to be a limit on the amount of picks you can trade, maybe something like you must keep at least 2 of your first 5 round picks and have at least 5 picks total or something. I also like what you guys have been saying. Draft pick trading is a case by case basis. Each pick within a round has a different value and should be treated accordingly. It's the same as a player. You have to consider the teams, the players (or picks), and the effect it will have on the league

[Deleted]

We like the idea of limiting the number of picks a team can trade away. Helps keep that team in the future, even if the owner don't see it that way. It also might help a future owner, if the present owner bails on the league. Some owners make a lot of rash moves and then split, leaving the frabchise in distress.

We also like the idea of limiting how many picks an oner can get in any particular round -- say two or three Rd #1 picks or two or three Rd #2 picks, something like that. In that way no team can "load up" on picks.

As for claims, we don't see how that should be changed. It simply rewards teams that pay attention. How can that be imbalancing to the league? Smarter, more attentive owners will always win out over the long haul...Besides, the claims feature in our league already has a limit -- two claims a day. That seems adequate to prevent owners from "over-claiming" the best prospects.

Whatever system we employ, we like a fixed structure that permits every owners' ability to build his club as he sees fit, while protecting bottom clubs from potential disasters. Just trying to have a league that works.

The alternative is to do nothing, of course. We could allow teams to sink into catastrophy. We could let clubs accummulate as much cap $$$ as they can scrounge and as many draft picks as they can get through the Trade Review panel. But even MLB tries to some extent to protect its core system (meaning, protect its weaker clubs). So should we. The things aren't always clear cut. Through discussion and sound reasoning, we should be able to come up with tweaks to the system that protect and support all teams and thus make the league better.