Trading MLB draft picks bad idea
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:17 PM
Six weeks ago, the NFL held its draft and no one wanted to pick in the Top 10. Too expensive, they said, were the top choices relative to their impact on a team’s fortunes. Teams actively sought to trade OUT of the top 10 and only one, the Jets, was willing to deal in. Rumor even spread that Detroit might pass on its first pick and choose later in the top 10 simply to reduce the signing bonus owed.
Last week, MLB held its draft and there was no doubt Washington, picking first, would choose Stephen Strasburg even with the cloud overhead of his agent being Scott Boras.
Why? Teams can’t trade picks, raising the question should they be allowed to deal?
After a lot of thought and some wavering, I have settled on no.
Here’s my reasons:
TEAMS MUST BE FORCED TO IMPROVE. Give a weak team, or worse one unwilling to spend, an excuse to avoid top draft picks and mediocrity is encouraged. If Washington doesn’t like the negotiation with Boras or the money it will inevitably spend on Strasburg, then there is a remedy, make the team better. That’s the best way to guarantee no repeat of the problem. Baseball has seen Pittsburgh and Kansas City flounder for too long, allowing those teams to trade away from taking the best players in the draft is not a way to make the weak sisters strong.
REMOVE PLAYER LEVERAGE. Look at football as far back as John Elway, as recent as Eli Manning, players have manipulated the draft. Baseball is now paying ridiculous bonuses to college and high school kids, but despite all of Boras’ efforts, the players have little choice. If Strasburg doesn’t want to play for Washington, he sits for a year and that hasn’t always worked well (re: Harrington, Matt).
SOCIALISM JUSTIFIED. If revenue sharing continues, how can a team justify pleading poverty? In the Bay Area, the Giants, who pay a $20 million annual mortgage on the ballpark they built, also pay into revenue sharing. The A’s, spinning their wheels while they attempt to plot a ballpark course, take in $30 million from their partners. How would the payers feel if the payees claimed they couldn’t sign a Strasburg while they deposit the welfare checks?
PLAYER DEVELOPMENT JUSTIFIED. I know of one MLB team which had an owners meeting several years back in which the question of a minor league system was raised. As in why do we have one? Why don’t we spend that money on free agents each year instead of wasting it on a system with little yield? That rant is a true story. As unreal as it sounds, intelligent minds discussed the question. Well, Tampa Bay showed why last year. And the Dodgers are showing why this year. But it wouldn’t hurt the cause to force teams to keep picks and utilize to the fullest extent their scouting and farm systems.
MONEYBALL. Trade draft picks and there would have been no Moneyball, thus no Brad Pitt as Billy Beane. Reason enough, don’t you think.
