This article is free for anyone to read, but please consider becoming a Patreon subscriber to allow me to keep writing posts like this one. Sign up to receive articles like this one in your inbox here.
During the All-Star break, the idea of trading MLB draft picks came up. At the time, I was cautiously in favor of this kind of change to the available transaction options:
Without thinking too much on it, it feels like this would be a net positive for the league, to allow for this like other sports do. Especially given that the shorter draft and fewer minor-league clubs post-disaffiliation means it’s a little tougher to find advantages on the farm these days than it used to be: maybe the team that’ll exploit this rule for positive reasons can outweigh the sins of those who will simply use it as yet another excuse for not spending or trying. But I don’t want to underestimate just how annoying and exploitative that second group can be, either.
“Cautiously,” because as I said, I hadn’t thought too much on it just yet, and there are certainly teams who might abuse the system, or some wrinkle that’ll come up that would make it a goofy and convoluted idea instead of a straightforward one.
Fast-forward to last week, where Rob Manfred followed up on his initial statements regarding trading draft picks, and then ESPN’s Jeff Passan added in a caveat the league expects to be necessary for this process to move forward:
MLB has suggested it would be open to dealing picks with a caveat: that it’s in a hard-slotted system in which every pick comes with an assigned signing bonus. Currently, picks are given slot values that add up to a total bonus-pool number, and teams can choose how to spread their allotment among players.
Trading picks and having variable bonuses are not mutually exclusive. And considering the excitement the deadline generates for the game and the eagerness of executives to add draft picks to the asset mix, allowing the desire for hard slotting to get in the way of something that benefits the sport is too shortsighted to take root.
There’s no good reason for needing a hard-slot and assigned bonus system to be introduced in order to trade draft picks. I can think of A Reason, but it’s not a good one: there’s probably an owner or two or 12 out there who don’t want teams to start massing picks through trades, either because they don’t want anyone to be able to build up an advantage through the draft through a willingness to spend more. If a team starts dealing for picks in the first 10 rounds, and then uses those spots to draft college seniors for loose change only to turn around and use the leftover pool space to draft and sign even more high-end talents during the latter 10 rounds — talents they can now pay enough to convince them to eschew a college commitment and turn pro without breaking the rules of the current draft’s spending limitations — then that’s going to make the teams that aren’t willing to do that look worse.
This is all hypothetical, but let’s say White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf is happy with the system as it is, because it lets him spend in a controlled environment that he had more than just a hand in creating in the first place. He wanted this system to exist so that his lack of desire for spending on amateur players didn’t hold him back, competitively: if no one could spend outside of their allotted pool without penalties, then instead of looking cheap by doing the bare minimum, he’d just look like everyone else. Being able to amass draft picks changes the equation, though, and makes it so that the environment isn’t as controlled as it was: the total money being spent is still the same, but equality has exited the picture, since teams can collect draft picks like they’re picking up $10 scratch tickets in a world where Reinsdorf has only been expected to pick up a bunch of $2 ones. In short, they could grow their pool beyond the limits the pool introduced, and work around the limitations Reinsdorf and his fellow owners from a different time introduced to curb spending and flatten the competitive scene.
It’s all very annoying, that a caveat like this would be considered necessary by MLB, but such is the way of things in a league dominated by its cheapest owners. Spending on picks falls outside the purview of the luxury tax threshold, so some of the wealthiest teams might invest more heavily in the draft if given the ability to do so once again, and teams that already churn would certainly do more of it in order to amass further picks and a potentially stronger farm system. Which would leave the teams that like to say they’re trying — but not really do much of anything to prove that’s the case — in a tough spot where the lie is harder to pass off as truth. Your White Sox, your Pirates, Marlins, A’s, Rockies, and so on.
And surely there will be other issues that’ll be introduced to further lessen the impact of the introduction of trading any pick rather than the special ones that are currently allowed — Passan’s piece is also about “draft pick trading season,” which implies on its own that teams would be dealing picks for just the current year, and only during certain months, instead of there being a free-for-all like in the NBA. Annoying, yes, but “here’s a good idea and how to make it worse” is certainly MLB-flavored.
Visit my Patreon to become a supporter and help me continue to write articles like this one.