Some version of yes is destroying no. I find the "no trades" stance so weak. 

 

Not much going on so thought I'd put this here. 

I would say "yes" but I dont' see it being as big of a deal in sports where draft picks come up and start right away.  Baseball is such a crap shoot compared to the other three major sports that it would be a niche kind of deal.

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I would say "yes" but I dont' see it being as big of a deal in sports where draft picks come up and start right away.  Baseball is such a crap shoot compared to the other three major sports that it would be a niche kind of deal.

I think the main argument for is it would be fun.

Just now, bmags said:

I think the main argument for is it would be fun.

I could see it being an interesting moneyball type of thing where teams try to take advantage and horde draft picks because they come cheaper than minor leaguers in trades. 

I would say "yes" but you can only trade picks.  no players.  AKA I can't trade the number 1 overall pick for Conforto. Also must be traded in the same year.  With no change in draft capital.

Edited November 18, 20205 yr by Squirmin' for Yermin

Wouldn't it also make trades more frequent?  Instead of throwing in lottery ticket players they could use picks to sweeten deals.  More trade capital "liquidity"

Edited November 18, 20205 yr by Buehrle5687

Trade em all with no limits.  I would love to see teams trading up in the early rounds for a guy they love.  

4 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Trade em all with no limits.  I would love to see teams trading up in the early rounds for a guy they love.  

This would be great, and would make the draft way more fun and engaging.  On the down side, I think the Sox would always be trading down.

Trades are fun.  The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

Trading draft picks also seems like a decent compromise on draft pick compensation from a players standpoint. If my team could grow or reduce my draft budget through trades, I'd be more willing to sign a player with a draft pick. For players, there may be two factors: they be less likely to get a QO since teams can change their draft in other ways, but also if they do decline they may see a better market.

 

I want a draft lottery system that is anti-tanking, and within that, trading picks is allowed.

1 minute ago, bmags said:

Trading draft picks also seems like a decent compromise on draft pick compensation from a players standpoint. If my team could grow or reduce my draft budget through trades, I'd be more willing to sign a player with a draft pick. For players, there may be two factors: they be less likely to get a QO since teams can change their draft in other ways, but also if they do decline they may see a better market.

 

I think the QO goes away in the next collective bargaining agreement.

1 minute ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I think the QO goes away in the next collective bargaining agreement.

You'd think this would be a high priority for players as it really seems to destroy the value for some guys after they reject it.  They could still offer teams compensation, but just don't have it tied to the player or team that signs them.  If you lose a guy that is some defined qualifying tier, you get a pick between rounds 1-2 or some such.  And a guy in another tier between 2-3.  Something like that could still compensate the teams, while not harming the individual players.  

5 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

I think the QO goes away in the next collective bargaining agreement.

I would hope so.

12 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

You'd think this would be a high priority for players as it really seems to destroy the value for some guys after they reject it.  They could still offer teams compensation, but just don't have it tied to the player or team that signs them.  If you lose a guy that is some defined qualifying tier, you get a pick between rounds 1-2 or some such.  And a guy in another tier between 2-3.  Something like that could still compensate the teams, while not harming the individual players.  

They've weakened draft pick compensation and control every CBA for the past 15 years, but it hasn't gone away despite the players want it gone - meaning the owners really, really want some version of compensation for losing FAs to stay.

19 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

They've weakened draft pick compensation and control every CBA for the past 15 years, but it hasn't gone away despite the players want it gone - meaning the owners really, really want some version of compensation for losing FAs to stay.

Hmm, I think what I suggested retained a bit of draft pick compensation...

Thank God this wasn't allowed when Kenny was GM. We would have no draft picks.

On 2nd thought, after his Lance Broadway type picks, maybe it would have been a good thing.

MLB is like "WE MUST MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF THE DRAFT THAT PEOPLE ARENT INTERESTED IN"

6 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

MLB is like "WE MUST MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF THE DRAFT THAT PEOPLE ARENT INTERESTED IN"

Lol “People love not loving it!”

6 minutes ago, Yearnin' for Yermin said:

Thank God this wasn't allowed when Kenny was GM. We would have no draft picks.

On 2nd thought, after his Lance Broadway type picks, maybe it would have been a good thing.

I thought... hmmm... Kyle McCulloch or a better 4th starter...

1 hour ago, flavum said:

I want a draft lottery system that is anti-tanking, and within that, trading picks is allowed.

They definitely need a system that doesn't reward losing.  I saw one proposal that I absolutely love.  The team that finishes with the best record that doesn't qualify for the playoffs gets the first pick then on down. So this year the Giants would have the first pick overall followed by the Philles, Mariners, Kansas City all the way down to the Pirates who would have the 14th pick.  The playoff teams remain at the bottom so the Sox would still have the 22nd pick.  Imagine teams actually trying to  win games in September to improve their draft position rather than trying to lose games.  It would make for a much more competitive league.  

Don't think that mlb wants that. Mlb wants to downsize non baseball roster costs and remove possible edges for front office, scouting and development because those are extra costs to stay competitive.

That is why mlb makes the minors smaller and create in international draft, it is to reduce the number of non player employees.

Drafting picks makes it more complicated and could create an edge for teams which would mean they would need to spend more on analytics.

1 hour ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

They definitely need a system that doesn't reward losing.  I saw one proposal that I absolutely love.  The team that finishes with the best record that doesn't qualify for the playoffs gets the first pick then on down. So this year the Giants would have the first pick overall followed by the Philles, Mariners, Kansas City all the way down to the Pirates who would have the 14th pick.  The playoff teams remain at the bottom so the Sox would still have the 22nd pick.  Imagine teams actually trying to  win games in September to improve their draft position rather than trying to lose games.  It would make for a much more competitive league.  

Except for when low revenue teams at the bottom are stuck there forever.

24 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Except for when low revenue teams at the bottom are stuck there forever.

Do you believe this? I'm not sure I believe this anymore.

4 hours ago, Rowand44 said:

Trades are fun.  The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.