Interesting... mlb expected to add in draft pick trading in next cba

[beckdawg]

Whoa - MLB "Expected" to Add Trading of Draft Picks in the Next CBA?! - Bleacher Nation

I would be very down for that, as it's never made much sense to me that picks aren't tradable in the first place.

www.bleachernation.com

 

[CSF77]

Whoa - MLB "Expected" to Add Trading of Draft Picks in the Next CBA?! - Bleacher Nation

I would be very down for that, as it's never made much sense to me that picks aren't tradable in the first place.

www.bleachernation.com

It is interesting.

On this topic I would like the super 2 removed and service time standardized. Say Sept cup of Joe doesn't count but any time added outside does.

On trading picks. Well the NBA it means a player opening day. Baseball it is a lower chance of success. So if that is what they want sure. What it does is unload contract in early June for picks vs prospects. It also makes the deadline less of a factor as a team can go after it early and cost a pick instead of a top 100.

 

[beckdawg]

I just think it opens up interesting avenues. Like if you're a terrible team with a bad farm system and the best player is a college player maybe you auction that pick off and get multiple higher round picks. Stuff like that.

 

[CSF77]

I just think it opens up interesting avenues. Like if you're a terrible team with a bad farm system and the best player is a college player maybe you auction that pick off and get multiple higher round picks. Stuff like that.

If it works like trading down.

Now I would never personally trade a 1st for a 2nd and a 3rd. The % of success drops drastically over that span.

It

 

[CSF77]

Let's look at it from a seller's perspective.

A seller would want a high pick. The problem is the buyers would 'normally' have bad picks. But if they are just looking for that picks cash slot more so than the player because they are targeting a hard to sign that draft it makes sense.

But for sure it adds intrigue to a boring draft.

 

[beckdawg]

Let's look at it from a seller's perspective.

A seller would want a high pick. The problem is the buyers would 'normally' have bad picks. But if they are just looking for that picks cash slot more so than the player because they are targeting a hard to sign that draft it makes sense.

But for sure it adds intrigue to a boring draft.

Not necessarily. A lot of teams drafting #1 specifically underslot the top pick to get more value later. Regardless, it's not something that was even an option before. Being able to go up and get someone you want rather than hoping they fall to you will make for a lot more interest in the draft imo

 

[CSF77]

Not necessarily. A lot of teams drafting #1 specifically underslot the top pick to get more value later. Regardless, it's not something that was even an option before. Being able to go up and get someone you want rather than hoping they fall to you will make for a lot more interest in the draft imo

Some do. Cubs did because of the injury to the projected #4 pick. After that there was a talent drop off and they made a deal with Kyle to sign him at his projected slot to push resources to Cease.

 

[CSF77]

Sure anything can happen but the interesting bits are MLB for picks.

Say a team looking to offload. (Cubs)

Sell Bryant for the #28 pick and 2 50 grade arms
Sell Baez for the #27 and 1 50 grade OF
Sell Rizzo for the #24 and a 45 grade SS.

To me it would be more about gaining volume in the late round 1. It opens up for more risk in pitching picks. Say the Cubs get the 12 pick. That can go sure thing. Then the following 3 pick go high risk. After that they can manipulate the lower rounds to front load more. Makes for a hell of a draft