Imagine in the days leading to the MLB draft word surfaced that the Dodgers and Padres were maneuvering to try to acquire the No. 1-overall pick from the Orioles.
Both NL West clubs are well positioned for the next few years and saw the chance to obtain a magnificent talent a few years from blossoming while simultaneously addressing looming 40-man roster issues. Baltimore, desperate to populate its thin system, weighed adding multiple prospects they knew more about from already seeing them play pro ball.
Concurrently, the Yankees were trying to use picks 30 and 38 in conjunction with prospect Albert Abreu to tempt Toronto on Marcus Stroman. The Mets were in steady talks with the Indians about their second-round pick this year, a first-rounder next year and prospect Mark Vientos for Brad Hand.
This could go on all day with imagination. Unfortunately, it can only take place in the imagination. The permission to trade draft picks has been oft-discussed during collective bargaining agreement talks. But MLB and the union have never reached accord, mainly because MLB harbors concerns about teams and especially agents (and let’s be honest, Scott Boras is the picture in the collective minds) manipulating the draft if trades were allowed.
Like every rule on the books, all parties would hunt favorable loopholes. That should never prevent a league hungry to make its product more alluring from acting.
The NBA draft is Thursday and there is no intrigue who is being picked first (Zion Williamson) or probably even second (Ja Morant). The intrigue — the reason to tune in — comes with the potential trading of slots for established players afterward as was exhibited Saturday when it was revealed the Lakers are including the fourth overall pick as part of their package to the Pelicans for Anthony Davis.
By permitting trades, MLB would not only gain similar intrigue but eliminate a reason why its draft is not in the same popularity stratosphere of the NBA and NFL. Those leagues — through heavily televised/covered college games — have stars well known to fans entering the league, like Williamson. MLB drafts high school and college players, and the amateur game is not televised or covered in the same way.
But if there were trades, it would bring top minor league prospects and major league players into play. Say the Yankees were interested in a draft-eligible player they thought would not fall to them at No. 30, they could shop that pick and, say, Greg Bird to see if another organization was interested in seeing if they could keep a talented player (Bird) healthy in exchange for a pick in the 15-19 area? If that or the Stroman possibility were in play, I bet lots of Yankees fans would watch the draft. This would be like a second trade deadline added to the calendar.
I talked to a half-dozen significant baseball operations executives and all were gung-ho, with one saying, “I have been asking for this for over 10 years. I don’t really get the other side.” The union has always favored the ability to trade picks.
“It is an issue discussed in collective bargaining,” said MLD deputy commissioner Dan Halem, the league’s lead negotiator. “I’m sure it will be part of the 2021 negotiations, like it was in ’16 and ’11.”
Some headway was made in 2012 with allowance to trade Competitive Balance Round picks, then in 2013 with permission to deal international signing bonus pool money. The Yanks, for example, had not just their regular 30th-overall pick on June 3, but also the 38th pick — they received a competitive balance round selection as part of the return from Cincinnati for Sonny Gray.
So why not regular draft picks being allowed to be dealt? In the past, one reason was to protect teams from themselves — concern about having an impetuous owner/front office essentially trade away all of its picks. But in this more analytic age when draft picks are coveted — think about how many clubs would not negotiate with Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel until the draft began so as not to lose a pick in compensation — no club is mindlessly dealing multiple picks.
Nope, the fear is that a la Eli Manning, a player/agent will state the player will not go to Team A so you better deal him to Team B. In recent years — with draft pools, recommended slotting and penalties for exceeding the pools — teams have generally picked the best player on their board rather than worry about signability. Before the pools, etc., Boras, in particular, would often have pre-draft demands that would scare off small-market clubs and push the player to a club willing to pay a higher entry bonus. Clubs are concerned trades would allow a similar practice to take hold.
When I asked Boras about if this would happen, he replied, “No. Most young players often don’t want to go to major-market clubs [because of the presence] of free-agent acquisitions and highly compensated players on long-term contracts who will block early arrival in MLB by a young player.”
And rules could limit this. A hard slotting system could be negotiated so that an acquiring team could not pay more or the penalties for exceeding a suggested slot could be magnified if the acquiring club paid considerably more than the recommended amount.
The benefits of interest — perhaps being able to sell the draft to ESPN or DAZN because interest would rise — would make the risk of loopholes worth facing. Perhaps MLB and the union could partner on a sale of the TV rights with the union, say, being able to direct the money toward better pensions as a reason to accept hard slots in the draft.
Look, a draft is a made-up device, so it can be doctored to its best use. The whole concept is kind of unfair. Could you envision the student who finishes No. 1 at Harvard Law being drafted to work in Baltimore or Kansas City rather than using his advantageous position to go where he prefers? So if this is the system, at least make it as compelling as possible.
“Our game has greater fan appeal when more options are available to improve a club,” Boras said.
That doesn’t feel manipulative. It feels right.