Re: Draft Pick Compensation
Very interesting read 11BarryLarkin11.
Maybe you could answer another CBA question. At the beginning of the season I heard of talk about allowing teams to trade draft choices. Also drafted player must remain with that team that drafted them for at least one years time. Did any of that change?
Re: Draft Pick Compensation
As far as I know, that has remained the same. Every once in a while rumors fly that the rule against trading draft picks will be lifted in the next CBA, but nothing ever comes of it. And, the one year prohibition on trading prospects serves the same purpose as not trading draft picks. It prevents teams from skirting the rule on trading draft picks by working out a "draft and trade" type deal. The one year restriction ensures that there would be too much risk in that type of deal, as too much can happen to the prospect in one year to make the deal viable. Not to mention, the traded prospect would be controlled by the other organization for the whole year, which could raise some problems.
Originally Posted by Redsnake
But, oddly enough, I can't figure out the reason behind the rule against trading draft picks. I would imagine it has something to do with competitive balance, but I don't think they've ever explained it. It would seem to be just another technique that could be used or abused like every other team building tool.
You could make a strong case that trading an impending free agent for draft picks would be in the best interests of a small market team and, in fact, it may be the best strategy for a small market team. And, in fact, that's essentially what draft pick compensation does, albeit indirectly. So, it doesn't seem very logical to utilize a draft pick compensation system, while banning the trading of draft picks.
But, maybe, it has to do with the unpredictability of MLB prospects in comparison with other major sports. Maybe MLB wants to ensure that every team has some high draft picks every year to avoid too many barren farm systems. They also may want to ensure that the "next Albert Pujols" isn't traded away by a small market organization for draft picks that never pan out. Giving up Pujols Part Deux and getting nothing to show for it would be bad business. But again, there doesn't seem to be much rhythm or reason to the policy.
It would be very interesting to sit in on the CBA negotiating sessions. I have a sneaking suspicion that anything that isn't directly tied to revenue takes a back seat. In fact, when possible, I would suspect that MLB uses most non-revenue issues to improve their bargaining power on the "important" revenue issues. Bud probably used every arrow in his quiver in an attempt to offset the power of the Union. I suspect that's why the drug testing never got anywhere. The Players' Association didn't want it due to privacy concerns of its players, but I suspect that MLB only raised it when they wanted a concession from the union. They'd drop the drug testing policy idea in exchange for a bigger slice of the revenue. Or, maybe I'm just jaded. ;)
But, it's certainly interesting to talk about. :)