Time to Do Away With the MLB Draft?

The concept that the worst teams get the first picks is the same in basketball (not sure about other sports).

And the Yankees’ financial resources give them an advantage in a way. Just because a crappy team drafts a top player doesn’t mean that player will sign. And teams recognize signability when drafting. So the Yanks often get players who would otherwise go higher (like Andrew Brackman and Gerrit Cole) but who fall to us because they’re repped by agents like Scott Boras (as both Cole and Brackman are) who milk every dollar out of teams—and GMs know they won’t be able to sign some of these players before they even attempt to draft them, so they don’t. Then we get them because we can.

I believe this “worst picks first” happens in all four major sports. I would say no changes at this point. This is part of the price to pay for success. Just because teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Braves cannot get the top prospects doesn’t mean they cannot get any good prospects. Seems like the Dodgers, for example, are still able to get good/potentially good young players. It’s not like there are only a few good players coming out of college and the rest are worthless. And though it is good to have those early picks, seems to me they are not always chosen well. Baseball history has a significant list of failed top picks, doesn’t it? I would say don’t let another aspect of baseball become a chance for the rich to become richer—the rich do just fine, as long as they are smart and savvy—and lucky, just like any other team out there drafting players.

The large market teams would be able to outbid the small market teams for all of the best draftees, quickly starving them and killing them off. If you’d like MLB to go down to 12 to 16 teams, this would be a great plan. Of course that would effectively kill MLB as a national sport, leaving it in the hands of only the largest cities.

1) I’d love to see a lottery, so that teams like the Rays, Pirates, and Royals don’t get the top picks year after year after year. Put the team’s name in the hat once for every five losses- Now a 100 loss team is more likely to get top spots, but not guaranteed.

2) I’d love to see teams able to trade picks, but only within the draft. No tacking draft picks onto player trades. But, if the Rays have the first pick, and the Yankees are willing to give up picks 28, 44, and 75 (this year’s positions), it let’s the Yankees go after the marquee name while giving the Rays a chance to add 3 strong players to their system.

I think these ideas, especially the second one, would allow each front-office to develop a team specific plan and make draft day (and the days leading up to it) much more exciting for the fans, and make it much more revealing of each F.O.’s preferences and approach.

Like the multi teir playoff it reduces the chances of dynasty runs, but it seels a lot of tickets and, I’m sure creats TV ratings.

Don’t look for changes here quickly. Changes to the luxury tax could be a more likely change but I’m not expecting that either.

Anyone think about the British soccer system? When a tean preforms poorly it is “relegated”, or basically sent to AAA. It has to win it’s way back. The result is that there are fewer teams competing for the big title “a manageable number” and there is a second race at the bottom, to avoid relegation.

Baseball is so traditional it will not change for a long time, but I find the idea interesting.

While I like the trading picks idea, I would have to say the idea of getting rid of the draft is stupid. The draft is one of the only places where good, rich teams don’t have an advantage (and even that advantage is slowly decreasing, as signing bonuses and contract demands skyrocket). Of course, it would benefit the Yankees, but for most of the other teams, all that happens is the rich get richer. Bad teams need high draft picks to build for the future, and this would end that.