Prospect Trading

[calsnowskier]

MLB has changed the rules regarding trading drafted players. Effective with the coming draft, players drafted will be eligible to be traded after the World Series. In the past, players were not able to be traded until one day after the completion of the next years draft.

I kinda understand not allowing freshly signed draftees to be traded right away. I am not saying I agree with it, but I kinda get the argument. But I still have no idea why teams cannot trade picks. I just don't understand the logic behind that rule. Maybe they do not want teams to sell their picks, thus thrusting them into perpetual suckitude?

 

[tzill]

MLB has changed the rules regarding trading drafted players. Effective with the coming draft, players drafted will be eligible to be traded after the World Series. In the past, players were not able to be traded until one day after the completion of the next years draft.

I kinda understand not allowing freshly signed draftees to be traded right away. I am not saying I agree with it, but I kinda get the argument. But I still have no idea why teams cannot trade picks. I just don't understand the logic behind that rule. Maybe they do not want teams to sell their picks, thus thrusting them into perpetual suckitude?

That's exactly right. Small market teams would sell their high picks for cash and the Bo$ox, Yanka$$, and doyer$ would suck up all the draft talent AS WELL AS the international talent and the FAs.

MLB needs a hard cap.

 

[calsnowskier]

That's exactly right. Small market teams would sell their high picks for cash and the Bo$ox, Yanka$$, and doyer$ would suck up all the draft talent AS WELL AS the international talent and the FAs.

MLB needs a hard cap.

So you are saying the #1, #2 and #3 biggest spending teams would game the system at the expense of the integrity of the game, but the #4 biggest spending team would not???

 

[tzill]

So you are saying the #1, #2 and #3 biggest spending teams would game the system at the expense of the integrity of the game, but the #4 biggest spending team would not???

No, I think any team that could would do so. But the other teams are periodically big spenders. Those three are inveterate big spenders, and they need to be stopped. The doyer$ payroll is ridiculous.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I'm a big fan of the "Competitive Balance Tax" - I just think that it needs t be expanded. It went the right way when they made it even more punitive for multiple 'offenders', but it should be made more so. It should kick in at a lower amount (say, $150M) and the 'tax rate' should increase more quickly for repeat 'offenders'.

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm a big fan of the "Competitive Balance Tax" - I just think that it needs t be expanded. It went the right way when they made it even more punitive for multiple 'offenders', but it should be made more so. It should kick in at a lower amount (say, $150M) and the 'tax rate' should increase more quickly for repeat 'offenders'.

I like the soft cap idea better than the hard cap idea as well (at least I think that is kinda what you are saying).

I think there should also be a way for teams to better be able to keep their own players. Something like the longer a player has been in the org, the less his contract counts towards the cap hit. For example, if a player if signed via free agency, 100% of his contract counts towards the cap. Each year he is in the org, though, his cap hit drops by 10%. Of course the details would need to be ironed out (what happens when a player has been in the org for 10 years?

Also, having JUST a major league cap, with no floor makes no sense. Sure, Houston was being strategic the last few years by tanking, and they knew they were not going to be competitive, so why pay salaries, but that was horrible for the fans in Houston. There HAS to be some kind of floor to prevent that sort of thing (or at least offer negative incentives to the practice).

Next, install more barriers for prospect spending (these are slowly being implemented now). However, I am not sure these need to be soft barriers. Boston and New York blast through these on the reg (see Tanaka and Moncada).

 

[MarcoPolo]

I like the soft cap idea better than the hard cap idea as well (at least I think that is kinda what you are saying).

I think there should also be a way for teams to better be able to keep their own players. Something like the longer a player has been in the org, the less his contract counts towards the cap hit. For example, if a player if signed via free agency, 100% of his contract counts towards the cap. Each year he is in the org, though, his cap hit drops by 10%. Of course the details would need to be ironed out (what happens when a player has been in the org for 10 years?

Also, having JUST a major league cap, with no floor makes no sense. Sure, Houston was being strategic the last few years by tanking, and they knew they were not going to be competitive, so why pay salaries, but that was horrible for the fans in Houston. There HAS to be some kind of floor to prevent that sort of thing (or at least offer negative incentives to the practice).

Next, install more barriers for prospect spending (these are slowly being implemented now). However, I am not sure these need to be soft barriers. Boston and New York blast through these on the reg (see Tanaka and Moncada).

I agree that there should be a 'floor' as well. A year (or two?) ago I outlined my idea, which was basically you have to spend on salary at lease twice what you get from MLB in money (*every* team gets money, but some teams pay more than what they receive). And I mean *any* money, not just payouts to the 'poor' teams (this would include the TV licensing money, which is about $25M/team, IIRC). Or maybe it should be $1 for every 1$ received, *except* for Revenue Sharing money, which should require that a minimum of $2 be spent for each $1 received from the Revenue Sharing pool.

 

[tzill]

Second bad pitch by Huddy, and the same result as the first meatball....

 

[calsnowskier]

Another change that I think might open things up a bit, but will NEVER happen due to marketing reasons, is to abolish the draft all together. Instead, keep the slot system in place, create a virtual draft order to determine what teams get what slot allocations, dump each teams allocations in a pool, and then let them sign whomever they like, at what ever contacts they want. Each team would face a hard cap, however, at whatever their pool allotment is.

You want Joe 5-Star? Great, go talk to him. But the Yankees and Dodgers are also talking to him. You want him enough to dump your entire pool into him, you will probably get him. I believe this is the system they use for international amateur FAs, except that the cap is soft. They also, I believe, allow trading of the "picks" in the international pool, but I am not positive about that.