Look I don't love me some Scott Boras anymore than the next sports fan, but that isn't the main reason. The main reason not to trade draft picks is, nobody's going to do it. I don't mean that nobody would ever not trade a draft pick, what I mean is there would probably be a little flurry the first couple of drafts, and then it would tail off to basically never happen once everybody sees that it doesn't work.
The reason for this is pretty clear, draft picks are a completely unknowable commodity in baseball. Yes I realize Strassburg is about to make his debut, and David Price had a pretty quick rise to the majors and top flight starter status. But those are seriously anomalous happenings, and Strassburg hasn't done thing one yet against MLB hitters, and may not for another couple of years. Has anybody noticed how things have been going for Joba Chamberlain recently? Some people may want to point out John Olerud, but then I'll point out he was drafted in the 3rd round. Somebody was going to trade down for him because he was so good?
I just don't understand how this is supposed to work here, Verducci's best rationale for why some team would want to trade for a higher draft pick is this:
But what if a contender picking late in the first round wanted to trade up to pick a relief pitcher who might pitch this year down the stretch? Why not allow the Pirates to trade that pick to get a prospect and a later first-round pick?Ok, I'll bite. If said team was going to part with enough great assets to loosen up this phenom from a team that is bad enough to be picking high in the draft, why wouldn't they just trade those assets for a proven pitcher. Or probably actually fewer of those assets to get a proven pitcher. If I'm the GM of a the team with the pick of a player who may be so good he can play the same year he's picked, why am I giving it up unless I'm basically raping who I'm trading with? And If I'm the one being raped why am I doing it for somebody that I have truly no idea will be helping me anytime in the near future?
Deeper into this, I'm not sure what it is that the teams that are getting the draft pick are supposed to be trading away. If I'm the Nationals last year what are the Yankees supposed to trade me for Strassburg, that I want more than him? And why do the Yankees want to give it up? Hey Nats, "you have what could be a shot at one of the greatest pitchers of all time, who you can maybe control for relatively cheap for 8-10 years. Why don't you give him to us for a guy we thought the same thing about not so long ago but isn't really working out, and Phil Hughes." If I'm the Nats, the answer is Click. And if the Nats come looking for a package of minor league prospects, then I have to say: "Wait a minute, why am I trading 3 guys who I'm pretty sure there's a chance at least one of will be good soon for a guy who I'm going to pay a lot of money and may never do anything?"
It's the old Bird in the Hand argument and you can see if you think about it for a little, that it won't take long for a couple of these trades to turn into complete short term disasters before nobody ever wants to do it again. I mean look no further than this rationalization from Anonymous Scouting Director about Pittsburgh's #2 position in this years draft:
"It doesn't look like there's a lot of impact in this draft. Teams picking in the middle of the first round are in good shape. If baseball were like football, they'd be looking to trade down. They could get close to same player if they drafted lower."
Um yeah, but if the there isn't a lot of the impact in this draft, why exactly is anybody looking to draft up, genius? Pittsburgh could be looking to trade down all it wants but that doesn't mean they are going to find any suitors. What's the motivation, boredom?
The worst part of this thinking is the ever present "If Baseball were Like Football". Dude baseball isn't like football. Every year colleges produce about 100 or maybe even more players that can walk right onto an NFL field and play. In baseball it doesn't happen more than once a year, if that. Hell if you added in players with a full year of A ball to the list how many even play in the majors on average the next season? Aren't you a Scouting Director? You need me to point this out?
Again I'm not saying it would never happen. I could kind of see trading picks for picks. If number 2 absolutely wanted the first pick and the defacto #2 pick was still pretty damn good. So yeah maybe let it happen, but you just won't see any good effect from it. At all.
The best part of the article though is his reasoning for solution #2:
The draft must remain true to its original mission statement: Get the best players to the worst teams.And we are doing that by allowing the worst teams to trade away the best picks I guess? I don't know my head spins.
No comments:
Post a Comment