I disagree completely. Locking the first round has nothing but positive benefits when I look at the scenario. Even if the GM turns right around and trades the player they drafted at the end of the draft. There is always a degree of uncertainty when you trade a draft pick that has no "defined" value to it. We came up with a rule in this league to lessen the value of prospects below AA because of the risk and uncertainty attached to them. Its even WORSE when you are trading picks that hold no real value. If we allow full trading of picks, then this league should also SERIOUSLY consider doing away with that silly rule(especially when its gotten in the way so many times this year alone) and we should really start trusting our talent judgement abilities and keep moving to a "free market".Dodgers wrote:I really don't think locking the first round is going to do anything. If guys aren't trading their picks before the draft, they'll trade the players they take afterwards (maybe not the best example but JB just traded for Chamberlain). Stopping trading of the pick is not going to stop the players that go at that position from getting traded, so why not allow trading? I'd rather have the #2 pick going to JB in exchange for solid talent, where he has to take a chance on someone who might not work out...say Matt Bush for instance
As I was saying before getting sidetracked, locking down the first round has nothing but benefits - Even if the GM trades that player immedietly following the draft. Remember, MLB has changed their signing date, so that takes a huge element of guess work out of it for GM's, as we know for sure, who is and who isn't going to be drafted. This helps things, but, still having no set or defined value to a pick, means potentially selling short.
Forcing the pick at least makes the GM make the pick, think about the pick, hold onto the player(if even for just a couple weeks), and come to a thought out conclusion about whatever their decision may be, isntead of just shooting from the hip and making a potentially disasterous move.
Its also less work on whoever keeps track of the flury of picks being shuffled around from team to team. Less picks that move around = Less work, less things to keep track of, etc.
It gives the TRC defined value to look at and evaluate, instead of hypotheticals. Take as much of the "guess work" out of judging perceived value as possible.
As I said before, there is still PLENTY of very good value a team can trade for from picks 30 on, as has been proven many times - dont believe me? Go look at previous year's draft results.
And if you remember, there was a good time when HanRam looked like a complete "bust" - his value diminished quite a bit, perhaps the reason the BoSox gave him up so easily. There was certainly a time when he had some big question marks surrounding him. More uncertaintyAstros wrote:For those scared of the "worse" teams getting worse; when JB traded for the #1 pick a few years ago he gave up Han Ram and another pretty good prospect that eludes me. So I don't really this as necessary to lock the first round.
For every good result, I am positive I can name a just as bad result. i.e. Maels "Fucking" Rodriguez, as he will forever be known as in this league, my own decision to part with Miggy Tejada so I could land Ryan Wagner & J.J. Hardy. I had my reasons, and took a gamble - as I'm sure Bren did too. But it just goes to show you, a team could sell off a huge chip for a top pick, to get what they need(at the time, I perceived that fixing a bad bullpen would propel me to the playoffs, as my pen was attrocious..) or they believe they need to put them over the top. Its not always "best talent" taken.. sometimes a wrench is thrown into the works. Would I have done the same move again, that I did then? Hell no, I learned big from that move. It still could have worked out, had I had the time to be more patient with Hardy.. but.. thats a story for another time.
I see the rich keep getting richer - and while thats not a huge concern for myself.. well for those who want parity, this should be given more thought. Rarely, is MLB talent of great quality given up for draft picks - when picks are traded, its for a bunch of prospects, etc. JP, you pointed to JB giving up HanRam, etc. Well, of course.. he can easily give that up, without a ding or huge consequence to his team, because of the talent depth loaded on the roster. He then lands the "flavor of the month" or "elite" talent, and pedels that off(eventually) for even more talent. And he upped his position in the draft considerably to get a consensus top talent while giving up, in all reality, very little to nothing of consequence to him.
I fully understand the uncertainty with prospects, gauging them, the time it takes to develope, their individual development curves, injuries, etc... But I really fail to see how forcing a team to take their 1st pick is anything bad. Even if they turn right around and trade said player when the draft is done. At least then, it forces the GM to think and perhaps even re-evaluate what they might do if they had to sit on it for a couple weeks.
Again, I see nothing but positives to this scenario, and absolutely no downside to it. Its simply a safety net, and takes out some of the uncertainty. How is that a bad thing?
If we are to allow trading of all picks, especially when they have no defined or attached value, and we as a league sincerely move to a "free market" - then the AA player value rule needs to be stricken - as this contradicts the edict this league has put in place. I also think the point Gabe brings up about roster management is a topic that should be discussed.
