why not expand the draft

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

everyone and every team gets involved during the draft, even the least active teams.

I think moving it to 5, 6 or 10 rounds would actually increase parity, because the teams not as active in FA will get more players. Still only a 50 man roster though.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

You want more parity, just give the bottom 4 teams an extra (supplementary) pick at the end of the 1st & 2nd rounds.

This would mean that the bottom team would get picks 1, 31 (rnd 1 sup), 35 (1st pick rnd 2), 65 (rnd 2 sup), 69 (1st pick in rnd 3).

This way the bottom 4 teams would get 5 picks in a 3 round draft, the remaining 26 teams would get 3 picks.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

This was discussed over the summer for this offseason.

Round One
Supplemental rfa
Round Two
Competitive Balance (bottom ten teams)
Round Three

With the possibility of a New Owner Round and a Fourth Round that would coincide with an increase in one to two roster spots.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

I agree with Mike that the rosters are big enough, but think giving the struggling teams a chance to become competitive quicker is a good thing.

Disagree with the new owner round, unless the team owned by the new owner falls into the bottom 4.

New owners already get the free drop, which is a huge advantage, and if the teams poor, they would gain from the extra draft picks.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Expanding (ha) on this conversation, I like Beau's proposal (but agreed with Donavan sans new owner round; new owners probably get competitive balance picks, and if not, then they didn't necessarily inherit a bad situation). Let's try a few small changes this year before considering more. That said, I don't think anything more than 5 rounds will ever be realistic or productive given we're sticking with 50 player rosters.

50 players seems like a solid roster size considering activity and turnover. Perhaps if we get to a point where we have a consistent set of 30 owners we can then considering adding more spots. For now, there's too much of a talent gap to go any higher for now, which would otherwise allow the rich to get richer with more spots to add prospects.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

So, what next, sounds like a competitive balance round is the way to go.

Now we just need to decide if that round fits in after round 1 or round 2 - I prefer after round 1 as it allows for a quicker rebuild for poor teams.

The second question is how many of the bottom teams should be eligible for competitive balancing picks. Should we keep the same number each season (ie bottom 4 teams plus ties) or should it depend on the number of wins a team has (ie teams with 5 or fewer wins during the season).

I think this is worth clarification, and introduction into the rule book this season, as the gap between the competitive and uncompetitive teams has grown.

It may also be worth considering the teams need to fulfill the minimum at-bats and innings pitched limits most weeks to qualify. Teams must try to compete to gain competitive balancing picks.

Appreciate thoughts.

[Former Dodgers GM (Andrew)]

I'm not sure if this has ever been discussed but what about draft pick trading? Or at the very least limiting restrictions on the ability to trade prospects who were drafted? I think this could be a viable solution since it could add another potential layer to assets that rebuilding teams can get and potentially accelerate their rebuild. I know that this comes with its flaws but it's maybe worth considering. I apologize if this has already been brought up and dismissed in the past.

As for the idea of competitive balance picks I think it would be a good idea because it could help teams that have no chance of competing to gain an edge when compared to the playoff teams. I don't think making teams meet minimum requirements on a weekly basis would be the way to go when distributing these picks though because some teams are just so bad it's hard to meet those limits. Or when a team is that bad what's the purpose of striving to be mediocre when you can just kind of trade off your assets and go into full on tanking mode for a few years to get the best possible assets. This is a strategy that is becoming very common in real life MLB so why not allow teams here to try to take advantage of it and stockpile young talent? I do think that teams should have a legal roster at all points though. Just my two cents though.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

I currently like the non-trading of draft picks, too complicated and more active teams would just take advantage of the weaker teams, it would then fall on the trade committee to judge and make opinions actually taking more control of teams decisions.

The draft picks can be traded but not til June 1st. Its a much smoother draft that way.

You can still agree in PM on a trade, just not post it til June.


The purpose of the proposal was that, even the least active teams usually draft. Increasing the draft rounds would give the least active teams more prospects that are usually taken by the more active teams in FA after the draft.

[Former Dodgers GM (Andrew)]

I don't think that any of the stronger teams or the weaker teams would have an advantage if draft pick trading were available. I believe it would be an even playing field. The thing I don't like about the June rule though is that teams often agree to trades in advance and just have a handshake agreement. Prospects are gonna get traded anyway so why wait until June to officially let them change hands? I believe that allowing the trading of draft picks or of drafted prospects could add a whole new dimension into the league and actually increase activity and the amount of trades. It would give rebuilding teams more of an incentive to move their MLB talent and it would give contending teams more ammunition to get a deal done even if their current farm system isn't in the best shape. I feel like it could benefit rebuilding and contending teams equally. Also to further go into your point if draft pick trading were allowed it would probably be between the more active teams whereas the teams who aren't as active might just hold onto their picks.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I like Beaus' suggestion and would vote to implement the competitive balance round, though I agree with the Rays take that it would slot better after round 1 than round 2. I'd be in favor either way though.

I don't like the new owner round, but do like adding a fourth round even though my roster and farm are pretty tight. More draft is better.

I agree with PB that 50 is a good roster size. This prevents stockpiling by owners who are super prospect savvy.

So to the Dodgers' point about trading draft picks, I was in another league that allowed trading picks and like it a lot. I agree with his points that it would add a whole new dimension and increase activity. That said, I would emphatically vote against it in this league. Frankly, some team owners are just better than others in the specific regard that they are more skilled traders. I think these skilled trading teams would benefit the most and new teams the least. I don't think that serves the long term health of the league. This is just my opinion, but I don't think owners need more help amassing high quality prospects or dealing picks for immediate success. Also, as Rob Mansfred, I feel we have a very healthy amount of trades.

[Former Phillies GM (Garret)]

My two cents: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

It takes dumb luck, experience, and intelligence to build a winner.

I see both sides to be honest. I saw teams that should’ve been victims to the salary cap, swindle some guys into trades (by trading away big contracts) that then allowed them to get multiple productive players for half the salary of the albatross they gave away. The trade committee is good but they don’t look at the broader picture, in terms of, how a good team has stayed relevant for so long. Again, most is dumb luck but being most active is the key.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

agree with the Phillies about the draft.. I wouldnt mess with it. Adding additional rounds and even competitive balance rounds i think devalues lower rounds in which we are squeezing these picks into. Also, as some have stated, to get better in this league, ACTIVITY is key. The more active you are, ie. trees you shake, the better your team will be. Thats the bottom line. Most of the teams that have faltered have been from inactivity. To keep winning year in and year out, means you are on the board almost every day and doing your homework on players and prospects outside of hear. I think we need to stop giving new owners to many perks for taking on new teams.

Ive taken over teams in horrible shape with only perk was dismiss one bad contract and most of the time bad teams have multiple bad contracts but its a challenge and these leagues arent really for the casual player anyway. Stick to Yahoo redraft if its too hard. LOL. Sorry if I went off topic, but bottom line, Id like the draft to remain just 3 rounds if possible.