Seattle's Thoughts on the Proposed Ban on Trading Draft Picks and Prospects

Yeah, I know. Nobody wants to hear from me on this issue. I've accepted the fact that there is overwhelming support for the rule. I accept that there is no chance I could convince a majority of owners to vote against the proposal. Some of you may immediately dismiss any argument I might make simply because I am the one who made it. Some of you may say I am arguing against the rule because I believe allowing people to trade draft picks offers me a competitive advantage. That’s not true, but if you believe that, there's nothing I can write in a blog post to change your mind.

That said, there are a few things that I want to say before we vote on the rule. I've gone back and forth on saying anything at all. In the end, probably due to an internal personality defect, I decided to go ahead and set out my position before the vote.

I am against the rule, for three main reasons.

First, I fundamentally disagree with the concept behind the proposed rule. A rule against trading draft picks and certain prospects is, in my opinion, inappropriately paternalistic. The underlying motivation is a lack of trust in other owners to make intelligent assessments about the value of draft picks and prospects. We’re telling teams, in essence, that we don’t trust your judgment about what is best for your team. And that’s kind of insulting.

Second, I don't think the rule should be adopted because it restricts the already limited set of actions that owners can take. There’s so much that we can’t do in this game. We can’t control line-ups very well. We have almost no control over in-game decisions. We obviously can’t control player performance during games. The only things we get to do are sign contracts, draft players, and make trades. That's pretty much it. Imposing additional limits on what we get to do in playing the game seems to me to make the game less fun.

Third, I think the costs of the proposed rule outweigh its benefits. In many situations, the only effect of the rule will be to delay the announcement of a trade. In others, it may stop a trade but only at the cost of creating hard feelings between owners. 

If the rule is implemented, I expect that some people will make deals involving prospects ineligible to be traded and simply delay announcing the trades until the one year has passed, or whatever the ban on trading newly drafted prospects ends up being. Even if the commissioners won’t enforce a deal until that deadline passes, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be situations where one owner makes a deal involving prospects that can’t yet be traded, thinks later that he doesn’t really like the trade, but then goes through with it to avoid poisoning the future relationship with the other owner. Maybe some people will back out of prearranged deals, but my expectation is that most secret handshake deals will go through, with only a delay. And if teams are going to be making trades and the only effect of this rule in most situations is to cause a delay in announcing it, then why bother having the rule at all?

In those instances where the rule does have an effect, where handshake deals are made but one owner later backs out, then the rule will have "succeeded" in preventing a trade, but only at the cost of bad feelings between those owners. The owner who wants to go through with the trade will be angry at the owner who does not go through with it. A rule that, when it does work, ends up creating enmity between owners does not seem wise to me.

And that's why I think the proposed rule is a bad idea. I recognize this will likely sway exactly no one. The fact that I oppose the proposal may even make some of you more eager to vote in favor of it. But I do think it's a bad idea.