How to Fix the Draft? Eliminate It

SECAUCUS, N.J. – Baseball's draft took another step forward out of obscurity with Tuesday night's prime-time showing on MLB Network.

I'm glad to see it, because I enjoy following the draft and I know how important it is, maybe more important than the draft is in the NFL or NBA.

Unfortunately, there are still problems with it. And unfortunately, I believe the best way to fix the problems isn't a worldwide draft or a draft with tradable picks.

It's no draft at all.

---

---

Why? Well, I'm no supply-sider or Adam Smith, but I think that the ultimate free market would allow signing bonuses to truly reflect what a player deserves.

I can hear Scott Boras drooling from here.

The biggest issue with the draft is getting the right players to the right teams at the right prices. It was designed, like the draft in every sport, to help teams that aren't doing as well. But the worst teams don't always get the best players.

"I've said before," commissioner Bud Selig said after Tuesday's first round, "there are some other things that need some tweaking and modifications. But I'll leave it at that for this evening."

Compounding the problem is Major League Baseball's attempt at "slotting" – determining the bonus by draft position.

As a result, teams are punished when they don't have money to spend – which are often the same teams that pick high (yes, I mean you, Pittsburgh) – or follow Selig's orders suffer.

Take Rick Porcello for example. He may have been the best player in the 2007 draft. But he (or Boras, his advisor/agent ) let it be known he wanted "Josh Beckett money," meaning $7 million.

So after Tampa Bay took David Price No. 1, Kansas City passed on Porcello. As did the Cubs. And the Orioles. And the Nationals. And a number of other teams.

Until finally, at No. 27 overall, the Tigers said, "Screw slotting. We think Porcello is worth it, and we have the money to afford him." And less than two years later, he's in their rotation. Think the Royals could use him? The Nats? The O's?

So the draft is broken. And one proposal to fix it is allowing the trade of picks.

That's appealing. It might create interest. But it's also unwieldy.

And if Washington this year decided it didn't want to pay Stephen Strasburg, what would it get by trading down? Anyone nearly as good?

Baseball would say the solution is firm slotting (as Jeff Fletcher has endorsed), with bonuses fixed by draft position. Then a team would know what it's spending and draft without regard to money.

But getting that instituted over the union's objections might be difficult.

Another factor to consider is the international market. The draft covers only the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico. So a prospect in another country – the Dominican Republic, or Venezuela – is a free agent on whom teams can bid against one another.

Or as Boras told ESPN.com:

"What if Stephen Strasburg was raised in Tibet? What would we do? Because he's American, we're going to penalize him? That's the story."

Teams that scout better in Latin America or Asia are rewarded for their ingenuity and effort. So let's spread that everywhere.

That's the reasoning behind my proposal. Now, there would have to be some rules. Like in college football, teams would be limited on total number of players under contract at any time and players signed in a year, so the Yankees couldn't pull a Nebraska and sign every player they can just to keep other teams from getting them.

And there would have to be regulation. One baseball old-timer told me a story from the pre-draft days (it began in 1965) when a player had just become eligible to sign by graduating and all the teams were scheduled for half-hour visits with the player.

A scout went into the house, took the phone off the hook and covered it with his coat, so the player wouldn't know the next team in line was calling. And when scouts from the second team started peeking in the window, the scout in the house pulled down the shades.

Imagine the shenanigans that could go on with cell phones, texting, Twitter and the Internet.

But if baseball could enforce behavior, there would be other strategy in signing amateurs with no draft.

According to Baseball America, the Royals last year spent $10.165 million on signing bonuses in the first 10 rounds and the Angels spent $1.743 million.

If those teams budgeted the same for my draft-less world, they could decide how to spend it: One super prospect, and a bunch of fill-ins to stock the minor leagues while risking a lack of depth in the organization? Two or three top-tier guys? Lots of longshots?

And every player would wind up with what he was "worth."