MLB collective bargaining issues: Draft lottery

That’s broadly similar to the systems in play with both the NHL and NBA, but those leagues have some individual nuances. The NHL prohibits teams from jumping more than 10 spots relative to their position in inverse standings order, effectively restricting a shot at the top pick to the league’s bottom 11 finishers. The NBA allows all non-playoff teams a chance — admittedly a very small one for the best non-playoff clubs — to get a top-four selection but doesn’t allow teams outside the bottom five in the standings to make more marginal moves up the draft order (say, from 12th to 9th).

MLBTR has learned some specifics regarding the MLBPA’s latest proposal for the draft, which MLB rejected during recent collective bargaining discussions. Under the union’s offer, teams would find themselves excluded from the lottery for finishing below certain thresholds in the standings for two to three consecutive seasons. The specific thresholds for exclusion varied depending upon market size, with larger-market clubs facing stricter requirements for lottery eligibility. Non-playoff teams either excluded from or that didn’t win selection in the lottery would select in reverse order of the previous season’s standings from pick No. 9 onward; playoff teams would select in reverse order of regular-season record after all the non-playoff teams have picked, as is the case under the current system.

The possibility for lottery exclusion is doubtlessly a measure the union hopes to implement in response to tanking, with the lowered draft position serving as something of a punitive measure for teams that finish among the league’s worst across a multiyear stretch. Diminished draft position for repeat bottom-dwellers wouldn’t alone stamp out rebuilding, and some teams that merely underperformed rather than setting out to rebuild would be adversely affected. Yet avoiding the possibility of the same teams collecting top picks for three-plus straight years seems to be a goal for the MLBPA, with the union taking particular aim at unsuccessful large-market franchises that should theoretically have enough of a financial advantage to avoid lengthy down stretches.

On the flip side, the union has proposed measures that would reward competitive smaller-market franchises with additional draft choices. Clubs eligible for competitive balance picks — those among the bottom ten leaguewide in either revenue or market size — would receive a bonus pick before Competitive Balance Round A (around Nos. 31-40 overall in a typical draft) the year after reaching the postseason. Competitive Balance-eligible teams that finish .500 or better but don’t reach the playoffs would receive a bonus pick before Competitive Balance Round B (around Nos. 65-75 in an average year).

Much about the potential MLB draft lottery remains unclear. The number of picks subject to the lottery and the probability of moving up for each team based on their position in the standings remains to be determined. So too is the number of teams that will be involved. How many non-playoff teams will there be in the next CBA? That’s presently unknown, given the league’s desire for an expanded postseason field. It’s also not clear whether a lottery would only apply to the domestic draft, or if a draft for the acquisition of international amateurs — which MLB hopes to include in the CBA — would contain one as well.

The draft lottery is far from the most important point of contention between the league and union. The competitive-balance tax, league-minimum salary and path to arbitration eligibility are all among the bigger topics to iron out. Implementing a draft lottery is, however, one of the smaller yet visible ways in which the league is likely to change in the coming months.