Let’s say a team realizes they’d need to leave a key player exposed in the draft. They call up the expansion team, saying,”Here’s a deal for you: if you don’t pick the guy we can’t lose, we’ll send you a pick or another player.” How would other teams react if the answer was,”Don’t tell us how to run our draft, and we won’t tell you how to run your’s.” The team wasn’t necessarily planning on selecting the player, but now will, just out of spite.

(01-28-2026 01:26 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Let’s say a team realizes they’d need to leave a key player exposed in the draft. They call up the expansion team, saying,”Here’s a deal for you: if you don’t pick the guy we can’t lose, we’ll send you a pick or another player.” How would other teams react if the answer was,”Don’t tell us how to run our draft, and we won’t tell you how to run your’s.” The team wasn’t necessarily planning on selecting the player, but now will, just out of spite.

Teams can't draft a player just out of spite, there's a real consequence on that the drafted player takes up a roster spot and counts towards any salary cap or luxury tax, often with guaranteed money.

I don't remember the year, but the NBA has had the opposite occur when a team gave up a draft pick to get an expansion team to take a certain player. I know there have been trades involving the NBA college draft where teams agree not to draft a certain player.

Charger: I know the Lakers left Kareem exposed, but Charlotte accepted a draft pick in lieu of drafting him. Here’s the scenario that led to the OP: the Yankees need to expose Stanton, but obviously don’t want to lose him. Cashman has that phone exchange. The new team hadn’t considered taking Stanton, but now take him first, being pissed NY tried to tell them how to run their team.

The appearance of collusion or attempted collusion would oust an owner.