Hunter Manchak is a lifelong baseball fan with a weakness for the word 'upside.' He is currently pursuing a Masters degree in Sports Business Management from New York University.

Previous Columns: A Review of the San Francisco Giants Stars of the Future The Marlins- The Team to Watch Which NL Central Team is Poised to Compete Complete list

Hearing that Major League Baseball would for the first time televise its amateur draft this year, my first reaction was excitement. In the past, the draft has been held via conference call with results only made available after the fact. Recently, fans have been able to follow along pick-by-pick on the Internet, but this is still a far cry from the raucous pageantry of the NFL or NBA drafts. As a prospect junkie, I am fired up to at last be able to watch the draft live, see highlights of, and interviews with players on TV (as opposed to my laptop). Mostly I am excited to see how many times the phrase "toolsy," is used over the course of the broadcast.

At a cursory glance, televising the event seems a positive step forward for a sport that has historically done a poor job of promoting its young stars-most fans don't know who their team's top young players are until they actually make an impact at the big league level. Contrast this with the NFL and the NBA, leagues with prodigies who enter the league packaged with fan interest, and who often succeed in justifying such hype.

In fact, with baseball's draft taking place during the season, one might expect it to be even more exciting, as teams seeking to add the final piece to a championship puzzle could vie to do so through the draft. Nevertheless, a closer inspection reveals that the demands of baseball might in many ways make it too different from other sports to significantly benefit much from such an effort.

One reason the NBA and NFL drafts are so successful is that many viewers believe they know what will and what should happen with each successive pick. Such armchair General Management creates suspense and tension that make for good television. Debates ensue among friends. Hometown picks are cheered or jeered with the utmost ardor. This is why fans love watching and this is why ratings trend ever upward. (In 2006, the first day of the NFL draft had ratings that more than doubled those of that year's Stanley Cup Finals.)

With baseball, however, it's hard to imagine any passion arising in fans with regard to each year's talented, but largely unknown draft crops.

David Price?

Rick Porcello?

Matt Wieters?

These are some of the 2007 draft's top prospects, but their names are, for now, mostly familiar only to serious baseball junkies. It's doubtful that ESPN2 will cut to images of stridently protesting Tampa Bay Devil Rays fans (is there such a thing?), should the team opt not to select Price with the top pick.

The primary reason for this is that there is virtually no chance that any player—even one as seemingly polished as Price-will significantly help a team right away. In the past 20 years, only five players have started their careers in the Major Leagues directly after being drafted; of those, only Jim Abbott made a considerable impact in his first season.

Therein lies the difference between baseball, and basketball and football. Greg Oden might average 20 points and 10 rebounds as a rookie. Adrian Peterson might lead the Minnesota Vikings to the playoffs in his first season. But even "once-in-a-lifetime" baseball talents like Justin Upton and Delmon Young have to take their lumps for a few seasons in the minors. The point is that the skills and experience chasm between professional and amateur baseball players is just too great to bridge immediately-regardless if the player has college experience. Plate discipline must be honed. Changeups must be learned. Baseball IQs must be nurtured.

In addition to taking longer to develop, baseball players develop much less predictably than amateurs in other sports. Baseball Prospectus estimates that just 57 percent of college players selected, and under 40 percent of high school draftees ever even make it to the Majors. Moreover, even those players regarded highly by scouts-those taken in the early rounds—don't make the bigs at a significantly better rate either.

Compare the 2000 first round of football and baseball. Seven years is more than enough time for a player to develop in either sport, be him a high schooler or a 4-year college man. However, the success rate for identifying top football players is vastly better than that of baseball. 11 of the 31 first round picks in the 2000 NFL draft have become pro bowlers in their career with most others developing into solid regulars and only a few busting completely. Contrast this with the 2000 baseball draft, in which only 3 players have become everyday players, and only one an All-Star. Comparing number one overall picks over the years in basketball and baseball also illustrates how much more variable drafting in baseball is than it is in other sports.

If the underlying strategy is to sow the seeds of the future in fans' heads, then broadcasting the draft might make sense. But if there's anything we can say for sure about most sports fans, it's that few are interested in providence and prudence. If a player isn't going to help their team win a pennant right away, many do not want to be bothered-no matter how steep the upside. MLB is wrong if it believes televising the draft will be an unqualified success and an immediate boon to fan enthusiasm for the sport of baseball.

Talk this over on the lovemyteam.com message board >>

Write to Hunter Manchak If you'd like a response to your email, please be sure to include your email address or other contact information