A loan system for American sports

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
Since I've gotten into soccer, I've been intrigued by the loan system that is used extensively, to get a blocked youngster more playing time, as a tryout for a possible deal, to fill a short-term need, or for whatever reasons. It's kind of curious to me that such a system hasn't been adopted by the major sports leagues in the United States. Like, for example, instead of trading Lackey, we could loan him out to a contender for the duration of the season, in return for cash or maybe a tryout for a soon-to-be free agent on the other team. Or, the star of a losing basketball team could be loaned out to a contender to try to win a championship, before returning next season. Less potential benefit perhaps, as you don't control the player beyond the loan period, but also less potential risk.
 
There are obvious concerns with injuries, improper use, and so on, but I think it could make for some interesting chess moves as the playoffs get closer. Thoughts?
 

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
3,151
Somerville, MA
Interestingly, the situation you describe never happens in European soccer because of relegation and a lack of a draft system. The worst teams would never loan their best players because there is zero advantage for finishing poorly, unlike American sports. On the flip side, in American sports, there wouldn't be much incentive for a bad team to accept a top prospect on their team for temporary help. They're much better off being really bad with the crappy players they already have.
 
I think it could add an interesting dynamic to American pro sports, but there are a lot of differences that would make it a much different, and less worthwhile transaction.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,394
Philly
A few points on this.  First the haves and have-nots change too frequently in American sports to make this feasible from a team-improvement perspective.  Soccer relies somewhat on the idea that the Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of the world will perpetually be on a higher strata than the Stokes and Sunderlands, so loaning a player "down the ladder" won't really affect either the loaner or loan-ee clubs' ultimate performance too much (the fact that there are no playoffs for the title, so even lower-strata teams having surprising years can't really threaten good clubs, plays a role).  MLB, NBA and for certain, the NFL have a much broader pool of teams that can plausibly contend for a title at the outset of each season - so loaning a player before a team knew where it or the other club stood each year wouldn't make much sense.  
 
As far as loaning players out to give them more first-team playing time, the system arose because soccer is very restrictive in this sense - you can only dress 18 guys to put 11 on the field - and also because teams have less control over players - meaning players can often engineer their own moves if they aren't getting first-team playing time, but want (and merit) it.  American teams don't quite have either problem. They have larger extended rosters and much more control over player movement. The NBA is most similar roster-wise, and the D-League partially solves the problem; there are still undoubtedly a ton of unhappy benchwarmers but there's not much they can do about it until their club says go. In MLB and NFL scenarios, it's more valuable to hold on to talent and keep it insulated from injury while doing lower-level development than it is to provide first-team playing time even if the player desires it. MLB teams can keep 40, and each NFL team carries 53 guys - so the "second team" is essentially part of the active roster and anybody valuable is either starting for the big club or being kept as insurance or a bargaining chip, just because the teams can.