The Draft Pick Each Team Would Have To Forfeit

The calendar will turn to March soon, but our #6, #14, and #28-ranked free agents remain unsigned.  The primary factor in the delay for Ervin Santana, Stephen Drew, and Kendrys Morales is that signing any one of them requires the new team to forfeit its highest unprotected draft pick and its associated bonus pool money, because these players were among 13 to turn down a one-year, $14.1MM qualifying offer in November.  Earlier draft picks are more valuable, of course, so let's take a look at the pick each team would have to forfeit to sign one of these three free agents.  The 2013 slot value for each pick is also provided; those numbers will increase for 2014.  2014 draft order information comes courtesy of River Ave. Blues.




















As many have pointed out, the current system provides a major incentive for teams to sign multiple compensation free agents.  Now that the Orioles have surrendered their #17 pick for Ubaldo Jimenez and their #52 pick for Nelson Cruz, they could sign Santana, Drew, or Morales with the smallest draft pick cost of any team.  In theory, teams at the bottom of this chart should be willing to offer at least several million more than a team near the top, assuming a desire and need for one of the three free agents.  It's why Drew makes so much sense for the Mets.

These three free agents have a good reason not to sign a one-year deal right now, with the season less than a month away, even though Cruz did so recently.  As Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports recently pointed out, a player must be with his team for the entire season to receive a qualifying offer.  Santana could sign a one-year worth $15MM or so and make it official on March 22nd, and not have to worry about being saddled with another qualifying offer after 2014.  On the other hand, losing the ability to make a qualifying offer lowers his value to the signing team, to some degree.

If any of the three compensation free agents is willing to wait until June 5th to sign, the draft pick compensation issue goes away and the players can be signed without forfeiture of a pick.  The old teams, the Royals, Red Sox, and Mariners, would not gain a supplemental round pick in that scenario.  If those teams perceive that threat to be real, it provides an incentive for them to explore deals to bring back Santana, Drew, and Morales, respectively.

49 Responses to The Draft Pick Each Team Would Have To Forfeit Leave a Reply

  1. John Benson 1 year ago

    Could the Royals, Red Sox, or Angels do a sign-and-trade with their respective free agent? The free agent would get a contract, without possibly waiting until June. The former team would get an agreed-upon player instead of potentially nothing, and the new team would get a free agent without surrendering a draft pick or bonus pool money. Is this possible?

    • Steve Adams 1 year ago

      Sign-and-trades aren’t allowed under the collective bargaining agreement.

    • $5427573 1 year ago

      I think there’s a minimum time teams must wait before a signed player can be traded.

      • PhillyYank 1 year ago

        Can that rule be waived by a player consenting to a trade?

        • Croagnut 1 year ago


        • LazerTown 1 year ago

          Yes. If they were signed during the offseason they have a “no-trade” until June 15. Player can approve the trade though. Still you must keep in mind that the commissioner can prevent this trade from going through if it tries to circumvent draft pick comp.

    • Meh Sheep 1 year ago

      (xx-b-5) Miscellaneous
      (a) Any Club signing a contract with a Player under this Section B after the expiration of the Quiet Period described in subsection 2(b) above may not assign his contract until after the next June 15. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, such contract may be assigned for other Player contracts and/or cash consideration of $50,000 or less prior to the next June 16 if the Player gives written consent to such transaction.

      In this case I would think a team would want more than $50,000 to give up their pick for the benefit of another team. It seems like the rule might be specifically written to get past the draft in early June.

  2. $5427573 1 year ago

    The Blue Jays are going to have quite to pool to work with in this years draft.

    • Jeremy 1 year ago

      The Astros will still likely have more. The first pick has an insane amount of slot money, more than the 5th and 6th pick combined.

  3. Lefty_Orioles_Fan 1 year ago

    If those teams perceive that threat to be real, it provides an incentive
    for them to explore deals to bring back Santana, Drew, and Morales,
    Threat?? To whom really?
    These players need to get into camp!
    Plus, if Drew is to play another position like Boras stated a few weeks ago, he should have signed weeks ago!

    • Ron Loreski 1 year ago

      I guarantee all 3 of those players have multiple offers on the table. They’re just being greedy trying to get more pennies out of some team. The next CBA should include penalties for players that hold out after the start of Spring Training.

      • WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 1 year ago

        Penalizing a player for not signing a contract and not getting paid makes no sense what so ever, not getting paid is the penalty.

        • Ron Loreski 1 year ago

          They are choosing not to get paid by not signing. This isn’t the NFL. Free agency should end the day Spring Training begins. Maybe I’m just too old school.

          • Kent 1 year ago

            This won’t work because then the team would just not offer substantial contract because if the player don’t take it it’ll penalize the player. and no loss to the team

          • Pennsy 1 year ago

            Yep, definitely too old school. These guys are free to decide who they want to play for and when they want to sign the contract. I really don’t understand what part of training camp having begun makes people so concerned about the fact that FAs are still out on the market. I’ve been dying for Oliver Perez to finally make a decision but you don’t see me whining about how long he’s taken.

      • Jack 1 year ago

        For which team are they holding out on? Holding out is where a player is under contract, and refuses to report until he gets a new contract.

    • The Royals, Red Sox, and Mariners are expecting to get draft picks when those guys sign elsewhere prior to June 5. If they think there’s a good chance the players will hold out until after that and they’ll lose the expected pick, then it provides some (perhaps not enough) incentive to explore getting a deal done.

      • johnsilver 1 year ago

        Myself? I’d rather not have Drew back in Boston at all. They have him replaced S/T already and L/T with Cecchini in 2015. Even possibly Middlebrooks if he does rebound. There just is no valid reason to offer him more than he made last year (9-10m), or more than 1y if even a 1y deal to just “save” that comp pick. he’s not worth it, nor is it for the mental anquish/job security of the 25< kids (WMB/Bogaerts) knowing NOW that they are the regulars going into ST that Drew isn't coming back.

        • MB923 1 year ago

          Ehh, I’d trust Drew/X over Middlebrooks/X

          • johnsilver 1 year ago

            It’s the money also. Better spent on adding something later in the season if they need the help, like at the AS break for a bat than on Drew.

            Drew gets way more support than he truly provides. If the Sox had nothing to stick at either SS/3b? Sure, sign him for 1y, but they do and another right behind both in Cecchini. I’d rather that money go towards a RH hitting OF later on in the summer than Drew.

          • MB923 1 year ago

            “It’s the money also.”

            Not like they can’t afford it. And also, they are not anywhere near the luxury tax.

            Maybe in the end Drew does settle for 1 year. Look at Nelson Cruz.

          • johnsilver 1 year ago

            I forgot one thing above MB.. The loss of the pick isn’t as substantial as it was pre new CBA. Before there was a chance to grab an extra 1st round pick along with the comp pick. Even a 2nd round pick if the team wasn’t top 15 and the same 1s pick was better for the loss of the FA for teams losing a FA.

            It’s not nearly the big deal some are making it out to be, then tag on that teams can no long give out bonuses they were once able to ( the teams that did) and this entire FA with draft thing is way, way over blown.

            Does it matter? Of course it does, but teams will not be as probable to grab that highly sought HS kid that was skipped over in the top 10-20 picks with a supplemental pick, even college guy (say Anthony Ranaudo type like in 2010) because there is just about no way his slot will be affordable now in this day and age.

        • Michael Lucas Jr. 1 year ago

          Honestly I really hope the Red Sox bring back Drew. I like his left handed bat & the fact he can make all the routine plays that you need your shortstop to play. Not saying that Xander can’t but Middlebrooks is the guy I just don’t know about. He has a lot of potential in him but he reminds me of a young Mark Reynolds. Having Drew’s left handed bat gives Farrell so much more flexibility to work with. Cecchini is a guy I am very excited about. He most likely starts at Double A but eventually ends up in Pawtucket. Sign Drew for a year & worry about 2015 later. Go Red Sox!!!

      • Lefty_Orioles_Fan 1 year ago

        Oh cheese, even the Moderator responded.

        Anyway, maybe Drew thinks he is going to Mets and therefore won’t need to change positions. As for me, i am only interested in him if he can play a decent 2nd and 3rd.
        Lastly, I am of the opinion that all three should just find a team that’s interested and sign the dotted line! Spring Training is a big deal, if they wait till June to sign, I just don’t see that as a good thing for their career.

    • Gnotorious 1 year ago

      The threat is the loss of the comp pick and the player. Not a major threat but still something to consider.

  4. WhoKilledTheRallyMonkey 1 year ago

    The Mets really should sign Drew, pick #72 and $661K of worth of draft money is worth losing for Drew

    • DarthBusey 1 year ago

      I think the Mets are definitely interested, but they have all of the leverage here. They’re content to see if they can get Drew at some kind of below-market price.

      If not, no big deal, they’ll make another move for a SS.

      Alderson and Boras are both good at chicken. I think Boras wins (like he always does) in the end, though.

    • vigouge 1 year ago

      It’s not the pick loss but the actual cost in terms of years/dollars that’s holding up the Mets. From their perspective it’s quite probable that Ruben Tejada’s 2013 was an aberration and that’s he’ll be at the low end a 1.5 war player. Is it work spending 12m per year to upgrade that to Drew whose likely floor is 3 war?

      I think if Drew were willing to sign at 10m for 2-3 years, he’d be a Met but it doesn’t seem like his price has dropped too much so far. One thing that is of the utmost importance for the team is that they don’t want it to be 12-13m for 1 year or with an opt out and then have to go into next year with the same problem where they’ll most likely have to sacrifice a 1st rounder to get someone to play SS.

  5. Mike1L 1 year ago

    The strategy to wait until June might have the opposite effect. The problem with signing a one year or short term deal is that you are paying with the loss of pick, so some teams might be reluctant to part with it. The longer the term of the contract, the longer the time to “amortize” the cost of the pick. Cruz turns down $14.1M, then, saddled with the loss of pick, is only able to get one year at $8M. Baltimore is gambling that the loss of pick +8M will buy them enough quality in 2014 that when Cruz goes out on FA next Fall, that he will be worth a QO to Baltimore (so as to get back the pick). If Cruz is just mediocre, than it’s $8M + the pick. But, if Cruz had waited for June, the pick is neutral–none can be gained or lost. Cruz would probably want only a long term contract, or just one for the last four months of the year. Someone will pay him, but it will depend on need–and his need to be on the field will be greater than it is today.

    • Pennsy 1 year ago

      I have to wonder what kind of season Cruz would have to have for Baltimore to extend another QO. He would certainly be much more willing to accept it next year after what he’s gone through, and Cruz for $15m or whatever it will be doesn’t sound like an Orioles kind of move.

  6. NYBravosFan10 1 year ago

    This system needs restructuring somehow. It’s ridiculous that three useful players haven’t signed yet.

    • not_brooks 1 year ago

      Not when several similar players have already signed.

      Perhaps these three need to lower their demands.

      • NYBravosFan10 1 year ago

        They need to get rid of this qualifying offer nonsense. It makes very little sense the way it is now. Maybe they should do the same thing that the do in arbitration where an unrelated party determines if the player is worth the qualifying offer. It’s all just a bunch of baloney anyway. It would be so much simpler if draft picks weren’t involved.

        • not_brooks 1 year ago

          It’s not a perfect system, but the supposed problems only arise when it comes to borderline players who probably should have accepted the QO.

          Look at Santana, then look at guys like Jimenez, Garza and Nolasco. The market is clearly set for a pitcher of Santana’s quality. The only reason he hasn’t signed is that he’s looking for more than he’s worth.

          Same deal with Morales. What market is there for a DH-only on the wrong side of 30 with a sub-.800 OPS over the past two seasons? If there was ever a guy who should have accepted a QO, Morales is that guy.

          • David Kowalski 1 year ago

            I agree with you on Morales but Santana is way better than Ricky Nolasco. Over four years the cost of the lost draft pick is greatly minimized/ Four years and $50 million is five million or so more than Nolasco got, roughly a million per year. I’d take Ervin Santana over “Little Ricky.”

            Morales may be worth less money than Nelson Cruz got as he is not much better as a hitter and he can’t play a defensive position regularly.

            I see Stephen Drew as somewhere in between the two. He can play a defensive position but $10 million seems to be a ceiling over two years. So there you go: $8 million for Morales, $10 million per year for Drew and $12 million for Ervin Santana (in my opinion, any way).

    • DarthBusey 1 year ago

      All 3 players also could have accepted their 1 year, $14M.1 qualifying offers.

      I’d consider *that* to be kinda ridiculous.

      • kb_dbacks 1 year ago

        as i see both sides of the argument, like who would say no to 14M when your not worth it… BUT the other side of it, the players want the protection of the years on the contract.. say he took that offer and in spring training blew his arm out he is never guaranteed anything but maybe a minor league deal rich with incentives… guys like Santana, Drew and Morales all have done their time and want the added protection in years in case of injury… (ask Morales/Drew about career changing injuries)
        also look at Cano, he took money off the table just to have the tenth year on the deal…

        sorry for the long post but one more thing…
        my idea for a new way of using this QO format is how about still have these players hooked with the first round/highest unprotected pick, but if a team signs the player and doesn’t offer at least the qualifying offer in the first year of the contract the team loses a pick… so example say Toronto signs Santana to a 4 year deal worth 45M but they offer say 15M year one and then 10M for the remaining 3 years they don’t lose their pick, but if he just signed for say one year 8M the team that signs him loses their pick

    • Michael Lucas Jr. 1 year ago

      Let’s not forget that each of these useful players turned down 1 year 14 million dollar contracts.

      • vigouge 1 year ago

        And that it’s only 3 players out a hundred. More player were adversely affected by being non tendered after they were injured, and those guys didn’t have the luxury of turning down a 8 figure deal.

    • Jack 1 year ago

      Check out these players agent. Stephen Drew had a good season after 3 injury riddled season. Only a fool would give him a long term contract. He should have jumped at 14mil.

  7. lee_r 1 year ago

    I don’t understand the basic premise of this system. The teams with the highest picks–the teams with the worst records last year–pay the most for acquiring this group of free agents. What earthly sense does that make?

    • Erik Trenouth 1 year ago

      It isn’t directly that they give up that money by signing a FA. They give up their highest draft pick, and the higher the draft pick, the higher the signing money associated with that draft pick.

    • LazerTown 1 year ago

      Is fine. The first 10 picks are protected, so they are incentivised to participate the most. The next 10 teams most of them missed out on the playoffs, but many of them were contenders into september. They are the ones that will lose the most by this, but also figure to be most active, they have lots to gain by improving just a little.

  8. section 34 1 year ago

    It’s surprising to me how many people seem to think there’s something wrong with this new system because three (3) players can’t find multiyear multimillion dollar contract offers to their liking.

    • Gnotorious 1 year ago

      I agree. This draft pick compensation isn’t that different from the last CBA where you had type A and type B players tied to draft pick compensation. The new system has drastically reduced the number of players tied to picks and reduced the compensation the the QO team gets (comp round pick vs swap of pick). The biggest difference is with the spending limit imposed on the FYP draft.

    • Elston Howard 1 year ago

      Drew is over-valuing himself. He needs to drop his price down to something like 3/18M. He was a strikeout machine against good pitching in the post-season.

  9. Dave Beal 1 year ago

    THis system is just another factor working against small market teams like the Royals. They offer their 2nd best pitcher, more money than they pay their Ace, he turns it down and they maybe get the 88th pick in the draft or possibly nothing. The draft and it’s slot money also works against them, The International signing pool and teams like the Yankees saying they will just overspend anyway but do it all in one year. The TV revenue deal which will only let them see an additional $5 mil per season, while other teams get up to $90 million, which is more than their entire payroll capacity. Everything has to go exactly right for them to have a sustained chance to win.

  10. Jack 1 year ago

    The biggest problem with the QO offer is not the few players that are signing late because none of the 3 players are worth 40-60mil/4 years plus a 1st round draft pick. The problem is the way picks are protected. 1-10 are protected, and those are bad teams. The 11-20 teams are the ones who missed out on the playoffs, and need a FA boost more than the 21-30 teams. Here is what I think would be good 1-10 protected, 11-20 teams move back 10 slots, 21-30 lose draft pick. Maybe also adding the 2nd player affects the following years 1st rounder so teams cant abuse it.

  11. Steve Sampson 1 year ago

    Stephen Drew is terrible, a 70ish pick is more valuable than him.

Leave a Reply