Poll: Should The Qualifying Offer Be Scrapped?

Love it or hate it, there's no denying that the qualifying offer has disrupted baseball's free agent economy. With less than a month to go before Opening Day, three capable players - Stephen Drew, Kendrys Morales and Ervin Santana - are still on the market, potential suitors remaining hesitant to give up a draft pick and its associated bonus pool money. Some players, like Ubaldo Jimenez, have still commanded sizeable deals. Others, however, haven't fared so well. Few would have expected Nelson Cruz to settle for a one-year, $8MM guarantee at the offseason's outset, for example. 

Astros GM Jeff Luhnow argued in a recent interview with MLB Daily Dish's Chris Cotillo that turning down this offseason's $14.1MM qualifying offer, which links players with draft pick compensation, is rejecting "what a lot of people would consider pretty generous, life-changing money." The current system is, in any case, "an improvement over what was there before," Luhnow said. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that the qualifying offer is suppressing the salaries of some players at a time when Major League Baseball has never been more profitable. The system can also frustrate fans. Adding Drew, Morales or Santana would improve many clubs' chances for a 2014 postseason berth, and some find it hard to digest that the value of a draft pick can outweigh that of a player who can impact a team now.

The qualifying offer system will remain in place through at least December 2016, when the current collective bargaining agreement expires. At that point, MLB owners and players will reconvene to try to hammer out a new deal, and the qualifying offer is sure to emerge as a topic of discussion. At that time, should the system be scrapped?


Full Story | 192 Comments | Categories: MLBTR Polls

Leave a Reply

192 Comments on "Poll: Should The Qualifying Offer Be Scrapped?"


escapingNihilism
1 year 5 months ago

all mechanisms that drive down player salaries are crimes and should be scrapped, QO included.

shoewizard
1 year 5 months ago

Operating under the assumption that won’t happen, they need to adjust the dollars to reflect the sudden acceleration of FA Contract spending again. If the QO were 16 million, would a few less have been offered, and would any of the ones that were offered been accepted ?

hediouspb
1 year 5 months ago

the $ amount is based on the top contracts. it will go up.

Cannon Fodder
1 year 5 months ago

Scott (Boras), is that you?

Matt Mccarron
1 year 5 months ago

No one wants to see a player lose out because a rule that shouldn’t be there. Is that you Selig?

Cannon Fodder
1 year 5 months ago

Touché.

But seriously, I have a difficult time accepting that these players are really “losing out”. I agree with Chris Cotillo’s quote that these QO’s are “generous”. Frankly, if I received a guaranteed sum from my current employer only to decline it, test the job market, and find no comparable offers, who is at fault?

Regardless, I do believe the QO system makes drafts gimmick-y and gives teams a mechanism to help control some salaries, a mechanism that would not have been necessary if only they already exhibited fiscal self-control.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

The rule was collectively bargained, let’s not make it out like the players union had no say in the matter.

Matt Mccarron
1 year 5 months ago

They clearly didn’t think it through.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

Well the system so far has offered many players ~14 mil who later didn’t end up worth that much on the open market. I’d say if anything the QO is giving players the chance to cash in on a 1 year deal that is going to be an overpay in most cases.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

Well the system so far has offered many players ~14 mil who later didn’t end up worth that much on the open market. I’d say if anything the QO is giving players the chance to cash in on a 1 year deal that is going to be an overpay in most cases.

1 year 5 months ago

The thing that will naturally tweak it is when players start accepting it. That will lower the amount of middle tier free agents hitting the market with compensation attached and the rest can learn from this offseason that there’s risk in waiting around for your market to grow. The system is only two years old give it time.

GonzoBlogger
1 year 5 months ago

Someone send the poll results to Scott Boras. Only 20% want to see it scrapped despite all his constant whining about the unfairness of it all that seems to be getting in the way of him getting something done for Drew and Morales.

1 year 5 months ago

64% want to scrap it or change it. Not that MLB should make policy by the results of a fan poll.

gammaraze
1 year 5 months ago

Yeah, except there’s a huge difference between “tweak” the way it’s written and “change” they way you’re using it.

75% of responders believe that a system of some sort should be in place
only 25% believe that the system should be done away with completely

1 year 5 months ago

There wasn’t a “change” option listed, so that’s the one I voted for. Given a choice between no compensation and the current system, I’d rather have none. It doesn’t help players and definitely doesn’t help small market teams.

dwarfstar
1 year 5 months ago

There was 3 option to the question take, change, or scrap???

1 year 5 months ago

I know the options. I was responding to the comment above, which distinguished between “tweak” and “change”.

Metsfan93
1 year 5 months ago

Not a single article on the subject that I’ve seen has touched on the issue that Nelson Cruz has earned the right to play for whatever team he wants to. Compensation for the team he leaves is fair, but his market – not just money-wise, that is – is nonexistent. He doesn’t really have the power to sign wherever he wants because there is more in the discussion besides a team’s fit and his desire to play there…

1 year 5 months ago

If Cruz was as good as he thought he was, he’d have many teams to pick from. How does his right to pick work? Does he get to go to a team and said I’m going to play here for 75 million and you can’t do anything about it?

Metsfan93
1 year 5 months ago

Obviously not. But there are some teams that wouldn’t even entertain Cruz no matter the price. There were some teams that were never options for him because Texas saddled him with that QO. I’ve in favor of a tweak that leaves the QO on the table for longer. It seems there’s too little risk on the part of the teams offering them. They’re literally destroying Cruz’ market completely. I’m also having trouble articulating this thought..

gammaraze
1 year 5 months ago

That’s the price you pay for quitting on your team when they needed you most in an attempt to maximize your free agency signing. In reality, $12M is 50% more than $8M, and he could EASILY have signed for $8M minimum for 2014 had he played in the last 50 games. But it wouldn’t have been a single year deal; he would have had multiple years.

dwarfstar
1 year 5 months ago

If Cruz had simply accepted the offer he would have gotten 40% raise over what he was supposed to have, and considering he lost $ 2.8mm approx. because of the suspension the raise would have been even bigger than that?????

Metsfan93
1 year 5 months ago

The issue also isn’t with Cruz being as good as he thinks he is. The issue is that if Cruz didn’t want to remain in Texas under any circumstances – for sake of argument – the amount of money he’s turning down doesn’t matter. It’s not black and white as accept 14.1 MM or go for a longer contract with compensation dragging you down. It’s accept 14.1 MM /from the Texas Rangers/ or go for a longer contract with compensation dragging you down.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

Except is pretty much a 99% given that players will always go where they make the most money. If that was Texas, he would be there.

dwarfstar
1 year 5 months ago

One of the things that hurt Cruz, was the fact that he wanted to play in the field, and the Rangers were not offering that because of Rios that supplanted him in r/f

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

Another misread of things by Cruz and his agent. The only interest in his was as a DH.

David Kowalski
1 year 5 months ago

That’s not so in every case.. AJ Burnett, for example, wanted to satay near his home. The system needs to be tweaked to separate players into a Tier One (first round pick) or Tier Two (second round pick). Nelson Cruz took a $6.1 million hit in a one year contract.

The other problem with the system is that it benefits the big spending teams. A team like the Yankees pays a lot less at this point for signing a Stephen Drew at this point than say Toronto or Oakland would because the Yankees have already signed multiple free agents. This is flat out wrong.

1 year 5 months ago

Where are you getting the idea that Cruz wouldn’t return to Texas under any circumstance. It was on the table for awhile, but they weren’t going to give him a multiyear deal and then they moved on.

Metsfan93
1 year 5 months ago

I thought I’d made it clear I was generalizing. It’s not just Cruz. Just in general, a borderline player might feel compelled to decline if he just wants to leave and play for a new team. The whole point of free agency is that a player is under team control for six years then can test the open market, but this almost makes it seem like that’s not the case.

homer
homer
1 year 5 months ago

It seems that with so few players impacted the system is doing as intended (and much better than the previous version) and the vast majority of those adversely impacted clearly erred in assessing their own value. As some have said the system will self correct when Players realize they are not worth the 14 mil and start accepting the QO. Teams will not be so quick to offer unless they are serious.

David Kowalski
1 year 5 months ago

It is relatively few, but something like four of the 13 players to receive qualifying offers were impacted severely. A one in three error rate is too high.

DunkinDonuts
1 year 5 months ago

You’re right, a one-in-three error rate is too high, but the fault lies with the agents badly misreading the market, not the parties that collectively bargained for this system. With Cruz and Drew in particular, their agents not only overestimated their relative value, they also appeared to underestimate the value that teams would place on their draft slots/pool money.

When both sides have enough information to assess the potential risks, and one side simply whiffs, why do we blame the system?

1 year 5 months ago

First of all, there is still time for the remaining players to sign. I would bet on all of them getting more than $ 14.1 million, even if it takes more than a one year deal to get it.

Second, there is no justification for putting constraints on a player who has reached free agency. A player is entitled to put his skills on the open market and get what he can after six years of being artificially suppressed. That’s where the system is to blame.

That, and the compensation so far is going to contenders, not to smaller market teams who can’t afford to sign their own free agents.

David Kowalski
1 year 4 months ago

Don’t forget Kendrys Morales. If Cruz , who can play a corner outfield position, is worth one year at $8 million, why would Morales be paid more. He’s pretty much restricted to an AL club looking for a DH. Drew is being advised by Scott Boras who is busy trying to sell him as an infielder, rather than a shortstop. So Drew can fill A Rod’s spot at third or fill in for the retiring Jeter at short the following year. He can play second for Toronto or multi-task in Boston. The Yankees keep saying they aren’t interested but two years at $10 million (or less) with an option for a third season would work well for them.

I think in Cruz’s case, he’s the one mostly responsible for his delusions. But I obviously don’t know.

David Kowalski
1 year 4 months ago

A lot of the fault, I think is with the players as well. Five unsigned players use the Boras Corporation as their agent. They know what they are getting. A firm that will pull all the stops to get a high dollar contract. That works for the top free agents. Jacoby Ellsbury did fine with Boras. it doesn’t work for the marginal free agents who are barely good enough to get a qualifying offer.

Drew, for example, hit .291 with 21 homers and slugged .502 as a 25 year old. As a 30 year old he hit .253 with 13 homers and slugged .443. That was a comeback season for him. Drew, due to age and injury, has declined and is worth less than he thinks he’s worth. Boras is not the agent to try and talk Drew out of free agency.

Matt Mccarron
1 year 5 months ago

The point of the qualifying offer was to give the small market teams incentive to try to keep their star players there, or if they left, give them some type of consultation prize. That is clearly not the case when it began to degrade the value of some free agents. The concept some be replaced with something that isn’t going to hurt either the player or the organization the player is leaving.

I think a concept in which the player leaves, You should get to pick from a list of already signed players that a team has. No one major, just like a rule 5 pick of that team. That way you get a guy who can contribute in the MLB later down the road, and the team signing the star players, gets the guy at the rate the player SHOULD earn. Example: Phillies sign Paul Goldschmidt, delivers AA player Jim Murphy from Reading Phils.

I’m sure teams would rather have their first round pick then a 29 year old career minor leaguer. The D-Backs still get a guy who could contribute to some degree maybe later down or a depth pick up, he did hit 23 homers at AA last year. And the Phillies get the star 1B.

Just something to chew on.

Jimmy Kraft
1 year 5 months ago

Good in theory, but I think this goes to the other extreme. I’m thinking maybe either protect more picks, rather than just the top 10, or teams that finish in the top 15-20 at the end of the year don’t get draft pick compensation for their free agents who were given a qualifying offer. I think that still helps the parity issue, but also allows FAs to test the market.

Piggybacking off that idea, if a player signs with a team in the bottom 15-20 of the league, the team doesn’t need to forfeit a pick and the team from which the player is coming from doesn’t get a supplemental round pick either…

Ultimately, if teams want to remain competitive they need to develop from within and supplement with FAs, not the other way around (this coming from a Yankees fan). I think teams are learning that the upfront cost of extending players earlier and letting them walk in their decline years is more economically feasible (Think: The Braves’ offseason)

Let’s be honest, MLB contracts are getting a little out of hand in the first place compared to the other major sports. Plus, they are guaranteed! Overall, the system needs tweaking or let it run its course to see if players realize the market just isn’t there anymore.

dwarfstar
1 year 5 months ago

In you scenario you would have to keep it at top 10, because the bottom 10, get the first 10 picks in next years draft and those pick are already protected. There is no real way to fix this it will always be a big debate.

Yankees420
1 year 5 months ago

The problem with not giving the FA’s previous teams a draft pick is that it limits the upside of the compensation they can receive for losing a free agent. This is an extreme example, but the Angels *lost* Mark Teixiera to free agency and received a draft pick for it. With that pick they selected Mike Trout. Now, this was under the old system, but the point still stands.

dwarfstar
1 year 5 months ago

Why not just trade that player at deadline, you will get a better deal than that??

Jeffy25
1 year 5 months ago

Many ways to do it better.

Such as only elite players can be offered it, or players who have been on a team min 3 years, or maybe eliminate the expiration date for a player to accept the offer (for example Cruz could still accept the rangers offer all off-season) and maybe the team can pull the qo at any team (like after choo was signed) but sacrifice the right for the pick.

The latter is my favorite idea.

Yankees420
1 year 5 months ago

Your favorite idea gives quite a bit of leverage to the players and their agents. If someone has a 14MM offer in hand, why wouldn’t they go shop for a better deal? If the team pulls the offer, then that player is no longer tied to draft compensation, thus opening up a new market. Unless your proposing the signing team still sacrifice a pick, then my opinion is null and would need reevaluating.

Billy Trupe
1 year 5 months ago

and…when players start signing the qualifying offer (the teams make higher than market value)…you will see the teams actually offering comparable deals…so in actuality it will even itself out…So I believe it’s working so far, yanks and sox are second guessing the free agents now.

jimfetterolf
1 year 5 months ago

Ervin Santana’s biggest problem is delusions of grandeur and the market so far has agreed with me.

Joe Blow
1 year 5 months ago

I don’t think I’d brag about agreeing with something that gave ubaldo jimenez 50 million bucks.

1 year 5 months ago

What needs to be scrapped is teams having to PAY compensation to sign a free agent. That is what creates the deterrent for the sub- elite players.

There is nothing wrong, per se, about teams being compensated for losing free agent players, so they could still be given a supplemental first round pick while eliminating the deterrent.

However, check out who’s getting the extra draft picks! It’s not poorer clubs who can’t afford to keep their free agent players. In the first year of the new CBA, a look at which teams got those six extra picks, which wound up being
the 28th through 33rd picks, is very telling. They weren’t struggling
small market teams who have trouble competing. The Yankees got two extra picks, while the Rangers, Braves, Rays, and Cardinals got the others. All strong contenders in the previous season.

This year has been more of the same. The Yankees and Red Sox each get two comp picks, the Reds, Rangers, Braves, Cardinals, Indians and Seattle each get one, so far. That assumes that Morales, Drew, and Santana sign with new clubs.

If this system is intended to restrict free agency, it’s working. If it’s intended to “level the playing field”, it’s a miserable failure. Better than the old system, sure. But we’d be better off without compensation.

jimmyD
1 year 5 months ago

The system is fine as it is now. If these guys are really dumb enough to turn down 14.1 MILLION dollars, they deserve the consequences that come with it. I have no sympathy for any of them. They had an offer for a job for an extraordinary amount of money and turned it down. Shame on them; NONE of us here would have turned that offer down, believe you that. And it’s not like they haven’t been offered work. Teams have made multiple year offers to them but have turned them down whether at the insistence of their agents or it not being more per year as the QO. Now they are just wasting away due to their own ego and perceived self value. I hope all three of you, Morales, Drew, and Santana, continue to sit on the open market until the draft, wasting away, watching the rest of baseball carry on without you due to your obsession with money and overvaluing yourself. No respect, no pride, no pity.

Drew M
1 year 5 months ago

My exact thought. None of those players were worth 14.1 million to begin with. If you turn down that much money, YOU are the one that ruined your FA value, and YOU deserve the consequence of getting less. I was so happy when Cruz was basically made to accept a deal far less than the QO.

Tommy Gunn
1 year 5 months ago

“None of us here would have turned that down, believe you that”
But none of us here have the work ethic, determination, drive, and natural talent to be a professional ballplayer, so that is a moot point. We have NO idea how hard it is every day to manage your eating, weight training, baseball training, social exposure, etc, etc.

We live in a capitalist society and these are the rules of the game. The fact that we are talking millions of dollars isn’t really relevant, because that is the value determined by today’s economy.

gammaraze
1 year 5 months ago

Well, according to our market system, if Nelson Cruz took his chances on the free agent market and only got $8M, then obviously, his market wasn’t as good as he believed it to be. It seems if you bring in the market system, it’s entirely the players faults, not the teams and not the QO system.

Jimmy Kraft
1 year 5 months ago

I think people forget the fact that there’s a reason ballplayers get paid the way they do. They have a special set of skills (Taken) that directly affects the team’s bottom line. Working in an office putting data into a spreadsheet all day…yeah I’d take $14M…but I’m highly replaceable and my “skills” don’t make the company an exorbitant amount of money. People wouldn’t come see me put numbers into a spreadsheet. Although, they don’t have the seating to do it either…hmmm

Red_Line_9
1 year 5 months ago

I couldn’t fault a player for turning down the QO if it were to seek stability for his family in a multi year contract. Many have children… and knowing that
they can remain in one place for several years is an incentive.

Norm
1 year 5 months ago

Did we hear the players complain when Soriano and even Maddux accepted these offers when the Braves gave them an offer to get that 1st rd pick and the players accepted it and it affected the teams ability to sign necessary free agents ?

1 year 5 months ago

You’re complaining that players accepted the clubs’ offers?

Norm
1 year 5 months ago

not complaining. Im saying , the players were happy when they accepted an absurd offer that put the teams in a bind.
Players should research more before declining.
Did Drew really think he was gonna get a better offer? And if so, name a team that would spend that.
Santana maybe could have as he has has a good season.But maybe he was offered something respectable and he declined and that market dried up when that team moved on and signed someone else.
Morales isnt a great defensive 1st baseman anymore is he? I would think he could have maybe gotten a 2 year 20 million contract.

davbee
1 year 5 months ago

Wait a second–it’s the player’s fault when a team makes an absurd offer? I think you need to reread your statement. If ownership was in a bind it’s because they put themselves there trying to get greedy and get an extra draft pick. Don’t want to pay an absurd salary? then don’t offer it in the first place.

Norm
1 year 5 months ago

Now read what you just said. Then turn it around. If the players dont want to be unemployed or accept a below THEIR PERCEIVED VALUE,then they should have accepted the offer and not put themselves in a bad spot .Teams spent a lot of years training and paying these employees and they have a right to compensation when the player becomes a free agent.They are not saying “no matter what if you become a free agent ,i get a compensatory pick.”
And BTW it isnt even the signing teams 1st RD pick as it used to be.
They most of the time offer an ABOVE market value salary.So whos fault is it when someone gets greedy and says no i wont accept 14.5 million dollars when my AAV will be less then that anyways.
My whole point was players arent locked into declining the offer.Its a gamble on both ends .This time those 3 players lost.

davbee
1 year 5 months ago

well then, we agree–there are risks on both sides. For those three players it didn’t work out the way they expected, but it did work for Carlos Beltran, Robinson Cano, and Jacoby Ellsbury.

1 year 5 months ago

I have thought from the start that Drew was over pricing himself, but that’s on his agent more than anyone else. The point is that a player should be able to get his market value without the albatross of giving up a draft pick around his neck. For six years, players are told where they have to play and limited in how much they can make. When they’re finally free agents, they should be able to get free market rates.

phillies1102
1 year 5 months ago

I may be wrong, but don’t the majority of people on this site prefer that the teams benefit more than the players in the end? It my not seem like it to each reader, but if the team a reader likes wins out in a negotiation against a player, then the team can get better players and do better, making the fan happier because of a better chance to win.

That being said, I’m not surprised at all the lowest percentage of people are ones that want to eliminate the system, which is in the player’s favor.

NL_East_Rivalry
1 year 5 months ago

Is say that’s a majority of the fanbase not the majority of the people on this site. Most people here are able to see beyond and think for themselves.

NL_East_Rivalry
1 year 5 months ago

Is say that’s a majority of the fanbase not the majority of the people on this site. Most people here are able to see beyond and think for themselves.

Yankees420
1 year 5 months ago

I’m all for each player getting the most they can and/or doing whatever is best for them and their families. We fans sure aren’t going to see any dollars saved passed on to us, so I’d much rather see the players get whatever the market will pay them.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

Well that still works in your teams favor.. A market where only they and the Dodgers can sign a specific player isn’t really what the fans of the other 28 teams are looking for.

Yankees420
1 year 5 months ago

What are you talking about? I wasn’t attempting to refer to any compensation/market system in my response to phillies1102, just throwing out my opinion on whom I believe should benefit (in a vacuum) if given the choice of the player or the team – which I read as the owner. Maybe that wasn’t the way phillies was framing that question though, just finishing up a graveyard shift so it’s possible my reading comprehension is off.

phillies1102
1 year 5 months ago

No, but the money would be passed onto a helpful utility player, perhaps a Jeff Baker, or saved by a few agents and added up into perhaps extending a player or signing a key reliever. The more flexibility, the better.

Pennsy
1 year 5 months ago

QO or not, if you want to improve player compensation you ought to be looking for a mechanism outside of personally-negotiated salaries altogether, such as shares of media revenue or ownership stakes for long-tenured players.

Sometimes wonder if perhaps one franchise could be owned collectively by the league’s players, with its revenues going directly to funding pension programs, player benefits, bonuses, whatever… Alex Rodriguez is the best-compensated player in the history of baseball and even his career salary would not be enough to buy the Tampa Bay Rays. He would have had to have made a slightly larger fortune in some other endeavor if he’d want to own a baseball team.

Say what you will of him personally but it seems strange to me when even a league’s historic high-earner has a ceiling of attainment below ownership in the business itself.

Jimmy Kraft
1 year 5 months ago

See baseball’s humble roots from 1880-1910 to see how player-owned teams turned out…

I get what you’re saying, but I think you’re opening up a pandora’s box if we went the “ownership stakes” route. Using your example, could you imagine ARod having a ownership stake with the Yankees right now because of his tenure with the team? That wouldn’t be good…

Red_Line_9
1 year 5 months ago

If the ownership was put in a collective MLBPA trust with a board of directors… the risk of conflict of interest would be minimized. I’ve always been curious how things like steroids were legal in baseball…yet against Federal law.

Red_Line_9
1 year 5 months ago

I’ve often pondered if we aren’t headed toward a player-owned game. Players collectively already are quasi owners due to the percentage of revenue that
goes to salary. There’s a day coming that we might see the MLBPA attempt a buy out.

Jonathan Barlock
1 year 5 months ago

Imo its the draft pick comp that should be scrapped and not the Q.O

Matt Mccarron
1 year 5 months ago

If the draft pick comp isn’t there, then the Q.O has no means behind it. Its just another offer from a team to a player.

Jonathan Barlock
1 year 5 months ago

Thats true. A good point you make.

Pei Kang
1 year 5 months ago

the whole point of draft pick comp was to protect the weaker teams (as my interpretation anyway). So far, both methods have failed majorly, but one of the systems has to stay until a better one is instituted.

Red_Line_9
1 year 5 months ago

One of the reasons that it has not effected the small market teams as yet is that many of them have young pre-free agency rosters. Kc will be effected when
Hosmer hits free agency….Oakland young rotation.. etc.
.

Pei Kang
1 year 5 months ago

true enough. Not really sure how to compensate for these issues myself, though. I have to really think it through before commenting how to fix it :)

MadmanTX
1 year 5 months ago

If a player is that coveted, the QO will not factor into that player’s signing. Mediocre players are the ones who are effected–but not one yet has gone unsigned, have they?

LazerTown
1 year 5 months ago

Is the fact that many players got stuck at the middle. They were dreaming of more than the offer, and their actually market is under the offer’s value. You will get this at any level you set the offer. Cruz isn’t worth $14M, neither is Drew, and neither is Morales.

Jimmy Kraft
1 year 5 months ago

It’s always the middle man being cut down! haha

LazerTown
1 year 5 months ago

eh, I’m split.

Player should have the right to negotiate with any team and not have to sacrifice money because he is good, but not great. But on the other hand teams should get some compensation, for the smaller teams losing players. Any way you work it there will be losers. Get rid of it and the smaller market teams don’t get the compensation to compete. Make it so you don’t lose a draft pick, but teams can still gain a sandwich pick then it incentivises teams to sign free agents to shorter deals and then not sign their own players, but rather sign someone else’s. Keep it as it is and players that are right on the hump have to lose money, while not being able to move around freely.

Matt CM
1 year 5 months ago

How did Stephen Drew’s agent let him pass on the QO? It’s not hard to tell why he is still unemployed at this point, since anyone with access to FanGraphs or BR can easily tell that he is a average player, and even $14MM is an overpay. Same goes for Cruz and Morales, maybe even more so, because they are not even competent defensively, whereas Drew is Average in the field (Just as he is everywhere else.) Santana though was pretty good last year. His problem with finding a job is his track record of inconsistency.

LazerTown
1 year 5 months ago

I thought Drew could land $22M/2 or so at least, which would have been worth it. Morales and Cruz though? Morales isn’t even that good of a hitter, and he is only a DH. Is not like those are particularly hard to find. Ortiz is elite bat at DH, Morales is ok bat, nothing to break the bank on. Why would you spend $14M+ on multi-year for a player that shouldn’t be in the #3/4 slot for a contender?

discollama
1 year 5 months ago

I could have seen Drew getting that without the QO attached, but for some reason no one seemed to think that the lower salaries to comp FA’s last year was going to be repeated or that it wasn’t actually the compensation that was dragging down their markets. It seems like whatever you think that a player will sign for you have to drop it by at least 20% if a QO is extended and rejected, that would make Drew worth around a 2/18 deal, but given his recent injury history, I can see why many teams would be hesitant to sign him for more than one year.

1 year 5 months ago

Every player wants a multi year deal, especially a player who has experienced a serious injury.

pft2
1 year 5 months ago

The problem is not the QO or compensation for the team losing a player. It is the penalty of the loss of a pick for the team signing the player, which amounts to a tax on that team, and that tax is ultimately paid by the player with a lower salary. The player put in his 6 years time where they played at below market rates, why should he be taxed any further?

There are many fans who are jealous of players, so they support the current QO system, but its clearly a bad system whose only purpose is to suppress salaries. The fact that it is better than the previous system is besides the point, it can be better.

LazerTown
1 year 5 months ago

Agree. Players should be able to move around freely after they put in their time if they can get a team to sign them. Should be able to compensate old team without new team losing something, because as in economics taxes always end up costing the consumer, not the business.

1 year 5 months ago

In theory, correct I think. The problem too is that the Yankees and Red Sox have received more comp picks than any other team, and that all but a couple of the compensation picks under the QO system have gone to contenders, not smaller market teams.

Derpy
1 year 5 months ago

No to qualifying offer.

Yes to draft pick compensation.

No to slot bonuses.

Yes to compensation based upon contract given to the leaving player.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

So Ellsbury would net the RedSox 7 comp picks because he signed a 7 year deal? Or something along those lines?

Yankees420
1 year 5 months ago

I think he’s suggesting something more like the Sox would receive compensation for losing one of the top FAs (based on contract given) while the Rangers would not be compensated for Cruz leaving.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

That sounds just like the system they just scrapped…

Yankees420
1 year 5 months ago

How so? The Type A/B FAs were based on player performance over a two year period, if I remember correctly. This suggestion seems to be based on salary obligation committed by the signing team. Not that I’m advocating for a system, I think retroactive compensation would cause more headaches than it would solve.

NateW
1 year 5 months ago

Because it matches all four of the items he listed. lol
and Type A free agents gave more compensation than Type B

Yankees420
1 year 5 months ago

It still wasn’t based on the eventual contract the free agent received on the open market, so it matches 3 of the points listed and differentiates exactly where I said it does.

Derpy
1 year 5 months ago

No. A player that signs 20+ Million AAV = 1st round pick. Player who signs 15-20m AAV = 2nd round pick. Player who signs 10-15m AAV= third round pick. Something like that. No stupid type A, type B free agency, no qualifying offer, no slot bonuses. The draft compensation would be based upon the value the market gives that player when he left. If he isn’t worth enough money, no compensation at all.

vigouge
1 year 4 months ago

Too easily gamed. A team could structure a long term deal and front load it to raise the real value in todays dollars yet lower the AAV, they could add easy to reach incentives that wouldn’t count against the AAV or any number of other things that would lower the on the book value of a deal.

Derpy
1 year 4 months ago

Easy fix, count all incentives as if they invest to determine the AAV. Or, really, it wouldn’t even matter that much. If the team cares so much to pay a player 19.999m instead of 20m, I don’t think many people will care. And, you know what? Maybe the player will care more than anyone. Players like round numbers. Players hate to bat .299 when they can bat .300. Pitchers hate to have 19 wins when they can have 20. I bet players will hate to have 19.999m when they can have 20. Even if in real life terms it wouldn’t matter, baseball players are just the type of people who would really, really care.