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

192 Responses to Poll: Should The Qualifying Offer Be Scrapped? Leave a Reply

  1. escapingNihilism 1 year ago

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

    • shoewizard 1 year 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 ago

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

    • Cannon Fodder 1 year ago

      Scott (Boras), is that you?

      • Matt Mccarron 1 year 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 ago


          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 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 ago

            They clearly didn’t think it through.

    • NateW 1 year 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. GonzoBlogger 1 year 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.

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

      • Daniel Franklin 1 year 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

        • 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 ago

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

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

  4. Metsfan93 1 year 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…

    • 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 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..

        • Daniel Franklin 1 year 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 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 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 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 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 ago

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

          • David Kowalski 1 year 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.

        • 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 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.

  5. psabella 1 year 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 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 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?

        • 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 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 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.

  6. Matt Mccarron 1 year 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 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 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 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 ago

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

  7. Jeffy25 1 year 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 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.

  8. Billy Trupe 1 year 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.

  9. jimfetterolf 1 year ago

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

    • Joe Blow 1 year ago

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

  10. 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.

  11. jimmyD 1 year 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 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 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.

      • Daniel Franklin 1 year 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 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 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.

  12. Norm 1 year 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 ?

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

      • Norm 1 year 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 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 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 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.

        • 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.

  13. phillies1102 1 year 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

  14. Pennsy 1 year 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 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 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 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.

  15. Jonathan Barlock 1 year ago

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

    • Matt Mccarron 1 year 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.

    • Pei Kang 1 year 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 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 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 :)

  16. MadmanTX 1 year 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 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 ago

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

  17. LazerTown 1 year 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.

  18. Matt CM 1 year 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 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 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.

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

  19. pft2 1 year 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 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.

    • 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.

  20. Derpy 1 year 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 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 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 ago

          That sounds just like the system they just scrapped…

          • Yankees420 1 year 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 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 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 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 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 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.

  21. Jason J. Shaw 1 year ago

    Don’t players stranded with too high of an asking price actually indicate the system is functioning as it should? Isn’t the system supposed to encourage players to stay with a team?

  22. Jeff 1 year ago

    The tweak should be teams with a worse record or lower payroll who sign the QO guy don’t lose a draft pick. The team losing the FA gains a draft pick no matter what though. (I’d even argue for 2 draft picks gained- 1 pick before the 1st around, 1 pick at the end)

  23. Mike1L 1 year ago

    The problem is unintended consequences. If you are trying to protect lower revenue teams from the loss of a high quality player that doesn’t work, because they are going to lose them anyway. “Protected Picks” based purely on record (as opposed to revenues) lead to the absurdity of the Red Sox getting a protected pick after their collapse in 2012, or the White Sox, Cubs and Phillies after 2013. As to the handful of players who actually end up with a drag on their salaries, if that’s your aim, it’s like shooting a popgun at a tank. Anything you do distorts the system. Perhaps the only thing you can justify keeping is giving a compensatory pick to a team that makes the QO, without a loss of pick to the signing team. But make it one pick per team. Otherwise, you benefit the large market teams who can afford to make more than one QO. Probably the healthiest thing to do is to drop the entire system.

    • discollama 1 year ago

      Having an additional draft pick for teams that generate low revenue and are generally either forced to draft well in order to be competitive or to capitalize on the trade markets is a boon. A team like the Indians will have three first round picks this year which gives them a lot of options. Additionally, forcing down the price of free agents can put players within reach of these low income teams (again, see the Indians 2012 offseason). If a player is an obviously elite player, the system tends to do little if anything to his salary. If the player is marginal then they seriously need to consider taking the offer instead of rejecting it without a second thought. None of the current compensation free agents or Cruz was worth $14.1 million on a one year deal.

      I’m genuinely shocked that no one learned their lesson after last offseason when guys like Bourn and Swisher came fairly cheap and Lohse had to wait until the 11th hour to get his contract.

      • Mike1L 1 year ago

        The only reductions in contract value/length are happening to a handful of players who most evaluators would see as B-level talents. That might help a smaller market team to sign that limited group, but it’s small. In terms of whether people learn their lesson, it depends, especially for older players who worry about the risk of injury or age-related decline. You never know–Beltran got his money (and he had other decent offers)

    • The owners fully intended the consequences. The current system is working better than they had hoped. The intent is to suppress the amount that a player can get as a free agent. It was never meant to help smaller market teams.

      • discollama 1 year ago

        But it has. The Indians were able to sign Bourn and Swisher last year because their prices fell to a level that they could afford. Plus, their first round pick was protected so they didn’t give up much. So far smaller market clubs haven’t received as many picks for a number of reasons, such as locking up their best players, not having players worth the QO leave, or not being able to risk the QO.

      • Mike1L 1 year ago

        But it’s only suppressing salaries for a very small number of players. The top tier are getting their money. I don’t really see the benefits, unless what the longer term impact is that more players will take the QO and not risk the market. That could reduce the number of long term contracts for those players only worth a short-term commit.

      • vigouge 1 year ago

        The players union also agreed to the deal. They had to know that by limiting the amount of money that can be spent on amateur players they’d wildly increase the value of the what dollars were left. Turns out teams don’t want to handicap themselves in a draft to sign mid level free agents.

  24. hiflyer000 1 year ago

    1. Increase the amount of the QO to around $20 million. This will make mid tier players less likely to get one and more likely to accept if offered.

    2. Protect all 1st round picks and top ten of the second round. This will encourage teams to sign QO offer players more than they do now.

    3. Teams will only lose 80% of their slot money for their first QO signing. Any additional signings will result in 100% loss of slot money.

    All three of these changes together is a bit extreme, but any combination of two will be much better than the current system.

    • NateW 1 year ago

      How does this help small market teams?
      I do like the idea of #3, let teams use some portion of the slot money they lose somewhere else in the draft.

  25. discollama 1 year ago

    The only argument that I’ve read that makes any sense for changing the QO system is to allow teams to extend offers to midseason acquisitions. I don’t see any reason to increase the offer as it’s scaled to the top contracts in baseball. Protecting more picks reduces the value of the QO making teams less likely to extend them since the risk vs reward becomes horribly skewed out of their favor.

    If players want to make the teams think twice, then a $14.1 million one year contract to Morales, Drew, Cruz, or Santana would be the way to do it. Most projection systems have those players valued at or under 2 fWAR which is only worth about $12 million in the current market.

    • Players should be able to get whatever a club is willing to pay, without penalizing the team by taking their first round draft pick. The compensation fundamentally skews the market, to the point where the player can not get fair market value for his services. Payment of compensation needs to be scrapped.

      • discollama 1 year ago

        Obviously, teams were willing to pay 1/14 for them, they declined that offer and realized that their market value wasn’t much higher than that. Now, because they turned down a more than fair offer for their services, they can’t get much of anything better. Perhaps players and agents should stop overvaluing what the player brings.

  26. Tom 1 year ago

    I’m probably missing an obvious downside to this idea, but why not just do away with the part where the signing team loses a draft pick? Keep the compensation pick in place for the team who loses the player, but that way the free agent market for that player is no different from what it would be if he didn’t receive a QO. I guess it depends on whether the purpose of the QO mechanism is to punish the FA signing team and compensate the FA losing team, or if the purpose is just to compensate the losing team. Thoughts?

  27. NateW 1 year ago

    The only ‘tweak’ that needs to happen is players need to realize that accepting the QO is an acceptable (and best) outcome in some cases.

  28. Teams receiving compensation picks under QO system (2 seasons):

    Yankees 4
    Red Sox 1
    Cardinals 2
    Braves 2
    Rangers 2
    Rays 1
    Reds 1
    Indians 1

    Every one of those teams receiving compensation has been in the playoffs at least one of the last two years. The only two non playoff teams that might receive a comp pick are currently tied up because a draft pick is tied to the free agent player:

    Red Sox 1
    Mariners 1
    Royals 1

    Not exactly helping small market teams.

    • dwarfstar 1 year ago

      Looks like you are missing 4 pick you only have 17 there has been 21, 8 the first year and 13 this year!

      • discollama 1 year ago

        His list is very flawed

      • Players who sign with their current clubs are not listed because no compensation pick was awarded. There were actually nine the first year. Otherwise, the list is complete.

    • discollama 1 year ago

      Yes! Lets use a tiny sample like two off seasons where the Yankees had multiple players entering free agency! That’ll drive home the point!

      • NateW 1 year ago

        Well they are basically halfway through the CBA. It is a great time to look at what has happened and decide if they plan is working or not.

        • dwarfstar 1 year ago

          Only problem though is that it can not be changed until a new CBA!

          • NateW 1 year ago

            Right, its time to start reviewing it in planning for the next CBA.

          • The owners and players can, if they agree, modify the current CBA. But it would require some exchange of benefits for both sides to do a deal.

        • discollama 1 year ago

          There’s a few problems with this post though, one is that the Yankees have given out five QO’s, Kuroda 2012, Swisher 2012, Soriano 2012, Granderson 2013, Kuroda 2013. Of those five, Kuroda resigned twice, so the Yankees would have only gained three picks, however, Swisher and Granderson were signed by clubs with protected picks so those teams didn’t lose anything, and so Soriano is the only qualified FA that the Yankees lost that cost another team a pick.

          So, the Yankees got three picks from their FA’s, but then they have also signed Ellsbury, McCann, and Beltran, costing them three picks that went to the Red Sox, Braves and Cardinals respectively. So how are they being so disproportionately compensated? Also, it’s not the CBA’s fault that they have had more FA’s worthy of gambling a QO on, that’s just bad timing. Just wait till this off season to see if teams like the Indians lose Masterson, or how the Rays handle Price’s impending FA.

          • dwarfstar 1 year ago

            Any team can come up with 3 players to give a QO?!?!

          • discollama 1 year ago

            What are you trying to say? Over a long enough time frame the frequency of giving out QO’s should even out as the quality of their free agents increases. For example, how many QO’s have the Padres offered? Headley will surely get one if he plays decently this year and they can’t or don’t resign him.

            At some point the Yankees wont be a good team and the quality of their free agents will decline as they try locking up whatever talented youth they have. A-Rod and Texiera certainly wont receive offers, neither will Suzuki, and Sabathia might not if he doesn’t fully recover.

          • NateW 1 year ago

            I think you meant this as a reply to someone else?

          • discollama 1 year ago

            No, I meant to reply to you to say that there’s no reason to judge the results of the CBA yet because of some bad timing of Yankees free agents netting them picks which they then burned on comp free agents. Low rev teams will eventually have more FA’s worthy of QO’s leave and they’ll see the same benefits that you guys think the Yankees unfairly received.

          • NateW 1 year ago

            Oh, well in that case I think you are completely wrong.

            One teams results should have no bearing on when they review it. Not the least interested in how it affects them, its not supposed to be about helping them anyway.
            Low revenue teams will not have a lot of QO players because they will be forced to trade them earlier by not being able to afford them. They mostly won’t sign them either, because they can’t afford them.
            Also that one team (or high rev teams in general) is going to have more free agents each year due to the nature in which they build a team. So they will have more QO activity on a yearly basis.
            Above all else, two years before the new CBA needs to be worked out is really a good time to start reviewing and planning for the next one. If they wait until the last minute there is more than likely going to be a work stoppage. I can’t see how you think that is better than starting to review things now.

          • discollama 1 year ago

            Ah, but midseason acquisitions cant get QO’s, so the return on the player is going to be reduced which makes the compensation and/or negotiating time after the season that much more valuable to the losing team. The only way to capitalize on a trade like that is if the player has 1.5 years or so left on his contract at which point the return exceeds the draft money. Also, your argument is based on the assumption that those teams wont be competitive ever.

            I’m not saying that you’re calling for the review because of who is getting more comp picks, I’m saying that the sample is much too small to accurately paint a picture. It’s also not just about getting comp picks, but it’s how teams use them. The Yankees burned theirs by signing more FA’s from teams with smaller markets than their own. You also don’t take into account that players with compensation attached have lower value to teams, meaning smaller market teams can actually afford to spend on them.

            You’re looking at just one aspect and calling it a failure, you have to look at it as a whole.

          • Two years is all we have. If you have another sample size, let’s look at that.

            I don’t think the Yankees unfairly receive picks. They play by the same rules as everyone else. I’m just saying that the system is not helping out smaller market teams, and it won’t help them unless they start making QO’s to their free agent players more often.

            Part of the issue is that smaller market teams tend to trade their top would be free agents before they ever reach free agency. They can get more in a trade for a player with a year of club control left than just a supplemental draft pick.

            The point here is to look at the impact of the QO system and what effect it’s having. Compensating smaller market teams is not happening, and isn’t going to happen. If it were scrapped, the Yankees wouldn’t have to give up their picks, but wouldn’t receive picks, either.

          • discollama 1 year ago

            How about a four year sample? Or more realistically a three year sample. Again, this isn’t just about who is getting awarded what, it’s about how they are using the picks. Yankees free agents were cheap enough that even the Indians could sign one last year while he still had a chance to be valuable. Bourn’s market collapsed making him easier for them to sign as well.

            It’s not about straight compensation like you keep talking about. If a QO player sees his market fall to the point where a small market club close to contention can afford him, then small market clubs ARE getting some sort of compensation. You’ve talked about how the old system was better, but it caused problems for type A/B relievers, it caused problems for small market clubs trying to sign players over the suggested slot and it greatly over valued some players while undervaluing others. It was TERRIBLE. Now we have an instance where clubs are placing what boils down to type A value on their impending FA’s, and the FA’s have been throwing it in their faces and suffering the consequences. Who is really going to be upset that a guy who got an offer for more than $14 million can’t find more guaranteed money than that when he was overvaluing himself?

          • Okay, give us a three or four year sample! You can’t, because the QO system has only been in place for two years. So I used the largest sample size possible.

            I have never, ever said that the old system was better. I don’t believe that for a second. Better argue that point with someone else.

            IF a free agent’s value drops to the point where a smaller market club can sign him, that may be construed as a benefit, (and you can’t possibly argue that the benefit is greater for smaller market clubs than it is for others) but it does not fit the definition of compensation.

            Compensation is when a team loses a player to free agency and is compensated. So far, all of the compensation picks that have been awarded have gone to teams that have been in the playoffs at least one of the past two years.

            There is no evidence so far that a player who has declined a qualifying offer has over valued himself, with the possible exception of Cruz. Players should be able to get their free market value. Under the current system, they can’t do that if the albatross of compensation is attached to them.

          • discollama 1 year ago

            Wow, if your sample is too small, you don’t draw conclusions! I’m surprised that that went over your head. And you did say that in a post that was deleted by a moderator before I could finish my response.

            I’m done arguing with you Patrick, projections from many sources pretty much all agree that Santana, Drew, Morales, and Cruz all over valued themselves by fWAR and the fact that they haven’t signed for $14.1m or more tells us that teams don’t value their services that much. If they did, then they would have signed already. You want to QO system to be more fair to the players, then the players and agents have to be more honest with themselves. The writing was on the wall before the 2013 season even started. If anything the system helps prevent albatross contracts.

          • Nothing went over my head. I fully understand sample sizes. The reason small samples can be unreliable is due to random variation. We can draw conclusions about what has happened so far, by looking directly at what has happened. Small sample, maybe, but every single team that has received compensation so far has been in the playoffs in the last two years. 100%. Doesn’t seem like random variation there.

            None of my comments have been deleted. You’ve got the wrong guy. See my other comment above, where I said “Better than the old system, sure”. FWIW- I think the current system is a big improvement, but still needs to be changed.

            It may wind up that the three remaining free agents don’t get contracts for at least $ 14.1 million. If so, you might then conclude that they over valued themselves. But they may also wind up like Kyle Lohse, who was still unsigned at this time last year. In that case, you can’t YET conclude that they over valued themselves by declining the QO.

            If you have no problem with a system that limits how much money a player can make as a free agent, then the payment of compensation won’t bother you as much. I think it’s fundamentally wrong. And when you add the fact that the system is not compensating the clubs who can not afford to sign their own free agents, I think the whole QO system is pointless, at least so far.

          • discollama 1 year ago

            If these free agents really wanted to make their money, they would try going year to year on QO’s until they didn’t receive one. That would keep them in the fold longer, that would compensate them probably more than what their worth, and it would teach teams to not give out offers to borderline candidates.

            It’s really confusing to me why you even posted that list and then talk about it’s not a problem with the Yankees receiving compensation or how it’s perfectly fine that they are. Your list is terribly flawed as I pointed out above, and if you looked at the Yankees free agent class of ’14, there’s not one player that should get a QO, or if he does, shouldn’t immediately take it and say thanks for the loot. Meanwhile, Cleveland may have two FA’s worthy of a QO, the Padres have one too, so should Tampa, Oakland may have one possibly two, Colorado may have two. See now how your two year sample looks incredibly short sighted?

    • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

      Was it designed to help them? It’s pretty apparent from the way the system is constructed that wealthier teams are in a better position to make a QO to pending free agents. A small market team could have half of their payroll taken up by just two, if they accepted. The risk for them is much greater.

    • -C 1 year ago

      Pretty small sample size here. Why not look at future years and who’s coming up for free agency rather than relying on circumstantial data??


      • The sample size is what it is. All of the compensation picks that have been awarded to clubs that made a qualifying offer. You can only speculate as to which possible free agents might or might not get offers, but you have no idea if they will be extended, traded, or even given an offer if they get that far. I’m just presenting the hard data that we have.

        So far, 100% of the comp picks that have been awarded for QO players have gone to this list of teams. Just that simple. Could it change in the future? Sure. But it still looks like the trend is for clubs that can’t extend their own players are going to trade them, rather than settle for just a comp pick, leaving the comp picks to teams who make the playoffs.

        • -C 1 year ago

          If the teams use alternate means to get more than they would via this route, is that not also a win for the small clubs? I would say that’s pretty clearly the case.

          As such, again, the system is doing what it was intended to do – provide small clubs maximum return for their outgoing players.


          • They could trade the players whether or not there was any compensation for making a QO. The point I’m making is that the QO system isn’t helping poorer clubs at least so far. Clubs that have received compensation through the QO system have been 100% teams that have made the playoffs at least once in the past 2 seasons. Not saying that’s a bad thing, either, just that the picks are not going to small clubs any more than wealthy clubs.

            In my view, the compensation system was intended by owners to serve as a deterrent for some clubs from signing some of the top free agents. The MLBPA underestimated the impact that it would have, and there are a limited number of players now paying the price for that miscalculation.

  29. Matt Galvin 1 year ago

    Sign and Trade? Restricted Free-Agents?

    • NateW 1 year ago

      The union would NEVER go for restricted free agents unless it came before 6 years of service time. Arbitration is fickle enough, now giving the chance for the big market teams to ‘steal’ the small market teams best young players during arbitration years… that’s only going to make the rich teams better.

    • dwarfstar 1 year ago

      Basketball works for them why not try here?

  30. Encarnacion's Parrot 1 year ago

    Poor Nelson Cruz. Doesn’t get $14.1MM because he took PED’s, has to settle for a measly $8MM.

    It’s hard to feel sorry for these athletes when their agent is silly enough to advise them to turn down $14.1MM. I think the system is fine the way it is. Players and agents will adjust how they approach the off-season.

    • Tom 1 year ago

      That’s not entirely true. He had access to the $14.1 million offer regardless of his decision to use a PED. He turned it down, and because a team would have to give up a 1st round pick to sign him, his market has been smaller than expected. It has nothing to do with PEDs. Look at Jhonny Peralta – same PED suspension, no QO attached, received a 4yr-$56M offer.

      • Encarnacion's Parrot 1 year ago

        You are right. It does have something to do with it, but it’s not the entire story. He’s also a bad fielder and can’t get on base. Peralta has been a good player for a few years now, so he was deserving of that contract.

        Point still is his agent misplayed the market.

        • Tom 1 year ago

          I agree 100% that his agent misread the market, unless Mr. Cruz directed his agent that he really didn’t want to go back to Texas. But the issue at hand, rather than PEDs or competency of agents is QO compensation. And why should a player have to face a depressed market because of something his team did by offering him a QO?

  31. Mil8Ball 1 year ago

    The old system was way better than the current one it just needed to be tweaked. A new system with Type A AND Type B should be in place. These fringe QO players will then be able to only be worth 2nd rounders instead of 1st rounders. Also age should be a great factor in deciding if an A or B.

    There needs to be a different category for guys like Drew and Morales vs. Cano.

  32. NateW 1 year ago

    Here is a thought…
    How about only teams with losing records can offer the QO to departing players?
    This limits the number of players who will be effected, and it works towards helping the teams that need to improve, rather than stockpiling the farm systems of the teams that can afford high priced players in the first place.

  33. BlueCatuli 1 year ago

    Go back to using the type A system to rank players that receive a QO, create a supplemental round in the draft and the teams that don’t resign said free agent get a pick in the supplemental round base on that players rank according to the type A system. In addition, teams receive a number of qualifying offers to use that offseason based on their record the previous year, similar to the pool money system currently in use.

  34. FaithfultoFenway 1 year ago

    I think there should be a determining factor that allows a team to make a qualifying offer so that these guys that are good enough to receive a qualifying offer but not good enough to forfeit a draft pick get better treatment.

    That being said, I thought from Day 1 Drew should have just accepted the Red Sox qualifying offer and felt he wasn’t getting much better on the open market due to injury history and his late season slump.

    • Tom 1 year ago

      Wouldn’t that just be the old type A / type B system?

  35. dwarfstar 1 year ago

    Here how about we add this to the mix, every other major sport can trade there draft picks, how come mlb can not, they can trade international slots why not draft picks????? I. E. I will give you a 1st and a 5th round pick for Nelson Cruz

    • discollama 1 year ago

      They can trade competitive balance picks which are assigned via lottery type system

      • dwarfstar 1 year ago

        So why not trade draft pick

        • discollama 1 year ago

          Trading supplemental 1st and 2nd round picks isn’t enough? With slot money being attached I’m not sure if I’d like seeing a top 5 pick being traded.

          • dwarfstar 1 year ago

            Every other major sport does that!!

          • discollama 1 year ago

            Do they also have hard slot pricing with that money going away? I think MLB might be worried that a team like the Marlins would trade away decent arb eligible players about to make a fraction of what they are worth in an attempt to basically own a draft

          • dwarfstar 1 year ago

            All other major sports have hard caps , so yes

          • discollama 1 year ago

            Every other major sport has a salary cap but the MLBPA would rather destroy the sport than have one.

          • dwarfstar 1 year ago

            Football has salary cap of sorts but it is more of a hard cap than mlb luxury tax and basketball and hockey have strict hard caps!

          • discollama 1 year ago

            MLB luxury tax is a joke and it encourages teams to dump salaries to reset it. Force teams to follow a hard cap and set a floor, then I’d be willing to see draft picks freely traded

          • dwarfstar 1 year ago

            That’s what the Marlins attempted to do after both world series wins any way. That’s how H. Wayne Hyzieniga operates. I worked for him in one of his other companies that is now no longer around.

          • discollama 1 year ago

            Jeffery Loria is the current owner and is far more shifty than any other owner in this generation.

          • dwarfstar 1 year ago

            I know he was cut from the cloth of H. Wayne

    • NateW 1 year ago

      I wonder if that would change much. I think teams are still going to want players who have been in minor league ball and have more of a scoutable track record, over a lottery ticket.
      It does seem silly that MLB can’t trade draft picks, but then its absurd that they don’t have a world wide draft like every other sport does.

  36. djcahill 1 year ago

    It is real tough for me to say it is a failure when all players reject the QO. I think it’s pretty clear Cruz and Morales should have accepted it.

  37. MilwaukeeBravesFan 1 year ago

    I’m not the kind of person who usually advocates leaving everything to the forces of the “free market” (MLB is a legally sanctioned monopoly after all), but within this new system players and their agents will surely be able to build language into their contracts/extensions that either limit clubs’ ability to make a QO or price a QO into such future deals. I think that what we are seeing here are more bumps in the road resulting from deals made without the new rules in mind.

    • discollama 1 year ago

      You can’t put contract language to avoid a QO, it’s forbidden under the CBA

      • MilwaukeeBravesFan 1 year ago

        Of course I’m not suggesting that they can limit a team explicitly, that would be illegal. What I am saying is that lawyers are really good at finding loopholes. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t really offer an opinion on what they may be, I just suspect that they will be able to find one. Off the top of my head, maybe a player could have a “trade clause” instead of a no-trade clause in their deal that would be very carefully worded so it avoids breaking the CBA.

        • discollama 1 year ago

          I haven’t read that specific section of the CBA, but its possible that that would also be against it. That not with standing, it would significantly reduce the value of the player that the team may end up forced to give him away, so no team in their right minds would ever include such a clause.

          • MilwaukeeBravesFan 1 year ago

            It’s really hard to say at this point. Depending on their situation, some teams prefer to deal players who are QO candidates at the deadline because they want prospects closer to the bigs rather than comp picks. In cases like these, it can be win-win for the player and team. The trickiest part of this whole thing is the pool money assigned to such picks, but either way, we’ll all be able to draw more definite conclusions a couple more years from now.

          • discollama 1 year ago

            But if a player has it in their contract that they must be traded (the only sure fire way to get out of a QO), then the team must trade him, but no other team has to give up anything of value. It’s like selling in an auction with no reserve, there’s a real chance you sell way too low.

          • MilwaukeeBravesFan 1 year ago

            Maybe you’re taking that whole “trade clause” idea I thew out there a little too seriously. It’s exceedingly likely that any arrangement made between player and team may take on the flavor of a gentlemans agreement or something more subtle than anything I can think of, these kinds of things have been known to happen.

    • dwarfstar 1 year ago

      What you are saying about the QO IS illegal to do at this time!!!!

  38. TheTruth 1 year ago

    I preferred the old system with Type A and Type B. It didn’t put a set value on every player, they went to arbitration and got a fair value. Draft picks were also flying around a lot more so teams were less hesitant to spend on free agents. The new system hurts teams that develop/find good pitchers for the bullpen, too. You’d never offer them $14 million a year but when they lose good arms to free agency they get nothing in return anymore.

  39. kb_dbacks 1 year ago

    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

  40. mikefichera 1 year ago

    Players that didn’t accept it should have accepted it. See Drew, Cruz.

    • davbee 1 year ago

      How about players that didn’t accept it like Ellsbury, Cano and Beltran? Should they have accepted their team’s qualifying offer?

      • mikefichera 1 year ago

        What do you think?

        • davbee 1 year ago

          Your blanket statement was “players that didn’t accept it should have.” Obviously, that is not the case, as a number of players got better deals than the qualifying offer.

  41. Teams losing a first round pick for signing a FA:
    Nationals for signing Soriano
    Braves for signing Upton (but they got one four picks later for losing Bourn)

    Orioles for signing Jiminez
    Yankees for signing McCann (Yankees also got and gave up 2 compensation picks)
    Rangers for signing Choo (got one for losing Cruz).

    So, the net effect in terms of teams PAYING compensation is that the Nats and O’s each lost a pick, the Yankees lost one net pick, while the Braves and Rangers lost their # 1 but gained a compensation pick that comes in a few spots later.

  42. Mil8Ball 1 year ago

    No what they really need is a salary cap….oh no wait that would make too much sense…why on earth would we make it a fair playing field? Oh cause MLB would probably make less money.

  43. Wooltron 1 year ago

    Why does a team deserve compensation when a contract they entered into on their own free will expires? Selig the Socialist.

  44. Tom 1 year ago

    I actually like that idea, it is kind if neat. Or you could make it like a bidding system – a team could offer to give up a 3rd round pick, another could offer a 6th rounder, etc, kind of like the old posting system, for the right to negotiate with the player. Let the market decide the compensation for each player.

    But why does a player who turns down a QO need to face some sort of punishment? And didn’t the signing team still have to give up a pick in the old ‘type A/type B’ system, so how would this be like going back 2 years?

  45. Tom 1 year ago

    Disqus won’t let me reply to your comment directing me to look at the 2010 draft, so I’m replying here:

    Ok, what am I looking at there? I see picks 18, 19, 20 and 29 were given from a team that signed a Type A free agent to the team that lost him, plus a whole bunch of supplemental picks at the end of the round. So in the old system, the signing team did have to give up a pick, but unlike now, it went directly to the team that lost the player. I’m proposing that the signing team shouldn’t have to give up a pick.

  46. dwarfstar 1 year ago

    Go look at the 2010 draft 1st round only on baseball reference.

  47. dwarfstar 1 year ago

    Hey Tom I actually like this idea the best out of all the talking we have done this morning!

  48. dwarfstar 1 year ago

    True to a point, be right back let go get example?

  49. dwarfstar 1 year ago

    Look at that draft for the Rangers #15 was for not signing previous year 1st rounder #22 was that years pick #45 and #49 were for type B losses. The Angels that year got a 1 and a 1s for the loss of John Lackey tothe Red Sox

  50. Tom 1 year ago

    I don’t understand what you are arguing – teams did receive picks for losing players, and forfeited picks for signing players. How is my suggestion of scrapping the forfeiture of a pick similar to the old system?

  51. dwarfstar 1 year ago

    Why should the pick be scrapped if the QO player waits till June draft that pick goes away anyway?

Leave a Reply