The Orioles have been connected to free-agent right-hander Yovani Gallardo for much of the winter, but general manager Dan Duquette said today in an appearance on MLB Network Radio that the team’s preference is to retain its first-round pick — the No. 14 overall selection (links to Twitter). Asked by Jim Bowden about Gallardo, specifically, Duquette replied, “The question for us is ’Are we willing to give up our first-round pick?’ and so far that answer has been no.” Speaking more generally about free agents tied to draft pick compensation, Duquette said, “I think we’re going to hang onto that pick.”
Plans can, of course, change in the event that the asking price of Gallardo comes down, but Duquette’s comments would be a blow to Gallardo’s market, as the right-hander hasn’t been connected to a large number of teams of late. The Orioles and Astros have been the two most frequently mentioned club’s in connection to Gallardo, although his representatives will reportedly meet with the Rockies soon. The Blue Jays have also at least checked in on Gallardo, although there’s no indication that their interest extends beyond due diligence at this point.
Duquette’s comments would also rule out Dexter Fowler, and while the switch-hitter hasn’t been concretely linked to Baltimore, he did appear to be a speculative fit in the outfield (as Jeff Todd and I discussed on yesterday’s MLBTR Podcast). Ian Desmond and Howie Kendrick are the other two remaining free agents that rejected qualifying offers, although neither has a clear fit on the Baltimore roster anyway, due to the presence of J.J. Hardy and Jonathan Schoop.
Furthermore, Bowden adds (links to Twitter) that Duquette confirmed some interest in Doug Fister but said the Orioles are not in the mix for free-agent lefty Cliff Lee. “Fister is interesting, bounceback candidate,” said Duquette. “I can’t say we’ve made an offer, but we’ve been monitoring his market.” Fister is said to be eyeing a two-year deal worth a total of $22MM, but the Orioles are said to be uninterested at that price. As for Lee, he’s looking for a one-year deal this season if he pitches at all; his agent recently told MLB Network Radio that Lee would need a “perfect fit” in order to make a comeback attempt, though it’s not clear exactly what would constitute that fit.
MLB must get rid of the ridiculous qualifying offer rule. It’s so backward. Why should a team that doesn’t re-sign it’s own get to STEAL a draft pick from the team that does sign him? Not only does a team get rewarded not retaining the player, but it also hurts the player’s s ability to sign elsewhere.
Yeah, I concur about the draft pick. It isn’t true ‘free’ agency.
Also, I think Duquette is wise to hold onto that draft choice now.
if we signed Upton, then I would have signed Gallardo., but not now.
Lastly, I am surprised that DD did not mention Latos, I would rather have him oddly enough than Fister.
I don’t know what the word is, but obviously the word going around on him is not good. Guessing he is not a great team mate. Anyone know for sure?
stymeedone – here’s some of it: link to sportingnews.com
Couldn’t agree more. It’s getting ridiculous. And what’s more ridiculous is that the QO is at 15.8 mil… Most of the players who get offered that QO aren’t even worth that. And the only reason teams offer it is to “steal” other teams draft picks
It was intended to make it possible for small market teams to stay competitive when they lose their stars. But it doesn’t work because the effect is diluted by rich teams getting even more comp picks than poor ones. If I were designing it, I would give picks only to teams that lose a player they drafted (or let’s say who played in their minor leagues for a full year). And I would eliminate draft pick protection for any team with a top 10 payroll.
So what you’re saying is that owners should be penalized for investing in their team? Sounds like a plan!
Yeah, Seamaholic completely missed the mark. See my comment under GRob78’s post for the correct answer.
I think you miss the mark. The comp picks were designed to protect against small markets. The rule, as it is now, benefits major market teams because they can frivolously offer QOs to players they have no desire to keep. Theyre essentially making a $15 million bet for a draft pick.
While I think Seamholic goes a step too far, something needs to prevent major market teams from throwing around frivolous QOs. I’d suggest that their be multiple tiers for QOs with only the highest offer being granted first round compensation. Additionally, this offer should be a multi-year deal at a similar AAV.
What will stop teams from throwing around friviolous QO’s is guys like Brett Anderson and Colby Rasmus (and Wieters, to a lesser extent) accepting them. If Stephen Drew had accepted his two years ago, instead of Scott Boras convincing him he could get 4 years and $60MM on the open market, we might not be having this discussion right now,. All it will take is another year of four or five players accepting QOs that teams don’t really want them to take and it will start being more reasonable. I don’t like the QO either, but it’s the best solution we have at the moment. I know that losing draft picks was supposed to penalize teams like the Yankees and Dodgers who have a history of buying rosters rather than developing them (and don’t get all butt hurt on me, it’s a reality) but it also penalizes middle of the road teams who need free agency to get more competitive and that’s the biggest problem I see with it.
Just abolish qualifying offers altogether. Let the big spending teams buy up all the free agents, have a bloated payroll and a roster full of overpaid, uninspired veterans, and laugh when they lose. With arbitration, the small market teams have five years to develop their players into contenders, then recycle. Look at last year’s World Series champions, for instance.
Yes, look at how LOOOOOOONG it took them to contend.
The Royals’ 30-year gap between WS titles had nothing to do with big market teams outspending them.
Absolutely. Don’t know how the MLBPA ever let that slide to begin with. No reason a player should be punished for being good.
I think they just need to modify the QO system. Perhaps getting rid of the top 10 protected picks in exchange for not losing your first round pick until you sign a 2nd QO pick. You can sign 1 QO free agent without losing any pick, but a second will cost you your top pick regardless of when it comes. Teams that lose players could still get a bonus pick without anyone losing a pick. Right now the way it is set up a team is rewarded for signing multiple QO players because you lose a lower draft pick after each signing. Now Dexter Fowler or Yovani Gallardo would be free to any team that hasn’t signed a QO guy yet, but would cost anyone that has. I think it would definitely benefit players, but it would also help teams quite a bit as well.
Again, you are now penalizing bad teams for trying to get better. I’m not in favor of anything that limits a bottom team from getting better. Perhaps instead of first round picks being protected for bottom 10 teams, the teams with the worst ten records have ALL draft picks protected, teams with records #11-20 have their first rounder only protected, and the top 12 teams nave no protected picks.
The Os really need another starter and Fister is the best option remaining. They may have to overpay.
The QO draft pick rule is probably going to get cleaned up in the new CBA. It sure makes it hard for smaller market teams to advance consistently when they’ve got to hurt their farm system to sustain success while they’ve got a solid team on the field minus a few pieces. The Orioles are an example of this.
On the flip side, why should large market teams be prohibited from building through the draft just because they outbid other teams, but overpay for players? Sure, a small market team can’t spend with the Dodgers, but the Dodgers just gave that player more years and money than he’s worth. The Dodgers will be the ones stuck with a 38-year-old who can’t play but makes $35 million a year into his 4os. That hurts a franchise.
Plus, the small market teams have options. They can buy out arbitration years in exchange for some free agent years. They can trade the player before his walk year. Or at the deadline.
Or, if they’re making a playoff run during his walk year, they can hold on to him knowing they’ll be outbid.
That’s how it should be.
What you are forgetting are the teams that blow by the cap for international free agents. Some teams can’t afford to do that, so it gives the teams that can the advantage. It doesn’t help that the teams that exceed the cap then are limited in future years, because those that cant afford to compete in that market, still can’t afford to. Watch the teams that stocked their farms this year. They will be able to sign free agents without worry, because their system wont miss that draft pick.
I understand many of your points but don’t agree with others. I’m a fan of a small market team and we can’t compete fairly with the big ones. In a perfect world world you can buy out arb yrs but some agents don’t do that and how does trading your players away during walk yrs strengthen your team? It can take yrs to recover from that. Big market teams don’t do that very often. A salary cap is the only way to make it fair but that will never happen. Just curious how many titles the yanks would have won if they had to trade jeter, Rivera etc bc they could not afford them. All we small market fans want is an even playing field and the qo helps but just needs to be tweaked again to stop favoring large markets, IMO.