Email a copy of '2017 Qualifying Offer Set At $17.2MM' to a friend
Loading ...
By Jeff Todd and Steve Adams | at
Email a copy of '2017 Qualifying Offer Set At $17.2MM' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
wphipps21
the qualifying system is the worst thing they have brought in. i would much rather see the old system in place
Connorsoxfan
The old system was a bit before I started following baseball in general, and not just watching Sox games. What was it?
Doc Halladay
The Type A/B system was what they used to use. Potential FA were ranked according to position by I believe the Elias Bureau(not sure on that) and if they received Type A status, the players former team would receive the signing teams top unprotected pick plus a compensation pick between Round 1 and 2. A Type B free agent would net his former team a single comp pick.
It was an imperfect system and could be manipulated quite easily(Alex Anthopoulos was a big reason for the change).
jrwhite21
I liked that system more than this one. The current system can hurt the players value too much if hit with a qualifying offer.
Doc Halladay
With the data we have now, I agree, the old system with minor tweaks would be better. But the old system also really hurt non-closing relievers so that’d be something that would need fixing.
New Law Era
I believe it was 2008 or 2009 – Juan Cruz. His free agent market was destroyed because he was a non-closing RP who had a statistically fantastic season. Unfortunately, no team was willing to give up their top unprotecting draft pick to sign him.
New Law Era
mlbtraderumors.com/2009/10/olney-on-type-a-free-ag…
tbjese
The old system was horrific. The QO system is so much better than that disaster.
JFactor
I agree, I liked it better even with the abuse, teams figured out how to not get abused in the process.
southi
Actually I think the qualifying system is just now getting to the point where it is working. Players have started to take QO’s and both the players and the teams must heavily weigh their decisions regarding offers. No system will be perfect. This system is substantially better than the old system.
cardfan2011
Jeez and to think that’s the starting point of negotiating a contract, it’s amazing as to how much these ball players make
sddew
It is a lot of money for sure, but I remind myself and others how much other “entertainers” make in TV and movies, and it’s usually much more than professional athletes.
gomerhodge71
And an “entertainer” can work until they’re past 90. With the exception of Bartolo Colon, that will never happen in MLB.
badco44
It’s a crazy world when you think about it!
Outlaws12
The idea most likely is to keep the number high enough so teams don’t just offer a qualifying offer hoping the player declines just to get the draft pick if the player is signed by another team. Thus – making it harder for the player to sign because teams don’t want to pay out a big contract and lose a draft pick too. This rule really hurt players like Dexter Fowler who ended up playing for less than what he declined by the same team (The Cubs).
NL_East_Rivalry
He should have accepted the QO
southi
Fowler had a decision to make and he made the choice he did. He should have been aware of the possible risks and he chose to accept them. He ultimately has no one to blame but himself.
Not every decision we make in life will work out. Even ballplayers make poor decisions.
stl_cards16 2
Dexter Fowler isn’t complaining one bit. He gambled and he’s going to win big this off-season.
southi
True, but if he had taken the QO at first and still had the same season he did then he’d be a free agent still this offseason set to make a lot of money. I didn’t mean to imply that Fowler made a terrible decision or that he was hurt badly by his decision. Outlaws12 however seemed to state “This rule really hurt players like Dexter Fowler who ended up playing for less than what he declined by the same team (The Cubs).” Again I stand by my statement that Fowler ultimately has no one to blame but himself.
start_wearing_purple
Ok, they really need to put a cap on that. There’s not a single team that would offer that to a reliever.
Doc Halladay
That’s generally why they instituted this new system. The old Type A/B system killed most relievers markets if they were Type A FA’s.
start_wearing_purple
Yeah I remember, but this seems to be creating it’s own problems. Maybe if they revised the system to take into account the average pay by position.
Doc Halladay
I completely agree. I’m not a fan of this system and I actually thought the old A/B system just needed minor tweaks, such as disqualifying teams from “acquiring pick” like Alex Anthopoulos used to do. I’m just not sure how you’d fix the reliever issue under the A/B system though.
chris to.
I agree with the idea behind your argument completely. The issue, however, is that the league might find it difficult to determine how a team is “acquiring picks” just to manipulate the system. For instance, AA could make up some phony reason for acquiring a player rather than publicly admitting he wanted to do it to acquire the pick.
(As a Jays fan, I found it actually funny how he manipulated the system though.)
Dookie Howser, MD
NFL does this when calculating the the franchise tags.
The problem then gets to the level of compensation should a player turn down the QO and sign elsewhere – you would also have to weight the position/value to the draft pick forfeited. Nobody is going to give up a 1st rounder to sign a middle reliever with a QO attached to his name, even at a reasonable price.
start_wearing_purple
Well I think you could fix the reliever issue by just declaring who’s a closer and who isn’t. A closer could be eligible for type A and a non-closer wouldn’t. You could set the bar with a certain number of games finished within a year and 3 years.
johnsilver
Because Tampa would offer it to every relief FA they had and buile their teams that way, like get 11 top 100 picks in 2011 and now they can’t new CBA rules?
That’s prime example numbers 1-100 of why the new CBA stinks.. Kills poor teams (tampa primo example) to get plenty of picks and STILL does nothing to curb salaries,
Tear it up, drag out the old one and sign a 5y extension, then the constant poor mouthing teams just hire more scouts.. Everything fixed.
Dookie Howser, MD
Can somebody translate this guy’s rant into English?
24TheKid
I think that it means everyone needs to sign 5 year extensions before they are free agents.
Connorsoxfan
Why not use the franchise tag method?
thunder12k
It should really be position based like the franchise tag in the NFL. In this system, it’s very hard to make this offer to most reliever.
Or they could do it like the NFL with supplemental picks based on the contracts that players leaving via FA get. Anyone team losing a player who signs a deal for 4 years gets a supplemental 1st, etc.
Steve Adams
One of the largest flaws under the previous system was that relievers got screwed by draft pick compensation with regularity.
The Qualifying Offer system is intended to compensate teams only for losing their elite free agents — not that that has been the way it’s played out — which rarely means relievers. Kenley Jansen will still absolutely receive and reject a QO, and Aroldis Chapman would have as well if he hadn’t been traded.
I can see the point that the QO system discourages small-market teams from extending the offer to relievers, but that’s true of virtually all of their free agents, whether they’re a reliever or not. Hopefully, the difficulty this puts on small-market clubs is at least somewhat addressed in the “tweaks” mentioned by Rosenthal, as the system obviously hasn’t worked as well as it was hoped to when it was first implemented.
mike156
I was about to write this. Realistically, the system should provide compensation for only the top tier talent–the players most likely to be able to get a multi-year offer anyway. I’d also like to see it done away with for players over a certain age. There comes a point in your career where the next multi-year contract is your last one–you shouldn’t have an additional drag of draft-pick compensation.
southi
I think the longer the QO system is in effect the more and more it will only be handed out to ‘top tier” players. Up until last off season teams just didn’t think players would seriously take the QO. Now obviously both the teams, and the players themselves will be more cautious about deciding how to handle a QO.
baseball10
It definitely needs some adjustments. It was implemented to help the smaller market teams that couldn’t compete in free agency but at 17.2 its hard for them to risk it. Maybe take away the loss of a pick and just add a pick for the losing team. Its hard to find a perfect solution
Dookie Howser, MD
J”oel Sherman of the New York Post hears that one adjustment that has been discussed is that no player would be allowed to be tagged with a qualifying offer in consecutive seasons”
Maybe they can make it so the same team cannot tag the same player in two consecutive seasons? Fixes the problem of the signing team not recouping the draft pick, and allows the player to not be “stuck” on the same team after taking a QO year after year.
NL_East_Rivalry
I know it’s risky, but if those players take 2 QO’s they’ve almost made more than they would have in 4 years.
Typically these types of players are worth about 11 million a year, so 2/36 is better in the long run than 4/44.
Even if they get hurt and their stock falls to a bounce back of 6 million that’s still more than 2/22 and they get hit FA after a bounce back year.
The whole idea of this system would be that players like Weiters would accept and cause teams to respond by not offering as many the next time around.
RoadRunner1938
This system is trash, go back to the old system!
drbnic
The Cubs did not have to part with a first round draft pick for signing Fowler as he was their free agent. They did lost a pick because he didn’t sign with the Orioles as first reported.
O Conchobhair
Seems like a simple system that will be more balanced now players have set the precedent of accepting the offer.
It’s not like it’s a pittance. If you turn it down you take a chance. Stephen Drew, Kendrys Morales etc.
O Conchobhair
It’s a simple system that will even itself out now that the precedent has been set of players accepting it.
It’s not like it’s a pittance. Teams will have to be more sensible about offering the QO.
Players will just have to take their chance if they turn it down, being wary of Stephen Drew and Kendrys Morales’ outcomes.
@JeffLac
Wait, am I the only one that actually likes the new system?
1.. It’s transparent. It clearly allows teams (and fans) to understand why certain players require compensation to their old team. (The old team “tried” to retain the player, but could not..)
2. It means players are encouraged to stay with their current team, by reducing their worth to other teams. This may be unfair to the player, but it is good for the fans/owners: there is a built in home town discount on resigning bigger named free agents.
3. It compensates smaller market teams, like it’s supposed to.
There are undoubtedly some negatives – almost all to the players, but I don’t see how bringing back an A/B system which was somewhat arbitrary, and very opaque, solves any of the problems with the system in terms of fairness to the players.
southi
I love the qualifying system as well, but I just think that it will still evolve in it’s effectiveness (especially after last season). It does everything more or less it was intended to do. There is however no perfect system.
aff10
I think the system’s failures are twofold. First, it depresses players’ values obviously, and it penalizes players who play for good teams. Secondly, I think it can be counterproductive with regards to competitive balance, because large-market teams can afford to take chances making the offers that small-market ones cannot. Personally, I’d rather just see a free-market once a player reaches 6 years of service
southi
If I’m not mistaken one of the original intents of the QO was to help reduce salaries…so if it is depressing some players values then as you say then obviously it is doing the job. Secondly large market teams should always afford to take chances and make offers that small market ones cannot. That is one of the huge distinctions between the two. That would exist whether the QO system exists or not.
aff10
Large-market clubs will always have that advantage, no doubt. The original poster commented that “it compensates smaller-market teams, like it’s supposed to,” and I’m not sure that’s really the case. My biggest gripes honestly though are that it penalizes pending free agents on winning teams, and it rewards mediocre teams for losing games down the stretch (although it’s certainly not unique in that regard)
Billings 2
I do not believe Dexter Fowler is subject to the QO. If I remember correctly, there is a mutual option. If declined by either, he becomes a free agent…?
Billings 2
I just checked on Baseball Prospectus…there is an option for 2017.
sufferforsnakes
Nobody is worth that much…….nobody. It’s garbage like this that makes it so hard for many of us to attend a Major League game.
And it just keeps going higher and higher and higher. Well, looks like it will be another season of minor league games again.
nyyfaninlaaland 2
The old system was horrific.
The player Type A,, Type B rankings were heavily driven just by playing time as a key stat measure. There was no restriction for players traded so as mentioned some teams picked up players just to get the picks.. And a Type A FA earned both a 1st round and a supplemental pick – that would truly depress the FA signing ,market. for many now…
Remember this preceded .the draft slotting system where the pick value is a huge factor in draft management now, but all the teams losing FAs now get is a supplemental pick. .Players were ranked within their positions, but the comp didn’t vary, so the a middle reliever was as valuable as some everyday players.
The previous system resulted in the Rays getting 12 of the top 90 picks in 2011, with at least 6 of their 10 comp picks coming for relievers (Soriano – Rd 1 + supp as Type A -, Benoit, Balfour, Qualls, and Randy Choate). But he Rays kinda screwed the pooch that year.. Maybe it was a weird draft year, but they had some serious misses. – only 3 of the 12 (Guerreri, Mahtook, and Snell) are on their 40 man now. I’m sure they’d swap their their top 12 picks with Boston’s top 12 that year, which extended into Round 10 – Swihart, Owens, Bradley, Betts, and Shaw were among those Sox picks.
Maybe a more tiered system offering lower round comp picks for lesser FAs,, getting the signing teams round 1 pick (if unprotected) rather than a comp pick, and maybe some tiered QO contract level as the current system skews towards high priced players.. But most of this would benefit the teams, not the players. so there would have to be other considerations for the players as well.
It is also interesting that the QO is rising so much this year while total player compensation increased at 1/2 the growth % of the year prior. The rich are getting richer.