This offseason’s qualifying offer will be worth approximately $22MM, according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post. The exact figure won’t be known for another five or six weeks, though Sherman writes that the final total will probably be a little under $22MM, according to sources within both the league and the players’ union. This would track with Sherman’s early estimates about the QO in each of the last two seasons — he reported a $20.5MM approximate for 2023-24 that ended up being $20.325MM, and a $21.2MM projection for 2024-25 that wound up at $21.05MM.
The value of the QO is determined by calculating the mean salary of the league’s 125 highest-paid players. This has usually meant an increase in the year-to-year value of the qualifying offer, as detailed in this breakdown…
- 2012-13: $13.3MM
- 2013-14: $14.4MM
- 2014-15: $15.3MM
- 2015-16: $15.8MM
- 2016-17: $17.2MM
- 2017-18: $17.4MM
- 2018-19: $17.9MM
- 2019-20: $17.8MM
- 2020-21: $18.9MM
- 2021-22: $18.4MM
- 2022-23: $19.65MM
- 2023-24: $20.325MM
- 2024-25: $21.05MM
As a reminder, the qualifying offer is a one-year deal that teams can issue to any of their own free agents. A player is eligible to receive a QO if he has spent the entire 2025 season on his current team’s roster, and he hasn’t received a QO in the past. (Here is the list of active players who have already received a qualifying offer.)
Once the World Series is over, teams have a five-day window to decide whether or not to issue a QO to any of their eligible free agents. A player who receives a qualifying offer then has 10 days to decide on accepting or rejecting the offer. Of the 144 players who have ever been issued qualifying offers, only 13 have accepted, as the top free agents are naturally looking for a richer and longer-term commitment than a one-year pact.
If a player accepts a qualifying offer, they’ll simply return to their team on that one-year, $22MM contract for the 2026 season. (The two sides can still negotiate a longer-term extension after a QO is accepted.) If the player rejects the qualifying offer, he is still eligible to be re-signed by his previous team, but he can now gauge the rest of the market.
Even if a player turns down the qualifying offer, simply being issued the offer has a larger-term impact. Should the player sign elsewhere, his former team will receive some manner of draft compensation in return. By that same token, a club that signs a QO-rejecting player will have to surrender at least one draft pick, and potentially some money from their international bonus pool. These factors have been known to influence the market for certain players, if teams are wary about giving up draft/bonus assets in addition to the financial cost of a signing.
If offered a QO (accept or not), can they be offered another one at all? Or simply one offer per player?
Also, crew lost, but won Central a.d 1st round bye. Go Crew.
@Cardinals are good
Thank you for not explaining how the draft pick compensation is calculated. I’d rather double up on Ambien then attempt to navigate an abattoir. ;o)
@Cardinals are good
You did a fine job explaining it. It’s getting into the weeds that gives me fits. Are they a luxury tax team? Have they signed more than 1 QO’ed player?Are there IFA implications?
Just that little bit of a deeper dive I did makes me want to chug NyQuil and fire up the dozer. ;o)
Do what I do; largely ignore and purposely don’t read articles on contracts. A 4th generation Reds fan, though do not care what a player earns. QOs are a minor exception as it can be projected who will be on next year’s roster. For the Reds, they will let Nick Martinez walk for free and probably offer a QO to Brady Singer. That’s the extent of it. Now – back to the play on the field…
I think Martinez got a QA (and accepted) last year, so he can never get another in his lifetime. Singer is a classic bubble guy like Martinez- i think he gets 3/50m in the open market, so it really comes down to how much you like him on only a single season deal. I think he still gets offered one, and if so likely accepts.
I have no issue with people who do not care about what players are getting paid- so long as they shut up about player trades/extensions, ect. If you want to complaint about your team signing a guy, or trading a guy away– you need to at least understand they are trading the contract or signing the contract. I see so many “fans” who are clueless and get angry about deadline trades since a prospect got traded for a big leaguer and that prospect has done nothing- if you do not want to know about contracts- fine, but you are choosing not to follow or have an opinion on a lot of roster moves.
Baseball is much more fun to follow without having to trudge through the Agent driven, incessant salary stories…
Singer has one more year before he is eligible for a QO.
I’m familiar with how the QO works , however I was unaware that, let’s say team you’re playing for offers you that and you declined and get picked up as a FA for say another year by a different team for a one year contract then the year expires along with contract, that team now doesn’t have to make an offer and not be penalized by a draft pick? I’m slow on the uptake.
@Butters
I believe that if an unsigned QO’ed player is signed after the June draft then the signing team doesn’t forfeit their draft pick. I’m not 100% on the cut off date though.
I want to say that Bourne (OF for Atlanta back in the day) was toying with doing this, but i think that was back when the draft was earlier in the season, or if it was based on a different arbitrary point.
Either way, it is a terrible idea. Even if you lose out on money and sign a 1 year deal after rejecting a high QO- if a player misses a large chunk of spring training, they will not be good that season and that may make their whole career fall apart. Plenty of guys have done it (hold out until around opening day) and it seldom works out- at best they are not good for the first half of the season.
Thank you.
Never liked this system. If we are so concerned about lower revenue teams losing valuable players for nothing, then make the QO, and just award the draft pick between the 2nd and 3rd rounds and be done with it. Let’s get away from penalizing players and teams. The players who get penalized on offers are the B+ ones, The stars don’t get a pay cut. And penalizing the signing teams hasn’t stopped the high revenue teams from bidding up prices. I know this isn’t a popular take, but too much time is spent of QO’s that might better be addressed in the next CBA negotiations.
The players would love to abolish the Q.O. As you’ve noted, it’s mostly the lower revenue owners who benefit. If they do away with the Q.O., what are the players willing to concede?
First-time “B+” free agents can always accept the Q.O. It’s more money than they’ve probably made in their first six years combined. This will be the owners’ argument.
Agree generally, I think one of the problems a lot of the first-time B+ players is that they tend to be on the older side. Not super-talented enough to have been brought up early–or to have made a fortune in arb. I don’t think the class of players impacted by the QO is large enough for the MLBPA to trade something of substance for it. So that probably means no real adjustments.
Lower revenue teams trade away their stars for assets long before their walk year; I’m guessing many lower revenue owners have never offered a QO to a player.
It happens but more on the players who broke out in the last year of arbitration or moved from the bullpen to the rotation in year 5-6.
A SP with an ERA+ in the 105 range and 150 innings in their walk year is likely getting a QO. IF the team did not like what they were offered at the deadline (or they were in the hunt)- they will likely offer that guy with an expectation of getting turned down.
The roughly 10 per year that go out, most go to good players and not superstars. Most superstars are traded before this point since that single pick is nowhere near what they can get in trade.
Top players get offered QO all the time when teams cant extend them.
What specifically has been impacted by the time spent on QO?
Why change it? Large Market teams buy these stars when lower market teams can’t afford them any longer. Smaller market teams that are able to develop talented players properly, get 4-6 years before they become free agents. Paul Skenes will be part of this dilemma for the Pirates. Big markets can’t have both the draft capital, international signings, free agency, and capital revenue all to themselves. Small market teams need something too, otherwise the league would turn from 30 teams to 10 teams and rather quickly.
This system isn’t perfect, but it’s as close to a balance MLB will get too. Unless they have a bonafide salary cap floor and ceiling, repackaging revenue such as TV deals (similar to times before and during the 1990s), and an escalating scale to increase/decrease the salary cap pending MLB economic gains and losses of each prior year. This system will benefit players just as much as owners. It would be fair to allow 250 million cap ceiling and 100 million cap floor for the first year. It can be adjusted per year based on the economics MLB gets.
Main thing they need to do is open the range for fans to watch and interact with their favorite teams. Blackouts should be minimal and applies to 85 mile radius of the city home team. Leaving a wider viewing range to fans without blackout restrictions. Any team with local broadcast or ownership channels, would have blackouts if attempting to use streaming such as MLB, YouTubeTV, etc etc apps. Local or ownership channels (like YES, Yankees station), is cemented in their home city cable or satellite broadcasting without additional charges. That is why expanding the viewing range for fans that fight with blackout restrictions, gets those fans the chance to watch games regularly again.
Lastly, if this system adapts well and small markets are able to afford star players again, it’s a win win for everyone. The salary cap can easily raise up to 380 million in 5 years. The economics of MLB is in shambles at the moment and small market teams are too dependent on revenue sharing (which I love, but hate at the same time). Eliminating revenue sharing and creating a more balanced system, would enhance how drafts, international signings, and free agencies are handled. It can always make draft penalties for markets who always hanging around the top 5 in each yearly draft. Limiting markets from gaining a top draft pick yearly, would be great for baseball. But they need to reconstruct the system to make it effect for generations.
I know people with give me grief on bringing up salary cap. The current system is being manipulated by small and large markets. Tougher restriction and balance would improve how organizations operate and reduce the manipulation.
@Pirates I did not ask why it should.or should not be changed. FYI, many small market teams can spend much more but choose not to.
I asked what specifically has been hindered by time spent on QOs. He said it as tho there is some finite amount of time that dealing with QOs has had a direct negative impact on, Im curious as to an explanation of this.
@PiratesFan1981
I think players are willing to spread the wealth. The issue is the owners don’t want to give players a bigger piece of their total revenue pie. Making yearly total payout adjustments based on revenue for fair distribution would be a non-starter for owners.
At YBC, I get your point and that is the likelihood of things. But if baseball wants to generate more money and enhancing their revenue, salary cap would boost profits for every club. Small markets wouldn’t have an excuse to not spend. The QO could finally get thrown out the window and things will boil down to extensions sooner, free agent signings, and dramatic change to how we see the draft. I hate seeing the same 5-8 clubs tanking for a top draft pick. Limiting how often a club drafts inside the top 5 or 10, would force more clubs to throw some money out in fear of being penalised or falling to the end of the first round for consecutive years in the Top 10. Salary cap makes more sense to players, owners, fans, heck all of MLB for that matter. Big and Small market teams both manipulate the system equally. The system is broken and people are losing interest in the game. It’s always the same teams in it for the World Series or the top draft picks each year. There is no common ground and I think majority of the fans want the QO gone with better CBA that addresses salary cap and improvements from the lowest of franchises to the highest. I am tired of the Pirates low balling and have excuses longer than a fast food drive thru line during dinner time on Fridays. The league has investigated the Pirates and found no wrong doings. So, that leads to eliminating the excuse “we are small market and have limited resources” by acquiring the salary cap.
Someone asked if current contracts needs to be reconstructed. Answer is no. 280 million salary cap ceiling still keeps the Dodgers, Yankees, Phillies, etc etc within their current payroll. Salary floor of 100 million, 5 teams would be forced to spend some money after decades of playing the “pity us” card. Just saying
So what about players who already have huge contracts? Do they get voided and new ones have to be negotiated?
A Yankee fan wants to abolish the QO.
A Pirate fan wants to keep it for balance.
Manfred doesn’t give a crap about the small market teams. The players association will also do whatever the A players want, even if it hurts the B+ player
Based on the cast here… I’d say that the current QO system is not long for this world.
@MacGromit
Respectfully, that’s not the debate here. We’re trying to impartially discuss the merits of the Q.O. and its implications on the free agent market. It doesn’t always have to be a homer discussion.
They should’ve stuck with Type A, B & C.
I to liked that system with the different types. Would not mind seeing a return to such. In addition maybe extra $ for International Bonus Pool for free agents leaving or some later picks sandwiched 8-15 rds. Those extras quantified somehow along lines of total WAR lost and not tied to anything directly attached to players such as QO. With that I believe there should be a system also in place where those perks start to diminish for teams consecutively in top of receiving the benefits maybe starting in year 3 or 4. This would allow for teams to rebuild but also have safeguards for teams trying to use it as a business model. Maybe even reward teams who were in top half of said benefits but suddenly significantly increase spending.
Just feel if they dont implement some type of meaningful salary floor and possibly cap, that something needs to change to combat the imbalance.
Attention! Ticket prices will be even higher next season to compensate!!!
Don’t forget your favorite streaming services as well.
Attention! That’s not how a market economy works, it’s not how anything works anywhere. Owners set prices as high as the market will tolerate to maximize profit. They are not philanthropists who seek to raise as little revenue as they have to in order to cover costs as you’re imagining. If every player were making minimum wage, ticket prices would not come down one cent.
@smuz I agree completely. That said those same owners should be funding their own stadiums not pilfer the local tax bases which is where the majority of their fans are derived. They arent philanthropists, nether are the local municipalities who at least partially fund most all pro sports stadiums.
According to what I read, the World Cup is supposed to generate $3.3B in spending in NJ. Seems high, but if that’s right, the tax revenue is maybe $260M, for one big event.
@Joe And of that $3.3B x-amount also cones with opportunity cost, where that $ is just diverted from it where it would have been spent elsewhere be it other entertainment or possibly on some type of product purchase. Of that x-amount some obviously would leave the area, but a decent portion would stay local. That is rarely if ever factored in to the #s reported to try and justify these tax funded luxury purchases for the already insanely wealthy. But thats become the status quo in the corporate oligarchy we live in that is marketed as “free market”.
@yeti Regardless ticket prices go up many teams even when teams cut spending. The reality is these teams will adjust ticket prices to maximize profit and have employees following demographics and economics of the business. They try and extract as much $ as possible from fans or business clients.
Everything goes up in price, including salaries. I don’t know why people are so shocked when ticket prices go up.
As far as tickets rising for inflationary reasons, thats totally understandable. However with pro sports most teams contention windows are cyclical. In the downturns where teams rebuild the product for fans by and large results in an inferior product for fans and much lower expenses on payroll for ownership. Rarely does it result in any savings for fans other than in 3rd party ticket market.
In less than 10 years the QO has increased by almost 💯 %. (Be nice if my salary did likewise.) I would think it would lessen the offerings regardless of losses in draft picks for more than a few teams. 22 mill one year ain’t nothing to sneeze at.
3.3% per year compounded.
I said it would be $22,473,234 when I did the math a few weeks ago. I’m tracking how close I am to see how far (if at all) my math was off
I wish I was rich like that.
Speaking to Sherman’s article, I sure wouldn’t want to be the one who has to decide on $22M for Trent Grisham in 2026.
OTOH, given his age, would it be more or less palatable to see if he might be interested in the security of something like 4/60.
This ties in a little with pending FA Harrison Bader, who has been a revelation in Philly and could be drawing offseason offers around 3/45
I suspect he might have had some help, maybe not, but someone will make him at least $60M/4. He’s an automatic QO.
Pete Alonso’s contract with the Mets worked out well for him. He got three years guaranteed, security for injury or regression, but now he can opt out after one of his best seasons and, unlike last season, will not be subject to compensation if another team signs him. I think teams will, and should, be wary of signing multi-year deals with opt outs after the first year. It’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition for the player.
Hunch here that the Phillies offer one to Realmuto in addition to Schwarber and Suarez. Realmuto might accept.