The three remaining free agents tied to draft-pick compensation — Ervin Santana, Stephen Drew, and Kendrys Morales — would all consider waiting to sign until after the June amateur draft, reports Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. Rosenthal’s piece builds upon a prior report from MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes, who noted that those players could be considering the strategy, which would prevent their former clubs — the Royals, Red Sox, and Mariners — from picking up an extra draft choice.
Here’s how it works: If a sufficient offer is not forthcoming, these free agents could change their market situation by waiting until after the draft to sign. At that point, a new signing club would no longer need to sacrifice a pick, and their prior club would not stand to earn one.
Interestingly, Rosenthal also suggested a twist on that strategy, noting that a player could avoid a future qualifying offer just by waiting until after Opening Day to sign. If any of the three remaining draft-pick bound players was forced to settle for a one-year deal (like Cruz), he could use that approach to ensure that his new club would not once again saddle him with compensation, while also ensuring a full year’s payday (one of the problems with waiting until June to sign). Of course, there is a countervailing consideration: a signing club would lose the possibility of retaining the player through a qualifying offer or instead getting a compensation pick in return, which reduces the player’s value to his new club.
In the aggregate, these options constitute a set of increasingly high-stakes maneuvers, each carrying leverage trade-offs between the player and prospective clubs. For instance, as Dierkes has noted, the threat of a former team not gaining a compensation pick could make a re-signing more likely.
I would add that these two possible approaches each make more sense for different situations. A player who is planning to settle for a one-year pillow contract would take significant risk by waiting until June, because any increase in their annual salary would potentially be offset or eclipsed by the fact that they cannot earn all of it (not to mention risks of changes in how the market sees the player and in market demand). But that player would also potentially gain quite a bit by waiting for Opening Day to sign, because he would get to enter the following year’s market without compensation attached. The considerations go the other way for a player who still figures to land a multi-year deal, who would have relatively less to lose by skipping a few months of salary and, potentially, more to gain by shedding the burden of draft compensation. But if three years were already on the table, a free agent would gain nothing by waiting until after the start of the season to sign unless they were truly willing to sit all the way through the June draft.
The agents for the trio made clear to Rosenthal that they have thought through the rules, and are leaving all options on the table. Bean Stringfellow, Santana’s agent, said that waiting until after the draft is “certainly something we’ve talked about,” and made clear that his client would not follow Nelson Cruz in signing a one-year deal for substantially less than the $14.1MM qualifying offer. “Once you get past the draft,” said Stringfellow, “a lot of teams will be in play with the expanded playoffs. You wouldn’t have a draft pick attached. … Ervin Santana is a front-line starting pitcher. He will be compensated as such. Whatever it takes to make that happen, we will make it happen, simple as that.”
Scott Boras, who represents Drew and Morales, noted that other clubs also have incentives to wait until after the draft since they do not need to give up a pick to sign the player. He also notes that a signing would mean that those clubs would also potentially avoid the need to sign a future compensation player, and could potentially reap a future pick of their own when the player’s deal expires. “A road map for this strategy has been figured out,” said Boras. “There is a significant advantage under this system for teams to develop a plan to sign premium free-agent players — the top 6 to 12 percent — where they can gain draft currency and also improve their team in the current and long-term.”
cardinalmike
Boras is a crybaby. Stephen Drew would be signed today if his agent would accept a reasonable deal. It is greed, not the draft pick compensation, at work here and Boras knows it.
robbyb
especially since Mets first rounder is protected.. They would give up second rounder to have his defense on the field for the young pitchers…
Joanie Yan
Actually it would be a third round pick – they already gave up their second round pick for Granderson.
Bradley Maravalli
Jeepers. Boras is just being a troll then.
robbyb
third.. makes even more sense..
LooksEasyOnTV
Boras’s client (Drew) would be the one that is “greedy” in this scenario–the player is the only party that can “accept [or decline]” an offer. Boras is the agent and offers strategy, advice, and opinions (among other things). Boras has to present EVERY offer that comes in–the player is the one that ultimately decides what to do with that offer.
toddcoffeytime
A reasonable deal would be something like 3-4 years at 10-12 mil AAV based on his past performance, and its highly unlikely he’s been offered that. Its not fair for Drew to have take a pay cut because he was valuable/talented enough to receive a qualifying offer, which is worth well below his value on the open market.
kcmark 2
3-4 years at 10-12 mil AAV reasonable. If Drew get an offer like that he should tear his hamstring running to the table to sign the contract.
Derpy
I believe the rumors were the Mets offering him 3 years, 30 million, and Drew demanded an opt out after the first year. The Mets then stepped out of the discussion and haven’t talked to Drew since.
dmm1047
The union, players and agents blame the system instead of themselves. No way in hell Drew is worth anything close to the $14M QO he was offered. Talk of any contract for him containing an “opt out” clause is totally ludicrous. If the owners tried that, the union would be in an uproar. If Drew is so good, and he’s not, why is he sitting at home with his feet up.
baycommuter
I think the agents are posturing here. It could possibly make sense for Santana, but the other two aren’t going to get that much by waiting.
michael T
Pitchers will get less if they wait until June. It will take them a month to get into game shape. Makes sense to sign now while their is a market for the player. The Orioles would have been glad to sign both Morales and Santana but they declined so they went to Jiminez and Cruz. The longer they wait the less they will get.
Israel Piedra
It will be too bad if this process results in damaging the integrity of the game by having stars voluntarily sitting out half a season. I’m not sure what the solution is though.
NOLASoxFan
I think the whole problem is that these guys aren’t stars. If they were, teams wouldn’t care about losing a draft pick.
Melvin McMurf
none of the remaining 3 are worth 14 mil a year, let alone a 1st round pick
Chris Schauble
Santana is by no means a front line starter on a contending team.
ChipsHips
I rarely comment on this site, but something about the name ‘Bean Stringfellow’ just makes me want to keep typing it over and over again.
sourbob
I’m really tired of hearing that the draft pick compensation system is broken. In each and every one of these cases, a player who was plainly not worth $14.1 million per season, turned down a guaranteed contract in that amount. Maybe the problem is players with crazy expectations.
Jeff Todd
I didn’t mention that, and Rosenthal really just touched on it briefly. If the rules are just the rules, then the players have every right to use them to find leverage of their own, surely. That’s what this is about — how do other aspects of the rules create avenues for the players to achieve full market value.
I’m certainly not shedding tears for these guys, but there is no question that they bear the burden of the compensation system. Maybe that’s fair, maybe it isn’t; maybe their expectations were too great, maybe they were just hoping to land a multi-year deal; maybe they complain too much, maybe they don’t really complain enough. Fact is, while these guys are among the fortunate, highly-paid ballplayers, they have also earned that by hard work and talent. And they are well within their rights to look for ways to counteract the effects of the QO system.
FWIW, I think that much of the value in putting out these possibilities is in trying to gain leverage, not in relying on them as likely solutions. But is that wrong? Nobody calls foul when a GM says that his club is hesitant to give up a first-round pick because it places a high value on it. That sends a signal, too. It’s the same thing, really.
kcmark 2
The players entrusted their union the MLBPA to negotiate on their behalf and this is what the union collectively bargained for them. There is no such thing as “fair” in collective bargaining.
Jeff Todd
Representation does not ensure fairness to the individual. But, in any event, I’m not questioning the fairness of it, just responding to the sentiment that the players are doing something wrong when they say that they might wait to sign or when they say they dislike the system.
If it’s fair (or if it’s unfair) that the CBA burdens certain players with compensation upon reaching free agency, it is equally so that those players pursue other avenues available to them under the same agreement. And they are well within their rights to point out perceived problems with the system and suggest it be changed.
pft2
If a player was not worth 14.1 million why were they offered the deal? Especially when you consider that by accepting it the team loses a compensation pick. Answer is they are worth 14.1 million and even more than that on a multi-year deal, but the penalty on teams who sign them reduces their market value.
Players are giving up 6 years of playing for market value under the free agent system only to have to pay a huge tax for their freedom to enter the free market. Thats UnAmerican
J32
I really wouldn’t say any of of the current remaining free agents are necessarily going to be worth 14.1+ MM in a year. Just because they were offered a QO doesn’t mean they were worth it. The teams just simply anticipated that they’d be turned down since players are looking for more.
User 4245925809
With any prior Boras client it seems? Offer arbitration, or now a QO and it was an automatic draft pick. His ego would kick in and deliver the goods.
GreenMonsta
Agree with John, Boras much too predictable. He likes to decline too much. The Boras name isn’t in the papers if he’s accepting QOs in early Nov.
Tom 22
I think it more so has to do Steven Drew could probably easily get 2 or 3 years at 8-10 mil a year, I’d argue he’s worth that, but the Qualifying offer system clearly does hurt mid level free agents not in regards to yearly salary, but in the often coveted guaranteed mutli year contract that all MLB players cherish greatly. Drew should’ve accepted the QO, but baseball players hate playing year to year, so I understand how they may dislike the QO system. The old system was generally okay, but flawed in regards to Relievers, which I believe was why it was changed. I highly doubt people like Drew, Santana, and Morales would’ve been Type A free agents.
Basebal Rules!
I had asked this question recently, as I couldn’t find the details on whether the new Q.O. rule allows the player to sign post-draft without draft pick compensation.
Your point about the former system’s Type A & B is relevant and now we know the strategy to counter is waiting post-draft. After some thought, I think it’s somewhat fair, as there must be a penalty for avoiding the loss of a draft pick.
Alternatively, is it practical to go back to the A/B tier system, but keep the Q.O. for Type A? Perhaps Type B would involve the loss of a lower round pick, like a 4th.
The 2 strategies outlined by Mr. Todd also include signing on or close to Opening Day. Sounds like that won’t eliminate the comp pick this year, but it does the next offseason.
Therefore, I wonder if Cruz should have done that. Obviously, there’s an element of risk, as the teams want the lineup set ASAP and certainly before Opening Day.
Tom 22
I think it more so has to do Steven Drew could probably easily get 2 or 3 years at 8-10 mil a year, I’d argue he’s worth that, but the Qualifying offer system clearly does hurt mid level free agents not in regards to yearly salary, but in the often coveted guaranteed mutli year contract that all MLB players cherish greatly. Drew should’ve accepted the QO, but baseball players hate playing year to year, so I understand how they may dislike the QO system. The old system was generally okay, but flawed in regards to Relievers, which I believe was why it was changed. I highly doubt people like Drew, Santana, and Morales would’ve been Type A free agents.
Kitty Cat Puppy Paws
All these other players are sneaking their way into free agency and taking their jobs.
kcmark 2
How is this UnAmerican? The players negotiated this deal through collective bargaining. Nobody forced them to accept this. Perhaps its simply karma and a way to adjust salaries back down that were artificially inflated along with stats in the PED era.
Lance Pistachio
How were salaries artificially inflated in the PED era? When baseball revenue skyrocketed, so did player salaries. Which is how it should be. Any union in this country would of negotiated to get the employees a fair piece of the pie, as the MLBPA did.
Jeff Todd
I wrote a longer response to this, but it was caught in moderation. Bottom line is that I believe you are reading more into this post, and Rosenthal’s piece, than is there. It is a discussion of what these players/agents can do to counteract the QO drag on their value.
Can’t fault them for trying to gain leverage in any way possible, especially since they are the only players who bear any cost in the system as currently constituted. (Whether or not that is fair is up for debate, but it’s true: original team gets a free crack at getting the player on a one-year deal or instead getting a pick, while the new team can simply price in the loss of the pick.)
jb226 2
Overall I agree. The system is not broken. The players who are hurt by this are the ones who are only marginally worth their QOs. Those who are clearly worth them get their mega-deals anyway, and those who aren’t worth an offer aren’t saddled with one.
That said it can probably be tweaked a bit. I’ve said before that I think an easy step #1 is to make it impossible to offer a QO two years in a row. That makes it more attractive for a player to accept, in turn reducing teams’ willingness to offer. I’m beginning to wonder about whether or not it would be valuable to have a requirement that a player be with a team more than a year as well. I think an argument could be made that none of the teams deserve compensation in these circumstances.
mehs
Another option is to do like the NFL does with franchise tags where there is an escalator for subsequent uses of the franchise tags. Perhaps year one is 14.1 or whatever the year’s formula comes to and then start doing formula + 25% (year 2), formula +50% (year 3), formula + 75% (year 4), formula +100% (year 5). How many teams would be throwing out a 28.2 million QO unless it was a true premium free agent and even then those players would surely get a multi-year deal or take the QO.
The_Painter
This has probably been asked already, but I’m gonna go ahead and ask anyway. Cant some team sign them to a minor league deal with 14mil upon making the team, and just wait until after the draft to call them up?
The_Painter
I know its the same as just waiting until after the draft, I just meant to keep them fresh and have them constantly facing live hitters in the minors.
Guest 3764
They can, although it would not solve the draft compensation issue–would still require compensation to sign and would be able to be offered a qualifying offer after the season (unless traded).
Jeff Todd
“Bona fide” MiLB deals do not trigger the compensation, but they are subject to review. So, as a practical matter, that doesn’t work.
The purpose of allowing for MiLB deals not to result in compensation, I surmise, is to deal with the situation of a guy who is injured after turning down the offer. But a blatant end-around is not possible.
Lefty_Orioles_Fan
Do they just want to play or do they want to get paid?
I mean, look at Roy Oswalt when he finally joined the Rangers.
He never really got into a rhythm that season or ever again for that matter.
To me missing Spring Training is a ‘Big Deal’
I would rather just play, then rather sit around till June and then hope to hook up with a team! At least that’s how I feel about it!
GreenMonsta
Agree: What an FA gains by losing the comp attached to his name, he’ll partially lose because team will know first month will be lost getting timing back and rid of any other rust.
pft2
“a signing club would lose the possibility of retaining the player
through a qualifying offer or instead getting a compensation pick in
return, which reduces the player’s value to his new club.”
Wow, that’s Orwellian. Now the compensation pick and QO enhances a players value?
Jeff Todd
Yes, it does. Usually, that value would be outweighed by the loss of giving up a pick to sign the guy in the first place.
But that isn’t always the case. If, say, you are weighing signing your third QO guy and can get him on a one-year deal, you could not only get the player at an attractive price/risk, but also pick up a better pick in the next draft.
The QO is in effect a mutual option that requires the player to pay a buyout. If a club were to be negotiating with a compensation free agent the day before the season starts, both sides would be keenly aware of what happens the next day and factor that in negotiations.
The point is here that, on the day before opening day, the player would cost his new team a pick, but the team could conceivably get that back the next year (or, get that player at a potentially attractive rate on another one-year deal). If the season starts, though, the team still gives up a pick this year, but loses that future value.
EDIT: to be clear, by “it” in the first sentence, I am referring to the possibility of the new club making a QO after a season. That’s what the quoted reference from the post is addressing.
User 4245925809
Hi Jeff.
Very informative explanation of the process, but think it may be confusing to some.
In short, I think you are saying what I believe the QO system is:
Player signs after season starts and original team still gets the draft pick. That part never changed in this new CBA.
Player that signs after season starts is treated the same as a player was traded. No draft pick compensation.
Jeff Todd
Correct, assuming it is a one-year deal. The key is CBA language that says a player must be with a team for a full season to get a QO.
Once Opening Day passes, the player cannot meet that measure, and thus is not eligible for a QO for the following season. (On the other hand, if they signed a multi-year deal, they’d be eligible in the future with that club.)
Once the draft passes, the entire compensation structure goes away: the original team doesn’t get a comp pick, and a signing team doesn’t give one up.
Mikenmn
Jeff, another question. I am assuming that a player and team that followed that strategy–one year deal signed the day after Opening Day, could not have the player work out with the team?
Jeff Todd
I really don’t know, but I’d assume there would be issues if the player was suited up at camp without a contract, and then signed one day after.
Remember, also, agreements cannot include a clause saying that the team will not make a QO to the player.
User 4245925809
I thought teams had used that no arbitration clause before in the old CBA. Was the no QO clause included in the new CBA agreement then Jeff? It would have to be an under the table type deal between parties if done?
Jeff Todd
Correct, you could negotiate a “no arb” clause but cannot include a “no QO” clause. Tim wrote about this — look for his excellent “Avoiding the Qualifying Offer” piece.
So, yes, it would have to be under the table. Or, I suppose, there could be the tacit agreement to wait until after the season starts, though that obviously carries the problem that the player (presumably) couldn’t participate in the spring.
Mikenmn
Jeff, the lawyer in me tells me the “Under the table” agreement to not make a QO carries too much risk for both the team and the player of discovery. An agent who got away with it once couldn’t help trying it a second time. And a team that didn’t make a QO for a player who performed well enough to get one would be suspect. If MLB could demonstrate this, I would image their would be sanctions.
Jeff Todd
Yeah, the lawyer in me says the same. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that it was a viable option — going down that road would surely be risky business.
Jeff Todd
Yeah, the lawyer in me says the same. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that it was a viable option — going down that road would surely be risky business.
Mikenmn
I would also imagine that there would be issues if the player got hurt in spring training while not on contract. If I recall, this was discussed when Adrian Gonzales agreed to delay his extension with the Red Sox so as to have them avoid luxury tax issues. Probably an unwise strategy.
Mikenmn
I don’t care much for this system but it is transparent, and it only impacts a few players. Given the gigantic amounts of money being spent, the player has several options. He can negotiate an extension, if the team is offering it. He might be leaving some money on the table, but given the size of extensions we are seeing, selecting that option complete eliminates any intermediate term risk of either injury or poor performance. If the team is not offering an extension, and he’s unsure of his market, he can take the QO. Or he can bolt for bigger bucks. What it comes down to is getting the best possible advice from his agent. The risk of holding out until the last dollar, is that that last dollar never materializes. These are multimillionaires with access to top-flight representation. They should be able to make a calculated judgement.
pft2
Ok, I get you now. But its a case of the team winning on both sides. On the front side, they offer the player less than he is worth to cover the cost of the lost pick (whose value they are overinflating IMO), discounting the fact that they could get a replacement pick next year. On the back side, now that the team does not lose a pick, all of a sudden the lost future pick is the concern, and his value drops more.?
If that future pick was so valuable, why are players like Drew who put up a 3.4 WAR getting offers of 9.5 million from a team who stood only to lose a 3rd round pick?.
Sticking with the Drew example though, what would the odds be of him refusing a QO next year. I would say between slim and none now. The team is unlikely to get that future pick, so I would say a FA players value is enhanced by not having a compensation pick attached, and any concerns about the loss of a future pick are neglibible, and involves the risk of paying Drew 14.1 million
Jeff Todd
On your bottom line assessment — “a FA player’s value is enhance by not having a compensation pick attached” — I certainly agree. But we are talking about strategies for dealing with a situation in which compensation already attaches.
To clarify, a signing team would sacrifice a pick unless the player signs after the draft. I was referring to a situation where a player has no better option than a one-year pillow deal, but waits until after opening day to sign so that he won’t be saddled with compensation again. Such a player would give up a lot of cash by waiting until the draft, because he’d only be paid for half the season.
So, the point is that, while such a player might want to wait until just after the season to avoid the QO the next time around, his new team would still factor that in. If negotiations were down to the wire of Opening Day, it would be a consideration for both sides to weigh.
You note in the Drew hypothetical that he would likely accept a QO. That may be, but that also has value to the team, assuming they want to retain him (or could make the offer and then trade him). Regardless, we are talking about players that were good enough to get and turn down a QO last year. The possibility of making a future QO has some value to teams and carries virtually total downside for the player (though, depending on the player, the downside may not be that great).
If the player has waited until the draft to sign, then it would already be clear that the QO scenario wouldn’t come to pass … assuming that a one-year deal is contemplated. It makes much less sense for a player to wait until the draft if he doesn’t think he’ll get a multi-year deal, because he’d give up so much salary to do so. But if, say, Santana thinks he can get 4/$50 (less half of the first year’s salary) by waiting, then that becomes a more viable strategy.
PittsburghPirates0022
Mets offered Drew a one year 9.5 million dollar contract that was REJECTED.
Riaaaaaa
He also got a multi year offer from the Yankees, but he rejected that also. I really don’t understand what Boras is thinking.
pft2
Don’t blame him coming of a 3.4 WAR year and only 31
Riaaaaaa
He had a 3.1 WAR
toddcoffeytime
Well you sure straightened him out! Obviously kidding but you’re probably citing Baseball reference WAR as opposed to Fangraphs war or vice versa.
dan-9
I expect what will happen is that these free agents who are borderline on deserving the QO in the first place will realize how much draft pick compensation hurts their signing chances, so they will start accepting the QO when it is offered. In some cases, the team only offered it in the first place not because they want the player back, but because they wanted the draft pick. If those teams start getting stuck with the players they don’t really want, they’ll probably stop giving QOs to those borderline guys.
In essence, I see this as a problem that will largely work itself out in a year or two.
Mikenmn
Interesting balance of risk and reward. If the player waits until June he’s free of the compensation issue, but runs the risk that a) he gets hurt while trying the keep in shape, b) isn’t game ready in June and so hurts his performance (and, on a short term deal, perhaps his future contract value) and c) won’t find a better deal then. The number of teams who definitely need a Drew, Santana, or Morales is limited. While an injury could create a need, it’s also possible that the same teams that might be interested in those three, given a couple of months to find other options, may see less expensive alternatives.
Boras’s logic is sound, but his math may be off. Drew and Morales aren’t necessarily in the top 6/12% of all free agents, unless you start digging into the group. Top 6% of 50 would be third best, top 12% sixth best.
Ron Loreski
If all of these players wait until June to sign, it just proves the greed of todays players. The system is disgusting and its getting hard to root for any of these players.
toddcoffeytime
As opposed to rooting for the MLB teams, some of which are valued at over a billion dollars and receive all sorts of unnecessary public funding for stadiums, antitrust expemption, etc? You may want to reexamine who you call “greedy”
Eugene in Oregon
Too late for this now, but in the future all it should take for teams to reconsider their QO strategy would be for a player or two to accept the offer — something that has not yet happened, if I’m not mistaken. Teams are, I believe, making QOs to a few marginal players (e.g., Morales, Cruz) who they hope won’t accept or, at least, are agnostic on. If a Morales-type player (or two) were to accept the offers next off-season, I’m convinced that in the next season you’d see the number of QOs fall by at least a third.
Federal League
They need to push for the elimination of qualifying offers when the current CBA expires.
Free agency should mean free agency. Players already have to wait 6 seasons [really it’s 7 with how common service time manipulation is], plus however long they were in the minors, before hitting free agency.
The players need to start looking more closely at some of the things their union keeps signing off on.
Sky14
Agreed. This system only benefits the owners. Either they get a long term asset with a first round draft pick or they get a short term asset with no long term risk. The players, generally after six years of being undervalued, get stung along on what is essentially a one year mutual option with no long term job security or they get a tag that punishes teams that sign them thus lowering their value. Its essentially a heads I win, tails you lose thing. Not to mention it does very little for competitive balance.
kcmark 2
For every player you can cite as “under-valued” prior to Free Agency, I bet I can cite 3 or 4 that are over-valued. While a union benefits in some ways, it hinders in others because service time factors in. In a pure free agent market, talent and not service time should be determining factor for player compensation.
northsfbay
The Small Market owners have to agree to a contract. If they can’t agree on a new contract, they have to play under the current contract, go on strike or get locked out.
kcmark 2
The owners would gladly give the players free agency a year earlier if the players are willing to give back 2 years of arbitration.
Federal League
I don’t see why the players should give up any additional arbitration at all or any evidence that the owners would “gladly” do anything of the sort.
If players reached free agency a year earlier, they would by default be giving up a year of arbitration.
michael T
I think the solution for the players is to get a new agent. They have been given bad advice all along and now they are getting more bad advice. It is the salary demands and contract length keeping the players from getting signed not the draft picks. Waiting until late June is comically bad decision. Santana could have gotten a 3 year deal worth 12 million a year. Morales a 2 year at 10 million a season.
Basebal Rules!
Here’s an example of what might be part of the problem. Take Morales (30), who has averaged 20 HRs in close-to-neutral home parks, and is a switch hitter. The downside would be his low OBP, and one-dimensional profile.
The market gave Cuban defector 1B Abreu (26) 6 years/$68M. No draft pick penalty.
Although Morales is older, Abreu has yet to perform in mlb. If Morales’ market price is 2 X $20 as you suggested, that is too a wide disparity.
A player such as Moralas has put in his time, and this scenario is simply not fair. I’m not sure if it’s possible, but the international FAs might need to have draft pick compensation attached to them as well. Otherwise, the revolt is coming and it could get ugly.
Basebal Rules!
Here’s an example of what might be part of the problem. Take Morales (30), who has averaged 20 HRs in close-to-neutral home parks, and is a switch hitter. The downside would be his low OBP, and one-dimensional profile.
The market gave Cuban defector 1B Abreu (26) 6 years/$68M. No draft pick penalty.
Although Morales is older, Abreu has yet to perform in mlb. If Morales’ market price is 2 X $20 as you suggested, that is too a wide disparity.
A player such as Moralas has put in his time, and this scenario is simply not fair. I’m not sure if it’s possible, but the international FAs might need to have draft pick compensation attached to them as well. Otherwise, the revolt is coming and it could get ugly.
kcmark 2
Why should Santana have gotten a 3 year deal at 12 mil per? Last season the Angels gave him away. Santana should have accepted the QO and said thank you very much.
kcmark 2
What is happening here is a shift to a post-PED era. When you look at all of the young talent coming up from the minor leagues (and most of it with the small market teams) the owners now understand the value of draft picks. They days of players at their peak at age 35 and 36 are gone. Why do you think the large market owners pushed for a cap on draft pick compensation. Because the small market teams were investing their money there (buying wholesale) instead of investing in declining free agents (paying retail).
PXDX
I feel like Nelson Cruz’s career Home/Road splits (911 OPS in Texas, 734 OPS everywhere else) are not being mentioned enough. He really is not a good ballplayer, period.
PXDX
I feel like Nelson Cruz’s career Home/Road splits (911 OPS in Texas, 734 OPS everywhere else) are not being mentioned enough. He really is not a good ballplayer, period.
ztoa
I think the Phillies should just sign comp. related FAs from now on, just to make sure no one has a chance to narc on college kids again.
frogbogg
Next year…. There will be a lot less QO offered. Too many GMs will think the players will take them.
22deputydo33
i have to agree with the poster saying it its the player that decides whether to accept or decline a deal. i do not like scott boras. many of these players have a very much inflated ego. many players would be better off if they did accept the qualifying offers they would be at spring training now instead of sitting home the mets need steven drew,but i smell the yankees since jeeter will be retiring after this season. i also smell the ynakees signing ervin santana if he waits till after the june draft to sign with a team.
tigerfan1968
Yes it would be painful to be SADDLED with an insulting 14 million dollar offer. It is not the draft pick that is keeping these players unsigned. They are not worth anywhere near 14 million a year. Next year you will see clubs will NOT offer so many qualifying offers. Be grateful, Mariners, Rangers,Red Sox, etc. that these players listened to their agents and rejected qualifying offers. The real answer is to move to having contracts more incentive based which is the way the real world works.
dmm1047
What’s that silence I hear? Well, it’s the lack of 32 teams beating Drew’s door down to get him. 13 players declined their QO’s. Only three remain, due to their ridiculous demands($$$ and opt out clasues). This has nothing to do with draft picks, who would take years to make the bigs, if at all.
Lee Foo Young
Can these guys play anywhere to ‘stay sharp’, say, Independent leagues?
Demitri
Why would waiting until June be a viable option when it means that those players are skipping spring training and the first part of the season, therefor putting them way behind in conditioning and playing? Wouldn’t they need a minor league assignment to get into playing shape and be a safe investment for the team that signs them?
kimball0401
Your only 4 years late