We looked already at the possible draft compensation that teams might recoup from losing players who decline qualifying offers. Now, we’ll take a glance at the topic from the other side of the coin: what it’ll cost other teams to sign such players.
Last week, 10 players received qualifying offers. Teams interested in signing Gerrit Cole, Stephen Strasburg, Zack Wheeler, Madison Bumgarner, Jake Odorizzi, Anthony Rendon, Josh Donaldson, Marcell Ozuna, Jose Abreu or Will Smith will therefore be required to forfeit draft and perhaps international bonus considerations in order to sign anyone from that bunch — assuming each of the 10 rejects that one-year, $17.8MM sum. Here’s a breakdown of the specific penalties that all 30 teams would face in signing a “qualified” free agent:
Competitive Balance Tax Payors: Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs
If any of these three teams signs a qualified free agent, they will forfeit their second- and fifth-highest selections in next summer’s draft. They’d all also see $1MM docked from their 2020-21 international bonus pools. The Red Sox, in particular, seem more intent on shedding payroll and lowering their luxury hit than on adding a high-end free agent. Signing a second qualified free agent would mean then surrendering their third- and sixth-highest selections as well as an additional $1MM in international funds.
Revenue Sharing Recipients: Diamondbacks, Orioles, Reds, Indians, Rockies, Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers, Twins, Athletics, Pirates, Padres, Mariners, Rays
These 16 teams received revenue sharing and did not exceed the competitive balance tax during the 2019 season. As such, they’d forfeit “only” their third-highest selection in the 2020 draft by signing a qualified free agent. Signing a second qualified free agent would require forfeiting their fourth-highest pick. A third would mean their fifth-highest pick (and so on). Revenue-sharing recipients who do not cross the luxury threshold face the smallest penalty in signing a qualified free agent.
All Other Clubs: Nationals, White Sox, Astros, Braves, Dodgers, Angels, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Giants, Cardinals, Rangers, Blue Jays
These 12 remaining teams would forfeit their second-highest pick and and have their international signing bonus pool reduced by $500K upon signing a qualified free agent. At 67-95, the Blue Jays had the worst record among this group, meaning it’d be most costly (in terms of amateur talent acquisition capital) for them to sign a qualified free agent. However, GM Ross Atkins has said since the season ended that such concerns won’t deter the Jays from pursuing qualified free agents.
For teams in this group, signing a second qualified free agent would mean punting next year’s third-highest selection and an additional $500K. A third would mean parting with the fourth-highest pick and another $500K (and so on).
—
While those penalties surely count for something, it’s worth reminding that they’re also not as steep as some clubs like to portray. Each team’s top overall selection is protected, and the highest draft choice that’d theoretically be forfeited would be the Cardinals’ Competitive Balance (Round A) selection, which would come in after the first round and after all of the compensatory picks for these free-agent losses. Competitive Balance Round A in 2019 spanned pick Nos. 35-41, and the slot value of those selections ranged from $2.1MM (No. 35) to $1.81MM (No. 41).
With 10 QOs this year, that compensatory round will be longer. Most teams with a Competitive Balance draft pick next season (barring trades of those picks, which are the only draft choices eligible to be traded) will fall into the “revenue sharing recipient” bucket, meaning their Round A picks would be protected. If the Cardinals pass on a qualified free agent, then the Jays and their second-round pick (likely in the mid-40s) would face the largest potential penalty.
I don’t understand at all why teams should be penalized at all for signing a free agent.
I agree. It should be more about the team gaining from losing a player. Just create a round somewhere between rounds 1 and 2 and have anyone who lost a player with a QO get a pick there. No need for someone to lose their 2nd round pick for signing someone. Especially the teams that can’t afford that.
I can see them losing international bonus money or something small, but draft picks are all the rage. And I agree with you. Lose a QO player, get a pick after the 2nd round. Maybe entice them more and give them one after the 3rd too so the players a team may be teetering on would have a better chance of getting a QO offer.
If it has to be a draft pick make it the late rounds. 5th round or later.
Leftist, union, penalize the successful, lift up the little guy while they do nothing, etc.
Some would say that it helps the overall health of the league but I would say if you don’t spend money and build your team and you finishing last and your attendance faila, you should lose your team and fold. Why should they be propped up with little effort on their part?
so you are ok with a league of 6-8 teams max…
Having 6-8 teams would make the calibre of baseball much, much better. But that’s an exaggeration. There would be 20-24 teams.
@Why not, do you know how big the waiting list is to get into a professional sports League like the NBA?
Sorry not NBA..,Major League Baseball.
So teams folding and going out of business is now good for baseball? I realize you’d like to interject politics into this conversation, but it has no place in baseball where a competitive balance needs to be maintained, especially when you factor in market size and TV money which has more to do with how much a team can spend than simple attendance.
Sheep gonna bleat, even when it isn’t related. As a fellow billionaire, I appreciate it when commoners look out for my financial interests.
@jon429, yes TV markets and such should be balanced out definitely 100%. That’s a no-brainer of course.
But I’m saying if you run your team like a cheap bar and don’t spend money to fix the bathroom and the carpet smells like four year old vodka, you should lose your team. You don’t deserve to be an owner.
@thinkblech, as usual your statement has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
It’s not billionaires and common people. It’s billionaire team owners who spend and sign free agents vs. Billionaire team owners who run their team like a cheap bar what’s worn carpet and old bathrooms ( I’m trying to use an analogy that you’ll understand.)
But your mind is made up as evidenced by the language you use. You’re not open to discussing and presenting ideas. Next thing youll do is name calling. I’m ready for it. Go ahead.
Capitalist, colluding owners used the reserve clause for close to a century to unilaterally deny players free agency and thereby severely suppress salaries. Despite these unfair practices, baseball was the only sport with a legally mandated antitrust exemption! All that allowed MLB to add small-market teams until 1975, when the reserve clause was struck down in court.
When you have owners acting with impunity to abuse workers, that creates the environment for workers uniting.
But…those capitalist welfare queens who extort cities to build them new billion-dollar stadiums from time to time? They also share revenue with the smaller teams — their competitors! — to keep them from folding.
The union didn’t do that. It’s the capitalists who are redistributing wealth!
So cast off your Fox News brainwashing and read something.
Love everything about this comment terrymesmer
Terry there’s nothing wrong with improving and fixing the system but don’t tell me that it’s unfair if the Cincinnati Reds can’t afford a free agent because they’re small Market.
If you bring up your hate for Fox News this discussion ends and I know exactly where you stand before we even start.
Do you recall the Yankees of the 90’s… in a very simplistic way, that is why those penalties were put in place. Without them the game would be far too unbalanced and they would miss out on big chunks of paying customers.
You make a little more sense in this comment here. So sure Revenue sharing is fine as far as my TV contract advantages or things like that.
But don’t take away draft picks because I’m signing free agents and want to make my team better. That makes zero sense.
The old way was better. When teams got the extra pick at the end of the first round regardless
agreed. let the teams that lose the player get a sandwich pick if you’d like, but leave the signing team alone.
Just don’t complain about MLB. Call or write to the MLBPA for agreeing to the last CBA—This system is in lieu of a salary cap/floor. If there was a Cap/Floor, no luxury tax and no need to help over half of the teams attempt to keep their best players.
Yeah it’s always the fault of the union that they agreed to a contract without realizing that there are two sides in a contract and they can’t just get whatever they want
Agreed. I think MLB will address that in the 2020 bargaining contract. The QO offer attachment hurts players in FA too.
The original idea was to give lower revenue teams a chance to retain their homegrown superstar. They didn’t foresee that it’s not often used by small market teams. AA was a master of using the rule (which is why it changed if you got traded).
So if the Braves loses Donaldson then the competitive pick would be their second selection and they would lose their second round pick?
Also, not sure if they are still facing any penalties that could affect this as well.
So the teams that lose money and have their businesses subsidized by the teams that make money get an advantage? Makes zero sense.
This
In the previous article about what draft pick each team stands to gain when their QO FA signs elsewhere, you listed the Braves as not receiving revenue sharing.
So which is it?
Thank you for this..most fans don’t get to see (or understand) this type of breakdown.
I see the Yankees are listed twice. Under the Competitive Balance Tax Payors group as well as the All other clubs. That totals 31 teams. Edit required Please.
Why are the Diamondbacks a revenue sharing team? Phoenix is the fifth biggest city in the U.S. and the 12th largest television market. I don’t understand the math.
The writer shows the Yankees in 2 different categories, that’s obviously a mistake.
Hard floor, no cap. The teams are already moving toward shorter contracts (it’s about time) and extending the younger players sooner. Also, pay minor leaguers a fair wage, then those who toil to get to the majors wont feel completely used if they aren’t still making $16M annually and batting .234 with little power or OBP in their later years.
Genuinely unsure, but what is the difference in revenue sharing teams vs “all other clubs”? Would it be how much current spend they’re at?
I honestly don’t pay a lot of attention to Luxury Tax and Compensation Picks but, in a nutshell, does this mean that if a player declines a QA, signs with a team and takes it over the Luxury Line, that team not only has to give compensatory picks to the former team it also has to ante up into the Revenue Sharing Pot?
Yes! The rich getting richer while the one’s getting all this profit sharing is tanking their teams and pocketing billions off other teams! I’ve never understood why everyone thinks it’s such a wonderful idea to have cap penalties for teams spending to build a competitive product all while others keep minimum salaries on the field so they can tank every year and live off big market teams! Arizona, KC, Mets, SD, Tampa and Miami could all sell their teams and no one would really care! Let’s not forget Seattle as well! You have states that have begged for decades to have teams and have proven in other sports that they build competitive teams but get shut out by MLB just so they can have 2-5 teams in other states! The closest teams for fans in the Carolinas is either Atlanta or Washington/Baltimore but the California teams are playing in run down stadiums infested by rats! The only team that’s even been talked about is moving the A’s to Las Vegas! Just sucks how MLB just keeps alienating fans in some areas just for the hell of it all while they have teams stinking up the joint all over and they can’t draw fans into their pitiful products! Then penalize the teams that actually try to build a real team every year! Can’t think of any better ways to reclaim your spot on top of the sports world!
Exactly !!
Free Agency isn’t really free anymore is it ?