Earlier today, MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes outlined what each team would have to surrender as compensation if it signed a free agent who rejected a qualifying offer. Now, let’s take a look at what each team would receive in return if one of their free agents turned down a QO and signed with another club. (As a reminder, players can’t be issued a qualifying offer more than once during their careers, and this year’s QO is set for $19.65MM.)
Revenue Sharing Recipients: Diamondbacks, Orioles, Reds, Guardians, Rockies, Tigers, Royals, Marlins, Brewers, Twins, Athletics, Pirates, Mariners, Rays
If any of these teams has a QO-rejecting free agent who signs elsewhere for more than $50MM in guaranteed money, the compensatory pick falls after the first round of the draft. That means a pick that could fall within the top 30, since the Mets’ and Dodgers’ first selections dropped out of the first round because they exceeded the luxury tax threshold by more than $40MM. If a team has a QO-rejecting free agent who signs elsewhere for less than $50MM guaranteed, the compensatory pick would come between Competitive Balance Round B and the start of the third round (roughly 75th-80th overall).
This winter’s free agent class doesn’t consist of many players who are plausible QO candidates from any of these team, except for possibly Mariners outfielder Mitch Haniger. If Seattle did issue Haniger a qualifying offer, however, the compensation issue might still be a moot point since there is a chance Haniger might just accept the offer (after an injury-shortened season) and remain with the M’s.
Teams Who Don’t Receive Revenue-Sharing Funds, And Who Didn’t Pay The Competitive Balance Tax: Braves, Cubs, White Sox, Astros, Angels, Giants, Cardinals, Rangers, Blue Jays, Nationals
For these teams, the compensatory pick for losing a qualified free agent would also fall between CBR-B and the start of the third round (regardless of whether the player signed for more or less than $50MM).
Dansby Swanson (Braves), Willson Contreras (Cubs), and Carlos Rodon (Giants) will all surely receive qualifying offers. Cardinals third baseman Nolan Arenado would’ve also been an obvious pick, except he chose to avoid free agency altogether in deciding to not opt out of his contract.
Competitive Balance Tax Payors: Red Sox, Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Padres
If a team exceeds the luxury tax, they still receive a pick if a qualified free agent signed elsewhere, but that compensatory pick falls after the fourth round of the 2023 draft. That roughly works out to around the 140th overall pick in the draft, so it’s a pretty noteworthy drop from the 75-80 range from the previous grouping.
The penalty is more significant in this particular offseason, given how many of these teams have very prominent free agents that will surely receive qualifying offers. The Yankees have Aaron Judge, the Dodgers have Trea Turner and maybe Tyler Anderson, the Red Sox have Xander Bogaerts and probably Nathan Eovaldi, and the Mets have a full quartet — Jacob deGrom, Edwin Diaz, Chris Bassitt, and Brandon Nimmo.
Exceeding the tax line can be seen as the cost of doing business, given how five of the six payors made the playoffs and the Phillies are competing for the World Series. For the Red Sox, however, crossing the CBT threshold is doubly painful, as Boston didn’t even post a winning record in 2022.
#1WhiteSoxFan
Yikes!
That’s a lot to memorize.
gary55wv
Just have a salary cap and be done with it!
balloonknots
I’m for cap with a minimum
drasco036
If there is a penalty for spending, there should be a penalty for not spending and if you do not spend, you should be placed on probation, draft picks taken away just like if you spend too much. If owners continue to not spend then they should be forced to sell their team.
Ten teams shouldn’t have to carry the other 20.
balloonknots
Agree
But that market cap needs to be much lower than players union would accept for the fairness of the sport
deweybelongsinthehall
How do you institute changes when the CBA was just negotiated? Especially during times of inflation when many of those teams will have more issues filling stadiums, selling merchandise, etc.?
Jesse Chavez enthusiast
@drasco
I agree, it’s ridiculous to have an MLB Franchise and a payroll of 30 million dollars. I’d be happy if they set a floor at around 70-80 million.
JoeBrady
Ten teams shouldn’t have to carry the other 20.
==============================
Actually, they do. As large as the US is, there are only 10 cities with a population of 1M+. And another 7 with populations of 750k-1M.
To see the context, there are only 6 cities larger than the Bronx.
libertyfighter
What are the Metropolitan area numbers? You aren’t telling the whole story!
drasco036
As interesting at that is, city population doesn’t matter. For starters, you’re only taking into consideration the city population and not the surrounding areas. I.e. Las Vegas “only” had a population of 600,000 but Henderson, which basically adjoins Las Vegas has a population of over 300,000. Nashville may show around 700,000 people but Murfreesboro and Clarksville have a population over 150,000 a piece.
On top of that, St Louis is a revenue sharing team with a population of around 300,000…. You also are not taking into consideration “media market”, Nashville again, with its population is split between fox sports south and fox sports Ohio (luckily media market wise, St. Louis doesn’t bleed in).
The fact is, teams in “smaller markets” do a terrible job promoting their teams and driving interest. The Cubs are vastly more valuable and earn more money than the White Sox. It’s up to team owners to drive the popularity of their teams up, make them more profitable/valuable.
Murphy NFLD
Cap sucks as a hockey fan your even ore likly to not resign your young guys. But there without a doubt should be a floor in mlb, even if that is only applicable to the revenue shearing teams. Its hilarious the mets can pay a pitcher who plays 1/5 more per year then 3 teams pay the while team. I know the mets are 1 of the big 5 or 6 teams but clearly something needs to be fixed when thats a thing
AgentF
Hockey is the perfect example of why people should be massively opposed to a cap… yet some seem to see it as a good thing. it’s absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Owners need to be held accountable at some point, too. Don’t like dwindling gate sales? Do something to make your product more attractive. Why the hell should these mega millionaires/billionaires benefit from neglecting their their businesses and instead claiming it as the fault of a broken framework. Pittsburgh has roughly 2.5mn people living in its metropolitan area and one of the most beautiful stadiums in all of baseball. There is no excuse for cutting payroll by 30% between 21 and 22 and fielding a team with a combined annual wage less than many teams pay single players. Oakland, over 4.5mn in the bay area and the stadium looks like a crack den. Owners need to just be better… much better!
luckyh
The minimum is more important than the cap. I say just add that to the existing. Too many pocketing it and not spending it as intended.
YaySports
There’s no way owners would ever agree to a floor without a cap though. Wouldn’t make any sense for them to do that.
JackStrawb
Forcing teams to spend money is counterproductive and only sets off another round of salary inflation.
End baseball’s monopoly exemption. It’ll also be more fun.
outinleftfield
The MLBPA has said that is not an option. The reason is that revenue is not shared 100% between teams. So if you can get all the owners to agree on getting rid of local TV deals and sharing revenue 100% like they do in the sorts that have a hard cap like the NFL and NHL, then I am sure the union would agree to a hard cap and hard minimum.
Col_chestbridge
The MLB will not implement a salary cap because they have unequal revenues and are unwilling to change that. So long as the Dodgers make $325m/year on cable while the Guardians make $40m/year these two teams cannot be expexted to spend the same (there’s sharing that blunts this, but not entirely).
Look at NFL/NBA/NHL and you’ll see that the caps exist as a way to guarantee a percentage of revenue to the players (around 50%). The teams split money evenly and the cap thresholds (minimum, max, and hard cap) are all calculated in such a way as to make leaguewide spending approximate that agreed upon percentage.
MLB spends far less than that percentage on its players. The 2019 season (last season before covid weirdness), they were actually under 40%. They’ll never seriously suggest a realistic cap to MLBPA.
JoeBrady
MLB spends far less than that percentage on its players. The 2019 season (last season before covid weirdness), they were actually under 40%. They’ll never seriously suggest a realistic cap to MLBPA.
====================================
That’s because the MLBPA players and front office are stupid. They cling to this incredibly stupid concept of “no cap” without ever once questioning the concept.
The owners jumped on cable, ownership of regional sports networks, social media, gambling, and in the near future, ball parks as an anchor for real estate complexes. The players are still holding onto their mantra from the early 90s, and the owners let them think they are winning.
chopper2hopper
Just want to point out that the Sox actively chose to not give Carlos Rodon a qualifying offer last offseason which he most certainly would have declined, in effect giving away their would-be draft pick competition to the Giants. Winning move right there.
AngelsFan1972
The real irony would be if the White Sox re-sign him and have to GIVE UP a draft pick because the Giants offered him a QO.
Had the White Sox offered a QO, the Giants would not have been able to. So the White Sox would have lost out on 2 draft picks.
DonOsbourne
Is total revenue the deciding factor in who receives revenue sharing and who doesn’t?
Holy Cow!
48% of local revenues are shared.
outinleftfield
That does not include revenue from the part of TV networks that are owned by some teams. It also does not include sponsorships and in park advertising.. Just ticket sales, and local TV and radio. The way it works is all teams put in 48% of ticket sales and their local TV and radio revenue into a pot and that is split equally between all teams. Two huge issues with it. #1, a team that owns part of their TV network has a huge revenue stream that is not shared. #2 teams with huge TV deals, read Yankees, Dodgers, are keeping 55.33% of that huge revenue stream while teams that were not lucky enough to be in the largest TV markets are keeping 55.33% of much smaller TV revenue.
drasco036
The whole competitive balance rules are stupid, well if you’re this you get this and if your that you get that unless you’re one of these guys who get something else completely….
Just make one rule for losing and receiving picks. Teams shouldn’t be rewarded for not spending, losing games and not being self sufficient and profitable.
With the run the Indians and Brewers have had recently, making several playoff appearances over the past several years, you cannot tell me they “have to trade Corbin Burns” or “need to trade Ahmed Rosario”. They make money, they have newish stadiums and have corporate sponsored, city paid for ball parks.
sfes
it’s ironic that some teams with extremely rich histories and huge fan bases are “small market”
balloonknots
Mlb economics are stacked for the few and why certain markets will never have a fair chance to win. Everyone always likes to point to small market teams who don’t spend. I question the large market teams who don’t spend comparably as percentage of total revenue.
A league of Goliath vs Davids
Good for the lower revenue teams who spend wisely (meaning players under 30) and provide a quality product for their fans. Even so small n mid markets have to really get lucky in order to bring a trophy
Texas Outlaw
I’m all for a salary cap. Do away with luxury tax crap.
balloonknots
Only Mets and Dodgers ignore the tax threshold as they should – all other large markets get to keep profits under pretext of the luxury tax. Lol be done with it.
It’s terribly unfair to small market teams when they don’t receive the revenue needed due to certain wealthy teams not spending as they should. But than again some will just pocket the cash. Not a win win deal on either side
MLB-1971
Players association will NEVER agree to a salary cap.
Lol. The strike would still be going, and going
DBH1969
Eliminate the Lux Tax, Competitive balance, Qualifying offers. No spending cap, no min cap…
BUT…
Get rid of this guaranteed contract and opt out and no trade clause stuff.
If a team wants to sign a guy for 43 years at 8 billion a year, let them… If a player sucks a year after signing the contract, cut him.
citizen
what if the braves lose jansen on a rainy tuesday or the twins lose correa on a friday?
casorgreener
LOL Yeah this is ridiculous
sliderwithcheeze
Salary caps are for the weak. If you can’t raise enough capitol to compete with the large markets, fold.
I cannot begin to tell you how many owners have contacted me for assistance or offered to sell me their franchise. It’s gotten so ridiculous, I no longer answer their call.
Astros Hot Takes
*calls
compassrose
The big and mid market teams have to get lucky to win the World Series? Not really draft right and develop your own players works well. You have 4-5 players on rookie contracts a few stars and a few fillers. Just like Seattle. You don’t have to sign players for longer than most of us will be alive. Unless you get a Julio that signs a team friendly contract.
I would like to see MLB get closer to the NFL draft. The NFL draft is more fun to watch because of trades teams moving around etc. I know because I said NFL some might disagree on that but I said like it. I guess trading draft picks is mostly what I ask getting at. Love watching the draft but it doesn’t have the same feel as the NFL. I like fully guaranteed contracts but I think there should be a clause that if a player gets hurt and has to retire the contract is dropped to 50% of the original. It can also be negotiated to what both player and team agree to.
outinleftfield
Difference is you will absolutely see the players drafted in the NFL that season. In MLB, if you see them at all, its 3-4 years later for top draft picks
compassrose
I would agree to that. You will also have more 1st rnd picks fail to do anything. Some will never get past AAA. Football teams at times push that top player faster than they should.
Still think it would make the draft more interesting. MLB does have the reaches for teams trying to save money for another guy they take in the next couple rnds.
urnuts
Competitive Balance Tax Payors: Red Sox, Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Phillies, Padres
Interesting 5/6 teams in the playoffs. Another reason the Angels need to match their SoCal Padres in payroll and make it 6/7.
Artie likes flash to a certain point, allow your front office to make the player decisions and eat the contracts he pushed through.
BFFLR
Salary cap and floor with revenue sharing just like every other major sports league in this country if you want equal competition!
Bright Side
If these small market teams can’t increase payroll to become competitive, then relocate to bigger markets. Otherwise screw them. I hate collectivism.
JoeBrady
That’s ridiculous. The US only has four cities with a population of 2M+. It’ll look pretty funny having 30 teams playing in 4 cities.
I don’t think y’all have any idea of the model of having a country-wide sport is. It is to make the sport popular for EVERYONE.