While the baseball world’s immediate focus is on the upcoming showdown between two behemoths, the offseason looms just after the World Series. One of the first key decisions for teams is whether to issue a qualifying offer to any of their impending free agents. Clubs have until the fifth day after the conclusion of the World Series to make QO decisions.
The QO is a one-year offer calculated by averaging the 125 highest salaries in MLB. This year’s price is $21.05MM. Joel Sherman of The New York Post reported in August that players who receive the QO have until November 19 to decide whether to lock in that one-year salary and return to their current team. If the player rejects and signs elsewhere, his former team would receive draft compensation. The signing club would forfeit a pick (or picks) and potentially international signing bonus space. The compensation and penalties vary depending on teams’ revenue sharing and luxury tax statuses. MLBTR’s Mark Polishuk recently examined what each team would receive if they lose a qualified free agent, and the penalties they’d pay to sign one.
We looked at the candidates for a qualifying offer on the position player side yesterday. Today, it’s a look at the pitchers, where there are a couple borderline calls.
No-Doubters
- Corbin Burnes (Orioles)
- Max Fried (Braves)
These are the easiest QO decisions in the pitching class. Burnes and Fried are two of the three best pitchers available. (Blake Snell is ineligible.) They’ll reject the QO just as easily as their teams make the offer. Burnes will set his sights on a $200MM+ deal, while Fried should land five or six years well into nine figures.
As a revenue sharing recipient, Baltimore will get the top compensation if Burnes signs elsewhere for more than $50MM: a pick after the first round in next summer’s draft. Atlanta exceeded the luxury tax threshold, so they’ll receive minimal compensation. The Braves would get a selection after the fourth round if Fried departs.
Likely
- Sean Manaea (Mets)
Manaea will hit free agency once he makes the easy call to decline his $13.5MM player option. The southpaw ran with a full rotation opportunity in Queens after spending most of the ’23 season working in multi-inning relief with San Francisco. Manaea took all 32 turns and logged 181 2/3 innings of 3.47 ERA ball. He fanned a quarter of his opponents against an 8.5% walk rate while running a solid 11.7% swinging strike percentage. Manaea was dominant down the stretch, working to a 3.16 ERA while holding opponents to a .182/.251/.327 slash after July 1.
The veteran left-hander turns 33 in February. He should be in line for at least a three-year deal. Four is a real possibility. It’s hard to see Manaea accepting a QO. If he did, the Mets would probably be happy to have him back for just over $21MM (although it’d be a $44MM+ commitment after luxury taxes). This isn’t quite a lock to the same extent as the Burnes and Fried calls, but it’d be surprising if the Mets didn’t make the offer.
Borderline Calls
- Luis Severino (Mets)
Severino is a trickier call for New York. He signed a one-year, $13MM pillow contract last offseason. Like Manaea, he stayed healthy and provided 30+ starts of mid-rotation production. Severino worked to a 3.91 earned run average through 182 innings. He was markedly better than he’d been during his final season with the Yankees. Still, it wasn’t a return to the form he’d shown early in his career in the Bronx.
The 30-year-old righty struck out a league average 21.2% of opposing hitters. He kept the ball on the ground at a solid 46% clip while walking just under 8% of batters faced. Those are all decent but not outstanding peripherals. Severino continued to struggle to miss bats on a per-pitch basis. His 9.4% swinging strike rate ranked 91st out of 126 pitchers with 100+ innings. Severino still has plus velocity, but his production is more in line with that of a third or fourth starter than a top-of-the-rotation force.
New York could be fine with that. If the Mets expect him to repeat this year’s production, $21.05MM is a decent investment. It’d again be $44MM+ after taxes, but Steve Cohen hasn’t shied away from huge CBT bills. Severino could be the player whose market value is most affected by whether he receives the QO. There are parallels to where Jameson Taillon and Taijuan Walker stood as free agents. Neither of those pitchers got a qualifying offer; they each landed four-year deals in the $70MM range. That kind of contract would be a tougher sell if a team is also giving up a draft pick.
The Mets would only get a post-fourth round pick as compensation if Severino declines the QO and walks. That’s not much. It’d be a prospect who might sneak into their organizational top 30. The offer is only worthwhile if the Mets would be happy to have Severino back at that price point. We’ll see in a few weeks how highly they value him.
- Michael Wacha (Royals)
Wacha’s two-year, $32MM free agent deal allows him to opt out after this season. The veteran righty should retest the market after a strong year in Kansas City. He turned in a 3.35 ERA across 166 2/3 innings. Wacha missed a bit of time in June with a small fracture in his left foot, but he was otherwise durable. It’s the second-highest inning total of his career and his third straight season allowing fewer than 3.50 earned runs per nine.
It’s not the flashiest profile. Wacha’s swing-and-miss and grounder rates are just alright. He has plus control and generally does a strong job avoiding hard contact. He’s not going to be valued as an ace, but he continues to churn out quality results despite playing on his sixth team in as many years.
An offer just north of $21MM might feel rich for Kansas City, but it’s not that much higher than the $16MM salary which they paid Wacha this past season. The Royals got what they wanted in year one, as Wacha joined Cole Ragans and Seth Lugo as a rotation nucleus that helped push them to a surprise trip to the AL Division Series.
This is a situation where the player accepting a qualifying offer might work out well for everyone involved. It’d give Wacha a $5MM+ raise and allow him to spend multiple seasons with a team for the first time since he left the Cardinals in 2019. Kansas City could keep their rotation intact. If the Royals don’t make the QO, Wacha has a shot at three years and a guarantee above $40MM going into his age-33 campaign. That’d be less likely if he’s attached to draft compensation.
Long Shots
- Shane Bieber (Guardians)
Bieber could’ve been a QO candidate had he been healthy. He blew out after two fantastic starts and underwent Tommy John surgery in April. Bieber could return in the first half of next season, but he’d probably accept a qualifying offer. That’s likely too risky for Cleveland, though they could try to bring him back on an incentive-laden deal that allows him to approach $20MM if he stays healthy.
- Jeff Hoffman (Phillies)
Hoffman is one of the best relievers in the class. He has had a dominant two-year run with Philadelphia, working to a 2.28 ERA in 118 2/3 innings. There’s no precedent for teams making a qualifying offer to non-closing relievers, though. The rare reliever QO has generally gone to pitchers with longer track records than Hoffman possesses and at least one full season of closing experience (i.e. Josh Hader, Raisel Iglesias, Will Smith, Greg Holland, Wade Davis, Kenley Jansen).
- Nick Martinez (Reds)
Martinez is going to decline a $12MM player option with Cincinnati. If he doesn’t get the QO, he’ll get another multi-year deal that could push beyond $30MM. Martinez had a third consecutive strong season, turning in a 3.10 ERA over 142 1/3 innings while working in a swing role. He started 16 of 42 appearances. If the Reds were committed to giving Martinez a rotation spot, there’d be an argument for the offer. A salary north of $21MM is a hefty sum for a player who has never really held a full-time starting job in MLB, though. The Reds spent around $100MM on player payroll this year. If they stay in that range, a Martinez QO would risk tying up more than 20% of their budget.
- Nick Pivetta (Red Sox)
Pivetta has been durable and routinely posts plus strikeout and walk rates. He throws hard, misses bats and fares well in the eyes of ERA estimators that place a heavy emphasis on a pitcher’s K/BB profile. Nevertheless, he’s never had a season with a sub-4.00 earned run average. Pivetta gives up a bunch of hard contact and always allows more home runs than the average pitcher. He’s a solid innings eater, but the Sox have had four-plus seasons to try to unlock another gear and haven’t been able to do so. He’d likely accept the QO if offered. Boston probably prefers to keep that money in reserve and look for a clearer top-of-the-rotation arm.
Ineligible
- Nathan Eovaldi (Rangers)
- Jack Flaherty (Dodgers)
- Yusei Kikuchi (Astros)
- Max Scherzer (Rangers)
- Tanner Scott (Padres)
- Blake Snell (Giants)
Players traded midseason or who have already received the qualifying offer in their career are ineligible for the QO. Eovaldi, Scherzer and Snell each have a previous QO. Snell and Eovaldi would’ve been easy calls if they could’ve received them.
The midseason trade took the QO off the table for Flaherty, Kikuchi and Scott. The latter wouldn’t have gotten one from the Marlins in either case, but he’s the top reliever in the class. Flaherty would’ve been a lock for the QO if the Tigers hadn’t traded him at the deadline. Getting moved to the Dodgers gives him a chance to pitch in the World Series and took draft compensation off the table for his return trip to free agency. Kikuchi dominated after a deadline deal to the Astros and could command something like the QO salary on a three-year deal covering his ages 34-36 seasons.
Why does it seem like the goal of the QO is so the player declines? So what if Wacha comes back at $21 million? Thats not a totally outrageous price to pay for the royals
They want the draft pick
It’s what the qo is there for, to compensate teams who are priced out of retaining higher end talent when free agency comes. It’s a feature, not a bug. Cases like wacha’s are relatively infrequent and situational. Depends on the royals’ internal evaluation of wacha, offseason roster plan and budget, but if they do give him a qo, it probably means they see it as a win-win move. Nothing wrong with that!
Sometimes it’s used that way and some times it’s a head scratcher like when the Red Sox used it on Stephen Drew or the Astros on Colby Rasmus…
It was much better when all the team had to do was offer up arbitration and FA’s were classified into type A, or B. How the MLBPA conned owners into doing away with that setup should have been filed into “save for a rainy day” file to use again tactic. During those times? Tampa used to rake in 1st-2nd round picks that way, they had believe it was 11 of the 1st 100 picks during the ’11 draft, mostly due to allowing tons of “A” relievers walk.
Nobody will ever accuse either side of having the best negotiators working for them, so rotten deals have emerged mostly every time for both sides. Why in many ways there are so many awful umpires at the mlb level, non fireable and many other issues with the game.
RSox, well sometimes orgs are just gonna make poor decisions!
Johnsilver, there’s no such thing as a perfect system. I think it’s a stretch to say that the mlbpa “conned” the owners into overhauling the draft compensation system. I don’t really consider it a loss that the rays aren’t able to game the system into harvesting loads of draft picks on the reg anymore. Offering arb, which is a process that suppresses player earnings isn’t exactly appealing to the mlbpa for understandable reasons and I’d venture to guess that some on the non-rays ownership side weren’t too keen on how Tampa was getting over on them.
In collective bargaining both sides have ample opportunity to discuss and reach compromise on the issues on the table. Apparently the owners did not feel as a group that maintaining the old comp system was a hill worth dying on and they may well have used that concession as a bargaining chip at that time. I don’t see a case here for the overhaul to fa compensation being a big or concerning issue.
It was simpler that way but not better. The measures they used to determine the A or B status were not very reliable and flat out archaic by today’s standards. Plus, losing your first-round pick for signing one of the best free agents was too much punishment, and gaining two high picks for losing one was too much compensation.
The qualifying offer system neatly ties the free agents’ compensation to their actual market value. Plus, in some borderline cases where the QO is actually accepted, it allows a team to retain a free agent for an extra year at a pretty reasonable salary for both sides.
johnsilver
It was much better when all the team had to do was offer up arbitration and FA’s were classified into type A, or B.
================================
That was 100x better. They could’ve tinkered around the margins if they wanted to make it more player-friendly. To be honest, I’m not sure the current system even favors the player. If anything, get rid of the draft forfeit and simply give teams an added pick at the end of each round for an A (1), a B (2), a C (3), etc.
This was a real management tool for some of the smarter team. When the RS signed Beltre, he was almost a lock to be at least a B, and wound up as an A. And the RS gave up almost nothing to acquire Wagner for a month, and he wound up being an A.
Pete – You’re right, but the primary intention was as an incentive to try and keep their homegrown players and compensate the team if the player is lost to free agency. That’s why players can’t be offered a QO twice.
The part about not being offered twice is a concession to how sometimes having draft compensation attached can tank the market of a mid-tier free agent. Thus, it makes sure that problem can only happen a maximum of a single time in a player’s career.
Lanidrac has already addressed the ban on multiple qo’s quite well so I won’t get into that. I don’t follow your reasoning to support the idea that the qo functions as an incentive or effective mechanism to retain homegrown players. How are teams incentivized to retain and extend players here? In some edge cases it may result in an outcome where the player is around another year but that’s not very common and often amounts to kicking the eventual separation down the road a year.
Because that *IS* the goal.
If Giolito was healthy and pitched well enough to opt out this offseason; Giolito, Flaherty, and Fried would be three of the top free agent pitchers that all went to the same high school. With Fried and Giolito drafted the same year.
Thats my ESPN useless fact.
If Giolito was healthy and pitched well the Red Sox probably make the playoffs…
True. But, it doesn’t change my fact.
Nah, they’re out either way
If they didn’t trade Sale, they would have made the playoffs. You can’t live in the rear view mirror. I’m waiting to see if Henry truly allows his staff to try to upgrade for 25.
So long Fried, you will be missed. …Hopefully the Braves make some meaningful FA additions with a fair amount of money coming off the books, but sadly I doubt it.
Don’t worry, AA will pull off some ridiculous trade that no one sees coming to shore up his needs.
Logan Gilbert to Atlanta
Jk mariners never trade starters
Rsox – Let’s hope it’s not with Breslow on the other end of the trade again.
That would be like Sale (AA) pitching to Mickey Gasper (Bres)..
As long as Liberty Media owns the Braves the team will not be signing any big time free agents. But the Braves do have some really good pitchers coming up through the minors. Unless AA makes some moronic trades and gives up the young pitchers. If the Braves hold on to the young pitchers, and they get a manager who actually knows how to handle a pitching staff, they will not miss Fried at all.
They extended Matt Olsen, which was pretty much like signing a big free agent.
When they get back R. Acuna, A. Riley and Albies all on the same game, they will be in the wild card mix even without Fried. Would be great if Atlanta could trade Ozuna for a solid pitcher in last year of deal and then plug Soler into Ozuna’s spot. Trading Soler probably could not yield that same pitcher.
MLB Top 100…: I’ll never understand the thinking that says, trade away a player who basically carried a team’s offense (Ozuna) or had a great season and was instrumental in a team’s success (Santander). If the player is that good and has been for more than one season, why not just extend their contract? Maybe you can get a good player or two for them, but you don’t know what the new player(s) will do in a new setting (see Jordan Montgomery) while you already know what the player you have can do.
Yeah people hate ozuna still because of him doing nothing in 2021-22 and of course his wife incident
That’s my assumption for all the people who want him traded instead of soler (the braves literally don’t have to trade any of them)
Well the player has to want to stay also….In Santander’s case, he’s an “older” player (30) whose numbers likely wont carry for the remainder of the deal. I’m sure the Os would love to keep him if the price was right, but they have other pressing needs to spend their money on.
That may work if the player is young enough, but that’s not a good idea for Ozuna, who is almost 34 years old.
I don’t see BAL making even a token effort to retain Santander. They have too many OFs ready for the majors. I could see him landing in SEA or LAD if they don’t re-sign T. Hernandez.
Seattle in your (actually everyone’s) dreams
Amazing how good Fried was with a manager that
doesn’t know how to handle pitchers……at least a
dozen other pitchers as well.
Fried’s shoulder is pieced together with twisty ties, gorilla glue and binder clips
Did Sammy just say that Snitker doesn’t know
How to manage pitchers? When he managed one of the most successful rotations in baseball!
Braves let him walk for that reason and also because Boras is his agent.
Bieber will be fresh of TJ and only available for half a season? Sounds like he’s heading to the Dodgers. That’s their jam.
Believe Guardians and Padres are the top candidates.
The same system of working with pitchers. Coaches Bieber is familiar with.
The Braves would be in that loop if Beiber was younger. After all, that’s how they got Fried in the first place.
Doubt the Pads sign an injured Bieber with their financial resources available. Darvish is already an injury risk and you need 2 more starters with not a whole lot of cash to play with.
As the article states Burnes and Fried are guaranteed to get the QO and decline it. Manaea and Wacha could both end up accepting the offer as I’m not sure either could top the AAV. The Mets would have to be certain they want Severino back because tagging him with QO probably guarantees he accepts. If I’m the Sox i roll the dice on Pivetta and give him the offer hoping he accepts but expecting him to decline. The Phillies would set a terrible precedent giving Hoffman the QO as a reliever that isn’t even a Closer, let alone an elite Closer
Why give Pivetta a QO. He’s not worth the price at all. If the Sox played in a large park like some of the NL West ones maybe but he simply gives up too many HRs to be worth that price even for one year. Use the money on a better pitcher.
Yeah, I see Pivetta as a back-end starter. He’s not bad, but pitchers like him can be had for less than $21M.
Ben Lively being one of them. I see him landing in BOS because they’d be willing to pay him more than CLE.
Perhaps, Max will finish his HOF career back in Washington.
No but Rendon in Nationals gray again would be sick
Are those Manaea/Severino luxury tax numbers taking into account money coming off the books?
I’ve seen two articles now talk about the Luxury Tax they will owe when they will be ~$75m under the tax threshold. Regardless of the success they had this year, that’s still the goal to reset back.
If the non cheap owners had any guts? They would insist any team not spending some sort of mininum on salary.. Say between 125-150m each year gets stripped of any and all extras bequeathed to teams included as “payees” of Luxury tax redistribution, from freebie bonus picks to any money shoveled to them. It would be the only way I know of to force them to spend, or move and not maintain status quo as pretty much useless organizations.. Sounds harsh, but it’s cold hard truth.
john;
11 of the 30 teams had payrolls under $125m this year.
16 of the 30 teams had payrolls under $150m this year.
Do you have any idea of the expense a MLB franchise has to incur to run for one year? I can only estimate their insurance premiums after the claims they make for all the injured players that go to the hospitals for tests and surgeries.
Unless there’s pretty much total revenue sharing as in the NFL and NBA, MLB is a mess. It’s just a screwed up system. Go on the Internet and see what like positions / jobs pay in different markets. In my profession I was getting 30-40% more in a major market doing the same work. The reason is the cost of living. I was also playing outrageous amounts of money for my mortgage / rent, home. auto, and medical insurance. The same food. Clothes. Education. Cost of tickets to go to a ML baseball game (and refreshments / souvenirs). You name it…..
And here comes MLB with an arbitration system that demands the A’s, Guardians, and Rays pay a player with similar years of service and similar statistics the same salary as players from the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees.
This has nothing to do with “cheap” owners. When arbitration was agreed upon A’s owner Charlie Finley called his fellow owners the “biggest a-holes in the world” for agreeing to it. Asked where he was going to get the revenue to pay his players what the Yankees paid theirs.
Who comes up with a system whereby revenue streams are so unequal, then mandates demands that the players get equal pay?
Of course the A’s, Guardians, and Rays (and Brewers…and Pirates…and Marlins…and Reds….and 10 other teams are forced to trade or lose veteran players because they can’t afford their salaries. It’s even now gotten to mid-market teams such as the Tigers, Mariners, DBacks..
I haven’t watched a game of the playoffs after the first WC day. The entire concept is rigged. It’s a joke.
–In my profession I was getting 30-40% more in a major market doing the same work–
That’s not lost on me Samuel. bit of backstory, is I also travelled kind of long distance before my working days were finished to a not all that close major city for years and the reason (main) was pay was much higher, as you described than in a far smaller locale, where much prefer to live.
Still doesn’t do away with numbers and am thinking actual CBT figures take into account some of what you are mentioning.. Insurance, pension etc..
Could go out and say (yet again) exactly what sharing profits among direct competitors is, but have already done that maybe 100 times over the years on this board, just leaving it at the fact it’s unheard of in a normal buisness world should be good enough and what ought to be done with ANY company which can’t stand on it’s own 2 feet, but have heard so many things on this board that would make bernie sanders blush in response.. Well..
I get that everyone wants a piece of the MLB/NBA/NFL.. Whatever pie, but why exactly should some have to pay for the all? It’s not the American way and no Friedman economics course can ever make it so.
Choosing Charlie Finley as the poster boy for the “woes” of past mlb owners is pretty amusing Samuel. He didnt exactly have the moral authority to go around calling anyone else an a-hole lol.
Too bad so sad that a business owner in an anti-trust exempt, unionized niche industry had to adapt to the rules of his little pocket market changing. I’m not crying in my beer about a handful of rich dudes having to scrape by with a few million less in profit (not revenue, profit which was undoubtedly what Finley was so turnt up about) to compensate the people whose work literally makes that opportunity for profit possible for whiny rich ingrates like finley.
HatlessPete
1. What is right is right. Not who said it.
The biggest problem in America today.
2. The issue to me is ME…..a fan.
Why can’t my teams compete equally? They can in the NFL and NBA.
The only flaw in your logic is you cannot compare professional sports to capitalism. It cannot succeed that way. If a company makes widgets and runs another company into closing down, widgets are still going to be made. But if the small market teams don’t have revenue sharing and they have to shutter, then you have nobody to play. Well…you do but it’s only a few teams. If I’m Burger King, competition is bad and I want to corner the market and out McDonalds out of business. If I’m the Yankees, I want them so I can play against them.
but why exactly should some have to pay for the all?
========================
Because it works better when you have broad appeal. No one is signing in to watch the same NYY/RS game, or the LAD/SFG game.
They can in the NFL and NBA.
======================
All media would have to be centralized and distributed evenly. Even then, it still won’t be equal since number of Fortune 500 companies owning boxes in NY, LA, etc., probably dwarfs the smaller cities.
Samuel, you make some fair points, but how would you reasonably improve the system?
Keep in mind that the NFL can only do complete revenue sharing due to their shared TV contract, which isn’t possible for MLB extensive schedule.
The NFL has a shared TV contract that isn’t possible with MLB’s schedule.
It’s easier in the NBA with an active roster and active participants that are only about half as many as in MLB. If a small market NBA team can manage to get a core of just 3 really good players and OK support behind them, they can compete with the big markets.
They way I’d do it is that if a team’s payroll doesn’t meet the minimum payroll for the year, the difference has to be paid into a fund that gets split up among the team’s players according to how many days they were on the roster.
–All media would have to be centralized and distributed evenly–
Good one Joe. it will be a cold one somewhere before that happens. Only it seems major sports *must* are with competitors who are small and struggle to stay afloat and in all the years have heard this gripe on this board? STILL not 1 sound reason for it.
@Lanidrac,
“but how would you reasonably improve the system?”.
Great question. Personally, I don’t think you can. Answer. MLB needs competition.
If big pockets can show up and disrupt pro golf, it can happen in baseball too. A world league run on an NFL type model including games available to watch on mainstream TV for the masses. Every player gets a base salary and bonus salary is based on performance in comparison to other players at your position from the previous year. Or something like that.
I’d follow it. Yes? No? Maybe?
Samuel, Finley wasn’t “right” he was, in typical egotistical and entitled fashion for him blaming others for his own failures and incompetence. The a’s revenues and attendance were not as low as they were under finley due to some inherent law of nature about the baseball market in Oakland. Finley dropped the ball in how he operated and promoted to the club which resulted in the local governmental bodies who held the lease on the coliseum suing him for failing to uphold his contractual obligations in that regard.
Finley literally failed to take advantage of opportunities to bring in revenue and promote the a’s that would be standard practice for a competently run franchise, most notably in failing to secure adequate radio and TV broadcasting deals for the team. At one point a college radio station with a miniscule broadcasting range held the rights for the A’s radio broadcasts! According to reporting from the time, Finley also managed to thoroughly alienate a’s fans by the time he sold the team, which makes the current situation with the a’s feel.like the worst kind of deja vu. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Charlie Finley s ownership of the team played a large role in setting them on the path to be the struggling, patchwork organization that they still are today.
Finley had a truck load of faults and mistakes. That said, he was pretty spot on as regards to free agency and arbitration. He correctly foresaw what was going to happen, and his fears have come to pass.
What fears do you believe have come to pass? It’s utterly ahistorical to assert that mlb was a bastion of parity and competitive balance before unionization and the end of the reserve clause. When clubs could freely and easily purchase players outright from less cash flush clubs, suppress player earnings with the reserve clause and sign amateurs effectively to lifetime service contracts for peanuts, at will without any system in place like the draft we have now, you had clubs hoarding an immense amount of talent and owners basically using their rosters as piggy banks when they needed or wanted a cash infusion. The most famous example of course would be Harry Frazee selling off Babe Ruth and any other player of note he could cash in on to bail himself out after a show he produced flopped hard.
Big market teams still dominated the market with fewer competitive restraints than they have today. The black Sox world series scandal was motivated in large part by player frustrations with comiskey’s poor treatment and financial shortchanging of the team boiling over. Comiskey’s stinginess was widely considered noteworthy even by the standards of the time.
The owner rhetoric and fearmongering over supposed threats of damage to the game from more equitable labor conditions over the years is nothing more than boilerplate union busting tactics. Even if there was a persuasive case to be made that competitive parity is worse now than it was before free agency, it’s a price worth paying when compared to the sheer repugnancy of the reserve clause and the ownership behavior it enabled before it was struck down.
JS
Friedman Economics? You mean neo-liberal fairy tales and never let facts get in the way of your Economic theories?
No way i would offer it to Manaea, Severino or Wacha. All 3 are far too inconsistent.
2/32 for wacha or Manaea is a good deal (around what their contracts were last year, generally). I think most would agree. So why would 1/21 not be a good deal after the 2024 season? It’s like once people see the “2” at the start of the salary they get upset.
Maybe the question should be do you think think wacha and Manaea earned a $5-8 million/year raise? I think they did, so the QO is worth it.
Manaea wasn’t that good I believe in FIP and his was not too impressive. Wacha I just don’t trust to stay healthy.
So, you’re saying they don’t deserve a raise based on their 2024 performance?
Wacha maybe a small one. No on Manaea.
Fair enough. I think wacha has proven to be consistent over the past three years. 3/60 maybe but because of lack of innings, so 3/54 which makes 1/21 reasonable. Manaea should easily get 3/57 so 1/21 isn’t bad. But Manaea on the Mets makes it 1/44 so obviously not.
Wacha had missed numerous starts in 6 consecutive years prior to 2024. I am a Cardinals fan he looked like he was going to be amazing early on but injuries have taken their toll.
It doesn’t matter if you think they deserve a raise or not. The point is they aren’t going to accept a QO to make what will amount to a few mill more next season, and in turn decline a chance at a multi-year offer that pays tens of millions over the haul.
I mean at Wacha’s age, are you taking 1/21 and turning down what might be 3/45? I’m not, the likelihood of making back that 24M$ becomes slimmer by the day.
Then you’re living in the past. He’s pitched well the last three years with a low 3 era and coming off 166 innings. Yes, he has low inning totals that it why I said 3/60 or 3/54. Those aren’t unreasonable.
It’s not our money.
The Blue Jays are lining up with open wallets
It depends. If there’s too much of a gap in the AAV, then taking the one-year deal with the higher AAV is better.
Mets are below the 2025 cbt atm. There is no tax.
Isnt Verlander also a free agent as well? I believe he will be ineligible but still a top pitcher.
JV will be 42 years old next season and has a 5.48 ERA this season. He’s no longer a top pitcher.
Where does Jose Quintana fall in the QO mix? Ineligible, Long shot or unlikely?
Highly unlikely. If the Mets gave him a QO, it would be like paying Verlander or Scherzer because of the CBT penalties.
Ohio: Last time I looked Teoscar is an outfielder, not a pitcher.
This list is just for pitchers.
there’s a different article for the position players
I think the Mets QO Manaea because they would be fine if he accepted it. Plus if they want to resign him to a multi year deal the QO will reduce his value on the open market making it cheaper to do so.
Severino is tougher and my guess is they don’t QO him. If they are going to risk spending 21m for a season on a guy like Sev I could see them just adding some more and getting a better pitcher.
Wacha is a tough one because he has been pretty good and is probably worth 1 year 21m. Though I don’t see him getting over 50m in the market with a QO attached. So this is all about if they are fine paying him 21m for a season or not. My guess is they pass.
None of the other non for sure should get QO’d.
This will be an interesting offseason with a number of cable deals falling apart. I think half the league or more will be looking to either cut payroll or keep it the same. So the big names will be gobbled up by the big market teams while the others could see their salaries suppressed. There could be some real bargains late in the offseason for teams that have patience.
TV revenue differences are going to create an even larger gap between the haves and have nots.
I think baseball should remove the QO, most teams handing them out don’t want the player to accept or the ones they do want will never anyways. So this just makes it more difficult for mid/smaller market teams to get picks in return. Just go to a system is without a QO and allows teams to receive picks back solely based on the value of the contract the free agent signed.
I miss the old system… back in the ’80’s when a team that signs a big name free agent, they lose their 1st round pick to the team that signs them. In 1985 the Padres lost a pick because they signed Tim Stoddard. The Cubs gained the 1st round pick and selected Rafael Palmeiro. You didn’t have 40 picks in the first round. Every team had one pick… they either used it or lost it due to signing a top free agent.
The Mets could lose both guys and have a ton of money. I think they offer both the QO and think Severino takes it.
It is an overpay but cuts there need to one starter not two.
Why wouldn’t Walker Buehler fall into the borderline category? He wasn’t great coming off injury, but his career numbers are impressive, he is a two time all star and has finished top ten in Cy young voting twice. I think he’d probably be looking for a a one year prove it deal, so accepting the QO is probably a likely scenario, but I gotta believe it’s a borderline consideration for the dodgers FO.
Never quite understood why a player can only receive one lifetime QO. Would love to understand the logic.
It’s meant to safeguard their earning power in future trips to free agency. The draft impact to the signing team is something they will generally try to offset with a lower cash offer for all but the very high end elite talents, weakens the player’s negotiating position and suppresses their offers in free agency compared to similar players without a qo attached.
I don’t think Severino gets a QO.
Reason why is his 2024 results were encouraging but NYM (and other teams) would like to see more of a track record of similar results.
Teams would probably be willing to give him a 2 or 3 year contract – with incentives at a lower AAV (NOT 21M per year) Maybe 17M per year