The qualifying offer in the 2024-25 offseason will be officially set at $21.05MM, reports ESPN’s Kiley McDaniel. Joel Sherman of the New York Post reported in August that the QO value was expected to land in the vicinity of $21.2MM but would not be finalized until October. This year’s QO value represents an increase of $725K over last year’s mark of $20.325MM. The QO value, which is determined by calculating the average salary of the sport’s 125 highest-paid players, has risen nearly every season since being implemented under the 2012-16 collective bargaining agreement. Here’s a look at the history of the QO value:
- 2012-13: $13.3MM
- 2013-14: $14.4MM
- 2014-15: $15.3MM
- 2015-16: $15.8MM
- 2016-17: $17.2MM
- 2017-18: $17.4MM
- 2018-19: $17.9MM
- 2019-20: $17.8MM
- 2020-21: $18.9MM
- 2021-22: $18.4MM
- 2022-23: $19.65MM
- 2023-24: $20.325MM
For those in need of a refresher or new to the QO system entirely, it was implemented as a competitive balance measure in an effort to ensure clubs would receive compensation in the following year’s draft if their top players depart and sign elsewhere in free agency. Any team can issue a qualifying offer to an impending free agent at the beginning of the offseason, so long as that player A) has never received a QO in the past and B) spent the entire season on that club’s roster. (In other words: players can only receive one QO in their career, and traded players cannot receive a QO — a measure put in place to prevent big-market clubs from acquiring/claiming expensive players from small-market teams who couldn’t afford the risk of a QO themselves.)
Five days after the end of the World Series, teams must decide whether to issue a QO to any of their impending free agents. Those players will have a week to then survey the market to determine what sort of interest is present in free agency before deciding whether to accept a one-year deal at the QO value or reject it in pursuit of a larger contract. Players who accept the QO are considered signed in the same manner as any free agent, meaning they cannot be traded prior to June 15 of the following season without their consent. Players who reject a qualifying offer are then tied to draft compensation, potentially complicating their market in some cases.
In order to sign a player who rejected a qualifying offer, teams must surrender at least one pick — two, in some cases — in the next year’s draft. Some clubs are also required to surrender space from their bonus pool in international amateur free agency.
Any club that pays the luxury tax must surrender its second- and fifth-highest picks in the next year’s draft and forfeit $1MM of international pool space. (Signing a second qualified free agent means surrendering the second- and fifth-highest of their remaining picks, and so forth.) Non-luxury clubs that do not receive revenue sharing must surrender their second-highest pick and $500K of international pool space to sign a qualified free agent. (Again, signing a second such free agent means forfeiting their second-highest remaining pick.) Non-luxury teams who also receive revenue sharing are required to forfeit their third-highest pick to sign a qualified free agent (and their remaining third-highest pick for additional qualified free agents).
There are similar structures in place for the team losing the free agent in question. A revenue-sharing club receives a compensatory pick either at the end of the first round (if the player signs elsewhere for more than $50MM in guaranteed money) between Competitive Balance Round B and round three (if he signs for under $50MM) in the following year’s draft. Non-luxury clubs who do not receive revenue sharing receive a pick after Competitive Balance Round B. Luxury tax payors receive a compensatory pick between rounds four and five of the draft.
The relatively steep nature of the one-year offer and the risk of being “saddled” with a player that the club perhaps did not want to retain (but for whom they’d hoped to net a draft pick) typically lead to only a handful of players receiving the QO. Last year saw just seven players — Shohei Ohtani, Cody Bellinger, Matt Chapman, Sonny Gray, Blake Snell, Aaron Nola and Josh Hader — receive qualifying offers. All seven rejected them. The most recent examples of players accepting the one-year QO came on the heels of the 2022 season, when Joc Pederson and Martin Perez accepted their $19.65MM qualifying offers from the Giants and Rangers, respectively.
There are a handful of slam-dunk QO candidates among this year’s crop of free agents. Juan Soto, Corbin Burnes, Alex Bregman, Willy Adames, Max Fried, Pete Alonso, Anthony Santander and Teoscar Hernandez will all assuredly receive a QO and are all overwhelmingly likely to reject in search of a multi-year deal. Other candidates to receive a QO include Sean Manaea, Luis Severino, Christian Walker, Jurickson Profar, Tyler O’Neill, Michael Wacha, Ha-Seong Kim, and Nick Martinez, though not everyone from that group will ultimately receive one. Manaea, Wacha and Martinez all have opt-outs in their contracts they’re widely expected to exercise this offseason. Kim has an $8MM mutual option on his contract that he won’t exercise, although whether he receives a QO could hinge in part on the recovery timetable from his recent shoulder surgery, which is still not known.
There’s no way that Hoffman is considered for a QO, right?
I doubt it. I briefly included him on the list of candidates since I do expect he’ll be the highest or second-highest paid reliever in free agency this winter, but it still feels like a reach to put down a one-year of this magnitude for him so I cut him like a minute after publish, ha. Wondered if I’d still get a quick comment on that though — kudos! Heh.
I will be interested to see if Nick Martinez gets a QO after he opts out.
I think we all know the answer.
I imagine he’d accept, but he pitched well enough this season to at least merit some light consideration. I think he’s less likely to get one than any of the other names I mentioned at the end there.
The Reds’ decision to extend a QO might also hinge on whether they think Martinez may ultimately sign elsewhere for less than $50M. As a team that receives revenue sharing, that has a big impact on the potential compensatory pick Cincy would receive.
The Reds decision will be based on whether or not they intend to lose money on their tv deal. If they intend to take another revenue cut they’ll be less likely to take the risk of him accepting a QO.
Soto is the only one worth 21.5. The others should feel lucky to get 20 especially Adames.
I think any of those potential candidates listed should take the offer immediately. I could see Kim declining possibly, I don’t think he’ll be worth his future contract, but someone will still offer it. Both sides should be pleased though if he just stays there for one more year on the QO. Do they have the money to pay him and Profar though?? Discount Profar is great, but full price? Not so much.
Same with those starting pitchers. Nice guys to get on one year deals, but quickly can go south on a multi year deal. I’d just keep trying the one year deals for pitchers because the’re a coin flip seemingly.
Kim was a slam dunk before the injury but now I’m not so sure. Profar they might do it just because they like him so much and with Preller gutting the farm at the deadline having another draft pick in-hand to rebuild it with if he declines would be huge.
For the Padres Kim is a maybe and Profar will not be QO’d. Profar has started to look like avg’ish bat he was before this season during the second half.
holecamels35, Over the short term, yes. But the big picture needs to be taken into consideration. It makes sense for guys to reject the QO, but sign for a lower AAV, than the QO amount. Most players would prefer a $15M AAV over multiple years, to taking the QO. There’s much less security taking the QO, since an injury could ruin future earning power. 4/60 is far preferable to 1/21 for most players.
I think the QO should be somewhat linked to the WAR of a player as well. Teams could issue offers that reflect how much value the player has contributed, making the QO less risky for both the team and the player. It could also prevent situations where clubs are reluctant to extend a QO because they fear overpaying for marginal talent, while at the same time ensuring top-tier free agents are rewarded for their performance.
If San Diego offers Profar the qualifying offer he would be out of his mind to reject it.
Unless someone offers a long term deal before the deadline to accept or reject it.
Crash_n_burn, Profar will be 32 next season. Does he want to reenter free-agency at the age of 33, possibly on the heels of a down season? Or possibly a severe injury? I think not. If he can get an offer of 4/60, that would be better for him than taking the 1/21 QO. Even though the AAV is significantly less, the security is significantly better.
I don’t see either of those things happening.
Don’t see any team offering him 4/60
I would take that as well, I admit, but with his age and his inconsistency would you be willing to gamble multiple years for this guy?
If he had back to back good seasons can then see him getting 3 years at most.
Maybe not, but the way teams are overpaying for players it wouldn’t surprise me. I wouldn’t be happy if my team offered 4/60, but he is coming off a big season: 158 games, 24 HRs, .380 OBP, an .839 OPS, and a 134 OPS+. That could be an outlier, but some desperate team may gamble that it isn’t. But even if the best offer is 3/45, he’s better off rejecting the QO, and taking that.
Inflation is great for this but how many will it take it? Funny how just a few years ago it was $17M and that was considered a bit too much to pull the trigger.
They are doing it by formula. The only way it doesn’t rise is if the average salary of the top 125 players stagnates.
It’s based on the top 10% of 40 man roster payrolls….hasn’t changed.
The article I found said it’s based on the top 125 players. Either way, it will keep rising until they change the formula or top player salaries stagnate. I don’t see the top player salaries stagnating even if overall salaries stop rising temporarily.
30 teams x 40 man roster = 1200 So 10% is 120. Near enough to the 125 stated in the article.
I think Manaea at this point is a lock to receive the QO. Mets would gladly bring him back if he accepted, so there’s no reason not to offer it. Severino probably not, though I wouldn’t be surprised if they worked out a short term deal with him.
Even though a Severino QO is, in general, a borderline decision, the Mets needs to even field a rotation in ’25 makes him a more acceptable gamble to the them. 1/21 for Sevy won’t get in the way of them pursuing a Burnes, Fried or Snell and it will guarantee them depth.
@Stud: I don’t disagree. I think a lot depends on their other plans, though. If they’re planning on re-signing Pete and strongly pursuing Soto, in addition to going after one of those starters you mentioned, then I don’t see them offering a QO to Severino.
As far as depth, I could definitely see them bringing Quintana back. He was lights out down the stretch and is a solid back-of-the-rotation guy. Senga, Manaea, Peterson, Quintana is a good start. Megill is still around, Butto may get pushed back to the rotation. Sproat and Blade Tidwell may be ready. A couple of cheap flyers on lesser options, too, like they did with Sevy and Manaea this past offseason.
I offer it to both. It’s not a dramatic over pay if Severino accepts it.
I appreciate the education. I didn’t know how it worked
I think Kim and O’Neill are near locks.
Kim should automatically get a 4-year offer, unless there is reason to believe the injury is career threatening. As a RS fan, I’d gladly give him $70M (3.5 years * $20M).
O’Neill is not nearly as talented, but the downside is very low for the RS. Despite the OF depth and prospects, we are still short on RH hitters. If he accepts, I would not be bothered at all.
100% agreed on Kim. He’s an elite defender at SS and will only be 29 next year. Someone is going to pony up for his age 29-32 seasons.
He also just switched his agent to Boras. To me, he didn’t do that just to accept a QO.
I’ll take it!
Roughly a 50% increase in a decade. At this rate will be $30 million in 2034…
3.9% per year.
Making my annual argument against the system, primarily on competitive grounds. Owners may disagree with this, but when a big money team doesn’t have a pipeline talent to fill a weakness in either positional regulars or pitching, it goes out and buys it. The more draft choices forfeited the more the loss of potential talent, the greater the possibility too much is spent on B+ players. True stars are going to get paid anyway, QO or not, so the system doesn’t depress their top-of-the-market earning power, But the owners want to keep it because it’s low-lying fruit.
Mikenmn, I agree, but it’s not the owners, it’s the players that want to keep the QO system. If it was up to the owners there’d be a salary cap, but that was a deal breaker for the players. They’d probably prefer something more punitive for some teams wielding their financial clout. The QO system was the compromise, but the players like it better than the owners do.
The system was never intended to suppress the top-of-the-market earning power. The players like it for that very reason, and why they agreed to it, because, as you say, it doesn’t.
Most teams don’t have the financial resources of the Met’s, Dodgers, or Yankees. Those teams would love a more equitable system. But players want more of a free-market system, where players sign with the highest bidder. That keeps salaries higher, but also benefits the wealthier teams in their ability to acquire the better players. It’s a bad system for competitive balance.
Could go back to the prior system that depressed the players salary and made it harder for a bad teams recover long term.
for reference:
Before 2013, Major League Baseball (MLB) had a compensation system for free agents that included the following:
Type A free agents: Ranked in the top 20% of players at their position, the signing team gave its top draft pick to the club the player left. The club that lost the player also received a supplemental pick in the “sandwich” round.
Type B free agents: Ranked below the top 20% but in the top 40% of players at their position, the signing team did not lose a pick, but the club that lost the player received a supplemental pick.
Sign a better free agent and sacrifice the future/pipeline anyway with you losing your top pick to someone else and have more people automatically in the pool without choice (i remember it being more than 50 or 60 players but its been a while).. I like this current system better as it only effects pretty much a handful of players and teams can choose whether to offer it or not. Teams can honor heroes for the team like Kershaw and not give him a QO where the old system would force him even if both sides dont want it.
So Profar goes from 1 million per to a QO of $21 million? I don’t think so…
I would love to see this list with the amount of QO offers given and accepted next to it. The acceptance percentage would be the icing on the cake.
Qualifying offers began after the 2012 season, and only 13 of 131 offers have been accepted. so about 10% accepted and roughly about 10-12 offers a year … but it has dropped on how many offered. as dollars have gone up.
It seems like the Padres would be more likely to work out an extension with Profar than to give a QO. He wants to be in SD so if they offer a QO at that value he’s highly likely to take it.
He had a great year but there’s a lot of history working against him getting a big deal on the open market. We are a year removed from him having a negative 1.6 fWAR. I think there’s a general feeling on both sides that he’s better in SD and fits in on the Padres more than on other teams. Both sides are probably going to be motivated to work a multi-year deal out.
The Orioles are going to lose Burnes and Santander. They’re going to have a TON of early round picks next year. So in theory, 5 years from now will be another youth infusion on the MLB roster. Finally a consistently competitive club after those lean years.
Hopefully those comp picks are used on pitchers. We need to make an attempt in that department.
Of course…Juan Soto, Corbin Burnes, Alex Bregman, Willy Adames, Max Fried, Pete Alonso, Anthony Santander and Teoscar Hernandez.
Yes to…Sean Manaea, Christian Walker, Michael Wacha, Ha-Seong Kim (unless his medicals are horrid). Doubt any of the clubs would be upset if this group accepted – though I see highly doubtful any does.
Maybe to…Luis Severino (pitched as many innings this year as the previous 5 years combined – can he do it again?), Nick Martinez (had a huge 2nd half – probably won’t be hard to find a 2 year / 15 M per deal but the Reds are cheap). Still don’t think either team would be too upset if they accepted.
No to…Jurickson Profar (way too much of a gamble), Tyler O’Neill (had 2 great months primarily against lefties – unlikely to repeat).
What’s the O/U on Profar’s actual next contract? I think he’ll get 21M$ but it’ll be spread over 2 years instead of 1.
There is a zero percent chance the Reds risk a $21M QO on 34 year-old Nick Martinez. He’d say yes before the words were all out of the GM’s mouth and then he would account for approximately 64% of the Reds’ 2025 payroll.
Zero chance you say? Why? I guarantee you it’s above 0%. Players want multiyear contracts. He’d have no problem getting 15M$ per on a 2 year or more deal. That might be worth it to him, more so than a 1 year, 20M$ deal that could potentially be his last.
I think Kim stays in San Diego. If he doesn’t I think the Giants sign him. Giants a little unstable at SS and 2ND. I do hope the Giants re-sign Estrada too.
Will be interesting to see if boston offers o’neil and if he accepts..and hpw that could impact the rest of the rostor with top prospects on the doorstep