Jump to content

Should The Qualifying Offer Be Scrapped?


Il BuonO

MLBTR:Should The Qualifying Offer Be Scrapped?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. MLBTR:Should The Qualifying Offer Be Scrapped?

    • Yes, get rid of it.
    • Keep the basic idea with some changes.
    • No, keep it as is.


Recommended Posts

I saw this on MLBTR and thought it was an interesting subject for the board.

Here's a tidbit from the piece I read.

"The qualifying offer system will remain in place through at least December 2016, when the current collective bargaining agreement expires. At that point, MLB owners and players will reconvene to try to hammer out a new deal, and the qualifying offer is sure to emerge as a topic of discussion."

So, do you think the current system is working or needs to change? I'll include the same poll questions used by MLBTR.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/03/poll-qualifying-offers.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was collectively bargained and it certainly isn't breaking the MLB product so why change it before the next CBA?

That is just silly.

I don't know if you are being serious, but I'm sure by reading the small piece I included you could have figured out that the intended point of the poll was to gauge what MLB should do in 2016.

I suppose I could ask a mod to change the poll question for you. :)

I think the system works and too much is made of players not being able to move because of the pick being tied to them. It's certainly better than what was in place before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if you are being serious, but I'm sure by reading the small piece I included you could have figured out that the intended point of the poll was to gauge what MLB should do in 2016.

I suppose I could ask a mod to change the poll question for you. :)

I think the system works and too much is made of players not being able to move because of the pick being tied to them. It's certainly better than what was in place before.

Sorry, I had just woken up and with all the teeth gnashing other folks had done I thought you were discussing emergency action.

I think it is working fine from an ownership prospective and it doesn't effect enough players for their side to give up something to change it. The old system were you would have draft pick compensation tied to a dozen relief pitchers every offseason was much worse.

The effected players and their agents need to do a better job of surveying the landscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The effected players and their agents need to do a better job of surveying the landscape.

I agree. Cruz and his agent would be a perfect example. In another thread I thought an apt comment was made regarding the PED question with Cruz. We don't really know if he was using last, he never tested positive. He was linked to the biogenesis scandal.

I'm not sure any of that played a part in determining his contract more than his age and position did because look at Peralta. He was suspended but landed a nice deal.

QOs are too easily influenced by players agents over valuing the market right now. Cruz is 34, he should have been happy to sign for $14 mil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any system that provides for compensation for the best free agents is going to benefit the rich teams, because they will have more of the top salary players to start with and can afford to offer to keep them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any system that provides for compensation for the best free agents is going to benefit the rich teams, because they will have more of the top salary players to start with and can afford to offer to keep them.

Not sure I agree, but I'm sure there could be changes to the current system. What would you propose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree, but I'm sure there could be changes to the current system. What would you propose?

Just spitballing here, but instead of making the QO be the average of the top 150 salaries in MLB, how about if it was the average of the top 5 salaries on that particular team? For the Yankees, that would be about $21.5 mm, but for the Red Sox, only $14.7 mm. For the O's, it would be about $11.5 mm.

That's probably a bad idea, but it certainly would screw the Yankees, who of course, deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just spitballing here, but instead of making the QO be the average of the top 150 salaries in MLB, how about if it was the average of the top 5 salaries on that particular team? For the Yankees, that would be about $21.5 mm, but for the Red Sox, only $14.7 mm. For the O's, it would be about $11.5 mm.

That's probably a bad idea, but it certainly would screw the Yankees, who of course, deserve it.

Well, I'm sure the Yankees would say it's a bad idea, but with anything that has them paying more I'm on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm sure the Yankees would say it's a bad idea, but with anything that has them paying more I'm on board.

The more I think about it, the MLBPA would never go for this. It would really hose guys who are on small market teams and want to leave. Maybe an either-or test would be better: average of the top 150, or the top five on your team, whichever is higher. The MLBPA would like that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should probably be changed but I'm not sure that it's not working out fairly well and close to what it was designed to do. I'm sure some mid-tier free agents aren't too happy about it. Seems to me we have benefited from the current structure this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the thought of players staying with one team as long as possible. I also like the thought of players being well- and fairly-paid for the value they produce.

Morales and Cruz should have accepted their QOs. Santana and Jimenez needed to consider it. Stephen Drew should have thought about it as well, given the relative scarcity of SS jobs this offseason and the relative plenty next offseason.

Just because some players made a bad business decision doesn't mean the system is broken.

That said, I think some improvements are possible. Perhaps the loss of draft pick should apply only to the pick itself and not to the slotted money, so the team loses the chance at the top-tier talent but can still take some risks later in the draft. Perhaps Frobby's suggestion on changing the amount of the offer relative to the team is good. I'm open to suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idea #1 that would never happen but would at least be a step in the right direction: protect the first round draft picks of the 15 lowest-salaried teams rather than the lowest-win totals.

Idea #2 that could actually happen as it would stop penalizing QO-rejecters but still benefit the rich teams: Instead of removing any draft picks, just add them. Team that loses a FA gets a pick one ahead of the team that pays the money. Of course this would screw over every team behind...

Idea #3: Scrap compensation, set and enforce a real salary cap for both major and minor league spending, distribute all revenue equally to all teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Posts

    • Yep.   I'll be pleasantly surprised if he makes the OD roster.    Verducci Effect or not, the benefit for the Club if it can acquire control of his 2029 is large.     Grayson Rodriguez's 2022 platform has not been enough for Mike Elias to plan to pitch him 26 weeks or 33 starts in MLB in 2023.     The rest is just a question of asset management. Pittsburgh Roansy Contreras is a talented young pitcher maybe close to Grayson's ballpark, has been the 100-loss Pirates second best starter this year by ERA+, and was optioned back to AAA yesterday like he was Nick Vespi or something.   There's a chicken-egg game with SP's building up to take the full Jordan Lyles complement, and Clubs "protecting their best interests" by looking out for them.   And then, the meta-game where the MATH doesn't make sense for anyone except maybe 10 guys per league to take the full Jordan Lyles complement. It isn't that Grayson Rodriguez isn't as awesome as Gunnar Henderson...he just isn't ramped up enough.   And competitively, you aren't maximizing the roster well enough on a daily basis if "tired Grayson Rodriguez" gets one of your 13 precious spots that day. In terms of what the 2023 Orioles will be, I hope they use him straight out of the gate, and start tinkering with load management if being the 6th best or better team in the league looks likely after a few months.   But I don't think that's what will happen.     The Mariners Logan Gilbert and George Kirby cases this year are decent analogs, and curious to see what they have left for this month.
    • Yes, at 3B/SS/2B.  860 OPS at 1B could be 750 at the big league level, which gets you Mountcastle.  With plus defense across other IF positions, that's positive WAR.
    • I am glad we don't have to choose at least not now anyway.  I would also go with Adley for the intangibles.
    • This probably means we get a grand finale of the Aguilar and Odor Show in game 2. 
    • Why are they even playing these games, everything is set for the playoffs. I would hate to see somebody pick-up a significant injury in a meaningless game. 
    • Yea, I agree with this.  He’s definitely down the list of guys I would cut but I also wouldn’t hesitate to do it if we had to.  Chances are they won’t need to add 15 guys to the 40 man this offseason, so it’s probably a moot point but once you get into that area of needing to drop the 10th guy off the current 40 man list, his spot becomes precarious.
    • The orioles will probably have around 38 guys on the 40 man by the rule 5 draft. If you’re taking more guys off of it then you need to put more players on. There aren’t that many options to add that I see a situation where bubble guys like Zimmerman are left off and bubble guys like Handley aren’t added. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...