Should The Qualifying Offer Be Scrapped?

[Il BuonO]

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

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[backwardsk]

Get rid of it in the next collective bargaining agreement.

[Il BuonO]

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

[Il BuonO]

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.

[Frobby]

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.

[Il BuonO]

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?

[Frobby]

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.

[Il BuonO]

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.

[Frobby]

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.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

[skanar]

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.

[waroriole]

I agree with those saying agents led some guys astray this year. I think we see more folks accept next year.

[Loophole]

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.