Qualifying Offer Value Set At $17.2MM

[weams]

My post comes off harsh. I visited Houston last year and just didn't like it. If I had a job offer that paid 10-15% more to relocate there, I'd turn it down. Taste and preferences I guess. I did like Rice's campus though.

Speaking of Houston, Rasmus will get a QO, right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They want him for 16?

[backwardsk]

They want him for 16?

I would think they would dare him to accept and live with the consequences if he does.

While they do have several Arb guys, they have operated with payrolls $20 to $30M higher than 2015's level.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[24fps]

If I am a GM and I am in doubt, I am going to offer QOs until somebody, somewhere in MLB actually takes one. And, even after somebody does take one, if they are a Scott Boras client, I will keep offering QOs to his clients until one of HIS clients actually takes one. We absolutely should have offered Markakis a QO last year. That was a definite mistake (among many others) by DD last year and a number of us said so at the time. You can't really build a great farm system if you just blow off draft picks. No way Matt takes a QO and we will only lose the draft pick if we don't offer him.

You can't build a great major league team if you blow off a third of your yearly acquisition budget on a disappointing and thoroughly redundant player gambling that you might win a player with a less than 10% chance of being league average over the 6 years of team control prior to free agency, a time frame that will end somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 years in the future.

As to the other part of your post, if you are a GM in doubt then any agent worth a damn, and that would include Scott Boras, would be absolutely delighted to step in and "help" you down the road to certainty. It won't be cheap, but of course professional "advice" never is. And of course any good GM knows that because something never happened before, it can't happen in the future. Now there's some certainty you can stake your career on.

[DrungoHazewood]

You can't build a great major league team if you blow off a third of your yearly acquisition budget on a disappointing and thoroughly redundant player gambling that you might win a player with a less than 10% chance of being league average over the 6 years of team control prior to free agency, a time frame that will end somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 years in the future.

As to the other part of your post, if you are a GM in doubt then any agent worth a damn, and that would include Scott Boras, would be absolutely delighted to step in and "help" you down the road to certainty. It won't be cheap, but of course professional "advice" never is. And of course any good GM knows that because something never happened before, it can't happen in the future. Now there's some certainty you can stake your career on.

I think there's less than 10% chance Wieters takes the QO. He will get a multi-year deal for more than $10M a year. You have to offer the QO to anyone who is unlikely to accept. They have to build up the farm system, and the way to start is to not give away the quantity of talent necessary to make the relatively long odds of any one player work.

[Redskins Rick]

I think there's less than 10% chance Wieters takes the QO. He will get a multi-year deal for more than $10M a year. You have to offer the QO to anyone who is unlikely to accept. They have to build up the farm system, and the way to start is to not give away the quantity of talent necessary to make the relatively long odds of any one player work.

I think you overvalued that 10% by a factor of 10.

But, you are spot on, they have to make the QO, which is why they didn't trade him, mid season.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think you overvalued that 10% by a factor of 10.

But, you are spot on, they have to make the QO, which is why they didn't trade him, mid season.

I think that was secondary to winning baseball games in an attempt to make the playoffs.

[Redskins Rick]

I think that was secondary to winning baseball games in an attempt to make the playoffs.

True, I agree, and should have said that better in my post.

[AlbionHero]

I can understand not giving a QO to Markakis last year... he was only worth 15 million or more once since 2008, so there was a good chance he wouldn't be worth the 1 year deal if he agreed to it. With Wieters though, each of the last 3 years he's been healthy he was worth way over 15 million... 33 million, 25 mil and 18 mil. If he is healthy, he should easily be worth the 15 million so its not much of a risk to me. We're essentially throwing away drafting a potential impact player because we're CHEAP.

[e16bball]

The other benefit to offering the QO is that you're also increasing the chances of keeping the player (if you want to, at the right price).

Other teams will have factor the loss of a draft pick into their contract offer, which will necessarily drive down the salary they can justify offering. For example, would Atlanta have offered Markakis 4/$44M if signing him meant also giving up their #14 pick in last year's draft? I doubt it. If the pick being attached meant they could only have justified offering Markakis something like 4/$36M, perhaps we would have been more likely to match and retain him.

The pick compensation probably won't affect a player whose market will be as robust as Davis's likely will. But for guys like Wieters, Chen, and even O'Day, offering the QO would likely drive their market value down --- perhaps into our price range. In which case it would help us if they leave (and we get a pick) or if they decide to stay (and we get a reduced price).

[24fps]

I can understand not giving a QO to Markakis last year... he was only worth 15 million or more once since 2008, so there was a good chance he wouldn't be worth the 1 year deal if he agreed to it. With Wieters though, each of the last 3 years he's been healthy he was worth way over 15 million... 33 million, 25 mil and 18 mil. If he is healthy, he should easily be worth the 15 million so its not much of a risk to me. We're essentially throwing away drafting a potential impact player because we're CHEAP.

You're basing these valuations on this year's calculation on WAR values?

Wieters, if his health permits him to return to career norms which is around 2 WAR per year on average, might be worth $15 million to a team that needs to acquire 2 WAR from the catcher's position and can afford to pay retail for it. It is perfectly reasonable for the Orioles to calculate 2 WAR (or more) in 2016 from Joseph and Clevinger for around $4 million total, perhaps less. There is no justification for the Orioles or anyone to apply free agent valuations on situations where turning to the free agent market isn't indicated. That extends to the impulse to rationalize business risk where the risk far outweighs the potential return. The Orioles don't need a catcher, especially one with significant health questions, they need a starting pitcher, an upgrade at at least one OF spot and a solution to CD's impending departure. These are areas where WAR valuations would have some meaning IMO.

[tntoriole]

You can't build a great major league team if you blow off a third of your yearly acquisition budget on a disappointing and thoroughly redundant player gambling that you might win a player with a less than 10% chance of being league average over the 6 years of team control prior to free agency, a time frame that will end somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 years in the future.

As to the other part of your post, if you are a GM in doubt then any agent worth a damn, and that would include Scott Boras, would be absolutely delighted to step in and "help" you down the road to certainty. It won't be cheap, but of course professional "advice" never is. And of course any good GM knows that because something never happened before, it can't happen in the future. Now there's some certainty you can stake your career on.

The fact is NO player, no matter their team, their WAR, their history, the team's situation, NO player in ML history has EVER taken a QO. None, zero, zip. But you are so sure that Scott Boras somehow cannot find a deal out there that you just throw the pick down the toilet because you think the worst case of having Matt Wieters looking to have a career year on a 1 year deal will be the reason, the obstacle that keeps us from spending that money on the sterling free agent that will lead us to win in 2016. I say nonsense. If DD doesn't QO him, it will be yet another in a string of his strategic mistakes, imho. When people complain about how poor the farm system, I don't want to hear it. You cite the low percentage of draft picks succeeding as if that is a reason to have LESS picks. You hit big in the draft by having as many picks as possible, particularly if you are not able or willing to be big spenders in free agency.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[24fps]

The fact is NO player, no matter their team, their WAR, their history, the team's situation, NO player in ML history has EVER taken a QO. None, zero, zip. But you are so sure that Scott Boras somehow cannot find a deal out there that you just throw the pick down the toilet because you think the worst case of having Matt Wieters looking to have a career year on a 1 year deal will be the reason, the obstacle that keeps us from spending that money on the sterling free agent that will lead us to win in 2016. I say nonsense. If DD doesn't QO him, it will be yet another in a string of his strategic mistakes, imho. When people complain about how poor the farm system, I don't want to hear it. You cite the low percentage of draft picks succeeding as if that is a reason to have LESS picks. You hit big in the draft by having as many picks as possible, particularly if you are not able or willing to be big spenders in free agency.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What does Max Sherzer's situation after the 2014 season have to do with Matt Wieters' situation now? None, zero, zip. So why offer the decisions of Sherzer and other players, all who faced different, highly individual circumstances as evidence of how Matt Wieters will behave in the presence of a qualifying offer? I suspect none of these players will enter into his decision making process.

I'll be happy to tell you what I'm sure about and what I expect, so there's no need for you to imagine it for me. I fully expect Scott Boras to find a deal for Matt Wieters. The question is when. Right now the only choice he has is to put the best face on a player who hasn't fully proven himself healed from a very serious injury, then find the best long-term deal while negotiating from a disadvantage. Boras does have the option of trying to find a one-year deal so Matt can prove himself healthy. It is highly unlikely that deal will approach $15.8 million. Nor is it likely that a multi-year deal this offseason will approach $15.8 million AAV. If their preference is for another year to improve Matt's long-term prospects, and there is a good case to be made for that, then accepting a QO from the Orioles makes a lot of sense.

I don't believe that Matt will have a career year in 2016. I believe he will have a year where he is a 100 OPS+ player because that is what he was in 2015 and that is what he is over the course of his career. Exactly.

Matt Wieters on the Orioles is redundant. Him accepting a QO means roughly $13-15 million less to spend on actually useful FA's depending on whether it's Clevinger or Joseph who takes the fall. How recognizing that could be considered nonsense escapes me. Save the hyperbole, it doesn't enhance your argument.

If DD doesn't offer him a QO it might be a strategic mistake. Or it could be the considered and prudent judgement of someone who would rather use the $1.3-1.7 million savings in Japan, or Korea or Latin America. Just for example. The June draft is not the only way to improve the system. Having Matt Wieters unexpectedly accept the QO, dinging the budget for a cool $15.8 million and losing the comp pick to boot? Now THAT would be a strategic mistake.

Of course having a good farm system is important. Part of that is a healthy influx of new blood so having more amateur draft picks is obviously better than fewer. But carefully choosing who to take with your picks is also important, so is developing them effectively, and for that matter so is exploring other avenues for talent acquisition. It's not just a numbers game.

The very low overall success rate for draft acquisitions is a fact of life. I don't cite that as an argument for less picks, that would be idiotic. I cite it for perspective and to reinforce the point that having an additional $16 million to address team needs would be a better use of resources at this point than whatever Matt Wieters could reasonably be expected to contribute in 2016.

[Nevermore]

I would give O'Day a QO. This is because (I believe that) he is the union rep. Which means that he'll feel an obligation to reject it. Then O's management can negotiate, but if he goes somewhere else, the O's get a draft choice.

[Nevermore]

All three have to receive offers. I don't see how you can justify not offering at minimum.

What's the saying? No such thing as a bad one-year deal? If for some reason any one of them accepts the offer (which they won't), then you have that position locked up next year and can focus elsewhere.

As has been stated before in this thread, we don't want another Markakis situation where we lose a valuable piece without compensation.

:agree: with all of this.

[tntoriole]

What does Max Sherzer's situation after the 2014 season have to do with Matt Wieters' situation now? None, zero, zip. So why offer the decisions of Sherzer and other players, all who faced different, highly individual circumstances as evidence of how Matt Wieters will behave in the presence of a qualifying offer? I suspect none of these players will enter into his decision making process.

I'll be happy to tell you what I'm sure about and what I expect, so there's no need for you to imagine it for me. I fully expect Scott Boras to find a deal for Matt Wieters. The question is when. Right now the only choice he has is to put the best face on a player who hasn't fully proven himself healed from a very serious injury, then find the best long-term deal while negotiating from a disadvantage. Boras does have the option of trying to find a one-year deal so Matt can prove himself healthy. It is highly unlikely that deal will approach $15.8 million. Nor is it likely that a multi-year deal this offseason will approach $15.8 million AAV. If their preference is for another year to improve Matt's long-term prospects, and there is a good case to be made for that, then accepting a QO from the Orioles makes a lot of sense.

I don't believe that Matt will have a career year in 2016. I believe he will have a year where he is a 100 OPS+ player because that is what he was in 2015 and that is what he is over the course of his career. Exactly.

Matt Wieters on the Orioles is redundant. Him accepting a QO means roughly $13-15 million less to spend on actually useful FA's depending on whether it's Clevinger or Joseph who takes the fall. How recognizing that could be considered nonsense escapes me. Save the hyperbole, it doesn't enhance your argument.

If DD doesn't offer him a QO it might be a strategic mistake. Or it could be the considered and prudent judgement of someone who would rather use the $1.3-1.7 million savings in Japan, or Korea or Latin America. Just for example. The June draft is not the only way to improve the system. Having Matt Wieters unexpectedly accept the QO, dinging the budget for a cool $15.8 million and losing the comp pick to boot? Now THAT would be a strategic mistake.

Of course having a good farm system is important. Part of that is a healthy influx of new blood so having more amateur draft picks is obviously better than fewer. But carefully choosing who to take with your picks is also important, so is developing them effectively, and for that matter so is exploring other avenues for talent acquisition. It's not just a numbers game.

The very low overall success rate for draft acquisitions is a fact of life. I don't cite that as an argument for less picks, that would be idiotic. I cite it for perspective and to reinforce the point that having an additional $16 million to address team needs would be a better use of resources at this point than whatever Matt Wieters could reasonably be expected to contribute in 2016.

I disagree. I think they can QO Matt, still have the 16 million to spend AND the draft pick. You believe Scott Boras will let him sign a 1 year deal where he might even split time at catcher and are so trying to avoid this that you would have Matt walk and get no compensation at all. We shall see who is correct.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk