MLBTR predicts 4/64m for Matt Wieters

[wildcard]

Clubs that could enter the market for a starting catcher include the Rangers, Nationals, Braves, White Sox, Mariners, Twins, Rockies, Angels, and Astros. Of those nine teams, the Braves, White Sox, and Rockies have protected first round picks.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/10/matt-wieters-mlb-free-agent.html

[Redskins Rick]

Doesn't surprise if somebody doesn't over spend and go after Matt.

Ive been saying that for the past 2 seasons.

[Frobby]

And that's why he'll get a QO.

[24fps]

Nuckin' futz.

I've been arguing against extending a QO to Matt for a long time, but if there is any actual basis for 4/64 with a QO attached then that changes the equation considerably. I remain skeptical, but stranger things have happened.

[Ruzious]

And that's why he'll get a QO.

He better.

I'm convinced the Braves make a big run after him. They're not quite comfortable with Christian Bethancourt's maturity - especially handling a young staff, and Matt's a hometown boy. Atlanta makes a big deal about local players - and that definitely played a role in their overpaying for Nick.

[Frobby]

Nuckin' futz.

I've been arguing against extending a QO to Matt for a long time, but if there is any actual basis for 4/64 with a QO attached then that changes the equation considerably. I remain skeptical, but stranger things have happened.

I don't think there has ever been a QO-eligible player who got a 4/$64 mm contract (or bigger) and yet didn't get a QO. If you can show me an example of one, let me know.

[24fps]

I don't think there has ever been a QO-eligible player who got a 4/$64 mm contract (or bigger) and yet didn't get a QO. If you can show me an example of one, let me know.

No need to hunt for a player, if DD can come up with a sound basis for believing that a market that healthy is likely to develop for Matt Wieters then indeed it becomes a no-brainer to offer the QO. My skepticism in this case revolves around need for a team to offer that much in the first place. Even 4/50 seems high to me, but then again so does 5/75 for Daniel Murphy, $22 million AAV for Jason Heyward and so forth. There are a lot of crazy numbers out there at the moment.

[Can_of_corn]

No need to hunt for a player, if DD can come up with a sound basis for believing that a market that healthy is likely to develop for Matt Wieters then indeed it becomes a no-brainer to offer the QO. My skepticism in this case revolves around need for a team to offer that much in the first place. Even 4/50 seems high to me, but then again so does 5/75 for Daniel Murphy, $22 million AAV for Jason Heyward and so forth. There are a lot of crazy numbers out there at the moment.

Crazy numbers out there every year.

[Number5]

I don't think there has ever been a QO-eligible player who got a 4/$64 mm contract (or bigger) and yet didn't get a QO. If you can show me an example of one, let me know.

I agree with you. I don't think it has ever happened, either. I think Nick's 4/$44 is about as high as any that I've heard about for guys that weren't offered a QO.

[mdbdotcom]

I believe the Orioles' desire to QO Wieters might be hamstrung by a philosophy of not offering a QO to a player they do not want back at that price. I hope I'm wrong.

[Number5]

I don't understand the concern about the QO. All indications are that there is interest in Wieters from multiple teams, and the projections are for money that exceeds the QO. The risk seems very minimal. Heck, in the ecent Matt were to accept the QO, all indications are that the Orioles would be able to trade him rather easily. I'm just not seeing the reason for hesitation here. Am I missing something?

[Number5]

I don't understand the concern about the QO. All indications are that there is interest in Wieters from multiple teams, and the projections are for money that exceeds the QO. The risk seems very minimal. Heck, in the ecent Matt were to accept the QO, all indications are that the Orioles would be able to trade him rather easily. I'm just not seeing the reason for hesitation here. Am I missing something?

Typo -- event.

[weams]

I don't think there has ever been a QO-eligible player who got a 4/$64 mm contract (or bigger) and yet didn't get a QO. If you can show me an example of one, let me know.

Exactly.

[weams]

Crazy numbers out there every year.

No salary cap. A couple teams with NO restrictions. A couple foolish owners who buy into Scott Boras' crap.

[AdamK]

QO him. I'm good with the outcomes.